Session 18 July 2015

davey72

The Living Force
4d candidate said:
This and other sessions gave me hope and power to continue learning and work on themselves. It s very difficult for me to exist among family, neighbours, and other people who do not know what is the reality. I suffer it when I hear from my co-workers, that Western countries should kill Putin, they do not know about NWO, Bloodlines families, world banking conglomerate, creation of money from the air, psychopats, Orion Union etc. Every day I try to explain them some part of our reality but they consider me a freak and silly men. This is my first post about session, because I understand that imbalances, which they Cs said in one session just concerns me. Because I am Pole acively participate in polish blog http://www.pracownia4.wordpress.com/ and my English is kind of barrier to explain, clarify my thougts.
I am with you for 12 years and and have decided to increase its activity on the forum because I can not always take and take and give nothing in return.

Thanks to the Team Cs for all learnig, hope and your work.

Hello 4d candidate. You may want to look at the definition of external considering regarding this matter.

http://thecasswiki.net/index.php?title=External_vs._internal_considering

There is also this:

External Considering

from Gurdjieff's Views from the Real World Page 94-96

Everyone is in great need of one particular exercise, both if one wants to continue working and for external life.

We have two lives, inner and outer life, and so we also have two kinds of considering. We constantly consider.

When she looks at me, I feel inside a dislike of her, I am cross with her, but externally I am polite because I must be very polite since I need her. Internally I am what I am, but externally I am different. This is external considering. Now she says that I am a fool. This angers me. The fact that I am angered is the result, but what takes place in me is internal considering.

This internal and external considering are different. We must learn to be able to control separately both kinds of considering: the internal and the external. We want to change not only inside but also outside.

Yesterday, when she gave me an unfriendly look, I was cross. But today I understand that perhaps the reason why she looked at me like that is that she is a fool; or perhaps she had learned or heard something about me. And today I want to remain calm. She is a slave and I should not be angry with her inwardly. From today onward I want to be calm inside.

Outwardly I want today to be polite, but if necessary I can appear angry. Outwardly it must be what is best for her and for me. I must consider. Internal and external considering must be different. In an ordinary man the external attitude is the result of the internal. If she is polite, I am also polite. But these attitudes should be separated.

Internally one should be free from considering, but externally one should do more than one has been doing so far. An ordinary man lives as he is dictated to from inside.

When we speak of change, we presume the need of inner change. Externally if everything is all right, there is no need to change. If it is not all right, perhaps there is no need to change either, because maybe it is original. What is necessary is to change inside.

Until now we did not change anything, but from today we want to change. But how to change? First, we must separate and then sort out, discard what is useless and build something new. Man has much that is good and much that is bad. If we discard everything, later it will be necessary to collect again.

If a man has not enough on the external side, he will need to fill the gaps. Who is not well educated should be better educated. But this is for life.

The work needs nothing external. Only the internal is needed. Externally, one should play a role in everything. Externally a man should be an actor, otherwise he does not answer the requirements of life. One man likes one thing; another, another thing: if you want to be a friend to both and behave in one way, one of them will not like it; if you behave in another way, the other will not like it. You should behave with one as he likes it and with the other as this other likes it. Then your life will be easier.

But inside it must be different: different in relation to the one and the other.

As things are now, especially in our times, every man considers utterly mechanically. We react to everything affecting us from outside. Now we obey orders. She is good, and I am good; she is bad, and I am bad. I am as she wants me to be, I am a puppet. But she too is a mechanical puppet. She also obeys orders mechanically and does what another one wants.

We must cease reacting inside. If someone is rude, we must not react inside. Whoever manages to do this will be more free. It is very difficult.

Inside us we have a horse; it obeys orders from outside. And our mind is too weak to do anything inside. Even if the mind gives the order to stop, nothing will stop inside.

We educate nothing but our mind. We know how to behave with such and such. "Goodbye" "How do you do?" But it is only the driver who knows this. Sitting on his box he has read about it. But the horse has no education whatever. It has not even been taught the alphabet, it knows no languages, it never went to school. The horse was also capable of being taught, but we forgot all about it. . . . And so it grew up a neglected orphan. It only knows two words: right and left.

What I said about inner change refers only to the need of change in the horse. If the horse changes, we can change even externally. If the horse does not change, everything will remain the same, no matter how long we study.

It is easy to decide to change sitting quietly in your room. But as soon as you meet someone, the horse kicks. Inside us we have a horse.

The horse must change.

If anyone thinks that self-study will help and he will be able to change, he is greatly mistaken. Even if he reads all the books, studies for a hundred years, masters all knowledge, all mysteries--nothing will come of it.

Because all this knowledge will belong to the driver. And he, even if he knows, cannot drag the cart without the horse--it is too heavy.



External Considering

from Ouspensky's "In Search of the Miraculous," pp. 153-54



Gurdjieff:

"The opposite of internal considering and what is in part a means of fighting against it is external considering. External considering is based upon an entirely different relationship towards people, to their understanding, to their requirements. By considering externally a man does that which makes life easy for other people and for himself. External considering requires a knowledge of men, an understanding of their tastes, habits, and prejudices. At the same time external considering requires a great power over oneself, a great control over oneself. Very often a man desires sincerely to express or somehow or other show to another man what he really thinks of him or feels about him. And if he is a weak man he will of course give way to this desire and afterwards justify himself and say that he did not want to lie, did not want to pretend, he wanted to be sincere. Then he convinces himself that it was the other man's fault. He really wanted to consider him, even to give way to him, not to quarrel, and so on. But the other man did not at all want to consider him so that nothing could be done with him. It very often happens that a man begins with a blessing and ends with a curse. He begins by deciding not to consider and afterwards blames other people for not considering him. This is an example of how external considering passes into internal considering. But if a man really remembers himself he understands that another man is a machine just as he is himself. And then he will enter into his position, he will put himself in his place, and he will be really able to understand and feel what another man thinks and feels. If he can do this his work becomes easier for him. But if he approaches a man with his own requirements nothing except new internal considering can ever be obtained from it.

"Right external considering is very important in the work. It often happens that people who understand very well the necessity of external considering in life do not understand the necessity of external considering in the work; they decide that just because they are in the work they have the right not to consider. Whereas in reality, in the work, that is for a man's own successful work, ten times more external considering is necessary than in life, because only external considering on his part shows his valuation of the work and his understanding of the work; and success in the work is always proportional to the valuation and understanding of it. Remember that work cannot begin and cannot proceed on a level lower than that of the obyvatel,* that is, on a level lower than ordinary life. This is a very important principle which, for some reason or other, is very easily forgotten. But we will speak about this separately afterwards."



*The definition of obyvatel, from p. 362 et seq.:



Gurdjieff:

"Obyvatel is a strange word in the Russian language. It is used in the sense of 'inhabitant,' without any particular shade. At the same time it is used to express contempt or derision--'obyvatel'--as though there could be nothing worse. But those who speak in this way do not understand that the obyvatel is the healthy kernel of life. And from the point of view of the possibility of evolution, a good obyvatel has many more chances than a 'lunatic' or a 'tramp.' Afterwards I will perhaps explain what I mean by these two words. In the meantime we will talk about the obyvatel. I do not at all wish to say that all obyvatels are people of the objective way. Nothing of the kind. Among them are thieves, rascals, and fools; but there are others. I merely wish to say that being a good obyvatel by itself does not hinder the 'way.' And finally there are different types of obyvatel. Imagine, for example, the type of obyvatel who lives all his life just as the other people round him, conspicuous in nothing, perhaps a good master, who makes money, and is perhaps even close-fisted. At the same time he dreams all his life of monasteries, for instance, and dreams that some time or other he will leave everything and go into a monastery. And such things happen in the East and in Russia. A man lives and works, then, when his children or his grandchildren are grown up, he gives everything to them and goes into a monastery. This is the obyvatel of which I speak. Perhaps he does not go into a monastery, perhaps he does not need this. His own life as an obyvatel can be his way.

"People who are definitely thinking about ways, particularly people of intellectual ways, very often look down on the obyvatel and in general despise the virtues of the obyvatel. But they only show by this their own personal unsuitability for any way whatever. Because no way can begin from a level lower than the obyvatel. This is very often lost sight of on people who are unable to organize their own personal lives, who are too weak to struggle with and conquer life, dream of the ways, or what they consider are ways, because they think it will be easier for them than life and because this, so to speak, justifies their weakness and inadaptability. A man who can be a good obyvatel is much more helpful from the point of view of the way than a 'tramp' who thinks himself much higher than an obyvatel. I call 'tramps' all the so-called 'intelligentsia'--artists, poets, any kind of 'bohemian' in general, who despises the obyvatel and who at the same time would be unable to exist without him. Ability to orientate oneself in life is a very useful quality from the point of view of the work. A good obyvatel should be able to support at least twenty persons by his own labor. What is a man worth who is unable to do this?"

"What does obyvatel actually mean?" asked somebody. "Can it be said that an obyvatel is a good citizen?"

"Ought an obyvatel to be patriotic?" someone else asked. "Let us suppose there is war. What attitude should an obyvatel have towards war?"

"There can be different wars and there can be different patriots," said G. "You all still believe in words. An obyvatel, if he is a good obyvatel, does not believe in words. He realizes how much idle talk is hidden behind them. People who shout about their patriotism are psychopaths for him and he looks upon them as such."

"And how would an obyvatel look upon pacifists or upon people who refuse to go to the war?"

"Equally as lunatics! They are probably still worse."

...

"When I say that an obyvatel is more serious than a 'tramp' or a 'lunatic,' I mean by this that, accustomed to deal with real values, an obyvatel values the possibilities of the 'ways' and the possibilities of 'liberation' or 'salvation' better and quicker than a man who is accustomed all his life to a circle of imaginary values, imaginary interests, and imaginary possibilities.

"People who are not serious for the obyvatel are people who live by fantasies, chiefly by the fantasy that they are able to do something. The obyvatel knows that they only deceive people, promise them God knows what, and that actually they are simply arranging affairs for themselves--or they are lunatics, which is still worse, in other words they believe everything that people say.

...

"The obyvatel perhaps may not know it in a philosophical way, that is to say, he is not able to formulate it, but he knows that things 'do themselves' simply through his own practical shrewdness, therefore, in his heart, he laughs at people who think, or who want to assure him, that they signify anything, that anything depends on their decisions, that they can change or, in general, do anything. This for him is not being serious. An understanding of what is not serious can help him to value that which is serious."
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Prometeo said:
Not only the cigarette is not a requisite, but even quantum physics. Look at all those scientist... yep, pretty much all the same as all the others. Knowing what's the result of 2 + 2 helps, but is not enough.

My fellow human brothers have a difficult task when they face the limitations of linear thinking. They think "if I know "A" or do "A" then button "A" miraculously will be pressed so result "B" will be done". As if knowledge "A" will give them itself a singular aim they willingly have to chose and work on. This type of thinking is not that different to those who do rituals.

Pretty much, it's also known as "free lunch". As for requisites; evil people smoke too, and evil people can be very knowledgeable.

Maybe a better general rule of thumb for requisites (although they would obviously vary from person to person) might be to look at what evil people studiously do NOT do. Then you might have a good list of ideas of what to aim for.
 

Luks

The Living Force
4d candidate said:
This and other sessions gave me hope and power to continue learning and work on themselves. It s very difficult for me to exist among family, neighbours, and other people who do not know what is the reality. I suffer it when I hear from my co-workers, that Western countries should kill Putin, they do not know about NWO, Bloodlines families, world banking conglomerate, creation of money from the air, psychopats, Orion Union etc. Every day I try to explain them some part of our reality but they consider me a freak and silly men. This is my first post about session, because I understand that imbalances, which they Cs said in one session just concerns me. Because I am Pole acively participate in polish blog http://www.pracownia4.wordpress.com/ and my English is kind of barrier to explain, clarify my thougts.
I am with you for 12 years and and have decided to increase its activity on the forum because I can not always take and take and give nothing in return.

Thanks to the Team Cs for all learnig, hope and your work.

Cool. We understand you. Have a good time spended here.

Remember, that you can post comments on the pracownia4 also, as you do it, however blog differs from the forum, so rightly that you finally decided to immerse.
 

JEEP

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Very interesting discussion re split realities, deja vu, or whatever it is that some are experiencing. Another possibility - especially in regards to Mandela - did he really die in prison but was replaced w/ a doppelganger or a clone? John Keel spoke of Lee Harvey Oswald having a doppelganger in connection w/ JFK's assassination. Jim Fetzer posted one of his JFK articles on VT (before he got expelled) questioning the existence of two Oswalds in Dallas the day of the assassination. His conclusion was there was only one. However, (and let me interject here how I am continually amazed of instances of unexpected synchronicity) I had recently come across some astounding, factual/verifiable information that contradicted this assertion w/ the one person's experience resulting in a book about it - as well as involving the mayor of Dallas, who BTW went to great lengths to ensure the Texas School Book Depository building was NOT torn down - destruction of evidence as per Oklahoma City bombing & the 911 Twin Towers. I posted this info in the comments & as far as I know, it was not disputed by Mr. Fetzer. Unfortunately, w/ Fetzer's expulsion from VT, all of this has been wiped from the site.
 

goyacobol

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
JEEP said:
Very interesting discussion re split realities, deja vu, or whatever it is that some are experiencing. Another possibility - especially in regards to Mandela - did he really die in prison but was replaced w/ a doppelganger or a clone? John Keel spoke of Lee Harvey Oswald having a doppelganger in connection w/ JFK's assassination. Jim Fetzer posted one of his JFK articles on VT (before he got expelled) questioning the existence of two Oswalds in Dallas the day of the assassination. His conclusion was there was only one. However, (and let me interject here how I am continually amazed of instances of unexpected synchronicity) I had recently come across some astounding, factual/verifiable information that contradicted this assertion w/ the one person's experience resulting in a book about it - as well as involving the mayor of Dallas, who BTW went to great lengths to ensure the Texas School Book Depository building was NOT torn down - destruction of evidence as per Oklahoma City bombing & the 911 Twin Towers. I posted this info in the comments & as far as I know, it was not disputed by Mr. Fetzer. Unfortunately, w/ Fetzer's expulsion from VT, all of this has been wiped from the site.

Jeep,

Thanks for and lead on Jim Fetzer. He seems to have many interesting videos on YouTube. For those who have trouble with acronyms VT is Veterans Today.

FWIW (For what it's worth- duh, I do it sometimes myself)
 

JEEP

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
OK - just let me interject here that I'm not sure that Fetzer is totally on the up and up - and that he moved to the newly formed VeteransTruthNetwork.

Fetzer recently put out a new book that was co-authored w/ Jay Wiedner (a name familiar to those who've been here awhile) and had a radio interview on Jeff Rense's program. Rense never raised any red flags w/ me & I was completely neutral in regards to him & his show - except I could never figure out the deal w/ his hair!!! Well, it turns out Rense is a pathological liar as has been documented on this forum. Fetzer's name came up but it wasn't clear if he was also not to be trusted. Perhaps someone else knows more about the reliability of his character.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
JEEP said:
OK - just let me interject here that I'm not sure that Fetzer is totally on the up and up - and that he moved to the newly formed VeteransTruthNetwork.

Fetzer recently put out a new book that was co-authored w/ Jay Wiedner (a name familiar to those who've been here awhile) and had a radio interview on Jeff Rense's program. Rense never raised any red flags w/ me & I was completely neutral in regards to him & his show - except I could never figure out the deal w/ his hair!!! Well, it turns out Rense is a pathological liar as has been documented on this forum. Fetzer's name came up but it wasn't clear if he was also not to be trusted. Perhaps someone else knows more about the reliability of his character.

I agree. Fetzer is a big unhinged, like many in the 9.11 truth movement, and that's to say nothing of the fact they are all clueless about the bigger picture. Luckily we have all our forum members who DO have a clue! :rockon:
 

goyacobol

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Perceval said:
JEEP said:
OK - just let me interject here that I'm not sure that Fetzer is totally on the up and up - and that he moved to the newly formed VeteransTruthNetwork.

Fetzer recently put out a new book that was co-authored w/ Jay Wiedner (a name familiar to those who've been here awhile) and had a radio interview on Jeff Rense's program. Rense never raised any red flags w/ me & I was completely neutral in regards to him & his show - except I could never figure out the deal w/ his hair!!! Well, it turns out Rense is a pathological liar as has been documented on this forum. Fetzer's name came up but it wasn't clear if he was also not to be trusted. Perhaps someone else knows more about the reliability of his character.

I agree. Fetzer is a big unhinged, like many in the 9.11 truth movement, and that's to say nothing of the fact they are all clueless about the bigger picture. Luckily we have all our forum members who DO have a clue! :rockon:

Perceval and JEEP,

Thanks for the follow-up on Fetzer. Knowing he is associated with Jay Wiedner is enough for me to not waste any time on him.
 

Rabelais

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
Session Date: July 18th 2015

(Data) Can I ask about the recent crop circle that looked like a half moon with a star? Crescents and a 4-pointed star.

A: Eclipsing realities coming soon!

[SNIP}

(Pierre) The crop circle looked a bit like an eclipse.

(Andromeda) How do realities eclipse though?

(Perceval) Crossing over, maybe?

In looking up the recent crop circles I found three that had this four pointed star with crescents. It is very similar to the NATO logo. NATO even uses four crescents. Hopefully their reality is going to get a good eclipsing soon.
 

Attachments

  • NATO logo.jpg
    NATO logo.jpg
    9.4 KB · Views: 365

zhenqing

Jedi
I want to thank you for another great, though provoking session. Much to ponder, as always, and the information provided couldn't manifest at a better time.

Need to catch up on Autoimmune thread asap.

:flowers:
 

3DStudent

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
MariuszJ said:
What does it mean to us "A: Eclipsing realities coming soon!"?

Sounds like a splitting of realities for some. Different experiences for different individuals? Here is part of a session where it is mentioned:


Laura said:
[...]

Q: (L) Toren, the first thing on my mind is an experience I had several nights ago. It seemed as though there was some sort of interaction between myself and something "other." Could you tell me what this experience was?

A: Was eclipsing of the realities.

Q: (L) What is an eclipsing of the realities?

A: It is when energy centers conflict.

Q: (L) What energy centers are conflicting?

A: Thought energy centers.

Q: (L) Whose thoughts?

A: Ahh, we're getting ahead of ourselves, are we not? Thoughts are the basis of all creation. After all, without thought nothing would exist. Now would it?

Q: (L) True.

A: Therefore, energy centers conflicting involve thought patterns. You could refer to it as an intersecting of thought pattern energies.

Q: (L) Could you be a little more explicit.

A: We sense you are leading. The true effort to gain knowledge should always be to be open to any response, any question. Therefore asking to be more specific is assuming that the answer is not explicit.

Q: (L) Well, it seemed to me that something happened to me that blanked out a period of my experience, and you say this was an eclipsing of energies caused by an intersecting of thought centers. Now, this intersecting of thought centers, did this occur within my body or within my environment?

A: They are one and the same.

Q: (L) Was this eclipsing of though centers brought on by any of my activities?

A: Well, again we must ask you to slow down in your own perceptions for just a moment, for one sees the truest of answers when one is open to all possible responses and is not prejudiced. And again, unfortunately we sense a leading in your seeking of answers which indicates prejudice which is perfectly alright, however one would assume that one seeks the truest of all possible answers and prejudice does not allow that. So, if it would be possible, please try to ask questions that do not lead to any particular type of conclusion.

Q: (L) Can I ask about my specific perceptions of the event?

A: That is what you are already doing. We sense that you desire the truest of all possible answers and if one desires the truest of all possible answers, one must avoid expressing one's own perceptions to any great degree and simply allow the answers to flow. The best advice to accomplish this is a step-by-step approach - to ask the simplest of questions with the least amount of prejudice attached.

Q: (L) Alright. I was lying in bed worrying about being able to get to sleep. The next thing I knew, I came to myself feeling that I was being floated off my bed. Was I?

A: No. When you say "I" you are referring to your whole person. There is more than one factor involved with one's being to any particular definition.

Q: (L) Was some part of my being separated from another part of my being?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Was this an attempt to extract my soul or astral body?

A: Attempt is not probably the proper term.

Q: (L) In other words...

A: It is more just an activity taking place. Attempt implies effort rather than the nature present in a conflicting of energies and thought centers.

Q: (L) I also seemed to be aware of several dark, spider-like figures lined up by the side of the bed, was this an accurate impression.

A: Those could be described as specific thought center projections.

Q: (L) I seemed to be fighting and resisting this activity.

A: That was your choice.

Q: (L) Was I successful?

A: Now, we are back to leading again.

Q: (L) Alright, was this the ending of an abduction that had already taken place?

A: Not the proper terminology. It was the conclusion to an event, not necessarily what one would refer to as an abduction, but more what one would refer to as an interaction.

Q: (L) What was the nature of the interaction?

A: The conflicting of energies related to thought center impulses.

Q: (L) Where are these thought centers located?

A: Well, that is difficult to answer because that is assuming that thought centers are located. And, of course this is a concept area in which you are not fully familiar as of yet. So, an attempt to answer this in any way that would make sense to you would probably not be fruitful. We suggest slowing down and carefully formulating questions.

Q: (L) At what level of density do these thought centers have their primary focus?

A: Thought centers do not have primary focus in any level of density. This is precisely the point. You are not completely familiar with the reality of what thoughts are. We have spoken to you on many levels and have detailed many areas involving density level, but thoughts are quite a different thing because they pass through all density levels at once. Now, let us ask you this. Do you not now see how that would be possible?

Q: (L) Yes. But what I am trying to do is identify these conflicting thought centers. If two thought centers, or more, conflict, then my idea would be that they are in opposition.

A: Correct.

Q: (L) And, what I want to know is, was this in opposition to me, or was this an opposition in which I simply was caught in the middle, so to speak.

A: Well, you are drifting away from the true nature of your experience, because you are making suppositions. And we are not trying to scold you, we are merely trying to guide you and this is not always easy. But, let it be known again that the simplest way for you to gather knowledge on this particular subject matter is to ask the simplest questions without prejudice.

Q: (L) Okay, you said I wasn't abducted, that an event of some sort occurred. What was the event?

A: We have already described this, but the problem that you are having is that you are assuming that the description we are giving is more complicated than this. It is not.

Q: (L) Did I leave my body?

A: I'm very sorry to tell you that you are drifting again.

Q: (L) Well, I am trying to ask simple questions.

A: The problem is that you are pre-supposing answers. Please limit prejudice.

Q: (L) What is my prejudice, what is my presupposition?

A: Well, just to give you an example: how do you know that you ever "leave" your body? The question is not: do you ever leave your body, its how do you know that you do?

Q: (L) I guess you don't.

A: Let us give you a parallel. If you saw a rainbow in the sky and that rainbow was later no longer visible, would you then say: "Did that rainbow spill onto the mountain?"

Q: (L) I don't get it. No I wouldn't because I would know that the rainbow is the refracting of light on water or ice in the atmosphere.

A: That's what you know. But, then again how do you know that anything you know is, in fact, the true representation of reality?

Q: (L) We don't.

A: The only way to solve this problem when asking about a complicated issue is to ask very simple step-by-step questions without prejudice. In order to do that, one must pause and reflect, and take one's time, as it were, to formulate the questions carefully in order to make sure that they are very simple, step-by-step questions and not questions containing prejudice.

Q: (L) Okay, in the experience I felt a paralysis of my body, what caused this paralysis.

A: Yes. Separation of awareness. Which is defined as any point along the pathway where one's awareness becomes so totally focused on one thought sector that all other levels of awareness are temporarily receded, thereby making it impossible to become aware of one's physical reality along with one's mental reality. This gives the impression of what is referred to as paralysis. Do you understand?

Q: (L) Yes. And what stimulates this total focus of awareness?

A: An event which sidetracks, temporarily, the mental processes.

Q: (L) And what event can sidetrack the mental processes to this extent?

A: Any number.

Q: (L) In this particular case, what was it?

A: It was an eclipsing of energies caused by conflicting thought centers.

Q: (L) What energies were being eclipsed?

A: Whenever two opposing units of reality intersect, this causes what can be referred to as friction, which, for an immeasurable amount of what you would refer to as time, which is, of course, non-existent, creates a non- existence, or a stopping of the movements of all functions. This is what we would know as conflict. In between, or through any intersecting, opposite entities, we always find zero time, zero movement, zero transference, zero exchange. Now think about this. Think about this carefully.

Q: (L) Does this mean that I was, essentially, in a condition of non-existence?

A: Well, non-existence is not really the proper term, but non-fluid existence would be more to the point. Do you understand?

Q: (L) Yes. Frozen, as it were?

A: Frozen, as it were.

Q: (L) Was there any benefit to me from this experience?

A: All experiences have potential for benefit.

Q: (L) Was there any detriment from this experience?

A: All experiences have potential for detriment. Now, do you see the parallels. We are talking about any opposing forces in nature, when they come together, the result can go all the way to the extreme of one side or all the way to the extreme of the other. Or, it can remain perfectly, symmetrically in balance in the middle, or partially in balance on one side or another. Therefore all potentials are realized at intersecting points in reality.

Q: (L) Was one of the energies that was intersecting with another energy, the energy that constitutes who and what I am?

A: Well, now, you are drifting again.

Q: (L) Was one of the thought centers me?

A: That is presupposing that you, what is defined as you, or how you define yourself as "me" is of and by itself a thought center.

Q: (L) Well, I am trying to find this out by asking these questions. I am not presupposing here, I am just trying to find out what is going on here!

A: Part of what is you is a thought center but not all of what is you is a thought center. So, therefore it is incorrect to say: "Was one of these conflicting energies or thought centers me?"

Q: (L) Was one of these conflicting thought centers or energies some part of me?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And was it eclipsed by interacting with a thought center energy that was part of or all of something or someone else?

A: Or, was what happened a conflicting of one energy thought center that was a part of your thought process and another energy thought center that was another part of your thought process? We will ask you that question and allow you to contemplate.

Q: (L) Was it?

A: We will ask you that question and allow you to contemplate.

Q: (L) Does it ever happen that individuals who perceive or think they perceive themselves to have experienced an "abduction," to actually be interacting with some part of themselves?

A: That would be a very good possibility. Now, before you ask another question, stop and contemplate for a moment: what possibilities does this open up? Is there any limit? And if there is, what is that? Is it not an area worth exploring?

Q: (L) Okay, help me out here...

A: For example, just one example for you to digest. What if the abduction scenario could take place where your soul projection, in what you perceive as the future, can come back and abduct your soul projection in what you perceive as the present?

Q: (L) Oh, dear! Does this happen?

A: This is a question for you to ask yourself and contemplate.

Q: (L) Why would I do that to myself? (J) To gain knowledge of the future.

A: Are there not a great many possible answers?

Q: (L) Well, this seemed to be a very frightening and negative experience. If that is the case: a. maybe that is just my perception, or b. then, in the future I am not a very nice person! (J) Or maybe the future isn't very pleasant. And the knowledge that you gained of it is unpleasant.

A: Or is it one possible future, but not all possible futures? And is the pathway of free will not connected to all of this?

Q: (L) God! I hope so.

A: Now do you see the benefit in slowing down and not having prejudices when asking questions of great import? You see when you speed too quickly in the process of learning and gathering knowledge, it is like skipping down the road without pausing to reflect on the ground beneath you. One misses the gold coins and the gemstones contained within the cracks in the road.

[...]
 

taratai

Padawan Learner
MariuszJ said:
What does it mean to us "A: Eclipsing realities coming soon!"?

That means soon we will witness what happens when separate realities meet each other and how they interact. yay!

Although some surely won't like it when they notice that "their reality" isn't the only one that is... ;)

In fact, we already had something like that happen in Poland, where the (now ex) president, and everyone that supported him, were absolutely sure of his victory. So much that everyone in the media, allies and not, were saying that the campaign is completely pointless, since he will win anyway.

Then the "other" reality came, hitting them in the faces. "Prophecies" failed. Expectations got shattered. Their realities collapsed.

So much confusion, disbelief and anger from the establishment at facing the reality they weren't prepared for... then how quickly they started trying to appeal to the other candidate (that just a few moments ago was like dirt to them)... the blatant hypocrisy, cowardice and futile attempts at "glamoring the reality"... it was a wonderful sight to watch. :cry:

I think we can expect more things like that (although they don't need to turn out the same way). :P
 

Skyalmian

Jedi Master
Laura said:
Prometeo said:
I have a question. Do you think a massive session of bioenergetic breathing or exercises can burn out the microbes?
No.
Does / would it dislodge them, or otherwise interrupt or 'activate' them (out of hiding), if the breathing is done (pushing energy around) on more areas of the body than just the vagus nerve / solar plexus?
 
Top Bottom