September 19, 1998
Laura, Frank, Ark
Q: Hello.
A: Hello.
Q: And who do we have with us this evening?
A: Loxacca.
Q: And where do you transmit through?
A: Cassiopaea.
Q: I have several things from the little mail list that I would like to get to first because I think they may go fairly quick. The first is this book called "Trance Formation of America; The true life story of a CIA slave" by Cathy O'Brien with Mark Phillips. There is a rather lengthy quote from this book here that we have all read. I certainly am not going to read it out loud because I don't want to have to type such a thing myself, so I won't read it, but I am sure you are aware of what it says. What I would like to know is: what is the motivation behind the authors of this book?
A: Disruption.
Q: Disruption of what?
A: Anyone disruptable.
Q: It specifically seems to be aimed at the Clintons or the power structure. Are any of these descriptions of the behaviors of Hillary and Bill Clinton as explicated in this extract anywhere near close to reality?
A: Anywhere near? Well maybe, but not as described.
Q: Is there such a thing as this girl describes? These CIA slaves that are sexually mutilated and programmed with this mind control programming that she has described?
A: Any such experiment would be handled by the cellular structure of pseudogovernmental satellite, not normally by CIA.
Q: So, what you seem to be implying is that what is described here IS taking place?
A: To an extent, but the story as related is fictional.
Q: Are the Clintons as depraved as she presents them?
A: No, but recreational drug use may have occurred. However, we suggest you not share that!
Q: Okay, enough on that. Here is a note from Mike C-T. He writes: "Laura, I was very dismayed to read your post on Diet and Nutrition on the Web Page. The C's are saying that Love is enough and that sex is a pure physical craving and that orgasm energy feeds the 4th D STS buggers. Then, they go on to say that you should smoke, and consume x mg of nicotine, because you need it. Those 2 ideas seem contrary to me, since smoking is also a 'physical craving.' Yes, people gain weight after they quit smoking, but the metabolism does settle down after a year or so. Are you sure of the source of this message? Could STSers be getting through and are getting you and others to try to kill yourself slowly? Covering ones lungs with ash cannot be good for you, regardless of what the ash is made of. Even wood smoke causes breathing disorders. I felt sick when I read that part. It didn't fit into my world view of the C's." Signed, Mike. Could you comment on his remarks?
A: We did not suggest that smoking was advisable per se, the response was in regard to a personal inquiry about difficulty in achieving weight loss on the part of Laura. And, we did not say that this was a permanent solution.
Q: Well, you DID say that it enhances resistance to disease and that it did other beneficial things.
A: Yes, but, it is best accomplished with pure tobacco products, not the corrupted variety available on the mass market.
Q: Well, what about the sex issue?
A: Specifics, please.
Q: He says that the two ideas seem contrary...
A: How so?
Q: I guess his idea is that is if you are gonna give up sex, you ought to also give up smoking because they are both physical cravings. Or, that if smoking is okay, then sex ought to also be okay. I am not altogether clear on the perspective. I did write back that my understanding was that it is not sex, per se, that was bad, but rather the drive for self gratification that was feeding STS.
A: True.
Q: He then says: 'Are you sure of the source of this message. Could STS be getting through and getting you and others to try and kill yourself slowly?'
A: No, and besides, "killing of one's self slowly," is occurring anyway, whether triggered by one's self or not.
Q: He says: 'Covering one's lungs with ash cannot be good for you, regardless of what the ash is made of.'
A: Noncorrupted tobacco product does not have that effect.
Q: I also mentioned the fact that this professor of Hematology in Gainesville told me that the only thing they know of, aside from some pathological process, that increases the red blood cell count, thereby the hemoglobin, and thus the iron content of the blood and brain, is smoking tobacco.
A: True.
Q: It was my assessment from this information, coupled with all the work done on tracking this 'blood issue' that is so dominant in the 'Grail quest' and the ancient literature, that increasing the red blood cell count was a VERY desirable thing to do to enhance one's ability to transit densities with ease. Is that a correct idea?
A: Yes and makes one more resistant to microbial infection.
Q: (A) Where can one find non-corrupted tobacco products?
A: Tobacco shop.
Q: So, I guess I have to roll my own!
A: Machine can be purchased which does this.
Q: He said: 'I felt sick when I read that.' I can identify with this feeling because there are a number of things I have learned in this process that has had the same effect on me. But, I have also learned that when this happens, it is only my resistance that causes this suffering. Can you comment?
A: Emotions cause views.
Q: (A) I was also brainwashed in this way and I am changing. (F) We are ALL brainwashed! (L) Okay, now Eddie says: 'Laura brought up several comments about Love that confused me. I do not understand how could giving love when not being asked could harm instead of improve.' Can you remark on this?
A: "Giving" love is not giving, in such a case.
Q: So, if you give love when you have not been asked, you are NOT giving?
A: You are taking, as usual.
Q: When you say you are 'taking,' what are you taking?
A: Energy, a la STS.
Q: How does it come that you are taking energy from someone by giving them love when not asked?
A: Because an STS vehicle does not learn to be an STO candidate by determining the needs of another.
Q: I don't understand how that means you are taking energy?
A: Because the act is then one of self-gratification. If one "gives" where there is no request, therefore no need, this is a free will violation! And besides, what other motivation could there possibly be in such a scenario?!? Think carefully and objectively about this.
Q: My thought would be that, in such a scenario, that if one gives love to someone who has not asked or requested, that it seems to be a desire to change the other, i.e. a desire to control.
A: You got it!!
Q: Now he says further: 'Yes, everything is lessons and if a person has chosen a specific path they should be allowed to go and learn their way. But, let's say this is happening to someone you really love. And let's say that the person may be in a period of his life that his/her thoughts are probably taking her/him to commit, let's say, a murder. Don't you think that if you send this person love, even unconsciously, that it may provide the necessary energy (influence) to stop that murder?' Comment please.
A: No, no, no!!! In fact, if anything, such an energy transference even could enhance the effect.
Q: In what way?
A: Imbalanced waves could be drawn upon by the receiver.
Q: I think that this word he used is a clue: 'Don't you think that if you send the person love, it could provide the person the necessary energy' and in parentheses he has the word 'influence' which implies control of the other person's behavior, to 'stop that murder.' So, it seems that there is a desire to control the actions of another person.
A: Yes.
Q: But, his intent is entirely benevolent because he wants to stop a murder which is the saving of a life, as well as prevent the loved one from going to prison. So, it SEEMS to be benevolent in intent. Does this not make a difference?
A: Have we forgotten about Karma?
Q: Well, both Sylvia and I mentioned the fact that one cannot always judge these situations because we don't know. We cannot know. For all we know the potential murder victim is an Adolf Hitler type or the potential parent of one, or something like that, and then the murder would save many lives with the sacrifice of two lives, or that this murder is supposed to happen because of some karmic interaction that is essential between the murderer and victim, and that we simply cannot KNOW these things and judge them.
A: Yes.
Q: Any other comment about that?
A: No.
Q: He says: 'I believe that if we do not send love energy to the world that the egocentric STS energy will be dominating.
A: Why would one choose to send this? What is the motivation?
Q: To change it to your idea of what it is supposed to be. To control it to follow your judgment of how things ought to be.
A: Exactly. The students are not expected to be the architects of the school.
Q: So, when you seek to impose or exert influence of any kind, you are, in effect, trying to play God and taking it upon yourself to decide that there is something wrong with the universe that it is up to you to fix, which amounts to judgment.
A: Yes, you see, one can advise, that is okay, but do not attempt to alter the lesson.
Q: He also says: 'I believe that an enlightened being is emanating love where ever that person is, and this is even without being asked. It just happens because that is what they are - love.' Comment, please.
A: An enlightened being is not love. And a refrigerator is not a highway.
Q: What?! Talk about your mixed metaphors! I don't get that one!
A: Why not?
Q: They are completely unrelated!
A: Exactly!!!
Q: What IS an enlightened being?
A: An enlightened being.
Q: What is the criteria for being an enlightened being?
A: Being enlightened!
Q: When one is enlightened, what is the profile?
A: This is going nowhere because you are doing the proverbial round hole, square peg routine.
Q: What I am trying to get to is an understanding of an enlightened being. Eddie and a LOT of other people have the idea that an enlightened being IS LOVE, and that is what they radiate, and that this is a result of being enlightened.
A: No, no, no, no, no. "Enlightened" does not mean good. Just smart.
Q: Okay, so there are STS and STO enlightened beings?
A: Yes, we believe the overall ratio is 50/50.
Q: Okay, what is the profile of an enlightened STO being?
A: An intelligent being who only gives.
Q: Well, since we have dealt with the idea of not giving love to those who don't ask, what do they give and to whom do they give it?
A: All; to those who ask.
Q: He says: 'As you can see, I believe in the power of love. I am open to try to understand that which I have not yet been able to. Perhaps that is why I am here with you guys. So, could we talk more about this subject? Could provide more of what the C's have said about Love?' I collected the excerpts from the text about love and how you had said that Knowledge was love and light was knowledge and all that. Anything further you can add to that?
A: No, because the receiver to this does not wish to receive.
Q: Okay. Sylvia responded: 'Eddie thank you for your pointing out the paradox of the concept of the expression of love between the C's and that as some of us think we know, but KNOW what we experience. I feel that it may be very difficult for the C's to deliver adequate understanding into our 3rd density or dimension. [...] My view of the paradox is thus: If one emanates love as a natural course to the Universe it is not consciously limited or directed - at least I, for one, cannot do this; that simply is the way some of us are a lot of the 'time.' To eliminate groups or individuals, is beyond my comprehension to constantly define since a lot of this is done unconsciously anyway; and it certainly would compromise my experience of sending love. Unless one is Bodhisattva, love is probably only directed with greater intensity when focused toward an individual; how is one to know whether the intended recipient is not ready/able to receive?' [...] And 'receive,' I think is a clue: the intended recipient can either remain oblivious or ward off the love energy - free agency.
A: Yes.
Q: If it IS 'love energy' is it subsequently corrupted by STS?
A: Maybe.
Q: She then says: 'If one directs love very specifically toward an individual it can be directed freely, judgementally, subjectively..... One challenge is to direct love freely...'
A: No.
Q: 'Giving love to the Universe may be the best way generally, but if one does focus toward a loved one and it CAN be effective, could the general Universe be JUST as effective?'
A: The universe is about balance. Nuff said!
Q: Next, in regard to this not giving of love when not asked, she says: 'That does not mesh with networking to spread KNOWLEDGE among those who care and love. THAT is directed...'
A: What?
Q: Well, I DID point out that the only reason we have even gotten anything is because we asked for a LONG time, repeatedly and sincerely.
A: The bottom line is this: You are occupying 3rd density. You are by nature, STS. You can be an STO candidate, but you are NOT STO until you are on 4th density. You will NEVER grasp the meaning of these attempted conceptualizations until you are at 4th and above.
Q: She also says: 'And there are soulless ones.' Is this true?
A: No.
Q: I think that what she means by this is that there are those who are STS in their very essence and many people judge this to be a 'soulless' condition, I believe.
A: But STS is not "soulless."
Q: Sylvia also asks: 'May there be a time when one is faced with choosing between the lesser of 2 karmas?'
A: No, because karma dictates its own existence.
Q: What do you mean by that?
A: There is no fork in the road, because there is no linear time. That is an illusion and, when you graduate, you will know this.
Q: Okay, she further says regarding the C's views on sex: 'Their view implies very strongly that Humans are conceived in sin after all. That does not mesh with an un-vengeful, benevolent Geometry of Divinity, for me.
A: No, sex is not sin. Neither is food. It is simply physiological. Remember what we told you about variable physicality?
Q: Yes, that 4th density is the level of variability of physicality. Apparently, from what I can understand, when one is in that state, one finds that under most circumstances one would choose the state of pure consciousness rather than the physical, because there would be greater freedom in that state, and therefore, if one is choosing consciously to be in the non-physical state, one would be also choosing to not have sex or eat.
A: Close.
Q: Her other statement is: 'The C's have stated that they are a continuance of the Pleiadians. The Pleiadean view on sex, to be freely expressed, appears in direct opposition.'
A: Well, this is a jumbling of concepts. But just to tackle one of these, who is to say that the representations of Pleiadian concepts are really the same?
Q: One of her final remarks is: 'I ponder some on just how to 'study the trees.' Can you comment?
A: Study them as you wish. It is all lessons.
Q: This is just a side comment, as much as I was hoping that the group effort would increase understanding via discussion, I am afraid that this will not be the case.
A: No need to hope. Those who will understand, will understand.
Q: Alright. For Ark, let me read this from the Kozyrev book: 'Kozyrev imagined time as a mighty flow embracing all the material processes in the universe, and all the processes taking place in these systems were sources feeding that flow. He writes about the intensity, or density of the time flow, the energy it carries, its emission and absorption; the rectilinearity of its propagation, its reflection from obstacles and absorption by matter. Kozyrev said: Time flows into a system through a cause to an effect. There is an impression that time is pulled inside by a cause and gets denser at the location of an effect. In every process of nature, time can be formed or spent. Therefore, it appears to be reasonable to identify Kozyrev's flow with some substantial flow whose source is, by Kozyrev, an irreversible, out-of-equilibrium process.' In terms of his remarks about time, how close to an accurate understanding did he come when making these comments?
A: Close.
Q: Then he also says here: 'Kozyrev pointed out the sharp contradictions between the second law of thermodynamics which brings nearer the thermal death of the universe, and the absence of any signs of equilibrium in the observed diversity of the universe. He stressed that the attempts to explain the absence of thermal death have been quite apart from the real universe observed by astronomers. The point is that the celestial bodies and their systems are so isolated from each other, that their thermal death MUST have occurred much sooner than any external system could interfere. Therefore, degraded states of systems ought to dominate, whereas they are almost NEVER met. The question is: why celestial systems continue to live despite the theorized short relaxation times.' Then he says: 'The problem with surmounting the thermal death of the world is most closely connected with the origin of solar and stellar radiation. It is of interest that such a concrete question such as 'why does the sun and stars shine?' Why are they out of equilibrium with the ambient space, and this cannot be answered with the known physical laws. The conclusion follows from astronomical data analysis that stellar lifetimes SHOULD be short, but that this is not the observable case.' So, he is saying that because stars live a lot longer than they should by theoretical laws, and do things that are not covered by these theories, that what is INSIDE them cannot be what is theorized. So he says: 'Stars are machines getting energy from the time flow.' And he also says that the interior of the star cannot be the thermo-nuclear reaction as described. What can you say about this idea of stars being sustained by the time flow?
A: Stars are not machines, but windows.
Q: What is in the interior of our sun? What is its internal state?
A: The opening to another realm.
Q: In the interior of the sun, how does it appear to us in 3rd density?
A: It does not.
Q: So, it is something that is completely unknowable to us?
A: Close.
Q: Does it present as any kind of matter, super condensed, or something?
A: Close.
Q: (A) The point is that we cannot go to the interior, so asking what it looks like makes little sense.
A: Yes.
Q: (A) But, of course, we can try to investigate these openings through other means that we do not know exactly yet what they are. Some of these Kozyrev inventions may be useful in these ways. But first, we need to have a theoretical understanding, not only in terms of words, but also how it relates to other concepts that we know. I want to ask about gravity waves. At one point you mentioned Sakharov. So, here is a book by Sakharov. But it is the ordinary idea of gravity waves that propagate at the speed of light as everybody believes.
A: No.
Q: (A) They do not?
A: Well, what do you think?
Q: (A) What I think is that there is confusion. The current concept of gravitational waves is that they propagate like EM fields with the velocity of light. Scientists have tried to measure them based on this idea, but thus far, have not succeeded. There is a mathematical theory, and there are machines which are supposed to measure gravity, but they are not able to do so. For example: if you have a binary star system, one star rotating around the other, they should make ripples on the curvature of space time, and these ripples ought to propagate and we should be able to detect and measure these ripples. This book by Sakharov is about these kinds of gravitational waves. I don't know. Do they exist in this way?
A: No. Timeless, my dear Arkadiusz, Timeless. How can one equate gravity waves when using the vacuum of the speed of light. The speed of light exists within the larger framework of gravity, so does time.
Q: (A) Okay, a related question: this Sakharov says that we should quantize gravity and that the true theory will include quantization of gravity. I think that we should NOT quantize gravity. So, I wonder why he is saying these things which are so standard when he is supposed to be an unconventional thinker?
A: Because of politics, sort of. Best to read between the lines when studying his writings.
Q: (A) Last time you said that gravity waves are of instantaneous imprint. That would mean that the wave propagates in space instantaneously. How does its intensity vary when you are away from the source? Does its intensity become weaker and weaker?
A: No.
Q: (A) You say no. That's a funny thing. If there is a source, how can we recognize what is the source of the wave? Where is it?
A: First you must get a correct picture of gravity. Gravity is the binder between matter and anti-matter.
Q: (A) You are using the word 'gravity.' Scientists are also using the word 'gravity.' Apparently there are two different meanings?
A: How so?
Q: (A) Because, according to science, gravity is a force, like other forces, is a field, like other fields, and being a field...
A: But it is the foundational field from which all other fields emanate.
Q: (A) Now, there is something which we call 'space.' Is there such a thing as space? Is it one of the fundamental things? The space concept? Is it secondary?
A: Now this is where all 3rd density types keep getting un-tracked, because they have never been able to rectify the definition of space. For example, where does "space" begin and end. And if it does not, how is this?
Q: (A) I want to know about the mathematical model; how to model space mathematically. I know what is the standard way of modeling space which comes from Euclid and Newton, which says that space is just a three dimensional manifold. But then we have this French guy from Paris, Nottale, who says that space is chaotic, fractalized, non-smooth; and starting from this idea that space is a very complicated object, fractal-like, he derives equations for planetary orbits much like the theories of Velikovsky, that planetary systems are like atoms, and that a kind of quantum theory can be used to get these orbits, and then that quantum jumps can happen. He derives equations out of his concept of space. Now, I got a bunch of papers from this guy because I believe they are worth studying and continuance in this direction. I would like to know if my intuition in this respect is correct?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Can I ask a question? (A) Yes. (L) Does space have a beginning or an end?
A: To answer that for you would be like telling a four year old human child that there is no Santa Claus.
Q: (L) Well, I can take it! If it does or doesn't. Because my next question would be, if it DOES have a beginning or an end, would be: in what space does our space exist?
A: Not today, Gracie!
Q: (A) Some other day. (L) Apparently I ask questions they don't want to answer! I'm sorry. (A) On Monday I will go to ConTech and it is a crucial point in time, because it will be decided whether the contract will be prolonged and so forth. How should I act in order to secure...
A: Do you want the contract to continue?
Q: (A) It is not a question of what I want or not, it is that it is a necessary source of money, so the answer is yes.
A: Then state your case honestly and sincerely.
Q: (A) Okay, that answers one of my questions. The other question is: this contract is much better than teaching, but yet it takes almost all my time, and now we have these exciting things, like this Kozyrev book, that can be the start of research...
A: Well, we have advised before just to enjoy the ride as it will not result in negative conclusion. So far, when our advice has been heeded, what have been the results?
Q: (L) Let me insert really quickly a question about this so- called 'Meadows inheritance.' It came about in such a strange way that I began to wonder if it was one of the 'arrangements' that you were hinting at in some of this bloodline research I have been doing. Is that possible?
A: But wondering is such a stimulating experience!
Q: (L) Is there any possibility that anything will come out of this? (A) I think you should ask what you should do to make it happen.
A: No, you should not.
Q: (L) What should I ask?
A: Laura, just let it be.
Q: (L) Okay. (A) I want to ask about this Barry who wrote to me about Monoatomic Gold. Laura suggested that it is a distraction. But, he directed me to this Finnish guy who is rather strange, but his theories make sense to me. Do you have any comment on this possible distraction scenario?
A: We will not comment.
Q: (A) This Finnish guy has developed a Topological Geometrodynamics which includes some math that may be helpful to accommodate consciousness. It has something to do with prime numbers and I like this idea.
A: Then explore! And, on that note, Good Night.
End of Session
Laura, Frank, Ark
Q: Hello.
A: Hello.
Q: And who do we have with us this evening?
A: Loxacca.
Q: And where do you transmit through?
A: Cassiopaea.
Q: I have several things from the little mail list that I would like to get to first because I think they may go fairly quick. The first is this book called "Trance Formation of America; The true life story of a CIA slave" by Cathy O'Brien with Mark Phillips. There is a rather lengthy quote from this book here that we have all read. I certainly am not going to read it out loud because I don't want to have to type such a thing myself, so I won't read it, but I am sure you are aware of what it says. What I would like to know is: what is the motivation behind the authors of this book?
A: Disruption.
Q: Disruption of what?
A: Anyone disruptable.
Q: It specifically seems to be aimed at the Clintons or the power structure. Are any of these descriptions of the behaviors of Hillary and Bill Clinton as explicated in this extract anywhere near close to reality?
A: Anywhere near? Well maybe, but not as described.
Q: Is there such a thing as this girl describes? These CIA slaves that are sexually mutilated and programmed with this mind control programming that she has described?
A: Any such experiment would be handled by the cellular structure of pseudogovernmental satellite, not normally by CIA.
Q: So, what you seem to be implying is that what is described here IS taking place?
A: To an extent, but the story as related is fictional.
Q: Are the Clintons as depraved as she presents them?
A: No, but recreational drug use may have occurred. However, we suggest you not share that!
Q: Okay, enough on that. Here is a note from Mike C-T. He writes: "Laura, I was very dismayed to read your post on Diet and Nutrition on the Web Page. The C's are saying that Love is enough and that sex is a pure physical craving and that orgasm energy feeds the 4th D STS buggers. Then, they go on to say that you should smoke, and consume x mg of nicotine, because you need it. Those 2 ideas seem contrary to me, since smoking is also a 'physical craving.' Yes, people gain weight after they quit smoking, but the metabolism does settle down after a year or so. Are you sure of the source of this message? Could STSers be getting through and are getting you and others to try to kill yourself slowly? Covering ones lungs with ash cannot be good for you, regardless of what the ash is made of. Even wood smoke causes breathing disorders. I felt sick when I read that part. It didn't fit into my world view of the C's." Signed, Mike. Could you comment on his remarks?
A: We did not suggest that smoking was advisable per se, the response was in regard to a personal inquiry about difficulty in achieving weight loss on the part of Laura. And, we did not say that this was a permanent solution.
Q: Well, you DID say that it enhances resistance to disease and that it did other beneficial things.
A: Yes, but, it is best accomplished with pure tobacco products, not the corrupted variety available on the mass market.
Q: Well, what about the sex issue?
A: Specifics, please.
Q: He says that the two ideas seem contrary...
A: How so?
Q: I guess his idea is that is if you are gonna give up sex, you ought to also give up smoking because they are both physical cravings. Or, that if smoking is okay, then sex ought to also be okay. I am not altogether clear on the perspective. I did write back that my understanding was that it is not sex, per se, that was bad, but rather the drive for self gratification that was feeding STS.
A: True.
Q: He then says: 'Are you sure of the source of this message. Could STS be getting through and getting you and others to try and kill yourself slowly?'
A: No, and besides, "killing of one's self slowly," is occurring anyway, whether triggered by one's self or not.
Q: He says: 'Covering one's lungs with ash cannot be good for you, regardless of what the ash is made of.'
A: Noncorrupted tobacco product does not have that effect.
Q: I also mentioned the fact that this professor of Hematology in Gainesville told me that the only thing they know of, aside from some pathological process, that increases the red blood cell count, thereby the hemoglobin, and thus the iron content of the blood and brain, is smoking tobacco.
A: True.
Q: It was my assessment from this information, coupled with all the work done on tracking this 'blood issue' that is so dominant in the 'Grail quest' and the ancient literature, that increasing the red blood cell count was a VERY desirable thing to do to enhance one's ability to transit densities with ease. Is that a correct idea?
A: Yes and makes one more resistant to microbial infection.
Q: (A) Where can one find non-corrupted tobacco products?
A: Tobacco shop.
Q: So, I guess I have to roll my own!
A: Machine can be purchased which does this.
Q: He said: 'I felt sick when I read that.' I can identify with this feeling because there are a number of things I have learned in this process that has had the same effect on me. But, I have also learned that when this happens, it is only my resistance that causes this suffering. Can you comment?
A: Emotions cause views.
Q: (A) I was also brainwashed in this way and I am changing. (F) We are ALL brainwashed! (L) Okay, now Eddie says: 'Laura brought up several comments about Love that confused me. I do not understand how could giving love when not being asked could harm instead of improve.' Can you remark on this?
A: "Giving" love is not giving, in such a case.
Q: So, if you give love when you have not been asked, you are NOT giving?
A: You are taking, as usual.
Q: When you say you are 'taking,' what are you taking?
A: Energy, a la STS.
Q: How does it come that you are taking energy from someone by giving them love when not asked?
A: Because an STS vehicle does not learn to be an STO candidate by determining the needs of another.
Q: I don't understand how that means you are taking energy?
A: Because the act is then one of self-gratification. If one "gives" where there is no request, therefore no need, this is a free will violation! And besides, what other motivation could there possibly be in such a scenario?!? Think carefully and objectively about this.
Q: My thought would be that, in such a scenario, that if one gives love to someone who has not asked or requested, that it seems to be a desire to change the other, i.e. a desire to control.
A: You got it!!
Q: Now he says further: 'Yes, everything is lessons and if a person has chosen a specific path they should be allowed to go and learn their way. But, let's say this is happening to someone you really love. And let's say that the person may be in a period of his life that his/her thoughts are probably taking her/him to commit, let's say, a murder. Don't you think that if you send this person love, even unconsciously, that it may provide the necessary energy (influence) to stop that murder?' Comment please.
A: No, no, no!!! In fact, if anything, such an energy transference even could enhance the effect.
Q: In what way?
A: Imbalanced waves could be drawn upon by the receiver.
Q: I think that this word he used is a clue: 'Don't you think that if you send the person love, it could provide the person the necessary energy' and in parentheses he has the word 'influence' which implies control of the other person's behavior, to 'stop that murder.' So, it seems that there is a desire to control the actions of another person.
A: Yes.
Q: But, his intent is entirely benevolent because he wants to stop a murder which is the saving of a life, as well as prevent the loved one from going to prison. So, it SEEMS to be benevolent in intent. Does this not make a difference?
A: Have we forgotten about Karma?
Q: Well, both Sylvia and I mentioned the fact that one cannot always judge these situations because we don't know. We cannot know. For all we know the potential murder victim is an Adolf Hitler type or the potential parent of one, or something like that, and then the murder would save many lives with the sacrifice of two lives, or that this murder is supposed to happen because of some karmic interaction that is essential between the murderer and victim, and that we simply cannot KNOW these things and judge them.
A: Yes.
Q: Any other comment about that?
A: No.
Q: He says: 'I believe that if we do not send love energy to the world that the egocentric STS energy will be dominating.
A: Why would one choose to send this? What is the motivation?
Q: To change it to your idea of what it is supposed to be. To control it to follow your judgment of how things ought to be.
A: Exactly. The students are not expected to be the architects of the school.
Q: So, when you seek to impose or exert influence of any kind, you are, in effect, trying to play God and taking it upon yourself to decide that there is something wrong with the universe that it is up to you to fix, which amounts to judgment.
A: Yes, you see, one can advise, that is okay, but do not attempt to alter the lesson.
Q: He also says: 'I believe that an enlightened being is emanating love where ever that person is, and this is even without being asked. It just happens because that is what they are - love.' Comment, please.
A: An enlightened being is not love. And a refrigerator is not a highway.
Q: What?! Talk about your mixed metaphors! I don't get that one!
A: Why not?
Q: They are completely unrelated!
A: Exactly!!!
Q: What IS an enlightened being?
A: An enlightened being.
Q: What is the criteria for being an enlightened being?
A: Being enlightened!
Q: When one is enlightened, what is the profile?
A: This is going nowhere because you are doing the proverbial round hole, square peg routine.
Q: What I am trying to get to is an understanding of an enlightened being. Eddie and a LOT of other people have the idea that an enlightened being IS LOVE, and that is what they radiate, and that this is a result of being enlightened.
A: No, no, no, no, no. "Enlightened" does not mean good. Just smart.
Q: Okay, so there are STS and STO enlightened beings?
A: Yes, we believe the overall ratio is 50/50.
Q: Okay, what is the profile of an enlightened STO being?
A: An intelligent being who only gives.
Q: Well, since we have dealt with the idea of not giving love to those who don't ask, what do they give and to whom do they give it?
A: All; to those who ask.
Q: He says: 'As you can see, I believe in the power of love. I am open to try to understand that which I have not yet been able to. Perhaps that is why I am here with you guys. So, could we talk more about this subject? Could provide more of what the C's have said about Love?' I collected the excerpts from the text about love and how you had said that Knowledge was love and light was knowledge and all that. Anything further you can add to that?
A: No, because the receiver to this does not wish to receive.
Q: Okay. Sylvia responded: 'Eddie thank you for your pointing out the paradox of the concept of the expression of love between the C's and that as some of us think we know, but KNOW what we experience. I feel that it may be very difficult for the C's to deliver adequate understanding into our 3rd density or dimension. [...] My view of the paradox is thus: If one emanates love as a natural course to the Universe it is not consciously limited or directed - at least I, for one, cannot do this; that simply is the way some of us are a lot of the 'time.' To eliminate groups or individuals, is beyond my comprehension to constantly define since a lot of this is done unconsciously anyway; and it certainly would compromise my experience of sending love. Unless one is Bodhisattva, love is probably only directed with greater intensity when focused toward an individual; how is one to know whether the intended recipient is not ready/able to receive?' [...] And 'receive,' I think is a clue: the intended recipient can either remain oblivious or ward off the love energy - free agency.
A: Yes.
Q: If it IS 'love energy' is it subsequently corrupted by STS?
A: Maybe.
Q: She then says: 'If one directs love very specifically toward an individual it can be directed freely, judgementally, subjectively..... One challenge is to direct love freely...'
A: No.
Q: 'Giving love to the Universe may be the best way generally, but if one does focus toward a loved one and it CAN be effective, could the general Universe be JUST as effective?'
A: The universe is about balance. Nuff said!
Q: Next, in regard to this not giving of love when not asked, she says: 'That does not mesh with networking to spread KNOWLEDGE among those who care and love. THAT is directed...'
A: What?
Q: Well, I DID point out that the only reason we have even gotten anything is because we asked for a LONG time, repeatedly and sincerely.
A: The bottom line is this: You are occupying 3rd density. You are by nature, STS. You can be an STO candidate, but you are NOT STO until you are on 4th density. You will NEVER grasp the meaning of these attempted conceptualizations until you are at 4th and above.
Q: She also says: 'And there are soulless ones.' Is this true?
A: No.
Q: I think that what she means by this is that there are those who are STS in their very essence and many people judge this to be a 'soulless' condition, I believe.
A: But STS is not "soulless."
Q: Sylvia also asks: 'May there be a time when one is faced with choosing between the lesser of 2 karmas?'
A: No, because karma dictates its own existence.
Q: What do you mean by that?
A: There is no fork in the road, because there is no linear time. That is an illusion and, when you graduate, you will know this.
Q: Okay, she further says regarding the C's views on sex: 'Their view implies very strongly that Humans are conceived in sin after all. That does not mesh with an un-vengeful, benevolent Geometry of Divinity, for me.
A: No, sex is not sin. Neither is food. It is simply physiological. Remember what we told you about variable physicality?
Q: Yes, that 4th density is the level of variability of physicality. Apparently, from what I can understand, when one is in that state, one finds that under most circumstances one would choose the state of pure consciousness rather than the physical, because there would be greater freedom in that state, and therefore, if one is choosing consciously to be in the non-physical state, one would be also choosing to not have sex or eat.
A: Close.
Q: Her other statement is: 'The C's have stated that they are a continuance of the Pleiadians. The Pleiadean view on sex, to be freely expressed, appears in direct opposition.'
A: Well, this is a jumbling of concepts. But just to tackle one of these, who is to say that the representations of Pleiadian concepts are really the same?
Q: One of her final remarks is: 'I ponder some on just how to 'study the trees.' Can you comment?
A: Study them as you wish. It is all lessons.
Q: This is just a side comment, as much as I was hoping that the group effort would increase understanding via discussion, I am afraid that this will not be the case.
A: No need to hope. Those who will understand, will understand.
Q: Alright. For Ark, let me read this from the Kozyrev book: 'Kozyrev imagined time as a mighty flow embracing all the material processes in the universe, and all the processes taking place in these systems were sources feeding that flow. He writes about the intensity, or density of the time flow, the energy it carries, its emission and absorption; the rectilinearity of its propagation, its reflection from obstacles and absorption by matter. Kozyrev said: Time flows into a system through a cause to an effect. There is an impression that time is pulled inside by a cause and gets denser at the location of an effect. In every process of nature, time can be formed or spent. Therefore, it appears to be reasonable to identify Kozyrev's flow with some substantial flow whose source is, by Kozyrev, an irreversible, out-of-equilibrium process.' In terms of his remarks about time, how close to an accurate understanding did he come when making these comments?
A: Close.
Q: Then he also says here: 'Kozyrev pointed out the sharp contradictions between the second law of thermodynamics which brings nearer the thermal death of the universe, and the absence of any signs of equilibrium in the observed diversity of the universe. He stressed that the attempts to explain the absence of thermal death have been quite apart from the real universe observed by astronomers. The point is that the celestial bodies and their systems are so isolated from each other, that their thermal death MUST have occurred much sooner than any external system could interfere. Therefore, degraded states of systems ought to dominate, whereas they are almost NEVER met. The question is: why celestial systems continue to live despite the theorized short relaxation times.' Then he says: 'The problem with surmounting the thermal death of the world is most closely connected with the origin of solar and stellar radiation. It is of interest that such a concrete question such as 'why does the sun and stars shine?' Why are they out of equilibrium with the ambient space, and this cannot be answered with the known physical laws. The conclusion follows from astronomical data analysis that stellar lifetimes SHOULD be short, but that this is not the observable case.' So, he is saying that because stars live a lot longer than they should by theoretical laws, and do things that are not covered by these theories, that what is INSIDE them cannot be what is theorized. So he says: 'Stars are machines getting energy from the time flow.' And he also says that the interior of the star cannot be the thermo-nuclear reaction as described. What can you say about this idea of stars being sustained by the time flow?
A: Stars are not machines, but windows.
Q: What is in the interior of our sun? What is its internal state?
A: The opening to another realm.
Q: In the interior of the sun, how does it appear to us in 3rd density?
A: It does not.
Q: So, it is something that is completely unknowable to us?
A: Close.
Q: Does it present as any kind of matter, super condensed, or something?
A: Close.
Q: (A) The point is that we cannot go to the interior, so asking what it looks like makes little sense.
A: Yes.
Q: (A) But, of course, we can try to investigate these openings through other means that we do not know exactly yet what they are. Some of these Kozyrev inventions may be useful in these ways. But first, we need to have a theoretical understanding, not only in terms of words, but also how it relates to other concepts that we know. I want to ask about gravity waves. At one point you mentioned Sakharov. So, here is a book by Sakharov. But it is the ordinary idea of gravity waves that propagate at the speed of light as everybody believes.
A: No.
Q: (A) They do not?
A: Well, what do you think?
Q: (A) What I think is that there is confusion. The current concept of gravitational waves is that they propagate like EM fields with the velocity of light. Scientists have tried to measure them based on this idea, but thus far, have not succeeded. There is a mathematical theory, and there are machines which are supposed to measure gravity, but they are not able to do so. For example: if you have a binary star system, one star rotating around the other, they should make ripples on the curvature of space time, and these ripples ought to propagate and we should be able to detect and measure these ripples. This book by Sakharov is about these kinds of gravitational waves. I don't know. Do they exist in this way?
A: No. Timeless, my dear Arkadiusz, Timeless. How can one equate gravity waves when using the vacuum of the speed of light. The speed of light exists within the larger framework of gravity, so does time.
Q: (A) Okay, a related question: this Sakharov says that we should quantize gravity and that the true theory will include quantization of gravity. I think that we should NOT quantize gravity. So, I wonder why he is saying these things which are so standard when he is supposed to be an unconventional thinker?
A: Because of politics, sort of. Best to read between the lines when studying his writings.
Q: (A) Last time you said that gravity waves are of instantaneous imprint. That would mean that the wave propagates in space instantaneously. How does its intensity vary when you are away from the source? Does its intensity become weaker and weaker?
A: No.
Q: (A) You say no. That's a funny thing. If there is a source, how can we recognize what is the source of the wave? Where is it?
A: First you must get a correct picture of gravity. Gravity is the binder between matter and anti-matter.
Q: (A) You are using the word 'gravity.' Scientists are also using the word 'gravity.' Apparently there are two different meanings?
A: How so?
Q: (A) Because, according to science, gravity is a force, like other forces, is a field, like other fields, and being a field...
A: But it is the foundational field from which all other fields emanate.
Q: (A) Now, there is something which we call 'space.' Is there such a thing as space? Is it one of the fundamental things? The space concept? Is it secondary?
A: Now this is where all 3rd density types keep getting un-tracked, because they have never been able to rectify the definition of space. For example, where does "space" begin and end. And if it does not, how is this?
Q: (A) I want to know about the mathematical model; how to model space mathematically. I know what is the standard way of modeling space which comes from Euclid and Newton, which says that space is just a three dimensional manifold. But then we have this French guy from Paris, Nottale, who says that space is chaotic, fractalized, non-smooth; and starting from this idea that space is a very complicated object, fractal-like, he derives equations for planetary orbits much like the theories of Velikovsky, that planetary systems are like atoms, and that a kind of quantum theory can be used to get these orbits, and then that quantum jumps can happen. He derives equations out of his concept of space. Now, I got a bunch of papers from this guy because I believe they are worth studying and continuance in this direction. I would like to know if my intuition in this respect is correct?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Can I ask a question? (A) Yes. (L) Does space have a beginning or an end?
A: To answer that for you would be like telling a four year old human child that there is no Santa Claus.
Q: (L) Well, I can take it! If it does or doesn't. Because my next question would be, if it DOES have a beginning or an end, would be: in what space does our space exist?
A: Not today, Gracie!
Q: (A) Some other day. (L) Apparently I ask questions they don't want to answer! I'm sorry. (A) On Monday I will go to ConTech and it is a crucial point in time, because it will be decided whether the contract will be prolonged and so forth. How should I act in order to secure...
A: Do you want the contract to continue?
Q: (A) It is not a question of what I want or not, it is that it is a necessary source of money, so the answer is yes.
A: Then state your case honestly and sincerely.
Q: (A) Okay, that answers one of my questions. The other question is: this contract is much better than teaching, but yet it takes almost all my time, and now we have these exciting things, like this Kozyrev book, that can be the start of research...
A: Well, we have advised before just to enjoy the ride as it will not result in negative conclusion. So far, when our advice has been heeded, what have been the results?
Q: (L) Let me insert really quickly a question about this so- called 'Meadows inheritance.' It came about in such a strange way that I began to wonder if it was one of the 'arrangements' that you were hinting at in some of this bloodline research I have been doing. Is that possible?
A: But wondering is such a stimulating experience!
Q: (L) Is there any possibility that anything will come out of this? (A) I think you should ask what you should do to make it happen.
A: No, you should not.
Q: (L) What should I ask?
A: Laura, just let it be.
Q: (L) Okay. (A) I want to ask about this Barry who wrote to me about Monoatomic Gold. Laura suggested that it is a distraction. But, he directed me to this Finnish guy who is rather strange, but his theories make sense to me. Do you have any comment on this possible distraction scenario?
A: We will not comment.
Q: (A) This Finnish guy has developed a Topological Geometrodynamics which includes some math that may be helpful to accommodate consciousness. It has something to do with prime numbers and I like this idea.
A: Then explore! And, on that note, Good Night.
End of Session
.