Session 4 April 2015

[goyacobol]

goyacobol,

Your posts are excellent. I really enjoy your timing in the conversation and the references are right on point, I find. Quite enlightening !

Thank you transientP. I hope others might benefit from going back to the "source" material. I would encourage anyone else to be a kind of "fisherman/fisherwoman". That's not to say everything has to be quotes from the sessions, books or other material but I think it helps some who haven't had as much "time" to search to have a starting place. I have just been lucky enough to find the time to do some of the searching. It is difficult even to just do a search until you have read more of the material. It is a slow gradual process. I learn much more by searching for answers to questions that others here ask than if it was just me searching for my own curiosity. :)

 

[Kisito]

Q: (L) Does the interaction between the spirit/soul and the body physical produce some by-product that
is desirable to other beings?
A: Well, all things have desirable consequences as well as undesirable consequences, but it must also
be mentioned here that everything that exists in all realms of the universe can experience existence in
one of only two ways. That would be defined as a long wave cycle and a short wave cycle. Going back
to your previous question about why humans are "entrapped" in physical existence, which, of course, is
voluntary and chosen, this was due to the desire to change from the long wave cycle experience of
completely what you would call ethereal or spiritual existence, to the short wave cycle of what you call
physical existence. The difference is that a long wave cycle involves only very gradual change in
evolution in a cyclical manner. Whereas a short wave cycle involves a duality. And this is the case with
souls in physical bodies as is experienced on this earth plane because the soul experiences an ethereal
state for half the cycle and a physical state for the other half of the cycle. While these halves are not
measured in time the way you measure time, the totality of experience is equal in each half. The
necessity to form the short wave cycle was brought about through nature through the natural bounds
of the universe when the group mind of souls chose to experience physicality as opposed to a
completely ethereal existence.

Thank you goyacobol for this intrustive session, however, if the time of the STS and STO experience are equal, this does not mean that learning is equal. It seems to me that the STO learning is longer. I will try to explain with an example. If a man spends 40 years of his rich life and 40 years in misery, I think it will do more learning in his life of misery in his life rather than opulence.
I'm not trying to say that being rich is STS, but I wanted to make the analogy between freedom and confinement. When we are free we do not ask questions because the thing does not hinder our essence, but when it is a prisoner asking questions and thus we learn more things.

STO must learn to be him and all the souls, STS must learn only on him! It's my personal reason and perhaps false to see both ways :)

Edit=Quote

 

[goyacobol]

Thank you goyacobol for this intrustive session, however, if the time of the STS and STO experience are equal, this does not mean that learning is equal. It seems to me that the STO learning is longer. I will try to explain with an example. If a man spends 40 years of his rich life and 40 years in misery, I think it will do more learning in his life of misery in his life rather than opulence.
I'm not trying to say that being rich is STS, but I wanted to make the analogy between freedom and confinement. When we are free we do not ask questions because the thing does not hinder our essence, but when it is a prisoner asking questions and thus we learn more things.

STO must learn to be him and all the souls, STS must learn only on him! It's my personal reason and perhaps false to see both ways :)

Edit=Quote

Krisito,

I am not sure what you mean by "intrustive". Do you mean "intrusive"? Intrusive means "annoying someone by interfering with their privacy : intruding where you are not wanted or welcome".

If my session quote was intrusive or irrelevant I apologize. I am having a little trouble understanding exactly what you are saying but I will try to get it right. In your previous post you said:

It should already understand that humans are 3D STS, but assume that we have chosen the path STO .. It seems that the STO must learn to learn, learn it would mean twice, therefore the path STS teach one times.
What would this learning? Probably for the STS path, selfishness and the STO path, empathy and selfishness. It was for that reason that the STO path would be longer. The karmic experience related to empathy through genetic and etheric emotions would be much longer.

When you said "longer" I thought you meant as in "longer" time. That is why I used the cycle quote. Do you really mean it is more "difficult" for some one who wants to be STO? And it would be easier to be STS because we are born into a 3D STS world. 4D STO candidates would have a more difficult time since they would be going against the genetics they are born with in an STS environment?

I will try to rephrase your last sentence:

"STO must learn to be him and all the souls, STS must learn only on him!"

Do you mean STO has to show "external consideration" to other souls but STS only has to worry about himself and no one else? :/

 

[JeanneT]

I am just recalling that the Ra Material, book one, uses a percentage to measure potential for graduation to 4th density. The questioner asks whether an entity is "harvestable" at 51% STO and the remainder STS. They answer "yes" if it is for the positive next level. Then the question is asked regarding the STS candidate and they state that the percentage changes to at least 95% STS with no more than 5% STO. They also make it clear that it is much more difficult to attain harvest for the STS individual as it requires almost TOTAL dedication to STS.
I always wondered if this percentage is similar to FRV in any way?
As far as how long it takes for either path it seems to me it might be open and more about dedication after a certain point of choosing. ?? Or perhaps with all the subtleties it would be a matter of resonance more than time? Don't really know...just questions
I haven't read RA in a long time, but happened to recall this...for at the time, it made a huge impact on me which later brought me to the C's where I recognized some similar yet much expanded concepts. I thank Laura for her dedicated and succinct questioning and research as many gaps are filled from where RA left off.

 

[sitting]

Krisito,

I am not sure what you mean by "intrustive". Do you mean "intrusive"?

My guess is he meant "instructive," but only a guess.

 

[tschai]

Krisito,

I am not sure what you mean by "intrustive". Do you mean "intrusive"?

My guess is he meant "instructive," but only a guess.

I had the same thought he meant instructive

 

[goyacobol]

Krisito,

I am not sure what you mean by "intrustive". Do you mean "intrusive"?

My guess is he meant "instructive," but only a guess.

I had the same thought he meant instructive

You are both probably right. I apologized in case I was sounding irrelevant to Kisito's comments. Thanks for helping me guess. I am slow with things like acronyms too.

Kisito,

I will wait for your clarifications. English can be a problem even if it is a first language. If you meant "instructive" that makes more sense and I thank you for letting me know. :)

 

[Kika]

Thanks to everyone who contributed to STO - STS consideration. You've helped to untangle my personal confusion and worry about it. I also thank you for your patience and understanding, my frustration; I could not express what I wanted. It is also derives from the fact that I could not exactly define; what is it that bothers me. Thanks again.

 

[Kisito]

Krisito,

I am not sure what you mean by "intrustive". Do you mean "intrusive"?

My guess is he meant "instructive," but only a guess.

I had the same thought he meant instructive

You are both probably right. I apologized in case I was sounding irrelevant to Kisito's comments. Thanks for helping me guess. I am slow with things like acronyms too.

Kisito,

I will wait for your clarifications. English can be a problem even if it is a first language. If you meant "instructive" that makes more sense and I thank you for letting me know. :)

Sorry, sorry I wrote too fast or bad, I meant the verb educate informative

 

[sitting]

The questioner asks whether an entity is "harvestable" at 51% STO and the remainder STS. They answer "yes" if it is for the positive next level.

Then the question is asked regarding the STS candidate and they state that the percentage changes to at least 95% STS with no more than 5% STO. They also make it clear that it is much more difficult to attain harvest for the STS individual as it requires almost TOTAL dedication to STS.

Hi JeanneT,

That % disparity does seem odd--in view of the principles of symmetry & balance.
Two clearly distinct measures: Just good enough ... versus you need WAY more than bad.

Allow me to speculate on some possibilities:

The first is that Good is more powerful than Evil. In a level playing field, the "just good enough" being able to handle the "way more than bad"--through the power to absorb & transmute. If true, this is rather encouraging. Hence perhaps "their" urgency to keep this from happening.

The second one could be that (STO) unity & non-duality is actually much harder to attain--not the other way around--due to far greater ethical restrictions. But here, the universe generously grants a favor: Just good enough (51%) will do.

Third one might be: If you are only moderately bad, you get thrown back into the 3rd D soup. But if you've achieved the really really nasty (95%), they drag you into 4th--and kinda knock the garbage outta you. And after which, only some negative thought reflections remain.

And that perhaps, is how the universe maintains its sanity.
This asymmetry may actually not be a bad thing. FWIW.

PS
I don't recall the C's ever giving a clear percentage. And Seth has never mentioned it.

 

[Laura]

I think that the percentage issue discussed in the Ra material is explicable when you realize that STO is a networked potential while STS is isolationist and contractile. That is, in a network, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts: what is gained by one, because of sharing, is gained by all. But in the contractile STS position, as long as there is some STO, it deducts the STS potential pretty much proportionately. Thus, more STS weight has to be acquired to cancel that out.

Or so it seems to me.

 

[SeekinTruth]

I think that the percentage issue discussed in the Ra material is explicable when you realize that STO is a networked potential while STS is isolationist and contractile. That is, in a network, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts: what is gained by one, because of sharing, is gained by all. But in the contractile STS position, as long as there is some STO, it deducts the STS potential pretty much proportionately. Thus, more STS weight has to be acquired to cancel that out.

Or so it seems to me.

Yeah, that's something like my current understanding. The opposite of STO - the whole being greater than the sum of its parts - STS has those above in the hierarchy always taking, and so weakening the lower ones, draining energy to be able to move up, creating confusion / diffusing the lower ones' polarization, etc. STS is more like a zero sum game, what one gains all other STS loses, as in the end there can only be one for this mindset. Or so I think.

 

[MariuszJ]

No, it is different. If an STO being gains, in a different place another STO being loses. That is the balance.

I do not understand why someone has created Universe that way that even advanced 4D beings, have to feed off suffering of other beings. And no one can change this for such a long time.

 

[mkrnhr]

No, it is different. If an STO being gains, in a different place another STO being loses. That is the balance.

That's STS, not STO.

 

[Psalehesost]

I think that the percentage issue discussed in the Ra material is explicable when you realize that STO is a networked potential while STS is isolationist and contractile. That is, in a network, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts: what is gained by one, because of sharing, is gained by all. But in the contractile STS position, as long as there is some STO, it deducts the STS potential pretty much proportionately. Thus, more STS weight has to be acquired to cancel that out.

Or so it seems to me.

It makes sense. I have some additional thoughts, though, based on related things that Ra said.

According to Ra, most people are somewhere right in-between 50% STS and 95% STS. They fit into a range of perhaps 70-75% STS or something similar (no idea exactly how big that range is). This range was called by Ra "the sinkhole of indifference". That name makes a lot of sense in terms of what we've learned in recent years, and how most people may be unable to deal with what's now unfolding in the world, ending up unable to "surf" the Wave and instead being "dragged under".

"Indifference" basically means, or so I think, just "going with the flow". Following instincts and socialization, and not crystallizing something. In other words, I think the typical instinctive nature - combined with the influence of the typical society - is in the ballpark of ~72.5% STS. Anyway, the way out of the "sinkhole of indifference" ends up equally long for the STO and STS paths, in terms of percentages.

However, polarizing seems to have a different character for the two paths. Those who go with STS strengthen the nature which was already strongest in them. Those who go with STO have to follow and strenghten something in themselves which starts out much weaker, and networking seems crucial in even making this possible, at least generally.

The power of networking seems to explain how a group of people who are polarized to just over 50% can match the strength of a "group" who are polarized to just over 95%.