Session 7 November 2015

Saša said:
Can someone of those in the know please comment on "love" a little bit?

While it can be applied in a general sense, as I understand it, that reference was specifically to people at the Chateau.
 
Greetings to Laura and all the Chateau crew:

So THAT was what was going on! All my best wishes for everyone’s well-being.
 
Perceval said:
Saša said:
Can someone of those in the know please comment on "love" a little bit?

While it can be applied in a general sense, as I understand it, that reference was specifically to people at the Chateau.

Thank you.
 
Saša said:
Perceval said:
Saša said:
Can someone of those in the know please comment on "love" a little bit?

While it can be applied in a general sense, as I understand it, that reference was specifically to people at the Chateau.

Thank you.

And what I mean is that the way "abundant love" would be expressed to immediate family and close friends would be rather different to the way it would be expressed to strangers or the general public.
 
Thank you for such an informative and fascinating session! I myself have been going through some inter turmoil and I must remember to network. I have to remember to reach out more to the people of this forum. Thank you again. :)
 
Perceval said:
Saša said:
Perceval said:
Saša said:
Can someone of those in the know please comment on "love" a little bit?

While it can be applied in a general sense, as I understand it, that reference was specifically to people at the Chateau.

Thank you.

And what I mean is that the way "abundant love" would be expressed to immediate family and close friends would be rather different to the way it would be expressed to strangers or the general public.

Perceval, given what you said initially, and given I had responded to Saša's post (and am obviously not from the Chateau), I thought you were implying I maybe shouldn't have commented?

Now, I'm not so sure what you meant!

Anyway, if I messed up with this, again my apologies.

It's funny, today I felt inspired to join in the conversation on this thread, but I seem to striking out left and right!
 
The Golem entity seems to have similarities with the idea of Grays as cybergenetic probes - they are both artificially constructed by some other being to do some task, and somewhat like an automaton rather than a fully conscious entity. There is some discussion of Grays as cybergenetic probes in the C's transcript in High Strangeness, (Second Edition, 2008), page 166:

A: Well, first, no being that is given intelligence to think on its own is, in face, completely soul-less. It does have some soul imprint. Or what could be loosely referred to as soul imprint. This may be a collection of psychic energies that are available in the general vicinity. [. . .]
 
Wow what a great session, thanks for posting it. Last week was also a rough one for me too. I had no energy and I felt like cement blocks were attached to my feet....then I came down with a urinary tract infection. Finally starting to feel better....sending you all hugs and love
 
T.C. said:
sitting said:
Laura said:
Q: (L) ... Okay, let's just forget about me, and let's ask: How can healing be achieved?
A: As we have advised in the past, networking with love is key.

Q: (L) ... is there anything else to say on this topic before we move on to other things?
A: Give each other love abundantly.

So, that vital answer was given twice, clear as day. And that answer is LOVE.

But what is love exactly?

The best definition I've come up with, is Tibetan: LOVE is wishing the other happiness -- with no expectation of anything in return. (Such as a mother's wish for her children, in the purest non-attachment sense.)

What if some people don't want to be happy, though? And if one is wishing others happiness, then I think that necessarily includes a desire of some sort, which is then an expectation of something in return - even if that expectation is just feeling good.

It seems to me that when the C's talk about love, they're talking about their own definition of it, which Saša quoted:

Saša said:
A: The problem is not the term "love," the problem is the interpretation of the term. Those on third density have a tendency to confuse the issue horribly.
After all, they confuse many things as love. When the actual definition of love as you know it is not correct either. It is not necessarily a feeling that one has
that can also be interpreted as an emotion, but rather, as we have told you before, the essence of light which is knowledge is love, and this has been
corrupted when it is said that love leads to illumination. Love is Light is Knowledge. Love makes no sense when common definitions are used as they are in
your environment. To love you must know. And to know is to have light. And to have light is to love. And to have knowledge is to love."

When it comes to actually "applying" Love, loving each other, I don't think it can be distilled down to a simple, catch-all thing.

I think it must be something like: you Work on yourself, so that you can know yourself (love yourself), so that you can, among other things, control yourself and act rightly. Through knowing yourself, you learn a huge amount of information about others, too.

And you must also be constantly doing all you can to learn all you can about everything. And knowing yourself removes biases and filters and improves the reading instrument so that what you take in and process and conclude is much more objective.

The main goal of this is greater awareness of oneself and others, built on knowledge and confirmed through experience and practice, so that one can become as conscious as possible, understand as much as possible, and then be able to act towards others in the best way possible.

Something like the above seems to me what it means to be loving. External Considering comes from knowledge. It can be an act of love to act in ways that cause others emotional pain, if that action comes from a choice of not allowing oneself to be manipulated.

If love is knowledge, then constant application of knowledge with regards to oneself, others and the world we are connected to, must lead to a greater chance of loving actions and attitudes.
I think this is a good summary of it as far as the human organism is able to experience. I would like to add that the concept of giving all when asked is probably part of this too. You can have all kinds of knowledge and discipline, but if you don't give anything it is all STS centered.

On a more abstract level, I view love as a force or principle which binds all consciousness together. Everything was created by the DCM to fulfill some sort of purpose, and all conscious beings retain some kind of reflection of that overarching connectedness, at least in potential, although you have to have a 7th density perspective to truly grasp it. I remember Laura telling a story somewhere about being on a shrimp boat at night during a storm and the situation was dire to the point that it looked like she was going to die. Then she had some kind of experience where she claims to have made a connection with some creator force and got a taste of the concept I am trying to articulate. I don't remember much of the details though.

On 3D I think the principle manifests as a sort of ultra-camaraderie. After reaching a certain state of being, a group engaged in collective work might recognize and understand this connectedness within itself and the possibility to give and receive that divine energy between the individual members. So complete is the love/light/knowledge that they become kind of like one entity. This is how an STO social memory complex starts, I think.

It seems to me that the level of development required to do this is rather far removed from us, or my experience at least, but the Cassiopaeans have been bringing up the idea in pretty much every session for the last two years about the need to collect a certain number of people with a certain amount of spiritual "weight" in order to accomplish the "mission." The mission appears to be to build a collective of sufficient size and consciousness that it can literally create another reality. Since the chateau group is closest to the esoteric center, I guess they get to be the guinea pigs to test the reality creation hypothesis.
 
Thank you for the session. It seems to me that the Cs said, as the wave is not completely there, the attacks will intensify. Courage, love and mistrust to each of you. Surely more than attack the castle.
 
Carl said:
Elisa Lam. I didn't know anything about this until tonight, so checked out the wikipedia page. Apparently the hotel and area has some history of ties to some killers/serial killers, so this may be part of the environmental factor. Also, it should be noted that she suffered from depression and bipolar disorder. This means she was
a) Vulnerable to psychic attack, and/or
b) Under psychic attack, which was causing the symptoms

And apparently this led to her being vulnerable to seeing a golem, and to being moved through spacetime into a dark water tank to drown alone in a confused state, a fate so terrible it gives me chills.

There's a thread about her story on the forum that's had some recent discussion, for those who want to read more about it: https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,30609.0.html
 
Laura said:
(Galatea) Ya know the story about Elisa Lam, the girl in the elevator who was hiding from something. Then she went out to talk to it, and she started waving her hands weirdly. So, I wanted to ask what did she see or what was she running from?

[ Elisa Lam Elevator footage https://youtu.be/3TjVBpyTeZM ]

What I wonder about is if the presence of the "Golem" had an effect on the elevator not working even though she was pushing the buttons. Think about that, you're already terrified by this awful thing, but on top of that your main way to escape will not work. It's like something straight out of a nightmare. That poor girl. :cry:
 
Thank You for that awesome information... as usual Laura, The Chateau Crew et al... were right in the spot with the questions...

A lot to ponder in all fronts... :cool2: :cool2: :cool2: :cool2:
 
Back
Top Bottom