28 August 99
Q: I have this book, this Marcia Schafer thing: "Confessions of an Intergalactic Anthropologist," and its a bunch of channelled stuff; one thing she says: "the snake is associated with the sign of wisdom and higher learning, and is often regarded quite highly in mystical circles." She had an interaction with a rattlesnake, for which she felt sympathy, and she also has sympathetic interactions with Lizzies. I would like to have a comment on the idea of the snake as a "sign of wisdom and higher learning." Does this, in fact, represent what the snake symbolizes?
A: Snake is/was reported in context of the viewpoint of the observer.
Q: Are you saying that when the observer's viewpoint is that the snake is a symbol of higher learning, maybe...
A: Maybe the observer was just "blown away" by the experience.
Q: Clarify, please.
A: If you were living in the desert, or jungle, about 7,000 years ago, as you measure time, would you not be impressed if these Reptoid "dudes" came down from the heavens in silvery objects and demonstrated techno-wonders from thousands of years in the future, and taught you calculus, geometry and astrophysics to boot?!?
Q: Is that, in fact, what happened?
A: Yup.
Q: Well, this is one of the problems I am dealing with in trying to write this history of mankind. As I understand it, or as I am trying to figure it out from the literature, prior to the 'Fall in Eden,' mankind lived in a 4th density state. Is that correct?
A: Semi/sort of.
Q: Please be more specific.
A: 4th density in another realm, such as time/space continuum, etc.
Q: Okay, so this realm changed, as a part of the cycle; various choices were made: the human race went through the door after the 'gold,' so to speak, and became aligned with the Lizzies after the 'female energy' consorted with the wrong side, so to speak. This is what you have said. This resulted in a number of effects: the breaking up of the DNA, the burning off of the first ten factors of DNA, the separation of the hemispheres of the brain...
A: Only reason for this: you play in the dirt, you're gonna get dirty.
Q: What was the motivating factor for playing in the dirt? What essential thing occurred? You said once that it was 'desire based imbalance.' What was it a desire for?
A: Increased physicality.
Q: What was the objective sought for in this desire for increased physicality?
A: Sensate.
Q: How was sensate experienced so that these beings had an idea that they could get more if they increased their physicality?
A: Not experienced, demonstrated.
Q: Demonstrated how, by who?
A: Do you not know?
Q: It was demonstrated by the Lizzies?
A: Basically.
Q: Demonstrated in what way? Did they say: 'here, try this!' Or did they demonstrate by showing or doing?
A: Closer to the latter.
Q: They were doing, experimenting, playing, and saying: 'look, we are doing this, it's so great, come here and try it?'
A: Not really. More like: "you could have this."
Q: What seemed to be so desirable about this increased physicality when they said 'you can have this?'
A: Use your imagination!
Q: Was there any understanding, or realization of any kind, that increased physicality could be like Osiris lured into his own coffin by Set? That they would then slam the lid shut and nail him in?
A: Obviously, such understanding was lacking.
Q: Sounds like a pretty naive bunch! Does the lack of this understanding reflect a lack of knowledge?
A: Of course. But more, it is desire getting in the way of...
Q: Okay. The 'Fall' occurred. It seems like, and some of the archaeological studies indicate, that for many thousands of years, there was a peaceful existence and a nice agrarian society where the goddess or female creative forces were worshipped. At least, this is what a lot of present-day books are proposing...
A: No. These events took place 309000 years ago, as you measure it. This is when the first prototype of what you call "modern man" was created. The controllers had the bodies ready, they just needed the right soul matrix to agree to "jump in."
Q: So, prior to this time, this prior Edenic state...
A: Was more like 4th density.
Q: But that implies that there was some level of physicality. Was there physicality in the sense of bodies that look like present-day humans?
A: Not quite.
Q: What did these pre-fall...
A: Cannot answer because it is too complex for you to understand.
Q: Does this mean that the are experienced... that the bodies we possibly would move into as 4th density beings, assuming that one does, would also be too complex for us to understand? You are saying that this 'sort of 4th density' pre-Fall state, in terms of the physical bodies, is too complex to understand. If going back to 4th density is anything like coming from 4th density, does that mean that what we would go back to is something that is too complex to understand? This variability of physicality that you have described?
A: Yes.
Q: So, was there any kind of worship of God, or religious activity in this pre-Fall state; this Edenic, 4th density state?
A: No need when one has a clue.
Q: What I am trying to get at here, what I am trying to understand, is the transition from the goddess worship to the god worship; the change from the understanding of cyclical time as expressed in the feminine cycles, and expressed as the goddess; to the concept of linear time, expressed as the masculine principle. It seems to me that these were stages of inversion of concepts which gradually led to the ideas that the Lizzies are imposing on us, and seem to have been working in this direction for millennia - the dominator experience which expresses as: believe in something outside yourself that will save you, otherwise you are damned because the world is gonna end, and you are going to get judged. This is the concept I am trying to deal with here. I am trying to understand what was worshipped. Okay, we had these guys; they fell from Eden, but they were still fairly close to the original concepts, in some terms. Once they jumped into the physical bodies, as you put it, what was their level of conceptualization regarding the universe? Did they still retain some understanding at that point?
A: Kind of like the understanding one has after severe head trauma, vis a vis your normal understanding in your current state.
Q: So, they were traumatized; they may have had bits and pieces of ideas and memories, but they may also have lost a great deal altogether. There may have even been a sort of "coma" state of mankind for many millennia. But, after they woke up, with the bits and pieces floating around in their heads, they may have begun to attempt to piece it all together. So, they started putting it all back together. What was the first thing they put together regarding the cosmos around them?
A: Sex.
Q: What did they decide about sex? I mean, sex was there. They were having sex. Is that it? Or, did they understand the cosmos as sex?
A: More like the former. After all, that is what got you guys in this mess in the first place! Just imagine the sales job if you can: "Look how much fun this is! Want to try it?!? Oops, sorry, we forgot to tell you, you cannot go back!"
Q: I really fail to understand - and I know it is a big issue that has been hinted at and alluded to, and outright claims have been made regarding sex in all religions and mythologies - but I fail to understand the mechanics of how this can be the engineering of a 'fall.' What, precisely, are the mechanics of it? What energy is generated? How is it generated? What is the conceptualization of the misuse of this energy, or the use of the energy?
A: It is simply the introduction of the concept of self-gratification of a physical sort.
Q: On many occasions you have said that the ideal thing is to have perfect balance of physicality and ethereality. This has been said on a number of occasions. Now, I don't understand how it can be that gratification of a physical body can be the mechanics by which one is entrapped? Is it not gratifying to look at something beautiful? Is it wrong, sinful, or a form of a fall, to look at beauty, to hear something beautiful such as music, or to touch something that is sensually delightful such as a piece of silk or the skin of a loved one? These various things that the human being derives pleasure from very often elevate them to a spiritual state.
A: Possession is the key.
Q: What do you mean?
A: In STS, you possess.
Q: That's what I am saying here...
A: If you move through the beautiful flowers, the silk, the skin of another, but do not seek to possess...
Q: It seems to me that it is possible to experience all of these things, including sex, without the need or desire to possess; only to give. In which case, I still don't understand how it can be a mechanism for a 'fall.'
A: If it is desired, then the mechanism is not to give. Do you eat a piece of chocolate cake because it is good to give to the stomach?
Q: Well, you could!
A: No, in STS, which is your realm do not forget, one gives because of the pleasant sensation which results.
Q: Could it not be said that, if everything that exists is part of God, including the flesh, that if one gives to the flesh, without being attached to the giving, that it could be considered a giving to the 'All?'
A: Explain the process.
Q: For example: there are some people who like to suffer, because they believe that the flesh is sinful. That is a big thing that the Lizzies have instituted. For centuries they have wanted people to suffer, and they have made this big deal about sex and anything that might be considered pleasant or desirable should be denied, and that a person should suffer, and revel in their suffering. And, actually, making a person...
A: If one seeks to suffer, they do so in expectation of future reward. They desire to possess something in the end.
Q: What I am saying is: if a person can simply BE, in the doing and being of who and what they are, in simplicity; to become involved in doing everything as a meditation, or as a consecration, whether they are walking down the street and being at one with the air, the sunshine, the birds and trees and other people; in this state of oneness, doesn't that constitute a giving to the universe as giving oneself up as a channel for the universe to experience all these things?
A: Not if one is "feeling this oneness."
Q: We are what we are. Nature is nature. Progression is progression. And if people would just relax and be who and what they are in honesty, and do what is according to their nature without violating the Free Will of others, that this is a more pure form of being than doing things out of any feeling of expectation, or desire; to just BE, not want... just BE?
A: Yes, but STS does not do that.
Q: (A) From which I draw conclusions: if there STS around us, we cannot just...
A: You are all STS. If you were not, you would not be where you are.
Q: (A) There are those who are happy in the STS mode; and there are those who are trying to get out of the STS mode...
A: STO candidate.
Q: (A) These STO candidates cannot just simply BE, even theoretically, because then, STS would eat them.
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: STS does not eat according to protocol.
Q: What does that mean?
A: What do you suppose?
Q: I have no idea!
A: STS "eats" whatever it wants to, if it is able.
Q: That's what we said. If you are STO in an STS world, you are basically defenseless and they eat you.
A: No.
Q: Why? What makes STO unavailable or 'inedible?'
A: Frequency resonance not in sync.
Q: (A) But then, that would mean that all these people who are saying that we need just to love everything and everybody, are right. They just be, and love, don't do anything, just give everything to the Lizzies... they are right!
A: No, because motivation is STS.
Q: How is the motivation to love everything and everybody, and to just give, STS?
A: Feels good.
Q: So, they want to do it because it feels good?
A: Want is an STS concept.
Q: So, you seem to be suggesting that the real trick is to just become non-attached to anything and anybody, do nothing, and just dissolve into nothing? No thought, no want, no do, no be, no anything!
A: If you are STS, that does not fit, but, if you did exactly that, you would reincarnate in an STO realm, where such energy does fit.
Q: But, if you have become nothing, how do you reincarnate? And, when you say 'reincarnate,' that implies being in a body!
A: You do not become nothingness.
Q: But, being incarnated means being in a body?
A: No.
Q: You mean moving into a realm that does not necessarily mean being in a body?
A: Close. But 4th density is partially physical. Does not consume nor possess.
Q: (A) This is contradictory to what we are doing. (L) Why write a book or do anything? There is no point. We should just sit around, do nothing but contemplate our navels and do nothing. (F) Why do you say that? (L) Because doing anything at all constitutes wanting, needing, possessing, having, and so on. (F) Of course, because this is an STS realm. (L) So, therefore, we should do nothing. We should contemplate our navels and try to get out of it and to heck with everybody else! (F) I disagree. (L) Otherwise, it is contradictory. If you try to help anyone else, or do for anyone else, you are desiring to help them. Therefore, you are desiring to change something... (F) Well, sure, but this is an STS realm. (L) Anyway, I would like to know who and what this Marcia Schafer is channelling. She seems to be channelling several sources, or claims to be. Could you tell me who and what?
A: Not yet, because this issue is not yet resolved. You are confused because you seem to think you must be STO to be an STO candidate. You are STS, and you simply cannot be otherwise, until you either reincarnate or transform at realm border crossing.
Q: Alright, I got that.
We are here, we are what we are, and until the realm border comes, we can't be anything else. (F) So, don't worry about being STS. That is what we all are. As long as we eat food, that's what we are. It's that simple. You can be moving toward STO, but you aren't there yet, and there is nothing wrong with that. (A) We ask a question, and you answer this question, and this answer can be interpreted in different ways. I am not sure which way this answer was meant. The answer was: if you are STS, the answer does not fit. I mean, sitting and doing nothing. If you are STS that does not fit. But, if you do exactly that, you will reincarnate in an STO realm where such an energy does fit. There are several interpretations. One is that, if we do exactly that, we reincarnate in an STO realm where the energy does fit, and it would be just the right thing to do, because we WANT to be in an STO realm. So, one sure way to go to an STO realm is to sit under the tree and do nothing and contemplate your navel, but not having too much fun... eat nothing, desire nothing... typical Zen. There is another possible interpretation: if you would do exactly that, then you would reincarnate in an STO realm where such energy does fit, but there may be other STO realms that do NOT consist of such energies. So, maybe there is a way to another way to another STO realm, to which this energy does NOT go, but other ways would go. (L) And, there is another problem here: the very fact that one would do this is DESIRING to go to an STO realm! Which precludes the going. If you desire to be STO, you are screwed! (A) Not being, that is what some teachers teach. Nirvana. Is this something that is supposed to be the only way, and is it something that we are being encouraged to follow because it is no desire, no anything. Or, are there different STO realms?
A: Not different realms, as such, but different ways of getting there. Your respective developments have led you to where you are.
. It’s almost daily!
