FWIW, here is what the C's have to say about enlightenment and love, among other things.
What has happened with the giving love is STO, is that this is disinformation by some of the leaders of the "New Agers" and "Love and Light" crowd to lead those astray who are really looking to become more STO-ish. Sometimes being STO means doing nothing so that the person can learn the lesson they came here to learn.
Session 980919 said:(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 S 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. S 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, judgmentally,
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.
What has happened with the giving love is STO, is that this is disinformation by some of the leaders of the "New Agers" and "Love and Light" crowd to lead those astray who are really looking to become more STO-ish. Sometimes being STO means doing nothing so that the person can learn the lesson they came here to learn.
Session 950902 said:A: As we have told you before, if you will be patient just a
moment, the universe is merely a school. And, a school is
there for all to learn. That is why everything exists. There is no
other reason. Now, if only you understood the true depth of
that statement, you would begin to start to see, and
experience for yourself, all the levels of density that it is
possible to experience, all the dimensions that it is possible to
experience, all awareness. When an individual understands
that statement to its greatest possible depth, that individual
becomes illumined. And, certainly you have heard of that.
And, for one moment, which lasts for all eternity, that
individual knows absolutely everything that there is to know.
Q: (L) So, you are saying that the path to illumination is
knowledge and not love?
A: That is correct.
Q: (L) Is it also correct that emotion can be used to mislead,
that is emotions that are twisted and generated strictly from
the flesh or false programming?
A: Emotion that limits is an impediment to progress. Emotion
is also necessary to make progress in 3rd density. It is natural.
When you begin to separate limiting emotions based on
assumptions from emotions that open one to unlimited
possibilities, that means you are preparing for the next density.
Q: (L) What about Love?
A: What about it?
Q: (L) There are many teachings that are promulgated that
Love is the key, the answer. They say that illumination and
knowledge and what-not can all be achieved through love.
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.
