What are your thoughts on having children?

[Keyhole]

Ok I am going to start here. Keyhole, you bring up an important distinction. First aim is to work on the self. Yes. And here is the distinction as I see it: personal/social-group-community/cosmic or some word to connote higher realms or will of god, if you will. So it is important to distinguish from which level a comment or point of view is coming from and to which level the particular comment pertains or is directed. Certainly on a personal level, it is really up to the individual to make their choices based on whatever emotions or rationale or impulse they respond to. My guess is that most people operate from that personal level most of the time. If you move up a level - to community or group, there are different influences, 'arguments' and concerns that enter into the question. And finally if a person is able to go up the scale and see things from the tree tops, from some sort of cosmic scale, there are still different aspects to the question. (and I don't recall Gurdjieff saying anything about producing children, one way or the other, either.)

Any discussion of the ray of creation would seem to me to be a higher level of knowledge; a higher level conversation and a higher level set of considerations. My main point in my post was not to say anybody should or shouldn't have kids now, but, that there are different considerations that can supersede the considerations of the personal level, if one is aware that they exist and acknowledges that they actually pertain to our actions and choices. It is another choice of alignment that is available. So, on a personal level, it doesn't matter to me if somebody has kids or not. I am trying to suggest to those in the throes of intense discernment, not to exclude the higher level aspects of the question in their considerations.

I am not sure that I understand what you meant by this. From what I can see, you are saying that the "aim" of an individual at the personal level differs from the "aim" at the community/group level, and this is because the "next level" is subject to other influences etc. Are you seeking to identify with this "community level" aim of propogating the species? I am unsure what you are saying.

Is there not some odd duty to life - to the ray of creation - to create beings who can transduce those finer energies for the good of the moon? Or are we done with that?

When you said "we", were you referring to humanity as a whole, or were you speaking specifically about this group? If you were referring to the latter, then I would have to say yes, those people who feel that they are ready to learn the lessons of 3D reality ARE "done with that", and this is probably why they are here on this forum. The majority of humanity however are not yet ready and will continue to be "food for the moon" for as long as they remain in their current state of awareness, living under the General Law.

What you are asking is entirely dependent on whether someone is seeking to break free from the General Law/4D STS prison complex, or is simply happy living in 3D life, asleep. Read back on what Laura said:
[quote author=Laura]As mentioned above: most humans are just food for the moon. If you are satisfied with that as your role, and seek to provide additional food for the moon, be my guest. Humanity is certainly worth continuation because it feeds the cosmos at periodic intervals of mass death and destruction. Question is, are there those individuals who work sufficiently hard and well to fall under the Law of Exception? And that is really the question here on THIS forum. [/quote]

I read 3 very distinct, "I would not have a child now" and a lot of fretting about the state of the world. Here is how my fuzzy logic worked: if you would not have a child now, aren't you saying, by inference, "in my estimation it is not worth experiencing life here now" and/or "the opportunity to learn hear is overshadowed by the negative experiences and perils" (so I am not going to be responsible for bringing anybody here)

This "fuzzy logic" is actually your assumption. "I would not have a child now" means exactly that : I would not have a child now (for a variety of reasons). This doesn't translate to "life's not worth living".

It's more like, "how can I live life in the best way that I can and fulfill my Aim of becoming a conscious being? How can I become a reciever of higher energies?". Does having a child support this Aim? Why would someone put themselves under unneccessary amounts of stress involved with rearing a child, when they would benefit the most from conserving that energy for other purposes. As others have said, there are many babies being born everyday all over the world. If a soul wants to incarnate, it has plenty of chances to do so. What is to say that the child is not an OP or even worse a psychopath? There is a lot to consider here

Looking at things from a cosmic perspective, which option is more useful to the universe??? 1. Being driven by the biological urge to mate and reproduce, providing more food for 4DSTS. OR 2. Becoming a conscious individual capable of DOing and CHANGING the world through those conscious acts. Influencing the vibratory frequency of Earth, paving the way for a new reality?

May sound a bit mystical, but this is basically what the C's have indicated to us. Remember what G said regarding the "200 conscious individuals"?

 

[mabar]

FWIW, if anyone is interested in seeing how much you have to consider in having children, reading "Fear of Intimacy" by Robert W. Firestone & Joyce Catlett - will certainly open your eyes to how multi-dimensional the issues are in bringing up children in "the right way".

You basically have to be top notch and have worked on yourself to the point of NO defense mechanisms from yourself, nothing to project onto the child and it's better to be around many adults who have the same ideas. It is much more in-depth than that, but jeez there's so much to consider.

Thanks Lilyalic a book that I had not had the opportunity to read. Yes, there is much to consider, I had read Primal Health by Michel Odent, it was interesting to read how childbirth had en-route to a different unnatural path, recently I found about his latest book, and -- what I had been reading about it, goes along on what I think we (humanity/civilization) had err in something so natural, and sums it with they whys I wont have a child. --- the portrait of the book says it quite well (to me was like: wait a minute, we really need to make a stop, and think clearly what are we (humanity at large) are doing.

The book is called Childbirth and the Future of Homo Sapiens by Michel Odent, here some excerpts from an interview.

New Story – Primal Health: Shelley Olivier interviews Michel Odent

This article addresses the crucial story of our births, and how a negative birth experience lies at the core of our present culture of greed, obesity and addictions. Birth is a process that is much more important than is currently being given credit by today's sealskin culture. We seem to have forgotten that the story of our birth is crucial to who we are, and the process of being born is the starting point of the lives we live. This has been the focus of obstetrician Michel Odent’s life’s work.

This interview with Michel Odent by Shelley Olivier was inspired by Richard Olivier’s recent article in Resurgence Magazine about ‘evolving the New Story, from cult to culture’.

Shelley Olivier interviews Michel Odent

...

Michel’s latest book, Childbirth and the Future of Homo Sapiens, has been an important new contribution to a necessary revisioning of Primal Health; “This book reads like a giant ‘I dare you’ to the medical world. He dares researchers to open the can of worms to ponder if ‘HOW’ we are born impacts on ‘WHO’ we become,” wrote Beverly Turner in an article in the Telegraph in June 2013. “And that in turn dares the obstetric world to treat women as sensitive yet capable mammalian beings rather than mere parts in a masculinised, medicalised production line of baby-makers pumped full of potentially harmful drugs.”

Shelley Olivier:
What are your main comments after reading Richard’s article, Evolving the New Story: from Cult to Culture in the July/August 2014 issue of Resurgence?

Michel Odent:
Richard found a concise, effective and elegant way to participate in the initiation of a necessary new awareness. To reach a great variety of people, we urgently need to multiply the perspectives and the means of expression.

SO:
What will you remember in particular from this article?

MO:
I’ll remember simple concepts that should become watchwords at a time when humanity must invent new strategies for survival: “evolve or die”, “from competition to cooperation”, “learning to resonate together”.

SO:
Since publicaiton of your book Genese de l’Homme Ecologique in 1979, to Childbirth and the Evolution of Homo Sapiens in 2013, you have also continuously analysed and interpreted the current crisis. Can you summarise your point of view?

MO:
My point of view is that to understand the current crisis we need to take into account the spectacular, previous turning point in the history of mankind that started about 10,000 years ago. Before that time human beings were taking advantages of what nature could offer, obtaining their food from wild plants and wild animals. Then they started to domesticate plants and animals. The advent of agriculture and animal husbandry – the Neolithic revolution – radically changed the lifestyle of our ancestors. They were obliged to be less nomadic and more sedentary. The concept of territory took an unprecedented importance with other reasons for conflicts between human groups and reinforced ethnocentrism.

The new basic strategy for survival of human groups was to dominate nature and to dominate other human groups; it became an obvious advantage to develop the huge human potential for aggression. To dominate nature, it is an advantage to moderate this facet of love we call “respect for Mother Earth” and to develop the capacity to destroy life

SO:
Which factors can facilitate the development of the human potential for aggression?

MO:
In the current scientific context, we understand that the period surrounding birth is critical for the development of the capacity to love and, inversely, for the development of the potential for aggression. It is notable that, since the Neolithic revolution, childbirth has been socialised. In spite of an apparently great diversity of reported perinatal [the time immediately before and after birth] beliefs and rituals, the typical effect of this cultural control has always been to amplify the difficulties of childbirth, to separate mother and newborn baby, to delay the initiation of breastfeeding and to neutralise the “maternal protective aggressive instinct”. Some decades ago we were still obviously in the aftermath of thousands of years of such beliefs and rituals.

In 1953-1954, during the six months I spent as an externe in the maternity unit of a Paris hospital, I never heard of a mother who would have said, just after giving birth: “Can I keep my baby close to me”. The midwife was doing what has been done for thousands of years: rushing to cut the cord and giving the baby to a carer. Cultural conditioning was stronger than maternal instinct. While staying in the maternity unit, babies were in a nursery and mothers were elsewhere. Nobody had thought that they might be in the same room.

This reminder is necessary to realise the importance of a recent scientific discovery. We needed an accumulation of data provided by emerging and fast developing scientific disciplines to learn that a newborn baby needs its mother. This is an opportunity to realise that today, only scientific perspectives have the power to reverse thousands of years of cultural conditioning.

SO:
What do you mean by the “maternal protective aggressive instinct”?

MO:
To understand what it means, just imagine what would happen if you try to pick up the newborn baby of a mother gorilla who has just given birth. The neutralisation of the maternal protective aggressive instinct is one of the bases of our civilisations.

SO:
How can we understand the current crisis after referring to the Neolithic revolution? Can you clarify?

MO:
It is simply that the domination of nature – as a strategy for survival of human groups – has reached its limits. We are now at the bottom of the abyss. We must stop thinking only in terms of survival of our human group. Humanity as a whole must invent new strategies for survival. We have to wonder, in particular, how to develop the respect for Mother Earth and how to create a unity of the planetary village. Thousands of years after the Neolithic revolution our only hope is the “Symbiotic revolution”, which includes what Richard calls “the transition from competition to cooperation” and also the integration of humanity into the planetary ecosystem.

Whatever the details, the survival of humanity implies the development of the multiple facets of love. This means that all the perinatal beliefs and rituals are losing their evolutionary advantages. For example, it is not an advantage any more to transmit the belief that the colostrum is harmful or to rush to separate mother and baby by immediate cord cutting. In other words, in spite of the easy and fast modern techniques of caesarean sections, it is urgent to reverse thousands of years of cultural conditioning and to rediscover the basic needs of labouring women and of newborn babies.

It will not be easy because, once more, we have to overcome the contradictions between cultural conditioning and physiological perspective. According to our cultural conditioning, a woman has not the power to give birth without some kinds of cultural interferences. The keywords suggest the active role of another person than the two obligatory actors (who are mother and baby): helping, guiding, “coaching” (natural childbirth language), “managing” (medical language)…

According to the physiological perspective, on the other hand, the birth process is an involuntary process under the control of archaic brain structures. In general one does not try to help an involuntary process, but the physiological perspective has the power to identify inhibitory factors. The keyword is “protection” (of an involuntary process against inhibitory situations)

SO:
You constantly use the term “revolution”. Can you clarify?

MO:
It means that we must change everything. We need new awareness, new scientific perspectives, new technology, new politics, new philosophy… a new story and, first and foremost, we need a new Homo sapiens [human species].

SO:
What do you mean by a new Homo sapiens?

MO:
We have serious reasons to raise questions about a probable fast evolution of our species in relation to the way babies are born. The first reason is that the period surrounding birth is the phase of modern life that has been the most radically transformed during the past decades. The second reason is that several emerging scientific disciplines – such as epigenetics [the study of changes in the way genes are expressed], metagenomic [the study of genetic material taken from environmental samples] microbiology and primal health research – consider this short phase of life critical for the formation of individuals. We must add that, in the current scientific context, we have reached a new understanding of the mechanisms of fast transformations of the species. Fast transformations of Homo sapiens are therefore plausible.

SO:
Since we understand the importance of the perinatal period, can we imagine a conscious way to direct the evolution of Homo sapiens?

MO:
What I have called “active management of Human evolution” is not utopian. Of course active management needs objectives. Can we present the development of the capacity to love as the leitmotif of the “symbiotic revolution”?

_http://homebirth.org.nz/magazine/article/michel-odent/ --- another review/chat with Michel Odent, was interseting to know about the nowadays role of oxytocin vs syntocinon or pitocin

edit:add some words

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I'm asking myself two questions here:

1. Who will keep this lighthouse burning?

There are billions of candidates on the planet, and more being born every minute. But that's a separate issue than the personal decisions whether or not to have children. In other words, numbers aren't and won't be a problem -- until the next big near-extinction level event!

2. Would you jump into the body of a child who has a chance to support this project in this sector of space-time?

If that's how things work - if we choose bodies that have a chance of being able to support this project - then presumably this is what many or ALL of us did. And we did this by choosing the bodies of babies that were conceived by people who wanted to have children (or the pregnancies may have been accidental). The way I see it, that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.

 

[Peam]

2. Would you jump into the body of a child who has a chance to support this project in this sector of space-time?

I think there may be two parts to this question. Are you already a 5th density or 4th density soul who has already done the 3rd density course, and you are jumping in so as to support this project, or incarnating because this is where you fit, and because you still need to learn 3d lessons, and then maybe if things go to plan you wake up enough to do something.

 

[BHelmet]

WOW Fantastically rich thread! And this topic surely cuts right to the heart of so many issues. Major button pushing going on!!

To be or not to be? Is this not the question?

And here we all are!

Not as you frame it, no.

Hamlet was framing a specific question: He points out the pains and unfairness of life but then, his main issue, is whether the alternative might be still worse.

I did not mean to be making an exact parallel analogy to the specifics of Hamlet, but to use the quote as I believe it is generally, commonly and broadly construed: is life worth living? Of course I could be mistaken about that but that is where I am coming from.

What is being discussed here is not whether there is or is not life after death, but rather the issues around bringing life into the world.

I did not mean to be referencing life after death - I understand the central issue.

Let's face it, life itself is part of the Living System and seeks to propagate itself wherever it can. On the one hand, it is rather "miraculous" in the sense that it violates the materialist version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (See Bryant Shiller's book "The 5th Option"), and on the other hand, is not so miraculous since tube worms can propagate in undersea volcanic vents, and there are life forms at the heights of mountains, and in the frigid areas of the planet. That's what life does: spreads and propagates. It's also understood in the esoteric tradition as the "General Law." Gurdjieff points out that this is driven by the "hunger" of the cosmos to have plenty of "soul food", i.e. "Food for the moon." And the plain fact of the matter is: most humans born are just that: food.

OK let me slice this topic at a couple different angles.

Failing to mention that these are just YOUR opinions.

I am aware of that. At this point that should go without saying. Of course they are my opinions/impressions. Maybe I should add a disclaimer at the bottom of my posts: Any and all past present and future things I write are conjecture, opinions and impressions which are likely subjective but may occasionally actually be objective however it is up to the reader to decide for themself.

1. obvyatel - nice comments; which leads into: what is the obvyatel angle? The person who participates in life and adds to it and creates and plays a productive part. Is not child bearing a part of the lot of the obvyatel? Is there not some odd duty to life - to the ray of creation - to create beings who can transduce those finer energies for the good of the moon? Or are we done with that? Isn't that tantamount to throwing in the towel? Saying that humanity is not worth continuation? Take this job and shove it. We quit! Screw the moon! (I am chuckling at that one)

Exactly. As mentioned above: most humans are just food for the moon.

Right, but we are not talking about most humans - we are talking about specific humans who work sufficiently hard and well to fall under the law of exception, as you mention below.

If you are satisfied with that as your role, and seek to provide additional food for the moon, be my guest. Humanity is certainly worth continuation because it feeds the cosmos at periodic intervals of mass death and destruction. Question is, are there those individuals who work sufficiently hard and well to fall under the Law of Exception? And that is really the question here on THIS forum.

So if humanity is worth continuation, is it best to just leave it to those under the general law? Does following a way or the way or the 4th way automatically preclude one from having children? Will a person striving to fall under the law of exception necessarily not have children? I am asking, I am not selling.

Is there not a certain...danger? or supreme irony? shirking of personal responsibility? I don't know ...in coming to the conclusion that, well, life is not worth living? "Slings and arrows: no gracias, amigo". If you are saying to yourself 'life is not worth living', isn't that a kind of left handed slap at the universe? Or a very negative message to your sub-conscious? Talk about cognitive dissonance. Didn't we choose this, this life in some way on some conscious level knowing what it would be like and yet we chose it anyway because we had something to learn...and something to pay...and a part to play?

My goodness, paramoralisms abound here! Nobody is saying life is not worth living. And yes, many chose life because they have a part to play: the question HERE is, is that part of the Law of Exception, or to simply fall into confluence with the General Law and provide more Food for the Moon?

I am just asking questions and they are not insincere. There is no self interest in this for me. There is certainly nothing moral or immoral about having or not having children. I already made my choices on this matter and I don't need to justify them to myself by trying to prove anybody wrong for their choices. I am not asserting anything. If a person decides not to have children that is certainly their business. But if a person decides not to have children based on a series of reasons which revolve around the quality of life in these current times and decides not to have children, it sounds to me like some statement is being made that life is not worth living. Is not the potential parent deciding for a potential unborn soul in their particular individual case?

So is it not possible to have children under the law of exception? Does having children preclude one form finding the way? Does having children absolutely guarantee that one is doing nothing more than feeding the moon?

2. Yes times are bad and probably soon to be worse. But lets keep things in perspective. Look at history! When was it perfect? According to the C's we are on a 300,000 year bummer! WWII WWI industrial revolution child labor, napoleonic wars; paupers of the age of kings, black plague, Boer wars, Boxer wars, and Zulu wars, throw in a flood, famines, slavery and bondage, conquering legions - oops almost forgot the inquisition - you get the picture. To say that now is massively more worse than any other time may not be objective.

But we, HERE, at this time, seek a different way that the confluence that you propose as optimal.

I am not proposing anything as optimal, especially in this world. I am not trying to frame some non-existent moral imperative, either. I am trying to offer a different perspective, or an additional perspective. Everyone is free to reject it.

So, how can you say, with absolute certainty, that you are here and yet, in your judgement, it is not worth being here? Because, the bottom line is that we ARE all here. And we are here in this very odd situation. But thank you all for this fascinating discussion.

Paramoralisms and twisting again.

Added: This is the sort of thing you advocate continuing?

Obviously, I'm not suggesting that such would be the consequence to any child of a forum member, however, the general attitude that physical life is some kind of be-all and end-all of existence is what leads to this kind of horror.

I agree, physical life on earth is not the answer. And yet, through 300,000 years of incarnations, somebody had kids and somebody spread the genetic material to create the compatible vehicles for us to be here. If there is some great purpose and service to be done by creating a conduit to the 4th density, ie, out of the trap of physical 3D life, then someone in the past made a contribution, however small, by having those kids, our ancestors.

Here is what I am trying to drive at: From a strictly rational point of view, sure, it is a slam dunk: don't have kids now. It is impractical, dangerous, expensive, risky and fraught with potential disaster and pain for all concerned. But from that strictly rational point of view, that is not a choice, that is a decision. As you so eloquently explained, for a true choice to be made, the alternatives have to be unweighted. From a rational analysis, this is a weighted choice heavily in favor of not having kids. Well, OK.

I am trying to express a situation or information set in which this becomes an unweighted choice by offering a contrasting perspective on the other side of the scale. Or, at the least, suggest that such a set of circumstances and information exists. It is quite clear I have not communicated effectively.

In my opinion, there has to be room for novelty and unpredictability, outside of pure, mechanical rationality otherwise there can be no progress, or evolution. A person may have no sane or rational reason for having kids, but they may have a karmic reason, or the cosmos may have a reason or purpose which supersedes the rational reasons not to have kids. This is a distinct possibility. That is really all i am trying to say. I suppose it could even be said that if humans were truly rational animals, they would have died out years ago because nobody would have had kids.

Looking for hard and fast fail-safe conclusions derived from strictly rational analysis is sometimes (note, I said sometimes) a recipe to be painted into a corner. The choice to attempt to orient oneself in a STO manner could be said to be irrational in an STS world. (and no, I am not trying to imply anything by that statement) The higher centers might have an idea that defies the normal thought process. Yes - all my opinions.

 

[Joe]

Here is what I am trying to drive at: From a strictly rational point of view, sure, it is a slam dunk: don't have kids now. It is impractical, dangerous, expensive, risky and fraught with potential disaster and pain for all concerned. But from that strictly rational point of view, that is not a choice, that is a decision. As you so eloquently explained, for a true choice to be made, the alternatives have to be unweighted. From a rational analysis, this is a weighted choice heavily in favor of not having kids. Well, OK.

I am trying to express a situation or information set in which this becomes an unweighted choice by offering a contrasting perspective on the other side of the scale. Or, at the least, suggest that such a set of circumstances and information exists. It is quite clear I have not communicated effectively.

In my opinion, there has to be room for novelty and unpredictability, outside of pure, mechanical rationality otherwise there can be no progress, or evolution. A person may have no sane or rational reason for having kids, but they may have a karmic reason, or the cosmos may have a reason or purpose which supersedes the rational reasons not to have kids. This is a distinct possibility. That is really all i am trying to say. I suppose it could even be said that if humans were truly rational animals, they would have died out years ago because nobody would have had kids.

Looking for hard and fast fail-safe conclusions derived from strictly rational analysis is sometimes (note, I said sometimes) a recipe to be painted into a corner. The choice to attempt to orient oneself in a STO manner could be said to be irrational in an STS world. (and no, I am not trying to imply anything by that statement) The higher centers might have an idea that defies the normal thought process. Yes - all my opinions.

So you're asking a question based on a hypothetical situation. So an answer based on your hypothetical scenario must be , hypothetically, yes. But practically, in the here and now and with what we have to work with, no.

 

[Peam]

Bhelmet, two things that jump out at me with your hypothesis about shouldn't someone consider having children because they might contribute to more help moving people to 4d (if I understand you correctly)

A: Because an STS vehicle does not learn to be an STO candidate by determining the needs of another.

Wouldn't that include determining the needs of a soul still in 5th density?

And paraphrasing ,
A: “It is not up to the student to be the architect of the school.”

I suspect the universe is quite capable of looking after itself.

 

[BHelmet]

Ok I am going to start here. Keyhole, you bring up an important distinction. First aim is to work on the self. Yes. And here is the distinction as I see it: personal/social-group-community/cosmic or some word to connote higher realms or will of god, if you will. So it is important to distinguish from which level a comment or point of view is coming from and to which level the particular comment pertains or is directed. Certainly on a personal level, it is really up to the individual to make their choices based on whatever emotions or rationale or impulse they respond to. My guess is that most people operate from that personal level most of the time. If you move up a level - to community or group, there are different influences, 'arguments' and concerns that enter into the question. And finally if a person is able to go up the scale and see things from the tree tops, from some sort of cosmic scale, there are still different aspects to the question. (and I don't recall Gurdjieff saying anything about producing children, one way or the other, either.)

Any discussion of the ray of creation would seem to me to be a higher level of knowledge; a higher level conversation and a higher level set of considerations. My main point in my post was not to say anybody should or shouldn't have kids now, but, that there are different considerations that can supersede the considerations of the personal level, if one is aware that they exist and acknowledges that they actually pertain to our actions and choices. It is another choice of alignment that is available. So, on a personal level, it doesn't matter to me if somebody has kids or not. I am trying to suggest to those in the throes of intense discernment, not to exclude the higher level aspects of the question in their considerations.

I am not sure that I understand what you meant by this. From what I can see, you are saying that the "aim" of an individual at the personal level differs from the "aim" at the community/group level, and this is because the "next level" is subject to other influences etc. Are you seeking to identify with this "community level" aim of propogating the species? I am unsure what you are saying.

Hi and thanks. First, I wasn't really referencing aims by the above, but that is a good idea to include now that you mention it. I was also not really talking about babies either. I am trying to differentiate ideas or statements or conversations as coming from different realms that involve different sets of considerations. eg, from the individual level, I might think about some personal aim - hm - let me shift gears into a simple mundane example. Let's say, my aim is water - I want a glass of water. But there is a limited supply of water. From a community level I might then ask, how is my aim going to effect my brother who is thirstier than I? And from a cosmic level, maybe I have some karmic debt to pay which involves the learning some great life lesson by dying of thirst. I am suggesting that the arguments for each different action involve 3 different conversations with 3 different sets of considerations. If I only consider from the personal level, I am going to consume that glass of water. But if I consider it from a group level, I might share that water with my brother or maybe give it entirely to him since I know I am capable of going without it and he needs it more than I do. etc. And if I choose to keep the water for myself in thinking what is best for me is what is best for the group, perhaps I will do it with more appreciation of what I have received.

Or from a sort of native american perspective-if I just think about me, now, I may have a certain perspective but if I think ahead about the proverbial future 7 generations, I may have an entirely different perspective. Not really earth shattering, but worth considering. Or, a related idea is Mouravieff's description of a matrix of intersecting vertical and horizontal octaves that influence and interact with each other. Depending on where you look form, things look differently for different reasons.

I am not personally trying to identify with having more babies. I am trying to suggest that there are, or must be, considerations that can take the question of having babies from a decision into a choice. Considerations that balance the equation which can look heavily weighted towards not having babies at this time.

I am also trying to suggest that the universe has its own aims which, if I can discern them, I may be able to align with them.

Is there not some odd duty to life - to the ray of creation - to create beings who can transduce those finer energies for the good of the moon? Or are we done with that?

When you said "we", were you referring to humanity as a whole, or were you speaking specifically about this group?

it was a general reference

If you were referring to the latter, then I would have to say yes, those people who feel that they are ready to learn the lessons of 3D reality ARE "done with that", and this is probably why they are here on this forum. The majority of humanity however are not yet ready and will continue to be "food for the moon" for as long as they remain in their current state of awareness, living under the General Law.

No real argument on any of this.

What you are asking is entirely dependent on whether someone is seeking to break free from the General Law/4D STS prison complex, or is simply happy living in 3D life, asleep. Read back on what Laura said:

I read 3 very distinct, "I would not have a child now" and a lot of fretting about the state of the world. Here is how my fuzzy logic worked: if you would not have a child now, aren't you saying, by inference, "in my estimation it is not worth experiencing life here now" and/or "the opportunity to learn hear is overshadowed by the negative experiences and perils" (so I am not going to be responsible for bringing anybody here)

This "fuzzy logic" is actually your assumption. "I would not have a child now" means exactly that : I would not have a child now (for a variety of reasons). This doesn't translate to "life's not worth living".

Yes, on one hand, not having a child means not having a child and nothing more. I am reading implications into it.

It's more like, "how can I live life in the best way that I can and fulfill my Aim of becoming a conscious being? How can I become a reciever of higher energies?". Does having a child support this Aim? Why would someone put themselves under unneccessary amounts of stress involved with rearing a child, when they would benefit the most from conserving that energy for other purposes. As others have said, there are many babies being born everyday all over the world. If a soul wants to incarnate, it has plenty of chances to do so. What is to say that the child is not an OP or even worse a psychopath? There is a lot to consider here

Yes - that is my point also- there is a lot to consider. From my perspective, having a child could support the above aim. I don't think it is a foregone conclusion that it wouldn't or that having children is only the ken of unconscious drives and people.

Looking at things from a cosmic perspective, which option is more useful to the universe??? 1. Being driven by the biological urge to mate and reproduce, providing more food for 4DSTS. OR 2. Becoming a conscious individual capable of DOing and CHANGING the world through those conscious acts. Influencing the vibratory frequency of Earth, paving the way for a new reality?

I think you are framing the creation of children in a limited, biased way. Yes it is the usual, typical way. Why can't a person do both?
my computer is acting glitchy - I will post this and come back after I restart

May sound a bit mystical, but this is basically what the C's have indicated to us. Remember what G said regarding the "200 conscious individuals"?

Yes-

 

[BHelmet]

May sound a bit mystical, but this is basically what the C's have indicated to us. Remember what G said regarding the "200 conscious individuals"?

One last thought:

(September 24, 1995)
A: Here comes a shocker for you... one day, in 4th density, it will be your descendants mission to carry on the tradition and assignment of seeding the 3rd density universe, once you have the adequate knowledge!!!

What are your thoughts on this and how it might relate to having babies in the here and now?

 

[axj]

I am also kind of on the fence regarding having children. It's quite a complex decision and it is one that needs to be made together with a partner.

So the first requirement to even consider having children is finding a partner who is more or less colinear.

I actually have quite a strong aversion to raising children and it seems to be mostly for selfish reasons. Raising a child seemingly limits one's freedom, just like a relationship does in some ways. On the other hand, raising a child and having a relationship can give valuable experiences and opportunities for growth that will in fact increase one's freedom on a deeper level.

Furthermore, an important point to consider is that certain types of programs and narcissistic wounding can be worked out faster in an intimate relationship. It actually seems that without a relationship we run the risk of leaving an area of wounding and programming unaddressed, so that it will continue to hold our frequency down.

Then, of course, there are also the social or biological pressures to have children. "You don't want to be alone when you're old" and that sort of reasoning.

 

[Peam]

One last thought:

(September 24, 1995)
A: Here comes a shocker for you... one day, in 4th density, it will be your descendants mission to carry on the tradition and assignment of seeding the 3rd density universe, once you have the adequate knowledge!!!

What are your thoughts on this and how it might relate to having babies in the here and now?

According to the C's there is reincarnation in 4d. So if that's true if you move to 4d with the wave or die in 3d and then reincarnate in 4d you will probably have children there, and your descendants will continue.

But then I took the C' s meaning of “your descendants mission” to be a general term for humanity together rather than individually. For instance like it is here now, you could say we are all descendants of people living thousands of years ago, but there must have been people living then who through various reasons didn't have children. And yet here we are.

So I might be way off with my thinking, but "it will be your descendants mission" doesn't have to be your descendants or mine or anyone else.

 

[Voyageur]

Fwiw, having a child was a long time ago, as was for others here too, yet in many respects it seems like yesterday. I could say that if I though of things then as now, the choice might have been different, and yet I was only one half of the equation. Perhaps the result then was necessary for the lessons both my partner and I were to learn; don't know. If making the decision today and with the sense shared generally on the forum and the work, I would lean to the opposite decision. If more intrenched in 3d, not that I'm not, this decision would likely be influenced by many factors revolving around seeing objective or subjective reality and the world view that accompanies it, not to mention the pressures of families and peers - and biological clock chemistry.

Thirty years later there is to be a grandchild. I have to say that the first thoughts were of a type of despair, the feelings that the base of society today, its food, pathology and all the other things mentioned that adversely affect development of children, let alone people, is grim. However, this is not my child, yet by default there is influence. My question now is how to be the best influence possible in this child's development, so this is what I will do.

From a strictly 3d perspective, I could not imagine the world without children. Yet as stated by others, there are many - but is there really? I'm reminded of the video's 'Paradise Stolen' and fitting the global population comfortably into Texas, yet that is 3d thinking. I'm reminded without being able to provide the quote, something about even having babies in 4d; variability of physicality related.

I hope people can find there own way with these questions.

 

[Keyhole]

I get all that, but my question is, does being on the path of breaking free from the general law necessarily mean avoiding having children? Is it really a pre-requisite. I had children before becoming aware of the 4th way. I guess I just don't see how having kids is a guaranteed deal breaker or an absolute stumbling block to finding the way and following it.
[..]
I think you are framing the creation of children in a limited, biased way. Yes it is the usual, typical way. Why can't a person do both?

No one has said that it is a 'deal breaker', a 'stumbling block' or that someone cannot 'do both' BHelmet. There is no blanket statement that can be applied here to answer your question, it is not black and white. From what I understand, the act of having children theoretically wouldn't affect your chances of developing esoterically. However, when you consider the energy that is spent rearing children and the potential damage that might be done to those children who are your responsibility, you can understand why someone may not necessarily want to have children when they are commited to the Work. I am not saying it cannot be done, take Laura for example.

My impression is that you are nit-picking somewhat. Why is it that you continue to ask the same question when it has already been answered?

Is there a possibillity that you might be reacting emotionally to what has been said here because of the fact that you have had children yourself?

 

[Meg]

My impression is that you are nit-picking somewhat. Why is it that you continue to ask the same question when it has already been answered?

Is there a possibility that you might be reacting emotionally to what has been said here because of the fact that you have had children yourself?

I agree with Keyhole, BHelmet. Your question has already been answered about having children. The C's comment about seeding the 3rd density universe has no bearing on the present state of the planet. There seems to be some emotion or a program clouding you up a bit.

 

[Neil]

BHelmet, it seems like we had this conversation in the finding partners thread. To add to what Perceval wrote and to reiterate what I said there, I can see where there are certain hypothetically valid exceptions. I can see at some point in the future where it may be advantageous to incarnate into one of the FOTCM communities, especially when the rest of the world has gone to hell. If I was discarnate at this time, I would certainly be looking at this possibility, I think.

I will even go so far as to say that I even think this scenario is likely, however I believe it will be the exception that proves the rule. Such a child that would have the need and desire to utilize such an environment would need parents with a high FRV and degree of genetic purity in order for this choice to be any better on net than the options available in the general world. In practice, I think this would require progressing far enough on the Staircase to become what Mouravieff calls Supermen or Saints.

Then you would have to have some way of ascertaining whether such a soul wants to come in. You would have enough receivership capability to communicate directly to 5D kind of like Laura does with 6D and confirm that this is indeed the case. From my perspective, it is then and only then that you will be acting from a position of knowledge and truth regarding the act of bringing a child into the world for a positive esoteric purpose. Any intuitions, impulses, feelings, or rationalizations you have about the matter that are not informed by this "divine truth" are merely delusions or the Predator's Mind talking.

I really don't think there is anyone in the group here that is in the scenario I have outlined above, or if there are, you could count them on your fingers. I really don't see it applying to us until after the transition to 4D is complete, but there may be a handful of outliers who cross that threshold early.

So yeah, if you can objectively say your situation meets all of the above, go ahead and have kids. Otherwise, you are relying on the Law of Accident to save you from making an already bad situation even worse.

Voyageur, I think this is the quote you were referring to:

Q: (L) So, you're saying that people get born in 4D?
A: Yes. When did we say otherwise?
Q: (L) Well, you didn't. I was just not sure.
(Chu) Well, with changes in physicality, you'd think people could avoid the normal human birth, with the pain...
A: It's just a bit more intense in some ways.

As far as seeding the universe goes, I interpreted that to mean we would be in charge of terraforming other planets and maintaining the Ray of Creation in other solar systems, not procreating ourselves necessarily. If I recall correctly, the Cassiopaeans said our race was created by some Transient Passenger group and was later modified by the Reptoids when we chose to align with them. In a sense, all races are genetically engineered to fulfill some purpose and 4D seems to take on some sort of caretaker role. I interpreted the "seeding" to be in the context of the Rational Design hypothesis posited in the Origin of Life: The 5th Option book.