Comparing Ra and the Cassiopaeans

[Asolsutsesvyl]

I'll try to explain what's been bothering me for some time with the early Cassiopaean material, including the nuggets of good information, and why I've remained torn and unenthusiastic about those since, even though I think they're worth discussing further. Why are they there, really?

In the 2017-11-04 Q'uo session there is related talk about wisdom. It's easy to relate to some questions.

What's the heart of spirituality, and the point of a teaching (or the main actual effect of it, which would be known by a supposed advanced higher-density source)? There's a basic clash between the more contemplative and open-hearted seeking philosophies, on the one hand, and the extreme conspiracist worldviews like "the Matrix filled with agents cracking down on all awakened persons" and/or "alien overlords have sent a massive fleet to crush all opposition really soon" etc., on the other hand. Ultimately, I think one of these must be discarded if the other is to continue to be explored in a more developed form. The basic natures are fundamentally different in a way that becomes gradually clearer.

What do people make of teachings, depending not only on the nature of the teaching or their own natures but the combination? E.g., there was something heartless about Gurdjieff the manipulative guru who designed the practical teaching to achieve psychological dominance over, and then used, his followers, while a superficially similar, but more nuanced and heartful and mystically inward-seeking teaching, can be found in Boris Mouravieff's books. It's similar with the Cassiopaean and Ra-related teachings, I think, except the order of publication is the opposite. (With the Ra material, the less-publicized and more-heartful version came first. With Mouravieff's Gnosis, it came second, after Gurdjieff's more well-known teaching, after Mouravieff had observed and pieced things together from various sources and rejected Gurdjieff as a black magician with an incomplete approach.)

With the Cassiopaeans, the early channeling sometimes is over-the-top alarmistic and pointing towards an almost comically hostile worldview. At other times, it loftily rises above the basic divisive and subtly controlling leanings which LKJ show from early on. In 1996 the C's reject the idea of viewing persons themselves as the "portals of attack" used by higher-density forces to strike at targets through, because that leads to directing negative energy onto the souls of those persons on a false basis. They also noted that if you adopted such a view, then "many could describe" LKJ herself as a portal.

In 2002, LKJ however adopted exactly that kind of view on a larger scale and transformed Mouravieff's most divisive idea, that of pre-adamics, into the "organic portals" idea, half of humanity thereafter seen as energy drains and portals of attack used by the forces of "the Matrix". She basically made the worst she could of Mouravieff's message in that way. Maybe the resulting worldview was the last nail in the coffin for the open-heartedness of the Cassiopaean teaching, as the 2003 change observed by Montalk then followed (though he didn't relate those two things this way).

But I remain torn on the early Cassiopaean material. There's much in it that I don't think has any real positive use. The "good stuff" continues here and there even today, in a sense, as in what Azarnac noted on how you could view the latest Cassiopaean message in an accurately insightful way. Why? Is it for people to learn from it positively, or is it so that people who want to read something positive into it all easily find all the excuses they need to do so, i.e. bait to swallow? Is it a real mixture of positive and negative sources on display, or is it smoke blown to obscure negativity at a calculated meager cost?

I think the worst part of the Cassiopaean teaching, and not only LKJ's layers of elaboration but also the channeling from early on, tends to somewhat shut down or bend out of shape the following (bolded) in a person...

Now, we would begin by suggesting that you consider that there is to wisdom a kind of dual aspect. There is that aspect which is receptive, and with respect to this aspect you are attempting to ascertain truths, shall we say, about your environment, about others within your environment, and about yourself, which can be integrated with other information, other truths, which you have already taken in. In this context, the question before you is simply, "What is the nature of this information I seek to take in? What is the tendency of the information which I seek to take in?" In general, you could say that information which tends to incite fear, information which tends to promote the sense of separation, or information which seems to suggest the possibility for aggrandizing the self, that this information is of a negative tendency or polarity. On the other hand, if you find yourself being confronted with information which suggests joy, which suggests an opening of free possibility, which suggests acceptance of others, and the opportunity to be of help to others, you can be sure that you are confronted with the marks of the positive tendency in creation, or as we have called it, the positive polarity.

Now, you are aware that it is an essential consideration for those who attempt to develop spiritually from within the context of the veiled experience that you should polarize one way or the other. That is to say, that you must choose. That which comes to you simply as wisdom, therefore, in an unpolarized sense, that which comes to you as wisdom in other words in which the tendencies of polarity are ambiguous, must be taken up in such a way that the choice that you make will redirect the energies in the direction of your choice so that should they be, as they are for this group, of the positive polarity, you have ensured, to yourself, that you can seat this wisdom in a context of service to other selves and not a context of service to self.

So, the question becomes, "How might you achieve this result?" And in moving to an answer to this question, we would like to take up the second phase of wisdom, which is that phase complimentary to, but not to be substituted for, the receptive phase. This we would call the "expressive phase of wisdom." When you are considering information, possibilities, that you are unsure about, you might ask yourself "What would be the significance of taking this information up into my process so that as it works to engage my own process, so that it works to augment my possibilities of self-realization in the complex of energies which constitute the environment around me, the society to which I belong, how might all of this contribute to creating a more accepting, a more loving environment?"

The twist in teachings like the Cassiopaean, but also others, lead to the sense of possibilities, striving to help, etc., becoming tied to the specific community and claims of the teacher, when the teaching is followed more closely. It can stimulate the positive things mentioned, and more, in a person, but at the same time, also the negative, in a pattern that leads to commitment towards the exploiter and surrounding organization together with isolation from the greater world of spirituality.

In addition, there's the possible added danger of a degrading of reasoning, more clear in people who invert their criteria for what's likely to be true and likely to be false, so that any hearsay becomes credible as long as it fits the basic alarmistic pattern which is pre-judged to be "The Truth" ™ and anything from the mainstream (and often elsewhere too) opposing such a message must automatically be an evil deception part of grand doomsday scheming at some level.

Now, on many occasions that which is negative in its innermost tendency will masquerade, so to speak, as positive, and it can lead one astray to take up bits and pieces of information which have a tendency to promote fear or separation, and together with those tendencies, be emotional by-products of them, such as hostility, hate, or distrust. And to suggest that these elements of truth which are present in your every day environment are negative is merely to suggest that there is already a great deal of polarity available to you in implicit suggestion, in propensity, and it does require, on your part, an active process of winnowing in order to sort out that which is negative in its tendency from that which is positive in its potential.

Now, we would say, that in truth, everything which is negative in its tendency, is also simultaneously positive in its potential, which is only to say that the choice, after all, is yours concerning how wisdom shall be used. The choice is yours concerning how you will take up the power that is invested within the information that comes into your hands. The choice is yours, and it is important to have a practice, which is regular, according to which you avail yourself of the possibility of carefully examining every last uptake into your own being, so that when it comes to manifesting that being, you can be clear that it will bear the mark of your love, that it will bear the mark of your compassion, that it will bear the mark of your resolve that nothing should come through you that has not been tested in the depths of your own being and found to be consistent with the value for which you stand.

If I ask, "If this information is wrong, what is the harm?", the harm is generally much more for the Cassiopaean information and other unverifiable conspiracy-spirituality worldview messages, than it is for the stuff which is said by them to be "dangerous" messages of "passivity" which encourage "navel-gazing", etc.

I think a cue should be taken from skeptics about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence when the claims are enormously divisive, and also when getting it wrong simply leads to a long-term situation of useless fear and distrust, as the Cassiopaea community and various other more popular alternatives bring people into regarding "outside" worldviews and those who hold them.

When the bad key elements are mixed with good information, as in the very large and intellectually complex synthesis of ideas produced by LKJ, it can take years of digesting it at odds with it (possibly painfully after leaving the fold) before the nature of the different parts of it finally become clearer, in terms of what it does to those who take it seriously.

Oh, my friends, it is so easy to get moved off one's mark, because wisdom, by itself, so very often, is overwhelming in its complexity, and therefore, is able to bear little pieces of negativity, little pieces of a kind of polarized inclination or propensity, that falls beneath the threshold of your attention, and so something taken up in all innocence can be seen later to have contained a tendency so fundamentally opposed to what you would embrace, so fundamentally opposed to what you would desire to manifest, that you are quite moved beyond your center, and find yourself scrambling to make amends for what you have come to think must have been a bad, bad mistake. Dealing with mistakes, or what appear to be mistakes, is part and parcel of the third-density experience, and so a good portion of your effort at seeking will be taken up by a process of review, a process of reassessment, and no single individual has been able to escape completely unscathed from the effect of having catalyst go awry.