1983.08.21: Latwii on acceptance, treating others

[rva_jeremy]

I read this transcript this morning and found it very enlightening. This passage was my favorite, since it talks about a kind of mental model for how the process of acceptance plays out in our lives as time passes:

K: Yes, right along that same line, Latwii, and I’m not sure whether I can put this into words, well, I’m sort of like S now, pondering for words. My daughter made a statement to me today. Well, we got into a big philosophical conversation, and I made a statement that we as westerners, and particularly as Americans until the Vietnam war, did not stop long enough to say, “Who am I, and what am I here for, and where am I going,” that we were just so busy. And she said, “Well, mother, you were busy all the time.” And I said, “Yes, that’s true, but now my busyness has very little importance, it seems. I’m just using up energy that’s there, and needs to be used, and what I do has no great importance. There is something inside me that’s much deeper that’s going on. And that’s what I’m really aware of and working on.”

Now I know that’s said badly, and probably makes absolutely no sense to anybody else. But is that the evolutionary process that goes on in all of us?

I am Latwii, and am aware of your query, my sister. The process of which you speak is a process which is in some form or another a generalized process of your peoples. The process is to begin with that which seems significant, and to enlarge the point of view so that greater significances are seen, and that which once was important is placed within a larger framework. The process may be described as the process of acceptance. Each entity is as the one who plays the game you call cards, poker for example. The hands are dealt. Each card seems significant. The hands are played. Each hand seems significant. The game then seems significant, and each card formerly played loses some significance. Another hand is dealt, another hand and another. Game after game after game is played. Some victories and some losses are recorded. The entity becomes, shall we say, an old hand at playing this game. The significance of each game grows less. Wisdom accrues and the entity looks with wizened eye at each card, each hand, each game, and the significance grows less. The entity becomes aware that more exists than one card, one hand, one game, and the entity’s view enlarges until eventually and hopefully the entity is able to accept all cards dealt, all cards played by self and other self, and is able to look beyond the game and see a greater significance.

May we answer you further, my sister?

K: No, that’s very good, Latwii. Thank you very much.

Carla: Well, let me follow up on that because it seems to me that what you inferred, well, that what K inferred was that when she worked as a psychologist, her work was important, and that now that she’s not working as a psychologist, and is not of obvious service to other people, that her work is not important, and what you inferred in answer was that her work with patients and her work now is all the same, it’s a hand of cards. The outer work … you’re minimizing the actual importance, in other words, it’s difficult to lead an important life, is what you’re saying. The real importance is in getting the overall picture. Is that correct? Is that a correct inference from what you said?

I am Latwii, and am aware of your query, my sister. This is basically correct. It will seem to the beginning poker player that an ace is more important than a deuce. It will seem that two or three of either are more important than one of either. Yet it is not the specific card or specific work that an entity does which is importance. It is the acceptance of that card and that work, and the learning of that lesson which is important. The nature of the process is the important thing, shall we say, and not the means by which the nature is accomplished.

This implies that acceptance is this kind of broadening of our perspective, how the accumulation of experience allows for an growth in the thing we consider significant, and a balancing amongst diverse, intense experiences with a widening view of the game. I just thought this was an apt way to frame our growth, almost as if we start out as a very small focus that gradually widens until it encompasses everything.

Here's the second on how to treat people, it kind of ties in with the first point:

We began by speaking with you of the light which you generate as a group. This is an appropriate concept to consider in each relationship which you enjoy. If you have the faith in another being that each of you manifests in each other at this moment, you will then be able to vibrate in harmony with each entity, even as the entity seems to be straying from the light which you prize and which you jealously guard.

We ask that you perform two processes when you engage in relationship with another being. Firstly, you must realize that you are the Creator. The center of your being is whole, and you do not need any thing, neither emotion nor material nor any other manifestation from another, for you are perfect as you are. The release which this will give to you in your somewhat less than ideal condition will be substantial, for if you do not need anything, then you are free to listen, and to discover what you may do to be of service to another, and to work in harmony with another as you are now working in harmony in order that this instrument may be used as a channel, and have the energy to transmit this message.

To continue this first process through to the logical conclusion will cost you a bit of time, perhaps no more than a second or two, and preferably, in order to cause the momentary centering process to be minimal, a daily period of meditation in order that the center is always on view.

The second process is the free and willing giving of the attention to the Creator which is manifested to you. This is where your reactions will sometimes seem to be unresponsive to a situation. You may seem detached or happy when sadness was expected, as you listen and gather the harvest of harmony with another and celebrate that unity by seeing in a greater perspective the ebb and flow of an entity’s life as it moves in perfect freedom. Regardless of whether you are understood or misunderstood, the valuable light generated by seeing the Creator and coming into harmony with the Creator in your dealings with others is still the same. The only way in which that light can be multiplied is if the one whom you listened to gives the same honor to you in return. Ah, then the light is tremendous.

In no case can your light be taken from you, for you have within you all of creation, all the light, all the world. You are unity. To say you are a part of the Creator is confused. To say you are the Creator is confused. You see, my friends, language is a poor thing, and we are poor at using it as you well know, but the joy that is a portion of the release felt by the vision of the Creator lovingly at work in dealing with self is immeasurable.

It's interesting that, from Latwii's point of view, affording loving attention follows the assumption of one's Creatorship, almost as if it's a fourth installment of the "know yourself, accept yourself, become the Creator" process. I do recall anagogy once saying that he sees a correlation between the kind of expansive definition of love as the Confederation uses the word and attention.

This session really dives into something I've been struggling with: the issue of patience. I react poorly to people who I believe abuse my attention. But that's because I'm coming from a limited point of view where I only have so much attention, instead of becoming the Creator and letting that love/attention flow through me. It reminds me of this passage from an earlier tweet:

My friends, do not attempt to love from your yellow-ray energy center. Do not use your will to bring forth your human love. Use that precious commodity of will and desire to allow the Creator's love to flow through you.

[Quan]

I read this transcript this morning and found it very enlightening. This passage was my favorite, since it talks about a kind of mental model for how the process of acceptance plays out in our lives as time passes:

K: Yes, right along that same line, Latwii, and I’m not sure whether I can put this into words, well, I’m sort of like S now, pondering for words. My daughter made a statement to me today. Well, we got into a big philosophical conversation, and I made a statement that we as westerners, and particularly as Americans until the Vietnam war, did not stop long enough to say, “Who am I, and what am I here for, and where am I going,” that we were just so busy. And she said, “Well, mother, you were busy all the time.” And I said, “Yes, that’s true, but now my busyness has very little importance, it seems. I’m just using up energy that’s there, and needs to be used, and what I do has no great importance. There is something inside me that’s much deeper that’s going on. And that’s what I’m really aware of and working on.”

Now I know that’s said badly, and probably makes absolutely no sense to anybody else. But is that the evolutionary process that goes on in all of us?

I am Latwii, and am aware of your query, my sister. The process of which you speak is a process which is in some form or another a generalized process of your peoples. The process is to begin with that which seems significant, and to enlarge the point of view so that greater significances are seen, and that which once was important is placed within a larger framework. The process may be described as the process of acceptance. Each entity is as the one who plays the game you call cards, poker for example. The hands are dealt. Each card seems significant. The hands are played. Each hand seems significant. The game then seems significant, and each card formerly played loses some significance. Another hand is dealt, another hand and another. Game after game after game is played. Some victories and some losses are recorded. The entity becomes, shall we say, an old hand at playing this game. The significance of each game grows less. Wisdom accrues and the entity looks with wizened eye at each card, each hand, each game, and the significance grows less. The entity becomes aware that more exists than one card, one hand, one game, and the entity’s view enlarges until eventually and hopefully the entity is able to accept all cards dealt, all cards played by self and other self, and is able to look beyond the game and see a greater significance.

May we answer you further, my sister?

K: No, that’s very good, Latwii. Thank you very much.

Carla: Well, let me follow up on that because it seems to me that what you inferred, well, that what K inferred was that when she worked as a psychologist, her work was important, and that now that she’s not working as a psychologist, and is not of obvious service to other people, that her work is not important, and what you inferred in answer was that her work with patients and her work now is all the same, it’s a hand of cards. The outer work … you’re minimizing the actual importance, in other words, it’s difficult to lead an important life, is what you’re saying. The real importance is in getting the overall picture. Is that correct? Is that a correct inference from what you said?

I am Latwii, and am aware of your query, my sister. This is basically correct. It will seem to the beginning poker player that an ace is more important than a deuce. It will seem that two or three of either are more important than one of either. Yet it is not the specific card or specific work that an entity does which is importance. It is the acceptance of that card and that work, and the learning of that lesson which is important. The nature of the process is the important thing, shall we say, and not the means by which the nature is accomplished.

This implies that acceptance is this kind of broadening of our perspective, how the accumulation of experience allows for an growth in the thing we consider significant, and a balancing amongst diverse, intense experiences with a widening view of the game. I just thought this was an apt way to frame our growth, almost as if we start out as a very small focus that gradually widens until it encompasses everything.

Here's the second on how to treat people, it kind of ties in with the first point:

We began by speaking with you of the light which you generate as a group. This is an appropriate concept to consider in each relationship which you enjoy. If you have the faith in another being that each of you manifests in each other at this moment, you will then be able to vibrate in harmony with each entity, even as the entity seems to be straying from the light which you prize and which you jealously guard.

We ask that you perform two processes when you engage in relationship with another being. Firstly, you must realize that you are the Creator. The center of your being is whole, and you do not need any thing, neither emotion nor material nor any other manifestation from another, for you are perfect as you are. The release which this will give to you in your somewhat less than ideal condition will be substantial, for if you do not need anything, then you are free to listen, and to discover what you may do to be of service to another, and to work in harmony with another as you are now working in harmony in order that this instrument may be used as a channel, and have the energy to transmit this message.

To continue this first process through to the logical conclusion will cost you a bit of time, perhaps no more than a second or two, and preferably, in order to cause the momentary centering process to be minimal, a daily period of meditation in order that the center is always on view.

The second process is the free and willing giving of the attention to the Creator which is manifested to you. This is where your reactions will sometimes seem to be unresponsive to a situation. You may seem detached or happy when sadness was expected, as you listen and gather the harvest of harmony with another and celebrate that unity by seeing in a greater perspective the ebb and flow of an entity’s life as it moves in perfect freedom. Regardless of whether you are understood or misunderstood, the valuable light generated by seeing the Creator and coming into harmony with the Creator in your dealings with others is still the same. The only way in which that light can be multiplied is if the one whom you listened to gives the same honor to you in return. Ah, then the light is tremendous.

In no case can your light be taken from you, for you have within you all of creation, all the light, all the world. You are unity. To say you are a part of the Creator is confused. To say you are the Creator is confused. You see, my friends, language is a poor thing, and we are poor at using it as you well know, but the joy that is a portion of the release felt by the vision of the Creator lovingly at work in dealing with self is immeasurable.

It's interesting that, from Latwii's point of view, affording loving attention follows the assumption of one's Creatorship, almost as if it's a fourth installment of the "know yourself, accept yourself, become the Creator" process. I do recall anagogy once saying that he sees a correlation between the kind of expansive definition of love as the Confederation uses the word and attention.

This session really dives into something I've been struggling with: the issue of patience. I react poorly to people who I believe abuse my attention. But that's because I'm coming from a limited point of view where I only have so much attention, instead of becoming the Creator and letting that love/attention flow through me. It reminds me of this passage from an earlier tweet:

My friends, do not attempt to love from your yellow-ray energy center. Do not use your will to bring forth your human love. Use that precious commodity of will and desire to allow the Creator's love to flow through you.

Thank you for sharing, i could sense how powerful this message you put in was - straight from the heart  
I love the card metaphor for reincarnation an its comparison to the physiologists life and poetry linking with a conversation being child and parent.

"If you have the faith in another being that each of you manifests in each other at this moment, you will then be able to vibrate in harmony with each entity, even as the entity seems to be straying from the light which you prize and which you jealously guard."
Its not easy to do certainly, i thinks its important the reminder of this as if im off balance can easy to miss that harmony, ensuring "the center is always on view"  the words here reflect that yes may not be completely centered all the time but its there at least in the background to ensure can come back to the moment and therefore keep in that harmony in the interaction.

"This session really dives into something I've been struggling with: the issue of patience. I react poorly to people who I believe abuse my attention. But that's because I'm coming from a limited point of view where I only have so much attention, instead of becoming the Creator and letting that love/attention flow through me."
It can happen pretty easy, as does with me not having that patience to truly listen to someone beyond the words to their being..   Which I find with balancing that its not keeping in the moment the blockages in yellow, orange or red can cause this.. in my case if i have momentum then its fine but if i loose track maybe something happened earlier before the interaction then it built on something else my patience will get reduced. Like a snowball effect! Hence the limited point of view.
However on good note being immersed in this heavy illusion the more the better can be to highlight this and allow great growth!  Not relying on sitting and meditating to keep balanced but to keep busy while still being balanced is especially a challenge! Then to have interactions added to the mix can really let the fun begin  
Acceptance and treating others go hand in hand like your subject of the thread.. acceptance of self hence allows acceptance of others as that "allows the Creator's love to flow through you." 

[rva_jeremy]

Thanks for your thoughts and kind words, Quan (and thanks for the Q'uo postings you do!).

I don't know about you all but I find it easy to dissociate when people ask a great deal of my attentional resources. I wonder if this is a part of me trying to get me out of the way so the Creator can flow through. A lot of times people talk and the content of their words don't even seem to matter to them. In such a case, by centering oneself and listening "as the Creator", i.e. getting your ego's need for reciprocity of attention out of the way and allowing attention to be afforded on a higher level, one can give them what they really crave without exhausting one's ability to be there for them.

That's what I think it's really about: being there for each other in the frustrating, weird, confusing ways that we all present our needs. The attention is just one way to do that, but since it involves presence and the zero sum decision to be there or not to be there, the sacrifice that it entails is positively beautiful.

[rva_jeremy]

Ah, the twitter feed today dovetails with our conversation totally:

What you have to share is a quality, not a quantity. Those who love want to do much but they must first understand that the work of love is infinite. You cannot do a great deal of infinite work or a small amount of infinite work. You do infinite work. Now, my friends, to business, then! How do you do infinite work of a certain quality? You are not all alike. This, our brothers and sisters of Hatonn have spoken of. Each has a totally unique radiance, and that is the quality that you have to give. You do not all have equal gifts. Yet each gift is most blessed, and that gift, whatever it may be, is the quality that you have to give. Therefore, my friends, before you share that leaven of hope, of praise, of joy, of faith, of light, of love, allow that second of silent opening within, that prayer which is so simple, my friends. Not my will, but My will, O Creator, the will of me as You, be done. Not the little self, but the great Self. Open me, use me. This is the prayer, this is the hope, this is the faith.

It only takes a fraction of a second, my friends, and in that fraction of a second, you may well exchange quantity for quality. Your people hurry and scurry. Our brother, Hatonn, points us to the clouds of your planet. What quality of radiance awaits you in the center of your effortless perfect being? And under what bushel of busyness and quantity do you hide that radiance? Much has been given you, my brothers and my sisters. You are very close to the kingdom you desire. All that is precious lies just beyond the illusion of the door. Meditation is a key, prayer another. Now may you rejoice and shine forth your light in a dark world that all who come unto you may feel the healing. But let it not be effortful or burdensome or difficult. Let it be that which is done so that no one shall know. Let your light shine so that the kingdom is revealed, not you. Perhaps the most difficult thing for a pilgrim to do is to discover how to get out of the way of that great and abiding flame of love. Let it burn through you, never from you.

[Diana]

I am Latwii, and am aware of your query, my sister. This is basically correct. It will seem to the beginning poker player that an ace is more important than a deuce. It will seem that two or three of either are more important than one of either. Yet it is not the specific card or specific work that an entity does which is importance. It is the acceptance of that card and that work, and the learning of that lesson which is important. The nature of the process is the important thing, shall we say, and not the means by which the nature is accomplished.

I think the poker game analogy is clever and has some significance. But I do not think it's the whole story—perhaps it's one layer.

Authenticity, uniqueness, and individual expression do matter in my estimation. I don't think all entities are JUST here for acceptance with no meaning beyond that. Every entity is adding to the whole (loosely termed as infinity would have no such parameters). The idea that we are all just a piece of something to which we must acquiesce does not take into consideration evolution and growth—of everything infinitely—unless you want to see this existence as nothing but finite slavery.

And there is this passage from Ra to support individual expression:

Ra: I am Ra. . . . You may, at this time, note that as with any entities, each Wanderer has its unique abilities, biases, and specialties so that from each portion of each density represented among the Wanderers comes an array of pre-incarnative talents which then may be expressed upon this plane which you now experience so that each Wanderer, in offering itself before incarnation, has some special service to offer in addition to the doubling effect of planetary love and light and the basic function of serving as beacon or shepherd.

Thus there are those of fifth density whose abilities to express wisdom are great. There are fourth- and sixth-density Wanderers whose ability to serve as, shall we say, passive radiators or broadcasters of love and love/light are immense. There are many others whose talents brought into this density are quite varied.

Though wanderers here may already be functioning as a beacon of planetary love and light, those of Ra also point out the importance of individual expression.

[rva_jeremy]

But I do not think it's the whole story—perhaps it's one layer.

I feel very confident saying that it is not the whole story and it is only one layer. It's just the layer I was exploring at that time.

The idea that we are all just a piece of something to which we must acquiesce does not take into consideration evolution and growth—of everything infinitely—unless you want to see this existence as nothing but finite slavery.

It's not simply about surrendering to a mysterious impersonal all. It's also about fully embracing the mysterious and quite personal self, which is the repository of potential for all that evolution and growth in the first place. Much of the work of acceptance is in counteracting the active and passive rejection we have put in place; not only do I not think about it as merely the impersonal sacrifice of one's particularity, I'm not sure it's a sacrifice at all, since in order to become one, you must not lose any, including yourself! I imagine in accepting everything as self, you're not losing any part of yourself as much as you're releasing that exclusive kind of personal attachment to them that feels like "you" in this life. It is quite astounding to start thinking of our individual, limited identities as not something that expands so much as something we stop overemphasizing within ourselves.

Acceptance goes in both directions, outward and inner, and while I think they're ultimately the same thing, it's worth explicitly including both vectors. And of course it's ill advised to attempt to reduce everything to the dynamic of acceptance. I appreciate your diligence in ensuring we do no unwittingly confine our conversations to an overly rigid, reductive, or shallow interpretation of the spiritual, Diana. As long as we're using words, we'll require your humble service.

[Sacred Fool]

I think the poker game analogy is clever and has some significance.

You bet!!!

The idea that we are all just a piece of something to which we must acquiesce does not take into consideration evolution and growth—of everything infinitely—unless you want to see this existence as nothing but finite slavery.

Now, please stop me, Diana, if I'm wrong about this, but it sounds to me like you're pushing back against an implied dis-topian construct where everyone drinks the Q'uol-aid and becomes mushy in their communal acceptance, unable to distinguish themselves because their personal drives have essentially been neutered.

I don't get that vibe from the Q'uo passage.  I hear them saying that one ought not get worked up about the status of your work, but about the quality of it.  It's about accepting and working with what's in front of you right now to "deal" with because this--we suppose--reflects what that dis-incarnate aspect of you wanted you to accept and work with in this incarnation.  They're advising, pay attention to the lessons involved, not to the worldly value of the cards you happen to be holding .  What are the lessons?
 

[Diana]

The idea that we are all just a piece of something to which we must acquiesce does not take into consideration evolution and growth—of everything infinitely—unless you want to see this existence as nothing but finite slavery.

Now, please stop me, Diana, if I'm wrong about this, but it sounds to me like you're pushing back against an implied dis-topian construct where everyone drinks the Q'uol-aid and becomes mushy in their communal acceptance, unable to distinguish themselves because their personal drives have essentially been neutered.

LOL! That's hilariously put.

I don't get that vibe from the Q'uo passage.  I hear them saying that one ought not get worked up about the status of your work, but about the quality of it.  It's about accepting and working with what's in front of you right now to "deal" with because this--we suppose--reflects what that dis-incarnate aspect of you wanted you to accept and work with in this incarnation.  They're advising, pay attention to the lessons involved, not to the worldly value of the cards you happen to be holding .  What are the lessons?
 

In a way, I do agree with what you say. The lessons, the reveal, the underlying evolutionary path, is important, as opposed to the human drama. But the human drama and authentic individual expression are two different things. I'm not sure I will be able to articulate clearly my perspective but I will try.

I do think, referring to your comment above—"drinks the Q'uol-aid and becomes mushy in their communal acceptance"—that this is close to what I mean. Let me propose two scenarios:

1. An individual accepts and embraces the idea that she is "one with the Creator," that she is perfect as is, that she needs to do no particular thing here in 3D, that to find love in every situation is the only goal. She lets go of any striving to do something unique to herself in lieu of just being a light. This individual is musically inclined and has a talent for writing songs. But there is little drive to express the music within her because she is perfect as is etc., and goes about her life singing and writing perhaps, but not putting any undue importance on it.

There is nothing WRONG with this trajectory, but yes, I do see it as insipid, and maybe not being accountable to the authenticity of self—which in my mind would be a primary, if not the only, responsibility.

There is also a possibility that this individual, like religious people, just follows a doctrine such as the one we are discussing, without question. It can be such a relief, right? Just stop striving in life, "let go and let God" as they say, just be, accept, etc. Whoo, what a relief!

2. This individual accepts and embraces the idea that she is part of something greater than this 3D existence, and just "being" is not enough for her. Nor does she  follow anything, though she is interested in truth and the underlying workings of existence. Because of her openness to what lies beyond the human drama, while being in it physically, she is able to channel creative expression in a big way. She sees the suffering here, the beauty, she glimpses deep cosmological connections as artists sometimes do even though they may not even know what they glimpsed. She accepts her inner drive to express herself musically. She feels it is really important, and she responds to this drive with enthusiasm. She writes, and produces, songs that touch many people.

The power of music is undeniable, but somebody needs to create it.

In this way, accepting the authenticity of self and taking responsibility for that authenticity, she adds light to the world. People who listen to her music shed tears, expand, grow, feel the connectedness of all things, as is often the case when resonating with certain songs. Maybe it's just adding light in a different way than "just being and accepting," but there is the idea of authenticity of self beyond the ego, beyond the human drama, and following through with individual expression.

I think words are at fault here, because words don't reveal the nuances of these concepts. I feel that within the LOO, and the Ra material, and especially the related channelings, much of what is conveyed gets too narrowly interpreted. "All is well" and "you are perfect as you are" are concepts that are too deep for most people to grasp in my opinion. I have hung out with many new-agers who spout these concepts without having a clue what it means beyond giving them an excuse to enjoy their wealth and not care about the poor beyond lip service. This is an extreme example, but there can be an element of copout involved in believing all is well. I think this is one reason why those of Ra were so very cautious about what they said.

I disagree that it doesn't matter what you do here. Carla, Don, and Jim embraced their individual expressions. According to Ra, it does not seem as though they thought what they did here didn't matter, even if they only touched one person.

---

It's not simply about surrendering to a mysterious impersonal all. It's also about fully embracing the mysterious and quite personal self, which is the repository of potential for all that evolution and growth in the first place. Much of the work of acceptance is in counteracting the active and passive rejection we have put in place; not only do I not think about it as merely the impersonal sacrifice of one's particularity, I'm not sure it's a sacrifice at all, since in order to become one, you must not lose any, including yourself! I imagine in accepting everything as self, you're not losing any part of yourself as much as you're releasing that exclusive kind of personal attachment to them that feels like "you" in this life. It is quite astounding to start thinking of our individual, limited identities as not something that expands so much as something we stop overemphasizing within ourselves.

Really well put, Jeremy. I always enjoy your ability to articulate difficult concepts succinctly. This is in line with my thoughts. It's not about denying anything; rather, it's about discovering the core self, while at the same time evolving past the limited identities (what I call the human drama, and labeling, etc.).

 

[rva_jeremy]

Diana, it sounds to me like your concerns orbit around the idea that acceptance is a kind of passive response to the world. I think there are times where this might serve our growth, but I agree with you that the rule of spiritual growth is probably going to look more like actively engaging with phenomena and catalyst. After all, it takes acceptance to act, too, at least to the extent that you accept that what is going on in front of you is real and not something to be escaped through dissociation or simply ignoring it. A stimulus can only provoke a response if the stimulus is granted attention and significance, i.e. accepted.

The Confederation makes clear that it is through dissatisfaction, a kind of rejection, that we grow. But they also say we must exercise acceptance to grow. How do we square those two approaches? Seems to me that it is precisely the words that are hanging us up, as you suggested. We have a language that privileges doing over being, transitive verbs over intransitive verbs. Episode 73 of the In the Now podcast dealt with the being/doing dichotomy, but I think the semantic distortions were overlooked.

What I keep coming back to when I consider your two examples, Diana, is that the passivity exemplified in the first scenario is itself a lesson; not expressing and sharing oneself can generate catalyst (frustration, stagnation, self-rejection, etc.) just as much as expressing and sharing oneself. What we run into constantly when attempting to appraise the spiritual utility of different behaviors, philosophies, etc. is the limitation of viewpoint inherent in third density. From the point of view of just this life, maybe the life exemplified by scenario 1 was wasted. But does that not simply set up a balancing in the next life?

Now, I understand that you sketched out these limited scenarios precisely to make a fine point that was something different than the "all is well" point on which we all already agree. However, I do think that issue of the limitation of viewpoint is worth considering from a different angle, because it is precisely what I found interesting about the first Latwii quote's framing of acceptance as an expansion of the viewpoint, an embrace of our accumulating experience, something that transforms our perception and by extension our behavior. Acceptance is not something that precludes action; it is something that widens our gaze, incorporates more nuances of the Creation, and allows our actions -- or lack thereof -- to meet reality more and more where it actually is.

I do think many frame acceptance as mere passivity and that is unfortunate, because it ignores the work involved in acceptance. That was what stood out to me about the card game metaphor as well: Latwii doesn't say it's just about "accepting the card", it's also about accepting the work inherent in the card. This implies to me that acceptance is far more active in their view, a sort of leap of faith we take in the import of our catalyst to impel further learning and growth. 

[rva_jeremy]

Maybe this is another way to frame acceptance: it includes a willingness to engage and apprehend the subject of the acceptance. Accepting as a passive thing really doesn't mean much spiritually; if what you're accepting doesn't provoke any response in you, it's not really much of an acceptance that's growing you. But acceptance as a willingness to bring the subject of acceptance into the heart, to reckon with it, to work on one's own resistances to it, that is work, that is something much more active and demanding than just going along to get along.

The more I think about scenario 1 the more I don't think it really is acceptance. It's acquiescence. Ha, the solution to the problem of language is just more of it, I guess.

[Diana]

Maybe this is another way to frame acceptance: it includes a willingness to engage and apprehend the subject of the acceptance. Accepting as a passive thing really doesn't mean much spiritually; if what you're accepting doesn't provoke any response in you, it's not really much of an acceptance that's growing you. But acceptance as a willingness to bring the subject of acceptance into the heart, to reckon with it, to work on one's own resistances to it, that is work, that is something much more active and demanding than just going along to get along.

The more I think about scenario 1 the more I don't think it really is acceptance. It's acquiescence. Ha, the solution to the problem of language is just more of it, I guess.

I do think it's complicated when you get to a certain point. Referring to the bolded part above, I do think resistance is getting to the heart of the matter (pun intended). Whatever one does as a result of accepting anything—be it action or none—there is a level reached that goes beyond passivity and reaches a state of tolerance (not resisting). 

A good example would be to observe the suffering of children starving. It might unfold thusly: 

1. To become aware of it; 

2. Comprehension, that the starving children aren't just pictures on a TV screen; 

3. To feel it, to care about entities beyond self and family/friends, empathy/sympathy;

4. That a choice be made (resist it because its too painful or be angry about it);

5. Another level of choice becomes evident, because resistance and anger are stalemates, stagnant, passive or aggressive and the energy is stuck (inertia); 

6. And the transformation, which I think is the very hardest, is to stop keeping it at bay, stop resisting the consequences of the matter (the pain of knowing that suffering exists), and be able to tolerate it. This involves another level of choice which is, what to do about it if anything. But the key at this step is, whatever action is taken or not taken, that it comes after resistance is dissolved to the knowledge it exists, and the pain it causes in your heart.

7. Some claim they can be content or happy or accepting as some put it, of the pain and suffering in this world. I think I could get to that point if I were a disincarnate entity like Ra, who can see beyond linear time and really know that pain (starving children, or the many other horrible things that go on here) is desired for those suffering and leads to growth and evolution (because as far as I'm concerned this is ONLY a theory); and destruction of the planet, and really innocent entities, perpetrated by humans, has some place in the scheme of things that makes sense from some perspective (because what we are told by so-called higher beings is ONLY theory to us here in the trenches). And even so, as a caveat, we are always accountable to how we act/react/conduct our time here according to our own decisions—not the words or advice of some(thing) else though that may help us gather information. 

But I think the whole point, rather than sugarcoat with the "all is well" phrase, or analyze it with the human mind (but of course this is great fun to theorize as we do here), or find some way to make it okay, is to simply feel it. That's all. Feel it and not die. And to stop resisting feeling it. After that, I don't know. I haven't gotten that far yet.

[xise]

I've always felt great resonance with Latwii, and love channelings such as these. Thank you.

[rva_jeremy]

But I think the whole point, rather than sugarcoat with the "all is well" phrase, or analyze it with the human mind (but of course this is great fun to theorize as we do here), or find some way to make it okay, is to simply feel it. That's all. Feel it and not die. And to stop resisting feeling it. After that, I don't know. I haven't gotten that far yet.

That's my view too: stop erecting the mental, physical, environmental, cultural, technological, intellectual, etc. blockages to the emotion and just feel it. Even us talking about it abstracts it away. This is why spiritual progress is a process of raw, unmediated experience, and any attempt to reduce it to systems or techniques or philosophies will just hold us back.

After that, I don't know, either. After that, you simply have fulfilled the prerequisites for your choices and actions to meet the actual emotional reality with your full being. What more can we ask of the illusion or ourselves?

[Sacred Fool]

After that, I don't know, either. After that, you simply have fulfilled the prerequisites for your choices and actions to meet the actual emotional reality with your full being. What more can we ask of the illusion or ourselves?

Um, maybe after that you stop asking so many darned questions and stop churning out so many possible answers?

But why would you wanna do that?  (...he asked, oblivious of his previous statement.)

"All is well" is not a statement logically derived.  It comes from a state of knowing that is different from cogitation, argumentation and polemic.  The lower energy centers and the mind can identify it, but they really can't take it to the bank.  Cessation of mentation may open up some space for that other form of awareness to drop by and settle in for awhile.

 

[flofrog]

This is such a great session, thank you Jeremy. In my hirties I started to have much less patience and had to work hard on that. But I slowly found out that the frustration I thought I had towards any other person was in the end always towards myself.

It was so interesting that when I was really looking at that frustration, you know like when you tend to take a nimber like 473 and you decide to reduce it like 4+7+3, and I would slowly find that reducing reducing reducing my frustration was always ending by having it at myself and not at the poor human being I thought I was angry at,

Today I feel all anger is really turned always at myself, not at anyone else, but I have less and less because I am more and more blond and vapid.

Seriously Jeremy I think yes, spiritual progress is a matter of raw unmediated exoerience. I feel this is so, too.

[Agua]

removed

[rva_jeremy]

Acceptance for me does not start with accepting an outer situation.
Accepting for me starts with accepting what the outer situation makes me feel like.
When this has happened, and many times this is a very challenging task, acceptance of the outer situation comes naturally. An impulse for action may arise then or maybe not.

On the other hand, non-acceptance is the refusal to experience what i experience right now.

Yup. This is a reasonably fresh, pregnant insight for me, and it's really reassuring that so many others see it the same way.

I think most of us believe that, if we let ourselves get whisked away in the emotional tides that wash upon our shores, we will lose ourselves. That's because in a way, we will. We will no longer cling in quite the same way to what Dr. Tyman calls our "resistances" that help us demarcate self and other. That is progress, but it is also a kind of death.

So I'm just trying to take it slowly. It really seems to be as simple as letting yourself feel things, even if you have to feel them out of conjunction with the causing event (i.e. balancing exercises later in the evening). And then you kind of let information tumble out of the emotional resonance, knowing that most of the learning isn't something you're going to directly witness. But it is painstakingly slow most of the time, and I get the sense that this process operates on a different time scale than our waking consciousness. That's probably just as well since it allows us to back away from the commitment to limited identity and feeling over a timeframe, instead of dropping it all at once.

As an aside, I wonder whether this isn't part of the utility of time: a mechanism by which the intensity of emotion is rationed by displacing it across a continuous-seeming sequence of experiences, moods, mindsets, phenomena, etc. It feels like experiencing a timeless moment when my attention is completely trained on the present moment. But most of my waking experience is one of preoccupation, acting according to patterns of behavior, dealing with the same old hangups and biases, etc. Time seems to have more sway when I'm less conscious and less sway when I'm more aware and present. What if what we experience as time in third density is in part what we call the thread that strings together these moments of connection and awareness, a kind of "cocoon" the true self gestates in as it becomes more and more willing and able to meet reality as it is?

[rva_jeremy]

Feel the love in the moment. It flows through you. You are not responsible for producing it. You are only responsible for patiently, again and again, when you sense your contraction around a trigger, around pain, around suffering, beginning to do that work of remembrance that releases fear so that you remember who you are and why you are here.

http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/is..._1013.aspx

My emphasis. It boggles my mind: how can this be the most actionable suggestion the Confederation offers, and yet I'm really just now coming around to it?

I think this might be part of the problem Diana was pointing out with the "all is well" ethos being applied in an unreflective, narrow sense. The work that needs to be done for most of us is primarily concerned with getting out of the Creator's way. We wring our hands about how best to serve, but this will never be something that we'll be able to truly know with 100% certainty on this side of the veil. Only within the self can the terrain be known with anything approaching sufficient certainty to act in and of our own resources and agency. That is where our primary work resides: to remove the blockages to the Creator's love flowing through us, so we can serve as an instrument of a design known only at a vantage point we do not occupy in this reality.

I'm not saying we shouldn't lift a finger to act in the world until we're perfect. I'm saying the opposite: we do our best in the world knowing our limitations, and when we falter, that's just catalyst for continuing the real project within.

[hounsic]

Feel the love in the moment. It flows through you. You are not responsible for producing it. You are only responsible for patiently, again and again, when you sense your contraction around a trigger, around pain, around suffering, beginning to do that work of remembrance that releases fear so that you remember who you are and why you are here.

http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/is..._1013.aspx

My emphasis. It boggles my mind: how can this be the most actionable suggestion the Confederation offers, and yet I'm really just now coming around to it?

I think this might be part of the problem Diana was pointing out with the "all is well" ethos being applied in an unreflective, narrow sense. The work that needs to be done for most of us is primarily concerned with getting out of the Creator's way. We wring our hands about how best to serve, but this will never be something that we'll be able to truly know with 100% certainty on this side of the veil. Only within the self can the terrain be known with anything approaching sufficient certainty to act in and of our own resources and agency. That is where our primary work resides: to remove the blockages to the Creator's love flowing through us, so we can serve as an instrument of a design known only at a vantage point we do not occupy in this reality.

I'm not saying we shouldn't lift a finger to act in the world until we're perfect. I'm saying the opposite: we do our best in the world knowing our limitations, and when we falter, that's just catalyst for continuing the real project within.

Reminds me of -
The Untethered Soul.

[Sacred Fool]

These are some passage which might be relevant to the conversation.  You decide.

When one begins with the basic statement that all is one, one creates a paradox which can never be explained. If all things are one, then why are entities unique, one from another? Why are they not equally holograms or images of the one infinite Creator? The paradoxes go on from there. If an entity is of the Creator, at what point would an entity not live as the Creator? These two paradoxes are only the beginning, but perhaps they are enough to indicate that when one is speaking of how to pursue the goal of the becoming the Creator, one is dwelling in a land of paradox and mystery in which the known patterns of logic shall not necessarily be of significant aid. On the other hand, if one foregoes the resources of logic and intellect and rests entirely upon naked faith, one becomes rapidly incapable of communicating with the self in a conscious manner and therefore robs the self of all the hard-won advantages of being an incarnated human being.

Therefore, we suggest neither that one rely completely upon the intellect and the use of the logical mind nor that one rely only upon the energies and essences of faith and direct apprehension or gnosis.

The self that you are, both within incarnation and as a soul stream, is a self in which there are many, many layers, moving down through the surface of consciousness, the upper levels of the subconscious, and down into the roots of mind, amongst those roots most importantly being those of the archetypal self.

You, as an instrument of particularity and infinity combined, have the capacity to dwell within the surface of your emotions, responding with impulsivity and vigor to each and every feeling. You also have an infinite capacity to allow emotion to penetrate the conscious self, the dreaming self, the self that walks the corridors of myth and lore, and the self that has gained access to those great waterways of emotion that make up the archetypal mind.

To ask the self to allow emotions to be refined and purified is to ask the self to walk into the fire of suffering. For if one defends against pain of an emotional type or a spiritual type, one ceases to be able to go deeper within those many, many levels of self that move into the archetypal mind. Indeed, it is through repeated experiences with such deeply painful emotions such as grief, anger, jealousy and rage that one, oh so slowly, becomes able to bear the beauty of pure emotion.

As in all things spiritual, the paradox is that as one is able to open oneself to the pain of going deeper within one’s emotional life, one is more and more able to see, to bear, to hold, to accept the emotions of joy, bliss and peace. For as in all of the levels and ways of understanding the one infinite Creator, the essence is always love. Consequently, the river of grief, the river of rage, all rivers whatsoever of purified emotion, lead at last into the ocean of bliss, which is the steady state of infinite love. It is, in a way, terrifying not to defend the self.

We do not encourage being undefended if there is something to defend. We do not encourage you to push past that which you can bear. We ask you to draw careful boundaries when you need to do so, that you may contain in an integrated and healthy way that personality shell with which you came into incarnation. It is well to protect your sanity and your sense of self. It is far better to do this and to move more slowly towards the purification of emotion than to ask the self to move beyond the bounds that it can bear.

 

[rva_jeremy]

What wonderful excerpts, thank you Peregrine.

The purification of emotions is a concept that has stumped me for a while, but it does seem related to the archetypal mind as well as something about the way experience bears fruit to the Creator. If anybody knows of any passages that explore this in more detail, let me know.

Can anybody shed light on the significance of purified emotions?

[Sacred Fool]

I’m not trying to be coy, but I can offer a hint. Perhaps the emotions don’t become purified, but the quality of one’s observational apparatus does as one walks through the fire of acceptance?

And to echo the warning above, many souls have been damaged in that fire, caught trying to accept things their nerves could not tolerate.

[rva_jeremy]

I don't think you're being coy; this is difficult to discuss. Sometimes it's easier to describe the negative space around something than the something itself. In this case, what would be the difference between the emotion itself and its being experienced? I think this where the resonance of the archetypal mind comes into play, since it is the mind that blocks emotions and the mind that registers them.

But yeah, I know we're all groping in the dark here, just trying to extend a hand.

[Sacred Fool]

In this case, what would be the difference between the emotion itself and its being experienced? I think this where the resonance of the archetypal mind comes into play, since it is the mind that blocks emotions and the mind that registers them.

The thing I was heading towards is that the emotions and the self which registers experiences are eventually left behind, as such, along with the perceived mind, in the process of transformation.  The fire of acceptance is a crucible where you enter in one configuration and leave in another, never to be the same again.

To explain further, when one enters the realm of transformation, if one holds to the old ways of referential thinking, one is lost.  Ergo, one must find underlying references to guide one into the new landscape.  One must search self deeply to find the more enduring meaning that will inform one's understanding.

As quoted above:
You, as an instrument of particularity and infinity combined, have the capacity to dwell within the surface of your emotions, responding with impulsivity and vigor to each and every feeling. You also have an infinite capacity to allow emotion to penetrate the conscious self, the dreaming self, the self that walks the corridors of myth and lore, and the self that has gained access to those great waterways of emotion that make up the archetypal mind.
 
As emotion penetrates the conscious self, one encounters new levels of transformation.


I thought of an illustration.  When I was around 10 years old, and chafing under the parental harness, I had clear determination that as soon as I turned 18 I would do two things as much as possible: (1) stay up as late as I wanted and (2) eat as much ice cream as I wanted.  But, you know, well before I turned 18 those things really didn't seem especially important to me any more.  Why not?  What happened in the mean time?

If you look at it closely, in between 10 an 18 y/o a person's consciousness transforms considerably (in most cases).  When younger, the world is your home, your street and your school, and your individual agency is quite limited.  Later on, your consciousness is no longer running in these tight circles, but has expanded into areas of relationships and travel and work and deeper forms of fulfillment.  One could say that the 10 y/o and the 18y/o may be related to one another biographically, but in terms of consciousness, they are nearly two different people.

Likewise, when one's interest moves from spinning in the eddies of the surface emotions to entering those "great waterways of emotion that make up the archetypal mind," the consciousness of one compared to the other are almost like two different people.  Therefore, when you imagine things like purifying the emotions, in order to frame the concept, you have to factor in the effects transformation will have, that is, the way transformation will distinguish the consciousness of the one who knows from the one who knows not.  The scope and sense of self are markedly different.  To have a sense of what it means, you must begin to bridge the gap as between the 10 y/o and the 18 y/o.  If you don't open your consciousness this way, then you're in the same position I was as a 10 y/o.

 

[Agua]

removed

[Sacred Fool]

The transformation happens  ecause in that process an ego facette dies.

Just to use this as a reference point, one could call the removal of a debilitating blockage a transformation, but it doesn't fundamentally reorganize consciousness the way transformation, say, a spiritual initiation will do where one takes on greater responsibility and moves from one level of doing work in spirit to another.

As for danger, yes resistance is a tough row to hoe, as it were, especially so because it can be quite involuntary.  It's also possible to overload your nervous system and crash and burn.  Not a pretty sight.

 

[Agua]

removed

[Diana]

What wonderful excerpts, thank you Peregrine.

The purification of emotions is a concept that has stumped me for a while, but it does seem related to the archetypal mind as well as something about the way experience bears fruit to the Creator. If anybody knows of any passages that explore this in more detail, let me know.

Can anybody shed light on the significance of purified emotions?

I agree that the Q'uo excerpts were good and significant to the conversation. 

Regarding purified emotions, I will give it a shot and add to what has already been said. Though I am going to dive into metaphors instead of intellectual analyses because I will be trying to describe something experiential that goes beyond words. 

I think it refers to feeling whatever emotion to its deepest level and not resisting any of it--letting the emotion spread out like melting ice seeping through the layers of ground, merging into the waters, vaporizing into the air of your being. Penetrating all the cells and their consciousnesses, the labyrinths of the mind and protected fragments of the subconscious.

To feel it in full with no restraints or distorting the experience with judgments. To be able to bear the full emotion and its intensity (which is exponentially greater than one emotion defined in 3D because so much more is included, such as all the other people involved to the consequences of its output to existence) without the need to edit or cut it short or deny any part of it. To become one with the emotion as though it is a being you accept unconditionally that has free will of its own. 

In this way the emotion is freed to be fully expressed with no conditions. It has been released from the prison of restraint and can then wash over you like a huge, rich storm that leaves everything cleansed of the 3D paradigms, old traumas, expectations, and emerges new. At this point emotion ceases to even be what we know as emotion. It is more like unconditional love, which even in its connectivity and intensity also is detached in that it allows completely for the free will and desires and paths of all others and self. But that detachment does not mean no feeling, just the opposite--it means all feeling, pure and accepted in its totality which may be seen as touching the infinite. 

It's not just about changing desires and being aware of different things, it is more like an iceberg that melts and is now part of the ocean it floated in, now able to touch and flow with all the creatures in the ocean and the water particles and molecules and consciousnesses and become one with it all, but the consciousness of the iceberg has become something else entirely, as it is not frozen in time or hardened to remain separate from the water that it was formed from. 

[rva_jeremy]

Well said, Diana! I tend to agree with you, and think that what you're getting at that's of particular interest to me is the effects of unblocked emotion, how we would even recognize it, and its ability to penetrate deep and overwhelm us. In fact, the Confederation always cautions us that "love" is the best word they know of to convey the nature of third distortion, but it's not wholly adequate due to cultural connotations. Perhaps this is why: because what we consider unconditional love is bound up with the entire spectrum of emotional charge.

Question: do we all agree that it is chiefly the mind and thought that creates blockages?

[AnthroHeart]

Well said, Diana! I tend to agree with you, and think that what you're getting at that's of particular interest to me is the effects of unblocked emotion, how we would even recognize it, and its ability to penetrate deep and overwhelm us. In fact, the Confederation always cautions us that "love" is the best word they know of to convey the nature of third distortion, but it's not wholly adequate due to cultural connotations. Perhaps this is why: because what we consider unconditional love is bound up with the entire spectrum of emotional charge.

Question: do we all agree that it is chiefly the mind and thought that creates blockages?

Thanks for posing that question. I took off my answer from the other thread about the in the now.

From my experience, the body creates blockages. That's why diet can have an effect on them.
I feel the resistance of the light as it touches my chakras.
It feels like pressure in my body. It gets denser, and then slowly eases off.
One works through them in layers.

If they were in the mind, I would find it difficult to "grab onto" them and work with them.

So yeah, they have a very much physical feel to them, the blockages.