STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery

[Plenum]

this little interplay here from Session 83 has always fascinated me:

---

Ra: I am Ra. It was our understanding that your query concerned conditions before the veiling. There was no unconscious slavery, as you call this condition, at that period. At the present space/time the conditions of well-meant and unintentional slavery are so numerous that it beggars our ability to enumerate them.

83.12 Questioner: Then for a service-to-others oriented entity at this time meditation upon the nature of these little-expected forms of slavery might be productive in polarization I would think. Am I correct?
Ra: I am Ra. You are quite correct.

---

any idea what these might be?

[Namaste]

This one caught my interest a while back.

A few examples of what I understand 'unintentional slavery' to be:

- Emotional attachments - specifically dependence - to another person
- A parent 'lovingly' enforcing a child do what they think 'is the right thing'
- Refusing to acknowledge catalyst/truth with regard to one's time (profession - i.e. hating one's job, but persisting due to supporting others)

In many cases, I would equate the term to one 'unintentionally' pushing the will of another in a specific direction, usually from a place of attempted 'help'.

[βαθμιαίος]

any idea what these might be?

I think Don's follow-up question brought out a vast area of well-meant slavery:

83.13 Questioner: I would say that a very high percentage of the laws and restrictions within what we call our legal system are of a nature of enslavement of which I just spoke. Would you agree with this?

Ra: I am Ra. It is a necessary balance to the intention of law, which is to protect, that the result would encompass an equal distortion towards imprisonment. Therefore, we may say that your supposition is correct. This is not to denigrate those who, in green and blue-ray energies, sought to free a peaceable people from the bonds of chaos but only to point out the inevitable consequences of codification of response which does not recognize the uniqueness of each and every situation within your experience.

[native]

I imagine they're referring to the condition of the mind which does not recognize the love/acceptance required in any moment, thus not reflecting unity through the integration of wholeness. That can apply to everything, and Namaste gave some good examples. Don's questions in that session refer to social structure, so rather than making attempts at community which involves cooperation, we place barriers between us and conditions are created in which each has to "earn their keep." Slavery to the modern life.

Recognition of unity solves all paradoxes!

71.17 Questioner: The change in consciousness should result in a greater distortion towards service-to-others, towards unity with all, and towards knowing in order to serve. Is this correct, and are there any other desired results?

Ra: I am Ra. These are commendable phrases. The heart of white magic is the experience of the joy of union with the Creator. This joy will of necessity radiate throughout the life experience of the positive adept. It is for this reason that sexual magic is not restricted solely to the negatively oriented polarizing adepts but when most carefully used has its place in high magic as it, when correctly pursued, joins body, mind, and spirit with the One Infinite Creator.

Any purpose which you may frame should, we suggest, take into consideration this basic union with the One Infinite Creator, for this union will result in service-to-others of necessity.

[Tenet Nosce]

Ra: I am Ra. It was our understanding that your query concerned conditions before the veiling. There was no unconscious slavery, as you call this condition, at that period. At the present space/time the conditions of well-meant and unintentional slavery are so numerous that it beggars our ability to enumerate them.

83.12 Questioner: Then for a service-to-others oriented entity at this time meditation upon the nature of these little-expected forms of slavery might be productive in polarization I would think. Am I correct?
Ra: I am Ra. You are quite correct.

Consider what would happen if you:

1. Refuse to pay your taxes. Or mortgage.
2. Attempt to bypass your mobile carrier's signal with your smartphone.
3. Choose not to have children against your spouse's wishes.
4. Dis-enroll your children from school.
5. Send gold in the U.S. mail in payment to a debt collector.
6. Drive your vehicle without a license, and get pulled over.
7. Get caught sending or receiving copyrighted information over the Internet.
8. Accidentally harm another person's body with your vehicle.
9. Attempt to cross a border without identification.
10. Attempt to commit suicide.

In my somewhat ludicrous opinion, we are all slaves. To the degree we agree to live "under law" is to the degree we literally make ourselves out to be hypo-crites, or slaves. As Ra suggested, it is well to ponder upon this, for one who is unwilling to acknowledge the reality of their own slavery cannot perceive what it truly means to be free. In other words, that we are all slaves is one thing. That some of us believe we are free, is quite another.

[drifting pages]

law and codes are imposed on ourselves from our ignorance of our true nature, in another word: fear of ourselves causes us to try to balance the ~external~ reality that we think we are separate of.

The eternal struggle of separation tinged consciousness.

Nothing wrong with it in itself when the purpose is to explore it.

I am moving away from it though and towards self realization and awareness.

There are many vibratory levels to explore.

[Tenet Nosce]

I think Don's follow-up question brought out a vast area of well-meant slavery:

Questioner: I would say that a very high percentage of the laws and restrictions within what we call our legal system are of a nature of enslavement of which I just spoke. Would you agree with this?

Ra: I am Ra. It is a necessary balance to the intention of law, which is to protect, that the result would encompass an equal distortion towards imprisonment. Therefore, we may say that your supposition is correct. This is not to denigrate those who, in green and blue-ray energies, sought to free a peaceable people from the bonds of chaos but only to point out the inevitable consequences of codification of response which does not recognize the uniqueness of each and every situation within your experience.

According to my scant understanding of history, the first known "codification of response" is called The Precepts of Ptah-Hotep, and was written in Egypt during the 5th Dynasty by a feudal lord.

Further according to my stunted awareness, this first known written codification followed shortly after the withdrawal of Ra from 3D physicality following the pyramid building phase described here:

The first, the Great Pyramid, was formed approximately 6,000 of your years ago. Then, in sequence, after this performing by thought of the building or architecture of the Great Pyramid using the more, shall we say, local or earthly material rather than thought-form material to build other pyramidal structures. This continued for approximately 1,500 of your years.

I wonder: if this were true, might that confer additional meaning to Ra's use of the word hypocritical, as in, to be under oath or to be under law.

An interesting, but possibly irrelevant point is that when laws were first invented, I don't believe they were imposed on the people at large. According to my read, it appears that the laws may have only been voluntarily taken upon by those who wished it of their own free will.

For example, as a healer/physician one might swear to an oath to abide by a certain sort of conduct. By taking this oath, it might grant a certain protection to the people against charlatanism, for example. But I know this is highly speculative and purely conjectural.

Questioner: Could you give me a little more detail about your role with the Egyptians?

Ra: I am Ra. The identity of the vibration Ra is our identity. We as a group, or what you would call a social memory complex, made contact with a race of your planetary kind which you call Egyptians. Others from our density made contact at the same time in South America, and the so-called “lost cities” were their attempts to contribute to the Law of One.

We spoke to one who heard and understood and was in a position to decree the Law of One. However, the priests and peoples of that era quickly distorted our message, robbing it of the, shall we say, compassion with which unity is informed by its very nature. Since it contains all, it cannot abhor any.

When we were no longer able to have appropriate channels through which to enunciate the Law of One, we removed ourselves from the now hypocritical position which we had allowed ourselves to be placed in. And other myths, shall we say, other understandings, having more to do with polarity and the things of your vibrational complex, again took over in that particular society complex.

Questioner: I think this might be an appropriate time to include a little more background on yourself, possibly information having to do with where you came from prior to your involvement with planet Earth, if this is possible.

Ra: I am Ra. I am, with the social memory complex of which I am a part, one of those who voyaged outward from another planet within your own solar system, as this entity would call it. The planetary influence was that you call Venus. We are a race old in your measures. When we were at the sixth dimension our physical beings were what you would call golden. We were tall and somewhat delicate. Our physical body complex covering, which you call the integument, had a golden luster.

In this form we decided to come among your peoples. Your peoples at that time were much unlike us in physical appearance, as you might call it. We, thus, did not mix well with the population and were obviously other than they. Thus, our visit was relatively short, for we found ourselves in the hypocritical position of being acclaimed as other than your other-selves. This was the time during which we built the structures in which you show interest.

[Peregrinus]

in the hypocritical position of being acclaimed as other than your other-selves.

What Ra meant by this was that they were acclaimed by the Egyptians to be "God's", but because they aren't, they saw themselves in a hypocritical position. Because of their prominent and obviously awe inspiring visual (think pyramids) work with intelligent infinity and intelligent energy (very Godlike), the Egyptians would not, in no uncertain terms, believe Ra were what they said they were, simply other-selves.

As for slaves, anyone that depends upon society or other-self for anything is a slave.

Buddha: The whole secret of existence is to have no fear. Never fear what will become of you, depend on no one. Only the moment you reject all help are you freed.

[kycahi]

As for slaves, anyone that depends upon society or other-self for anything is a slave.

I recall from somewhere that 3D humans were made so physically weak that they had no choice but to depend on each other. This carries tons of catalyst to chew on.

[Lavazza]

[quote='Tenet Nosce' pid='67315' dateline='1325623893']
[quote]

Consider what would happen if you:

1. Refuse to pay your taxes. Or mortgage.
2. Attempt to bypass your mobile carrier's signal with your smartphone.
3. Choose not to have children against your spouse's wishes.
4. Dis-enroll your children from school.
5. Send gold in the U.S. mail in payment to a debt collector.
6. Drive your vehicle without a license, and get pulled over.
7. Get caught sending or receiving copyrighted information over the Internet.
8. Accidentally harm another person's body with your vehicle.
9. Attempt to cross a border without identification.
10. Attempt to commit suicide.

In my somewhat ludicrous opinion, we are all slaves.
[/quote]

I agree with your 10 examples- they are exactly such things that would elicit codified responses, as Ra would say. However so I do not agree that we are all slaves. I would say we are less than entirely free, as it were. Perhaps I am walking a fine line but I believe that one can be not-free and not a slave simultaneously, when living under a set of genuinely well intended laws, and when there exists a form a government with some degree of citizenry participation (elections, etc).

[Namaste]

Buddha: The whole secret of existence is to have no fear. Never fear what will become of you, depend on no one. Only the moment you reject all help are you freed.

I love that quote.

But, I do not ever reading that the Buddha grew his own food. He walked from town to town and depended upon the generosity if others.

Is that not dependence?

There is a fine line, I think, between fear based dependence and genuine acceptance of help from others. They are not one and the same.

This is a harmonic universe, moving towards unity, after all :¬)

[_X7]

this little interplay here from Session 83 has always fascinated me:

---

~~snip~~
any idea what these might be?

My take of the moment, (only scratched out in the sand).... Engagement with 3d including all covert and overt acts of cause and effect enslave the enactor who invests therein. To the limited extent of the personal free will. Also for the duration of that will to stay there.

[βαθμιαίος]

I recall from somewhere that 3D humans were made so physically weak that they had no choice but to depend on each other. This carries tons of catalyst to chew on.

Yeah, Ra said that, too: "Thus, the weakening of the physical vehicle, as you call it, was designed to distort entities towards a predisposition to deal with each other. Thus, the lessons which approach a knowing of love can be begun."

---

According to my scant understanding of history, the first known "codification of response" is called The Precepts of Ptah-Hotep, and was written in Egypt during the 5th Dynasty by a feudal lord.

Further according to my stunted awareness, this first known written codification followed shortly after the withdrawal of Ra from 3D physicality following the pyramid building phase described here:

Ra said there were governmental structures even before the veil (83.9), as well as in Atlantis (22.23). Would it be fair to assume that there is codification of response wherever there is a governmental structure?

[AnthroHeart]

Being a slave is part of the experience. I understand that we knew we'd be in this form of societal slavery before we even came here. When in 4D, I don't think slavery will really be as prevalent. Though it might still exist in an unintentional manner. but maybe without the veil in 4D it's possible that no slavery will exist any longer. After all, it appears to be perfectly harmonious.

[Oceania]

if you tro to commit suicide, you might end up locked up, or they don't care. if you don't pay your taxes, the irs comes and shoots you.

---

i'd say that slavery.

[Tenet Nosce]

in the hypocritical position of being acclaimed as other than your other-selves.

What Ra meant by this was that they were acclaimed by the Egyptians to be "God's", but because they aren't, they saw themselves in a hypocritical position. Because of their prominent and obviously awe inspiring visual (think pyramids) work with intelligent infinity and intelligent energy (very Godlike), the Egyptians would not, in no uncertain terms, believe Ra were what they said they were, simply other-selves.

Yes, this appears to be true. I was only speculating that perhaps Ra chose the word with multiple meanings in mind. There is a quote I recently came across that supports the idea of use of double entendre by Ra... but I don't remember where. If I find it again I will put it here.

At any rate, I was just imagining the scene where this idea of living "under law" was spreading... how might that have impacted 6D beings like Ra? Knowing what we know about humanity today, I could see how there may have been calls for those "others" of Ra to live under the same laws as the humans. How would those of Ra have responded to such a request? Also, how would some humans have responded if they declined such an offer? I imagine there would have been the inevitable cries and accusations of "elitism". "Look! Ra thinks they are better than us and do not require codes and laws to live by!" And so on...

But again, this is all speculation.

[Meerie]

is unintentional slavery also unconscious slavery?
like when some people, in relationships for example, are slaves to each other. Totally dependent but without realizing it.

[Tenet Nosce]

I recall from somewhere that 3D humans were made so physically weak that they had no choice but to depend on each other. This carries tons of catalyst to chew on.

Yeah, Ra said that, too: "Thus, the weakening of the physical vehicle, as you call it, was designed to distort entities towards a predisposition to deal with each other. Thus, the lessons which approach a knowing of love can be begun."

Ra also mentions that humans were genetically manipulated by Yahweh in order to be "larger and stronger":

Questioner: When did Yahweh act to perform the genetic changes?

Ra: I am Ra. The Yahweh group worked with those of the planet you call Mars 75000 years ago in what you would call the cloning process. There are differences, but they lie in the future of your time/space continuum and we cannot break the free will Law of Confusion.

The 2600, approximately, time was the second time—we correct ourselves: 3600—approximately, the time of attempts by those of the Orion group during this cultural complex; this was a series of encounters in which the ones called Anak were impregnated with the new genetic coding by your physical complex means so that the organisms would be larger and stronger.

Note that this particular period of genetic engineering occurred around 1600 BCE- this is roughly concurrent with the life of Noah's son Shem (also thought to have been called Melchizedek). This time period also roughly corresponds to the rule of Egypt by the Hyksos and of Mesopotamia by the Hittites, and the fall of the Indus Valley civilization. In Asia, we see the rise of the Shang Dynasty, and in the Americas we have the rise of the Olmecs. There also appears to have been a global shift toward the use of burial mounds during this time period. I just offer this for some historical context, which may or may not be relevant.

Here are some other likely irrelevant quotes on this topic:

Questioner: Thank you. Then I assume that the Confederation stayed away from Earth for a period of time. What condition created the next contact that the Confederation made?

Ra: I am Ra. In approximately 3,600 of your years in the past, as you measure time, there was an influx of those of the Orion group, as you call them. Due to the increasing negative influences upon thinking and acting distortions, they were able to begin working with those whose impression from olden times, as you may say, was that they were special and different.

An entity of the Confederation, many, many thousands of your years in the past, the one you may call “Yahweh,” had, by genetic cloning, set up these particular biases among these peoples who had come gradually to dwell in the vicinity of Egypt, as well as in many, many other places, by dispersion after the down-sinking of the land mass Mu. Here the Orion group found fertile soil in which to plant the seeds of negativity, these seeds, as always, being those of the elite, the different, those who manipulate or enslave others.

The one known as Yahweh felt a great responsibility to these entities. However, the Orion group had been able to impress upon the peoples the name Yahweh as the one responsible for this elitism. Yahweh then was able to take what you would call stock of its vibratory patterns and became, in effect, a more eloquently effective sound vibration complex.

In this complex the old Yahweh, now unnamed, but meaning “He comes,” began to send positively oriented philosophy. This was approximately, in your past, of 3,300 years. Thus, the intense portion of what has become known as Armageddon was joined.

Questioner: Then Yahweh, in an attempt to correct what I might call a mistake (I know you don’t want to call it that), started 3,300 years ago a positive philosophy. Were the Orion and Yahweh philosophies impressed telepathically, or were there other techniques used?

Ra: I am Ra. There were two other techniques used: one by the entity no longer called Yahweh, who still felt that if it could raise up entities which were superior to the negative forces, that these superior entities could spread the Law of One. Thus this entity, “Yod-Heh-Shin-Vau-Heh,” came among your people in form according to incarnate being and mated in the normal reproductive manner of your physical complexes, thus birthing a generation of much larger beings, these beings called “Anak.”

The other method used to greater effect later in the scenario, as you would call it, was the thought-form such as we often use among your peoples to suggest the mysterious or the sublime. You may be familiar with some of these appearances.

---

According to my scant understanding of history, the first known "codification of response" is called The Precepts of Ptah-Hotep, and was written in Egypt during the 5th Dynasty by a feudal lord.

Further according to my stunted awareness, this first known written codification followed shortly after the withdrawal of Ra from 3D physicality following the pyramid building phase described here:

Ra said there were governmental structures even before the veil (83.9), as well as in Atlantis (22.23). Would it be fair to assume that there is codification of response wherever there is a governmental structure?

I'm not sure that would be considered fair. We have very scant written records of anything which preceded the Arian Age (roughly 2150BC - 1 AD).

If I may be so bold, it appears to me that 83.9 directly refutes your conjecture:

Questioner: Was there any uniformity or like functions of societies or social organizations prior to the veil?

Ra: I am Ra. The third density is, by its very fiber, a societal one. There are societies wherever there are entities conscious of the self and conscious of other-selves and possessed with intelligence adequate to process information indicating the benefits of communal blending of energies. The structures of society before as after veiling were various. However, the societies before veiling did not depend in any case upon the intentional enslavement of some for the benefit of others, this not being seen to be a possibility when all are seen as one. There was, however, the requisite amount of disharmony to produce various experiments in what you may call governmental or societal structures.

Perhaps my read is a bit obtuse- but if "all are seen as one" what would be the purpose of "codification of response"? Wouldn't one be considered free to respond to oneself as one desires?

As regards Atlantis- I don't really know. Are you aware of any other resources on Atlantis that speak directly to this?

In my rather naive view, it is entirely possible to have a "governmental structure" without a set of codified behaviors known as "law". In a certain sense, I would imagine that laws were promulgated and promoted in order to "ease the burden" of those assigned the roles of adjudicators.

If I may further press my ridiculous notion- it seems to me that wherever we see the origins of codified laws- The Precepts of Ptah-Hotep, the Code of Hammurabi, Mosaic Law, etc., we also have evidence for influence by negatively-oriented entities seeking to control humanity. I observe that my irrational, intuitive mind, sees this as more than "mere coincidence".

---

Being a slave is part of the experience. I understand that we knew we'd be in this form of societal slavery before we even came here. When in 4D, I don't think slavery will really be as prevalent. Though it might still exist in an unintentional manner. but maybe without the veil in 4D it's possible that no slavery will exist any longer. After all, it appears to be perfectly harmonious.

I wonder: In a 4D-negative environment- do the inhabitants openly acknowledge their enslavement? Or do they continue to operate under the illusion of freedom?

---

is unintentional slavery also unconscious slavery?
like when some people, in relationships for example, are slaves to each other. Totally dependent but without realizing it.

The Aaron/Q’uo Dialogues, Session 10

January 17, 1993

(This session was preceded by a period of tuning and meditation.)

Group question: Concerning codependency and compassion, “How do I live more lovingly for others and still live with respect for myself?” This question relates to the following statements from Aaron: “You aspire to perfect service and to prayer without ceasing. The being cannot pray without ceasing while it is moored in judgment and confusion. The heart and energy are not open. It can pray without ceasing when it notes the arising of fear and allows fear to be a catalyst to compassion and connection. Heartfelt prayer arises from that connection. Primary is the question of making friends with your own humanness and imperfections in the incarnative state.”

Aaron: My greetings and love to you all. I am Aaron. I phrased this question some weeks ago because it seems to come from so many of your hearts. I wonder if it would be useful for you to offer any additional thoughts you have about this question. In the rephrasing of it as it comes from your own hearts, there is sometimes that twist that helps you see where the distortion lies. I would pause here for a moment, then, and ask if there are any additions to the question. That is all.

Carla: How can we be of service to others without dumping all over ourselves, using up our time, talent and treasure and not having anything left over for our little special projects? Others are asked to clarify or add to this question.

K: I think it is right to the point.

Aaron: I am Aaron. Let us first speak about the word “codependence.” All beings are, in fact, codependent. The word has picked up bad connotations in your language, as if there were something negative about being codependent. But, in fact, it is not codependence in itself that is negative. The negativity derives from fear. When codependence is acknowledged as part of your connection with all that is, it is a wholesome state.

You breathe in the air. You are codependent with the trees that help create the atmosphere. Your bodies are largely water. At your death that water in your body moves back into the soil. In your breath there is moisture. The moisture from your body helps the trees grow. Codependence, then, is not the problem. It is simply a statement of your non-separation, your inter-being. Rather, what we need to address is codependence as separation; that is, that state of fear which leads you to acts and words and simultaneous resentment about those acts and words, or the fear that leads you to encourage others in unwholesome acts as a protection to the self.

When two beings interact and wish mutually to serve one another, certainly that is codependence. But it is a skillful codependence where each being learns that it is part of a greater whole and honors its interactions with other beings. The right hand does not withhold comfort from the left hand. They know themselves as part of the same body. Yet within the extended earth-plane experience, you view others as separate from self. Then negative codependence arises. We define negative codependence, then, as acts and words based on an illusion of separation. Within that illusion of separation, fear has arisen and also a lack of clarity of the being’s highest purpose.

Each of you has within you places of deep fear. There is some preference not to look into those places, a need to not confront that fear in yourself. When another’s demands upon you allow you escape from that confrontation, a part of you says, “Oh no, incessant demands,” and a part of you says, “Thank you. Thank you for the protection of your demands.”

Last month I talked to a mother who wanted very much to write. That was her expressed desire. She had a baby, perhaps a four-year-old child, and that baby had a tendency to whine, to pull on her constantly for attention, which tendency I noticed as we were talking. The child’s self-entertainment was that it constantly came over and interrupted. Of course, the mother has unconsciously taught it this behavior. When you use the term codependence in a negative way, it grows out of this type of relationship where the mother insists that she wants to write, wants her child to become more independent so that she has freedom for her work, and yet surreptitiously encourages that dependence because it protects her from writing. At a much deeper level, the writing terrifies her. This, then, is what we might define as unwholesome codependence.

As with everything else in your life, negative codependence is an invitation. When you see a repetitive pattern that seems to hamper you in some way, it would seem wise to ask yourself, “What does the continuation of this pattern protect me from? Is there any way that I am encouraging it?” Then you may begin to look at the fear that has led to continuation of that pattern.

At first it seems almost impossible to change it, to say no. There is self-discipline involved here. At some point, as you look at the patterns which seem discouraging to you, you need to ask yourself, “What if I just say no,” and then watch very, very carefully to see what happens. Now here is another area of confusion, of distortion perhaps, because many of you do get this far and decide, “I am going to say no,” but you are not really aware what it is you are saying no to. In your mind, you think you are saying no to the other and to their uncomfortable demands. That no, then, has arisen from a place of anger. You still do not see that what you are saying no to is your own fear.

For this mother I just described, she might say no finally to that child: “No, you must sit down and entertain yourself. Here are crayons. Here is a book. Here are blocks. I am not to be disturbed for half an hour.” But it does not come out that way. Instead it comes out as, “No! You sit down and play with your toys! I have had enough!” That kind of anger pours out. Who is she really angry at? What is the anger really about?

When you are very clear in yourselves that you need to do something a certain way and that your choice is not harmful to another, it is not hard to say no. It becomes hard when there is no clarity, because you do not know whether you want to say no and end the behavior or whether you want to allow the behavior to continue. So, some of you get to the point of saying no but your no is said in anger, which escalates the tension between you, rather than speaking with love.

I have a good deal more I would like to say here. I feel Q’uo wishes to speak and will turn this over to my brother/sister. That is all.

Q’uo: We are those of Q’uo. Greetings to all in this circle of seeking in the love and ineffable light of the one infinite Creator. It is such a thrill to blend our vibrations with your own as we allow our energies to merge with your own and become a hymn of praise and thanksgiving to the one Source and Creator of all that there is.

We are most especially glad to have this opportunity to work with the one known as Aaron. This is unique in our experience of inner- and outer-plane cooperation; and perhaps you could say that Aaron and we are codependent in teaching our best for service to you, as you are codependent in sharing what we offer and using that which you find useful. We do not claim authority over you. Please use your discrimination and leave behind any information which does not meet with your needs and opinions. We would not be a stumbling block before you. This being said, we would like to state our opinion of the portion of this large query upon which we have begun work, for there are several portions to this issue.

Firstly, there is the portion of codependency which works with the Creator, Its design and Its and your co-created agenda for this incarnational experience. Secondly, there is the portion wherein the seeker is working to find the heart of its own self. Thirdly, there is the portion dealing with relationships, not central but rather having to do with the self or the society in regards to the hook which hooks you into so-called codependent behavior. Fourthly, there is the portion devoted to the consideration of the seeker in relation to its central entities: the mate and the family; and in unusual occasions, a special or another acquaintance.

Perhaps you may see our feeling that in dealing with the central relationships of one’s incarnational experience, you are dealing with the Creator’s plan, your work within this incarnation and your generalized buttons, shall we say, or sensitive places wherein connections with the self or society are found to be frustrating in this codependent way. Before we can consider fully the central codependency, however, let us begin with this latter, for it shall prove to be the way we move back into this series of discussions.

Here you are: you, the seeker. And although the life-mate or family member has seemingly associated with you in an unskillful way, and you with the other, there is still a full travel of free will. What force moves within your heart that causes the exchange of hurt and emotional pain? Let us look at the force of need.

Do you see, my friends, you are entities who wish to be of service to others? Therefore, just as we, so you need others in order to be of service. This flavor of need undoubtedly played a role in your choice of this partner as a co-Creator, and again within the illusion in manifestation. This other was chosen because this other needs you. Now, this works very well in bringing together entities, both of which have planned to work upon changing fear to free joy, for did not the other entity also choose you because the other needed to be needed also? Thusly, a loving symbiosis wherein each helps the other and each happily acknowledges the need for the other becomes cramped and crushed by the seeming demands of space and time, for those who need express desire which will take up all space and time.

The need to be needed is likewise unlimited. And, my friends, each other portion of the manifested personality also makes plans upon the available time. And that which worked so perfectly as symbiosis when there was time enough and many fewer complexities of personality hits the crunch of a far more complex agenda for living. Symbiosis is turned into codependency.

The fear has several flavors. Perhaps the most acute is the fear of running out of time. There are other fears here, too: the fear of not being appreciated, the fear of abandonment, the fear of the month! These things change, but the tendency to react to your own fear does not change its flavor like the content of this month’s fear, which will inevitably give way to your changing journey in consciousness.

So, we ask you to begin looking at the contexts in which you live and give and love and attempt to serve others. We move back to the one known as Aaron. We leave this instrument in love and in light. We are those of the principle of Q’uo.

Aaron: This is Aaron. Jim, I can see the thought patterns forming in your mind; but with Barbara’s eyes closed, I cannot see whether those patterns find a continuity to your fingertips and to the keyboard. Thus, my question: Is this still too fast?

Jim: Yes.

Aaron: I will slow down as much as I am able. When there is a gap between the continuity of my energy, Barbara drifts in and out of the state needed to most clearly channel me. It will take some practice on her part to sit there for some moments with a blank and trust that the next thought is coming.

I appreciate Q’uo’s distinction between living symbiosis and codependence. Symbiosis is alive, a flowering of the energy of each to each, where perhaps codependence has its emphasis on the fear and need of dependence. To be codependent on another there must be two. In fact, that is how you perceive yourselves. You are not your beloved friend or family member, you are not the water you drink … That is conventional reality. But in terms of a deeper reality, there is no separation.

When you care for a loved one with the sense, “When my work is done for this one, then and only then I can attend to myself,” this is delusion. This is seeing through the eyes of conventional reality. When you see that your service to your loved one is truly also meeting your needs, that your needs intermesh so perfectly, then you are seeing with clarity, with wisdom. This understanding of your fundamental connection with all that is, is essential to your growth.

We speak about love and fear. If you watch yourself carefully, you can see yourself drift in and out … fear and separation … love and connection … Observe it in yourself as you tend to another’s needs. Are you looking at your watch? “How much more time need I give? When will I go and do what I want to do?” My dear ones, what did you come to do? To build this or that building? To drive to the market? To tackle this or that goal? Is that the purpose for which you incarnated? Even what would seem to be the lofty purpose—to write this book, to help that friend—are they the purpose of your incarnation? Yes, the book may be a gift to many or the conversation with your friend a gift to that one. The walk through the woods may bring joy to your heart. But you incarnated for one basic reason: to deepen your experience of faith and love; to move away from delusion of a separate self; to move into such deep awareness of your true nature that your acts, words and thoughts most consistently reflect that awareness.

Do you know what you need to do in order to best practice that clarity, faith and love? In a sense, the practice of faith deepens faith. First there must be clear seeing that you do not foster dependence to avoid your own fears. Once that is established and you are able to move from a space of clarity, much of your confusion will end. You will begin to see that what you most need to do in service to others is exactly what is most needed for the learning of the self.

I would suggest that as you ask yourself to have faith in that statement and observe it carefully, you will find that much of the clamor, “I need/I want”, simply dissolves. Did you really need to do that project? Would not a shorter walk do as well? Yes, you must attend to your own needs. You must care for this human body and nurture all the aspects of you. But how much of the clamor to constantly be doing grows out of deep self-nurturing and how much from fear?

What happens within the heart when you watch the arising of “I need”? What happens when you watch that arising and smile at that solid, separate self? What do you really need to grow beyond the delusion of this small ego self, to understand your true nature, to manifest your energy in service to all without differentiation of self and other? When you serve the divine energy, either in your divine manifestation or in human manifestation, without distinction of self and other, it is then and only then that the spirit finds true freedom. This freedom is the fruit of the practice of faith and love.

That practice takes self-discipline, but not the discipline that you perceive. And here is where you often get into trouble. Your self-discipline often takes the form, “I will do this for him or her, for another.” Can you see, my dear ones, that resentment rises with that separation? With “I will do this for us,” there is no resentment. As I serve you, I serve myself. As I help you to find healing, I find healing. As I help you to understand, I learn.

Some of your projects and busyness are the ego’s wild attempts to escape from this ultimate reality of connection. The ego does not die easily. It screams. It kicks. With attention we learn to hear both voices. The contented baby, pain eased, falls asleep in the mother’s arms; and that mother looks tenderly at her child, so glad that she was able to ease its pain. But there is still the small voice in that mother that says, “But I did not get to finish the chapter in my book,” or, “I missed the end of my movie on TV.” Then she squirms with guilt and discomfort.

Can we learn to smile at that voice? As she cared for her baby’s voice of pain, can we offer compassion to our own voice of pain? Can we learn to hear it for what it is: ego making a last-ditch effort to assert itself? Then we may bask in the beauty of a deeper level of being, of the connection that grows out of actions and words that are clearly not for you, but for us. As you smile at the ego self that does not want to give up, you shift your perspective from fear to love, loving even that ego self and letting it be. Then the heart is free to connect into that deeper level of being, and the heart knows, “I have just done exactly what I needed to do.”

We spoke about faith. You all know that in third density your prime lessons are of faith and love. In our last joint session with Q’uo, the one known as Ariel spoke of the impetuousness with which older third-density incarnate beings sometimes prefer to overlook the learning of faith and love and move into the pathways of deepening compassion and wisdom. If faith and love are learned simultaneously with this deepening of compassion and wisdom, it works well. But when faith and love are overlooked, there is often distortion, even physical distortion of the body where the upper chakras are open and attention is not given to the blockage of the lower chakras.

One aspect of deepening faith that is overlooked by many of you is that when you watch this shift in yourself—service to other versus service to self—as you watch yourself shift in perspective, faith grows from blind faith to a verified faith. Intuitively you know that you are moving deeper into connection. Your heart knows that you are doing the work you came to do, not getting rid of ego but allowing ego to dissolve in the light and energy of ultimate reality. That reality knows the self as unlimited, divine, connected to all that is. When you bring your attention back to this deepening of faith, you may simply remind yourself, “This is why I am here.”

This is the self-discipline that is called for. It is not a voice that says, “I must meet his needs.” It is not an intellect that says, “You should have compassion.” It is not judgmental in that way. Rather, it is the voice of the heart. It is the voice that dissolves all boundaries, dissolves all fear, and brings you into that wondrous knowing of your own true Self, of God and of the self’s true nature as part of God.

Can you allow each arising of “What about me?” to become a reminder: “Can I observe this fear? Can I smile at the ego kicking and screaming and let go? Can I really trust that if something needs to be done there will be a way for it to be done?” No, that does not mean you can lie back and let someone else take care of it. Effort is required. But what is the doing about? Is it an assertion of ego, at least in some part, or does it take you closer to connection and deeper love?

I thank you for your attention to these thoughts. I expect that we will be delving into this question and its many ramifications for several days. May I return you now to the energy of my brother/sister of Q’uo? That is all.

Q’uo: I am again with this instrument. I am Q’uo.

We would leave you with one focus. The one known as Aaron asked, “Can you laugh and love the entity you are?” This query is central. In the context of relationship, we ask you to reflect upon the persistence of desire that is not analyzed or understood. For instance, if you think, “She is so angry with me,” you may well be thinking, in truth, “I am so angry with her.” The very need that was perceived as an occasion for service becomes an affront to the waking consciousness of third density when the service is rendered and no appreciation is offered. The greater the perceived service, the greater the unrealized need, often, for thanks and validation.

Now in truth, you truly wished and did wish to serve purely with no expectation of any return. But this is the point with which we wish to leave this session: Seldom can an entity offer itself so purely that the incessant, persistent and continuing arising of desire does not make more than pure the consciousness that has come to serve.[1] Can you love that self that continues very naturally to desire?

We shall pick this up with great glee at our next session of working. Meanwhile, we congratulate each of you and your various numb body parts and consciousness, and we perceive a level of fatigue in the group. We hope that you may wash that aftertaste of weariness away with companionship, some food for your physical vehicles and of course the praying without ceasing that you do not yet know that you are already doing. How we love you, my friends. We do look forward to our next opportunity to work with your queries. Meanwhile, we leave you in the joy of the love and light of the one infinite Creator in Whose name we come. We are known to you as those of the principle of Q’uo. Adonai, my friends. Adonai.

Aaron: This is Aaron. It seems redundant to add anything to that statement. My blessings and love to you all.

[1] Clarification of this statement is pending.

[Steppingfeet]

83.13 Questioner: I would say that a very high percentage of the laws and restrictions within what we call our legal system are of a nature of enslavement of which I just spoke. Would you agree with this?

Ra: I am Ra. It is a necessary balance to the intention of law, which is to protect, that the result would encompass an equal distortion towards imprisonment. Therefore, we may say that your supposition is correct. This is not to denigrate those who, in green and blue-ray energies, sought to free a peaceable people from the bonds of chaos but only to point out the inevitable consequences of codification of response which does not recognize the uniqueness of each and every situation within your experience.

Here Ra states the the "intention of law" is to protect. To protect something, I presume, in genera, involves the stoppage of one entities free will in order to preserve another entity's free will.

--------------------------
Off-the-cuff examples:

--An entity makes a unique product. They wish to have their work protected from infringement. They receive a patent prohibiting the will of other entities who may wish to duplicate the product for their own gain.

The inventor's free will is protected, the will of the entity intending infringement is stopped.

--Entity A wishes to live. Entity B wishes that Entity A not live. A law, or codified set of rules on acceptable and non-acceptable actions, is created to protect Entity A against murder, making it a crime to kill Entity A.

Entity A's free will is protected, the will of the would-be murderer is limited.
----------------------------

I recognize that this is simplistic, and that those creating (and influencing the creation of) laws intend not always the protection of an other-self for the maximum use of the other's free will, but rather protection of their own interest, namely the increase of power and profit at the expense of others.

It would seem however that this protection of one entity, or many entities - be it protection of their physical vehicles, their activities, the fruits of their labor, i.e., protection of some form of their free will - necessarily involves what Ra called "an equal distortion towards imprisonment", because to protect one entity is to put a limit on the free will of another.

Perhaps in a pre-veil society, or 4th-density positively oriented society, there is no desire to infringe on the free will of another, so no institutions need be established to create and enforce and review law. No rulebook need be made for how individuals and groups ought to properly relate to one another, because individuals/groups in pre-veil and post-veil societies are not separated from oneness by a veiled conscious mind. They naturally act in accord with the first distortion, honoring it fully because there is no possibility to do otherwise.

With the veil, and subsequent confusion regarding the true nature of the self, inevitably follows law, it would seem, because entities in their confusion seek to infringe upon the free will of others. At base then the spirit of the law is to protect from infringement.

Much love, GLB

[Diana]

In my opinion, we are only slaves to what we are attached to. Examples:

-You can participate in society, without needing to, just being. At a party for instance, just talking with people about what enlivens them, and enjoying their happiness in a subject without judging it as inane or irrelevant. Once you judge it, you are emotionally attached.

-You can have a mortgage, but lose your house for whatever reason. If you are emotionally attached to the situation, you will cling to the house and the event, which makes you a slave to it. Another choice is to say, Okay, this is what is, now. And put your energy into moving on.

-You can participate in a corrupt election without being attached to the outcome. By participating you stand in your integrity to be responsible, send a message, etc., but you do not have to get embroiled in the drama or the outcome (which all may be illusionary anyway).

-You can participate in the exchange of goods with money, without anger. That doesn't mean you don't recognize corruption or put your head in the sand, or fail to discern that the system needs changing. But while it is in place, you can use money without being emotionally attached to it. If your energy is: rich people suck, or, money is evil, you are essentially telling the "universe" that abundance is bad and becoming a slave to the corrupt system. You can maintain detachment by recognizing that money is nothing but choices; and a corrupt government and banking system is nothing but drama.

I don't pretend to be able to do this as well as I would like, but here is an example in my own life: A publisher, whom I had been with for a long time, stole an idea from me after I proposed it. This is a huge infraction in the business. I could have sued. But I decided not to. It would have attached me to the event, for a long time. I chose to use my energy to start a new business instead, putting my focus on something positive and forward.

In this way, you also continue to create on a consistent basis the reality you want to be in, rather than reinforcing the reality you dislike.

[βαθμιαίος]

If I may be so bold, it appears to me that 83.9 directly refutes your conjecture:

However, the societies before veiling did not depend in any case upon the intentional enslavement of some for the benefit of others, this not being seen to be a possibility when all are seen as one.

Not necessarily -- that's referring to intentional enslavement, while we're discussing unintentional.

Perhaps my read is a bit obtuse- but if "all are seen as one" what would be the purpose of "codification of response"? Wouldn't one be considered free to respond to oneself as one desires?

By the same token, what would the purpose of governmental structures be? Ra said they were produced by disharmony. It seems to me that attempts to codify response are a logical consequence of attempts to deal with disharmony in a structural way. That could be just my own presumptions speaking, though.

As regards Atlantis- I don't really know. Are you aware of any other resources on Atlantis that speak directly to this?

No.

[Tenet Nosce]

Not necessarily -- that's referring to intentional enslavement, while we're discussing unintentional.

I appear to be struggling with how "unintentional slavery" could exist in a society without the veil. Can you think of any possible scenarios?

By the same token, what would the purpose of governmental structures be? Ra said they were produced by disharmony. It seems to me that attempts to codify response are a logical consequence of attempts to deal with disharmony in a structural way. That could be just my own presumptions speaking, though.

Here is an example: Let's say a given society were to agree to the existence of a common store of foodstuffs, such as a granary. A governmental structure may be put in place to attend to the administration and distribution of said foodstuffs to the populace.

The notion that one must adhere to a codified behavioral system in order to access said foodstuffs need not necessarily apply. I can see the possibility for one, and not the other. A given society could choose that all people have the right/ability to draw from common resource pools irrespective of their behavior and/or social status. Though, according to our historical record, these two concepts appear to have gone hand-in-hand.

---

if you don't pay your taxes, the irs comes and shoots you.

Oh, come now, the IRS wouldn't shoot ya! That would result in the dissolution of your slave status.

---

In my opinion, we are only slaves to what we are attached to.

An interesting thought. I observe there are many similar, but fundamentally different, words which are used to describe one's relationship to law. Besides attachment, one might use adherence or accordance.

For example, an individual (or sovereign) might choose to live in accordance with a given set of laws. However this would not subject them to retribution should their actions appear as discordant to others.

---

I find these particularly fascinating:

Beginning of the arrangement of the good sayings, spoken by the noble lord, the divine father, beloved of Ptah, the son of the king, the first-born of his race, the prefect and feudal lord Ptah-hotep, so as to instruct the ignorant in the knowledge of the arguments of the good sayings. It is profitable for him who hears them, it is a loss to him who shall transgress them.

But good words are more difficult to find than the emerald, for it is by slaves that that is discovered among the rocks of pegmatite.

If you abase yourself in obeying a superior, your conduct is entirely good before Ptah. Knowing who you ought to obey and who you ought to command, do not lift up your heart against him. As you know that in him is authority, be respectful toward him as belonging to him. Wealth comes only at Ptah's own good-will, and his caprice only is the law; as for him who . . Ptah, who has created his superiority, turns himself from him and he is overthrown.

[Oceania]

they would to make an example.

[Tenet Nosce]

Some additional possibly unconnected information:

http://www.thenileandegypt.com/deities.html

Ra was also closely connected to the Pharaoh, Egypt's king. While the king ruled earth, Ra was the master of the universe so they were of the same nature and were in effect a mirror image of each other. Interestingly, up until the 2nd Dynasty [ca. 2900 - 2700 BCE], there is an absence of references on Ra, but his development began in the late 2nd Dynasty and matured through the 5th Dynasty [ca. 2500 - 2350 BCE]. Ra became more and more associated with the king, who was both human and a god at once, embodied in the falcon named Horus and by the 4th Dynasty, referred to as the son of Ra. Hence, a relationship also developed between Horus and Ra as they were merged in the symbol of a winged sun disk, an icon that remained constant in Temples and religious monuments through the end of Egyptian history.

Ra's early worship really became very significant during the 5th Dynasty, when kings not only erected pyramids aligned to the rising and setting sun, but also built solar temples in honor of Ra. This sort of temple must have been a difficult conception for the Egyptians, because Ra never had a sanctuary with a cult statue. Instead, his image was the sun itself, so the sun temples were centered upon an Obelisk over which the sun rose, and before the obelisk would be an alter for his worship. However, the most significant early solar temple was probably erected at Heliopolis, where a pillar resembling an obelisk made up part of the hieroglyphs for the city's name, Iwn. Unfortunately, that structure is now completely destroyed.

These 5th Dynasty rulers were also responsible for the first Pyramid Texts during the Old Kingdom, a collection of spells describing the journey of the dead pharaoh through the underworld. These texts were some of the first decorations inscribed in Pyramids, and are an important source of information on the sun god.

---

Here Ra states the the "intention of law" is to protect. To protect something, I presume, in genera, involves the stoppage of one entities free will in order to preserve another entity's free will.

What if said protection was originally intended by the self toward the other, rather than the reverse? For example, as a healer/physician one might swear to an oath to abide by a certain sort of conduct. By taking this oath, it might grant a certain protection to the people against charlatanism.

Off-the-cuff examples:

Some off-the-cuff responses:

--An entity makes a unique product. They wish to have their work protected from infringement. They receive a patent prohibiting the will of other entities who may wish to duplicate the product for their own gain.

The inventor's free will is protected, the will of the entity intending infringement is stopped.

Why would said entity feel that it is an infringement to have their work duplicated by others? And why would said entity feel they have an exclusive right to gain from such a contribution?

--Entity A wishes to live. Entity B wishes that Entity A not live. A law, or codified set of rules on acceptable and non-acceptable actions, is created to protect Entity A against murder, making it a crime to kill Entity A.

Entity A's free will is protected, the will of the would-be murderer is limited.

Doesn't Entity A continue to live despite what actions Entity B may take toward their body?

It would seem however that this protection of one entity, or many entities - be it protection of their physical vehicles, their activities, the fruits of their labor, i.e., protection of some form of their free will - necessarily involves what Ra called "an equal distortion towards imprisonment", because to protect one entity is to put a limit on the free will of another.

I wonder: If there were no veil, would the whole notion of "protecting" the self from other-self make any sense?

I also wonder: Even if we allow for the defense of one's own body or intentions against the actions of another- by what principle does it make sense to assign the responsibility for self-protection to a third party?

I also wonder: By what standard do we discern whose intention takes precedence, with respect to the form and purpose of the law? Could we possibly dissociate the concept of "law" from "protection"? Is that desirable? If so, how might we accomplish this?

They naturally act in accord with the first distortion, honoring it fully because there is no possibility to do otherwise.

I also imagine such accordance to be the case.

With the veil, and subsequent confusion regarding the true nature of the self, inevitably follows law, it would seem, because entities in their confusion seek to infringe upon the free will of others. At base then the spirit of the law is to protect from infringement.

I wonder if- in a very literal sense- the law is a physical manifestation of the veil. I don't seem to be able to identify a legal concept which is not predicated upon the separation of self and other.

[Tenet Nosce]

Consider what would happen if you:

1. Refuse to pay your taxes. Or mortgage.
2. Attempt to bypass your mobile carrier's signal with your smartphone.
3. Choose not to have children against your spouse's wishes.
4. Dis-enroll your children from school.
5. Send gold in the U.S. mail in payment to a debt collector.
6. Drive your vehicle without a license, and get pulled over.
7. Get caught sending or receiving copyrighted information over the Internet.
8. Accidentally harm another person's body with your vehicle.
9. Attempt to cross a border without identification.
10. Attempt to commit suicide.

In my somewhat ludicrous opinion, we are all slaves.

I agree with your 10 examples- they are exactly such things that would elicit codified responses, as Ra would say. However so I do not agree that we are all slaves. I would say we are less than entirely free, as it were. Perhaps I am walking a fine line but I believe that one can be not-free and not a slave simultaneously, when living under a set of genuinely well intended laws, and when there exists a form a government with some degree of citizenry participation (elections, etc).

What would you say it means to be a slave? I have been framing it in terms of forced response, which would appear to be by definition a violation of free will.

[Plenum]

What would you say it means to be a slave? I have been framing it in terms of forced response, which would appear to be by definition a violation of free will.

What does it mean to be a slave?

funny. I was pondering just the EXACT same thing a few moments ago.

we have to begin with some sort of common understanding of the terms involved.

I would phrase it thus:

in a STS organisation/society/relationship/family, the Free Will of one individual is IMPOSED on the others by the use of Threats. If you 'don't do this, then this will happen'. It can be blackmail, the threat of physical force (I'll smash your head in), you'll lose your job, etc. It is based on fear. And so a STS outcome is achieved because the Free Will of the underlings is 'enslaved' to the Master. Much like a military organisation (which I think Ra mentions as one of the best examples of a STS group). Strictly hierarchical, do what your superior tells you to.

in a STO group, people achieve an outcome because they 'want to'. In an ideal world, they are free to come and go if they 'disagree' with the direction or activities of the group. They are not 'forced' to participate. Free Will of all participants is preserved.

unintentional slavery in a STO sense might be something like peer pressure, wanting to create 'standards' for the group (a set level of mimimum contributions or you get kicked out), and I can't think of anything else atm.

the application of the Veil has created some very intriguing and subtle situations.

[βαθμιαίος]

I appear to be struggling with how "unintentional slavery" could exist in a society without the veil. Can you think of any possible scenarios?

Here's an example that I was just thinking about in our own society: homework. We assign it to children because we think, basically, that it's good for them, but isn't it really forcing them to do something whether they want to or not? I could envision a pre-veil society where children are given tasks to do because it's considered good for them.

Here is an example: Let's say a given society were to agree to the existence of a common store of foodstuffs, such as a granary. A governmental structure may be put in place to attend to the administration and distribution of said foodstuffs to the populace.

The notion that one must adhere to a codified behavioral system in order to access said foodstuffs need not necessarily apply. I can see the possibility for one, and not the other. A given society could choose that all people have the right/ability to draw from common resource pools irrespective of their behavior and/or social status. Though, according to our historical record, these two concepts appear to have gone hand-in-hand.

Would there be rules about how much people had to contribute and how much they could receive? If so, that could easily lead to well-intentioned slavery.

Ra said that the introduction of government structures pre-veil were results of disharmony. It just seems likely to me that a structural response to disharmony would involve creating rules about what type of actions were considered to induce disharmony and hence should be controlled.

[Tenet Nosce]

Here's an example that I was just thinking about in our own society: homework. We assign it to children because we think, basically, that it's good for them, but isn't it really forcing them to do something whether they want to or not? I could envision a pre-veil society where children are given tasks to do because it's considered good for them.

What if a child could choose from among a whole panoply of skills and academic interests and be trusted to act under their own inner guidance? Why must it be "assigned" to them by some other who thinks they know better what is the appropriate sequence for learning lessons?

Would there be rules about how much people had to contribute and how much they could receive? If so, that could easily lead to well-intentioned slavery.

Yes, I see how it could lead to that. Though if such a system were truly transparent, it might be exceedingly difficult to manipulate. I would conjecture that if it were clear for all to see who was making the largest net contribution, and who was making the largest net withdrawal, behavior control through law wouldn't be necessary.

It just seems likely to me that a structural response to disharmony would involve creating rules about what type of actions were considered to induce disharmony and hence should be controlled.

Well that certainly appears to be what happened!

[βαθμιαίος]

What if a child could choose from among a whole panoply of skills and academic interests and be trusted to act under their own inner guidance? Why must it be "assigned" to them by some other who thinks they know better what is the appropriate sequence for learning lessons?

Exactly!

[Oceania]

in lemuria they let the kids choose for themselves.