Don't you think a predestined action is something you are not aware of?

[ana]

Q: In this other book here, there is a Celtic word that pops up: 'pryf.' What is pryf?
A: Soul.
Q: The book says here that there is a need for someone of a certain bloodline to come along and 'free the dragon spawn.' 'None other than she can bring the pryf up from the deep no matter how they may make the serpents squirm. If she can hold her place in the gates of time.' What are they talking about here; bringing up the dragon spawn, and how does that relate to soul?
A: You cannot see?
Q: It also says that this person with this bloodline, that it is the duty of this person to create a bridge between man and the gods, to open the doorways of time. Can you comment on that?
A: These questions have explanations which are readily apparent.
Q: Well, before, when I asked a question, you said that I would get my answer from the 'trees.' This book is all about 'trees,' in one way or another - ancient Druids and so forth. Was that clue given so that I would notice these things in this particular book even though it is fiction? A: Certainly.

So, perhaps we have some better idea of the function of the Shaman-Knight... the Knighted Ones: Incarnations of the archetype/Thought Centers of Perseus, the hero who cut off the head of the Gorgon, who freed the spirit of limitations, those of a particular Frequency Resonance Vibration of sufficient strength and purity to be able to create a bridge between man and the gods, to open the doorways of time.



Q: Now, on a couple of occasions we have talked about trees. You have said that the trees would lead me to an answer. Then you made remarks about beechnut, and oaks, and beech and bloodlines and family trees and the Nordic Covenant. Basically, I asked about this Nordic Covenant and you said that I would find the answer, that the trees would lead me to it. I asked what literary source I should go to to find the least distorted source of information. You answered "trees" again. Then, you pointed out the leaves of the trees on this book. Later, when I read the book that was all about trees, it said that there was a need for someone of a certain bloodline to come along and free the dragon spawn. "None other than she can bring the pryf, or soul, up from the deep, no matter how they may make the serpents squirm. If she can hold her place in the gates of time." You answered me "You cannot see?" It also says that this person with this certain bloodline has the duty of creating a bridge between man and the gods to open the doorways of time. You said to me that these things had explanations that were readily apparent. Then, when I asked the question about this book and all the trees in it, that this was a clue given so that I would notice the things in this particular book, you said "certainly." Now, having gone through all the shamanic stuff, all the information about the world tree, the world axis, and your remarks about building a staircase, which is another variation on the world axis or world tree, and having some kind of mission, and the mission being piercing the spider, which relates again to the world axis and the world tree, which one climbs one step at a time. Then, you talked about Jack and the Beanstalk, which is another example of the world tree. Over and over again we are having all these representations of trees which basically has something to do with some sort of destined action, and it is almost as though you are hinting that some person has to be physically tuned as a transducer of some sort to "stand in the gates of time," for the rest of humanity. Then, you made the remark recently about lodestar. Well, there might have been a time in my life when I might have thought that it was me who could do something like that. And, if I ever did, maybe it was even ego thinking. However, I am getting a little old for that sort of thing, so I don't really think that it is my role. But, I do think that there is somebody in the world whose role that is, and I would like to know if that is somebody we are supposed to be looking for, or that we are going to find this person?
A: Perhaps you shall find, or perhaps they will find you!
Q: Well, it kind of takes the burden off my shoulders. I think that somebody who does something like that is never useful for anything again. Somebody who does such a thing is like a sacrifice. They have to give their life up for others to act as this transducer and it fries all their circuits. Can you comment?
A: No.
Q: Am I correct that somebody who does this is basically sacrificing themselves and they get fried in the process?
A: In some instances.
Q: But, it is true that we are looking for somebody who will stand in the gates of time and act as a bridge?
A: Maybe. You shall see...




Someone with the Nordic Heritage of the light side, know the truth about human history, will represent the archetype of the eternal feminine (holy spirit Jesus talk about) and will help humans to know the truth, (They should known that the first God manifestation is the feminine principle and through the feminine principle God can express himself, these God expressions are the names of God (Humans are names of God as Jesus is)

Humans will find inside them the total expresion of the truth, the acquired knowledge will expand their conscience and allow them to get in the next density where they will be free to choose.


But: The road is being prepared by those who know, they will be the lights that guide them in the dark. No doubt, you are those lights you have strongly defined as the most capable.

If you look inside yourself will find the disinterested hanker that others know the truth.
For all the forum members that are aware of that, the predestined action has been transformed in a chosen action.

 

[spyraal]

Hello Ana,

Q: [edit]..and I would like to know if that is somebody we are supposed to be looking for, or that we are going to find this person?
A: Perhaps you shall find, or perhaps they will find you!

Someone with the Nordic Heritage of the light side,..[edit]

I can't help to notice that both you as well as the questioners in the transcript you quoted, actually use only the words "someone","somebody" or "this person", probably assuming that it is a single individual. Maybe there is some clue that i am not aware of.
But the Cs said "perhaps they will find you!" speaking in plural. Maybe there is some significance in the fact that the Cs choose the word "THEY" and not a "HE" or a "SHE".

But without being able to tell for sure if A "saviour" is on the way right now, and if i was allowed to choose, i would certainly prefer for US to save our own selves this time, just for once, just for the shake of variety... Let alone that we are running out of proper real-estate for new temples lately. All the good places are taken...

Or even better, we can even become a team and help one another while having each other to share, think and have fun with...? :/

Or this is already happening in a way?

Who knows? We shall see...

Just some thoughts! Take care.

:)

 

[christx11]

Hello Ana,

Q: [edit]..and I would like to know if that is somebody we are supposed to be looking for, or that we are going to find this person?
A: Perhaps you shall find, or perhaps they will find you!

Someone with the Nordic Heritage of the light side,..[edit]

I can't help to notice that both you as well as the questioners in the transcript you quoted, actually use only the words "someone","somebody" or "this person", probably assuming that it is a single individual. Maybe there is some clue that i am not aware of.
But the Cs said "perhaps they will find you!" speaking in plural. Maybe there is some significance in the fact that the Cs choose the word "THEY" and not a "HE" or a "SHE".

But without being able to tell for sure if A "saviour" is on the way right now, and if i was allowed to choose, i would certainly prefer for US to save our own selves this time, just for once, just for the shake of variety... Let alone that we are running out of proper real-estate for new temples lately. All the good places are taken...

Or even better, we can even become a team and help one another while having each other to share, think and have fun with...? :/

Or this is already happening in a way?

Who knows? We shall see...

Just some thoughts! Take care.

:)

spyraal, I understand what you mean especially when combined with the other information about being on the lookout for individuals (plural) with a 4th density STO profile and all the concepts that relate to a group being necessary.

But the passages quoted also have a specific context. The 'someone', 'she', 'she', 'this person'. 'this person', are all direct quotes from a book.

The second passage using 'somebody' is all in reference to the quoting of the book that used 'someone', 'she', 'this person'.

It would only be normal to speak in a singular as that is the context of what was being discussed from the book.

Also 'they' is regularly used in the singular to avoid the use of a definite masculine or feminine article he/she. That may or may not be relevant in the C's use of the word. It may be plural or it may be singular non-gendered.

I think your inference that this is intended to imply the connotation of a "savior" complex might be missing the point as well. It may very well require the start of an STO path by a singular person who stands for all in the face of all that is STS so that others can also have the opportunity to see if they wish, but that does not necessarily mean this person(s) fits in the STS savior complex image either.

So I get what you are saying but I think all the other stuff I mentioned is also relevant.

 

[spyraal]

But the passages quoted also have a specific context. The 'someone', 'she', 'she', 'this person'. 'this person', are all direct quotes from a book.

The second passage using 'somebody' is all in reference to the quoting of the book that used 'someone', 'she', 'this person'.

It would only be normal to speak in a singular as that is the context of what was being discussed from the book.

Framing these words ("someone", "this person" etc.) in that context -as part of a discussion started over a book- makes a whole different sense. Probably that was one clue i was missing. Thanks for clarifing this for me.

Also 'they' is regularly used in the singular to avoid the use of a definite masculine or feminine article he/she.

If am sorry if i misuderstand you here, but if i do not, then i am not familiar with such a use. Do you mean that we can actually use the word "they" (ok, regardless of sex) but still implying a single person? Like saying "whoever" for example?
If it is so, it must not be a very common use, at least according to my knowledge of the english language -which is far from perfect though...

I think your inference that this is intended to imply the connotation of a "savior" complex might be missing the point as well.

I was not really implying a second-coming-style "saviour" -that is why i used quotes it the word "saviour" in my post. I understand that what we are talking about here -hypotheticaly- is more like a "very talented" STO person than a "saviour" the biblical sense where we just have to sit and watch the heavenly fireworks from our couch. :) But IMO such a STO person would most probably assign him/herself to waking up the people who want and have the potential to be 4th-density candidates -and we seem to agree in that. So even that person would need a willing group of people to work with or idealy a society of such people to work with, since there are no "gifts" of such kind. Because there has to be some conscious interaction and "exchange" between such a person and the people he helps in becoming STO candidates. How can it be otherwise and still be considered STO?

When you say that this person must "stand for all in the face of all that is STS" i am left wondering whether his/her/they mission will be to wake up the STO-ready people or to put the STS in their "proper place"? What do you mean by "stand for all in the face of all that is STS"? If you mean a person bearing knowledge and a crystal clear intent, a person that can trully inspire higher feelings and thoughts, a person that can be a real-life example of practicing the STO path with balance and wisdom, then i am with you on this one. IMHO, any outside help is welcomed (when asked for), but the real "battle" is still within ourselves and we have to drink this "sour glass" with our own suffering and effort. For that reason even that "talented STO person" might be limited to being "just" a major catalyst. Because i am wondering, since the main trait of STS is wishfull thinking, how far we would be from that thin line ourselves if we expected someone to come and give the STS hierarchy a "kick in the butt" instead of trying to make our own butt unavailable for consumption?

So -in theory at least!- it appears to my mind that there can indeed be such an "STO saviour" profile. My point is that even such a person or persons exit, we still have a lot of individual work to do. Because the level of the student also defines the level of the teacher.

Thank you for this discussion Xman. Take care. :)

 

[christx11]

Framing these words ("someone", "this person" etc.) in that context -as part of a discussion started over a book- makes a whole different sense. Probably that was one clue i was missing. Thanks for clarifing this for me.

Yes, it does seem to make some difference. These are excerpts from C's sessions. And I think but am not entirely sure that it is Laura asking most of the questions. If you look carefully it does say more than once that it is in reference to a book.

Q: In this other book here, there is a Celtic word that pops up: 'pryf.' What is pryf?
A: Soul.
Q: The book says here that there is a need for someone of a certain bloodline to come along and 'free the dragon spawn.' 'None other than she can bring the pryf up from the deep no matter how they may make the serpents squirm. If she can hold her place in the gates of time.' What are they talking about here; bringing up the dragon spawn, and how does that relate to soul?
A: You cannot see?
Q: It also says that this person with this bloodline, that it is the duty of this person to create a bridge between man and the gods, to open the doorways of time. Can you comment on that?
A: These questions have explanations which are readily apparent.
Q: Well, before, when I asked a question, you said that I would get my answer from the 'trees.' This book is all about 'trees,' in one way or another - ancient Druids and so forth. Was that clue given so that I would notice these things in this particular book even though it is fiction?
A: Certainly.

And

Q: Now, on a couple of occasions we have talked about trees. You have said that the trees would lead me to an answer. Then you made remarks about beechnut, and oaks, and beech and bloodlines and family trees and the Nordic Covenant. Basically, I asked about this Nordic Covenant and you said that I would find the answer, that the trees would lead me to it. I asked what literary source I should go to to find the least distorted source of information. You answered "trees" again. Then, you pointed out the leaves of the trees on this book. Later, when I read the book that was all about trees, it said that there was a need for someone of a certain bloodline to come along and free the dragon spawn. "None other than she can bring the pryf, or soul, up from the deep, no matter how they may make the serpents squirm. If she can hold her place in the gates of time." You answered me "You cannot see?" It also says that this person with this certain bloodline has the duty of creating a bridge between man and the gods to open the doorways of time. You said to me that these things had explanations that were readily apparent. Then, when I asked the question about this book and all the trees in it, that this was a clue given so that I would notice the things in this particular book, you said "certainly." Now, having gone through all the shamanic stuff, all the information about the world tree, the world axis, and your remarks about building a staircase, which is another variation on the world axis or world tree, and having some kind of mission, and the mission being piercing the spider, which relates again to the world axis and the world tree, which one climbs one step at a time. Then, you talked about Jack and the Beanstalk, which is another example of the world tree. Over and over again we are having all these representations of trees which basically has something to do with some sort of destined action, and it is almost as though you are hinting that some person has to be physically tuned as a transducer of some sort to "stand in the gates of time," for the rest of humanity. Then, you made the remark recently about lodestar. Well, there might have been a time in my life when I might have thought that it was me who could do something like that. And, if I ever did, maybe it was even ego thinking. However, I am getting a little old for that sort of thing, so I don't really think that it is my role. But, I do think that there is somebody in the world whose role that is, and I would like to know if that is somebody we are supposed to be looking for, or that we are going to find this person?

If am sorry if i misuderstand you here, but if i do not, then i am not familiar with such a use. Do you mean that we can actually use the word "they" (ok, regardless of sex) but still implying a single person? Like saying "whoever" for example?
If it is so, it must not be a very common use, at least according to my knowledge of the english language -which is far from perfect though...

But, I do think that there is somebody in the world whose role that is, and I would like to know if that is somebody we are supposed to be looking for, or that we are going to find this person?
A: Perhaps you shall find, or perhaps they will find you!

"They" could very easily refer to "somebody" or "this person".
It is very common for centuries. Shakespeare is full of it.

Example singular: Pick a person to come up to the chalk board. When they finish, make sure they erase their work from the chalk board.

Example singular: When someone speaks in front of an audience they may feel quite a bit of nervousness.

Usage note Long before the use of generic he was condemned as sexist, the pronouns they, their, and them were used in educated speech and in all but the most formal writing to refer to indefinite pronouns and to singular nouns of general personal reference, probably because such nouns are often not felt to be exclusively singular: If anyone calls, tell them I'll be back at six. Everyone began looking for their books at once. Such use is not a recent development, nor is it a mark of ignorance. Shakespeare, Swift, Shelley, Scott, and Dickens, as well as many other English and American writers, have used they and its forms to refer to singular antecedents. Already widespread in the language (though still rejected as ungrammatical by some), this use of they, their, and them is increasing in all but the most conservatively edited American English. This increased use is at least partly impelled by the desire to avoid the sexist implications of he as a pronoun of general reference.

The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts. This gives you the option of using the plural pronouns where you think they sound best, and of using the singular pronouns (as he, she, he or she, and their inflected forms) where you think they sound best.

I was not really implying a second-coming-style "saviour" -that is why i used quotes it the word "saviour" in my post.

I didn't really take it that way, 'a second-coming-style "saviour"'. I saw you introducing the savior idea as you building on your interpretation of what the C's meant by "they" and "they" not meaning a singular person. You seemed to react very strongly to the idea that there could be "a person", "an individual" in such a role and it couldn't be what was meant because the C's used the word "they".

I am trying to call into question why you even introduce the idea of "savior" here in any form as I do not see that it is applicable in either the sessions quoted or in Ana's commentary.

I think you may be reading something into this that is not there.

I understand that what we are talking about here -hypotheticaly- is more like a "very talented" STO person than a "saviour" the biblical sense where we just have to sit and watch the heavenly fireworks from our couch. :) But IMO such a STO person would most probably assign him/herself to waking up the people who want and have the potential to be 4th-density candidates -and we seem to agree in that. So even that person would need a willing group of people to work with or idealy a society of such people to work with, since there no "gifts" of such kind. Because there has to be some conscious interaction and "exchange" between such a person and the people he helps in becoming STO candidates. How can it be otherwise and still be considered STO?

I don't think anything was presented to endorse some kind of savior idea to start with.

You just seemed to have a strong reaction for some reason that such was being presented.

When you say that this person must "stand for all in the face of all that is STS" i am left wondering whether his/her mission will be to wake up the STO-ready people or to put the STS in their "proper place"? What do you mean by "stand for all in the face of all that is STS"?

Well that is not what I said was it. You injected the word "must", I said "may" as in it may be, it is possible.

Here is my sentence - "It may very well require the start of an STO path by a singular person who stands for all in the face of all that is STS so that others can also have the opportunity to see if they wish,"

I think you may be over analysing things here or your preconceptions are clouding your line of thought.

First you did not realize that the references were from a book when the excerpts explicitly say such multiple times. And regardless of that, what the passages do say I do not think has anything to do with any form of savior idea. Now you seem to be consciously or unconsciously throwing a twist on what I said.

You are wondering whether the intention of my statement, "stand for all in the face of all that is STS", means "to put the STS in their "proper place"?" Well, I am having a disconnect on that one. I do not understand how you got that out of it, but perhaps it is because it is a little airy-fairy sounding or amorphous wording. I will try to say it in another way.

Standing up for everyone who thinks this reality is messed up (standing up for all).

(In the face of all that is STS) Our entire reality is STS, manipulation, control, feeding emotionally, feeding psychologically, deception, lies... We are faced with it every second.

Saying - No to the manipulators and deceivers. I will not go on what you say just because you say it. I will research it myself, I will seek and verify and dig and not give up. Whether it is personal interaction, psychology, religion, science, history, math, everything.

"stand for all in the face of all that is STS"

If you mean a person bearing knowledge and a crystal clear intent, a person that can trully inspire higher feelings and thoughts, a person that can be a real-life example of practicing the STO path with balance and wisdom, then i am with you on this one. IMHO, any outside help is welcomed (when asked for), but the real "battle" is still within ourselves and we have to drink this "sour glass" with our own suffering and effort. For that reason even that "talented STO person" might be limited to being "just" a major catalyst. Because i am wondering, since the main trait of STS is wishfull thinking, how far we would be from that thin line ourselves if we expected someone to come and give the STS hierarchy a "kick in the butt" instead of trying to make our own butt unavailable for consumption?

So -in theory at least!- it appears to my mind that there can indeed be such an "STO saviour" profile. My point is that even such a person or persons exit, we still have a lot of individual work to do. Because the level of the student also defines the level of the teacher.

Thank you for this discussion Xman. Take care. :)

I am not quite sure how we got to this whole line of savior talk here. You introduced the idea and I made a short statement that I was not sure how you came to such an idea out of what Ana had said. That is still not clear to me but it seems to have taken on a life of its own somehow. You have even now taken my statement "stand for all in the face of all that is STS" and turned that into another extrapolation that ends with 'there can indeed be such an "STO saviour" profile'. I didn't think there was any "savior" idea that belonged in the discussion to begin with.

You still seem to be triggered by this idea that Ana's post somehow implied some kind of savior idea in it removing responsibility from the level of the individual (someone else will do it for you). And now it seems what I have said is turned into the same thing.

Just because an individual may be a seed or one holding the door open for others does not make them a savior or remove responsibility from the others. Everyone has to get there by their own efforts. I don't think what Ana posted had any contradiction to those concepts. It seemed that you did perceive some kind of contradiction going on that needed to be corrected and it still seems that you are trying to correct some contradiction that does not exist.

 

[Pierre]

This discussion about one "bridge" VS several "bridges" between humans and gods brings to mind the following excerpt :

Q: (L) At this point of dimensional transition, is what we are doing, anchoring a frequency, are we creating a sort of "super string" network that will literally create another earth in 4th density, which will then exist in 4th density, and the old 3rd density earth -- almost like the splitting of a one celled organism, only in this splitting one half of it moves into another dimension and is energized and quite literally created by the anchoring frequency, while the old one remains and experiences 3rd density reality?
A: Step by step.
Q: (L) Are we anchoring frequency to create a split?
A: One developing conduit.
Q: (L) We are developing a conduit?
A: Yes. One.
Q: (J) How many conduits do we need?
A: Open.
Q: (T) Is this conduit going to allow those who remain behind to be able to move to 4th density easier when they are ready?
A: No.
Q: (T) What is the conduit for?
A: You and those who will follow you.
Q: (T) Oh, this is for those of us who will move to 4th density. We will move through and they will follow us through the conduit. (J) Oh, others who are ready?
A: Your group here tonight.
Q: (L) Does this mean we will have followers or just us here now?
A: Open. Up to you.
Q: (L) This conduit. Is this a conduit through which an entire planet will transition?
A: You are one. There are others.
Q: (L) There are other planets...
A: No. Conduit.
Q: We are one conduit and there are conduits...
A: No. Developing at this point.
Q: (J) So, at this point we are developing a conduit?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) There are other groups on this planet developing their own conduits?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) These are conduits for us to move to 4th density in?
A: Knowledge is the key to developing a conduit.
Q: (T) I am working on the assumption that all of us here are part of the family of light, is this true?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) And we have been drawn together in order to develop this conduit from where we are?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Are there others in this area?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Are they supposed to join with us or are they working
on their own?
A: Open.

So apparently there are several groups developing several conduits.

These conduits seem to allow 3D entities to move towards 4D STO. We might assume that those conduits are bilateral and once the frequency is strongly anchored in our 3D earth it might also allow the intervention of 4D STO into this 3D realm.

So a group of 4D STO candidate might also play a "cavalry" role, preparing the ground for the intervention of the "heavy artillery"

 

[ana]

Thank you Belibaste

 

[Ruth]

So a group of 4D STO candidate might also play a "cavalry" role, preparing the ground for the intervention of the "heavy artillery"

Well, as far as I'm aware, the traditional 'role' of any artillery unit is to blow up bridges, not to build them.

What ever STO is doing, it's probably not that 'visible'... nor as 'head to head' combative, either. I don't suppose it'll stop them thowing a real spanner in the spokes of STS, though. :D

 

[anart]

hese conduits seem to allow 3D entities to move towards 4D STO. We might assume that those conduits are bilateral and once the frequency is strongly anchored in our 3D earth it might also allow the intervention of 4D STO into this 3D realm.

I'm not certain about this  'intervention of 4D STO'  idea since STO does not intervene, at least in the manner in which the word 'intervene' is normally understood.  'STO doesn't play chess'.  Perhaps I am misunderstanding you?

 

[ana]

I'm not certain about this 'intervention of 4D STO' idea since STO does not intervene, at least in the manner in which the word 'intervene' is normally understood. 'STO doesn't play chess'. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you?

Well Anart,

Remember, Ask and you will be given.

Why are you assuming that some don't ask for it, what do you think were doing Jesus or Buda...
Do you really think Jesus was playing chess

Mod: Edit to clarify the quotes

 

[anart]

Well Anart,

Remember,      Ask and you will be given.

And the devil is in the details, ana.  Can you define what it is to truly ask? 

Why are you assuming that some don't ask for it, what do you think were doing Jesus or Buda...

I am assuming nothing and you are misunderstanding me - thus making assumptions of your own.

Do you really think Jesus was playing chess 

I doubt Jesus did, actually - but that, again, is not the point.  I use the phrase 'STO does not play chess' because it is a C's quote, illustrating the point that it is not within the STO dynamic to interfere - it violates Free Will and lessons, at least to my understanding.  Have you had a chance to read the Wave and Adventure series?  That might help clarify things for you.

 

[ana]

Well Anart,

Remember, Ask and you will be given.

And the devil is in the details, ana. Can you define what it is to truly ask?

Why are you assuming that some don't ask for it, what do you think were doing Jesus or Buda...

I am assuming nothing and you are misunderstanding me - thus making assumptions of your own.

Do you really think Jesus was playing chess

I doubt Jesus did, actually - but that, again, is not the point. I use the phrase 'STO does not play chess' because it is a C's quote, illustrating the point that it is not within the STO dynamic to interfere - it violates Free Will and lessons, at least to my understanding. Have you had a chance to read the Wave and Adventure series? That might help clarify things for you.

To ask, Is what Laura do every day, is to have the willpower of know the truth without project internally wishes.
Sorry if I am misunderstanding you, then can you please explain it other way to me in order to understand

I know that is a C's quote Anart, but we are not talking about an Sto interferece of the free will lessons, if not of an sto will in order to help those who ask; as you know STO means service to others.

Sometimes we make the mistake of act mechanically using always the same method to solve questions, remember each case deserve total care as each case is different.

 

[Color]

To ask, Is what Laura do every day, is to have the willpower of know the truth without project internally wishes.
Sorry if I am misunderstanding you, then can you please explain it other way to me in order to understand

Hi Ana,

maybe the whole confusion is around these terms: 'help' and ' intervene'?
How I read Anart's posts - she's talking about the difference between what one may consider a STO intervention/help should be like
and the true nature of STO and how they help to the one who asks.

Because of our STS nature, our buffers and programs, we tend to 'ask' for the wrong things, cause our own perception of love is twisted.
And even if we manage to ask for the 'right thing' (which is a knowledge of the Truth without projecting internal wishes, like you said)
the help is given through hints and gentle guidance, some pointers into a right direction and then it's all about the STS person to search,
try, follow those clues and work hard to pass through strong shocks of removing the veils of illusion and developing the will to follow her/his aim...

Was THAT the 'intervention' and 'help' you had in mind?
Cause, from what I read, this is the main issue. A misunderstanding of what STO help should be ;)

The way Belibaste used the word 'intervention' is confusing, cause it could be read as expecting some 'army of light' to come here and solve
Earth's mess, placing human STO candidates into a role of 'gate openers' for the 'army of salvation' and that really isn't how I understood Laura's work, or Cass guidance on how this whole thing will play out.

fwiw

Alice

 

[spyraal]

Hello everyone, Xman,

First of all thank you because your post is very well substantiated and usefull as it concerns how the conversation started with the quotes from the sessions and also the reference for the use of "they" in literature.

I didn't really take it that way, 'a second-coming-style "saviour"'. I saw you introducing the savior idea as you building on your interpretation of what the C's meant by "they" and "they" not meaning a singular person. You seemed to react very strongly to the idea that there could be "a person", "an individual" in such a role and it couldn't be what was meant because the C's used the word "they".

I am trying to call into question why you even introduce the idea of "savior" here in any form as I do not see that it is applicable in either the sessions quoted or in Ana's commentary.

I think you may be reading something into this that is not there.

I did not really feel you took it this way too. I was rather trying to make an argument to make my point and i was not refering to that as your idea. Also, it was not my intension to "react strongly" with what i was writing in my post, and i am sorry if i left that impression . I am also open to this subject and of course any help given to us at this time in a STO manner. Considering that together with my above mentioned (mis)understanding now that i review my post, i see that my perceived contrast between the use of the words "they" and "someone" took my attention as something worth further discussion. And looking back it was also because Ana stated:

quoted from session: Over and over again we are having all these representations of trees which basically has something to do with some sort of destined action, and it is almost as though you are hinting that some person has to be physically tuned as a transducer of some sort to "stand in the gates of time," for the rest of humanity.

Someone with the Nordic Heritage of the light side, know the truth about human history, will represent the archetype of the eternal feminine (holy spirit Jesus talk about) and will help humans to know the truth,...

And while can see now that i took these lines in a different context than the one they had, it seemed to me at the time, that Ana's use of the phrase "Someone with the Nordic Heritage" was quite restricting to the possibility there are might be many people and with other than Nordic heritage that might stand up to Archetype mentioned, and i wanted to comment on that. Ι wanted to say that if we are to be helped with our own consent in a true STO manner, then we should continue working with ourselves as both ends of that "communication" are equally important.

So, i guess due to this mis-understanding i was trying to make a pointless point that it might be better to be equally open between the two possibilities (one vs many) that appeared to "split" out of my subjective comprehension of Ana's post. My incomplete knowledge of the full context of the transcripts together with these little "details" i just mentioned made me -for the shake of having a more percipient conversation- take the "side" of the possibility of the existance of "many" during my arguement. My original use of the word "saviour" (in quotes) was made with a sense of humour and i actually said:

But without being able to tell for sure if A "saviour" is on the way right now, and if i was allowed to choose, i would certainly prefer for US to save our own selves this time, just for once, just for the shake of variety... Let alone that we are running out of proper real-estate for new temples lately. All the good places are taken...

So the "frolicsome" mood of mine is evident here IMO, even though it does not appear to be very successfull in the occasion ;)

You still seem to be triggered by this idea that Ana's post somehow implied some kind of savior idea in it removing responsibility from the level of the individual (someone else will do it for you). And now it seems what I have said is turned into the same thing.

Just because an individual may be a seed or one holding the door open for others does not make them a savior or remove responsibility from the others. Everyone has to get there by their own efforts. I don't think what Ana posted had any contradiction to those concepts. It seemed that you did perceive some kind of contradiction going on that needed to be corrected and it still seems that you are trying to correct some contradiction that does not exist.

I do see your point, but i still feel that what was triggered by my understanding (or misunderstanding!) of what Ana posted and my intent was to start a conversation and not introduce or push my ideas. In my subjective opinion you may have taken some of my words and arguments "personaly" or rather "literally" when they were not ment to. I am sure that has to do more with my own difficulty in communicating what i ment. When for example i was saying to you:

"When you say that this person must "stand for all in the face of all that is STS" i am left wondering whether his/her mission will be to wake up the STO-ready people or to put the STS in their "proper place",

i was not asking YOU directly or saying these words as your opinion of course, rather than presenting a notion so as to make a point which is also to be examined. Thus i should probably start by saying "When we say that this person....etc" to make this point more evident, and not "you say" because when this is taken literally can appear as my own interpretation of what you said, while it was ment more like a rhetorical question.

Anyway, i think too that no contradiction exists :), and i feel that i have used enough "space" to explain my point for now before i really start spliting hairs. Points taken ;)

Thank you Xman for the time spent on your post in reply to mine, and the all others for your patience.

 

[ana]

To ask, Is what Laura do every day, is to have the willpower of know the truth without project internally wishes.
Sorry if I am misunderstanding you, then can you please explain it other way to me in order to understand

Hi Ana,

maybe the whole confusion is around these terms: 'help' and ' intervene'?
How I read Anart's posts - she's talking about the difference between what one may consider a STO intervention/help should be like
and the true nature of STO and how they help to the one who asks.

Because of our STS nature, our buffers and programs, we tend to 'ask' for the wrong things, cause our own perception of love is twisted.
And even if we manage to ask for the 'right thing' (which is a knowledge of the Truth without projecting internal wishes, like you said)
the help is given through hints and gentle guidance, some pointers into a right direction and then it's all about the STS person to search,
try, follow those clues and work hard to pass through strong shocks of removing the veils of illusion and developing the will to follow her/his aim...

Was THAT the 'intervention' and 'help' you had in mind?
Cause, from what I read, this is the main issue. A misunderstanding of what STO help should be ;)

The way Belibaste used the word 'intervention' is confusing, cause it could be read as expecting some 'army of light' to come here and solve
Earth's mess, placing human STO candidates into a role of 'gate openers' for the 'army of salvation' and that really isn't how I understood Laura's work, or Cass guidance on how this whole thing will play out.

fwiw

Alice

Undertand what you mean, you are looking carefully to each word the others use, but this word means to: To come, appear, or lie between two things.

Those who help...Aren't they betwen two different realms even if they know the truth

Some of you have adopted a way of thinking correlated with certain keywords and an alarm system skips when listening them

If you only see the words you will not receive the message, If I only think of you as Alice will not see the truth

Seems you are so afraid of becoming Messengers of the new age ;)