Hatonn on the Selectivity of Unconditional Love

Confederation Philosophy
1

What a curious, provocative title, huh? Well I’m nothing if not a hype man for the Confederation. I think it’s accurate, because what Hatonn discusses here is what is actually capable of being loved in that cosmic, total, unconditional manner. It’s not our personalities or the details of our lives. All that stuff is a wash, and it does not partake of the purity that calls back to the Creator at all. That is all illusion, and you cannot love something fake.

What you can do, and what I find so fascinating and compelling, is to reach into the illusion to find the reality behind it. This is something that Q’uo mentioned recently at the sixth channeling intensive (especially in this session) where the illusion can be leaned into more to find the truth. Instead of trying to block out that which is false and distorted, backing away from it in an escape manuever, one commits even more to it and through doing so find the solid ground of love and faith and unity under the flimsy and insubstantial illusion.

This is the use of the illusion itself on its own terms to bear out its inconsistencies, its contradictions, and thereby by testing it so it allows one to narrow down to the reality behind it. And this isn’t a matter simply of exertion and skill; it’s a matter of a love so full, so unconditioned, so broadly shone upon the screen of the illusion, so foolish that it exposes the underlying reality, the hidden import and value of life itself. And nowhere will this reality be more poignant and readily apparent than when directed at an other self, a reflection of the Creator in whom you can recognize your own individuality and theirs while seeing the unbroken continuity that binds it all together.

Our task is to love so that we can find out what’s real: what is real within us, what is real within the world, what is real within each other.

I am now with this instrument, and again I greet you. When we say, my friends, that the truth lies within you, we say that which is most easily misunderstood by your peoples. And indeed, when the master known as Jesus said, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” this truth also is most often misunderstood by your peoples. It has most often been understood to mean that we must love each other’s good points and bad points, as you call them, within this physical illusion. That we must love each other’s failures as well as successes. That the truth lies within the illusion.

We do not wish to indicate that the truth which lies within you has a thing to do with your outer covering, shall we say, of deeds and actions. Nor did the master known as Jesus mean to indicate that you must love the outer wrappings of others. What we are suggesting, and what the master was suggesting, is that you penetrate the illusion, penetrate the wrapping of deeds and misdeeds, and discover within that illusion the reality of the Creator, the reality of love. Within you lies the truth. Within you lies love. Within each fellow man lies the same truth.

My brothers, to love another, as we mean it, is to love that within them which is one with that which is within you. To love yourself is not to love the outer wrapping of personality, but to honor and hallow that divinity that you are, which is at your very center. It is not possible to love your neighbor or yourself from a human level. You may have felt that you had failed if you had not loved completely, yet it is the law of the physical Illusion that a “love” will be bound by the law of good and evil. Therefore, there will be successes and failures. Love will not abide within the physical illusion. It cannot. Laws are to be followed, and the law of good and evil, of action and reaction, is unbreakable within the physical illusion.

There is a higher law, my friends, the law of love. Not the human love; that will fail. But the love which you will find at the center of your created being. My friends, you cannot try to love. Only let go of your feelings, and release them completely into the care of the love that created you. It is not expected that, at the human level, you will be able to love as the Creator desires. It is only as those who open to the center of their being that the love within flows through in the physical being, and out into the physical illusion. You may release this from within you just as a person may, on a very dark night, raise all the window shades in his house, so that the light within may pour out onto the world around him. The light within you, my friends, shines brightly. Whether you know it or not, whether you feel it or not, you have such power within you, my friends. You have such beauty of soul, such love, that it is indescribable. Be it known unto you, however, that love abides within each of you. And the power of this love is total.

Have you been operating on this power, or have you been attempting to live out an illusion using the illusion’s terms? Why do you think, my friends, that you are here? Have you not come to the conclusion that you are here to find something out that is obviously shown to be the reality about you? In there any question in your minds but that the routine of your daily life does not express that which you know to be the truth? My friends, let your seeking cease its restlessness. Turn within. In opening yourself to your own center of truth, you open yourself to the infinity of that which it is your birthright to know. That which you need will come to you, if you begin to seek it in a correct manner. The correct manner, my friends, is to know that the truth is within, and then to turn within and ask that that which you need to know be shown to you.

Perhaps, my friends, you will find truths directly in meditations. Perhaps the truths will occur in your daily life in unexpected ways. Whatever you need, if you are seeking it from the Creator, the Creator will provide. Seek and ye shall find. This is the truth that we state over and over to you. Seek the truth. Seek in meditation.

- Hatonn via Rueckert: January 11, 1976

(originally posted here)

4 Likes
2

The road to the center of being runs through the subconscious mind. One expeditious way of traveling there is by using hypnosis. Most people seem to be scared as poop of hypnosis. I expect this is because they feel that an experience of their inner self could be destabilizing.

I just returned from the first LLR meditation retreat, which was wonderful in various ways. I offered two hypnotic sessions, helping people work with their subconscious mind. The total attendance was about 22% of attendees and staff who could have attended.

It’s a slow path to work indirectly with the subconscious in order to encompass the larger self, but it eventually enables one to become their own puppet master. The stage after that is to hand over the keys and become the servant of love.

3 Likes
3

A curious title for a curious subject :).

It brings up a point of interest for me on how the Confederation speaks about personality (or maybe how people discussing Confederation teaching speak about personality – it can be hard for me to keep the two distinct).

The personality is both the access point and the context through which we are experiencing the illusion. The way I read this, the personality is described as an outer shell to be discarded within 3D? What would that look like?

The Creator is at the center of all things. And as we turn inward and seek the center are we not doing that in the specific context of an individuated self with a defined personality? What does a self look like without some sort of personal identity? Is there a distinction to be made between personality and identity?

Just curious if anyone has any thoughts. Thanks for the post, Jeremy.

2 Likes
4

Thank you for asking such juicy questions.

This is how it looks early in the developmental (evolutionary) process.

Let’s begin with plants. They have no brain and no nerves, yet they do have receptors of various sorts. With these, they can do what a nervous system does: viz., (1) gather info about the environment, (2) process this info and (3) determine actions the organism should take, based upon this process.

Plants communicate to one another about danger (pests) and other things. They are actually able to distribute resources in a communal-support type of fashion. And, being creatures of second density, they are not individuated.

According to Ra’s comments about tree folk (search “Sirius,” if you’re interest in this is serious), vegetation can move to 3D and individuate, interestingly enough. (Also of note here is that this particular group was so united in purpose that the were able to travel here while in late 3D! Compare that us.)

With mammals, we develop nerves, which can coordinate in, say, a starfish to fulfill the three items above, even without a brain. Same with an earthworm.

Moving along, the nervous system becomes more complex and we grow this thing called a brain to handle the admin, if you will.

All of this leads to a personality (which is many-layered) to further extend the mission of gathering info, processing it and using that to chose actions.

All of this is to say, the personality is an outgrowth of the nervous system, and used to help us understand and navigate through the illusion.

This is why the personality has no f*ucking idea what is happening with the spirit complex. It generally has no interest there and does not possess any skill to gather information from there.

Meet your personality shell.

Yes, correct. That’s why it’s so difficult and confusing. It takes a long time to purify the emotions of the personality to be able to meet and greet the quality of vibrations used by the spirit complex. This is why it is so hard to graduate to 4D. We are so well attuned to the illusion and so poorly attuned to spirit, I’m very sad to say.

Good question. It is very subtle at first and difficult to discern. In the beginning it only looks like awareness, but it is awareness with what I call an “inner personality,” which is impersonal by nature. Case in point, angels work very impersonally, they simply serve. And yet, you may discern one from another by their interests, biases and capabilities. All that said, the inner self can be brutal as well. Like the outer personality, it has many layers.

Very much so. Our outer personality simply looks outward, while our inner personality works in the inner planes. Put together, they are usually too incoherent to be called an identity, in my opinion. But that’s what we’re aiming for.

As things progress, these two portions become better integrated, and then one is able to do “sirius” work in consciousness.

2 Likes
5

The sessions just before the beginning of the material in 1981 do seem to have that uncanny aspect of profundity. And a powerful rational element to them. Perhaps this was because Carla was younger, or perhaps it was because she was being tuned to eventually do the Law of One sessions.

This reminds me of something I have often thought. Jesus, on the cross ‘forgive them for they know not what they do’. He did not actually say that he, Jesus, forgave! In fact he never did. He said to people he healed, ‘your father forgives your sins’. He was petitioning a higher entity - God. To forgive on his behalf. A strength greater than him in a sense.

The story COULD have been ‘and then, as he died, Jesus looked upon the crowd, with tears in his eyes, and said “I forgive you”’. But it is not!

It seems very different from the message we are taught from Christianity today.

1 Like
6

For what it’s worth, that’s not how I read it. The personality is the access point to the illusion, but it is in my view not the entire context of experience of the illusion. This is the role of the spirit complex – the way I think about it is that the spirit complex provides a second feedback loop to the mind/body feedback loop of second density creatures. I think this is where our ability to abstract comes from – we are able to occupy a position of observation outside of our material selves.

It is the faculty of abstract thought that truly brings the very first clues of Creatorship into consciousness, our heritage in the genealogy of the Logos, into our experience. We are able to think more crystalline, pure things than the manifest illusion affords. Think of ethical and moral ideals, for example: we give ourselves an ideal we rarely live up to, and yet we are considering something very mentally addressable. Probably making it too clean but think of my remarks as a gesture towards the perpetual capacity of the mind/body/spirit complex to realize its own Creatorship.

The personality is not to be discarded; it is to be made tidy, regular, crystalline. The more regular and balanced the personality, the less distorted the light from the Creator shining through. Q’uo often described work on the self as cleaning a stained glass mirror.

Absolutely. Identity is that gravitational center; personality is was accrues around it from experience that can cohere. In fact, in the session before this one in question Hatonn speaks of a “spiritual personality,” which I take to be a regularized, coherent pattern of energy expenditure that allows for that center to express and receive.

You’ll recall that Ra said, “The Law of One, though beyond the limitations of name, as you call vibratory sound complexes, may be approximated by stating that all things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity .” That strikes me as the center of centers, the substance behind the illusory personality that is equal to the challenge of the illusion’s varied dramas and scenes of separation.

All my opinion, of course, and not the word of any Confederation friend.

1 Like
7

Interesting point. As I perceive it, the distinction is that at that point his personal identity had faded and he was acting solely as spirit moved through him. That is, he had pretty well dropped the personal identity and spirit itself or his spirit complex personality was all he had left. So, saying “Father, forgive them…,” this emphasizes that he was not acting personally, as “I forgive you all,” would connote.

8

It strikes me similarly. Infinity is a vast assortment of costumes and make up. We wear them and wear them out for eons upon eons, finding that which we find most beautiful and most expressive of our true feelings.

Finally, in 7D, we display our completed project. Then we return all the costumery and make up, end the playing, release all claim to identity, and become quiescent once more until we are called to further duty.

1 Like
9

I don’t understand. Surely if he was just the spirit speaking, with no ‘ego’ I suppose is the implication. He wouldn’t address an entity outside of him.

If he was only spirit then he would be speaking as God? So he would say that the spirit moving through him forgives the people there.

If I look up to the sky, and asking God to do something, say ‘God, make it rain’. I am identifying myself separate from God no? And if I was God I would just make it rain, rather than asking.

In Mark 10:18 Jesus clearly seems to state he is separate from God. ‘Why do you call me good? no one is good but my father in heaven’.

Am I being dense here? Can you explain moreso what you mean?

10

No, I think you’re focusing on what Ra confusingly calls the geography or geometry of the mind. I would simply call it the structure.

As I understand this, when you incarnate here, you are provided with a virgin body, mind and spirit, all of which are brand new, and have never been used previously. Your body grows in the outer world along with your mind, while your spirit grows in the inner realms. Spirit is not a god. It can attune to Divinity and experience wonderful things. The conscious mind can attune to Divinity through the spirit, but not through the mind, which is attuned to the outer world.

When you consciously attune to Divinity, you can allow unconditional, impersonal love to flow through your heart, you can experience peace and holiness.

Even at Ra’s level, they say you are the Creator, but they never say they are the Creator. Isn’t that interesting?

The experience of a self is empty, it is not powerful. Power comes through a self, not from it. In my view, this is sense of what Jesus is said to have said. It’s along the lines of, not my will, but thine be done. It’s a blending of self with Divinity, not an owning of it. Humility plays a key role because this continues the emptiness, and emptiness is the only way to blend self and Source.

It’s difficult to articulate, but to be fully a servant of the heart, one must relax any pretense of personal agency. Rather, one acts in the world according to sensibility of the heart. Therefore, the construct of “Father forgive them…” is holding this “structure” where humility calls forth the power of spirit in service to love.

I hope this makes sense.

1 Like
11

‘Father forgive them for they know not what they do’ is from the gospel of Luke. The Gospel of Luke is possibly the most accurate of the gospels in my understanding. It does not include the idea that “Jesus died for our sins” (reference Bart Ehrman). Which has it’s root in animal sacrifice/ satanism in my understanding. The other three gospels do include that idea.

I kind of think I get what you are saying. It is true the Law of One contact identified everyone else as ‘The One Infinite Creator’ but not themselves.

So my proposition was that Jesus looked out into the crowd and thought ‘man these are nasty people. I can’t feel anything good towards this swine. I will pray to God because he is strong enough to do that’.

If you are saying that during the interaction, in your view, Jesus perceived himself both as Jesus and the God he was praying to. Then what are you hypothesizing the emotional process was in this case?

12

(post deleted by author)

13

This would be a very strong statement endorsing separation, or “limited oneness” (which is an impossibility), and I doubt that it was in play there at that time.

To rephrase the first line, I am suggesting that he perceived himself as a portal between animal nervous system-driven side of humans and the spiritual, angelic side.

The emotional posture, as I feel it, is compassion and love.

When you reach a point of knowing clearly inside that we are all equivalently moving on a spiraling pathway towards the open heart, it only makes sense to help others and to be kind. It’s a place of being undefended against play of the outer life, a place of openness to pure inner being.

14

Yes, it would. But to me, this is the thought of more virtue. I realise this is potentially somewhat out of line with the Law of Ones teachings and such, although they referenced free will and infinite mystery highly. But I see no particular virtue in feeling loving towards people that are like they are described in that passage.

It is potentially slightly more virtuous if he did not offer the cowardly indignity of ‘loving’ those who persecuted him, but in fact, if he prayed to a higher entity to do so, as the original channeling seemed to suggest to me.

Matthew 5:39: But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.

This whole paragraph can be extrapolated to, if anyone kills your child, hand to them the second child also.

The scene I would prefer is that people tried to put Jesus on the cross and he did, in fact, do what the ‘negative forces’ were apparently egging him on to do and slaughtered them. So it’s almost as though I prefer Judas, to Jesus’ perspective in session 17.17.

This is why I am trying moreso to understand philosophical principles. Because Jesus in general is an unsuitable ideal. As I see it. In philosophy, they talk about working off ‘first principles’. Which is a fancy way of saying you have to actually justify the reason why you argue something. Not “just because”. As is the Christian tendency. “Because Jesus said”. But, ‘this is the reason why, this is the real world cause and effect’.

Obviously the latter is far more respectful to the person you are communicating to. That the ‘teacher’ doesn’t assume that they are better than the student enough that their words should be taken as gospel without being justified. But, that each part is actually explained.

You can do that I think, to a large extent, with the core of Jesus’ message which is ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ ref: ‘service to others’. But I don’t see how that can be done with the lack of defensive violence.

15

First, I want to note that I think it’s wonderful that you are working to balance these things, because I feel this is central to your reasons for incarnating this time (balancing power and love). You’ve effectively restricted your capabilities for doing many other things, and have noticed that this sort of thing is important to you and deserves your serious attention.

Perhaps this paradox is your “cross to bear?”

My more serious response is that what’s unclear to you is the state of bias towards love one falls into when one’s energies become clarified and the fog of personality lifts. Hurting others becomes a painful concept. Here I would refer to the tree folk discussed by Ra. Trees can hardly hurt a fly. They have no aggressive instincts and have no grasp of bellicosity. They make Ra look aggressive, almost.

Consider, they receive all they need from the soil and sun, and live in exquisite harmony and tender happiness. Hurting others because they are a*ssholes is just not even a concept for them.

This is the state someone like Jesus is in–most of the time–so what might be your or my instinctively self protective response isn’t much in their repertoire.

This goes, as well, for the idea of resisting violence. Logically, you’re right about handing over a second child, but, you see, the level on which these things are being experienced ,for such people, is not rational, but of the heart. Therefore, the ideal is complete minimization of violence, not feeding it with confrontation. But life demands we find balance in our actions, and no one sensible would expect this to be merely formulaic, I would say. The question, for such folk is, what would my heart and my spirit have me do in this circumstance?

As an exercise, you could try projecting yourself into the sandals of someone who values love above all things, and then is confronted with discord and violence. How would such a person try to balance these things? And I would suggest doing this in a simple situation well before leaping into the deep end of the pool. Feel it out slowly, if experimenting with this appeals to you. Feel the full effect of open heart being and then feel the disruption, and maybe then feel the resolution.

From reading some of your other posts, my guess is that you could be creative enough to do this.

16

I have, indeed. If we are to consider that our lives are incarnatively programmed as the Law of One states. Even though I am not sure on that it can’t effectively be proven ‘via first principles’. It is something I draw off a little for support in reference to my medical condition.

With my medical condition I effectively can’t fight, or apply to the armed forces or emergency services.

It also may or may not be relevant I have a huge amount of anger. Real, kinetic, anger. I have terrified people into nervous wrecks (not deliberately) by just looking at them and feeling like I am going to kill them. I have had insights as to how to balance this and such and I am doing so. But it will be a long process. A small part that I have handled a little is indulging almost any tendency towards ‘transcient’ information. Like, even looking at that very briefly can set up a deep sense of anger I find. Which seems to quickly find its way into the subconscious.

I would only do this exercise if I saw some value in it. But like I say, I do not see value in the way Jesus handled things and that attitude in general. You can be sure, if I had the power that Jesus is reported to have had, (although there are notably some that say it might only have been healing and not the rest, or even no divine power at all!) But if some village people thought they were going to crucify me and I had the power to stop it, at this point in my spiritual journey. They would immediately go up in flames. I am comfortable with that at this point in my journey.

I also do not know if I believe one hundred percent that that is what is being suggested. For instance, my understanding is that Jesus gained the power he did, that the whole spiritual path is in general, an effort to connect and be in line with the Creator. Everything that has happened so far does not say to me that it is not possible that someone else, another prophet, that managed to do well on the spiritual path, would not be inspired in a different way. (I.e. that another prophet would in fact use abilities for violence).

There are other historical myths where various dieties did do violence. Such as in the Hindu myths certain gods destroyed “reptilian” ships with telekinetic powers. The whole ‘Thor, Odin, Valhalla’ is not a non violent philosophy either.

17

Fair point. On the other hand, those sorts of gods are acting out their roles (their dharma) similar to humans, except that their capabilities are more dramatic. That is, in large part they are not seeking. Lord Krishna is an interesting case. In the middle of fighting on one side of a fratricidal war, he takes time to give detailed yogic teachings. But his character and his actions can be seen as mainly symbolic: idealizations of what real people actually struggle with.

Anyhow, all I can say is, if you agree that your assignment is to balance power and love, it’s clear that you understand one of these far more intimately than you understand the other. To progress, you’re going to have to find way or another to understand love. But if you see no point in that, then there is no point in doing so.

Even so, you might just sniff around the edges of this because, if you find that doing so alleviates portions of your discomfort, that could become sufficient cause for such exploration.

Alternatively, I could be completely wrong, but I sense it’s worth some inquiry.

2 Likes
18

Well I’m nothing if not sirius.

Thanks Mirror. You’ve given me a lot to think about.

Some interest, surely, or else how would any of us turn in that direction. The lack of skill however I can attest to.

The concept of vibrations has no experiential meaning to me at this point. Or none that I’ve recongized and labeled as such. The concept of purifying the emotions also feels a bit outside my grasp. For now, I’ve interpreted it as cultivating an emotional honesty (at least as a starting point). Purity being the essence of a thing. Our emotional lives are covered in layer after layer of narrative around our emotions, can I get to the point of meeting emotion with nothing but awareness and love.

A journey towards an “inner personality” (a 2 steps forward 1 step back journey) makes sense to me. Thanks for sharing your framing.

19

Thanks Jeremy. This makes much more sense to me than the way I was thinking about it.

2 Likes
20

Just don’t confuse the map for the territory. Explanations, reason, coherence – at the end of the day, they trick us into thinking we truly understand, and at root part of that desire is one for control and protection. They are tools that we too often get turned into the tools OF. I know you understand this, just putting it out there since it’s a theme of conversation amongst others in this chat. Hope you’re well – by the way, since I have you, Richmond Meditation Circle is planning an invitational event for the weekend of August 17. Would love to see you there. And instead of it starting at $750, it’s free.

1 Like