You see, my friends, you must have the consciousness of love before you enter the situation. Then, you will receive from that situation love. Without the consciousness of love, you receive what you send out, be that whatever it may. It is written many times in your holy works, “As ye sow, so shall ye reap.” So, love to the very best of your ability, and you will reap it a hundredfold. Many of you have wondered at times: “How can I be of service? I do not have a great deal of money. I do not have very special talents. I do not know what to do to be of service.” We say to you, “Meditate and find love. And then open yourself to your own self.”
Does this sound realistic? Maybe not if you are thinking about personal love, which has a limited supply at any one time. But impersonal, universal love is unlimited.
But then there are the challenges of loving the self…
All the pieces are here, it’s just that the assembly instructions can be difficult to decipher.
Ah, but frogs are able to put it all together by referring to the knowing deep in their heart and by hearing the song of their soul. Who needs more than that?
The conscious material is full of these little hints that seem like the missing steps in an ancient formula. They leave it all pretty vague and light when talking about the overall over and over again – and then, wham, when you’re looking at old material, reading the same old ideas and concepts so often reiterated that they begin to blur and you begin to gloss over them, all of the sudden something so utterly logical of all things pops out.
It really is one of the things I love about the archive. In some ways it mirrors the experience of meditation, at least mine: you keep working on letting things go and dropping deeper, over and over, so much that it seems to never end, and then all of the sudden you’re there.
In terms of the specific content here, I’ve seen the message of preparation reiterated in Confederation messages many, many times. Catalyst is designed, in some ways I think, as a last ditch way to prepare, because there seem to be in linear time the advent of critical nexii of experience whose importance cannot be anticipated. We work on balancing precisely so that less personal, more cosmic love can be available for the next surprise. And in this slower work, we find the grounding that the transcendent moments can never offer.
Reading this, I realize that my own habits of study in some way could also be said to mirror my habits of meditation. The key descriptors I’d use are focus and gravity.
It’s been ages since I’ve wandered aimlessly through session transcripts. Instead, I get an itch about a topic and search by topic. (In this way, I seldom read the same ideas over and over.) I have found this manner of knocking on the archive door most propitious.
I hadn’t noticed it heretofore, but in meditation I also focus my search, although it is a joint conscious-subconscious process without word or concept. I sit and gravity of some sort pulls me whither it wills. It may turn out to be a way station or my intended destination for the sitting. It can be hard to know when we’re communicating indirectly, without words. But, just like with the conscious searching of the consciously channeled archives, there’s a sense of meaningful focus…much of the time (haha).
Can you explain this? I’m wondering how one moves past the personal love into the universal love. Thanks.
Just that when love is something you’re more practiced at abiding in rather than “doing,” it needs less of your personality in the first place. It’s not even going to register to you as love when you’re acting lovingly; it’s just going to be the water you swim in.
Interesting. Okay. But where is the transition from the personal to the cosmic? And what is the nature of that distinction, if you don’t mind my being technical about this?
And, by the way, I realize it’s not so easy to describe these things, especially if it is the case that one has not experienced them in this particular lifetime.
But where is the transition from the personal to the cosmic?
I don’t know.
And what is the nature of that distinction, if you don’t mind my being technical about this?
Personalities love as a verb; the cosmos loves as an adverb. The former is something where we’re choosing to love by preference; the latter permeates all actions because it’s become muscle memory. Does that make sense? Here’s a (non L/L Research produced) Laitos message to that effect:
You must understand: this third density illusion is all about drilling, drilling on these lessons so that they become automatic, natural responses. And you may think deeper thoughts of love instead of simply getting yourself balanced in each moment. The balance may become like muscle memory, and then you need not your hands to steady your balance; you can reach out and do work with your hands, and to this work we commend you.
The question for the session you quote from is this:
How can we negotiate a space between ourselves and other selves in which the truth of the situation can be balanced with any unspoken expectations?
The answer, therefore, responds to how one might act absent access to their cosmic love, as you term it, and “faking it until you make it” is one approach. But this does not describe the real thing, I would aver.
I would say there is no actual transition. One either inhabits the personality or one inhabits a larger self…for whatever period of time is appropriate.
For instance, let’s say you are a Sunday school teacher and a dentist and a mother and a collector of anarchist comic books. When you are engaged in teaching, you don the persona of teacher, and this is very helpful in getting the material presented. As a dentist, you use your dentist persona to facilitate that work, and so forth.
What are you with no persona? That is the question, to borrow from bother Hamlet. If you release, for a time, all the personae, what sort of a self emerges? What could you possibly look like without your biases, especially the anarchist comic book ones? It is the unbiased self that can offer unconditional love, not from itself as a personality, but through itself as being. And, I dare say, this is quite a gift to all.
To quote from the OP above, “We say to you, ‘Meditate and find love. And then open yourself to your own self.’”
That’s just another way of saying what I said. I cannot find any daylight between your formulation and mine.
And to call you out more: I challenge you to find one later Q’uo in which they narrowly tailor their answer to only what the questioner asked and nothing more. The idea that we can only construe Confederation messages in their original context is not one I accept.
You make it really uncomfortable for me when you try to therapize me in public. Let’s discuss the philosophy and not my politics. At least do it with a little more charm!
Yes, there is an overlap between “And you may think deeper thoughts of love instead of simply getting yourself balanced in each moment,” and what I typed. The daylight I see there is (and I dislike this term, but…) the ninety degree phase shift involved in nimbly shifting identify from one’s collection of personae to an unbiased self. The consequence of experiencing this is that it opens things up in a very different manner from yellow ray interaction. If I’m wrong, please point out where you refer to this.
There is a principle involved here wherein the standpoint of the question is matched by the Confederation speaker. In other words, you may find that they sometimes will give a deep or a superficial reply (or none at all) to the same question, depending upon the depth from which it is asked. My point was just that the set up was not inquiring about cosmic love, it was about improving yellow ray interactions, as I read it. And, just to be clear, my reading is just my reading, I don’t see any reason to blow up about it. After all, I’m as fallible as you are…give or take. haha
I wasn’t trying to bait you with a political reference, and I am truly sorry that it set you off.
My charm is wildcard. I can make no promises there.
