The third density (and the third chakra) is associated with social relations and awareness of others, with the choice of dominating others in a hierarchal structure, or being generous towards others. Either choice is based on the theme of social relations. Actions of service towards others are not so much a series of points earned for the self, but are a conscious and mindful awareness of how one interacts with society.
Indeed. It's the density of choice.
And we choose, each moment, every day; fear or love :¬)
if you're generous towards 2ds does that mean your orange ray is open?
I think so oceania.
the third yellow chakra is one I had trouble feeling until my thoughts went to my boss one night during meditation - he is a successful business man, and I thought about the things that make him successful and I had the thought that applying the LOO to society and your daily activities and interactions is the way to balance it. Get out there and make your life work for you, however you choose to do it. When I had this thought the chakra finally began to buzz. I'm a person that shies away from society but I think doing so I was not allowing that chakra to activate, so even in my every day working life I have started giving a lot to it - work as hard and as best as possible while I'm there, be generous among colleagues etc.
(07-11-2011, 05:57 AM)Namaste Wrote: [ -> ]Indeed. It's the density of choice.
And way too much noise. Choice and noise!!
Social integration is a prerequisite for the density of love. The Cassiopeians use the analogy of graduating from third grade before you got to fourth grade. Love without societal integration is empty.
Bashar says focusing on percentages is unnecessary (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2QJQhcDJWM). I see the 51% requirement as "at least 51% of the time," but worrying about 51% is like an A or B student worrying that a D- is the minimum passing grade.
Yes! The third density is where we (should) spend a lot of time interacting with others! The 2Der who is ready for a 3D existence has been aware of self enough to have begun noticing that others can be helpful or hurtful, and so can the self toward them.
So now 3Ders learn more about that by experiencing those others--parents and siblings first, typically, then neighbors, teachers etc., next strangers on the street, in stores, over the phone and later still politicians and others in newspapers, movies and on TV.
I suspect that many 3Ders repeat this through N lifetimes until they finally get that they can choose between being of service one way or the other. Whew!
So here on this planet, at least two things are going on to accelerate this process. First, the heat is turning up under the pot, i.e. stress everywhere, pushing some people into craziness in many forms but many, we hope toward deciding to love others more than not. Second, the influx of Wanderers who are supposed, probably, to mitigate the effects of all that stress and also to nudge people to Choose.
As Technarch said, let's not fret very much on the grading; it is what it is, and I think it is generous and easy to pass.
i don't believe one has to be a social butterfly. i avoid people as much as i can but that doesn't mean i don't get along with them when they come my way. but i literally get sick from spending too much time "out there". and i don't think that means i have a blockage or is anything bad. it's just my sensitivity.
I get what you mean, I don't think u have to be a social butterfly, just think about how you can contribute in a way that is comfortable for you. Trust me I haven't even figured out how I'm going to do it yet, I find most social interactions uncomfy too.
I find that in social situations if I visualize/imagine each person with a bright light inside them, it will help me to be in STO no matter how the other person is acting. Sometimes it feels like a lot of people are lost in the illusion, so this reminds me to accept them exactly as they are.
(07-11-2011, 11:30 AM)kycahi Wrote: [ -> ]Yes! The third density is where we (should) spend a lot of time interacting with others!
that is not necessarily the case.
the above proposition takes the concept of 'others' only as other 3d entities - ie, in our context, mainly 'people' (homo sapiens sapiens), or other 3d capable entities.
but, philosophically, the meaning of 3d is much broader than that. 'others' not only include other 3d entities, but, any entity that exist not as an extension of the self of the entity - from nature to machines, from water to grains of sand, to concepts - in short, everything other than the entity itself, is included in the 'others', this includes the local logos or even infinite intelligence at this point. (because its just 3d yet, not 6d to see everything as united)
in short, the entity in 3d is now aware that there are other entities than itself, and these entities affect and interact the entity and each other altogether.
an immediate and direct corollary of this concept, is the capability of purposeful interaction - which means doing things with a purpose. this, is a natural result of above realization, and its immediate accompaniment is the capability of abstract thought and thinking.
in short, there has to be things other than directly interacting with other entities in the activities of 3d. imagine someone who is still lacking in this awareness - it would need to supplement that kind of awareness in order to be aware that there are other entities than itself, and these affect itself, before it is able to make any choice of orientation.
19.
12
Questioner: I will make a statement then of my understanding and ask you if I am correct. There is a, what I would call, physical catalyst operating at all times upon the entities in third density. I assume this operates approximately the same way in second density. It is a catalyst which acts through what we call pain and emotion. Is the primary reason for the weakening of the physical body and the elimination of body hair, etc. so that this catalyst would act more strongly upon the mind and therefore create the evolutionary process?
Ra: I am Ra. This is not entirely correct, although closely associated with the distortions of our understanding.
Consider, if you will, the tree for instance. It is self-sufficient. Consider, if you will, the third-density entity. It is self-sufficient only through difficulty and deprivation. It is difficult to learn alone for there is a built-in handicap, at once the great virtue and the great handicap of third density. That is the rational/intuitive mind.
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.
This catalyst then is shared between peoples as an important part of each self’s development as well as the experiences of the self in solitude and the synthesis of all experience through meditation.
Quote:The quickest way to learn is to deal with other-selves.
This is a much greater catalyst than dealing with the self. Dealing with the self without other-selves is akin to living without what you would call mirrors. Thus, the self cannot see the fruits of its being-ness. Thus, each may aid each by reflection. This is also a primary reason for the weakening of the physical vehicle, as you call the physical complex.
so the real PTB doesn't want us to be independent and self-sufficient.
(07-11-2011, 07:23 PM)Oceania Wrote: [ -> ]i don't believe one has to be a social butterfly. i avoid people as much as i can but that doesn't mean i don't get along with them when they come my way. but i literally get sick from spending too much time "out there". and i don't think that means i have a blockage or is anything bad. it's just my sensitivity.
It is pretty much UNavoidable, isn't it? Personally, and speaking generally, I see persons too deeply of themselves and of what I would like to offer them to happily move about them in a short lived manner (my definition of a social butterfly). I do enjoy the presence of the smiling butterfly on occasion
.
In light of unity100's post, we are technically never without interaction of other-selves. It is our 3D nature to, at some juncture, contemplate the "other" in something.
Also, what I like to remember, is the idea that "if we reach one, we reach all". This is a wonderful proposition, in my opinion.
I don't know how this relates, but it is something on my mind the past 12 hours. I am myself, and yet I have many parallel existences that gather to form the entity I am. Further, I am my 6D self which is another gathering of my selves to form the entity I am. Of course, in addition, all the other selves, you all, gather together to form the entity that we are. The conceptualization of where one ends and another begins is becoming more blurry to me; in a good way.
well that argument aside, what consitutes social interaction? i'm always online talking to people but i avoid them IRL because i get stressed out and migraines and stuff. so what's a hermit today? do online relationships count at all? i have good friends i've known for years and never met. does that count towards my yellow ray being open?
I think it does. Their are many different possibilities. I mean, being involved directly in war/battle is a speedy way to "learn". Would that make me less than because I'm not engaged in such?
(07-11-2011, 07:23 PM)Oceania Wrote: [ -> ]i don't believe one has to be a social butterfly. i avoid people as much as i can but that doesn't mean i don't get along with them when they come my way. but i literally get sick from spending too much time "out there". and i don't think that means i have a blockage or is anything bad. it's just my sensitivity.
Meaning, I think, that you are one of the introverts, Ocean. Dr. Jung said people tend to be primarily Extraverts or Introverts . The common definitions are that Extraverts love being around lots of people and Introverts don't like being around other people.
His descriptions are a little different. Say a person is exhausted for some reason. If an extravert, the person would go be with other people in order to restore energy. An introvert would want to go be alone in order to restore energy.
So take that tendency in mind and carefully decide how to interact with others. I'm an introvert too, so I can easily slip into my default habit of staying home alone and read or compute or watch video. I try to overcome that by not only going somewhere, but interacting.
For example, on Sunday I went to a Kaiser hospital for a blood draw. My old self would walk into the front door, keep my attention directed away from anybody and look at signs to direct me to the lab. Now, to take advantage of 3D human interaction, I looked at two women at the reception desk. One was a co-worker visiting the receptionist. I smiled at both and said, "HI, I'm looking for the Lab." They smiled back and said "Go through there and turn left." I thanked them and found the lab right away. Although I hadn't been to this hospital before, I had looked online and saw that the "Lobby Laboratory" had Sunday hours and already figured it was just inside. I was equally friendly to the lab lady. I hardly felt the needle go into my arm and praised her technique. It went fast and on my way out I smiled and waved to both women at the front desk. They responded with equal friendliness.
This definitely is not the old me. I used to have a "serious" face which, too often, looked like a mean face. I worked at smiling at strangers when I visited Hawaii because most people there automatically smile. It became easy and now I like doing it. If I give a little bit of happy to others, I know that it goes toward my 51%, so why not?
I used to keep my hands to myself, but now when appropriate I touch an arm or shoulder or pat a back as I say something positive. Touch triples the benefit of good words, IMHO.
Another reason this became easy for me is my mental health medicine,
bupropion . I am grateful every day of my life for that stuff.
I'm an introvert too. For a long time, I thought being an introvert was 'wrong'. Then I realized I thought that because it is the extraverts that are voicing their opinions for the "need to get out there", and, of course, the introverts have no desire to stand up and say "stay away from all that, there isn't a great need for it." LOL, because introverts aren't vocal. So, anyway, introversion is just as 'good' as extraversion.
I do what kycahi describes too, though. I speak more to people now because I see them better. A conversation with a cashier or a patron along the way is social interaction. I see persons, and I imagine myself walking to the ends of the Earth with them if that is what the day would bring. The day is typically more mild than that on the relationship level, as far as strangers go, LOL.
yeah i nwonder why we need alonetime to recharge. i've never understood how one can recharge with others. that's the only thing that exhausts me!
it's hard for me to smile at people too, and i've never touched people much because i didn't know if they'd want me to. i don't like just anyone touching me so i give others the same courtesy lol. but i do like it when people smile and touch if they're clean lol. it's just i had these assumptions all backwards, i used to think the more i kept to myself the more i would be nice because i wouldn't be infringing on people. but it seems people want you to do that stuff. it's just been a lifelong lesson in understanding humans. i still haven't gotten far.
I'm a man, so touching doesn't go over as easy. Kind of like talking to children. Guys can't do that.
(07-12-2011, 02:53 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]I'm a man, so touching doesn't go over as easy. Kind of like talking to children. Guys can't do that.
Reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V2ylVXLg...re=related
(07-12-2011, 02:35 PM)Oceania Wrote: [ -> ]yeah i nwonder why we need alonetime to recharge. i've never understood how one can recharge with others. that's the only thing that exhausts me!
it's hard for me to smile at people too, and i've never touched people much because i didn't know if they'd want me to. i don't like just anyone touching me so i give others the same courtesy lol. but i do like it when people smile and touch if they're clean lol. it's just i had these assumptions all backwards, i used to think the more i kept to myself the more i would be nice because i wouldn't be infringing on people. but it seems people want you to do that stuff. it's just been a lifelong lesson in understanding humans. i still haven't gotten far.
I think some people can help recharge you by listening to your problems, offering support and encouragement, acceptance, reassurance, etc.
And sex, of course.
(07-11-2011, 09:18 AM)Confused Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2011, 05:57 AM)Namaste Wrote: [ -> ]Indeed. It's the density of choice.
And way too much noise. Choice and noise!!
Ah, but you get to decide for yourself what IS the signal and what IS the noise. Talk about the dilemma of choice!
(07-11-2011, 07:23 PM)Oceania Wrote: [ -> ]i don't believe one has to be a social butterfly. i avoid people as much as i can but that doesn't mean i don't get along with them when they come my way. but i literally get sick from spending too much time "out there". and i don't think that means i have a blockage or is anything bad. it's just my sensitivity.
I think it gets into the Jungian introvert/extrovert dichotomy of where you draw your energy. I also think that there's a place for the theory of inner-directed vs. other-directed people. Inner directed people know who they are, more or less, and as painful as it can be to be rejected by others they do not compromise their own sense of identity just to get approval / attention / energy. Other-directed people are not simply drawing energy from social activity - they DEFINE themselves in a certain sense by this social context. They are comfortable there because the sense of self they have is demarcated by the rituals and exchanges in social intercourse.
Given that model, I'd say it makes perfect sense that wanderers would be inner-directed, but can be introverted or extroverted about it. It just seems like it's the introverts who suffer the most because the core social lessons of 3D are obvious, whereas extroverts' struggle isn't front and center on the social stage. Most people who still haven't accepted themselves on some level -- or are in the middle of 3D evolution and not wanderers -- probably just don't have a sense of self aligned with their energetic dynamics, still emerging from the herd mentality of 2D perhaps. Conversely, those who are mature denizens of 3D have a good sense of self (whether or not they accept it is, I believe, where lots of wanderers struggle). Even STS types can have a good sense of self - a sense that sees the self as desiring control over others, but nevertheless well delineated.
Again, inner-direction doesn't mean that you're well adjusted or happy - it just means that it's natural for you to figure out for yourself how you will go about your life, even if it causes you pain. I think this dovetails well with the way Ra say that more mature souls start to choose their lessons - you cannot effectively choose lessons for yourself if your sentience is still relatively unformed.
This is all just speculation, though - my favorite pastime! And I'd say none of it is absolute; you're somewhere on a spectrum of inner/outer-directedness, not really one or the other.
(07-12-2011, 05:04 PM)jeremy6d Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Confused' pid='46630' dateline='1310390334']
I think it gets into the Jungian introvert/extrovert dichotomy of where you draw your energy. I also think that there's a place for the theory of inner-directed vs. other-directed people. Inner directed people know who they are, more or less, and as painful as it can be to be rejected by others they do not compromise their own sense of identity just to get approval / attention / energy. Other-directed people are not simply drawing energy from social activity - they DEFINE themselves in a certain sense by this social context. They are comfortable there because the sense of self they have is demarcated by the rituals and exchanges in social intercourse.
This is very true. It reminds me of a good friend I had for about ten years. We couldn't be more opposite, yet we still shared a bond. He would always look at me in amazement and wonder how I could exist without a care in the world for the social scene. I really baffled him, and we would laugh about it.
As always, your story made me smile, kycahi, thank you =)
I did psych at uni and basically the explaination between introversion and extraversion is, contrary to general social opinions, that introverted people are more "complete" within themselves than extraverted. The reason for extraversion is that they are missing the internal stimuli that introverts have and thus desire to seek it in the world. The problem is only that most people in society are extraverted, so it is seen as a desirable and "normal" trait. I would say most people on this board would be considered introverted though, because we all have that inner-connectedness.
(07-13-2011, 10:31 AM)Nyu Wrote: [ -> ]I would say most people on this board would be considered introverted though, because we all have that inner-connectedness.
I agree with that assessment and, I must admit, I really enjoy the company of some extraverts.
Regarding touch, I remember a very long-ago study on public TV where a university trained its campus library workers to look at people checking out books with a neutral face and say ordinary things like, "This will be due in two weeks," or whatever. Next they would do the same way except touch them, like just one finger touching a finger. They filmed these to be sure the behavior was as prescribed.
They talked with the people who checked out books, saying they were interested in their experience and to evaluate the workers in the library. Those whom the workers touched gave very positive responses, even believing that the workers smiled and chatted in a friendly manner. Those tiny touches really affected their experiences positively.
I understand reluctance in touching, but start out with just a tiny tap, say fingers to back of hand while you say something friendly, then become a little bolder as you learn to sense it will be okay. You may not see any response to the touch, but it will make a difference. Whereas you might think that touching would be aggressive and unwanted, in fact if you touch while being friendly you likely will put the other self more at ease with you (and you with them).
Next time you are with the same person, skip the touch unless it's a very obvious thing to do. Don't make them think that you want to "get into their space all the time." After awhile it will be second nature and, before long, you will have somebody that you will be more comfortable with than you ever expected to be, and they with you.
Do you recall the gender of the library workers?
I remember one was of the feminine gender, but don't remember if all were. This was decades ago. It's a good question.
I'm male and I likely talk to more females than males just because I like to, and therefore might touch more females too. Still, if I say something like, "Congratulations, Bill, you got that one right!" I would be fine with patting him, and he would not be offended. Most of my touches are in that kind of context. I don't just reach out and touch randomly. It's a kind of positive reinforcement thing.
(07-11-2011, 10:18 AM)Technarch Wrote: [ -> ]Social integration is a prerequisite for the density of love. The Cassiopeians use the analogy of graduating from third grade before you got to fourth grade. Love without societal integration is empty.
I was double promoted from first to third grade, skipping past second. I still sometimes wonder if that bears any hidden cosmic meaning.
Technarch Wrote:Bashar says focusing on percentages is unnecessary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2QJQhcDJWM). I see the 51% requirement as "at least 51% of the time," but worrying about 51% is like an A or B student worrying that a D- is the minimum passing grade.
I haven't seen too much of Bashar, but I love that analogy you offered.
(07-11-2011, 03:37 AM)Technarch Wrote: [ -> ]Actions of service towards others are not so much a series of points earned for the self, but are a conscious and mindful awareness of how one interacts with society.
Yet actions towards others often serve the self. The simplest example would be charging money for a product or service that is offered.
(07-13-2011, 12:33 PM)kycahi Wrote: [ -> ]They talked with the people who checked out books, saying they were interested in their experience and to evaluate the workers in the library. Those whom the workers touched gave very positive responses, even believing that the workers smiled and chatted in a friendly manner. Those tiny touches really affected their experiences positively.
That's really interesting. I was just thinking yesterday that when I touch someone, I feel a highly comforting loving/connectedness feeling no matter who it is. Taking someone's hand is a good way to feel it. You feel love or a sending/receiving emotional sensation..a bond. Physical touch definitely seems to be very important.