Journey

September 19, 1998 (Wave Series 8)

Q: (L) How does it come that you are taking energy from someone by giving them love when not asked?
A: Because an STS vehicle [human being] does not learn to be an STO candidate by determining the needs of another.

Q: (L) I don’t understand how that means you are taking energy?
A: Because the act is then one of self-gratification. If one “gives” where there is no request, therefore no need, this is a free will violation! And besides, what other motivation could there possibly be in such a scenario?!? Think carefully and objectively about this.

Q: (L) My thought would be that, in such a scenario, that if one gives love to someone who has not asked or requested, that it seems to be a desire to change the other, i.e., a desire to control.
A: You got it!!

~ Laura Knight-Jadczyk
https://cassiopaea.org/

STS = Service to Self
STO = Service to Others

The name “Cassiopaea” was given by a consciously “channeled source” which Laura accessed in 1994 after two years of experimental work. The source identified itself by saying “we are you in the future.” We sometimes ask ourselves if the Cassiopaeans are who they say they are, because we do not take anything as unquestionable truth. We take everything with a grain of salt, even if we consider that there is a good chance that it is truth.

Expanded transcript from above summary:

September 19, 1998

Q: (L) Okay, now [a correspondent writes and] says: “Laura brought up several comments about Love that confused me. I do not understand how giving love when not being asked could harm instead of improve.” Can you remark on this?

A: “Giving” love is not giving, in such a case.

Q: (L) So, if you give love when you have not been asked, you are not giving?

A: You are taking, as usual.

Q: (L) When you say you are “taking”, what are you taking?

A: Energy, a la STS.

Q: (L) How does it come that you are taking energy from someone by giving them love when not asked?

A: Because an STS vehicle does not learn to be an STO candidate by determining the needs of another.

Q: (L) I don’t understand how that means you are taking energy?

A: Because the act is then one of self-gratification. If one “gives” where there is no request, therefore no need, this is a free will violation! And besides, what other motivation could there possibly be in such a scenario?!? Think carefully and objectively about this.

Q: (L) My thought would be that, in such a scenario, that if one gives love to someone who has not asked or requested, that it seems to be a desire to change the other, i.e., a desire to control.

A: You got it!!

Q: (L) Now he says further: “Yes, everything is lessons and if a person has chosen a specific path they should be allowed to go and learn their way. But, let’s say this is happening to someone you really love. And let’s say that the person may be in a period of his life that his/her thoughts are probably taking her/him to commit, let’s say, a murder. Don’t you think that if you send this person love, even unconsciously, that it may provide the necessary energy (influence) to stop that murder?” Comment please.

A: No, no, no!!! In fact, if anything, such an energy transference even could enhance the effect.

Q: (L) In what way?

A: Imbalanced waves could be drawn upon by the receiver.

Q: (L) I think that this word he used is a clue: “Don’t you think that if you send the person love, it could provide the person the necessary energy” and in parentheses he has the word “influence” which implies control of the other person’s behavior, to “stop that murder”. So, it seems that there is a desire to control the actions of another person.

A: Yes.

Q: (L) But, his intent is entirely benevolent because he wants to stop a murder, which is the saving of a life, as well as prevent the loved one from going to prison. So, it seems to be benevolent in intent. Does this not make a difference?

A: Have we forgotten about Karma?

Q: (L) Well, I mentioned the fact that one cannot always judge these situations because we don’t know. We cannot know. For all we know the potential murder victim is an Adolf Hitler type or the potential parent of one, or something like that, and then the murder would save many lives with the sacrifice of two lives; or that this murder is supposed to happen because of some karmic interaction that is essential between the murderer and victim, and that we simply cannot know these things and judge them.

A: Yes.

Q: (L) He says: “I believe that if we do not send love energy to the world that the egocentric STS energy will be dominating.”

A: Why would one choose to send this? What is the motivation?

Q: (L) To change it to your idea of what it is supposed to be. To control it to follow your judgment of how things ought to be.

A: Exactly. The students are not expected to be the architects of the school.

Q: (L) So, when you seek to impose or exert influence of any kind, you are, in effect, trying to play God and taking it upon yourself to decide that there is something wrong with the universe that it is up to you to fix, which amounts to judgment.

A: Yes, you see, one can advise, that is okay, but do not attempt to alter the lesson.

Q: (L) He also says: “I believe that an enlightened being is emanating love wherever that person is, and this is even without being asked. It just happens because that is what they are — love.” Comment, please.

A: An enlightened being is not love. And a refrigerator is not a highway.

Q: (L) What?! Talk about your mixed metaphors! I don’t get that one!

A: Why not?

Q: (L) They are completely unrelated!

A: Exactly!!!

Q: (L) What is an enlightened being?

A: An enlightened being.

Q: (L) What are the criteria for being an enlightened being?

A: Being enlightened!

Q: (L) When one is enlightened, what is the profile?

A: This is going nowhere because you are doing the proverbial round hole, square peg routine.

Q: (L) What I am trying to get to is an understanding of an enlightened being. This correspondent and a lot of other people have the idea that an enlightened being is love, and that is what they radiate, and that this is a result of being enlightened.

A: No, no, no, no, no. “Enlightened” does not mean good. Just smart.

Q: (L) Okay, so there are STS and STO enlightened beings?

A: Yes, we believe the overall ratio is 50/50.

Q: (L) Okay, what is the profile of an enlightened STO being?

A: An intelligent being who only gives.

Q: (L) Well, since we have dealt with the idea of not giving love to those who don’t ask, what do they give and to whom do they give it?

A: All, to those who ask.

Q: (L) Okay. A group member responded to him writing: “E***, thank you for your pointing out the paradox of the concept of the expression of love between the C’s and that as some of us think we know, but know what we experience. I feel that it may be very difficult for the C’s to deliver adequate understanding into our third density or dimension.” […] (S) My view of the paradox is thus: If one emanates love as a natural course to the Universe it is not consciously limited or directed — at least I, for one, cannot do this — that simply is the way some of us are a lot of the ‘time’. To eliminate groups or individuals is beyond my comprehension and it certainly would compromise my experience of sending love. Unless one is Bodhisattva,³ love is probably only directed with greater intensity when focused toward an individual; how is one to know whether the intended recipient is ready/able to receive? […] And ‘receive,’ I think is a clue: the intended recipient can either remain oblivious or ward off the love energy — free agency.

A: Yes.

Q: (L) If it is “love energy”, is it subsequently corrupted by STS?

A: Maybe.

Q: (S) Giving love to the Universe may be the best way generally, but if one does focus toward a loved one and it can be effective, could the general Universe be just as effective?

A: The universe is about balance. Nuff said!