roage.free-forum.net

[james]

Please can this first-cut understanding be reviewed and corrected where needed?

To become liberated (to be granted sovereign status by {}), I need to willingly enter into a contract with {}. As a pre-requisite to entering into it, I need to understand what is under consideration (absolute love for and trust in {} in return for safety), all the terms and conditions (the respect of natural and contract law), and implications of violations (revocation of sovereign status and karmic repercussions).

Pre-contract sequence:

1) Offer: The offer has already been made by {} (it put me here and hid the offer to see if I could uncover and then accept it as part of the game?)
2) Acceptance: I have accepted the offer in my mind and asked for confirmation by pressing the button
3) Now I await the beyond-doubt evidence of a controller to be revealed to me beyond any doubt, by way of things like synchronicities
4) Once existence and authority of {} cannot be doubted, I turn attention to everything coming up in consciousness, and figure out the lessons that I needed to learn but didn't yet because the ego repressed the content (use the forum when stuck), which will gradually suppress the ego
5) When the ego is suppressed enough, my mind and {}'s mind meet directly, and the contract becomes eligible for enforcement

[roage]

Yes, but in order to be moved to a place such that the contract can be made on needs to be competent to hold contract and that is being fully responsible for all that one does and all that has been done to you. (No your parents did not beat you and violate you; you needed the experience to grow as a being Or no the Government is not ruled by evil men they are providing the necessary suffering to help the cattle awaken.)

One needs a sufficient amount of trust to be truly willing to enter into contracts of this nature.

I apologize for being away but it was necessary.

[james]

Yes, but in order to be moved to a place such that the contract can be made on needs to be competent to hold contract and that is being fully responsible for all that one does and all that has been done to you. (No your parents did not beat you and violate you; you needed the experience to grow as a being Or no the Government is not ruled by evil men they are providing the necessary suffering to help the cattle awaken.)

Right. The inability to create a victim out of yourself or anyone else. It strikes me that a possible subtextual law of a 'no victim' policy is 'thou shalt not judge'. Every judgement creates duality, and dual pairs tend to have a victim/perpetrator flavor to them.

For example if you say someone is good, you are creating implied victims out of those that are bad (the bad ones must exist otherwise there would be no concept of good). Are nameless victims still actual victims?

I tried substituting in a bunch of other judgements, the pattern seems to fit. Initially 'thou shalt not label' seemed right, but as far as I can see labeling something as 'red', for example, doesn't create a victim. There has to be a qualitative judgement involved.

One needs a sufficient amount of trust to be truly willing to enter into contracts of this nature.

I wonder whether the trust issue will come up later, by my hand being forced. It seems like if I continue down this road I'm going to *have* to trust at some point since I may not be able to trust myself. I guess the alternative to trust would be to sabotage the effort based on a fear reaction to going down the rabbit hole. Does that make any sense? I'm trying to figure out how the trust might arise, you see. Because at the moment I don't feel it, which means, in essence, that I must not need it just yet?

I apologize for being away but it was necessary.

That worked out perfectly. I checked this forum every couple of hours I was awake. I re-read my own posts a couple of times. The ego was doing backflips - "oh no, my posts just REEK of ego, how can I have written such tripe?", "but why haven't they responded", "maybe they think I'm too weak for the forum", "maybe I *am* too weak to be on this forum", "look, the post has had 17 views and no-one has responded! what are these people playing at?", "well, screw these people, who needs 'em anyway, I'm doing just fine without them".

When you responded "positively" (there I go creating a victim of the potential me who doesn't get "positive" feedback), the ego said "well, of course everything was OK really, I knew that all along", "after all, you're an intelligent chap, what did you expect".

There's no shame in exposing what the ego is doing because I know for sure it's not me. Now I guess I have to be careful I don't create an ego out of "look at me, I'm not my ego". I'm not at all sure how that recursive type problem can be resolved. I mean, when can you say 'that was not my ego speaking', or is it only when there is complete silence, and all else is suspect?

[roage]

Every judgement creates duality, and dual pairs tend to have a victim/perpetrator flavor to them.

Yes this is synonymous with waveform to particle collapse described in modern Quantum Mechanics Theory.

I wonder whether the trust issue will come up later, by my hand being forced. It seems like if I continue down this road I'm going to *have* to trust at some point since I may not be able to trust myself. I guess the alternative to trust would be to sabotage the effort based on a fear reaction to going down the rabbit hole. Does that make any sense? I'm trying to figure out how the trust might arise, you see. Because at the moment I don't feel it, which means, in essence, that I must not need it just yet?

These specific instructional events occur at times where it is the most meaningful and beneficial to the one observing them. Typically we are presented choices that we are not able to judge the outcome no matter how hard we try. Typically we delay the choice until it is removed. The trust comes through going forward even when it appears that all may be lost to proceed.

That worked out perfectly. I checked this forum every couple of hours I was awake. I re-read my own posts a couple of times. The ego was doing backflips - "oh no, my posts just REEK of ego, how can I have written such tripe?", "but why haven't they responded", "maybe they think I'm too weak for the forum", "maybe I *am* too weak to be on this forum", "look, the post has had 17 views and no-one has responded! what are these people playing at?", "well, screw these people, who needs 'em anyway, I'm doing just fine without them".

When you responded "positively" (there I go creating a victim of the potential me who doesn't get "positive" feedback), the ego said "well, of course everything was OK really, I knew that all along", "after all, you're an intelligent chap, what did you expect".

There's no shame in exposing what the ego is doing because I know for sure it's not me. Now I guess I have to be careful I don't create an ego out of "look at me, I'm not my ego". I'm not at all sure how that recursive type problem can be resolved. I mean, when can you say 'that was not my ego speaking', or is it only when there is complete silence, and all else is suspect?

I see one with a robust methodology in place an that is all that is required. The specifics of your path are not important. How you approach your experience is definitely worth emulating by others who look on for an example of how one "allows" these processes to put into practice for them.

It is a "stumbling forward as the Fool" that travels the farthest in the shortest amount of perceptual time.

Your observational acuity is quite impressive and as we all watch the movie, some are watching more closely