by Nancy Lieder
Newcomers to a group go through a quick process to determine pecking order, often injured horribly if they are slow learners. Thus, there is no ownership of the soul of others, only influencing behavior.
All rights reserved: [email protected]
http://www.zetatalk2.com/rules/r04.htm[2/5/2012 11:36:55 AM]
ZetaTalk: Keep In Line
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Keep In Line
Note: written by Jul 15, 1995.
How does the Council of Worlds keep the Service-to-Self crowd in line? Easier said than done, it would seem, as they are all, essentially, ruthless criminals. However, what humans, struggling with 3rd Density limitations, might deem the limit of benign restraint mechanisms is not nearly the limit available to entities in higher densities. Humans think of physical restraints, or, at most, perhaps drugging the recalcitrant subject so they involuntarily abstain from the criminal behavior. At the far reaches of human restraint mechanisms are such tools as lobotomy for violent mental patients or castration for rapists and pedophiles, and of course imprisonment or the death sentence.
The Council of Worlds has recourse to methods beyond the physical, and these methods would amaze humans in their
effectiveness. Essentially, this is a block that prevents any physical or mental action not authorized. It is as though the errant entity is trying to walk into a brick wall, or at least that is the effect. There is no need to drag the errant entity into court, to place them in irons, or to alert others to watch them closely. How does this work?
This is done by computer, a computer similar to the one by which we maintain our extensive communications with
each other. The Council of Worlds relies on a very high level density substance in this regard, which cannot be altered or interfered with by lower densities. No tampering with the controls! The reader can relate this to bugging telephones to insure that all calls are correct. This surveillance is constant and complete. There is no evasion. It's all on automatic.
All rights reserved: [email protected]
http://www.zetatalk2.com/rules/r07.htm[2/5/2012 11:36:56 AM]
ZetaTalk: Service-to-Other
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Service-to-Other
Note: written by Jul 15, 1995.
Within Service-to-Other groups, the rules are set democratically, by those in the group, for instance on food growing and processing. During discussions on what the group needs to do for minimum maintenance and the like, there will be volunteers who offer to do these chores. They may offer because they feel this will be an opportunity for growth for themselves, or they may offer because they feel the others should be freed for activities that will be important for their growth. For whatever reason the entity offers, this would be considered the rule during the time span from one
democratic meeting to the next. These meetings are frequently held, and the sense of frustration from one of the group is cause enough to call a meeting.
Regarding a matter that most humans have yet to think about - moving to 4th Density and anticipating themselves
being in 4th Density Service-to-Others. What will the day-to-day interactions be like between groups? Where it is not difficult to imagine how a close group will operate, if one is a human operating in Service-to-Others already, it is difficult to imagine how the superstructure of government may not be in place. How do regional conflicts, or
operations proceed? For instance, if on a given planet, say in particular the planet Earth where there are several
Service-to- Others groups operating in preparation for the Transformation, do squabbles arise? And if so, how do these resolve? As we have mentioned, there are more Service-to-Other groups operating in the vicinity of Earth than humans are aware of. Not all co-exist seamlessly.
Some groups truly do not like each other, and express this by a refusal to work with each other. The offer is declined.
This dislike can stem from different backgrounds, where the prior incarnations were in radically different physical environments. Say, for instance, a group of entities having evolved in a physical form that did not have limbs with which to run, and therefore were never able to avoid confrontation with each other when this arose. Another group of entities evolved in a physical form where they had wings, and took flight at the slightest hint of confrontation. They would tend to approach a situation, for instance here on Earth, differently. The solution one group would be
comfortable with would be confusing to the other. They would decline to work with each other.
Other groups are in competition with each other. This stems not so much from territoriality as from a desire to have a sense of worth, a sense of importance. Say that at one point in the Earth's history, one group was involved in upgrading or guiding the human race. Then at another point in time, another group was involved in similar activities. At each single occasion, the group felt important, that they had made a contribution, and cherished this sense of having been a contributor. Now both groups are present at the same time on Earth. Neither can feel as all important as before, and feel diminished. They avoid each other. They both inflate their past contributions. All this is confusing to humans, but higher density entities are not without a sense of self.
Service-to-Others groups do not come to blows with each other. There are, of course, groups that work closely with
each other, and in this case their interaction is just as though either one of the groups became larger. They essentially merge, becoming a larger group.
All rights reserved: [email protected]
http://www.zetatalk2.com/rules/r05.htm[2/5/2012 11:36:56 AM]
ZetaTalk: Friendly Disagreements
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Friendly Disagreements
Note: written by Jul 15, 1995.
Where interplay between orientations, i.e. Service-to-Self and Service-to-Others, is so strictly controlled by the Rules of Engagement that there is essentially no interplay at all, there are on occasion disagreements between members of Service-to-Other groups who engage each other on a continuing basis. As we are dealing with entities who are
determined to see the general welfare given priority, these are essentially friendly disagreements. As anyone who lives in a loving family can attest, this is no small thing. There are situations where a simple vote taken from those affected is not appropriate. Perhaps it cannot even be determined who will be affected. For instance, in a situation where a species on a new fertile planet is to be genetically engineered to support conscious, intelligent life. There is no intelligent life to be polled as to their opinion, only the opinions of the various Service-to-Other genetic engineers.
How does this work?
We bring these types of issues to the Council of Worlds, and have a formal debate of sorts. Bear in mind that all the protagonists are basically focused on doing the right thing, and there are no hidden agendas possible in the Service-toOther orientation in the higher densities. It's just that there is a difference of opinion, based on past experience and outlook, as to what the right thing to do is. All present their views and openly debate, much in the format of a
roundhouse discussion. Each is allowed to explain fully, and is not interrupted. When all have said their piece, and no points are left to be countered or debated, then the Council of Worlds makes a decision. The Council of Worlds is
composed of very high density entities who hold their position because of a general vote of all affected. They are
essentially elected. Their decision on the matter before them then settles the issue. As with the Rules of Engagement and other rules that must be enforced, this goes into the computer and is enforced, without question or argument.
All rights reserved: [email protected]
http://www.zetatalk2.com/rules/r15.htm[2/5/2012 11:36:57 AM]
ZetaTalk: Interference
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Interfere
nce
Note: written Dec 15, 1995.
Wanting to help loved ones who don't want to be helped is a seemingly endless source of agony and anxiety. The
spouse or friend or peer who rebuffs an offer of help clearly needed leaves those concerned in dismay. What now?
Should one press on with offers, insistently? Should one argue the issue, trying to get the needy one to see the light?
Should one walk away and abandon the effort, having been rebuffed? You have a saying - life is the best teacher.
Simply stated, this means that one's own experiences are more graphic, test the theory, and result in a multifaceted memory of the whole process - including turning points - than receiving any of this second hand. The one pressing help is saying, in essence, that they know better, that their experiences should prevail over the experiences the recipient is about to have or has had. In essence, they are attempting to take an experience away from the rebuffer, who clearly is determined to have these experiences. But are they not about to hurt themselves? Perhaps this is the experience they wish to have. It is, after all, their life.
In 4th Density Service-to-Other the individual is in charge of their life. The only instance where others are allowed to interfere is where the safety of the others is threatened. As all are in Service-to-Others, this is a rare instance indeed.
In frank terms, this means that if one wishes to starve to death to experience how this feels, to have empathy for those who have had these experiences in their past - they would be allowed to starve - no interference. If one determined to avoid all education, to be solely self-taught for whatever reason - they would be allowed to skip school. In addition to not dictating to one another on way of life, we do not press medical treatment unless the individual requests it. Of course, there are exceptions, as if the individual is in a coma or otherwise uncommunicative they cannot ask. In these situations we communicate with the spirit to determine the desired course of action. We do not argue with a desire for suicide, nor do we press a level of healthcare the individual may not be interested in. It's their life, and they can live it any way they choose.
Conversely, if an individual does request healthcare, every assistance is given, no matter how hopeless the outcome or fruitless the effort. As might be expected, our understanding of disease and proper treatment is extensive. We have no situations where we cannot treat a disease, baring the course of old age which is systemic and unavoidable and
eventually leads to death. We seldom resort to surgery, focusing on the root cause of a problem and correcting this instead. Where surgery is employed, it is in the form of reconstructive surgery, where the pattern known within the genes is awakened and requested to express itself. Thus, an amputee or patient with a diseased liver would find
themselves growing a new one, with the diseased tissues washing away, for instance. There are limits on this
technique, as a newly reconstructed limb looks nothing like the old one and is always smaller and puny looking, but this proves to be superior to a prosthetic device in any case.
For those dearly concerned about a loved one, wanting to offer words of advice or a helping hand, wanting to see the loved one in better circumstances, the best course is to offer but not push. Offer in clear terms, so there will be no misunderstanding. Offer again, if a reminder might be in order. And then butt out.
All rights reserved: [email protected]
http://www.zetatalk2.com/rules/r32.htm[2/5/2012 11:36:58 AM]
ZetaTalk: Unconditional Love
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Unconditional Love
Note: written by Jul 15, 1995.
Humans view love from many angles, as something they desire or wish to possess, as something they require and need
for comfort and survival, and least of all as concern for another. Where in theory, the latter is understood to be what is meant by the concept of loving another, in reality the first two motives fit the picture most often. Why is this so? Why would humans say one thing when the opposite is the case? Why not simply say, I desire X, rather than I love X. Why not say, I need X, rather than I love X. We slide away from the truth, and cast the warm glow of the concepts
engendered by the word love over all.
The reason truth suffers in this matter is due to the desire to excuse the self from failure. In our hearts we aspire to true love, to caring for the other as much as we care for ourselves, and this is our announced and inner intent. When we miss the mark, and the feelings are more self-serving, we hope no one notices. Then why do we have problems with
the concept of unconditional love? Having problems already in practicing what we preach, we dread having the
expectations ramped up into a higher realm. Does this mean that self-concern should be eliminated? Are we to focus
only on the other? Are we not to feel resentment when the other disappoints us, or perhaps even brutalizes us? As we fail to miss the mark so often already, how are we to incorporate higher standards? The practical application of these ideals falters. We feel a bit lost.
This confusion is due not to our attempts to reach an ideal, but in the understanding of the ideal itself. Unconditional love does not mean to love another regardless of their behavior. It does not mean to accept any behavior from the other, without defending the self or, as you say, making a stink. It does not mean to look the other way when competition for a resource that the self either desires or needs places the self at a disadvantage. Unconditional love, in other words, does not mean that the self should stop striving and wanting and aggressively going after what it wants and needs. Unconditional love means, simply, that you do not abandon the other because there is a competition or
disagreement. We will explain with a couple of examples.
Conditional love: A mother loves her children, and this is for many reasons. They are an extension of herself, and their achievements reflect on her upbringing and genes. They promise to grow up and take care of her in her old age. They assist with the household chores, and can be relied upon in emergencies. They liven up her life, bringing friends into the house and news and jokes and always the unexpected. Life is not dull. The mother feeding and clothing her
children is considered automatically to be a loving mother. What happens when the child refuses to fit into one of
these expectations. Perhaps one of the children is uncommonly independent, and refuses companionship to the mother
when she desires this. The child has his reasons, but the mother only sees this as rejection. She feels much resentment, and finds she is reluctant to do the special things formerly done for the child. She has stopped loving this child, as her love is conditional on his meeting her expectations.
Unconditional love: In this same situation, where the mother finds one of her children to be a disappointment, the
mother does not stop meeting the child's needs, as formerly. This does not mean that she does not feel disappointment, or even air her grievances to the child or others. This does mean that the loving support she gives to this child
continues, whether or not the child has disappointed her in some way.
Conditional love is therefore seen as a lever, to force another to cooperate, and unconditional love allows the issue to be deal with squarely, as the only issue, and not be clouded by other issues. For instance, in the above example, the mother can loudly complain about lack of companionship, and this issue dealt with openly. In conditional love the
companionship matter may be dealt with, openly or not, but in any case other issues have arisen, such as failure to feed and clothe or pass messages along or whatever the mother formerly did for the child. This in fact prevents the issue from being dealt with as a single issue, as it becomes weighed in the mother's favor. The issue is clouded by http://www.zetatalk2.com/rules/r11.htm[2/5/2012 11:36:58 AM]
ZetaTalk: Unconditional Love
secondary issues. The mother, by applying conditional love, is being in f
act dictatorial.
All rights reserved: [email protected]
http://www.zetatalk2.com/rules/r11.htm[2/5/2012 11:36:58 AM]
ZetaTalk: Without Money
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Without Money
Note: written by Jul 15, 1995.
Money is nonexistent in 4th Density Service-to-Others. Let us explain why this would be so. What is money? A
medium of exchange. Something of consistent value, or at least stable value, which allows the barter system to take place in a more abstract manner. If one grows and markets apples, for instance, they do not have to haul around a bag of apples in order to purchase milk or pay the rent, although this option is still open to the apple grower. Without money, the apple grower must haul apples about, and this is tiresome and such matters as spoilage must be dealt with.
However, the existence of money, which has been called the root of all evil, supports activities that give no value in and of themselves.
What benefit, truly, are the virtual gambling casinos that go by names such as Stock Exchange, Commodity Market, or Bond Market? This benefits those who can manipulate faster, or with a more clever sleight of hand, but benefit the