ZetaTalk: Rules

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: Interference

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