Hello, everybody, and welcome to another episode of the L/L Research podcast, In the Now. I am Austin Bridges and this is Episode #60. L/L Research is a nonprofit organization dedicated to freely sharing spiritually-oriented information and fostering community. Towards this end we have two websites: the archive website, LLResearch.org and the community website, Bring4th.org.
During each episode, we respond to questions sent to L/L Research from spiritual seekers like you. Our panel consists of Jim McCarty, Gary Bean, and myself—each of us a devoted student of the Law of One. Your questions allow us to explore the Law of One and related matters of metaphysical interest. We hope only to offer a resource that enhances your own seeking process. Please know that our replies are not final or authoritative. We ask each who listens to exercise their discernment and be sensitive to their resonance in determining what is true for them.
If you would like to submit a question for this show, please do so. Our humble podcast relies on your questions. You may either send an email to email@example.com or go to LLResearch.org/podcast for further instructions.
Again, I am Austin, and we are embarking on a new episode of L/L Research’s podcast, In the Now. Gary and Jim, are you with me and ready to go?
Alrighty. Well, our question today comes from our friend, Jeremy, sent in through Bring4th. He asks:
“Confederation sources have spoken at length on the utility of trauma and suffering and spiritual evolution of third density entities, but what about the suffering of second density entities like animals? What purpose might that serve when there is no choice to be made?”
That is a good and difficult question. Gary, would you like to start us off?
Sure. I’ll see what I’ve got. It is a good and difficult question. While I’m not aware of any passages that speak directly to this from the Law of One, one can make some reasonable, and I hope educated, speculation.
In considering your question, Jeremy, my mind first went to the model of Darwinian survival of the fittest, which—as a side note—I read has been generally replaced in professional circles as the reproduction of the fittest because survival does not quite cover the nuances. So, that’s where my mind went because just as suffering galvanizes and catalyzes our evolutionary imperative to make a choice, to polarize our consciousness, and to choose our mode of service, so too might suffering meet the needs of the evolutionary objectives of second density. That is to say that suffering can be a teacher to second density entity in helping the 2-D being to strive, to adapt, to survive, to reproduce, to move, and to reach toward the light, and eventually toward self-awareness.
Suffering, especially the suffering of becoming another animal’s lunch, may propel the second density being to excellence. Without the environmental challenges that cause pain or that threaten or impede survival or limit reproduction, the impetus to evolve might not exist. This is similar perhaps to the way Ra described the insufficient development of will and faith in the pre-veil third-density societies. They simply weren’t motivated to do their work in consciousness. I guess that’s one way you could put it, to seek or to serve.
So perhaps without physical suffering or challenge, second density entities would not have the will and motivation, I guess you could call it.
I’ll save some other thoughts for later. Back to you, Austin.
Oh, thank you. How about you, Jim? What do you think?
Well, I think Gary’s right that suffering can teach. Animals can learn. I think about my little kitty-cat Pickwick who just passed away about a month and a half ago. His suffering generated a great deal of compassion in me. I think that there might be some connection between the suffering of the second density animals and compassion that can be generated in third density beings, whether the animal is your pet or just animals that are in general need.
Over the last few months, I’ve gotten a lot of letters from charities that are looking for money to help endangered species or animals—from race horses to Arabian horses to draft horses to cats and dogs to baboons and chimpanzees—that are being cruelly abused. There is a variety of suffering going on in the world and it generates a lot of compassion on the part of third-density human beings. I think there’s a connection there that’s helpful to the third-density being to witness and respond to suffering of that nature.
I also think that the possibility of a latent existence of the spirit complex within second density animals can perhaps be brought a bit more into being by the suffering of the animal as it has to exercise its mind complex to figure out how to avoid the suffering or how to end it now and somehow get away from it.
I think all things and all animals are part of a life force that occasionally moves in unexplainable patterns. Think about what causes things like avalanches cascade down a mountainside—dislodging plants and animals and rock and dirt. All the things in its path become subject to the seeming whims of geophysical forces. The movement of the tectonic plates, the sun, the wind, the rain, and ice are all the exercises of the third density illusion. Everybody and everything get to be involved.
We need to remember that the One Creator exists at each portion of the creation in all animals, in all plants, and in all minerals as a means to know Itself in every little thing that happens—every raindrop, forest fire, ice storm, suffering by every animal, and every leaf falling from a tree.
So, I think that maybe the plan of the Creator to know Itself can work itself out in anything that we can possibly imagine. There’s nothing that we can imagine that wouldn’t teach the Creator something about Itself, including the suffering of second density animals.
How about you, Austin, what do you think?
That was a really good answer. I dove a little bit into the Ra material where Don and Ra were discussing pain as it relates to the veil. So, the first part of my answer is based on that and it addresses Jeremy’s question directly regarding what purpose might the pain and suffering of second-density entities serve?
In Session #83.0, Ra discusses the differences between the pre-veil and the post-veil entities. Apparently, entities in the pre-veil condition were able to turn off their pain receptors at will. I imagine that the way second density entities in the pre-veil condition experienced pain was also different in a sense because of the way that Logoi set up evolution for third densities, which I’ll talk a little bit more about later.
In this session, Ra goes on to talk about how removing this ability through the implementation of the veil—the ability to turn off your pain receptors and basically stop experiencing pain whenever you want to—was a mechanical function. They describe experiments where various functions of the body were veiled and others were not. For instance, the beating of the heart, pain receptors, and things like that. In their words, they said:
“It is not a survival-oriented mechanism for the nerve receptors to blank out unconsciously any distortion towards pain.”
They say that in doing so, a large number of these experiments resulted in what they called non-viable body complexes, which I interpret to mean that those body complexes didn’t survive very long because of this. So, as Gary was saying, it’s like an evolutionary thing. In my view, pain is basically a feedback mechanism that allows us to increase our survivability initially. It existed pre-veil, but it was able to be muted once it served its initial function and it didn’t become a problem when there wasn’t a veil. For some reason, once the veil was implemented, this ability to mute pain started creating problems in survivability. Ra talks about entities unconsciously blanking out any distortion towards pain. I’d imagine that in an entity who has an unconscious mind and isn’t aware of the survival utility of pain, they might just turn off their pain receptors completely and never experience pain again if it’s within their ability to do so.
So, the persistence of pain is something that seems necessary for survival post-veil. I think that this is also true for second density and maybe even more so since second density entities are not able to consciously contemplate the benefits of pain and survival, and to abstractly approach their survival needs. If second density entities had the ability to shut off pain receptors, then they might have lower chances of survival.
And so, when laying the groundwork for a veiled existence in second density, it’s likely that the persistence of pain was necessary for survival. But it also created a system of catalyst that was not previously usable, which is what Don said when he was talking about it. In the experimenting with the need for pain, it was discovered that this catalyst was an effective means of evolution. The Logoi then probably began building upon that and experimenting in various ways that pain could be useful, maybe mostly in third density. But in order for that to be available in third density, it had to evolve through second density first.
We know that there’s a lot about our body complexes and our mental functioning in general that was planned by the Logos to be implemented through the evolution of second density entities. For instance, Ra claims that our opposable thumbs were a planned thing by the Logos. But if we look at it through evolution, it seems like that it arose simply through biological reproduction and mutating genes. So, opposable thumbs—which were probably not generally very useful in second density, except maybe to increase survivability—then became a method in third density for producing catalyst that is maybe similar to pain.
There are so many other things about our third-density bodies and minds that come from our second density existence. We are basically animals with an ability to think about ourselves. There’s really not that much more unique about us.
So, those are my initial thoughts about the function that the pain and suffering of second-density entities serves. Maybe initially it was for survivability, but once it was figured out that pain was also useful for evolution in third density, then it probably became more and more refined. Now, second density entities experience pain for survival, but that pain also lays the groundwork for third density catalyst.
You guys have any more thoughts on that initial round of discussion?
Yeah, I found it really interesting to link the category of physical suffering in third density entities to the groundwork that was laid in second density. I largely concur with that idea.
I want to dive into the question of suffering: What is suffering and what is the nature of suffering? Obviously, there are far more complex ways, emotional ways, and maybe even mental ways that third-density entities can suffer. Ra even indicates that there are spiritual ways that the third density can suffer. However, the suffering of the second-density entity is largely physical—with exception of perhaps the higher second-density beings like elephants, dolphins, dogs, cats, and so forth. Though probably among all mammals, especially those who care for their young, there may be an emotional dimension of suffering. For example, if a baby squirrel is threatened, the mother squirrel experiences far more than just a physical catalyst because it may pull on the emotional bonds between mother and offspring—if they can be said to be emotional.
Well, that leads me to my next idea for discussion. Last week we tried having a more casual show and discussion, which we’re going to extend to this week by expanding this topic because I think that it’s a pretty interesting and deep topic. So, the questions that I am proposing to you two are what is your take on the fundamental difference between animals and humans? Why do humans have an ability to process the pain catalyst while second-density animals do not? It might be a pretty simple answer, but I think it is an unaddressed basis for the question that Jeremy asked.
Jim, what do you think?
Well, if you look at the basic construction of any animal brain and the human brain, you discover that there is a portion of the human brain that is not contained in the animal brain, which are the frontal lobes. Apparently, the frontal lobes give us a whole lot of abilities that are pretty much latent right now. But what is not latent is that frontal lobes help us to process information via the cortex and the neocortex. Because the frontal lobes are more developed in the human being, it allows for more processing of information coming into the brain—including the processing of catalysts.
Basically, I think that the animal has the fundamental features of the human brain in that it can see the environment around it and can respond to certain portions of the environment that have a specific relationship to its needs at that moment, whether the needs are for survival, food, shelter, or whatever it might be for the animal. This is especially true for those of us who have pets because we notice that they learn how to do whatever they need to do at the moment.
For example, my cat right now is wandering around the room in the fashion that he always does when he is trying to tell me that he wants to go outside. I’ve had three pets and each one has had a different way of telling me that. Chloe would go over to the door and look up. She will sit there and look up at the top of the door. That means she would like to have the door opened so she can go out. Pickwick, when he was here, would go over to the door and he would yowl at it, as if maybe he could make it open. Like I just mentioned, Dandelion just wanders back and forth to let me know that he wants to go do this wandering outside on the other side of that door.
Our animals can do certain things at a level of that even we humans can understand. I find that animals are pretty good at training me, and probably us. They help us discover what it is they need, and it doesn’t take too long before we actually catch on.
But I’ll pass it over to you, Gary.
All right. Yeah, that’s a great place to start in terms of the physiology of the brain. I have not read much about it, but our brains can be partitioned into evolutionary chapters—sort of like an evolutionary, biography going back to the primitive pre-frontal cortex reptilian brain.
People talk about the reptilian brain.
Is it pre-frontal cortex? Is that right?
Oh, I don’t know a thing about that. But I know that I’ve heard it called the reptilian brain.
Yeah, likewise. But there are these successive sections or parts of the brain that have been added on over time, which is definitely one way to see and make visible the difference between humans and animals.
You can also look in terms of chakras to see the difference between our human experiences and that of animals. The second density being is an orange-ray being, which means that they have some degree of consciousness. As Ra said, all things are alive. Their consciousness is more advanced and more complex than that of the elemental red ray, but less complex and sophisticated than ours of the yellow ray. Therefore, the parameters of their reality are, for the most part, going to be bound up in what is unique to orange ray such as issues of survival, reproduction, movement, and the gradual striving toward the yellow ray of self-awareness and group identity. The group identify of the second density entity is of a less sophisticated nature such as the wolf pack, which identifies itself as the pack and has not yet perceived the possibility of service to others or service to self.
My final like reply to your question about how we differentiate the two, I will say that, as Jim was describing, animals live an instinctual life that they operate according to evolutionary programs that are modified on a species level over great spans of time. For instance, a bird might change its beak to adapt better to crack open a certain nut, or they might grow a certain type of hair that blends them in with the environment, or even evolve into a whole new species. The dinosaurs eventually became birds from what I understand. So, there is an instinctual, species-level programming that is largely dictating their behaviors that probably have certain individual variations.
People are also operating according to a lot of programming, but the human or third-density being has a capacity to step back and reflect on and analyze that programming, and to even potentially choose new programming altogether. Like Austin was saying, we are animals that can think about ourselves.
So, those are a few thoughts that come to mind.
Yeah, when think awareness is the fundamental thing that both of you discussed. Jim, you talked about us being able to process information in a different way, which to me implies our ability to process information through abstract thoughts. And Gary, you were just talking about how animals are largely instinctual, which is mostly true. They process information as it happens to them. Once the moment passes, they don’t think about it anymore.
But as humans, we can process information that isn’t directly available to us in our present experience because we can think back to something that happened to us in the past. We can even think forward to something that might happen to us. However, like you were saying, we still have instincts that we are probably more beholden to than we would like to think. Animals, on the other hand, are basically just instinctual. Like you’re saying, they are operating based on thousands of years of evolution and the conditioning that has happened to them within that lifetime.
I don’t know how the veil necessarily plays into that, but I think the veil is what has awarded the third-density self-awareness in the way that we think about it. I think an issue that arises from the third-density ability to consider the self as individual and separate from everything around us is that we start to form stories about ourselves. When we think about ourselves abstractly in a way that animals simply can’t, we tend to build up a narrative about our life.
When we think about ourselves, we tend to cast ourselves as the main character in the drama of human life. I think that we also tend to transpose that drama on to other beings. We may do this to other people, but we especially do it to animals because animals can’t talk to us and tell us what their story is. Because they can’t talk to us, they aren’t able to put themselves in a story. And so, they don’t have a story of the self like we do.
Humans, on the other hand, are able to form a narrative around our lives that creates more meaning for the things we experience, like pain. When we experience a deep sort of pain, we will continue to think about that pain throughout our days, whether it’s still there or not, and it will continue to affect the way that we define ourselves. I think a good example of how our stories affect the way that we process pain comes from an analogy I read from a Sam Harris book where he said that a muscle builder or a weight lifter would describe the immense amount of pain they experience at the peak of their most intense workout as an amazing sensation. If you experience that pain, but remove all the context of the weightlifting and the body building, as well as the positive interpretation of it, the pain would be one of the most agonizing experiences that you could have.
What if you have a different story surrounding that pain? Let’s say there is a victim instead of a powerful being utilizing their muscles. You might then interpret that pain as some of the biggest suffering that the universe can give to anybody. I think that our ability to create stories around our experiences with pain is part of why and how we process it differently. It is this ability that also makes us ask questions about why second-density entities suffer the way that we do. I don’t think that they do because I think the pain they experience is fundamentally different. While it is pain that causes suffering that does call on us to relieve it, animals don’t experience the same sort of trauma or story around that pain that we do.
You guys have any more thoughts?
Regarding how animals don’t have the ability to tell us their experiences, I would agree that for most humans—myself included—that that is the case. However, I will say that we had an animal psychic come to our house who allegedly relayed information from our dog. She was amazing and we felt like we had genuinely received communication. But I mean, what you were saying holds true. I’m just saying that there are possibilities.
Oh, there’s another little story that I think I mentioned it to you once, Austin. There’s this little vignette in—I think it’s Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi—where he was an enlightened fellow in the first half of the twentieth century living in India. An ashram grew up around him. People would come to see him and ask him questions as he sat there in his loin cloth and replied with enlightened information.
One day Ramana spoke to the caretakers of the ashram and asked, “Why did you remove the bird’s nest?” The caretakers responded, “Because the birds were disruptive.” I’m probably butchering the story a little bit, but Ramana actually learned about the removal of the bird’s nest from the sparrow itself, which came and told him. That’s how he found out about it and that’s why he castigated the ashram caretakers about it.
There are other stories that speak of people who can communicate with animals such as like St. Francis, apparently.
But I want to get back to your point about the stories we create, which I agree with entirely. Animals may have some level of story, but it’s not, I would say, quite like humans. Regarding their instinctual behaviors, the pain that they experience is recorded somehow on a species level, but they don’t build the drama around it, per se. Perhaps some high second-density entities do such as pet dogs might have a story of being rejected, abused, celebrated, or being jealous because another dog was brought into the house or something.
I recall Eckert Tolle describing how he learned a lot by watching ducks or geese on a pond and he mentioned that when they would get angry at one another, they’d let it out by squawking and making sounds, and by maybe even beating their wings at one another. Then the anger dissipates and they resume what they were doing beforehand. Whereas two humans in that situation would probably make a larger trauma of it that might lead to them not talking to one another anymore or can even lead to violence.
When I was talking about humans transposing stories onto animals, I would think that in the context of an animal psychic—given that they are communicating with the animal—I would say that it is probably the case that the person is interpreting the animal’s experiences, thoughts, and feelings as a story and then telling that story for the animal, instead of the animal actually telling their story to a human who then relays that story to other people.
Like you were saying, higher second-density entities probably have the capacity to do this. But in general, communication requires abstract thought. We have to be able to organize information and present it in a non-instinctual way so as to communicate in a way that isn’t just instinctual—these are my needs, this is what I want, things like that. And you know, stories as we experience them can still be built upon the same instinct and conditioning that animals experience. We just have a bigger way to think about them. For example, an animal can be jealous or be what we would consider jealous, but it would still be an instinctual reaction. Say, there’s a resource that they are protecting because they are instinctual, and their instincts tell them they need to protect their resources.
I think our interaction with second-density beings helps them to evolve because we build up these stories that we project on to them and treat these stories as though they are real and let the animals fake it until they make it, as they say. We show them that, you know, life can be thought about in bigger ways and we treat them as if their life is bigger than their instincts, which then makes their lives bigger than their instincts as they interact with us.
So, I do think that pets might have the capacity for abstract thought. But in general, I don’t think second-density entities can necessarily communicate in the form of story, but humans might interpret that communication as story.
I have a quick follow up to what you just said. That insight had occurred to me when the animal psychic was relaying information because my dog apparently was communicating in remarkably human terms, and I figured that there was a translation occurring there. It was the psychic’s worldview that was kind of taking the seed threads and then weaving it into intelligibly human communication.
And I had another quick thought I wanted to share. You made the point earlier about how the second density is the biological foundation of third density, and that foundation, of course, goes all the way back to first density. Biology, especially, is established in second density, and then refined in third density. As such, we have within ourselves, not only that third-density biology, but animalistic behaviors, too. We have those same energy centers. We have that same level of consciousness that, with work, can, be uplifted and refined. But at our base, it is still there and we still actually see animalistic behavior playing out on our globe.
So, one means of relating to the animal mindset may also be to look within and see that animal within ourselves that isn’t just restricted to the realm of survival and reproduction, but our basic base emotions, too, may have their roots in animal consciousness as well. For instance, we were talking about how the animal can experience jealousy. That feeling of jealousy starts with an animal level of consciousness, so maybe other basic emotions, too, start there.
Yeah. So, as we’re wrapping up our show, one final question primarily for you, Jim, if it’s okay to ask you to speak about this. We’re essentially talking about pain and how we process it. I think that Carla is probably a human exemplary example of how a person can transcend that pain that exists in their body and live a spiritual life in spite of it. I guess might not be the right word, but I think you might get the gist of what I’m talking about.
Do you have any personal takes on your experiences with Carla or how she experienced pain and the spiritual approach to that?
Well, she experienced pain for most of her life due to arthritis, which was supposed to be programmed for her to focus more on the inward journey of meditation, prayer, and channeling, and so forth, rather than the outward expression of physical energies. That’s why she didn’t have much physical energy. So, she experienced a good deal of pain because she kept trying to exceed those limitations. Ra mentioned how it wasn’t necessary for her to experience the pain if she would stay within certain limitations, but being the lover of life that she was, she would exceed limitations and then she’d be in pain.
Because she had a pain for a long time, after a while her body became very sensitive to the concept of pain. So her body became likely to generate the pain just because it’s been doing it for so long. I know in her later life, when she was experiencing so much pain from the two back surgeries, she made it a spiritual practice each morning before she arose or decided to consciously take part in the day to pray and to consider the quality of pain that particular day. Whatever the pain was going to be that day, she would bless it.
She was determined to make an extra effort to be cheerful so that people who came into her room or came into contact with her would not be aware of her pain. She didn’t want to stand out and to generate so much sympathy and pity from people, so while she didn’t necessarily hide the pain, she also didn’t allow it to take over her consciousness and be something that formed the way she behaved during the day.
So, what she did was to determine to be a joyful person, and to let the pain be an instigator of more joy and more love and acceptance of those around her. That is what I experienced with Carla, and I was always amazed at how she was able to do that because I know she was in incredible pain.
I think I remember her talking one time—or she might have written—about how she referred to her pain as ‘sister pain’.
Yeah. Well, she wrote a poem called Sister Pain.
Yeah, that must be what it is. Well, thank you for sharing.
Any final thoughts, Gary?
Are we at our time?
Yeah, we’re about ready to end the show.
Okay. Yeah, I had another question we could dive into, but otherwise, no.
Alrighty. Any final words for our listeners, Jim?
Yes, indeed. I just want you folks to know how much we do care about you, how much we love you, and how grateful we are for any questions you send to us. We’re grateful for you just being out there and listening to what we have to say. If anything we say strikes a certain chord of resonance in you and you want to respond and send more questions or just comments, please contact us. We’d love to hear from you.
We hope that you will take the information and use it as you will in whatever way it has use for you. If something doesn’t resonate with you, then drop it by the wayside. And, if you have a chance today, smile at somebody you don’t even know to send them a little love. As for the people you do know, give them extra love. We love you all. Cheerio.
You’ve been listening to L/L Research’s podcast, In the Now. If you have enjoyed the show, please visit our websites: LLResearch.org and Bring4th.org. Thank you so much for listening and for supporting this podcast with your questions. We want to give a special thank you to Jeremy for submitting the question we discussed today.
If you’d like to hear us ramble on about a particular topic, please read the instructions on our page at www.LLResearch.org/podcast. New episodes are published to the archive website every other Wednesday afternoon, roughly. Sometimes we might skip a week. Have a wonderful couple of weeks and we will talk with you then!