Anos: Nothing is unspiritual

Note from the channeler: before we get to Anos's message, I would like to share an anecdote.

I was chatting with Ashtar and thanked him for talking to me.

He said: "If you want to, you can certainly say 'thank you' to me, I don't mind. If that helps you, go for it. However, you saying 'thank you' suggests to me that you don't realize that I am not in separation consciousness."

So basically, Ashtar was saying that from his perspective, he and I are one. So me thanking him would be a bit like my mouth thanking my hand for putting some tasty food in it. It's not really necessary.

Ashtar said this not from a place of ego, but just from a place of: let me point out something that you seem to be overlooking for your understanding and spiritual growth.

When I reflected on that, I thought that maybe next time I could say something like "I am happy to be talking to you" or "I enjoyed this conversation" instead of "thank you." 

Although Earth humans probably still appreciate a "thank you."

On to today's message.

-------------

My dear Earth human friends,

This is Anos speaking. It is my pleasure to talk to you again. 

This is the second time this year I got to communicate a message to the people of Earth. Is this what Christmas feels like?

Well, let's dive in.

On Earth, some spiritual people tend to label certain things as spiritual / good / productive / a proper path, and some other things as unspiritual / bad / unproductive / a bad path.

For example, being a spiritual teacher is apparently good. Having a conventional job is apparently bad. Asking money for spiritual teachings or spiritual services or intel is apparently bad. 

Meditating is apparently good. Talking about politics is apparently bad. 

Spiritual healing is apparently good. Conventional modern healthcare is apparently bad.

Also, apparently, highly evolved spiritual beings only care about love and spiritual growth. They don't talk about sex, because that is apparently some kind of lower pursuit.

Physical existence is apparently bad. Non-physical existence is apparently good.

Gendered energy (masculine and feminine energy) are apparently something that is to be bypassed. Doesn't matter that you chose to be born in a gendered body, apparently gender is something that is to be bypassed.

When I say it out loud like this, most people realize that this kind of spiritual moralism is a bit silly. However, many (not all) people have these kinds of subconscious beliefs. After all, you have been brought up in a highly moralistic society, which tends to label some things as good and some things as bad. And lots of people haven't done careful observation of their inner and the outside world. Hence, lots of people tend to just copy this moralistic way of thinking, without thinking.

Let's continue. Apparently, someone who is in a relationship is doing better in life than someone who isn't.

Apparently, anyone who triggers them or who says something they disagree with is apparently bad or wrong.

If a person feels love, that's apparently good. If a person feels anger, that's apparently bad. And because anger is bad and love is good, I of course never get angry. Or at least, I never show it, I suppress the angry parts of me, and I only show the parts of me that are happy. Because that's how I get love and social approval.

A person who in the present appears to be happy or at peace is apparently spiritually advanced. A person who in the present appears upset or in pain is apparently unevolved. Therefore, I always suppress every part of me that isn't happy and grateful, and look how spiritually advanced that makes me. Please love me.

Well, I think you're amazing as you already are, and I do love you. Most beings in the universe wouldn't have done as well in your shoes as you have.

Also, personally, I don't really label things as good or bad from a moralistic perspective.

Sure, some things are more pleasant than others. Some paths are more efficient than others. Certainly I prefer some things over other things. Certainly I choose to do certain things and I choose not to do certain other things. But I don't walk around labeling meditation and being happy as good, and studying politics and being angry as bad, from a moralistic perspective. The moralistic perspective is a very outdated framework of looking at the world with.

At the stage where Earth humans are currently at, there is so much lying and deception and unresolved pain and people putting on a happy face that the main thing that would be productive to strive for isn't trying to hit indicators of being spiritually advanced. Because in practice, people tend to do this by suppressing every non-happy part of them and by hiding everything that is supposedly unspiritual.

When in reality, nothing is unspiritual.

The most productive thing to strive for, at the stage where most Earth humans are at, is to be authentic. That's very healthy both for yourself and for the world around it, and it may almost magnetically draw people to you who are genuinely a good match for you.

I understand that unfortunately, being fully authentic may not always be practical, such as at work. But then, try to be as authentic as possible, and strive to find people who are a good match for the authentic you.

Being authentic draws the right people to you, and repels people from you who aren't a good match. Both are advantages.

Being authentic also means not labeling anger as bad, for example. In the old moralistic worldview, anger is bad and unspiritual. What I propose is just being authentic, and if that means being angry, so be it. Anger isn't good or bad, anger is just anger. In fact, it's not just that anger isn't good or bad, it's also that it doesn't matter whether anger is good or bad, because the point isn't being moral, the point is being authentic.

You are actually one with everything. If you suppress or bulldoze angry parts of you, you suppress or bulldoze yourself.

If you judge something in another person from a moralistic standpoint, you're judging yourself. It's also possible that you are rejecting or denying that part in yourself.

Sure, it may be wise to first observe and feel your anger, and then talk to the other person in a somewhat calm way. But that's still being authentic, it's just being authentic in a smart way. You're not suppressing your anger, after all.

Do note here that the English language itself is moralistic, which makes it a bit harder to communicate, and which makes it easy to fall into spiritual moralism.

For example, describing something as "good" can mean that it's morally good, a label that I don't love using, but it can also describe something that is efficient, that is wise to do, that is working well, that is a kind action, et cetera. And I think it's absolutely fine to use the word "good" in that way. It would be silly to say that you can't say that certain things are more efficient or productive than other things.

Similarly, I don't love labeling something as "bad" in the moralistic sense, but I think it's fine to say that something is "bad" if you want to describe it as being inefficient, unwise, unkind, et cetera.

Along the same lines: you can use the word "should" moralistically. You should do this thing, because I have labeled this thing as being morally good. But you can also use the word "should" as a way to describe that something is wise or efficient. It's fine to say: you should secure yourself properly before trying to climb a wall.

So it's too simplistic to say that you should just never use the words "good" or "bad" or "should." Instead, I am saying that I think that the moralistic worldview isn't very efficient and doesn't lead to a lot of happiness and progress.

Let's look at another example of spiritual moralism. To some spiritual people, the only proper path is their path, and everything else is a false teaching. 

And when I say this, you might think of someone who is dogmatically attached to a particular religion or school or lineage. However, it's even dogma to believe that meditation is better than reading up on politics.

Now, would I recommend to the average person that they meditate more and spend less time following politics? Yes, I would. I do think the average person should be spending some more time doing their inner work, or doing small acts of kindness for the people around them, and spending a bit less time looking at or getting worked up about the outside world.

And it can also be good to look inside and see what your own fears and desires are, and whether they influence your political views. And it isn't necessarily bad if they do, but it is good to be self-aware.

Still, there is a huge difference between the belief that it would be effective for the average person to spend more time doing inner work, versus the belief that everyone should spend more time doing inner work. The first statement isn't dogma, while the second statement is.

Because the reality is, it's simply not true that it's better for everyone to do inner work rather than doing politics. Believe it or not, but for some people it's in their highest good and the highest good of everyone around them to become a politician or political commentator or something like that.

Hence, the statement "meditation is better than reading up on politics" is dogma, it's spiritual moralism. It's just a person having labeled one thing as morally good and another thing as morally bad.

Now, yes, you can argue that for most people, it's more efficient and leads to more happiness to spend more time doing inner work. And that's true. But then you have to indeed say something like: "for most people, this is better." Because otherwise it's spiritual moralism, in my view.

And yes, qualifying the statement with "for most people" does make a big difference when you say what is or isn't good for people. It's the acknowledgement that different people are on different paths -- and after all, there are infinite paths to Source.

Some people believe that politics, and studying politics, is inherently bad. And I understand this perspective, because Earth people often have a lot of wounding surrounding politics. After all, your politicians lie so often and work against the people all the time. 

However, ultimately politics is just the activities associated with the governance of a certain area. You can't really construct a society without occasionally making decisions about how certain areas are run. Us Arcturians engage in politics. Pleiadians engage in politics. The galactic confederation engages in politics.

And so, for some people it is in their highest good that they focus on being a positive force in politics. Some people actually have to practically build this new Earth that everyone wants to live on, after all, and that also means that some people have to make political decisions to facilitate that. 

Moreover, if every good-hearted person refuses to engage with politics, then guess which kinds of people end up in positions of political power?

And yes, I know that in the past good-hearted people who tried to get into politics have been blocked or even killed, but that is changing, and the Earth will need good politicians in the future.

Let's suppose that you know that for a specific person, it would be better for them to meditate rather than study politics. In this case, should you tell them to meditate rather than studying politics?

Well, you can suggest that in a respectful way, sure. But let's say that they don't listen and you get annoyed or you feel the urge to repeat your suggestion. In this case, I would like to ask you: why would it be better for a person to meditate rather than study politics?

You might say: because it makes them happier. Okay. Why is it more important for a person to be happy, than for the person to make their own free-will choices and have the experiences they wish?

Sure, their experiences might be more painful, but their soul isn't in resistance to pain. If they didn't want to experience pain, they would never have split off from Source in the first place.

Sure, their choices might mean that their path back to Source is a bit longer, but what does that matter? Archangel Michael isn't sitting around judging people who are taking a longer route back to Source.

Everyone eventually comes back to Source anyway. 

So personally I think it's fine to say: most people would be happier if they meditated more and read up on politics less. But I wouldn't phrase that statement as if it applied to all people, because it doesn't. There are infinite paths back to Source.

I also think it's fine to suggest to an individual that they meditate more. But if they don't, from my point of view there's nothing to be annoyed about, because possibly they're simply choosing the longer, possibly scenic route back to Source. There's nothing wrong with that inherently.

Also, there's some spiritual moralism going around where people place things like meditation on a pedestal, acting like it and certain related acts like yoga are the best thing to do, and everything else is lesser.

Well, suppose your electricity doesn't work. Do you want a person to come over who sits down and meditates, or do you want a person to come over who restores your electricity?

Spiritual people still rely on the outside world being sort of okay, which means that some people need to actually work on practically improving or maintaining the outside world. This also means that doing practical work isn't actually inferior or lesser than someone who meditates.

Yes, if you meditate you help the collective, but similarly an electrician helps the collective. A positive politician helps the collective. A garbage collector helps the collective. A mailman helps the collective. A street sweeper helps the collective. A cleaner helps the collective.

Moreover, some spiritual people actually use spiritual dogma to resist lessons their soul wants them to learn.

For example, if someone is working a conventional job, they might feel that conventional jobs are bad, and therefore they must make a living in the spiritual field somehow. 

And sure, sometimes that is for their highest good. For some people, quitting their conventional job and doing something in the spiritual field is the perfect choice for them.

However, sometimes working a conventional job is for the highest good of a spiritual seeker, for example because there are lessons there that they need to learn. You can actually learn a lot of spiritual lessons in an office environment. For example, dealing with unreasonable bosses or co-workers can actually teach you a lot of things that you won't learn by sitting on top of a mountain and meditating. 

You can learn spiritual lessons anywhere, if you're open to that.

Consider Joe the plumber. Joe suddenly decides that conventional jobs are unspiritual, and so he quits his job to start organizing spiritual retreats.

Sure, it's possible that this is for the highest good of himself and the rest of the world.

But it can also be possible that he was contributing more to the world while working as a plumber, because in the present, plumbers are still needed. And Joe isn't separate from those other people who need plumbing services, from a unity consciousness perspective. The people that Joe is helping with his plumbing skills are himself.

It's also possible that there are valuable lessons that Joe can learn while working as a plumber.

The famous saying goes: "Before enlightenment: chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment: chop wood, carry water". The saying doesn't go: "you should be in resistance to doing conventional work because that's unspiritual." The saying also doesn't go: "you should ignore the outside world completely and only focus on meditation." The saying goes: chop wood, carry water.

Another way of looking at it is that ideally, you're not in a state of resistance. And the stereotypical Western spiritual person, who labels meditation as good and conventional work and discussions of politics as bad, may be in a state of resistance to conventional work and politics. Now, I'm not saying that it's in everyone's best interest to work a regular job and engage in politics. One could also argue that it's in many people's best interest to focus less on politics and to focus inwards more. But that doesn't mean that it's wise to engage in spiritual moralism and to label politics or conventional jobs as flat-out bad.

It's dogma to say that one particular path or one particular approach (such as: ignore politics, focus inwards) is best for everyone.

Suppose someone says something like: "I wish the galactics would show up already" or "I wish the gray hats would make a move already." Sometimes, someone argues with them, saying that no one is coming to help you and you must help yourself or focus on yourself.

In reality, you don't know when the galactics will show up. We don't even know ourselves yet precisely when we will land, because that depends on your choices. We could show up this year, we also could not.

If someone expresses that they have a wish that we would land, then it doesn't help to tell that person to not have that wish, because that's basically an invitation for that person to suppress or deny how they feel, or to bulldoze that wish of them.

Now sure, it is a good idea to not just sit on the couch and wait for others. I would recommend doing your best in the present.

However, that's not quite the same as saying: no one is coming to help you, you must rely on yourself.

Really, it's a bit of a false binary to pretend that people can either move forward productively in the present, or they can wish that the galactics would land, but not both. In reality, a person absolutely can do both at the same time.

To me, that looks more like a statement that comes from a place of pain or disappointment or attempted self-protection. And I have empathy for that, but the solution to pain is to observe whatever comes up. It's not to tell other people how they must live their lives.

Any time a person feels the need to declare that everyone should do or believe something, they should probably look inside first.

Now yes, it might happen that a person has found a path or opinion or viewpoint that genuinely works well, and out of enthusiasm or altruism they wish to share that. And in principle, that's beautiful. But then it's still useful to formulate that as something like: "For most people, I think this would lead to more happiness" rather than say something like "stop looking outside, start looking inside" as a general rule for everyone to follow.

Recall the old saying: "for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong." In my mind, saying "don't pay attention at all to the outside world / to politics / to intel / to discussions of the gray hats and just focus inside" is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong (at least for most people). Saying to ignore the outside and just focus inside is, for most people, too extreme and too binary. For most people it is optimal to spend some portion of time focused internally (possibly more than they're doing right now) and some portion of time focused externally. And if people have certain wishes or desires, that's fine, so long as they also do their best in the present. That's not a short little punchy statement you can say, but it is closer to the truth. 

What also makes things a bit more complex is that people are on different paths, and people are on different stages on their path. So for one person, "completely ignore the outside world and just focus inwards" might be advice that is absolutely, 100% correct -- at least currently. But that doesn't mean that this advice is optimal for everyone. Another person might be on a different path, or might be at a different stage.

Also, spiritual Earth people often say "this doesn't resonate with me, therefore this message is fake." Now, obviously you can determine by yourself if a message resonates with you personally, or if a message is useful for you personally. However, when it comes to determining if a message is flat-out fake, I would like to invite you to view "this doesn't resonate" more as a point of data, and less of a definitive determination.

After all, usually there is at least one person on the side of "this resonates, this is genuine" and at least one person on the side of "this doesn't resonate, this is fake." Even if there isn't anyone commenting that publicly, usually they are quietly there. Therefore, something resonating with one person can't be definitive proof that something is either fake or true, because then everything would be both fake and true. Instead, it's more a matter of: if most people say it resonates, that points to the message being true, and if most people say it doesn't resonate, that points to the matter being false.

So you can say something like "this doesn't resonate with me", if you feel drawn to post that, because that's useful information for other people to have. But I wouldn't necessarily act as if something not resonating with you personally is definitive proof that something is fake, or something resonating with you personally being definitive proof that something is genuine.

Yes, theoretically, a perfect spiritual master can say with perfect accuracy what is true and what isn't. Indeed, Earth people are aware that they can rely on their intuition. The issue is that often, people confuse their emotions with their intuition. And emotions are valid and are useful information to listen to, but they can also absolutely point someone in a wrong direction.

So it may be the case that a spiritual message is flawed or wrong, but because it makes a person feel good emotionally, or because it reinforces their worldview, they believe it. For example, suppose a fake channeling says: "everything Trump does is a brilliant 5D chess move. Everything is unfolding exactly as the white hats planned it years ago. The current suffering of the people is unfortunate, but it is literally the only way. People who understand this are very smart and spiritually advanced, everyone else is kind of dumb." Now, this confirms the worldview of some people and everyone likes having their worldview confirmed. And it also pleases their ego. So they might very well be tempted to label this channeling as true and helpful. But in fact, it's fake. In reality, Trump made some good moves, and it was very courageous of him to step up, but he also made some bad moves. The white hats are more like gray hats and they could and probably should have liberated Earth years ago.

Of course, this isn't unique to Trump supporters. Pretty much everyone likes messages that confirm their worldview, and pretty much everyone is more critical of messages they emotionally dislike than of messages that they emotionally like.

Conversely, a message might be true and helpful, but also be emotionally unpleasant to someone, for example because it touches on old pain or because it contradicts their current world-view. And sometimes it happens that this person thinks that their intuition or their guidance says that the message is flawed or fake, when in reality they're just emotionally triggered and the message is in fact helpful and correct.

Note that most people today disagree with things that they firmly believed to be true ten years ago. And most likely, ten years from now you will disagree with things that you firmly believe to be true today. So people shouldn't be too quick to claim that they can identify what's wrong and what's right. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have opinions, just that they perhaps shouldn't cling so tightly to the opinions that they currently happen to hold. People also should perhaps not be in resistance to things that conflict with their currently held opinions.

Also, intuition isn't in resistance, isn't hostile, isn't judging other people and isn't projecting negative things onto something. Any time a person feels emotionally hostile to someone else, they're not being led by their intuition. You can trust intuition to give you accurate information, but your emotions don't always give you accurate information about what is true and what is not.

Someone who is being led by their intuition might just feel a calm sense of "I don't think this is true" and then they would either move on with their life, or they would point out in a productive way "this message makes this specific claim, however I don't think that specific claim is true because of this reason. Instead I think this is true."

If a person feels hostility or judgement towards other people, it can be useful to sit down and look inwards and observe, rather than immediately saying or typing words of judgement.

It is also good to remember the old principle: "you don't get rid of something bad by criticizing it. You get rid of something bad by creating something better." 

That is very true and important to keep in mind. In general it's more effective to spend more energy on creating something better rather than spending energy on criticizing things.

People don't just contribute more to the collective by focusing on creating new and better things, rather than criticizing. This also generally leads to more happiness and personal growth for themselves.

That said, I don't want to feed the misperception that half of the spiritual community is doing nothing other than unproductively complaining and criticizing and tearing people down. The people who do that are actually only a few percent of the entire community. They just seem more numerous than they actually are, because a harsh post leaves a stronger impression than either an appreciative post, or a person just appreciating something quietly and then moving on without commenting anything.

I know it's popular on Earth to criticize the spiritual community. However, I actually think the spiritual community on Earth is overall quite good. Sure, I disagree with some parts of it and with some people in it. However overall I think that you've managed to create an impressively good community, given the darkness of Earth and how difficult it is on Earth to establish what is true and what is useful, because of Earth human's temporary disconnection with Source and with higher-consciousness beings. After all, many people in the spiritual community really are raising their consciousness over time -- and something as monumental as raising one's consciousness is simply a process that takes time. So: great job, people in Earth's spiritual community. You indeed are an amazing ground crew to work with.

Next up I would like to dis-spell some confusion about what has been called the ascension process.

In the next few years, Earth humans are likely going to liberate themselves or be liberated from the dark controllers. You are likely going to meet your galactic family. Life on Earth is most likely going to be much easier and lots of technologies will be released. Most likely the energy on Earth will rise significantly and most likely the consciousness of humanity will rise significantly, which has sometimes been called the ascension process. Possibly a solar flash or galactic intervention or splitting of timelines will help facilitate this, or possibly humanity will free themselves without any of these things.

However, with the exception of a very few individuals, you will still be physical. The vast majority of Earth people (including this channeler) aren't going to ascend to a state of non-physicality anytime soon. There may be mass ascension-to-nonphysicality waves at some point in the future, but I don't expect those to happen within the next 150 or so years. Most of the ascension in the near future will be physical beings remaining physical but just achieving a higher level of consciousness, and then possibly graduating into a higher state of existence upon their natural death. Because your soul most likely wants to experience physicality on the much more pleasant Earth that Earth humans are going to build, with our help if you want it. After all, if your soul craved non-physicality, then it simply would not have physically incarnated when it did.

Most spiritual people still have quite a lot of resistance, trauma, illusions and lessons to learn in physical reality. Hence, it wouldn't serve the average spiritual person, or the average non-spiritual person for that matter, to become non-physical in 2025 or 2026 or so. What's best for them is not to become non-physical very soon, the best solution for them is if Earth becomes significantly less painful to live on, so that people can enjoy their lives and learn their lessons while not suffering so much. Yes, some contrast can help people learn lessons and grow, and I'm not saying that after 2025 or so there will be zero pain or unpleasantness ever. However, the amount of pain and suffering on Earth is so high that even if you look at it purely from a soul's growth perspective, it has become counterproductive. Not to mention of course that we don't want you to suffer this much, just from an empathy perspective.

It's actually part of the worldview and propaganda from the dark side that everything and everyone is fundamentally bad, and the solution is to somehow escape. That's where the ideas come from that soon the rapture will come, that existence is suffering, everyone is fundamentally sinful or selfish, that just by existing you worsen climate change and that the purpose of your life is to get into heaven or end reincarnation or ascend from physicality. All these ideas come from the dark side worldview that everything and everyone is fundamentally bad. Because after all, most people on the dark side aren't happy and also have to deal with the knowledge that they're making things worse, and hence they adopt a worldview that things are inherently bad and people are inherently unhappy and the only path is to basically escape and run away. It's their coping mechanism.

Or people who have been hurt very badly in this physical world adopt a worldview of "I must reach non-physicality" because they think that's the way their pain stops.

In reality, Earth can very easily become a near-paradise, and physical existence can very easily become far more enjoyable than painful. It just requires that people start working together and that they leave behind some old pain and illusions. As has been observed, if you share love or happiness with someone, then you create more love and happiness in the world. Therefore this idea is false that everything just inherently sucks and the point of this existence is to escape it, whether by going to heaven or by ending reincarnation or through the rapture or through spiritual ascension to non-physicality.

It's best to stop resisting physicality and ordinary life, because likely you're going to remain physical for the foreseeable future. And as long as you're resisting physicality -- and sexuality and gender are parts of that -- so long as you're resisting physicality, you're not going to be able to transcend it. If you resist physicality or gender or sex, then you're probably going to stay in a physical, gendered body until you learn your lessons and let go of your resistance. 

You can't skip middle school. 

In fact, if today you were magically transformed into a non-physical non-gendered being, then quite soon you would likely be trying to reincarnate into a gendered, physical body again, in order to learn the lessons of physicality and of yin and yang, of duality, of the feminine and the masculine.

If you're still in a physical, gendered body, then it's quite likely that right now your soul wants you to be in a physical, gendered body. If your soul didn't want you to be in a physical and gendered body, then it would be easy for your soul to arrange your passing from this current life.

If in the present moment you are a physical being, then go and be physical.

Now sure, there are a few people out there who aren't in resistance to sex and gender and physicality and duality, they just genuinely have no desire for sex. And sure, there's no need for these people to engage in sex. However, the vast majority of people receiving this message do deep down want good sex, and a happy relationship with a partner who has certain feminine or masculine traits. Labeling sex and gendered traits as unspiritual, or as bad to talk about, is then just a form of resistance.

If you have the attitude of "duality is bad, I want to transcend duality" then you're probably going to remain stuck in duality until you release your resistance to it. What you resist, persists.

Jake and Tunia have been talking about sex and gender and enjoying physicality and enjoying the duality of a feminine woman and a masculine man coming together. I think they're doing a great job modeling what it's like to not be in resistance to these things. I wouldn't be so quick to reject their wisdom, just because their brand of wisdom is different from what you're used to.

I do acknowledge that it's far easier for Jake and Tunia to not be in resistance to physicality than it is for Earth humans to do the same, because Earth is so tough. I know that it's not easy to have a satisfying relationship and a really good sex life there on Earth. So I can understand people being sour grapes about it ("if I can't have a great sex life, or a desirable partner with certain masculine or feminine traits, then I'll just label those things as unspiritual"). 

However, if the reality is that you subconsciously want a better sex life, then leaving that part of you unfulfilled is going to hold you back. Including spiritually.

Even people who think they have a good sex life, probably only get 10% of the enjoyment and connection and growth and lightwork out of sex that they could be getting from it. Physical and energetic sex skills aren't commonly taught on Earth. Furthermore, the average woman doesn't have unblocked feminine energy, plus has no resistance to feminine or masculine energy, plus has every part of her be engaged and connected and present and receptive and open during love making -- not just her sexual organs, but also her mind, her emotions, her energy and her heart.

Same for Earth men, who haven't always realized that they can open and engage their heart during love making.

So there really is a world to be gained in mastering sex, for pleasure and connection and to achieve spiritual growth and to spread light there on Earth, in service of the collective.

Plus, meeting your needs is one important form of spiritual practice, and for most people a satisfying sex life is a need that they have. Most people will also feel a lot better once they unblock and let go of their resistance to masculine and feminine energy.

I hope that the messages from this channeler are helping people to let go of their resistance to physicality.

I get that it's tough to master physicality, especially on Earth. However no one is saying that you need to be perfect, or that you must achieve some ultimate state of being this week. Spirituality is a process, it is a practice.

Ideally, it would also be best to stop resisting pain and stop resisting discomfort and loneliness, and to observe them instead of resisting them. Of course you should still take steps to improve your life, but if you resist pain, that's when pain becomes suffering. Still, I understand this is easier said than done, and for most people this may not be achievable until their living situation improves.

Once the New Earth is here, I think most of you will love your physicality and will want to spend many years exploring and enjoying it. And indeed, you shall have that opportunity. The plan isn't to free Earth and then to have you all immediately become non-physical. The plan is to free Earth so that you can enjoy physical life there, as it was always meant to be. 

I understand that people have negative associations with the idea of enjoying physical life, but there really is nothing bad or sinful about that.

Most likely at some point in the future you will have been healed, you will be free, we will be walking among you, Earth will be much nicer to live on, you will feel connected and you will love your physicality.

I love you. You are doing great. And I enjoyed sharing this message with you.

This was Anos