1 result for (book:tes6 AND session:272 AND stemmed:attack)

TES6 Session 272 June 29, 1966 6/85 (7%) violence docile child retaliate aggressiveness
– The Early Sessions: Book 6 of The Seth Material
– © 2013 Laurel Davies-Butts
– Session 272 June 29, 1966 9 PM Wednesday

[... 9 paragraphs ...]

This has to do with the attack made on Ruburt by your domestic cat. Several issues are involved: Ruburt’s own mood at the time, for one thing. Now. The cat senses both of your moods immediately. It is psychically very close to you both. Being a house cat, it is closed in with you. As a rule you both radiate strong constructive energy. For a short period of time, Ruburt turned his creative energy, as he knows, I believe, inward rather than outward, knotted it up, misdirected it, did not focus it properly, and turned it into destructive energy.

[... 17 paragraphs ...]

She did express this violence, and again with fury, through verbal attacks to which Ruburt was extremely sensitive. But Ruburt did not even dare to express his violence verbally, because of the parent-child relationship. Added to this was the fact that the child loved the parent much more strongly, you see, than the parent ever loved the child.

Now symbolically any attack upon Ruburt becomes an attack by the parent, against which the child in Ruburt dares not retaliate. Flight becomes the only answer, the only sure solution, as flight from the parent was the only solution, for the parent could not run after.

[... 3 paragraphs ...]

Ruburt knew this well. He has since grown to like all animals but at the moment of the attack, you see, the cat instantly became this personification of evil to him, and again his primary concern was to flee. There was never an instant in the whole affair when he thought of striking back.

[... 2 paragraphs ...]

When he was not docile as a child there was vicious instant retaliation of a most complicated nature. There was ordinary retaliation, in that he was punished through word attacks, and through such corporal punishment as the invalid could give. But, and here Joseph we come to the real heart of the matter, the mother retaliated in the main not by a direct attack upon the child, but by causing the child to believe that its misbehavior could be, and very nearly was, going to result in the death of the mother. As any child does, the child at times wished for the parent’s death, and here we see the mother acting out her own death in order to punish the child.

This could happen as a result of the smallest transgression, if the mother was in a particularly unstable condition. When the death was not acted out in drama form—this you are familiar with, we shall not go into it here—then instead the mother pretended to have an attack of one kind or another, and she told the child that the child was directly responsible.

[... 47 paragraphs ...]

Similar sessions

NoPR Part Two: Chapter 21: Session 673, June 27, 1973 hatred hate war love powerlessness
TPS1 Session 239 (Deleted Portion) March 7, 1966 dominate treat Philip woman primarily
NoPR Part Two: Chapter 17: Session 663, May 14, 1973 criminal power aggression violence prisoners
SS Part Two: Chapter 15: Session 562, December 7, 1970 civilization violence Lumanians technology caves