Heartki

Heart Ki

Akashic Records Reading [Quick]: A Case Study on Karmic Entanglement

The following is a transcription of a Quick Akashic Records Reading, originally performed to a client. A Quick Reading takes me 2-3 hours to perform, and is delivered as a plain text email. All references to the person's identity were replaced with a fictional alias. For the purposes of this publication some portions of the original reading may have been rephrased, edited out, or added to, but no changes were made that would alter the original meaning. For more about readings please see: Akashic Records Readings.

army woman and man standing side by side seen from behindThis was part of a sequence of readings performed to a client, by which he’s exploring the various subjects pertaining to his current moment in life and those who surround and interact with him in his everyday reality – his background is in the military – as well as his spiritual background and long-term aims.

A reading performed for one person can only go so far into the spiritual matters of others, particularly when those might not be particularly ‘spiritual’, and might not be aware such a reading is even being made in the first place. As far as I’m concerned, readings may never seek to ‘snoop in’, fetch gossip, let alone cause any type of effect, regarding the lives of others. However, there is some leeway in addressing the energies of others in a reading, which is appropriate insofar as the person who asks the reading is entitled to know the dynamics and background it shares with others, the reasons those dynamics are in place, and whatever information might be useful to gain awareness on those dynamics and learn spiritually. Other factors might also be in play, such as the spiritual affinity the person has with those involved, their desire to help and assist, permission given by the Higher Selves of others in providing the information, and so on.

This particular Quick Reading ended up addressing the topic of karmic entanglement when approaching others genuinely to offer help, and as such represented a good ‘case study’ to publish here. Please note: none of this information is intended as judgment of value of any kind – we’re all doing our best to navigate the reality we’re in, with the information we’re given.

The Client’s Account, and Input for the Quick Reading:

I spent most of [month] on an Army course. During this course I crossed paths with someone known as Denise A. [not the person’s true name] who is an officer in the X corps. On this course I discovered Denise was involved in an interpersonal/workplace conflict with one of her subordinates, who happens to be one of my former instructors, Mark B. [also not the person’s name]. Based on what I know of this conflict and the levels it has gone to, especially emotionally for them both, I suspect this conflict may stem from a karmic entanglement between the two of them. I also believe that by being on the course and having me cross paths with Denise I may be playing a role in the conflict by helping restore balance and justice to the situation.

A bit of background. Mark was my instructor on my last promotion course I did in [month]. He was an excellent instructor and I strongly believe he made me a much better soldier than I was before I started the course. I think we developed a strong mutual respect for each other and he also happens to be childhood friends with my commanding officer Joseph C. [not the person’s true name either], so there’s another connection there. As a result, I am very loyal to Mark and the fact I know him personally also adds to it. Around [month] this year I knew he was going through some personal issues as he hinted to them on his social media but did not go into much detail about the nature of his troubles.

Denise, on the other hand, joined the military as a soldier in [year] and in [year] transferred over to officer training and graduated in [month] and then spent the rest of the year training in her trade of X. She was then chosen to take up a command position for the exact same training program she graduated from. It was there she crossed paths with Mark, and not long after the two began to clash.

During a lunch break around the end of week one of the course I started talking to Denise. The conversation first started about the training program she went through, I expressed interest in getting myself onto it. As the conversation progressed, I found out about the situation between her and Mark. I noticed a subtle tone and pitch change in her voice as the subject of the conversation shifted from the training to Mark, it felt very emotional for her. According to Denise he was allegedly a poor leader, insubordinate, spread rumors about her to the trainees and as a result would never be employed as an instructor ever again. Knowing Mark personally, I was shocked and didn’t quite know what to say as it didn’t seem like him to do all those things. But then I quickly realized that this was what Mark was talking about before and that I had just walked into the dragon’s den so to speak. The conversation got a bit tense but luckily soon after lunch was over and it was time to get back to work.

The next night I met up with my commanding officer Joseph who happened to be nearby for a training activity, and I talked to him about the conversation I had with Denise. He was able to verify the details of the conversation, as Mark would often confide with Joseph as his best friend. My commanding officer was also able to tell me Mark’s side of the story and how Denise would often be the instigator of the conflicts between them two and how she is inexperienced and arrogant. He suggested that I compile a recount of the conversation and be prepared to send it as part of an investigation. I did so.

The next night after I met with my commanding officer I talked to Mark on the phone myself to verify all details of the situation and also asked for additional intelligence on Denise and advice on how to deal with her. For the most part his story matches what my commanding officer told me, and he presented his side of the story himself to me. Mark also added that Denise is an inexperienced commander with a heightened sense of self confidence from being awarded the [award] from the final part of her training and loves the feeling and power of “being in charge” without having any real idea of how to lead and command soldiers in the real world. Based on what I know of both Mark and Denise I am more inclined to believe Mark more than Denise, and this is also supported by my own observations of Denise during the course. Mark told me that Denise is very deceptive and cunning and to lookout for indirect attacks by her. Mark also told me she’s likely the cause of him losing a lot of his friends and family through slander, which really hit him hard.

I told Mark about the conversation I had with Denise a couple of days before, and he asked me to write a statement of the conversation and to email it to him, so he could present it to his superiors and possibly end the conflict between the two by having Denise charged with prejudicial conduct and having her moved to another unit. My sense of justice and truthfulness would not let this issue go and so I did as he asked, my respect for him was also a driving factor. As of this writing, it is unknown what the result of the yet to be held hearing by Denise and Mark’s commanding officer, as Denise is still on leave and has not yet returned to work.

After I sent the email to Mark I kept a low profile when it came to Denise and continued to observe her behavior for the rest of the course. While there were no significant events to report to Mark to pass on to his commanding officer, I observed certain things that would seem to confirm Mark’s claims about Denise. I noticed certain times where she would seem to put others down with veiled insults, would throw her authority around in inappropriate situations, and come off as being arrogant but very subtly. I also noticed that she would display these behaviours slightly more openly and frequently with her fellow female trainees who were quick to dislike her for it.

My questions to you in regards to these topics are as follows:

– Who is Denise A. and what is her relationship to me and to Mark?
– Who is Mark B. and what is his relationship to me and Denise? Mark is a widely respected Infantryman with nearly 30 years of experience in the military. He is also my commander’s best friend and to me, he is an excellent example of a soldier.
– Is the conflict between the two of them a result of karmic entanglement from past lives?
– Was the purpose of me being on this course to restore balance and justice to the situation between Denise A. and Mark B.?

This the Quick Reading:

The particular situation you inquire about serves you as a case study regarding the topics of conflict, taking sides, and involvement; interpreting situations at face value; and how karmic attributes are acquired. I’m going to have to take care to be particularly delicate with this subject matter, so what I write may be understood as accurately as possible, because the interpretation of this can easily be taken off course. However, I may not be able to do so completely. This reading is exceptionally long for a Quick Reading. Please feel free to place any questions once you go through it.

First, a Density overview.

When facing conflict, 6D awareness tries, if at all possible, to maintain purely observant of situations as they unfold; lending help/Light to one or both sides depending on how they stand within the situation; but not interfering personally, or postponing doing so as much as it possibly can, unless it absolutely can’t help it. 6D awareness does have preferences but it is nonetheless aware of the overview, broad-level perspective that in every conflict there’s a context to it and a lesson, in some way, even if it’s not entirely clear at a given time what exactly that lesson is.

5D awareness, on the other hand, will still take sides. By “taking sides” we’re talking assuming an inner interpretation that sees one side as good or mostly good, and another that is bad, mostly bad, and/or undesirable. 5D awareness has some components to its own consciousness that it hasn’t quite integrated within yet; and so sometimes these components manifest as an externalized figures passive of its own judgment, challenge, if not even directly adversarial circumstances.

A side note: 6D encompasses/contains 5D, within itself. So when 6D awareness does happen to find itself “having” to be involved in situations and/or conflict, then its 5D part – i.e. the part of itself that will need to get somewhat involved, i.e. get its hands dirty” – will have to come into play. But even in doing so, a point of view of 6D will still be maintained within, as a reference, to which the self will return shortly once the matter has been dealt with accordingly, from “up close” if you will. All of this to say 6D is not necessarily detached, aloof, far away, or a “slouch”; it is still capable of coming down to Earth and deal with stuff if it is necessary or if it’s driven in doing so; but it will still aspire to so in a transient manner, and return back to its original perspective when allowed or its involvement is no longer necessary.

In the situation you are inquiring, there was no need (in a strict sense of the word) for you to participate, or get involved, in it. This situation is between, it starts and ends, in its entirety with, the individuals involved, Denise and Mark. You began the situation from an observational perspective, looking at the situation from the outside in, and you were entirely at freedom to decide how much and how far you wanted to get involved, if at all. Again as stated, the situation for you meant, mostly, as a case study regarding involvement and entanglement. It was not so much a “test”/”trial”, but an illustrative example. A “case study” is perhaps the most correct term.

When you went into the situation, a part of you wanted to help, bring clarity, bring Light, dissolve the charge and tension in those involved, and heal. This is the 6D part. This is what it means when you use the expression “restore balance”. You wanted to approach the situation and offer healing.

In trying to perform this help, you began by exploring both sides, you as if ‘interviewed’ them both, also other sources surrounded them, and you established observations of each other’s behavior, both directly and indirectly. With this, you hoped to make an objective, realistic assessment of the situation, one you could trust, to avoid making any mistakes with your participation. So at the end of this stage, you reach an informed, evaluated, conclusion, an interpretation of the situation. In this interpretation, Mark was mostly the good side while Denise was mostly the bad one, the one out of balance.

With this interpretation, while one part of you was simply intending on offering healing, another part assumed a perspective that one side was the one to root for, while the other was out of balance and out of place. When you delivered the testimonial of the conversation to Mark, the intention was not to just clarify. One part of you delivered the letter with the intention of causing Denise to be punished, if not ousted from her role, if not from the military altogether. Your contribution was made in support of an outcome. If nothing else, the intention was to prove/support Mark’s viewpoint and disprove/expose Denise’s. There was an established judgment of value and a taking of sides. This was the intervention of the 5D part

Healing/clarifying the situation was the overall intention; but there was now also an outcome that was perceived to be the right way to achieve that intention, thus there was an outcome that was desired. This outcome, again, was proving Mark as right and Denise as wrong, and having corresponding consequence based on establishing this premise.

The two individuals, Mark and Denise, are involved in an ancestral 4D entanglement between them, being this situation an ongoing way for them to process that same essential situation, and reach higher levels of understanding of it – even if on an emotional/spiritual level.

The two are 4D spacefaring spiritual entities who had ventured into the physical proximity of Earth, and due to a sequence of misunderstandings, tension, and escalating rifts between them – the exact same, at a spiritual level, they are handling now – they fell onto Earth, both literally and spiritually as well, having been caught by Earth’s “pull”, if you will, in terms of its awareness, and reincarnation cycles.

The nature of the conflict between them is one of authority. They were part of the same crew, and were of similar or close rank. However they grew to gradually contest each other’s competence, decision-making, and authority. So what happened was that one would think (if not say out loud) “this other person doesn’t have enough experience, doesn’t have enough know-how, doesn’t know what they are doing, etc”, and in questioning their authority/merit, they would then proceed to act in an independent, out-of-order manner, against the other’s decisions, or without making a joint decision first. In turn, this would then justify the other into thinking the exact same thing, putting the other’s discipline and sense of chain-of-command in question, and also acting against the process of making joint decisions. This was the rift between them. They are spiritually equals in this rift.

Who started? Who began? Who’s to blame? Who’s fault is it?

It doesn’t matter.

One, because this is your reading and not theirs – but most importantly, because that’s precisely the lesson.

This is a typical lesson for 4D awareness. When this sort of bickering and neverending struggle takes place, which is truly of an emotional nature more than anything else, true wisdom and spiritual progress will only take place when each of them, independently of each other, decides to rise over / go beyond the struggle itself, the blaming game, and try to attain an inner sense of peace about it. This is a desire to rise from 4D bickering/conflict onto a higher level of understanding, in this case upgrading into 5D consciousness, as each must make the decision on their own without, independently, regardless if the other “lets” them or not, and also because it is an inward turn in terms of focusing on the situation. The individual decides to own their role in the situation, and in doing so will be withdrawing from it.

This is the ‘classical’ type of lesson in this situation, and the only principle under which healing may be externally offered to it, to either side.

Now let’s come back to your involvement in the situation, and place the following question: was your intervention aligned with this intention?

No.

Your intervention was aligned with trying to achieve more of the same: figuring out who is right and wrong, who’s to blame, and oust the person who is “wrong”. (Which is, in fact, the core gist, nature, lesson, of the situation itself). So what you did was going into the situation and add more fuel to the fire, so to speak. You did not ‘row’ towards both person’s greatest good, that is to say, in a direction of healing. Instead, you simply echoed the karmic sentiment of one of the parties, and in turn also of the other as well. In fact, because you stirred the pot of the karmic residue boiling within it, you may have been left with some karmic residue yourself, because you took measure to act AGAINST one of the sides.

This reason for this is because, in a perhaps typical 5D fashion, you jumped into a conclusion/interpretation, that, albeit as well informed as you thought it could be, was nevertheless made without giving both parties leniency, the benefit of the doubt. Which is precisely what’s at stake in this specific lesson between the two involved.

What if Denise is not being given enough slack, particularly compared to male counterparts in the same rank and situation, and this is a way for her to re-affirm her authority – chronically, continually, from ancestral times, placed into question? What if she has an history of dancing in a tilted saloon, playing with loaded dice against her, having her decisions constantly placed in question based on arguments such as experience, gender, past mistakes, and this is a reaction from her to try to regain some respect back, and say “you can’t oust me without a cost.”

This is not to say these stratagems by Denise are perfectly in balance, in integrity, and it is how a person in her role should act ideally. The point being is that this is a karmic reaction against the perception of, precisely, trying to be ousted by others, trying to be disproven by others, which is what Mark is doing, thus fueling the karmic pattern, and towards which you contributed. Ousting Denise presses her already-existing karmic insecurities, leading her to intensify the already-existing karmic response of applying authority in a less than appropriate manner. Given that, karmically speaking, A leads to B, if you keep putting more A into the equation (an intention of ousting Denise) you can’t expect the involved person to not respond with anything other than with more B!! It is only when one releases the pressure of adding more A to the equation, that the person is then given a different choice: either keeping up with B, or, being open to doing something different.

You may SEE two individuals, at completely different stages of experience, age, etc; but you might not be perceiving the spiritual reality between them, which lies beyond the time of experience of this single lifetime. And the proof is that they’re both behaving “like kids” i.e. emotionally (karmically), even if they are worlds of experience apart. Experience may not equate to wisdom – particularly when karma is involved.

The point of a situation of conflict is not, never, restoring balance or justice. The karmic wheel is stock full of chumps trying to “restore balance”. There is never any balance to restore, there is only the lesson to learn, and them progressing beyond it. The point of a situation is always connecting with the lesson within it, which in turn leads to the expansion of awareness. The point of this lesson in particular is not “forgiving” or the like, but it is in letting go enough of situation that allows oneself to move along from it, and hopefully being willing to see the situation from a different light.

This situation is not your own and is not about you, and your higher intention was to help and not to hurt anyone. Furthermore, you are entitled to have PREFERENCE, i.e. look at the situation, have a friend and/or respected individual involved in it, and want to go in and help. The only karmic involvement was action taken with a misguided outcome in mind: intending negative consequence for Denise, which you acted upon.

I would consider negative karmic feedback to be potentially minimal, because this was more of a case study than a heavy-duty karmic situation for you; nevertheless, even the smallest leftover bits of karma can potentially grow much larger depending on one’s reaction to them. By realizing becoming involved in this situation fueled karmic attributes as opposed to helping clear them, will constitute the highest level – spiritual – driving factor for the dissolution of your karma. Release of participating yourself in this karmic drama implies giving the benefit of the doubt to Denise as a spiritual being, and detaching from being invested in the outcome of Denise coming out of the situation harmed. If however, you find yourself facing karmic residue out of this situation (for example, Denise discovering your involvement against her and starting to engage negatively with you somehow) you might consider requesting karmic cutting towards specifically the written testimonies you formally handed to Mark and Joseph. You may also decide to request this preemptively. This is up to your discernment.

This situation constitutes an example on the risk one is taking when approaching situations of challenge others are participating in, and accruing in karmic residue by partially misguided or incomplete interpretation of the situation. There was no harm in the intention of coming close to the situation, however, the willingness of taking part in the “dance” that was already taking place placed you vulnerable, at risk, karmically speaking. The risk factor here was not giving the benefit of the doubt to all participants in the equation.

However, as stated, you are still allowed to have preference between one of the sides in the equation, even in 6D. You are a human being living in physical matter – it is outright impossible to ask you to be neutral in all walks of life.

Let’s say you went back in time and were able to address the situation differently. You would have performed the same steps you did, in order to acquaint yourself with the situation, and be sure you were dealing with the actual situation as it was – a good, solid 5D perspective. Now came the point when Mark asked you to take his side and provide formal testimony.

Instead of doing so, which constituted going along with his karmic role in the situation, what IDEALLY you’d say was: “Mark, I’m with you and I validate how Denise is behaving. But if you persist in open confrontation with her you’re risking coming across as having more of an emotional and impulsive approach rather than one befitting your rank. She’s a newly commissioned officer, while you have 30 years of experience. You’re going to look like two little kids. By persisting on this approach with Denise, you’re jeopardizing your entire career, and what you’ve gained so far. And what for? I don’t want to take part in any of that friend. I have a different suggestion.”

You’d then suggest for Mark to suspend his confrontational attitude, and adopt a more tactful approach. You’d suggest him to seek, neither “forgive” nor “ignore” Denise, but let her do her thing, and seek to deal with it in a manner that was as much cordial as you possibly can. If you pressure her, she’ll continue to act defensively. So give her the opportunity instead. Let her act. At which point, if she still persists in unablanced behavior, it will be her downfall, not yours. Otherwise, if given the opportunity, she might just take it to grow and change, with the right input and guidance.

The theoretical potential for Mark and Denise, in terms of healing (not clear if at this point this remains possible though) would be the following: given their karmic proximity, if at least one of them decided to approach the other in a non-dismissive, non-emotional attitude (in this case given the context, it would probably have to be Mark) there as the possibility that it would be Mark himself, with all of his years of experience, to act as mentor to Denise, and show her, case-by-case, how to enact her leadership in an appropriate manner. This is what healing, in their situation, could look like.