Conference hydra::dejavu

    I would like to relate a story told to me by a friend a week or
    so ago.
    
    Alice (my friend) and her SO (George) went to a rather free-form
    meditation group that meets on a weekly basis.  The woman running
    the meditation that week said at the beginning that she was a channelor
    and was going to channel an entity to lead the meditation.  George
    wanted to leave right at the start of that, as he is rather afraid
    of unknown channeled entities.  He sees no reason to trust a
    channeled entity any more than you would trust any other stranger
    whose motives are completely unknown.  Alice tried to be a little
    more open minded than that, and convinced him to stay.  Once things
    started, Alice started having second thoughts.  The entity claimed
    to be Uriel the archangel.  It was urging people to open themselves
    up and let his healing energy in.  Knowing that Uriel is more of
    an angel of death than anything else, Alice was not about to do
    that.  George became more scared than ever at this, now that it
    is clear that either the entity is lying about its identity, or
    it was up to something.  Both of them know a fair amount of angelic
    lore, and would not trust Uriel to do a healing - unless the desired
    result was death.  The two of them start putting up protective wards
    on themselves.  A friend of theirs was sitting next to Alice, and
    asked Alice to help her as well.  Alice obliged her friend.  Still,
    Uriel is telling people he is going to heal them, and asks for them
    to envision tubes stuck into their heart, pouring energy into the
    center of the room.  George started envisioning a Cthulhu-like monster
    sucking the life out of him, and started asking for God's help.
    Then he says he is going to put his hand on everyone's shoulders
    to heal them.  George was the only person in the room who claimed
    to not feel them.  Alice demanded that they be taken off, and then
    started asking for God's help for the three of them (George, herself,
    and her friend).
    
    After it was over, some of the people reported that it felt wonderful,
    and started questioning the woman about how she contacts the channeled
    entity.  Her reply was that she pretty well takes anything that
    comes along.  Alice and George about jumped out of their chairs at
    that one, as anyone should be able to clearly see the danger in
    allowing a random entity with unknown motives and attributes possess
    one's body.
    
    George does not particularly want to return to that group, Alice
    will be more careful, and leave immediately if she ever sees that
    woman attempting to run the meditation again.
    
    Please note, that in relating this story, I don't believe that
    channeling is always bad.  If one puts up sufficient protections,
    it should be safe, especially if you know who or what you are
    channeling.  I am very afraid for people who are, like this woman,
    channeling unknowns without proper protection.  Alice told me the
    woman's name, and have seen her advertising that she gives classes
    in channeling.  I am very afraid for her perspective students as
    well.  I know another person who channels a particular entity,
    who has proven itself to be trustworthy, and believe that that is
    probably safe for him, as this other channelor puts up protective
    wards, including asking for God to protect him.
    
    Just be careful.  These things can lead to possession by an entity
    with evil motives if not careful.
    
    Trance mediums and automatic writers can leave themselves open in
    the same ways, and can protect themselves in the same ways.  See
    the note titled "Jumping In" for details.
    
    Elizabeth
    

re: .1

You mentioned a Cthulhu-like monster in your reply.  Could you describe
that a little more?  Very intense story.

		Dave

    RE: .1  (Dave)
    
    I think it meant a creature with many tentacles using them to suck
    the life/blood/energy/etc. out of you.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    Re .0, .1:
    
    The note "Rushing In" [not "Jumping"] is, as I recall #12.* and
    was _not_ intended to discourage investigation; hopwever, it was
    written to suggest that there are safes and more reckless ways about
    doing one's investigations.
    
    See also "A Sinister Seance," I forget the note number.  The replies,
    rather than the base note, are the more important things here.
    
    Elizabeth, your friend, Alice, was very wise, as was her SO.
    
    Re .1:
    
    Cthulhu has been described as a semi-amorphous creature with hollow
    tentacles, more-or-less squid-headed.  A very nasty (if fictional)
    entity.  One would presume an actual manifestation of a similar
    creature would be at the very least unsettling.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Cthulhu (usually pronounced kah-thoo-loo) was one of the evil elder
    gods invented by H.P. Lovecraft for his fantasy/horror stories.
    Lovecraft's great skill as a horror storyteller was his ability
    to scare you with what was *not* seen.  In Lovecraft's work, therefore,
    there is no clear description of Cthulhu or his cohorts.  It was
    necessary, as the body of stories grew, for HPL to drop hints and
    glimpses.  Cthulhu is therefore known to be mountain-massive, toadlike,
    cold, with a tentacled face and with an artistic association (in
    antedeluvian bas-reliefs) with squids.
    
    The chief (imaginary) scripture associated with the Cthulhian pantheon
    was a book, written in an obscure Arabic dialect, called the
    Necronomicon.  Reading it could drive a sane man insane.  One of
    the few extant copies was said to be in the library at the (imaginary)
    New England school of Misakatonic (sp?) University.  Requests for
    this fictious work at libraries and bookstores were so frequent,
    that various people have sought to cash in by writing them.  Some
    are clever (one is a beautiful piece of work in a vaguely arabic
    but invented script) while others have just been pieced together
    from some of the less wholesome spells from standardly available
    grimoire (medieval sorcerer's "cookbook").
    
    Since HPL's death other writers have written stories using his settings
    and religion.  Together these literary works are refered to as "The
    Cthulhu Mythos".
    
    				Topher
    

    Among Cthulhu's properties was his entombment, "not dead, but
    dreaming" in a sunken, seaweed-covered alien city submerged in the
    depths of the Pacific.  From there, his main influence on the
    conscious world of humanity was psychic -- in the form of weird
    nightmares and states of confusion in unprotected sensitives,
    artists, and the mentally unbalanced.  Let this be a warning to
    those of you who go around with your bare auras hanging out! ;^) 

    As for the Necronomicon itself, Lovecraft claims to have invented
    it.  But some occultists say that he described the concept so
    vividly, and it fires people so profoundly, because it represents
    something that *must* exist, in some sense. 

    He was no occultist, but very educated.  His stories were not just
    monster tales but lessons in how *different* the universe could be
    from people's usual ideas about it. If there is a "good Book" that
    comforts people, yet contains things we know cannot be... 

    ...then it's only Lovecraftian to posit the existence of a "bad
    Book" that causes insanity by describing things as they really
    are. 

    By the way, I have a Miskatonic University t-shirt.

    Pat

    RE:  .1  Thank you for sharing your friends' experiences.

    It seems that channeling has become a common occurrence these days.  
    Has anyone heard of the weekend seminars that you can go to and be
    guaranteed to be a channeler by the end of the weekend?  In my opinion,
    this type of irresponsibility is going to get a lot of people into 
    deeper water than they bargained for.  

    In note 315 I mentioned an evening of spirit communication on the
    subject of "Psychics, Mediums and the Paranormal".  Unfortunately I
    was unable to attend, however I did speak to someone who did attend.  
    Quite a bit of time was spent discussing channeling.  Let's set the
    stage a bit here.  The speaker was a spirit entity named "Syrsha"
    who comes through trance medium Stephen Fulton.  In this spirits
    opinion, current day channeling in general is not the best means
    for spirit communication.  He bases this opinion on the fact that
    people are looking for the quick way to develop this ability.  

    Mediumship or channeling "takes time", and lots of it, to develop it with
    on a "strong" foundation.  To abandonly open yourself up to whoever wants
    to communicate without using any discretion or control is at the least
    foolhardy.  The person who is the communicating instrument must also take
    responsibility "for every word they speak and every action they take".
    After all, it's their mind and voice box and physical body being utilized -
    it's not all spirit's show, so to speak.

    Perhaps this is the type of situation that we have been warned against
    in ancient scripture, and from the description in reply .1, I couldn't
    agree more.

    People are looking for the "immediate satisfaction" and, as sad and
    scared as I feel to say this, it seems that very few people want to
    "work" anymore to achieve level-headed, honest and responsible spirit
    communication.

    Carole
  

    RE: Steve
    
    You're right - it is "Rushing in", not "Jumping in".  It is one of
    the first few notes listed in this conference.
    
    RE: .7  (Carol)
    
    This woman is also running weekend seminars that supposedly make
    one a channelor by the end of the weekend.  In this case, sounds
    like the blind leading the blind.
    
    Like Ouiji boards, channeling can be a useful tool if done properly,
    at the proper time, with the proper protection mechanisms in place.
    If used as a parlor game or entertainment, it leaves things wide
    open for who knows what.
    
    I differ in that there are probably at least as many as ever before
    people who are willing to work to learn channeling and/or mediumship
    right with the associated responsibilities.  It's just that many
    people are trying the quick and easy route to the satisfaction you
    can get.
    
    The major problem I see is that there are many non-qualified teachers
    teaching occult techniques.  There are also qualified teachers,
    but the crackpots are the easiest to find.
    
    Elizabeth

    Thank you all for your responses.I especially liked carole and
    elizabeths comments.Just what i am looking for.I have contacted
    a woman in our area that meets each week with a group.I plan to
    check it out.I am aware of the risks involved here.I have read just
    about all of the notes in this file.I have right from the start
    viewed this area in a serious manner and taken precautions when
    on the Ouija Board.I have had good success with it and communicate
    with that spirit world on a regular basis.I realize what kind of
    spirits i am dealing with and have set up protections.I have learned
    a lot from it because of a good repore i have with one particular
    spirit.I have learned a lot about the spiritual realm at his level
    and have a better understanding of the way things are.I also see
    that the development of my gifts will take time and effort and that
    i should exercise caution at all times when dealing in this area.
       I have heard more lately about spiritualist churches.What are
    they?Who heads them?It almost seems to me just another way to make
    a lot of money and not pay taxes.Just recently i saw of a woman
    making millions by charging enormous amounts of money to see her.What
    can spirits offer us other than a look into their world?I would
    challenge that spirit that was suppose to do a healing to actually
    heal someone who was really sick or crippled.It seems like a lot
    of hype in some instances.What do you think?
        I would like to use my gifts to help if i can.They should always
    be used for good purposes not to exploit or harm anyone.
                                                    MIKE
    

    RE: .9  (Mike)
    
    I have been to a Spiritualist Church a few times.  They seem to
    be run about the same way as most other churches (run by one minister,
    hold regular services), though their sermons are more instructive
    than preachy.  The minister at the one I went to was often able
    to 'see' spirits accompanying people, to the point of knowing their
    name, what they looked like, what they (had) liked to do.  In my
    case it was a very good description of a deceased great-aunt, although
    this woman had never known my aunt.
    
    Also, like most churches, they take offerings, but don't *insist*
    that you give any particular amount.
    
    Hope this helps - I'm sure there are better authorities on this
    subject than I.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    
    
    The following was taken from an article on channeling published
    in "New Realities" Jan./Feb. '87.
    
    
    
                     Do Channelers Ever Agree On Things?
    
    "That was the question I asked Molli Nickell, editor of Spirit Speaks.
    Her reply cites consensus in five major areas.  According to Nickell,
    "All human beings:
    
    - Are fragments/segments of the one source, the universal I Am.
    - Reincarnate in order to choose each life situation for the purpose
      of experiencing certain facets of life, be it poverty, riches,
      health, illness, etc.
    - Experience many different life situations based on their needs
      for specific experience leading to understanding of all aspects
      of being in a physical body.
    - May achieve inner peace and celebrative lifestyles by understanding
      who and what they truly are
    - Who are currently on the Earth plane have chosen to participate
      in the evolution of the Earth as it moves into the vibration of
      the Aquarian or New Age."
    
    Any comments on the above?
    
    Most of what I've read would tend to agree with that but maybe I
    read that because I believe it's true.  
    
    
    Jayna
      

    To answer, if you believe what this says, then you're in agreement;
    if you disagree (as I do), then you disagree.
    
    What you have here is a _belief_, and the only thing you can do
    is voice agreements or disagreements with a belief structure.  Is
    this _useful_?  Perhaps, particularly if you're going to find kindred
    souls.
    
    The beliefs in question, though, are essentially religious in nature.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    All of these comments reflect what esoteric and spiritual astrologers
    believe underlie the "reasons" for one's birth chart being the way
    it is.  There is great diversity among astrologers due to the many
    facets of study in the field.  Nearly all the humanistic and
    spiritually oriented authors in the field (as well as most of my
    friends in the field) believe that a person chooses his/her birth
    time and place in order to be born with a chart set-up that will
    guarantee them certain life experiences they need in order to fully
    "grow up".  This growing up is not believed to be accomplished in
    one lifetime; many accept the idea, at least, of reincarnation.
    The next time around, you'll have a different "lesson plan", so
    to speak.  There is also the idea that we incarnate because there
    is no better way to learn what we must.  (Don't know what it is
    we must ultimately learn, but if I knew that for certain, it's a
    good guess that I probably wouldn't be here.)
    
    Marcia

RE: .11
    
    It is fairly easy to get a group concensus if you make agreement
    to that concensus a requiremnt for inclusion in the group.  There
    are many cases that I would consider indistinguishable from
    "channeling" where the channeled personality would not be likely
    to agree with this concensus.
    
    				Topher

    re .13  What about the people who have no real interest in learning?
    
    You see them every day people who live blindly. With their eyes
    closed.                                                  
    
    Why are they here? What are they learning?  
    
    paul

    ref .11
      
      What i have been able to find out as far as reincarnation:
           The individual must reach a certain level in order to have
    the opportunity to reincarnate.If in your first life you do not
    progress enough to reach that level then you remain in spirit after
    death until you are able to reach that level.Then you may choose
    to reincarnate to gain more experience but dont have a choice of
    the life you want.You take what you get.Some souls only have had
    bodies once and some many times.We can choose whether to progress
    or not.When you have reached a certain level you progress to higher
    degrees of conscienceness.Many souls end up doing work in the spirit
    world as teachers and guides after many lifetimes.This is not a
    belief it is acquired knowledge by investigation and communication
    with the spirit world.It was achieved by developing a trust between
    myself and a spirit there.Of course,as should always be
    done,protections were set up.
    
                                             MIKE
    

    Re: .16
    
    I think your explanation is very interesting, but being a curious
    person about the reasons why people think what they do, I'd like
    to ask you a question...
    
    How do you know that the spirit you communicated with, was not merely
    explaining "their" view of the way things work, and perhaps it could
    really be different for other beings?  I don't think being in spirit
    form necessarily means a being knows more or is more aware than
    we are...they're just in a different place.  I don't know, of course...
    just my thoughts.
    
    Jerri

    Re .17, .16:
    
    And, for that matter, how do you know that the "spirit" is telling
    you the plain, unvarnished truth?  One school of thought is that
    many "spirits" are really other kinds of discarnate entities
    masquerading as the souls of the deceased for their own ends. 
    
    A triviality:  Suppose a "spirit" told you something you _know_
    is true.  Then another thing you likewise know to be the truth,
    or can verify as being true (e.g., the Capital Coty of North Dakota).
    Then, having convinced you that it's "truthful," the entity proceeds
    to tell you a whopping lie that you can't verify first-hand.  You
    might be inclined to believe "him" or "her."
    
    In .1, the "angel" _claimed_ to be Uriel, for instance...
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
     Then

RE: .15
    
    There is a level at which people can refuse to learn, and a level
    at which they cannot.  To live (and I don't mean that in any
    metaphysical sense) is to learn.  What is learned need not be very
    profound -- perhaps they are learning what it feels like to be in
    a mind-set where learning is avoided.  Perhaps what they learn is
    meaningless until compared while "between" lives with other lives.
    
    					Topher

    re .13
    
    Paul,
    
    No such thing as people living blindly.  No such thing as not learning
    in a lifetime.  If you see people that do not seem to you to be
    learning anything, perhaps it is just that they are not in the process
    of learning the same thing that you are.  Perhaps that is part of
    why they are here - to teach you that we are not all here to learn
    the same thing at the same time.  I also don't think that we must
    be aware of the learning experience in order for it to be valid.
    Let me use the following example:
    
    A woman gives birth to a baby.  Two days later the baby dies.  The
    woman is turely devestated, but she does eventually recover.  In
    this case the mother has learned first hand how it feels to have
    a feeling of deep loss and sorrow.  The baby, on the other hand,
    has learned first hand how fresh and new life can be and how quickly
    that life can be swept away.  The two human beings may not have
    been aware of the learning, but it took place anyway.  I also think
    that a person can fritter away a lifetime learning less than he/she
    should have only to have the learning experience be that they realize
    after they die that they better get a move on in the next life if 
    they ever expect to learn all they need to know.
    to learn

    	Some people do NOT recover from the shock of losing someone.
    
    	Larry
    

        Re: .21
    
    I think it all depends on your definition of recover.  To some
    people, recover could mean returning to the state of mind or
    place one was before a certain incident.  Someone else might
    think of recovering as continuing to live their life, even if
    somewhat differently.  I'm sure there are many interpretations.
    
    But I think what the person in reply .20 was focusing on was the
    fact that people learn in every experience.  Whether they realize
    it or not, they are learning *something* at every instant.  It 
    could be something about themselves, or other people, or the world,
    etc.  People never stop learning...even if they try to.  They can't
    block themselves off from their head...and their head is where it's
    all happening, all the time.  Even someone who appears (to us) to
    lose touch with their mind may just be in some totally different
    realm, having their own realizations within the space that they
    think in.
    
    Jerri
        

    I guess what I'm talking about is the way I live my life is I try
    to keep my eyes open. I try to learn! I love to learn! I don't
    know if I have another chance at this or not so I want to see
    whatever I can. I am trying to SEE life, FEEL life, live life.
    
    It seems there are so many people that try to hide from life.
    It's so sad, to hide from life is to hide from pain, but also
    from true joy. I've lived through alot of pain in the past few years
    but I refuse to let that keep me from finding life. 
    
    I saw a name string someone had that said "crashed and burning on
    the learning curve"  sometimes I feel that way but I always want
    to keep driving.
    
    
    paul

    
    
    Re:  last several replies
    
    I think one of the most important lessons we all have to learn
    is that we cannot judge another person's experience.  Also,
    a philosophy which feels right to me is that every step taken by 
    a single individual towards a betterment of themselves contributes 
    to the betterment of all.  If we continue to do our part and
    extend a loving thought of encouragement to our brothers and sisters
    who may (or may not) be having a more difficult time, we will have
    accomplished something good.
    
    Carole
    
    

    
    Re:.17.18
    
    To really fully answer your question Jerri,i would have had to have
    you sitting in on the many sessions we have had with our
    contacts,especially one particular spirit that i have developed
    a trust with.I have about 60 pages of material now.If i was to show
    it to you you might get an idea of why i trust him.To fully understand
    you would have to be present.I'm not saying that everthing he says
    is 100% correct.He may be misinformed or make errors like any of
    us may do dispite our intention to state the truth.We all make
    mistakes.I do think most of it is true.He has been there since the
    early 1800s our time and i think he knows a lot more than any of
    us recall.Many times he willnot give me an answer and states that
    he cannot because it is forbidden and he would get in trouble for
    doing so.I think what it comes down to is developing over a period
    of time,a trust,based on interaction with each other.Just as we
    interact with people here and have friends and people we know we
    can trust not by them saying they can be trusted but by proving
    it through their actions.
         Steve,as i have said,i cannot say that everthing is completely
    correct,for the reasons i stated,but i'm sure there are people that
    you deal with in your job whom you have not met,yet you may trust
    what they say to be true because of a trust between you and them.If
    we can be a reasonably good judge of character we should be able
    to decide for the most part who we can trust and who we cant.
    
                                            MIKE
    

Re: .23

I think I can really relate with your feelings, based on what you wrote,
so I would like to reply to you about my own experiences and attitude 
changes, on this subject.  I hope it is useful for you.

I have always wanted the most I could get from life...loving, feeling,
learning, seeing, and enthusiastically living!  When I was in my early
twenties, I used to say, "If my life were to end tomorrow, I would be
satisfied with it."  I still feel that way.  That may piss some people
off, but I'm not trying to brag...it's the way I really feel.  For a 
long time, I saw other people not living this way and it really 
bothered me.  I thought they were blocking themselves to life and were 
resigned more to being dead.  I felt sad for these people.

But, my philosophy and attitudes have changed a lot.  I now see life as 
an opportunity to live out an infinite number of experiences...like a
big playground.  This is the way I'm living *this* life...in another 
life I might choose something totally different.  As I considered these 
life variations for myself, I also considered them for other people.  
It made it a lot easier to let people do what they wanted to, and feel 
good about it.  After all, it was the experience they chose...even if 
part of that experience was to act like they didn't want it that way.

That's just one way to think about it, of course.  Another might be, 
that we are all on the road to higher consciousness and each 
incarnation (if you believe in that) is another step "up the ladder".  
Who knows?  But if that WERE your belief, then you could see that 
everyone was at a different place on the journey and there would be no 
need to feel sad for them.  If two strangers went for a walk in the 
same park, and one of them was almost done with their walk, we wouldn't 
feel sorry for the person who was just starting.  Every part of the 
journey is an experience in itself.

So even if you feel sure that you are seeing unhappiness and blocks in 
other people's attitudes, you can't make them change, and your sadness 
for their sadness accomplishes nothing.  Don't let your focus move away 
from making the best of your own life.  If someone wants your help in 
changing their attitude, you can be a supportive, positive friend...but 
you don't want to be their mental doctor.  That could lead to both 
people getting caught up in unfullfilling roles.  In situations like 
that, I try to think:  Don't support their illusion of helplessness, and 
don't feel sad for them...feel joy for life, instead (they'll feel it 
too).  If someone really wants to be happy, they'll watch what other 
happy people are doing and learn from it.  You don't have to do anything 
special for them.  Just be.

There are a lot of different ways you can look at every situation so as 
not to see it as depressing, but we forget to do that a lot.  The more 
often you do it, the better you get at remembering to do it in crazier 
and crazier situations.  It's easy to get caught up in sadness because 
we live in a society that's full of it.  If you find yourself being 
caught up in it, take a step back and ask yourself:  Why am I wasting my 
time worrying about something I can't change?" and "What is so important 
that I need to add myself to the list of people who are sad?"  

One of the hardest things to do in this world is to let go of what we
think is important.  So the best approach is to show yourself how it's
not really that important.  You know you should let go of something if
it's causing you grief and is accomplishing nothing.

All of what I have said, of course, is based on having the belief that
we have choices.

Jerri

"Believe it if you need it, if you don't just pass it on."
    

    In the latest issue of _Magical_Blend_, there is an interview with
    Kevin Ryerson, Shirly MacLains buddy.
    
    In this article Kevin defines channeling "as the ability to attune to
    other levels of consciousness that are not expressly part of your
    conscious resources." "The form of channeling, as I work with it and as
    expert intuitives or what are traditionally referred to as psychics
    such as Edgar Cayce-- who is probably the best documented psychic of
    the 20th century or any other century for that matter-- work with it,
    is an attunement to the superconscious mind.  Simply expressed that
    would be going into a sleep like state that is also referred to as
    trance.  Out of that sleep like state or meditative state or self
    induced hypnotic state, there is an attuning to supersciousness which,
    esotericly, could be anything from your own past lives, future lives,
    or other sources of information that are occasionaly referred to as
    spiritual guides and teachers.  These guides are other human
    intelligences that you may refer to as discarnate intellignece or
    intelligences that are in a disembodied state, but they are human souls
    identical to you and me.  In that state of superconsciousness, we
    are not limited to just the five senses by which we come to our
    common sense, rational everyday thought processes.  So, if you will,
    it's gaining a gestalt, or broader overview , of the events as they
    occur in our lives.  It's like going to the mountaintop and looking
    down on the village with a broader overview, transcending what may
    be considered the everday thought process."
    
    Kevins first explorations into this field were as a youth.  In his
    early twenties he turned to meditation to explore and deepen his
    paranormal abilities.  After some six months of practice, Kevin
    found he could access deep states of consciousness.  During one
    such trance, while Ryersons attentions was focused elsewhere, the
    entity John took over.  When Ryerson came back to the here-and-now
    he found out that there-and-then John had held a 25 minute
    conversations with members of his group.  Oh well, come people are
    always the last to know.
    
    One of the things I like from this article is that Kevin Ryerson
    understands how the emotions drive the sub/superconscious states.
    The reason we see so much psychobabble is because that not all channels
    are in a mature state.  Just as there are mature and immature people
    there are mature and immature channels.
    
    Anyway read the article to get the gist of the info.  It may be
    in your local rag palace (magazine store) or library.
    
    Mikie?
    
    

    Thanks for the info on Kevin Ryerson.
    
                                 MIKE
    

    HI. CHANNELING IS SOMETHING WHICH VIRTUALLY ANYONE CAN DO BUT OBVIOUSLY
    MOST PEOPLE CHOOSE NOT TO.  OIUJA BOARDS ARE ONE OF THE SIMPLEST
    WAYS OF LEARNING HOW TO DO SO.  WHAT IS IT THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO
    CHANNEL?  FIRST, YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE INFINITE
    LEVELS OF EVOLUTION.  BEYOND THE DENSENESS OF THE PHYSICAL PLANE
    IS THE ASTRAL PLANE (WHICH IS A MIRROR OF THIS ONE ONLY HAS JUST
    A CONCEPT OF TIME VS. THE "REALITY" OF TIME--CONSIDER YOUR DREAMS,
    YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED THAT YOU "JUMP AROUND" FROM ONE SITUATION TO
    ANOTHER AND THEREFORE HAVE NO REAL TIME AS WE ARE USED TO.)  ANYWAY,
    THE ASTRAL LEVEL CAN PRODUCE "SPIRITS" WHO CAN EITHER BE FRIENDLY
    OR MISCHIEVOUS, ETC. (PERHAPS A "DEAD UNCLE" OR FORMER HUMAN.) THESE
    BEINGS CAN USE MANY METHODS OF COMMUNICATING WITH US.  TRANCE MEDIUMS
    ARE SIMPLY ANOTHER WAY.  YOU COULD DEVELOP YOURSELF, HOWEVER, AND
    GO BEYOND THE ASTRAL LEVEL AND THEREUPON REACH ENTITIES WHO ARE
    MUCH MORE HIGHLY EVOLVED THAN AN ARTHUR FORD OR A MICHAEL OR A SETH
    OR A RAMTHA OR ETC.  FOR MORE ENLIGHTENMENT, I SUGGEST YOU CONTACT
                             CONCEPT:SYNERGY
                              P.O. BOX 159 (M)
                             FAIRFAX, CA. 94930
         OR CALL AT (415) 456-4855.  THEY CAN SEND YOU A CATALOG OF
    AVAILABLE TAPES FROM A CHANNELED ENTITY NAMED LAZARIS.  HE APPEARS
    TO BE THE MOST EVOLVED OF ALL THE CHANNELED ENTITIES (HE HAS BEEN
    PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGED BY SUCH PEOPLE AS SHIRLEY MACLAINE AND SHARON
    GLESS.)  I BELIEVE YOU CAN GET DISCUSSIONS ON TAPE BY LAZARIS WHEREIN
    HE DISCUSSES PSYCHIC DEVELOPMENT AND DREAM STATES THAT CAN HELP
    YOU UNDERSTAND THIS SUBJECT BETTER.  HE ALSO COVERS ALMOST EVERY
    OTHER CONCEIVABLE THING THAT WE THINK IS IMPORTANT TO OUR LIVES.
    HOPEFULLY, I CAN HELP YOU IF YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS.  SUCCESS!
    .YOU
    

    An observation:  The set-hidden note is unsigned.  Would you cash
    a check without a signature on it? 
    
    I agree with whoever made the suggestion to Dave, but further suggest
    that _if_ the note is unhidden that the author identify him or herself.
    
    In this conference, we've all spoken about different things; where
    necessary, we've changed names of third partioes, but the notes
    have always been identifiable.  Occasionally, when someone's been
    uneasy about having a note remain in the Conference, he or she's
    deleted it.
    
    Let's keep this an open conference.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.:  the note was SHOUTING.  Please, _everybody_, lower as well
    as upper case ....
    

RE: .30-.32
    
    I have started a new topic (337) to continue this discussion.
    
    					Topher

    Hi!  Sorry for the unsigned note and the SHOUTED type.  I couldn't
    unlock this terminal from using capital letters last night.  Also,
    I'm completely new to this entire thing and probably added stuff
    without knowing "the rules."  I don't know about this "blatant
    advertising" thing someone mentioned, but in reading some other
    messages I have noticed that names and addresses for information
    were also included so I assumed what I provided might be of service
    and also "kosher."  If not, then whoever is there to take action
    needs to do so.  I was attempting to elucidate, not subterfuge.
    Anyway, the handle is FRED.  Thanks!
    

Ok, your response will be unhidden.  Personal endoursements are alright,
advertisements are not.  We did not know who posted this response.  It could
have been someone from the company that you gave the address for.

		Dave

    Hi Fred,
    
    Yes, I do have a few questions for you:

      > A CHANNELED ENTITY NAMED LAZARIS.  HE APPEARS TO BE THE MOST 
      > EVOLVED OF ALL THE CHANNELED ENTITIES 

    1.  Why does he appear to be the most evolved of all channeled entities?

    2.  How do you know?

    Thank you in advance for your replies.

    RE:
      > (HE HAS BEEN PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGED BY SUCH PEOPLE AS SHIRLEY 
      > MACLAINE AND SHARON GLESS.)  

    Anything of any value can be publicly acknowledged by anyone who 
    is well-known.  Being well-known does not make one an authority.
    Being an authority does not make one accurate.
    
Jerri

    Hi, Jerri.  While it's true that just because one calls himself
    an authority doesn't make oneself one, most of us tend to honor
    or respect that statement until lack of proof materializes <although
    many of us start out having no respect for an authority's position
    until we PROVE it.)  Consider the BIBLE...it considers itself the
    word of GOD and we must apply faith in order to accept it since
    conclusive proof does not exist for it.  Well, in this case, what
    one needs to do is to listen carefully to what is said, then, compare
    that with other sources of information and, finally, draw your own
    conclusions.  The operative word here is OWN.  I will not take up
    time here giving you my supporting statements to any length but
    I will mention a few things:  Lazaris has given some of the most
    intricate and intellectual information that I have ever heard, he
    has always been consistent and has always appeared with the most
    incredible wisdom that I have ever been aware of.  I have a degree
    in psychology and as a result I have been aware of many of the sources
    mentioned throughout this forum...additionally, I have had a very
    rigorous religious background.  I will INSIST, however, that nothing
    I have ever read, heard or heard about has ever struck me as profoundly
    as what I have experienced through Lazaris.  My word for "him" would
    be "AWESOME!"  When Lazaris has talked about himself he has told
    us that he comes to us from levels no one else ever has and no one
    else ever will...this is an incredibly risky statement to make for
    it could be a massive ego position.  But, if you listen enough,
    you will discover that he has no ego and that he is completely
    honest and has impeccable integrity.  Also, there are many other
    channeled entities who regularly communicate with Lazaris on other
    than the physical plane.  Seth, Tora, and several others that I
    am familiar with are some of them.  Most of us who are heavily involved
    in metaphysics and TRUTH and LIFE (here and after) consider Lazaris
    to be "the teachers' teacher."  You CAN get much wisdom from other
    sources (and ultimately all truth is your own anyway) but for me
    and thousands of others, Lazaris is the most magnificent of the
    teachers.  Incidentally, a good book on science-leading-to-spiritual-
    things is called "Dance of the Wu-Li Masters".  I don't remember
    the author's name but he is a new age physicist who in corroboration
    with other physicists shows very definite conclusions about our
    "reality" that gives support to much of what I have heard Lazaris
    talk about (Dow physics, quantum physics, etc. is verifiable and
    provable.)  Anyway, Shirley Maclaine and Sharon Gless are both
    a couple of well-known figures who are friends of Lazaris (among
    many other equally well-known people) and tend to lend creedence
    and support for him for many others who sometimes need a boost,etc.
    for their involvement.  So, ultimately, what I am saying is
    check it out for yourself, if you desire, and if this all isn't
    true for you, then look elsewhere.  The important thing is that
    you LOOK!  You only have one incarnation as whoever-you-are...make
    it count.  And make it count for the only one for whom it really
    matters---YOU!
       FRED
    

RE: .38
    
    The opinion of most physicists is that the "mainstream" interpretations
    of modern physics had to be considerably distorted to make things
    fit together.
    
    Certainly mysticism (Eastern and Western) is *compatible* with modern
    physics, which was much less true a century ago.  Furthermore, a
    rather high percentage of the leading physicists of this century
    have had rather mystical worldviews.  It is, however, somewhat of
    a distortion to claim that modern physics supports the mystical
    world view, and even more of one to say that they are identical.
    
    					Topher

    Re: .37
    
    It's true that until we know "better", we may value the words of an
    "authority figure" more...but that's all the more reason to try 
    and KNOW BETTER for ourselves and to question that authority.  

    As you mentioned in your reply, we all must draw our own conclusions.  
    For you, and many others, Lazaris could be a very powerful tool in
    discovering more things for yourself.  I, too, could probably learn
    some things from Lazaris...but then, I feel I can learn from almost
    anything.  So it becomes a matter of choice, and what I feel like
    experiencing.  It also removes a lot of my reverence for "supreme"
    methods because I don't see things as being on a scale.

    A few hours of silence for me to just sit in the desert up on a big 
    rock (one of my favorite things) could be just as powerful for me 
    as talking to an entity from another plane (although the latter 
    clearly seems more dramatic).  My most profound realizations have 
    come from quiet moments (not even meditating).  It just seems time 
    for those realizations to be there, and they are.  If it's time for 
    those realizations to be there, I could use ANY method to tune in on 
    them.  It's not the method that brings them, it's me.  

    Thinking about this, one visual that comes to my mind is that the 
    "method" is like a vase from which water can flow.  The water is there 
    and can flow whether you use a vase, a cup, or a straw.  Those methods 
    are simply ways of experiencing the water.  You could just as easily 
    stick your hand into it to experience it.

    If we can get answers anywhere, and if each method can be powerful 
    for somebody, then there doesn't seem to be a need to rate them on a 
    scale...such as, saying that one teacher is the absolute best of all
    teachers.  The best teacher for one person may be a fool to another.

    My opinions may differ, but I enjoyed reading about your experiences 
    and found them very interesting.  There are so many toys in life, it 
    can be very exciting and entertaining.  For some, life seems to 
    become a serious job of finding a purpose and answers, and the "toys" 
    are seen more as serious tools.  Whatever.  It can be anything.

    I do not dispute that Lazaris exists, is knowledgeable, and/or is
    a great teacher *for some*.  I just like to question things that are
    stated as absolutes because I learn more that way.

    Thanks for your reply,

    Jerri

    
    re:40
           Jerri, you've spoken well.  There are many dichotomies in
    life, however, and I wish to point out at least one, here.  Yes,
    you are correct in stating that there are many teachers (and, indeed,
    that any type of life is a teacher,) but while that may be useful,
    perhaps its not the most expedient way of learning.  If you assume
    that we have many (let's say thousands for argument sake) lifetimes,
    then you will probably experience a great many things...(if you
    were to have millions or billions then we could experience everything
    maybe in the way that "God" does.)  So what is the game?  Are you
    here to be "led" into enlightenment or are you here to find it for
    yourself?  I could learn how to cook food by watching someone or
    I could learn by fooling around with fire, etc. and probably getting
    hurt in the process.  It would seem rather more useful to learn
    the latter way, don't you think?  You see, Jerri, the end result
    isn't what matters, it's the WAY to get those results that matter.
    You don't attend a symphony to hear the final note, you go to watch
    the WAY that final note was created.  It's a disservice to oneself
    to say that all things happen for the best...ALL THINGS HAPPEN,
    but not always for the best.  Where you find your teachers matters
    not so long as you keep finding them and are actively searching
    for them and can get "results" from them.  To say that all teachers
    are equal, however, is probably a bit unsophisticated and I don't
    think you mean that.  To say that you are creating your own wonderful
    teachers in your life is very appropriate, however.  Our "history"
    is filled with examples of how enlightenment has been attained,
    whether it's an apple that fell on a head or a flower appearing
    through the snow.  We are here seeking our own truths...I am happy
    for you that you have found some fascinating methods of accomplishing
    that.  Again let me make clear that for ME (and I happily have lots
    of great company) the best source I have found that I can CONSISTENTLY
    use is from the wisdom of my friend, Lazaris.

    re 316.41  sorry, I forgot to sign the note...it was ME,   FRED.
    

    For me personal experience is where i find wisdom.Someone may teach
    me something and i gain from it,however,its not until i experience
    it for myself that it becomes useful and meaningful.There is so
    much to experience that it takes more than one liftime.We all have
    paths we choose to follow as we develop and in todays world of
    information availability there is so many opportunities.This conference
    is just one way to help each other along our chosen paths.I have
    gained a lot from it already and say "thank you" to all those who
    have decided to contribute.
    
    
                                     MIKE
    

Re: .44 (Wayne)

    I actually have "If You Meet The Buddha On The Road Kill Him!" in my
    desk.  I've only read some of it, but on the cover it says: "No
    meaning that comes from outside of ourselves is real.  The Buddahood
    of each of us has already been obtained.  We need only recognize it.
    The most important things that each man must learn no one else can 
    teach him.  Once he accepts this disappointment, he will be able to
    stop depending on the therapist, the guru who turns out to be just
    another struggling human being."  

    I agree with you, Wayne, whole-heartedly that teachers are important
    to spur us on, but eventually they can become an obstruction that
    blocks our path instead of pointing to it.  Of course, this is just
    one belief system.  It is the belief system I am choosing to be
    loosely connected to right now.  I don't feel that it is the one right 
    way for everybody to find peace.  It has worked well for me, and all I 
    can do is share that.  Perhaps it can inspire someone if their own 
    chosen method isn't working as well as they'd like.
        
Re: .41 (Fred)

    Regarding the "most expedient way of learning" as you put it, all I
    can say is that I started learning the most when I stopped searching
    obsessively.  It seemed very ironic to me...but most things in life
    seem that way when it comes down to it.  This is the way it was for
    me.  I was not trying to claim that it would be that way for you.  I
    was simply trying to point out that I don't believe that there is one
    method for everybody.

    > So what is the game?  

    For me, the game is to have as much fun as possible and enjoy every
    splendid drop of this life, this planet, and this reality.  I try to
    be aware of attitude changes which affect that.

    > Are you here to be "led" into enlightenment or are you here to find 
      it for yourself?

    Neither.  I am here to experience.  As I experience, I LEARN.  I don't
    really need to try to do anything...except be open, accepting, and be
    aware of my attitude.  In my opinion, awareness is just a state of
    being, available at anytime, to anyone.  We can use tools or not.  It's
    there either way.  Tools are helpful in our world because of all of the
    conditioning we have gone through to believe that we are out of control,
    unaware, and lost.  But tools are not the sole source or method of
    awareness.  It's easy to believe that they are the sole source, so it's 
    easy to become obsessed and blocked by them.

    I realize that this belief probably pisses a lot of people off.  I don't 
    mean to sound egotistical or arrogant or like a "know it all".  On the 
    contrary...I don't think I know anything.  All I can do is relate my
    experiences as I see them.  Since I believe that we are all teachers 
    for one another, I trust that my opinions about my own reality may 
    inspire someone else in their reality.  However, I'm sure a lot of 
    people think I'm full of shit...and that's okay, that's their trip.  
    I hope they're having fun on their trip!  I really do.

    > You see, Jerri, the end result isn't what matters, it's the WAY to 
      get those results that matter.

    Exactly how I feel!  It's not the destination, it's the trip that
    counts.  So why is everyone so caught up in reaching the destination?
    Why do so many people want to skip all this hassle and just get to
    the end...to God...to whatever?  Because that's their trip.  
    Unfortunately, for many it's not a happy trip.  It's a trip of struggle
    and judgements and confusion about what's the "best" or "right" thing 
    to do?  And our idols keep getting bigger, and more important than
    the last one we had, so we can feel like we're making progress.  I, 
    personally think it's harder to enjoy what's around us, and happening 
    right now, if we're busy searching for something.

    > It's a disservice to oneself to say that all things happen for the 
      best...ALL THINGS HAPPEN, but not always for the best.  

    Why?  Why is it a disservice?  Because it's avoiding reality?  What
    is reality?  What is wrong with a reality in which everything is OKAY?

    > To say that all teachers are equal, however, is probably a bit 
      unsophisticated and I don't think you mean that.

    True, I don't mean that.  What I said was that teachers are different 
    things to different people.  Again, I do not dispute that Lazaris is a 
    good teacher for you or anyone else.  I only disputed that he's the best 
    teacher for everyone.

    I hope I have not appeared to be argumentative here.  I have truly
    enjoyed discussing this with you and I feel that I always learn a great
    deal for myself by reading and writing in this conference.  I look
    forward to further communication on this subject, and I hope you know
    that these comments and opinions are offered light-heartedly.

    Disclaimer:  My opinions and beliefs could change at any time and I may
    not know what the Hell I'm talking about!

    Jerri

    Everybody is better than everybody else.

RE: .46

The "mainstream" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (QM) is generally known
as the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI).

It is the opinion of a number of physicists who have read the books that
a distorted and frequently incorrect view of this generally accepted
interpretation is presented by both books.  This comes about because of
selective quotation and summarization out of context.  Passages quoted
tend to take on a very different meaning because terms used in narrow
technical senses have been separated from their definitions, because of
juxtaposition with statements of personal philosophy and religion by the
same or different physicists and because of juxtaposition with semantically
very different passages of eastern mysticism.  Furthermore, legitimate
though not generally accepted interpretations (such as David Bohm's) of QM
are mixed with CI as if a single chain of thought were being described.

Once more, this is not my opinion, but those of some "experts" in the ideas
being presented, including some who are quoted.  I am *not* saying "don't
read these books", or "these are poor books"; but only that there are those
who feel that, whatever the intrinsic interest of them both, and however
lucid the writing, they do *not* present a clear picture of modern thought
in physics.

I do not personally have an opinion on the matter, but I rather suspect
that the following is true: The authors of both books wished to use a 
device (the similarity between statements of physicists and mystics) to add
interest to their presentations of modern physics.  Exactly how "deep" they
felt this similarity was is not really worth arguing about.  What matters is
whether or not the ideas of the physicists (and for that matter, the
mystics) had to be distorted to make the device work.

I can safely leave it up to the DEJAVUers to judge for themselves whether or
not the books are attempting to say something more profound than "look how
funny it is that modern physicists sometimes use the same words as
(generally, the  translators of) eastern mystics, even though there is
absolutely no connection between the ideas being expressed."

I do recommend, by the way, another book in somewhat the same vein.
This is Lawrence LeShan's "The Medium, The Mystic and The Physicist".
LeShan comes from a slightly different viewpoint.  He wishes to show that
there is a way of looking at the world (we might say an altered state of
consciousness), shared by mediums (psychics), mystics and modern physicists,
within which psi makes sense and therefore can operate.  He attempts a
"scientific experiment" to support his thesis about the worldview being
shared by the three groups -- presenting quotations from each of the three
groups to see if judges can distinguish them.  His experimental methodology,
is, however, flawed.  You cannot prove conceptual convergence by noting a
similarity, no matter how great, in the surface language of carefully
selected (and edited) passages.

			Topher

    re: .47
    
    GIVE ME A BREAK!
    
    In the opinion of which number of which physicists?
    
    Have you read either of these books?
    
    One book (The Dancing Wu Li Masters) makes no comparisons between
    Eastern Mysticism and Physics.  The only reference to the east in
    in the title.
    
    The other book (The Tao of Physics) makes comparisons between world
    views (philosophic and physical world views) in only one chapter.
     The rest of the book is devoted to explaining modern day physics
    in layman's terminology.  Which automatically means there will be
    distortions.  Translations are always open to distortion.  Especially
    when you try to translate mathematics, very abstract ideas (or music
    for that matter) into verbal language.
    
    re: the book that you mention.  Doesn't sound very "scientific"
    to me.  What are the controls?  Who chooses the quotations?  Who
    are the "judges?"  Does he take this to court?  Does someone drag people
    in off the street and appoint them judges? 
    
    
    

    RE: EVERYONE lately:
         
    I had to wait to retrieve some notes and here they are:  this relates
    to the last few discussions...these are my notes from a Lazaris
    2-day workshop last June.  He spent a couple of hours talking about
    about the nature of our physical reality and therefore expounded
    on quantum physics.  He said that the key to reality creation 
    is observation.  Also, there is no such thing as an observer,
    only a participant.  Everything is random prior to observation.
    Sub-atomic particles respond to thought.  Nothing moves-just a change
    in vibration as a result of thought.  The fourth sub-atomic particle
    will soon be found.  Energy units are smaller than sub-atomic
    particles.  Thought is yet "smaller" (the "wave-icle.")  If you
    want something to disappear, let go of the thought.  The basic fact
    of quantum physics--whan you are looking: particles; when you are
    not: waves.  (Sorry this is scattered---it's notes, remember.)
    Then he listed the seven theories of quantum physics as follows:
    1.  There is no deep space or reality--all that is real is the thin
    surface of observed reality (probability is the square of possibility-
    synergy.)  Probability is not real.
    2.  Observation creates reality-things do not exist unless observed.
    3.  Reality is a part of an undivided whole, observed or unobserved.
    4.  There are many worlds-all things that can happen, do happen--just
    in other realities.
    5.  Time is an illusion-an absolute in a possible reality.  It only
    exists when we observe it.  Logic is based on time.
    6.  Consciousness creates reality.  Prior to observation, it is
    only a possibility.  (once you direct it.)
    7.  Reality is dual-fold: potentia and actuality-once it becomes
    actual, it becomes real.
      
    He said that the theory of the quantum has never failed and that
    it is the most scrutinized of our scientific formulations.
    In regard to the seven theories above, he said that ALL ARE TRUE!
      
    It IS our consciousness that directs; who creates us?  WE DO. We
    become the observer.  The intersection of waves is the probability
    of our reality.
      
    I don't remember the names of the individuals arguing earlier but
    I will say "be cool!"  No need for angry confrontation here, right?
    Anyway, digest this a bit and see how it applies to your beliefs.
    I have to go now...
      
                            FRED.
    
    
    is 

             
  >  ...are my notes from a Lazaris
  >  2-day workshop last June.  He spent a couple of hours talking about
  >  about the nature of our physical reality and therefore expounded
  >  on quantum physics.  He said that the key to reality creation 
  >  is observation.
    
  >  2.  Observation creates reality-things do not exist unless observed.
    
    I have not observed Lazaris.  Lazaris would conclude that he/she does
    not exist.  Is that for me only?
    
    	ed goldberg

    re .49, .50:
    
    The statement about about observation being a requirement for
    "existence" is actually a philosophical perspective that's been
    kicked around for centuries (e.g., "If a tree falls in an uninhabited
    portion of a forest, does it make a noise?"  The answer depends
    upon how one interprets "noise").  
    
    This argument, taken to its limits, would indicate that, say, germs
    did not exist until the microscope was invented.  A questionable
    hypothesis, at best.  _Observationally_, there's much greater evidence
    for the Tooth Fairy than there is for "Lazaris."
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

RE: .49
    
    Just keep in mind that although these have been proposed as
    interpretations of QM, as a whole they are *not* the generally accepted
    interpretation (the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation).  This
    does not make them wrong -- there is nothing sacred about the CI.
    But QM does not prove these statements to be true, and you should
    not assume that those who are expert in QM believe these things.
    
    QM really has two parts: a mathematical theory and an interpretation
    of that theory.  QM-theory is not in dispute within physics.  There
    is a level of interpretation; how the mathematical variables relate
    to macroscopic observations in certain well defined circumstances,
    which are also not in dispute.  When we get into deeper issues --
    the "meaning" of that relationship and the application under more
    unusual circumstances, there is quite a bit more dispute.  Most
    practitioners, however, agree even on these issues -- mostly I think
    out of lazyness (which in science is not neccessarily a vice). 
    
    In large part these statements deal with this deeper area of
    interpreation, and indeed, some seem to be related to one school
    of interpretation and some to others.
    
    DISCLAIMER: I don't claim to understand QM, or any of its
    interpretations, in any depth.  I am passing along some of the surface
    knowledge that I do have.
    
    
    					Topher

    Re .52
    
    I happen to have some training in physics, including quantum mechanics.
    What Mr. Cooper said in .52 agrees with what I know about the
    interpretation problem.
    
    I notice at least two different interpretation theories in the seven
    points toward the end.  Points 2 and 6, about observationand
    consciousness creating reality, sound like a radical version of
    the Copenhagen Interpretation, created by Neils Bohr.  But point
    4, about all possibilities being realized over an array of worlds,
    is the Many Worlds Interpretation by Everett.  So far as I know,
    it is incompatible with the Copenhagen Interpretation.  I don't
    know of any intepretation that actually says time and space are
    illusions (points 1 and 5), though of course the theory of relativity
    says that time and space are really a single thing with some strange
    properties unlike time and space as we normally imagine them.
    
    So either there has been some (perfectly understandable) confusion
    in transmission here, or the spirit in question is talking about
    a kind of quantum mechanics not yet discovered by mortals.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Re .53
    
    About the controversy in QM: As Cooper said, there is a mathematical
    part of QM, then there is the non-mathematical job of deciding what
    the mathematics means.  The math, so far, stands up to experimental
    tests quite well and everybody therefore accepts it as the best
    theory going.  (Many lazy minds accept it as the Absolute and Final
    Truth, but that problem need not concern us here.)
    
    You can do a lot with the math without worrying about EXACTLY what
    the theory means, so lots of physicists and electronics engineers
    really don't bother with the interpretation issues one way or another.
    That was the laziness Cooper mentioned, I think.
    
    The Copenhagen Interpretation is the default interpretation for
    essentially political reasons -- Neils Bohr was able to talk longer
    and faster than Einstein.  The issue was argued back in the '30's,
    then everyone lost interest.  Recently, interest has been reviving
    again.
    
    I will post a separate note on the various interpretations.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    
>    in vibration as a result of thought.  The fourth sub-atomic particle
>    will soon be found.  Energy units are smaller than sub-atomic
 
    I would venture that it's been 50 years since one could talk
    meaningfully about "the fourth sub-atomic" particle.  The total
    list of particles numbers in the dozens these days.  Quarks,
    which are generally regarded as the "fundamental" particles,
    come in at least six varieties.
    
	-Neil

    Perhaps they meant fourth LEVEL of particle?  Atoms (1) turned out to
    be made of electrons and nucleons (2), which turn out to be made
    of quarks (3).
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Re .57:
    
    Earl, I'd take "Lazaris" more seriously if "he" hadn't said "wavicle."
    I understand de Broglie died a short time ago, which makes such
    things especially sighworthy...
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    RE. 316.59
       As soon as I learn to work this system, I can respond better...
    Anyway, to respond to you about your "test" of Lazaris (which I
    will admit for now is avoiding the "proof,") let me just say that
    Lazaris is NOT interested in feeding our egos.  While we say that
    we seek proof, etc., what we might be doing is allowing our egos
    to run amuck and avoiding the other things that we should probably
    be paying attention to.  This is OUR reality and Lazaris comes to
    us as a friend to help us and not to do it for us.  How do you want
    the future to be?  YOU are its creator.  Do you want lots of sub-atomic
    particles or some other number?  Let me say that Lazaris has repeatedly
    told us that every structure has four components and that every
    process has seven steps...often the steps to getting there are the
    qualities of being there.  Anything (I think) can either be expanded
    or contracted to be the aforementioned 4 or 7.  Again, unlike the
    suggestions about Ramtha mentioned in the 288 conference (which
    I just read and found to be excellent, interesting and very truthful
    from my point of view,) Lazaris has NOT been "absorbed" by Jach
    (the channel) but has remained very consistent for 12 years now.
    Unlike Jane Roberts, Jach has experienced quite excellent health,
    as well.  Anyway, the last ten or so responses have posed interesting
    doubts on this whole issue of "QM," and not being a physicist I
    am unable to respond very authoritatively.  I will attempt to print
    this stuff out and get a copy of it to Jach and (therefore) Lazaris.
    I am about to spend a whole week with Lazaris next week and may
    get an opportunity to present this stuff.  To be quite honest with
    you, however, I don't find it overwhelmingly important in dealing
    with the usual issues of my life, e.g. my love relationships, angers
    and fears towards things and beings in my life, etc....All of which
    Lazaris has responded to much better than any other source that
    I am aware of.  Beware of your negative ego, for it is not a friend...
    if you want to know something coming from love then fine, but if
    what you want is comparative/competitive in nature, then the
    ramifications are that you will not get what you say you are seeking.
    Also to some of you wonderfully educated, intelligent and knowledgable
    people:  keep in mind that the seminar I attended last June was
    also attended by approximately 600 others, very few of whom were
    probably conversant in physics...(a case in point.)  I will try
    to get back tomorrow, otherwise in about 12 days.
      
    FRED
    

    I spent an incredible week with Lazaris last week and no doubt I
    can do or say very little that will do justice to it.  Off the top,
    however, let me say that there is an article by him in Pyschic Guide
    magazine (May, 1987) in which he relates some of the things that
    have been mentioned here this past month or so including some things
    in the crystals topic (306, I think) and about lucid dreaming and
    DREAMING.  If you can find the article, it may be worth your while.
      
    As usual, Lazaris was his awesome self in his incredibly loving
    way and there is no doubt for me any longer (as there has been for
    over five years prior) that he must be saying "the truth" about
    himself and our realities.  I observed first-hand some of what most
    of us would call phenomena (though it was deliberately underplayed
    and mostly covert--this further to allow us to see the truth for
    ourselves and not to get carried away with "him.")  Among the miriad
    of topics covered was a brief time spent on discussing some of the
    others (physical and non-physical---which is what this particular
    topic is supposed to be about) who have attempted to teach us as
    we have asked for help.  He made it very clear that many of them
    have failed and even failed badly by giving untruthful messages,
    etc., e.g. Rajneesh or some of the many "lesser" (my word) channeled
    entities.  There are many out there at the present time who are
    trying to milk us until we are dry, simply to fill their own pockets.
    It therefore becomes important to find a good source before really
    paying attention (so as to not get hurt.)  I have the sincere belief
    that I am not steering anyone poorly by guiding him/her to listen
    to what Lazaris has to say.  Check your nearest metaphysical bookstore
    for videotapes and try one out (many stores rent them) and "check
    it out" for your own satisfaction.  Or, you can continue to beat
    around the planet always searching for what you never find out of
    your own ego's destructive instruction (" ...don't listen, no one
    has ever told you the truth...you're special, so wait until you
    see a burning bush tell you...").  
      
         Anyway, I encourage you to do these things or feel free to
    ask me and I'll do the best to respond.  Otherwise, I'll remain
    silent for I honestly don't wish to prostheletize (probably mispelled,)
    but hopefully you can glimpse an understanding of my enthusiasm
    for what I consider the greatest "find" "outside" of myself in all
    of my life.  
      
         FRED
    
    what     I SP

    FRED,
    
    I find it hard to get any magazines in our area on pyschic material.I
    live in Maine(north of Augusta),so,I have a couple of questions.
    
        1.What does Lazaris say about God,Jesus,and Satin and the relation-
    ship to each other.
        2.What evidence does he give for his existance or has he said
    anything that would give such evidence.
    
    I ask this because i have been in contact with spirits for a few
    months and one who i was married to in this life so i know they
    are real.I want to compare notes.
    
    A comment or two:
    
    I believe in finding out for myself,that is,if i was to believe
    in spirits i would find the way to talk with them myself,or,if
    i believed in ufos i would have to find the way to see one and touch
    it or talk with those who are behind it.Its too easy to be tricked
    into believing what other people say.I have read some of the Seth
    books and the Michael books etc.One tries to outdo the other and
    its always good to say things that are not provable that way you
    are safe.Also to say the other guys are wrong and you are here to
    set things right.Also you can get a lot of followers by being or
    at least give the perception of being virtuous.I find my knowledge
    to be a special treasure to take care of.What i know people will
    not accept so i cant waste my time trying to convince THEM they
    have to find for themselves if they seek it out and are ready to
    receive it.At first i wanted to tell everyone but i soon found out
    that most people are not ready to accept the truth or willing to
    do what they have to do to find out so i backed off and out for
    the most part and will continue on my journey through eternity at
    the pace i have chosen.One of my philosophys in life is to:
    Look not to what others may do or say but to what you discover and
    know for yourself.Seek out knowledge and wisdom to grow.
    You will only know of the smell of a rose only if you smell the
    rose.
    
    
                                      MIKE
    the
    
    
    

    RE:36.62    -Mike-
      
    Well, certainly I would like to agree with you in owning my own
    reality...it certainly is no "fun" trying to "do" someone elses...
    which leads to the unlikelihood of events as followed by most organized
    (at least, Christian,) religions i.e., "Do what the "lord" God
    commands."  Where's the free will in that?  You must remember, however,
    that if it's true that you create your own reality 100% (a basic
    premise, here) then you are also creating outside events (or it
    can be said co-creating or unconsciously creating these events)
    including those individuals or experiences that are seemingly simply
    called "others."  YOU need to FEEL these things yourself, but the
    imagination (and creation) has already been put into place by a
    less-than-conscious you (at least until today.)  You can continue
    to function, however, as strictly an observer (less than conscious)
    or as a participant (remember our earlier dialog which says that
    there really is no such thing as an observer--quantum physics.)
    The CHOICE is yours at ALL TIMES.  If you do not want to observe
    something, don't THINK it.  What I'm saying here is that all these
    things you "aren't experiencing" ARE being experienced.  But in
    any case, I understand how you are expressing your observations.
    It's just that there are levels of understanding...we will kill
    for our beliefs (which are all ULTIMATELY false) but we not when
    we truly KNOW and UNDERSTAND someone--once it becomes a part of
    us (a bad example--I will defend my lady's honor (a belief) and
    will therefore die for it vs. I know she is creating her own reality
    too, and has therefore chosen this path towards her growth (so maybe
    I'll just butt out, maybe not.)  (That's really a bad example as
    I look at it.)  So, anyway, as with me up until last week, immerse
    yourself as far as you will allow (out of fear of being hurt, etc.
    should it prove to be just another dead end) constantly testing
    the waters until YOU DECIDE what you will believe.
      
    In response to the first question, Lazaris has told us much about
    our religious programmings, etc. so I will try a short summary (which
    as I've stated before is only MY perception of what he has said):
    GOD as stated by most religions is held to be a DOING (and therefore
    a masculine energy) and male power GOD..  More fully, it is GOD/GODDESS/ALL-
    THAT-IS.  The Goddess is the feminine energy side of the "IS-NESS"
    and is the creative side as well.  GOD would not exist without the
      Goddess.  GODDESS created the space while GOD filled it (with
    form)  The GODDESS energy is capable of always creating new space
    so it readily allows the GOD energy which readily fills it.  It
    is a constant expansion/compression which synergizes to form the
    ALL-THAT-IS part of the totality. (Please read the Pyschic Guide
    article for more or access many other Lazaris sources for more)
    As for Jesus:  He has suggested that to the extent that Jesus existed,
    it was not as related in "scripture" at all.  There was a Christ
    consciousness that did exist at that time, however, and was written
    about nearly 100 years later by basically four individuals, none
    of whom had met Jesus (Mark, John, Luke and Matthew I think).  Later,
    (about 300 years later, to be precise) a guy named Paul came along
    and restructured everything to satisfy his own beliefs and the church
    (and therefore control) that he was attempting to promulgate.
    As for Satan, wherever it appears in Biblical text, almost always
    the words Negative EGO can be inserted in its stead with virtually
    the same meaning.  In other words, there simply is no SATAN, only
    a highly destructive ego (which is the constant judgmental yammy-yammy
    that we "hear" in our minds.) Religions and Karma exist only as
    a result of political manipulations created by self-serving men.
    The only systems that exist are the ones we've created.  Are we,
    then, GOD (as some entities have told us?)  NO, we are only a piece
    of GOD/GODDESS/ALL-THAT-IS much in the same way that DNA is only
    a piece of our body although it contains everything that makes it
    up.  The ego, by the way, only exists for humans...originally had
    only a positive aspect (as a messenger for interpretation) but then
    developing a negative component to which we have given unwarranted
    control.  Lazaris has suggested that perhaps our greatest
    accomplishment as humans will be to shrink (not destroy) our ego's
    negative side back to its original size and to once again take 
    dominion (not domination) of our physical reality.  It is only
    there (which means coming from a LOVE) that we can ultimately leave this
    physical level behind and expand into other levels of reality (the
    first 4 levels are part of the physical--1. physical 2. astral 3.
    causal 4. mental.)  In other words (he has said) become "Christlike".
    He has no ego and the Christ in the Bible appeared to be (negative)
    ego-free (I think.)  
       I've forgotten your second question but I highly recommend putting
    forth to perhaps a Unitarian church, etc. the desire to hear Lazaris
    yourself (many groups around the country, religious and otherwise)
    have availed themselves of Lazaris.  Otherwise, order a tape or
    two (audio is cheaper than video, obviously.)  I simply cannot possibly
    do justice to what he has said and I have personally invested thousands
    of hours and dollars towards my own growth...to me every penny has
    been worth it, every minute has had its rewards.
      
    See you later.
       
    Fred
     
    (I think.)
    

    Fred,
    
    Thank you for your last reply.  You have helped me along the
    way a bit - in a most posative way!  You, my friend, have made 
    my day.  I can now say I have taken a bit of this Friday morning
    and made it my own :-D .
    
    M. Daly

    Re: .63
    
    Hi Fred,
    
    I enjoyed reading your reply very much.  Much of what you said
    in that reply is the same as what I have come to feel on my own 
    path over the years.  Isn't it wonderful that there are many 
    different paths for finding one's way to better understanding 
    for themself?  Kinda suggests that anyone can get anywhere from
    wherever they are without having to do any one thing in particular.

    Jerri

    
      I think anything that i say would be considered an opinion unless
    i backed it up with solid evidence,so i can only say that what has
    been said about our choices i agree with.We have many paths we can
    choose to find what we seek in experience or knowledge or whatever
    we choose.We have a free will to choose our course.
      In my investigation of the spirit world,the things you have stated
    Fred concerning Jesus and Satan is contrary to what i have found.I
    am not sure who this Lazaris is,but his statements dont agree in
    any way with what i have found.So i guess we have a difference of
    understanding.Well i still have to go with what i have found through
    close examination.I hope that this Lazaris does not cloud peoples
    minds with retoric.Well i have said my thoughts and feelings.Its
    not intended to offend but to communicate open honest feelings.
    
    
    MIKE
    
    

    RE: 316.66
      
    It would be of more use, Mike, if you were to state what exactly
    it is that is in opposition to your held views.  I, for one, am
    interested in whatever the discrepancy is.  Would you mind stating
    it, please?  Again, I can only say that what I stated was MY
    understanding of what Lazaris has said.  Incidentally, there are
    reprints available from Concept:Synergy of four sources:  an interview
    with Lazaris in Nov. by the L.A. Weekly, a transcript of Lazaris
    on the Merv Griffin show last June, an interview with Lazaris for
    Psychic Guide magazine for May, 1987 and excerpts of a 60-minute
    tape recorded about 7 years ago entitled Lazaris explains Lazaris.
    These cost between a quarter of a dollar and $.40 each.  Call them
    and order them (I think they will mail them to you...if not, maybe
    I can send you photocopies.)  
      
    re: 316.64-5
      
    Thank you for the thanks and for the brightness of your lights!
      
      
    Frederick
    

    
      One thing that is a definite difference is that there is a place
    referred to as "hell" and one of "heaven".Hell is the lowest plane
    that we can find ourselves based on our own level of energy we obtain
    here.If we donot have enough energy to reach the higher planes then
    we end up there.There is visitation from the higher planes to the
    lower ones but not from the lower to the higher because of this
    lack of energy.There is a person referred to as "Jesus",who visits
    the lower planes at specific times for those who have gained the
    right to go to a higher plane.There is also one who is referred
    to as "Satan",who exists on the "Hell" plane.Everyone is very evasive
    when you ask about him and they dont want to talk about him.I beleive
    this is because he is like the "warden" and they could get themselves
    in a lot of trouble if they say too much.
    
      I have stated only a couple of things in very limited detail because
    of time.I have to go now.
    
                                            Take Care
                                            MIKE

    Re: 316.68
       Thanks for responding, Mike.  Actually, there is no real discrepancy
    here.  Elsewhere in this conference someone mentions hell as being
    "only in the *mind*" and that is probably true as can be determined
    from earlier stuff in this topic.  From my response in 316.63 and
    316.30, I have related that in this illusionary reality known as
    the physical plane (of four which are also connected to it,) there
    exists an ego (*SATAN*) and that it also exists on the astral plane
    (which is a less-dense mirror of the physical.)  Just as we on the
    physical plane encounter less-than-evolved "humans" so, too, on
    the astral can they be encountered.  On the astral plane it can
    be distinguished as lower or higher astral level.  As Lazaris has
    related to us repeatedly, the "goal" is to catapult from this plane
    as far as we can.  How many levels are there?  As he relates, infinite
    levels...we can never get to GOD/GODDESS/ALL-THAT-IS for it is
    constantly growing and evolving as we are...so don't worry about
    running out of growing room.  ANyway, he has said that the "heaven"
    of our BIBLE is where Jesus "has a condominium."  It is also there
    that Buddha is and many, many others have their point of consciousness
    (for we all exist on all levels simultaneously since there is no
    time and space...all lifetimes included...except that our point
    of consciousness exists here and now.)  THis place is the fourth
    level or the mental plane.  He also says that sometimes in meditation
    some of us reach as high as the fifth or sixth planes but not much
    higher. Each level "up" sees less-and-less of what we would commonly
    call negative emotions (he, on the other hand, defines negative
    emotions as those which are unexpressed...which includes love.)
    Every REAL emotion has both a negative and a positive side...unreal
    emotions (such as guilt) have only a negative side. The final emotion
    to be discarded was the original break-away emotion, the FEAR of
    LONELINESS (followed on various levels "downward" by other fears,
    later anger, etc.  Anyway, all these REAL emotions exist on the
    astral plane.  No doubt the spirits you are communicating with are
    astral level beings who, more-or-less like us, have a conceptualization
    (as we do in our dreams) of *SATAN*.  You will probably discover
    that they never actually get killed...they always resurrect somewhere
    else in the astral plane.  
      
    To be fair to myself, I will say that none of this was on my mind
    when I originally responded.  It is my goal to leave the physical
    and astral planes completely upon my death...never to return.  Why?
    Because there is so much joy and beauty beyond those levels.  The
    "high" of most drugs, the joys we experience...they all just touch
    on it.  Lazaris has said that whenever he "greets" other entities
    (he doesn't really) it is really like our orgasms...he simply merges
    and becomes ONE with them.  Which is something we attempt to do
,       with others, sometimes through "love" and sometimes through
    (a misdirection of) violence.  Do you ever wonder about our orgasm?
    (And this is something that is not new from Lazaris...)  It is the
    one time when we are "naturally" opened to all the planes of "reality."
    That split second, if it could be expanded, would be so powerful
    that our bodies could not sustain it...which is why we go far beyond
    the physical plane in order to experience that (many digressions
    and corollaries are appropriate here.) Anyway, your sources are
    probably telling you "the truth," but their point of reference is
    just not that "far along."  Incidentally, Lazaris has told us that
    he truly has admired Seth and Jane Roberts and that 99% of what
    Seth said was accurate...the major difference being that Seth says
    we are working towards "GOD" while Lazaris says that we've already
    been there and that what we are becoming is more of US as we work
    closer and closer towards merging and co-creating with
    GOD/GODDESS/ALL-THAT-IS.
      
    re:316.41---I goofed!  Several lines down should read "the FORMER
     way," (not the latter as I wrote.)
            
    re 316.50
       Dear ED....I'm afraid you HAVE observed Lazaris simply by observing
    our conversation.  To what extent you have I don't know but anyway
    your point is somewhat moot.  Which is similar to the so-called
    "double-blind" experimentation.  If it is true that the tester has
    some kind of influence over the test, then no matter how hidden,
    that influence persists.  Again, you create your reality 100% and
    there is no such thing as an observer, only a participant (ultimately.)
                                                                    
    Also along the same vein to 316.51...it is simply not there until
    you create it...Magellan's ships did not exist for the Aztecs
    (though they sat "clearly" on the horizon) until the shamans told
    them what should they be looking for.  Our shamans are our scientists
    and they "find" what they truly BELIEVE they will.  Does the tooth
    fairy exist?  Obviously, for a six-year-old it does.  ANd also for
    us at least to that extent.  Does Lazaris exist?  Yes, to the level
    you wish to believe.
      
    Which brings me to 316.59.  I cannot demonstrate that Lazaris exists
    from the levels he says he does (send for his Lazaris explains Lazaris
    reprint for what he says) but I FIRMLY believe that he goes beyond
    anything I've ever encountered.  He says he has never been physical
    and never will be (unlike ALL of the other channeled entities that
    *I* am aware of.)  He has demonstrated his awesomeness to me repeatedly
    and it has taken me five years to reach acceptance of that to the
    point of believing what he says.  Your second point, Wayne, is more
    difficult for me to answer (about "scientific formulation") but
    I can think of various responses---most of which should be true.
    One, this is OUR reality, for us to grow...he is not going to do
    it for us (although he will "grease the wheels" a bit, if we ask
    him to.  He, too, grows by his interactions with us (although frankly
    I sometimes fail to "get" that.)  Another, each December he gives
    a talk (available on tape) describing the energy for the following
    year (and years) as it currently has been created.  His predictions
    are always correct (or explainable.)  As another digression, when
    he has talked of healing he has told us that no one can heal you...
    there is no such thing as cause and effect...that healing comes
    when WE want it and that we THEN find a cause to fill our beliefs.
    In other words, we believe (ultimate belief, conscious or unconscious)
    that this pill will cure us and it does...or we believe that their
    incantation heals us and it does...or we say that that seminar we
    went to was what did it...none of them are "really" true.  We simply
    decided that we were going to be healed and found the "excuse"
    to do it.
      
       Well, this is a heavy responsibility for me trying to explain
    what Lazaris spends literally thousands of hours in great depth
    explaining.  I am not the ultimate source here...please consider
    the source as you make your discernments.  
      
    Until "later,"         Frederick
      
    

      Thanks for your comments Fred.I see the universe more structured
    than the illusionary reality that you speak of.I see definite
    properties of matter that exist on different levels.In our present
    level of existance the material that it is made of presents to us
    a definite reality that we relate to according to our knowledge
    and understanding of it.That is,everyone may interplay with it in
    their own individual way,but it has its own properties that does
    exist whether we want it to or not.I do not beleive we create our
    own realities.I beleive they exist and we relate to them.
      I beleive that on other planes we also interplay with the structure
    that exists there,whatever it may be.Whatever plane we end up on,I
    think we will we subject to the conditions that exists there.We
    may be able to manipulate it somewhat,but only within the boundaries
    that will already exist there.
      I also beleive in a controling influence on other levels just
    as it is here.We may have different names for these beings,such
    as Satan or Jesus or Lucifer etc,but i beleive they exist and are
    real beings.
    
                                                      MIKE

    RE: 316.70
        I would suppose that I would call this kind of reality boring
    if it weren't for our differences!  (Sigh!)  Mike, I will congratulate
    you for growing, reaching, stretching and looking for understanding
    especially in view (or perhaps as one of the side effects) of your
    own personal "tragedy" (which I read about elsewhere.)  I strongly
    encourage you to continue your search and hope that it provides
    you with positive rewards.  I am going to respond to you (and to
    some others who aren't joining in here) in 358 (I think) because
    apparently that is where we are taking off to here and someone else
    has already provided an off-shoot.  If you wish to add more here,
    I will get back to this, otherwise I will be talking to YOU (as
    well as the aforementioned others) in that topic.
    

    ...help, someone, please...I want to send a file from my directory
    and enter it as a note, but I cannot find documentation on how to
    do that.  I know this isn't the proper place, but mail or a note
    will help...I can then delete this (if I find out how to do that.)
      
    Thank you, anybody!
      
    Frederick
    

RE:-1

If I understand your question correctly, what I do is use the EDT editor and
INClude the file into my editing buffer.

Dan

    re:  last two
      
    Thanks!  It worked.  I HAD looked at HELP but it didn't
    "click" for me, so thanks again.
    Should these last four responses be deleted?
    
    Frederick
    

         "Not all Channelings are Equal."
       (Guidelines from Jach Pursel on evaluating channels)
      
         You would never compare a Van Gogh to a painting done by numbers,
    though both are paintings.  They are different.  So are channels
    and the entities who speak through them.
         How do you know the difference?  The same way you do with painting
    or with writing or with any other art form requiring talent:  You
    must discern for yourself.  Some criteria for this are:
      1.  Consistency of the message.  Though the message given may
          evolve, it will always be consistent if it's a legitimate
          message.  If there are reversals and retractions and
          fluctuations, be careful.
      2.  Consistency of the personality of the entity.  A stable entity's
          personality can be expected to be stable and constant, and
          not given to erratic changes.
      3.  Who gets the power-you or the entity?  This is a very important
          consideration.  If an entity is telling you that they have
          the power, will send someone to fix your life or solve your
          problems, you would do well to be wary.  If the entity is
          saying that everything will go well with you if you have faith
          in them and give your power of discernment away, be very
          cautious.  The basic law of metaphysics has always been that
          you create your own reality.  If an entity supports your gaining
          more and more mastery over that creation, then you are in
          a safe position-literally a truthful position.  The entity
          does not have the power over your life: you do.  If an entity
          assists you in creating your reality more happily, more power-
          fully, more successfully, then that is legitimate and loving
          help.  If, on the other hand, an entity requires you to give
          away your power by giving away your responsibility, there
          is something not legitimate about what is going on.  Who gets
          the power?  The answer always needs to be "you."
      4.  Does what is being taught make sense intellectually and 
          emotionally?  Why would it not make sense if it is a true
          sense of human nature and our reality?
      5.  Effectiveness of what is taught.  Does it work for you?  You
          shouldn't be asked to accept something on faith.  Test it.
          See if it works.  A truly helpful entity will be giving you
          concrete suggestions, ones that can be tested, techniques
          you can work with, ones that will have results that are 
          tangibly and intangibly effective.
      6.  Is your life better and happier as a result of what you've
          you've learned?  An honest evaluation of your life, your 
          feelings, your success level before and after your relation-
          ship with an entity will give a clear indication of the 
          effectiveness of what you've been taught.  Life should always
          be getting better and better, and if the teachings of an
          entity have helped you create a stronger, more wonderful
          reality, then the teachings are valid.  If not, it might be
          well to take a second look.
      7.  Are you valuing yourself after the channeling experience than
          you were before?  This relates somewhat to the point above,
          "who gets the power?"  Real growth always involves an 
          expanding sense of yourself as valuable-and that sense of
          value of self grows and grows.  The more deeply you come into
          an awareness of yourself, the deeper will be the sense of
          value you feel for yourself.  Real growth is never belittling
          or demeaning.  Growth is full of love and joy--self-love,
          self-worth, self-respect, and self-esteem--and leads to a
          greater sense of your own worth and value.
      
        [Jach is the channel for Lazaris]
      
      
    Frederick
    
    
    

>                  -< Helpful hints to find your own channel >-


I have not had the benefit of reading all previous replies to this 
note.

However, Individually we are our own channel to God.  HE/SHE/IT works 
thru us and we work thru IT.

In my opinion going outside oneself for Spiritual Unfoldment may be a 
good place to start, but in the end we all have to come home and 
resolve it for ourselves, within ourselves.

Having the assistance of a trusted Spiritual Advisor (your personal 
choice) is a real bonus and will likely facilitate our journey home.


- Howard

    
    A line from an
    Add seen in some
    NEW AGE newspaper 
    over the weekend...
    
    
    		"Just because their DEAD doesn't mean their SMART!"
    
    
    Craig,
        

    
    Ill turne en mie pourfect badge.
    

    
    I think it has an ocelot to do with my psychotic powers!
    
    (Just kitten of course)
     

    On 9/10/90 I went to see a channeller who was recommended to a
    friend of mine.  So we both made an appointment to see her.  The
    following is what she said to me.
    
    
    
    9/10/90 - Janice L. Curtis - "SOMEWHERE IN TIME  (508)689-0014
    Her office is in Salem N.H.
    
    
    
    She immediately told me I've had many hard and stressful 
    happenings in my life recently.
    
    She said that I recently lost someone very close [her right hand 
    grasping at air] - loss of parent - it's mother.
    
    [around that time she begins a tickle in throat and last 
    throughout the session]
    
    She then said that "mother" had a breathing problem.  (my mother
    had chronic asthma since the age of 22)
    
    She said she saw "mother" holding up two hands - one higher than 
    the other - meaning an older sister.  (right - Cecile is older by 
    5 years)
    
    She didn't not pick up on any other siblings.  (There aren't any)
    
    She told me "mother" died with a heavy heart.  That she died so 
    suddenly that she could not say her good-bys.  And she wants me 
    and my sister to know that she would have like to tell us alot of 
    things before she died.  And that she tries to let me know that 
    she is there.  (My mother died suddenly in March)
    
    She told me to be aware of changes in smell and temperature or 
    movement - that it is a sign of "mother".
    
    She said "mother" loved her home and her things around her.  That 
    she often roams my house. (she knew that my house was her house, I 
    bought it from my parents - 2 family house)
    
    She knew that family lived with/near me.  (my dad lives upstairs 
    from me)
    
    She told me that my grandmother was with my mother and they were 
    extremely close.  That my mother saw her mother before she even 
    died and that gave her strength.  (My mother was extremely close 
    to her mother)
    
    She told me "mother" worried/worries about her sister and is 
    looking to guide her. That the sister has medical problems maybe 
    emotional problems.   (Aunt Jeanne D'arc is the last living member 
    of her family.  She had a breakdown after another aunt died.  And 
    we were extremely worried how she would deal with my mother's 
    death)
    
    She told me that "mother" was happy that I still take care of her
    sister.  (I often visit and cut/perm her hair)
    
    She asked me who the heavy smoker was - a sister - mother's 
    sister. Who is not of this world.  (it could be one of two of my 
    aunts)
    
    She saw "mother" next to a man - calling him brother - her only 
    brother.  (my Uncle Ed was the only brother that lived past
    infancy, he also died of cancer)
    
    She told me my mother was always around me, sister and dad.
    
    
    Then she picked up my father.  Saying that he has had repairs
    to his heart.  He will be fine but that he still worries about it.  
    That he should take up fishing - he would enjoy it.    (A year ago 
    April my father had a quadruple bi-pass done and is now doing 
    fine)
    
    She says she sees him searching for companion, but does not see it
    working out for him.  That he is extremely lonely and that he 
    loved my mother.  But that he needs to keep active.
    
    She says she sees me married, but that we have only been married a 
    short time.  (I told her it will be six years)  She then said that 
    the first 2 years of marriage were extremely difficult and that 
    was why she saw a short time, that now we have a real marriage.  
    (And she was exactly right)
    
    She says she sees no children near me at this time, but she does 
    see children.  She sees me having "minor" surgery before I can 
    conceive.  (A friend of my had done a reading on me months ago - 
    and read the same thing about the surgery)  
    
    She sees me waiting for a career change.  That she sees me taking 
    care of children and nourishing them.  Working with children will 
    be my next job.  (I plan that after I have a baby to do home 
    day-care)
    
    She sees me moving to a new house.  Doesn't know when.  Won't be 
    far, so that family will not be upset.  (I do not want to move far 
    away on account of family.  My husband would like to move to 
    Maine.)
    
    She sees my husband changing his career, to something he really 
    wants to do and it will happen within 2 years.  (He has just 
    recently decided to take the police exam in the fall)
    
    She sees that I have had struggles in relationship - husband - 
    mother.  (True on both counts!)
    
    She then said she see a train.  Do I like to travel?  (I said, I 
    have no real plans to travel)  She says the train is very old, she 
    was mistaken of me travling.  The train is very old - someone is 
    traveling this train.  (At this point a light bulb goes off in my 
    head - my dad had a cousin - she was old - but use to travel to 
    visit us from Canada every summer on a train - we called her 
    "memere chu-chu")
    
    She says she sees and Indian with me, that guides me.  She says 
    that he is from a tribe many, many years ago.  She says his is 
    somehow related to me.  And see him with the women from the train.
    
    She sees me reading alot - that I love to read romances.  But soon 
    my reading will change to something other.  Maybe spiritual.  (I 
    love to read)
    
    She saw a older man that smoked who died in my house and he kept a 
    garden.  (Well, my grandfather smoked cigars and died of cancer in 
    my house.  He didn't keep a garden that I know of, but kept a 
    vineyard and made his own wine)
    
    She knew that I carry with me something that belonged to my mother 
    and grandmother.  (I were a ruby ring of my mother's and an ornax 
    of my grandmother)
    
    
    
    
    That's about all!
    
    
    
    Then later that same night.......
    
    
    I had not told my husband of going to this channeller.  During the 
    night around 1:00 he wakes me to ask me why I was carrying a 
    Indian head .  I asked what he was talking about.  He said he saw 
    an Indian head over my right shoulder and wanted to know what I 
    was doing with it.
    
    He then rolled over and went back to sleep.
    
    
    I asked him about in the morning and says that he never woke up 
    last night.
    
    
    dodododododo.....