[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference hydra::dejavu

Title:Psychic Phenomena
Notice:Please read note 1.0-1.* before writing
Moderator:JARETH::PAINTER
Created:Wed Jan 22 1986
Last Modified:Tue May 27 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:2143
Total number of notes:41773

952.0. "YCYOR - You Create Your Own Reality" by SCOPE::PAINTER (Dark Ages, Middle Ages, New Age) Fri Jan 13 1989 20:48

                               -< YCYOR >-     
    
    I would like to take this opportunity to enter some portions of
    "The Sacred Journey", by Lazaris, particularly those parts which
    talk about reality creation.  
    
    At this point I must say that neither Frederick nor I can adequately 
    speak for Lazaris, and I am very concerned that there are some major 
    misunderstandings about that which Lazaris has taught/written/spoken,
    and only hope to be able to, through quoting printed material, give
    Lazaris a chance to speak directly here about their views on YCYOR.

    Then the topic is opened up to discussing YCYOR in general.
        
    Cindy
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
952.1To begin...SCOPE::PAINTERDark Ages, Middle Ages, New AgeFri Jan 13 1989 20:4975
    {From: "The Sacred Journey", by Lazaris, p.15-17}

Self-Generated Illusion

The New Age is an Age of Humanity - an Age of Consciousness - in which 
each individual personally and practically comprehends that their 
world is a self-generated illusion that is limited only by their 
unique choices and decisions, their private thoughts and feelings, and 
the personal attitudes and beliefs.

That reality is a self-generated illusion is the greatest liberating 
concept in your world today.  As with any liberating concept, many 
fear it and attack it with a vengeance.  Reflect for a moment on your 
political history where self liberating concepts have been born.  From 
the initial concepts of truths held self-evident in your Constitution 
(USA) to the liberating ideas of feminism, each of these concepts, we 
would suggest, was feared and attacked as dangerous and detrimental to 
the moral fiber of life.

Critics of the conscious creation concept often attack with the 
question, "How do you tell a starving person anywhere in the world, or 
how do you tell a rape victim, that they create their own reality - 
that they created starving or being raped?"  The critics huff that 
such behavior would be more than insensitive.  It would be cruel.

The naive proponent, in their zeal to defend metaphysics and the New 
Age, is drawn into this line of criticism by defending this 
hypothetical behavior which, indeed, would be both insensitive and 
cruel.

We would suggest that the true metaphysician would not tell a starving 
person or a rape victim anything about reality creation - at first.  
Initially they would work to heal the wound.  Then, once whole again, 
they would talk of things metaphysical.

A major criticism of American Foreign Policy in the late '50's and 
early '60's was that the American policymaker did not understand that 
you cannot talk to the politically oppressed and the physically 
starving about the Bill of Rights and the genius of Jefferson.  first 
you must do something about their food situation, then talk of loftier 
things.  Fill their bellies and then their minds.

in the '50's and '60's, should the American political system have been 
abandoned as cruel and insensitive, and therefore wrong, because of a 
misapplication of principles?  Certainly not.  Then why should the 
whole of metaphysics and the New Age be so abandoned because of a 
hypothetical misapplication of principle?

The critic and the true proponent would heal the wound first.  Then 
they would deal with the emotion and the emotional scars.  We would 
suggest that once the victim was well, each would proceed differently. 
The metaphysician would offer hope for a different future by talking 
of conscious reality creation.  The critic would offer hope by 
encouraging political and economic reform that would hopefully come 
sometime in the future when the proper political leadership can be 
established etc., etc., etc.  In fact, which approach is more 
compassionate?

Admittedly, we do not have a body.  However if we did and that body 
were violated, in time we would want to know why we created that 
reality, because then we would do something about it in the future.  
Knowing that we either caused it or allowed it is a grand source of 
power - liberating power.  To convince ourselves that we are 
hopelessly a victim and that there is nothing we can do to prevent the 
nightmare from occurring again - to convince ourselves that we have to 
wait and hope that others, i.e. political policymakers and 
governmental bureaucrats, will do something to make us safe - is 
frightening at best.

First you heal the wound, whether it is a physical, mental, 
emotional, or psychic wound.  You heal it first.  Then you would 
recognize, acknowledge, forgive yourself and others, if appropriate, 
and then change the reality by comprehending that you indeed do create 
it all.
952.2Lazaris, cont'dSCOPE::PAINTERDark Ages, Middle Ages, New AgeFri Jan 13 1989 21:1593
Short note - I am quoting some of these paragraphs out of sequence, 
only to make sure that the more important areas are addressed immediately.
I hope this does not add to the confusion in any way, and will try to clear
it up by entering in the surrounding text if necessary.

I have put *'s around what I believe to be the most important sentence
in the book, which appears in the text below. 

Questions, comments or clarification inquiries are welcome.  

Cindy

===========================================================================

{From: "The Sacred Journey", by Lazaris, p.9-10;13-14}

...What about the "serious student" who is criticized for apathy or
decadence?  It is sadly true that there are some who consider 
themselves "serious students" who have a shallow understanding of 
creating their own reality.  They are often apathetic.  They adopt 
reality creation as merely a convenient philosophy to avoid being 
responsible for their world, rather than as a truth with which to 
responsibly change their world.

Those who fit into this category should perhaps be called "shallow 
students", not "serious students".  There are also some who use 
metaphysics and the panoply of the New Age as armor against 
responsibility.  We would suggest that these are the ones who find 
responsibility frightening.  Therefore, they twist the basic tenants 
of reality creation to justify non-participation in and non-caring for 
the world in which they - and you - live.

The indifference of the "shallow student" can be dangerous.  They do 
not participate in the world because their shallow understanding leads 
them to say only that whoever is suffering is creating that suffering. 
True, so far.  Therefore, they say, it has nothing to do with them.  
Untrue.  These "shallow students" conveniently forget that they are 
also creating the reality.  Though they are not the ones suffering, 
they are the ones aware of the suffering they cavalierly dismiss as 
"not their problem".

***********************************************************************
*  If you are aware of the problem, you are part of it.  We will say  *
*  that again:  If you are aware of the problem, you are part of it.  *
***********************************************************************

The actual serious student who has an in-depth understanding of 
reality creation knows this.  The true student of metaphysics sees the 
awareness of a problem as an opportunity to participate in the 
solution, not just as another opportunity to blame and absolve 
themselves of participation.

The socially conscious critics are correct when they see a danger in 
the New Age when they are dealing with the shallow student.  Those 
same critics are incorrect when they lump the true serious students in 
with the shallow ones. ...

{p.13-14}

The New Age, unlike the detractors accuse, does not really claim there 
is no such thing as victimhood or victims.  We would suggest, the New 
Age is an Age of Humanity where people strive to replace the very real 
feeling of self-pity with the much more exciting and reliable feelings 
of enthusiasm and love.

We know that some in the field of metaphysics categorically state that 
there is no such thing as a victim.  This is crazy-making, 
over-simplified metaphysics which both encourages and fuels the 
critics, and discourages and distances the real seeker.

You hear that there is no such thing as a victim, and then you look 
around you and your world, and, like it or not, we would suggest, 
there are victims - those who have created their reality without full 
conscious awareness, without conscious responsibility.  Yes, they have 
created their own reality, and therefore they must have wanted it that 
way.  However, until they know that and then consciously choose that, 
they are victims - self-created victims, but victims nonetheless.

When a person realizes that they do indeed create their own reality 
and that they do it consciously, then they have a choice.  Then they 
can stop being a victim, or they can continue.  It is their choice.  
Once it is their choice, then we would agree with the chorus:  "There 
are no victims."

We would suggest that if that person persists in being a victim once 
they know they have a choice, they are doing so as a manipulative 
ploy.  They are no longer a victim, they are a manipulator.

There are victims in your world.  In the New Age there is an 
opportunity to end victimhood and martyrhood altogether.  That ending, 
however, is not going to happen by eliminating the word from your 
vocabulary!
952.3Lazaris, cont'dSCOPE::PAINTERDark Ages, Middle Ages, New AgeFri Jan 13 1989 21:4965
{From: "The Sacred Journey", by Lazaris, p.14-15}

Conscious Creation

The other significant key to understanding this concept of the New Age
is understanding "consciously creating your reality".  Humanistic and 
other leading-edge psychologies, as well as contemporary religions, 
agree that each person creates their reality.  That is, they will 
agree that you create your own reality by your attitude.  If you are 
feeling paranoid, it will seem like everyone is out to get you, and 
you may create a miserable reality as a result.  Your attitude may 
cause you to act hastily: it may cause you to do foolish things, and 
thus you created your own reality.  If, on the other hand, you are 
expecting life to be great, the mishaps will be ignored.  Notice, the 
suggestion that the mishaps will still occur - it's just that you will 
not notice or care.

Among the proponents of conscious reality creation, few will go so far 
as to say you create your own reality literally.  They may say your 
attitude will affect they way you view "things" of your life, but they 
will not say that your attitude will literally create those very 
"things"!

We would suggest:  Many who claim metaphysical expertise are capable 
of pronouncing the words, but based on the disclaimers and limiters 
that they place on this concept, it is obvious that they do not really 
believe that they do create their own reality.  Certainly they act as 
though they do not want you to believe it!

You do create it all.  There are no exceptions.  There is no fine 
print.  There are no astericks.  Not only do you create the way you 
look at the things, you create the very things you look at!

That statement could be repeated unendingly.  Not only do you create 
the way you look at things, you create the very things you look at!  
You create all of your reality, and you do so consciously.

The quantum physicists in your reality are demonstrating more than 
ever the truth of this statement.  The only theories and paradigms of 
reality that consistently work are based on several common themes:  
Reality is an illusion created by observation and/or by consciousness. 
 Reality, at best, is a probability created out of thought.  Reality 
is an illusion of light trapped by observation and thought.

It is always curious to us that a scientific-type person will often 
scoff at the conscious creation concept, and, at the same time, they 
will enthusiastically support the "double-blind" procedure in 
scientific experimentation.  We would suggest that the double-blind 
procedure was developed as a response to the quantum understanding 
that "there is no such thing as an observer".  Everyone is a 
participant in creating the results of an experiment.  In other words, 
the form of expectation has impact - is a determining factor - in the 
reality created in the experimental laboratory.  If the experimenter 
expects a certain food to produce cancer in rats, it most likely will 
- perhaps because of the food, but definitely because of the 
experimenter's thought!  The scientific type has difficulty accepting 
this concept of conscious creation.  Actually, it is more difficult to 
accept that the idea that thought has so much impact inside the 
scientific and so little impact outside the laboratory!  How does 
thought know where it is?

Whereas the Old Age has many interpretive meanings for the concept of 
reality creation, the New Age is quite clear; You consciously create 
your own reality either by causing it or by allowing it.
952.4Lazaris, end of excerpts for now.SCOPE::PAINTERDark Ages, Middle Ages, New AgeFri Jan 13 1989 21:5061
{From: "The Sacred Journey", by Lazaris, p.17-18}

Boundaries of Creation

There are limits to what you can self-generate.  The initial limits 
are your unique choices and decisions.  Each day you make choices and, 
out of those choices, you make decisions as to how your life is going 
to work.  From the moment you wake up, you are silently choosing to be 
happy or sad, pleased or disappointed, content or angry.  We would 
suggest:  You are not often aware of such choices because you have 
habituated them into automatic decisions.  These are people (certainly 
you've seen them) who have decided to be miserable.  No matter what 
happens or what is said, they are determined to be unhappy.  They not 
only generate and attitude, they put out a field of energy - an almost 
magnetic field - that literally attracts miserable things happening in 
their reality.  From every traffic light being red to everyone giving 
them more "bad news" about their reality, they create it all according 
to the choices, and the decisions that grow out of those basic 
choices.  As you can see it in them, so you can discover it in 
yourself.  That it is automatic does not make it less powerful.

The next limits are the thoughts you think and the feelings you feel.  
Finally, we would suggest that attitudes and beliefs conclude the 
limits on the reality you create.  The most powerful of the limiters?  
Your beliefs.

As these components are limiters, we would also suggest that they are 
the raw materials out of which the illusion is made.  As they provide 
the boundary of what is possible, they also stretch the very 
boundaries they create.  As these raw materials provide the limits, 
they also provide the liberation!

As you make new choices and decisions, as you wake up and consciously 
choose, and then from those new choices decide to be happy and to have 
a successful day, so you will.  As you slow down long enough to listen 
to the thoughts and feelings you have, and more importantly, we would 
suggest, as you change your thoughts and feelings, as you change them 
consciously, so you more consciously create your own reality.  
Similarly, as you monitor your attitudes and your beliefs, as you make 
the choice to hold more positive attitudes and more inspirational 
beliefs, so your reality becomes more positive and inspiring.

The Power Of Belief

One of the most difficult metaphysical concepts:  BELIEF CREATES 
EXPERIENCE.  The consensus reality, we would suggest, teaches that 
experience comes first, and out of those experiences, belief is 
somehow born.  The domination of Newtonian science - which says that 
all proof is based on repeatable experience - has had a profound 
influence on the way you see your world.  The science of the quantum, 
however, categorically prove that Newton, though well-intentioned, was 
wrong!

The quantum suggests that reality is created not out of experience, 
but one of expectation.  Reality is a product of what you expect to 
experience, which is another way of saying:  Belief creates 
experience.

Belief creates experience.  Choice manifests it.

952.5Fill their stomachs, then tell them liesDECWET::MITCHELLThe Cosmic AnchovyFri Jan 13 1989 22:199
RE: .2 (Cindy)
    
    Seems to me that "Lazaris" has not changed the rape victim scenario.
    You heal the rape victim first, then later help her to understand
    how or why she chose to be raped.
    
    Hogwash!
    
    John M.
952.6More on victimsSCOPE::PAINTERDark Ages, Middle Ages, New AgeFri Jan 13 1989 23:0158
         
    Re.5 (JM)
    
    OK, John, I'll tell a story of my own.
    
    I was abused as a child.  Not horribly, but I was abused nonetheless.
    For the life of me I could not understand why.  For most of my life, 
    I went around inside feeling like I was a victim.  And indeed I
    was.  Yes, victimhood is real, as is the pain, the shame, the feeling
    that you are in hell.  This pattern continued after childhood, and
    I kept drawing people into my reality to keep repeating the same
    scenario over and over again.
                         
    Finally, like that man with the shivering young girl, someone came
    along in my life back in May, 1987, someone I went out on a limb
    and trusted, and instead of turning away as so many others had done,
    he took the time listen to me - heard me, and for the first time 
    validated my anger - said it was "justified".  He chose to get 
    involved in my life instead of turning away, and changed my reality 
    forever.  My perception of myself, my life, and my situation changed, 
    and I realized at that point that I had the power and the strength, 
    and that I did not deserve what had happened to me.
    
    But that wasn't enough.  I was still left with the question of "Why?"
    So I went back and delved through my life in search of reasons why the
    abuse happened.  Something strange happened.  I began to see my 
    percecutors in a far different light, and came to understand that they 
    had been victims too.  This understanding led to my being able to 
    forgive them, but even more importantly, I forgave myself.  And I 
    learned some AMAZING things/lessons as a result of going through all 
    this.  
    
    I now believe that I did choose my childhood.  Not only that, but
    if only to have learned the lessons that I did and go through what
    I did to get where I am today, I would go through it again.  I am
    now at peace with my past. 
    
    You see, the experience gave me the understanding of what it is 
    like to be a prisoner with no voice.  This is part of the reason 
    behind my choice to get involved with Amnesty International, because 
    I know what it feels like.  I could have chosen to spend the rest of 
    my life in self-pity about my abusive childhood, but due (mostly) to
    the writings of Lazaris, I know now that out of my own experience
    I can make a difference in the world because of the knowledge of
    what it is like to be in their shoes.  I hope at some point to get 
    involved with something to do with child abuse as well.
                                                                 
    I do not know what it is like to be starving.  There are people
    who do though, and out of their experience, they can best use their
    knowledge to help those who are still in that position.  So are
    rape victims - a lot of them become counsellors or staff rape hotlines.
    
    I'm not a victim anymore, nor do I ever have to be one again.  I'm not 
    in hell anymore.  In addition, telling my own story of overcoming my 
    abusive past and finding peace has helped others on the road to 
    overcoming their own abusive pasts.  We do have choices.
    
    Cindy
952.7Final note for the eveningSCOPE::PAINTERDark Ages, Middle Ages, New AgeFri Jan 13 1989 23:1537
    John,                                
    
    I now choose those people I wish to have around me.  Even though
    I forgave my abusers, I also know now that I did not deserve what
    happened, nor do I have to have any contact with them ever again, 
    by my own choice.  I'm consciously creating my own reality - 
    CHOOSING not to have them as part of it, rather than feeling I 
    must continue to see them out of a sense of familial duty.
    
    It is the most wonderful, liberating feeling in the world to be
    able to do this and not feel guilty. 
        
    Cindy
         
    ===================================================================
    
    Relationships
    
    I SURROUND MY SELF WITH PEOPLE WHO RESPECT ME AND TREAT ME WELL
                                                                
    I no longer need to maintain abusive relationships.  As I continue
    to grow and heal, I attract those people who love me for who I am.
    
    I have no need to hide myself.  I have no need to deny my feelings,
    or to disguise my thoughts and beliefs.  I will no longer tolerate
    people who put me down, manipulate me or humiliate me.  I am
    surrounding myself with people who are consistently loving and
    respectful.
    	
    Today I will pursue people with whom I can share myself in
    totality, with the complete confidence that they are accepting me
    for myself alone.
    
    Today I have the courage to terminate relationships with people
    who are overly critical and not accepting of me.  My world is 
    populated with self-respecting people who radiate caring respect
    and consideration back to me. 
952.8LEDS::BATESYou are where you should beSat Jan 14 1989 01:2671
     
    Another example, perhaps...
    
    In 1971, I lived in Nicaragua, and in the autumn of that year there
    was a polio epidemic.  The Somoza government controlled the importation
    of polio vaccine to the country, and distributed it to those who
    could pay well for its benefits. Obviously, this approach did not
    include the people living in what we would certainly define from
    a material context as abject poverty.                   
                                                            
    There were other sources of immunization, however - the American embassy
    had a supply of oral vaccine, which members of the Peace Corps 
    volunteered to administer to those in the provinces closest
    to the capital. I was in the country as an archaeologist, but I
    took time from my work and volunteered as well.         
                                                            
    We travelled to remote villages where the standard of living was
    far removed from anything I'd seen or experienced. We'd arrive,
    set up a station, and work until everyone who needed it had received
    a drink.  There were many expressions of thanks - sometimes, to 
    express their gratitude, several families would combine their meager 
    resources of food and insist that we eat with them. There was no
    way to say no, without assaulting their dignity, and so the well-fed
    Americans consumed (modestly, but still - ) what would have sustained 
    more people half our size. And we ate snake, and iguana, for those
    rare sources of protein were highly prized when they could be found.
    
    Long preamble to get to the point - on more than one occasion, I
    was struck with the sense of personal dignity and pride in what
    we would have dismissed in a moment. A little old man showed me
    the home he'd made out of an Amana refrigerator box - he'd added
    a roof made of pounded down tin cans and a doorway curtain made
    from hundreds of can top rings. He had no sense that he was in 
    misery or squalor - rather, he had chosen to see the possibilities
    in his world, and far be it from me to have placed a value judgement
    on how poor or wretched the man was, when his very actions made
    it clear that on several levels he was easily the equal of 
    Anastasio Somoza. And he was one of the contributors to the banquet
    his village set for us. 
            
    Yet in that same village, there were people who stared vacantly
    at everything around them, seemed unaware of their surroundings,
    and that lack of consciousness was reflected in their dress, their
    choice of living space. Again, I was reluctant to judge, but as
    an anthropologist I observed disconnectedness, alienation from 
    others, an inability to participate in the world they were in. 
    The same village, the same general circumstances, two different
    responses.  And this general scenario was repeated more than
    once during the time I was in the countryside. 
    
    Was everyone in the village a victim, and was life for all there
    unvaryingly dreadful? Or were some of those people far richer in
    their limited diet, and in their poverty, than I was with my 
    'first world' life?  I went to give, but I ended up receiving 
    something of great value. 
    
    I remember a quote from John Milton, in Paradise Lost:
    
    "The mind is its own place, and in itself
    Can make a Heaven of Hell, A Hell of Heaven".
    
    and that in turn caused me to look up something that good old
    Omar wrote:
    
    "I sent my soul through the invisible
    Some letter of that afterlife to spell:
    And by and by my Soul returned to me,
    And answered, 'I myself am Heav'n and Hell.'
    
    
    Gloria  
952.9,:'DNEAST::CHRISTENSENLSat Jan 14 1989 01:411
952.10Another YCYOR practitioner is heard fromHSSWS1::GREGMalice AforethoughtSat Jan 14 1989 12:5458
    
    	   I really grow weary of trying to enlightewn those who
    	refuse to accept that they created their realities.  But,
    	in the interest of advancing the discussion in some useful
    	direction, allow me to give you some examples:
    
    	Scenario:	A child is playing in the house and the parents
    			tell the child to play quietly and not to run 
    			indoors.  The child, in the heat of the moment,
    			forgets and starts screaming and running.  The 
    			parents reprimand the child, and eventually tell
    			the child to go to their room.
    
    	   A child who does not understand that they create their own
    	reality blames the parents for their situation (i.e. being
    	sent to the room).  They refuse to acknowledge that their 
    	actions resulted in the punishment, and so do not learn to
    	avoid that behavior/consequences pattern in the future.  They
    	continue to disobey the parents and get punished for doing so,
    	and continue to blame their heartless parents for their plight.
    
    	Scenario:	A man walks into a bank armed with a gun and
    			attempts to steal the money.  In the process,
    			the bank guard manages to disarm the would-be
    			thief, and places them under arrest.
    
    	   The robber, being unfamiliar with the concept of YCYOR is
    	firmly convinced that the bank guard is responsible for his
    	misfortune.  In fact, it should be obvious to anyone that 
    	his misfortune was brought on by his own actions and attitudes.
    
    	Scenario:	A man suspects his wife is fooling around on him.
    			He hires a detective to follow her around, asks
    			her lots of pointed questions, and generally acts
    			like a complete numbskull for several weeks. 
    			Shortly thereafter, weary of the mistrust, his wife
    			leaves him, files for divorce, and takes half of 
    			everything they shared as a couple.
    
    	   The man, not being familiar with YCYOR, is unaware that his
    	actions (and ditrust) were what ended his marriage, not the
    	percieved infidelity of his wife.  He has created the reality of
    	marital disharmony and has brought it into existence.  If he
    	follows the path that most unenlightened people follow, he 
    	probably also blamed his wife for the breakup of the marriage,
    	as well as for any financial problems he may have encountered
    	as a result of the breakup.
    
    	   These examples are VERY basic, and can be expounded on much
    	more thoroughly, but the basic principles are clear enough.
    	All of our actions result in consequences of some sort.  Knowing
    	what those consequences are allows us to pick and choose between
    	those that best suit our goals.  Ignorance, on the other hand,
    	tends to lead one to the assumption that our actions have no 
    	consequences, and that everything that happens to us is
    	pre-ordained, or otherwise out of our control.
    
    	- Greg
952.11???ULTRA::G_REILLYMon Jan 16 1989 22:1613
    
    re: .10 (Greg)
    
    	I confused (accent on the last syllable ;-))  It sounds like
    YCYOR == experiencing the consequences of your (our) actions.
    Is this right or have I missed the boat somewhere?  And then,
    does it go a step further and follow that the life situations
    we find ourselves in are what they are because we have chosen
    to make them that way in order to provide ourselves with the
    appropriate environment to educate the soul in this incarnation?
    
    alison
    
952.12Broad sketchs of YCYORHSSWS1::GREGMalice AforethoughtTue Jan 17 1989 04:0955
    
    	   I'm not really able to enter the long description of 
    	YCYOR right now (check the time stamp), but I will sketch
    	it in broad outlines.
    
    	- To knowingly plot a course anywhere you must do two things;
    	  acknowledge where you are, and determine where you are going.
    	  In terms of your reality, acknowledgement means admitting
    	  what is real.  It means acknowledging the fact that you created
    	  your reality (a complex acknowledgement, to be sure, particularly
    	  in light of the many and varied rationalizations which put others
    	  at fault for your reality).
    
    	- Once you know where you are, you must determine where you want
    	  to be.  Like plotting a course on a road map, if you have no
    	  destination any road will seem as good as any other, but when
    	  you know where you are going you can use only those roads that
    	  take you where you want to be.  Throughout life we make all 
    	  kinds of decisions, some of the conscious, others subconscious.
    	  These decisions play an important part in the shaping of your
    	  reality.  Some have external consequences, others affect us
    	  internally by altering our view of the world (however slightly).
    
    	- Having acknowledged that we create our realities, the next 
    	  logical step is to take complete responsibility for them.
    	  Taking responsibility means owning the actions and the
    	  consequences; accepting them for what they are.
    
    	- Once the responsibility for our reality belongs to us, it
    	  makes no sense to apply value labels such as "good" and
    	  "bad" to those things in our reality.  Something either
    	  "is" or it "is not", no further value judgement is required.
    	  If it "is", then the responsibility for it rests on the one
    	  who created it, the one who made it part of their reality.
    	  If something "is" the you feel "should not be", then as 
    	  the author of your reality it is your responsibility to 
    	  change that reality.
    
    	   That's the nutshell version of what  I learned about 8 years 
    	ago, and the version by which I drive my life.  As I said, there
    	are many finer points which I will be all-too happy to discuss
    	at length if you like.  I still remember many of the analogies
    	used during my brainwashing (mute testimony to the effectiveness
    	of the training).
    
    	   As mentioned in the base note (or one of the first few, anyway),
    	YCYOR is a very liberating mindset.  Having lived the principles
    	of YCYOR for the last eight years, I will say that it is also a
    	very effective mindset.  I live in a reality of infinite
    	possibilities, and it is my task to pick and choose the ones I
    	want.  If your reality is more limiting, it is only because you 
    	have made it so (possibly by giving away the responsibility for
    	your reality).
    
    	- Greg
952.13You gotta be young and rich to think like that.USWAV1::CHAPLAINTue Jan 17 1989 11:262
       I was going to write a little something about existential hogwash,
    but on reflection...never mind.
952.14_my_ realityHYDRA::LARUSurfin' the ZuvuyaTue Jan 17 1989 14:1786
First of all, I believe that our realities are different;
that there is no _one_ reality, no "objective" reality.
Our realities are contained within our minds.  There may be
"stuff"  "out there,"  but our senses and minds translate
stimuli from that stuff, and we interpret those translations
into our version of reality.

If you and I observe even a relatively simple event and discuss 
it afterwards, our observations and interpretations of the
event will not be identical.  Even our courts recognize the
impossibility of total agreement;  "guilty _beyond a reasonable
doubt._"

Science has identified a class of stimuli from the "stuff out there"
that can be measured and identified with a high degree of
predictability.  Using this data, science has created a
_model_ of the universe which seeks to incorporate _only_ this
class of data.  Our agreement to recognize and reach
consensus about this model allows us to manipulate certain
portions of that "stuff" with a _high degree_ of control.
Anyone who knows anything about science knows, however, that
the data are scattered all over the graph, that there are always
"anomolies" which cannot be explained, and which are very
often ignored because they do not fit the model.  

Many people in this file have experienced phenomena which cannot
be explained by the model.  Many believers of the model  do all
they can to shout down those who report having such experiences,
to invalidate the experiences and intimidate any who might wish
to report having them. The result is that many, if not _most_
experiences go unreported. The scientific believers (skeptics)
discredit these experiences as "subjective" and (scientifically)
unmeasurable with any degree of predictability.  

Current science is predicated on the theory of a "clockwork
universe" that runs like a machine, and that can be totally
understood and _controlled._   I believe that our anomolous
experiences (and these experiences have been reported by millions
of observers over thousands of years) show that while the model
is extremely useful for a particular class of phenomena, it is
woefully incomplete and inadequate to explain the whole of human
experience.

One conclusion of data discovered in quantum physics research
is that there is _no meaningful separation between observer
and observed._  On a micro scale, this has been proven by
experiments with light.  Sometimes light seems to behave as
if it is made up of particles, sometimes as if it were waves.
Experiments have been done in which it seems as if the type
of measurement being made (wave or particle) _determines_
whether the phenomenon behaves as a wave or particle.

I recently read (in Scientific American)  of an experiment done
on a larger scale with magnetic currents which seems to confirm
that the behavior of a "probabalistic" phenomenon is not
determined until the phenomenon is measured, and that the
resulting phenomenon is contingent on _the way the measurement is
made._   The conclusion that I draw is that  THERE IS NO SUCH
THING AS OBJECTIVE REALITY, or at least that we cannot know what
"objective" reality is while in our current state of
(un)awareness.

YCYOR has been recognized and practiced respectably for years by
means of the "Power of Positive Thinking."  People who take
responsibility for their lives _change their lives._  People who
refuse the role of victim _are no longer victims._  Why do some
people survive torture with their psyches intact, while others
are destroyed?   As an aside,  to use what seems to be our 
favorite example, the Holocaust, I believe that there is general
agreement that many, many victims, accepting their reality,
walked peaceably to their deaths, while millions of others,
acquiesced and stood idly by.

I am a part of the universe, not separate from it.  There is not
"me" over here, and the universe "out there."  The universe and I
are one.  When I change, the universe, and thereby "reality" 
inevitably and inescapably changes, too.

Anyway, this is just the way I look at it.  This is _my_ reality.
YCYOR is the way _I choose to live my life._  It gives me
meaning.   I am empowered.   I am an active partipant in the
unfolding and creation of the universe.  I like it this way.


/bruce
    
952.15Do you only live once? If so, best say it now.SCOPE::PAINTERTo dream the impossible dream...Tue Jan 17 1989 14:1813
    
    >You gotta be young and rich to think like that.
    
    Well, I'm not young (this, of course, is all relative), and I'm not 
    rich (I do work for DEC...and I worked 3 part-time jobs to put myself
    through college many years ago), but I think like that anyway.
    
    >I was going to write something....hogwash
    
    Oh, go ahead.  It's a friendly lot here and I'm just as interested
    in what you have to say as much as anyone else.
                                                                 
    Cindy  (in_search_of_the_perfect_truffle)
952.16-- digestion vs discussion --FHQ::OGILVIEThe EYES have it!Tue Jan 17 1989 14:1935
excuse me - 

".....and then change the reality by comprehending that you indeed do create 
it all"

At what "age" are we to understand this?  The abused child or the 
aforementioned "rape" victim......when would these spirits be ready to 
understand the how's and why's of what had happened to them?  What if they 
didn't live thru their awful experience?  I don't remember reading Lazaris'
views on reincarnation or karma in these replies....so in what time frame 
did this child manifest their reality to be abused?

From reading what was quoted, there does not appear to be a formula to 
justify his statements, but to accept that what is said - simply IS.  
Sorry.  I would need more information than to simply believe that 1 + 1 = 2 
without questioning the fact that 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 also equals 2.

************
                                             
Cindy, I know where you are coming from.....however, I'm not so sure
where Lazaris is coming from, using the excerpts you used.
                            
************                        
            
Yes, one does create their own reality, by properly using the Universal
Consciousness for positiveness (or negativeness, if that's your 'bag').....
not excluding that one's own existance began due to karmic justice.
  
Now what? - Where is one to draw the line?
    
    
Cheryl
            
            
952.17follow your blissHYDRA::LARUSurfin' the ZuvuyaTue Jan 17 1989 14:4013
952.18more justification please...FHQ::OGILVIEThe EYES have it!Tue Jan 17 1989 15:2229
  	  
      
    re:  Cindy? -  You say you have forgiven your offenders? - Now that
    you realized that you were responsible for your reality, do you
    believe that you created it while you were a child or before you
    were born.
    
    re: 17
    
    Clarification - this was not a question per se~, but more of a
    summation to my reply.
    
    But, as you say, we do what is right for us?  My question again,
    referring back to .16 - is "At what AGE do we believe that we have
    created our realities?" - Was it when we turned 21 - or when we
    hit the DEJAVU file?
    
    If this note was not created, we would obviously not know the
    difference between cosmic reality and creative ignorance.  This
    also reminds me of the question I had when I had heard that the
    Pope said you could eat meat on Friday.....I wondered if all of
    the Souls condemned to Hell for eating meat in the past had somehow
    risen and ascended into Heaven.
    
    There is a fine line that I am trying to get across.  I hope it
    can be seen.
    
    Cheryl  
  
952.19the answers are all internal...HYDRA::LARUSurfin' the ZuvuyaTue Jan 17 1989 15:4528
952.20Onanism in the NOTES fileUSWAV1::CHAPLAINTue Jan 17 1989 16:1715
       Okay. Jeez. I feel like I did in college sitting in that damned
    Epistemology (say wha'?) class sitting around bored as a rock while
    everyone else was trying to figure out what "truth" is. I always
    just felt I'd rather be fishin'. But then, on occasion I'll still
    indulge in a little mental masturbation...
    
       Look. No one asked Cro-magnon whether or not he was creating
    his own reality. Ya' got an empty belly, ya' hunt. But maybe he
    "created" his empty belly and in order to satisfy that need he
    "created" the animals to hunt and then "created" the diseases,
    injuries and natural disasters that he was compelled to overcome
    throughout his life for survival.
       If by "creation of reality" you are referring to a method of
    intellectually or emotionally ordering reality or coping with its
    consequences, then this discussion might take on meaning.
952.21HYDRA::LARUSurfin' the ZuvuyaTue Jan 17 1989 16:216
952.22Limits to YCYORUSIV02::CSR209Tue Jan 17 1989 16:2928
    I find myself responding far more favorably to the interpetations of
    the various YCYOR practitioners in this file, than the actual 
    writings of Lazaris. I do believe that we can positively improve
    our reality, and that the operative word is "our", by the way we
    choose to view it, and that it is very important to take responsiblity
    for our own lives and do it.
                    
    What I totally disagree with is the way that belief is extended
    into such a truly bizarre concept as that all reality is self-
    created, that there is no demonstrable reality external to our
    perceptions. This is where the line has been crossed into hogwash.
    
    Cindy, you were abused as a child, but do you believe that you
    chose that abuse?
    
    What we are getting into is the idea of unearned responsiblity;
    I don't believe any child is responsible for being abused. I 
    also believe that there are many people in this world that are
    truly victims, due to external circumstances beyond their 
    control, victims due to natural disaster, war, etc. Nothing
    will make me believe that the Jews in Europe created the Nazi
    death camps, for example.
    
    I believe that Lazaris is taking a useful piece of the puzzle
    and mistaking it for the puzzle itself.
    
    -roger
    
952.23Only a couple of hundred out of 130,000.WRO8A::WARDFRGoing HOME--as an AdventurerTue Jan 17 1989 16:3860
    re:  Cheryl
    
          If I may butt in for a minute...there are two realities
    that we create, one by allowing, one by conscious creation.
    I don't think any of us in this conference was born "enlightened."
    It is something that we have looked for with much interest
    as we have grown.  That we haven't turned our backs to growth
    is a wonderful testament to our desire to learn about ourselves,
    the universe and the relationships between us.
          As children, etc. most of us are "allowing" reality.  Even
    as adults, most people do.  Are they victims?  YES.  Until they
    discover that they could have produced a different outcome had
    they had the knowledge of their own power prior to the reality
    which they eventually allowed.  Once past the stage of unconscious
    or subconscious thought, victimhood becomes a matter of conscious
    choice (by default, if for no other reason.)  This is so difficult
    to understand because we have so much compassion for the victims
    that we observe.  Because we have a sense of love and tenderness,
    etc., it is seen as cruel that anyone could possibly choose 
    a reality of brutality.  It helps in understanding that even we
    have had those lifetimes, too.  That we all do it for lessons, etc.
    of which we cannot fully understand or grasp.  That in the totality
    of existence, a few such lifetimes are not a deterent to eventually
    discovering self-love.  That in the illusions of reality, at some
    eventuality none of this matters anymore.  As Larry has indirectly
    hinted in another note, this is all some sort of "game."  We create
    our own karmas, we establish our own destinies.  Eventually, we
    return beyond anything we know about.  As Bruce has said, you get
    there when you decide to be there, and only for as long as it is
    your decision to stay with that choice.  
         
          Talk about creating realities!  This past weekend I attended
    a "coincidental" one-day workshop with Lazaris entitled "Sharpening
    the Tools of Manifestation".  Within the first couple of sentences
    he stated "you create your own reality" and proceeded to spend a
    couple of hours repeating things he has so often before (for the
    benefit of newcomers and as reminders for the "old.")  I find it
    rather interesting because I had just read Cindy's note (I stopped
    by DEC on the way to S.F.) that morning and had been brought literally
    to tears by Gloria's note.  If I can find time (yes, John D., I
    too have *some* time constaints!  ;-) ) I will attempt to enter
    some of his stuff into 358.  Since I have 9 pages of hand-written
    (small print) notes, I do not intend to enter it all...besides,
    even so the humor he shows never reflects in my notes and many
    thoughts are left unexpressed on paper.  All I can do is do the
    best I can, and leave you to make a choice to attend a similar
    workshop on your own, so that you can see the "grander" picture.
    Speaking of which, as has been written before, the only reason
    Lazaris can see all of this is because he sits outside the set
    of physicality, and can view it without attachments.  Keep in
    mind here that the set of physicality consists of four planes..
    this one, (the physical), the astral, the causal and the mental
    (the plane of our "Gods".)  Manifestation on the physical plane
    comes to us from the causal plane, which is the plane of all that
    is possible.  Getting to the mental plane ("heaven") is the plane
    of IMpossibility...it is not the plane from which we manifest.
    Anyway, I'm digressing a whole bunch.
    
    Frederick
    
952.24Give me MORE!!FHQ::OGILVIEThe EYES have it!Tue Jan 17 1989 16:5722
    
    
    Well, if this isn't just like Ol'home week!
    
    OK:  Understood.  
    
    I was seeking an answer to such a fine-tuned question, which had
    a couple of questions within itself.
    
    (A) Creating your Reality
    (B) Recognizing a Reality was Created
    (C) When was your Reality Created               
    (D) When did you recognize a Reality was Created
    
    and what happens to the poor slob who never knew the difference,
    as their end came before their recognition.  Was this then a wasted
    incarnation?????   Come on....keep the bloods flowing......I'm into
    being even MORE enlightened!
    
    
    Cheryl
                               
952.25language affects our realityHYDRA::LARUSurfin' the ZuvuyaTue Jan 17 1989 17:1217
952.26i keep trying..FHQ::OGILVIEThe EYES have it!Tue Jan 17 1989 17:4017
    
    
    Bruce, you're at IT again....
    
    We're discussing "reality".  What I am ..trying...(sigh) to get
    at is:  What happens to the entity when it realizes it hasn't
    recognized it's creation....or has it?
    
    
    ah forget it.....8*))
    
    This gets TOOOOOOOO complicated to discuss - yet is SOOOOOO easy
    to comprehend.
    
    Cheryl - peace to you all......at least we're on the same path,
    altho some of us have more stones to kick out of our way and only
    the ones kicking them know they are there.....
952.27The Creation StoryDNEAST::CHRISTENSENLTue Jan 17 1989 17:4353
There may not be any objective _physical_ reality.  This premise
doesn't exclude alternative non-physical realities or even
objective realities.  From the objective view of Being, physical reality
is an illusion.  Yes, I know, go tell that to the hungry  and dying.

At this particular locus of time/space in physical reality, I cannot
be objective about the suffering in the world and at the same
as opportunities arise and I can be effective, I will do what is
most appropriate from this position.

Who I am, my Self has no location.  Who I am is everywhere
and nowhere and is doing nothing/everything in time/notime.

It is always going to be a paradox: If I created it, why did I create
things which are unpleasant?  If I created it why can I not do anything 
about it?  If I created it, why did I forget?

Not to resolve the paradox, there is some information missing.  I forgot
and to seal up the state, I forgot I forgot.  Now it is as physically
real as I am identified with it.

Want to stop the hunger and starvation in the world?  Simple, just
un-create my creation.  Poof, the universe is all gone.  So now what
am I going to do?

Well, I *could* create something.  I did and this is it.  Then I
forgot as the means to keep the creation alive and _real_.  Now I don't
like it; which by the way just keeps it more real.  I got a real mess
here an just what am I going to do about it?

By now I got it figured out that un-creating this whole mess
isn't going to change things for the better.  I might make a whole
lot  more sense to take responsibility for my creation a little
at a time and work to create it more pleasant.  Might not
be such a bad idea to create a whole lot of creators just like
me and "we" could get to work in many places.

Like my creations, to make them real, I have to forget tht I created them
and from their point of view they have to forget that they created "them".
This makes  them and their created reality _real_ and incremental
so we can get involved with creating a proper universe.

There needs to have an element of learning or remembering in this creation
otherwise we would not be motivated to get any work done.  We have to suffer
the pain of this reality, be engaged with it, and find about the
truth of the matter as the means to become effective.

Effective means to take the local "poop" around one of "us" and clean it up.
It means looking with an eye towards responsibility (acknowledging "our"
creation) and un-creating it and in the space left over creating something
workable.

We call this "life".
952.28Addicted to reasonELESYS::JASNIEWSKIjust a revolutionary with a pseudonymTue Jan 17 1989 17:5841
    
    	re .18-
    
    Perhaps your question is "At what age is it appropriate for a child to
    begin creating his own beliefs?" I have...absolutely no idea!
    
    We teach our children that they came into this world flawed and
    in need of correction, perhaps as a motivation to learn: "look
    at all you're not, and, how far you have to go; it will take your
    whole life just to be worthy!" When they believe this, it's the
    very first time They Create Their Own Reality.
    
    We teach our children far worse things, like that they were bought
    and paid for; they're *indebted* for their very existance and are
    not even "of" their own being! When they believe this, the reality 
    they create for themselves follows in a manner which confirms this 
    teaching. 
    
    Your reality was created by your parents, or, whoever you spent
    time with when you had certain developmental needs. Much of this
    reality is in the form of internalized subconscious belief - the
    absolute truth of which matters not. Those who say TCTOR are merely
    unraveling a previous reality to the point where they realize a
    choice is possible, and have the guts to consciously make it, against
    the subconscious mind's reactionary influence. Perhaps one person
    has actually changed their subconscious beliefs about themselves,
    and *actually* created a new reality as percieved by themselves.
    You know you've done this when your own perceptions change. 
    
    The human mind *never* ceases in it's rationalizing, which is a
    obsession we can get into. Personally, I've got a mountain of beliefs
    that were given to me in the present day to work through - I dont
    need to suppose that my "miserable life" was the result of "cosmic
    justice" and perhaps I'll have "paid off the karmic debt" by living
    three good lives before I'm "entitled" to the soothing bliss of the
    all_realization! I want the all_realization NOW! I can get it by
    realizing that rationalization has a limit, after which it becomes
    a lousy way to procede. I want _the truth_, not some made up concoction
    that happens to satisfy for now. 
    
    	Joe Jas
952.29FHQ::OGILVIEThe EYES have it!Tue Jan 17 1989 18:0410
    
    
    RE:  .27
    
    Yes - that's the ticket!!   That's what I've been trying to say....
    seriously. 
    
    It's so logical - it becomes illogical.
    
    BRAVO!!
952.30more...HYDRA::LARUSurfin' the ZuvuyaTue Jan 17 1989 18:18131
From another source:

         
	Here are some excerpts from a book called "Jungian Symbols in
	Astrology" by Alice O. Howell that I feel relate very well to
	the YCYOR topic.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------
    
	"A chart, to me, yields a description of how a person is likely
	to process experience.  As Carl Jung wrote, "In the end, all
	reality is psychic reality".  In view of this, astrology does
	not describe the actuality of a situation but rather how each
	person would tend to respond to it.  This is the reason that an
	astrologer can describe the father or mother of the client, for
	instance, because the description will fit the client's per-
	ception of that person.  [Birth charts can help] us to realize
	that we are all projecting a reality of our own onto the outer
	world, in fact, co-creating a microcosmic universe of experience
	or that "kingdom of heaven" within, which is unique despite the
	fact that it is shared with others.

	This is the paradox the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus
	described when he wrote, "With our eyes open we share the same
	world, but with our eyes closed each of us enters his[her] own
	world".  I always begin my classes by having everyone stand in
	a circle holding hands while I quote this.  From the astrological
	point of view, this demonstrates most effectively, both physically
	and geometrically, that though each of us shares the same circle,
	no two occupy the same position on that circle; thus each 
	processes the experience from a different perspective.  From
	Jung's point of view of individuation, you can see that the
	perspective of each in the circle adds to the collective
	experience of the whole, and that our individual experience
	and consciousness enrich the collective unconscious.

	.....

	What we see is who we are.  Who we are determines what we see.
	This also implies some significant limitations.  There will
	always be projection involved in our perceptions.  We cannot
	see things as they really are.....I remember a fascinating
	conversation I had with an eight-year-old on the subject of
	color.  How could she be sure that the color blue was blue
	and not red?  Maybe what I called blue was really red to her.
	(I used to ask myself very similar questions when I was about
	the same age!, such as "Does vanilla ice cream taste the same
	to you as it does to me?" or "We may have agreed to call things
	certain names and describe them certain ways, but what if we
	saw the very basics of them differently right from the start?"
	x. =:})....Short of climbing into each others heads, we can never
	really know......we can never really know this stone in front
	of us; we can only know our version of the stone.

	....

	Philosophically, the chart tells us that all we can really
	know is modified by ourselves.....What the chart does is
	describe the ways in which we are likely to experience, and
	because this can be quite accurate, it can help us become
	more conscious of how we tend to see things.  The next step,
	obviously, once we are more conscious, is to realize that
	we don't have to do it only this way, but have free will and
	free choice.  We can use our newly-won understanding to
	guide us to new growth.....much of what the chart points to
	is our habitual or unconscious way of reacting to things.
	....the chart becomes a guide to self-acceptance and self-
	realization.  Not all pain can be avoided, but much can be
	mitigated when we confront our problems within the psyche.
	It is only when we remain unconscious of our problems or
	stubbornly refuse to deal with them that we are forced to
	confront them in our outer lives as events.

	So often we sigh and wish that circumstances were different.
	If only they were, then we could change!  Jung reverses this
	by stating that if we change our consciousness, the circum-
	stances will take care of themselves.  This means, of course,
	taking responsibility for our consciousness and giving up the
	constant projecting of blame onto others or upon the outer
	environment.  I know this to be true because I have experienced
	it both ways.  Just when you are convinced that nothing you do
	within yourself can make a difference, but you do it anyway to
	the best of your consciousness, then the miracles occur.  They
	do.  They really do.  One has to trust the process, which I
	suppose is another way of defining faith.  

	You might want an example.  Take someone with Saturn in the
	Seventh House....Such a person, either man or woman, will
	more than likely expect and introject negative criticism 
	from others.  From childhood such a person would be likely
	to build up a defense mechanism and an instinctie ability to
	"psych out" other people - parents, siblings, other children,
	relatives, or strangers - to anticipate criticism and protect 
	the ego.  Later in life, the person may have difficulties in
	relationships and feel lonely and suspicious.  The skill of
	psyching out others may go too far, even lead to perceiving
	criticism when it isn't there.

	....if the person is able to become conscious of this
	attitude of introjecting criticism and become able to sacrifice
	the use of the process of Saturn in ego-defense, a breakthrough
	can occur.  And the best surprise is that the skill of psyching
	out others remains, but now it can be put to use in serving
	others rather than shutting them out.  A person with Saturn in
	the Seventh House can develop extraordinary sensitivity in 
	perceiving other people's pain and needs.  In responding to
	these, he or she will begin to find a new self-worth and an
	ability to love and reach out to others. (This is what I call
	owning your Saturn! :-) x.)

	....we are the sun of our reality at any given time.  Whether
	we believe in astrology or note, the chart still operates.
	What a pity to ignore or reject such a gift from the universe.
	It is, in potentia, a treasure map to the individuation process
	or greater awareness of the Self....the center and totality of
	the psyche.  The chart will impel us unconsciously, as do our
	complexes, until we become more conscious.

	....To me a chart is a temenos, a sacred precinct, a holy 
	place, because it describes most certainly a place where
	God dwells in us as a Divine Guest.  "God lives in you as
	You," as Swami Muktananda used to say.  The Christ Within,
	the Atman, the Self, these are all terms pointing to an
	unfathomable mystery, which is what the psyche remains.
	Be humble, then, and in awe when you look at a chart,
	yours or anyone else's.  It is a map to the kingdom of
	heaven which is within and a symbolic depiction of
	limitless potential."


    
952.31HRMPHUSWAV1::CHAPLAINTue Jan 17 1989 18:2117

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....snurf, sniff, hhrrrummppphh, sniff...
    
                        ARE WE THERE YET!!!!!!!!!!
    
                            NO????????????
    
                               OKAY.
    
    Sniff, snort, snurkle,

    hhrruummmppphh....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
952.32Next stop, YCYOA (You Create Your Own Argument)BLIVIT::STANLEYI need a miracle every day...Tue Jan 17 1989 18:329
< Note 952.31 by USWAV1::CHAPLAIN >
                                   -< HRMPH >-

>                        ARE WE THERE YET!!!!!!!!!!

Are we there!  Why we went right on by!  You'll have to pull the cord sooner to
get the driver to stop.  :-)

		Dave
952.33From science to philosophy to metaphysics to realityWRO8A::WARDFRGoing HOME--as an AdventurerTue Jan 17 1989 19:2036
    re:  Bruce
    
         Pretty good.  That does relate (to the extent that any system
    can be made to work until it doesn't.)  ;-)
    
         Where does this leave religion?  Well, if one can no longer
    blame, if one can no longer avoid responsibility, is there no longer
    a need for "God"?  No, not true.  What there is is no longer a need
    for worship.  What exactly is being worshipped?  The "lord" doesn't
    need or want me to bow down before him/it.  That's insulting, from
    my perspective.  The greatest thing we are revealing here is that
    we would like ALL of our reality to realize it is creating itself.
    For all of it to be responsible.  For us to be responsible for it
    in co-creative ways.  Clearly, we don't want things worshipping
    us for we are following our own path.  I cannot imagine any enlightened
    being wanting servitude from us.  Ergo, no worship.  What does that
    do to religions?  It ends them.  It wipes out the manipulative inflences
    of those who are in "charge" of them.  It gives the power back to
    the individual who needs to discover it again.  You are your own
    Buddha.  But like any road which we don't recognize, we can ask
    for help.  Until we go on to a new road, in which case we don't
    need help with the old, only the new.  It doesn't hurt to ask, it
    only hurts when we cannot trust our own choices enough to know that
    we can ask for help.  Reaching out (or *in*, as it were) to other
    aspects of ourself, is no disgrace...in fact, it is highly recommended.
    Among other things it allows for lessening whatever fears of loneliness
    we all harbor.  So is there a "God"?  Clearly I believe there is.
    Since I did not consciously do everything of which I am aware, then
    I can accept that there is a part of me that is bigger or more aware
    than I am.  (But since I am so finite, I can only conclude that
    it is me who is a part of it, and not vice versa.)  So someday I
    can expand into that knowingness.  The game becomes rediscovering
    that from which we have come, not by worshipping but by becoming.
    
    Frederick
    
952.34Another sourceATSE::FLAHERTYNevermore!Wed Jan 18 1989 12:286
    Both Larry's 'creation story' (.27) and the information Bruce
    entered in .30 have very similar themes to the material available
    in "A Course in Miracles".  Just one of many ways on the path.
    
    Ro
    
952.35Schopenhauer (say wha?)USWAV1::CHAPLAINWed Jan 18 1989 17:3814
    
       What's the difference between a dead philosopher in the middle
    of the road and a dead skunk in the middle of the road?
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
       There's skid marks in front of the skunk.
952.36ResponseSCOPE::PAINTERTo dream the impossible dream...Wed Jan 18 1989 23:2133
                                    
    Re.18 (Cheryl O.)
    
    (Still have from .18 to .35 to read, but will answer this before
    I go on...)                                                    
    
    It's not quite as cut and dry as your question, since there were
    my parent's agendas as well, however with that in mind, here is 
    what is coming to me at this moment...
    
    I believe that I chose to experience _something_ before entering this
    lifetime, and created the situation out of that desire to experience
    it...and subsequently learn from it.  I chose my parents.  Perhaps
    I even came here to show them or help them on their own ways - I
    don't know that yet because the saga continues.  I know I am more
    advanced than my mother, and I knew this even when I was very young
    (a major source of frustration for me because what she was trying
    to _teach_ me made no sense most of the time).  I'm eons ahead of
    my father and I sincerely doubt that there is ever a possibility
    of us connecting on any level ever.  But then I could be wrong.
    
    On the other end of the spectrum, the most advanced person I've ever 
    known (the person I consider my teacher) once wrote to me that he 
    was humbled by something _I_ wrote!  Blew me away.  (He, by the way, 
    is the same age as my mother).  Interesting.
                           
    Also.......
    
    When I finally was able to forgive, the words that Jesus spoke on
    the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
    suddenly became very real to me.  This is one thing I learned. 
    
    Cindy
952.37This may be more confusing that clear...SCOPE::PAINTERTo dream the impossible dream...Wed Jan 18 1989 23:4561
    
    Re.22 (Roger - CSR209)
    
    >do you believe you were responsible for your abuse?
    
    No, I do not.  I do believe it was my choice to learn a lesson,
    however, and that was the way chose to learn it.  Kind of a painful 
    way, no?  And that pattern of abuse continued _way_ past childhood 
    until I realized that I didn't have to be a victim anymore....till 
    I learned the lesson that I do have choices.  I also learned about 
    projection (onto others), addiction, and on and on.....these 
    experiences lead (drove) me to read probably over 50 psych. books 
    over the past year and I've just scratched the surface.
                                
    As I type this, there is one other thing I learned.  I learned finally
    what LOVE is.  I thought those people who has abused me and kept
    saying they "loved" me, really meant what they were saying.  So
    when love finally did come into my life, I didn't recognize it at
    first.  I didn't even have words for the feelings.  So the most
    important lesson I learned from my abusive past was what love isn't.
    Now that I know what it is, I'll never settle for less.  I see the
    lies now - the darkness - the shadows - the evil - much more clearly
    under the bright shining light.
    
    Going back a paragraph:
    
    I guess the difference is that I could say here, "Oh, woe is me,
    I was abused and I deserved it and you should all feel so sorry
    for me.....etc.".  I could do that.  But I choose to finally see
    it as it was - learn from it - put it in the past for good, and go 
    on...without that weight around my neck...and without any need of 
    having you feel pity for me.     
    
    When I finally read that the victim is the one with the power, and
    the one who is the abuser is only the abuser as long as the victim
    agrees (talking about longterm abuse here, not a single violent
    incident...which I perceive as slightly different), then I withdrew
    from the abusive relationships and decided not to play that (their) 
    game anymore.  I then chose to populate my world with loving people, 
    and this is what I've done over the last couple of years (created
    my own reality in which people are kind to me.  My abusers are no 
    longer in my life.  Of course the relatives say, "How could you not 
    talk to your _____?  After all he/she _IS_ your _______!
                                                   
    I turn around and then tell them precisely what went on in our home,
    and finally at the age of 31 they believe me and then go on to add
    in stories of their own!  (It's really bizarre after you tear down
    the walls and expose it for what it really is - some people just
    can't handle that much truth...and others see it as a way of venting
    their own pentup frustrations.).  Strange.  You must also understand
    that this is very recent for me (as in a couple of weeks ago during
    the holidays).
    
    Roger - as for Lazaris - I wish I had time to add in what they have
    said about the Holocaust, however I will say that you are mistaken
    about your assumptions in this area and that Lazaris says something
    quite different.  But I don't have the time to put that in right
    now.  (It's in Interviews - II).
    
    Cindy
                                  
952.38Eureka!SCOPE::PAINTERTo dream the impossible dream...Thu Jan 19 1989 00:1237
                                      
    Wow - just read Joe Jas's TCYOR, and realized something.
    
    Roger - now I know the answer - the abusers convinced me that _I_
    WAS responsible for my abuse!  You know - the "If you wouldn't do
    that, then I wouldn't have to......", etc.  They convinced me that
    I deserved it.
    
    The turning point was when I realized that I WASN'T responsible
    for it.  And then my teacher came along and showed me that THEY
    (my abusers) were not necessarily responsible for it consciously
    either (sins of the father passing down the generations...).  
    
    Then I read Lazaris and finally reading that I was not responsible
    for it, but that I created it (or allowed it) at some level for
    a reason, then I was able to accept it for what it was, understand
    it, learn from it, forgive myself (tell myself I wasn't deserving 
    of it), and then out of all this, forgive my abusers.
    
    Then I consciously chose a different reality (or, rather, I chose
    not to let them ever abuse me again by removing myself from those
    relationships).
    
    I'm now living my chosen reality, and I am one very happy person.  
    (;^)  How does e.e.cummings put it:
    
    	"To be nobody but yourself, in a world which is night and say
    	 trying to make you into everybody else, is the toughest battle
    	 that any human can fight...and never stop fighting."
    
    I'm winning!  (;^)
         
    I also realize now that with this knowledge, I have a job to do,
    to help others climb out of their respective victimhoods.  Time to 
    get to work.
    
    Cindy
952.39How about this?SCOPE::PAINTERTo dream the impossible dream...Thu Jan 19 1989 00:2617
                                        
    Interesting night...more thoughts...
    
    About rapes - until very recently in our society, it has always
    been the pattern or tendency to show that the woman was somehow
    deserving to be raped (coming on, wearing provocative clothes, asking
    for it, etc.).   [Not to say that men are not raped, however I have
    not yet heard of a man being blamed for being raped.]
    
    Same with child abuse.  I certainly wasn't believed when I tried
    to tell others back in the earlier days...or if I did try, then
    the people passed it off as my somehow doing something to deserve
    it.
    
    Anyone see a pattern here?  Insight?
    
    Cindy
952.40It's so nice to see intelligent writingHSSWS1::GREGMalice AforethoughtThu Jan 19 1989 04:146
    re: Cindy
    
    	   I like what you're doing for this discussion.  Reading your
    	notes is like time-tripping back to my training.  
    
    	- Greg
952.41I've got these cosmic pair of scissors...ELESYS::JASNIEWSKIjust a revolutionary with a pseudonymThu Jan 19 1989 11:4343
    
    	Re: Cindy
    
    	Until very recently, Women and children were considered a man's
    "resources", so "of course" there will be shame driven accusations
    in the effort to justify or rationalize whatever the man wished
    to do with them.
    
    	There's some really heart breaking shows on Public television
    lately. One I watched just the other night that described "life" in 
    the early 1800s. Apparently, it was common for families to barter 
    their *children* for, say, a horse or whatever else they needed, if 
    they were poor enough, which was usually the case. Talk about fear of 
    abandonment! The show also spoke of how "in the olden days" a man
    used to *own* his wife, and that women were considered valuable
    for the amount of work they could produce. Those who didnt marry
    were considered "odd" and eventually outcast from the society, one
    way or another. They spoke of being ex-communicated from the society
    and how horrible that experience was. Of course, organized religion
    was *the core* around which all this was allowed to happen. It was
    the one common element for all the members of the community.
                
    	It was from this reality that our's was eventually wrought.
    (No wonder things are so ...... ..!) Even today, there's the "marriage"
    element of society, and the resulting opinions with respect to whether
    you are or are'nt. I know for a fact that I'm regarded today as
    "different" or "odd" because I'm 32 and not "married" to a "nice
    girl". Whatever. I guess my point is, is that there are probably
    hundreds of beliefs that have been carried forth into this generation,
    from previous generations, that are pretty damn bad, possibly
    completely wrong and an outright lie, yet, effect todays reality as we 
    currently know how to percieve it.
    	
    	This is the "sins of the fathers" theory that you know well.
    I honestly believe that we can learn the most about our perception
    and our corresponding reality by examining the realities of our
    past lineage. You just might find several unbroken threads that
    have connected the generations together through time. In other words,
    you *inately* see something in a particular way perhaps because your 
    great great great ... great grandmother also percieved it in a like manner. 
    
    	Joe Jas
            
952.42BeautifulFHQ::OGILVIEThe EYES have it!Thu Jan 19 1989 12:3419
    
    
    RE: .36 (Cindy)
    
    That was absolutely beautiful!  Thank you for your reply.
    
    The reason I was questioning, not you, but Lazaris' statements, was
    that "he" was coming across as THIS IS IT, no explanation, no
    justification.  One knows just how much knowledge and digestion
    is needed to even comprehend reality, let alone realize that you
    are experiencing it 8*).  
                                          
    Forgiveness - I left the darn thing at home, but I have THE most
    beautiful definition of forgiveness that I wanted to put into this
    particular note.  Shall do tomorrow...         
                               
    
    Peace,
    Cheryl
952.43I am a reality junkie.WRO8A::WARDFRGoing HOME--as an AdventurerThu Jan 19 1989 13:5549
    re: .41 (Joe Jas)
    
          Yes, and moreover, for the "record", it is possible that
    we "were" our own great, great, great whatever in that long ago
    lifetime.  The important thing for me in what you wrote, however,
    is that of the idea of the thread.  It is that thread that we can
    usually bring home to its source.  It is that thread from which
    can be seen patterns develop.  It is that thread that leads not
    only to focuses for the lifetime(s) but to the blockages to our
    lifetimes as well.  We are, even if only in physicality, complex
    integrating of energies.  We exist in a world that likewise has
    various and intricately elaborate energies running through it.
    If it is true that similar energies will attract, then it is
    probably easier to see that we similarly attract similar energies
    to our own.  Whether from the "positive" side (focuses) or from
    the "negative" side (blockages) this is how we have pieced together
    our realities.  That may have been done by our higher conscious
    mind prior to physical incarnation or may be a function now of
    the unconscious or sub-conscious inputs in this reality.  The 
    choice then comes to us, do we wish to continue in the path that
    these "pre-determinants" are "following" or do we wish to take
    the steering wheel?  And that's what this topic is all about for
    me.  Taking power back, taking control, taking conscious charge
    of the reality we are making happen anyway.
    
    re: .42
    
          As a bit of an aside, I can only speak for myself in saying
    that I, too, would often like more answers than what I am "given."
    For me, in my process with Lazaris, that sometimes means waiting
    until I get an opportunity to talk with him myself, at which time
    I have to prioritize the things I want answers to, or just wait
    until he eventually gets around to saying it wherever it is that
    I can hear it.  In some cases, this has been several years.  But
    as I indicated before, questions/answers beget more of the same,
    and the process never stops.  Additionally, he is constantly coming
    up with new information.  To the point that some people "drop out"
    from his workshops because they feel overwhelmed by the amount of
    information they already have on hand.  Also, they get confused
    in regards to which steps, which processing, etc. they "should"
    be using.  Most of these individuals pop back "in" from time to
    time to get another hit of his energy.  But to more specifically
    respond to your query, if you search around in the volumes of 
    information he has already generated, you are very likely to find
    an answer to many of your questions.  Obviously not all, or else
    you'd eliminate any need for life.  ;-)
    
    Frederick
    
952.44Different lessons, different drumATSE::FLAHERTYNevermore!Thu Jan 19 1989 14:2830
    I'm enjoying and getting much value out of this topic.  However,
    I have a problem with one area.  A couple of the replies talk
    about measuring someone else's advancement on the path (for
    example, this person was more advanced than I or I was ions
    ahead of that person).  
    
    I prefer not to think we can somehow calculate another's
    personal growth.  We have no way of knowing what Joe or Sally
    came here to learn.  Perhaps they've already taken 'calculus'
    and already know all there is to know about that subject.  They
    don't need/want to deal with it in this lifetime, but that 
    doesn't mean they don't 'know it' or are less advanced in it
    than we.
    
    It seems judgemental to me.  Superior/inferior ego garbage,
    not spiritual evolvement stuff.  To judge in that way appears
    to me like landing on 'community chest' and picking the card
    that tells me to take 3 steps back.
    
    I recently read an article on Richard Bach where he talked
    about his belief that he is not someone who believes that only
    a select few are 'light beings' and all others are clods, but 
    one who believes and knows that:
    
    	"We are all shipmates on the common voyage of life and
    	you cannot sink your shipmates without sinking yourself."
    
    
    Ro
    
952.45Response to .44CLUE::PAINTERTo dream the impossible dream...Thu Jan 19 1989 14:4343
    
    Hi Ro,
    
    Since it was my note, I'll answer your comment about advancement,
    etc.
    
    I'm not saying that I am _better_ than they are, or that I know
    all the answers and they don't know anything, or etc.  No, not that 
    at all.  I'm just saying that now from where I'm at - realizing 
    where I'm at - I see also where they are at (remembering that these  
    are 2 people I lived with on a daily basis for 21 years of my life), 
    and have the peace to leave them alone where they are at now instead 
    of believing that they are where I'm at and then trying to communicate 
    with them.  My enormous sense of frustration as a child has finally 
    dissipated with this knowledge and peace, because now I know that 
    there is very little chance of them ever truly understanding me.
                         
    >...eons ahead of...
    
    Yes, perhaps these words weren't the best.  It is probably a direct
    reaction (a swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction) from
    all those times my father tried to cram down my throat his version
    of realilty without any respect for me and my own beliefs, and this 
    sentence is a reactive/angry one.  I make no apologies for it though,
    and it still stands as is.  However, there isn't one other person
    in the universe except him that I would say this about at this point. 
    
    It is probably also a good time for me to say that it is only because
    I lived with these people for so long that I know them this well
    and would even dare to say this about them.  And along the same lines, 
    I would NOT look at you after only having known you for a few months 
    and say, "Oh, gee, I'm _way_ more advanced than she is...etc.".  No, 
    I wouldn't do that, because that would be arrogant and assuming.
                                           
    To close, I will say that while I currently perceive my parents
    to be far, far behind me in terms of understanding, I still allow
    them the room to grow and if they do, then I will recognize that.
    But all indication over these last 10 years or so in their dealings
    with other family members is that they haven't changed one iota.
    Still though, if they do, then I will accept that change and go
    forward.
    
    Cindy
952.46'course, proof is in the puddingHYDRA::LARUSurfin' the ZuvuyaThu Jan 19 1989 15:056
    Something I need regularly to remind myself of:
    
    Doing is honest philosphy.
    
    
    /bruce
952.47So who's counting?DNEAST::CHRISTENSENLThu Jan 19 1989 16:0044
Advanced Beans?

Really, this issue about who is more spiritually advanced than
another has bugged my for over twenty years.  Just these last few
years can I say from my own experience that some souls aren't
very nice while others are quite beautiful.  Souls are just like
pesonalities of people in some ways.  Some souls reincarnate
over and over again and don't even realize what is happening
*to* them.  They are running on automatic rebirth mode.

Yes, I feel that there is an increment of reality from which
all souls are equivalent which I call God's love.  Otherwise
there are all manner of kinds, types and shapes of soul-material.

Judgment, comparing and measuring are the habits of the mind.  We need
minds to compare and discover.  We don't have to be identified whith
the mind's judgements: just say "Thank you very much for your opinion".

There are advanced beings and notable by their compassion and willingness
to be of assistance.  There are intermediate beings who work to add to
the stuff of their own being.  There are low beings which act out
meaness and cruelty and try to take power for themselves.  There are
unconsicious beings and elementals with no self awareness at all
that just bump around like ghosts.  Then there is the whole array
of thought forms, elves, faries, devas ansd such which makes this a pretty 
interesting place.

Again, it is necessary to have judgemental functions as a means of
survival.  When those survival patterns become a reason for life
itself; that is when a being becomes identified whth his or her
survival package and needs to rank himself or herself among others
as the way to define self image, things begin to stink.

At the same time, we , most of us have issues with our childhood
which need clearing up.  Part of the process is seeing our parents as
people.  Clearly, I wouldn't have given my father the time of day
if I met him for the first time in the checkout line at Stop and Shop.
It just takes time and forgiveness to see parents for who they are.


"Greet the Saint and the Thief alike.
Don't ask the Thief to dinner."

L.
952.48rememberingATSE::FLAHERTYNevermore!Thu Jan 19 1989 16:0227
    Hi Cindy,
    
    It is was unusual for me to disagree with you because most often
    it is your notes that I most identify with.  I guess my modus
    operandi has always been to learn through empathy.  How would
    I feel in that person's shoes.  If the same events, situations, 
    or traumas happened to me, would I react/feel the same.
    
    Looking at it though the eyes of this lifetime only, it does
    look like a racetrack, where some people never seem to advance
    or grow and some are already heading for the finish line.
    If we could see the whole picture through the myriad
    of lifetimes, we might better be able to see that we are them,
    they are us and we are all equal.  
    
    I know first hand that when someone is horrible and abusive, it
    isn't easy to find the good (or anything resembling good) in them. 
    Like you, I had to completely remove myself from the person to be able
    to continue my own life.  Yet, on another level I know that they are
    spiritual beings too and have the same ability to recover/know/remember
    who they are.  Perhaps it is like Larry's note on the 'creation story',
    they just 'forgot that they forgot'.
    
    Ro
    
    
    
952.49From a MACRO point of viewREGENT::WAGNERThu Jan 19 1989 16:05176
I am entering this, not from a point of view of belief, but from one of 
experience.I make entries in NOTES when I know what I am talking about because 
I have experienced them.  and if you noticed, I don't know much because I 
haven't added many entries in the note file :' ) .




  I had been aware, but not fully realizing, that I was creating 
my own reality back when I was hired by Digital Phoenix back in 1984.  Now, as 
I think back over the last 5 years or so, I can see down to the very last 
detail how I created  the reality I set up for myself.  I began to realize 
that for a large part of my life I was doing the creating on an 'unconcious' 
level. over the last two years or so I have been doing a very conscious job of 
creating my own reality, and so far It is progressing exactly as I am 
expecting it to.  It is not easy to do.  One must be as aware as possible and 
impeccable in his or her actions to begin to consciously create one's own
reality.  
	As for propounding the possibility of creating your own reality, in the 
early 1900's- Edger Cayce, through his readings did exactly that in the 
thirties and forties.  And I'm sure that if one took up the research, that 
they would find others making a similar claim, although they may not have been 
notable channelers.  Remember, that back then people were put in asylums for 
hearing voices or speaking without control of their own vocal cords.  I don't 
think very many channelers would want to make a public announcement of the 
information that they had channeled.  
	Back in early 1970, Don plym PhD and his wife Thea  Ann Plym M. Ed, 
did a joint thesis for Don's doctorate.  Their work was published 
with the title "A Macro Philosophy for the Aquarian Age.  He finishes up 
chapter 1 with:

	" Yes, every family in every society provides its new members with a 
philosophy of life-but, for thousands of years it has almost always been a 
micro philosophy.   This micro philosophy provides micro answers which are 
fundamentally unsatisfactory in answering the three major questions of 
metaphysics: who we are, where did we come from, and where are we going.
	It is how we answer these three questions that determines the quality 
of our lives.  In other words, the central core of our philosophy of life
is our self concept or how we perceive and define ourselves.  Whether it is 
conscious or unconscious, our philosophy of life determines whether we are 
rich or poor, healthy or sick, calm or fearful, loving or hateful, and 
finally, happy or sad.
	Is this too much to believe?  Yes, from a micro view it is.  But you 
who are dissatisfied with the consequences of micro thinking in your lives, 
open your minds to larger view of man-an alternative to micro thinking-macro 
philosophy"


Don's reference to micro man and micro philosophy is that of an absolute 
level-purely micro.  It is understood that everyone has some degree of 
understanding from a macro point of view.

	" However, this micro viewpoint denies that there is a larger 
perspective.  the world is flat, as any fool can plainly see.  The the world 
IS flat from a one square mile perspective-or concave if in a valley, or 
convex if on a hilltop.  Thus the size of your perspective(or sample of the 
universe) determines what truth is, within that frame of reference.
	Some scientists deny the existence or practicality of larger 
perspectives such as the sub-macro perspective(sub-conscious or soul level) or 
macro perspective (super-conscious or God level).   It is ironic that 
psychology, as generally taught in the past 40 years, has completely denied 
the existence of a psyche(mind or soul) and insisted that psychologist can 
only 'know' physical or sensory data.  The following descriptions of these 
macro philosophic concepts will be quite unacceptable to scientists with a 
micro orientation.  It might be appropriate to quote Dr Selye as follows:
'Great progress can be made only by ideas which are very different from those 
generally accepted at the time.'"

"another way of looking at these three levels of awareness could be as 
follows:

	1. The micro self is an individual's body, personality, and limited 
	   consciousness which believes that this is all there is of an 
	   individual.

	2. The sub-macro self or sub-conscious mind knows that the micro self
	   is only a tiny part or projection of the sub-macro self(soul) and 
	   realizes  that  the micro self is like a new born baby who has not 
	   yet learned that it is human(tiny part of the soul) and has a 
	   mother and father (symbol of the positive and negative polarity of 
	   the human soul).

	3. The macro self or super-conscious mind knows that all is one and, 
	   therefore, is aware that the macro self contains within itself the 
	   positive and negative polarity of all dimensions but is in perfect 
	   balance.  While there may be temporary imbalance in the individual
	   souls (which causes their lack of macro awareness) these 
	   individual imbalances are cancelled out when put all together 
	   within the perfect (balanced) macro self.

"Macro philosophy teaches that what is right or wrong for anyone depends on 
one's frame of reference or perspective.  For instance while it is right for 
christians to eat pork, it is wrong for the Jew or moslem.  Another example 
is, that, while it is wrong to kill others during peace time, it is right 
during wartime.  This type of right or wrong belongs in the context of social 
law or custom."

_______________________________________________________________________________


I entered the above not to support my beliefs in this but as a suppliment in 
sharing my knowledge with others.  Hopefully it was adequate in explaining 
something I know, but cannot easily put into words.  

Since this knowledge has been workable and useful to me, I think I can extend 
this logic to think that I am totally accountable and responsible for my 
creating total reality for my (macro) self.  From a micro viewpoint this is 
highly difficult to accomplish and probably not desired because 
responsibility => blame from the micro viewpoint, whereas responsibility => 
acceptance from a macro viewpoint.

I hope that those of you who wish not to accept CYOR, might decide to explore 
this option sometime in this life.  The ideas that you are being made aware of 
are like a third grader being taught arithmetic.  The young student is not 
aware of the full scope and power of what arithmetic is capable, so may become 
hesitant about learning these basics. There is no need to "forgive" a third 
grader because he or she doesn't understand the larger scope of algebra or 
calculus; likewise, there is no need from a macro point of view, to 
to forgive a person who is still living with a micro point of view. It is 
accepting others who are on a different part of the learning curve-although 
this learning has only little to do with intelligence.  It has more to do with 
trying on new ideas and gaining knowledge through experiencing these 
different ideas.

	As I become more and more proficient at creating my own reality I have 
had increasing occurrances of "small miracles" in my life.  Those of you who 
are still somewhat bound to a micro viewpoint may rationalize the situations 
in my life that occured over the last 5 or 6 years as just more "effective" 
living; you are only partly correct.  If you want to write off those 'small 
miracles' as coincidences go right ahead, but how many coincidences have to 
occur before they are indicative of something more substantial? I like to 
think of these small miracles that happen from time to time as "Grace".
  Life is not easy but living within a micro viewpoint seems much easier(from 
a micro point of view)than accepting and taking on the full responsibility of 
creating your own reality in tune with your sub-macro self.

To say that a person is born under certain conditions because he or she 
doesn't "value their life" is to make a judgement call.
That is only one of the conditions a person may agree to be born in a depressed
environment. on a sub-macro level that person may be subjecting him or herself 
to squalor and deplorable conditions so that others of us might learn to give 
of ourself and get that much closer in touch with our macro self.  At a karmic 
level, which is still bound to  micro-awareness, that person might be reaping 
what he or she had sown in an earlier incarnation(which is a poor explanation 
from a sub-macro viewpoint).  
Just because Lazaris is not earth bound, doesn't mean that he is omniscient.  
He is a rather highly aware entity, but he is limited.  There are certain 
things mentioned in this file that indicates that he has a way to go- 
especially comparing his knowledge base with that of Jesus.  Jesus, as one who 
reached the macro level of awareness, attempted to reveal to the people of the 
earth what he knew metaphysically, and because he spoke from a sub-macro point 
of view, much was lost.  Because he was limited to the language of the time and 
the social customs, he had to speak symbolically and with not so apparent 
meanings.  Much of what he had to say and demonstrate was lost because of 
these limitations.  The information that Jesus wanted to bestow on us got lost 
because of repetitious reduction adsurdium.  I guess what I am trying to say 
is that I don't take Jesus word as the last said on the topic of 
metaphysics-at least yet. But as I am more and more able to understand what 
Jesus was trying to say metaphysically, the more convinced I am that he does 
have all the answers. The problem is that very much of what he had to say can 
only be completely understood from a sub-macro point of view. I have taken what 
other masters (including Don Juan of the Carlos casteneda books) and determined 
what message they all had in common.  And I find that the common string of 
information among them all must be a truth. I guess, what I am trying to say is 
that there comes a point in self discovery when we must stop and question those 
that are giving us information that "they" say is good for us.  
the only way to seperate the wheat from the chaff is to go out and experience 
it.




Ernie



952.50If only one player shows up, there's no game.BIGSUR::GRAFTON_JIThu Jan 19 1989 16:1416
    Cindy,
    
    One of your replies struck a chord with me.  It was when you mentioned
    that you did not have to continue in the abusive relationships.  
    
    Isn't it funny that once you decide to stop playing the game with
    someone, the game disappears?  It was only after I stopped playing
    the games with the "expected" responses that I felt free enough
    to let go and to move on.  And then the old games never interested
    me again.
    
    Thanks for sharing so much with us on something that could have
    been a very painful subject for you, and, in fact, that has been 
    painful in the past.  Your honesty and integrity are to be admired.
    
    Jill 
952.51Micro-waving self into Macro-morphosis.WRO8A::WARDFRGoing HOME--as an AdventurerThu Jan 19 1989 16:5944
    re: .49
    
         Ernie, this is difficult to respond to, which is why "it's
    taken me so long" to do so.  I agree with most of what you have
    said, at least to the extent that I followed it.  What throws me
    off is the last 40 lines or so.  For starters, no one says people
    are born without valuing self.  What I think most here are saying
    is that we are all born for varying reasons, most if not all of
    which are difficult to ascertain...that apparently we all have
    focuses (issues to deal with) in this lifetime.  At that point
    (birth) we have more conscious control over our lifetime and
    then hopefully spend the remainder of the incarnation resolving
    the issues or doing them and then readying ourselves for either
    other issues or other levels (macro-levels, to use your reply)
    of reality.  And each of us is totally unique in all of this.
          That you feel Lazaris has a way to go is certainly your
    option.  Personally, I say "Way to Go!" to Lazaris.  In any case,
    interesting how you can say that Jesus' words have been misconstrued
    but aren't willing to consider that perhaps those of us paraphrasing
    him are similarly misconstruing him.  Beyond that, my personal
    opinion is that the Jesus held to by most Christians didn't exist.
    Also, I question the enlightenment of a current being who would
    choose to lead the way by martyring of the self.  I wouldn't want
    to use that as an example for myself to follow.  Finally, if all
    else that Lazaris says is true (describing states of consciousness,
    levels of reality, components of emotions, steps to resolving
    issues, understanding and knowing people individually, etc. etc.
    etc.) why would he pick that *one* thing to lie to us about?  The
    one thing being that he has told us that he is a muliti-leveled
    being (as we all are) who has awareness of himself in all that 
    mulitiplicity (which we don't), that he has never been physical
    and never will (all four levels of the physical), that he can
    understand the physical planes better than we can because he is
    outside the set and that he is the only one from his levels who
    will ever come to ours (due to the extreme elegance of the energies
    on his levels--and there are many more beings on his levels by his
    admission than there are on ours)?  Anyone can argue any of these
    points if they wish, but for me I just can't see other points to
    be as valid.  Choose Jesus as your way, if you wish (and I agree
    that many things speak well of the character) but I prefer a 
    different teacher.
    
    Frederick
    
952.52The warm fuzzies.....FHQ::OGILVIEThe EYES have it!Thu Jan 19 1989 18:4418
                       
                       
    To all:            
                       
    The more I read, the warmer I feel.  Do you realize just how much
    we are sharing with each other.  How far we have all progressed
    since Cindy started this note...
                       
    Emotions hit me lately as I either start crying when someone asks
    me what I bought at the store or I begin laughing when something
    hits a chord with me and I feel spiritually awakened....strange
    lady...what a personal joy.
                       
    I'd like to tell you all that you are "oh so perfect in every way,
    and what you do may not seem perfect to someone else, but it IS
    for you, and it will be recognized."
                       
    Cheryl_with_a_warm_fuzzy_feeling_for_a_Thursday
952.53Lazaris does have an advantageREGENT::WAGNERThu Jan 19 1989 19:1234
    Frederick,
        I had a glitch in my memory- I guess the word used was 'life'
    instead of 'self', which to me seems nearly the same.
    	I Did not mean to imply that I am not misinterpreting what Lazarus
    has to say. I am trying to say that because misinterpretation is
    possible from both our points of view, we must be ready to question
    the giver of the so called knowledge as I questioned what Jesus
    had to say until I was able to experience it and know. and I am
    not talking about religious content of his message but metaphysical
    content. I am "a-religious" That is also what I am asking you and
    others to do with the information you have received from lazaris
    and other sources of information-experience it and know. Only then you
    can discriminate between what is useful and works(and is correct) from
    that  which is not useful(but interesting information.)  In fact it
    has only been recently that I have been able to appreciate from a
    higher level what Jesus had tried to tell us.  And ironically, it was 
    Carlos Casteneda's works on Don Juan which was able to help me
    understand more fully what Jesus had to say. I'm not even saying that 
    Jesus did have all the answers; I'm saying that as I study other
    masters, I have found that Jesus said everything they said and more.
    I indicated that he did not say it better than the other masters,
    because he didn't-he actually did a poor job because of language
    barriers and social customs of the time.  In fact, Lazaris has an
    advantage over Jesus in this area because Lazaris is able to
    communicate higher level ideas easier to us because of our increased 
    language base and general acceptance of these ideas.    
    	Please believe me that I was not trying to put you down in any
    way. I was just trying to get you to keep at least one eye open
    in your learning process.  One can assimilate information only so
    fast.  one must pause once in awhile and rigerously test the new
    information before proceeding on gathering new information.  As
    I have stated earlier you are receiving valuable information from
    Lazaris  and have been doing very well with it.  And I do wish you
    an easy journey on you path.    
952.54 Jesus was no martyrREGENT::WAGNERThu Jan 19 1989 19:3518
    An addendum to my last reply:
    
    Frederick,
    
    	You mentioned the word martyr with reference to the Christian
    concept of Jesus.  Perhaps from a micro and even sub-macro point
    of view you are correct; what  he tried to tell us was a message of a  most
    fantastic metaphysical nature.  But the message contained in his death 
    cannot be separated from the other things he had tried to tell us while
    he taught the people in the form of parables and other means.

    
    Best wishes,
    
    Ernie
       
    
    
952.55SOURCE?FHQ::OGILVIEThe EYES have it!Thu Jan 19 1989 19:5524
    
    RE:  53, 54 ??
    
    
I may truly not have one leg to stand on.  Admittedly, my readings have 
been many, yet so few possibly, compared to a lot of you.
    
I ask:  How do you know what Jesus said and how he said it?  What source 
of reference are you using?  If you are referring to Lazaris as a "here and 
now", and being more descriptive than Christ, it is because he IS more 
descriptive - we now are able to understand more.  
    
Thought:  Relating to reality......due to early Christianity, is it not 
possible that the entities existing at this time were not advanced enough 
to comprehend fully what Jesus had to say at that time -- because the 
"reality" today is possibly more "perfected" than it was then.
    
This of course, is only a question.
    
/Cheryl
    
    
    
952.56Probably not...BLIVIT::STANLEYIt takes dynamite to get me up...Thu Jan 19 1989 20:0213
< Note 952.55 by FHQ::OGILVIE "The EYES have it!" >
    
>Thought:  Relating to reality......due to early Christianity, is it not 
>possible that the entities existing at this time were not advanced enough 
>to comprehend fully what Jesus had to say at that time -- because the 
>"reality" today is possibly more "perfected" than it was then.

I think it is quite possible that people did not understand what he said.  But
I also think that if he were to speak today, there would be quite a few people
that wouldn't understand what he says.  I do not assume that *I* would
understand either.  I'd like to though.

		Dave
952.57Being advanced enough is a good answerREGENT::WAGNERThu Jan 19 1989 20:2327
    Cheryl,
    
    A very good question! How do I know- by experiencing it.  Much of
    the stuff I have read-works of Carlos casteneda, Baghavad(sp) Gita
    Alan Watts(Zen), Sufism, the bible, etc I did not read purely for
    literal meaning. I attempted to determine which was literal and which
    was symbolic.  Then I attempted to interpret the symbolic information
    from the different sources (and contexts) in a way that the interpreted
    information and literal information agreed.  Believe me this hasn't
    been as easy task and have spent close to twenty years in accomplishing
    this.  only relatively recently (5 or 6 years or so) have I been
    effective in making this work for me.
    	As for the people of Jesus time not being able to understand
    because of their level of advancement, that is probably correct
    at the "bottom line"  Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
    Because of the reality of today we have a larger world view- larger
    part of the universe as a frame of reference, so there for we are
    more "perfected" to hear what Lazaris and others have to say.
    I don't say I have all the answers. but I do say what I know because
    it has been working for me, and I may not be ale to convey the
    "mechanics" of getting where I am. and the disclaimer is "Every thing
    I know may be wrong."
    
    Ernie
    
    
    
952.58Sure just change his act to suit the audienceREGENT::WAGNERThu Jan 19 1989 20:389
    I think that today, relatively more people would be able to understand
    what Jesus was trying to say because he should have access to more
    people who have a larger universal view.  Jesus would not have to be
    as limited by the language as he was then.  I think he would be
    more able to talk pure "metaphysics" at our level of consciousness
    as Cheryl stated it.  I'm not sure a significantly larger number
    of people would be able to understand because of their micro-viewpoint.
    
    Ernie
952.59Semantics, allUSWAV1::CHAPLAINFri Jan 20 1989 16:0523
    What do you call ten philosophers buried up to their noses in dirt?
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Not enough dirt.
952.60This seems like a good time and place to enter this.CLUE::PAINTERTo dream the impossible dream...Fri Jan 20 1989 17:15263
The following information can be found at the beginning of the 
"Religions and World Peace" topic in this conference, however I've 
condensed it somewhat for this particular topic.

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

{From: The Different Drum, by M.Scott Peck, M.D.}

In any case, this book will start small.  The first section will focus 
entirely upon my personal experience of community.  For there I 
discovered its extreme importance in my own life and in the lives of 
thousands of my fellow humans as we struggled together to communicate 
without superficiality or distortion or animosity.

The key to community is the acceptance - in fact, the celebration - of 
our individual and cultural differences.  Such acceptance and 
celebration - which resolves the problem of pluralism and which can 
occur only after we learn to become empty (of intolerances) - is also 
the key to world peace.  

THE STAGES OF SPIRITUAL GROWTH

...Over the course of a decade of practicing psychotherapy a strange 
pattern began to emerge.  If people who were religious came to me in 
pain and trouble, and if they became engaged in the therapeutic 
process so as to go the whole route, they frequently left therapy as 
atheists, agnostics, or at least skeptics.  On the other hand, if 
atheists, agnostics, or skeptics came to me in pain or difficulty and 
became fully engaged, they frequently left therapy as deeply religious 
people.  

"Same therapy, same therapist, successful but utterly different
outcomes from a religious point of view.  ...It didn't compute until I
realized that 'we are not all in the same place spiritually'. 
           
With that realization came another: there is a pattern of progression 
through identifiable stages in human spiritual life. .....But here I will 
talk about those stages only in general, for individuals are unique and do 
not always fit neatly into any psychological or spiritual pigeonhole.

With that caveat, let me list my own understanding of these stages and the 
names I have chosen to give them:

STAGE I   - Chaotic, antisocial (people who lie and live by their own rules)
STAGE II  - Formal, institutional (rigid, fundamentalists)
STAGE III - Skeptic, individual (those questioning/rejecting past ideas)
STAGE IV  - Mystic, communal

Most all young children and perhaps one in five adults fall into Stage 
I.  It is essentially a stage of undeveloped spirituality.  I call it 
antisocial because those adults who are in it (People Of The Lie - 
book by same name) seem generally incapable of loving others.  
Although they may pretend to be loving (and think of themselves that 
way), their relationships with their fellow human beings are all 
essentially manipulative and self-serving.  ...Being unprincipled, 
there is nothing that governs them except their own will.  And since 
that will from moment to moment can go this way or that, there is a 
lack of integrity in their being.  

From time to time people in Stage I get in touch with the chaos of 
their own being, and when they do, I think it is the most painful 
experience a human can have.  A few, I suspect, may kill themselves, 
unable to envision change.  And some, occasionally, convert to Stage 
II.  Such conversions are usually sudden and dramatic and, I believe, 
God-given.  It is as if God had reached down and grabbed their soul 
and yanked it up a quantum leap.  The process also seems to be an 
unconscious one  It just seems to happen.

There are several things that characterize the behavior of men and 
women in Stage II of their spiritual development, which is the stage 
of the majority of churchgoers and believers (as well as that of most 
emotionally healthy "latency"-period children).  One is their 
attachment to the forms (as opposed to the essence) of their religion, 
which is why I call this stage "formal" as well as "institutional". 
They are in fact sometimes so attached to the canons and the liturgy 
that they become very upset if changes are made in the words or the 
music or in the traditional order of things.  ...Since it is precisely 
these forms that are responsible for their liberation from chaos, it 
is no wonder that people at this stage become so threatened when 
someone seems to be playing footloose and fancy-free with the rules.

Another thing characterizing the religious behavior of Stage II people 
is that their vision of God is almost entirely that of an external., 
transcendent Being.  They have very little understanding of the 
immanent, indwelling God - the God of the Holy Spirit, or what Quakers 
call the Inner Light.  and although they often consider Him loving, 
they also generally feel He possesses - and will use - punitive power. 
 But once again, it is no accident that their vision of God is that of 
a giant benevolent Cop in the Sky, because that is precisely the kind 
of God they need - just as they need a legalistic religion for their 
governance.

What happens to children when they are raised in a Stage II home 
environment?  They are treated with importance and dignity (and taken 
to Sunday school as well) and that they absorb the principles of 
Christianity as if with their mother's milk - or the principles of 
Buddhism if raised in a Buddhist home, or of Islam if raised in a 
Muslim home, and so on.  The principles of their parents' religion are 
literally engraved on their hearts, or come to be what 
psychotherapists call "internalized".

But once these principles become internalized, such children, now 
usually late-adolescents, have become self-governing human beings.  As 
such they are no longer dependent on an institution for their 
governance.  Consequently they begin to say to themselves, "Who needs 
this fuddy-duddy old Church with its silly superstitions?"  At this 
point they begin to convert to Stage III - skeptic, individual.  And 
to their parents' great but unnecessary chagrin, they often become 
atheists or agnostics.

Although frequently "nonbelievers," people in Stage III are generally 
more spiritually developed than many content to remain in Stage II.  
Although individualistic, they are not the least bit antisocial.  To 
the contrary, they are often deeply involved in and committed to 
social causes.  They make up their own minds and are no more likely to 
believe everything they read in the papers than to believe it 
necessary to acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior (as opposed to 
Buddha or Mao or Socrates) in order to be saved.  They make loving, 
intensely dedicated parents.  As skeptics they are often scientists, 
and as such they are again highly submitted to principle.  Indeed, 
what we call the scientific method is a collection of conventions and 
procedures that have been designed to combat our extraordinary 
capacity to deceive ourselves in the interest of submission to 
something higher than our own immediate emotional or intellectual 
comfort - namely, truth.  Advanced Stage III men and women are active 
truth seekers.

"Seek and you shall find," it has been said.  If people in Stage III 
seek the truth deeply and widely enough, they find what they are 
looking for - enough pieces to begin to fit them together but never 
enough to complete the whole puzzle.  In fact, the more pieces they 
find, the larger and more magnificent the puzzle becomes.  Yet they 
are able to get glimpses of the "big picture" and to see that it is 
very beautiful indeed - and that it strangely resembles those 
"primitive myths and superstitions" their Stage II parents and 
grandparents believe in .  At this point they begin conversion to 
Stage IV, which is the mystic communal stage of spiritual development.

...Mysticism also obviously has to do with mystery.  Mystics 
acknowledge the enormity of the unknown, but rather than being 
frightened by it, they seek to penetrate even deeper into it that they 
may understand more - even with the realization that the more they 
understand, the greater the mystery will become.  They love mystery, 
in dramatic contrast to those in Stage II, who need simple, clear-cut 
dogmatic structures and have little taste for the unknown and the 
unknowable.  While Stage IV men and women will enter religion in order 
to approach mystery, people in Stage II, to a considerable extent, 
enter religion in order to escape from it.

"Finally, mystics throughout the ages have not only spoken of emptiness 
but extolled its virtues.  I have labeled STAGE IV communal as well as 
mystical not because all mystic or even a majority of them live in communes 
but because among human beings they are the ones most aware that the whole 
world is a community and realize what divides us into warring camps is 
precisely the 'lack' of this awareness.   Having become practiced at 
emptying themselves of preconceived notions and prejudices and able to 
perceive the invisible underlying fabric that connects everything, they do 
not think in terms of factions or blocs or even national boundaries; they 
'know' this to be one world.

...Perhaps, predictably, there exists a sense of threat among people 
in the different stages of religious development.  Mostly we are 
threatened by people in the stages above us.

...STAGE I people are threatened by just about everything and everybody.  
STAGE II people are not threatened by STAGE I people, the "sinners".  They 
are commanded to love sinners.  But they are very threatened by the 
individuals and skeptics of STAGE III and even more by the mystics of STAGE 
IV, who seem to believe in the same sorts of things they do but believe in 
them with a freedom they find absolutely terrifying.  STAGE III people, on 
the other hand, are neither threatened by STAGE I people nor by STAGE II 
people (whom they simply regard as superstitious) but are cowed by STAGE IV 
people, who seem to be scientific-minded like themselves and know how to 
write good footnotes, yet somehow believe in this crazy God business."

...Much of the art of being a good teacher, healer, or minister 
consists largely in staying just one step ahead of your patients, 
clients, or pupils.  If you are not ahead, it is unlikely that you 
will be able to lead them anywhere.  But if you are two steps ahead, it 
is likely that you will lose them.  If people are one step ahead, we 
usually admire them.  If they are two steps ahead of us, we usually 
think they are evil.  That's why Socrates and Jesus were killed; they 
were thought to be evil.

...An understanding of the stages of spiritual development is 
important for community building.  A group of only Stage IV people or 
only Stage II people is, of course, not so much a community as a 
clique.  A true community will likely include people of all stages.  
With this understanding, it is possible for people in different stages 
to transcend the sense of threat that divides them and to become a 
true community, still recognizing that everyone was in their own stage 
of spiritual development and that it was ** literally all right **.

My experience suggests that this progression of spiritual development 
holds true in all cultures and for all religions.  Indeed, one of the 
things that seems to characterize all the great religions - 
Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism - is their 
capacity to speak to people in both Stage II and Stage IV.  In fact, I 
suspect this is why they are great religions.  It is as if the words 
of each had two different translations.  Let us take a Christian 
example: "Jesus is my savior."  At Stage II this is often translated 
into a Jesus who is a kind of fairy godmother who will rescue me 
whenever I get in trouble as long as I remember to call upon his name. 
And that's true.  He will do just that.  At Stage IV "Jesus is my 
savior" is translated as "Jesus, through his life and death, taught me 
the way I must follow for my salvation."  Which is also true.  Two 
totally different translations, two totally different meanings, but 
both of them true.

"It is also important to remember that no matter how far we develop 
spiritually, we retain in ourselves vestiges of the previous stages 
through which we have come...   

"...Conversions from STAGE I and STAGE II are usually sudden and 
dramatic.  Conversions from STAGE III to STAGE IV are generally 
gradual."

....It is during the process of conversion from STAGE III to STAGE IV 
that people generally first become conscious that there is such a 
thing as spiritual growth.  There is a potential pitfall in this 
consciousness, however, and that is the notion some have at this point 
that they can they themselves 'direct' the process.  ...I believe that 
we cannot get to God under our own steam.  We must allow God to do the 
directing.

In any case, whether sudden or gradual, no matter how different in 
other respects, Stages I to II and Stages III to IV conversions do 
have one thing in common: a sense on the part of the persons converted 
that their own conversions were not something they themselves achieved 
but rather gifts from God.

As a part of the process of spiritual growth, the transition from 
Stage II to Stage III is also conversion.  We can be converted to 
atheism or agnosticism or, at least, skepticism!  Indeed I have every 
reason to believe that God has a hand in this part of the conversion 
process as well.  One of the greatest challenges, in fact, facing the 
Church is how to facility the conversion of its members from Stage II 
to Stage IV without them having to spend a whole adult lifetime in 
Stage III.  It is a challenge that the Church has historically avoided 
rather than begun to face.  As far as I'm concerned, one of the 
greatest sins of our sinful Christian Church has been its 
discouragement, through the ages, of doubt.  In so doing, it has 
consistently driven growing people out of its potential community, 
often fixating them thereby in a perpetual resistance to spiritual 
insights.  Conversely, the Church is not going to meet this challenge 
until doubt is properly considered a Christian virtue - indeed, a 
Christian responsibility.  We neither can nor should skip over 
questioning in our development.

In fact, it is only through the process of questioning that we begin 
to become even dimly aware that the whole point of life is the 
development of souls.  As I said, the notion that we can totally 
direct this development is a pitfall of such awareness.  But the 
beauty of the consciousness that we are all on an ongoing spiritual 
journey and that there is no end to our conversion far outshines that 
one pitfall.  For once we become aware that we are on a journey - that 
we are all pilgrims - for the first time we can actually begin to 
cooperate consciously with God in the process.

That is why Paul Vitz, at a symposium with me, correctly told the audience: 
"I think Scott's stages have a good deal of validity, and I suspect 
that I shall be using them in my practice, but I want you to remember 
that what Scotty calls STAGE IV is the beginning."
952.61Are we there yet? Yes!CLUE::PAINTERTo dream the impossible dream...Fri Jan 20 1989 17:2619
    
    Nice sense of community here.
    
    Thanks to all who participated - and especially for the kind words.
    
    We've been at it for a few days now - going back and forth.  I
    sincerely doubt that Bruce (hi Bruce!) and John M. (hi John!) and 
    a few others who support ACYOR have changed their minds in the 
    least...despite the best efforts of some to do this...and vice versa.
    (;^)  
                                                                   
    What is nice, though, is that we can remain in our respective belief
    systems all coexist rather peacefully in the end anyway.
    
    This, I believe, is what community is all about.
                                                           
    Peace.
    
    Cindy
952.62BLIVIT::STANLEYSometimes you get shown the light...Fri Jan 20 1989 17:448
< Note 952.59 by USWAV1::CHAPLAIN >
                              -< Semantics, all >-

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!  Where do you come up with these?  

Not enough dirt!  Hahahahahahahaha!!!

		Dave
952.63PlagiarismWAV14::CHAPLAINFri Jan 27 1989 09:273
    re .62
    
    All stolen.
952.64another??AYOV18::BCOOKZaman, makan, ikhwanFri Jan 27 1989 14:5922
    There's also the one about the philosopher who locked himself out
    of his car...
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    It took him three hours with a coat hanger to break in and get his
    family out...
    
    sorry,
    Brian
952.65Another oneCNTROL::HENRIKSONSat Jan 28 1989 14:556
	How about the philosopher who said "I think. Therefore, I am." One day
he was at a restaurant and the waitress asked, "Would you like a cup of coffee?"
He answered, "I think not." and <*poof*>, he disappeared.

Pete
952.66wings? must be a bird...IJSAPL::ELSENAARFractal of the universeSat Jan 28 1989 16:279
RE -1 (Pete)

I hate to spoil jokes, Pete, but you switched the logic.
The rule is: (A => B) <=> (-B => -A), if-you-know-what-I-mean...

The best variant I can come up with, is that someone says to this man:
"You are a lousy philosopher!", and he answers: "I am not!"

Arie (;-)
952.67Do you have pointy ears? :^)CNTROL::HENRIKSONSat Jan 28 1989 18:188
>The rule is: (A => B) <=> (-B => -A), if-you-know-what-I-mean...

Arie,

	Geeezzz!!! It's like telling a joke to Mr.Spock! :^)

Pete
952.68raising my right eyebrow...IJSAPL::ELSENAARFractal of the universeMon Jan 30 1989 08:2415
RE -1 (Pete)

>	Geeezzz!!! It's like telling a joke to Mr.Spock! :^)

Sorry Pete. I didn't mean to disappoint you. I *did* smile for 1.2 seconds; your
joke scored 6.3 out of 10 on the Vulcan humor-scale, and I *did* make a mental
note regarding the quality of your replies in this notesfile. 

Considering the circumstances it is not that bad....

                           ^ -
                         < o o >
                            |
                           ___
Arie
952.69WittgensteinIJSAPL::ELSENAARFractal of the universeMon Jan 30 1989 14:2629
Hm. Was it a slight diversion up there? ;-)

The whole discussion about YCYOR reminds me of some books I have read of a
philosopher called Wittgenstein. He had the opportunity (;-) to start his works
when every other philosopher felt obliged to give his views on whether there
exists an "objective reality". Wittgenstein's first book (Tractatus
philosophicus) dealt with a related topic, namely the role of language in
communications. His theory in that book still is a basis for many theorists in
information science. In short, he explains that language is a representation of
reality ("Wirklichkeit"). He uses sentences like: "we make ourselves images of
facts. the image is a model of a part of reality. the elements of the image
represent the objects in reality. language is used to express images."

This book was heavily attacked because of its basic premise that an "objective
reality" *seems* to exist. After many debates (and *much* later!), Wittgenstein
published a book called "Philosophical investigations", where he had changed his
views dramatically. Language may still be a representation of *a* reality, but
his primary focus is shifted towards the so-called "language game": language can
only be used as a means of communication when people are playing the same game.
The meaning of a word is not contained in the representation value, but in its
use. When asked about his changes, Wittgenstein always stressed the fact that to
him, the discussion whether there is an objective reality is *not relevant*.

Why did I enter this here? Well, it may be the bridge between AYOR and YCYOR.

What do you think?

Arie
952.70Time out for thought processCLUE::PAINTERWage PeaceMon Jan 30 1989 18:137
    
    Re.69
    
    Hm...going to have to think about that one.  Interesting.  Thanks,
    Arie.
    
    Cindy
952.71Sub-Titled: Strategic Living.REGENT::WAGNERMon Feb 20 1989 16:0731
     Here is an interesting excerpt fro Carlos Castaneda's books (I
    forget which one) concerning living strategically as an important
    part of YCOR:
    
    	"It is impossible to live strategically all the time," I(Carlos)
    said.  "Imagine that someone is waiting for you with a powerful
    rifle wihta telescopic sight; he could spot you accurately 500 yards
    away. What would you do?"
    	Don Juan looked at me with an air of disbelief and then broke
    into laughter.
    	What would you do?" I urged him.
    	"If someone is waiting for me with a rifle with a telescopic
    sight?" he said, obviously mocking me.
    	"If someone is hiding out of sight, waiting for you. You won't
    have a chance.  You can't stop a bullet."
    	"No I can't, but I still don't understand your point."
         My point is that all your strategy can not be of any help in
    a situation like that."
    	"Oh, but it can. If someone is waiting for me with a powerful
    rifle with a telescopic sight, I simply will not come around."
    
    Creating your own reality does not necessarily have to mean moving mountains
    by thinking about it or even feeding a multitude of people from
    a few fish and a few loafs of bread.  But if one is as totally aware
    as he or she can be and lives as totally strategically as one is
    able to, Then something as simple as staying out of the sights of
    a telescoping rifle or avoiding that auto accident that almost happened
    last week IS creating your own reality.
    
    Ernie
    
952.72A quote I've always liked.REDWOD::GRAFTONTue Feb 21 1989 16:0314
    One of my favorite quotes from Seth/Jane Roberts is:
    
    	Organize your reality according to your strength;
    	organize your reality according to your playfulness;
    	according to your dreams; according to your joy;
    	according to your hopes--and _then_ you can help 
    	those who organize their reality according to their
    	fears.
    
    It's one of those lines that reminds me time and again that I can 
    set up my reality the way I would like and that, by doing so, might
    help all of us along the way.
    
    Jill
952.73A QuestionDNEAST::DUCHARME_GEOThu Nov 01 1990 16:2632
    I am interested in learning some points of view on how interactions

 between people, fit into the we create our own reality perspective.

 I have read several of the ( SETH ) books by Jane Roberts and could

 not seem to get a handle on how interactions fit into the picture.

   An example that comes to mind ( this is from memory ) is you are on

 a corner and can go in 4 different directions, 2 you dismiss quickly but

 the other 2 you think about. You picture yourself going one way and 

 then the other. You decide on one and that becomes physical for you.

 A probable you takes the direction that you did not. 

   What is unclear to me from this example is the relationship of these

 2 selves to another person.  For example if instead of me you are 

 the person at the corner which you would I experience? And what 

 would cause me to experience one or the other?  Please do not feel 

 your answers need to be within the context of this question.    
  
                      Thanks in advance

                                     George Ducharme
952.74mhoCGVAX2::PAINTERAnd on Earth, peace...Thu Nov 01 1990 17:307
    
    Hi George,
    
    I believe we co-create our reality with G/G/ATI and with everybody
    else...at some level.
    
    Cindy
952.75Who's looking?MISERY::WARD_FRGoing HOME--as an AdventurerThu Nov 01 1990 18:0123
    re: .73 (George)
    
         What it seems to me that you are getting into is the subjectivity
    of self, versus the objectivity of self.  Which you would see which
    me?  For me, it would be the one that responds to me.  For you, it
    would be the one you respond to.  It is not objective from this
    perspective.  From the perspective of GGA, all is.  But not from
    here.  We do not co-create...a *part* of us is co-creating.  *This*
    part of us has not yet learned how to create, though it does (there
    are two ways, by consciously doing so, or by allowing.)  This is
    obviously wherein Seth and others have discussed parallel lifetimes,
    or split-offs. 
        As an example, if at some point in your life you remember having
    a definite shift in thinking, e.g. you suddenly didn't want to be
    a brain surgeon anymore, there may have been a split there.  That
    part of you is still living as a brain surgeon.
        Atlantis is still alive and well in another reality.  It did
    not disintegrate...the Atlantis of *our* reality obviously did,
    however.  Another example of split realities.  Is a part of you
    in that one?  Possibly.
    
    Frederick
    
952.76QuestionCGVAX2::PAINTERAnd on Earth, peace...Fri Nov 02 1990 13:038
    Re.75
    
    Frederick,
    
    Do you know anyone personally who is consciously creating 100% of their
    reality in this life in every moment?  Are you?
    
    Cindy
952.77It's awful hard to tell from outside...MISERY::WARD_FRGoing HOME--as an AdventurerFri Nov 02 1990 14:228
    re: .76 (Condy-roo)
    
         NO.
    
         But I know a great many people getting close...(true statement.)
    
    Frederick
    
952.78CONES::glantzMike 227-4299 TAY Littleton MAFri Nov 02 1990 15:409
My opinion is that we all create our reality close to 100% of the time,
but are generally in direct control or awareness of this process less
than .1% of the time. Furthermore, I've discovered that just because I
intellectually believe the foregoing doesn't make me any more likely to
be truly aware or in control. For me, the desire to be aware and in
control hasn't been sufficient to actually achieve awareness and
control of the creation process. I sense that more is necessary. A
teacher, the right circumstances, etc. Very little progress, here, I'm
forced to admit.
952.79Solitaire is boringDWOVAX::STARKmonumentally naiveFri Nov 02 1990 16:334
    I seem to *choose* the games I play in, but unless I can get someone else 
    to agree to my rules, it doesn't appear to do me much good to create my own
    games.
    	>Todd>
952.80Where's a good chisel when we need one?MISERY::WARD_FRGoing HOME--as an AdventurerFri Nov 02 1990 16:4638
    re: .78 (Mike)
    
         I somewhat agree with you, in regards to .1% awareness.  That is,
    most people have little awareness at all.  Though my awareness is
    far more than .1% (compared to what it was) it is still short of 
    complete.  What I *have* succeeded in becoming is aware "after-the-
    fact."  That is, as I look at what I have already created, I can
    see more and more where my thoughts and feelings have generated that.
    AS I see more of this, it helps direct me in current/future thoughts.
    What I'm saying is that as I have a thought/feeling and recognize it
    as similar to a previous one, I can have a good idea of what the 
    outcome will be (based on what has been.)  If I don't like the outcome
    I have had, I look to see how I can change the thought/feeling.
    This I'm consciously doing as much as I can, as well as attempting
    to clear out what I have become aware of as being negative beliefs/
    blockages/etc. AND while programming, deliberately, for positive 
    ones (in case I just so happen to create a void by deleting
    negativity... ;-) )
    
    re: .79 (Todd)
    
        What you describe sounds like two different things to me.  One,
    like manipulation/control.  Two, like a form of victimhood/martyrhood.
    In other words, reality doesn't work very well when approaching life
    from a sense of anger/control/deficiency.  You see, people *are*
    playing by your rules.  Only the rules you are playing by aren't the
    ones you say you want...rather they are the ones you've (perhaps
    surreptiously, covertly) already implemented.  As you change the 
    beliefs, as you let go of the need to control, etc., you will find
    that the rules people in your reality are following are more closely
    held by the rules you are expressing.  I have already seen this 
    particular shift in my reality.  
    
         Keep on plugging away...you can chip this armor and you can
    penetrate it.
    
    Frederick
    
952.81Creating the context for semantic.responsesDWOVAX::STARKmonumentally naiveMon Nov 05 1990 11:3828
    re: .80, (Frederick),
    
    >>  I seem to *choose* the games I play in, but unless I can get someone 
    >>  else to agree to my rules, it doesn't appear to do me much good to 
    >>  create my own games.
    
>        What you describe sounds like two different things to me.  One,
>    like manipulation/control.  Two, like a form of victimhood/martyrhood.
>    In other words, reality doesn't work very well when approaching life
>    from a sense of anger/control/deficiency.  You see, people *are*
>    playing by your rules.  Only the rules you are playing by aren't the
>    ones you say you want...
    
    	Thanks for that perspective.  I knew that somewhere in all that
    information, you'd have something I could apply to myself, if I asked
    the right question.  I *feel* that you are right-on here, although I
    have not yet quite made this shift cognitively.   As I think Topher said 
    a few notes back in other words, all communication is to some extent 
    control and manipulation, insofar as we create (semantic.responses) in 
    other people, and they create them in us.  I think we also have control 
    over the context of those responses, and thus the rules of the game, and 
    the structure of the interactional reality.   That seems to be where
    the nature of choice/reality creation comes in, for me, right now.
    
    	thanks,
    
    	Todd