Conference hydra::dejavu

    As long as we're asking questions...
    
    I've seen the name "Talligai" appended to some notes
    lately and I seem to recall also seeing the name 
    "Altrea."  Are these two people one and the same?
    What is a Walk In Experience?
    
    In short - what is this all about?
    
    Joel
    

    
    Welcome, Talligai.
    
    Cindy

.0: Peachy (aka Joanne)

    Thank you for the welcome.

    My name is pronounced "Tah - li - guy"

    I am a celestial walk-in....in your language I am from the Angelic
    Realms in the central universe.... all of us have travelled from the
    same basic area (that is all the walk-ins to this particular vehicle.)
    I focus the ruby & diamond rays predominantly although I access all 
    the rays in my work (I am a member of the Og-Min) I work closely with
    those you call "Seraphim".

    As with the others that came before me, I have come to assist in the
    acceleration of this vehicle, the birthing of this planet and the 
    activation & facilitation of lifestreams hereon to their true identity
    and purpose in incarnation....creative beingness.

    I am in contact with the other walk-ins to this vehicle and with Jeanne
    when it is necessary.

 .1:Joel
    I wrote "Talligai (aka Altraea)" to let everyone know that the being 
    that they knew as Altraea was now Talligai.   
    
 .2: Thank you Mark for answering.

 .3: Thank you for the Welcome, Cindy.

   In Light and Love,
   I AM
   Talligai 

> As far as I know it took Jesus 1000 of our years to decrease his energy so
> as to fit in a physical body.

  That is truly an interesting piece of information! Where can I learn
  more of this stuff? I don't imagine that there's much on the Digital
  Library Network :-).

re:.5 Marcos

I would appreciate in future that if you are going to ask me questions
both in this forum and in personal mail that you be consistent.
It troubles me not whether you believe who and what I am. It is not
my purpose to prove my existance and validity to you


First to clarify something....Jesus, whom you call "the Christ" is an 
Ascended Master, not an Angel and does not live in the Angelic Realms.
Jesus along with St. Germaine serves as World Teacher for this planet
and together they are responsible for ushering in the Aquarian age of 
Forgiveness and Freedom under the Seventh (Violet)Ray. 

Lord Maitreya is Lord of the World and the Planetary "Christ". Jesus 
received the title of Christ when he embodied the Christic flame here 
in your dimension.  

You tell me that it took Jesus 1000 of your earth years to decrease his
vibratory rate enough to "fit in a physical body without destroying it."
That was 2000 of your years ago and your earth was vibrating at a distinctly
different rate. Therefore, all of the vehicles of the lifestreams here
were vibrating at a distinctly different rate. Being that we are in the
growth acceleration of the incoming Aquarian Age it does not take anywhere
near as long to decelerate and integrate as it did 2000 of your years ago.
Since you asked how I managed to accomplish this I will tell you that
it took me two and a half of your months to fully integrate with this
vehicle.

There are many brotherhoods that make up the "Great White Brotherhood" (again
this has nothing to do with race" but rather the Ascension ray or white light)
the Brotherhood of the Cross and the Triangle being but one. I have not
any specific knowledge of the entity Ramatis that you asked me about. Is there
information regarding this lifestream that you would care to enlighten
us with.

In Light and Love 
I AM
Talligai

re: .8 (Talligai/Atkinson)

>You tell me that it took Jesus 1000 of your earth years to decrease his
>vibratory rate enough to "fit in a physical body without destroying it."
>That was 2000 of your years ago and your earth was vibrating at a distinctly
>different rate.

	I guess I have also missed "who you are" but I should
	think that "earth years" would be all of ours?

	As for the vibrations, at what rate was it vibrating
	2,000 years ago, at what rate is it vibrating now,
	and what sort of instrumentation would one use
	to measure this?

>Therefore, all of the vehicles of the lifestreams here
>were vibrating at a distinctly different rate. Being that we are in the
>growth acceleration of the incoming Aquarian Age it does not take anywhere
>near as long to decelerate and integrate as it did 2000 of your years ago.
>Since you asked how I managed to accomplish this I will tell you that
>it took me two and a half of your months to fully integrate with this
>vehicle.

	Again - why should time, as normally measured with
	things like calendars, be other than everyone's,
	including yours?

	Now I realize you may not care if people believe
	your story or not, but surely when you publish it
	in a public notesfile you must expect at least
	some questioning?

	Joel
	
	

RE -1 (Joel)

>	Again - why should time, as normally measured with
>	things like calendars, be other than everyone's,
>	including yours?

Step in a black hole and look at your watch....

:-):-)

Arie

    :-)

  I don't believe it's possible, by questioning in this conference, to
  establish whether or not Talligai is who s/he claims to be. It's
  possible that such questioning could have no positive result, and just
  create discord.

  Meanwhile, Talligai (and the other personalities writing from the
  account of ATKINSON) has offered some very interesting pieces of
  information and insight, which are worth considering for their own
  merit, regardless of the nature of the author. We're surely not going
  to miss their value just because we question the nature of the source,
  are we?

    I thought Arie's question was based on an old joke ?
    
    Q: 	What time is it when Joel looks at his watch in a black hole ?
    
    A:  Time for Joel to get a new watch !
    
    		(and a new travel agent !)
    
    
    								todd

Re .13

  "I don't believe it's possible, by questioning in this conference, to
   establish whether or not Talligai is who s/he claims to be."

This conference does not aim at concensus, so I doubt that any questioning 
would establish any general public opinion on Talligai.  But an individual
might gather enough from Talligai's answers to make up his or her own mind. 

  "We're surely not going to miss their value just because we question the 
   nature of the source, are we?"

But our beliefs about the nature of the source can have effects on the value 
we put on the pieces of information and insight.  If someone decides Talligai 
is exactly what it claims to be, then they will probably give more credence to 
the descriptions of rays, vibrations, etc.  If one decide Talligai is an 
altered psychological state, then they may not pay much attention to the
cosmology, though they still might heed the spiritual advice as the wisdom of
the collective unconscious.  If one decides Talligai is a put-on or a
possessing demon, they probably won't pay much attention at all. 

Earl Wajenberg

    Doesn't matter.  We each make our own choices... as always.
    I personally enjoy Talligai's contributions, regardless of their
    source.  Keep em coming, Talligai.
    
    mary

    re: black holes
    
    Yes, precisely where my pay raises have gone.
    
    re: (a few back)
    
    No question - if Talligai/Atkinson is in fact what she/he/it
    claims to be, one would put great credence on the advice.
    But if the source of this information is actually quite
    earthly, we are entitled to place a very different value
    on its worth.  
    
    Joel
    

    Is a diamond worth less if you pick it up off the street than if it
    comes in a velvet box from the jeweller?
    
    Ideas and concepts have intrinsic value of their own or they do not...
    regardless of their source, don't you think?

  Yes, but we're not talking about diamonds and boxes, we're talking
  about words and people. It's much harder to separate the two, but I
  think the exercise is still worth it.

    re: (Mary)
    
    A rhinestone is worth less than a diamond, yes?  
    
    Joel
    

Note 1460.19                    
ENABLE::GLANTZ 
    
    Not words... ideas, concepts.  It isn't necessary to separate them.
    I'm not trying to tell you what to do either... I'm just pointing
    out that truth is truth.. regardless of the history of the tongue 
    that speaks the words.  We sometimes place undue emphasis upon
    background and education and credentials.. we consider the words
    of those who have status to be more valuable... even if the content
    is less than true.  ... just an observation.
    
Note 1460.20                    
RIPPLE::GRANT_JO 
    
    >A rhinestone is worth less than a diamond, yes?  
    
    The intrinsic value of the concept or idea *itself* determines whether it is
    a diamond or a rhinestone and not the medium that delivers it though, Joel.
    
    mary

Re .18 (Mary):

    >Is a diamond worth less if you pick it up off the street than if it
    >comes in a velvet box from the jeweller?

If the diamond's a diamond.  It conceivably could be cubic zirconia or glass.
To an untrained eye, zirconia (especially zirconia irradiated with hard UV or
low X-rays) looks a lot like a diamond, but despite appearances, the "intrinsic
worth" may be less. [Note I put that in quotes because "worth" is often a 
subjective rather than a consensus matter.  A glass of pure water has much
greater worth to someone athirst in the desert than sunbathing next to a
natural spring, for instance.]
    
    >Ideas and concepts have intrinsic value of their own or they do not...
    >regardless of their source, don't you think?

Yes, but sometimes the "velvet box" trappings might make a differeence.  If a
personality says, "I'm [roughly] the equal of Jesus, in spiritual matters," it
suggests that there's a certain authority to such pronouncements -- lots more 
than there  would be if it said, "I'm [roughly] the equal of Steve Kallis."  A 
lot of folk, alas, look at the "authority" rather than the content.  (For
questioning authority, for that matter, Paracelsus may well have been murdered.)

Steve Kallis, Jr. 

    re: .21, .22
    
    In this particular case, the truth/value of the statements
    relate directly to the authenticity of the source.  I haven't
    seen anything in this string that has much actual content -
    unless we are hearing from someone with access to information
    not generally available.
    
    Joel
    

Note 1460.22                    
STORIE::KALLIS 
    

>If the diamond's a diamond.  It conceivably could be cubic zirconia or glass.
>To an untrained eye, zirconia (especially zirconia irradiated with hard UV or
>low X-rays) looks a lot like a diamond, but despite appearances, the "intrinsic
>worth" may be less. [Note I put that in quotes because "worth" is often a 
>subjective rather than a consensus matter.  A glass of pure water has much
>greater worth to someone athirst in the desert than sunbathing next to a
>natural spring, for instance.]
 
    Of course... it is up to the observer to decide the worth for himself
    depending upon his own judgement and his own values, right?
       
>Yes, but sometimes the "velvet box" trappings might make a differeence.  If a
>personality says, "I'm [roughly] the equal of Jesus, in spiritual matters," it
>suggests that there's a certain authority to such pronouncements -- lots more 
>than there  would be if it said, "I'm [roughly] the equal of Steve Kallis."  A 
>lot of folk, alas, look at the "authority" rather than the content.  (For
>questioning authority, for that matter, Paracelsus may well have been murdered.)
>
    I guess it's a matter of taste... to me, evaluating the contents of the
    box by the box is superficial and mindless.
    

Note 1460.23                    
RIPPLE::GRANT_JO 
    
>    In this particular case, the truth/value of the statements
>    relate directly to the authenticity of the source.  
    
    Why? 
    
    >I haven't seen anything in this string that has much actual content -
    >unless we are hearing from someone with access to information
    >not generally available.
    
    But Joel... can't you evaluate content for yourself regardless of
    whether the information is written on the sky or locked in a safe?
    I mean no disrespect...     
    
    mary

    Part of the problem seems to be that if we had the ability to tell what
    was a diamond and what wasn't, then we wouldn't need the diamond any
    more. Until that time arises we have to boot-strap ourselves into the
    spiritual world; following our instincts, learning from mistakes,
    laughing, crying and startin'over.
    
    Ram Dass had some good advice on this one. (Paraphrased) Go into what
    feels good; it will not be a mistake if you walk the path with love;
    even if the diamond turns out to be a rhinestone, that's OK too.
    
    Good fishing
    Brian

    re: .24  (Mary)
    
    The value of the statements is related to the source here
    because many of the statements involve activity that is
    outside natural law.  These statements can have validity
    only if uttered by an entity that is itself outside
    natural law, i.e., a deity.  That's why.
    
    Joel
    

    re: .26 (Joel)
    
         And I could argue that "natural law" is itself a product of
    belief and no more valid than "laws outside of nature" (if there
    are any.)
    
    Frederick
    

	The question in my mind  -  is  Talligai an intruder by accessing
	this network through Jeanne Atkinson's account?
	
	Or, Is Jeanne  in violation of policy by allowing Talligai to use
	her account?  
	
	:-) 

>                      <<< Note 1460.9 by VAXRIO::MARCOS >>>
>    I wondered who you were, now I have made up my mind.

  Marcos, would it be impolite to ask what you've concluded Talligai is?

  By the way, it seems possible that if we do have such personalities as
  honest-to-goodness walk-ins in our midst, not all of them would
  necessarily reveal the fact, as Talligai has. There are times when I
  think that everyone is a walk-in except me ...

    Re .18-.26, on evaluating concepts vs. the source of the concept:
    
    A lot depends on the kind of evaluation you're making on the concept. 
    If the evaluation is, "Do I like this idea?" then I certainly don't
    need to form an opinion of the source.  The same applies to "Is this a
    beautiful concept?"
    
    On the other hand, if the question is, "Is this concept true?" things
    become more complicated.  If I can check the truth for myself, I don't
    need to consider the source.  If I can *define* the truth for myself 
    (a la "You Create Your Own Reality"), then I don't need to consider the
    source.  But if I have neither of those options, then I probably need
    to know how reliable the source is.
    
    Much the same applies to the question, "Is this concept useful?" 
    Sometimes I can see that a concept is useful for myself.  But if I
    cannot, I may have to take my informant's word that it is useful.  And
    then I would want to know about the informant's reliability.
    
    Statements about walk-in entities, alien worlds, cosmic cycles, and 
    metaphysical energies are concepts that many noters in this conference 
    cannot check for themselves regarding truthfulness.  Similarly, not 
    everyone can see obvious utility in all the advice.  Those people have
    a motive for deciding about the reliability of the source.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

Re .24 (Mary):

    >Of course... it is up to the observer to decide the worth for himself
    >depending upon his own judgement and his own values, right?
    
"Worth" is subjective.  If I declare as a matter of fact "The Earth is a flat
disk, resting on the backs of four giant elephants, which in turn rest on the
back of an even more gigantic turtle," some might consider it an important,
perhaps transcendant Truth.  Such folk would value the remark highly.

Indeed, in some circumstances, such a model might be useful.  Is it
"true" as well as being True to some?  

    >I guess it's a matter of taste... to me, evaluating the contents of the
    >box by the box is superficial and mindless.
 
Please note that what I said was that some let the "box" provide a certain
amount of support to what's being evaluated.  Now let's do a reductio ad 
absurdum on the business of jewelers' boxes.

Suppose two people were very much in love.  Say one bought the other a brass,
gold-plated ring sporting a rhinestone and put it in a fancy jeweler's box.
Now that person goes to the object of his affection and says:

a) "Here."

b)  "This is all I could afford, but I thought I'd put it in this box to
     show you what I would have gotten for you if I could."

c)  "Hope you like this; it cost me a bundle."

In case a, the giver isn't _saying_ anything, but by the surroundings, he or
she is _implying_ that the ring "deserves" being valued.

In case b, the giver is saying that the ring has low monetary value, but
(by implication) has high sentimental value.

In case c, the giver clearly is trying to perpetrate a fraud.

I did not say everybody evaluated an idea by its surroundings, but a fair number
of people do.  That's why some folk are termed "community leaders," and others
are termed "experts."  If a doctor tells someone that person has a specific
ailment, the pronouncement seems more credible (the flip side of that is when a
specialist in one field opines in an unrelated one).  Is it?

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: .27  (Frederick)
    
    But Frederick, there are some things you cannot do no matter
    how hard you believe you can do them.  Speculations to the
    contrary are of course interesting, but until you can 
    actually, say, take a safe swim with Mr. Kallis in that
    molten metal, we are going to have to conclude that this
    is outside natural law.  Even if we had been raised to
    believe it could be done - it can't.  
    
    Joel
    

Note 1460.26                    
RIPPLE::GRANT_JO 
    
    
>    The value of the statements is related to the source here
>    because many of the statements involve activity that is
>    outside natural law.  These statements can have validity
>    only if uttered by an entity that is itself outside
>    natural law, i.e., a deity.  That's why.
 
    No, no, Joel... these statements have validity only if they are
    true.  It doesn't matter who says them, does it?
    An entity that is outside natural law itself could also potentially
    be a liar.   
    
Note 1460.33                    
STORIE::KALLIS 

>"Worth" is subjective.  
    
    Not entirely.  Life is an objective absolute truth which conveys
    intrinsic worth and so does death actually.  I believe there are others.
    
>Please note that what I said was that some let the "box" provide a certain
>amount of support to what's being evaluated.  
    
    I view that as a lack of critical thinking.

>In case a, the giver isn't _saying_ anything, but by the surroundings, he or
>she is _implying_ that the ring "deserves" being valued.
>In case b, the giver is saying that the ring has low monetary value, but
>(by implication) has high sentimental value.
>In case c, the giver clearly is trying to perpetrate a fraud.

    :-) 
    The ring has two levels of value... the monetary value we (as a tribal
    society) place upon it, and the sentimental value that it
    intrinsically has by virtue of the emotional committment it represents.
    Therefore, the box means nothing.
    
>I did not say everybody evaluated an idea by its surroundings, but a fair number
>of people do.  That's why some folk are termed "community leaders," and others
>are termed "experts."  If a doctor tells someone that person has a specific
>ailment, the pronouncement seems more credible (the flip side of that is when a
>specialist in one field opines in an unrelated one).  Is it?

    Thats why our society is in the condition it's in (in my opinion of
    course)... not nearly enough critical thought and way too much
    superficial evaluation.
    
    mary

    re: .34 (Joel)
    
          But if you had been raised seeing people swimming in molten
    metal and *still* you couldn't, then I'd say you had a problem.  ;-)
          You are correct (to a point,) Joel, about doing things.
    The difficulty, once again, is "core beliefs."  (PEP-to BIS-mol,
    Pep-TO bis-MOL, PEP-TO BIS-MOL!!)  Since you sit on *this* side
    of core beliefs, since you are a part of *this set* of core
    beliefs, it is virtually inconceivable that *that* situation
    can exist.  It is likely that everyone else shares your beliefs
    since core beliefs are so pervasive.  Imagine, if you can, altering
    your core beliefs, transcending physical laws, and living reality
    that way...
    
    Frederick
    

    re: .34 (Mary)
    
         Not to intrude...looks like you are having fun and I don't
    want to impede on my own popcorn intake here, but just as a
    spectator's comment:  what do you mean "objective {mumble}
    truth"  (I had to go away for a second...and forgot)?
    
    Frederick
    

Re .35 (Mary):

>>"Worth" is subjective.  
>    
>    Not entirely.  Life is an objective absolute truth which conveys
>    intrinsic worth and so does death actually.  I believe there are others.
 
Onme is entitled to one's opinions, but it's also possible to question whether
life is either a truth or objectively so.  What we term "life" may actually be
an illusion, as may be existence.  Nor, having posited life as an objective truth
is it necessary to believe that it, or any facet of what's collectively termed
"existence" has "worth."  

How does "worth" exist beyond opinion (the very word implies opinion)?

One might hold that worth is "self evident" in some instances, but that's an
opinion, too.

Steve Kallis, Jr. 

Note 1460.37                    
MISERY::WARD_FR 
    
    Oh dear Frederick... I know better than to tangle with you on this
    one.  Oh well, I'm feeling lucky today... I'll give it a shot. :-)
    
    Objective truth... the planet Earth has intrinsic value to those
    who live upon her whether they recognize and acknowledge it or not.   
    Yes?  No??  Maybe??
    
    me    

Note 1460.38                    
STORIE::KALLIS 
    
 
>Onme is entitled to one's opinions, but it's also possible to question whether
>life is either a truth or objectively so.  What we term "life" may actually be
>an illusion, as may be existence.  
    
    That doesn't make much sense to me, Steve. "Illusion" means an
    erroneous perception of *reality*.  To say that life may be an
    illusion says that life may be an incorrect perception of reality.
    What is the difference between life and existence?  What happened
    to "I think therefore I am" :-)
    
    Nor, having posited life as an objective truth is it necessary to believe 
    that it, or any facet of what's collectively termed "existence" has 
    "worth."  

    Define worth?  If life doesn't have worth, than nothing does (in my
    opinion of course).
    
    >How does "worth" exist beyond opinion (the very word implies opinion)?

    Worth is the quality of something that makes it desirable, useful, or
    valuable (among other definitions).  The air that you breath has
    intrinsic worth to you whether you recognize it's value or not
    (irregardless of your opinion of it).
    

    mary

 Re .39 (Mary):
  
    >Objective truth... the planet Earth has intrinsic value to those
    >who live upon her whether they recognize and acknowledge it or not.   

But if it's valuable _to_ some, then it's still subjective.  Objective means
beyond any subjective evaluation, conscious or otherwise.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Note 1460.41                    
STORIE::KALLIS 
    
>But if it's valuable _to_ some, then it's still subjective.  Objective means
>beyond any subjective evaluation, conscious or otherwise.

    No... because some recognize it's value, doesn't mean that it isn't 
    of value to the many others who may not recognize it's value... who
    indeed, may not even recognize it's existence.  Therefore it has
    objective value beyond the opinions of those who may recognize and 
    acknowledge it's worth.
    
    mary
    

    re: Mary
    
         Live dangerously for a while...why not?  ;-)
    
         As Lazaris has said, it should have been said (to be more
    correct): "I am, therefore I think."
         I think that objective intrinsic value is still subjective,
    because no matter what you are doing the thinking with (i.e, brains,
    toes, liver, gallbladder) it is still coming via your own
    subjectivity.  So while it may appear that something has intrinsic
    value, it is still you who are making that determination, whether
    or not someone else mouths the words.
         Do walkins have intrinsic value?  People walkins or the kind
    that are like deep freezers?  Walkin closets..."walk-ins welcome"
    (it says at the beauty salon.)  Well, if you are impressed by them,
    then of course they have intrinsic value for you.  
         This reminds me of the conversation Richard and Leslie Bach
    have with Jean LeClerc in the book "ONE."   Are the words valuable?
    Should they be shared with everyone and held up for all to read?
    Should we protect them and save them and guard them and put value
    on them and fight for them?  Or do we simply let them be of value
    to us, intrinsically, and recognize their importance to us in that
    moment and then just let them go...and look for new words, new 
    events, new meanings?  "But surely it has intrinsic value for them
    over there, doesn't it?"  Are you sure?
    
    Frederick
    

Re .40 (Mary):

>>life is either a truth or objectively so.  What we term "life" may actually be
>>an illusion, as may be existence.  
>    
>    That doesn't make much sense to me, Steve. "Illusion" means an
>    erroneous perception of *reality*.  To say that life may be an
>    illusion says that life may be an incorrect perception of reality.
>    What is the difference between life and existence?  What happened
>    to "I think therefore I am" :-)
>life is either a truth or objectively so.  What we term "life" may actually be
>an illusion, as may be existence.  
    
    >>Nor, having posited life as an objective truth is it necessary to believe 
    >>that it, or any facet of what's collectively termed "existence" has 
    >>"worth."  
    >
    >Define worth?  If life doesn't have worth, than nothing does (in my
    >opinion of course).

A rock exists.  Of what "worth" is that to the rock?  Worth is subjective.  
_To you_, everything (or nothing) might "have worth."  "Objective worth,"
is, linguistically, an oxymoron.  

    >>How does "worth" exist beyond opinion (the very word implies opinion)?
    >
    >Worth is the quality of something that makes it desirable, useful, or
    >valuable (among other definitions).  The air that you breath has
    >intrinsic worth to you whether you recognize it's value or not
    (irregardless of your opinion of it).
 
But don't you see, "desirable," "useful," and "valuable" are all subjective 
value judgements, whether made consciously or otherwise?

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: (Mary)
    
    The point is that, in a case like this, an entity subject
    to natural law *must* be wrong.
    
    re: (Frederick)
    
    I can *imagine* someone taking a fatal swim and surviving.
    Unfortunately, we cannot actually *do* such things.  You see,
    a belief system that postulates, essentially, "anything goes
    if only we change our beliefs" must be prepared to demonstrate
    that in fact anything can go.  Otherwise most people are not
    going to go along with such beliefs.
    
    Really, Frederick, I can relate to the attractiveness of
    such things and I can even swoon at a well done symbolic
    representation.  But you may someday realize that some
    things simply cannot happen, no matter how much we wish
    the contrary to be true.  Talk about "core beliefs" and
    "living reality" a different way just does not stack up
    to the way things *are*.  Surely you see that point?
    
    Joel
    

>Perhaps if Atkinson stated that she is just a human being, very few people
>would listen to what she has to say.   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Marco's,
    
    Has she said that she is more than human? 
    
                                                           Capt. Scott

    re: .47
    
    See note 1460.4 for your answer.

:-):-)

It's been a long time since Iiissa stirred us up.... but it seems to happen
again! ;-)

Marcos, I now know what you mean by 'make up my mind'.

Shaking hands,

Arie

  Marcos, the reason I asked if you'd share your conclusion is that you
  bothered to enter a fairly provocative note saying that you had made
  up your mind.

    re: (last few)
    
    Yeah, perhaps Marcos's note was a tad provocative because it
    was sort of ambiguous - left it open to some possibly sinister
    interpretations.  But he came in later with some clarification.
    
    As for "making up one's mind" I'm not sure what is actually
    in question.  If you believe that Ms. Atkinson is in fact
    a "celestial walk-in" from "the Angelic Realms in the central
    universe" I'm not sure what anyone could say to convince them
    to abandon their belief.
    
    For those of us who do not believe that Ms. Atkinson is a
    celestial walk-in, changing that belief would require evidence
    that she is apparently unable or unwilling to provide.  She
    has stated, in effect, that she doesn't particularly care
    if people believe her (which is certainly her prerogative)
    I would be surprised to see much of an effort on her behalf
    to persuade we skeptics to believe her.  Some people seem to
    feel that she has valuable insight/information (presumably
    obtained off-line) regardless of whether or not she is
    what she represents herself to be, and these people do not
    believe the truth of the situation matters one way or another.
    
    So it's not likely anyone's opinion is going to change, but
    I do feel it is good to discuss this issue, if only to reveal
    the nice range of beliefs in this conference.
    
    Joel
    

  I guess the point I was trying to make is that I can't make up my mind
  about whether Atkinson/Talligai/... is "from someplace else", or
  whether s/he is "one of the changed ones" or anything else, and, in
  any case, I don't have to make up my mind to see that there are some
  gems of wisdom in the words *and behavior* of this personality which I
  can learn from. To summarize:

  o It's impossible to establish
  o I can't make up my mind
  o There's good stuff, regardless

  and, maybe most interestingly:

  o Making up my mind (in either direction) would destroy my ability to
    see some of the gems. The Uncertainty Principle of spirituality.

Note 1460.53                    
ENABLE::GLANTZ 
    
>Making up my mind (in either direction) would destroy my ability to
>see some of the gems. The Uncertainty Principle of spirituality.
    
    Yes, Mike... thank you for phrasing it this way. :-).. I feel this
    way too about a lot of things.
    

    re: .52, (Joel)
    
>    So it's not likely anyone's opinion is going to change, but
    
    The question in my mind is :
    
    	"Do we choose what we believe ?  To what extent is it an automatic or
    	 unconscious process ?  What is it really based on, and is it always
    	 what we think it is based on ?"
    
    	The answers might help explain the range of beliefs
    	that each claim to be true.
    
    	Note .52 contains a very interesting statement to the effect that 
    	people's beliefs are changed by counter-evidence.  
    
    	One of the principles of Cognitive Psychology is that what we
    	perceive can generally be considered to be filtered into a
    	few simplistic categories for practical purposes :
    
    	1.  That which is very similar to what we already expect
    	2.  That which is radically different from what we already expect
    
    	(3. That which we interpret as rare or not personally significant)
    
    	The implication is that what a scientist would theoretically
    	consider a stray data point and filter out or give very little
    	weight to *may* be considered by our inductive mental processes to be 
    	part of a different graph entirely.  We seem to create a separate
    	conceptual model for it.  
    
    	So we don't seem to change existing beliefs very often, we form
    	new ones, often apparently giving great weight to extraordinary 
    	experiences, for better or for worse.  A single encounter with
    	something interpreted as an extraterrestrial or supernatural being 
    	has been known to add an elaborate new branch to someone's belief 
    	systems, even though it was only one brief experience out of a 
    	lifetime of not seeing any such things.
    
    	My guess is that the categories or conceptual models we set up for 
    	perception in childhood largely determine what we will believe as we 
    	experience things that agree with and disagree with those categories.
    
    	That, and the need to believe or not based on emotional factors.
    
    	And much of this seems independent of what is True, what Is,
    	and what we can Know.   The subject of the base note probably fits for
    	most of us fairly comfortably into existing categories.
    
    	For whatever strange reason, I don't seem to think of it as
    	true or not, I think of it as useful or not.   And so far,
    	it doesn't seem all that useful to me personally.  
    
    								todd

    
    Talligai,
    
    Straying briefly from the ongoing discussion surrounding what you are
    or are not, I want to ask you about certain terms and persons you
    alluded to in a past note. You mention the "Ascended Masters" Christ,
    Lord Maitreya and St. Germain. You have also made reference to rays, 
    etc. all of which I heard of through a very brief and unsatisfying
    connection with the group who used to be located in the Santa Monica
    mountains here in California and who are now located in Oregon, I
    believe. I'm talking about the followers of Elizabeth Claire Prophet.
    I don't know what their "official" name is, that is why I am not using
    it. 
    
    I also believe the "Ascended Masters" are part of the White
    Brotherhood, as described by the Rosicrucians, is this correct?
    
    My question is, then, where apart from these two
    organizations/religions can one find out more about the White
    Brotherhood, Ascended Masters, etc. Christ, obviously I have read
    extensively about, from the Biblical accounts to the book compiled from
    readings done by Edgar Cayce which deal with Christ. St. Germain I have
    heard of, lastly in the Umberto Eco book _Foucault's Pendulum_, but I
    have only heard of the name of Lord Maitreya, who was or is he? Do you
    know of any book(s) where I can find out more about the White
    Brotherhood?
    
    Thanks for any pointers, although this request was directed at
    Talligai, I will appreciate information from anyone.
    
    
    Marilyn

  Question for Marcos: can you tell us something about "ramatis"? You
  mentioned it, and Talligai apparently wasn't familiar with it. Also,
  is any of this related to the existence of the brotherhood called
  Va'ad Harabonim?

    re: .55  (Todd)
    
    Good points, and very generally true.  But people's views can
    be changed by evidence, in matters great and small.  Examples:
    
    1. Small - sounds like it's raining outside.  But we look out 
    the window and see a tree's branches brushing against the
    window or a lawn sprinkler sprinkling.  We change our opinion
    on the basis of this new evidence.
    
    2. Larger - I personally detest guns and if I could snap my fingers
    and cause every privately owned gun in the world to immediately
    disappear in a puff of smoke, I would.  My prejudice against
    guns is very strong.  A few years ago I looked into the literature
    on gun control in hopes of finding evidence to support my
    prejudice.  I did in fact find such evidence.
    
    But I found stronger evidence to support the anti-control view.
    [I'm not trying to rathole this into a gun control argument -
    take it to soapbox if you want to do this - I bring this up
    as an example.]  So now, though I still hate guns, I cannot
    honestly believe that "gun control" is going to do much to
    solve the gun crime problem in this country.
    
    I have not doubt we may all point to similar experiences.  
    This is not to say we are robots who respond only to 
    empirical studies.  But neither are we completely at the
    mercy of our innate and/or acquired habits of mind.
    
    In the present case, we have an individual who claims,
    for instance, to "work closely with those [we] call 
    "Seraphim.""  Perhaps even Ms. Atkinson realizes this is
    not the sort of statement most people are going to take
    at face value, interactions with seraphim not being of
    this earth.  Evidence will be required before such amazing
    claims can be believed.
    
    Absent such evidence, we must ask ourselves what exactly
    is the point in making such claims?  Presumably, at least
    in part, to support whatever statements are made around
    personal advice, cosmic knowledge, etc.  But if the knowledge
    Ms. Atkinson shares is not dependent upon non-earthly contact,
    again, the question is: what then is the point of making
    such claims?  
    
    I suppose whether or not one believes these claims will generally
    boil down to a priori belief systems.  But surely it is
    OK to question these claims?  And to require some evidence
    to support them if we are to take them seriously.
    
    Joel
    

    What an interesting discussion.  How fortuitous that Ms. Atkinson's
    celestial walk-in entity is computer-literate, and even knows the 
    VAXnotes and editor-of-choice commands.  Of course, that technical
    information is probably readily available to the Overmind (tm).  Is
    this like a full-time residency, or more a time-share arrangement ?
    
    karl

  I have the impression that some readers are hearing this stuff for the
  first time in this note. A lot of questions were answered way back in
  note 1034.

    **********
    Coming  back  to  the  initial  reason  why  Talligai  is  in
    this  forum,
    **********
    
    Re: 1460.4:

>>  the birthing of this planet and the 

>>  activation & facilitation of lifestreams hereon to their true identity
>>  and purpose in incarnation....

>>  creative beingness.
    ----------------------------------------------------------

    Namaste, Talligai,
    
    Can  you  please  expand  upon  what  you  meant  by  those
    phrases,  so  that  we  may  understand ?

    Specifically,  what  is  'creative'  beingness ?

    If  it  isn't  part  of  your  work, or  is  of  no  use  to  
    us,  please  tell  us  so,  rather  than  remain  silent.

    In  Light  and  Darkness,

    I am

    

    An idea, even if it has, in some sense, intrinsic worth, does not have
    any value in isolation.  To "use" an idea we must put effort into it:
    we must understand the referents of the language it is expressed in
    (whether or not that is a verbal, or verbal-equivalent language), we
    must comprehend the limits of the concepts (since all concepts have
    limits), we must understand what it does not mean, understand what it
    contradicts that we previously accepted or presumed, and understand
    its consequences.

    The world is full of ideas -- most of which hardly repay effort put
    into them at all.  Life (at least this life) being short I must choose
    which ideas to put effort into.  To do so I have no choice but to look
    at the "packaging" the idea comes in -- the source, and the surface
    characteristics of the language which it is expressed in.  This does
    not mean that I "reject" the idea as "wrong" or "worthless" because
    of the packaging.  It means that I look for ideas of value elsewhere
    where I have reason to expect to find them.  Without question by so
    doing I sometime miss ideas which I would find worthwhile -- just not
    as many ideas as if I was indiscriminate as to where I put my effort
    exploring.

    If I want to find jewelery, I look in jewelery boxes.  I do not stop
    at each and every dumpster to search through the trash on the off
    chance that someone may have discarded a broach.  By walking past
    the dumpsters I take the risk that one of them *might* have contained
    a valuable piece of jewelery.  But by walking past I get to the
    jewelery store where I can examine many boxes full of pieces of
    jewelery, some of which are worth examining.

    The box does not determine the worth of what is inside, but *does* give
    an imperfect intimation of its worth.

				    Topher

    It seems to me that it is a common courtesy to call someone by the name
    that they request, whether or not we agree with their reasons for
    wanting to be called that name (with the exception, of course, of names
    denoting unearned honors).  There may be times when it is appropriate
    in these and related threads to want to distinguish Atkinson (the
    "legal/ physical entity") from Talligai (the name by which the
    personality has requested that it be known), but other than that, or
    historic discussion, using a name other than Talligai is, IMHO, rude
    and disrespectful.

				    Topher

    
>>
>>    By walking past
>>    the dumpsters I take the risk that one of them *might* have contained
>>    a valuable piece of jewelery.  But by walking past I get to the
>>    jewelery store where I can examine many boxes full of pieces of
>>    jewelery, some of which are worth examining.     
>>
    
      At  the  risk  of  stretching  your  analogy  too  far, Cooper,
      although  you're  more  likely  to  get  'jewels'  in  'jewellery
      stores'  rather  than  'dumpsters',
    
      Is  everyone  adept  enough  to  distinguish  'jewellery  stores'
      from  'dumpsters'  in  the  case  of  all  kinds  of  ideas ?
    
      it  would  seem  more  appropriate  to  not  consider  Talligai
      a  'dumpster'  until  proved  'jewellery  store',  but  to
      rather  see  what  Talligai  has  to  offer  and  decide  if 
      it  is  a  'jewel'  for  yourself,  whether  the  offering  has
      any  'intrinsic  worth'  to  the  offeree. 
    
      even  if  Talligai  is  a  'dumpster',  we  aren't  so  deluged
      with  dumpsters  as  not  to  take  a  look  at  what is  offered.
    
      I'm  not  defending, or affirming  Talligai's  offering's  worth,
      only   expressing  my  concept  of  fairness.
    
      i_m_h_o
    

    
       So,  once  again,  Talligai,  Welcome !
    
       We're  not  looking  at  you,  we'd  like  to  see  
       what  you're  offering,  if  anything.
    
       
    

    
    Re. 65, Marcos
    
    This note keeps getting into ratholes, although I think most people
    would like not to do it. I need to take exception to some of your
    remarks.
    
    You have stated that Talligai CORRECTLY described some vibratory
    terminology in the previous note relating to her/his/it's walk-in
    status, but that the status of Christ in reply .8 was INCORRECT. 
    There has been a lot of writing done in the last 2,000 years as to what
    Christ was, is or will be, and I don't think any definitive answer has
    been accepted by most. I must, therefore, ask you what YOUR source is
    for determining whether Talligai's information is true or not. You have
    referred to knowledge gotten from sources not readily available in this
    country. Please note some of those sources, some of the readers in this
    notesfile, such as yourself, do not reside in the US, perhaps some of
    them have acces to your sources and can confirm/dispute your claims.
    
    To put it plainly, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If
    you attempt to refute someone's allegations, you must also prove your 
    sources. I, for example, was not aware that Christ is the highest form
    of spirit to have incarnated, that "higher" spirits are unable to take
    on human form. In the Christian environment where I grew up, Christ is
    believed to be the Highest form of being there is, as a part of the
    Trinity that is GOD. I don't necessarily subscribe to that belief
    anymore, but neither have I heard that it was proven incorrect.
    
    
    Marilyn

    re: .63  (Mr. Manners ;^)  )
    
    I hear what you're saying Topher, but there are other reasons
    in this particular case for referring to Ms. Atkinson
    by her legal name.  I refer to her this way to help others
    in the future avoid the confusion I went through in trying
    to track the continuing "who's who."
    
    Between this note and the previous note I counted four names.
    Right now it is clear to all of us who Talligai is, but someone
    going back over this note in 1993 (as I, in 1991, went over 
    notes from 1989) when she has yet another is perhaps going
    to have a tough time making the connection.  For awhile I 
    thought there were at least two people using other names.
    But all these names are names adopted for use by the same
    person.  And the only historicaly continuity is the username
    "Atkinson."
    
    It is hard to tell the players here without a scorecare,
    and I consider her username to be the scorecard.  
    
    Steve

Re .64 (JANA):

      >At  the  risk  of  stretching  your  analogy  too  far, Cooper,
      >although  you're  more  likely  to  get  'jewels'  in  'jewellery
      >stores'  rather  than  'dumpsters',
      > 
      >Is  everyone  adept  enough  to  distinguish  'jewellery  stores'
      >from  'dumpsters'  in  the  case  of  all  kinds  of  ideas ?
      >
      >it  would  seem  more  appropriate  to  not  consider  Talligai
      >a  'dumpster'  until  proved  'jewellery  store', ....

I believe this is stretching the point _way_ out of context.  The discussion
started because it was suggested that some look at the "packaging" rather than
the "product."  Topher was addressing that issue.

The point of whether a particular concept, precept, or the like is valid (or,
for that matter, "valid"), is a separate issue.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Marilyn (way back in .56, I think),
    
    You requested some additional sources of similar information.
    
    There are several sources listed throughout this conference, but
    to make it easier for you:
    
    	Alice Baily's books
    	The Theosophical Society
    
    If you have a more Christian bent, you might most enjoy any of 
    White Eagle's books (my personal favorite).
    
    Contact me off-line if you have difficulty in finding a shop that
    carries his books.
    
    Ro
    

    
    
>>  I believe this is stretching the point _way_ out of context.  
>>  The discussion started because it was suggested that some look at 
>>  the "packaging" rather than the "product."  
>>  Topher was addressing that issue.
    
    Let  me  clarify,  Steve.  The  base  note  .0  gave  me  the
    impression  that  this  note  was  intended  to  take  a  look
    at  what  Talligai  had  to  say/offer.
    
    Somewhere  along  the  way,  the  attention  turned  to  'how
    do  we  value ?',  especially  where  HFKINN::STANLEY  insisted
    that  'intrinsic  value'  exists  even  if  the  'subject'  is
    'ignorant'  of  it.  That  turned  to  the  observation  that
    the  'packaging'  has  a  role  to  play  in  a  subject's
    attention  being  drawn  to  the  'product'. If  I'm  not  mistaken, 
     it  is  that  thread  which  is  being  followed  in  
    Cooper's  discussion.
    
    I  was  trying  to  make  a  point  that,  independent  of  what
    anybody  thinks  is  an  acceptable  method  of  'valuing', which
    is  a  topic  not  directly  related  to  the  base  note,  
    Talligai  ought  to be  encouraged  to  come  out  and  express  
    'it's'  purpose  in  entering  this  'forum'  to  the  lay
    participants  like  me,  who  do  not  have  any  off-line  contacts.
    
    What  I've  said  above  becomes  irrelevant  if  it  is  _not_
    the  purpose  of  this  note  to  encourage  Talligai's  free
    expression,  or  if  the  only  way  Talligai  carries  out
    'it's'  purpose  is  off-line. 
    
    Otherwise, maybe  a  separate  note  can  be  started  to  discuss
    how  to  evaluate  what  is  expressed  here.
    
    No  offense  intended,  Steve  and  Cooper :-)
    
    Jana
    

re: .73  (Marcos)



>One thing that intrigues me to no end is that anyone with the impressive
>knowledge demonstraded in topic 1034 would easily know the right rank of Jesus.


	I am curious to know just what "impressive knowledge" you
	find demonstrated in 1034?

Joel
                                                                  

    
    Re. a few back, Ro,
    
    Thanks Ro, I'll look up some of these sources. I'm relly interested in
    learning more about this.
    
    
    Re. 73 Marcos,
    
    Perhaps I don't have the right kind of esoteric background, Marcos, but
    when you stated that Talligai was right about some things and incorrect
    about others, that seemed to me that you were also privy to some type
    of knowledge that is not known to the "masses". I also don't agree that
    the only condition for having to produce evidence is that of trying to
    prove one's otherworldliness (is that a word?), in  your statements you
    set yourself, IMO, as an expert, or at least as someone qualified to
    confirm Talligai's claims about vibratory conditions, and to dispute
    it's claims about Christ's rank in the celestial hierarchy.
    
    Are you saying that if Talligai was NOT claiming to be a walk-in, but
    simply stated these things you would not question it's sources?
    I think most others in this file would, not that we all have to follow
    the same line of questioning ;^)
    
    Also, can you explain the following:
    
    " One thing that intrigues me to no end is that anyone with the
    impressive knowledge demonstrated in topic 1034 would easily know the
    right rank of Jesus..."
    
    I would think that someone who displays an "impressive" amount of
    knowledge would be more likely to know that right rank of Jesus than
    someone with little or no knowledge.
    
    Did I misunderstand your statement?
    
    
    Sending peaceful thoughts your way too,
    
    
    Marilyn

>    when you stated that Talligai was right about some things and incorrect
>    about others, that seemed to me that you were also privy to some type
>    of knowledge that is not known to the "masses".

  Hey, this is getting interesting. Marcos did say that the information
  wasn't widely available, but does exist here on earth for those who
  make the effort to find it. This is the information we're interested
  in learning about because it sounds interesting, not because we're
  challenging Marcos to reveal his sources.

  Now if Marcos says, "the only stuff I can point you to is here in
  Brasil in Portuguese", somebody might say "It happens that I'm going
  to be in Rio in July and I speak Portuguese", and Marcos ought to be
  willing to talk about it. 

  Or maybe he can't give out the information because he obtained it
  through his membership in a fraternity, and he promised not to reveal
  certain things. In which case I would say "Shame on you Marcos! You
  may already have acted imprudently".

  So what's the story, Marcos? Can you tell us where to find more of
  this sort of information? You did say that it exists in several bodies
  of esoteric literature (in reply .7 of this note). Some of it may be
  widely available in English. Some of it may already have been
  discussed in this conference (in topics on the kaballah, the templars,
  rosicrucians, cathars, gnostics, freemasons, etc). Some of it may be
  available only to members of certain fraternities, in which case I can
  guess where to go. Will you tell us more? 

  You see, if Talligai is "just a human" and not a celestial walk-in,
  then s/he acted much more prudently than you did in claiming that she
  is, because *you* have put yourself in the position of having to
  reveal your sources or explain why you won't. Whereas s/he, from the
  very beginning, by claiming not to be human, established that the
  information came from someplace where we wouldn't be able to obtain
  access, so that asking for the sources would be a waste of time (and,
  in fact, nobody has). Now you've gone and opened Pandora's box. Why?

    
    Re: Last  few,
    
    One  other  thing  that  I  couldn't  quite  catch  the  
    drift  of -
    
>>
>>    I don't know what could be the purpose of belittling him.
>>
    
    Have  I  missed  any  reply  where  Talligai  implied  a  
    'lesser'  'status'  to  Jesus ?
    
    I  couldn't  see  where  Jesus  was  'belittled'... there  wasn't
    any  mention  of  power  hierarchies;  on  the  contrary  there
    was  some  mention  of  divine  love  and  co-operative  efforts
    in  some  of  Talligai's  replies.
    
>>
>>   I agree however this is only important to me.
>>
    
    Why is  it  only  important  to  you ?
    
    Jana
          

    Will Marcos 'come out of the closet' and reveal his true identity ?  
    Has he said *TOO MUCH* already ?
    
    Does Mike 'have his number' ?
    
    Can Topher read Portugese jewelry boxes ?
    
    Will Joel ever get his watch and his pay raise out of that black hole ?
    
    Will Todd ever enter a note that is actually appropriate to the topic ?
    
    Will Talligai survive all of this and still want to contribute ?
    And do celestial entities indeed have a sense of humor ?
    
    Does anyone really appreciate the true value of pumpkins any more !?
    
    The answers to these and more to be found in our next installment of ...
    
    	** Welcome Talligai !!!  **
    
    		(As the cosmos turns).
    								todd

>    Will Talligai survive all of this and still want to contribute ?

  My guess is the last we'll hear from Talligai is "so long and thanks
  for all the fish".

  :-) :-)

  Thanks, Todd, that was just what I needed this beautiful friday
  afternoon :-).

    
    Re. 78
    
    HA, HA, Oh Toddy, you slay me....... ;^)
    
    
    Re. 80
    
    Marcos,
    
    Now we're getting somewhere ;^) It is my understanding, then, that some
    of the information of which you base your beliefs can be found in
    Theosophical literature, right? That's partially what I was getting at.
    
    Also, don't take this the wrong way, but why is it OK to state what you
    believe to be true without supporting evidence if you are human and not
    if you are a celestial walk-in or whatever? I don't think humanity has
    an exclusive lock on "beliefs". Can Talligai not believe or state as
    certainties these things just as much as we can? As many have stated
    before and more eloquently, humans are very fond of decribing as
    "truth" what they feel, believe or have faith about. Why can't
    walk-ins?
    
    This is the best conversation in DEJAVU in a long time, and as Mike
    said, it's really interesting!
    
    
    Marilyn
    to be true 

    
    
    Sorry for jumping into this discussion so very late....I just caught
    up with all the replies.
    
    Marcos, I find contradictions and discrepancies all over the place.
    I'll read or hear something that sounds right-on and it verifies other
    things that I've read and heard....and than something else will come
    along that blows all of that out of the water, and *it* sounds right-on
    too.
    
    Certainly you have the right to distinguish that which you accept as
    truth or fact from what others are sharing as truth or fact.  Your
    doing so, however, doesn't invalidate that other source....for me
    anyway.  I all comes down to beliefs, really.
    
    Carole

    Marcos,

    All of us here are both students *and* teachers.  This is not a
    classroom.  It is a forum of equals.

    Some of the confusion here may come from the fact that you are not a
    native speaker of English.  You write English with such fluency that it
    is easy for us to forget that it is not your native language.

    Part of the problem is that you made statements that should have been
    qualified by some "I believes" or whatever.  In speaking the way you
    did you became as much a claimant as she (albeit, to less).  If you had
    said "this disagrees with other sources which I believe", then you
    would be claiming nothing but a contradiction.  When you say "this is
    untrue", as you did, you have stepped outside the role of student and
    come to the role of teacher/claimant.  As I see it, at this point, the
    major difference between you and Talligai is that Talligai has not
    ducked questions (sorry, that is the way it appears) about the sources
    of her beliefs or her confidence in their truth (whether or not we wish
    to accept her answers as accurate).

    It is not clear to me why Talligai's expressed beliefs about her own
    nature and history are any different than any other belief.

					    Topher

  Marcos, the reason we question you, and not Talligai, is that you have
  presented yourself as a human who obtained this most interesting
  information from humanly-readable sources. We want simply to know what
  those sources are, so that we can learn what you have learned (on the
  assumption that we could understand what we were reading).

  Talligai has presented him/herself as not human, with inaccessible
  sources of information. We can't very well request access to those
  sources. And if we think Talligai is "just human" and has accessible
  sources, we will have to get him/her to admit it and reveal those
  sources (or explain why not). It would be very difficult to establish,
  through any form of pressure or line of questioning, that Talligai is
  not what he/she claims to be. The more so because such pressure
  tactics are strongly discouraged in this conference.

  So if anyone here felt that they would like to see some supporting
  evidence for Talligai's statements, they would have a very hard time
  producing results. You, on the other hand, can be asked directly "what
  are your sources". And since you've been gracious enough to provide
  some form of answer to that question, it's now up to anyone who's
  interested to find the materials and read them.

  So you see you've been challenged only partly because you've made
  provocative statements. Talligai has, too, but you've left yourself
  open to challenge, while Talligai has not. Just think, with the
  information you have, you could've presented yourself as a "walk-in",
  too, and I'll bet that nobody could or would have challenged you.

  Now permit me to ramble just a little more ...

  The information which you possess, and which we seek, is only partly
  obtainable through books. Or I should say that the information is
  obtainable through books, but understanding and knowledge is only
  partly obtainable this way. The bulk of understanding and knowledge
  must be obtained through experience: the experiences of a student who
  has a teacher who knows what the student is ready to learn, and siezes
  opportunities as they arise to illustrate a point. 

  This being the case, a would-be student can't just go to some distant
  monastery in the mountains of Nepal, open a rare book, and read and
  understand great secrets. The student must accept what is offered by
  the teacher of the moment (if s/he is fortunate enough to have one).

  This fact that the transmission of understanding and knowledge
  requires an active relationship between teacher and student is very
  handy for a number of reasons. For one thing, some of this knowledge
  which relates to human psychology and behavior could be used
  harmfully. So a good teacher will provide such knowledge only when
  it's clear that the student can be trusted not to use it
  destructively. By "destructively", I don't necessarily mean
  deliberately using it to hurt someone. It could mean just not being
  aware of the destructive potential of the knowledge. A good example is
  telepathy: the technique of being conscious of what is in someone
  else's mind isn't taught to people who might use it to hurt others,
  inadvertently or otherwise. When a person has demonstrated to a
  teacher that s/he is of correct intention and in sufficient control of
  his/her emotions to be able to avoid hurting others with this
  information, s/he can be taught this form of communication.

  In case anyone is curious, I remain mostly "deaf".

    re: (last few)
    
    Yeah Todd, great note!  My watch is back on my wrist, but
    alas, my pay raise is in the same black hole which contains
    most everyone else's pay raises.
    
    re: possibility of Jeanne/Talligai's "leaving" the topic -
    
    Since she has stated that she is "non-judgemental" I shouldn't 
    think discussion around her authenticity and whatever ratholes
    develop thereby would have much affect on her?  Surely a
    transcendent being would not worry even a tad about the 
    ramblings of we humans?
    
    Joel
    

    Re .78
    
      You certainly brightened my afternoon with that one Todd!
    
      Thanks. Karin

    
    I think ( and this IS just opinion) what concerns Marcos and others
    ( myself included) is that Talligai is using her "other worldliness"
    as a smoke screen. If an entity makes a claim to be a "walk in", how
    does one distinguish fact from delusion? I  have met many people who
    claimed to be many things, and have found scepticism to be important.
    
    				Jimbert

    re: .85  (Topher)
    
    A little notes-crossing here, this was enter while I was
    typing my last.
    
    >It is not clear to me why Talligai's expressed beliefs about her own
    >nature and history are any different than any other belief.
    
    I need a little clarification here.  There is one quite large 
    difference between, say, my beliefs about my nature and history
    and hers.  You can get pretty darned close to verifying my
    belief that I was born in the Oak Park (IL) Hospital on
    November 25, 1951.  What's more, being born in a hospital
    in Illinois is hardly a difficult task to accomplish, at least
    if your mother is in Illinois at the time of your birth.
    
    But someone who claims to come from the neighborhood of
    "Metenarc" in the "Central Universe" is making a comletely
    unverifiable and really quite extraordinary claim.  
    
    Surely you see the difference between a human being who
    "expresses the belief" that they are a human being, and
    a human being who denies being human?
    
    It is nice and everything to couch things in terms of opinions
    and all, but do you really feel that all opinions are created
    equal?  Do you give equal weight, for instance, to the
    opinion of a skeptic and the opinion of a non-skeptic?  More
    to the point, do you really believe that some of the claims
    made by our walk-in are in any way credible as compared to 
    belief that their truth is exceedingly unlikely?
    
    Joel
    

    
    Re. 85 Topher,
    
    As always, you put so elegantly what I can only do in a thoroughly
    disjointed and awkward way!
    
    Re. 89  Jimbert,
    
    The point, at this juncture, is not whether Talligai is or is not what
    s/he claims to be, but why her/his claims are more suspect or should I
    say subject to scrutiny than if s/he claimed to only be a human being
    with "knowledge" (wherever it came from), like Marcos has done.
    
    Since none of us can confirm or deny Talligai's claims, any discussion 
    of that nature is futile, IMHO.
    
    
    Marilyn

    
    Re. 90 Joel,
    
    Hmmmm, let's see where to start.
    
    You seem to be making a very big assumption here, namely that Talligai
    is human and denying her humanness. First of all, we have all pretty
    much agreed that it is pretty impossible for us humans to know whether 
    T's claims of otherworldliness are true. The same holds true for
    proving that s/her is NOT what s/he claims to be. You, I think, are
    basing you assumption in that since it is an extraordinary claim, it
    must necessarily be false. Science, which is the main basis of your
    skepticism is full of claims which were extraordinary and false until
    someone found a way to prove them correct.
    
    Also, you question T's credibility. Marcos, based on his beliefs,
    confirmed as "true", some of T's statements, does the fact that Talligai
    claims to be a walk-in make them any less real? I think we're getting
    back to the jewelry box/dumpster discussion again.  
    
    Marilyn

    re: .90 (Joel)
    
>    Do you give equal weight, for instance, to the
>    opinion of a skeptic and the opinion of a non-skeptic?  More
    
    I can relate to that.  Given different very basic assumptions about 
    metaphysics, you would come up with very different criteria for
    evaluating information from other people.  Since we can't neccessarily
    personally *experience* everything that would tell us how the universe
    is constructed, we trust 'expert' sources, like the expert witnesses
    in trials.  I guess that Talligai meets some people's criteria as
    an expert witness, and not others, and some are still probing for
    credentials.   
    
    In order to understand why [some people] might have accepted Tallgai's
    credentials so far, you might need to question some deep assumptions you've
    made about the nature of things, at least hypothetically.  To see how
    your mindset changes when you think about time and space and
    consciousness differently, as with Arie's black hole comment.  
    
    It's the kind of situation where you might NEVER reason it out starting 
    from different basic assumptions and come to the same place.  That stuff 
    about swimming in molten metal is a straw man argument.  No one claims to 
    do that, except by extending some views to an extreme.   
    
    If you have no deep reason to believe in the 
    worldview of the Theosophists and such, you would probably not ever
    find enough (objective counter-evidence) to make it seem like a worthwhile 
    model.  Then again, if you ever *met* an entity that you couldn't
    understand by any present knowledge, you might not need much objective
    counter-evidence to want to investigate further.  :-)
    
    That's one way that people's criteria for evaluations changes,
    anyway.   A reality shift.  
    
    								todd

>                     <<< Note 1460.93 by VAXRIO::MARCOS >>>
> Are the London Theosophical Publishing House's books a good reference to you?

  Yes, certainly (without having read any) and I'm very grateful that
  you've provided it. I've added it to my long list of material to look
  into.

> When we put a lot of sources together and
> get a common consistent message we say "There is something in here".

  Interesting point. Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, we are
  constantly bombarded with information of all sorts. As often as I read
  stuff in which I perceive a consistent message (some Sufi literature,
  for example), I also see other stuff which almost totally contradicts
  it, yet may have an equally consistent message (the preaching of some
  televangelists, for example). So my acceptance of the Sufi information
  and rejection of the TV preachers could be just as much a case of me
  taking only the stuff which I've already decided I like, rather than
  seeing "something in here" in the Sufi materials. As we know quite
  well, many folks see "something in here" in the preaching of Rev
  Bakker. However I did say I was playing devil's advocate. To be
  honest, I see inconsistency and deceit in most of the TV preachers
  (not all of them, though -- the Christian Scientists and some others
  strike an occasional chord).

  re .90,

 >  Do you give equal weight, for instance, to the
 >  opinion of a skeptic and the opinion of a non-skeptic?

 No! A pure skeptic's opinion is based upon what is scientifically justifiable,
 and allows little or no opportunity for unprecedented visionary thought.  You
 can get this "opinion" from a textbook.  I would give more weight to someone's
 opinion (remember these are opinions, not facts!) who has allowed themselves
 to retain an open mind, and hasn't scurried for the safety of justifiability.
 Only from these ideas will any real breakthroughs arise.  Maybe skeptics can't
 allow for unverifiable wonder in the world because they scare it away before
 allowing it to express itself (as I hope has not happened to Talligai), or
 drown it in philosophical ramblings.

 >  More to the point, do you really believe that some of the claims
 >  made by our walk-in are in any way credible as compared to
 >  belief that their truth is exceedingly unlikely?
 
 I believe that walk-ins are occurring in our world, and that there are also
 many other "in-credible" happenings in our world which would not pass your
 litmus test of credibility.  I do not consider the possibility that Talligai
 is indeed a walk-in to be any more remote than many of the other discussion
 topics in this conference (eg. channeling, prophetic dreams, ESP, Astrology,
 psychokinesis, dowsing, UFO's, ouija boards, magick, .....).  On the other
 hand, I believe that all of these and more are _possible_ (while of course
 not all reported incidents are valid).  So Joel, do you think that ANY of
 these or any other as yet 'unprovable' paranormal occurrences are possible?

 Why does it seem that suspension of disbelief is so difficult for most (but
 not all) skeptics?  What harm does it do to go along with something unprovable
 to see where it leads?  It seems to me that this expresses a strong _fear_ of
 being duped or of holding a belief which is not factually verifiable which
 someone could "catch" you on.  To me, this is a very self-limiting attitude.

 I see Talligai's presence here as an opportunity, and I hope that the current
 harshness that I feel expressed towards Talligai won't preclude us all from
 gaining from this opportunity.  I know that Altrea was set back a few times
 in this conference by these same sorts of responses, but I hope that Talligai
 will recognize that there are still many within DEJAVU who are very interested
 in hearing much more from her.  How can we distinguish between rhinestones
 and diamonds without at least taking a look at the gems?

 TOD...

 PS. I agree with Topher that it is rude to refer to Talligai by former names
     unless some naming distinction is being made.  If I suddenly requested to
     be called "BigGuy", it seems that noone would have any problems with that
     (unless I was little ;-}).  Why are there problems with "Talligai"?

    Mike (.95),
    
    If you are interested in books published by the Theosophical Society,
    they also have a U.S. headquarters (Wheaton, Illinois, I think).  In
    any case Theosophical publications can be purchased in local
    metaphysical bookstores as well (Insights in Acton and The Alchemist
    in Hudson are both within a short drive of Littleton).  There is a
    Chapter of the Society in Boston where there are all types of lectures
    and workshops scheduled (lectures are on a small donation basis as
    I recall).
    
    FWIW,
    
    Ro
    

RE: .90 (Joel)

>    It is nice and everything to couch things in terms of opinions
>    and all, but do you really feel that all opinions are created
>    equal?

    Why yes, Joel, I do feel that all opinions are created equal.  I just
    don't feel that they stay that way. :-)

    To answer what I assume is your intent rather than your words, though
    ...

    No, Joel, you know me better than that.  But I was not comparing *my*
    view of opinions like "My body is from Brooklyn in New York" vs. "My
    personality is from 'Metenarc' in the 'Central Universe'" (an opinion
    subject to external verification, vs one not so subject).

    Rather I was enquiring about how *Marcos* distinguished opinions of
    the form "My personality is from 'Metenarc'" from "There are twenty-
    two rays descending from Metenarc" (or whatever).  Both these opinions
    are not subject to external verification.  Marcos said that the latter
    he would essentially accept (at least as an opinion or belief)
    unchallenged but that the former he felt deserved his challenge.  I
    was asking what made Marcos feel that a distinction needed to be made.

					    Topher

    re: .98  (Topher)
    
    Clears it up entirely and decisively.  Thanks for the explanation.
    
    My opinion is that it is Friday (here in the states, anyway)
    and none too soon!
    
    Joel
          

re: .92  (Marilyn)

	Hi Marily, nice to "meet" you.

    
>    You seem to be making a very big assumption here, namely that Talligai
>    is human and denying her humanness. First of all, we have all pretty
>    much agreed that it is pretty impossible for us humans to know whether 
>    T's claims of otherworldliness are true. The same holds true for
>    proving that s/her is NOT what s/he claims to be.

	I guess we'll have to disagree on this one.  I regard it as
	as extremely normal to assume that any given DEC employee
	is a human being. 	

	As for the issue of proof, yes, this is a non-falsifiable
	claim and beyond the pale of science to disprove.  But it
	is not clear to me that she would be unable to provide
	something resembling "proof" of her claims.  But as she
	has stated, she is not inclined to do this.
   
>    You, I think, are
>    basing you assumption in that since it is an extraordinary claim, it
>    must necessarily be false. Science, which is the main basis of your
>    skepticism is full of claims which were extraordinary and false until
>    someone found a way to prove them correct.
 
	Actually, I don't believe that extraordinary claims must
	of necessity be false.  The claim that rocks can fall out
	of the sky used to be considered quite amazing, until research
	revealed the existence of meteorites.  Nevertheless, the
	fact that *some* extraordinary claims were later proven
	to be true does not mean we are required to believe an
	extraordinary claim that cannot be verified.
   
>    Also, you question T's credibility. Marcos, based on his beliefs,
>    confirmed as "true", some of T's statements, does the fact that Talligai
>    claims to be a walk-in make them any less real? I think we're getting
>    back to the jewelry box/dumpster discussion again.  
 
	Well, if Marcos also claims transcendent knowledge without
	a shred of evidence to back this claim, I would treat his
	claims just as skeptically.  Forgive me, it's late on a
	very, very busy Friday which caps a very, very busy week.
	But I'm not sure I really understand your statement.
  
    Joel

 

re: (Tod)

	Glad we can get into a discussion of some of the fundamental
	issues.


> No! A pure skeptic's opinion is based upon what is scientifically justifiable,
> and allows little or no opportunity for unprecedented visionary thought.  You
> can get this "opinion" from a textbook.  I would give more weight to someone's
> opinion (remember these are opinions, not facts!) who has allowed themselves
> to retain an open mind, and hasn't scurried for the safety of justifiability.
 
	You can also get the "opinion" 2+2=4 from a textbook.  And
	it is quite true.  

	Open minds are nice things and all, but no one, including
	yourself, could survive with a totally open mind.  I assume
	you are not open to the possibility, when next you drive
	a car, that it is OK to cross the center line and strike
	an oncoming vehicle head on.  This would be a "breakthrough"
	of a decidedly non-visionary sort!  ;^)

> Only from these ideas will any real breakthroughs arise.  Maybe skeptics can't
> allow for unverifiable wonder in the world because they scare it away before
> allowing it to express itself (as I hope has not happened to Talligai), or
> drown it in philosophical ramblings.

	If this were true then we would expect to look back historically
	and find no Newtons, Einsteins, Von Brahns, Edisons, etc.
	In fact, science leads to real breakthroughs quite regularly.
	This is not to say that all, or even most, breakthroughs in
	thought are in the realm of the scientist.  Picasso made
	some rather stunning breakthroughs using only his imagination
	some canvas and some paint.

	I guess I would also say that we need to distinguish being
	skeptical of the claims that someone comes from the
	far reachs of space and being skeptical of, say, new
	ways of doing things, new visions in general, etc.
	There must be a limit to skepticism.  But there must also
	be a limit to what we will accept uncritically.

> not all reported incidents are valid).  So Joel, do you think that ANY of
> these or any other as yet 'unprovable' paranormal occurrences are possible?

	Sure, I think lots of what I see in this conference is 
        "possible" including claims of extra-terrestrial origins.
	I just don't think they are very likely.

> Why does it seem that suspension of disbelief is so difficult for most (but
> not all) skeptics?  What harm does it do to go along with something unprovable
> to see where it leads?  It seems to me that this expresses a strong _fear_ of
> being duped or of holding a belief which is not factually verifiable which
> someone could "catch" you on.  To me, this is a very self-limiting attitude.

	Again, let's distinguish between the case at hand and skepticism
	or skeptics in general.  Even as skeptics need to distinguish
	between claim A and claim B, two different claims.  What harm
	does it do?  I don't know.  No one, to my knowledge, is trying
	to "con" anyone out of money or hope so I'm not sure there is
	a danger one way or the other.  Therefore nothing to fear.

	What we try to do is get to the truth of the matter.  Surely
	you have no fear of traveling in that direction?

> I see Talligai's presence here as an opportunity, and I hope that the current
> harshness that I feel expressed towards Talligai won't preclude us all from
> gaining from this opportunity.  I know that Altrea was set back a few times
> in this conference by these same sorts of responses, but I hope that Talligai
> will recognize that there are still many within DEJAVU who are very interested
> in hearing much more from her.  How can we distinguish between rhinestones
> and diamonds without at least taking a look at the gems?

	If Jeanne/Talligai/Altrea et. al. is "set back" because some
	people don't automatically believe her incredible story, so
	much the worse for her.  A skeptic might take continued
	silence as a sign that she cannot answer the tough questions.

> PS. I agree with Topher that it is rude to refer to Talligai by former names
>     unless some naming distinction is being made.  If I suddenly requested to
>     be called "BigGuy", it seems that noone would have any problems with that
>     (unless I was little ;-}).  Why are there problems with "Talligai"?

	I've already mentioned one reason to refer to "Talligai" by
	her username, to wit, the difficulty of future readers to
	distinguish between the several other names by which she
	identifies herself.

	As for other reasons, perhaps some may feel there is a
	difference between a nickname and a name which is used
	to imply an entirely separate entity.

	Joel

  Some questions for Marcos (.102):

  I didn't quite follow your explanation of the Askhasic files. OK,
  they're not on tape, but do I understand correctly that they're not on
  any physical medium at all? They exist in some ethereal form which is
  not necessarily accessible to all humans?

  Second, I also didn't follow your point about a contradiction in
  Iiissa/Talligai's notes. I see that in 1460.8 Talligai has stated that
  Jesus is an Ascended Master (I believe she also stated that in another
  note, but can't find it at the moment). What in 1034.21 contradicts
  that?

  OK, I did, so I guess the inconsistency you're referring to centers
  around the difficulty of a spirit to "walk into" a body on this
  planet. Well, I'm certainly not an expert on the vibratory condition
  of this planet relative to where it was 2000 years ago, so it's not
  easy for me to see this inconsistency, though I guess you could be
  right. 

  But I have read that, in some ways, things are improved over what they
  once were. In one of Idries Shah's books on the Sufis, he made a
  statement to the effect that the work of the Sufis has had the effect
  of improving conditions (over some period of time which was not
  specified), and continues to guarantee that conditions will never be
  as bad as they once were (again, specific points in time not
  specified). Would you have any thoughts on what he's referring to?
  Does he mean that current conditions are better than they were during,
  say, the Dark Ages? Or that they are better than they were during
  WWII? One would surmise, from your comments and some of Talligai's,
  that things are currently worst than they were 2000 years ago. Is this
  true? Had they been even worse at some time in between?

Good Afternoon,

I have finally had the opportunity to catch up with the quite amazing
acrobatics that all your mental bodies have been engaged in since I
last entered a reply in this file (.9). I, myself have been ensconsed in
a project here at work and have not had time to participate since then.
With the cutbacks I have been flooded with work, hence my silence.

Thank you to all those of you who have upheld my right to express myself
in this forum without ridicule and attack, I salute your love....a very
necessary virtue to survive in the coming times.

And to those of you practising POWER AND CONTROL....Lots of LUCK!
You're going to need it.

And no slight ever intended to the Master Jesus (and he knows that)
...however, his Earthly Mother Mary, just happened to be none other than 
the Twin Flame of the Archangel Raphael (an Archeai). Now tell me that 
no being higher than Jesus ever embodied on this planet....The Lord known 
as YAHWEH (Sanat Kumara of the Seven Holy Kumaras of Venus) did most 
assuredly walk this planet long before the Master Jesus came as
an avatar to show the lifestreams of this planet and dimension that 
ascension was the way to salvation and that if you all followed his 
example you could do it to! Some of you are not getting off to a very
good start of following his example.

(In fact the 144 thousand that are chronicled in your religious literature
came here with the Lord Sanat Kumara to reverse the tide of darkness here
and save this planetary body from being distroyed by the Prime Creator.)

Are you again going to crucify the messenger????? It will be more difficult
this time....as there are a lot more of us this time around that are willing
to stand up and be counted than when the Master Jesus came to show the way 
of Light and Love.

If you would just get out of your mental body (logical mind) for a short time
and into Univeral flux and creative beingness you would find a host of things
going on around you constantly that you would only have thought were "possible"
when in your mental body. Just because it is not perceived by your five senses
and logical mind does not mean it does not exist. How far you have separated
yourselves from the Prime Creator!

I have not contradicted myself (Iiissa) in note 1034.21 at all. I said that
the Earth had endured a tremendous amount of misqualified energy and it has
from the collective consciousness of the lifestreams on its surface, which 
collects in the Electronic belt or auric field around it. I did not say that 
its vibratory rate had slowed.

In note 1034.13 I (Iiissa) did state: " As I accelerated the vibratory rate
of this vehicle to accommodate myself.....  Let it be understood that acceler-
ating the vibratory rate of any vehicle is a process that should be taken
slowly in order not to burn out the electrical system"......This vehicle has
been being accelerated tremendously and cleared of blockages over the last 
ten years in preparation for my coming. This began while Jeanne was still 
inhabiting the vehicle that she birthed here. It has continued as each of 
my predicessors has been most conscientious in that regard as part of their 
purpose. And it still took me two and a half months to finally integrate
satisfactorily. 

I would suggest to you that unless you have tried this, you might not want
to throw cold water on someone who has.

Some of you appear to be very caught up in what you THINK are ABSOLUTES and 
if you continue in this manner you will still be caught there when the shift 
occurs and it will not be a pleasant place to be. It would be much more
productive to get out of THINKING and into FEELING as in future your very
existence may rely on it!

I found it quite interesting that some found it easier to accept me as an
extraterrestial than as an Angel.  Can you tell me the difference between
a celestial walk-in and an Angel?    NONE.

In Light and Love,
I AM Still
Talligai

    Re. the last few, Marcos
    
    I think you left out a third possibility in note .102.
    
    C. A person who is familiar with esoteric literature and still finds
    those claims to be the biggest piece of b*llsh*t they've ever read. 
    I think you can read a lot of literature without necessarily believing
    all you read. ;^)
    
    More seriously though, thanks for entering your sources. I have heard
    of the Akashic records before, in connection with the Edgar Cayce
    readings, although I cannot claim to have extensive knowledge of how
    individuals can access these. Does anyone know if Ruth Montgomery's
    works (is this her correct name?) also mention the Akashiic records
    also? For some reason, it came to mind. 
    
    Anyway, since I am interested, I will probably order _The Secret Life
    of Jesus_ from the Rosicrucian catalogue. I have "looked into" the
    Rosicrucians before, albeit superficially, and determined I require
    more understanding of what their sources are than I currently have to
    form an opinion into whether I believe all, or most of their claims. 
    I confess I am somewhat put off by their rather silly sounding (TO ME)
    rituals, but who's to say?
    
    I have not previously heard of Senhor Maes, (I assume he's also
    Brazilian, yes?) but will see if the metaphysical bookstore where I
    shop has heard of any English translations of his work. I will be
    interested to learn of the different levels of Angelic beings. It is a
    new concept for me, I had not heard of some of those terms before. 
    
    
    Marilyn 

    Re. 108 Talligai,
    
    Welcome back! Glad to see you were just busy and not gone!
    
    I have a question. In a note some days back I asked if there were
    sources available to us where we could learn more about some of the
    terms and information you have alluded to. Ro suggested Theosophical
    literature and Marcos Rosicrucians and Mr. Maes. Can you add to the
    list? AS I stated, this is somewhat new ground to me and I am very
    interested in learning more. Also, can you comment on the religion or
    group I mentioned before, the Elizabeth Claire Prophet people? Are they
    known as the Universal Church Triumphant? After I wrote that note that
    name came into my mind. Since you have mentioned rays and Lord Maitreya
    and St. Germain and other  terms I heard of in connection with them, I
    assume you have heard of them. I became "disenchanted" with them before
    their exodus to Oregon when I heard that Elizabeth C. Prophet claims to
    be the reincarnation of Guenivere (sp?) and that her late husband Mark
    had been Lancelot in previous life. They also claimed to be twin
    flames.
    
    Marilyn 

    
    Re. 111 Marcos,
    
    My entry of C was NOT in any way meant as a judgement on whether your
    sources are or are not valid, it was simply a qualification of your
    assumption that there were only two possibilities. I know of several
    people, some in this notesfile, who have read a lot of esoteric
    literature but do not necessarily believe everything they read. As you
    and Talligai have demonstrated, people who consider themselves
    knowledgeable, can and do differ greatly in the claims or opinions. It
    is up to the reader/student to make up her/his mind as to what to
    accept and reject. Without having read any of your sources it would be
    unpardonable and presumptious of me to call any of it b*llsh*t. Again,
    I was simply adding to the list of possible results.
    
    No offense was meant. Shake hands?
    
    
    Marilyn

re: .108


>Thank you to all those of you who have upheld my right to express myself
>in this forum without ridicule and attack, I salute your love....a very
>necessary virtue to survive in the coming times.

	Well, I too will uphold your or anyone's right to note
	without being subject to ridicule and attack.  I will
	also uphold my right to express skepticism at your
	story.

	Certainly, one may believe that you are in fact from
	another universe, and you can do things which violate
	natural law.  But surely you understand that some people
	will ask for evidence before granting belief?  Evidence
	is good stuff and it leads away from close-mindedness.
	As Bertrand Russell put it:  "... the attitude that one
	ought to believe such and such a proposition, independently
	of the question whether there is evidence in its favor,
	is an attitude which produces hostility to evidence
	and causes us to close our minds to every fact that
	does not suit our prejudices."

	I should think that you and those who support you, being
	quite open-minded, would be strongly inclined to
	bring forth some evidence to back your story.

>Are you again going to crucify the messenger????? It will be more difficult
>this time....as there are a lot more of us this time around that are willing
>to stand up and be counted than when the Master Jesus came to show the way 
>of Light and Love.

	Which messenger is now being set up for crucifixion?  Surely
	you are not comparing your reality and situation to that
	of Jesus?

>If you would just get out of your mental body (logical mind) for a short time
>and into Univeral flux and creative beingness you would find a host of things
>going on around you constantly that you would only have thought were "possible"
>when in your mental body. Just because it is not perceived by your five senses
>and logical mind does not mean it does not exist. How far you have separated
>yourselves from the Prime Creator!

	I actually haven't seen anyone claiming that only what may
	be perceived by our senses exists.  This is a straw man.

	What I say is that you and others *talk* about things like
	"creating your own reality" and getting into the "Universal
	flux" but we never actually see anything resembling a
	non-ambiguous demonstration of your ability to do this.
	You still can't do impossible things, and complaing about
	those who merely observe and comment on the obvious does
	not advance your own position at all.

>Some of you appear to be very caught up in what you THINK are ABSOLUTES and 
>if you continue in this manner you will still be caught there when the shift 
>occurs and it will not be a pleasant place to be. It would be much more
>productive to get out of THINKING and into FEELING as in future your very
>existence may rely on it!

	Again, I must point out that there really *are* some absolutes.
	Complaining about those who simply accept this highly obvious
	fact does nothing to demonstrate the contrary.


	Joel

    re: .113 (Joel)
    
          You are actually arguing for your own limitations, whether
    you can see it or not.   If reality is subjective, and beliefs
    precede experience, it is *impossible* to see *impossible* things
    if the observer doesn't first believe in the impossible on some
    level.  The more solid the belief, the more impossible it will be
    for that observer.  Therefore, Talli* nor anyone else will ever
    *do* anything for you that is *impossible.*  *Impossibility*
    does not exist for you, as possible.
          Also, you are severely cramped by your own emotions.  To
    wit in here your emotions are defiant and arrogant (that is,
    "show me, I'm special, I've got my arms crossed and I won't unfold
    them unless I feel like it," etc.)  So from my perspective, I'd say
    "no, I won't play."  Not that you're asking me, but that would be
    a reasonable response to you.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    
    Good  to  hear  from  you,  Talligai ! 
    
    Jana
    

Re: .114

Thank you Frederick for that most elequently expressed observation.

Isn't it amazing how POWER & CONTROL, ANGER & EXPECTATION keep coming
up right now for clearing globally.......excellent mirroring people.

And as you all know by now, I don't do EXPECTATION.

Namasthe,
Talligai

      A concept to ponder:

      If one can not accept their own divinity how can they ever
      accept anyone else's????


        Love and Light
         Talligai

re: (Frederick)

    
>          You are actually arguing for your own limitations, whether
>    you can see it or not.   If reality is subjective, and beliefs
>    precede experience, it is *impossible* to see *impossible* things
>    if the observer doesn't first believe in the impossible on some
>    level.  The more solid the belief, the more impossible it will be
>    for that observer.  Therefore, Talli* nor anyone else will ever
>    *do* anything for you that is *impossible.*  *Impossibility*
>    does not exist for you, as possible.

	Based upon your own statement, extracted above, reality
	at least in some respect *must* be objective.  Since I
	do not feel that *all* reality must needs be measurable
	I guess in some respects we agree.

	But anyway, this really is just a convenient "out"
	for the fact that those who claim to be able to create
	their own reality cannot actually demonstrate those
	claims.
 
>         Also, you are severely cramped by your own emotions.  To
>    wit in here your emotions are defiant and arrogant (that is,
>    "show me, I'm special, I've got my arms crossed and I won't unfold
>    them unless I feel like it," etc.)  So from my perspective, I'd say
>    "no, I won't play."  Not that you're asking me, but that would be
>    a reasonable response to you.
 
	Er, do you actually have any real basis to assert that
	I am "cramped by [my] own emotions."?  You feel this is
	so because I express skepticism that a particular DEC
	employee is not actually a former inhabitant of the
	Metenarc region of the Central Universe?  Now this is
	really quite a leap on your part, is it not?

	And what's more my "emotions" are "defiant" and "arrogant"
	eh?  Just how does one use one's emotions defiantly, and
	what am I defying?  As for my "arrogance", you are certainly 
	free to use ad hominem attacks as a substitute for critical
	analysis.   

	Joel
    

    re: .116, .117
    
    Actually, you *do* do expectation.
    
    As for your question in .117, I guess it is quite possible to
    believe that oneself is not divine, but that, say, God,
    Allah, whom/whatever, is.  Sort of like I can believe I am
    not a Boston Celtic, but I don't doubt the existence of
    Larry Bird.
    
    Joel
    

    re: .117 Joel
    
         Well, Joel, it's not precise, of course, since I couldn't
    actually see you or hear you when you wrote it, but since I have
    a certain basis in my own intuitive abilities, then I'd say based
    on that, my awareness of you and your statements in the past, etc.
    that I detected an arrogance and a certain amount of justification.
    Clearly, too, to be more fair, you are intelligent and obviously
    seeking for some understandings and awarenesses or you wouldn't be
    in here at all, in my opinion.  But, more to the point, I have 
    learned, as a reality creator (and by the way, if you want proof
    of my abilities to create reality, take a look!) that most of what
    we call life is really an illusionary manifestation of thoughts
    and feelings, beliefs and attitudes, choices and decisions.  As
    part of that package, we set up a variety of obstacles to impede
    our way back and that blocking could be called "a game."  To *that*
    end, part of the game is buying into the melodrama of what we call
    our lives...getting sucked into victimhood, martyrhood, self-pity,
    blame, shame, etc.  We all do it;  I do it.  But in order to do it
    less, I am working to avoid confrontation...replacing it perhaps
    with encounterings.  What you stated was confrontational...and I
    called you on it, that's all.  No big deal.
    
    re: .116 (Talligai)
    
         Personally, "for the record," you seem nice.  You have some
    interesting awarenesses and a certain gentleness.  I like or at
    least tolerate all of that.  I will also add, however, that I don't
    believe you are who/what you state.  That's as far as I will go with
    it here.  I encourage you to continue to express yourself, minus
    the negative ego that you *must* have (if you are in human form,)
    and to have fun doing so.  
         As for expectations, perhaps that is where you then unravel 
    yourself.  For without expectations, nothing but mediocrity will
    ensue.  The grander the expectations, the higher the probabilities
    of fun, success and enthusiasm for living.  I'm surprised at your
    attitude surrounding expectations.
    
    Frederick
    

    re: .120
    
    Confrontational?  But you're the one slinging personal
    labels, eh?  But to get back to content...
    
    What you say (in .120) may have much merit with respect
    to the very difficult-to-pin-down process of concsciousness.
    That is, the process whereby we perceive what we percieve
    and process that information is hardly completely understood.
    
    We could also pretend we're back in college doing a freshman
    "bull" session and talk about the nature of "reality."  But
    it's rather a difficult quest, is it not?  For a true grasp
    of the set "all of reality" is beyond us.  But we *can* grasp
    some elements that *must* be included in whatever larger or
    more comprehensive definition we might come up with.  Accepting
    that some things are, quite definitely, not possible, is only
    a limitation if you allow it to be.
    
    For myself, I think the multitudinous unsolved mysteries, the
    incredible unexplored vastness of the cosmos, including our
    own bodies - just to get warmed up - ought to provide enough
    excitement for a few million lifetimes, let alone my own
    little time until I shuffle off this mortal coil.
    
    So I must say I reject the notion that requiring evidence before
    I accept claims which involve violation of natural law makes
    me feel somehow emotionally constipated, or hostile, or limited,
    or whatever.  There is plenty of room in the universe for wonder
    and excitement.  In fact, next time you feel you need a dose
    of the Beyond to feel unlimited in your awe, check out Leonardo's
    notebooks...
    
    Joel
    

    
>>
>>  A  concept  to  ponder:
>>
    
    I'd  prefer  'A  fact  to  recognize:'  :-))
    
>>
>>  If one can not accept their own divinity how can they ever
>>  accept anyone else's????
>>
    
    :-))  Good  one !
    
    I'm  quite  sure  this  isn't  written  in  the  akashic  files !
    How  can  it  be  true  if  it  isn't  written  there ? :-))
    
    ( Pardon  my  spelling,  but  I  didn't  see  that  word  too
      closely  in  the  earlier  notes.)
    
    Don't  feel  offended,  whoever  wrote  about  that  file !
    It  does  seem  ridiculous  to  look  at  a  file  when  in
    a  garden !
    
    Neither  is  the  purpose  of  a  flower  blossoming  expounded
    anywhere !
    
    I've  seen  inquisitive  little  guys  take  apart  a  flower 
    to  see  where  the  fragrance  comes  from !
    
    They  realize  it  came  from  where  it  went  when  they  
    took  it  apart...
    
    

    Re: Marilyn,
    
         Hi, I just wanted to say that Ruth Montgomery did make mention of
    the Akashic Records and even though some of her books may seem "for the
    beginner" to some people, I have always found a certain comfort in the
    information.
    
    Re: Talligai,
    
         Again, welcome.  I find your entries most interesting and look
    forward to seeing more.  I have read most of your entries for the past
    year or two and it seems to me that with each entity comes a different
    style of writing and expression.  Do you have anything to say about the
    Akashic records?  And/or the polar shift?  If I remember correctly
    Edgar Cayce said this planet would experience the shift anywhere from
    the year 2000 to 2053 depending, of course, on the effects of free
    will.  Glad you're still here!!!!
    
                                                           Capt. Scott

  Faith before proof

  Consider this: if a spiritual being chooses not to offer evidence of
  their nature, there's no test that can be devised within the physical
  universe which would determine that they have some sort of
  supernatural aspect. Put another way: there's no way to determine or
  prove that God exists. If you want God (or other lower spiritual
  entity) to offer evidence, you may have to "show good faith" first, by
  being willing to believe that they exist *before* having proof or
  evidence in the physical plane.

  ---

  The "Uncertainty Principle" of spirituality

  Any attempt to determine, by rigorous experiment which would prove
  beyond any doubt in the physical plane that spirituality exists, is
  doomed to failure; all trace of spirituality vanishes under the
  microscope of science. This is a requirement in order to keep the laws
  of the physical plane internally consistent. Spiritual phenomena can
  violate physical laws. They can occur, but will not under scientific
  scrutiny.

  ---

  "What is the purpose of the sky being blue?" vs "What is the cause of
  the sky being blue?"

  The first is the motivation for the child's question, not the second.
  Adults tend to answer the second question. I am going to ask the
  child's question: why do you want evidence or proof? I know what
  *causes* people to ask for evidence and proof (do you think I haven't
  been/am not there myself?). What I would like to know is: What would
  you consider to be adequate evidence? Would you like to see an
  elephant fly? Would you like to see the earth's rotation stop for 24
  hours? But more importantly: what would you *do* if you got such
  proof? What would it mean to you? How would it change your life?

  There's no problem for God or a spiritual being to provide evidence or
  proof in the physical plane. But whether they do it or not is not in
  response to the desire for entertainment. They do it if the condition
  of the questioner is such that such evidence would produce the
  correct, meaningful change in behavior and belief. For the most part,
  it wouldn't.

  The demand for proof blocks the possibility to allow evidence to be
  presented which would have a constructive effect. Whenever evidence is
  provided, it will be in such a way that a doubt can remain as to
  whether it was actually evidence, or "just a coincidence". It must be
  up to the questioner to actively choose -- by an act of free will --
  to believe that the evidence was not a coincidence. Evidence is
  provided when and only when it is not demanded as proof of existence.
  It is provided when it can have the effect of causing constructive
  changes, not when it would be received like just another bizarre story
  on Geraldo.

                                                
    
    Re: -1 :
    
>>
>>  Put another way: there's no way to determine or
>>  prove that God exists. If you want God (or other lower spiritual
>>  entity) to offer evidence, you may have to "show good faith" first, by
>>  being willing to believe that they exist *before* having proof or
>>  evidence in the physical plane. 
>>
    
    If  Talligai  permits  me  to  extend  the  reply  ( a few back),
    with  the  title  "I AM  That I AM or AM I ?"
    
    'A concept to ponder:',
    
    Which  divine  being  outside  of  you  do  you  seek  the
    proof  of  existence  of ?
    
    Jana

A question to everyone:

Did not Jesus provide much proof-and-evidence that he had "supernatural"
abilities?  (i.e. healed people, walked on water, turn water-into-wine,
raise people from the dead, etc.)

As far as I know, all the avatars that have come to this planet have always
offered proof-and-evidence of who they claimed to be....

Also, regarding a note a couple back about the scientific evidence in relation
to Spirituality:

There ARE things that can be measured in a science lab that indicate something
occurring on a "supernatural" level - things ranging from prediction using
atomic clocks such as the experiments of Dr. Helmut Schmidt to ectoplasmic
materializations and apportations in a controlled environment such as the 
experiments of the University of Osaka, Japan, etc.

There are 2 kinds of proof-and-evidence: Objective and Subjective.  The 
objective proof-and-evidence are things that can be measured or 
proof-and-evidence that is demonstrated in a controlled environment.  The
subjective proof-and-evidence is a personal proof-and-evidence such as a
medium bringing forth information that only you would know.  In my opinion 
anyone claiming to have "supernatural" abilities or to be "supernatural" 
should be able to provide both and would be more than willing to do so...

Linda

Re: .124 (Mike)

I've been avoiding writing in this topic like the plague (though reading 
with interest), but I really enjoyed some of Mike's comments and would 
like to add two cents more.

>  ...all trace of spirituality vanishes under the microscope of science. 

While science as we know it today cannot perceive the causes underlying 
spirituality and spiritual realms, it can (and will increasingly be able 
to) perceive the effects of spirituality.  Spiritually focused people 
tend to work (often times intuitively) from the level of causes and 
abstract ideas, and then observe effects.  Scientifically oriented 
people tend to work from the level of effects which are concrete and 
measurable, and then trace a path back to the cause.

While these distinct approaches are not completely one way or the other, 
it isn't difficult to see that these tendencies exist.  Both approaches 
are valid and valuable, and eventually they will meet more tightly in 
the middle than is the case today.  Science has much spirituality within 
it to unfold, and spirituality has much science to unfold.

>  This is a requirement in order to keep the laws
>  of the physical plane internally consistent. Spiritual phenomena can
>  violate physical laws. 

Science enjoys a physical plane which is consistent and predictable 
because without the consistency the cause then becomes a moving target.
The spiritual focus, on the other hand, enjoys the knowledge that the 
current limitations and boundaries within the physical plane can be 
broken and expanded with sufficient understanding of the cause.  When 
science occasionally expands the known boundaries of physical law, it is 
usually because they have worked their way to a cause, and upon 
discovering the cause, have better understood what effects might result.
For example, known physical law at one time observed that "man cannot 
fly."  With further understanding of causes (law of gravity), however, 
science was then able to develop more sophisticated methods of working 
within the law, and the result was aviation.  There are many more of 
these law-expanding discoveries yet to be found.

So rather than "spiritual phenomena [violating] physical laws," perhaps 
spiritual phenomena simply expands our understanding of physical laws.

I have some more comments related to Mike's insights, but I'll enter 
them as another reply.

Jeff

    
Note 1460.127                   
SHALOT::LACKEY 
    

>So rather than "spiritual phenomena [violating] physical laws," perhaps 
>spiritual phenomena simply expands our understanding of physical laws.

    There you go.  
    
    I agree, Jeff...  like explorers cutting a path through the unknown,
    ... a path which quickly becomes a road well traveled by scientists.
    
    mary

    re: .126 (Linda)
    
         ...yes, but Jesus also martyred himself to his "cause."
    Any volunteers to willingly do the same?   ;-)
    
         As for proof, most *Can* but the question then comes as to
    why.  For *your* negative ego's satisfaction?  To allow themselves
    to be hurt?  So that you can focus on the phenomena rather than
    the message?  There have got to be great, great numbers of reasons
    why they should *not* have to prove themselves.
         AS for myself, I have seen proof for myself of various
    phenomena.  I believe that eventually what you want to see will
    develop.
    
    Frederick
    

re: .124  (Mike)

To take what I feel are your major points/questions:

1. Faith before proof - Once we have proof, it isn't a matter of
faith anymore, is it?

2. Spiritualists and proof - I think Linda (in .126) did a good
job handling the issue of the historical record with regard
to the offering of proof.

3. "Uncertainty Principle" of spirituality - Others have pointed
towards parapsycholgy experiments that, at least according to
the experimenters, may provide strong evidence for the existence
of certain paranormal phenomena.  To my own mind, such gross
(as in large) effects as traveling between universes and "vibrating"
DNA/RNA molecules shouldn't disappear under scrutiny.  

4. Why desire proof? - Well, to get at the truth.

5. What would be proof? - Unambiguous demonstration of the violation
of natural law(s) under circumstances which rule out conventional
explanations.  If that means flying elephants, fine.

6. What would be the effect of such proof - Speaking for myself,
and considering the present topic, unambiguous proof of 
Atkinson/Talligai's claims would turn me into a supporter.  Because
her basic story, though perhaps unique in the details, is really
an old, old tale.  It is a standard method for people with spiritual
claims to win adherents.

	a. Watch out for the coming apocalypse!
	b. Those who believe the end is nigh are naturally
	   fearful.
	c. And they better be afraid.  The consequences are dire.
	d. But if you get right with [insert spiritual entity/
	   deity/whatever] things will not only be ok...
	e. Things will be *better* than ok.  In the present case
	   we're talking what amounts to heaven on earth.  

And an observation on proof and evidence.  I try to avoid
using the word `proof' out of context, though perhaps I may
slip from time to time.  Proof generally requires evidence,
but evidence doesn't always constitute `proof' as such.
Evidence doesn't need to be in the form of scientific enquiry.
In fact, we live most of our lives on the basis of evidence
and I very frankly do not see why we should be asked to make
a special exception for spiritual claims.  A couple of examples:

1. You work at the liquor store.  A very young-looking person
comes in and asks to purchase liquor.  You request ID.  Their
driver's license says they are old enough to buy liquor, so
you sell it to them.  The ID is probably sufficient in the 
context and for your needs.  But maybe it is forged or stolen?
It is evidence and not proof.

2. You're driving your car.  You watch the highway.  The
evidence of your eyes keeps you from slamming around wildly,
taking wrong turns, and so on.

And we are supposed to just accept, on faith, a fellow
DEC employee's tales of apocalypse and space travel and
natural law violation when we require more than "faith"
just to navigate in our daily lives?

Why?

Joel

Re: more comments on .124

To obtain spiritual (causal, non-physical) knowledge, curiosity isn't 
sufficient as it lacks depth of purpose and meaning.  If someone says to 
me, "knowledge of great value lies behind this door," and I reply with, 
"show me; I'll believe it when I see it," then the door cannot open if 
there is real value there.  On the other hand, if I am seeking, 
knocking, and asking for something I specifically consider valuable, 
then I find the way through the door.

The difference lies in purpose.  If I have genuine purpose then it is 
because I have uncovered a need, something of value that I can use.  
Need, not curiosity, is the mother of invention (and discovery).  
The desire to prove or disprove the credibility of an idea does not 
serve any meaningful purpose.  If we have a substantive need for 
knowledge, then we can find the truth for ourselves.  Then we know on 
the basis of our own experience, and need not rely on the statements of 
others.  

<chuckle> I've heard of "knock and ye shall receive," and similar 
concepts, but I've never heard, "shout from a distance and it will be 
made clear."  Even if we are shown what is behind the door based on 
curiosity, we haven't really seen it.  Only when we have experiential 
knowledge do we really understand.  It is understanding I am refering 
to with the idea of the door opening.  The door hasn't really opened if 
there is no understanding.  And whatever door to supposed knowledge is 
volunteered to us by others; it is useless if it isn't useful.

Even belief, in and of itself, is insufficient to open the door; and the 
door can indeed be opened with no belief in the subsequent discovery.  
Beliefs are simply conscious or unconscious hypotheses which are carried 
around (and may or may not change) until such time as they are proven or 
disproven through experience.  Belief affects our perception of effects 
and causes.  It doesn't, however, have any bearing on them.  This isn't 
to knock beliefs, though, as they very adequately serve to fill the 
voids in our picture until such time as experience reveals truth.  Often 
times it is imagination, on the basis of belief, that actually leads us 
to further discovery.

Jeff

    Joel,
    
    What about Frederick's concerns about the safety of the person giving
    the demonstration?  Do you feel that to be a valid concern?  Could
    you guarantee the person's safety and well-being if such a thing were
    made public?
    
    They still 'shoot the messenger' on this planet.  I feel that concerns
    for Talligai's safety are valid.
    
    mary

>1. Faith before proof - Once we have proof, it isn't a matter of
>faith anymore, is it?

  Once you have proof, you no longer have any doubt. Of course, as you
  said, you may not get proof all at once, you may just get bits of
  evidence, in which case the strength of your belief increases bit by
  but, but you still have doubts. This is probably the way most of us
  will approach spirituality. A rare few may get the full blast at once
  (I think they call this Zen, and, from what I've heard, can cost you
  an arm and a leg).

>And we are supposed to just accept, on faith, a fellow
>DEC employee's tales of apocalypse and space travel and
>natural law violation when we require more than "faith"
>just to navigate in our daily lives?

  Actually, we require much less than faith to navigate the physical
  world. Faith, at least for me, is a much harder thing to muster than
  dependence on my habits and physical senses. Isn't that true of
  everyone? Faith means denying your own beliefs. Faith would mean, for
  example, walking on hot coals because your teacher says you can do it.
  I would have an exceedingly hard time mustering the faith to do that.

  But the point I really want to make is that there's no particular
  value to accepting or rejecting Talligai's claims regarding her
  nature. There's value in observing her behavior, and in identifying
  the instructive information in her replies. It doesn't particularly
  matter to me whether she's a walk-in or a well-informed human being.

Re .133

    "Faith means denying your own beliefs."

I expect that sentence made some people blink.  In many uses, "faith" IS your 
beliefs.  It illustrates how the word "faith" can have several meanings.

It can mean any belief accepted without ironclad proof.  That would include 
almost everything people have ever believed, since ironclad proof is hard to 
come by.  That seems to be the sense Joel Grant is using when he talks about 
people's faith in everyday mechanics while driving.

It can mean any belief accepted on fragmentary evidence.  I expect that is 
one of the meanings being used in this topic.

It can mean loyalty to a person.  That seems to be your own meaning when you 
contrast a student fire-walker's trust in his teacher with his expectations of 
getting burnt.

  "There's value in observing her behavior, and in identifying the instructive 
   information in her replies. It doesn't particularly matter to me whether 
   she's a walk-in or a well-informed human being."

Okay, but it would matter to me.  If a purported walk-in would demonstrate that 
it is a walk-in, it would not only be empirical evidence for extra-terrestrial 
life and the existence of souls, it would be evidence for ESP and many other 
very interesting things.

Of course, all of this is "just" a matter of scientific curiosity, not
spiritual growth.  But in the spiritual sphere, we get back to issues of
authority.  Some spiritual advice from a "walk-in" may be obviously sound --
encouragement, or ideas we hadn't thought of but can see the sense of; then we
don't care what the source really is.  Other advice -- do this or that with a
crystal, listen to this or that "channeled entity" -- is not so obviously
useful.  You might take it from a reliable authority, but not otherwise.
If the "walk-in" is no real walk-in, then it is very seriously
mistaken or very seriously lying; it is not a reliable authority.

Finally, "walk-in" and "well-informed" may not be the only two possibilites.

Earl Wajenberg

re: (Mary)

In a word: no.  I am not worried for the safety of an entity
capable of doing things like transport it/herself across
multiple universes in an instant and otherwise do things that
we mortals simply cannot do.

re: last few

In regards to faith/evidence - What I was getting at in the driving
illustration was evidence rather than faith.  In this example,
`faith' would be, say, driving with your eyes closed and trusting
to luck or a remote-viewing capability or some such.

Of course there is the use of `faith' as in "faith in one's
abilities."  But I am using the word `faith' in what I think
is the general usage, namely something like: a belief which is
held without, or in spite of, evidence.  

Joel
 

    
    Another recommended reading related to this topic is:
    
        "Autobiography Of A Yogi", by Paramahansa Yogananda
    
    It was written in the 1940's, and as late as February 1990 it was a  
    bestseller in Italy.  Yoga Journal published a lengthy article on
    Yogananda and his words in their last issue.  
    
    It has just about all of the DEJAVU-related topics covered.  (;^)
    It also sheds a lot of light on the true meaning of Christianity.
    Excellent work.
    
    Cindy

    
    Marilyn Re .110 when you asked about Elizabeth Claire Prophet, there is
    a reply in Note 1199 "Lord Maitreya" namely .21 which references her.
    
    Other replies in that note give statements from the then Altraea about the
    Great White Brotherhood and the Masters within it. They may help to confirm
    or confound the theories raised in this note.
    
    As someone hungry for knowledge, I appreciate the statements from
    Talligai and predecessors, those coaxed from Marcos, and everyone else
    that contributes in this conference. I think the focussing created by
    this particular note is no bad thing.
    
    With more Love and more Light everyday,
    
    Martin
    

>                    <<< Note 1460.134 by ATSE::WAJENBERG >>>
>[Faith] can mean any belief accepted without ironclad proof. 

  I tend to use "faith" to mean something similar: belief accepted
  without *evidence* (as opposed to without *proof*).

>That would include almost everything people have ever believed, since
>ironclad proof is hard to come by.

  Certainly ironclad proof is hard to come by, but there's plenty of
  *evidence* to support our belief in physical laws. I don't mean the
  stuff we learned in high school, I mean the belief, based on years of
  experience, that dropped objects will fall, and stuff like that. This
  I call "belief". So "faith" most definitely doesn't include almost
  everything people have ever believed. "Faith" I reserve for "blind
  faith" -- choosing to accept a notion which goes against (or lies
  outside) experience based on evidence. 

  If beliefs are based on experience and evidence, then faith is not.
  Faith is often acceptance of an idea which goes against belief. That
  was the meaning of my statement "Faith means denying your own
  beliefs".

Re .138 (Marcos):
>Does the above note say that those views are right or wrong?

  I guess I don't understand your question. The reply you quoted didn't,
  to me, say much about whether the views of the Rosicrucians or
  Theosophists are right or wrong, but that these organizations have
  been founded (under the auspices of the GWB) to disseminate some
  mystical information. I've personally found the views of the
  Rosicrucians and related organizations to strike a meaningful chord,
  so if the GWB has anything to do with them, I guess I like them, too.

    If you come upon a stream and find that the water is good, it may not
    be necessary to question the source of the stream. However, if you plan
    to base a part of your well-being upon the stream or incorporate it into
    your tribe's belief system, you would do well to check on the source of the
    stream ;-)

    Talligia, I am sure you would appreciate an element of skeptism
    expressed by some, as there have been many who have come as the saviour
    or guide and mislead many people. You are providing very interesting
    information not normally found by us mere mortals in our travels, hence
    we seek to reference it back to some source or some known ground. I am
    sure you will understand this, if you are who you say you are... 

    Talligia, you speak of some big "shift" that is to happen some time in the
    future. Most prophets, good or bad, have spoken of some future
    consequence...Could you tell us more of this, is there some tell-tale
    signs...can we translate this info into some usable form to help us
    get from an apparent lack of knowledge to a more enlightened position?
    
    -Brian
    
    ps Jana, why is all your spaces double-spaced? ;-)

    re: .138  (Marcos)
    
    You ask if 1199.21 (reproduced by you in 1460.138) represents
    the views of the Theosophists, Rosicrucians, et. al. as
    correct or incorrect.
    
    Let's look at 1199.21 again:
    
    	The GWB is a body of Ascended Masters and Celestial Beings
    	responsibile for disseminating the appropriate information
    	(mysteries) to the life stream chosen by them (by virtue
    	of their personal evolution and light) to found whatever
    	organization (Rosicrucians, Theosophical Society, I AM
    	movement..."
    
    I would conclude from this statement that if the author
    endorses the views of the "GWB" the author must logically
    endorse, at least in a general way, the views of the theosophists,
    etc.  Because of the qualifier "appropriate."  That is, the
    GWB is not around to disseminate what they consider to be
    inappropriate (non-mysterious?) information.  They disseminate
    "appropriate" information.  
    
    Thus, groups they "found" by definition have appropriate views.
    
    Joel
    

  Re Marcos:

>Does this mean that we are all walk-ins?

  I like your point. I subscribe to the notion that we are all
  "celestial" (or spiritual) beings (in fact, part of the same and only
  one) inhabiting a physical form (which is a part of this same
  creation). The unique feature about a "walk-in" (as explained
  somewhere in note 1034) is that the spiritual being came to inhabit
  the physical form at some point after the form was created. As far as
  I know, I came to inhabit my body at the time my body was conceived (I
  happen not to be a big fan of abortion, but let's not get into that,
  because nobody really is :-).

  Talligai's claim is that she came to inhabit the body at some later
  point, and, in fact, took the place of a different spiritual being who
  had inhabited it before. As I've said before, it doesn't particularly
  matter to me whether such a thing has actually happened in the case of
  Atkinson/Talligai. What's interesting is that the personality which
  inhabits the body (or at least the VMS account :-) writes interesting
  notes. In those notes, I accept things which seem insightful, and
  reserve judgment on things which seem improbable to me, while trying
  to keep an open mind.

    
    Re: .142
    
>>    
>>  ps Jana, why is all your spaces double-spaced? ;-)
>>
    
    :-),  
    
    Brian,  it  looks  pretty  to  me !!
    
    Good  enough ?  
    
    I'll  change  to  single-space  if  it  isn't  comfortable  for 
    you.  
    
    The  form  doesn't  affect  the  contents.  It  only  affects 
    other  forms...  jewel  boxes  that  look  for  jewels  in
    other  boxes,  ignoring  their  contents.
    
    Jana
                                            

Re: the walk-in thing

It really makes no difference how we got here.  Whether we grow-in, 
crawl-in, walk-in, or fly-in is all immaterial...  Once we're in, 
we're in.  And within our human consciousness, where there truly is 
equality (even if we don't always act like it), no one who is "in" is 
privy to any internal knowledge which is not available to all.  The only 
difference is in the degree to which we have personally realized that 
inner knowledge.

It may be that someone from Los Angeles flies in (it would be a long 
walk-in) to New York City, and they might even go around announcing to 
everyone that they're from Los Angeles, and they might even be 
presumptuous enough to immediately begin making recommendations on how 
New Yorkers could better their city...  But hey babe, once you're in 
New York you're in New York, and consequently subject to New York laws 
and generally subject to New Yorkers' ways of doing things.  That's just 
the way it is, and in my opinion, it's a pretty good system... It keeps 
our system from being torn apart by multitudinous cosmic do-gooder's.  
If that happened within our company we would be faced with weekly 
reorganizations instead of our customary six month reorg's.

So I don't worry much about it.

Regardless of what happened yesterday, and regardless of what happens 
tomorrow, my job is still to live fully today; and it is also my job to 
be very discriminative about those I choose to ask for help when I need 
it.

Jeff

Talligai,

	I've seen in some of your entries that you mention The Great White
	Brotherhood, Ascended masters, St.Germain and so on.
	There is nothing new about this terminology, which has been used
	by different occult directions, from Madame Blavatsky to more recently,
	Elizabeth Claire Prophet. Which both, in my opinion, must be said
	to be very questionable personalities.
	Many studies has been done on St.Germain, some of them shortly after
	his death, and some in more recent time. On the whole these studies
	concludes that St.Germain was one of the greatest charlatans in his 
	time, but no doubt that he vas a very gifted person.

	What I'm really wondering about Talligai, is; Why are you
	using all this New Age terminology ?
	Is it to try to strengthen your claimed authenticity ?
	Where is the necessity of doing this, if you got something 
	you want to share with us ?

-Svein 

    re: .148  (Svein)
    
    Good questions.  We anxiously await the answers.
    
    Joel
    

    re: .148,
    
    Now you guys are really reaching.  Guilt-by-association seems to me to
    be most often the last refuge in a discussion that is going nowhere 
    because someone refuses to even try to see from another perspective.  
    Those personalities may be considered disreputable in some circles, but 
    they had a lot on the ball.   Quoting from them in no way weakens 
    someone's position in my mind, so long as they are used as literary 
    references and not 'research data.'
    
    re: .149,
    
    Joel, since you don't propose an alternate metaphysical reality model,
    you are not in a very strong position (in my mind) to argue against that of 
    the Theosophists, etc., even if it doesn't seem valid on its own.  Without 
    an alternative model, all you can really do is try to argue for
    meaninglessness and lack of metaphysical order.   It's the same problem
    faced by the analytic philosophers who argued against philosophical
    inquiry on the basis that it was all language games, but had not view
    of reality of their own to replace it with.  Argued themselves into
    oblivion, in a sense.  Perfect Zen justice.  :*)
    
    								todd

    
    Re: -1 :
    
>>
>>  Now you guys are really reaching.  Guilt-by-association seems to me to
>>  be most often the last refuge in a discussion that is going nowhere 
>>
    
    I  think  there's  a  genuine  question  there, not  just  accusing
    guilt-by-association,  or  an  attempt  to  weaken  anybody's
    stand.
    
    Why  is  it  necessary  to  use  dubious  references,  even  if  
    only  in  some  circles,  to  share  something  thats  supposedly
    independent  of  those  personalities  discussed ??
    
    And  the  references  are  not  exactly  of  the  literary  kind,
    for  example, 1460.8  says,
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
>>First to clarify something....Jesus, whom you call "the Christ" is an 
>>Ascended Master, not an Angel and does not live in the Angelic Realms.
>>Jesus along with St. Germaine serves as World Teacher for this planet
>>and together they are responsible for ushering in the Aquarian age of 
>>Forgiveness and Freedom under the Seventh (Violet)Ray. 
>>
>>Lord Maitreya is Lord of the World and the Planetary "Christ". Jesus 
>>received the title of Christ when he embodied the Christic flame here 
>>in your dimension.  
>>
>>
>>There are many brotherhoods that make up the "Great White Brotherhood" (again
>>this has nothing to do with race" but rather the Ascension ray or white light)
>>the Brotherhood of the Cross and the Triangle being but one. I have not
>>any specific knowledge of the entity Ramatis that you asked me about. Is there
>>information regarding this lifestream that you would care to enlighten
>>us with.
>>
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Again,  the  way  I  see  it  is  that  these  references  were 
    drawn  from  previous  questions,  by  Marcos et al..
    
    The  point  made  in  .148  is  
    
       what  is  the  purpose  of  these  references  in  the  
       common  forum ?  Is  it  only  for  specific  individuals ?
    
    It  is  difficult  to  connect  these  references  to  the
    other  information  offered  by  Talligai.
    
    
    Jana
    
          

    
       Are  walk-ins  capable  of  making  errors  ?  If  so,
       do  they  admit  the  errors  when  they  recognize
       it  as  such ?
    
       Jana
    

    
    Re.147
    
    >crawl-in
    
    Hey - that explains my penchant for sleep this incarnation!  (;^)
    
    Seriously, I believe that the purpose of each incarnation is to learn
    to express as much love as possible (quote from Richard Bach's book
    "One".)
    
    The rest is just trivial details.  People really get caught up in the
    trivial details, you know...
    
    Cindy

    crash-in is more like it :-)
    
    I agree once again, Cindy... details, details... Gee.. we agree a lot
    these days. :-)
    
    mary

    Good Point Cindy P., and as well, the expressions by Mary S. and Todd S.
    Zen Justice...I liked that Todd! ;-)
    
    Since I came kicking and screaming into this topic way back in the
    80's when Iissa-sp.? first appeared, I accused the poor women then of
    too many LSD trips and other such nasty accusations which really 
    wasn't very nice of me...but I apologized. I thought a walk-in was
    too far out. My god there had to be a limit...and walk-ins were it
    in my reality...especially a DECie Walkin!
    
    I've relaxed alot since then. So now the details and my personal 
    judgements and intellectual kung-fu with walk-ins have mellowed.
    Some of what Talligai/Atkinson says is interesting, helpful and
    like she says, you can take it or leave, no big deal. I say quit
    hassling and get on with something else if you think she's F.O.S.
    
    If she and what she says resonates with you on a spiritually
    vibrational level, do with what she says as you would with any
    other piece of information that strikes a chord with you. If not
    why the hell hassle with her, and in the meanwhile be a hassle
    yourself?
    
    Have a good afternoon folks!
    
    Peace&Love 
    -Arthur
    

	I like Iissa/Zeffel/Altreae/Talligai. (pardon any mispellings)
	But why *not* hassle her. The discussion has been interesting.
	And I'm sure she's a grown-up walk-in and can take it (as well
	as dish it out  ;')
	
	Personally, I'd  prefer a good stand-up to a walk-in.
	
	:-)
	
	Jay

    
    
    
    
    
    Jay,
    
    I agree the discussions have been interesting...
    And I am sure Talligai/Atkinson can well defend herself...
    
    I try to keep this in mind tho...
    
    Hassle unto others as they would hassle unto you...
    
    what goes around comes around.
    
    -Arthur
                                     

	Arthur,
	
	I agree.

	But so  far the hassling hasn't been too much.  People have asked
	reasonable skeptic-type questions.  Most have  been pretty polite
	actually.  I mean, no one accused  her of dosing too much ;') The
	walk-in  can  answer or not.  Actually, I  believe  she  sort  of
	enjoys it.
	
 >    Hassle unto others as they would hassle unto you...

	Hassle in fun shall be the whole of the law.  :-)
	
	Jay

  >>    Hassle in fun shall be the whole of the law. :-)
    
  ****  Very clever... 8-)!!!  I like that.
    
  ****  I hope that's the case, I don't like to have to point out
  ****  to individuals that their pharisaic slip is showing! ;-)
    
        -Arthur   

       ...details *can* be important..."trivial" details is obviously
    a subjective judgement.  I would agree that "trivial details" are
    a needless waste, however.  (I mean, would a pilot's checklist of
    details be considered a waste of time?  Think about it the next time
    you take a flight...)
    
         This month, on the Lazaris/Gilbert Williams calendar for 1991,
    the quote is "Love pays attention to details" (or is it "detail"?
    I forget and don't have it in front of me.)
    
    Frederick
    

    
    Re.160
    
    >that we are *all* walkins
    
    You're catching on Frederick.
    
    Cindy

BTW, FYI, FWIW..
re this alternate name Iiiissa..

"Issa" is how "Jesus" is spelled and pronounced in Arabic, Persian, and Urdu..

I'm certain it's just coincidental.

karl

    re: .160  
    >that we are *all* walkins
    
    Not me.  I'm a walk off.  What's a walk off.  Well, remember in the
    beginning when God created Heaven and Earth and all that.  Well, on the
    sixth day He created the birds, beasts, and humans.  After he created
    them He decided He'd take a short break before He installed their
    brains.  While the almighty was resting, some of these brainless
    creatures walked off.  :')
    
    Ron (who's still walking off.....)  

    I think I was walking beside you, Ron. :-)

    
    I wondered who that was.  

Good Morning Everyone,
Now that you all have had a wonderful time letting your consciousness
show and letting everyone know just where you are in the current 
clearing of POWER/CONTROL and ANGER/EXPECTATION......I will say a few
words. I find this all very amusing.....and that is not meant in a 
condescending manner....but rather that it amazes me that some of you
can expend so much time chasing and biting each others tails and 
misqualifying energy that you will then need to clear out of your 
personal electromagnetic fields, when you could be using it to get constructive
and needed information for you personal mutation that is going to be
required in the coming years..... it is reminiscent of Nero fiddling while 
Rome burned.

As far as the Great White Brotherhood is concerned, they do happen to
be the Ascended Brotherhood in charge of dissemenating "metaphysical
information" to this system of worlds. It is their purpose to bring
the information to you in whatever way they can.  How the lifestreams here
translate and use that information is not always the way it is transmitted
to them. And whether you give credibility to those who have brought forth
the Brotherhoods messages is totally up to you.  I speak of the Brotherhood
for this reason and I speak of and about New Age things because they
are common to all of you and the language is familiar.  I can not speak
to you in my language because the majority of you have not the mental 
body receptors for it nor the light spectral receptors for it. 

As for St. Germaine, regardless of your studies and critical
appraisal, the truth that still remains constant with the Prime Creator
First Cause is that St. Germaine is an Ascended Master and Chohan of the
Seventh Ray in your galaxy whether you accord him this honor or not. He 
earned it here in your third dimensional arena and has put great energy
into the upliftment and enlightenment of this United States of America in
particular as well as the entire planetary body.  (Just more of your
ABSOLUTES that mean Absolutely nothing outside of rational Mind)

As far as what is in store for you in the coming decades, it is my suggestion
to you to clear your vehicles of emotional blockages and revibrate yourselves
because with the coming of 1992 the acceleration will ramp up considerably
towards chaos as the dimensions overlap even more than they are currently
doing. In case you don't know what I am speaking about....we currently have
an overlap of 3rd, 4th and 5th dimensions operational here. That is why things
seem to be going at a breakneck speed and time seems warped....IT IS!
There are multitudes of extraterrestial life observing the birthing of Earth
into the 5th dimension ("Heaven on Earth") just outside the periphery of
your ozone (and your governments know about it even though they would deny
it heartily.....why give you this information and make the populace panic)
They are here to lend their support and love and energy to all of you who
are making such a monumental leap in consciousness and helping to birth
this planet to a star (its rightful evolution). The shift itself will not
take place fully until around 2012 give or take a year or two depending on
the evolution of mass consciousness on the planetary body...but it will con-
tinue to accelerate.  So again, I suggest that you turn inward to communicate
with the Divine aspects of yourselves (your I AM Presence) and let it lead
you. (Get out of rational mind or it will carry you into the downward spiral!)
Get into the Universal flux through your Presence and flow with it and 
it will carry you through the shift in impeccable Love and Harmony. In note
1453.31 I gave you the simple exercise of how to make direct contact with
your Presence if you are so inclined.

And I will restate what Iiissa (no coincedence) stated to you all....I am
more than delighted to answer all heartfelt questions that will benefit the
good of all....I will not engage in your Mental body games including the
game of PROVE it to me, I'm from MISSOURI.....if your from Missouri in this
context that is your problem, not mine.

In Light and Love
I AM
Talligai  

    re: .150  (Todd)
    
    Late response - was in an off-site class yesterday and will
    be again today.  (it's early here on the left coast)
    
    You're right, I don't propose an alternate metaphysical
    reality model.  I'm not sure I know what an alternate
    metaphysical reality model is.  But I haven't been 
    arguing against the Theosophists, unless the Theosophists
    postulate Metenarc as the breeding ground for spiritual
    walk-ins.
    
    My point has been that I find the story here quite simply
    unbelievable, in approximately every way.  For the story
    to be true, Atkinson/Talligai must be capable of violating
    quite firmly established physical laws of denial.  Only
    an entity *not* subject to natural law can do this.  Nothing
    I have seen in this topic, topic 1034, or any other topic in
    which I have seen her notes contains any real evidence
    to support her claims.
    
    I therefore feel justified in saying: Sorry, but I don't
    believe you.
    
    As for theosophy, I confess little interest in this system.
    Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, the founder, was clearly
    a conscious charlatan, as revealed by her own letters.  
    She did conjuring tricks from the Occult Room of her
    Theosophical Society headquarters in Madras, India.
    A decisive expose was published years ago by the British
    SPR - not a "skeptical" organization, by the way.
    
    Anyway, let those who wish to believe in astral projection
    and letter-writing Mahatmas do so.  They'll get no argument
    from me.  Just don't tell me you're from another universe
    and expect me to believe it without something to back up
    the story that I can verify.
    
    Have a great (long) weekend, all!
    
    Joel
    

Re .166 (Talligai)

>There are multitudes of extraterrestial life observing the birthing of Earth
>into the 5th dimension ("Heaven on Earth") just outside the periphery of
>your ozone (and your governments know about it even though they would deny
>it heartily...

  What if movies like "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and "ET" are
  preparatory -- they serve to familiarize us with coming contact, so
  that there will be general acceptance, and not panic.

    
    
>>
>>  I speak of the Brotherhood
>>  for this reason and I speak of and about New Age things because they
>>  are common to all of you and the language is familiar.
>>
    
>> 
>>  So again, I suggest that you turn inward to communicate
>>  with the Divine aspects of yourselves (your I AM Presence) and
>>  let it lead you.
>>
    
>>
>>  I am more than delighted to answer all heartfelt questions that will 
>>  benefit the good of all...
>>
    
    Thankyou,  Talligai,  that  clears  up  things. I  don't  think 
    anyone  of  us  here  intends  to  destroy  your  'credibility'
    or  prove  your  'authenticity'.
                                                  
    Its  quite  natural  for  all  of  us  to  experience  doubt,
    and  express  it  here.  Those  of  us  who  have  fewer  
    doubts  bless  those  who  have  more  doubts.
    
    Jana
    

>A dear friend of mine in the States used to refer to this amazing network of
>computers as ETHER-net. He had the unusual ability to establish a telepathic
>link with me when we were discussing things over the net. Can you do it too? If
>so would you be willing to give advice to those who may be interested? 

Yes, I can and would be willing to give it a go with those who are interested.


> The shift itself will not take place fully until around 2012 give or take a 
> year or two depending on the evolution of mass consciousness on the planetary
> body...

>This I cannot understand. Won't the shift be caused by a rare allignment of
>celestial bodies? How can the mass consciousness of this planet change such
>allignment?
            
The shift has mainly to do with the fact that your entire Universe has moved
with relation to the Central Sun and Central Universe and has been pulled
into alignment with other Universes that it was not influenced by previously 
because of its position out on the fringe so to speak. As a result its
spectral ranges have changed influencing the consciousness of the lifestreams
on the all the planetary bodies in your Universe.  And yes, I did say: "ALL"
the planetary bodies in your Universe.  The shifting of consciousness on and
under the surface of the planet has a direct affect on the electromagnetic
field of the planet and with the planetary changes that will or will not
need to take place in order to shift the dimensionality of the planet; and
on the ease or dis-ease of the shift. The pull from the Central Universe
that caused the new positioning of your Universe with it, is also responsible
in part for the "rare allignment of the celestial bodies in your Universe".
If the consciousness on this planetary body had not embraced the light of
the higher cosmology as much as it has (on the whole) in recent decades, 
things here would be taking a decidedly different turn.

I wish you all a wonderful weekend....I will be spending a few days communing
with my brethren and the beloved Mother Earth out camping in Woods and enjoying
the sacredness and oneness of all.

In Light and Love
I remain,
Talligai

    Take care, Talligai... 

Note 1460.171     
ASDS::ATKINSON  

>A dear friend of mine in the States used to refer to this amazing network of
>computers as ETHER-net. He had the unusual ability to establish a telepathic
>link with me when we were discussing things over the net. Can you do it too? If
>so would you be willing to give advice to those who may be interested? 

Yes, I can and would be willing to give it a go with those who are interested.

*** Hi again Talligai,

*** Hope you have a relaxing time camping this weekend and may you get
*** the best campsight you can create...and may your campsite neighbors
*** keep the volume down on the Heavy Metal music! ;-)

*** I'd be willing to give the telepathic ETHER-net connection a try if
*** you are.

*** -Arthur
        

    Count me in for this 'mind melt'...
    
    Ro
    

    re: .175 (RO)
    
          er, that's "meld," not melt...well, okay, if you insist!
    
    Frederick
    
    P.s.   Tally HO!  Talli-gai!
    

    Thanks Talligai,
    
    You say this earth will become a "sun". Is this in the conventional
    sense, such as our own sun or do you mean this in a "spiritual" sense.
    For this planet to become a natural sun would imply a massive change in
    chemistry of all earthly matter? In this case, is our own sun a
    rebirthed star, is this how we finally get to be part of nuclear fusion
    ;-)
    
    questions questions,
    
    -Brian

    re: .166  (Atkinson/Talligai)
    
    I am curious to know why you feel the standard notes
    conference etiquette of answering questions does not apply 
    to you.  Whatever the truth or non-truth of your origins,
    you are currently a DEC employee noting in a public DEC 
    notes conference which is here for the purpose of *discussing*
    psychic phenomena.  You are of course within your technical
    rights to make vague and slighting comments about those who
    express skepticism as to the authenticity of walk-ins in
    general and/or your case in particular.  
    
    But it isn't cool.
    
    >Now that you all have had a wonderful time letting your consciousness
    >show and letting everyone know just where you are in the current
    >clearing of POWER/CONTROL and ANGER/EXPECTATION...... I will say a few
    >words.
    
    	Now this is the sort of statement that requires a little
    	translation.  As someone mentioned, a few notes back,
    	literal understanding of some of the notes here, including
    	some of your notes, requires some definitions.  Care to
    	explicate this comment?
    
    >...There are multitudes of extraterrestrial life observing the
    >birthing of Earth into the 5th dimension...(and your governments
    >know about it even though they would deny it heartily.....why
    >give you this information and make the populace panic)...
    
    	OK.  So our governments know about ET's watching us to see
    	how we prepare for the "birthing of Earth" etc. but they
    	aren't telling us about it.  So - how do you know they know,
    	if they aren't telling anyone?  
    
    >And I will restate what Iiissa (no coincidence) stated to you 
    >all...I am more than delighted to answer all heartfelt questions
    >that will benefit the good of all....
    
    	My questions are heartfelt.  They benefit the good of all
    	by dint of the fact that they are designed to aid the
    	search for truth.  But I guess we are all obliged to *prove"
    	or otherwise *show* you we mean "benefit" and "heartfelt"
    	they way you do, eh?
    
    >I will not engage in your Mental body games including the 
    >game of PROVE it to me.  I'm from MISSOURI.....if your from
    >Missouri in this context that is your problem, not mine.
    
    	First, asking for evidence to support any sort of claim,
    	"normal" or paranormal is actually a pretty ordinary thing.
    	It isn't a game.  It is a way to get to truth.
    
    	Second, I noted above, though, you seem quite willing to play
    	the "prove it" game (to adopt your terminology for a
    	moment) when you can place others in a position of proving
    	something to you.  Flexibility!
    
    But I really do not wish to substitute ad hominem for reasoned
    discussion.  Your continued stance of insulting those who
    express doubts about your claims and/or who ask questions you
    feel are not "heartfelt" and so on - instead of answering the
    questions and addressing the issues - rather narrows the
    choice of responses.
    
    With all due respect, in my opinion it is yourself who are
    playing games, not I or any of the others who doubt your
    claims.  Speaking for myself, I am noting in a conference
    devoted to discussion of psychic phenomena.  It is not a
    conference devoted to unquestioning acceptance of the
    alleged walk-in phenomena.
    
    I happen to feel this can be discussed with an emphasis on
    issues and with mutual respect.  Of course you may choose
    not to discuss the issues, as is your right.  If so, kindly
    refrain from the kind of back-handed ad hominem attacks that
    have been cropping up in your notes lately.  If you want
    to ignore your critics, then allow me to suggest you do
    *precisely* that.
    
    Joel
     
    

    
    	If I may be permitted to interject here, a few points/comments/
    	observations and maybe a question or two:
    
    	1) It is really not necessary to quarrel in here (bombe::dejavu).
    	there is a conference on PEAR:: that is set up for the sole (soul?)
    	purpose of quarrelling. There is also VAXmail. (There is also
    	::CHRISTIAN %^). But in here, it has usually been the norm to give 
    	each other the benefit of the doubt, when a reply or non-reply 
    	could possibly be construed as an attack, or a snub. This is not
    	directed at anybody in particular - please. I simply seek to lower
    	the level of discord in this topic.
    
    
    	2) For whatever reason, the entities noting as CIMNET::ATKINSON 
    	do not respond to every mail and note directed to (them). I've
    	discovered this  myself, admittedly to some chagrin. My theory is
    	that there is simply too much volume. Some interesting and
    	thought-provoking things have been posted by this noter, and one
    	must consider the probable numbers of read-only noters who,
    	too shy to enter a note, may be contacting her via MAIL. In 
    	any case, notes posted by Talligai et al add value to this 
    	conference, if for no other reason than the level of interest
    	they generate. 
    
    	3) Some eyebrows were raised by the references to Earth becoming 
    	a star. Permit me to share a few thoughts about this. 
    
    	One thing that must be understood, is that our concepts of Earth,
    	the Solar System, and what we call the universe are based upon a
    	three-dimentional model. In this model, we theorize that if the
    	Earth were to become a star (as we know a star - e.g. a "sun"), 
    	we would then have a binary star system which would necessarily
    	incinerate the remaining inner planets. Such a thing would be
    	impossible according to "our" laws of physics; only Jupiter 
    	would be a star candidate and it has only about 1/10th the
    	necessary mass. No, Talligai is not talking about a "sun". The
    	Earth will become a source of great spiritual energy, undetectable
    	in the third dimension, but a veritable nova to beings of the 
    	higher realms, visible from points in the Universe that are
    	unimaginably distant.
    
    	4) Where does that leave us mere mortals? Many are here now who are
    	prepared to ascend, along with the Earth mother. Many also are not.
    	Those who are not are nervous, they fear that they will be cast out 
    	into "hell", or simply obliterated out of existence. To mask their
    	fear, they scoff at such talk as Talligai gives here, they have a
    	"business need" to disbelieve that they are faced with
    	annihilation.
    
    	To these I would say, fear not. You are eternal, and eternally
    	precious. Even as the preparations for the Earth's debut are
    	underway, a realm in which you may also develop is in waiting.
    	It will not have the beauty, the splendor, the magnificence of
    	the new Earth. It will be a hard world. But eventually, all
    	must ascend, and the God of infinite Love awaits with infinite
    	patience your return.
    
    	In any case, let nothing that you read here in DEJAVU ruin your
    	ability to enjoy your day. At it's simplest level, it is nothing
    	more than harmless words on a screen.
    
    	To all who read this note, may you have a magnificent day!
    
    	Peace
    Neal/B
    

	And may Neal/B have a magnificent day also!
	
	Peace to you too.
	Thanks,
	Jay

re: .180  (Neal/B)
    
>    	1) It is really not necessary to quarrel in here (bombe::dejavu).
 
	You're right.  It is also not necessary to agree on everything.
	I understand the norm in here to be one of discussion.  As
	in people of differing views discussing those views.
   
    
>    	2) For whatever reason, the entities noting as CIMNET::ATKINSON 
>    	do not respond to every mail and note directed to (them). I've
>    	discovered this  myself, admittedly to some chagrin. My theory is
>    	that there is simply too much volume. 
    
	An interesting theory.  But, at least with respect to this
	conference, your theory is contradicted by her own words.
	She will answer any question that is "heartfelt" and which
	"benefits" the conference as a whole.  She will specifically
	not offer any evidence to support her claims of ET origin.

	My theory is that she is not of extra-terrestrial origin
	and therefore cannot provide evidence for what does not
	exist.

>    	3) Some eyebrows were raised by the references to Earth becoming 
>    	a star.  
 
	Including mine.

>    	necessary mass. No, Talligai is not talking about a "sun". The
>    	Earth will become a source of great spiritual energy, undetectable
>    	in the third dimension, but a veritable nova to beings of the 
>    	higher realms, visible from points in the Universe that are
>    	unimaginably distant.
 
	OK, since planet earth clearly cannot become a sun or a
	star (our sun is a star) let's assume your explanation for
	what she really means is somewhere near the mark.  Of what
	would this spiritual energy be composed?  Whence the energy
	necessary to beam it to the beings of the higher realms?  Since
	they are unimaginably distant, getting from earth to where
	they are would ordinarily take far more time than any of us
	have.  How do we/they get around this? In what dimension(s)
	would this energy be detectable?  And so on.
     
>    	4) Where does that leave us mere mortals? Many are here now who are
>    	prepared to ascend, along with the Earth mother. Many also are not.
>    	Those who are not are nervous, they fear that they will be cast out 
>    	into "hell", or simply obliterated out of existence. To mask their
>    	fear, they scoff at such talk as Talligai gives here, they have a
>    	"business need" to disbelieve that they are faced with
>    	annihilation.
 
	Actually, we may all be faced with annihilation, 5th
	dimensional creep or not.  We've got ozone dissipation,
	possible greenhouse effect, famine, plague, etc., etc.
	Disasters, unfortunately, seem to be part of the human
	condition.  However, Atkinson/Talligai's scenario seems
	not to be particularly credible.  Since we can scare
	and worry ourselves in so many ways, why invent new ones?

	Joel    

Re: .173 Arthur,
 Good afternoon to you, Arthur.

*** Hope you have a relaxing time camping this weekend and may you get
*** the best campsight you can create...and may your campsite neighbors
*** keep the volume down on the Heavy Metal music! ;-)

Thank you for your good wishes ,I had a wonderfully relaxing time camping 
this weekend and my neighbors were very quiet considering that this was 
the holiday weekend...I had a lovely site with three sites vacant on each 
side of me.

*** I'd be willing to give the telepathic ETHER-net connection a try if
*** you are.

Happy to have you, Arthur.

        

Re .169 (Mike):

>  What if movies like "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and "ET" are
>  preparatory -- they serve to familiarize us with coming contact, so
>  that there will be general acceptance, and not panic.

Then how about movies like _Predator_, _Alien_, _The Thing_, _Invasion of the
Body Snatchers_, and _Life Force_?

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re: .174 Marcos

Greetings to you, Marcos.

> The shift has mainly to do with the fact that your entire Universe has moved
> with relation to the Central Sun and Central Universe and has been pulled
> into alignment with other Universes 

#I am afraid I don't understand the extension of what you call universe.
#Are you refering to all the energy that has condensed into matter or are you
#referring to the system of 12 planets orbitting around the star we call sun?

The system of 12 planets which include the Earth and revolve around "the sun"
makes up a galaxy.  That galaxy along with several other galaxies make up
a Universe. There are approximately 144,000 Universes radiating outward from 
the Central Universe. However, the Prime Creator First Cause is growing and 
expanding on a continual basis so this number does not remain constant.
Hopefully, this will give you a little better picture? 

> that it was not influenced by previously because of its position out on the 
> fringe so to speak. 

#Don't the several universes permeate each other? If so what is exactly position
#in this context? A raise in frequency toward the fundamental one?

Several Universes do permeate each other at their peripheries, but the position
of Earth's Universe has shifted in an upward direction and yes it is a raise
in frequency from it's previous position toward the frequency of the Prime
Creator. Therefore, the change in light sprectrums. If you picture all the
Universes as balls or separate cells (ie: like in a Rubik's Cube only round)
And move one from it's position on the edge of its' current color coded area 
into another color coded area you would have an approximate 3rd dimensional 
analogy (If you remember that all these separate cells are revolving constantly
it may be easier to visualize)

> Yes, I can and would be willing to give it a go with those who are interested.

#I'd be very much interested in this telepathic link. I will consider whatever
#advice you can provide as regards the main points I need to strengthen.

Happy to have you participate, Marcos....several people have now expressed
interest and we will need to coordinate the time variances to accommodate
everyone.

Namasthe,
Talligai

Re: .177 Marcos


##Note 1199.21    
##CIMNET::ATKINSON 

##Greetings,

##Sorry if you have answered this before. It's a pretty long conference. 

> The GWB is a body of Ascended Masters and Celestial Beings 

##You seem to make a distinction between the two. The way I read it seems that
##some of God's children are obliged to struggle the tribulations of life while
##others are simply created perfect and all-knowing.

All were created "perfect and all-knowing" from the white fire core of the
Prime Creator First Cause. Some made the decision to experience matter and
some did not...it had nothing to do with "being obliged to struggle the trib-
ulations of life"...it was a voluntary choice by all those who are experiencing
matter as they had questions about matter and therefore, came into matter
to answer them. They will then need to experience ascension at some point
in order to release themselves from matter and return themselves to their
primary condition of being (a lightbody of unlimited potential) If one "appears"
to be less than "perfect and all-knowing" it is due to the amount of separate-
ness they have wished to experience from the Prime Creator.

Celestial beings for the most part (and I use that advisedly, as there have
been exceptions) do not choose to experience matter as we are doing here.
Ascended Masters on the other hand, have come into the matter arena, have
successfully made their ascension and no longer need to incarnate in matter 
spheres.


##Does the Almighty God have predilect children?

The Prime Creator First Cause does not have predilect children...all are
equally Beloved as all are parts of the whole. 

Namasthe,
Talligai

Re: .178 Brian


## Thanks Talligai,
You are very welcome Brian, and Good afternoon to you.

    
## You say this earth will become a "sun". Is this in the conventional
## sense, such as our own sun or do you mean this in a "spiritual" sense.
## For this planet to become a natural sun would imply a massive change in
## chemistry of all earthly matter? In this case, is our own sun a
## rebirthed star, is this how we finally get to be part of nuclear fusion
    ;-)

Possibly star was the wrong choice of words for this forum....it might have
been better expressed in the terms "Garden of Eden" or Celestial Way Station.

Neal Barnette expressed it impeccably in note .180 when he said:"The earth
will become a great source of spiritual energy, undetectable in the third
dimension, but a veritable nova to beings of the higher realms, visible
from points in the Universe that are unimaginably distant".

Namasthe
Talligai

Re:.179 Joel

##  re: .166  (Atkinson/Talligai)
    
##  I am curious to know why you feel the standard notes
##  conference etiquette of answering questions does not apply 
##  to you.  Whatever the truth or non-truth of your origins,
##  you are currently a DEC employee noting in a public DEC 
##  notes conference which is here for the purpose of *discussing*
##  psychic phenomena.  You are of course within your technical
##  rights to make vague and slighting comments about those who
##  express skepticism as to the authenticity of walk-ins in
##  general and/or your case in particular.  
    
##   But it isn't cool.
   
Joel, in the two years that my predecessors and I have participated in this
forum we have not once stated that conference etiquette did not apply to us.
But we have reserved the right, as anyone can here, not to answer questions
for curiosity sake alone and that can lead to nought but going down a rat hole.
If answers appear to you to be vague or slighting as you put it, that may 
be your perspective on things and you are certainly entitled to it. But if
you are taking exception to something I said in .166 then you must feel that
it applies to you....You will notice that I did not point fingers at specific
personalities.

I also do not have the opportunity lately to participate in the conference
on a daily basis because of my work load, meeting schedule and the large 
amount of personal mail I receive and do my best to answer in the time that 
I am in the office.


    >Now that you all have had a wonderful time letting your consciousness
    >show and letting everyone know just where you are in the current
    >clearing of POWER/CONTROL and ANGER/EXPECTATION...... I will say a few
    >words.
    
##    	Now this is the sort of statement that requires a little
##    	translation.  As someone mentioned, a few notes back,
##    	literal understanding of some of the notes here, including
##    	some of your notes, requires some definitions.  Care to
##    	explicate this comment?

There are cycles of emotional release that take place that are driven by the
multitudinous varieties of fear that have been repressed both in the bodies &
electromagnetic fields of the lifestreams on the surface of this planet and
in the planetary body and electromagnetic field of the Earth itself. The 
current cycle is Power/Control and Anger/Expectation. Scenarios expressing
these themes will pop up all over the place in everyones lives as we all
mirror for each other the emotions all need to clear in one form or another.
If we greet these experiences with joy and accept these parts of self that
noone likes to look at, we will bring them out of darkness of repression 
into the Light of acceptance and love and release them. It is also important
to honor those who have agreed to play in our dramas as the mirror and
facilitate this release. 

  
    >...There are multitudes of extraterrestrial life observing the
    >birthing of Earth into the 5th dimension...(and your governments
    >know about it even though they would deny it heartily.....why
    >give you this information and make the populace panic)...
    
  ##  	OK.  So our governments know about ET's watching us to see
    	how we prepare for the "birthing of Earth" etc. but they
    	aren't telling us about it.  So - how do you know they know,
  ##  	if they aren't telling anyone?  


From my communications with some of the "ET's" when I was on my way
here.    


    >And I will restate what Iiissa (no coincidence) stated to you 
    >all...I am more than delighted to answer all heartfelt questions
    >that will benefit the good of all....
    
    	My questions are heartfelt.  They benefit the good of all
    	by dint of the fact that they are designed to aid the
    	search for truth.  But I guess we are all obliged to *prove"
    	or otherwise *show* you we mean "benefit" and "heartfelt"
    	they way you do, eh?
    
Joel, your questions are heartfelt from your personal point of view and I
have no doubt that you strongly feel that the answers would benefit all
in the "search for truth", however, truth is subjective in the frame of
reference of personal reality and the axioms and absolutes incompassed 
therein.  I have not been personally charged by the Prime Creator with the
task of proving the Universal reality or my pesonal existence as part of
my purpose.

    >I will not engage in your Mental body games including the 
    >game of PROVE it to me.  I'm from MISSOURI.....if your from
    >Missouri in this context that is your problem, not mine.
    
##    	First, asking for evidence to support any sort of claim,
    	"normal" or paranormal is actually a pretty ordinary thing.
##    	It isn't a game.  It is a way to get to truth.
  
  
It has appeared to me that you require something more than evidence to
dispell your dis-ease with this subject and myself in particular. The
emotion is attached to your responses and questions.  


    	Second, I noted above, though, you seem quite willing to play
    	the "prove it" game (to adopt your terminology for a
    	moment) when you can place others in a position of proving
    	something to you.  Flexibility!
 
I have not asked others to prove anything to me in stating that I will
respond to "heartfelt questions".  As I stated above, the emotion and
I might say, the spectral frequency are attached to your responses and 
questions and quite easy to pick up on through the heart chakra.

   
    But I really do not wish to substitute ad hominem for reasoned
    discussion.  Your continued stance of insulting those who
    express doubts about your claims and/or who ask questions you
    feel are not "heartfelt" and so on - instead of answering the
    questions and addressing the issues - rather narrows the
    choice of responses.

I don't believe that I have insulted anyone nor has that been my intent....
If you take exception to a particular statement that is not directed at 
any particular individual lifestream, then it must resonate for you and
is triggering a response of emotion that needs to be released. In that I
take joy for facilitating the release.
    
    
##  With all due respect, in my opinion it is yourself who are
    playing games, not I or any of the others who doubt your
    claims.  Speaking for myself, I am noting in a conference
    devoted to discussion of psychic phenomena.  It is not a
    conference devoted to unquestioning acceptance of the
##  alleged walk-in phenomena.

With all due respect to you Joel, I am in no way playing a game, as you will
no doubt come to find out in the not too distant future.  I have in no way
requested unquestioning acceptance of the "alleged walk-in phenomena". I have
merely shared some of my experience with you, which you are free to accept
or reject according to what resonates for you. 
    
##  I happen to feel this can be discussed with an emphasis on
    issues and with mutual respect.  Of course you may choose
    not to discuss the issues, as is your right.  If so, kindly
    refrain from the kind of back-handed ad hominem attacks that
    have been cropping up in your notes lately.  If you want
    to ignore your critics, then allow me to suggest you do
##  *precisely* that.
    

Again, I have "attacked" no-one. If you feel that way, then it is resonating
a fear that you need to contact and release.

In Light and Love
Namasthe,
Talligai
       
    

re: .190  (Atkinson/Talligai)

Progress!  At least you are now making direct statements directly
addressed to one of us who happens to doubt the authenticity of
your claims to be of extra-terrestrial origin.  

1. I will say yes, you have been making vague - as in elliptical -
and slighting statements about we skeptics.  Because you have
been doing it elliptically, you are now in a position to 
say: Oh - I haven't been naming *your* name, but if the
shoe fits...  It is this approach that I consider to be
game-playing.  See below for examples of your shots at skeptics:

(all from this Topic, #1460)

.108: "Thank you to those of you who have upheld my right to express
myself in this forum without ridicule and attack."  [clear implication:
those who have expressed skepticism are ridiculing you and attacking
you.]  ...And to those of you practising POWER AND CONTROL.... Lots
of LUCK!  You're going to need it."  [skeptics are so because of a
need for power and control, and they will need luck, unlike the
true believers, to survive the coming dimensional shift]

.116: [addressing Frederick as he takes issues with skeptics] "Isn't
it amazing how POWER & CONTROL, ANGER & EXPECTATION keep coming
up right now for clearing globally [for whom?].......excellent mirroring
people." [more of the charges of power, anger, control]

.166: "Now that you [you who?] all have had a wonderful time letting your
consciousness show and letting everyone know just where you are in
the current clearing of POWER/CONTROL and ANGER/EXPECTATION...
[even more on the theme of ascribing power and etc. to skeptics]
"And I will restate what Iissa... I am more than delighted to
answer all heartfelt questions that will benefit the good of
all...I will not engage in your [whose?] Mental body games... [etc. -
asking questions about your paranormal claims is not a legitimate
undertaking.  It is a mental body game.]


So this is what I'm talking about when I say you are attacking
people and are making vague and slighting comments.  Presumably
the people who you feel are engaging in "Mental body games"
are people in the conference whom you expect to be reading
your note?


2. OK, so you spoke with ET's on your way in.  I suppose they
told you our government(s) knew they had just been around?
Did they name names?

3. Do I require "more" than evidence to dispell my "dis-ease
with this subject"?  No, evidence would suffice.  I eagerly
await such evidence.  In either case, I don't feel a "dis-ease"
or uneasiness in this subject.  I simply doubt that you or
others have actually journeyed from another universe.  Doubt
and skepticism, from whomever, need not be motivated by fear
or uneasiness or whatever.  Plain old "don't believe it" will
suffice.  Truly, when you speak of our solar system as a
galaxy, and turn our nine planets into twelve, this is not
the sort of thing you would expect from someone who has 
actually traversed the space in question.

4. One statment of yours I find intriguing: "With all due
respect to you Joel.  I am in no way playing a game, as you
will no doubt come to find out in the not too distant future."

Care to elaborate on this?  What is going to happen in the
not too distant future?  Anyway, I do not take the position
that your "Talligai" persona as a whole is a game.  (See above -
I regard your tactic of being vague to allow wriggle room to
be a game.  But as an old 'boxer I'm familiar with the trick.)

Now I'm really not an anti-Atkinson or Talligai person.  My
position is that you have repeatedly made statements that, if
true, would put you in a position of being able to violate
firmly established natural law.  I don't mean it personally
when I say that you or *anyone* who makes such statements are
not going to be convincing unless they can provide evidence
to back those statements.  Surely you realize that "I'm from
outer space" is an unusual story, one not likely to be accepted
generally at face value?

And surely, if you are here on a mission of sorts, it would be
to your benefit to demonstrate the validity of your claims and
gain as wide an audience as possible?  Else only the DEJAVU
conference and not planet Earth will be sending out all that
glowing energy across unfathomably vast distances of space?

Joel

    
    	Mik - er, I mean Joel, have you ever had a dream? If so, may
    	I ask you a multiple-choice question?:
    
    	Dreams are (A) A bunch of nonsense that occurs when you sleep,
    	(B) your "subconscious" mind, trying to bring things to your
    	waking awareness, (C) actual travels of your consciousness, in
    	other dimensions unknown and undetectable to your waking self,
    	(D) can be any of the above, (E) none of the above (explain).
    
    	Please note that I don't consider any answer you might choose
    	as being "right" or "wrong". But I would need your answer in order
    	to illustrate my point in asking the the question.
    
    	Sincerely,
    
    Neal/B

    
    Neal - and I was going to ask Joel how one would go about measuring 
    thoughts. (;^)  [Hi Joel!]  Let's see - one thought = ...
    
    Talligai - Marcos brought up a point about the balance of happiness and
    sadness.  Are these conditions to be eventually transcended?  Eternal
    bliss comes to mind - a state where no opposites exist - where there is 
    only One.  Thank you.
    
    Cindy

re.180 (Barnette)

       > Even as the preparations for the Earth's debut are
       > underway, a realm in which you may also develop is in waiting.
       > It will not have the beauty, the splendor, the magnificence of
       > the new Earth. It will be a hard world. But eventually, all
       > must ascend, and the God of infinite Love awaits with infinite
       > patience your return.

Which information do you base this upon ?
Why is it that different religous/occult directions through the centuries
are so eager to predict that the ending times are near and that great changes
will occur on earth ? ( Which so far has'nt occured.)

-Svein

	Talligai (waaay  back  many  replies)  
	
	Is this your  first  time  camping in this part of the universe??
	;')
	
	Do walk-ins enjoy sex? Never mind, that's a curiosity question.
	
	Neal Barnette speaks so impeccably, he may be a walk-in. ;')
	
	I'd like  to  be  included in the telepathic ETHER-net connection
	also. I'm not so much a skeptic as a wise guy.
	
	with love,
	Jay

    Thanks once again Talligai and Neale, thought provoking...
    
    more questions...
    
    This POWER/CONTROL thing... (great but worn cliche ;-). It is my guess
    that the POWER/CONTROL thing we appear to be partial to, goes
    back further than mere POWER/CONTROL but actually has it's roots in
    mankind's basic underlying INSECURITY. ie if we were not insecure, we
    would have no need to exercise POWER/CONTROL...there would be no need. 
    
    Would not an elightened master seek to help overcome the insecurity,
    the root of the problem (IMHO), rather than target the symptoms
    (POWER/CONTROL) ? Sometimes this insecurity/fear stems from lack of
    knowledge, being hurt or mislead in the past, experience etc..etc...
    (Forgive me if I misread the emphasis.)
     
    How does one remedy this design fault ?
    
    Re Marcos and Cindy on Yin and Yang..funnily, I have always been
    uncomfortable with this concept as things often only *look* like
    opposites from a certain perspective...(man may not really be the
    opposite of woman, merely a variation in the species, night and day
    could be varying degrees of the presence of visible light ?) So from a
    transcendendant perspective, one would most likely see things more
    complete ?
    
    -Brian 
    
    
    

Note 1460.188                   
ASDS::ATKINSON                                       
    
    
>Possibly star was the wrong choice of words for this forum....it might have
>been better expressed in the terms "Garden of Eden" or Celestial Way Station.

    Yes... Talligai.. Celestial Way Station... I love it...  a cosmic
    crossroads of universes and dimensions, a center where trade and 
    exploration are directed and controlled.. man oh man.. how interesting, 
    how facinating... SO MUCH FUN!  You said soon... how does 1992 sound?
    Just to start I mean..
    
    I'd also like to join the telepathic link, if I may.
    
    Hey Joel, no one is insulting you or anyone else so lighten up, ok?


    mary

Note 1460.196                   
UTRTSC::MACKRILL                                     
    
    Actually... some form of power/control is evident in the strange
    attractors... it's part of the pattern.  The order evident in nature
    is maintained by a form of it.
    
>    Would not an elightened master seek to help overcome the insecurity,
>    the root of the problem (IMHO), rather than target the symptoms
>    (POWER/CONTROL) ? Sometimes this insecurity/fear stems from lack of
>    knowledge, being hurt or mislead in the past, experience etc..etc...
>    (Forgive me if I misread the emphasis.)
>    How does one remedy this design fault ?
    
    I would think that the easiest way to overcome that insecurity would
    be to empower the insecure.. give them the knowledge they need in order
    to be equal in power, ... teach them how to use it in order to protect
    themselves and their species.. thats what I would do anyway.
         
    
mary    

    re: .197  (Mary)
    
    You're wrong.  
    
    re: .192  (Neal/B)
    
    Have I ever had a dream?  Of course.
    
    My familiarity with dream literature is weak.  Since consciousness
    is not a process separable from the body I don't think our
    consciousness travels to other dimensions when we dream.
    
    I suspect that we sleep in order to dream and that dreams serve
    as a mechanism for the mind to sort out the manifold data
    intake of the day.
    
    What do *you* think dreams are?
    
    Joel
                                        

    Talligai,
    
    Could you help me to understand a little better please?  I think the
    problem I am having is that so often spoken (or written) language is so
    inadequate for some situations.
    
    Could you explain to me what you mean by "universe"?  It has always
    been my understanding that the definition of the word allows for there
    to be only one.  That is, all that we know of, and everything we never
    even thought of, and everything in between make up "all-that-is" or,
    the universe.
    
    It seems that you are using the word differently.  Do you mean a plane
    of existence?  A particular reality?
    
    I guess what I'm looking for here is either a new word or a new
    definition.
    
    Thanks,
    /Wendy

 Re:.199 Joel

    
>>> My familiarity with dream literature is weak.  Since consciousness
    is not a process separable from the body I don't think our
    consciousness travels to other dimensions when we dream.
    
    I suspect that we sleep in order to dream and that dreams serve
    as a mechanism for the mind to sort out the manifold data
    intake of the day.
    
>>> What do *you* think dreams are?
    
I will address your other note later, Joel....meantime, all creation is 
imbued with consciousness that is not necessarily attached to a "body"
or physical vehicle of any kind. It is all pervasive.....even the objects
that humans consider to be inanimate have consciousness. "WE ARE ALL ONE"!!
Accept it or not that's the way the Prime Creator made things. Therefore,
consciousness does exist separate from "the body".   
                                        
You sleep in order to give your physical vehicle a chance to rest, while your
spirit travels multidimensionally and takes part in other realities which
you classify as dreams.

re: .199 (Joel)
    
>    I suspect that we sleep in order to dream and that dreams serve
>    as a mechanism for the mind to sort out the manifold data
>    intake of the day.

	It's more likely that the sleep came first (as a way of
	immobilizing animals during a part of the day when they
	were at some kind of disadvantage, e.g. humans at night,
	desert animals during the day).  The development of REM
	sleep (during which dreams occur) seems to have come along
	later.

	Support for this comes from some work done with various
	kinds of animals.  It seems as though nothing at or below
	the level of monotremes (echidna, platypus, etc) exhibits
	either REM or the corresponding brain wave patterns that 
	are associated with dreaming.  Creatures above that level
	(including humans) show almost identical dreaming behavior.

	There are a lot of theories regarding the purpose of dreaming,
	but it does seem likely that it's somehow related to learning
	and adaptive behavior.  Whether the experiences we have while
	we're dreaming "mean" anything, or whether they're simply our
	attempt to overlay a meaningful pattern on a "neural thunderstorm"
	(like looking for pictures in clouds, or in the grounds at the
	bottom of a coffee cup) is anybody's guess.  

	Certainly, they're fun to watch.

	~art

   Warning Decwindows noters, the following two notes are a bit long. I got
   carried away quoting from Ken Wilbur's book "Eye to Eye - A Quest for a New
   Paradigm."

   Wayne

   Continuing with quotes from Ken Wilbur's book "Eye to Eye - The Quest for
   the new Paradigm."

   Talligai, In the chapter "A Mandalic Map of Consciousness" on the subject
   of *The Higher Realms*, is the high subtle realm what you mean by angelic
   realm? Quoting more Wilbur on this ...

         "With the exception of transpersonal psychology, the centaur level
     {body-mind level: animal body + human mind} is about the highest level of
     consciousness taken seriously by Western psychology. The existence of
     levels above or higher than the centaur is thus viewed by Western
     psychology with a somewhat jaundiced eye. Western psychologists and
     psychiatrists either deny the existence of any sort of higher-order
     unities, or - should they actually confront what seems to be a
     higher-order level - simply try to pathologize its existence, to explain
     it by diagnosis. Thus, for indications as to the nature of any higher
     levels of consciousness, beyond the ego and the centaur, we have to turn
     to the great mystic-sages and perennial philosophers, East and West. It
     is somewhat surprising, but very significant, that most of these sources
     agree almost unanimously on the nature of the "farther reaches of human
     nature" (hence, indeed, the title "*perennial* philosophy"). There are in
     fact, these traditions tell us, higher levels of consciousness - as far
     above the ego-mind as the ego-mind is above the typhon. And they look
     like this:" (pp 91-92)

        "Beginning with (to use the terms of yogic *chakra* psychology) the
     sixth *chakra*, the *ajna chakra*, consciousness *starts* to go
     transpersonal or genuinely transcendental. It begins to enter what is
     called the "subtle sphere." This process quickens and intensifies as it
     reaches the highest *chakra* - the *sahasrara* - and then goes
     supramental as it enters the seven (some say ten) higher stages of
     consciousness within and beyond the *sahasrara*. The *ajna*, the
     *sahasrara*, and the seven or so sublevels are, on the whole, referred to
     as the subtle realm (although the exact wording is a matter of semantic
     choice)." (p 92)

     ...

        "The high-subtle begins at the *sahasrara* and extends withing and
     beyond to various subphases of extraordinarily high-order transcendence,
     differentiation, and integration. ..., the *surface structures* of this
     realm are naturally different from culture to culture and tradition to
     tradition. The *deep structure* of this overall realm, however, is simply
     that of *archetypal form*; it is marked by transmental *illumination*,
     *intuition*, and beginning *gnosis*, which brings a profound insight into
     the fundamental or Archetypal Forms of being and existence itself. It is
     not *Fromless*, however, or radically transcendent, but rather expresses
     insight into the subtlest forms of mind, being, deity, and
     manifestation." (p 92)

        "In Theravadin Buddhism, this is the realm of the four "*jhanas* with
     form," or the fours stages of concentrative meditation into archetypal
     "planes of illumination" or "Brahma realms." In *Vipassanna* or insight
     meditation, this is the stage-realm of initial or pseudonirvanna, the
     realm of illumination and rapture and initial transcendental insight.
     This is the realm of *nada* and *shabd* yoga, of high religious intuition
     and literal inspiration; of *bijamantra*; of symbolic visions; of blue,
     gold, and white light; of audible illuminations and brightness upon
     brightness; it is the realm of angelic forms, *ishtadevas*, and
     *dhyani*-buddhas, all of which - as we will soon explain - are simply
     high archetypal forms of one's own being (although they initially and
     necessarily appear "other"). It is the realm of *Sar* and *Sat Shabd*, of
     Brahma the Controller, of platonic Froms and Demiurgos. Dante sang of it
     thus:

	  Fixing my gaze upon the Eternal Light
	I saw within its depths,
	  Bound up with love toghether in one volume,
	  The scattered leaves of all the universe. ...
	Withing the luminous profound subsistence
	  Of that Exalted Light saw I three circles
	  Of three colors yet of one dimension
	And by the second seemed the first reflected
	  As rainbow is by rainbow, and the third
	  Seemed fire that equally from both is breathed.

     Keep in mind that this is what Dante *saw*, literally, with his eye of
     contemplation. He is not simply waxing poetic, but using mandalic poetry
     to sing of what he saw." (p 93)

        "The psychiatrist Dean, pioneer in the new field of metapsychiatry,
     reports this:

        An intellectual illumination occurs that is quite impossible to
	describe. In an intuitive flash, one has an awareness of the meaning
	and drift of the universe, an identification and merging with creation,
	infinity and immortality, a depth beyond depth of revealed meaning -
	in short, a conception of an over-self, so omnipotent...

     In Hinduism, this general realm is called the *vijnanamayakosa*; in
     Mahayana Buddhism, this is the *manas*; in Kabbalah, it is *Geburath* and
     *Chesed*. Aspects of this subtle realm have been called the "over-self"
     or "over-mind" - as in Aurobindo and Emerson. The point is simply that
     consciousness, in a rapid ascent, is differentiating itself entirely from
     the ordinary mind and self, and thus can be called an "over-self" or
     "over-mind" - almost like calling the ego an "over-body" or
     "over-instincts," since the mental-ego transcends and reaches over the
     simple feelings and perceptions of the typhon. The over-mind simply
     embodies a transcendence of all lower mental forms, and discloses, at it
     summit, an intuition of That which is above and prior to mind, self,
     body, and world - something which, as Aquinas would have said, all men
     and women would call God." (pp 93-94)

        "But this is not God as an ontological other, set apart from the
     cosmos, from humans, and from creation at large. Rather, it is God as an
     archetypal summit of ones own Consciousness. John Blofeld quotes Edward
     Conze on the Vajrayana Buddhist viewpoint: " 'It is the emptiness of
     everything which allows the identification to take palce - the emptiness
     [which means "transcendental openness" or "nonobstruction"] which is in
     us coming together with the emptiness which is the deity.' By visualizing
     that identification 'we actually do become the deity. The subject is
     identified with the object of faith. The worship, the worshipper, and the
     worshipped, those three are not separate.'" At its peak, the soul becomes
     one, literally one, with the deity-form, with the *dhyani*-buddha, with
     (choose whatever term one prefers) God. One dissolves into Deity, *as*
     Deity - that Deity which, from the beginning, has been one's own Self or
     highest Archetype. In this way only could St. Clement say that he who
     knows himself knows God. They are one and the same." (p 94)

   Talligai, is this identification process discussed above in essence similar
   to the "shower exercise" you described in a previous note? Continuing with
   Wilbur...

        "Now all of this might sound rather "far out," of course, to the
     skeptical scientist, the impiricist, the rationalist. But I would like
     you to simply consider the implications of the *possible existence* of
     the subtle realm. What *if* the mystic-sages are right?" (p 94)

        "The whole point would be that in the subtle realm - and especially
     the high-subtle - a very high-order differentiation and transcendence is
     occurring. Mediated through high-archetypal *cognitive forms* - those
     that lie immediately beyond the gross body-mind and merely rational ego.
     This transformation-upward, like *all* the others we have studied,
     involves the *emergence* of a higher-order deep structure, followed by
     the shifting of *identity* to that higher-order structure, and the
     differentiation or *dis-identification* with the lower structures (in
     this case, the ego-mind and centaur). This amounts to a *transcendence*
     of the lower-order structures, which thus enables consciousness to
     *operate* on and *itegrate* all of the lower-order structures, an
     integration that, at this high level, simply leads to various forms of
     *samadhi* or mystical union or identiy. Viewed thus, the "super-natural"
     is simply the next *natural* step in overall or higher developnent and
     evolution." (pp 94-95)

        "Lex Hixon has described one form of the subtle deep-structure called
     *ishtadeva*. The *ishtadeva* is simply a high-archetypal form of
     cognition evoked in certain meditations on the path of form - a type of
     inner cognitive vision, directly perceived with the eye of contemplation.
     I realize that some people would say that the *ishtadeva* is "just a
     mental image" and doesn't *really* exist - but that is to simultaneously
     reduce *all* mental productions: might as well say that mathematics is
     just a mental production and therefore doesn't really exist. No, the
     *ishtadeva* is real - more than real - in its emergence and perception."
     (p 95) 

        "Hixon describes it thus: "The Form or Presence of the *ishtadeva*
     appears as vibrantly alive, composed from the radiance of Consciousness.
     We are not projecting the *ishtadeva*. The primal radiance which assumes
     the form of *ishtadeva* is actually projecting us and all the phenomena
     that we call the universe." This high archetypal cognitive form
     eventually mediates the ascension of consciousness to an *identity* with
     that Form: "Gradually we realise that the Divine Form or Presence is our
     own archetype, an image of our own essential nature."" (p 95)

   Talligai, is the *ishtadeva* the same as what you call the "Prime Creator
   First Cause"? continuing...

        "This, however, is not a *loss* of consciousness but an
     *intensification* of consciousness through a higher-order development,
     evolution, transcendence, and *identification*: "The *ishtadeva* does not
     disappear into us; we as individuals disappear into the *ishtadeva*,
     which now remains alone. Yet there is no loss of our individual being as
     we blend into the object of our contemplation, for it has been our own
     archetype from the beginning, the source of this fragmentary reflections
     we call our individual personality."" (p 95)

        "The wole point is that the rational ego has not simply swallowed or
     introjected the high Archetypal Form, but that the prior *nature* of the
     ego is revealed to *be* that From, so that consciousness reverts to, or
     remembers, its own prior and higher identity: "We remain now as a
     transcendental center of consciousness expressed through the Form or
     Presence of the *ishtadeva*. We are now experiencing the life of the
     *ishtadeva* from within. We are consciously meeting and becoming [via
     higher identification] ourselves in our archetypal and eternal nature.""
     (pp 95-96)

        "Now that is, as I said, simply one particular description of
     development in the subtle realm, and thus its surface structures will
     naturally be different from other descriptions (and experiences) of the
     same realm (just as, for example, all mature egos have access to the same
     basic type of secondary process thinking but don't therfore think the
     same thoughts). But the realm itself, its actual *deep structures*,
     appear universally the same. State it in terms of saintly mystical
     insight or the *jhanas* of Form or *vipassanna* pseudonirvana or
     absorption in the Zen *koan* or *nada-shabd* identity or simply
     transcendental illumination - the *essential* deep structure of the
     subtle realm every where announces itself: insight into, and absorption
     as, Archetypal Essence." (p 96)

   Wilbur next talks about "The Ultimate Realms." ...

        "As the process of transcendence and integration continues, it
     discloses even higher-order unities, leading, consumately, to Unity
     itself." (p 96)

        "Beyond the high-subtle lies the causal region, know variously as the
     *alaya-vignana* (Yogacara buddhism), the *anandamayakosa* (Hinduism),
     *pneuma* (Christian mysticism), *karana-saira* (Vendanta), *Binah* and
     *Chokmah* (Kabbalah), *Dharmakaya* (Mahayana), and so on. Again, for
     convenience, we divide it into the low-causal and the high-causal." (p96)

        "The low-causal, which classically is revealed in a state of
     consciousness known as *savikalpa samadhi*, represents the pinnacle of God
     consciousness (or Archetypal-Formal absorption), the final and highest
     abode of Ishvara, the Creatrix of all realms. This represents the
     *culmination* of events which began in the high-subtle. In the
     high-subtle, recall, the self was dissolved or reabsorbed into Archetypal
     deity, *as* that deity - a deity which from the beginning has always been
     one's own Self and highest Archetype." (p 96)

        "Now at the low-causal, that deity-Archetype itself condenses and
     dissolves into final-God, which is variously described as an
     extraordinary subtle audible illumination or *bija-mantra* or point
     source from which the individual *ishtadeva*, *yidam*, or Archetype
     emerged in the first place. Final-God (by whatever name and under
     whatever surface structure appearance) is simply the ground or essence of
     all the archetypal, pseudonirvanic, and lesser-god manifestations which
     were evoked - and then identified with - in the subtle realms. In the
     low-causal, all of these Archetypal Forms and illuminations simply reduce
     to their Source in final-God, and thus, by the very same token and in the
     very same step, one's own self is here shown to *be* that final-God, and
     consciousness itself thus transforms upward into a higher-order identity
     with that Radiance. In Theravaden Buddhism, this is the culmination of the
     forth *jhana* (the highs *jhana* of form) and the beginning of the fifth
     and sixth *jhanas* (the losest *jhanas* without form); in *vipassanna*,
     this is the great transition insight from the pseudonirvana of
     subtle-form to the cessation, nirvanic, or formless state of the
     high-causal; in Zen, this is the seventh of the ten "ox-herding" stages
     to enlightenment: the transition from formal consciousness to formless
     consciousness." (p 97) 

        "Beyond the low-causal, into the high-causal, all manifest forms are
     so radically transcended that they no longer need even appear or arise in
     Consciousness. This is total and utter transcendence and release into
     Formless Consciousness, Boundless Radiance. There is here no self, no
     God, no final-God, no subjects, and no thingness, apart from or other
     than Consciousness as Such." (p 97)

        "Not the overall progression of the higher-unity structures: In the
     subtle realm, the self dissolves into archetypal Deity (as ishtadeva,
     *yidam*, *dhyani*-buddha, audible-illuminations, etc.). In the
     low-causal, that Deity-Self in turn disappears into final-God, which is
     its Source and Essence. Here, in the high-causal, the final-God self is
     reduced likewise to its own prior Ground: it dissolves into Fromlessness,
     or Infinite and Unobstructed Consciousness. Each step is an increase in
     consciousness and an intensification of Awareness until all forms return
     to perfect and radical release in Formlessness." (p 97)

        "John Blofeld describes beautifully one form of this general
     progression from the Vajrayana Buddhist view: "As the rite progresses,
     this deity [cf. *ishtadeva*] enters the adept's body and sits upon a
     solar-disc supported by a lunar-disc above a lotus in his heart [these
     are visualizations used to train concentration]; presently the adept
     shrinks in size until he and the deity are coextensive [the beginning of
     the subtle]; then, merging indistinguishably [becoming *one* with
     deity-form in the high-subtle], they are absorbed by the seed-syllable
     from which the deity originally sprang [the low-causal]; this syllable
     contracts to a single point [final-god]; The point vanishes and deity and
     adpet in perfect union remain sunk in the *samadhi* of voidness [the
     high-causal]."" (pp 97-98)

   I think I better quit before I type in the whole book. This material just
   felt like it might belong to this discussion and I couldn't help myself.

   Wayne

    re: .202
    
    Good stuff, and sounds highly plausible.
    
    re: .203
    
    I can appreciate theories like this on an esthetic or symbolic
    level.  In fact I would say the same thing about much of
    .204 and .205 - that book, BTW, sounds quite fascinating.
    
    But I do have a hard time buying off totally when symbol and
    metaphor is presented as physical fact.  The best way I could
    put my position would be to quote Dylan Thomas's poem
    "The Force That Through The Green Fuse Drives the Flower"
    Do you know this very wonderful work of art?  It has elements
    of physical truth and elements of metaphorical truth in a
    verbally delicious blend.  I know it pretty well but wouldn't
    despoil it by quoting it at all inaccurately.  (if someone has
    their hands on it, please type it in.)  Otherwise I shall
    post it here tomorrow.
    
    Dylan said it far better than I...
    
    Joel
    

    
    Thank you, Wayne, for typing that in.  That certainly brings a lot
    together for me - particularly the references to samadhi.
    
    Cindy

    re: .204, .205,
    	Yes, thanks Wayne.  That Wilbur material was fascinating !
    
    re: .206, (Joel)
    
    	Technically, I think you're right, Joel.  Some of the arguments
    	to your position have been in poor form from the perspective
    	of the reasoned argument.  Directed against
    	your motivations rather than your reasoning.   Also, pleading
    	special exemption from logic in spots.  But not everyone agrees
    	to follow the groundrules of logical argument in these topics.
    	
    	There simply aren't enough groundrules in common to get to
    	*the truth* through dialectic.   
    
    	Our truly common language might just be Myth and Poetry,
    	rather than reason.  
    
    	I don't recall the source, but a quote goes :
    
    		"The solution can be understood through reason, but 
    		 not arrived at that way."
    
    								todd

    re: .208  (Todd)
    
    And speaking of poetry...
    
    
    The force that through the green fuse drives the flower
    Drives my green age; that blasts the roots of trees
    Is my destroyer.
    And I am dumb to tell the crooked rose
    My youth is bent by the same wintry fever.
    
    The force that drives the water through the rocks
    Drives my red blood; that dries the mouthing streams
    Turns mine to wax.
    And I am dumb to mouth unto my veins
    How at the mountain spring the same mouth sucks.
    
    The hand that whirls the water in the pool
    Stirs the quicksand; that ropes the blowing wind
    Hauls my shroud sail.
    And I am dumb to tell the hanging man
    How of my clay is made the hangman's lime.
    
    The lips of time leech to the fountain head;
    Love drips and gathers, but the fallen blood
    Shall calm her sores.
    And I am dumb to tell a weather's wind
    How time has ticked a heaven round the stars.
    
    And I am dumb to tell the lover's tomb
    How at my sheet goes the same crooked worm.
    
    Dylan Thomas
    

    
>	Neal Barnette speaks so impeccably, he may be a walk-in. ;')
    
    	Thanks, but no - I'm a hum-in %^). I'm no different from any
    	of you. I've simply learned that the totality of my being
    	goes beyond mere flesh. My body is the shadow of my spirit. 
    
    	Re: dreams - your attitude toward dreams says a lot about the
    	reality you have created. If you regard them as simply a bio-
    	chemical process, you have probably decided to restrict your
    	awareness (of your totality) to the environs bounded by your
    	skin. There are, no doubt, good reasons for doing this. But
    	some of us have learned that we go *way* beyond, upward and
    	outward, intersecting and mingling with each other, other
    	life forms, the Earth, the sun, the stars. As the Aquarian
    	Gospel states it, "man is bound by invisible cords to every
    	living thing". Or something like that.
    
    	Well that's all for now - hope to catch up on this topic this
    	weekend.
    
    	Enjoy your day!
    
    Neal/B

    re: last two
    
    Beautifully said.

    
    
>   My familiarity with dream literature is weak.  Since consciousness
>   is not a process separable from the body I don't think our
>   consciousness travels to other dimensions when we dream.
    
    Joel,  I'm  transgressing  Talligai's  domain,  but  this  is  my
    last  note  here,  and  I'll  express  my  opinion  on  the  above
    point.
    
    There  is  no  question  of  consciousness  'traveling'  anywhere.
    Consciousness  is  dimensionless,  and  it  only  'embraces'  forms.
    It  is  'forms'  that  travel  within  dimensions.
    
    Consider  an  example  of  two  people  who  claim  to  know  about
    a  particular  city.  Maybe  their  knowledge  of  the  city  is
    identical  in  all  respects.  However,  it  is  possible  that one
    physically  toured  the  city  with  a  video  camera,  and  the  
    other  acquired  his  knowledge  watching  the  cassette.
    
    In  each  case,  their  individual  consciousness  has  'embraced'
    the  form  that  is  the  city. It  did  not  require  any  travel
    on  the  part  of  their  consciousness. The  method  by  which
    the  consciousness  of  each  'embraced'  the  particular  form
    was  different  only  in  the  media  used.
    
    Forms  are  not  limited  to  3  dimensions,  as  somebody  said,
    even  sqrt(-1)  is  a  form.
    
    I'll  take  exception  to  your  statement  that  'consciousness 
    is  a  process...'.  All  'processes'  involve  some  kind  of  
    mutation,  and  that  is  only  possible  for  forms. The  fact
    that  somebody  learns  about  the  Eiffel  tower  through  a
    picture  post-card  or  by  visiting  the  place  does  not  add
    or  decrease  that  persons  consciousness,  his  'I'-ness.  It
    adds  to  his  memory,  which  is  again  different  from  his
    consciousness.  Who  will  honestly  acknowledge  that  he  is
    his  memory,  or  what  he  thinks  from  time  to  time ?
    There  would  never  be  a  feeling  of  continuity  in  the
    mind  if  that  were  the  case.
    
    I'm  not  able  to  accept  Neal/B's  statement  that  Joel  
    might  be  satisfied  with  identifying  his  consciousness
    with  his  body,  simply  because  he's  actively  participating
    here. Why  would  he  tease  himself  with  questions  if  he
    is  satisfied ?
    
    The  fact  is,  Joel,  that  it  is  difficult  to  convince
    anyone  that  consciousness  is  not  limited  by  forms,
    when  that  person  operates  on  the  premise  that  his
    own  consciousness  is  limited  to  his  body,  no  matter
    if  the  body  were  a  star  or  a  galaxy. The  only  way
    this  problem  can  be  overcome  is  by  that  same  person
    observing  and  enquiring  if  the  premise  is  true  for  him.
    
    BTW, I  appreciate  your  questioning,  and  your  sharpness.
    Maybe  Talligai  will  address  all  your  questions,  and  on
    your  part,  I  hope  you'll  not  perceive  insults  where
    there  aren't. ( Take  the  case  of  your  reply  to  Mary..)
    
    G'bye.
          

    re: .204 and .205
    
    Thanks Wayne, for entering those informative passages from Ken Wylbur's
    latest work. I've found his insight most useful to my development, over
    the years. (He was editor of a journal called Revision in 1978 where I
    was first introduced to the Holographic paradigm.) He wrote a book on
    that subject, called, "The Holographic Paradigm". It would be useful
    for the large numbers of us trained to use logic and reason to orient
    ourselves to traverse the chasm that seems to separate us from those
    whose point of view is that largely informed by the "eye" of
    Contemplation.
    
    The dialogue here is an excellent example of the differences in
    "Consciousness" as outlined by Scott Peck. (Cindy Painter knows the
    reference). Todd's suggestion that poetry and other metaphors be used
    to help traverse the gap seems to have had a salutory effect. Your many
    efforts to calm and accept "The Sceptic" are also laudatory.
    
    Richard B

    re: .214  (Richard B)
    
    >Your many efforts to calm and accept "The Sceptic" are
    >also laudatory.
    
    Good grief!  Sounds like Mutual of Omaha's "Wild Kingdom".
    ..."and we were able to calm the mongoose before putting
    him in the sample bag..."    ;^)
    
    Joel
    

    We wouldn't want you to be any other way though.. :-)
    
    mary

    
    	Re .213, Jana (I'd enter the quote here if I could only find
    	a "select" key in this terminal emulator):
    
    	I  believe that our experiences build upon one another, and that
    	there comes a point in     spiritual development    in
    	which it is most instrucive to view onesself as being (merely)
    	one's body. It is a temporary point of view which is useful for
    	learning about one's body and how to love it. 
    
    	To try and feed concepts about the limitlessness and bounlessness
    	of spirit to one who is still learning about their
    	third-dimensional existence is like trying to teach discrete 
    	mathematics to one who has just learned to add.
    
    	Before people find this statement elitist, let me hasten to add
    	that there are many areas of development that an entity must
    	master. Intellect, reason and logic are just as important as 
    	spiritual awareness. I am sure I am far behind Joel and many
    	other noters in this conference in these areas. Quid pro quo?
    
    	RE: what do I think dreams are
    
    	Dreams are many things. To name just a few: spiritual communication
    	between entities. Portents of things to come, or warnings of where
    	a particular attitude or action will lead one. Analyses of one's
    	problems (those things that one regards as a problem) from what 
    	could be called a "macro" point of view. Visits to what could be
    	called the motherland of the spirit. 
    
    	Have you ever had a dream that was unforgettable, devastating,
    	compelling? Or, have all of your dreams been such that, upon
    	awakening, you could just say, eeehhh? 
    
    	When you have a dream of life-bending consequence you will then
    	begin to question whether or not it is just a chemical process.
    
    	
Neal/B
    

    Neal (217),
    
    I hardily agree.  It is not that some are ahead of or behind others,
    it is more a matter of where one has decided to focus one's attention
    in this lifetime - everyone is where they should be for the lessons
    they chose to learn.
    
    The following is from The Spirit of Night on dreams:
    
    	Humans commune with me in unconscious sleep, but rarely do it
    	consciously.  Yet what a great gift I bring to you all!  Were
    	it not for night time oblivion, which is a rhythm of worldly
    	life, you would be conscious of your ever present problems,
    	and that would be too much altogether for you.  Renewal, 
    	conscious and unconscious, comes when I come, and with it
    	much that you take for granted.  That does not matter: it is
    	sufficient we all fit in the plan of things.  Nevertheless, I
    	find a certain joy in having a listening ear.  Part of you
    	still does not really believe in me, but the part that does
    	thereby contributes to the oneness of life.  All that you
    	think of is life and intelligence, for we are all a drop
    	in the ocean which is the life of God -- and you are not the
    	first to think of the Spirit of Night, even if we have been
    	relegated to mythology and poetry.  What a superior concept
    	is the old idea of a spirit, compared to present day
    	acceptance of measureable facts: influences, perhaps, but
    	remote, dry and uninteresting!
    
    	I love all life, and with my cloak I cover up each little
    	yesterday for each of you.  In me you find rest, and when
    	you leave me to go with new life, life whose wrinkles I
    	have ironrd out while you were in my care.  I am the 
    	inviting nothingness of darkness into which you must float
    	in faith, unknowingly, from which you return renewed.  Thank
    	God for me, for sleep, for life, and respect more the
    	processes of which you are a part.  Let us all give thanks.
    
    		Dorothy Maclean, To Hear the Angels Sing
    
    Ro
    

re: .213
    
>    Joel,  I'm  transgressing  Talligai's  domain,  but  this  is  my
>    last  note  here,  and  I'll  express  my  opinion  on  the  above
>    point.
 
	Sorry to hear this is your last note.  But since it is,
	I shall just say that I find your note quite interesting
	but of course disagree in the main with your position.

	Joel
          

    
    Re: Richard B's pointer a few notes back...
    
    The reference to levels of awareness re: Scott Peck are to be found in
    note 457 of this conference.
    
    Cindy

 <<< Note 1460.169 by ENABLE::GLANTZ "Mike 227-4299 DECtp TAY Littleton MA" >>>
                           -< Spielberg's in on it >-

Re .169 Mike


@@@  What if movies like "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and "ET" are
@@@  preparatory -- they serve to familiarize us with coming contact, so
@@@  that there will be general acceptance, and not panic.

There are no "what ifs" about it Mike, that is why these movies are made
and are so popular, because of the way they present the fact that these
extraterrestials are friendly and come in peace. (Close Encounters, ET,
Cocoon, The Abyss, etc... Yes, there are ET bases under your Oceans)  

However, I may tell you that like everything else in a free will Universe, 
there are some that do not come in peace and unfortunately have been able 
to get by the Federated Intergalactic Command ships that encircle Earth
and make negotiations with some of the Earth governments. If you remember 
a television series called "V" that will give you an insight into what I 
am talking about.  This is one of the reasons that it is really imperative 
for you all to clear your solar plexus chakra, (the feeling center) and be 
able to feel the truth of what one communicates to you and weigh it in the 
heart center (the ultimate bulls___ -o-meter) for it may affect the quality 
of your life at some point.

Seeing these films opens a "realm of Possibility" in your minds that maybe,
just maybe something like this could really happen. I do not tell you these
things to instill fear and panic, but rather to give you important informa-
tion so that you may prepare yourselves for what will be coming to pass
in the times ahead and accomplish what you came to do. (This is one of those
times when "Ignorance is not Bliss" .)

It is important for you to understand that "ALL" the planetary bodies in
your galaxy and beyond are inhabited by lifestreams of one form or another,
whether your scientists tell you that they are or not. They are not all
forms that are detectable by your scientific methods and they do not all
inhabit the surfaces of their planetary bodies. (this includes satellites
of planets...ie: moons)

In Love and Light,
I AM
Talligai

                     <<< Note 1460.189 by VAXRIO::MARCOS >>>
                      -< questions, questions, questions >-

Note .189 Marcos  

Greetings to you Marcos:
>>> One of the things that has puzzled me for a long time is the tri-phased 
>>> aspects of the Creator. The religions of earth refer to it by various 
>>> names, be it the father, the son and the holy spirit or Brahma, Siva 
>>> and Vishnu, etc.

As the history of your Earth has evolved and humanity has separated itself
further and further from the Prime Creator First Cause, and therefore, from 
Unification to duality; your civilizations have gone from Unified Society to 
vascillating between Matriarchal Society and Patriarchal Society (expressing
duality).  In the Patriarchal Society we see the tri-phased aspect of the
Creator, when in actuality the Creator is quadra-phased (Father, Mother, Son
and Holy Spirit). The Patriarchal Societies religions in order to retain
Control of their flocks removed all references to the Mother which is a 
vital phase in order to reach Christ Consciousness.  Father is the Creative
Spark, Mother is the manifestation in Form...without the Mother there is 
no manifestation.

I will answer the rest of your questions in a later entry.

Namasthe,
Talligai

re: .221


>However, I may tell you that like everything else in a free will Universe, 
>there are some that do not come in peace and unfortunately have been able 
>to get by the Federated Intergalactic Command ships that encircle Earth
>and make negotiations with some of the Earth governments. 

With what governments are they negotiating?
With whom in those governments are they negotiating?
And what, exactly, are they negotiating about?

Joel
 

             
Note 1460.189 Marcos

To continue on,

Most of the Eastern cultures and religions still embrace the Mother (Goddess) 
aspect of the Creator and the Matriarch of the family as an equally important
and empowered part of life.

>>>Also if possible I'd appreciate any qualitative or quantitative explanation
>>>you could provide about the 5th dimension.

The 5th dimension is a creative experience of Unity. One of the reasons you
are clearing yourselves here in the overlap of dimensions and practicing
manifestation is to perfect your skills for the 5th dimension where manifest-
ation is instanteous. In other words, what you think (your thoughtforms) and
what you feel (emotional qualification or desire) instanteously produce 
manifestation of said thoughtforms. Needless to say, it is important to be
very clear about what you think and what you want and how you feel, in order
not to create a nightmare for yourself and others. 

There is much more use of Telepathic Communication as you might surmise and
the experience of group mind. And since you can manifest whatever you need,
you can also surmise that day to day life will be infinitely different than
it is now....and creation is purpose....as you are eventually evolving to
Sonship (being a creator God in your own right as endowed by the Prime 
Creator First Cause).

>>>Also if possible I'd appreciate any explanation about ying and yang, the
>>>eternal opposites the Creator uses to boost evolution. If happiness is the
>>>opposite of sadness, won't eternal happiness be an eternal unbalance towards 
>>>one of the opposites?

Yin and Yang are the expression of Female and Male aspects of duality in 3rd
dimensional existance. As you move forward in evolution and into unity or
oneness, each lifestream will move toward wholeness or the balance of both 
energies within their being (androgeny). In unity there is no disbalance as
all "potential qualification of energy" exists in harmony...the difference
comes in the knowledge and practice of personal and group empowerment and 
responsibility for the creation of environment and reality in which you
live. 

Namasthe,
Talligai

    .226
    
    They are protecting us, Marcos.
    
    Remember when I told you that no asteroid would get past the perimeter
    guards?

    Why?
    
    Because we are unique, because we are human, because we are alive,
    because we are conscious, because we are sentient, because we are
    a part of the web of life, because we are creative..
    
    ... because we are God, Marcos... just like them... brothers and
    sisters, all of us...  part of the collective consciousness of all
    that has managed to manifest into life.

    Talligai,  maybe I've missed it somewhere, but have you ever discussed
    where we go after our earthly death?  If we're here for the
    "rebirthing"  of the earth, will we still participate after our death?
    
    Also, what about animals & other living creatures?  What role do they
    play in all of this?
    
    Thanks for your answers - enjoy reading your notes.
    
    Mary
    
    

Is the physical body of Ms Atkinson still occupied by the light-being
Talligai? I ask, because I noticed a mention of our very own Talligai
in note 1476.138, and thought that it's been a while since we've heard
from him/her.

    
    In Van Halen's _Live Without A Net_ video, Sammy Hagar introduces
    the song "Love Walks In" as a song "about aliens".   Check out the
    lyrics sometime....;-)
    
    guy

    Re. .236 (Marcos)
    
    I don't remember any reference to Talligai being of the male gender.
    Can you refresh my memory?
    
    
    Marilyn

Perhaps Talligai isn't such a "light-being" after all that Christmas and New
Year food & drink!	:-)

								- JIM CAD*

    
    Re. .239 (Marcos)
    
    I'm sorry I missed your point, but if you'll look at your note .236
    you'll find that you were responding to a question, and your statement 
    of resposne was posed in such a way that it led me to believe that you
    knew for a fact that Talligai was a male being.
    
    Your questions was whether it made Talligai TalliGAY.
    
    I guess I'm still missing the point.......
    
    
    Marilyn

VAXRIO::MARCOS                                       
    
>What gender of psychism does a "light-being" have? 
 
    As above, so below.
    
>Because Iiissa/Zeffel/Altraea/Talligai chose to walk into a woman's body 
>does that indicate some sort of gender? 

    Could be (in my opinion).  The Christian church certainly seems to
    think so.  How many times have we heard that women cannot be priests
    because Jesus was a man?
    
>If their psychism doesn't have a gender then what happens when they enter a 
>human body? 
    
    Maybe they do have a gender.
    
    >Does that spoil their angelic balance? 
    
    Probably not... gender is vastly overrated.
    
    >If the balance is not spoiled then what are the consequences for the 
    >human body they occupy? First we have a wo/man then we have a neuter. 
    Can't that have consequences for the spouses of the human beings they 
    entered? If there are consequences then isn't the walk-in accrueing karma?

    Why do you think they don't have genders, Marcos?
    
>On the other hand if the psychism of a walk-in has a gender then does that 
>mean that angels are not balanced yet? 
    
    Why do you feel that to have a gender means that one is unbalanced?
    If we use this world as an indicator... most things that have a form
    of consciousness also have a gender.  Having a gender doesn't make one
    unbalanced and thinking that it does seems to me to be an unbalanced
    attitude in and of itself.
    
    >Also what happens if they have a gender and enter a human body of 
    >opposite gender?

    Like the world's religions... some of us are entirely too hung up on sex.  
    I think it comes from the sexually repressive religions that hold sway here.
    They have lead to some really strange kinds of attitudes and opinions, I 
    think.
    
    mary

    
    OK, Marcos, then dealing with .239, why does gender have to come into 
    it? Maybe gender is a purely Earth-creature characteristic. Maybe
    creatures/beings from other planets/universes are hermaphroditic or
    something else. They may be just as comfortable in any type of human
    body because they can adapt to either gender equally.
    
    
    Marilyn

VAXRIO::MARCOS                                       
    
>    Who said that? .239 is just a speculation on the implications of a
>    walk-in's gender.
    
     Oh... nothing wrong with speculating.. I thought that's what you were
     getting at but I must have been mistaken.
    
>    This has to do with Taoism. If male is yang and female is ying then 
>    the balance is equal amounts of both. It's believed that highly
>    spiritual beings have achieved the perfect balance of ying/yang. 

     In that case (one would assume) that highly spiritual beings would
     relate to both genders.. .. not neither... not be devoid of any
     gender.  And if highly spiritual beings refers to more than one single
     being than why wouldn't they be of different genders too?  
     
     If the balance is equal amounts of both, then why wouldn't highly
     spiritual beings (assuming plural) be just like us ... of different
     genders.. that *together* provide the platform of experience from
     which the single consciousness springs.
                     
     mary

    In other words... if the male is yin and the female is yang then the
    Tao is both of those and much more... not neither of them.
    
    One would imagine... 

    And besides... no single being.. no matter how "spiritual" would ever
    equate to the Tao itself.. right?  

    re: last few
    
         I've been struggling with balance for quite a while now...
    and trying real hard to find "equality."  This has caused me a lot
    of problems.  It has only been in the past two weeks that I think
    I've finally understood the tip of the iceberg, here.  That is,
    what I am discovering is that it isn't really "equal parts" at
    all...balance may come at any point along a continuum, not necessarily
    in "the middle."  (If one side of a line has a heavy blob on it, for
    instance, that side does not require the same length as the other side
    would, for example.  Looking at both sides, they might appear imbalanced,
    because they'd be of unequal lengths...)
    
         Finding a balance between anima and animus is just that...it does
    not necessarily mean having equal parts of each.
    
    Frederick
    

    Well said, Frederick.

    
    To see thw whole, sometimes you have to look beyond the end of 
    	your nose.
    
    Terry

    re: .244 (Marcos)
    
         You lost me on that one...I never talk about Tao, so
    I'm not sure what you are trying to say.  I *have* talked about
    balancing masculine/feminine energies before, and how essential
    that is.  What I'm saying now is that *that* does not require
    equal parts of each...(necessarily.)
    
    Frederick
    

VAXRIO::MARCOS                                      
    

>Just for the sake of argument, I wonder what "kind of attitude and opinion" 
>you would have if suddenly, out of the blue sky, a female walk-in enters your 
>husband.

    What makes you think walk-ins exist, Marcos?  
    
    What differentiates a walk-in from a split personality or a
    schizophrenic?
    
    It seems to me that the concept of a walk-in pre-supposes that the 
    individual is an empty box... waiting to be filled by whatever comes
    along.  
    
    I personally don't believe in the concept of walk-ins at all (for the
    record).
    
>I tried hard but I could not understand your comments above. If one has equal 
>amounts of two things it seems to me that one has the two things and is not 
>devoid of the two things.

    So why should it have a problem relating to either?
    
>You think that highly spiritual beings have genders? All right. Perfectly OK.
>What you are saying is that there are grounds for the speculations made in

    That highly spiritual beings have genders doesn't mean that highly
    spiritual beings take over the bodies of other living beings without
    their knowledge or consent.  In fact, that act seems very far removed 
    from high spirituality to me... but what do I know.


>So what you're saying now is that one may find a balance. First you say that
>"no single being no matter how "spiritual" would ever equate to the Tao" i.e.
>achieve the balance of the Tao, now you seem to have changed your opinion. 
>It's difficult to keep track of these changes.

    "Equating to the Tao" does not mean to achieve the balance of the Tao.  
    
    Achieving the balance of the Tao does not mean that you are the Tao in
    total... it means that you are aware of your place in the Tao and you
    flow with it.  
    

VAXRIO::MARCOS                                       
    
>Do I think that? Gosh! I thought that by the nature of my speculations 
>it was quite clear that I don't think that they exist at all.

    Then what the heck are we talking about?
    
>Wouldn't that tip the ying/yang balance?

    Why would it?
    
>If you read the first replies to this topic that's exactly what a "celestial"
>walk-in is said to do.

    Who said so?
    
>Hey! Wait a minute. You and me agreeing more than once in the same note? 

    We've always agreed, Marcos... you know that. :-)  We just piss each
    other off and enjoy taking pot shots at each other.
    
>Really? When two things equate to each other aren't they equal?

    You said that achieving the balance of the Tao means being equal to 
    the Tao... it doesn't.  
    
    One can walk in balance upon the Earth but that doesn't make one the
    Earth.
    

    Re: .-1
    
    As an "innocent bystander" I would say that just from the nature of
    your asking the question on what would happen to someone's karma if a
    "walk-in" took over gives the impression that you actually believe in
    them. If you didn't, why ask the question? This seems a bit
    contradictory when stating that they don't exist at all. Maybe that
    wasn't your intent, but it wasn't "quite clear that I don't think that
    they exist at all." I suggest a clarification in the future before
    going down a rat-hole.

VAXRIO::MARCOS                                       
    
>Mary! You were the one who challenged the validity of my speculations.
>DO YOU REMEMBER?
    
Why must you view every exchange of ideas as a challenge, Marcos?  Why 
    shouldn't your speculations be challenged just like everyone elses?
        
    
> You said that achieving the balance of the Tao means being equal to 
> the Tao... it doesn't.  
>>Did I say that? Could you please show me where I said that?

Gladly....    
    
    VAXRIO::MARCOS                                      
    
>So what you're saying now is that one may find a balance. First you say that
>"no single being no matter how "spiritual" would ever equate to the Tao" I.E.
>ACHIEVE THE BALANCE OF THE TAO, now you seem to have changed your opinion. 
>It's difficult to keep track of these changes.
    
    So you see Marcos, it's you who said that "no being no matter how 
    spiritual *equates* to the Tao" means "(i.e.) achieves the balance of 
    the TAO".
    

    
    As a side comment...
    
    About gender and walk-ins - StarTrek TNG had a program on this - Dr.
    Crusher was in love with a spirit who was temporarily using Will's body
    (sorry, I started watching halfway through the program) - someone she
    had loved when he was incarnated as a male in a male body, then the
    spirit inhabited someone elses body - a female body (this had been
    arranged beforehand, but Dr. Crusher didn't realize that the body would
    be a woman's body.  
    
    Dr. Crusher ended by saying that she may be capable of that kind of 
    higher spiritual-type love someday (paraphrasing here), but not now
    (she couldn't deal with it - too intense).  The woman, now with the 
    spirit inhabiting it, kissed Dr. Crusher's hand goodbye, and the show 
    ended.  I thought it was very well done.
    
    Cindy

    I saw the whole program.  Actually, it wasn't a spirit, it was a
    particular species of parasite that had a symbiotic relationship with
    a humanoid species.  The parasite had a much longer life-span than the
    host species.  When the humanoid host body wore out, the parasite 
    was surgically removed from the host, kept temporarily stored in
    Will's body until the new host arrived and then surgically put into the 
    new humanoid host.   The new host was female.
    
    Mary

    Re: .-1
    
    The contradiction is that there is nothing in your replies to this
    topic which indicates that you do not believe in "walk-ins" before
    reply .256. On the contrary, your carrying on was more reflective of
    someone who is trying to validate a belief, thus the necessity for you
    to communicate this appropriately. If you had clarified that you did
    not believe in them, then it would not have been repeated.

VAXRIO::MARCOS                                       
    
>    What I see in my words is this: *You* said that "no single being no
>    matter how  spiritual would ever equate to the Tao". Now, the Tao is
>    unity, the Tao is balance. Since the context we were discussing was
>    exactly balance, the way I interpreted *your* words was that "no
>    single being no matter how spiritual would ever achieve the balance of
>    the Tao".    

    
     The Tao is far more than unity and balance.  You misinterpreted me,
    Marcos... again...
    
>    I take your words to mean that whenever you address me questions
>    I am not oblidged to respond? 
    
     Of course not... I ment no such thing.  For one thing... you are
    certainly under no obligations whatsoever... to respond or not is
    your choice... as always.

    .264,
    
    If you think a claim is invalid, one perfectly legitimate method of
    testing the claim is to assume the claim IS valid, then examine it
    to see if this would produce irreconcilable internal inconsistancies.
    It looks like that is what Marcos was doing.
    
    						Ann B.

    FYI: According to my ballpark calculations, Ms. Atkinson is due for
    another "walk-in" 'bout this time.  (Unless they've given up and 
    gone home.)
    
    BTW, the "host body" still appears in ELF, if anyone's interested 
    in dropping her a line.  Or just dropping in...
    
    							Don

Re: .235

  <<< Note 1460.235 by ENABLE::glantz "Mike @TAY 227-4299 TP Eng Littleton" >>>

Is the physical body of Ms Atkinson still occupied by the light-being
Talligai? I ask, because I noticed a mention of our very own Talligai
in note 1476.138, and thought that it's been a while since we've heard
from him/her.


Yes Mike,
The physical body of Ms. Atkinson is still occupied by the LIGHT-Being
Talligai and will be for a very long time.

Namasthe,

re: .236 Marcos, .237 Guy:



      <<< Note 1460.237 by BTOVT::BEST_G "only thru love changes come" >>>
                               -< Love Walks In >-

    
    In Van Halen's _Live Without A Net_ video, Sammy Hagar introduces
    the song "Love Walks In" as a song "about aliens".   Check out the
    lyrics sometime....;-)
    
    guy



Thank you Guy for your comments......Marcos' backhand and slapshots are 
getting a little old! It may be time for one entrenched Rosicrucian to re-
evaluate some of his creations!

Namasthe,
Talligai

re: .271 Marcos
                     <<< Note 1460.271 by VAXRIO::MARCOS >>>
                       -< a welcome in a welcome topic >-

Note 1460.270  
ASDS::ATKINSON 


> Marcos' backhand and slapshots are  getting a little old! It may be time for
> one entrenched Rosicrucian to re- evaluate some of his creations!

Hello and welcome back SINCERELY.

Regardless of what you might think I enjoy your notes tremendously.
I do not like however what I perceive to be a certain arrogance of yours. It's
only a percetion of mine I admit. Also I find it a pity that you leave so many
questions unanswered (check this very topic), make statements and evade from 
debating on the statements you make.

I would love discussing things with you,

Sincerely yours,

Marcos

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Good Afternoon Marcos,

Thank you for the welcome back!  I have not been evading answering questions...
unfortunately my workload here at Stow has not allowed time for me to partic-
ipate in the Notes files until my last entry.  I am the last person in my group
aside from my Manager so I have all the work that three people used to do to 
accomplish on a regular basis.

You say you perceive an "arrogance" in me...perhaps what you perceive is merely
your reflection in the mirror, as I did not set out to discredit you, I simply
disseminate information whether it is accepted or well received or not. It is
not part of my purpose to "debate" the Prime Creator's truth...merely to state
it. It is either accepted or not accepted according to whether or not it reson-
ates for you in your reality.

I sincerely hope all is well with you and that life is treating you kindly!

Namasthe,
Talligai

    Talligai,
    
    I've recently come across a stone called Cavansite.  It's sort
    of a deep teal (more blue than green) stone made up of very small
    crystals.  I can't find any references to the stone and was 
    wondering if you have any insights as to it's abilities.  I've
    alread done some work with it, but feel there is much more than
    I'm getting.  
    
    Thanks,
    Joanne Peachwall 

Hello Joanne,

It is good for the exceleration and transmutation of the pineal gland.

Is there anything else you need to know???

Much LOVE to you in the LIGHT,
I AM
Talligai

        <<< Note 1460.274 by ESMAIL::ESOMS "Trusting in the Universe" >>>
                        -< I'm really into this stone >-

    Talligai,
    
    I've recently come across a stone called Cavansite.  It's sort
    of a deep teal (more blue than green) stone made up of very small
    crystals.  I can't find any references to the stone and was 
    wondering if you have any insights as to it's abilities.  I've
    alread done some work with it, but feel there is much more than
    I'm getting.  
    
    Thanks,
    Joanne Peachwall 

    Thanks Talligai,
    
    If you have a moment, perhaps you could explain about the exceleration
    and transmution of the pineal gland.  What benefits (or non benefits)
    is there to this?  Should this stone be used for working with/on the 
    pineal gland?
    
    I have a minute piece that is not on matrix.  It's a rather expensive
    stone and seems to be a bit fragile though I haven't tested it.  Any
    suggestions how I should work with it?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Joanne

    I, for one, have had quite enough of Marcos' intruding upon Talligai's
    space.  Talligai was welcomed in Note #1034.  Marcos mucked it up. 
    Talligai was re-welcomed in Note #1460.  Marcos mucked that one up.
    
    Marcos, would you kindly butt out of Talligai's notes?  Please?
    
    I, for one, want to hear what Talligai has to say.
    
    If I want to hear what YOU have to say, I will refer to the "Marcos"
    note if one exists.  :-)
    
    Thank you, Marcos.
    

    
    angelical beings aren't perfect...
    
    
    guy

Re: <<< Note 1460.278 by VAXRIO::MARCOS >>>

Note 1460.277   
ASDS::RAMSAY  

    Do you know what a membership conference is? A membership conference is
    one to which only members have access so that they can flock together
    with their peers. I reluctantly suggest then that you set up one in
    your account and invite your peers to participate. I say reluctantly
    because in a membership conference you will only see just one side 
    of the coin. 

    If someone does not want to discuss things with others of different
    views an open and public forum like DEJAVU does not seem to be the
    right forum. 

    I tell you something if an "angelical being from Meternac" cannot
    stand the heat and criticism then there seems to be something wrong 
    with this "angelical being".

    But have no fears. I am no longer interested in this meternac thing.
    Your master can step in and say whatever she wants. No more chalenges 
    from me.

    Much light and love to you Susan Ramsay.

    Marcos


Good Morning Marcos,

#1...It is Metenarc.

#2...I AM no ones "Master".

#3...No one stated that " an 'angelical being from Meternac' cannot stand
     the heat and criticism"

#4...There is nothing "wrong" with this Anelical being as you put it, I AM
     doing my mission and purpose. Are you?

#5...What a shame that you cannot stand the "heat and criticism".

#6...Your response to Susan Ramsay was reflecting something, but it did not
     appear to be  "light and love".

Namasthe,
Talligai

re:  <<< Note 1460.281 by VAXRIO::MARCOS >>>

Good Afternoon to you, Marcos.

Listen I want to fulfil Ramsay's request in .277 i.e to butt out of your
notes but by addressing me directly you seem to want to invite me to keep
this thing going. I have already stated it very clearly that I am no longer
interested in this walk-in thing. I cannot understand how someone pops in 
an international public forum claiming to be an ET or whatever here to help
and leaves a wake of UNanswered questions. If you want to discuss anything
specific with me please revisit this very topic and answer the unanswered
questions first.

** I had nothing to do with Susan Ramsay's request for you to butt out of
"my" notes. I am addressing you directly because that is the common practice
when one has something to say to someone else on this planet. It means 
nothing to me that you are no longer interested in this "walk-in" thing as
you put it. I have not just "Popped" into this forum..my predecessors and I
have been participating in this forum for a few years now. I do not CLAIM to
be anything. I am a celestial walk-in here on Earth assignment. Whether that 
resonates in your reality or not is really of no concern to me...it does not
change what I am here for. If I chose to leave questions unanswered that is
my business since they were directed to me. I believe that my predecessors
and I have answered a great many questions over the past few years to most
folks satisfaction.  I am under no obligation to comply with your demand
disguised as a request to answer all unanswered questions before discussing
anything specific with you.

It amuses me that you seem to feel that you have more rights than others.
It appears that you feel it is fine for you to hurl accusations at others 
for them to answer, devalue their beliefs and reality, to name call; but it 
is not alright for others to take you to into accountability for you words.
There is a saying here on Earth: " What goes around, comes around".  It would
appear to me that it is coming around.
---------------------------------------------------

> I AM doing my mission and purpose. Are you?

I am no ET with superpowers, I am just a mere human being trying to fulfill my
obligations with my family, community and employer. I am not here to preach 
nor save anyone.


**You have a three-fold flame in your hear.  You are a Divine Being, a piece of
the Prime Creator First Cause, here on mission to experience form and duality
for the Creator...ENOUGH of this "I'm just a mere human" cop-out!!!!! By the
way, the only ones you are here to save are:
			1. Planet Earth
			2. Yourself
			3. Mutating humanity and all sentient life

but OH, I forgot... you've forgotten that you are a LIGHTWORKER here on
assignment by the Prime Creator because you volunteered (as did all the other
Light workers here) so you don't need to rememeber personal responsibility as
a Co-creator.....you don't need to remember that you are a Divine Being and
that you mission is based on bringing UNCONDITIONAL LOVE to this Planet and
all LIFE because WE ARE ALL ONE.....Did not Jesus say "that which you do unto
the least of my brethren, you do unto ME". That meant that which you do to any
part of life you do to all of life, because we are ALL ONE!

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

> What a shame that you cannot stand the "heat and criticism".

Frankly I did not understand. Perhaps you could be more specific as to what 
you mean? Feel free to criticize me. 

** You dish it out expertly, however, you don't receive it as well in my 
opinion.
-----------------------------------------

> Your response to Susan Ramsay was reflecting something, but it did not
> appear to be  "light and love".

Maybe. As I said I am just a mere and fallible human being. I am not a Messiah
capable to be crucified and ask the Almighty to forgive the torturers because
they do not know what they do. This topic was dormant for a long time and then 
pops this lady yelling for me to butt out. Amazingly enough a lady also from
your node. IMO the whole thing looked like a puppet used to spot weaknesses.
Exactly like Kirk used Spock to probe Khan's weaknesses if you know what I
mean. Forget it, I have nothing at stake here.

*** I addressed the "mere and fallible human being" earlier....as has been said
many times by me...my workload has been incredibly heavy over the last 6-8
months and I have not been able to participate in notes or even read for 
extended periods. If peoples concerns regarding unanswered questions is great
enough, they can always contact me directly on E-mail.

Susan Ramsay is a DECTemp who happened to be on the same cluster as I am because
she is working in the same facility....You are intitled to your opinion, however
your interpretation of the situation is incorrect. I have no knowledge of the 
"Kirk, Spock, Kahn" episode you are talking about.

It would be extremely nice if you would simply ask what it is you want to know
instead of stating your questions in the form of an attack...You appear to 
hit....run and then when confronted, retreat. I am not engaged in a WAR here,
I am engaged in a forum....where everyone is entitled to express their view
points, even me!

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

Namasthe,

Marcos


I AM THAT I AM,
Talligai

Re:                     <<< Note 1460.282 by ASDS::ATKINSON >>>
                         -< Hit and Run AGAIN?????





**You have a three-fold flame in your hear.  

Should read:  " You have a three-fold flame in your heart."


I AM THAT I AM,
Talligai

>                            -< Spelling correction >-

	geez, and I liked it better the first time 
	
	
	;-)  ;-)

re:  <<< Note 1460.276 by ASABET::ESOMS "Manifesting a Dream" >>>

    Thanks Talligai,
    
    If you have a moment, perhaps you could explain about the exceleration
    and transmution of the pineal gland.  What benefits (or non benefits)
    is there to this?  Should this stone be used for working with/on the 
    pineal gland?
    
    I have a minute piece that is not on matrix.  It's a rather expensive
    stone and seems to be a bit fragile though I haven't tested it.  Any
    suggestions how I should work with it?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Joanne

Good Afternoon Joanne,

The pineal gland is the endocrine gland associated with the "third eye" chakra
or energy center located approximately between the eyebrows on your forehead.

It is this energy center that when accelerated sufficiently provides one with
what you call psychic vision.  Therefore, you would want to work with the stone
directly on the energy center, for clearing, transmuting and accelerating
this center. During meditation would be the preferred time.

If you wish to share your experiences with it with the readership, they might
find it enlightening.

LOVE and LIGHT to you, Joanne,
Talligai

    Thanks Talligai,
    
    I'll work with the stone and report if anything happens.  Actually,
    I keep it close to where I sleep.  Could be why I'm getting more
    intuitive feelings lately.
    
    Interesting,
    
    Thanks again.
    
    Joanne

                     <<< Note 1460.289 by VAXRIO::MARCOS >>>


> How is it you accept many of Jesus' attributes and abilities without question,
> yet you find it incredibly difficult to believe there could possibly be
> walk-ins here among us?  Granted, the two concepts are different, but is one
> any less believable than the other?  Or less likely to be possible?

The research I have done on Jesus was enough to convince me. The walk-in or
soul-exchange process is an absurdity to me and therefore I have to investigate
it. There's nothing about it on the resources I have and therefore the only
means that I have to investigate it is a sort of cross-checking answers given by
whoever makes such claims. Also I enter some provocative notes to test the
person's reactions. I have entered several questions over several topics which
unfortunately weren't answered based on pre-rogatives that the person is under
no obligation to respond. Since I cannot proceed my investigation without the
answers that won't be given I've lost my interest in this thing and I really
want to butt out.

kindest regards,

Marcos
-------------------------------

Good Morning Marcos:

Would the Master Jesus have responded to the kind of "provocative questions"
that you have posed?????   I sincerely don't believe so. He might have given
you a parable and you would have had to figure it out for yourself.

Would Jesus have responded to the character assassination you put forth in 
Note 1034????   I sincerely don't believe so. He would not have given it 
the smallest space in his energy field.

He came to show Hue-manity the way to Ascension through UNCONDITIONAL LOVE
.....which is what is happening today...World Ascension....the Earth is 
Ascending too and has recently shifted into the fourth dimension.

I have come as have thousands of others like me to help, facilitate Hue-manity
in the Ascension process.  So you see, being from Missouri (the Show me State)
is all well and good.....but faith in your own divinity and ascension process
will get you a great deal farther than having to have everything proven to you
You could have asked in an unprovocative way what you wanted to know and you 
would have received the answer easily...or you could have turned within to your
own divine presence to request an answer to my validity and received an answer
that resonates with your reality.

I am a messenger, facilitator and a frequency keeper. 
Why do you constantly shoot the messenger?  

We (walk-ins) hold our mission as a sacred trust and let nothing interfere with
that commitment that we have made to the Prime Creator. We are under no obliga-
tion to submit to mental gymnastics voisted upon us by beings that choose not 
to use the spiritual tools that we know they have access to for their answers. 
(and I know that you have mastered those tools, Marcos)  To thus engage would 
be a misqualification of the Creator's energy and light that has been entrusted
to us for the purposes of our mission.


If you need a good challenge, why not take on correcting the damage to the
environment and helping your planet.

I AM THAT I AM,
Talligai

Why do all "light beings" have to use hokey terms like "he wouldn't have given
it the smallest space in his energy field" and Hue-man? Does this give some
credence to the claims?

Industrial Trayne-Ee,

								- JIM CAD*

Re: .-1

>Would the Master Jesus have responded to the kind of "provocative questions"
>that you have posed?????   I sincerely don't believe so. He might have given
>you a parable and you would have had to figure it out for yourself.

>Would Jesus have responded to the character assassination you put forth in 
>Note 1034????   I sincerely don't believe so. He would not have given it 
>the smallest space in his energy field.

IMHO, yes, Jesus would have responded.  According to what I have read,
experienced, etc., I believe that Jesus constantly was demonstating who
he was - he was constantly giving proof-and-evidence.  If one takes on the
responsibility of being a world-teacher, I believe that it is that person's
responsibility to give some sort of proof-and-evidence that he/she is who
he/she says they are, and that they "practice what they preach", i.e. his/her
life is in perfect accordance with those principles.  One should always
keep his/her critical faculties, and a Master/Teacher/etc. should encourage 
people to question everything they preach and even to question who they are.
That is why I always investigate the "teacher" and analyze the teachings
before believing the teachings, and I have found that "teachers" who do
not encourage this have been found fraudulant upon further investigations.
At least, this has been my experience.....

Linda

    
    Re.292
    
    Why do people from the UK have to use hokey terms like....
    
    Cindy

    
    Marcos,
    
    You, of course, have the prerogative to *not* answer our questions as
    to your research on Jesus. I have also done some research on Jesus, and 
    found that the subject of Jesus's divinity is purely subjective. That
    is, one either accepts it as an act of faith or one does not. If you
    want to say that your research of Jesus has convinced you of His
    divinity, that's OK, just realize that by not answering our questions,
    you are doing that same thing you accuse Talligai of doing....
    

Re:<< Note 1460.292 by FORTY2::CADWALLADER "Reaping time has come..." >>>
                              -< Wild claims... >-

>Why do all "light beings" have to use hokey terms like "he wouldn't have given
>it the smallest space in his energy field" and Hue-man? Does this give some
>credence to the claims?

>Industrial Trayne-Ee,

								- JIM CAD*
---------------------------------

Good Afternoon Jim,

We use these "hokey terms" because they are terms you yourselves use in your
"New Age Movement" and they are terms that you supposedly understand.

"Hue-man" represents the fact that your bodies absorb colored light rays from
the spectrum  or spectrums currently influencing your galaxy and if they body
is healthy and functioning properly it radiates colored light and energy waves
back out again thru the auric field.

with regards to  "he wouldn't have given it the smallest space in his energy
field"....I do believe that I prefaced that statement with " 'I' sincerely
don't believe so".  Stating that this is my belief.  You are entitled to 
disagree if you choose to. I also know that Masters do not waste their divine
energy in trivial pursuits that are non-productive for the light, for that
is a misqualification of that divine energy.

I do not make "claims" as so many of you choose to state. I speak from my point
of knowing and truth which is centered in the LIGHT of the PRIME CREATOR FIRST
CAUSE.....if that does not resonate in your reality, so be it!

 Having separated so far from the CREATOR that you have forgotten that you
are divine beings has put some of  humanity in the place of having to be 
reawakened to this truth. To the truth that we are all one, expressing our-
selves as slightly different facets of the one beautiful gem. I have no need 
to prove myself to humanity because I know who I AM and I live who I AM...When 
you have reached this place in the unity of your being and oneness with your
Divine Presence and the unity with all life, you will have no need to constantly
prove or ask for proof for everything, you will KNOW.

If you would go within to your GOD Presence you would have all the answers you
would ever need to every question you, have as your presence would connect you
to the Universal Flux from which all knowledge is obtainable.

RE: .298 (Marcos)

>My not answering questions is completely irrelevant since I am not claiming to
>be anything but a mere human being. 

    Marcos, I'm sympathetic with your position in general, but this just
    doesn't hold water.

    Someone made certain claims which many would consider to be
    extraordinary.  You felt that if they made claims they should be
    willing to back them up.

    You also made claims, if somewhat different ones, which many would
    consider extraordinary: knowledge of evidence for the special status of
    Jesus in this world.  You are unwilling to back those claims up.  I
    don't think you have to, but "Sauce for the goose is sauce for the
    gander."

				    Topher  

    Marcos,
    
    > My not answering questions is completely irrelevant since I 
    > am not claiming to be anything but a mere human being.
    
    But you are! I know no other human beingthat can claim special
    knowledge that allows them to KNOW that Jesus is who you and 
    several other million Christians believe.
    
    Given that, you are certainly claiming something. IF you choose not to
    divulge the source of this extraordinary knowledge fine. Just don't
    criticize others for not doing so either.
    
    
    Marilyn

RE:  <<< Note 1460.303 by AKOFIN::WATSON "Some like it not" >>>

>"The proof is in the pudding" would certainly seem to apply here.  Either it
>eats well or it doesn't.  It doesn't matter who made it, where it was made
>or what it was made from.  If it tastes good, it must be good pudding.
>(please, no cracks or flames about pudding made from abhorrent material; I
>think everyone here gets the picture.)

I disagree with this entirely.  The source is very important, especially
when dealing with abstract theories of metaphysics and religion, etc.,
where there cannot be objective, scientific proof and evidence - i.e. 
something that requires faith.  Let's take mediumship for example.  A medium
acts as a pipe connecting the Spirit World with this world.  If you pour
water through a pipe that is perfectly clean, then the water comes out as
it came in.  If the pipe has dirt in it, then the water comes out NOT as
it came in.  So to take both extremes, if the medium has a perfected 
consciousness (i.e. a Master), then the information will come through 
perfectly.  If the medium is deluded, then the information will come through 
corrupted.  This is why it is always good to check into the actual person who 
is the medium, the instrument which the information comes.  The information may
sound pretty good at first, but until the information is examined and question
and the medium is also examined and question I personally would not put a lot
of weight in the information.  This works for me, but everybody has their
own tests... to each his own....

Appearances can be deceiving.  To continue with your pudding metaphor -
would you eat the pudding made by a person who was convicted on numerous
occassions of poisoning people?  I wouldn't, but I wouldn't know this about
the person unless I investigated the person...

I have a definite opinion of walk-ins, and I do not want to get into
whether or not I think that Talligai/Ms. Atkinson is what she says she is.
I'm comfortable with my opinion of this situation, and I'm sure that
Talligai/Ms. Atkinson could care less of my opinion.  The only thing I'm 
stressing is that my experience leads me to say that all of the Master 
Teachers/Avatars/what-ever-you-want-to-call-them that I know of that have 
incarnated on this planet have demonstrated their Mastership in both
objective and subjective ways and encouraged people to question every principle
they taught and to even question them.

Keep your critical faculties!  If you are comfortable with what Talligai/Ms.
Atkinson says and it works for you, fine, so be it - incorporate it into
your life.  If you are not comfortable with Talligai/Ms. Atkinson and/or
what she is saying, then keep searching...

Linda

    Linda,
    
    Aside from the walk-in phenomenon, which, I'll admit is one that I know
    next to nothing about, and prefer to reserve judgement on, I disagree 
    with your previous note. Regardless of the medium, a good or bad
    message should rest on its own merit. That is, whether the messenger
    is "good" or "bad", the message should be considered for its content.
    
    It is impossible to know the inner thoughts of human beings other than
    ourselves, and sometimes even ours :^) If we try to analyze the
    messengers themselves, not to mention their possible intents, we may
    never hear anything at all. Very few things, outside of what we call
    "science" are concrete and explained enough to be "known" objectively.
    This is especially true of the occult, metaphysics, parapsychology,
    whatever you want to call it. What may be a clear case of fraud,
    misguidance, etc. to you is probably gospel to many and vice versa. 
    
    Why would the statement "Love others as you would like to be loved" be
    any less true or important coming from Jesus, an (extra)ordinary man,
    that Jesus the Son of God? If it works, use it, no matter how it gets
    to you. 
    
    
    Marilyn

RE: <<< Note 1460.306 by SWAM1::MILLS_MA "To Thine own self be True" >>>

>    It is impossible to know the inner thoughts of human beings other than
>    ourselves, and sometimes even ours :^) If we try to analyze the
>    messengers themselves, not to mention their possible intents, we may
>    never hear anything at all.    

Marilyn,

I disagree with this.  But as I said in my previous note, if this works for
you, so be it.  This doesn't work for me.  I don't believe in blind faith,
and to me not investigating the source falls under the "blind faith"
category.  A lot of people are saying a lot of things.  Most of these
things conflict with each other.  To me, if something like "do unto others"
is prevalent amongst belief systems (which it is), then this is most likely
truth (noticed I said "most likely").  But if there is information that 
conflicts then it is up to the individual to discern what is truth.  Part of 
my discernment is this analysis of the source.  It works for me.  It's your 
right to choose to analyze, and the methods of analysis which work for you.
I choose to this as part of my analysis.

> Very few things, outside of what we call
>    "science" are concrete and explained enough to be "known" objectively.
>    This is especially true of the occult, metaphysics, parapsychology,
>    whatever you want to call it. 

Over the last 150 years, there has been an incredible amount of scientific
investigation in parapsychology and Spiritualism.  When I first started my
investigations of these fields, I was really amazed at how much experimentation
was done, and the results of these experiments.  There is a lot of objective 
proof and evidence out there backing up the genuineness of mediumship, 
apportation, and assorted parapsychological "phenomena".  But objective
proof and evidence is only part of this.  There is subjective proof and
evidence.  For example, if I go to a medium that I have never met before
and she starts telling me all about my aunt who passed several years ago -
describes her, gives me her name, gives me details of things that transpired
between us which only my aunt and I know, then this is subjective proof and
evidence for me.  This "subjective proof and evidence" is something that
is relevant only to me, and "works" for me.  Personally, when dealing with
things of a metaphysical/parapsychological nature, I require both objective
and subjective proof and evidence.  Part of this subjective proof and evidence
to me is an analysis of the "messenger".  But as I said before - this is
what I do....  You should do whatever feels right for you.

>What may be a clear case of fraud,
>    misguidance, etc. to you is probably gospel to many and vice versa. 

As I have said before, if it works for you, do it, embrace it, live it,
incorporate it fully into your life.  I've just explained how I go about
verifying the genuineness and validity of information obtained via paranormal
means (mediums/channelers/Avatars/Ascended Masters/etc.).

To each his own...

Linda

    ... by their works shall you know them...

Hi All,

	I believe in the existence of God or a Prime-Creator, however have great
trouble accepting much of the rigour of standard religion because I see this as
the work of Man (Hue- :-) ) not the Word of God in many cases; original scripts
and ideas have been bastardised so much throughout time that they may not 
reflect the crux of the original message at all anymore. Furthermore I resent
the nature of MAN's use of the structure and discipline "religion" to control
and opress many millions of people in the world. Not nice. That's beside the
point, my main point is that I DO believe in a Prime Creator, but do not
necessarily hold with the Bible as being gospel! (Sorry, couldn't resist it!)

	Therefore I feel I am in a different position to Marcos on the
Talligai claim issue here, since I am not responding with equally far-out
(subjectively) claims about Jesus. There may be, or may not, extra-terrestrial
super-beings ("Light Beings"?) out there, but I don't expect to see them
using VAXNotes! :-) Many things weird and wonderful DO occur, but this must
be the most far-fetched idea that I have yet come across...

	Not intending to be malicious...

Cindy,

	Perhaps I should have used good old English terms like, "Twaddle",
"Fancy", "Nonsense", "Frivolity", what!?  :-)))

								- JIM CAD*

    Ahhh, this is the DEJAVU we all know and love...
    
    Ok, so how do we know that this Talligai individual isn't just the
    alter-ego of a schizophrenic, or the invention of a charlatan?
    
    Laurie.

    Jim,
    
    I do a lot of research on chakra's and stones and go to Talligai 
    when there's something I need and can't find or to support some
    of my own work.
    
    Joanne

    re .307, Linda Waine.. 
    
	>I've just explained how I go about verifying the genuineness and 
    	>validity of information obtained via paranormal means 
    	>(mediums/channelers/Avatars/Ascended Masters/etc.).
    
    Tell me something you couldn't possibly know... in other words, defeat 
    my methods of assessment and I'll believe in you ?
    
    karl

    Anyone else's eyes beginning to glaze over from the extreme boredom of
    reading the same dreary points over and over and over?

    Jamie.

    
    re: .319
    
    yup.
    
    
    guy

    Talligai,
    
    I am interested to find out your knowledge of and/or connections with
    the Mayan Calendar, as referenced in your note 1460.166 you mentioned
    2012 which is the year that the Mayan Calendar ends.
    
    You also have mentioned in more recent notes that we are light beings,
    and in fact this is how Jose Arguelles describes us in The Mayan
    Factor. Have you read this book? I would be interested in hearing your
    opinion on it.
    
    Bright blessings to you,
    
    Sergei

    Re .322

    >re: .329

    Cliff has precognition?

    Jamie.

re:  <<< Note 1460.321 by BTOVT::HARAMUNDANIS >>>
               -< The Mayan Calendar >-

   * Talligai,
    
   * I am interested to find out your knowledge of and/or connections with
   * the Mayan Calendar, as referenced in your note 1460.166 you mentioned
   * 2012 which is the year that the Mayan Calendar ends.
    
   * You also have mentioned in more recent notes that we are light beings,
   * and in fact this is how Jose Arguelles describes us in The Mayan
   * Factor. Have you read this book? I would be interested in hearing your
   * opinion on it.
    
   * Bright blessings to you,
    
   * Sergei
***************************************************************************
Good Afternoon Sergei,

I have not read Mr. Arguelles book "The Mayan Factor".  I am aquainted with
the fact that the Mayan calendar ends in 2012.  The Mayans were a very ad-
vanced group (in most ways) and were very connected to the Universal flux from
which they drew a great deal of their information. Being as connected to the
flux as they were, they were aware of the coming cycles of change. I would 
say, that Mr. Arguelles has drawn his information from the probable universes
within the flux.

I refer to you as Light Beings, because that is what, in fact, you are. 
Multidimensional Light Beings. As pieces of the Prime Creator, First Cause 
you would naturally be made of the same "stuff" or "material" as the source
from which you came.

Bright Blessing of Light and Love to you, Sergei,

I AM
Talligai

Re: .-1

Thanks very much for your response Talligai. It is interesting that although we
have different sources, basically the same structures/phenomena are evident.
Very useful for varification purposes.

It has also interested me greatly (being very interested in Astronomy) that
The Mayan Factor explains much of what is happening, that is the synchronization,
as being directly connected with activity on the Sun. If this is so according to
your knowledge, then what/how are we to derive significant events from the
positions of the planets, or is the Sun a sufficient source for understanding
how to navigate through the tribulations of our times? The positions of the
planets do not appear to be a significant topic in The Mayan Factor.

Bright Blessings of Light and Love,

Sergei

    Does "Butt Out" have anything to do with "Physicality", or is it even
    stupider?
    
    Dougie
    

  Re .326 (Dougie)

> Does "Butt Out" have anything to do with "Physicality", or is it even
> stupider?

  Actually, I believe it derives from an astrological phenomenon whereby the
  moon exerts it's influence to encourage irrational behaviour (cf "lunacy")
  hence when you're in this state ["mooning"] you tend to stick your butt out
  [of the window] ...

  Frank

    Frank,
    
    You've been reading too much Chaucer.
    
    Helpfully, Laurie.

So all these Yanks are telling each other to stick their bottoms out of the
window? hehe - the mind boggles.

Dougie

    Talligai and Walter announce a blessed event:
    
    	Michael Kyel
    	born March 22, 1994
    
    Talligai sends everyone Love and Light.