Conference hydra::dejavu

    Marcos,
    
    Where did the extract you posted come from ?
    
    Regards
    

    
    Good one, Marcos!
    
    With a name like Hilarion, I wonder if this is all a great Cosmic Joke.
    
    As Alan Alda wrote, "When people are laughing, they're generally not
    killing one another."  Perhaps this is God's true language after all.
    
    Cindy

    Cindy,
    
    Do you mean to say Hilarion comes from the 
    root word Hilarious?
    
    Nyuk Nyuuk
    
    -Arthur

    
    Re.6 (Marcos))
    
    I'm glad you wrote that.  I understand you better now.
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.5
    
    Paul,
    
    Yipes!  Is the Dark Side hitting everybody?  What gives?
    
    Cindy

    I've been contemplating this Hilarion stuff, I read the article
    and for myself see some danger in it. So much of it is this 
    complicated philosophical historical perspective that has these seeds
    of spiritual intrigue and drama. One could spend countless hours
    trying to verify this or that about the Dark Bro's and their cronies
    and who knows if this could be done really in the first place. To
    me this highly esoteric article sidetracks people from the "real"
    work of the Heart, which is clearing and releasing negativity and
    opening the Heart to Love and Compassion in the here and now.
    
    I don't have the intent to dampen discussion about Hilarion, but I
    see it as "energy follows thought"... and the more you give to
    the Dark Side...the more it comes back to you. Even if this article
    arouses fear and mistrust and loneliness...or like someone said like...
    we are mere pawns in the show....that's very disempowering.
    
    Next!
    -Arthur  8-)
  
    

	.11 Arthur,
	
	Funny. I've been thinking the same thing.  ;')
	If I say "not in my reality", then it ain't so.
	Or, conversly I can say "I do believe, I do believe".
	I choose the former.
	
	Someone could say, "by ignoring it you won't make it go away".
	I say bullsh*t. Give it no energy and it's not there.
	
	Wise man or fool?  ;')
	The doctor called me crazy. Some sez I am some sez I ain't.
	
	Jay   :-)

    re: .13
    
    But Marcos, whether or not "Hilarion" would more accurately
    be named "Hilarious" is very much a matter of opinion.  You
    take it seriously, which is your right and your choice.  Some
    of us do not take Hilarion seriously and are not at all
    afraid, even a teeny-weeny bit...
    
    Joel
    

    re: .11 (Arthur)
    
         I'm with you, Arthur, especially after glancing through .13.
    Whew!
    
    Frederick
    

    Arthur and Jay (11, 12)
    
    Good stuff guys!  ;')  White Eagle's books focus on the Light and Love
    too.  He recognizes the 'darkness' but doesn't dwell on it, prefering
    to concentrate on Love.  Most noticeably his recognition of the darker
    forces is his suggestion that after opening the chakras (through 
    meditation or healing work) to be sure to close them (the sign of
    the cross within the circle being one method) as to not leave oneself
    open to those entities.  A Course in Miracles is another path which
    focuses on the power of Love and it sometimes gets a bad rap for 
    doing so.
    
    I've only had a chance to skim through the article, but I did find 
    the last two paragraphs helpful in questions I've been having regarding
    EGO and GLAMOUR concerns.  
    
    Marcos (.13),
    
    Cindy has gone on vacation for a few days, therefore isn't here to
    answer.  But I do believe there is some miscommunication going on
    between the two of you.  I think you misinterpreted what Cindy was
    laughing about, it was not the article rather instead the humor you
    used in a couple of replies after that.  It appeared to me she was
    applauding your sense of humor which I think you miread as her
    laughing at the dark brotherhood material.  This is the way I saw
    it anyway.
    
    Thanks for the interpretation you have given us in .13, I find
    it helpful in understanding the article better.
    
    Gently,
    
    Ro
    

    re .13
     
    A very interesting note. One comment about flying saucers. One line of
    explanation concludes that most are not from other worlds, but somehow
    tied to our planet. I was taught that they were quaranteed here. Certain
     entities masquerade as spacetravelers, ascended masters, dead
    relatives, or "Angels of light" to spread all sorts of BS. To me any
    entity that calls attention to itself, sets aside the human
    will(posession or channeling) or even offers teachings so complex as to
    be confusing is suspect to me. Call them the Dark Brotherhood if you
    want to, evil definitely exists.
    	Fortunately there is a good side too, but its not necessarily as
    evident as people think. It particularly cooperates with anyone who has
    a genuine interest in loving others(in a practical sense)
    
    john

    re: .16 (Marcos)
    
         Hi there, to you, too, Marcos.
    
         Okay, I will add my impressions.  First off, I didn't read all
    of that...it's too long, complicated/and-or negative for me.  So, 
    perhaps I missed some important points.  
         I mentioned this elsewhere once before, so if it's redundant
    I apologize:  several years ago someone from this file sent me
    "Starseed Transmissions" to read.  I did, but though it's short, it
    took me about four months.  The problem I had with that was all the
    references to Christ and all the wordings which were tongue-tied and
    difficult.  This is one reason I find Talligai's stuff unappealing,
    too.  This is also why I find lots of Hindu stuff or lots of other
    stuff uninteresting.  It takes so long just to figure out the language
    that it seems to be more effort than it's worth to me.
         Behind it all are the beliefs.  As I read any of the above
    mentioned sources or the stuff in .13, for example, there were certain
    kernels of beliefs which peered through.  Those beliefs are not beliefs I
    hold.  Therefore, any conclusion or any assumption made based on those
    beliefs, while loyal to their own foundation, are false for me because
    what my reality is based on is a different set of building pads.  So,
    while I cannot argue with you based on your beliefs, I *could* argue
    with your beliefs.  
         Moreover, even with those beliefs in place, it is clear in those
    writings of yours that there is a great "fear motivation" for you.  You
    spend a great deal of time in focusing on what to me is heavily
    negative.  Also, what you attribute the negativity to doesn't have a
    significant amount of impact on me.  That is, I don't believe in all
    that negativity as existing in the reality I *know* I can generate.
    Everything exists.  Fine.  Everything negative exists.  Also fine.
    But it must also be fine that everything positive exists.  It must
    also be fine that since we have limited time/space that we cannot
    select *everything.*  Therefore, we can select those things that are
    either positive or negative or both.  I have already selected lots
    of negative things.  I haven't liked them.  I am choosing, more and
    more, the positive things.  I like that much better.  It is my choice.
    I choose.  I have decided.  You are choosing to focus on negatives.
    I prefer to focus on positives.  Who is in control?  God?  Jesus?
    The Tarot cards?  The UFO's?  George Bush?  Some unseen gathering of
    astral beings?  Who?
        It is my belief, and my understanding is coming more into alignment
    with my beliefs, that negativity is the rich breeding area for our own
    negative egos.  That is, without the acute interest in negativity that
    that part of the ego holds, none would ever surface to generate any
    difficulty.  To put it farther, if we learn to take control over our
    negative egos, and we allow the positive ego to do as it was intended
    to do, negativity would have no impact on us at all.  It would not be
    a part of our reality.  We would have no reason to saddle up with it.
    This does not mean denying its existence, this means that it will
    simply not be allowed to partake in our reality.  This can be done.
    Why or how?  By taking responsibility.  By showing where the control
    is supposed to be--within oneself.  Not by giving that control to
    someone or something else.  Not by abnegating or abdicating
    responsibility.
         You spend a great deal of time referencing the astral plane.
    Frankly, the astral plane holds little motivational value to me.  I
    prefer to go farther than that.  Leave the astral plane and all of
    its negativity to itself.  It'll be just fine without me, I'm sure. 
    ;-)  It won't bother me unless I allow it.  And I have no intention
    of doing that.  Evil is easy to overcome, because eventually it all
    falls away, transmuted or transformed, ultimately transcended.  
         So, Marcos, it's off the fear wagon and onto the growth ride!
    It's all illusion...though we are a part and its realness is 
    convincing.  Make a decision.  Make choices.  
    
    Frederick
    
          

    Anyone know why Hilarion thinks fat people cannot be trusted?
    Read .81 and you'll see what I mean.
    
    This is the sort of statement that should make us *extremely*
    cautious about assigning any level of seriousness to these
    writings.  
    
    Joel
    

Re: Cooke & Hilarion

From what I've looked into, Maurice Cooke is another channeler who claims to
have channeled an entity and does not supply any proof-and-evidence (either
objective or subjective) that they are indeed genuine.  My own opinion on
Cooke is that he happens to be well-read and knows the "hip-chic-and-trendy"
things to say and is NOT genuine - but that's just IMHO...

As for Hilarion, there is a Space Master by the name of Master Hilarion who
is the overseer of the Silver Ray - the ray of protection.  He's definitely
one of the "good guys".

Linda

    
    I don't really think the Hilarion writing intended to be so negative
    but was more intended to be a warning for those seeking enlightenment
    to be careful.  A person's negative ego could be the same as the small
    ember of the black brotherhood that is in all of us.  Fred is exactly
    right that if you don't encourage your negative feelings then they
    won't exist or bother you anymore, the same a Hilarion's negative ember
    that is supposed to be in all of us.
    
    Cheers,
    
    Karin

    I agree with you completely, Frederick.  Anyone can claim to be
    anyone...  who knows .... who cares... we make our own choices and
    do our own thing.
    
    mary

    re: .20
    
    1476.81 (along with a lot of other Macos notes) is set hidden.  How
    come?
    
    

    
    
    For those who are interested, the Unicorn Bookstore in Arlington, MA
    carries a few books by Hilarion (channeled).
    
    Carole

    re: .25
    
    If there is a copyright issue I can't quote directly.  To
    paraphrase, a portion of this note advised that we be
    leery of gurus who have obvious physical problems such
    as being overweight or "crippled."  
    
    Excuse me, but I regard the source of such "advice" as this
    to be completely out of the pale.  "Hilarion" or whomever
    supposedly gives this advice is simply out to lunch.
    
    Joel
    

    May I ask...

    if a note is "set hidden", could a follow-up note be posted to briefly
    state, as a common courtesy to the less privileged readers, *why* the
    note is "set  hidden" ? (Especially when the next twenty notes keep
    referring to a note which references the "hidden" note.) 
    
    Thanks,
    
    Brian

   
   >> For those who are interested, the Unicorn Bookstore in Arlington, MA
   >>    carries a few books by Hilarion (channeled).
    
   Carole,
    
    	Could you please post the Publishers and ISBN for the books please
    as I am having difficulty finding them in UK.
    
    Thanks.
    	Martin

    
    Hi Martin,
    
    I don't have the books myself, but the next time I go to Unicorn
    I'll take some notes and post them here.
    
    Carole

    Re .21
    >>From what I've looked into...
    
    >> My own opinion on Cooke is that he happens to be well-read and knows the
    >>"hip-chic-and-trendy" things to say and is NOT genuine - but that's just
    >>IMHO.
    
    Linda,
    
    	I have never read any of Maurice Cookes's work before, so can only
    comment on the recently published extract. You appear to have had
    previous experience of his work. Could you expand here on your
    feelings toward him and how you came by them.
    
    regards,
    	   Martin

RE: <<< Note 1481.33 by CURRNT::GURRAN "My reality or yours ?" >>>

Martin,

	Whenever I see a new book/tape/etc. by a "channeler", I always check the
"channeller" out before putting a lot of weight on the information contained
in the book/tape/whatever.  I believe highly in having either scientific/
objective proof-and-evidence and/or personal/subjective proof-and-evidence
from anyone claiming to be a medium (or "channeler").  I have not been
able to find any proof-and-evidence that Cooke is a genuine medium, and
therefore do not believe much of what he has said.  I believe in keeping
my critical faculties going at all times.  I think that there are many
people out there trying to make a buck that have jumped on the New Age
band wagon and claim to be a "channeler".

	There ARE people out there who have undergone stringent scientific 
experimentation and have provided personal proof-and-evidence to thousands of 
people and I will believe these mediums over anyone just claiming to be a 
"channeler" with no proof-and-evidence any day, but that is just my own 
personal preference....  I believe in first questioning the source, then
questioning what is said.  If the source is questionable, I take the information
with a grain of salt....  If the source "checks out", I still question the
information and put it through "logic tests" before I will believe it.  Don't
believe something just because so-and-so says it's true.  Believe it if you
feel that it's true for you....

	I could be wrong about Cooke, but until I find some sort of proof-and-
evidence that his mediumship is genuine, I will keep my opinion of him.  If
his material feels right to you, and you are confident that Cooke is genuine,
then believe it, embrace it, live it....

Linda

    
    Hi Linda,
    
    How would you go about investigating the validity of someone like
    Cooke?  Where would you begin looking and how would you come by
    the information on testing, etc.?
    
    Thanks,
    Carole

RE:   <<< Note 1481.35 by WILLEE::FRETTS "Thru our bodies we heal the Earth" >>>

    
Hi, Carole,

	There's a couple of sources of information that you can check out,
depending on how much time and energy (and money for long-distance phone
calls 8^) you want to spend.  There are different scientific groups located
in US, Canada, England, and around the world that are dedicated to Psychical 
Research that are good to contact to see if they have done any investigations 
or know of any scientific investigations on a person.  There are news 
publications, such as the Psychic News and scientific journals such as The 
New Scientist, that publish the latest scientific experimentations that can be 
contacted to see if they have any information regarding the person in question.
You could also contact the publisher of the book to see if they did any 
research before publishing book.  And of course you can contact the person in 
question directly to see if he/she will point you to who to contact about 
getting the published papers on any scientific experiments performed on the 
person and to see if the person in question has affidavits from people who say 
that they have received personal proof-and-evidence.

	My research into Cooke was limited to contacting a few people that I
know of who are scientists who do psychical research and/or are very 
knowledgeable in the field of psychical research.  From what I have heard, I 
do not think that Cooke has had any scientific testing done and was not
willing to, and it's my impression that within the field of psychical research 
is not considered genuine.  But as I have said before, I could be wrong.  I 
did not heavily research it, only did some light investigation, and I found 
out what I needed to know to make my own decision about him.

Linda

RE:  <<< Note 1481.36 by VAXRIO::MARCOS >>>

>In .21 you say Cooke is NOT genuine and in .34 you say you haven't found
>anything about him. Isn't this biased? What research did you do? I am by no
>means defending Cooke but because one does not belong to a particular
>foundation that does not mean that one is fraud. Please remember that God in
>His absolute fairness, could never make the truth fall solely in the hands of a 
>handful of people.

Marcos,

	I do not think that I am biased in this case.  I DO believe in keeping
my critical faculties and using them to the best of my ability, though.  For my 
research and how to go about researching mediums, please see the previous note.
I never said that Cooke was a FRAUD because I do not know the man personally 
so I do not know if he is deliberately perpetrating a fraud.  I did say that I 
did think that he was NOT GENUINE which is different than saying someone is
a fraud.  (The person in question could be deluded and sincerely thinks that
he/she is "channeling an entity").  I do not know what his motivation is, etc.
I can just comment that I have not been able to find any case of his offering
proof-and-evidence which leaves me very skeptical about him.  Due to this and
from what I have read and experienced it is my opinion that he is not genuine, 
but that is how I feel.  You have to make up your own mind about him.  As I 
said previously, if you read his writings and you feel that they contain truth 
and you are confident that he is genuine then by all means, believe it, 
embrace it, and live it....

Linda

    
    Thanks for the pointers Linda.
    
    Carole

    
    Linda,
    	Thankyou for entering those replies. As someone hungry for
    knowledge it is easy for me to follow those with "knowledge" without
    verifying their validity.
    
    However everyone must chose their own path and follow their own
    signposts. 
    
    One does wonder how Jesus would have answered those that
    wished to test his abilities. From my limited knowledge of the
    scriptures he did very few, if any, miracles to order, even when they
    might have saved his life as when with Herod.
    
    Thanks again for opening your criteria to public scrutiny.
    
    Regards,
    	Martin

    re: .36  (Marcos)
    
    Here's what it says:
    
    "For example there is a law that any individual on the earth
    plane MUST show on his physical form some sign or characteristic
    which identifies his true essence. [please note: there is no
    such law] The law is in conformity with the assertion that those
    who have "eyes to see" can always find the truth by direct
    observation. [direct observation alone is insufficient to reveal
    all truth]  Look at the face of the leader: look at his bodily
    build.  Does he have a serene and loving countenance, [Ted Bundy
    was described as having such a countenance] or is there something
    sinister about him? [no reliable way to tell]  Is he grossly
    overweight, or crippled in some way? [like FDR, for example]
    Does his appearance give you any reason to doubt that he has only
    the best interests of the race at heart?"
    
    Marcos, the above extract (short enough to avoid copyright issues,
    but for the record, put here without permission) reveals someone
    who is either profoundly ignorant or profoundly manipulative.
    Do you really wish to defend the above statements?  Aware as 
    you are that some DEC employees are overweight and some 
    DEC employees are handicapped/differently abled? (what the
    author cruelly calls "crippled.")
    
    I submit again: there is nothing in the "Hilarion" extract that
    should be taken seriously.
    
    Joel
    

re: .42  (Marcos)
    
>> "For example there is a law that any individual on the earth plane MUST show
>> on his physical form some sign or characteristic which identifies his true
>> essence. [please note: there is no such law] 
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>How do you know there is no such a law? He is not speaking of earthly laws.

	You mean a law applying to "any individual on the earth
	plane" is not applicable to individuals on planet earth?


>> [direct observation alone is insufficient to reveal all truth]  

>Perhaps the only document about the physical appearance of Jesus is a letter
>from a roman senator to Tibberius and the words are very impressive. Among many
>other things, noone could look at Jesus directly in the eyes.

	I'm missing something here, please help me out.  What does this
	have to do with "direct observation alone is insufficient
	to reveal all truth"?  Please note the difference between
	`some' and `all.'

>> some DEC employees are overweight and some DEC employees are 
>> handicapped/differently abled? 

>So what? Are these DEC employess claiming to be avatars?

	For all we know, yes, they are.  But Hilarion is not
	limiting his observations to those who claim to be
	avatars.  He speaks of "laws" with general application.
	His laws are not laws, merely uninformed ravings.

>> I submit again: there is nothing in the "Hilarion" extract that  should be 
>> taken seriously.
    
>Of course you have the right to your opinions as everyone else.
 
	This is true.  We all have the right to hold opinions.
	Those who have the opinion: "Hilarion should be taken
	seriously" must deal with the manifold misstatements
	and prejudices contained in .81.

	Joel

    re: .44
    
    Then don't use "tact."  Explain why theories of Karma or anything
    else qualify as "law."  This is something we could discuss.
    
    How can I tactfully say that any "law" which says that "any
    individual on the earth plane MUST..." etc. is demonstrably
    quite wrong?
    
    Joel
    

    Joel was curious about the 'law' Marcos referred to; here is a brief
    description of the 5 cosmic laws:

1.  Reincarnation

	The earth life is like a school to which the soul returns
	many times until it has mastered all the lessons it can learn.

2.  Cause and Effect

	As you so, so you will reap, either quickly in this present
	life or when deeper lessons have to be learned, in following
	earth lives.  This is also known as the Law of Karma.

3.  Opportunity

	Divine law places man in exactly the right conditions he needs
	in order to learn lessons and give service.  Every experience
	which comes into his life brings its own opportunity for him
	to become more God-like.  A path of eternal progress exists 
	for every soul.

4.  Correspondences

	As above so below, as in heaven so on earth.  Just as the 
	human body is made up of minute cells, we are minute cells in
	the body of the Cosmos; the microcosm is the Macrocosm in
	miniature, and the same laws apply throughout.

5.  Equilibrium and Balance

	It is a fundamental law of life closely connected with
	karma, ensuring that extremism can only be carried so far
	before reaction pulls the soul back to normal.  Joy and 
	sorrow in human experience tend to follow this law which
	may also be described as the Law of Compensation.

***Please note that when the term 'man' is used, it includes all 
humanity, every man and woman.

    Ro
    

    re: .47  (Ro)
    
    Thanks for posting that.  I understand these as metaphorical
    or spiritual laws.
    
    re: .46  (Marcos)
    
    Ah, but gluttony and vice are by now means self-evident - and
    keep in mind "Hilarion's" rather sweeping statement.  As for
    cacoethes I confess I have no idea what that is.
    
    Now you have given examples of people who are apparently in your
    view self-evidently sinister.  Like Rev. Moon and Jim Jones.
    But in fact, whatever sinister aspect such people have lies in
    precisely their ability to appear other than sinister.  Would that
    it were so easy to separate good from evil!  The police would
    have so much easier a job.  
    
    I will say that your distinction between "earthly" and "made
    on earth" is probably valid, though we must take care so as
    not to exclude all natural law.  Gravity, for instance, is
    quite applicable to life (and non-life) on our planet, but
    is hardly home-grown.  Ditto for all physical laws, or permission
    or of denial.  Thus, home-grown or not, the key question is
    whether or not the law applies to the denizens of The Blue
    Planet.
    
    In general, Hilarion's notes seems to have portions that are
    aimed at *other* channelers or spiritual entities.  We are
    asked to apply some sort of rudimentary critical factors when
    we look at, say, Lazaris.  But the critical factors we are
    asked to examine (such as body weight and whether or not the
    entity is "crippled") in fact have about zero to do with truth,
    goodness, or anything else.  And I remind you again that Hilarion
    states these in terms of universal validity.  We demonstrate the
    contrary by providing even a single example where Hilarion's
    "law" is not true.
    
    Joel
    

Note 1481.48    
RIPPLE::GRANT_JO

    Joel, English is not my native language and perhaps that's why I can't
    perceive the subtilities of the language. NEVER MIND! Next unseen is
    always available for those who are not interested. I can't even
    understand why you bothered to enter Hilarion in your private
    directory.

    Live long and prosper

    Marcos

    

    re: .50  (Topher)
    
    Thanks, wasn't in any of the dictionaries around here, either.
    Nice to learn a new word!  
    
    re: .51  (Marcos)
    
    The reason I am focusing on "Hilarion" is because portions
    of his note can be demonstrated to be quite false.  You still
    haven't addressed his comments about "cripples."  As opposed
    to the stuff about Intergalactic Space Commands and so forth,
    where I guess we must all make choices about how likely these
    things are.  (I consider this theory to be exceedingly unlikely
    to be true.)
    
    If Cooke/Hilarion can make such clearly false statements about
    overweight and/or "crippled" people, what does that do to
    his/its overall credibility?
    
    Joel
    
    

    I have to admit to a certain perverse pleasure in seeing a 
    Blavatsky-Bailey spinoff get scrutinized to death over not only obvious 
    falsity, but somewhat over political incorrectness in their terminology 
    and judgements as well.
    
    You'd think the GWB would know better.   Wasn't Lemuria on the
    cutting edge of equal rights policy at one time ?
    
    And they oughta change their name, too.   Great Ancients Club, or something
    less racially and sexually biased.  Oh oh, come to think of it, 
    'Ancients' is age-biased.  Organization of Perpetual Guiding Beings ?  
    
    Now, if they only had the foresight to have ID cards and retina
    scanners for those they purport to speak through so we could tell the 
    good guys from the bad guys, eh ?   
    
    Culture clash is always such a fun circus.  :-)
    
    							todd

re: .53  (Marcos)



>>    The reason I am focusing on "Hilarion" is because portions
>>    of his note can be demonstrated to be quite false. 

>Frankly Joel, I haven't seen you demonstrate anything.

	I have demonstrated it repeatedly, but I don't
	mind doing it again.  This time I will try via
	analogy.

	All men are mortal.
	Socrates is a man.
	Therefore, Socrates is a mortal.

	To demonstrate the untruth of this syllogism we need
	only find *one* person who is *not* mortal.  Let us
	re-cast it in Hilarion terms:

	All men MUST die.
	Socrates is a man.
	Therefore Socrates MUST die.  (I capitalize `MUST'
	because Hilarion does.)

	I have given examples of people who do *not* fit into
	Hilarion's "MUST" categories.  I have therefore 
	demonstrated that Hilarion is wrong.

>> You still haven't addressed his comments about "cripples."  

>Yes I have, I said the answer is in karma.

	So if an avatar is, say, hit by a bus, they automatically
	surrender their special qualities?  Or if their disability
	is congenital there is something of a karmic 
	nature which would lead us to believe that they are
	untrustworthy?

	Sorry, Marcos, but I do not believe that the physical
	state of one's body tells us diddly about whether or
	not that person is trustworthy or untrustworthy.

>Of course you have the right to think that the earth is the only inhabitted
>planet in the universe.

	Who said I believe that earth is the only inhabited planet
	in the universe?  In fact, I consider it highly likely that
	earth is not the only planet in the universe with sentient
	life.  What I consider unlikely in the extreme is that they
	are *here*, monitoring our activities.

>Also the pre-history of this planet is a complete mystery. Despite the
>highly-evolved science of today, archaeology is still unable to find the famous
>"missing link".

	Do you mean "pre-human" history?  But it is neither a complete
	story nor a complete mystery.  Much is known, much is unknown.

	As for the legendary "missing link" I doubt anyone seriously
	looks for it anymore.  Evolutionary theory has progressed to
	a point where such a mechanism is not needed.

>In Sacsayhuaman Peru, there are ruins of an extinct
>civilization which somehow was able to lift a monolith of 20.000 (twenty
>thousand tons). If one man is able to lift 100 Kg, it would be necessary
>200.000 (2 hundred thousand men) to lift that monolith. The task cannot be done
>using levers and pulleys. Even the heavy machinery of today would have a lot of
>trouble to perform that task. Amazingly enough there is no remains of tools of
>any kind. But that's quite another story.

	I'm not familiar with this particular monolith.  Sounds like
	you're trying to suggest that ancient astronauts lifted it
	for them.

	But let me assure you that 40,000 pounds is a snap for 
	machinery of all kinds to lift.  Check out a downtown
	construction site some time and watch the big crane haul
	up a half-dozen or so multi-ton girders.

	I have no idea why this particular monolith would be
	different from others and not amenable to the use of
	levers and pulleys.


	Joel

    re: .54  (todd)  
    
    ;^)
    
    Joel
    

    Re .55 & .56
    
    I realize no one here is really concerned with the state of biological
    science, but I couldn't let the bit about the Missing Link go by.
    
    The original Missing Link was a fossil of an animal midway between
    human and ape.  Not only is the Missing Link found, we've found several
    of them: Australopithecus spp., Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and archaic
    versions of Homo sapiens such as Neanderthal man (unless it should be a
    separate species).
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re: .58
    
    Yep, twenty thousand tons = twenty thousand X 2,000 lbs. 
    which equals 40,000,000 pounds.  It is still a very doable
    thing.  As I say, watch a large construction site some time.
    Talk to one of the guys.  Or ask how much a house ways - 
    houses aren't that tough to move, given the knowledge
    and the right tools.
    
    Joel
    

    re: .59  (Earl)
    
    Oh, but we are interested.  And you are correct - several
    "missing links" have been found.  But not *the* legendary
    missing link, which could never exist.
    
    I follow Stephen Jay Gould's writings.  And he loves to 
    scoff at the image, (see particularly _Wonderful Life_)
    we've all seen them, of a progression of progressively
    less "ape-like" creatures marching along the page from left
    to right, trodding the evolutionary sidewalk up to our
    own, "civilized" time.  If his (and other's) work around
    puncuated equilibrium is correct, and it seems to be,
    intermediary species may be there, but may not be
    necessary.
    
    Joel
                      

RE: .62 (Marcos)

    I'm the "someone".

    This in no way changes anything -- if anything it makes the "problem"
    clearer.  It says that if a teacher is crippled you don't actually have
    to observe him/her acting venally -- you may simply assume that because
    he/she is crippled that he/she is corrupt.

    Personally I find that a statement of low spiritual sophistication --
    and strongly contrary to most experience.  It can only be maintained
    as a matter of faith against overwhelming contrary evidence.

    I do not, as you may have guessed, accept the Law of Karma or
    reincarnation (neither do I reject them).  But I have heard the words
    of teachers who *did* believe in them and who I thought had great
    spiritual insight (I do not believe that spiritual insight can be
    equated to knowldge about the structure of the world -- about either
    physics or "metaphysics").  Without fail, those who, by their personal
    example and real wisdom, gave me reasons to consider the concept of
    Karma seriously, have made a point of emphasizing that this kind of
    idea is a perversion of the concept of Karma.

    The wheel is not balanced by "punishment" in this life for our "sins"
    in past lives.  It is balanced by being given an opportunity to "do
    better", to help other souls (perhaps those we harmed or perhaps
    others) and simply to learn needed lessons.  All of us, except those
    very few Ascended Masters (and few teachers claim to be that) have
    things to learn/do here.  The cripple does not show more Karmic debt
    than the sound of body.  The cripple is crippled because that specific
    lesson needs to be learned, or because being crippled puts them in a
    place where a lesson they need to learn can be learned, or because by
    being crippled they allow another to learn a lesson.  (The last reason
    would extend equally to an Ascended Master).  Exactly the same can be
    said of the sound of body, with no more or less of an implication as to
    how much negative Karma needs to be discharged to attain Karmic
    balance.  The law of Karma teaches that all the circumstances of life
    have reasons, and teaches acceptance of ones lot in life, but it does
    not teach that those with misfortune "deserve" it by some kind of
    inherited moral inferiority.

				    Topher

re: .64  (Marcos)

Ever patient, I shall re-tread this ground yet again.

The very vagueness of "true essence" militates against it being
elevated to the status of law.  Fortunately, Hilarion give examples
of how we are to understand this concept.  As I have quoted before,
so shall I quote again:

	Look at the face of the leader: look at his bodily build.
	Does he have a serence and loving countenance, or is
	there something sinister about him?  Is he grossly overweight,
	or crippled in some way?  Does his appearance give you any
	[shall we mentally emphasize that word?] reason to doubt
	that he has only the best interests of the race at heart?

Now Marcos, you may practice interpretation or revisionism to your
heart's content, but you cannot change the very clearly written words
above.  Do we really have to go further through the exercise of
citing examples of people who were "grossly overweight" or "crippled"
but were, nevertheless, quite wonderful people?  Should we start making
lists of people who were wolves in sheep's clothing?

Now on the image of anthropologists "scratching their heads" to
"come up with a theory" to explain the "simultaneous" appearance
of several missing links... they have already come up with the
theory, which I have previously cited.

"Right tools" can be levers and pulleys and logs and about anything
else our ingenious ancestors had at hand and put to use.  As I
asked before, is there something special about this particular
piece of stone that distinguishes it from all the other large
objects on which the ancients used rope and pulley and etc.?

Finally, I have somehow missed the connection between my belief
that ET's are probably not parked in our solar system, or nearby,
watching us, and radioactivity.  As to how radioactivity is
able to affect non-matter, I leave that speculation to you, and
to Hilarion.

Joel

    re: Marcos,
    
    	I don't know if my perspective will help explain, or only provide more
    	muddiness, but I have another way to look at some of the 
    	criticisms made of Hilarion.  My guess is that Hilarion, like the 
    	Theosophical literature it greatly resembles and which you referred to 
    	in the past, is seemingly rooted in an authority-based conception of
    	spirituality.   It refers to the moral superiority of the ancients
    	who have become more highly evolved and worthy of our respect
    	and who may serve as our guides as to what is right and wrong.
    
    	Many people who are inclined toward non-orthodox spiritual paths
    	of various kinds also have been influenced by the concepts of
    	the GWB, chanelling, Theogenic ideas, cocreation, etc., that 
    	are scattered around in various ways in these various writings as well 
    	as others.
    	
    	However, not everyone who accepts various of the other concepts also 
    	accepts what is a very big part of Theosophical-inspired writings, 
    	and presumably Hilarion, which is basis in *spiritual authority*.   
    	"How do you know an Avatar when you see one ?"  People are seeking a 
    	means or a discipline for seeking their own path, on their own
    	terms, and this kind of guideline resembles that kind of guidance, but 
    	it doesn't sit quite right with them.
    	
    	So, when a source comes along with very authoritarian overtones,
    	many people evaluate it negatively based on its fundamental
    	reliance on ancient authority, exactly what makes it attractive
    	to others.   The whole message stands or falls as a package,
    	by its own insistence on the source of its authority, just the
    	way many people today reject the orthodox religion of their
    	inheritance because of its basis in authority vs. self-discovery.
    
    								todd

	.64 Marcos
	
	You're a curious character yourself, Marcos.  :-)
	I enjoy reading [most of] your stuff!

>> What I consider unlikely in the extreme is that they are *here*, monitoring
>  our activities.
>
>........ A few months ago a nuclear war was a real possibility. If Saddam used
>chemical weapons the nuclear option could have been used. I don't care much if
>my neighbours fight against themselves, but if the fire of their feud treathens
>my own house, I'll step in if I can. Thus I don't think that such a monitoring
>is so "extremely unlikely".

	Are you  saying that nuclear war was averted somehow through some
	kind of intervention?
	
	Jay

    re: .68,
    
    	Hi Marcos,
    
    	This stuff is fun, I'm glad you entered it.
    
>  The whole thing was meant to be a curiosity not a preaching.  
    
    	That is how I understood your posting as well, I didn't mean to
    	imply otherwise.   I don't think disagreement or scrutiny of 
    	something implies that the person posting it was 'preaching,'
    	although I guess there is usually some tendency to assume that they
    	support and/or understand the posting in their own terms.  However, 
    	you made it clear that you just thought it was interesting.  
    
    	My babbling was meant as a possible way of interpreting some of the
    	sceptical responses, not as a critcism.  Ditto for the attempted humor
    	entered previously.  Maybe I just stated the incredibly obvious in
    	dull, pedantic fashion.  Wouldn't exactly be the first time.  ;-)
    
    								todd

re: .71 

>poison or damage other regions of space into the bargain.  Because man has been
>allowed to develop nuclear energy, there is a serious danger that, the
>explosions could actually damage the fabric of space itself. 


	"Michael Rennie was ill The Day the Earth Stood Still,
	 but he told us where we stand..."

	Art  ;-}

Good Morning,

The Intergalactic Federation is charged with preventing the nuclear holocaust
of this planetary body, due to the fact that two planets in this solar system
have already destroyed themselves in this way with serious results for the
rest of the system. That is only part of why they are observing Earth's 
progress.

In Love and Light,
I AM
Talligai

	So where  do  we  write to see that they are more diligant in the
	task?  They've  already allowed 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl.  And
	given their previous record of allowing two other planets to glow
	....  perhaps it's time we got a new Nuke patrol???
	
	
	;')

    Talligai,
    
    Its nice to see you here again.
     
    I have a personal interest in hearing your views on the statements made
    in the Hilarion extract, and will be very grateful if you could spend
    the time to make them available to me.
    
    regards
    	   Martin 

    
    Hi Marcos,
    
    A few things to consider:
    
    . The Master Hilarion mentioned in 1199.15 may not be the same Hilarion
      of these notes.
    
    . The Dark Brotherhood article/book may have been written before The
      Star Borne.  If so, then Solara's mentioning of the protective grid
      corresponds to this, however, maybe there *was* a breach of this
      protection.  You never know.
    
    Carole

    The first edition of THE STAR-BORNE A Remembrance for the Awakened Ones
    was published in October of 1989.
    
    -Arthur

    Sorry to hear you are returning to read-only status, I have very much
    enjoyed your entries, Marcos.
    
    Ro