

### New Questions for a New Age

### The limits of metaphysics and other belief systems

### S L Stanley

### Copyright 2012 by S L Stanley

### Smashwords edition

(First printed 2011 **)**

Cover design copyright 2012 by (http://www.DigitalDonna.com)

This book is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

### Eric—this one's for you

### Table of contents

Introduction

Chapter 1 Is It or Isn't It? The Harbingers of Confusion

Chapter 2 Heaven on Earth—A Fading Promise

Chapter 3 Free Will: Hidden Bondage

Chapter 4 Spoilers in the Mix: East and West

Chapter 5 The Masters: Why Bother Looking When They Have all the Answers?

Chapter 6 Truth: Fact or Repetition?

Chapter 7 The Fork in the Road: Giving in or Giving Up?

Chapter 8 The Nature of Reality: Could we Have it All Wrong?

Chapter 9 Little Me: If You Were Nobody, You Wouldn't Have to Hide

Chapter 10 First Cause: The Forgotten Element

Chapter 11 Psychology: Another Religion?

Chapter 12 Morality: As Good as God

Chapter 13 Issues —Mine

Chapter 14 Immortality: Are We Dismissing Our Heritage?

Chapter 15 The Trinity: Who Are These People?

Chapter 16 Hope and Trepidation: Walking the Ecclesiastical Tightrope

Chapter 17 DNA: Is There a Divine Connection?

Chapter 18 Sermons: Where is the Love?

Chapter 19 Authority: Thou Shall Not Question

Chapter 20 Preachers: Free Conditioning—Go to Church

Chapter 21 Christianity: A Religion—or Something Else?

Chapter 22 Conscious Creation: The Real Deal

Chapter 23 Damage Control: It's Not Easy Being an Alchemist

Chapter 24 Too Good to be True? When Good Sense Threatens

Chapter 25 Claiming Omnipotence: "If Ye Faint Not...."

Chapter 26 States of Mind: Breaking the Cycle

Chapter 27 The Future—Or Not

Summary

Epilogue

Credits

A Note to my Readers

### New Questions for a New Age

### The limits of metaphysics and other belief systems

### Introduction

The title of this book was named for a friend of mine who often played devil's advocate in my life by reminding me that my core beliefs were not necessarily the best basis for any subsequent insights I might have. I was first introduced to this line of thought in the "Seth books" made famous by trance-medium Jane Roberts. Although the idea wasn't original with my friend, he persistently reinforced it. "Question _everything_ ," he would say.

While this won't be a how-to manual, it addresses many of the stumbling blocks we can encounter when trying to implement the so-called simplistic instructions in those teachings. I have observed how long-time students of metaphysics are floundering just as much as those who have never heard of it. And if intellect were the deciding factor in our ability to create the life that we want, how do we explain the research claiming that metaphysics is the discipline of choice among even more educated people—something has to be missing. ... Well, something _is_ missing. There are holes in nearly every discipline I've studied.

This book is not necessarily comprehensive, since we all have our own unique issues and mind-sets. But it seems to me; if we're not getting any closer to seeing the changes we want in our life, after years; even decades of trying, it might be time to re-examine what we're being taught—or _accepting_.

We've all heard the story of " _The emperor's new clothes_ ," a popular fairy tale written by Hans Christian Anderson about a king whose vanity was his un-doing. But it's also a story of gullibility and denial, and the tendency of the masses to follow the lead of those who set themselves above them; or that they themselves have set above them. In this tale, it took a little boy to break the spell; an innocent whose own judgment was sufficient to him.

To me; there is not a more fitting metaphor for these times—or any other.

The Emperor's New Clothes

_Once there was an emperor who was extraodinarily vain, and especially given to extravagant clothes_ _—_ _displaying his finery at every opportunity_. _Thus, he left himself vulnerable to charlatans who learned of his peculiar reputation and found a very clever way to use it to their advantage. Betting on his vanity for their success, they tempted him with a wardrobe that would not only be exquisite, but so rarified that only those of the finest intellect and caliber would be able to see it._

This pleased the emperor greatly, although he was troubled by the (of course "unlikely") possibility that he, himself, might not be able to see the cloth and exposed as unworthy. But being most impatient, he sent his two most trusted advisors to monitor the craftsmen's progress and report back to him.

But neither one could see anything, and both were horrified to think they might be among the unworthy or simple-minded. So naturally, they raved over the beauty of the cloth, and embellished it with great detail. The emperor was pleased and relieved (lest he might not have the eyes to see it), that others had furnished him with the description he might need to spare him disgrace.

The "craftsmen" in the meantime, pocketed generous sums of money for supplies, and labored long hours at their contracted task: even working through the night in candlelight for the benefit of throngs of people, as word spread of the wardrobe and its significance. While the craftsmen went though all the expected motions, no one dared speak what was on their minds.

_The elaborate charade went on and on; with an audience of all those of a social standing , and a great procession planned. Although the emperor himself still had trepidation_ _—_ _sseeing no evidence of anything but his now naked body_ _—_ _surely everyone_ _else_ _could not be mistaken_ _—_ _Surely his trusted companions would not mislead him. The pomp and ceremony had begun, and the emperor proudly paraded through the streets: assured that anyone who couldn't see his beautiful adornment was simply not worthy._

_But then_ _—_ _out of the crowd, came a little boy's voice: "But he has nothing_ _on_ _!" he exclaimed._

_One little boy had broken the spell_ _—_ _one innocent who wasn't concerned with what others thought of him_ _—_ _one voice who dared to speak what others could not. Only then did the throng awaken._

One thing I've learned is not to be afraid of taking a closer look—at anything. For me, that includes anything I've written in this book. Any belief; no matter how liberating at the time, can lead to bondage down the road. ...For instance, metaphysics (the main focus of this book) has been an invaluable tool for me; but I've found it disturbing that while the judgment mentality of religion isn't there, metaphysics is in some ways more limiting than Christianity, a subject I'll be covering more in depth.

I don't go into a lot of explanations as the book is geared towards people already steeped in metaphysics. And although I've been influenced significantly by others in my search... sometimes positively, sometimes not; except for acknowledging my most valuable resources, I won't be making many direct references to them. Firstly; because I've skimmed through so much material over the years, I honestly can't give credit to any specific person or philosophy. And secondly; while I have issues with some of the ideas presented to me, they are not necessarily with the people espousing them. That being acknowledged, you may notice my buttons get pushed just like anybody else's.

I might also add that my sister and I grew up in the Protestant religion. It is interesting to note that although the church in our father's hometown painted God as a gentle, loving being, our home church (of the same denomination ) terrified us with warnings of the eternal Hell-fire that God had in store for us and our unsaved parents. This disparity is probably what started me on my search.

Since then, I've been caught between my Christian upbringing and conversion to metaphysics—commonly known as the "spiritual path." I can't go back, but I can't let go of it either—not entirely. Most of the people I know in metaphysics have wrestled with this same problem, having also come to it from a background in religion; something mission workers tend to forget when they try to convert us. Could there be some way to integrate the best of both, without compromising our commitment to substantiality? It's been a process for me that has often led to more questions than answers.

Besides covering only the areas I have personally struggled with and had some insights about, I've pretty much skipped over others that have already been debated at length. I also try to avoid politics in spite of some very strong opinions (actually, _because_ of those very strong opinions). There are others better suited to fight those battles.

Still, this book truly is about the emperor's new clothes—the questions in everyone's minds that no one addresses at all. This book is born out of that frustration.

### ****

### Is It or Isn't It? The Harbingers of Confusion

The search for validation

I have searched for validation of my inner knowing my entire life. Many good books would be thrown out with the bathwater until I learned that even the best of channels must filter information through their own finite, conditioned mind and personality. There are certain prejudices the reasoning mind cannot easily transcend; and I'm sure I am no exception.

I needed this validation because I could not trust myself, and I didn't want the responsibility of acting on something that there was no support for. I saw how misguided this was when I would question a Christian who would inform me that I had my "facts" wrong because of something Reverend so and so said "... and he's a minister, so he knows." Don't people realize that anyone can become a minister—including me? And that just because I or anyone else is certified by some religious institution doesn't mean that our views will reflect the status-quo, anymore than Jesus Christ's did in his time?

Not that I am comparing myself to Jesus; but my point is this: No one or nothing can define our truth but our own knowing, no matter how many others may agree with us. And I have come to understand that the trial inherent in the search for validation is an initiation that all serious seekers will have to pass before they can go any further.

Jesus didn't look to others for validation. He understood that he needed to stay focused within his own inner being; the only place his answers would be. The alternative is a cycle of endless vacillation between what we are told and what we sense in our being—which could be one of the reasons why our prayers and pleas seem to go unheeded for years. Yet we are made to feel that the mere questioning of some established truth that doesn't resonate with us must be some kind of flaw. We are chided for believing what we "want to believe" and not "what is" and there is a strong suggestion that the truth must be a bitter pill to swallow. That may be; but I can't help asking myself, "How could it be that we, being only reflections of God, could have a greater, more unlimited vision than his?

The limits of metaphysics

Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink

You could say that metaphysics lifts the restrictions of religion, but that's only true in the sense that it allows us an open-ended belief system: We don't have to subscribe to a set doctrine that someone else has put together for us; but again I find some of the spiritual philosophies no less disabling than the background I've struggled to escape. Surely I'm not alone in this sentiment.

First, we have universal law—including the non- edict. Jesus never restricted anyone this way. He even brought people back to life. No stern warnings about the "correct" use of our abilities—no mention of contracts. He also said we can have anything at all we ask for if we believe. If that's true; then where do all these other conditions come into play?

Metaphysics says we can't have this, and we can't have that; for some reason or another. That we came here with an agenda, a destiny, life lessons or agreements, but in any case, we can never ask for anything with certainty of receiving. So if you say "The only thing I want in this life is for my (albeit "adult") child to straighten up"; while the church will often point to promises in the Bible and claim restoration for your family, metaphysics will tell you it's your child's journey; and even if you could change it, you have no right to alter his path. This is only one of many examples conveying exclusions in our creative rights.

This is not to say that the whole of the New Age community subscribes to any one or all of these limiting beliefs or dogmas. What I've written here is a general synopsis of its overall philosophy; and yes; unlike religion, anyone is at least free to stray out of its bounds. Yet once it becomes your preferred belief system, it can take on an oppressive nature no different than religious indoctrination.

Where does co-creation end and sovereignty begin?

This has been a point of contention with me ever since I stepped on the spiritual path. In politics they used to call it "doublespeak." As I started on my search for knowledge and empowerment, I read everything I could find (which by the way, wasn't much at first) and invariably, I ran into the same contradictions. The following example is intended to be a composite of the many writings conveying the same basic message.

Typical book; Chapter one:

"You are responsible for one hundred percent of your life experience. If something is wrong, you and you alone created it." The author goes on to build a solid case for this hypothesis. ...This I could work with.

But wait, there's more....

Chapter four or five (same book):

"The world we know and all of our experience within it is the result of our co-creation with all of life."

This is so typical of New Age teachings. Before I got used to what to expect, I'd have fully absorbed the first "principle" into my consciousness by the time I was confounded with it's opposite. If you asked these messengers to explain, they would probably say it's a paradox for us to unravel. ... I don't buy it. If we accept the hypothesis that all experience is co-created, then sovereignty is a lie. You can't have it both ways people.

When is a principle not a principle?

Answer: When there are exceptions (and there almost always are)

### ****

### Heaven on Earth—A Fading Promise

Metaphysics tells us we are Gods, and that we have the power to create Heaven on Earth. But nobody leaves it there. First, there's the little reminder that dominion applies to our life only. Next we are educated as to how we create our reality—not just with God, but with everyone else our lives are in any way connected to. There are contracts; there are debts, agreements on other levels. And oh yes... everyone has their own path not to be interfered with. What just happened to our promise of Heaven on Earth?

Am I an island? My parents can abandon me, my mate run off with someone else; my baby can die, my son end up in prison—my daughter and her children left homeless, and our country fall under dictatorship; but if I let that diminish my perfect Heaven on Earth, that is an error of perception that I need to correct. No one, I am told, can diminish the perfection that is our birthright. The proponents of this line of thinking justify it by saying that even the concept of perfection can be misinterpreted. ... Heaven is now looking more and more like Earth. The first time I read a book like this, I was on an emotional roller coaster ride. Now it's just a source of constant irritation.

And by the way; why would we even _want_ Heaven on Earth if the experience of it here is "less than" we can expect in the Heaven we go to when we die—especially if by attaining it here, we'd never have to die at all?

### ****

Free Will: Hidden bondage

The free-will decree

It should be quite clear by now that I have a problem with the uncompromising position taken against the use of our "spiritual abilities" to affect another person's life. There are several good arguments to support this traditional line of thinking, and the programming runs deep.

This has been a source of tremendous conflict for me, because all the power in the world means nothing to me if I can't help the people I care about; yet I hit a brick wall every time I try to break through it. Intellectually I know better.

First of all, free will _IS_ ... how can we interfere with it? Secondly, if we can accept the ideas presented to us by the Mayans (among others), then we all create our own "dream world" whether consciously or not; and that includes all the characters in it. So, wouldn't it serve us better to make those choices consciously? If we make the decision to change our negative view and expectations of someone, how is that imposing our will on them? And how are we influencing them otherwise—as sick...as flawed...as lost?

According to the entity known as "Yahweh" channeled by medium Arthur Fanning, we go out in our sleep all the time and interfere with things; and it's only on this plane that we have any judgment about it. I really don't understand metaphysics and their taboo on "tampering" with another's life—regardless of the need. Why is it alright to intervene in the path of _collective_ humanity then? Yet, according to light-workers everywhere, that is our calling!

It's been argued that we could undermine someone's opportunity to build their own strength by taking on their challenges for them—but is this what we're doing? Are we not merely drawing forth their own power by seeing them as God sees them... inspiring them to take up the challenge to re-create their own lives—and of their own free will? According to Christians, it's not even _their_ will we're tempted to intercede in, but that of the enemy bent on destroying them. ... Honestly; I've never been able to find anything in the Bible suggesting intercession is an infringement of another's sovereignty. ...But I did find several examples of Christ himself breaking what is commonly regarded as a cardinal rule of metaphysics; a doctrine that does in fact recognize Jesus as a divine being.

I'm not advocating control. None of us would want someone else's moral standards dictating our choices or taking precedence over our will, yet we don't hesitate to ask God to step in and do exactly that in another person's life. And asking God to do something for us that we feel is wrong for us to do ourselves may stem from good intentions; i.e. "God knows better than I do," but it also demonstrates our reluctance to accept accountability for the outcomes we are pressing for.

_Of course_ we take on some of the responsibility when we affect the course of someone's life—regardless of intention. But that may be precisely what we came here to do, and that the person being helped is depending upon (albeit on an unconscious level). It seems to be perfectly acceptable to physically force a person to behave as we or society decides they should, but not to offer them a step up on a level that could really be of help to them. In some cultures it's considered a sin to even save someone from drowning: We tend to forget that the one doing the intervention would have the same free will as the recipient.

I don't think any of us is powerful enough at this juncture to have to worry that another's choices are going to be taken away by the force of our will. We probably do more damage in our everyday conscious and unconscious attempts to thwart each other's will for our own purposes.

The interference of prayer

If free will is subverted on any plane, the evidence shows that it's this one. And if it is wrong to attempt to help someone without their express permission, then Jesus was certainly stepping over the line when he commanded people to rise from the dead, encouraging his disciples to do the same.

Jesus repeatedly impressed on his followers the power of prayer coupled with belief. If he meant this to be restricted in-so-far as others were concerned, why did he never say so? Doesn't the bible implore us to pray for one another? Or does it mean as long as we refrain from any overly overt effectiveness? You know... nothing too powerful, as in commanding mountains to move.... If we presume to pray for others as the master prayed for us, then our prayers would be for the _sole purpose_ of interceding.

All of this presupposes that free will even is a divine right: Just what or who is being quoted when we hear the words "God gave us free will"? As often as I have heard this preached in the Christian community, I can't remember any reference to it chapter and verse from the Bible. And choosing "whom ye will serve" hardly covers all the implications of free will in general.

That's really not the fault of the Christian church, as they are not generally the ones imposing the afore-mentioned restrictions of this tenet. Part of the problem is that free will is accepted as a given across cultural and religious lines, often without consideration for the differences in the traditions the concept was taken from. Even much of the secular world (at least in "free" countries) seems to agree we all have free will; and to them it means something entirely different. Probably the only real freedom we have is the freedom to create our own illusions; something I'll try to illustrate as we go along. To add to the confusion (and not just in this matter), metaphysics often refers to the teaching of the church in its doctrine; and just as often ignores it. It's sometimes difficult to sort it all out: Christians can't even sort out their _own_ stuff. If the reader would refer back to the creation story in the Bible, he might conclude that God didn't "give" us free will at all. ...Man _took_ it when he defied God.

If God did give us free will, it seems to have been with the understanding that we surrender it at the door or pay the consequences. Was it God's intention to make slaves of man in return for his good graces? Because if that's the case, we're being asked to sell our souls to God just as surely as the proverbial sinner sells his to the deviI... It's when this free will (whether religious or metaphysical) appears to be a matter of dictates; rather than a gift, that it begins to worry me.

Note: For another perspective on this, see Duality.

_And then there's_ _"Universal Law"_

Actually, the free-will edict seems to have its basis in universal law, but what basis does universal law have? I tried to research its origins and found that it is central to the Buddhist belief system, but that does not answer my question: Both appear to be more doctrine than law. As a matter of fact, the Buddhist's use of these laws seem to be concerned primarily with non-interference in the politics of other countries, which is another subject altogether.

Universal law is not acknowledged in Christianity, in spite of the similarities to the church's teachings; but it is a core issue in metaphysics. In short, it becomes a limitation—one of many in metaphysics; which claims it _frees_ us of limitation.

Does universal law; —as well as karma, fate and limitation belong to a by-gone era... the reason for those restrictions no longer applicable or valid in the emerging paradigm?

The role of co-creation

If we approach the subject of co-creation from the viewpoint of those who insist that all of our experience is the result of the complex relationships involved, it can make sense until we examine it in light of the non-interference clause. For if, as claimed, we are all literally one—each of us fragments of the whole; then we and anyone we share our life with, for instance, are not two separate people at all—just as our hand is not a separate entity. And if there is no dividing line (which is really all about separation), is infringement even a valid concept?

As an example, we are connected to our children by the umbilical cord. Therefore, how can anyone say we must make a distinction between our life and theirs? The fact is; anything that happens to (or because of) someone central to our lives, is not only their experience, but ours as well. If our hands are tied in this regard, we are victims still.

Secondly, if we create scenarios that are agreed upon on some deeper level, we have to ask what happens if one of us, by our own free will, rescinds our cooperation ( i.e.—we no longer agree that Mother shall die young leaving us all orphans; for however noble a reason). Doesn't that amount then to circumventing another's chosen path—albeit, on a purely unconscious level? In any case, wouldn't Mother's free will take precedence over ours? These kinds of questions are never answered satisfactorily.

The day is coming when there won't be any divisions between the conscious and subconscious, and then we will have to account for everything that goes out of us as energy and takes on a life of its own. No more blaming it on ignorance. No more pointing to the letter of the law. ... No more blaming God because we counted on him to take care of it. We will have to make our own hard choices.

Finally, assuming we accept the existence of life on other planets (and the non-interference clause that prohibits their intervention in our affairs), there is some controversy as to whether this rule applies to those of us residing in a "common world," in our case; Earth.

In fact, according to some teachings, it is not only our right but our responsibility to intervene... It's just no one else's right. It's like feeling we have the right to go into someone else's house and clean it to our standards. (Or for that matter, someone else's country and run it our way. ... I really don't see the difference between off-planet, international borders, or next door: There are boundaries and I believe we innately know what they are). But to forbid the use of our higher consciousness to lift a fallen soul (or world) seems to me like the antithesis of why we're here; and _that's_ the sin.

### ****

### Spoilers in the Mix: East and West

Trials by fire and other lessons

All my life I've heard that Earth is a school and that we need tests and trials to refine ourselves and rise to the perfection we were made to express. While that may be true, it conflicts with the teachings that tell us we were made in the image and likeness of God; that in spirit we are therefore perfect, and that all we really are is spirit—the body and personality being mere reflections of our true self, but colored by our consciousness of it. Wouldn't it follow that we would automatically reflect that spirit by simply being in touch with it?

We are also told that there is no judgment in God because he sees only perfection—so why would we look to him as the source of our "lessons"? Because really, if there is "no negativity in Heaven" how then could it be part of a divine plan to send us here to experience it—for any reason? It doesn't make sense. It's all a fairy tale hypothesis as far as I can see.

Channeler Arthur Fanning said that the only lesson we need to learn is that we don't need to learn anymore lessons. I tend to agree with him.

Excuses, excuses

Much of what passes for fact or reasonable supposition is, in my opinion, just another excuse theologians make for God when he doesn't live up to his promises... They'll say, " You're not saved' (or) 'You don't tithe enough"; "It's the devil doing it"; "You won't understand until you pass over" ; "God needed your loved one in Heaven"; "You have un-forgiveness in your heart"; "What you want isn't good for you"; "Our suffering perfects us"; "It's not God's will"; "It's not God's timing"; or that "some things in God's word aren't meant to be taken literally."

Metaphysics is guilty of this too; i.e.; "We don't believe enough"; "It's karma"; "We're not seeing the bigger picture"; "There was a change in the plan"; "You have manifested your intention but the human brain isn't programmed to see it." Or that we once made sacred agreements such as religious vows of poverty or sacrifice (not just for that life but for all eternity) which have never been cancelled out. Add to those the arguments that something is "not our choice to make but another's"; "We're misinterpreting the teachings"; "We're not in touch with our spirit"...

Ok, that one has merit; but the list goes on and on. ... My "favorite" is the one about us coming to Earth to become even more perfect (than God made us?) Isn't that a little sanctimonious—like we could improve on God's perfection? ... And why would we come here to "overcome the density" (another explanation), when it's only because we did come here that we fell into it in the first place!

Sometimes people are well-meaning; but sometimes they're just trying to justify their beliefs. Like your typical researcher, they don't want us to find a flaw in their dogma. With all these things factored in, it's a wonder anyone is able to manifest anything.

The eastern way: detachment and discipline

The keynote of being in spirit is expansiveness; at least in my mind. So why do the masters stress detachment and discipline as the way to freedom? Detachment and discipline—what kind of existence is that? Discipline means depriving and restricting oneself, does it not? The more we advance, the more restriction and discipline are required. If we're talking about body building, we may end up with impressive results; and there are those who would consider this a perfect analogy for building our spiritual muscles as well—but is this what the spirit really longs for? Is this it's optimal expression? ... How much do we miss in keeping such tight controls on it? From my point of view, a rigidly disciplined person can hardly afford any deviations, let alone leave room in his life to follow the promptings of spirit. The fact is; the more we discipline ourselves, the smaller our world becomes.

Not that discipline doesn't have its place. I personally appreciate the discipline I have in certain areas of my life: it certainly makes things flow more easily. Without it, this book would not have been written. What I object to is discipline as a goal in itself (as in some kind of "badge of character"), and the proclivity to take it too far.

As for detachment, why would it even be necessary for a fully empowered soul? When I study the eastern philosophies, I can only see self-denial. Usually it goes like this... If you don't cherish a thing, then you will never know the pain of want or loss: No highs, no lows. Nothing to look forward to either.

Is it just me? I'm not enamored with the prospect of having anything I ask for if I will just drop my attachment to it. Why covet a candy bar when a celery stick will do the same thing for you?

More importantly, where is the impetus to do anything worthwhile on this earth if you don't care one way or other? I have a hard time believing the yogis would subject themselves to years of rigorous discipline and hardship if they were not "desirous" of the object of their focus.

Isn't it passion that drives us? Isn't it passion that releases the primal energy of our souls; that makes us feel alive? So what if we have failure; it can also bring us joy.

I acknowledge the need for balance in our lives and our world, but to dedicate one's life to protection from disappointment as the only way to achieve it seems like a defeatist attitude to me.

We all need a vision...even if it's a candy bar.

Embracement

Few people concur with me, but I fervently believe we are here to _embrace_ life—not close ourselves off from it as the eastern philosophies would have us do.

Who hasn't felt the need to simply break free of the restrictions and be? After all, that is supposedly the state we will be in when we die; and I'm assuming all this talk of ascension refers to inhabiting the same state here. But aside from learning to control the stresses we (in the west) subject ourselves to, I can't help thinking that every time we succeed in reigning in our emotions and impulses, we limit more of our freedom to be.

To those adherents of eastern philosophy—I understand what you are saying, how desire in the material realm can lead to compromise or disappointment; but to say that overcoming desire is the secret of happiness implies that we don't have the power to secure any good thing.

Remember that little ditty about the child who wanted to go for a swim? If you don't want your idea of Heaven considerably dimmed, stop reading so much.

Mother, may I go out to swim

Yes, my darling daughter

Hang your clothes on a hickory stick

But don't go near the water

### ****

### The Masters: Why Bother Looking When They Have All the Answers

Is all already known?

I've often asked myself, "How can I question the masters—those advanced souls who've demonstrated a knowledge and abilities far beyond mine?"... but I keep coming back to the niggling, "what if" this truly is a new paradigm we're living out?

I'm not suggesting that the masters are wrong or that their demonstrations aren't valid, only that there may be more than one way, one truth; and even that we can grow beyond the old truth into something that would've been impossible until now. ... For example; if the last enemy is death and destined to be overcome, at least some of the wisdom of the masters will surely become obsolete. Does higher knowledge ever reach a point it cannot go beyond? Or could even the highest knowledge be transient?

I don't discount anyone's experiences... knowings—relationships with Jesus, etc.; or the eastern discipline's ancient wisdom or knowledge. But if you study the body of messages carefully, you'll notice that even the masters frequently caution us against giving their truth more credibility than our own.

Transcendence vs. transformation

There is a difference. While one means to rise above, the other means to change. Transcendence seems to be the master's method of choice. But isn't that a little like escapism?

I don't deny that the things that keep us earthbound can be transcended. Having been there, I know that it's possible to enter that state in which we are not affected by anything that happens to our lives. ... I'm sorry to say it's not sufficient for me; for I can't help feeling there must be a way that allows us to know the fulfillment of experiencing with all our being—not to be detached from that.

Furthermore, it's not sustainable. Even if it were, I am not willing to disconnect with all the other "pieces of myself" to achieve it. Transcendence is like a drug: We can get high or have a sedative and nothing bothers us; but drugs are temporary and don't solve our problems. I don't want to leave the rest of the world (or its fate) behind.

While it may not be true for everyone, I have always felt very strongly that this reality is where my mission lies. When you think about it; why not just write off this world and be content knowing we'll "have it all" when we cross over? And why would we be promised a new earth if temporal life didn't matter, and the after-life were the only worthy goal?

### ****

### Truth: Fact or Repetition?

" _Truths" I question:_

" _We never get more than we can handle_."

As evidenced by what—people who drop dead of a heart attack from a sudden shock? Those who've had a breakdown and never did recover... the suicides? This is just one more cliché we accept without question. It's a comforting thought until you realize it's just not true.

" _Nothing unlike God can exist in the presence_ "

Then how do you account for martyrs... for saints and holy men riddled with sickness?

" _You can't have everything"_

Why not... unless you want yours and everyone else's too. ...Why _can't_ we have every good thing?

" _God helps those who help themselves"_

Maybe that's a lot of our problem. We let God show us the solutions we need so we can dismiss him and be about our independence again; not understanding that the "solutions" offered may be more a timely prompting of spirit than a transferal of knowledge we can take out of our memory bank and use the next time the same problems arise; a phenomena that seems to increase as we grow in our consciousness work.

I do this a lot. Whether it's a cure for migraine, a way to stop a panic attack in mid-steam, or the key to astral travel, I'll secure it in my data-base only to find it ineffective the next time—not always, but often enough. I discovered I do this because of a basic lack of trust that the guidance will be there the next time I need it.

Other times we can be in the middle of a process when we turn off our internal guidance system, and then not understand why things didn't turn out as our "epiphany" promised. We always have to "take over" at some point (in deference to our reasoning mind), thinking that's what we're supposed to do.

There are times we have to let things simply unfold. But humans (especially in our culture) seem to have an insatiable need to prove themselves, and are thereby diminished somehow by any over-reliance on our spirit. Doing what is required of us is one thing; leaving God out of it is quite another.

Note: See _More saboteurs_ in the chapter: Damage control; and also the channelings of Raj as delivered by Paul Tuttle of the _Northwest Foundation for the Course in Miracles._

" _God always says yes"_

Like my first entry, it sounds good unless you actually think about it. There may be more truth to it than we can access, but _someone_ sure says "no" to us a lot.

" _Facts are facts"_

I cover this elsewhere in the book.

" _You can't love someone you don't respect"_

Oh? ... Ask any mother. This doesn't really fit in with the subject matter of this book, but I include it as yet another example of things we take for granted after hearing them our entire lives.

The above assertion includes the premise that a parent can no longer love a child they've lost respect for, and we know that's very seldom true. That's because that kind of love is generally un-conditional. Tying respect in with love suggests that it is the purely conditional kind.

" _We don't need anything outside of ourselves to be happy"_

We're supposed to believe that we're all little islands; and that everything else is outside of us. Isn't that a case for separation?

" _By studying nature, we can know who we are"_

This comes to us from the shamans. And while I respect their obvious wisdom, I don't understand why they would equate our nature (solely) with the Earth's and her inhabitants, since they of all people presumably acknowledge the uniquely transcendent qualities of the human soul. Are we nothing more than the creatures then—born just to live for a season; grow old, disintegrate, and die? Is there anyone who doesn't ask, "What is it all for then"? ... I know _I_ do.

" _Misqualified energy can only be transmuted by painfully resurfacing to be cleared"_

While it's obvious that this is exactly what is happening in these trying times, I take issue with the insistence that there is no other way. Unless you take into account what are often years of pain and struggle preceding the clearing, spontaneous transformations can and do occur—while we're still in the throes of misqualified energy. Sometimes they yank us out of the pits of hell. Sometimes they happen on an otherwise ordinary day...and other times they spring from renewed hope or joy in our lives—a new baby; a second chance at love; a long-awaited touch of grace.

Transformation can strike in an instant, as it did Saul when he was blinded by the light on the road to Damascus; or it can be so gradual and subtle, you can't even remember when it happened. You just realize one day that everything has changed.

" _Any problem can be corrected by discovering its cause"_

Well, I've been waiting for about 30 years now for part two to kick in.

" _There are no limitations"_

... Metaphysics is _full_ of limitations.

All of which leads me to ask:

What if the "truth" we cannot understand is not the truth at all?

What is truth anyway?

Is there one truth? Are there layers or dimensions of truth (and probability)? Are there only different perceptions and interpretations of it? Is it multi-faceted?

In both Christianity and metaphysics, we are taught to rebuke that which we want to change. Are we rebuking appearances, reality (facts), or the truth itself? And if we're assessing truth from a psychological point of view, could "facing the truth" be a matter of accessing a lower level of understanding (just as real as a more advanced one, but much more limited in its possibilities for us)? See _Denial: Yes_.

### ****

### The Fork in the Road: Giving in or Giving Up?

Surrender—or bondage?

During one of my earlier periods when I struggled with the concept of surrender, I had a dream that my guide at the time was showing me what happened when I surrendered in some past experience. A snake was wound around my body, twisting it into some grotesque shape... "And It wasn't pretty," he said.

At the time, I was seriously toying with the idea of "letting go and letting God." That dream would certainly explain my resistance. After all, how do we know who and what we are actually surrendering to? In addition, the path of least resistance can lead to apathy. To let go with the belief that it ends any chance to ever have what matters to us is akin to a death sentence.

We have to be careful here. What we call surrender or letting go could amount to giving up and finding ourselves on a downward spiral. For if it is our subconscious we're surrendering to, we will be subject to all the negative conditioning that has created our problems in the first place. In other words; if our concept of God is anything like humanities concept of God in general, we can expect only rejection or wrath; or at the very least, silence.

Also, there comes a time when we must be willing to accept the responsibility we would rather assign to God. Personally, I believe God is there for us to lean on until we can take up the mantle ourselves. Therefore, surrender can be a valuable tool in our process, but I don't believe we were ever meant to stay there.

Going with the flow: isn't that what the lemmings do?

Going with the flow is practically a cliché in metaphysical literature. But what about taking authority over our destinies—that also is central to the teaching. No one seems to acknowledge the propensity for confusion; let alone try to clear it up.

Could these not be viewed as distinctly separate paths? ... Or perhaps they allude to different cycles in our spiritual evolution. When we go with the flow, we are supposed to be trusting and surrendering to a part of ourselves that knows better than our conscious awareness what we need and want... but again; if we are rudderless and unbalanced—if our subconscious is full of fear about what will manifest, how can we expect positive results?

The other problem with going with the flow is that it presupposes separation rather than negating It—i.e., suggesting that only the spirit within us is fit to make the decisions affecting our lives. And if the goal is to close that separation, how do we know when we are sufficiently integrated to consciously take charge of our own destiny—especially when the teachings seem to gloss over the question?

Maybe the invitation to go with the flow refers not so much to where life is taking us as to where we are taking life... emerging, rather, out of our desire and intent. Rather than it being a matter of giving up, the decision to stop fighting the tide could be one of choosing to trust it to get us where we want to go.

Deepak Chopra (among others), has stated that surrender is the only way. Maybe yes, but is a passive approach enough to make the quantum leap we're told we're about to make—or truth be told; do we need to move Heaven and Earth to make it happen?

Duality as necessity

Philosophers of all traditions are fond of educating us in this area. We may all agree that there are two sides to every coin, that light can only be seen in darkness, that there cannot be a positive polarity without a negative one to balance it out; but that which is negative in scientific terms doesn't translate to "undesirable" in the same way it does in human terms. And if the undesirable has to be there to balance out the equation, doesn't that imply we'll always have suffering, evil and death? ... These are the kinds of things people seem to make up to explain circumstances and still vindicate God. I don't mean to offend anyone, but this is how I see it.

Isn't the opposite of something simply the absence of it? i.e.; if God is life, he cannot be death—Life and death cancel each other out. I don't see how they depend on each other for their existence: This is duality thinking. The New Age community promotes both points of view—that opposites are necessary, and duality needs to be overcome. No wonder we're confused.

Who isn't familiar with the Garden of Eden and the tree of good and evil? I puzzled over this for years. It seems obvious to me now that it was duality God was warning against. ... Didn't he say, "Who told you {that} you were naked?" implying that it wasn't their nakedness that offended him but their failure to be content with the innocence that they'd been given; deferring instead to a worldly consciousness with its attendant corruption ("sin") and misery— not at all a God-like state as the serpent suggested, but a significantly lowered vibration that could not sustain perfection.

As for sin; if you've dabbled in any Bible research at all, you may reconsider the term "sin" as being confined to an assumed moral lapse, and also call "punishment" into question; since; like Spanish today, words often had multiple meanings in the ancient languages.

It's often been suggested that punishment might simply be descriptive of the natural consequences we would otherwise be protected from through grace. But I believe, if we chose duality (including the acknowledgment of our nature as impure), our lives will automatically suffer. By being conscious of sin, we will be prone to guilt and thus cut ourselves off from our source; not the other way around—being that in reality, we have done nothing wrong. ... We're just playing a children's game, thinking we've had some impact on reality, when in our spirit we know it's really all an illusion anyway.

We do have an impact; but not on reality from my point of view. That impact is the result of reinforcing the world-view of our reality as fact. When we (who should know better), buy into the victim mentality, we keep the cycle going. We have to remember that while we all get caught up in that false realty to some extent, those of us who are serious aspirants on the path (and having been fortunate enough to catch a glimpse of a far better world), still affect people who aren't yet conscious of their Godhood at all... and as long as they are not, we have a responsibility to them not to reinforce that negative construct in their world. A lot of psychological damage could be averted if we stopped dragging our feet—whether through resistance, doubt or spiritual laziness, and stated walking our talk.

### ****

### The Nature of Reality: Could We Have it All Wrong?

If it's all an illusion, it can all be changed

Think about it; how easily a dreamscape changes. It's only because we think something is real that we can't change it. If our home has gone up in flames, we laugh bitterly at anyone who suggests we can change that. Yet we'll pray all the way home that it wasn't our house we saw on the news, burning to the ground. ... As if by praying, we could change what's already happened?? Maybe we know it can be changed as long as we don't have proof of the facts. Facts are only a "measurement" of reality or truth—an example quantum physics uses to demonstrate their version of the nature of reality.

If our homes and bodies really were solid realties, we probably could not change them; but even science tells us they're not. I realize that that is not our experience of it, and it seems like a moot point in view of the lack of evidence in our in our world to support it.

But our past changes every time our perception of it is altered; every time we learn something new. We could remember it differently (that we weren't a coward after all, in the test of courage we thought we failed, etc.); "Facts" can change; as in documented stories of deceased accident victims being mis-identified and someone burying a loved one who really belonged to some other family. Or; we could find ourselves forgetting we have an allergy to something, and nothing happens the next time we expose ourselves to it. ... Did we overcome the allergy, or (in the act of forgetting about it), inadvertently change our programming... perhaps permanently?

The entity Seth says we change the past all the time, but are hardly ever aware of it. And how do we really know that the memories we have today are the same ones we had yesterday? I cover this in more detail in: _Cause and effect_.

Thought-forms, hypnosis, and alternate universes

If, as some say, everything we know of this world is an illusion or a distortion of the truth, then all we have the ability to create are "thought-forms." That would explain the cryptic statement that there really is no evil and we cannot or never have hurt anyone; much like children playing good guys and bad guys, pretending to fall down dead. In this analogy, devastating scenarios may be experienced as real; but if we had the total awareness of their illusory nature, there would be no physical consequence. Like those children, we'd just jump up and everything would return to normal.

Far-fetched? Consider the testimony of an ex-drug addict describing a "bad trip." A ceiling fan fell on him and he felt every bit of ripping flesh as excruciating pain. The only difference between his experience and reality was the fact that he and the fan were intact when the incident was over. It reminded me of the question, "If it weren't for something clearly out of place alerting us to the fact of a lucid dream "being a dream," how would we ever know it's not real?" "Could it be," the questioner asks, "that our whole lives are nothing but lucid dreams"?

I'm intrigued by the channelings of both Jane Roberts and Barbara Marciniack suggesting that not only are we each living our own dream reality, but that the people in that scenario are lending aspects of themselves to supporting our play while experiencing something quite different in their own dream, which I will attempt to explain as I go along. There is ample evidence for this line of thinking even in our everyday lives, when you consider such variables as weather events, natural disasters, famines, stock market slides; anything in which a group of people is involved or affected; often very differently from one to another. We need to remember there are those in every type of situation who escape those effects. (Or like Forest Gump, remain blithely oblivious to them). Even in an event such as war, there will be those with no awareness of it; although I suspect the above channels are suggesting something much broader than the mundane examples I've given.

...which brings us to "frequency switch."

What is frequency switch?

Dick Sutphen; a popular past-life regressionist from Scottsdale, Az, coined this phrase a few years ago to describe the process where-by we truly do each have a choice as to what kind of world our personal future holds for us. Although I am currently unable to find the source of this reference, there have been others saying basically the same thing—essentially; that we can live side by side with others whose existence is on a different time-line, and not even know it. You have to view this in a decidedly abstract way to grasp the concept.

In my reality for example; if I have drawn a golden age to myself, my mate the fatalist might enter utopia with me; but the predominate aspect of himself—the one where the greatest part of his consciousness is centered, is experiencing the proverbial end-times. And although I may also be there with him, my primary essence is not; a stretch of the imagination; true, but that would account for the claim that we all live in our own dream. Who knows—we might even be riding multiple time-lines without ever realizing it. If we really are multidimensional, as New-agers claim, this "probability" wouldn't be much of a stretch.

There is a book called _One_ , by Richard Bach, which hi-lights another theoretical aspect of multidimensionality. According to the story line, the author finds his dead wife alive in a parallel world. In an interesting twist, it wasn't she who was lost—it was he.

Note: The word "probability" is used often in metaphysical literature to describe potential events (which might better be described as _im-_ probable)—if potentially viable.

Which you—which world

... One of the most liberating concepts I've ever encountered. Those of you who've read the Seth books will recognize it immediately. According to my understanding, this phrase alludes to the unrealized choices we have in the reality we call ours ("within the framework of our creaturehood," he cautions—much to my chagrin). Never-the-less, he goes into a lot of detail on this subject in Jane Roberts' book series; and in line with much of the material in this book.

"Which you, which world?" is all about replacing facts with possibilities—possibilities most of us never even suspect are there. Be prepared though. ...Once you open that door, you will never again be satisfied with "what is": You are at once (both) freed and bound—relentlessly searching for your personal key to the mythical Shangrila.

What is the nature of reality?

That is a matter of opinion—if you consider all the interpretations out there. I've already covered some of them: reality as illusion; thought-form; belief system; frequency; the quantum... and now we have virtual as well.

In fact, I began to suspect that there may be a place for it in our interpretation of fact when I read Whitley Strieber's book, _The Secret School: Preparation for Contact._ He reiterated what "abducties"have often described when he said he had memories of beings showing him the future—in graphic and unsettling detail. Although he apparently accepted it as a vision of Earth's actual future as a boy, that was long before we were introduced to what we call virtual reality today. It does make you wonder if anything can be correctly ascertained as real.

"Which you, which world" seems to suggest that reality "is" as reality is perceived—as far as our experience of it is concerned; being that in actuality, it's all real: We just take our pick of which reality to actualize.

In fact, Seth was my first introduction to quantum physics, although he didn't call it that. Being a rogue science not recognized by professionals or noticed by the masses, quantum physics is to mainstream science what the magical arts are to fundamentalist Christianity—unacknowledged at best. Yet, I have to marvel at how close they and religion are coming together, and how Christians especially are oblivious to this.

According to Seth, our conscious minds are the key. We image into being—not just good and evil, but youth and age, abundance or lack, life and death, etc., and it is all colored by what we think of ourselves, and what we've come to believe as facts about our reality. We are so locked into hypnosis, that when someone breaks through it, we say they're senile. ... In fact, I've often wondered if when people get old, they are just too tired to hold that hypnosis together, and the stable world they knew begins to show its fluidity.

Perfection as all that is

The idea of everything being perfect just as it is suggests that everything had to happen as it did to bring our life to its destined conclusion. Can't we at least consider that there may be infinite "perfect" scenarios; some more perfect than others? ... Look at the kaleidoscope; every little turn changes everything, and it is always perfect and beautiful and unique.

Even if a particular outcome is pre-ordained, there must be myriad ways to arrive there. Could Jesus have found another way to accomplish what he did, rather than being crucified? I don't know, but it is food for thought.

Predestination—Why the conflict?

How does knowing something in the future about someone's past take away free will? That person made those decisions and took those actions himself, independent of anyone knowing about them. The observer is seeing them in the future; after the fact. Besides, there are those who claim that even the past is always in a state of flux. The only problem I personally have with the concept of pre-destination is the high probability of self-fulfilling prophesies arising out of it—as in personal predictions that generate fear and resignation in people: Imagination creates.

The new reality—how would it play out?

I used to get so caught up in technicalities, it became a major block to my manifestations. My thinking went like this: If our reality suddenly conformed to the "ideal," or if everything negative that ever happened to us were reversed, how would that look—how would it work?

In a "perfect world," there would be no losers. So what would that mean—no competitive games? ... no football? Not that I care, but it would be enough to make plenty of men re-think bringing forth that level of perfection.

That's really a minor thing, of course. But what happens if a deceased partner is alive after all, and we've gone on to remarry and have other children. Do those children disappear? Do we have no consciousness of them? Or do we all go on to become one big, happy family?

If we learn to turn metal to gold, how do we explain our income to the IRS? You can't even pay taxes on undocumented income. I'm sure it's not part of our divine plan to commit felonies. Do we instead become a person of interest to some secret agency experimenting with super abilities? Or maybe just end up in a mental ward somewhere? How much would it cost us to be honest—or dishonest?

Suppose we undergo a total rejuvenation. We could let our friends think we've had extensive surgery, or that we're really our own daughter: but what happens when we have to produce our birth certificate or driver's license? Or someone becomes convinced we're of the devil and must be destroyed?

And what about all those imperfect things in our world that we don't want to change—bitter-sweet memories, snow and thunderstorms, the night sky, autumn leaves; the treasured miracles arising from the ashes of a broken dream that became our life's inspiration. Will there be no junk food, sex, danger thrills, delicious sleep, or mates who don't look like clones of Ken and Barbie? Do we really know what we want our optimal world to look like?

We can't even imagine a perfect marriage, let alone a perfect world. What has to happen to resolve the problem of one partner wanting a quiet home in the country, and the other the excitement of city life? Or one who longs for a child when the partner wants no part of it? How could there be a world in which harmony doesn't depend on compromise and individual fulfillment is assured?

Obviously, these examples are not describing a perfect world at all, but more accurately reflect the kinds of results we'd have if we tried to perfect the imperfect with our finite, duality-based minds. We humans want to see possibilities in terms of sound reasoning before we can accept them as viable. ...There may be ways to do this.

In the case of our married couple for example: One possibility may be (that in truth) the two people in this instance might not really want differing outcomes at all—even if they're not consciously aware of it. This speculation arises from an experiment a friend of mine described in a lecture on quantum physics (see Bohm: _Entanglement theory_ ). Basically, the experiment demonstrated that two particles, separated and placed at a distance from each other, behaved as if they were one—not acting in response to one another, but in unison, (i.e.: simultaneously).

If that is true in the quantum universe (and, that we are all quite literally one), then who's to say it could not also be true in the one we call our reality... a reality that wasn't muddied by earthly personalities... where we are all and always in perfect agreement with one another—and truly knowing ourselves, find there really are no issues between us. Could it be, that even science (albeit the quantum kind) supports the theory of oneness?

Even with the great intellects we have in this world, there is still so much we haven't conceived of yet. Why limit our vision of the future based on what we already "know," when our experience should tell us there is always more to discover.

Won't it be Wonderful...

... when we're all telepathic?

Oh yes; Not only will we never again be able to cover up our feelings about or towards anyone else; we won't have any privacy left at all. No stashing away money for a rainy day that our spendthrift mate can't find, no hope of keeping our most embarrassing secrets, no little white lies to protect us from awkward situations or being hopelessly engulfed in other's demands—I'm sure we can think of a lot more.

On a more serious note, has it ever occurred to anyone how many people would be emotionally devastated by the sudden emergence of the unvarnished truth? How often have we said of someone, "Thank God they didn't know"... in reference to something or other. It's my feeling that we have a long way to go before telepathic communication would be the great thing it's made out to be.

... _when there is no death?_

Think about it: No escape from this world, no inheritances to rely on; an unparalleled population explosion—not to mention life sentences (or bad marriages) that last forever and ever and ever....

Are we really ready for an idealized future?

### ****

### Little Me: If You Were Nobody, You Wouldn't Have to Hide

You're the one

Someone came to me one day with an intensely powerful dream: They said they were told "You're _THE ONE!"..._ They didn't take it literally of course, but they didn't know what to do with it either. I thought of a similar experience I'd had; and another that happened to an acquaintance who was told she was Mary Magdalene. "I know that sounds crazy" she said.

In my own dream, the violet flame was handed to me. I was thrilled with the honor; until I was told I was the only one in the world to hold it. I couldn't throw it away from me fast enough!

What do all these messages have in common? Each one of them holds the individual solely responsible for the fate of the world. And in a sense, that may be true. What if, of all the people receiving the messages; the help, the tools, the inspiration they need to create change, there is not one other person willing or ready to accept the challenge. If we allow for the premise that we each have within us everything we need to effect change—and since none of us knows if anyone else will accept that mantle, we need to act as if the world depends on us alone for it's survival... because maybe it does.

Then too, if we accept the hypothesis that we really are all one—in consciousness at least; then collectively, we _are_ the one.

Walk-ins—not so fast

I believe there are "walk-ins"—people who make agreements with an advanced soul to take over their bodies, thus allowing them to finish out their "contracts" here without incurring karma for opting out prematurely—and I like to believe it is possible to leave this earth without hurting anyone or leaving any important business undone. However; I object to the idea that anytime someone makes a quantum leap, this is obviously what has happened. Let people have credit where credit is due.

### ****

### First Cause: The Forgotten Element

First cause and modern false idols

In the biblical days it was "graven images," perhaps referring not so much to the material objects people worshiped as to the displacement of their faith; and yes, many of us have continued to put our faith in money, power and other people when we should know better.

But even if we've grown past that, "enlightened" people everywhere are still doing it and don't realize it: only now it is something called "lifestyle." If we eat right and exercise, don't smoke, drink or do drugs, we can live virtually forever. Otherwise, we're sure to end up with cancer, heart attacks and children with birth defects. Lifestyle is our God now.

Not that it may not be preferable to the way most of us in western society live; but if we believe (as we say we do), that something more than the physical animates the body, then we have to remember that the spirit that created and maintained it until now is still the real essence of our life.

Our bodies don't create life—life creates our bodies. And if you believe you have to protect them from their environment—considering the growing avalanche of negative information about virtually everything you consume, what's to say you won't end up being malnourished in the end—just by eliminating everything that could potentially harm you?

Lifestyle, like money or the right partner in life, are examples of secondary cause. They are the channels we've manifested for our good; not the actual source. The insidious conditioning—rather than the actual mode of living is (in all probability) what is _really_ killing us. The problem is that that conditioning is powerful and has to be taken into account.

I remember an article in the paper at the height of the ozone scare. College kids were throwing away their sunscreen in droves. The writer suggested it was really the fear-mongering of their authority figures they were throwing off. Our youth find this kind of oppressiveness stifling; especially with everything else going on in their world.

It wasn't long after that article ran that we were inundated with warnings about sunscreen. Fool-hardy or not, perhaps this up-rising was more intuitive than defiant—or a little of both. ... But one thing is clear—our children do not want to live in the shadow of their parent's fears.

When compromise is necessary

I struggled with this aversion to giving in to secondary cause all of my life until recently. Whatever other factors entered into it, I was determined not to let this pervasive programming (and its creators) win. Finally I realized; I am letting them win. They're winning because they know I'm not yet strong enough in my conviction to rise above it, and that that alone will assure my failure. ... I finally saw that by staying within the "rules" as minimally as possible, "they" can think they're winning while I'm working on extricating myself.

Case in point: We are vehemently opposed to medicine as it is practiced today, but in refusing to take part in it, we find ourselves feeling uncomfortably vulnerable. Rather than going to one extreme or another, we can work with whatever medical alternative will give us some peace of mind without compromising to any great extent, realizing that our concern must not be solely with standing our ground, but with staying alive and in health to complete whatever we came here to do—as optimally as possible.

As long as we do something within the context of that conditioning, it won't throw itself at us relentlessly while we are struggling to bring our level of confidence up to where it will be effective. It's a matter of using that very conditioning to our advantage instead of our disadvantage. Otherwise (I regret to concede), we may not be around long enough to make a demonstration.

On sensitizing our bodies

There is a danger inherent in refining our diet to the point where our bodies can no longer tolerate ordinary foods. This can happen to vegetarians, according to researchers who discovered that over a period of time the (un-used) enzymes needed to digest meat can longer be manufactured by the body. Food sensitivities are rampant in health food junkies. Even antibacterial products have been linked to a decreased resistance to germs. What will we do if there comes a time when we're fortunate to find anything to eat, and we've re-conditioned our bodies to reject it?

Tolerance, or lack of it, can be more than physical. And I have been around long enough to remember that no one ever passed out by being around cigarettes in the old days when virtually everyone smoked. Now it seems that nearly every non-smoker I know is "highly allergic" to cigarette smoke. I am not suggesting that cigarettes are not bad for you; only that the reaction of pre-prejudiced people can be a little extreme. There are enough valid arguments against smoking without exaggerating them. ... Smokers, be advised; in the words of the entity Seth, "The surgeon general may be dangerous to your health."

That said, I do feel obliged to acknowledge the staggering increase of chemical additives and substances in everything we eat, drink, breathe, wear and touch (as well as inhale). If nothing is done about this, it will simply be a case of survival of the fittest—meaning those who have learned to transcend these effects. They're virtually impossible to fight off in the flesh, given the enormity of the problem.

This is where the true value of transcendence lies, in my opinion. We tend to think of transcendence in terms of leaving the world and its problems behind, or in overcoming our weaknesses by rising above those tendencies; but there is more to transcendence than that. First cause is about transcendence—transcending our programming, that is. The yogis are able to do this, and, granted; they've spent lifetimes; even generations honing their skills... but they do stretch our imagination of what is possible. If we only attain a measure of that, it's far more than we can hope to achieve in our present state of consciousness.

There is a story in Paramahansa Yogananda's book: _Autobiography of a Yogi,_ about Yogananda's master; Sir Yukteswar, when he was a student of his own master, and convalescing from a serious illness. He had become emaciated in the process, and as a teaching tool, his master used what we now call "mind games" to demonstrate how his fluctuating expectations influenced the state of his body. I won't go into the whole story. It's enough to say this young student gained fifty healthy pounds _literally_ overnight... and kept it on. Not only does this story illustrate the power of the mind, but of belief. In this case, the belief was doubtless that of Sir Yukteswar's' master—as apparently; this young chela had a little way to go at that stage in his development. I have read many such stories over the years; often from impeccable sources.

All we are asked to do is be open to other possibilities. We don't necessarily have to embrace them to see evidence of their fruit. If we can open our eyes just enough to create a subtle but fundamental shift in the way we think, it may be enough to change our entire experience. Programming is not unlike patterns we feel compelled to repeat. Once we make them conscious, we at least have a chance to break them.

Ascension and the spiritually elite—acceptance into the "God-order"

I've always known we were meant to be immortal; that's why I was overjoyed to discover alchemy and the works of the ascended masters which had eluded me for years. ...But with it came more of the same old morality thinking, and I would be made to feel that it wasn't attainable for a mere human-based being such as myself. Although I've moved past that, I still have a problem with this element of the ascension teachings.

As a case in point, several years ago I was reading a book purportedly channeled by some of these higher energies. It begins by saying all the usual things about non-judgment and self-acceptance; and then blatantly admonishes those not having the discipline to overcome their indulgences. Furthermore, it seems that purifying oneself in mind and body is a _prerequisite_ for receiving assistance from on high.

Surely the energy that can make us immortal can free us of our addictions as well—we shouldn't have to prove ourselves to our creator. But apparently, those who have made themselves a pure vessel for God to work through now qualify for his riches in Heaven, while the rest of us are put on the "need not apply" list. ... Isn't that like saying "I'll do the work on my soul Lord; you do the rest"? To me, cleansing is the result, not the cause of purification. I can't help asking; how do we become this pure vessel without the help of God; and who can be so presumptuous as to think they can make _themselves_ pure?

The term "spiritually elite" alludes to those who consider the rest of us riffraff—we who ignorantly abuse or neglect our bodies. New-agers do more moralizing on this subject than Christians do. The writer I referred to earlier elicited this same bias from every one of the "masters" he channeled; almost verbatim—a little suspicious from my point of view. This tells me two things—that the medium has some personal bias in this area, and that some of the human is filtering through here.

Addictions _are_ a problem, but are they a moral weakness as we've been led to believe, or a spiritual void waiting to be filled? And what makes the New Age community think that these souls are any less dedicated, any less valuable than the rest of humanity?

Some of this goes back to the old thinking of denying the body. There's something wrong with this ideal—with forcing ourselves to get up early, for instance, when the body needs more rest. It's somehow "indecent" to sleep the morning away, even if you have no earthly reason to get up. This is just one example of a questionable value judgment. Maybe if we as a race didn't have such a fixation on justifying the body, we wouldn't have all these additions.

I often think of this when I hear about yet another model citizen arrested for having child pornography on his computer. Usually it's said to be completely out of character for this person; yet he throws everything away—for what; a sneak-peek into forbidden territory? Family, career, reputation and self-respect—all gone. Nothing left but shame and disgrace.

But was the perversion a precursor to the shame—or was it the other way around? So many of these offenders are men of the cloth, and it's been well established in our society that everyone has the potential—if not the proclivity, for deviant behavior (and its polar opposite as well). But obsessive behavior often has its roots in "thou shall not's." We see this particularly in children: The more restricted they are, the more they're driven to break the rules...which begs the question: Does denial of the body come with a price... and how can we express our divine nature when we are taught we don't _have_ one?

Like the baser nature according to Christian thinking, there is a prevalent belief in the spiritually-minded that the lower chakras are not worthy of an evolving entity, and therefore need to be unnaturally suppressed. But it takes _all_ of our chakras to release the kundalini and become a God-empowered being; and where there is balance, you won't have extremes. Sometimes this fixation on taboos and their attendant sense of deprivation can fester and grow until they erupt like a burst appendix. I've never seen rigidity listed among the dangers to an aspirant on the path, but it should be.

Please don't use this digression into the dark side of human nature to invalidate the position I'm taking overall, which is that those of us expressing a sincere desire to answer the call of the light-workers need to be considered in the light of that sincerity; not whether we smoke, drink or eat meat. If we are here to "love humanity to wholeness," we won't do it by separating out those who don't fit our model of the "Christed ones"—especially within our own ranks. For one thing, there are hardly enough perfected beings to reach the critical mass that is so urgently needed now.

It's a little too much to expect the average person to suspend judgment of those such as the example given above (which was not meant as a sampling of would-be initiates, who undoubtedly would not be focused on their baser nature to begin with); but light-workers are expected to answer a higher calling, and they need to start with their own order. All of us who are involved in this undertaking are trying to raise our consciousness the best we know how. The voices of the ascended masters stress non-judgment: Maybe they should practice it more.

The highest way

On the subject of aspiring to the "ultimate" goal ( _see Course in Miracles_ ); becoming a beam of light... one with God; I realized that while this "higher way" appeals greatly to some people, I would feel cheated of all the experiences I've yet to have. While I am somewhat chastened by my choice, I still want to experience the whole of my physicality. To be in total immersion of spirit and fore-going physicality may result in our lives being easier and obviously more ultraistic; but I am more than willing to wait for that to unfold naturally, in some distant future.

In fact, for many of us, maybe staying focused on the physical plane is where our contribution to the whole lies; assuming the whole is made up of many different aspects; some of whom feel exactly as I do. It's really not fair to delegate us as "less than" those with loftier aspirations. There is a reason we're here. In fact, the loftier-minded are still here too. ... No offense, but perhaps that's an indication they are not yet God-material themselves.

### ****

### Psychology: Another Religion?

The cardinal sins of psychology: denial, enabling, and co-dependency

Psychology would have us throw out all three if they had their way. But aren't we going a little too far with this? The term co-dependency, for one, has been bandied about like a disease.

First of all, if everyone is inter-related; as we are told, then we are co-dependent, in a very real sense. Although "inter-dependence" sounds much healthier than co-dependency, and the play on words does sometimes make all the difference, maybe that's all it is—a play on words. After all, the enlightened among us talk about co-creation all the time. We do need each other. Unity and our unified efforts make a difference in our lives. Humanity might well rise to its highest potential if the world were one huge networking system and dependency weren't some four letter word.

Enabling gets a bad rap too. Synonyms for "enable" include "assist," "facilitate" and "equip." We enable a child to get an education; a person with developmental problems to have access to the things the rest of us utilize, and ideally; we enable others to be—not dependent, but _in-_ dependent. It's a matter of knowing when (and how), to help someone... and I concede, we are sadly deficient in these skills; but let's not be so free in tossing around labels. As for living in denial, I give my opinion on that elsewhere in this book.

It's not that I don't see a problem with the relationships in our society, or that I don't acknowledge the part these things play in them; I do. But I feel it's important to remember why we have these human tendencies in the first place. It's been said that any good thing in excess becomes a liability, and that would apply not only to the afore-mentioned tendencies, but the "discernments" we surround them with as well.

Regarding special relationships

I found much of value in _The Course in Miracles_ , but I'm unable to accept the premise that no relationship should be special. To begin with, we have divine assurance of just that when we are born with an umbilical cord connecting us to our mothers. I sometimes think most of us would kill our children the first year... or drop them off in a field when they reach puberty if it weren't for that powerful bond.

And what of elderly parents who depend on us? You could argue that a person of integrity would honor their obligations regardless, but what if they haven't yet developed that level of responsibility? What happens to those hapless souls then?

I had an interesting shift of perception a while back as I idly watched a family walk by. It came to me that each of those people were assigned to each other—and that in order to assure they kept their commitments, they came here with a special attachment to each other. ...How else could we endure the dysfunctionality of family? This is not to say I dislike my children or the rest of the family. But without those relationships being special—who knows?

We need a lot of help in life. We need others who will stand by us and with us—no matter what. We may also need to be entangled with people we can bounce our weaknesses off of; to come to solutions with ... and isn't that what families _do_?

Detachmentor disconnectedness? : The matter of sacred bonds

If you've entered the esoteric world to any degree, you've probably experienced what is known as "soul connections" (human relationships that transcend the mundane). Considering the intensity and spiritual character of these relationships, I have to ask how the prescribed detachment applies to them as opposed to our "worldly" alliances. Do they belong to two different philosophies? Because according to the ascended masters teachings; in addition to detaching from outcomes and material things, we are advised to cut the cords that bind us to others.

This leaves little room for acknowledgement of those that may be of a divine origin. The one exception that is recognized is that umbilical cord connection between a mother and child, which is to be severed once the child is of age. As far as I know, we are the only one of God's creatures who don't do this naturally: Maybe we aren't meant to.

Divinely ordained or not, if a connection to all other beings—or even one person, is the ultimate fulfillment of relationship, and if openness is so important to a developing consciousness, where then does detachment come in? If we asked a master, he would probably say it was a matter of how balanced our consciousness is; and yet the eastern tradition never seems to go beyond detachment.

Then too, there is a difference between attachment and bonding. To refuse to bond with someone out of fear of attachment is a denial to ourselves and the other person of the depth of love that comes out of leaving ourselves vulnerable. Many of us feel we have to disconnect to avoid that—but disconnectedness is not wholeness.

What about the accounts of Jesus suffering for humanity? Not just in his body, but his soul. He knew the importance of staying open. Do we know better? Do we deny ourselves and others our sacred connections in our quest for spiritual (as well as psychological) correctness? We can only sanitize our consciousness so much before we lose those things integral to our optimal beingness, and maybe even to our purpose here.

Attachment—what's so bad about it?

I believe there is only one component that makes attachment a negative condition and that is fear. It's not the attachment that causes us to grasp and smother one another. It's not the attachment that depletes our life energy and leaves us unable to function. ... It's the fear that accompanies it—fear of rejection; of not being enough; fear that we may lose that which we value, and fear for the loved one whose own fears are felt in our being—effectively disabling us because we no more know how to rise above their fears than we do our own. Attachment is not the enemy—fear is.

Does ego get a bad rap?

Ego is not just some inflated sense of self-importance, as some people believe. Aside from the fact that we need it to function in this dimension, it appears our higher self is not above using our ego to trick us into doing it's bidding, which is... incidentally, a method shared by sorcerers in shifting the awareness of their students. Whether we approve or not, ego is often behind the great inventions and life-enhancing changes in our world, as well as the demonstrations that inspire multitudes. It is the unbalanced ego that is negative...yet even that can inspire. Alexander the Great is rumored to have believed he was invincible; apparently demonstrating it on many occasions. Like many of our mythical and legendary characters, he beckons us to stretch the bounds of what we believe possible for ourselves.

Many of our greatest athletes are, by their own admission, ego-motivated. Celebrities; shunned in school and vowing to win the respect they were due, can often credit ego with where they are today. Do we suppress our desire to be all that we can be out of self-censure (i.e. false humility)? How many philanthropists are genuinely ultraistic as compared to those who crave the recognition they invariably receive? And can we really say that every hero, pioneer and revolutionist behind the betterment of humanity has been devoid of ego?

Everyone who wants to be first, who wants to be best, can inspire the world as surely as those who are moved to greatness by a pure spirit—because the average person needs to be reminded that he too, may have that greatness inside of himself. And if we can be tricked by even sexual attraction (as some claim), in order to insure that an incoming soul has the right parents and DNA, who's to say the universal mind is above using ego to trick us into fulfilling the purposes of Heaven if our higher nature fails to uphold that contract? If we take judgment out of it, ego can be a great facilitator.

Generation X—an experiment?

Are generations experiments? Cycles? Or just another group maladjustment? There are certainly very distinct patterns operating within each one. To say that "Generation X" is the fault of permissive parents, we have to ask ourselves what kind of parenting bred the children who raised that generation.

Gen X is a lot like we all were at a certain short juncture in our lives. X-ers just stayed there. The only time most of us ever took chances was when we were too young and foolish to know better, but we also made more strides in that period than at any other. And only those who take chances and follow their passions make any significant impact on the larger world.

How do we know the X'ers won't turn out to be our saviors when the bad times come? Though they may lack our standards, that doesn't mean they _have_ none. ... If you look closely, you'll find that many are passionate about what they believe in (and their loyalties—whatever they are). ... As for taking back the world, who better? Many of the individuals demeaningly designated as X'ers have very little to lose; including family, careers, or any real faith in their futures. They're rebellious, they're resourceful, and yes, they live for today; but give them a cause and see what they can do... things no "Joe responsible" dares to do.

We _need_ those who are not easily intimidated, who don't think out the personal consequences very well. Maybe that's why there are so many of them here: Anyone concerned about the status quo is not going to be out there in the front lines when we need them.

Fear and guilt as motivators

I understand now that it isn't necessary to motivate anyone through negativity—not only in our relationships with other people, but as a way to force change on ourselves. Rather than shame, or having one's back pushed up against a wall—rather than harshness or uncompromising will, the push that bears the most perfect fruit is that which moves as pure, positive spirit through us. Conversely; but with the same results, we can pull whatever we want to us; magnetically. Strong-arming is an earth-based energy. We can do better.

### ****

### Morality: As Good as God

The virtues of honesty

I have just read another dissertation on the virtue and necessity of total honesty as a prerequisite to taking on the light body. This is to include subtle nuances as well as simple omissions. I am one who sees nothing noble about extolling the naked truth. To use as an example, the prospect of telling our boss what we really think of his new proposal (when asked), is one thing—to have to tell a child that no, we don't love him as we do his siblings, is another (and yes, I know someone that happened to). Is it virtuous to admit to a blind date that you think she's homely—that you're disappointed or repelled by her? That you don't like a gift made for you with love?

Does commitment to integrity require us to reveal other people's indiscretions? Does it demand that we relinquish information about ourselves that someone has decided it's their right to know? ... There is a lot to be considered here. Most of us do not have nearly the tactfulness needed to deliver the harsh truth with the right words required to spare the feelings of others. And since much of what we call truth is actually subjective—referring to our personal opinions and feelings, it should be noted that we are not sufficiently advanced to do good by way of our honesty. Remember, when we say "kids are cruel," we're really talking about their tendency to blurt out the truth.

Lying for our own gain, convenience or protection is a tendency we all know we'll have to eventually overcome, especially in our important relationships; but uncompromising "truth" is something that will (and should) evolve along with the qualities of love and compassion, as well as the transcending of our human judgments. Until then, I think I'll pass on your gift of unsparing honesty for my sake.

Authenticity as sin—another extreme

I once read a book called " _Truth_ " by an author who asserted that it is our Christian responsibility to lie to one's mate rather than dishonor the marriage vow to love one another in a way we may no longer feel. It went on to suggest that authenticity was not an option where right and wrong are concerned. This was certainly a fascinating concept to me, but one I found to be not uncommon (if usually more subtle), in the religious community at large. My impression was that "authenticity" is understood to be a vain and selfish pursuit, much like the label we give someone who drops out to "find himself," thereby leaving his responsibilities for someone else to deal with. Yet in the East, a man who forsakes his worldly commitments to do basically the same thing is revered among his people. All is relative I guess.

But to re-address the subject of marriage as it concerns the effect our spiritual and psychological ideals can have on our important relationships—and in reference to sacrificing honesty in honor of our marriage vows... just what else are we sacrificing in terms of intimacy when we do this? If marriage is as sacred as the proponents of this philosophy claim, how is the sanctity of those vows upheld by accepting this philosophy as valid? Our important relationships need authenticity, and they deserve it.

And the two shall be as one

What does that mean? Is it automatic? Does the sacred ceremony itself bring this about? Is it a covenant (a promise or divine intent to act as one); a commandment—all of these things? If it's a blessing from God (similar to "personages of old" bestowing blessing on their first-born sons); then somewhere along the way, the efficacy of the blessing was lost—because we know that very few marriages seem to be made in Heaven.

Which brings us to the question: Are the nuptial blessings bequeathed by God given only through and under the jurisdiction of the church; or are they something born of the divinity which flows between two people when God brings them into each other's lives—with or without the blessing of a marriage ceremony? For the Bible says, "What 'God' has brought together, let no man put asunder." I guess how you interpret that would depend on whether you accept the premise that the priest is "God by proxy."

Incidentally; it seems that the Law of Moses decreed that a man was married to the first woman he slept with—not a very idealistic rendering of "the two shall be as one": See: King James Bible: _Exodus 22:16_

Must goodness be taught?

Is there any room for authenticity in our moralistic view of mankind? What happens when we always say and do the "right" thing regardless of how we feel? For one thing, we resent everyone who allows himself to do the things we don't feel we have the right to do: therefore we judge; right?

In addition, we expect God to reward us for our goodness—and conversely, punish us when we fail to live up to it. And because we know (on some level), that we're not really "good," we have to hide it from ourselves to avoid the fear of that punishment. Only those with religious hang-ups are so fixated on goodness that they have to deny who they really are, and those hooked on religion will naturally fear punishment.

Where I came from it was considered a sign of bad character to have any negative feelings; let alone express them. Good people didn't have negative feelings. They always loved their children, their mates and their parents: They were never angry or selfish.

The bottom line is that many of us go around pretending to ourselves, each other and God that we never have an immoral thought or feeling, and then point fingers at everyone else who expresses what we cannot.

We will not make any progress, nor will we free ourselves and each other until we can say, "Look, this is who I am; and maybe it's not great, but there it is." It doesn't mean we just go ahead and follow any impulse that comes along; but it is a starting point in accepting ourselves as we are—and ceasing to judge others who are just as human. It's the beginning of the end to bondage... bondage to someone else's morality.

We may find that once we arrive at this place and stop playing roles to suit everyone else, we'll suddenly want to give more of ourselves to others, because it springs from a place of choice—not some conditioned sense of responsibility. We could even come to feel that we really are ok and that the personal characteristics we wrestle with might actually be based on something legitimate. After all, God created us to be different from everyone else. Maybe there was a reason.

Finally, what earthly good is it to behave righteously if we don't mean it? There can only be two reasons: to convince everyone else we are good (for any number of reasons); or to impress God (who already knows us inside and out), so we can gain in his good graces. ... As if we could ever, by our own efforts, be good enough to deserve anything we want from God.

Time to throw off morality thinking

I'm sure many people share my conviction that the worst of our psychological problems can be traced back to our religious conditioning (or that of our parents, teachers—all of society's) in this or some other life. For many of us, It seems we just cannot allow ourselves or others to experience the life God intended for us out of our sense of judgment and just punishment.

Is it that God withholds our good, or that we quite simply cannot accept it? Judging from the many people I've had conversations with, those who have the most developed conscience are those who seem to attract the most punishment. We all know people with no discernable conscience who seem to lead a charmed life. It makes you wonder; is it sin that punishes—or guilt? It's not so much that morality has to go—just the strangle-hold it has on us.

Is conscience a reliable guide?

Is conscience a reliable guide? Conscience changes along with changing times. In some cultures, a man who refuses to kill is a disgrace to his people. In others, it is considered an honor to choose a sibling as a mate. ... Is it a sin to tell someone with Alzheimer's that everything is alright when it's not, or an aging wife that she's beautiful? If I take back something that you took from me, is it steeling? If you hold church services in secret for fear of persecution, are you a criminal? If you flaunt laws that were made simply to suppress you, do you belong in jail? And would you be made to feel ashamed of your long hair if you lived in the time of Jesus?

How many of our pangs of conscience come as a result of our elder's morals, or fear of punishment and chastisement. How many are simply the result of our own flawed self image? And just how much of it has been drummed into us from time immemorial? ... Jesus, as I recall, was called a heretic many times over in failing to be properly intimidated by the mores' of his time. Do _we_ fear being labeled heretics as well?

As for guilt over doing the right thing; if no one ever told us something was wrong, would we even know? This is something I often ponder—not just concerning this matter, but all of my beliefs. ...Would I be conflicted if I were never exposed to the concepts creating the conflict? Would I feel compelled to make changes in myself if there was no one to tell me I should?

It is often this judgment of ourselves that keeps us locked in limitation. Maybe it isn't so much that we see _ourselves_ as unworthy, but our _desires_ as suspect. But that make us all undeserving, doesn't it; since we all have the same basic desires?

And why do we need morality training in the first place?

... So that we can be controlled? As a race, control is all we know. Suggestions of morality; as well as integrity, have strong religious overtones and we've been conditioned in this area for eons. It has been decided for us what is acceptable and what is not.

I much prefer the virtue of impeccability to integrity, as the later is consigned to us; whereas impeccability suggests unwavering allegiance to one's own standards—no matter how unpopular they may be. I know someone on the spiritual path who has broken all the rules and still receives guidance that blesses him every day. He assumes that since God made him the way he is, he must be acceptable in his sight. Needless to say, this really aggravates some of the more upright (or up- _tight_ ) people around him.

Are you a moral person just because you've never acted on your animal nature; or do you honestly believe you have no carnal side? Because if that's the case, then you've never had to fight temptation as do those you would judge. We need to acknowledge the possibility that it isn't by changing our nature that we earn God's grace—but the other way around.

Martyrs, saints and victims

I don't mean sacrificial lambs—those who are the true martyrs in this world, and are not even recognized for it. Rather, I'm referring to the above archetypes in everyday life.

We seem to use all of these terms interchangeably in a rather careless way. Or maybe there are elements of two or more in at least some situations. The perception of the observer may not always be objective. Many times I hear someone being referred to as a saint, who in my estimation is simply weak or manipulative, or saving face; and conversely—a true martyr being mistaken as all of the above. That said; manipulators (as well as false martyrs), do have their place, as we all need devil's advocates in our lives at times; if only to be pressured and prodded into overcoming the stuck areas we all encounter.

Pushing people's buttons, for instance, can be a great teaching tool. By putting them on the defensive, we force them to be clear and honest when their tendency is to talk their way through life with a lot of nonsense. If you really want someone to be present with you, nothing works better. Button pushers tend to be martyrs. But if we need to learn to be present, the martyr will certainly do it for us.

Then there are victims (the perpetual ones). There has been a lot of speculation about them—whether they are really victims. A lot of them are controllers in disguise. If someone in our life is prone to guilt, the "victim" can take advantage of that. We reap a lot of benefits in our victim-hood. We can escape responsibility—in everything from taking care of ourselves to owning up to our mistakes. We get sympathy and attention; we don't have to take risks as long as we stay in an oppressive situation; we have an excuse to endlessly punish the victimizer through our anger; and no one, including ourselves, expects very much of us. None of this is news.

But do we have to be so hard on the victim-controller? Can we acknowledge that the victim might really _be_ a victim—of his own low self-esteem; his fear of growing up and taking charge of his destiny? Do you think, deep down, anyone really wants to forfeit everything they could've been in order to be carried through life?

Sometimes we _are_ victims, through most anyone's eyes; people who have endured unbelievable hardship and tragedy through no obvious failing of their own. And there's not one of us who hasn't felt victimized at one time or another. The mystic Eckart Tolle, while explaining our responsibility in creating our reality, cautions us not to blame the victim; in this case referring to those who don't yet have the understanding to grasp those concepts. "It's not their fault," he says. How wonderful to find such rare compassion from one in a position to emphasize his enlightenment.

Why do we label some people martyrs and others victims? Why do we sometimes blame them and other times blame the perpetrators? Isn't it possible that some of us who play the victim role—like the martyr, do so to facilitate something positive in another's life; however unconsciously?... There are times when a mother may instill guilt in her child—not out of any selfish motive, but to forestall a tragic consequence. Whether it is the right thing to do is not the issue here, but motive. If you agree to trust a careless loved one with something they know you cherish and they lose it, do you secretly enjoy playing the martyr, or has the sacrifice been worth it if it might impress on that one the consequences his actions can have on others, and the resulting effect on his self-esteem?

As for the sacrificial lambs—All those who died on 9/11; the millions slaughtered by people like Hitler; even all the hapless victims we read about in the daily paper—people the system has wronged; falsely accused or cheated, left to die, made an example of; or stripped naked in front of the world... every one of them forces us to look at the injustice around us, the dearth of love; and speaks of what needs be changed—now—for all of us. They're showing us the aspects of our societies—ourselves, that we don't want to see. ...Yes, I believe in the depth of my soul that we have victims in this world who chose on some inner level to endure suffering—even horror, for our sakes. So often, it seems to be in vain, the message of desperation soon forgotten.... but all the more reason to honor these beautiful, selfless souls.

In summation, I believe psychology errs in the assumption that everything needs to be corrected as it emerges—like saying there's something wrong with you because you need sleep. Someday when we're completely whole, that won't be necessary. ... But for now, it's part of our process.

### ****

### Issues—Mine

Obviously, this whole book is about things I have issues with. These are just a few more:

" _You must always give the credit to God"_

Does God really care about credits? Is his ego that weak? One of my best teachers actually said we hurt God's feelings when we take the credit.

How can we be one with God and yet make a distinction between our consciousness and his? Isn't that splitting hairs? How is neglecting to give him specific credit a usurpal of his authority? As far as that goes, do we not take credit all the time where credit isn't due us; for our integrity, our wonderful children, our good looks, our successes? Even our pious behavior— _especially_ our pious behavior.

As far as giving credit where a manifested desire is concerned, I can say from experience that I have never precipitated anything when I was not also aware that another dimension was operating through me. ... But does that necessarily mean that we are one thing and God is another? It may be more correct to say we are bringing the God-force into our manifestations when they turn out as we would like. I will be expounding on this as I go along.

" _We can have anything we want... within reason"_

My whole life I was told to be "realistic": I didn't need to hear this from metaphysics too. That, and how there are some things we cannot change. (Those would be the ones I want, I suppose.) I can't tell you how this rankles me. If someone chooses to believe this, fine; but don't burden me with your own limitations. This is just the sort of thing I've spent my life trying to break free of.

" _God revealed his truth to me while I was anointed in the power, and you can't argue with God"_

... But do all evangelists claim to receive the same information under the anointing? Not if you pay attention.

" _It is selfish to pray or ask for anything for one's self"_

This one comes to us from the Catholic Church. If we follow these rules, we can only hope someone else is praying for us.

" _The truth can be a bitter pill to swallow"_

Is this the same truth that's supposed to set us free?

" _God gives us what we need, not what we want"_

We program ourselves too much with that. What we want is also a need—albeit on a psychological level; but why wouldn't it be just as valid as any other need?

" _We should be honored to share in the suffering of Christ"_

Granted, he does tell the faithful to take up their cross and follow him; but a cross can mean many things. Allowing oneself to be open to the suffering of humanity and knowing that it's a needless condition is in itself a heavy cross to bear. Didn't Jesus say he wants to free us? Too many of us think we are being asked to suffer hardship and curses all through our lives, but that would belie all the promises of scripture.

Change is a part of life. It should not be feared, but embraced.

That statement makes us feel like there's something wrong with our understanding, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of unexpected change manifests as destructive, or at least negative. Although change may be a necessary part of life, something else has to change before I see it as one of the beneficent blessings of life.

I could elaborate more on any of on these; but the truth is, they're just an on-going annoyance—all convenient clichés that have been passively accepted as gospel truth, and do nothing to facilitate our God-given potential or our (increasingly frustrated) commitments here. Just more limits and righteous nonsense.

### ****

### Immortality: Are We Dismissing Our Heritage?

The elusive body eternal

Science tells us everything and everyone is made of the exact same thing; that even the tiny speck of carbon that makes us physical is pure energy at it's core, and the only thing that makes a person different from a rock (or a baby from an old person), is the intelligence acting through them. No one seems to be able to tell us where or how that originates though.

Further reinforcing my convictions of immortal life, I had always reasoned that "since" energy doesn't die or deteriorate, then neither should we... not realizing that energy does deteriorate in its own way, through a process called "half-life"; which is the predecessor to its transition from one form to another (water to steam, and body to spirit); the usual explanation we are given for what we call death—We no longer exist in the body as we know it. But is this cycle of half-life inevitable—or can it be suspended? If the evidence says no; and this remains true in the evolution of scientific understanding, where does this leave us in our argument for physical immortality?

There are at least two other factors to be considered. To begin with, what has always been considered "junk DNA" is being looked at more closely on the hunch that it may hold a clue to the ninety percent of our brain function we are as yet unable to use. This would correlate with the suggested model of the twelve-strand DNA as opposed to the current double helix standard. There is no way to know what we are capable of in our present "evolutionally disadvantaged" state.

In addition, what we know as the laws of physics may not apply in other dimensions to which we have potential access. This other-dimensionality may be the missing link to understanding how immortality can be achieved. That would explain Biblical teachings referring to a new Heaven and a new Earth, and the ascended masters assertions that we are moving into higher dimensions and frequencies, freeing us to use long dormant abilities.

Whatever the proof to the contrary, I know the truth is out there, and that the cycle of birth and death; with its attendant decrepitude, is coming to an end. If not here and now—for us; then somewhere, someday, starting with someone. The new energy is here—all over the world; a mass consciousness movement toward physical immortality: It's only a matter of time.

Seeing is believing

If I understand Deepak Chopra correctly, our bodies are actually holograms, and the life of this body merely a projection of spirit whose withdrawal is what we call death. If removal is not death, what's to prevent us from re-creating the hologram—unless it's the absolutely fixed idea of those left behind that it cannot happen: Then they simply would be unable to see it.

Most of us have heard the tales of the invisible ships; usually referring to the travels of Captain Hook in the 1700's. The gist of the story is that huge ships appeared in a remote place where they had never been, and the natives didn't take notice of them at all! The sailors were understandably incredulous and did their best to make sense of it. The general consensus since arrived at was that the ships—being so foreign to the native's reality, simply did not compute.

We've all had those experiences when you think about it: While searching through boxes of papers countless times for an important document, we realize we've by-passed it because what we were looking for was a white piece of paper when it was actually colored; or we're looking right at the missing object but can't see it because we don't expect to. The ships, of course, are a more dramatic example of what we could call "perceptual blindness." For a more professional opinion on this phenomena, refer to the research of Candace Pert.

The invisible ship analogy might have important implications for our model of reality except for one thing: What has often been "passed off" as documented fact is now officially regarded as myth. But no matter: There is something known in esoteric literature as "truer than true," and that has been proven out for me on more than one occasion.

And even though I don't have a problem with labeling these reports as legend rather than fact (given the difficulty of proving them), I'm disinclined to accept the explanation given for their dismissal; that the natives in these cases had other priorities and simply paid no attention to the ships. I'm diverging from my purpose here, but I have to point out the numerous accounts we have of natives from antiquity onward responding in fear or awe to things they didn't understand. Unless they actually had seen enormous ships before (which is a possibility), it isn't likely the natives were simply "disinterested": It just isn't human nature to ignore something so totally foreign in one's environment. Just having such a diversion in an otherwise maddenly dull routine would surely be worth noticing.

... Which brings us back to the hologram; the prospect of the dead returning, as well as the specter of the rejuvenated body; both of which we doubtless would be unable to fathom were they to happen today. Could it be our loved ones may've actually tried to return to us—as solid, physical bodies; only to realize we lacked the vision—the capacity, to see and accept their presence as a concrete reality? ...Far-fetched? Maybe; but if we are ever to reap the rewards of an immortal body, we will have to find a way to assimilate the experience into our version of possibilities.

I'm a little disappointed in Deepak, since he did seem to acknowledge physical immortality as a real possibility at one point, but took it back later by saying we all must (eventually) expire. It reminded me of yet another book I read about the "infallibility" of the principles of conscious creation to bring about tangible results; and when I got to the very last chapter (on aging), the author dashed my enthusiasm by blowing it off as nothing more than an "appearance". "Accept age gracefully," he said, "knowing that your real being is ageless and that's "all that matters anyway." I covered my unappreciative feelings about this sort of thing in an earlier part of the book.

Addendum: Deepak's hologram theory does merit some support from the various claims of "double-dangers" in our midst—people who have been documented as appearing in solid human form in two places at one time.

Holographic universe?

In making a case for immortality; we have to ask ourselves... is the body material at all... or is it a very dense thought-form? ... Maybe it's not so much that our bodies fade and die, but that the thought-forms they "really are" fade and die. They would be most useful to us here at their peak—just as firecrackers lose their zeal after they're discharged. It's much easier to re-launch both those and our bodies for the next adventure than to work up the energy in a spent vessel. That would be a valid point even if you reject the notion that our physical reality is holographic.

Do we have any trouble believing that in 1,000 years we'll be able to grow back an arm just by thinking it? Then why can't we do it now? I personally believe anything is possible—not just someday, but wherever we are in time. But, like everyone else, I'm waiting for somebody else to do it first.

**The** _blood of Jesus_

Did Jesus bequeath us an immortal body—without our even realizing it? Was the blood Jesus offered us in the form of wine actually an offer of his DNA; and the flesh (bread), his own immortal body? ... You could say that has always been taught, but it takes on a different meaning to those of us who understand Jesus' immortality to be not just literal, but literally physical.

Vanity aside...

If there is a higher purpose involved here—and not just some ego desire; why would immortality and its attendant rejuvenation be necessary in the first place? ... Because we cannot flow the intensity of the divine love vibration through a body that cannot support same. Anyone who experiences extended periods of expanded cosmic consciousness is quite aware of the toll it can take on them physically. Remember when Jesus made his ascension and warned the people around him not to touch him? It's been said that his vibration was so intense, it would've killed anyone who did.

In one of my contemplative moments, I saw us all as ghostly images floating by as on a reel of movie film, then gone. I thought; Is this all we are here—just projections of our essences? ... Why are we so driven then? When we lose a loved one, why does it matter just as much when we're at the end of our life as it would when we'd be facing many years without them? Why do we still strive so hard for everything once we're well aware of the brevity of our years (especially if we believe in an afterlife where we'll have it all anyway)?

What difference does it make if we don't get it on this side as long as it's waiting for us on the other side? ... Maybe it's because it _does_ matter. Like the drive to pro-create, we can trust there is a purpose behind it. What we aspire to and accomplish here is important.

### ****

The Trinity: Who Are These People?

Will the real God please stand up?

In my own experience, there have always been two Gods. The God of my conditioning was one to be feared and placated. His will for us was often bitter medicine, meant to perfect us through sorrow and oppression. To please this God, we always had to put ourselves last. This God often said no to us, and encouraged our suffering as proof of our loyalty and dedication. Even though I came to see him in a better light, I was still convinced he was unmoved by the things that mattered most to us.

Then there was the God of my heart; a God who loved and accepted us beyond measure; never judging, always understanding, and wanting nothing more than our happiness. When I'm in touch with that love, fear of God never enters my consciousness. Certainly the _wrath_ of God in this vibration is a foreign concept. Jesus said the kingdom is within us. Is this where we're missing the mark? Have we been worshipping false gods all along—through the very religions we look to?

Is anything as it seems? Some researchers seem to suggest that Jesus was actually an alchemist; comparing him to King Arthur and the Holy Grail. William Henry has written several books claiming to have uncovered information that must certainly be considered blasphemy by today's Christians. I have not personally read any of his books yet, so you'll have to judge for yourself.

Questioning Jehovah

For the sake of argument, we'll allow the premise that God and Jehovah are one in the same as taught by the church. If I confuse you by using the terms interchangeably, then that makes two of us—part of the point I'm making.

If Jesus and God are one, why are they so different? Why would God (a.k.a. Jehovah) send someone to represent him who does not reflect his mindset at all? Jehovah was a proud, cruel and iron-fisted God. And what ever happened to him anyway? He's only mentioned in 3 chapters of the Bible that I know of. Maybe he just dropped the acronym.

... So not only is Jehovah "God"; Jehovah-God's Son and alter-ego is also somehow one with this God. Are we supposed to pray to both (this) God and Jesus? Do we go to Jehovah when we want justice and to Jesus for grace? Did Jehovah undergo a conversion by the time he sent us Jesus—was there a changing of the guard? ... Assuming Jesus is one with the God of the Old Testament, how do we explain his nature being at variance with that which is his literal essence?

If biblical history is factual, then where did the avenger of the Old Testament go—and why do we never hear of him after that? ... Were the prophets referring to one personage or two? Did they even know the difference?—did the _translators_ even know the difference? ... And how does the wrath of God in the Old Testament fit into the concept of a God of love as portrayed by the Son?

What if Jesus came to tell us Jehovah was not God at all? Because If God is "the same yesterday, today and forever" and if it is the God of the Old Testament who rules Heaven; what makes us think he'll be all love in the next world?

A second look at scripture

It should be noted that even the words ascribed to Jesus, at times, do seem to mimic the God of the Old Testament, but given the incongruity of these statements in the context of his willing sacrifice to save all the lost souls he seems here to be scorning, I have to question their authenticity; or I should I be questioning the authenticity of the _New_ Testament instead!

If fear is not of God, why would even Jesus instill it in us; parroting the vilest of God's tirades against his people? I still cringe when I recall Jehovah's referral to himself as a "jealous God," vowing to punish any who dare to worship other gods, continuing on down to their children and children's children, "even unto the third and forth generation." In this instance Jesus does tone it down a little, saying simply that the sins of the father shall be visited on his children for disobeying this tenant. Not so when it comes to hell-fire and damnation though. If fear is not of God, then what is this about?

Yet Jesus seemed to diverge radically from the thinking of God when he told us to love our enemies, given that the God of the Old Testament seemed to delight in destroying _his_.In keeping with this, I have noticed a subtle but significant difference in the delivery style of Jehovah versus Jesus. Jehovah was the author of the doctrine: Jesus was the messenger. While Jehovah made threats, Jesus gave warnings to heed those threats—not the same thing.

But could the strong language used in these ancient times cause us to misinterpret much of what we find frightening and vile? Note that certain words used in the Bible have been used in ways that would be considered markedly inappropriate today. Jesus, for instance, said that we must "hate" our families to be worthy of him. Surely, he didn't mean "hate" as _we_ think of hate.

What _else_ has been laced with grossly exaggerated expressions, possibly for effect? Are all the warnings of hell-fire only embellished allegories; used as teaching tools perhaps? Outside of the fundamentalist core, many Christians are re-thinking the concept of Hell as a literal place. Even some of our Bible scholars have determined that the "lake of fire" refers to a spiritual purging that will cause us to suffer greatly on an inner (rather than physical) level—perhaps because we have lost the core of that connection without which the soul cannot live? (I say more about Hell in _Sermons_ ; below.)

Then we have the matter of judgment. We read verse after verse about God's judgment; yet at one point Jesus said that God does not judge; but gives it to the son to do so (??) And somewhere else he said that he (Jesus) "judges no man," when he clearly does; at least according to recorded scripture.

To Christians, God and Jesus are the same, so they generally have no conflict with any of this. To me; something's off... again.

The two faces of the Holy Spirit

Aside from being a third of the Trinity, who is the Holy Spirit ... Is he "unimaginable transforming love"—or a fearsome "tyrant" that will strike you down as soon as he would your enemies in order to teach or discipline you?

This is the entity who bestows the anointing power on the chosen, the one said to be responsible for unparalleled creative miracles. But he is also the one who doles out swift and terrible justice in the name of God.

The Bible says that the one unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. If one is familiar only with the God of the Old Testament, the nature of this being is quite understandable. But when Jesus (who came with the message of love and compassion to counter the old perception of the Father as a cruel, unloving God), took leave of his disciples, he sent the Holy Spirit in his place. ... So here we are, back to the God of the Old Testament. The Christian part of me is more than a little uncomfortable with this.

The superstitious part of me is equally disturbed. The anointing of the Holy Spirit is the one argument for Christianity I can't explain away, as there is nothing I know of in metaphysics to equal its alleged power. Not a comforting thought for a metaphysician. ...Then again, maybe "alleged" is the key word.

As for the blasphemy issue; I still don't have a clue as to what that's all about.

### ****

### Hope and Trepidation: Walking the Ecclesiastical Tightrope

In God we trust

What does that mean, really? Does it mean to trust that he'll never let us get hurt, or to trust God in spite of it? If it's in spite of it, exactly what are we trusting God _for_? A lot of people have tried to explain this, but it's lost on me. Now I suppose there'll be even more people eager to explain. I understand that great good can come out of adversity and sorrow, but if God is omnipotent it shouldn't be necessary.

Christians do not agree with me on this. Referencing the Bible, I'm struck by Job's pronouncement "Though thou slay me, yet will I trust thee". What kind of oxymoron is that? If I trust God, I trust him not to slay me; period. No wonder Christians have trust issues.

God as power

We are told that even God cannot interfere with the free will covenant he made with man. ... As I see it, if there is even one area where God is limited, then God is limited. But If God is omnipotent (all power) he is the essence of power: Therefore, he cannot be power-less. Which is it?

Is God a "power" at all? ... Because if there is no power to oppose God, not only does that tell us he is _all_ power—there wouldn't be a need for power without a counter-force to contend with. But the word "power" as we interpret it may be a misnomer. For if "All that he has is thine"—which would include power, then he would be giving us the power to oppose him!

All this confusion could be resolved by re-interpreting what we mean by power. Humans equate power with forcefulness. Power as love on the other hand; a concept familiar to all Christians, is probably the more plausible interpretation—being neither invasive or defensive; and at it's purest and greatest, a force powerful enough to transform anything in its path....

We think we need to be empowered to defeat our enemies; but what if what we're lacking isn't power at all; but the recognition of what that power _is_. If we have access to a force that can transmute all that concerns us, there would be no enemy to conquer.

Jesus' "real" gift?

I think we've missed it. When I hear the message of Christ, what I hear is that his grace made it possible for the first (and all) time for humanity to ascend to Christhood without having to perfect itself through the fire as did all the masters before him; that a fundamental shift had been made in our behalf to lift us out of that density if we choose and raise us up to the Christ level. ... In other words, we would no longer have to earn it, through endless lifetimes of karma and rigid disciplines. I base this theory in part on a book I once read, stating that when a master earns his ascension, he is permitted any one thing he asks for. I believe this was Jesus' wish—his intercession to God on our behalf.

—But we don't see it; neither can we accept it. We keep trying to attain perfection on our own, when it may really be ours already. If we could accept that perfection, we'd be living it out. ... As an example; during ancient times in some cultures, an astrological chart was drawn up for every child born which would determine the course of his life. If your chart revealed you as a thief, you would be a thief—there would be no recourse; no redemption in that life. Its accuracy was borne out consistently; no doubt because it was accepted without question. No one even tried to change the outcome: You were blessed or cursed.

As Christians, we are taught that Jesus came to save our souls; so why are the Jews in the Old Testament counseled in the saving of _theirs_? And if Jesus did come to forgive us of our sins, why are the saved still praying the sinner's prayer? As a Catholic friend of mine asks, why do we keep Jesus hanging on the cross? Why do we not focus on the resurrection instead?

... She's asking the wrong person.

God's will or mine?

This unrelenting mantra is a clear implication that our will is always at variance with God's. Doesn't that also imply separation? And if we are ever whole; or one with our God-selves, would our own will still be in opposition to God's?

Apparently so; since Jesus (who was purportedly perfect), found that he had to sacrifice his will to the Father's. Perhaps even Jesus was limited in his vision of God; being convinced of his soul that only by martyrdom could he accomplish the results that he did. It is true that the events culminating in his resurrection were guaranteed to carry an impact that has reverberated through history, ensuring that the significance of the Christ would not be lost. But was that the will of God; or Jesus' _conception_ of his father's will? If God's nature is life and perfection, how could God ordain, or even possess—a consciousness of the negativity facilitating the miracle? Do we tend to require more of ourselves than God does?

We are told that God's will is two-fold: his perfect will and his permissive will—where-by we are allowed the freedom to make choices existing outside of grace. But is that a true condition—being outside of grace? Are the unsatisfactory outcomes in the use of our free will caused by our separation from God—or as some suggest; the wrong use of energy within that free will creating its own inevitable outcome? Or... is it merely the result of our refusal or inability to accept the grace that is always there? Wasn't it said of God in the scriptures; If we make our bed (even) in Hell, there he will be also?

### ****

### DNA: Is There a Sacred Connection?

Divine DNA

Having heard the theory of Jesus leaving an heir ( _The Da Vinci Code_ by Dan Brown), my first thought was, "But _of course_ he would pass on his DNA: Why would a personage of his eminence, and with his genes, be prepared for thousands of years for a mission of such import—only to have it end with him—thirty three years later? Yet it never occurred to me before.

We know that linage was of paramount importance to the Jews of that era; another reason to suspect Dan Brown was right. Because of that, nobody has been able to satisfy me as to why Jesus is recorded as the "son of David" (meaning bloodline, presumably. And according to scripture, David was the ascendant of Joseph; not Mary). Am I misunderstanding something? Wasn't the whole reason for tracing the ancestry of the Jews to track their blood-line?

In the gospels, when Jesus was asked if he ("Christ") was the son of David, he would answer with a question; implying (if not denying), that he was not. When Jesus said "I," was he speaking as Jesus or was the Christ speaking through him, just as Jesus has been quoted as saying that the Father spoke through _him_? If that's the case, then Jesus could've been trying to tell us that Christ—not he himself, was the only begotten Son of God. Not only did he repeatedly refer to himself as the son of _man_ : he told his disciples that the Father spoke through them (also). There is nothing in this hypothesis to rule out our cherished concept of there only being one Christ, whom we cannot come to God without; but it would suggest that the Christ may be the true spirit of every one of God's children.

DNA and generational curses

The general hypothesis here is that unwanted characteristics and patterns are passed down from previous generations and affect our DNA; and that by clearing our own, we clear it for our whole family line—given that the DNA is connected between us. It's what they used to call "bad blood"; now known as the "generational curse."

But does this apply to only the side of the family belonging to the one doing the clearing? What if the substance abuse is on the other side of the family? Does it go up one side and down the other? (i.e.; if I clear my DNA—subsequently clearing it for my children, is it in turn cleared for their other parent through them and cycled back again?) Does it carry over to parents and siblings and their direct lines in the same way? Does it include disease and poverty as well as personal characteristics?

... And if we believe we all descended from Adam and Eve, then are we not all of one family line? Even if we don't buy into that, we know that at least most of us must be related through some distant ancestor. Just how far does the clearing extend, and why is DNA unique if we all share the same source?

I'm sure there is an explanation for that, even if it's not generally explained; but what about quantum physic's claim that the atoms and molecules we're made up of are constantly being interchanged with everyone and everything else. Where is the DNA in this?

And if we were once related by blood (enter reincarnation), would not our prior family line be part of our ancestral line too? For if the DNA exists on all levels including the etheric and spiritual, then we should carry it from one incarnation to another.

It seems to me that the whole theory of DNA (at least that of the generational curse), kind of breaks down in light of all these considerations. Maybe someone with more knowledge of this sort of thing would like to clear up the confusion.

### ****

### Sermons—Where is the Love?

Sunday school

As a child I felt like a heretic even though I didn't know what to call it. It distressed me terribly to think that my God would kill all of those children to punish the Egyptians. And from my earliest years, I was taught that missionaries were God's way of saving the poor souls living in remote places—those who would otherwise never know about Jesus and all go to Hell. The Catholics, on the other hand, told us unbaptized babies would meet the same fate (although they have since changed their position on that). If this was how God was, I wasn't sure I wanted him in my life. ... But oh, the guilt: How dare I doubt God?

I was critical of the church too. Why did they give us grape juice in lieu of the wine Jesus drank a toast with, telling us it was a sin to drink alcohol? Were they trying to show God they recognized what Holy was, even if his own son didn't? I never openly questioned anything I was taught—not wanting to appear ignorant... or worse.

If I had guilt feelings towards God, I felt even worse about Jesus. To this day, I don't feel worthy of asking him for anything. How do I explain his being an embarrassment to me all these years: when grown men would weep at his name, and women would look into my eyes and ask reverently if I "know the Lord"; or someone at my work place would suddenly shout "Jesus, Jesus!" Being a very private person, and appalled by the groupie mentality to begin with, I had difficulty; not only with that, but with the specter of people worshipping at his (or anyone's) feet. But then, I never believed he was God....

... To compound matters, the church always seemed to portray Jesus in a way that led to his being snickered at when I was young; and I didn't want to be snickered at too. So I kept my childhood love of him to myself.

Unfortunately, I still carry the dread of mortifying myself in the name of being "born again": Pride; I know. But I can't help thinking... "Even Jesus" must cringe at the sight of us prostrating ourselves in worship of him—something I believe he never intended ... or wanted.

Bible teachings: commands, or instructions?

"Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other"

"If any man...taketh away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also"

"Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh, for the life of the flesh is in the blood thereof"

"By thy words shall thou be justified, and by thy words shall thou be condemned."

These are merely a sampling of pronouncements regarded as commandments... but are they? ... Jesus seemed to be a very wise man. Maybe he was just giving good advice—such as turning from violence (in our first example), so as not to escalate it. Likewise; giving in to a thief can save one's life. ...As for the "blood of flesh," could it not have been out of simple concern for the well-being of his people that God forbade them to eat it? ... And finally; acknowledgment of the power of the spoken word is not only shared by metaphysics, but one of its _basic_ _tenets_ —esoteric in origin. Why do we just assume that everything the Bible instructs us to do is based in morality?

And why does no one ever question whether eating an apple is still a sin? The fundamentalists take everything _else_ literally. They even add a few of their own moral assumptions. In mainstream Christianity, for instance, smoking is treated as a sin in the eyes of all but the Catholics—even if there's no reference to it in scripture. (Gluttony _is_ mentioned, but is conveniently glossed over.) And much of the religious community has decided there is no life on other planets; yet go on to say that visitors from space are "evil in God's eyes."

There are other things that aren't in their book that fundamentalists seem to think are backed up by their religious beliefs; their interpretation of murder for instance. Some consider abortion murder, while being the strongest proponents of capitol punishment. ... Do they ever stop to think that the child they save today might be the one they sentence to death tomorrow? And how anyone can tell themselves the Bible supports a "moral mandate" to free society of those who have become a financial liability is beyond me. This is not about my political views; per se, but my inability to understand the rationale.

Addendum: The implications in the passage forbidding the consumption of blood actually fall right in line with the pagan (or New Age) teachings claiming that we take on the vibrations of whatever things and beings we ingest or merge with in a physical way; not only in our bodies, but our spirits as well. ...Interesting.

Hell

Every once in a while, something triggers my childhood fears that there may be a literal Hell after all. Today I watched a program highlighting the near-death experiences of survivors being thrown into that everlasting fire. The commentator said that God "loves us so much" he gave us the free will to make a choice. Excuse me? He loves us so much that he's prepared a place of unspeakable anguish for those of us who fail in our ignorance to make the right choice in this fleeting life of ours—one little speck of the eternity that awaits us? Is the gift of life a cruel joke then—a gamble we unwittingly entered into as a pawn in a macabre game?

Wasn't this the same God who condemned wicked men for the evil they dare do to his beloved children? If Hell is a literal reality, then no monster on earth could possibly deliver such horrific torment as God is prepared to give us if we fail to bow to his son, the king. To God's credit, I really can't believe that.

Validity of the Bible

The more I study, the more I wonder if anything in the Bible is true. How do we know? Yet I believe the Bible does have power, if only because it's been energized for some 2,000 years. Sometimes conditioning that becomes engrained can work to our benefit; more often it does not. But whether or not an historical Jesus existed, it cannot be denied—Jesus is a real energy.

### ****

### Authority: Thou Shall Not Question

God's word

Christians are fond of slamming their fingers down on the bible to prove a point. They'll even use the Bible to prove the Bible is _true_ : "It's right there in black and white!" they'll say, refusing to acknowledge conflicting versions or scriptures; some of which would invalidate their stance. When you refer them to another verse that counters their "proof," they tell you it doesn't really mean what it says.

The gospels

The gospels are a prime example of the murkiness of the Bible. From what I can gather, no one knows anything for sure about any of them, although there have been many sincere attempts to put the facts together.

I'm curious myself: So many of Jesus' words are repeated word for word in the different gospels, by some or all of its authors. ...Were his sayings memorized or copied over from one gospel to another—or were they recorded by someone else entirely; and if so, who? Do we have only one person's word then for what was said? We can't even be sure any of these men were there. Some theologians argue that the gospels can be traced back to Thomas, (and that most of it was left out). In fact, it's been claimed that Thomas also wrote a gospel, and that it was removed. And if John the Beloved wrote the gospel of John, why does he refer to himself in the third person?

It seems there are many questions concerning the gospels. And if the church's own theologians can't agree on Bible facts, how can Bible-thumpers be so smug about their own facts?

Splitting hairs

So many Bible scholars rely on one missed or overlooked word to re-interpret the core essence of the message, forgetting that any conclusions they derive from dissecting the Bible (as we know it), are usually based on someone else's interpretation of the scriptures; not the original at all. That's why we have so many different versions of it. According to the History channel, the entire meaning of the original text has been changed in some cases.

Even if we disregard any information not found in the Bible, consider this: What most people know of Nostradamus' predictions comes to us in the same way: No one that I know has been able to deduce these same conclusions from the original. In addition; I personally saw some English text from library archives from the seventeen hundred's and was astounded to discover that during part of that time period, the letter "f" was used for "s" as well. Imagine the mistakes in interpretation one could make from this; especially if they were not aware of this incongruity. Given all or any of theses examples; how solid can we expect a breakthrough to be that is due to one or two previously unnoticed words in Bible text?

Just what is God's word?

Even if we concur with the contention that "the Word is power," why do certain evangelists insist that the Bible _itself_ is the word? It may _contain_ the word, but that doesn't mean it _is_ the word. Liken it to showing someone a picture of your house and saying "This is where I live." Obviously, you don't live inside the picture: You don't expect anyone to take your statement literally.

Has the Bible been similarly misinterpreted? We limit ourselves so much by confining God's power in our lives to a book whose lines were penned ages ago; a book that was written; not by God, but by men who became a vessel for God to carry his message. Is that the whole of his message—this one book? Even Peter is recorded as saying God's word super cedes the word in the scriptures

Without discounting the probability of the scriptures being imbued with higher energies from eons of belief, I think there's some misunderstanding of this. Even if the Bible hadn't been tampered with throughout its history, evangelists themselves will tell you the word has no power until and unless it's absorbed into the recipient's consciousness. The Bible may be an excellent tool to that effect, but it could also serve as a powerful form of self-hypnosis... repeating something over and over until we believe it.

I am not saying that the men who wrote the Bible didn't receive valid messages from God; only that we are just as capable of receiving those messages for ourselves today—we call it channeling now. The mere suggestion of this probably brands me as a heretic, but I challenge anyone to tell me the difference. Which brings us to the word of knowledge....

The prophetic word

...The "word of knowledge" is the process of God relaying information (and often healing) through a "man of God." When psychics do it, it's "satanic." When healing accompanies it, they are letting "the devil" take them over. ... Never mind that most healers and channelers attribute the results to God and the spiritual realm. Can't they see it's all a matter of semantics?

The prophets received the word directly and were revered for it. Why would we settle for a prophet's words; however sacred, when we could have the real thing... because that would be _channeling_? ... Yes, today, the Bible would be considered channeling.

### ****

Preachers: Free Conditioning—Go to Church

Epiphany

I was reading yet another auto-biography of a well-known evangelist... trying to understand what "they do and I don't" that would explain all the miracles they lay claim to; since I couldn't find anything really consistent in their mind-sets or histories to explain their commonality. Some are compassionate and positive: others stand on the rock of righteousness and uncompromising obedience; Still others believe they are divinely guided every step of the way, and have no particular platform; not to begin with anyway. ... So why do they seem to get the same results? What wasn't in that auto-biography I referred to above? The answer was suddenly very clear to me... the God who orchestrated this man's miracle path wasn't _the_ God—it was _his_ God.

How could I not have seen this before? ... that each of these preachers might be following a "different" God, whether in subtle or (not) so subtle ways.

It's not for me to suggest that these men were either insincere or misinformed—nor should it detract from the fruits of their (often) life-altering experience... but it does indicate that the spirit within is to each of us as we understand it to be. Not that there isn't "one God," but that he is so vast—so limitless; that given the enormity of that power that seeks to flow through each of us, we are free to utilize any one of its infinite aspects. Maybe that's what the gift of free will really is —the unique expression of our individualized soul.

On tithing

I like watching evangelical programs on TV; especially the inspirational stories and "word of knowledge" segments. ... Of course, to me; that's just another name for psychic impressions; but regardless, they do lift me up when I'm discouraged or doubtful... And I'm pretty good at filtering out disturbing dogma that I have rejected and/or worked through. Religion isn't all negative.

That said, I have issues with tithing—whether it's for religious or metaphysical support. First of all, we're told we won't have to worry about depleting our resources when we tithe, because God (not the world), is our supply. So why don't _evangelists_ trust God for their needs—instead of telling us it's on our heads if souls are lost? And that's exactly what one televangelist said (Oh, excuse me, " _God_ said" ... Of course).

The other problem I have; especially with religious organizations, is in the phrase "giving to God," as their address and phone number flashes in big letters across the screen. There seem to be a lot of "Gods" out there.

One day I glanced up at a telethon on a religious station with the volume turned down, and I was mesmerized. It took a mute button to open my eyes to the desperation of these people. It was kind of surreal. Not exactly a demonstration of faith.

I have tried tithing from time to time. My last attempt brought with it a financial hemorrhage such as I had never experienced in my life! And that was _before_ the bottom fell out of the economy.

I do believe in supporting worthy causes. I also believe we are here to give; and that loosening the purse-strings frees up the flow for supply to come back to us. But realistically, we can't give our money directly to God, can we? I could find very few references to tithing in the New Testament, where the emphasis seems to have shifted to alms for the poor. And didn't Jesus say that every time we gave to "the least of these," we were giving to him? If we help our neighbor out one month, we shouldn't have to feel like we're taking money away from God.

These organizations do need money to survive, and some of them are doing great and essential works for mankind. But the spirit that fuels these works is much broader than the part that money plays. We all have something to give that may not involve money at all. If I get a strong impression to tithe, then I will; but no one should be told their blessings will be cut off if they don't give their money to God ... and Yes; they do that.

So why does tithing apparently work miracles for some people when it does not for others? My guess is that when you put yourself in a position where it has to work, it pushes you to a new level of creativity or trust. Some people have naturally attained to that state of consciousness that allows them to demonstrate the rewards of tithing; but I suspect we're talking about a very small percentage of them. I find it really hard to believe that these ministries have no awareness of the casualties among their unsuspecting tithers. Sometimes they'll address it after the fact, but they seem to overlook it entirely in the fervor of their telethons.

On God and healing

Why doesn't God always heal, or answer the prayers of desperate people; especially since some people seem to be particularly blessed? Those are the ones who tell us "God is good." Good to them but not their neighbor, apparently. Even televangelists admit to not having the answers.

Often, people try to explain it as a matter of our own measure of belief or worthiness, etc., along with a dozen other factors. Yet the Bible clearly says, "Jesus healed all," on at least one occasion—and I have heard many stories of the old revival days, claiming that on certain (albeit rare) occasions, everyone in the service was healed. Those are pretty strong claims—allegedly documented. Are we to believe that every single person at those gatherings met all of the afore-mentioned qualifications?

I personally don't see any mystery here: One; God (Jesus, spirit etc.) does do the healing, but we must have the capacity to receive it; or two: God doesn't heal at all—we do. Either way, our receptivity makes the difference. But in the instances where everyone is healed, a transcendent presence is operating that is sufficient to by-pass any and all blocks in the human consciousness.

I have felt this presence myself; once in a healing service, and another time in a town hall where people were picking up commodities—I'm sure the man exuding it had no idea it was there. The strength of that presence is indescribable, yet it wasn't strong enough (in either of these cases), to perform any discernable miracles. I can only imagine the power-surge that must've been flowing through those infamous miracle services.

Some claim that the presence is synonymous with light. If so, then belief isn't necessary to heal—only the light is necessary. Does that make God unnecessary then? Not if the light _is_ God.

The myriad facets of light

It seems we have several different definitions for light; or that connotations regarding it differ. God has always been associated with light—the light that heals and lifts and transforms. But in some of the more eastern traditions, light is depicted as a double-edged sword; it can destroy as well as bless. ... And channeling refers a lot to light in terms of exposure. Whether we consider that a blessing or not depends on what side of it we're on. ... And born-again Christians warn us to be wary—after all, Lucifer was called the angel of light.

" _Excepting persecution"_

This was a new one to me. I was watching a healing series on my local Christian network; and just like all the metaphysical books I take issue with, the teacher (a pastor) gave one lecture after another, priming our consciousness's to receive God's unqualified healing of every physical infirmity known to man.

... Then the next phase of his Bible series began. Here we learned about persecution. "We will have persecution," he says {according to the Bible}; and it's the one area God will not intercede in. He goes on to use examples of persecutions of familiar Christian martyrs whose bodies were tortured in myriad ways. All I could think was: "You're telling us God promised to take all of our infirmities, and isn't that wonderful ... but at the same time God will allow others to torture or kill us because it falls under the heading of "persecution"?? He even sites the "free will" of the perpetrator as a factor.

Is he saying others have more power over our lives than God? This is the first I've ever heard an evangelist spouting free-will clauses. There are many passages in the Bible assuring God's unequivocal help and power in every circumstance. Now there are qualifiers on those _too_? (I'm finding out there are many.)

Why do Christians think they're honoring God with their long-suffering, when persecution (in their words now), is a clear attempt by the "destroyer" to keep us from living the God-life? When Jesus said "Blessed are those who are persecuted," was it with the expectation that his "true" followers would show their faithfulness by choosing to live lives of perpetual oppression; or was it simply a commendation for their willingness to pay the price their path invariably extracted? In my own experience, oppressiveness becomes a major distraction in our spiritual life—far from glorifying God.

### ****

Christianity: A Religion **—** or Something Else?

Twilight zone

Several years ago I went looking in my local Christian bookstore for a St. Jude medal, only to be smugly informed that theirs was a _Christian_ store, not Catholic. ... Now they carry menorahs right next to the crosses: I thought I'd entered the twilight zone. All these years Christians have been telling us that anyone who doesn't subscribe to the belief that Jesus is the only begotten son of God is going to Hell, whether they call themselves Christians or not. Now it seems, we won't even see the Second Coming without "God's chosen people."

This is by no means meant as an attack on the Jews, who've been known to quietly trade places with Christians so they wouldn't have to work on Christmas—long before this momentum took off; a gesture I have always found very moving. And no doubt there's good reason for Christianity's change of heart (and doctrine); but that's not the point is it?

Personally, I wish all of the world's religions could come together like that. But does this mean those pagan denominations calling themselves Christians have been welcomed into the church family now? I somehow doubt it. ... And that is the point.

p.s.—that bookstore still doesn't carry St. Jude medals.

The Chosen

The Jews are not the only chosen people, apparently.

I heard an advertisement on a local radio station inviting people to attend services at a particular Protestant church in the area. The pastor even said he would personally welcome them so that they wouldn't feel uncomfortable... _No_ , not at _his_ church.

It sounded so inviting... I actually felt a little nostalgic at the idea of going to services again, until I was snapped out of my reverie with the intrusion of the clipped announcement; "Certain conditions apply".

Certain conditions apply! .... Was I hearing things? ... No. I waited for the ad to come on again, and there it was; as formal as the spiel for a rebate check. We all know how selective Christians can be, but this was a first. And to add insult to injury, we are to subject ourselves to screening to determine our acceptability.

If Christianity was founded on love, I'd like to know what their interpretation of love _is_. If anything, judgment is anchored in religion—the same entity that promotes and condones hate... and it doesn't end with Satan.

Religion and political correctness

When did freedom of religion become freedom _from_ religion?

Overall, the divisions between people of different cultural or religious viewpoints are becoming increasingly disturbing. ...Why do we have to dismantle everything that isn't shared by everyone? If God gave me free will to choose whom I would serve, do (you) have any more right to take it from me than I have to take yours from you?

... Why can't people see this? Is it more about destroying someone else's than preserving our own? If religious expressions were denied everyone, there would doubtless be those who would consider the sacrifice worthwhile; just to have the satisfaction of putting a stop to those of opposing views—and that includes in-fighting factions within the Christian church itself. This scenario of "your rights versus mine" is increasingly playing out in the secular world as well.

Just what is political about "political correctness" anyway? I find it almost amusing that a country so committed to not offending anyone seems not to have considered how offensive our love of capitalism may be to some of these same people—no suggestion we need defer to their sensitivities in _this_ regard, is there? Would we even _think_ of moving into someone else's country and expect them to "tone down" their religious and cultural traditions? ... Would they even remotely stand for it? ... I'm not particularly enamored by religion; but why must it fall disproportionately on Christian interests to bear the brunt of sacrifice in keeping the peace, as if it's their personal patriotic duty to do so?

I remember a time when people gave each other the benefit of the doubt when it came to the intentionality of an offense. Sometimes; as a society, we lack understanding or fairness. Sometimes we're ignorant or thoughtless. But do we really need rules implying that we are all purposely demeaning people; especially if those rules don't apply to everyone? It almost seems as though we are deliberately being put on the defensive, which only draws the battle lines more ... You have to ask yourself, what's really going on here?

... So much for not getting into politics.

The right to exist

A reminder to hard-liners among Muslims and Christians alike: If God wanted either of our peoples wiped out of existence, he would not have created us in the first place; let alone allow us to propagate.... Like it or not, we all came from the same source.

This is one reason I hesitate to call myself a Christian, lest it be equated with that kind of sentiment.

To my Christian friends

Most Christians I know (including evangelists) are a genuine and caring group of people who live their faith as it was intended to be—Others wield it like a weapon. Those I have issues with are the self-proclaimed spokesmen for the church, and those responsible for the infectious dogma that makes religion into a form of bondage. That said; others of you have been a God-send to me, and I would never offend you intentionally. Neither do I look down on religion per se—anymore than I do metaphysics; but this text is about what's wrong with them, not what's right.

### ****

Conscious Creation: The Real Deal

Manifestation

There are hundreds of "how to" books on manifesting everything from money to a mate. When you first discover them, they're all so exciting and inspiring. The only problem with them is that they usually don't work. Many of them don't even address the possibility of failure (assuming we're doing it "right").So what _is_ the right way? Following is a list of seven "easy" steps:

We have to know what we want, and visualize it in detail

We have to affirm its reality

We have to act as though it's already here

We need to bolster it with strong emotion (or conversely, not be attached to the result)

We have to focus only on what we want and not what we don't want

We cannot have doubt

We have to qualify our intention by leaving the final disposition to God.

Often it's only when we get started that we run into glitches. In my case I knew there'd be a problem the first time someone said, "... and don't forget to surrender your will to God's for the outcome." Almost an afterthought, slipping out as easily as "Just believe without doubt."

How can we be unwavering in our decrees and not have doubt in our hearts (as Jesus himself is quoted as instructing), if we're leaving the outcome to something so fraught with uncertainty?

Nobody tells you how to do that, do they? And how do you believe without doubt when you have trouble believing at all... when all your past experience tells you something different—all your reasoning, everything around you, everything you've been taught your entire life: How do you start expecting something different?

Positive thinking—the bomb

Positive thinking is as over-rated as it is misunderstood, as far as I'm concerned: Sometimes we're better off without it. I think much of that can be attributed to working so hard at it, we can't let go and let it work for us. Have you ever had the experience of being so discouraged that you're too weary to think? That's when the thing that eluded us invariably rushes in—when we've let down our barriers, and let whatever happens, happen.

Positive thinking doesn't function well if it amounts to nothing more than empty affirmations. More often, those very affirmations set up a resistance in us because we "know" we're lying to ourselves. A positive belief system must be built on what we can believe; in stages (unless we're fortunate enough to make some kind of quantum leap). There is too much we don't know about the workings of the mind: Almost everything I wanted badly came to me when I least expected it, and very often in anything but a positive state of mind.

I did notice however, that if I merely wanted something persistently, it did have a way of coming to pass. I think that was because mere "wanting" by-passed my censors of doubt and judgment, an observation I'll expound on later.

Seeing the perfect

Then there's the withered hand parable... in line with the philosophy of manifesting our ideal simply by seeing the spiritual perfection of "all that is"; and realizing that all is spirit; here as well as in the higher realms. In practical application, the withered hand analogy may be grossly over-simplified. ...As an example, a woman who tried this approach with her wayward son (seeing him only as she wanted him to be), said he took advantage of her new attitude and actually felt more at ease in continuing his downslide; increasing the risk to her welfare as well as his own.

There are many such examples of problems that may have to be addressed on the human level: a husband who abuses his wife; a neighbor's dog who runs loose and growls at your children; an employer doing something unethical that could come back on you.

Does holding the belief in person, thing or outcome mean that you don't check to see if a medical condition is getting out of hand, that you don't respond to red flags concerning your teenager, or that you bypass a generous offer on that house going into foreclosure tomorrow? .... Unfortunately; we don't always have the option of waiting it out, but invariably are called upon to make decisions along the way—namely, whether denying appearances may amount to reckless abandonment. We can't always just leave our intention in a bubble until it manifests.

If we choose to believe in the perfection of circumstances and people in spite of appearances (as in an answer to a prayer), aren't we denying our responsibility to correct what we see as a wrong, especially if there could be consequences related to our inaction? We know what becomes of children whose parents believe they can do no wrong; we've seen other children die, having belonged to a sect that believed God would heal them. You could say that none of these parents had perfected their own consciousness to the degree required for a positive outcome; but then where does that leave us in our manifestation work? Can we say _ours_ is perfected?

Even the church confuses us in this regard. For example; advocating "tough love" at the same time they tell you to stand firm in the belief that God has already answered your prayers. ... How do we interpret that? ... Do we double our vigilance on our child; or let it go—which is it? It makes it very hard to manifest anything with these mixed messages. I don't know the answer any more than they do, but I'm not the one teaching.

I have often heard failed manifestations compared to checking a cake in the oven; but when decisions have to be made—as is always the case, we have to base them on the priorities of the moment, even if we have to let the cake fall.

Failed manifestations

Some books do address failure—or should I say add their little qualifiers explaining everything. For instance, telling us we can have "anything at all ... prior agreements excepted," as if that's some minor detail. ... In other words; I may've made a commitment that nullifies all my options?? And I don't even remember it?

The channeled entity Kryon says we can only ask for ourselves—more disparaging programming, (especially when it's adversely affecting our own quality of life). Intellectually, it's a simple matter of visioning a life for yourself of peace, of joy... prosperity, freedom. Subsequently, the crippling situation that robbed you of those things has to change in concert with it... or at the very least, lose its sting.

In truth, it's hardly "simple"; as moving past the kind of resistance this entails could be the biggest challenge we face: I speak from personal experience, but not mine alone.

It seems that right action (often worded "righteous intention") is also a big factor. There are some things we have "no right" to do, or ask, or even want; let alone intend.

... How do you flow with your heart and spirit if you have to censor everything first? How do you put your whole being into a watered down version of the boundless fulfillment awaiting those who dare to take charge of their lives? It's all well and good to be expected to act with integrity; I would expect that of myself. ... But if the only thing you really want is forbidden, what are you supposed to do with it? What _are_ you supposed to do with it? No one ever tells you....

Conflicting teachings

To return to the subject at hand; another major block in our creative work is our core belief that we still have lessons to learn, and are not at liberty to claim what we have not earned— even by the grace of God. The idea of lessons... as well as conditions, rules and qualifiers, all serve to reinforce our sense of impotency. To access our full power, we must be able to reach down to the primal level—a virtual law unto itself, and release the whole essence of it. And we must own the freedom to do that.

Assuming unlearned lessons are a legitimate consideration, can we always know what our lesson even is? ... It could be one thing; or it could be it's exact opposite—whether to accept a circumstance; rebuke it or rise above it; to believe in something or to see through it; to honor a commitment or to break it in the light of a greater understanding—to transmute or transcend... the list is endless. To complicate it all the more, there seem to be "signs" everywhere to support each of these arguments.

How can we know what we know, when it's been muddied by everybody else's truth? If our consciousness weren't flooded with reams of information from every source in our early years, or in our ongoing quest for understanding; what would we innately know that we now doubt?

I once read a book, entitled _God of Jane_ by Jane Roberts... What a fascinating concept. It's exactly what the title implies; her own epiphany of herself as a focused center of consciousness. She described it as finding the {place} she was "plugged into"—her base of operations, you could say. She no longer had to concern herself with any of the concepts of God out there (no matter how great the source they originated from), or try to align her own with them... because God had personalized himself within her own being. Through this she was able to internalize this force—something we all aspire to, but never quite grasp as she was able to. It's worth contemplating.

Rules

I've spent my whole life trying to find a way around the rules...when maybe there never were any rules...

### ****

### Damage Control: It's Not Easy Being an Alchemist

Fooling resistance

Do we have to take Heaven by force—or only our own resistance to it? Battling our demons may be a long drawn-out process, but there are things we can do in the meantime to facilitate our consciousness work.

Some of us in spiritual work struggle with what we feel is some kind of superiority complex in thinking we can be the one to "change the world" when nobody else seems to be doing it. This conflict in itself is a form of self-centeredness; which merely means we are too focused in on our little selves to realize that every stride we make lifts the whole into its own empowerment. If we hesitate to take the mantle for what we perceive as our own glory, then we need to do it for the greater good: It really helps in clearing the blocks away when they are the result of self-esteem issues, and realizing that our responsibility takes precedence over our "little me" mentality.

Others of us have the opposite problem; looking for answers from our source with the sole intent of dismissing that source from the equation, once we feel we have a grasp on it. (I address this and the concept of "little me" elsewhere in the book.)The entity Raj (Paul Tuttle— _Northwest Foundation for the Course in Miracles_ ) regards it as pride, and I tend to agree. This is not an ethical debate over what aspect of our being to give credit to. This is about separation and self-sabotage.

We can also use a back-door approach to counter resistance. It should be clear by now that I'm not enamored of detachment, but I do see where it too can have its place in manifestation. I find I can accept its value if I interpret it—not so much as being a literal detachment, but a trick I can play on my mind when the outcome is so important it actually interferes with my ability to transcend the appearance.

Other aids to manifestation

If you want to know whether you've successfully healed some internal condition in your body, become proficient at changing outward appearances. The confidence we attain in doing this alleviates much of the doubt we would otherwise experience in not being able to see what is happening on the inside. This applies to behind-the-scenes issues also.

Another confidence booster is changing our mind about what is attainable. It's only because we think of something as impossible that we can't do it. Yet the channeling keeps telling us we have no idea how powerful we are. Could that be true? What if we were to accept that hypothesis—that it's natural to us to move through obstacles of any kind? What a difference that simple change in attitude would make.

We need to begin opening our eyes to perfection: It's the only way we can experience it. We need to start thinking outside the box.

The power of words

It's amazing how a simple change in wording can alter a person's perception, and subsequently, their manifestations. I discovered this a few times in my consciousness work; always by accident.

The first of these examples involve the concept of intention. I began to notice that I had better results when I simply wanted something than when I consciously intended it. In every instance, I felt I wouldn't get it in any case; but then, out of the blue, there it would be.

So what was going on? As I mentioned earlier, I believe my internal censor was the key. That was why I hesitated to intend in the first place. ...What if I failed? What if I was crossing the line? And then there was the fear that automatically accompanied those intentions that mattered most to me. None of these things kept me from wanting, however. And it finally dawned on me that what it had managed to do was to by-pass all of those blocks I had to claiming my good.

God is another loaded word for a lot of people. Bringing it into the equation can color the whole process with suspicion, trepidation, and in some cases—contempt: There are those who don't see why God has to be a part of it. Yet, everyone agrees they have a source—whatever it is—untapped and underused resources within themselves that they are sometimes able to access. Why not simply use the word "source" instead? ... In fact, it can be a liberating shift of perspective for all of us.

Then there's "hope." Hope can cripple and cause us to waste away; but hopelessness is worse. I discovered another alternative:

One day I was reading a book by an author I particularly resonated to. Then unexpectedly our paths diverged; and I found myself stripped of all hope for something that was central to my happiness... stripped of the belief in a future now rendered impossible. "He's right," I thought—"All my logic say's he's right." And as hard as I tried, no amount of re-programming my mind could bring it back.

Then in an instant, something happened: "I don't need hope," I realized... hope that was no longer the friend I thought it to be. And I still had that vision... a vision that was so real and a part of me that I was not about to be denied.

It wasn't with some kind of stubborn determination; as in "me against all odds": There _were_ no odds... something just clicked in my consciousness, and I decided to just go ahead and have what I wanted anyway: It was settled....Total peace washed over me: I had found my power.

It's hard to explain—something happens when we no longer have hope to rely on; especially when that hope is fragile. Maybe this is the gem in letting go; because I felt totally, utterly free. ... No more searching for some thread of reassurance; no more trying to reason my way into keeping that hope alive. How would I have guessed it was hope itself that was holding me back?

I'm not saying hope has no place in our consciousness work. When we use this gift in the way it was intended; to lift and inspire us, we are strengthened in the process. We are weakened only in the insidious progression of fading hope; a hope we'd be better off without. In some cases; like the one above, just a simple decision is the key. It's not faith, not belief—it's simply making up your mind. And unbelief vanishes.

Unfortunately, I haven't learned how to carry this over into other areas. Alas; one key doesn't always fit all.

More saboteurs

There is always another way to look at things. After years of self-sabotage I realized that every day is so much like the last only because we focus it that way—We literally hold the pattern together and perpetuate that in the name of comfort, convenience and security; at least in my case. It took me years to notice I did not like change... at all; I wanted life to be dependable. Essentially, I was far from open to the changes I professed to want.

It shouldn't have been any surprise: A previous experience years ago floored me with its implications. I won't go into it now, except to say I was virtually handed everything I ever wanted, only to bail out and run when I understood the price was my freedom to be me. It started as an experiment; leading to a taste of Christ consciousness that came about in living moment to moment as I felt God would want me too. ... Suddenly autonomy was no longer an option. I never would've believed I'd throw away everything for my freedom—but there it was.

Another common form of sabotage is independence. The ego wants to say, "Just send me in the right direction God; give me the key and I'll take it from there." But two steps on our own and we're faltering again. I already covered this in "Truths I question."

In addition, how much of the discouragement in our consciousness work is based—not on what we have now, but what we may not have in the future? We still have our job, our house, our freedom, our family... so far.

In some cases, we're so fixated on not having those good things in our life tomorrow, that we can't enjoy the reality of their experience today. This dearth of security can actually cause us to have the illusion of failing in the art of manifestation; when in truth we've succeeded very well—as far as our current situation is concerned. Maybe we focused on the out-picturing of security rather than the security itself (i.e. a guarantee) when, let's face it—that's what we really had in mind.

I've found that the next best thing to a guarantee; which we may never have, is to embrace what we have now and to stay in that consciousness. It's been said that this approach is the surest way to carry our blessings over to the future—and anyway; all you really have left at the end of your life are your memories of that life. Let them be about savoring every morsel of your present moments, before you wake up and realize you missed it all when you had it.

Remember too; if we are expecting the worst, and pride ourselves on facing appearances squarely, chances are that we will have proof of our suspicions. As in quantum physics, the evidence is in the assumption.

Losing ground

Self-sabotage may not always be a mistake. However reluctantly, I concede that we may sometimes have to surrender the things we've manifested, if losing them enables us to see the true essence behind them—or because our attainment of them can actually block us from expressing that essence.

If, for instance, a healing has been given only to be taken back; it may be that we need to recognize infirmity as a spiritual issue, and physical only as the ultimate out-picturing of that. In that sense, a change of consciousness may be more vital to us at the soul level than any present healing to our bodies; for if we were to "rest on our laurel's" as a result of that healing, it could serve to undermine our overall progress and understanding.

... Let's not rush to interpret that as God's doing. I suspect there is often a wide difference between what God's will actually is and our soul's attempts to interpret that will; that regarding the level we call spiritual in solving problems, we often use our own solutions—albeit of a high intent, but not the highest. For if soul were synonymous with spirit, it would not need saving. Obviously, it's a lesser version of our divinity.

Nevertheless, I do see gifts in the challenges we choose. Whether it's a situation in our own life or the world at large that seems so wrong, it can motivate us to use capabilities that would otherwise lie dormant—we might never know we have them. The ability of those things to throw us off our frequency may be the training we need to transcend the more disruptive frequencies bombarding us all.

Self-protection

It occurred to me that many of our blocks might be set up by us for our own reasons. Concerning my own struggles, for example; a major block in the issue of other's free will versus mine could effectively prevent me from inadvertently doing harm; something that may concern _me_ more than it does God.

This is only one example. Suppose the block affects our prosperity consciousness. We tell ourselves we aren't meant to be poor; but internally, we have a strong resistance to changing our own status quo. We often argue with God and everyone else when the argument is really with ourselves.

Another protective mechanism I've discovered in myself is the tendency to avoid being open to a truth I claim to be seeking because I'm not sure what I'll get. ... What if it's the _last_ thing I want to hear—or am prepared to deal with? ... On the other hand, I could be depriving myself of being set free from those very fears. There simply is no way to block out the answers we don't want, yet receive the ones we do: We either open that door or keep it closed, and it usually can't be determined by a simple act of will.

Owning our creations

We hear a lot about that; that we somehow wanted whatever unfortunate thing we find in our lives.

Sometimes those assertions make sense; self-punishment, fear of success, fear of reprisals, etc. are all common things we might catch ourselves in. ... But what if our creation doesn't fall into any discernable category, or we want something quite different than we're consciously aware of?

This is where I found myself until I started asking a different question: Rather than, "Why am I doing this," or "What's my pay-off," I ask myself what resulted from this reversal of fortune, and the answer was almost always there. Try it and see. Somewhere in that unwelcome situation is something we thought we couldn't get any other way. We truly are our own worst enemy.

### ****

### Too Good to Be True? When Good Sense Threatens

Acceptance—that dreaded word

We always think of acceptance as something we have to swallow, yet our failure to accept the good we seek may be our sole missing link to receiving it. Likewise, allowing oneself to experience perfection and striving to attain it are two different things. Why do we always feel we have to work so hard, when, as metaphysicians, we know very well that the efficacy of God-consciousness is sufficient to perfect everything that _can_ be perfected?

How many of us pray believing? Be honest: Is it more like you pray every day... and every day your faith gets weaker ... because it looks like nothing is happening? How many people do we know who really expect what they're asking for? I don't think it even occurs to us most of the time what we're doing. What good do all our efforts do when we fail to claim what we ask for? Let's face it: God isn't going to come down and tell us Yes or No; (although he's been known to). We can't wait for that.

Paupers in white robes

I hear that complaint all the time. New-agers want to know why they can't just quit their jobs and concentrate on the light-work. In part, I think the answer is very simple. When we say we get what we focus on, we usually think in terms of negative or positive, when it can just as well be a matter of priorities. In observing people who always seem to have money no matter what else is going on around them, I've noticed how often their whole lives are about money. They think about it, plan for it, work for it, get creative about it—in short; they live for it... just as the light-workers live to dream a new world into being. No superiority implied here—it's just what they came here to do: And the rich, after all, are in a position to subsidize those with little money but big ideals—One never knows where their help will come from.

I realized I'd better clarify that last statement, but I left it in because it brings up an important point. The New Age community has a tendency to distinguish between the wealthy and the spiritual, as if they cannot co-exist... but just as we need prayer warriors and consciousness raising groups—and the souls to volunteer for those responsibilities, we need those who are adept at magnetizing supply too: those who quite possibly came here specifically to amass the money we would need while the rest of us are kept busy working out our hang-ups about it—another primary reason we don't have any.

An additional factor is timing—The vast majority of us can't be doing something wrong. There's a time and a place for the light-workers to come into their own—for all humanity to come into their own. We need to be optimally prepared for it when it comes. This interim period—as much as we don't like it, has afforded us an opportunity to really be ready for it when it arrives. The fact is, light-workers tend towards professions that typically aren't valued in our society—not as yet anyway; including such skills as healing, bodywork (an effective method of releasing deep traumas and blocks), spiritual counseling and teaching—work that is not overly compensated by any means. Some are seers or adepts skilled in alchemy, here to share their knowledge and abilities for our survival's sake in the times to come. They're here because religion (as we know it), has failed us...or so I believe.

In keeping with that sentiment, I predict that when the time is right—when humanity recognizes the need for something beyond the old solutions that don't work anymore, the doors will swing open and everyone's exalted being will be actualized... and the meek (truly) will inherit the earth.

Blindsided

Have you ever thought God has sent you a miracle only to feel like a fool when the rug was pulled out from under you? Were you mistaken, or what?

As I pointed out earlier, people are often delivered from illnesses in a healing service only to relapse at some point. I can't dismiss the church's temptation to blame it on the afflicted's failure to maintain the enhanced consciousness that initially freed them: A very high energy can be worked up in these crusades that can be difficult to maintain.

Couldn't something similar be going on in other areas of our own consciousness work, where-by we stumble on the vibration commensurate with our manifested good, and then lose it? Or is it a matter of the old "too good to be true" patterning so many of us are plagued by?

### ****

### Claiming Omnipotence: "Oh Ye of Little Faith..."

Superstitious fear

How we view God (and Jesus, if we're Christians) is critical to our manifestations. That should be obvious. Many of us are caught between two belief systems and tend to retreat when our consciousness work starts to back-fire on us. This is when the paranoia of our religious conditioning comes back to haunt us. Are we being warned off our current path? Or in scurrying back to safe waters, will we fall short of what we were meant to be? There can be fear in going ahead with pushing our intentions when we have to rely on our own personal perception of what is right—when God never actually gives us explicit "permission" to act on behalf of him. What will happen if we overstep our authority?

This must be a fairly common hang-up, since I've run across several attempts to explain it as being traceable to a time when we all died as a result of coming into our full power. It seems our creators looked down and decided we were far too advanced mentally (given our level of spiritual maturity), for our own or anyone else's good—theirs in particular. In some cases, we are told these creators were the hierarchy of Heaven who were subsequently responsible for the great flood. In other scenarios, extra-terrestrials created us—along with a complete 12-strand DNA—re-thinking that decision later when they opted to destroy us and start over with only 2 strands. But now; according to this version, they have reconsidered again... because we have entered such a critical period in our world's history that we need those 12 strands (and our power) back if there's any hope of saving the earth.

Apparently, the problem is that we still have that soul-memory of what happened the last time. So if this is all true (and it sounds reasonable enough), how do we counter this resistance? Understanding where it comes from might help. Working through the concept of "God's will versus ours" (if we have religious hang-ups) most certainly would. Or at least knowing what that will might be.

I recently received a message that shed a lot of light on this dilemma; at least for me. Namely; If we are all fragmented parts of God (which we must be, because none of us individually has the capacity to embody all of our source), the question we should be asking is not how much empowerment we are allowed; but how much we are expected (and willing) to express. Seeing empowerment as a responsibility rather than a privilege makes the idea of "permission" seem somewhat ludicrous.

... Sometimes liberation is only an epiphany away.

Denialyes! The other side of the coin

Sometimes I think the people in this world who go around with their head in the sand are on the right track after all. By refusing to acknowledge that anything (or everything) is wrong, they may be doing a better job of holding the frequency than the light-workers.

By the same token, when we struggle with the conflict of stepping out in faith versus "clear-sightedness" (a.k.a. "facing facts"), we can get stuck there. Jesus referred to faith as a grain of mustard seed" being sufficient for our needs—even as he is quoted elsewhere as saying we need belief without doubt. ... Are they really conflicting statements? Could it be that one applies to those of us who have grown up in our empowerment and the other to we who are still depending heavily on God's mercy to supplant our belief? Faith versus denial could be said to fall into the same category, depending on what level we're working on; not necessarily higher or lower; just different.

Sometimes it's only by rebuking something that we make it go away. When you refuse (at any point), to even consider failure, denial will work for you. Otherwise; and if the stakes are high, it is better not to even try it.

Empowerment, like wisdom, can be measured in degrees. My reference to letting the cake fall earlier, may simply indicate the degree to which our human reasoning is influencing our ability to demonstrate optimally. ...When we can stand firm in our intentions, and mean it; denial will be a moot point.

Empowerment...Please

People working with the spiritual planes are not immune from doubt—far from it. In fact, it's the most pervasive aspect of our consciousness work. I've often asked myself; why—if we have all this knowledge, are our lives falling apart just like everyone else's. Why can't we seem to make a dent? Is it us; the enemy; God himself sabotaging us—or as the secular world would say, is it "just life"? Have we been deluding ourselves all along, thinking our destinies are something we could actually have some control over, when it's really _just life_ —an on-going, unchanging river to forever?

The last time I had this conversation with myself, someone spoke to me, telepathically. The voice said, "It's not your fault"; that we were all born into the same dense, heavy energy; the same deeply pervasive programming and patterns that have always been responsible for the wreckage of human lives; and that we do have the ability to do something about it.

Well, I'd always believed that. But for some reason, I just assumed we'd automatically receive all the tools we needed to fulfill our part; not realizing that our having to "walk in the shoes of the fisherman" was no oversight: We needed more of an impetus than a lofty soul-level would give us. It would be like attempting some Herculean feat without an adrenalin rush (my words... not the messenger's). Whatever the reason, we are all in it together. The voice was clear—it's not our fault, and it's not personal.

So then, how are we going to make any difference? Only by the vision we carry, and knowing who or what we are fighting. And that's just where we start.

Note: The allegory of the fisherman is from a fable often used to compare us to an advanced soul who becomes so much a part of struggling humanity, he forgets that he's a God walking this earth.

The source

While wrestling with the issue of personal power during one of these periods of doubt, I had another epiphany. I was sitting out in nature, as I often do; not really meditating, but drinking in the presence around me, when a new truth dawned. I saw that when we ask God for something, we're generally expecting something tangible such as money to arrive from somewhere to meet our need, but that that's not what actually happens; even when it seems to. I was shown that what God is really offering us is the energy source inherent in that palpable presence. It's the true manna from Heaven, alive and potent; the actual stuff our creations are made of.

Often we reach out for help from God; and when his presence makes itself known, we mistake it for our sign: "OK, God is here. Now he'll do something for me."... Liken the situation to an abandoned child, starving because he doesn't understand that his supper is in the ingredients in the cupboard. ... The _presence_ is the power we seek. It is God's own essence to create that he freely offers us to create _for ourselves_.

It occurred to me that this presence was akin to an anointing. We wouldn't merely "note" an anointing, would we? We'd allow it to empower us. ... Is that what we're missing? I understand that anointings are generally directed by spirit upon receipt of their arrival. ... But couldn't something similar be happening when the presence arrives "following"—or in conjunction with, our intention? Wouldn't its arrival signal an invitation to receive our anointing? Certainly it indicates affirmation at least.

So why don't we receive? Because, along with the stubborn blocks we have to receiving, we don't understand that the presence is a tool to do with as we wish. We blame God for withholding, not comprehending that it's not God at all, but ourselves we need to accept blessings from.

If we need anything besides what God already provides for us, it's assistance in moving through blocks such as these. As the Bible says, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." We need to understand that when that money or whatever finally does arrive, it wasn't God who brought it to us—but he who brought it _through_ us.

### ****

### States of Mind: Breaking the Cycle

**F** _requency really is everything_

Negative states of mind are frequencies. In fact, I have perceived fear as an actual entity. Have you ever noticed that fear is free-floating? We might think our fear is legitimate because our house is being fore-closed on us; but the next day it revolves around a blood pressure reading, a teenager late in getting home, a threat to our job or even a bad dream we can't remember. Fear will just roam around looking for some new way to attack.

Does fear have power? I think so, but there is some controversy about that that I am staying open to. What I do know is that when we're in that dark heavy place, we leave ourselves open to all manner of things we really don't want to experience.

I read in the Seth channelings that energies tend to merge at "intersect points" when all conditions are right; which no doubt accounts for those calamities that come in clusters. When fear is at its height, it draws darkness like a magnet. Love may be more powerful than fear, but few of us are capable of drawing forth the passion of love to the extent we feel fear.

Security—the antithesis of freedom?

I remember reading the disheartening statement that this is the one thing we can never have because it runs counter to change. But that's third dimensional thinking, from my point of view. Our conditioning tells us that if we're too attached to having the security that a certain job or mate gives us, then it's a form of bondage that limits our greatest potential. But that's about attachment and fear, the very opposite of security. Security merely means not having to worry about anything; and what would do more to free us up to be all that we can be?

Deepak Chopra made a statement to the effect that we are attached to permanence, but I don't think that's all of it. If we seem to cling to permanence, it's out of that need to feel secure. It is very difficult to accept change if you have security issues; but if we were really in touch with ourselves, we might recognize those threatening winds of change as being birthed out of our own unrestrained desire—not some outside force bearing down on us. Maybe once we have that realization, security will become a non-issue, and freedom—far from being sacrificed, will define our life experience.

Vibrations and the light-workers

As I pointed out in _Paupers in white robes_ , we tend to think of vibrations in terms of higher and lower; good and bad. But if we think of them as frequencies, it's easier to see how even the lower ones fit into the big picture. In line with the analogy of needing a whole orchestra to put on a concert, we need low frequencies for certain types of healing. I'm sure there are other examples as well.

Not all light-workers walk around in a white robe carrying candles: We all have our roles to play. Some are here to wake us up to the things going on around us. Some are movers and shakers... your demonstrators and dissenters; or soldiers who believe passionately in what they're doing. ... Others even live on the streets as "angels unaware." Although none of them may be our idea of what a light-worker should be, they provide a bridge between "what is" and our dream of what can be.

Each one of us; however diverse, are pieces of the puzzle; obviously not meant to be the same. ...Even the overly pious have their role, I suppose.

Perception

Perception has a lot to do with frequency. If I see myself blessed, I magnetize more blessings. Likewise, if I see the best in you, you're liable to respond in kind. And if I suddenly perceive my enemy as my friend—or vice versa, the outcome of any relationship we are involved in with each other will have changed from what it would have been. The frequency operating in that relationship changes in response to that.

One of my favorite examples of the power of perception was featured in a documentary involving an experiment done on a group of school children of average intelligence. Their teachers were told that certain of their students were latently gifted. As a result, their IQ scores rose markedly by the end of the year compared with those of their classmates _(The Pygmalion Effect:_ Joseph Rosen....1968 _)._ Other attempts to duplicate this experiment produced mixed results. Granted; that could have more to do with the experimenters than with the subjects or the theory, but that doesn't change the probability that _someone's_ expectation influenced the results.

Perception exists with or without our conscious awareness; and it is often flawed, as we rarely have all the data we need to assess a certain situation while it's happening. The worst case scenario can turn out to be the best. ... A very mundane example: Everyone "forgets" your 21st birthday; and then they throw you a big surprise party. ... On a more serious note, the person chasing you down was only trying to warn you that your car was smoking. And how many times have we tried to control a situation only to discover the outcome was far better for our failure to do so. Sometimes we will never know what we have been spared (or for that matter—what we have missed out on).

How often have we heard the words, "Things are never what they seem"? Maybe they can be anything we want them to. With just a slight shift in perception, whole new possibilities can open up; something I've experienced first-hand.

Quickening—the only knowledge that counts

The importance of frequency is not news, but I'd heard many variations of this over the years before it finally registered. I don't care how many times or ways someone presents a "truth" to another; if that truth hasn't quickened them, it means nothing. When they finally see, they'll want to run right out and tell everyone "There is no death!" or some such thing—as if no one ever came up with that before. And if you don't already resonate with I say here, you won't be able to accept this either.

Knowing that, I sometimes question why I bother writing this at all. Maybe because, hopefully, it will plant a seed and serve as some small measure of validation such as we all need at times to bolster our confidence in our own inner truth—just as certain words have come to me that at least offered enough assurance to keep me going when I might have given up. Outer validation doesn't prove anything, but at least we know we're not the only one in the world to believe what we believe.

Mind-split—dual consciousness surfing

This happens when our consciousness is operating on two different planes at once... and applies to our emotions as well as our belief systems. At this point in time, it probably can't be helped. We can't trust the new to sustain us—but we know we have to break away from the old. And until and unless we've transitioned to solid ground, we'll just have to ride the waves—one foot in each dimension. Remember the "frequency switch" I referred to earlier.

The soul will be free

In all my scanning of the various channelings and disciplines, one statement in particular stands out; "The soul _will_ be free."... How provocative. No matter how much the personality thinks it wants something, the price could entail a bondage too great for the soul to bear, and basically it says " _I'm_ _Gone"._ ... At least that was my interpretation of the piece.

We all know people; who in spite of hating their job, are bound and determined to get that promotion that promises to be even more burdensome. And what happens? They have a heart attack or some other set-back, ensuring a good, long rest instead.

If this applies to those mundane situations, how much more does it apply to the yearnings of the soul? We go after things for all the wrong reasons and become trapped by them. We say we don't want to be sick—we don't want to die... but often it's our only way out...of a life we created and don't know how to un-create.

Cause and effect—not so clear-cut

Have we been duped into thinking that cause and effect is a moral issue when it's really a matter of how we flow our energy? Morality aside, the Seth books offer an interesting perspective on the subject.

Seth isn't the only one to tell us that all time—past, present and future, is simultaneous; but it is he who makes it clear that this not only applies to reincarnation (in our area of interest), but cause and effect as well. Since "consequences"—their primary feature, obviously require a "before" and "after," the concept of cause and effect becomes a misnomer. He goes on to explain that {while this is true}, our reality is "set up" to teach us the basics of our creative functions through this system of cause and effect; thus facilitated by a linier time model. Therefore, we need to work within this context.

The really interesting thing about Seth's assertions is the way he describes the roles of past and future as {backwards}. He suggests that while we think of the past as determining our future, it is really the other way around: that basically, in harnessing our future through intent or belief, that particular future matrix then has to go back and pull something from the "probable" past as it's foundation. ...In other words, it is not a case of the past impinging on the future, but more one of its being extracted from it. And even though we may think of the past as fixed and not subject to manipulation, "in truth" there are infinite pasts beneath our level of awareness just waiting to be mined.

Seth often refers to something he calls the "point of power," stressing that it can only be accessed in the present moment. He goes on to explain that when we change something, we have used our point of power in the present to recreate the past, there-by laying the groundwork for an alternative future.

An example of this would be illness—cancer for instance. ...We believe it comes about because of a combination of factors; including family medical history, age, neglect or abuse of our health—or continued exposure to a toxic element to name a few... when in actuality, it is our "knowledge" of these factors (as harmful) that left unchecked and fueled by fear, inevitably results in illness. (Reminiscent of the tree in the garden, isn't it?)

...But what if you knew that your cell-memory—and your very chromosomes, were continuously being altered in the past according to what you feed your mind? What if you could insert a new belief that would no longer support the cancer? This is exactly what Seth has tried to impress on us.

Aside from receiving new data, a new understanding of any kind can influence us to look at a past situation differently—or even change it completely. What if we realize that someone's lie was meant to protect us? What if we "remember" we have forgotten assets that could've lain dormant forever? ... Or we find out we're adopted—and just like that; the dreaded cancer gene disappears. It doesn't matter if it's true or not—our cell memory is affected by our belief; not fact.

Re-wiring the past can alter outcomes for the better or not. ...Maybe you can't accept the fact of your adoption. In that case, you could theoretically re-write history again by opening to the possibility that it was all a mistake. What you might actually accomplish is to tap into a parallel reality in which your parents are your parents after all. In any case, the "proof" for any new belief can be found in your past's infinite data-base.

There are many examples: You suddenly "realize" you've passed the age marker for your dream job, so now you've given up on it. If you could find some small reason to second-guess that conclusion, those qualifications could actually change in your favor; and you'd never even realize you'd re-structured your past.

NOTE: These (and all of my references to Seth—or any other entity in this book) are my own conclusions based on my understanding of the material. You may interpret it differently; but regardless; if you haven't read the Seth books, you're overlooking an invaluable resource. ... Because if everything he said is true, we have a lot of re-thinking to do.

Crystal balls

Most people don't go to readings for counseling or advice: They go for reassurance. In that case, it's a bad idea; because no matter how much of the information is encouraging, you're going to remain fixated on that one little comment that may warn of something unpleasant to come. Rather than being reassured, you risk feeling more insecure than ever: Someone may've just confirmed your worst secret fears.

Also; readers typically claim to be tapping into our guides; but following my last in a string of sporadic readings spanning years, it finally dawned on me that their information doesn't tally with my own version of my guide's council; that almost all of the inner support I've come to depend on—the continuous flow of promptings and confirmations; the divine intervention when it was most needed, and the years-long series of instruction by hooded figures in my dreams, are coming from a place my reader-generated guides seem to have no awareness of at all. Whose guides are really speaking to us from across the table?

Then there's "the talk"; every psychic's responsible attempt to enlighten their clients with certain "universal truths"—and they all give the same speech! Is that because it is the truth; or are the beliefs of the spiritual community so entrenched that it never even occurs to them to question them?

Now when I go to a psychic, I ask myself: Are they reading my future, or are they reading me—and making their determinations based on what they're picking up from my subconscious? That alone can be valuable (as long as we understand it for what it is); as once we see where we're headed we can correct our course; which to me, makes more sense than knowing something we can do nothing about. But to depend on an outside source—however spiritual, for writing our future, is to disown our own ability to create the life we choose.

What are we, really?

I always thought that by calling forth the _I Am_ , it meant we were coming from a spiritual base rather than a human one. With a shift of perception, I see that the "I" may not be descriptive of a higher aspect of our individual nature so much as of the wholeness of the human race. I'm not saying this is the truth—just "yet another" perspective.

### ****

The Future—or Not

The End-times—or a golden age?

Over the past twenty-some years, we've been taught to intend our way to Heaven on Earth. Yet, gradually, these same New Age teachers have introduced us to the devastation to come and our part in the outcome. Exactly what are they saying... that we can create the world we want, but that it's a _collective_ probability rather than an individual one ? ... Or that we must _individually_ make a choice between preparing for the worst or turning away from the density creating the adversity? Or maybe we're supposed to straddle both probabilities? Is everyone confused, or am I missing something again?

In my quiet moments, I know this world will turn around, but only if we don't give up on it—or ourselves. Why else would the "star children" be arriving in droves? Anyone who's been here for the past half century has to have noticed the marked difference in the youngest generations. Many, many; but not all of them, are incredibly wise and talented—telepathic, empathic sensitives with a great sense of social responsibility. One of the seldom quoted prophesies of Nostradamus refers to "children of the stars" bringing in a golden era and playing out an alternate scenario to his doomsday revelations. Why does the media focus so much on Nostradamus's dire predictions that most people aren't even aware of the final ray of hope he gave us? Do they think it will diminish the ratings, given our appetite for worst-case scenarios?

Rumor has it that there are those with the power to alter the past— to switch our timelines. There is so much info out there alluding to things that are already being done... and _not_ for the good of man. So if they can do it; obviously it is possible—which means we can do it too.

Regardless, this is one of the reasons I feel so strongly about our right to exercise our God-given abilities to change probable outcomes. If this truly is to be a battle between the Gods of darkness and beings of light; then in addition to being permitted to develop our optimal power, it may be vital that we do so.

The stalking the light-workers

I noticed something early on in my light work that took me totally off-guard in the beginning. ... Every time I'd approach it with renewed confidence and resolve, all hell would break loose. At first I thought God must be warning me off that path—that's where a lot of my superstition came from. ...Of course I would back down (being put in my place, as I saw it. I didn't want to mess with God). Neither did I believe in Satan. But still, it was a possibility....

Then I began reading the ascended master's literature, including references to "those who will stop at nothing to prevent us from realizing our abilities"; and the claims of Eric Pepin of _The Higher Way_ , that "Someone is trying to kill you." I also read other material on the shadow-self along the same lines. So maybe "Satan" isn't too far removed.

Whatever or who-ever it is, it's quite clear to me there is a formidable force that will use our every Achilles' heel to hold us down and keep us from fulfilling our highest calling. We won't succeed in thwarting it without dealing with all the weaknesses in our armor. ... It will use our fears, our feelings of inadequacy, past experiences, religious conditioning, our families—anything. If tests are required, maybe this is what is being alluded to—building the strength we sorely need access to.

Critical mass

Critical mass, as it applies here, refers to the point at which the balance of frequencies shifts from the negative to the positive. Metaphysically speaking, when enough light-workers have raised their vibrations to a certain degree, the vibration of the whole will automatically conform to the higher one; when apparently, everyone will be lifted to the same point—whether they have done their homework or not.

The less obvious implications of this scenario include recalculating our assumption that working through our individual life lessons is the primary reason for our being here. The concept of critical mass casts serious doubt on that hypothesis. It also calls into question the importance of allowing others their lessons rather than "doing it for them"—or such is the implication. Earth may be at its most critical juncture. Could it be that (this time at least), we are literally here to save a world; and that the greater good takes precedence over our soul's personal agenda?

Building a negative global future

I finally grasped the role of fear to further the agenda of a negative reality; often in reference to malevolent aliens, and also the legendary _SSG_ (Sinister secret government).

As we know, before a new reality can become a manifest one, it must be real in the consciousness of those who will inhabit it. That means the images must enter our minds and there must be some strong emotion to give them life; i.e.; fear or love—the two great powers. Obviously, in the case of a sinister secret government, love would not be applicable: The required emotion would have to be fear. And for the enemy infiltrator to be effective, its involuntary facilitators must feel that a threat is real and certain.

Fear is the builder. That's why they would need us. No matter how much power they may have, they could not manufacture or use their own fear to facilitate their project since they obviously would have no fear of that which they wanted to create. What they could do is trigger our primal fear through "thought-forms," knowing our great capacity for imagination to both embellish and magnify worst-case scenarios. Between that and humanity's tendency to be mesmerized by fear, our shared and unbending focus could be counted on to literally create the tangible reality it represented. The more we accept it as a probability, the more we will embellish it with our imagination; giving it life. That would explain any apparent carelessness concerning leaks in their agenda. The more people imagining the worst, the stronger the thought-form.

Whether a sinister government agenda exists or not; the mechanics are the same whatever the threat facing us—be it Doomsday 2012; the collapse of our economy; anarchy; plagues, or the looming insecurities of our own daily life. We obsess over orchestrated scenarios designed for our destruction, when we—due to a basic error in our handling of fear, are quite proficient in creating our own hellish reality. Yet that very fear may serve a vital purpose; for when we have finally had enough of it, we will rise up from that forbidden primal level where all power resides, and find the courage to loose it.

Hopefully, we'll remember that fear is not the only power, but love; something else this kind of enemy does not possess. There truly are frightening things happening in this world, but we can paint a new picture. In the words of the Plieadians, as channeled by Barbara Marciniack, "No matter what it looks like, it can be turned around." We simply cannot afford to be mesmerized by ever-worsening appearances. If we could but release that well-spring of love that is our divine nature; there-by nullifying this fear, we could break the frequency of darkness once and for all.

Aliens as transformers

The alien presence has often been linked to the dark forces, even by those who acknowledge various races of aliens as our ancestral family. It is the whole spectrum I address here, as regards the effect on the human personality.

Is the existence of extra-terrestrials based on nothing more than a belief system, or is it a real phenomenon? I guess it depends on whether you've experienced it. Whichever it is, it deserves a mention here.

If alien abductions are real and on-going, the negative aspects of the experience might be more disturbing than negative. The very trauma of the experience may actually be the catalyst for a major shift in consciousness—very similar to sorcery; also considered by many to emanate from darkness. But those shifts may well be necessary for the breakthroughs essential to lifting us above the critical challenges we now face.

...What could be darker than the betrayal and crucifixion of Christ? If Judas hadn't betrayed Jesus, the plan and the prophecies could not have come to pass. We cannot just assume that everything is evil that appears that way; even though we'd like to think it is. Sorcerers... unlike Satanists, don't see themselves as evil; although they seem to be equally unconcerned with how they're perceived. The "visitors" (a.k.a. aliens) are no different.

We fear aliens because of their seeming inability to relate to our humanness—particularly; our pain and our fear. Therefore we imagine we're in the hands of sociopaths. Yet something inside of us is drawn to repeated experiences with these beings—if we believe the theme that comes up over and over again among the "abductees." Typically, they seek out the very beings who terrorize them. Yet, in spite of their many opportunities to destroy their prey, their victims keep returning... maybe not all of them—who knows; but there are thousands out there who've come back to tell their story.

You've heard it said, "By their fruits shall ye know them." If you were acquainted with any of these people—as I have been; you would see that the effects on their lives have been anything but evil. Many of them struggle with incorporating their experiences into their religious beliefs, eventually finding their spirituality to be deepened; rather than diminished. They may become unbalanced—that's true; but no differently than one who consistently resists their metamorphosis, or conversely; has opened their charkas too quickly. In fact, maybe that's what's actually happening. ... It really doesn't matter whether aliens are real or just some waking psychological nightmare; the effect is the same. For good or bad, it is a transformational experience.

Addendum: Have you ever wondered what came first—the spaceships or the vision? (I am reminded of the old Buck Roger's series and other sci-fi classics that appear to have preceded today's technology.) In answer to that, it has been suggested that spaceships were first created in the emerging consciousness of mankind, and that this is how everything is created; by us, for us—including that which we call God. That's why I have to believe that physical transformation—and a new world, are surely on their way: There is a world-wide movement in that direction.

### ****

### Summary

I don't pretend to be a scholar—in any genre. I'm writing this _as_ a layman, _for_ laymen—and from a layman's point of view... so to involve myself in any extensive research would run counter to my intent; which is to address what people are being fed: Namely; that principles are open to interpretation.

Tell me, why go to all the trouble of proselytizing theories of "why 1+1 always equals 2"; and then try to explain why it doesn't always work after all. If principles really are inviolate, then you can throw out almost every book you've ever read on the subject; because there either is no such principle, or it's been compromised in its presentation.

Of course, we could all do our own in-depth research—if we're prepared to make a career out of it. I dug under every rock to find answers to my questions over the years, only to find a hundred more pop up. I'm sure most of you don't have years and years to get to the end of it: I know I don't. I can live my life the best I can with the tools available to me; or I can be a researcher. That's the way I see it.

...As it turns out, those tools aren't adequate.

Can it ever be stressed enough—it's well past time for all of us to think for ourselves. Many times we believe that's what we're doing when we're actually using some pre-conception as our starting point. It's so much a part of us we don't even notice we're doing it. ... Thousands of years of teaching and it's not working.

We don't have a lot of time to get this right. We have to stand up to fear and conditioning if we are to leave anything to this world. We need to get these blocks out of the way before we're faced with something our minds and our fears find far too difficult to undo, or before our bodies are too week to find the energy to meet the challenge. Otherwise, we're doomed to keep cycling through all we've ever known, believed, or experienced.

Am I hopelessly deluded? Maybe; but I have journeyed with enough other people on the path to know that I am far from alone. Everyone I know who's fallen victim to the relentless programming affecting their lives has now had quite enough of it.

All New-agers agree we are here to birth a new reality. But what if we are long past our due date and now have to be forced out of the womb in the only we can... by being pushed beyond the limits of our endurance? The big question is—Do we follow those who "know" where they're going... or do we risk going alone into the unknown? ... We all have to answer that for ourselves.

### ****

...In the words of the renowned modern-day mystic Joseph Campbell:

When you follow your bliss... doing what the push is out of your own existence...

doors will open where you would not have thought there would be doors,

and where there would not be a door for anybody else....

The Hero's Journey

### ###

### Epilogue

The book nearly finished, here I was again; in crises. All the same old doubts and vacillation—the same deep-seated mistrust of God. It was as though I hadn't learned anything.

As usual it passed; and I was left feeling like an ingrate for not appreciating how far I've come, and how much I've been given. ... If only I didn't abdicate my knowing every time a threat loomed.

Deep down I know it's not God who's the problem; it's not a personal failure; it's not our higher self trying to tell us we've got it all wrong. ... To the contrary (and I can't repeat this enough): all those things we have become subject to are part of a viciously entrenched mind-set afflicting the entire human race, and is the very thing we committed to breaking through when we came here.

... Maybe next time, I'll remember.

### ****

Credits/Acknowledgements

First and foremost, to my Mother; who lovingly waited on the back burner while I gave my life over to endless projects; and allowed me the opportunity to do so

To Barb from Canada—the only person to give me an unbiased report earliest enough on to be of immeasurable help to me

To my Sister Sandy, and forever friend; Marylou, who are ever and always on the same page with me, and never let me doubt my conviction

To Daryl, who unknowingly provided the validation I needed to support my hypothesis; and helped me to avoid any glaring scriptural inaccuracies

To Rosemary, who helped me to understand physics and gave me the encouragement I needed to publish this book

To _all_ my friends—my soul family, who have walked with me all these years. This is your book too

To Michael, my long-suffering sponsor who supplied me with my first real computer

And Bruce, who kept the momentum going

Steele; who's always there for me in a pinch

To Carol, who knows hot to fill every need when no one else can

To Sherry, who will always help when no one else will

To Edie, for her writing forum

To Louie—my loyal devil's advocate

And of course to Eric, who believed in me; (I hope you stumble on this book)

### ****

### A Note to My Readers

Stories are never really over, and in a way this is my story; a story I dared hope would encourage anyone else caught in the quagmire of my own experience by culminating in some magical breakthrough before the book could go to press: It doesn't look like it's going to happen that way. The universe has its own logic, apparently.

Will it happen the day after it leaves my hands...two years from now...never? ... Maybe it will be left to one of you to supply the answers for the questions I've been given.

It's really not important whether you agree with any of my conclusions. If there is one thing I'd hope you would take away from this book, it would be the seed of acknowledging your right (and opportunity) to re-think the truth you live by and choose your own way, regardless of what has been accepted as truth by others. If we could view everything we're presented with as speculation rather than fact, who knows what revelations might await us? Every great discovery came about because someone wasn't satisfied with the answers that were out there: Any one of us could be that person. Hopefully... the next book will be more about answers than questions.

### ****

For further information, please feel free to contact me via e-mail at slstanley1111@hotmail.com **,** or greysheep@writing.com, where I am in the process of setting up a blog site. I welcome your comments—supporters and critics alike.

Nameste'
