Conference hydra::dejavu

    Yes I knew and loved a Channel for many years.  This channel had
    a spiritguide come through her and the information that was brought
    forth was just fantasitic.  There was know doubt in my mind that
    this information was coming from God, and then things just seemed
    to sour.  The channeling became incorrect and muddied.  I haven't
    sought any readings from her since.  It was a major disappointment
    in my life when the group that was more or less centered around
    her was corrupted and then dispanded.
    
    Steve

    What is trance channeling?  (I did not see the television programs
    referred to in this notesfile.)
    
    How is it different from other phenemona involving a person
    voluntarily being a gate or a temporary agent for SomeThing?
    
    Does the difference lie in the apparent nature of the SomeThing
    (as compared to mediums who communicate with the dead, or
    Voudoun worshippers temporarily possessed by a loa) or is
    there another difference?
    
    Is this a more general term, or is it used for a specific
    type of manifestation?
    
    Pat
    

    RE: .2
    
    To me it doesn't seem like there is any difference between a
    trance channeler and a trance medium.  Channeling seems to be
    the term used commonly today.  There can also be light trance
    and deep trance.  A light trance medium is somewhat aware of
    what is taking place - a deep trance medium almost always has
    no conscious recollection of what has taken place.  Though it
    may seem that this is a mental process (telepathy), trance mediumship
    is considered a form of physical mediumship in which the physical
    body of the medium is used as well as mental telepathy.  The
    spirit communicator almost totally blends his/her energy with
    that of the trance medium to the point of almost becoming one.
    
    RE: .0
    
    Both pastors of the church I belong to in Brookline are mediums.
    One is a trance medium and one is an evidential medium.  The trance
    medium's focus is mostly religious in nature, though there are
    sessions held about once a month when his spirit guide addresses
    specific issues.  Also, there are Sunday services and spirit 
    addresses us generally every third Sunday of the month.
    
    There is also a woman who does trance channeling in Jamaica Plain.
    I have never attended these sessions so cannot give you any
    feedback as to content.  These sessions were advertised during the
    Fall/86 and I have not seen a schedule for the Winter/Spring yet.
    
    If anyone would like further information, please send me mail and
    I would be happy to provide it.
    
    Regards, Carole
    
           
    

RE: .2
    
    "Trance medium" is a term from the religious movement of spiritualism.
    Although others have used it, the term generally refers to contact
    made by someone who accepts (at some level) the particular view
    of the phenomena taught by that movement, including and most
    especially, the nature of the entity contacted in the trance.
    
    "Channel" is a more recent term.  It is meant to refer to any kind
    of contact with a non-human (or no-longer-human, or not-yet-human)
    intelligence through non-physical means.  In other words, "trance
    channeler" is a more general term than "trance medium".
    
    RE: .3
    
    There seems to have been a change in terminology (not surprising).
    I am not very familiar with modern Spiritualism (something which
    I will have to do something about) but in the "old days" "trance
    mediumship" and "physical mediumship" were independent terms.  In
    what I have read, "trance mediums" were mediums who went into a
    trance to do "their thing" (which generally was what some would now
    call direct channeling, but could be other things), while a "physical
    medium was a medium who mediated physical manifestations external
    to their body (taps, levitation, ectoplasm, etc., self-levitation
    and self-aportation were also included).  A physical medium was
    a trance medium if the phenomena occured while they were in a trance
    (whether or not they were "channeling") but not otherwise.
    
    			Topher

    .5
    
    Though the terms "trance channeler" and "trance medium" may mean 
    somewhat different things to some people, the process the person is
    going through is the same.  Who they bring forth does not
    necessarily change the process because they/we are all spirit.
    There seems to be a resistance to the above terms by each group;
    mediums don't want to be called channelers and channelers don't
    want to be called mediums.
    
    Some schools of thought consider trance mediumship a form of physical 
    mediumship because the etheric body of the medium (which is the
    source of ectoplasm) is manipulated and used by spirit in a very
    similar way.  In both types of mediumship, the energy of others in the 
    room may also be used, though much more so if a physical manifestation
    is occurring.
                 
    Carole
    

    I suppose it's wrong to assign 'sex' to a spirit but
    in OUT ON A LIMB, the 'spirits' that channeled through
    were definitely male.  And 'Ramtha' as seen on 20/20
    was male too.  Has anyone ever heard of or experienced
    a female spirit that spoke through a trance channeler?
    
    Donna

    Having gone through most of the Seth materials I think that Jane
    Roberts is probably closest to reality when she says that the human
    psyche is a composite of different entities. Perhaps a composite
    of all past life (and possibly future life) experiences.
    
    When this quorum is balanced we have Mike Morgan.  When we have
    an imbalance of some kind we have not Mike Morgan, but a composite
    that is headed by another entity.  The quorum is still the same
    quorum, its focus is different.  Not to say that I am imbalanced
    (though some think I am B^) it seems that my quorum changes at
    times, presenting moodiness and other characteristics that I'm not
    going to share with you.
    
    A channel could be one that is tuning in another entity that is
    _part_ of the composite of that individual.  A change in the quorums
    focus results in giving us the channeled spirit.  (Yes, Martha, it's
    all done with mirrors B^)
    
    Now to progress onward it seems a channel may also have links to
    other entities not included in the quorum. I'm not sure what I think
    about this because I don't understand the links.
    
    Both J.Z. and Jane seem in my opinion to be tuning into members of
    their own quorums and not unrelated entities.  This is why the
    channeling is so strong.  A channeled presence is stronger if it
    is internal and related as opposed to external and unrelated. The
    channeled entity is already "inside" the humans quorum and doesn't have
    to penetrate the humans defenses.  The externally channeled entity
    has to fight past the defenses or be given permission by the channel.
    I'm not sure that verbal or mental permission would suffice because
    the defenses seem to be automatic.
    
    When I heard that J.Z. may be acting out much of her stuff presently I
    wasn't surprised.  Over a period of time the channeled entity should
    normally be assimilated back into the quorum.  Changes of attitude or
    emphasis should be detectable from the original J.Z. and the originally
    channeled Ram.  J.Z. should take on some of Rams characteristics and
    vise-versa.  It would seem to me that this is a normal and healthy
    evolution of the quorum.  On the down side, I think some channels give
    too much time and energy to the channeled entity.  Jane Roberts _may_
    have done this and she died of a degenerative disease. 
                                                                         
    Perhaps this paragraph needs to be in another topic but I think I can
    fit it in here.  Our belief systems determine how we cope with the
    world we live in.  Taken one step further the individual belief systems
    of the _quorum_ members determine how we cope with life.  Perhaps J.Z.s
    first experience with the so called demon demonstrate this quite
    nicely.  I know that see denied that event but can't help believe that
    the accused event is entirely in line.  As Christians believe that they
    are not all good (perfect if you will) then any significant refocusing
    of the quorum would take on a different atmosphere. (Now I know that
    this description doesn't fit all persons in the aforementioned class,
    but if you follow my example you may be able to see clear of the
    confusion.) It would seem that the majority belief of the quorum would
    prevail. And if the majority belief dictated that _any_manifestation_
    of spiritual activity not inline with Scripture was a manifestation of
    the Evil One, then the refocusing would take on characteristics of the
    supposed Evil One.  Then the statements of "I'm a demon and I will
    never let this body go" are inline with the schizophrenia cause by the
    "all good or all bad" belief systems.  There would be _no_ middle,
    common or gray ground for the two side to meet upon and negotiate
    (balance out). 
                                                 
    So I'm not surprised when I hear a channel say 'I'm Doctor So-and-so, or
    King So-and-so because that is an indication of what the _refocusing_
    quorum wants to present itself as.  Hey, it's their chalk and their
    chalkboard.  They can represent themselves as they wish. 
    
    Ramtha and Seth seem, in my opinion, to be such refocusing of the
    quorums and as the human balances out the quorum, the channeled
    entities will change somewhat also.  Sorry for all the length. 
    
      Mikie?

    re .8
    
    I have just finished reading about this in "Companions in Spirit"
    by Laeh Garret and Jack Grant. Much of the book was channeled thru
    Laeh. They use different terminology, but the jist of it is the
    same.
    I quote from the book:
    Each of us is a distinct human being. Yet each of us also belongs
    to a family of co-beings whose individual personalities and life
    dramas interconnect to form a larger experiential whole. Co-beings
    enjoy a shared memory and a shared sense of self.
    
    Later they go on to say:
    The being who keeps closest  watch over us is our Source self, roughly
    analagous to our mama........
    The Oversoul is the Source self's source self. Each Oversoul also
    has an oversoul. Your oversoul is comparable to your grandmother,
    your oversoul's oversoul similar to a great-grandparent.
    
    Anyway, when I read your note (.8) I thought that perhaps Ramtha
    is a co-being of JZ's(to use the terms learned in this book)
    
    Renee
    

    See also 316.1
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
        

    I am very interested in the subject of Trance-channeling as well
    as many other areas discussed in "Out on a Limb".  I am looking
    for information and books on the subject.  If anyone has any
    suggestions, please send me this information by mail.
    
    Debbie

    Don't hog all the goodies! ;-)
    
    Post 'em here so some others can enjoy the info.  One of the problems
    in the fact that it's hard to find anything authoritative in the
    realm of the paranormal.

    While we're discussing channeling, it might be a good idea to discuss
    charges.  What are charges for channeling sessions on the East Coast?
    
    I have seen charges of $100/hour for "Michael Channeling" here on
    the West Coast (San Francisco/San Jose area).

    re: -.1
      
         Lazaris (my favorite channeled entity-see 316 and 358, among
    other places) charges $53 for a half-hour or $93 for a full hour
    (if you can get it.)  This includes a tape which they then mail
    to you.  This, by the way, is for a phone consultation.  They will
    ocassionally do consultations in person...I don't remember if
    they charge more in person or not (I think it's $5 more.)
         There really is no real advantage to being in person since
    the entity exists beyond time and SPACE, all space is the same
    to it/him/her/them.
         Obviously, you pay for the phone call.
         I have now spoken to Lazaris 5 times, once being a "lifetime"
    reading of an hour and a half (you ask no questions...Lazaris talks
    uninterrupted the whole time telling you about past significant
    lifetimes--this is available only to those who have spoken to Lazaris
    at least once before) and can say that the experience is extremely valuable
    (to me, at least.)  Compare this to the charges from the typical
    pschologist/analyst, etc. who often just gives you a dog and pony
    show for your money.
         The time lag is running currently at about 24 months (that's
    when appointments are scheduled,) for the "regular" schedule and
    about 60 days for the floating schedule (call at the beginning of
    the month and they pick and choose from the requestors wanting this.)
    
    Frederick
    

RE: .14 (Frederick)

    > There really is no real advantage to being in person since the entity
    exists beyond time and SPACE, all space is the same to it/him/her/them.
    < 

So what does a being beyond time and space want with your $93.00?



    >  Compare this to the charges from the typical pschologist/analyst,
    etc. who often just gives you a dog and pony show for your money. < 

Sounds more like "Lazaris" is the dog and pony show.  No self-respecting
therapist would charge a client $53.00-$93.00 for a telephone consultation! And
I must confess my shock at the notion of a person paying so much money while
not even getting to say a word!  And any therapist who sat a client down and
said "Don't say anything, I'll do the talking, I'll tell you about your life.
That will be 93 dollars please" wouldn't last very long.

I respectfully suggest that "Lazaris" may be giving the same story to you
that he/she/it is giving to Joe Shmo in Pittsburgh.  Would I ever like to
put a bug on that phone!

John M.
                                                                       

    RE: -.1
         I anticipated that type of reaction from someone who isn't
    familiar with Lazaris or similar situations.  Your comments are
    quite valid from the usual perspective on worldly issues.
         As for the money, it obviously doesn't go to Lazaris.  "They"
    exist on levels far beyond the illusionary realities we do, and
    have no need for anything from the physical plane, unless perhaps
    they be of an emotional nature (i.e., non-physical.)  Concept:Synergy
    (the organization which runs Lazaris) gets the money.  Just like
    any business.  Keep in mind that Jach (the channel) is in trance
    and "loses" the time.  He gets paid for his time as you get paid
    for yours. (Incidentally, he spends at least 30 hours a week in
    trance.)
         As for the phone consultation, I have known of psychotherapists/
    analysts/logists  who have held phone consultations who have charged
    for them.  Certainly in other fields (e.g. medicine) this is often
    the case.  Obviously, it is also often a case by case situation.
    This particular situation is "special" (to me and to the thousands
    of others who consult with him.)  Yes, it's true that he *could*
    be reading something prepared in advance, but I will give you the
    greatest assurance I can muster that that isn't the case.  It similarly
    could be something he tells everyone else.  But I similarly will
    assure you it isn't.  Please, as much as you can, try to understand
    the depth of wisdom there is in this entity.  This is no simple
    psychic!  When Lazaris gave me my life reading (as I said, he related
    RELEVANT past lives, not *just* past lives) he said some rather
    extraordinary things...things that MAKE EXTREME GOOD SENSE TO ME.
    He related some of my relationships to me (virtually none of which
    I had ever discussed with him before) in terms of past life activities
    some of which almost literally stunned me.  He knows me thoroughly.
    It's so difficult to communicate everything through here and I won't
    make too much of an effort, but as I tried to explain in 316 and
    358, since everything exists outside of time/space, it can all be
    seen as a hologram.  He says the hologram is immensely complex, but
    he simply taps in and reads from wherever it is we say we are standing.
    It's more involved than this but let it suffice, please.  Anyway,
    he knows me emotionally far better than anyone I have ever known
    even if I've known them all my life.  He is able to relate to me
    my feelings early in life with my mother, with my father, etc.
    with absolute precision.  In this particular reading, he was further
    able to lay out patterns from other lifetimes that I have carried
    into this one.  Again, as I attempted to point out in other
    discussions, everything changes, including the past and past lives.
    This set of past lives is relevant only now.  In my future I may
    have a different set of past lives.  I do not expect you to either
    understand this nor to accept it.  This is what is, for me.  The
    reason for my silence was simply so that he could say as much as
    possible in the limited time *I* have.  It's far more important
    to me to listen to what he has to offer than for him to listen to
    me, since I know that he knows me already, anyway.  
         One more point, here.  I do not feel that this is a necessary
    step in growth, for past lifetimes are only INFLUENCES on this one.
    This lifetime is the conscious seat of power, so it is the most
    "important" one.  If someone gets an opportunity to talk with Lazaris,
    I feel the most important questions to ask are: What are my focuses
    in this lifetime? and, what are my blockages?  Beyond that, most
    people seem to discuss certain problems they have and he relates
    to them what the BOTTOM LINE to that problem is...which is to say
    what emotion underlies the situation *You have created*.  He does
    respond, however, on many levels.  Sometimes he will be talking
    to your sub-conscious or unconscious or higher conscious while he
    simultaneously talks to "you."  How do I know?  Because of gestalts,
    dreams, etc. Because later on he will ask something that would reflect
    that.  Because he says so, also.  I have spoken with many other
    people who have talked with him.  I have never heard the same story
    twice (in terms of a lifetime being like someone elses.)  I have
    heard other peoples focuses and blockages before also, and sometimes
    we have one or more the same but rarely much more than that.  That
    should be quite apparent, shouldn't it?  I seriously doubt that
    you and I have the same focuses or blockages, for example (although
    we could share some...e.g. exploration as a focus, anger as a
    blockage.)  
        You know, as I related after the week I spent with Lazaris in
    April in topic 358, I, too, held on to doubts EVEN THOUGH I CHERISH
    EVERYTHING HE SAYS.  My doubts flare up once in a while now, but
    rarely so.  I can only say that each person needs to decide for
    him/herself.  The value to me has been immeasurable...the hours
    and the dollars have been extremely well spent.  The first tapes
    I ever listened to were the *negative ego* tapes (from lectures
    given in 1980 or 1981, I think) and they blew me away!  As I have
    mentioned before, My BS (appropriate, here) degree is in Psychology
    so I have spent time (in school, at least) learning about the ego
    from the traditional standpoints.  Lazaris' explanations were the
    best I could ever have imagined.  Great stuff! Anyway, that *hooked*
    me.  
         So, Mr. Mitchell, you can do with this information whatever
    you wish.  I *know* where I stand.  I will not tell you or anyone
    else what to do, you have to decide for yourselves.  I can only
     suggest that you listen to him directly, if you wish, before you
    make a determination.  I have a friend who suggests to people
    to listen to four different topics or tapes before deciding.  Certainly
    at that point you would have your own ideas prettyy solidly
    formed.  Lazaris is NOT for everyone.  He *is* for me.  The 
    value of a personal conversation will thereby establish itself
    for you.
         
      
    Frederick
    
         

    
    
    RE: .15
    
    > Would I ever like to put a bug on that phone!
    
    Was there supposed to be a :-) along with this?  If not, this type
    of thinking makes me uncomfortable.  Is this where your arguments
    would lead to?
    
    Carole
    

RE: .16 (Frederick)

Thank you for your reply.  I am glad if your phone consultations have been
helpful to you.  If I may be frank, I feel that you are being taken and are in
for a real big letdown someday.  A lot of Jim and Tammy's followers (I use them
only because they are recent examples of a very old scam) have/had just as
much faith in their gurus as you. But this is America and people are free to do
as they wish. 

I would gladly listen to Lazeris tapes or talk to "him" directly if it were
a free service instead of a business.

You know, if my sense of morality would let me, I would be willing to bet
anyone in this file $500.00 that I could start a successful "channeling"
service of my own.  I would either put the fees I collected in the bank,
(to be returned to my clients after the scam were exposed) or donate them to
charity.  The problem is that I could not bring myself to use people that
way; it would be too cruel.

Perhaps I need a new set of ethics...


RE: .17

I'll leave that statement as a mystery.

John M.

    re: .18
       Gosh, John, thank you ever so much!  Boy, I sure wish I had
    talked to you before I ever started my life.  I would sure as 
    shooting stars be your faithful little puppy!  Now that I've been
    set straight, however, I will ignore every thought I have ever held
    and every memory and every feeling, too.  For now that I've been
    exposed to the "truth" I need to restart from scratch.
        Yep, no doubt about it!  You, too, could set yourself up as
    a guru and very likely would make a whole pile of bucks (is that
    all that you are interested in?) preaching your bananities.  It's
    very clear to me that others are doing so as they have in the past
    and are very likely to do so in the future.  I think I did mention
    the carnival atmosphere somewhere lately, didn't I?  Yes, it's true,
    so many "out there" are so hurting from a lack of love that they
    WILL latch onto anything that promises that.  The last two decades
    have seen a great deal of scams and shams and Jim Joneses, etc.
    All to make a buck or to exert control or perhaps for some other
    shameful reason.
         It is also clear to me that you are more interested in argument
    than you are in substance.  I find this very manipulative on your
    part.  Have you spent any time reading what I have written in 316
    and 358?  Are there no items in there anywhere that make sense?
    Or is it just as in the demon topic of last week (and this one)
    that you already *know* what's said so no point in reading it.
    I must assume this, because it's very clear to me that Lazaris says
    some very wonderful and virtually always optimistic things and
    takes great care to show us how to achieve whatever is to be that
    we find positive.  While other entities may say that this is wrong
    or this is right, or whatever, they don't always tell you the how
    to, etc.  And Lazaris has been doing so quite consistently since
    1974.  There are SCORES of therepists among Lazaris' fans...you'd
    think that this group would be more wary of psychological ploys
    than to allow this if it were negative or a "rip-off", don't you?
    In addition, there are (unnamed) world leaders who consult with
    him (they fear people like you so they don't make themselves known.)
         Yes, it's true, I may have fallen for a letdown.  I will stay
    put, however, because I have found nothing better.  Meanwhile, it
    could be you who is going to lose out.  I find very little optimistic
    in what you have to write; nothing "clairvoyant" at all, and very
    little of what I consider to be love...instead there is arrogance
    and adolescent humor (humor at the expense of others.)  I could
    be wrong and I suppose there is an element of vindication here,
    but that is at least how you have come to my attention in the past
    few days.  Certainly, there is very little room in your reality
    for miracles...I would suspect that you experience very few.
      
    Frederick
    

RE: .19 (Frederick)

The following might be a bit strong for some people, to whom I respectfully
suggest hitting the NEXT UNSEEN key.



    >   Gosh, John, thank you ever so much!  Boy, I sure wish I had talked
    to you before I ever started my life.  I would sure as shooting stars
    be your faithful little puppy! < 
 

What, as opposed to Jach's little puppy?




    >  Now that I've been set straight, however, I will ignore every
    thought I have ever held and every memory and every feeling, too.  For
    now that I've been exposed to the "truth" I need to restart from
    scratch. < 


Why would you want to do that?  I simply shared with you my belief that
you are being duped.  Was it so painful for you to face the possible truth?


 
    >   Yep, no doubt about it!  You, too, could set yourself up as a guru
    and very likely would make a whole pile of bucks (is that all that you
    are interested in?) preaching your bananities.  < 


Damn right I could do it!  And I have a great many interests other than
money, thank you.  As for whatever bananities [sic] I might spout, I'm sure
they wouldn't be anything you haven't already paid to hear.  



    >  Yes, it's true, so many "out there" are so hurting from a lack of
    love that they WILL latch onto anything that promises that. < 


I couldn't have said it better.


    >  The last two decades have seen a great deal of scams and shams and
    Jim Joneses, etc. All to make a buck or to exert control or perhaps for
    some other shameful reason. < 


At least we agree on that matter. 



    >  It is also clear to me that you are more interested in argument than
    you are in substance.  < 

Really?  Maybe if you gave me more *substance* that wouldn't be the case.



    > ... Lazaris says some very wonderful and virtually always optimistic
    things and takes great care to show us how to achieve whatever is to be
    that we find positive.  < 

And all for a few hundred dollars!  No doubt Lazaris spouts sweetness and
light to you... that's what keeps you coming back!  I have nothing against
an optimistic viewpoint, but life ain't all rainbows and harmonic convergences,
pal.  Welcome to reality.


    >  There are SCORES of therapists among Lazaris' fans...you'd think
    that this group would be more wary of psychological ploys than to allow
    this if it were negative or a "rip-off", don't you?  < 

No.  In the United States, anyone may legally call himself a "therapist." 



    >  In addition, there are (unnamed) world leaders who consult with him
    (they fear people like you so they don't make themselves known.) < 


Yes, and I have unnamed world leaders who help me with my laundry.  Even
if that is true (and you have no way of knowing if it is--conveniently).
Who are these people?  Kaddafi?   Khomeini?  Being a world leader doesn't
necessarily make one wise or worth admiring.



    >  I find very little optimistic in what you have to write; nothing
    "clairvoyant" at all, and very little of what I consider to be love.. < 


I am not here to spout Pollyanna platitudes to you, but rather because I am
interested in psychic phenomena.  Nor should you expect me to be a fountain of
love from which you may daily drink to fill any emptiness in your soul.  I am
only human and have my good points and bad points  If you have a hard time with
that, tough. 



    >   ...instead there is arrogance and adolescent humor (humor at the
    expense of others.)  I could be wrong and I suppose there is an element
    of vindication here, but that is at least how you have come to my
    attention in the past few days.  < 


Arrogant I may be.  I do not recall, however, indulging in humor at
the expense of others.  Perhaps it is your perception that is at fault.
And what is this about "an element of vindication?"   Vindication from what?
Maybe you should honestly ask yourself why my questions make you feel uneasy.



    >  Certainly, there is very little room in your reality for
    miracles...I would suspect that you experience very few.  < 


You suspect wrongly.  What can you possibly know about me from these
very few VAXnotes?  

The world is full of miracles which never cease to delight me.  But I confess
that the only miracle I have experienced here is the astonishing gullibility
of some people. 


John M.
    
                                                               

    RE: John M.
    
    	Everyone of us sees the same real universe through our eyeballs, 
    and most of us are honest, and of varying degrees of articulateness.
    We all learned to communicate in differing contexts, and have differing
    emotional links to the words we use.    True communication is very
    difficult for some people to achieve even though we may also have
    lots of underlying similarities under our differences.   It takes
    really trying hard to see the world as if you were the other person,
    and as if you had had an entirely different past.   This is a sort
    of psychic ability it seems you are lacking or inhibited against
    using.   It's called "put yourself in the other persons shoes",
    or "try and see it from their point of view".

        When you do this you may find that most people communicate
    with a mix of confusion and truth.   We are all very alike in 
    this, though we all may strike different proportions.   Anyone can
    pick nits at whatever confusion there may be in a communication,
    but by doing so you could be missing the truth that has been given
    to that other person.    Isn't it frustrating to talk to someone
    who always misses your point and misconstrues your meaning?

    	It seems to me that you could be telling us the truth about
    how you see the universe in a way that does not try to invalidate
    the perceptions and beliefs of others.   But it seems instead you
    are on a crusade to convert people and convince them their gurus,
    crystals or beliefs are hollow.   By doing this you deny them
    the respect due each of us for our separate histories, experiences,
    and knowledge.

        Instead of focusing on how you disagree with all of us, you
    could be focusing on how we agree, trying to find places where
    our differing viewpoints on the truth may overlap.
    
    	Alan.

RE: .21 (Alan) 

    > ...it seems...you are on a crusade to convert people and convince
    them their gurus, crystals or beliefs are hollow.   By doing this you
    deny them the respect due each of us for our separate histories,
    experiences, and knowledge. < 

If you told me the earth was flat would I be denying you due respect by
informing you that it was round?  What kind of world would this be if people
were afraid to disagree simply because they might be disrupting someone's
fantasy or belief?  Believe me, just because I disagree with someone does
not mean I do not respect them (I'm beginning to sound like a broken record).

 

    >  Instead of focusing on how you disagree with all of us, you could be
    focusing on how we agree, trying to find places where our differing
    viewpoints on the truth may overlap. < 

I feel I have done both.  For instance, recall my reply on the importance
of ritual.  My intent in this file is to debunk, question, explore, and confirm.
The debunking simply draws the most attention.

John M.
                                          

RE: Last bunch
    
    This has gotten out of hand.
    
    John started by making an observation of personal belief, to wit:
    that he felt that Lazaris' statements were not original nor deep
    enough to warrent the rather high fees he charges.  He further implied
    (on absolutely no evidence I might add) that Lazaris is a fraud,
    deliberately using a faked channeling to add impact to essentially
    empty advice.  He stated this as opinion and basically stated his
    case politely.
    
    Frederick, reacted strongly emotionally.  The actual content, drawn
    from reading between the lines, is that Frederick has not plunged
    unreasoning into a ready acceptance of everything that Lazaris
    propounds.  Rather he has found by study a depth and originallity
    in Lazaris' material which he finds worthwhile, and which John has
    missed.
    
    If Frederick had simply stated this, all would have been fine. 
    Unfortunately he chose to bury it in a sneering, sarcastic personal
    attack on John.  I doubt from what Frederick has posted about Lazaris
    that he would approve.  Frederick, you considerably weaken your
    case that intellectual consideration will show the importance of
    Lazaris' ideas when you react to a disagreement on its content with
    such an emotionally, defensive response.
    
    Then John compounded the problem.  Instead of ignoring the attack
    or responding cooly to the charges, you chose instead to counter-attack
    in kind.  John, I know that it is hard not to respond to a personal
    attack in kind, but someone who claims to champion the cause of
    rationalism should not give in to that temptation.  Your response
    added nothing.
    
    Finally John, in a final note, states that his "intent in this file
    is to debunk, question, explore, and confirm".  John, "debunking"
    is a very bad idea.  First off the word has strong overtones of
    deliberate fraud (it comes, of course, from "bunko" which means
    fraud).  Secondly, it provides rather poor role models.  It is
    too often associated with people (frequently paradoxically calling
    themselves sceptics) who are only interested in parading any facts
    or factoids which support their preconceptions and who reject and
    ignore anything which is not in agreement with them.  You are quite
    welcome to state contrary opinions, and are encouraged (at least
    by me) to state any contradictory facts, but the two should not
    be confused even when your opinion supports scientific mainstream
    thought.
    
    Although one is certainly *allowed* to post this type of garbage
    here, it is ugly, unneccessary and accomplishes nothing but the
    creation of bad feelings.
    
    I think you both owe each other and the rest of this conference
    an appology.
    
    (Just my opinion).
    
    					Topher
    

    re .23:
    
    >Although one is certainly *allowed* to post this type of garbage
    >here, it is ugly, unneccessary and accomplishes nothing but the
    >creation of bad feelings.
    
    Well, although one is indeed _allowed_ to post such language here,
    one certainly shouldn't be encouraged to.  As I suspect Topher did,
    I held fire for a while hoping things would calm down; apparently,
    they haven't.
    
    My opinion, for what it's worth, is that if it can't be said
    impersonally and reasonable, it probably should be pondered long
    and hard before it's said at all.
    
    President Abraham Lincoln once met with one of his generals, during
    the Civil War, who was outraged about something another officer
    (of about equal rank) had done.  Lincoln told him to write the
    offending party on the subject.  When he showed it to Lincoln, the
    President looked at it a moment, and said, "You're being too polite.
    Don't hold back!  Let him have it!"  The general rewrote it [possibly
    more than one iteration] until it was a hide-blistering, hair-curling,
    vindictive thing.  The President looked at it and said, "That's
    very good!  Do you feel better?"  The general said that he felt
    _much_ better.  "Good," said Lincoln.  "Nowe put it in an envelope."
    the general did.  "Now, burn it," said Lincoln.  "No use having
    hard feelings ...."
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 
    

    
    	All of the channelers that I am familar with channel "male"
    or group entities.  Does anyone know of any modern (1960s to esp.
    present day) channelers that channel "female" entities?  The majority
    particularly the more famous entities (Seth, Lazarius, Emmanuel)
    are male.  I wonder why this seems to be the case.  I have
    heard of a lady that channels an Indian maiden but the main contact is
    an Indian Chief.  Also met a man that channels a female entity
    when he does healings.  Otherwise he channels male entities.
    
    	I can't come up with any reasons this seems to be the case.
    Anyone care to make some conjectures on this (no sexist remarks,
    please).
    
    
    	Jayna 
    
    

    
    
    The majority of people that I know of who "channeled" female
    entities did so well before 1960.  Actually, they would have
    referred to themselves as "mediums", channeling being a rather
    new term.  They were Spiritualists, among them Gladys Osborne
    Leonard whose spirit guide Feda was a young woman, and I believe 
    Eileen Garrett worked with a female guide (though I could be
    wrong on this).  I know there were others who worked with female
    spirits, but I would have to check some reference works to come
    up with their names).  There is a woman in England - Queenie Nixon - 
    who is a transfiguration medium which also involves deep trance.  The main 
    communicator through her is Sister Edith.
    
    Carole
    

    
    
    I did forget one....
    
    The pastor of my church, Rev. Stephen Fulton, is a trance
    medium.  In the past, a young girl named Chrystal communicated
    through him though we haven't heard from her in a long time.
    
    c.
    

    
    On Lazaris and timing:
    
    I'd like to say here that the notes in topic #358 entered by Frederick
    during that specific time period were SO SPECIFIC to my particular
    situation at the time, that it was as though Lazaris were speaking
    directly to me through Frederick.....giving me answers (or at least 
    things to think about) that 24 hours before that would have been to 
    early, and 24 hours after that would have been too late for me to 
    apply them to my particular situation at that particular time. 
    
    Now, granted, I could probably read my daily horoscope and somehow
    derive some sort of parallel, but to this day, the daily horoscope
    has never been close to the things I was reading when Frederick was 
    typing the information in on Lazaris.  
                  
    So, even though I've not spent a penny on the teachings of Lazaris
    directly, I've been helped a great deal.  And, yes, I certainly
    would consider spending my money on this in the future - and that
    is my choice, because I've already benefited from his teachings
    and insights.  Reading the books by Scott Peck also helped me a
    great deal, and I plan on spending the $75.00 to attend a one day
    workshop later this year that he is giving.
    
    Can I PROVE anything here?  No.  All I can do is relay my experiences.
    And while what Frederick wrote in on Lazaris helped me, this does
    not necessarily apply to everyone because we all are at different
    places - with some people being more receptive to these sorts of
    things than others.
         
    It's like telling smokers that smoking will cause lung cancer or
    help out in heart attacks, but they refuse to believe it (skeptics)
    ......until they themselves fall victim to a related disease or 
    someone very close to them falls victim.  Then the words aren't from 
    highly removed scientific study (taking from the Christian example 
    - the Bible), but that the words are from within or from someone they 
    trust based on a firsthand testimonial.  It is at that point that the 
    smoker then throws the pack of cigarettes away and tries to 'spread 
    the word' about the health dangers.  Back in the '60's, I actually
    had a close relative tell me that "I don't understand why you have
    to leave the room everytime I light up.  You shouldn't get headaches 
    from my smoking - they've proven that second-hand smoke doesn't affect
    those people in the immediate vicinity.".  Interesting that that
    same relative recently became allergic to smoke himself - tossed
    away his remaining cigarettes, and finally after all these years 
    believes me......and even apologized.  If this hadn't happened to
    him though, he probably would still not believe those 'scientific
    reports'.  
             
    I do give a lot of credit though to those people who still smoke
    and who are not out to legitimize their habit through studies. 
    At least they are continuing their destructive habit with a good
    idea of the risks involved and are consciously choosing to be that
    way.  I find that these people are more apt to be concerned about
    others and will always ask "Mind if I smoke?", and will accept the
    answer "Yes, I do mind." without resentment.  It is these sorts
    of people who have 'put themselves in the other person's shoes'
    and are willing to tolerate their wishes and will not 'force their
    smoke' upon the others.
               
    There's a message here.....somewhere.....well, maybe......(:^)
    
    Therefore, I firmly believe that it is all in the timing.
    
    Cindy
                                                                  

RE: .25
    
    The outstanding (personal evaluation, of course) channeled personality
    which I have knowledge of was female: Patience Worth.  Her writing
    (she was channeled through a Ouija Board, and produced a number
    of short stories, poems, and at least one novel -- as well as having
    long witty close to real-time conversations with many of the nation's
    intellectual leaders) was all well before the 60's -- specifically
    the teens or twenties I think, though I wouldn't swear to it.
    
RE: .26
    
    I'm not sure about Eileen Garret, but my general impression is that
    her guides were male personalities.
    
    					Topher

Re -1;
I am glad that the Lazerith(sp?) information was helpful to you, and I am
sure that it has been helpful to Fredrick. 

Fredrick - If it should prove true that Lazerith was not a separate entity,
but was instead a product of Knight subconious, would that make the
benefits you have received from his teaching evaporate? Does the source
of the wisdom really matter? And if it doesn't, why so much anger towards
John?

On another topic there just one more thing that my sense
of fair play requires that I point out. 

If Fredrick were a Christian, and had typed in n thousand lines of Christian
dogma, and then bristled every time anyone tried to question the validity of 
his faith would we have the same tolerance, I don't think so. Myself included.
This is not a condemnation, merely a comment.

    
    Re.-1
    
    Comment on Christian (or other religion, for that matter) dogma
    - excellent!  Thank you for pointing that out.
    
    The Bible (or other such books) is a source of comfort and answers
    to many people.  It shouldn't matter where it came from, as long
    as the end results are positive and help the person reading it.
    
    The only problem about giving money to organizations though is that
    the 'organizations' are not always held accountable for where the money
    goes......for example, I would not like to think my money given
    to 'spread the good word' (whatever that good word might be) actually 
    goes toward an doghouse air conditioner.....and therefore it is the 
    responsibility of the individual to make sure that the money is well 
    spent.  Caveat emptor.
                                      
    Cindy

    re:  several 
      
         Okay.  There were many valid points here and I am in
    "intellectual" agreement and in "emotional" agreement, too,
    but unfortunately I slip up on the latter.  Topher is right
    on this.  I over-reacted.  As some of you have no doubt noticed
    before, I DO get defensive from time to time.  Personally I feel
    that it's due to my own insecurities (which I have also pointed
    out before.)  No one wants to be a fool...I am no exception.  In
    this particular situation, I *WANT* to believe what Lazaris says
    but because I am so independent it strains my beliefs to hear and
    listen to what he says.  Why?  Probably because of a fear that he
    could be "wrong" and I will get hurt.  So I listen over and over
    and over again to what he says...I analyze and toss it around. 
    I dream about it and talk about it and confront it constantly. 
    The "problem" is that I can never find a fault.  Think about it.
    It's hard to take something that is "too good to be true."  We are
    so used to having imperfections in our lives, that something "perfect"
    is just too much (for me, apparently.)  Anyway, that is how I see
    what he says.  I guess that what I then do is search for support
    from those around me.  This is not real important to me but it is
    important enough that it "calls my hand," when the conflict arises.
    My mind isn't likely to change so it's stupid to "fall into it."
    Steve, your story about Lincoln really talks to this.  Topher, you
    are right in saying that Lazaris doesn't teach people to be like
    I was in my reaction.  What he DOES teach is that we should be more
    understanding, not understood.  I miss this point way too often.
    Cindy makes a good point in her response towards this end.  People
    are only going to hear what they are ready for and what they *want*
    to hear.  We just had this "discussion" last week (or recently)
    and it would have seemed to be enough...in my case I must have felt
    that I needed to test myself a little further.  Anyway, fellow
    noters, what I am saying is that I failed to do all the things that
    I have written about that I belief we would be better off if we
    ALL did them.  It starts "here" with me, however, and I messed up.
    I really work at it, though!
       
    re: .30
         You are right in saying that the source of the wisdom shouldn't
    matter if we hold it to be wise.  The fact that Lazaris comes from
    a place I never believed existed 6 years ago makes it more difficult
    for me and at the same time much more powerful "if true."  Which
    is why I know people who use Lazaris stuff and never let on where
    they get the information (because of the fear of being rejected
    by those who won't accept this channeling thing.)
         You make another very good point about typing in so much. 
    Let me use this opportunity to make it clear of my events that led
    to this.  First off, I am a temporary employee, who has gone through
    several changes (in terms of how long, etc.)  I felt that I was
    about to leave a few months ago, so I decided that since most of
    you out there didn't know anything about Lazaris that perhaps the
    information would be useful.  I very much did NOT want to proselytize
    and I hesitated to embark on what I did, but I felt that the space
    was there.  For me, I have enjoyed reading various topics that I
    am grateful someone took the time to write about.  I would have
    handled it all quite different had I not felt the time pressure,
    however.  I still don't want to preach and yet there is very little
    question in my mind that whenever you see my name, you automatically
    link Lazaris with it.  So how would you distinguish what I say from
    what you think he's saying?  I don't know.  I try hard to live by
    his "golden rules" (he has none) but am still hooked into my past.
    And you are further correct that you *should* question anything
    that you fail to understand or that you want more information about,
    etc.  I should also be willing to respond without taking offense
    at the question.  In any case, I am aware of a great deal here
    and I just need to lasso in the wild horses.  I will continue to
    repeat things that Lazaris talks about as I hear them and I will
    strive to do so as elegantly and in as dignified a manner as I 
    am able.    
    
    
        Thank you for the "ropes" and for the spawned topics which I
    think will provide a nice forum for the issues that have recently
    been raised.
    
    to John:  You have a deliciously sharp mind...I really do enjoy
    that part of you.  I hope that your explorations provide you with
    the pleasures that you seek.
      
    Frederick
    

    Frederick,
    
    Just an observation (not meant to criticize at all) but have you
    thought at all about how "dependent" you seem to be to Lazaris?
    It is an observation, but the last note gives the impression that
    you spend a great deal of time thinking about his teachings etc.
    How would you deal with your life if he weren't there?
    
    Also, in another conference, a comment was made in reference to
    "Flaming".  If someone feels the FLAME ON coming, try waiting 24
    hours before responding.  This gives you time to really think about
    your response before you post it.
    
    Debbie

 re: -.1
     Thank you, Debbie, for your questions.  I also detect some
concern in there...let me allay that if I can.
     (this is my second try...lost the first one to some weird
kind of DMATE error.)
    I agree that in the best interest of this forum, that witholding
the expression of an emotion may be the most prudent thing to do.
I further believe that if that emotion develops it needs to be dealt
with.
    As for my "dependence"..I suppose that it can seem that way,
even to me at times.  It is more clear to me, however, when I observe
it in others.  As far as Lazaris is concerned, he has repeatedly
stated that he is not, and has no desire to be, our guru or master.
He makes a strong effort to discourage that kind of attachment within
the framework of being a superb source of wisdom and a friend.  Let 
me ask you something, however.  If you could meet anyone from all of 
time who would it be?  How do you think you would "be" around that 
person?  For me, from very early in my life until a few years ago,
had someone asked me I would have responded that I would have wanted
to meet Jesus.  With Lazaris, I have (for me) met "someone" who I
feel is far greater than that and the most evolved being ever to come  
to the physical plane.  It is, therefore, a great honor to me to
be able to communicate with him.  That tends to put a bit of 
what could be perceived as dependence, there. A very strong desire
exists within me to listen to everything he says and teaches for
I know of no other comparable source and I relish that interchange.
You see, prior to my exposure to him I had pretty much left 
Christianity behind.  I had also already experienced or become aware
of other sources of "meaning."  There was a great deal of turmoil,
however, because I was repelled at the idea of sitting at a guru's
feet (e.g. Muktananda or the Majarishi);  I was also repelled by 
the idea of eating tofu or macrobiotics my whole life or of shaving
my head and wearing saffron.  I was, though, aware of some of the
teachings of Buddhism, Ken Keyes (a disappointment) and a host of
others.  What I saw and heard about EST was discouraging (way too
clinical and callous to me,) and what I learned from the SAGE
experience wasn't the end-all either (although it was damn good
at the time.)  There was so much, however, and within that there 
was so much to consider...Energy flows (tai chi, aikido, polarity,
etc.) UFO's (which I still believe in, too,) teachers of all kinds
coming to my reality..nothing, however, had ENOUGH of an answer
for me.  The academic side of me was not complete (via psychology)
but it didn't seem "right", either.  And then along came my
exposure to Lazaris.  I was apparently ready for that.  Sure there
is a fear of being suckered into some kind of zombie-like existence
for something else, but as I looked and listened, there was never
anything there that indicated that situation.  The more I've heard,
the more "sense" it makes.  It encompasses so much of what parts of
other "schools of thought" try to teach and it does it so much more
comprehensively that the thought of turning my back to it is not
too appealing to me. Lazaris really makes an effort to encourage
our independence from everything.  As long as we ask for help,
however, he is willing to extend it.  He makes it clear that the
responsibility for our lives is ours.  Christians, e.g., like to 
put this responsibility in the "lord's" hands and also the blame
(couched by words such as "it was the lord's will.")  Lazaris
is quite removed from that...and he wants no part of our dependence.
Think about it.  If "GOD" materialized before you (in a way you
could accept...and I doubt the acceptance) how would you "expect"
him/her/it to act?  To me, Lazaris "acts" like I would or should
imagine a "God" to act like.  If he isn't what he says he is
(and what advantage is there to a lie?) then what is he?  Jach
(the channel) sold insurance prior to this experience, so surely
this wisdom isn't s. Anyway, Debbie, if you really believed this
wisdom to be the greatest available, you, too, would probably find
yourself clamoring for more.  Therein lies the dependence.  At the
same time, the information that filters out to us indicates that
this wisdom lies within each of us and that ultimately it is there
that we will find our answers.  So it becomes difficult (although
easier as time goes by while I apply the steps he recommends such
as meditation, steps we can follow, processing we can do, etc.)
to want to separate.  I am at that 
place now.  Lazaris and I are becoming more "equal" in a sense
(and by that I mean that I see him more often as my friend) 
As such, I decide what I do, and share this with
him.  He then shares with me his "views" from which I can discern
and apply as I wish. 
     So, these answers may not be "satisfactory" for you but
this is from whence I have come.  Without Lazaris I would like to
think that I would be learning from Alan Watts or Krishnamurti
or Ram Dass, etc.  I'd probably be flittering around looking for
some more answers.  Fortunately, (from my point of view) I no
longer need to do that...all I need do is work on the application
of the answers I've been given.  That doesn't mean, however,
that I will quit searching for more...that part of me will no
doubt never end.  As for the mind activity I work at separating
the ego voice from the "real" me.  
     Thanks for your concern.  I wish all of us could be more
concerned with our future to make it more positive and pleasurable.
  
 
Frederick
  

    A quote seen on another network that sums up my opinion of channeling
    in a nutshell.
    
    "...Trusting wisdom obtained from channeled entities from the Astral
    plane is like making friends by leaving your door open on a Saturday
    night."
    
    This does not mean that *some* entities from over there are not
    good, wise beings - some people that would wander into your house
    on Saturday night might be nice people too.  It means to be very
    leary of them.  Ask lots of questions and see what happens before
    trusting them.
    
    re .34:
    
    I have seen Lazarus on video tape, and he appears to have a lot to
    offer.  However, I can see some reasons for him to lie.  Having lots of
    people sitting at your feet carefully digesting every word you say is
    certainly a lot of power to have.  Now whether he really wants the
    power or to give the wisdom he has is very hard to say. His simply
    saying, in multiple ways, that he doesn't want followers didn't work
    for the Buddha.  It doesn't seem to be working for Lazarus either. It
    is also a possibility that Jach is lieing - that Lazarus doesn't
    exist.  This possibility has been pretty thoroughly covered, and
    I don't view it as a likely possibility.
    
    Elizabeth

RE: .34 etc. (Frederick)

I have some more questions for you.  Please do not think that I am flaming
at you; I am not.  My last response (as someone already noted) was a reaction
to your reply.  I was being frank and expected you to answer as to why you
feel you are not being "taken."  (To some degree, I can understand your
reaction.) Such answers do not bother me, as I have a hide of asbestos. 
While I shall try to be more gentle with my responses, please do not feel
that I'll think less of you if you flame....not at all!  I'd rather know
what people are feeling *regardless* of how it comes out.  Believe it or
not, I really will change my opinion of something if I think a person has
brought up better evidence for it than I have against it.  However, getting
to that point might require a dogfight or two.

    > ...I would have wanted to meet Jesus.  With Lazaris, I have (for me)
    met "someone" who I feel is far greater than that and the most evolved
    being ever to come to the physical plane...< 

But has Lazaris ever raised the dead? (That's almost a pun for you
Christians).  What good works did he do in his lifetime?  And one must pay to
hear/speak to Lazaris; That would have been abhorrent to Jesus!  Jesus also
manifested himself as spirit (The Transfiguration) Yet Lazaris seems unable to
manifest himself in bodily form.  Like a parasite (of sorts) he needs a host.
Can Lazaris *really* be called more spiritually evolved? (FWIW: I am an
ex-Christian). 

Hey everybody.... If Jesus is just another "entity," how come nobody
ever channels Him?
                                                    
    
    >  I was also repelled by the idea of eating tofu or macrobiotics my
    whole life or of shaving my head and wearing saffron. < 

Hey!  What's wrong with tofu?  ;-)   Seriously (and this may sound rather
harsh), I suspect that one reason channelers are so popular is because they
offer spiritual fast-food.  The Krishnas seem to find a lot of spiritual
fulfillment, but lead a very rigorous life.  Of course, this holds little
attraction for a generation that is used to paying money for gratification.
Today multitudes of people are making big bucks by selling scores of tapes and
lectures that basically say the same thing: think positively. 
 

    >  Sure there is a fear of being suckered into some kind of zombie-like
    existence for something else, but as I looked and listened, there was
    never anything there that indicated that situation. < 

It could be that you are too close to the situation to view it objectively.


    > Lazaris really makes an effort to encourage our independence from
    everything. < 

From everything except Lazaris, it seems to me.


    > He makes it clear that the responsibility for our lives is ours.
    Christians, e.g., like to put this responsibility in the "lord's" hands
    and also the blame (couched by words such as "it was the lord's will.")
    Lazaris is quite removed from that...and he wants no part of our
    dependence. < 

I certainly agree with you there!  That is very true for some Christians,
anyway.  But a lot of people involved in "New Age" religion do the very
same thing.  Only instead of saying "It was God's will," they say "He/she chose
that destiny on another plane."  That's an even worse cop-out.



    > Think about it.  If "GOD" materialized before you (in a way you could
    accept...and I doubt the acceptance) how would you "expect" him/her/it
    to act?  To me, Lazaris "acts" like I would or should imagine a "God"
    to act like.  If he isn't what he says he is (and what advantage is
    there to a lie?) then what is he?  < 

He is a way for Jach and associates to make a lot of money.  (Again, I am
not trying to provoke you).  Did God charge Moses for appearing at the burning
bush?  The Ten Commandments were given FOR FREE on tablets of stone....
Does Jach hand out his lecture tapes for free?  

As I have mentioned before, what we are seeing now is just a rebirth of 1920s
spiritualism.  A lot of mediums made a great deal of money before people
caught on.  As you have guessed, Lazaris and the like would be much easier
for me to handle if money weren't involved.


    > Jach (the channel) sold insurance prior to this experience, so surely
    this wisdom isn't [his]. 

Jach's job has little to do with his talent or acumen.  Recall that
Einstein worked in a patent office.  If you check into the background of
most mediums, you will discover that most of them do not hold high-paying
positions (a good reason to get into a "get rich quick scheme, wouldn't
you agree?).  The Channel for Patience Worth was a housewife.


    >  Lazaris and I are becoming more "equal" in a sense (and by that I
    mean that I see him more often as my friend) As such, I decide what I
    do, and share this with him.  He then shares with me his "views" from
    which I can discern and apply as I wish. < 

Frederick, if I told you I had a friend who charged me to see him what would
you think?  You would probably exclaim, "What kind of friend is that?" 
Well, I ask you the same question.

If Lazaris is a real, disembodied entity who know all about you, then why
does he not come to you *directly* and inhabit your body instead of Jach's?


As you can see, I have a lot of questions and criticism.  I hope you will
answer them in any way you see fit.  I don't have to tell you that I don't
believe Lazaris is anything more than a successful fantasy of Jach's and
I think you and a great many people are being mislead.  That does NOT mean,
by any stretch, that I think you are stupid!  If that were the case, I would
not bother to ask you questions.  My hope is that your spiritual search
will be successful.

John M.
                                              

    re: .35 
         Good points, Elizabeth.  For some clarification as I know it:
  In 316.69 (I think it is) I responded somewhat about where Lazaris claims
  to be from (also in .37 and somewhat in .61.)  Also, lately in this topic
  I entered information that stated that he first "came through" in 1974.
  As I understand it, Jach kept this pretty much to himself (at first) for he
  felt that maybe he was crazy or something, because he had never heard of 
  channeling before.  I also understand that he went to several psych
  (ologists, ic phenomena experts, etc.) to get their views on whatever
  it was that was happening to him.  Somewhat later, he started opening
  up to allowing friends to ask questions, etc.  Somewhere (perhaps in those
  316 notes I indicated) I mentioned that Lazaris' stated purpose  was
  to communicate with Peny and that it was she who asked that he avail
  himself to others.  When I spoke with Sharon Gless a few months ago
  she stated that when she first heard about Lazaris (about 7-8 years
  ago I think she said) the groups were generally small (although I am
  aware of a talk he gave to 600 people in 1979.)  Sharon went to a week-long
  intensive that consisted of about 30 people.  When I became involved,
  I had to give the name of the person through whom I learned about 
  Lazaris.  They were very private, then.  It wasn't until about 20
  months ago that they became "real public."  
      As for your statements on "people lying at your feet", I would 
  agree with you.  It certainly could be a possibility.  When you think
  about it (and another reason why I left Christianity behind) having
  to make someone love you is eventually an empty endeavor.  The "God"
  of Christianity forces you to love him, etc. or get punished.  Have 
  you ever felt someone's love for you that you had to manipulate out
  of them?  Or have you had to love someone out of their manipulation?
  Both of those situations feel pretty bad to me.  Something on the 
  level of "God" should be far beyond that in my view.  Lazaris is way
  too wise to get his "jollies" this way, there is no doubt in my mind.
  What he DOES say, however, is that it gives him pleasure to watch
  us grow and to get our "ahahs!"  Moreover, he appreciates our love for
  him but he does not want it to be from a father, guru, master, etc.
  perspective.  The reasons have all been spelled out countless times
  in this conference but I will restate it:  Eventually, you will have
  to take responsibility for your own life and your own reality; eventuallly,
  you will break your ties with your "father", master, guru or whoever
  it is that you place ABOVE you.  Lazaris says it would be that way
  with us with him, as well, so, in order to avoid that, simply consider
  yourself a friend, no better and no worse, and therefore with no ties
  that you must necessarily break.  I hope I stated his position well, 
  for it is an important point.  Obviously, it still comes down to wanting
  to believe him.  The point is, however, that Lazaris does not come across
  as being on some sort of power trip, in fact, to me, it would seem to 
  be somewhat boring to do what he does.  He says it isn't boring
  (he has infinite patience, I guess.)
      As for the Astral being stuff, I would also like to point out that
  Lazaris claims to be far beyond these levels.  Again, I briefly
  explained this in 316 although I would recommend the handout or 
  the tape (from which the handout comes) entitled "Lazaris explains
  Lazaris."  I may respond more fully when I respond to John's requests.
  
      I have a question for anyone.  Has anyone ever heard of a channeled
entity who has never claimed to have been human in some incarnation?  I 
have yet to learn of any and would be interested in knowing.  As far as I
am aware, Lazaris is the only entity to make this statement.
(For the "record", he states that he has never been human and never will
be human, that he "chose" this "long ago", and is very happy with this
"decision".  He also states that he is the only one who ever has or ever
will come to us from his levels, because there is so much elegance on those
levels that there is no "need" for another entity to do so.  He also 
states that there are tremendously more consciousnesses on his levels 
than there are on ours.  The choice to be human is a choice many 
consciousnesses choose, obviously us among them.)
  
re: John-
   Thanks for your note.  I wish to respond and I will try to do so
   tomorrow when perhaps I will have more time.
  
Frederick
 
                                                

RE: .37 (Frederick)

    >   Thanks for your note.  I wish to respond and I will try to do so
    tomorrow when perhaps I will have more time.  < 

Thank you.  I'll be patient.  In the mean time I may have some information
that may be of some use (but it's fuzzy).  You asked if anyone had ever heard
of a channeled entity who has never claimed to have been human.  The only one I
can think of is Geff the Mongoose (really!).  That is, I think that was his
name.  This was in the 1800s.  It's been awhile since I read that account.
Maybe someone else out there has some more information. 

John M.

    re .-2:  (Frederick)
    
    >Lazaris is way too wise to get his "jollies" this way, there is no
    >doubt in my mind. 
    
    How do you know that he is really wise?  How does being wise imply no
    need for power?
    
    >The point is, however, that Lazaris does not come across as being on
    >some sort of power trip, in fact, to me, it would seem to be somewhat
    >boring to do what he does.  He says it isn't boring (he has infinite
    >patience, I guess.) 
    
    That's the best way to appear if you want the power.  It is much
    more attractive to follow someone who appears to not be on a power
    trip.  Most of the major world religious leaders (Buddha, Jesus,
    Mohammed...) appear to not really want people to follow them as
    much as understand their message.  Buddha especially.  But people
    follow this kind of people.  If he has as much wisdom as I do (not
    much :^)) this would be the best tactic to take to get followers.
    
    >I have a question for anyone.  Has anyone ever heard of a channeled
    >entity who has never claimed to have been human in some incarnation? 
    
    Yes.  I have a friend who privately channels such an entity.  Also,
    much of the astral trash has never had an incarnation.  I certainly
    wouldn't look to one of these for guidance.  Also, since Lazaris
    hasn't experienced humanity, I have some questions about how well
    he can understand it fully.
    
    Re (John):
    
    Lazaris tells people that Jach is the only person who can channel
    him.  Thus you (if you believed in such things) could not channel
    him, or get someone else to do so.  So, if you want to talk to Lazaris
    you have to go through Jach and company, and pay whatever they want.
    I have somewhat of an immediate suspicion that anything spiritual that
    costs a significant (beyond obvious expenses of presenting it) amount
    of money.
    
    Also, on the subject of mediums, Houdini was able to expose a number
    of mediums as frauds, and show how they were producing their effects.
    He also believed that there *were* real, honest mediums.  I think
    the same goes for channellers, but I see no easy way to expose them.
    
    Elizabeth
    
    

    
    Please bear with me - but I just *have* to enter a few humorous
    comments on past notes here:
    
    .36 - Did God ever have to eat??  Did God ever have to pay a *real*
          mortgage??  Some of the Boston 'burb houses are now up over
          a million US dollars (clams).
    
    .38 - Mongoose??  Any relation to Bruce the Moose, a real live moose
          who took a left turn at the Canadian border and was found
          wandering around and terrorizing shopkeepers in Lowell, MA
          a few years back??
    
    Been one of those days.
    
    Cindy

      Before I start to reply to a couple...the question here to me
    seems to be 1. do we believe the source of this wisdom?
                2. do we ignore the source and just listen to the wisdom?
                3. If we believe the source is genuine, is the information
                   given that much more valuable?
       As I have been stating from my beginnings here in this conference,
    I, too, have and certainly have had my share of doubts.  This is
    *so* freaky from a traditional standpoint!  But, upon closer
    examination, to me, at least, at some point rationale is going to
    part with "logic."  For instance, do we believe in Jesus who we
    only get to read about in some ancient book whose origins are murky
    at best?  Do we believe in Islam while observing what that mindset
    is doing in the modern world?  Do we follow teachings that lead
    to starvation or various other forms of deprivation?  Do we reject
    as spiritual anything that has to do with money?  Do we listen to
    a teacher who perhaps has been involved or implicated in "shenanigans"
    in his/her past?  Do we consider the source for all other forms
    of knowledge?  Do we?  Do you?  How much time do you spend with
    this aspect?  Or, do we simply look at the material that gets presented
    and "figure it out for ourselves."  For me, I would like to believe
    that this last option would be preferable.  In this regard, so much
    focus is being spent here on what level this is coming from, etc.
    rather than focusing on the content of the information.  We go to
    listen to Harvey Wallbanger or to Swami Suchabanana or to guru
    Rammalamadingdong and listen to them and we say "Oh, so powerful!"
    or "Yeah, cosmic, man!"  and don't pay any attention to the robes
    they wear, their haircuts, the numbers of spouses they have, nor
    their rings on their fingers, etc.  So why is it that a being that
    purports to be from another dimension gets so thoroughly scrutinized?
    Perhaps it has to do with our fears of the unknown (clearly, we
    cannot see into another dimension as easily as we can see hairstyles,
    etc.)  And yet, in the case of someone like Lazaris, at least, wouldn't
    it be easier to get attention if Jach simply said that the information
    was coming from within?  Seems to me it would be a lot less hassle.
    So, as I have also stated over and over again, the decision needs
    to be YOUR OWN.  If you are sitting around waiting for someone else
    to decide that this information is valuable or not, then you are
    simply giving your power away and most likely will lose a great
    deal (certainly in terms of responsibility.)  I will no longer be
    a "sheep" or a part of some "flock."  In my particular case there
    happen to be many many others who enjoy Lazaris as much as I do,
    but this isn't like some sort of congregation.  Lazaris has said
    that this is not "coffee and donuts" time.  We are not there to
    interact with each other...we are there on our own individuated
    quest for spirituality.  We do not go (even when there are 1000
    people in the room) and sing nor hold hands, etc.  We do not compare
    notes (generally Lazaris says that that only sets up a better-than
    situation) nor do most of the things that typical organizations
    do.  So, while we are spending valuable time here arguing the level
    of wisdom that this information is coming from, we are avoiding
    the actual teachings, themselves, and, therefore, possibly missing
    an incredible opportunity for accelerated growth.  For me what I
    get is an opportunity to really nail down my beliefs...for you,
    maybe I'm just a source of titillation or maybe I can offer some
    of whatever knowledge I have.  Just keep this in mind...what I say
    about Lazaris is usually just my view or opinion...yours or someone
    else's could be otherwise.  I would only recommend that you see
    for yourself and take it or leave it from there.
    
    re: 39  To that end, thanks, Elizabeth, more devil's advocates
    here I do not need! (Insert sarcastic face here.)  
       But, since you mentioned it...as I mentioned in 316 or in 358
    somewhere, Lazaris says that we can consider ourselves the SET
    (as in math) of humanity.  Anything within the set will not be able
    to understand the entirety of it as well as that which lays outside
    the set.  He says that for that reason, he understands humanity
    far better than any human can.  
       As for accessing Lazaris is concerned, it's true that Jach is
    to be his only channel.  Lazaris will be there for us, however,
    in our meditations...(there are qualifications here I do not wish
    to take time to clarify.)  So, at least once to a certain point
    in your willingness and desire, you will no longer need to get 
    "direct" information.  Similarly, he teaches us to develop our
    relationship with our counselors, our higher self and ultimately
    with God/Goddess/All-That-IS.  You don't need to spend any money
    at all for those things and ALL of them are more crucial than the
    relationship we have with Lazaris.  He is simply there as a friend
    no more and no less.
         As for followers, as I pointed out, love precludes that type
    of manipulation.  Lazaris is far too loving to have desire for that
    type of power.  All he talks about reveals that we need to take
    back our power from wherever it is that we have placed it (including
    with him, if that's where we've put it.)
         Lastly, I urge you to read my last note in 316 to see what
    Jach himself says about channelings and also read what I believe
    is my last note to date in 358 in regards to abundance.  It is clear
    that too many of us associate wealth with corruption and spirituality
    with poverty.  I urge you to rethink your beliefs in this regard.
    (I, too, hold some notions here that are NOT conducive to abundance.)
    When looked at in this vein (if you will accept this) then it becomes
    easier to see "costs" as simply a method of making the wealth flow
    rather than as a black cloud to be contended with.  Remember, no
    one is being treated in an undignified manner here...we all get
    our "money's worth" from Lazaris...beyond that, it is no more our
    business what they do with their money than with what Steve Wozniac
    or some other millionaire does with theirs (unless they do something
    that affects others--and that could be either seen as positive or
    negative.)
       Thanks for the information on the channel but it isn't much.
    Do you have more that you can share in this regard?
      
    John--I'll get to your questions as soon as I can.
      
    Frederick
      
    

    RE: John Mitchell's questions and statements:
      
        (I will answer in the order you asked.)  Stories about Jesus'
    good works are all, of course, hearsay.  Aitionally, one could also
    argue how good they indeed, were, since so much disruption resulted
    (and eventually his own death.)  Anyway, I won't belabor this and
    it isn't really what you are asking.  What has Lazaris done?  (I
    think this is what you want to know.)  Well, for starters, he has
    helped make a great many people much happier than they were.  He
    has helped make a great many people financially wealthy (OUTSIDE
    the small, Concept:Synergy, organization.)  (This, by the way, was
    documented by our local San Francisco station, KPIX.)  How did he?
    By providing them with the same techniques that we all have access
    to (see last note to date from me in 358 regarding abundance.) 
    He has helped people resolve issues within themselves (anger, jealousy,
    quilt, etc.) and with others (how to establish more meaningful
    relationships, etc.)  How?  Again, by stating techniques and processes
    that work to do just that.  He has helped people cure themselves
    (This area is very touchy for some people, so I will not elaborate
    too much...I am aware, however, of this and could substantiate this
    much further if there were a need and a more receptive audience.)
    This has generally been done by his teaching of health techniques,
    understanding that health is a result of emotional balance/imbalance,
    and/or working with meditative techniques, etc. which have helped
    in this regard.  There are many who credit him (although admittedly
    ultimately it is us) with a positive change in their physical health.
    The list is quite long here (there are 8,000,000 naked people in
    the city...this has only been a couple of 'em.)  Lots of good works,
    John, by almost anybody's reckoning.
         As for needing a body, Lazaris says that it would be *more
    of* a "punishment" to be in a body (this was breifly discussed in
    316 somewhere).  He *Chose* to not be physical deliberately.  What
    he says about us in this respect is that we chose bodies for the
    experiences that are available to us this way.  There are many score
    more consciousnesses that have *chosen* not to be physical.  As
    I responded to Elizabeth, he chose to be here to communicate with
    Peny on the physical plane and this, he felt, was the best and most
    elegant manner.  Additionally, he says that if he were to be physical
    he would undoubtably be *several humans at once* due to the tremendous
    energy he has.  He says he spends approximately 1% of his energy
    on the physical plane.
         By the way, entities who are not physical choose us, not the
    other way around (except that you can accept or reject them.)  It
    is likely that Jesus doesn't want to have anything more to do with
    this plane.
         ...and have you ever eaten a Falafel?  Anyway, it is true,
    as you say, that the "human potential movement" has been full of
    spiritual fast food.  Lazaris has told us many times that this is
    one of the many ways we have been hurt.  He states further that
    we need to realize that there are no shortcuts!  It takes work,
    active and constant, to become a spiritual person.
          As even I have admitted, I am quite close to this *situation.*
    Although in my view I do not feel that I have lost my oectivity
    to the point of blindness.
          As for independence from Lazaris, that can only be attributed
    to each person, not to Lazaris.  I believe I have stated and restated
    that position.
          Next point:  I agree on your cop-out statement, but only to
    this point--while it may be true that each person has come into
    this lifetime with a "destiny" to leave it there is where the cop-out
    *could be*.  To carry this out to its completion, however, one needs
    to realize that it (the destiny) can be changed.  If each person
    takes responsibility for his/her life, the future (and therefore
    the present and also the past) can be changed to create a new
    destiny.  Therefore no more excuses, no more blame, no more cop-outs.
          As to your final (for now, I'm sure) points:  First off, be
    aware that Jach does not experience Lazaris "internally."  He needs
    to listen to tapes to find out what Lazaris has talked about or
    he communicates (almost daily) with Peny and Michael or Hutch to
    learn what Lazaris has said (even to the point of knowing how long
    a dinner break is, e.g.)  So, from this vantage place I actually
    benefit more from what Lazaris is teaching by this method than by
    actually having him channel through me.  As for Jach's acumen,
    I would say he has no more or no less than most of us.  Certainly,
    he is a rather pleasant person but admits that he knew little of
    metaphysics before all of "this."  Additionally, do not presuppose
    that he wasn't wealthy (before all of this) from his insurance work.
    Anyway, understand that Lazaris is not charging money here...Jach
    and his organization are.  This is obviously a business.  Even Jach,
    however, admits to some discomfort here although he says that it's
    the "American way" and that (again I repeat) we should not associate
    poverty with spirituality nor wealth with corruption.  If you really
    want to access Lazaris, you will.  You can then apply his methods
    to change your beliefs about abundance and you can then go out into
    "the world" and use your money to help change it.  If you don't
    want to pay, perhaps you can meet someone or some organization who
    will let you watch/listen for free.  At least until you can change
    your attitudes/beliefs, etc. about money so that you can then perhaps
    pay as everyone else does, without guilt, jealousy or judgements.
         
         If this is a fantasy of Jach's, it is absolutely astounding
    on his part.  He deserves not only an oscar, then, but also a nobel
    peace prize!  I think you are wrong on this count.
      
         Anyway, John, I am sure there will be more from you.  I ask
    only that you not make me repeat myself...this is work, here, doing
    this!  Also I much prefer (and almost enjoy) this last "round" of
    questions from you.  Much better than the Joe Pyne approach I felt
    earlier.  (Incidentally, in case you are too young to remember him...
    he died of cancer, which Lazaris says is usually a result of suppressed
    anger...read between the lines, as Topher wmight say.) Thanks for
    your patience, also.
      
    Frederick (who really wants to believe in love)
    
    

    re Gef the mongoose -- this is from Robert Anton Wilson's "The New
    Inquisition", Falcon Press, pp 207-8:
    
    	Jon
    
    _Haunted People_, by Nandor Fodor, Signet, New York, pp 154ff -- In the
    early 1930s in a farmhouse called Doarlish Cashen on the Isle of Man
    lived James T. Irving, and his wife and children, and Gef. 
    
    Gef appeared to be shy and reclusive, like many of us eccentrics.
    He appeared to hide in the walls and never made what are called
    personal appearances. But he talked to anybody who cared to converse
    with him. Gef identified himself as a "very, *very* clever mongoose."
    
    On the other hand, Gef was even more immodest on other occasions. He is
    alleged to have identified himself -- maybe after he had a drop taken
    -- as "the eighth wonder of the world," "the Holy Ghost," and "the
    fifth dimension." I swear, whatever the Fundamentalists [Fundamentalist
    Rationalists -- CSICOP and the like -- J.C.] say about me, I have never
    been that drunk. 
    
    Well, hardly ever.
    
    When sober, Gef would put on psychic demonstrations for callers. For
    instance, they would toss coins and catch them. Gef would cry out
    "heads" or "tails." Fodor alleges that Gef was very accurate, but he
    does not quote statistics, as if that matters in a case like this. If
    statistics were quoted, the Fundamentalists would merely prove you
    could get the same result by cheating. 
    
    Objects appeared to fly around when Gef was performing.
    
    _Fortean Times_, Summer 1980 -- more on Gef. Harry Price, the "psychic
    investigator," came to the Isle of Man to speak with Gef, who
    apparently had an even lower opinion of Mr. Price than the
    Fundamentalists have. The appearance was rude and uncouth in that case:
    Gef appeared to urinate on Mr. Price's shoes. 
    
    Maybe he was just tired of guessing "heads" or "tails" for such
    persons. Maybe Dr. Fodor had taxed his patience.
    
    Another investigator, identified only as Wylder, spoke at length with
    Gef and decided that the little fellow was a mongoose after all, and
    not the Holy Ghost or the fifth dimension. Said Wylder, "The mysterious
    powers of animals are only beginning to be understood."
    
    After the Irvings sold the farm and left, the next owner shot an animal
    on the property. It was a mongoose. If it was Gef, it didn't have time
    to shout, "Stop -- I'm really the Holy Ghost!" If it wasn't Gef, it was
    another of our odd coincidences. 

    Re: .41  ( I loved your examples!)
>>    In this regard, so much
    focus is being spent here on what level this is coming from, etc.
    rather than focusing on the content of the information.  We go to
    listen to Harvey Wallbanger or to Swami Suchabanana or to guru
    Rammalamadingdong and listen to them and we say "Oh, so powerful!"
    or "Yeah, cosmic, man!"  and don't pay any attention to the robes
    they wear, their haircuts, the numbers of spouses they have, nor
    their rings on their fingers, etc.  So why is it that a being that
    purports to be from another dimension gets so thoroughly scrutinized?
    Perhaps it has to do with our fears of the unknown (clearly, we
    cannot see into another dimension as easily as we can see hairstyles,
    etc.)  And yet, in the case of someone like Lazaris, at least, wouldn't
    it be easier to get attention if Jach simply said that the information
>>    was coming from within?

  
    Nope.  If I wanted to get on top of a soapbox and start teaching
    philosphy, how many people would actually listen to me?  The robes,
    hair, rings, wives are a gimmick to grab attention in our world of
    sensationalism.  Does a being from another dimension sound sensational?
    
    EVERYONE should hold their truths open to be scrutinized!  Blind
    faith can be manipulated, even within a "good" organization.  I'm
    not talking about fear of the unknown, but the betterment of society.
    I have read a lot of what you posted about Lazaris' teachings and
    I find it very informative and enlightening (i.e. Common Sense ;-)
    but instead of agrueing against the scrutinizing of Lazaris, why
    aren't you argueing FOR the scrutinizing of Jerry Falwell, Oral
    Roberts, the Bakkers etc. and how they live up to their beliefs.
    
    After the scrutiny, there's left only truth.

    (and that which can't be proven)

    ERIS::CALLAS, Thanks for the info on Gef!
    
    
    RE: .41 (Frederick)

    >  So why is it that a being that purports to be from another dimension
    gets so thoroughly scrutinized? < 


Because there is no proof of this "being's" existence.  All we have is a
man who claims to act as some kind of radio (and charges a pretty penny
for his services) for an entity who claims to be very powerful, yet cannot
manifest himself in any other way.  Is it any wonder, then, that a being
from another dimension should be scrutinized when there is no proving the
existence nor the being nor the dimension he hails from?

Spiritualists have always played on the fact that they are not accountable
for what they say: "Hey, *Lazaris* said that, not me!"  When the going gets
tough, the "spirit" gets going...elsewhere.  I predict that Jach will do
the same as so many have before him:  When he feels he has made enough money,
or is tired of what he is doing, or there is contention with his coworkers,
Lazaris will simply claim that it is time to go and that will be that. 
No questions asked.  Since the spirit will not be available for questions
or comments, the medium can retire into obscurity with his pile of money.



    >... wouldn't it be easier to get attention if Jach simply said that
    the information was coming from within? < 


No.  If that were the case, what he said just becomes another opinion. 
But who would can argue with an omniscient entity from beyond?


    >  We do not compare notes (generally Lazaris says that that only sets
    up a better-than situation) < 

Could it be that Lazaris does not want people to compare notes because he
has told multiple people the same thing?


    > Lazaris says that we can consider ourselves the SET (as in math) of
    humanity.  Anything within the set will not be able to understand the
    entirety of it as well as that which lays outside the set. < 


How do you reconcile that with the doctrine that spirits choose to become
human to gain experience?  If one can get a better picture of humanity from
the outside, why would anyone need to become human?  And if being human
DOES result in valuable experience (for whatever good that would be) then
Lazaris is lacking first-hand knowledge and is not qualified to speak on
human topics.


    >  It is clear that too many of us associate wealth with corruption and
    spirituality with poverty.  I urge you to rethink your beliefs in this
    regard. < 

I read what Lazaris has to say about "abundance" and found it disturbingly
like that which a local success-guru is given to say (for a price).  Nothing
new here.  There are some things, though, I would like to address:


    >  We need to realize that our new relationship with
    God/Goddess/All-That-Is is one of love, light, laughter and ease...not
    one of pain and agony. < 

As I have mentioned, this is what makes such New Age philosophies so tasteful
to Yuppie palates: that everything with God/Goddess/All-that-is is going
to be pain-free and full of sweetness and light.  This is what I mean by
the fast-food mentality: love, light, laughter and ease!  What could be
simpler?  I suggest Lazaris try that lecture in Ethiopia or India.  It's
one thing to speak of "laughter and ease" from a podium when you're rolling
in dough, quite another when you're struggling for survival.


    > Their attachments and judgements about money and success.  We need to
    realize that money is an illusion just like the rest of our reality and
    that we can have as much of nothing as we want. < 

With all due respect, dose the above statement sound as nonsensical to anyone
else as it does to me?  Since everything is just illusion and we can have
as much of nothing as we want, why bother with laws or morality?  "Hey man,
I know I just stole your watch, but that's just an illusion, so it doesn't
matter, OK?"


    >  Having or not having it is not important...what is important is what
    we do with it or what we deny ourselves by not having it.  < 


This is what virtually every T.V. preacher tells his congregation when asked
how they justify getting rich off their followers.  Shades of Rev. Ike!
    

    >   Wealth is having access to the resources [see earlier response in
    this topic].  Abundance is having what you want all the time with love,
    laughter, light and ease.  We worked for the old abundance.  The new
    abundance we step into.  < 

Ain't life just a bowl of cherries? 
      

OK.  Back to the notes at hand.


RE: .42
      
    >  What has Lazaris done?  (I think this is what you want to know.)
    Well, for starters, he has helped make a great many people much happier
    than they were.  He has helped make a great many people financially
    wealthy (OUTSIDE the small, Concept:Synergy, organization.) < 

Although I do not have the exposure to this that you do, I don't see where
Lazaris has alleviated much misery.  If helping the middle class get rich or
the rich get richer (the poor could not afford his seminars or counseling) can
be called a good thing than OK.  From what I have read in DEJAVU (kindly
provided by yourself) Lazaris hasn't said anything very new or unique.  It's
basically the same thing ("think positively") stated over and over.  There are
a lot of people making a profession off that statement nowadays. 


    >  As for needing a body, Lazaris says that it would be *more of* a
    "punishment" to be in a body (this was breifly discussed in 316
    somewhere).  He *Chose* to not be physical deliberately.  What he says
    about us in this respect is that we chose bodies for the experiences
    that are available to us this way.  < 

Then I again suggest that he can't really know of what he speaks.  If by
choosing bodies we gain experience, then Lazaris lacks basic human experience.


    >  Additionally, he says that if he were to be physical he would
    undoubtably be *several humans at once* due to the tremendous energy he
    has.  He says he spends approximately 1% of his energy on the physical
    plane. < 

Why?  If he is so powerful, why doesn't he contact Penny directly?  Why
doesn't he manifest himself?  How could he be several humans at once?  


    > As to your final (for now, I'm sure) points:  First off, be aware
    that Jach does not experience Lazaris "internally."  He needs to listen
    to tapes to find out what Lazaris has talked about or he communicates
    (almost daily) with Penny and Michael or Hutch to learn what Lazaris
    has said...< 

But how do you know he is not just saying that?  It would be easy enough
to do (also absolves Jach of responsibility).


    >  If this is a fantasy of Jach's, it is absolutely astounding on his
    part.  He deserves not only an oscar, then, but also a nobel peace
    prize!  I think you are wrong on this count.  < 


Frederick, remember when I said that I could be a successful "channeler" if I
chose?  I did not say that just to bug you (really! ;-)).  I have alternate
"personalties" that I like to "become" for my own amusement and the amusement
of others.  These personalties come with their own voices, histories, opinions,
even facial characteristics.  One of them, "Ned," was so disturbing in his
difference from me that some people I know would leave the room because they
found it "too weird."  This was not helped by the fact that whenever I became
Ned, the family dog would bark at me as though I were a stranger.    You could
ask Ned anything about his background and receive very detailed answers, and
people still speak of Ned as though he were a separate person.  (Ned is "gone,"
but Fritz and Galiano Galetti are still around).  Now, I could easily claim
that these different characters are "entities" (my younger brother, a
professional actor, has them too: Mortis Johnson and Billy-Joe-Bob Mercury,
among others).  I am not going to make that claim.  They are simply the
result of me giving my mind absolute free reign.  I suggest that Jach, J.Z.
Knight and others are simply doing the same thing...if even that well! 

Maybe I should have a go at it.  One of my personalities is an Indian guru
named Sri Purupu.  I also interpret for dogs in my "dog voice."


    > Anyway, John, I am sure there will be more from you.  I ask only that
    you not make me repeat myself...this is work, here, doing this!  < 

Well, I hope you were not disappointed!  Thank you for taking so much time
to write your responses.  But do try to break your notes into smaller
paragraphs; it makes them easier to read and I don't want to miss anything
you say.

John M.

P.S. Cancer is the result of WHAT?!
                                                                      

RE .45

    I finally decided not to suggest to our noble moderator that the
    referenced note be deleted.  It steps clearly and definitely over
    the guidelines for this conference, i.e., it makes a direct,
    judgmental attack on the *morality* of people who belong to a
    particular religion.

    I finally decided that your statement was a result of your already
    demonstrated penchant for sloppy language.  I think an apology is
    in order (or at least some agreement that you hadn't really meant to
    say what you actually did say).

    Spiritualists are members of a religion who believe that contact with
    the spirits of the dead through the intervention of specially talented
    individuals (called mediums) gives them direct and verifiable evidence
    for their religious beliefs.

    There are also a number of formal "Spiritist" churches (existing
    worldwide but most active in South America, especially Brazil), which
    broadly speaking, have similar beliefs.  They differ drastically in
    detail, however, the most important difference is that they do not
    restrict their spirits to the human dead.

    Their is no firm consensus on a proper generic term, but "spiritist"
    (note the small letter) to refer collectively both to these formal
    churches and to smaller or less formal groups and individuals seems
    to be the most common term.

    While Jach/Lazaris is clearly a spiritist, as far as I know he/they
    are *not* Spiritualists.  Lazaris' claimed lack of any human
    incarnation is in opposition to what I understand (Spiritualists can
    correct me on this) is one of the few basic tenants of Spiritualism.

    I hold a somewhat different opinion than the spiritists about the
    origin of the phenomena on which they base their various religions.
    There are basic psychological mechanisms, discovered by the early
    psychologist-psychical-researchers, which "explain" the creation of
    these seemingly independent personalities.  Since these independent
    personalities can tap into potentials blocked, one way or another,
    from our conscious personality, they frequently show intelligence,
    wisdom, wit, eloquence or knowledge which their mediums (or channels)
    lack.

    Occasionally, someone finds themselves motivated to "fake" this
    phenomenon.  When there is a lot of money to be had from displays of
    rare (perhaps non-existent) of abilities (e.g., gross physical effects,
    production of apparitions, reliable prediction of the future) more
    people (some of whom may *also* be sincere spiritists) will find the
    motivation to fake things.  Of course, the snake-oil debunkers who
    make their living off of exposing fraud (or rather off of lecturing
    about how they have exposed fraud, whether they have or not) will find
    it to their personal advantage to exaggerate the incidence of fraud.

    I think your offensive reference to "Spiritualists" was actually meant
    to be a reference to fake mediums, most of whom practiced their trade
    of defrauding sincere Spiritualists from the middle of the nineteenth
    century through the first quarter of this one.  There may still be a
    few of these around, but there is no longer any big bucks to be made
    from phony Spiritualist mediumship.  Virtually all Spiritualist mediums
    today are almost certainly sincere (and the vast majority probably
    always *have* been).

    However, this is irrelevant to the current situation.  The current
    crop of "spirits" are not claiming to produce miracles -- only
    insight.  Metaphorically, we can say that under these conditions the
    ecological niche which the frauds seek to fill is going to already
    be filled with sincere believers.

    What this boils down to is that your "evidence" for Lazaris'
    fraudulence is that (1) he *could* be a fake, (2) Jach charges more
    for Lazaris' advice than *you* personally feel the advice is worth
    (although others quite clearly disagree).  This is hardly a strong
    case against a well documented counter-hypothesis.  To put it bluntly,
    your assertions of Lazaris being a fraud represent prejudice, pure and
    simple -- they do not represent "rationality" and they most certainly
    do not represent science.

    You have a perfect right to your opinion, but please don't represent
    it as anything else.

    And yes, to answer your question from somewhere else -- it *does* make
    a difference whether Lazaris, Ramtha, etc. are fakes or subconsciously
    generated personalities.  It makes a difference because *you* are making
    quite explicit, unjustified claims -- and concentrated your attention
    on them -- about motives, techniques, etc.  Besides the general
    obnoxiousness of such attacks, there is also the problem that by making
    such claims while "wearing the uniform" of science, you impede *real*
    objective, scientific, open-minded attempts to investigate these
    phenomena.  Also, on a more individual level, there are much more
    likely to be real spiritual insights from a possibly exceptional
    subconscious personality than from a conscious fraud who will provide
    whatever sells.

				    Topher

re: part of .45

|    > Their attachments and judgements about money and success.  We need to
|    realize that money is an illusion just like the rest of our reality and
|    that we can have as much of nothing as we want. < 
|
|With all due respect, dose the above statement sound as nonsensical to anyone
|else as it does to me?  Since everything is just illusion and we can have
|as much of nothing as we want, why bother with laws or morality?  "Hey man,
|I know I just stole your watch, but that's just an illusion, so it doesn't
|matter, OK?"

In answer to your question:

	>>dose the above statement sound as nonsensical to anyone
	>>else as it does to me?  

No, it doesn't sound nonsensical to me.  Rather it sounds like part of 
a value system that many major religions and philosophies set forth.
To restate from roughly a Christian viewpoint (since that's the one that
was drilled into my head for many years):

	The material wealth of this earth will be of no use in heaven.
	Accummulate as much of it as you want, but it won't do you
	any good in the afterlife.

Regarding the statement of the stolen watch, some people would say
not only here's my watch, but take my coat as well if you need it.  Some
people do not value tangible wealth.  

I suspect another phrase equivalent to part of the following statement,

	>>We need to realize that money is an illusion just like the 
	>>rest of our reality and that we can have as much of nothing 
	>>as we want.

would be:

	Money has no inherent value in and of itself once it is removed
	from the socio-economic structure in which it was originated.
	
Or perhaps:

	The value of money is context dependent.

Doesn't sound nonsensical at all to me.  

alison

RE: .46 (Topher)

I stand by everything I said and apologize for none of it.  Perhaps if you
were less interested in semantics than you apparently are in content, you
would see that I in no way attacked "the morality of people who belong to
a particular religion."

    >  There are basic psychological mechanisms, discovered by the early
    psychologist-psychical-researchers, which "explain" the creation of
    these seemingly independent personalities.  < 

That is an opinion, not a statement of fact.  There could be any number
of reasons for so-called alternate personalities; indeed, "personality"
is itself a subjective term.


    >  Since these independent personalities can tap into potentials
    blocked, one way or another, from our conscious personality, they
    frequently show intelligence, wisdom, wit, eloquence or knowledge which
    their mediums (or channels) lack.  < 


It is not an established fact that unconscious personalities exist or that
they are truly independent from the so-called "conscious personality."
You have consistently missed one of my main points about Lazaris, Ramtha,
and the like: It DOES matter if they are mental creations as opposed to
actual disembodied entities, since they claim special knowledge based on
their situation.  This point was excellently made by Paul in reply .48.


    > There may still be a few of these [fake mediums] around, but there is
    no longer any big bucks to be made from phony Spiritualist mediumship.
    < 

Where did you get that idea?  That's like saying that there is no longer
any money to be made out of evangelism.  


    > Virtually all Spiritualist mediums today are almost certainly sincere
    (and the vast majority probably always *have* been). < 

I don't think you're qualified to speak for all Spiritualist mediums, unless
you are privy to some esoteric cosmic knowledge the rest of us aren't.


John M.
                                      

-

         I have been looking at all this for a couple of days and I have
    been trying to figure out how to respond.  I don't think I know
    how.  Why not?  Because there is so much to say, for one.  Another
    issue that is very real for me is the issue of my own ego.  While
    perhaps for some of you this is not important, I have come to believe
    (based on my background and teachings from many, many sources) that
    the control (dominion over,is actually more appropriate) of my negative
    ego is paramount for a "successful" life.  So, while it is clear
    to me that many within these notes have "an ego problem," what is
    less clear is how much of a problem is my own ego, i.e., that perhaps
    I am stroking my own negative ego by much of what I am doing here.
    So, I am trying to determine where *I* begin or where it is "my
    ego."  
         For starters, I do not wish to be competitive.  I also do not
    wish to be comparative.  I have been and will probably continue
    to be both (until I can overcome that.)  What this means to this
    response is that I will not play this "argument"-game too much more
    than I already have.  It becomes ludicrous and unproductive quite
    rapidly.  As I have stated before, I felt that perhaps what I had
    learned and benefited from could/would/should be useful to others
    and I have tried to pass on that information to the best of my 
    ability.  Some of you (who have read all that I have written) will
    acknowledge that I stated somewhere that I felt that this is a big
    responsibility and, additionally, that everything I write (unless
    it is in quotes, usually) is *MY* interpretation of what I have
    heard.  I also have stated in various ways that each person needs
    to decide for him/herself, for there are many ways in which I can
    "misconstrue" or hear differently than they.  After all of my study
    with Lazaris I feel that I am "qualified" to talk about a great
    deal about what he says.  Perhaps I flatter myself (or my ego)
    with this thinking.  
         So much of what some of what you have said has been brought
    up so many times (in my experience with Lazaris-not necessarily
    in the notes files,) that I can usually handle the rationale.
    It is much easier, however, face to face than via this method.
    Believe me when I state that most of you have very valid points
    and considerations.  I agree that scrutiny and asking "why?" are
    important.  I don't relish having to defend, however, so I do
    get riled up about that sometimes.  There can come a point, however,
    (as I have stated before also) where I need to determine whether
    or not it is worth my effort to do so.  If it can become clear to
    me that an individual is simply playing a game to which he/she
    insists I lose, then I will stop playing.  I am close to this point
    on several issues here.  There is a probable reality in which we
    can both "win" and that is my preference.  It is much easier to
    attack and blame and accuse and point fingers for too many people
    than it is to accept responsibility and have acceptance.  I brought
    up Joe Pyne a while back.  He was despised by almost everyone
    (including his co-workers.)  Yet he was "successful" because he
    provided entertainment with his unmitigated attacks on everyone
    and everything.  Same thing happened to the Romans and Christians
    (when they were fed to lions,) same thing happens (in my opinion)
    with some "sports" today.  I wish only to express myself and my
    beliefs...by so doing I incur your scrutiny and perhaps approval,
    disdain or non-chalance.  I encourage you to clarify, question,
    etc. if that is there.  I discourage you from forcing me to defend
    my beliefs, however.  
         Lazaris has said many things that are new and many things that
    are not.  He is particularly good at taking all the things that
    we have heard and "making sense" out of them.  It is not uncommon
    for people to attend a seminar, etc. and feel that it was all
    common sense.  But damned if they can find a source that does it
    more elegantly!  Lazaris has stated that ultimately all beliefs
    are false, but that we might as well find beliefs that work.
    Break down the systems and create new systems, then break those
    down, etc.  He says so very, very much...I have spent an entire
    week with him for 12 hours each day and he has done absolutely
    nothing short of completely amazing me (and apparently most of the
    others.)  There is NO question in my mind that this is NOT a fraud!
    It is simply virtually impossible to conceive of what I have heard/seen
    him do and attribute it to a "mere mortal."  What level then
    does he come from and could he be a part of a sub-conscious activity?
    I don't know where he comes from and I suppose he could be some
    sub-conscious activity, but I have very strong belief that says
    that he is what he says he is.  I have seen/heard too much to not
    believe it.  For you, then, what should you do?  Anything you want
    but presumably if I were to be in your position I would "go easy"
    with what I say and work on it to your own satisfaction (or not.)
    My lament is that perhaps so many of you could benefit from this
    if you but availed yourself to it...and that you won't either because
    I misrepresented it or because you "bought into" someone else's
    criticism of it.  Hey!  The choice is always still yours.  I have
    no disrespect for anyone who says it isn't for them.  Please just
    hit the NEXT UNSEEN key if you aren't interested, however, and allow
    those who ARE the opportunity to inquire, etc.  Based on some mail,
    there are those (many of whom are not vocal here) who do have an
    interest in what I have to say.  No, I don't expect everything I
    say to be accepted just don't attack it, please.
        I will respond to specific inquiries (some of them) tomorrow.
      
    Frederick
    

    Gentlefolk!
    
    I regret to observe this note/responses is/are starting to become
    unnecessarily contentious.  One of the reasons imay be that in some
    contexts, "belief" is handmaiden to "religion." I use quotes to
    differentiate between an organized sect/cult/faith and a personal
    conviction.  Indeed, I started another note to address the religio-
    philosophical issue.
    
    Here, we're all apparently falling over definitions.  One person's
    "spiritualist" is another's "spiritist."  Imprecision in language,
    alas, has been the downfall of many (after the fact, if you'd asked
    Henry II what he meant concerning his statement about Thomas a'
    Becket....).  Let's not fall into contentious traps.
    
    "Agreeing to disagree" is a good way to make progress.  Naturally,
    taken to an extreme, it would mean everybody talks and nobody listens.
    But if, say, person A says "I believe that levitation is caused
    by sorcery," and person B says, "I believe that levitation is caused
    by bioplasmic psi fields," they can both discuss the implications
    and consequences of levitation.
    
    In short, less heat brings more light.
    
    Peace to all.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    RE:  .51
    
    
    Blessed are the peacemakers - for they shal inherit the earth.
    
    Well said, Steve.

RE: .49

    Well I read back over the statement I objected to yesterday, and I
    see that it is open to a more charitable interpretation than I gave
    it.  I therefore reacted overly harshly.  For this *I* apologize.

    My correct action should have been to point out the ambiguity and
    give you the opportunity to clarify that you did not intend the
    derogatory meaning, and let you decide (without prompting) whether
    or not you wished to apologize for any offense caused by your
    ambiguity (if it is not all in my head).

    So, to set the record straight:

    You did not mean to imply that all or most followers of the faith
    called Spiritualism deliberately practice deceitful denial of
    responsibility for their statements, did you?

    > Perhaps if you were less interested in semantics than you apparently
    > are in content, ...

    I am most overwhelming concerned with the content of what you say.
    What you mean can only be inferred from what you say on the basis
    of the meaning (semantics) of the words you use.  The meaning of
    words is determined from how they are or may reasonably be interpreted.
    They do not mean whatever you happen to want them to mean when you use
    them.  I am concerned that I understand you, that you understand me,
    and that everyone reading this understands both of us.

    I hold people accountable for what they say, since ultimately I cannot
    hold them accountable for what they intended to say.  I do my best to
    give them the benefit of the doubt and try to stretch what they have
    said into something which seems reasonable.  Sometimes I fail to figure
    out anything reasonable.  Occasionally, as in this case, I'll miss a
    meaning roughly equal in likelihood to that first occurred to me -- my
    fallibility is legendary. 

    When I have to stretch to get an "acceptable" meaning, I frequently
    check to make sure that the meaning I have guessed at is the one
    intended.  Given that this is a public discussion, if there is an
    ambiguous statement made, even if I am pretty sure of the intended
    meaning, I may ask for disambiguation so that others reading it, now
    or years in the future, are not confused.

    If someone uses a technical term (and thereby claims a precision of
    meaning) inaccurately, I will point it out.  I will assume that
    they use the term out of ignorance and provide the technical definition
    as I understand it.  Technical terms are very precise instruments for
    accurate communication and their misuse destroys them.  E.g., mysticism,
    metaphysics, spiritism, Spiritism, Spiritualism and occultism all mean
    different things and those differences must not be confused if I and
    others are to accurately express ourselves about each of them.

    Let me finish simply by repeat my apology for my overreaction.

					Topher

RE: .49; some quick responses.

    > You have consistently missed one of my main points about Lazaris, Ramtha,
    > and the like: It DOES matter if they are mental creations as opposed to
    > actual disembodied entities, since they claim special knowledge based on
    > their situation.  This point was excellently made by Paul in reply .48.

    I have not missed it, I have partially agreed with it (in passing
    as you have made this "main point" in passing).  What I have seen
    from you is, in essence, "since Lazaris, Ramtha, etc. are frauds
    we should not give anything that they say any credence; and oh
    yes, even if they are sincere subconscious productions we can
    dismiss their statements."

    I do not expect that you are likely to get any major insight into
    the physical workings of the universe from a subconscious personality
    (you may get a relatively minor insight, though, remember the discovery
    of the benzene ring).  Subconscious personalites do not have access to
    information unavailable to "ordinary humans" (although at times some of
    them show indications of being a bit better at using ESP than their
    "channel").  A subconscious personality is as likely as any other
    personality to provide insight into the "human" world, however, and
    furthermore, is likely to have an unusual viewpoint.  A deliberate fraud,
    however, is much less likely to provide such a fresh insight than your
    average, sincere, man-on-the-street.

    > > There may still be a few of these [fake mediums] around, but there is
    > no longer any big bucks to be made from phony Spiritualist mediumship.
    > < 
    >
    > Where did you get that idea?  That's like saying that there is no longer
    > any money to be made out of evangelism.  

    It is not like it at all.  How many Christians are there in this
    country and how many Spiritualists?  My understanding is that today
    there is a great deal of awareness within the Spiritualist community
    of the opportunity for abuse, and therefore there is a great deal
    of care taken to avoid it.  A fake good enough to pass and after
    financial gain will do much better as a professional "psychic", as
    an unaffiliated medium or openly as a "psychic entertainer."

    > > Virtually all Spiritualist mediums today are almost certainly sincere
    > (and the vast majority probably always *have* been). < 
    >
    > I don't think you're qualified to speak for all Spiritualist mediums, unless
    > you are privy to some esoteric cosmic knowledge the rest of us aren't.

    No I am not qualified to so speak, nor do I claim to.  I speak *about*
    them not *for* them.  (Also note that "virtually all" does not mean the
    same thing as "all").  I simply stated an opinion based both on personal
    contact with Spiritualists (including mediums) and on discussions with
    people outside of the Spiritualist movement who have very much more
    knowledge of them than you, me, or, in some cases, than most
    Spiritualists.

				    Topher

       [I don't think I will have time to respond tonight but I will
    add here some quotes from a flyer received today...don't take this
    as the be all, end all, simply as a few other points of view.
        (Thanks.)]
      
    " In what I experienced as the most emotionally moving part of the
    seminar, each of us had the opportunity to meet, greet, and be loved
    by Lazaris, and receive a gift from him in what I call 'the crystal
    ceremony'...The whole experience felt holy and reverential, as though
    we had gone through a sacred ceremony or initiation.  Although I
    was one of the first to meet and greet Lazaris, the experience was
    so emotionally touching that I was almost riveted in my desire to
    watch others go up to meet him.  Many cried.  Many came hoping for
    healings of some kind--physical, emotional, psychological, or
    spiritual.  From what I could observe, and from talking to some
    of the other participants, I concluded that most received what they
    came for and often much more."
        --Philip H. Friedman, Ph.D.  Director, Attitudinal Healing Center
                                         of the Deleware Valley
    [from the Realizing Lemuria weeks:]
    "My life, my work, and my reality are forever immeasurably augmented."
                         --Dr. Frank Garner
    
    "The Lemuria Week with Lazaris was astonishingly joyous and
    transformative through the intensity of love that I experienced,
    and the rememberance and realization of what I came here to be and
    to do. I have been touched beyond words.  Lazaris is truly a gift
    of God/Goddess/All-That-IS."
      
                         --Dr. Teresa Brennan
     
    
    "Since Lemuria our lives have taken on totally new and exciting
    dimensions.  Our dreams, desires, and choices are manifesting in
    our reality as never before.  It has had more direct impact on our
    lives than anything we have ever experienced."
                         --Dr. Phil Willcher and Sylvia Willcher
      
    " For the first time in my life I know that I create my own reality.
    I feel that to a depth that goes far beyond an intellectual knowing.
    I know now that I can create anything I want."
                         --Chris Smith
      
    "It was the best thing I ever did in my life...I am much more aware
    of why things are happening around me, enabling me to make
    choices...90% of the time I know why something is going on...Now
    I know where I am and what issues I need to deal with for myself."
                         --Paul Arcuri
      
    "Realizing Lemuria enriched the depth of love I feel for myself,
    my Higher Self and God/Goddess/All-That-Is...The experience led
    me to the 'more' and the 'expansion' I have so long dreamed about.
    The message of the week--dream and keep on dreaming, open your 
    vision--was much more than that.  Peny, I love you!  Thank you.
    Being with Peny has changed my life."
                         --Elizabeth Beatty
      
    
    Frederick
    

    Re: .55, and other comments about Lazaris:
    
    I'm not trying to be insultive, but I'm trying to look at this with an
    open mind, but maybe not open in a direction you agree with.
    
    Lazaris speaks common sense.  I've read a lot of your postings and
    and comments from the comments in .55 and it's starting to sound
    a lot like a cult.  Replace "Lazaris" with the name of your favorite
    Guru, or Sun Yun Moon, or even a born-again Christian ceremony and they
    all sound the same.  They all talk about Love for oneself and nature,
    a one-on-one experience with God (Where "God" is either a supreme
    being or the Charasmatic Leader, or both).  What's the difference
    Fredrick?  (You don't have to post a reply, but mail me directly)
                                                                
    Dave

    
    
    RE: .56
    
    Dave,
    
    There are always some people who go overboard with things that
    touch them deeply, give them a new awareness, or enable them to
    experience their own personal power.  This can happen with a
    religion, a love relationship, or even a physical exercise 
    regime (i.e. jogging, etc.).  I don't see how attending a two-
    day seminar and coming away with an experience that you want to
    share denotes cultism.  I haven't heard of people going off to live
    in a "Lazaris community and giving up all their worldly possessions
    to Jach".  It's sounds pretty much like a come and go as you please
    situation.  I, for one, would enjoy going to one of Lazaris' seminars
    if it was held in this area and I had the cash.  And if the experience
    was a deeply touching one (and therefore very personal), I would
    treasure it and count myself fortunate to have had the opportunity.
    
    Just my $.02.
    
    Carole
    

    re: .43
         Thanks for the mongoose story.  Sounds like quite a character!
    
    
    re: .44
         Good points!  Beings from other levels would most certainly
    raise some hairs-just witness the reactions in this conference
    (and this is *friendly* territory, to boot!)  However, my point
    is that Jach and Lazaris didn't need to bring this up at all
    (I don't think) and thereby could have avoided many, many criticisms,
    challenges, confrontations, etc. none of which are any more fun
    for him or his small group than they are for me or anyone else.
      
    re: .45
         I will attempt some response to your assertions:
         First off, your prediction has been noted.  If you "win"
    then I will undoubtably be somewhat (or maybe even a lot) hurt
    and hopefully wiser.  If you "lose" you just might have lost out
    on a wonderful opportunity to a more spiritual lifetime (conjecture,
    here, only.)  Check with me in about 60 years, okay? 
         As for the notes issue, please be a little more charitable
    than that.
         In regards to getting a good picture of humanity issue, I found
    some contradiction between that statement and what you wrote in
    455 saying that one does not have to go to Egypt to know there are
    pyramids there.  Certainly one could look at whatever life exists
    on a slide under a microscope and probably have more of an idea
    of that which lies around it than the life itself does.  Obviously,
    however, to experience that life we would either have to communicate
    with it (and therefore experience vicariously) or be it.  All analogies
    eventually break down, but hopefully you'll see what I mean.  Lazaris
    has said he has learned from his exposure to the physical planes
    but I can only conjecture what.  Obviously, according to him, he
    lacks direct experience as a human (but then so does the "God" of
    Christianity, etc. and yet those believers have no trouble accepting
    that "he" understands them.)  
         As for being several humans at once, all of us are limited
    by our human thought (naturally) so I don't feel competent to respond
    to that.  I can try to relate to it simply by saying that since
    we have multiple lifetimes (this is a "given") and that there is
    no such thing as time (which is an illusion-another "given") then
    all lifetimes, past, future, parallel--exist simultaneously.  He
    also has said that occasionally someone's "current" lifetime will
    bleed into a "future" lifetime but only for a very short time. 
    Equally rare are the "walk-ins" (mentioned in some other topic)
    which do also exist.  What I took his statement to mean was that
    he *would* have several lifetimes currently occuring CONSCIOUSLY,
    which is therefore different than the above mentioned situations.
         As for learning about Jach and his awareness, I will briefly
    say that for several years I sat in the front row (almost always--
    I took my own chair in those days to enable me to do so) and I was
    therefore "privy" to things that most of the others couldn't be
    aware of (by natural means, at least.)  I, too, always wondered
    if it wasn't some kind of act, or if he didn't have some awareness,
    etc., but so many times I saw Hutch (a VP of his organization who
    always sat in the front, too) have to go up and usually whisper
    to Jach what was to occur next, etc. or to explain something that
    had just been discussed...oftentimes even telling Jach that he'd
    show him his (Hutch's) notes but he didn't think he could explain
    it to him...anyway, this happened so much and it was so quiet that
    I have come (and there are many other instances and incidents, etc.
    to support this) to believe that he really doesn't have any awareness.
    
    re: .46 
        Thanks for the helpful information and for the "hand."  Religion
    to me implies worship.  There is no worship here (not consciously,
    at least.)  One of the beautiful things about Lazaris is that he
    really does make an effort to show us that we are free to do as
    we desire...he makes a strong case for not worshipping anything
    or anyone...
         Tell me something, Topher, (in another note perhaps) why
    it is that you have so much "faith" in the sub-conscious, et al,
    and yet I never see you mention the higher consciousness?  Perhaps
    there is more to this possibility (probability from my side) than
    you wish to acknowledge?  
    
    re: .47
        Very good points, too, Alison. While what you wrote is not
    contentious for me, I would add that Lazaris tells us explicitly
    that *All* of our reality is illusionary or illusion.  The only
    real part of it is our emotion(s.)  In 316 I made reference to 
    cellular, molecular, atomic, sub-atomic, structures and that that
    was (is) a result of trapped light which is held together by thought
    (QM covers much of this territory.)  So that what we perceive to
    be solid isn't really solid at all...in other words, it's an 
    "illusion."  This is a very brief supporting argument but it's
    in the realm of the answer I would like to offer.
      
    re: .48
        I agree with you Paul.  Lazaris points out (and I have stated
    so previously) that many if not most, of us, have been hurt many
    times going down dead-end streets in the human potential movement
    or via religions or systems or philosophies, etc.  He has told us
    that he will not let us down, that he will not hurt us and that
    he will not provide us with that kind of letdown.  Obviously, this
    response is like having someone tell you a book is holy because
    it says so in the book (e.g., the Bible.)  So, this *does* set
    up a trust situation, very definitely.  I trust!
        And please, you and all the rest of you, scrutinize away..
    at least to yourself, not necessarily publicly.
      
    re: .51  
        yes, Steve, you spoke well (as .52, Marion? said.)
      
    re: .54
        (and some others, too:)
        Lazaris has stated that we are all part of the collective
    unconscious (I believe I wrote about this in 358) which has
    all past, present and future "EVERYTHING" within it (constantly
    changing.)  He cannot, therefore, present anything that exists
    beyond it, for there isn't anything.  
      
    I want to go home now, I have written a response to .56 that I hope
    to enter on Tuesday.  I hope you all will have had a pleasant weekend.
      
      
    Frederick
    

    >    First off, your prediction has been noted.  If you "win" then I
    will undoubtably be somewhat (or maybe even a lot) hurt and hopefully
    wiser.  < 


OF COURSE I will win....Pandy told me so!  ;-)  :-)

And I hope you won't be hurt.



    > If you "lose" you just might have lost out on a wonderful opportunity
    to a more spiritual lifetime (conjecture, here, only.)  Check with me
    in about 60 years, okay?  < 


Uh.... Why 60 years?  I predict Lazaris will "leave" in 3 years or less.

Since (according to you) I "chose" this lifetime to gain valuable experience
(for *what,* I don't know) then there is no way I can have lost out.  I
mean, the best destiny for me was not to believe in Lazaris, right?

John M.

 

RE: .58

    This does not seem too far afield so I'll answer here.

    > Tell me something, Topher, ... why it is that you have so much
    > "faith" in the sub-conscious, et al, and yet never see you mention
    > the higher consciousness?

    First off I should make one point clear.  I use the term "subconscious"
    because that is the generally accepted term.  I do *not*, however,
    accept Freud's "sewer subconscious".  The subconscious is "below"
    the conscious only in the sense of referring to such metaphors as
    "the mind as ocean" or "the mind as iceberg".  It does *not*, as
    I use the term, imply being "less" than the conscious in any spiritual
    or moral sense.

    So, since the "subconscious" does not refer particularly to a "lower
    consciousness" it does not exclude from itself a "higher
    consciousness."

    A second part of the answer is that while I have seen overwhelming
    evidence for the subconscious, I have seen little or no unambiguous
    evidence for "higher consciousness".  Since the individual has
    capabilities (within the subconscious) which transcends the limits
    we normally assume exist, I do not see such transcendence as providing
    evidence for that which is *more* than the individual.  Keep in mind
    that I include psi among those capabilities which the individual may
    use of (loosely speaking: psi is the ability of an individual to learn
    about (ESP) or affect (PK) the physical universe "directly", without
    known physical intermediaries).

    So, assuming that you do not have available to you evidence which is
    radically different in quality from what I have seen (and, as you may
    have gathered I am not ignorant in this area), my opinion (and this
    *is* only my opinion) your view of the world is either less complete
    than mine (without even approximate explanations for phenomena which
    I attribute to the subconscious) or more complex than mine (containing
    additional "assumptions" which are used to explain things which are
    adequately explained without them), or, of course, possibly both.

    I truly understand and respect your beliefs in this matter, but I
    simply do not share them.  

    > Perhaps there is more to this possibility (probability from my
    > side) then you wish to acknowledge?

    As I hope is now apparent, I freely acknowledge this possibility.  I
    even acknowledge the existence of evidence suggestive of (but not
    proving) this possibility (e.g., Stevenson's "Cases Suggestive of
    Reincarnation" and the whole matter of Patience Worth).  I only fail
    to acknowledge its likelihood.

    Frankly, until we understand more about the limitations of psi (a
    goal I actively strive for) I do not think that evidence which is
    any more than somewhat suggestive is possible.

				    Topher

    re: .56 (with a sprinkling of .57)
      
    You were not insulting at all Dave, and thank you for taking the
    time to read some of what I have posted.  I would encourage you
    to continue to keep your "eyes" open (all of them...)  And I will
    reply here because there is nothing particularly private about this.
      
    I agree with Carole (.57--whom I really enjoy reading because of
    her apparent love and decidedly "goddess" energies, by the way.)
    Somewhere else in these files someone talked about cults a bit,
    but it is still very much a valid issue...for me, as well.  We all
    have heard about them and we all fear them (unless we happen to
    *be in one*, in which case it apparently doesn't appear that way.)
    But you know, I have to question that.  Though there has been some
    effort made to define that, I have heard of associations made 
    implicating individuals into cults where, in "fact", no one would
    really say a cult existed.  A case in point:  someone I know considered
    their spouse to be in a cult because that spouse "loved" Leo Buscaglia.
    And I have known several people who considered EST to be a cult.
    In "fact", for virtually any system you can name, you can probably
    find someone who will tell you that it's component membership is
    cultish.  Obviously this would relate to those things that you have
    pointed out, as well (e.g. religions.)  So then it would appear
    to be a judgment or an opinion or a value to say that someone is
    in one or that a particular system is a cult or has a cult following.
    The problem for me is that it has a very negative connotation in
    this particular usage and that the degree of involvement of the
    individuals participating does not support the negativity so
    engendered.  As I have pointed out before, no one is saying I have
    to do any thing...no one is telling me what to say...no one is asking
    me to recruit or proselytize...I have done virtually nothing radical
    at all.  I (and I am making some assumptions that this is true for
    many if not most of the others) have complete free will here...I
    simple choose to be there and to listen because I like it.  No
    different than if I had whatever hobby you wish to name.  There
    is no "blind devotion" here (as I feel that most religions foster)
    and I feel that if anything it does appear to lead towards the solipism
    that Steve Kallis, Jr. once mentioned.  (I don't agree with that,
    either, but that's a separate issue.)  Lazaris does not involve
    worship and if you read my verbatim account of a conversation I
    had with him (concerning drugs--late in 358) you will see that he
    frequently uses the word "suggest."  Which is exactly what he does.
    He suggests this or that or the other.  You choose from those things
    or you choose something else.  Again, you choose...it's your free
    will and he very strongly encourages it.  So no, Dave, there is
    no foundation here strong enough to attach the word "cult" to.
    And maybe even less than many things that we are otherwise involved
    in or with.
      
    Lazaris wishes to be a friend...Do you know that Lazaris has never
    advertised himself?  It was strictly word of mouth (and still is
    although there are many more mouths doing the talking now,) and,
    until 20 months ago, they were very private.  It took eleven years
    to get to the point where there were 30,000 people who *asked* to
    get on a mailing list of upcoming talks, events, etc.  The list
    is probably much, much larger now.  Again, no advertising...word
    of mouth only.  I can only determine that a great many people
    like what he has to offer, and there are so many successful and
    intellectual individuals going to hear that I tend to doubt any
    arguments about gullibility.  He is certainly fun to listen to,
    no matter what your "level of attainment."
      
    Incidentally, most of his *friends* are (or, were,) forty-ish.  He
    says that it's because of what he calls the "wave generation." He
    says that hundreds of thousands of us who are currently on the planet
    had lifetimes in Atlantis and allowed it to be destroyed (three
    different civilizations-3 different destructions.)  We all determined
    that we weren't going to let it happen again and chose to come
    "en masse" to ensure that, even though we set it up to allow a 
    destruction (via history,) that it wouldn't happen.  And he says
    we have already done that and that we will NOT be destroying
    ourselves.  The wave generation is people who were born between
    1945-1952 (many others have chosen to "lead the way" and be born
    sooner while others still chose to come in later.)  Jach (Lazaris'
    channel) just turned 40, by the way.
      
    I hope I responded sufficiently for you to understand and fear less...
    I could say more but I think I have covered it.  
      
    
    Frederick
                              

re: .61
>			Though there has been some
>    effort made to define that, I have heard of associations made 
>    implicating individuals into cults where, in "fact", no one would
>    really say a cult existed.  A case in point:  someone I know considered
>    their spouse to be in a cult because that spouse "loved" Leo Buscaglia.
>    And I have known several people who considered EST to be a cult.
>    In "fact", for virtually any system you can name, you can probably
>    find someone who will tell you that it's component membership is
>    cultish.  
	i think you're right, Fred: so far the Lazaris group does not
not really sound like a "cult" in that it lacks the authoritarian,
proseletyzing style that "cults" usually exhibit...(but then again, as you
have noted, some groups which are currently dignified with the title
of "religion", in view of their popularity ONLY, would otherwise be
classified as being "cults"!)
>		The wave generation is people who were born between
>    1945-1952 (many others have chosen to "lead the way" and be born
	so that's why we're so weird!
							paul

    re: .60
        Thank you, Topher, for your response.  What you wrote certainly
    makes sense for I think most of us can always have doubt about where
    a particular *sense* is coming from, i.e., from a demon, from a
    god, from a wandering,conscious thought, from a higher conscious,
    from an ego, and so on.  My impression from what you wrote is that
    from your standpoint everything gets lumped together with virtually
    no supporting "evidence" for separations of one to another.  Is
    this correct?  In other words, no evidence to support the *existence*
    (other than a perception) of the above examples (or additional
    components?)  If there IS separation, then how do you go about it?
    How would you separate an ego from a higher consciousness, for example,
    or "God" from conscious thought?  For me, while it is clear that
    there is *something more* than meets the "eye" to my own physicality,
    and that it becomes difficult if not impossible to separate one
    aspect from another, that if I DON'T separate them I end up with
    "God."  That is, if I don't make an effort to separate one aspect
    or component of myself from any other part, then I must conclude
    that "I am God" for then everything exists within me.  My work of
    the last several years agrees with that, but only to a point.  The
    point at which I either say yes or no is at the point where I determine
    that if I cease to exist, *everything* also ceases to exist.  Somehow,
    this is not a thought I care to have.  So, in listening to my 
    "favorite channel," I have found some explanations which make AT
    LEAST as much sense as the explanations which have come to us via
    some of the pschology gang.  And it seems to me to be more uplifting,
    more positive and optimistic than that in addition to tying in all
    the knowledges of our ancestors and making sense out of it.  Not
    only that but this information seems to filter out those components
    (of rationale, beliefs, etc.) that fit and support the "truth" of
    our reality.  In other words, what this "channel" does is collects
    all the truths that it can from any science, beliefs, systems, etc.
    (and most of us will admit to finding "something good in everything")
    and puts them all together to show how they fit.  Pretty clever,
    eh?  So, again, it comes down to trust and belief.  OH well!
        I hope that we all find our answers soon so that we can live
    out our lives in happiness.
      
    Frederick
    

    Just a thought to all of those who have a lot of faith (or whatever
    similar) in channelled entities.
    
    There is a danger in it that was not yet brought up.  What if your
    favorite channelled entities were proven to be either deliberate
    frauds or a product of pure psychosis?  For example, what if 
    J. Z. Knight came forth and said that it was all a joke?  I think
    that if this happened, the faith of a lot of people would be terribly
    shaken.  I'm not sure that this is wise.
    
    Elizabeth

    re: -.1
        Elizabeth, I understand your question...indeed, I think I
    (for one) have responded to it earlier (a few notes ago.)
    Yes, I would no doubt feel hurt and betrayed (as I have in my
    life by a few women and some men.)  Yes, it is very sad when someone
    deliberately exploits others knowing (if they do) that there can
    be so much pain from it.  Based on psychology, however, those who
    are truly sociopathic would undoubtably NOT feel any remorse
    (in "fact", they seem unable to comprehend it.)  
        Over the past eight months I have had opportunities to catch
    several television "spots" that have dealt with channeling:
    20/20 (Ramtha), West 57th st.(?) on channeling (mostly with a channeled
    entity named Mafu), KPIX did two nights worth of special report
    on Lazaris (and some Ramtha), Good Morning America (mostly Ramtha),
    and Today (channeling, mostly Ramtha).  Most of them were slanted
    towards disbelief or discrediting or, at a minimum, incredulity.
    (I, myself, found it amazing that no one else pointed out the 
    incredible similarities between MAfu and Ramtha.)  Perhaps
    no one of us will ever know for certain whether these phenomena
    (and most parapsychologists will admit to calling them that)
    are genuine or not.  And just maybe it should not matter.
    It sort of reminds me a little (and forgive me for this but
    it is true) of a woman I once knew who said her body was for
    making love to, not looking at.  In other words, look for
    the quality, not what makes it qualify.  Again I can only say
    that perhaps it is best to not concern oneself with who they
    say they are, but instead to listen to what they say and see
    if it makes sense and that you like it or not.  
         I listened to several Ramtha tapes about four years ago
    (and later watched a couple of video tapes) and did not care
    too much for what was offered or how it was offered (e.g., 
    I don't care for the "INDEED!" which is often uttered and replied
    to.)  I also don't care for the apparent negative ego which seems
    so obvious (to me) in some of these entities.  I have simply
    chosen to "like" Lazaris for I have scrutinized as much as I know
    how for myself and can not find anything to find "real" fault with.
    I, too, like so many others here, would really enjoy some apparent
    "miracles" or other phenomena by him but there have been many reasons
    given for the lack of that that I accept.  In "fact" there have
    been miracles, but not enough to satisfy most skeptics (if it is
    ever possible to satisfy them.)  If I told you that I was present
    with 600 others when Lazaris "warped time" what would you say to
    that?  If I told you that I watched 295 people (in random order
    over a period of one hour, plus) go up to receive a crystal gift
    from him...and then watch him tell his "helpers" which five people
    had not received their crystals (5 were left in the basket they
    had all been in) what would you say to that? (To this last, remember
    that he does all this with eyes closed...many people who were there
    had never been to a workshop before, either.)  What if he told
    you about a "secret incident" in your life to which no one else
    was privy?  I could go on and on...there have been too many things
    that I have witnessed for which no suitable explanations would be
    acceptable.  For that, for his love (which he is constantly exposing,)
    for his "intelligence," for his insight, for his humor (and there
    is a lot of it,) for his "wisdom," for his understanding of me 
    and my apparent reality and for much more...he has EARNED my
    love, my trust, my admiration and my loyalty.  Additionally,
    he himself has said that many of these who are channeling today
    are frauds, and that they will slowly (very slowly but already
    so happening) fail and fall.  
         So, yes, I, too, will be fast to warn people to go in with
    eyes open.  But, as I stated in 316 many months ago, I take what
    I have written here with as much responsibilty as I know how to
    take, and I feel that what I have offered is worthy of us all
    and worthwhile, too.  Don't, however, let your fears "unfairly"
    influence others.  If you have information or knowledge of a 
    particular worry or scam or injustice, etc., then of course
    all of us would benefit from that.  If all you are expressing is
    your fear (or, less likely, anger,) then perhaps that is what
    you should own up to and state it as such.
         This is my request to you and to others, too.  I enjoy
    learning as much as most of us, and I learn something from all
    of these people...some of my "lessons", however, I feel I could
    have learned some other way.  I think most of the people in
    this conference should commend themselves for having the
    curiosity, the inquisitiveness, etc. and the fortitude to go
    where most of the people on this planet (in my opinion) would
    never dare venture.  But I think we (myself included, of course)
    need to be careful of our possible manipulations and recognize
    the potential fragility of our peers.  I have tried to be
    responsible.  I hope others try, too (without scare tactics, etc.)
    
    
    Frederick
    

    Re: .57, .61, and .65:  Channeling as a form of cult?
    
    I think that the term "cult" might have been a bit harsh.  No, I
    don't expect channelers, religious leaders, or anyone to start building
    their own paradise on Earth like what was occurring in the past.
    There's been too much negative publicity from the like of Jonestown
    and that guy who had a few dozen Rolls Royces (I forgot his name,
    and I know I couldn't spell it anyway :-) ).
    
    There seems to be a new cult-ish form of support that is focused more
    on the masses.  What is the difference between spending $300 to go to a
    seminar on New Age thinking/channeling/whatever and sending $300 into
    the PTL club or other Television ministries?  A similarity is that the
    followers are spending on a topic that they believe in, and the money
    is being used to pay salaries and/or expand the group.  Sure, some of
    us can afford what we send in, but others who send in money could have
    spent it for food or clothes for their children.  (Did you hear what
    Jerry Falwell did for a few $1k donations?  I didn't believe it.) 
    
    Why does truth cost so much?  Why do some groups worry about things
    like copyright infringements and other legal bullshit that limits
    the spread of the beliefs they feel are right, while others advertise
    that you can find peace with yourself if you just send in enough
    money to buy a few CDs and you get a cassette that will solve *ALL*
    your problems.  I not only talking about New Age, but also the new
    media-based Religion movement that's sweeping the country.
    
    I have been an avid Noter over the past few months.  I have found that
    I have learned more about life, love and everything from reading Notes
    than I knew before.  I learned to be more open to other's beliefs, even
    though this reply may not sound it.  I'm leaning on the soapbox now
    because there's been I lot of things building up in me that I needed to
    get out. 

    People are afraid to find truth in others people, or themselves. Why
    are people looking for truth in beings from another world, another
    dimension, or (in the religious vein) in an earlier time to find the
    truth?  Where are our HUMAN philosophers who are alive today that
    preach what THEY believe?  (ONE I know of: Leo B.)  We have non-human
    (or at least not alive) philosophers who visit us through channelers,
    and we have priests who proclaim their interpretation of Holy works.
    Why can't we think for ourselves?  Are we afraid to?  I've read through
    this Notes file, Philosophy, Tem Noon's Cabin, and others.  I've found
    as much truth that come from a person's heart than from other's
    teaching. 
    
    Fredrick, you're very right.  It doesn't matter where the source for
    truth comes from, All that matters is that you feel in your
    heart what is true.  Lazaris may be "real" or fake, and it doesn't
    matter to me.  In some topics because he is right on the money, but in
    other topics I think it's hogwash.  People think that beliefs is "all
    or nothing", I disagree.  There is inconsistency in all beliefs and
    there's even more between beliefs.  Some of the Christian teachings is
    valid, but not all.  I feel the same could be said for any other set of
    teachings.  Everyone is different, and everyone has their own beliefs.
    If you don't agree with something in your heart, there's something
    wrong.  There's nothing wrong with doing some research on your own. If
    you find information to justify the claim, fine.  Your heart should
    rest at night.  If you find evidence to disagree with the claim, then
    you can live with your disbelief of the claim. In both cases, the truth
    is yours to find. 
    
    Dave

Dave,

I couldn't agree more. I believe that the Door is within us and the Key 
is in our hands. 

I have found (for me at least) that most of what I need to grow is 
right here in my own back yard, and it's is a matter of listening,
considering, and then accepting those pieces of truth that ring true
to my own inner sense of right, from wherever they may spring.

I have found in this work two major difficulties. The first is once
I have come to believe something is true, to then go further and
KNOW that it is true. One comes from an intellectual level, the
other from a deeper emotional level. 

An example is for a long time I believed that spiritual development 
was not related to one's station in life, or to ones intellect, or 
any other of those types of things, (Christ was a carpenter, Buddha a 
prince) but I didn't really know it in my heart. Gradually I have come 
to know from experience that this was true. 

This brings me to the second difficulty, honesty to ones self. I have 
found (for myself) growth requires a constant revaluation of my deepest 
beliefs, a constant inspection of my motives and emotions. This is sometimes
painful process because it is difficult to look ones short comings
in the eye. And as I improve one aspect, another will just as surely
need readjusting. But as long (and I think that this applies to us all)
as I carefully inspect my beliefs with honestly and an open mind I will 
be fine.

-vicki

    re: last two
      
        Nice notes!  Both of you expressed a great deal of "love"
    in those notes, along with the obvious thinking that preceded
    that expression.  Believe it or not, I agree completely.  Perhaps
    I should rationalize to myself by telling myself that I have been
    using "training wheels" thus far in life and that the time is 
    here for them to come off.  (Incidentally, Lazaris would concur
    *completely* with what you have said.)  So, thank you for
    stating it as you have.
     
    Frederick
    

    
    Yes - to what you all say!  
    
    The ability to think is a learned ability, and first we have to
    find the catalyst to make this happen.  My catalyst was Scott Peck 
    and a friend from far away.  I've learned so much in the last few 
    months that I can't begin to describe it in words.
    
    But the strangest thing is that I've had the answers all along.
    The questions were lacking because I didn't take time to ponder
    and think about things in general.  I was looking for 'easy
    answers', when in truth - there are none!  And that's the way it's
    supposed to be.  Once I figured that out, life became much more
    simplistic and enjoyable - kind of like skipping down the path.
    Learning is fun - like watching a mystery unfold before your eyes.    
    
    Some people can figure out the meaning of life by eating an apple.
    Others can figure it out by watching an apple fall.  Mine just 
    happened to be a good friend and Peck's works.  For others it is 
    the Bible.  So what if others find it through a channeled entity?  
    That's just fine!  Whatever is best for the individual, as long 
    as it does not harm them or others (and I include monetary rip-offs 
    in this category).
    
    Now if I could only figure out how to become 40+......(:^).
    
    Cindy
            
    

    
    
    Cindy,
    
    And what you say is another confirmation that it is not so much
    the answers that are important, it's the questions.  
    
    C.
    

    Here, here.
    
    Whenever I ask for an answer, one turns up often in the most obscure
    way.
    
    I think that's why I am always walking around with a smile on my
    face, I keep receiving answers and it still fascinates me.
    
    

    re: .70
        Off the top of my head (which has brown hair on it) I suspect
    that even the question has no value.  What I think the value may
    come from is the *SEARCH* for the answers...therefore neither the
    question nor the answer are ultimately important.
      
                          *********************
        
        A little clarification here on previous information:
        John was not too far off the mark when he described Lazaris
    as a radio message to Jach (his channel.)  This information seems
    to corroborate some of the other discussions in other topics as
    well.  This is how Lazaris describes the channeling process...
    he says that like a tv set, Jach is the receiver of the information.
    Jach's subconscious would correspond as the antenna.  Jach's 
    "personna" would be as the receiver within the tv set.  This personna
    would be responsible for the interpretation of the signals which
    have been received.  This is why Lazaris only communicates in English,
    for example (because Jach doesn't know any foreign languages,
    presumably.)  You will note that Jach does not get "invaded" by
    Lazaris but remains as a separate entity.  How does Jach know how
    to interpret the "signals?"  According to Lazaris, it is a result
    of several lifetimes worth of work on Jach's higher consciousness...
    for the teaching/learning interchange between Jach's higher
    consciousness and Lazaris.  
        Anyway, this is about all I know on this particular subject...
    
    
      
    Frederick
    

    This could be considered as an addition to note 288.55.  I just
    bought Lazaris' book this past weekend and the following quotes
    are from the first page and back cover.  Though I have not read
    the book yet, the introductions by Jach and Lazaris are particularly
    nice.  Peny also has an introduction but I have mixed feelings about
    her words (the reaction to Shirley part,) though I think I understand
    her vulnerability and willingness to share her feelings.
       
    The book is typical of Lazaris in that just a few words are very
    profound, though they always sound somehow familiar.  Later on,
    if time allows, I may try to reprint some of what is in there. 
    For $9.95, I think this should be considered a great buy (and
    affordable by virtually everyone.)  Personal opinion, if you please.
     
    Herewith the quotes:
      
    "Lazaris says he came not as a  guru, but as a friend.  I've found
    that what I value most I've learned from friends, and Lazaris is
    one of the best friends I have."
      -Colin Higgins, Writer/Director, _Harold & Maude_, _Silver Streak_,
    _Foul Play_, _The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas_, _Nine to Five_
      
    "I went to Lazaris' first public channeling in 1979.  Since that
    day the quality of information and communication has always expanded
    and surpassed itself.  The growth I have made because of our friendship
    has brought me into the New Age with clarity and assurance.  I love
    Lazaris even more today and rejoice in our shared vision for the
    exciting future!"
      -Nicholas Eliopoulous, Producer, Director, Writer, Emmy Award-winning
    Editor for _Wallenburg: A Hero's Story_, Senior VP of Development/Prod-
    uction, The Don Johnson Company
      
    "Lazaris is the friend we always wish for, and now he's here for
    everyone.  We had a good relationship before, but he showed us how
    to love each other even more.  We always thought that success came
    after long and hard work.  Lazaris taught us it's more fun to do
    it quicker and easier.  With Lazaris' love and help we have created
    one miracle after another."
    -Renee Taylor & Joe Bologna, Actors, Writers & Directors
     
    "Lazaris, it's magic! It is magic! Thank you, Lazaris, for showing
    me how to pull rabbits out of hats!"
    -Sharon Gless, Actress _Cagney & Lacy_
      
    [The above five individuals are often seen in Lazaris videos. Colin
    is the same guy Shirley MacLaine talks about in "It's All in the
    Playing."]
      
    "I have been seriously investigating this field for over five years
    and have talked to several hundred people who claim to channel-and
    have found Lazaris to be one of the select few who are wise and
    empowering.  Lazaris adds a very needed credibility to this entire
    field.  I especially appreciate Lazaris' consistent and unique
    emphasis on providing tools by which we can discover our own truths,
    our own strengths, and our own power."
    -John Klimo, Author of _Channeling:  Investigations_ former professor
    Rutgers University
      
    "With wisdom, compassion and marvelous humor, Lazaris, from his
    greater perspective outside our 'Set,' makes vividly clear how 
    physical reality works.  He knows me absolutely and is there for
    me-even when I am not!"
    -Betty Fuller, Director, The Trager Institute
      
    "Lazaris represents the Highest Self of humanity.  When one is in
    communication with him it activates that Highest Self in that person.
    Lazaris' energy literally magnetizes that Highest Self to be 
    experienced as real, as who we *really* are.  It is a privelege
    and vital opportunity to communicate with this level of consciousness."
    -Barbara Marx Hubbard, Futurist
      
    "Lazaris has taken me on a joyous sacred journey to uncover more
    of myself.  I love Lazaris, and consider him a great friend.  Let
    him be your friend, also."
    -Louise Hay, The Hay House  [I alluded to her in the AIDS note...]
    
    "The material from Lazaris is the best I've ever seen from a trance
    medium.  Lazaris discusses scientific questions with remarkable
    technical detail."
    -Marilyn Ferguson, Publisher, _Brain-Mind Bulletin_, Author, _The
      Aquarian Conspiracy_
     
    "One of the great experiences of my life was to be in the presence
    of Lazaris and to converse.  Lazaris is a spring and an oasis where
    the Wisdom of the Ages and the Future converge."
    -Jack Schwarz, Founder and President, Alethia Foundation, Health
      Educator and Author
      
    "Lazaris is more than a teacher.  He is a good friend who is always
    there to confide and encourage.  He represents a force of positivism
    and love that illuminates-like a bright, beneficent searchlight-the
    obscure and the unknown corners of human life."
    -Michael York, Actor and Author
     
    
    Frederick
    

    RE: -1
    
    
    This sounds more like a cult every day.  Just replace the wordLazaris
    with God and you'll see what I mean.
    
    Can't these people think for themselves?
    
    
    John M.

    RE: -.1
         I would understand your sentiment completely if I had inserted
    quotes from the population at large (or even *just* Deccies :-))
    But, John, I hardly think that most people would consider the
    previously quoted individuals as being unable to think for themselves.
    It's too bad you persist and insist on viewing life with your own
    particular set of blinders on (from my vantage point.)  I see so
    little openness in the things you say that I would probably find
    life worthless if I were to listen to all that you refute.
    Fortunately, though many in this conference don't give two shakes
    of a malt for the things Lazaris talks about, I suspect (based on
    both "public" and private interchange) that many find what he has
    to say as valuable.  I think you hide yourself in attacking the
    source as a way of avoiding the things that are being talked about.
    An example came up several weeks ago when you shrugged off your
    self-proclaimed "gifts" as somehow explainable (though you offered
    no *valid* explanations.
         In any case, do most of us a favor and whenever you see my
    login hit "next unseen." 
         Thanks, big fella!
     
    
    Frederick
    

RE: .75 (Frederick)


    >... John, I hardly think that most people would consider the
    previously quoted individuals as being unable to think for themselves.
    < 

I did not say they were incapable of thinking for themselves, I asked whether
they could.


    >  It's too bad you persist and insist on viewing life with your own
    particular set of blinders on (from my vantage point.)  I see so little
    openness in the things you say that I would probably find life
    worthless if I were to listen to all that you refute.  < 


Why?  I certainly don't find life worthless.  You mean to tell me that without
your religious faith in Lazaris, you would have nothing to live for?


    >   I think you hide yourself in attacking the source as a way of
    avoiding the things that are being talked about. < 

I attack the source (Jach) because I believe he is either self-deluded or a
charlatan (and the game he is playing is sooooooo old!).  It is hard to attack
what "Lazaris" says because it is so nebulous.  And like a cloud, the minute
you start attacking it, it vanishes.  It seems that Lazaris's stock answer to
every question is "Everything is an illusion, so nothing really matters."
By throwing the baby out with the bathwater, he avoids having to change
the diapers.


    > An example came up several weeks ago when you shrugged off your
    self-proclaimed "gifts" as somehow explainable (though you offered no
    *valid* explanations.  < 

"Gifts?"  I recall discussing only one; my jewelry-finding talent.  And how was
my explanation not valid?  It surely was rational enough. 


>  Fortunately, though many in this conference don't give two shakes
    of a malt for the things Lazaris talks about, I suspect (based on
    both "public" and private interchange) that many find what he has
    to say as valuable.  <


That's nice.  There are people who find what *I* say to be valuable as well.
The difference is that I take responsibility for my own words and don't
charge a fee (although the prospect of channeling could be tempting... I'm
a pretty good actor).

    
    >  In any case, do most of us a favor and whenever you see my login hit
    "next unseen."   Thanks, big fella!  < 


Now why should I spare you and not anyone else? ;-)

Frederick, I am very much interested in hearing what YOU have to say, but don't
give "two shakes of a malt" [thanks] about the supposed rambling of a
phantasmagoric figment.  However, I do pass up some of your replies, as the
tone of them would shame even the most brainwashed moonie.

BEFORE YOU FLAME....

I will be in your neck of the woods after Christmas.  Join me for lunch?
I promise to behave.

John M.
                          

    re: John
       Why do we have to cover all the old stuff all over again?  It's
    boring, to be frank, and it's just a manipulation game I don't want
    to be a part of (and I am.)  It's real clear to me that you have
    no intent/desire to change your mind...it is already "set" on finding
    fault or criticism or some other form of negativity.  I realize
    you consider yourself open-minded, but as I am outside of the set
    of which you are a part, I don't see you as open-minded at all.
       I know you are dead set against spending money, too bad, but
    I really think the $10 it would cost you to pick up Lazaris'
    new book ("The Sacred Journey:  You and Your Higher Self") could
    be worthwhile, even for you.  If not, try borrowing a copy some
    day or maybe finding out some other way to read it.  Why?  Because
    within the first 30 or so pages, Lazaris answers some of the questions
    you put forth.  I cannot defend his answers as well, so I won't
    (and I shouldn't have to anyway.)  Additionally, If after reading
    Jach's introduction you still think he is a fraud, then I am quite
    certain that the suspicion I have about you in terms of a closed-mind
    will be much more solidly supported.  The real sadness for me is
    that you really don't WANT to stretch your beliefs.  These ideas
    (of channeling and the like) are so contrary to our mass consensus
    reality that I guess it is just too scary to put stock in it.  For
    you see, John, no matter how much explaining I do or how much support
    I show (from others, not just myself) or how hard I may attempt
    to validate this phenomena, you ALWAYS come up with a rebuttal.
    I'm afraid that the testimonials far outnumber the likelihood of
    that many rebuttals.  I have pointed out, ad nauseum, how he has
    directly and indirectly helped others and though you initially 
    scoffed at that possibility, you have never (unless I missed it)
    said "Hmmm, well, okay, maybe he does help some people, and therefore
    maybe he is a good thing for those who may never have gotten help
    any other way."  Don't you see?  You simply, flat-out refuse to
    open to some part or two of this so you shut out the whole of it
    in "reaction."  I really urge you to read what he says (since
    you won't avail yourself to any other direct source of information.)
       And as for tone, dear John, while mine may cause you some upset,
    you can be most assured that your confrontive, cocky, combative
    and self-righteous attitude are hardly what I wish to surround
    myself with.  No thanks, John, that is the world I am leaving
    behind...you can have it all to yourself or for as many others
    as wish to stay in it with you.  Too bad, it just shows that +
    intelligence (which you obviously possess) is NOT a prerequisite
    to either enlightenment or growth.                       
        As for lunch, sure, if you can work it out.  Do I need to bring
    my chain-mail suit?  Maybe I should bring some jewelry along to
    lose so that you can find it? :-)
    
    Frederick
    

    	A meeting of Frederick and John M.??  Sounds like a
    	phantasmagoric figment [love it!] not to be missed!!
    
    					Carla
    

    
    	RE:  Frederick
    
    	Why get so exasperated with John M?   I don't see him as having
    an utterly closed mind, he just needs a lot more rational data for
    his decisions than you seem to.   You two have been arguing for
    a few months, and I think I have actually detected some slight
    changes in each of your attitudes.   It is very hard to do any
    convincing of people through these little notes, so whatever change
    comes will be slow.
    
    	When I started my path in these psychic realms I would have
    characterized myself as an asgnostic, or scientific skeptic.
    It took me more than ten years before I could really accept the
    reality of the spirit realm.   Since I was such a skeptic, it
    really took a mountain of data to convince me, so I know from
    personal experience that it is not impossible to convince a
    skeptic, it is just *very* hard and time consuming.    As a
    kind of experiment, I once spent about six months of daily
    conversations convincing a skeptical-rationalist friend that
    God and the realm of spirit are real.   I found that it could
    be done but the effort was immense, and I hope I may never have
    to convince anyone so difficult again.

	Although John M. would be very hard to convince, if he
    ever does come around to being a believer, he would be a very
    strong one, since the nature of his mind would demand clear 
    proofs.   You don't have to do the work of convincing him, since
    he's already reading Dejavu, and books on crystals and such.
    If he keeps soaking in this information, someday (maybe years
    from now) he will see that he can accept some parts of it.
    
    	I see each of us as having some advantages and some disadvantages
    in learning.  Skeptics have the disadvantage of missing lots of
    data, due to having rejected it as unsubstantiated or unclear or
    not definitive.   On the other hand, once they find data that is
    acceptable, they are on very solid ground with it.    The Believers,
    on the other hand, may begin the path easier, but since they don't
    filter their data as well at the outset, may have to go back on
    occasion and reconsider a lot of previously accepted ideas.
    
    	I think there is a vast difference between a person with a
    closed mind, and a skeptic who disagrees with you, but continues 
    to interact and take in information.   I remember many times in
    the past when I stated my skeptical case, with the tone of 100%
    certainty, hoping that someone could say something *substantial*
    enough to convince me otherwise.   I know from experience that
    that tone of 100% certainty does not always indicate a closed mind.
    
    	For the Believers;  you may have to give the Skeptics in your
    life *years* to come around.   It may be worth it.  The skeptic
    with a strong interest in these topics will make slow but steady
    progress.
    
    	For the Skeptics;  conversation is often limited to the level
    of the least open-minded person in the room.   Try not to be that
    person.  Try not to let your need for verifications weigh down on
    the people who don't have your personal need for verifications.

		Alan.

    Re .78  (Carla)
    
    Could be the start of WW III...
    
    Elizabeth

    WW III is already happening-in Womannotes...
    
                        DK
    
    

    
    Re.-1 Where is Womannotes and which topic is WW III taking place
    in?  I don't follow that conference, so thanks.
    
    Re.others
    
    On sources of information - I recently read that scientists/skeptics
    are climbing up the mountain of knowledge slowly but surely, and
    when they finally reach the top, they will find the theologians
    (believers without hard and fast proof) who have been there for many 
    centuries.
    
    Herein lies hope. 
    
    Cindy

    
    Mary - I wasn't aware that I was having a 'personal discussion'
    with Carla or anyone else for that matter.  Did I miss something?
    My reply was to .81 and was not authored by Carla (after checking).
    There is a missing number of .83 which I did not see and presumably
    was authored by Carla, but I could be mistaken.
    
    > Nor is DEJAVU an appropriate place to invite discussion which
    > not pertain to the base topic...
    
    I would take issue with this, as most everyone participating has
    taken part in this sort of thing at one time or another ('Across a 
    Crowded Room' comes to mind immediately.)  When done in good taste
    or even as an idea offshoot stimulated as a direct result of the
    discussion taking place, I see nothing wrong with this.  At such
    time everyone is relatively free to either suggest that a new topic
    be created or that the discussion get back on course.  Given that
    the reference to the other conference a few notes back was very
    nebulous, I wasn't sure if Trance Channelling was being discussed
    there or not, and on that basis made my inquiry as to the nature
    of the topic being discussed there. 
    
    On cross-referencing conferences, if there is something in another
    conference which would be of interest to fellow DEJAVU'ers (or
    participants of another conference in which the DEJAVU conference
    and/or the participants were specifically being talked about), 
    I would like to continue to see this happen since this has been a
    timesaver for me in the past.  To use DEJAVU to blast another
    conference is quite a different matter, and I would like to see that 
    not be the case (and apologize if I have inadvertantly done this).
    
    Just my thoughts.
    
    Cindy
                                      

    RE: Ratholes - well, they *do* seem to be a hazard of NOTES in general.
    
    RE: "The Lunch"
    
    Suppose we could get someone with a camcorder to tape it? ;-)
    I'd *love* to see THAT!! And (more importantly) *HEAR* it!
    
    --DE
    

    	I did bash WOMANNOTES and apologize to anyone who read my
    	original .83.  Because of a lingering negative experience
    	there I unfortunately didn't think clearly before responding
    	to Cindy's inquiry.  Please accept my apology.
    
    	Guess I'm just too excited/flustered at the possibility of
    	Frederick and John M. meeting...
    
    	Table for 1,000, please???
    
    						Carla
    

    
    We all see more clearly now (that sounds *awfully* familiar....)
    
    Maybe we all outta' do something special for the occasion.
    
    Any ideas?
    
    (Now creating a new topic......)
    
    Cindy

    .84  In view of the conference description, perhaps Cindy
         and Carla should skip notes and mail and simply use
         esp?
    
    *I* certainly don't mind conversations that change the sub-
    ject, occasionally.  In fact , I rather enjoy the repartee.
    However, if my 'quip' about WWIII and Womannotes offended
    you, feel free to delete my note and accept my apology.  I
    will indeed think twice before lapsing into humor, regardless
    of how weak.  I'll try to be serious and stick with the subject
    from now on.
    
    

    re: .79
        Alan, you wrote a very nice reply.  The only problem I have
    with it, however, is in your comments in regards to 
    convincing him (or anyone else.)  To me, that comment represents
    a manipulation (in this case it would be by me) and I do not
    consciously wish to manipulate anyone.  Which is why I get 
    "disturbed."  I either quote someone or give a personal opinion
    and then I get "rudely rebuked."  *That's* the problem I have
    with John.  I don't really care whether he agrees or not, it's
    mostly the *attitude* that I don't care for.  It's not so much
    what he says as how he says it.  That he wishes to be a skeptic
    is up to him.  It is not my job to convert him or to change him.
    If he is going to change, and I have something to do with it,
    so be it.  But that is not my motive.
        Several times in these notesfiles I have questioned my own
    motives for being here.  I finally decided that what I was doing
    here (primarily, from my point of view) is solidifying or questioning
    my own values and beliefs.  This is a great way of testing myself.
    That I can be of service to others is, for me, a secondary or 
    bonus from this.  If I felt that I was hurting someone, then I would
    withdraw.  It is important to be and do what/who I am.  It is also
    important to be aware of whatever impact I may be having.  While
    what you say about me may influence me, it won't be what I base
    my ultimate behavior on.  
        As for this "summit" with John, I have no desire to meet in
    a confrontational situation.  I have no cause to defend myself.
    Hopefully, if such a meeting occurs, it will be one of mutual
    respect and of friendship (with an underlying desire for joint
    understanding.)  I don't think it will be significant enough for
    anyone else to feel that they are missing out by not observing it.
    If it occurs, we'll report back, I'm sure.
      
        
    Frederick
    (who is channeling a moon)
    

    
    	RE: Frederick;
    
    	No, not a manipulation...   From my point of view, this conference
    is to allow us all access to other points of view.   I just supposed
    that all of us would automatically evolve through new understandings
    that expand our own viewpoints.    Of course none of us can control
    what others will find useful enough to integrate as their own. 
    It would be egotism to think that we can consciously drive the
    transformation process in other people, all we can do is provide
    love or support or information.   People select their own transformations.
    I just think it's safe to assume we will all grow, and I am daring
    enough to try and project the future in some cases.

    	Several years ago, I met some friends who taught me to enjoy 
    the long process of transforming an arguement into an agreement.
    Part of this involved accepting the confrontational style as being
    O.K. or at least adaquate for the beginnings of communication.
    In such an open format as NOTES, it is inevitable that we are going
    to find all types, including those with an agressive or confrontational
    styles.
    
    	I've read a lot of notes recently, saying things like; "This
    topic belongs in another conference..." or "this is a rathole..."
    The trend is for everyone to become a moderator; or we will all
    vote on what are or are not acceptable topics or styles, and freedom
    of speech will be gone.   The cure is to write your piece, and then
    emotionally detach yourself from it, so that you don't take other's
    replies so personally.   The more each of us can do this, the easier
    it will be to share our ideas.
    
	Happy Solstice,
    	Alan.

    One of the basic tenants of information theory and cybernetics is
    
    		COMMUNICATION = MANIPULATION
    
    Manipulation has a rather pejorative connotation, but at root it
    is neutral.  If I am attempting to communicate then I am attempting
    to "change someones mind" (assuming I am communicating with a someone)
    in some way.  That way may be to simply add facts to their "data
    base", or it may be to provide other opinions for them to accept,
    reject or modify.  I choose what facts, opinions or whatever to
    present, out of everything I know, feel, think, guess whatever on
    the basis of some goals (perhaps subtle ones, e.g., to feel good
    about improving the lot of others).  There is a complete linguistic
    theory built up about this called "speech-act theory".
    
    When communication is two ways both parties are attempting to
    manipulate the other to meet their own goals.  It is like a trade
    where both parties hope that everyone will be pleased.  Its a game
    where nobody needs to lose -- but, it IS manipulation.
    
    					Topher

    	Has anybody ever heard of a book written through a woman who 
    	claimed to be channeling Sam Clemens??  Rumor has it she ori-
    	ginally contacted him on the Ouija board (20 or 30 years ago)
    	and he proceeded to dictate a book called "Jap Herron."
    
    	Clemens' critics discounted the material, saying it "wasn't
    	up to" his usual writings.  I'm having the local bookstore
    	place a tracer on it (I'm especially interested if he says
    	anything about Louise), but wanted to throw this out for
    	discussion while waiting for a response.
    
    						Carla
    

    re: .59 (John)
    
         And speaking of predictions ;-) [today...]
    
         Your prediction was off...uh, JOhn, are you listening?  John?
    JOHN?   Oh, JOHNNN, where are you?   Damn these Orion people, anyway!
    Never could count on them!
    
    
    
    Frederick
    

    re: .94  (Frederick)
    
    Well, it looks like John Mitchell (BTW did you ever lunch
    with him?) was wrong in his prediction, back in '87, that
    Lazaris would only be around for three more years.
    
    Given his views on Lazaris, I wonder why Mr. Mitchell would
    make such a prediction. (?)  Mr. Mitchell, as you know,
    believes that Lazaris is a money-making scam.  If Lazaris
    *is* a money-making scam, what would motivate him to stop?
    
    At any rate, I commend this entire string to those who
    enjoy the "lively" art of conversation...   ;^)
    
    Joel
    

    re: Joel (.95)
    
         No, John never called me, though he presumably moved to this
    area.
         As to Lazaris being a money-making scam...no.  Even the hard-core
    jerks like "Randi" (another Orion energy, no doubt) have had a very
    difficult time coming up with anything against Lazaris, except perhaps
    personal appeal.  That money is charged truly seems to be the main
    reason to avoid him.  
         All-in-all, Lazaris has proven his consistency in terms of
    reliability, clarity of information, depth of wisdom and, if you
    are fortunate enough to interact with him one-on-one, an 
    understanding of you that supercedes awe.  That is, there is no
    question--at all--that Lazaris is a bonafide phenomena.  To the
    extent that one can appreciate that is to the extent that one will
    go to listen.  To those who aren't interested in listening (probably
    more Orions  ;-)  ) no problem...nothing much will work for them.
    To those who find this only vaguely interesting, no problem, leaves
    lots more room for the ones of us who *are* interested.  AS for
    the money, the choice is our own.  By the way, if you add up how
    much money each person spends in various areas of their lives, if
    you knew that spending x-amount would help eliminate those areas
    (i.e., good health so no more doctor bills or health insurance,
    a meaning to life so no more listless boozing and carousing, etc.)
    then perhaps it would give this particular spending more value.
    Anyway, I'm not about to sit here and argue for it.  If you don't
    want to do it, don't.  The argument becomes very hollow for me.
    
        By the way, Joel, from the standpoint of a DEJAVUer, one could
    easily speculate whether John had a name change and is secretly 
    communicating via RIPPLE::GRANT_JO (especially since you are coming
    from the same area as he used to.)   ;-)
    
    Frederick
    
    

    re: .96  (Frederick)
    
    Thanks for the nice reply.  Too bad John never called you,
    perhaps both of you would have had an interesting lunch.
    
    Now my comments about Lazaris/scam/John were my way of 
    wondering why John would come to the conlusion that, *if*
    Lazaris is a charlatan, he would fade away quickly.  Doesn't
    make much sense to me.  If Lazaris is in it for the money
    and/or for the attention it would seem more likely to me
    that he would *continue* to do what he does indefinitely.
    
    I would be interested to hear more about what James Randi
    says about Lazaris.  I rather doubt he regards Lazaris as
    "genuine" because Randi regards most, if not all, paranormal
    phenomena as physically impossible.  Martin Gardner explicitly
    believes Lazaris to be a charlatan, and Gardner might also
    qualify for your definition of "hard-core jerk."
    
    In fact I doubt that investigation of Lazaris would bear
    much fruit.  Because he is set up in a way that positively
    defies serious investigation.  How could anyone ever *prove*
    that Lazaris was a charlatan?  His story cannot be verified
    in any way, shape, or form.  So if he is a charlatan he will
    be safe forever.  Even if one of his close associates left
    him and "tattled" it wouldn't make a bit of difference.  
    This has happened to J.Z. Knight but has not apparently made
    much of a dent in her activities.  
    
    But, no, I'm not John under a new node name.  ;^)  For one
    thing, he is a much better writer than I am.  And for another,
    I am aware, as he was not, that it is OK for you to say
    "...there is no question--at all-- that Lazaris is a bonafide
    phenomena."  But that if John says, in effect, "there is no
    question that Lazaris is a charlatan" it is not OK.  That's
    just the way it is.
    
    So unlike John I realize that absolute futility of discussing
    Lazaris in terms of "genuineness."  His story is completely
    non-falsifiable.  I could never prove he is a charlatan so
    I won't make the charge.  Perhaps some day he will join us
    in the conference and we get can get into issues of proof at
    that time, eh?
    
    I will say this, though, that even if Lazaris is not what he
    represents himself to be, it wouldn't make him the worst
    person, or even the worst charlatan, ever to walk the
    planet.  If you and other people feel good dealing with him,
    and you have the money to spare, go for it!   ;^)
    
    Joel
                                        

    re: .97 (Joel)
    
         Interesting reply...
    
         None of us will ever be able to ascertain where it is 
    precisely that Lazaris comes from (unless, perhaps, it's a human
    who is in total dominion and one who has mastered consciousness.)
    For me, personally, I occasionally have doubts, not as to the
    phenomena itself, nor to the value, but more in terms of "level"
    that he supposedly comes from.  
         As to "defectors," that's sort of funny to me.  First off, 
    understand that the whole organization is very, very small.  Only
    about ten-twelve people, most of whom have been there for years.
    Of the highest in the group (2 vice-presidents--one, Michael, is 
    married to the president, Peny, and the other is Jach...for a while
    there was another woman as another vice-president, but I'm uncertain
    if she is still there.)  I know of two staffers who have left, and
    both of them still attend workshops.  One of them was vice-president
    from the beginnings until two years ago (when they moved to Florida--into
    Randi's backyard. ;-) )  That person is Robert "Hutch" Hutchins, who is
    now the steady companion of my "betraying" former girlfriend (much to
    my chagrin, if you don't mind my saying so.  :-{  )  I can assure you,
    that from the very top of the organization, there is absolutely nothing but
    immense respect for Lazaris.  Positively everyone seems to love him,
    too.  I will parenthetically add that there *have* been some
    unhappinesses with the organization (personality clashes, disagreements
    with policies or practices, etc.) but none of this is untypical to any 
    gathering of humans for business or organizational purposes.  So, there
    is no mud to fling in this regard, really.
         I would say that Lazaris is a charlatan only if he offered nothing
    of value...if he sold snake oil, etc.  But, Joel, unfortunately for
    the skeptics, that is absolutely not the case.  Lazaris has offered
    dozens and dozens and dozens of techniques, processes, tools,
    approaches, and views which thousands of people have applied to their
    daily lives with successes ranging from simply to astronomical.  Many
    people have cured or at least caused to disappear from problem areas
    all sorts of things, from psychological disturbances, inabilities to
    function, to diseases, illnesses and traumas, etc.  There are myriads
    of testimonials from individuals whose lives have apparently been
    greatly enhanced by the application of those teachings which we 
    consider ourselves fortunate to have benefitted from.  
    NO, Joel, Lazaris is not a charlatan.   As I wrote in here so long
    ago, it would seem stupid to tell *one* lie among so much truth.
    I choose to believe it.
          Let me make it clear, in case it isn't, that I am not saying
    this is the only truth on the planet or otherwise available.  I am
    not saying that other things don't work or that other things aren't
    perhaps more appropriate for others.  What I'm saying is that the 
    converse is also true.  That just because you don't resonate to 
    Lazaris, it doesn't mean it is false or doesn't work, or isn't worth
    the value we ascribe to him.  If you want to sit under a pyramid or
    wait for cool breezes or do rap music as a way to find yourself, go
    for it.  Again, there is no scam here.  There are a few people who
    are making a great deal of money here, yes.  But there are many
    thousands of others of us who are willingly giving that money to
    receive something that most of us probably feel has priceless value.
    
    Frederick
     

re.-1

	YES,!!! yes.   Said perfectly - 

	Meredith     

    re: .98  (Frederick)
    
    Actually, I wasn't trying to suggest that it was likely
    someone would "defect" from Lazaris's organization.  Only
    that this is about the only way to get something resembling
    proof of charlatanism in such situations.
    
    I think we may be talking about two issues here, as if they
    were one.  
    
    One issue: does what Lazaris does "work"?  That is, does he do
    for people whatever it is they want Lazaris to do for them,
    or teach them?  In my own view, the answer or answers to this
    question has no bearing upon whether or not Lazaris is a 
    charlatan.  You can make a good case that Freudian analysis
    does not "work" in the sense most people would use that word.
    But this would not make Freudian analysts charlatans.
    
    Second issue: Is Lazaris what he/it claims to be, or is he 
    a creative invention of Jach Pursel?  Now this is the completely
    non-falsifiable part of the question.  How could I prove 
    that Lazaris is *not* a creative invention by Jach Pursel?
    No way, at least that I know of.  So I cannot state definitively
    that Lazaris is a charlatan in this sense.
    
    But, as I've said, if you find value in dealing with him, and
    have the money to spend, go for it!
    
    Joel
      

RE: .98 (Frederick)

    Huh ... Frederick.  Surly you are aware that the *only* snake oil
    salesman who don't have many testimonials (real ones, too) are the
    unsuccessful ones.  Anyone who talks a good, convincing line of
    gobledegook (which is not to say -- or not say -- that that is what
    Lazaris is doing) will be credited by people with both improvements
    that the salesman had nothing to do with and "improvements" which
    are purely delusory.

				    Topher

    re: .102 (Topher)
    
         Surly Topher...(or is that surely, Topher?  ;-)  )
    Yes, of course you are correct.  But this isn't a matter of
    conjecture for me.  This has been demonstrably proven to me...
    over and over and over.  I currently know, with varying degrees of
    intimacy, dozens of people, who attend the workshops, and have
    therefore become very aware of all the things I have mentioned.  There are
    lots of "failures," too, and lots of mistakes (my ex-girlfriend's,
    for example   ;-)  ) but then there comes lots of self-analysis and
    lots of opportunity to work things out.  
         Some of us really have to go out of the way to attend the 
    workshops, making reservations for hotels, airplanes, etc....plus
    take time out from our usual lives, to say nothing of the $.  Only
    a true masochist could do this for years and years without ever
    questioning the value received for the effort expended.  I have seen
    a few individuals "drop out" after a couple of years.  To be as honest
    as I know how, it was my sense that in at least a couple of cases
    they wanted Lazaris to do it for them and often wouldn't do the work
    themselves (i.e., the processing, the meditations.)  Some were 
    strictly intellectual about it and couldn't release their emotional
    potentials.  Others have gone for years and *still* have difficulty
    with their emotional potentials.  Anyway, I digress...but then I 
    guess I'm good at it...;-)
        I've asked myself lots of times the questions you've posed in
    .101, Topher.  Even last Friday night I was sitting around with
    a friend of mine who has gone to workshops as long as I have and
    we were asking ourselves, "Are we better off for having been with
    Lazaris than we might have been otherwise?  Also, is our life better
    now than it was before him?"  For me, yes, life is much better than 
    it was nine years ago (even though my body is "more worn"  ;-)  )
    and I have a certain calm about things that I didn't before.  Further,
    I have resolved many if not most and certainly not all of the emotional
    issues which had such enormous negative impact on me my whole life.
    I easily earn twice as much money.  I have almost no debts.  My son
    has successfully made it into young adulthood.  I have far greater
    "social successes" than I did then.  I see life and the world through
    entirely different eyes.  I have visited realms I had no idea existed.
    I have had the pleasure of some beautiful and touching, incredibly
    moving moments with Lazaris (and no one else who has NOT been physically
    intimate with me has ever done so.)  Is my life better?  Definitely.
    Is it better due to him and his influence?  As far as I can determine,
    absolutely.  Would I have been better off without him?  I cannot
    determine that...there have been/are infinite possibilities.  I suppose
    I could be out there as a missionary thumping Bibles and feeling
    good.  Who knows?  I like it better here than where I was before.  I
    like it better where my fantasia takes me than where I am, however.
    So I'll keep working at it.  
         If this is snakeoil, I like it.  Just watch me shed my skin!
    
    
    Frederick
    

    RE: .102  Frederick
    
  >>       If this is snakeoil, I like it.  Just watch me shed my skin!
    
    ;^D
    
    Carole
 

    re: .102  (Frederick)
    
    Well said!
    
    Though perhaps not so well, I could say many of the same 
    things myself.  I am definitely more mature than I was
    nine years ago, happier, more fulfilled, fewer conflicts,
    and so on.  These things often tend to happen, so to speak,
    by themselves, through a maturation process.
    
    Clearly, you feel better for having been involved with
    Lazaris, and you will no doubt continue that relationship.
    Fortunate are we, I guess, who can reap many of the same
    benefits ...naturally...   ;^)
    
    Joel
    

RE: .96 (Frederick)

Frederick,

	What sort of testing has Lazarus undegone?  I have looked into it
and I can't find any information whatsoever on any testing that Lazarus
has undergone....  Is there a place where I can get copies of reports, etc.?

							Thanks,  Linda

    re: .105 (Linda)
    
          To find reports on Lazarus, a good source might be the
    Dead Sea Scrolls.   ;-)
    
          As for LazarIs, on the other hand, I don't know of any source
    to direct you to.  You could call the 800 number or the regular number
    and ask to talk to someone, but I doubt you'll get much information
    from them.
          I wrote in a note somewhere that at the *beginnings* of the
    channeling (back in 1974) Jach looked into it himself (quietly,
    so as to not be labeled schizophrenic and locked up, etc.  ;-) )
    [and this is how they met Michael North--at that time Michael
    Prestini--who is now married to Jach's former wife, Peny.]  
    Also, I have heard unsubstantiated *rumors* that Jach was in
    fact studied by people/places unknown to me.  An outcome of that
    testing was a voice-testing, wherein Lazaris' voiceprint was determined
    to not match Jach's voiceprint.
          That is about as much as I have.  Frankly, this is not a question
    that concerns me anymore.  I already have a relationship with Lazaris
    that has significant importance to me...there is already a belief
    of understanding about his "validity," and there is an intimacy that
    he has with me that has left no doubt in my mind that he is residing
    within levels beyond our scientific awarenesses.  So, science will
    determine absolutely nothing for me, personally, that will have any
    impact.  So I don't need any scientist(s)' great pronouncements to
    tell me whether or not they have determined this phenomenon to be
    real in their views.  This phenomena is REAL in *MY* view, and that
    is the most important view I have.
         Also, I have been made aware that Jach, etc., have all the proof
    that they require, as well, and are totally uninterested in being
    anyone's guinea pig.  There is sufficient proof available as to the
    validity of the information, and at this point it would be testing
    for negative ego's sake, rather than trusting for the sake of one's
    own relationship with their own Higher Self.
         As I said, call them if you wish.  I have no other "scientific"
    information, sorry.
    
    
    Frederick