Conference hydra::dejavu

        Thanks for the information.  I picked up a copy today ($2.70
    at Crown Books) and haven't read anything but the channeling article.
    I really found that to be a very shallow piece.  I did learn some
    things, however, in regards to Jach and Lazaris, that I hadn't known
    about (like how Michaell came into the scene.)  I was also surprised
    to learn that Ted Danson is an adherent.
        What I particularly find distressing is that the reporter
    (Katherine Lowry) says: "Where Ramtha was often trite and pompous,
    Lazaris is consistently funny, warm, and engaging, even though half
    of what he says sounds like nonsense to me," then says, later, that
    ..."it is ironic that they have gone to the opposite extreme of
    embracing what appears to be nonsense.  But a
    heads-and-hearts-in-the-sand attitude isn't likely to create the
    better world they imagine when they're curled in a fetal position,
    letting entities tell them fairy tales.  It's not so much the advice,
    much of it cockeyed, that is harmful as it is the fact that most
    of these seekers are implicitly being encouraged to relinquish control
    of their lives.  Even as these beings [and I assume she is talking
    about Ramtha and Lazaris] purport to be saying we should look inward
    for answers, they offer false hopes and false visions, solidifying
    the dependency that brought them followers in the first place."
        All of this is said in virtual contradiction to what the rest
    of the article says.  Insofar as Ramtha is concerned, I will not
    defend or attack...it is clear, however, that Lazaris is a different
    type of personality and that Jach is much different than J.Z. Knight.
        But to counter what she wrote, who is in a fetal position? 
    I have never seen anyone at a Lazaris workshop in a fetal position.
    And why is she criticizing dreams?  Where would this world be without
    dreams?  And who talks about heads-in-the-sand?  Certainly not 
    Lazaris!  In fact, it is quite the opposite.  He repeatedly tells
    us to take responsibility for the world which we have created and
    in which we live.  Narcisism?  Hardly!  It makes incredible sense
    to love oneself FIRST before making an effort to love the world
    outside of oneself (and I won't elaborate on this point more, here.)
    And how can she say that the words are cockeyed when she readily
    admits that she didn't understand what was said (sounds like nonsense
    to her because of her ignorance?)  And I insist that what she says
    about relinquishing control of our lives is flagrantly erroneous
    (and libelous, possibly,) since these words or words even closely
    like them have NEVER come from Lazaris (although maybe Ramtha
    says that sort of thing, I know not.)  False visions and false hope?
    Really?  To envision a better world, one with peace, love and 
    harmony?  Maybe she's seen too many Terminator-type movies and that's
    what she believes in.
         Additionally, she makes one of the glaring errors that many
    intellectuals (or psuedo-intellectuals in her case, I think) make
    and that is that they stay in their heads and don't deal with their
    "hearts."  This is strange, especially since she writes "Almost
    all seem happier, less desparate than their Ramtha counterparts;
    and most of them busily take notes..."  Further she mentions a guy
    who switched from Ramtha to Lazaris and that Lazaris "helped me
    enlarge my success cube," and "Now I've got more business than I
    can handle."  Yet she took the time to observe Sharon Gless while
    in meditation and report on her tears rather than make any effort
    to do the meditation herself.  As I've said before, YOU CAN'T DO
    IT ALL IN YOUR HEAD.  If you really want to learn from the things
    Lazaris talks about, you must FEEL them.  THEN, if things don't work
    the way you feel they should have, and only then, should you be
    critical of what has been said.  It is absolutely true that Lazaris
    talks about things that we usually consider only in fantasy (in
    our childishness--or in our "dreams" in our adulthood) and what
    of it?  If you just do what is objectively observable, then a tremendous
    amount is being lost (from the standpoint of Lazaris' teachings.)
    So, from my perspective, this woman "missed the boat."  I know that
    there are many of you in these files who would hold to her approach
    as conclusive, but for those of you who are less willing to be that
    closed-minded I encourage you to look for the holes in that particular
    mode of thinking/rationale.
      
    Frederick
                                           

    RE: .1 But Frederick, just how is J.Z. Knight different than Jach?
    Both claim to speak for a supposed discarnate entity with a broader
    outlook than we have.  Both give (and charge for) seminars.  Both are
    highly attractive to the yuppie set.  Both speak in some kind of
    "trance."  So which "entity" is right?  The one with the most
    followers?
    
    John M. 

    Many roads lead home.

    I've read some of this issue and thought the articles I read were
    great.  Alot of good stuff on "human potential".
    
    I'd recommend it.
    
    Peace,
    
    Marie
    
    

RE: .1
    
    I think you are being rather hard on the article.  As I read it
    the author assumed that both Ramtha and Lazaris represented many
    similar (though perhaps not as well developed) channeled entities.
    I think that the "cockeyed and harmful" advise mentioned is in
    reference to Ramtha and the assumed similar channeled entities.
    
    The author carefully presented a combination of facts, impressions
    and opinions, being careful, I thought, to label which was which.
    Her opinion was quite clearly that Lazaris offered warmth and a
    sense of self-worth which she felt was admirable.  She also felt
    that he mixed this with statements about the physical world which
    were nonesense (incorrect or incoherent and ill defined), and felt
    that in her opinion Lazaris' clients were ill-served by that.  She
    distrusts, as I do, not good feelings, but good feelings justified
    by non-truth.  The "fetal position" she was talking about was, of
    course, symbolic of what she felt to be such comforting non-truths
    -- a womb of delusion.  (I'm not, by the way, agreeing with her,
    I'm simply saying that she was quite reasonably presenting her opinion
    a opinion, and that that opinion differs from yours does not make
    it shallow).
    
    I thought that the article was rather incomplete.  More general
    facts about channeling; more information about the rumors about
    evidence for Knight faking Ramtha (if more information exists);
    more history, more interview with the channelers, more presentation
    of other opinions and a greater variety of channeled entities would
    have been useful.  But it is only a magazine article with limited
    space available.  I think you will find, if you read it carefully,
    that there is internal evidence in the article that its actually
    been edited down from a longer article.
    
    Its not by any means the article I would have written, and its brevity
    severely limits its depth, but its a good article which attempts
    to provide something of "both sides of the issues" and to not cop
    out from the author presenting her own feelings about the subject,
    based on her experience.  The latter is necessary because, after
    all, everyone agrees that feelings is what this is about.
    
    					Topher

RE: .2
    
    They differ, John, in content.  How does Bohr differ from Einstein?
    They both come from the same intellectual tradition, etc., etc.
    
    Ramtha, apparently, asks to be believed because HE IS AN AUTHORITY
    AND YOU SHOULD NOT QUESTION HIM.  Lazaris, apparently, asks to have
    his statements evaluated by the listener and accepted or rejected
    on there own merit.  At most he asks that effort be spent looking
    at his ideas, rather than someone elses, because he brings an original
    outlook to them.  Since Frederick has not said at any time that
    Lazaris' statements should be taken on faith, because we are not
    qualified to disagree, you are definitely setting up a straw man
    with your question.
    
    By the way, despite the shallow stereotypes, New Age is not a
    particularly yuppie phenomena.  Most yuppies I know are rather anti-
    New Age.  I think that there is a meaningful group which can be
    identified as "yuppies", but it is only vaguely related to the media
    stereotype.  Two of the characteristic common (not universal) in
    the rather diverse yuppie social group is money (by definition)
    and adventurousness.  Given that, expensive channels are likely
    to receive much of their business from yuppies, the converse is,
    however, quite fallacious.  (The article in question, identified
    Lazaris' clientel at the attended meeting as yuppie (though the
    word was avoided), surprise was expressed, however, that Ramtha's
    clientel did *not* fit that expectation.
    
    
    					Topher
                       

    also included in the issue is a chance to subscribe to their new
    magazine (newsletter, rather) WHOLEmind.
    
    I think I'll give it a try.
    
    -Jody
    

    re: .1
        It really isn't which is right and which isn't, it's which
    truth comes closest to being your truth?  I think you know where
    I stand with this.
      
    re: .3
        Yes, Mary, no one in this conference should disagree with that
    one.  (What's the symbol for unsure/grin?)
      
    re: .6 
        Thanks for the insight in answering John.  I also took a little
    bit of exception to her description of the male crowd having "...a hapless,
    woebegone air."  But, then *I* wasn't in that L.A. crowd. (Insert
    arrogant smile, here.)
                        
    re: .5
         I still feel more strongly than what you've felt.  If the advice
    given was geared towards Ramtha, I feel it should have spelled it
    out.  
         And whose advice is incorrect or presents a non-truth?  Who's
    "judging" or determining this so-called "non-truth?"  And why would
    it be incoherent?  Lazaris speaks with an accent to be sure, but
    I don't think the body of his talking would likely be labeled
    incoherent by someone who "grew up with" the English language. 
    And, as I have made a great effort to point out before in as many
    "logical" ways as I know how (without going too far out, I think)
    if this so-called non-truth were so obvious that a reporter of this
    caliber could pick it out (this caliber--contains someone who finds
    a great deal to be incoherent, mind you,) doesn't it make at least
    equal sense that this non-truth would be obvious as well to the
    many hundreds of highly intelligent people in attendance?  It does
    to me.
        Anyway, I agree with your last two paragraphs, Topher, and yet
    I still read it to be more strongly written than to be simply a
    representation of the author's.
        
        I do not mind criticisms as long as they present the reasons
    for the criticism or at least are presented as a personal opinion.
    I find it harmful, however, when any criticism (positive or negative)
    is stated as conviction for one and all.
      
      
    Frederick
    

        During the 4-day Lazaris Intensive plus evening seminar the
    night before these past five days, Lazaris brought up the subject of
    the New Age. I will skip most of what he said around it, I just wish to go
    directly to OMNI references.
        Lazaris mentioned that several years ago Mariyn Ferguson
    (author of the "Aquarian Conspiracy," etc.) was talking to 
    him and mentioned that she had been approached to write 
    1,000 positive words on the new age (by the editor of OMNI.)
    She had asked him why.  She was told that it was to balance out the
    negativity. So she asked why it was that they simply didn't talk about
    all the various positive things that were happening in the new age?  The
    editor told her several things:  among the things he said was the
    stated idea that readers prefered extra-ordinary and colorful, exhorbitant
    and flamboyant activities.  Another thing, and most important, was
    that IF they printed lots of positive results that not only would
    OMNI lose revenue from scientific community members, but that
    they would have to withstand an attack from fundamentalist religious
    groups, as well.  He further stated that they could not and would
    not print a positively-inclined synopsis of the new age.  Rather, they
    would print the negativity or "circus-atmosphere" and then have her
    write her positive piece to make it APPEAR as though they were giving
    a balanced perspective.
          Marilyn refused to write the article.  I commend her for
    her principles and her character.
           
    
    Frederick
    

    I've noticed this attitude in OMNI lately.  Probably time to cancel
    my subscription.