Conference hydra::dejavu

    In response to myself, I would like to relate a personal experience.  I
    will admit up front that what I felt/saw may have been created out of
    my own imagination, since my experiences are too limited yet to help me
    make a valid evaluation.  What I will describe is only how I perceived
    it at the time of occurance.
    
    As a kid, I was part of the seances we tried for fun (nothing ever
    happened).  When I was on my own, and learning about psychic
    phenomenon, I took part in two seances; one with 3 sensitives, and
    "believer", the other for a friend's friends.
    
    The first seance was done after midnight of Hallowe'en (don't remember
    which year exactly, about 6-7 years ago).  I wound up being the
    "medium", although I was always in control.  We requested no spirit in
    particular.  My personal impression was that I/we contacted a spirit
    who was currently guarding an entrance ("The entrance to Hell," he said
    with a smile).  Further questioning indicated that it was the entrance
    to a store of knowledge that, since knowledge is power, was enough to
    bring destruction and hell upon Man, should it be misused.  The spirit
    had been a Dane in its former life.
    
    When the seance was over (this was the one with the 3, and 1), the "1"
    ;-) stated that he felt great, that he had finally hit alpha state, and
    was still maintaining it.  I felt as though I was channeling pure
    energy, exiting my body from my chest, just above the sternum, entering
    from some unknown place.
    
    
    The second seance (done for a friend's friends, he was present at the
    first one), was somewhat more subdued.  Again, we did not request a
    specific spirit.  There was an obvious (to me) current between the
    participants (I had to adjust the contact between me and the girl on
    one side because the contact point was unable to handle the energy
    level - I felt real pain - we just had pinky fingers overlapping). 
    Again, I was the medium.  This time, not only was there "knowledge" to
    translate, but as though I was looking through a window at the woman we
    contacted.  The feel of the wooden table became as though glass, and,
    somewhat like a reflection, I "saw" her, her palms on mine.  She was an
    oracle, blinded in her teens, surviving on her "sight", alone, until
    she became desired for her abilities.  Again, I retained control, and
    was the interpreter, although when asked what she looked like, I did
    the seeing, since she was blind, and could not answer that one.
    
    Other impressions I picked up while in "contact" were that she knew me,
    about me, more than I knew (as if she was me, or rather I had been
    her?).  When over, I did not have the same feeling of energy
    channeling.
    
    
    Would these experiences (assuming the perceived reality was a true
    reality) constitute "channeling"?
    
    Beth

    i Know this may be a pretty unpopular view, but channeling is just a
    New Age term for possession.  As in Demon possession.

    It is nothing new, it has been around since the beginning of the human
    race.  They are indeed aliens, but not from another planet.  They are
    not "ascended masters", they are nothing more than the descended
    monsters who were cast out of The Most High's Heaven in ages past to
    reign for a time on this planet.  They are liars and deceivers of the
    worst sort and can masquerade themselves in whatever form that gullible
    people want to believe.  They prey on the humans gullibility and
    stupidity because people usually prefer to believe lies rather than the
    Truth!

    The Bible speaks of these entities often and WARNS us to beware!
    from right here around us in the other dimension of the spiritual
    world.  

    I think of _possession_ as an *extreme* example of the same phenomena.
    
    My understanding is that there are a number of significant disctinctions 
    (especially of degree) between possession and most 'channelling,' which I 
    tend to identify with both magical invocation and mediumistic trance.
    
    Of course, this is from my physicalist perspective, so I don't make
    the same general judgement about the kinds of entities.  To me, the
    danger, if any, comes from the degree to which the 'entity' takes over
    the personality in a negative way, or induces psychosis, not what planet 
    or level of spiritual hierarchy it might theoretically derive from.
    Of course, that assumes that it isn't a true instance of high-tech
    mind control of some sort, and I have no reason to believe that
    any of it I'm familiar with is anything of the sort.
    
    
    							todd

    re: .0 (Beth)
    
        You probably didn't need to start a new note...this has been
    discussed in here at length various times.  Please see note 288 
    for starters (within which there are references to other notes.)
        Not to answer your question directly, but to summarily respond
    to the concept of channeling, let me briefly repeat what has been
    said before:  While anyone can play the piano, not everyone can
    be a Horowitz.  Similarly, while anyone can channel, not every
    channeling will be of similar value.
    
    re: .2 (::Troyer)
    
        That's a very limited and narrow observation.  Rather than living
    in a world of fearful fantasy, it may be worth your while to upgrade
    your judgements by actually listening to/reading some of the best
    ("best" being undefined for now) of the channeled materials and seeing
    if any of the negativity attached to your entry is actually true.
    While what you wrote may be true, there are far, far greater truths
    that are infinitely more positive and powerful.  Do yourself a favor
    and research it...and try an open mind, if possible.
    
    Frederick
    

    Frederick,

    My "observation"- as you say-  may indeed be limited and narrow, but it
    is my observation. i Have been observing this conference for some time
    now, and most everything i see here convinces me more and more that
    what i said in my last reply is the Truth.  i Can say this because i am
    also in-dwelt with a Spirit that knows the Truth but cannot lie.  Unlike
    other entities that i see in here however, The Holy Spirit of God that
    is in me doesn't just walk in and out at will, He is constantly within
    me.  He doesn't invade my person, my character, or my will by taking
    over and speaking of and by Himself.  He doesn't even charge for the
    Wisdom that He imparts to me.  He simply uses me for who and what i am,
    as i willingly yield to "the mind of Christ".

    This is not fantasy.  Nor are the spirits whom you know.  If this
    Lazareth, or Ramtha or whoever would speak the truth, they would tell
    you that their master is the prince of darkness, Lucifer, Satan, or
    some other name that they attribute to him.  They speak of love and
    peace but they don't even know what that is.  All they want is for the
    human race to live in the "harmony" of an open mind so they can have
    their way.  To be "in tune" with them so their agenda can be more
    readily accomplished.

    i Am neither fearful.  In Christ Jesus is Perfect Love, and Love casts
    away fear.  Because i have been washed in the Blood of Jesus, i am in
    Him, and therefore have His love in me.  If you want to see what this
    Love can do, all i would have to do is mention the name of Jesus to
    these entities and then you would see fear!  They don't want you to
    know what His Love can do!  They don't want you to know what God did,
    because of His Love.  It is because of the Love that Jesus has for you,
    Frederick, that he actually shed His blood for you and gave up His life
    so that you can experience True Life in Him.  All you have to do is
    believe that He did this for you personally, and receive His free gift
    of Love to you.  Then Real Life will be lived through you.  He did it
    all for you, just believe it and accept it.

    Nothing i am saying will make any since to you, unless you are willing
    to know the Real Truth Frederick.  If you want to know the Truth and it
    is God's Will, then the Holy Spirit will reveal it to you.  He can set
    you free Frederick!  Talk about having your mind expanded?!!  It will
    burst beyond the bones in your own limited human mind and enable you to
    see with the eyes of understanding.  

    How is all this being taken?  Are you angry?  Appalled that i even
    mention these things here?  A bit embarrassed for me perhaps?  Are you 
    going to flame me for "preaching" in this forum?  Why?  Any other topic
    under the sun that is spiritual in nature, or otherwise, can be aired
    here and received with great eagerness.  The spirit(s) of this world 
    don't like this message, or the Name of Jesus, and don't want you to
    know the Truth.  You see, they are the ones who live in fear because
    they know of the Real Power and they know what their end is.  

    i Am not looking for an argument here, i just want you to know the
    Truth.  Don't seek the Truth among the masses of this world, do yourself a
    favor and research what i have said.  Read about the mediums mentioned
    in the Bible and related subjects.  Don't let them cause you to snicker
    at it or be afraid to open it.  Read the Word of God.  His Powerful and
    Living Word.  Allow His Word to rest in your heart.  

    Don't open your mind for anything to be dumped in there, open your
    heart!
                                                 Just jOHN

    re: .5 (John)
    
         Well, I give you credit for your willingness to speak your
    truth---there's a certain courage there.  I have to say, however,
    that I can't (won't) say much to your message...from my perspective
    you are too far "brain-washed" to have any meaningful dialog with.
    Contrary to your speculation, I *do* know what "Jesus is all about."
    I spent thirty years as a "good," practicing Catholic...thirty years
    too many, in my mind.  I, as any enlightened, free, spiritual being,
    have no master.  I submit to no one spiritually.  I embrace those
    parts of myself that reach far beyond, equal in worth and in spirit.
    Beyond that, the messages you promote are all tired, worn-out,
    archaic and valueless to me.  Have a nice life, John.
    
    Frederick
    

    I had a feeling in my water that Frederick would not see eye to eye
    with John on this matter.

    BTW John you should have field service have a look at your keyboard,
    your shift key appears to have an intermittent fault on it.

    Jamie.

    re: .9 (Cliff)
    
          Love isn't (et al) those things, of course, when understood
    in it's proper meaning.  Unfortunately, Cliff, most people, especially
    religious people, don't seem to understand or convey that particular
    form of meaning.  "You MUST do it this way, the Lord says so; if not,
    you'll be damned to hell for eternity.  And, furthermore, I won't even
    give you a chance to do this for yourself for I will FORCE you to
    do it my way...because I love you, as the Lord Jesus loves me and
    all who do his way."
         Gag me!  This is love?  This is the "Lord's" love?  No thanks.
    
    Frederick
    

Dogma and doctrine is tired, "worn-out, archaic and valueless" (IMHO)...

	... no offense intended - it is just that the messages of many
religions, (e.g. Christianity) are lost to this...

	Regards,
								- JIM CAD*

    Re: .6
    
    Thanks for the pointer.
    
    Re: .2 and other comments.
    
    Although I do not fully agree with John, he addresses somewhat of my
    concern: that any spirit who wishes to take over your body may have
    questionable motivations.  If it is just a matter of information being
    given to me (or a "channeler") to relay to others, that's one thing.  I
    am being given the choice of acting upon the information or not.  But,
    when full "possession" occurs, that free choice is taken away.  That
    requires A LOT OF TRUST.  I think that even if the spirit said "I am
    God" or "I am Christ", etc, I might still wonder if it is something
    else lying to me.
    
    In my own experiences, I never tried or expected to be the medium, nor
    did I relinquish control.  All I did was relay information.  Even I
    would question the truth of the information.
    
    Beth

    Dogma aside, what about an artist or musician that spontaneously
    creates a work that is clearly 'above and beyond' his or her normal
    output ?  As a composer I tell you it DOES happen to me very very
    infrequently.  All I can do is be clear and give music plenty of time
    and good attention.  And I say yea,verily, that music has come out of me
    that I didn't know was in there.  At the time of creation all thought
    is stopped, and emotion is predominant.
    
    So though it's clear that the part of me that talks (and types) is
    not involved (except peripherally) in this process of creation.  As a
    decidedly NON woo-woo personality, this is as close as I come to
    'channeling'.
    
    karl

                                              
    Karl,
    
    You bring up a very good point.  I don't believe this is channelling
    another entity, but tapping into the creative powers of the universe.
    I feel there is a distinct difference.
    
    For example, the Kripalu Yoga posture flow first happened to Yogi Desai
    after many years of his practicing willful yoga postures.  As the story
    goes, back in 1970, he was doing willful postures with his wife and
    another couple.  Suddenly his body started to perform the postures on
    its own, and bring harmony to the body, mind and spirit (integration)
    automatically.  He was fully conscious during the event, and could stop
    it if he so chose.  It was prana, or shakti-kundalini - the universal
    energy - that was the doer in this case.  After that event, he wrote to 
    his guru in India, who replied and said that he had given Yogi Desai a 
    minor shaktipat initiation without him knowing it, and that the automatic 
    postures were a result.  
    
    I've experienced one such posture flow while at Kripalu, later that day
    after Yogi Desai demonstrated one such flow for us.  It is as you
    described - all thought is stopped.  The state of conscious awareness.
    You are truly in the Eternal present moment, not in the past or future.  
    
    To me, this is like any artist, musician, writer, or even engineers who 
    practices their craft willfully, then taps into the creative universal
    energy which integrates their willful skills into something that is
    flowing and new.
    
    Cindy

    re: .15 (Karl)
    
         I don't know enough about Cayce to respond to that.  I believe
    Arthur Ford was similarly inclined, wasn't he?  Seth, on the other
    hand, seems to steer clear of Jesus and the like.  To me, Seth was
    a superior source of information than Edgar Cayce, who was in turn
    superior in depth to Arthur Ford.  None of them comes close to 
    Lazaris, in my opinion, but you probably already knew I'd say that. ;-)
    Lazaris would never have any of us bowing in submission to any other
    being, therefore there is no "lord" in Jesus or anyone else...all of
    whom are ultimately "figments" of our illusionary reality anyway.
    
    Frederick
    

                                                        
    In Japan, people bow to each other out of respect.
    
    In India, guests are greeted at the door with folded hands in prayer 
    position to acknowledge the presence of the divine in them.  "The
    guest is God", as the saying goes.  One bows out of respect to parents, 
    gurus, and others...not to their human selves, but to the divinity that 
    exists within them.  I bow to my guru, for example, as he bows to his.
    Bowing is as much a part of Indian culture as shaking hands is in ours.
    
    In fact, to a large portion of the world inhabitants, bowing is a sign 
    of respect.  Unfortunately this concept is not very well understood 
    here in the West and instead, bowing is viewed as submission to another. 
    Hence the act is taken out of context and criticized.
    
    Cindy

>    In Japan, people bow to each other out of respect.
    
    ...
    
>    Hence the act is taken out of context and criticized.
    
    	Ok, then let's talk about it *in* context for a brief rathole.
    
    	I can't speak at all about India, but my understanding is that there 
    	are several levels of bows taught in traditional Japanese etiquette, 
    	depending on the social status of the individuals.  The deeper the bow, 
    	the greater the difference in status.   If my understanding is 
    	correct, then most bowing *does* clearly imply submission, not to 
    	divinity but to superior social status, at least in Japanese tradition.
    
    	If it were to 'divinity' as I think of it, as you state in the
    	paragraph about India, there would be no 
    	difference in the levels of bows, unless people have different
    	'degrees of divinity' in them according to their social status,
    	which hardly seems a meaningful distinction if our goal is
    	to compare simple respect with servile submission.
    
    	It comes from feudal tradition, Samurai bowing to Daimyo.
    
    	So, it is both a sign of respect *and* one of submission.
    	But the respect is not one of choice, it is derived from a doctrine
    	of force and of class hierarchy.  So it is probably the term
    	'respect' that is out of context here.  The deepest feudal version of 
    	the bow, unarmed peasant to armed aristocrat, was a kneeling bow which 
    	exposes the neck.  The symbolism is clear in a society which held the 
    	sword as an object of sacred meaning and also considered it a tool 
    	that the aristocrats had license to use (exposing the neck was not of 
    	*purely* symbolic meaning).  Yes, I'd call that respect; and fear;
    	and servitude.
    
    	The handshake, in comparison, is a mutual gesture.   As would be
    	bowing if it were on equal terms, and not symbolic of one person
    	exposing their neck to the other, like a dog raising his paw
    	in submission to a larger dog.
    
    	I'm not trying to denigrate bowing, I'm just trying to establish that 
    	its meaning is not as simple or universal as implied in 
    	'bowing is a simple sign of respect,' or 'acknowledgement of
    	divinity.'
    
    								todd

         
    Re.18
    
    Todd,
    
    Your interpretation speaks to the heart of the problem.  Bowing, in the
    pure sense, is simply respect for one's divinity and has absolutely
    nothing to do with fear and submission.   
    
    I cannot speak more on Japan (perhaps Steve K. can), however in India, 
    as you know there is a social caste system.  In the ancient Hindu 
    scriptures, there is most definitely a caste system outlined, which is
    the original basis for the current day caste system.  However, with 
    greed, corruption, need to control and suppress, the two systems 
    currently have absolutely NOTHING in common.  The original caste system
    had to do with one's position in their own spiritual growth path -
    something only a self-realized guru is capable of determining. 
    There are four castes in the original system (two of them being warrior
    and brahmin) and I can point you to a note in the India file if you're 
    interested reading more.  So, in this respect, you are right - bowing in 
    the current day caste system does mean fear and submission.  But that
    was never the original intent. 
    
    However, in ancient India, and in legitimate guru/disciple lines today,
    bowing does signify respect.  I do not bow to my guru - nor he to his -
    nor he to his (and so on) out of fear and submission - I do so strictly
    out of respect.  And one of my meditation partners bows to me, and I to
    him, after we have finished out meditation session.  Not to our selves,
    but to our Selves.
    
    Even in Christianity which was mentioned earlier (bowing to the Lord,
    or whatever it was) - one tends to forget that it was actually Christ
    who washed the feet of his disciples.  Christ did not require his
    disciples to bow to him out of fear and submission.  And he even washed
    their feet...something absolutely unheard of in his day (and to a large
    part, even today). The Churches have insisted we bow out of fear and 
    submission because they are the one's into control and manipulation, 
    but Christ did not. Very important point.  The original intent has been
    lost.  
    
    Cindy

    re: .19, Cindy,
    	Thanks for your comments.
    
    	 We definitely do agree on the 'not neccessarily' part.  :-)
    
    	I see no reason to link the simple act or custom with
    	divinity or spirituality, that's all.    I don't doubt for
    	a second that many people use it that way.
    
>    Your interpretation speaks to the heart of the problem.  Bowing, in the
>    pure sense, is simply respect for one's divinity and has absolutely
>    nothing to do with fear and submission.   
    
    I have no argument that you mean simple respect and appreciation of
    spiritual value when you and your meditation partners use the
    custom.   I just don't understand why your associations with the
    custom are the 'pure sense.'  
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

                                                             
    Re.20
    
    Todd,
    
    I use the words 'Pure sense' to mean 'original intent'...that being
    divine - linking us all together through the divine spark that exists
    in all.
    
    The opposite of 'pure sense' is worldly, or for religious and political
    [basically selfish and egotistical] reasons which have nothing to do 
    with what authors of the religious books meant.
    
    You may not see a reason to link the simple act or custom with divinity
    or spirituality, however that doesn't change the original intent of the
    gesture...a meaning that I pull not from thin air, but from references
    made by many respected Indian philosophy scholars including Swami 
    Parthasarathy, who founded the Vedanta school in Bombay.
    
    Similarly the dot or straight line that is on the foreheads of many
    Indian men and women - the tilak - is located at the third eye, and
    when they encounter each other, the symbol is to remind them that
    divinity exists in them.  However, taking your approach, it could also
    be simply a very decorative application similar to wearing mascara and
    earrings.  Depends upon how you look at it.
    
    Cindy

re: .21,
	I appreciate your further clarification on your view, Cindy.
	Seems unproductive to continue this line further.
		
						thanks,
	
						todd

    
    Re.22
    
    That was awfully formal, Todd.
    
    I guess I don't understand your position.  Would you clarify?
    
    Cindy

    re: last two
    
       ...legs together, arms to the side, head in a tucked position,
    tongue extended, hair on end,...
    
        oh,...that's not...well, then, never mind.
    
    Frederick
    ;-)
    

    re: .23,
    	I'm sorry if my reply seemed overly formal, Cindy.  I just
    wanted to avoid any further digression on what seemed to amount
    to a matter of my distaste for bowing because of my negative experience
    with it in Americanized schools of Asian martial arts over the years.
    I sensed I was starting to polarize with you and justify my position
    on theoretical grounds, and I decided that wasn't appropriate,
    especially since your points were based on spiritual principles.
    
    				thanks,
    
    						todd

                    
    Re.25
    
    Todd,
    
    No prob.  Actually, I reread parts of my book on Hindu symbology last
    night, particularly when it comes to this, and will enter parts of it
    in a new topic.  It's quite fascinating.
    
    I do see your point...and it's unfortunate that such beautiful customs 
    have denigrated to such low levels when it comes to situations like the 
    one you described.  
    
    True gurus, sages, etc. never require anyone to bow to them.  It is 
    solely out of the love of one's heart for the guru (who first shows the 
    divine unconditional love toward them) that one does in fact ever bow.  
    Such a love is never tainted with ego, attempt at personal gain, or 
    need to control, under any circumstances.  
    
    Cindy

    re: .26,
    	Maybe that's why many people I study with who have similar
    	experiences tend to develop their own local variations of the bow,
    	such as distinct nods of the head.  It's sort of like saying,
    	'this is a sincere gesture of respect that we all understand,
    	but is not to be confused with that silly stuff that everybody
    	else is doing just to be fashionable.'  :-)
    
    							todd

    
    
      re 15
    
    
    	Cliff,
    
    	There is an excellent book written by one of the "Cayce writers",
    whose name I can't remember at the moment, called CHANNELING YOUR HIGHER
    SELF. It is about what Cayce perceived channeling to be and how we all
    do it according to that which we draw to us according to where our
    heart is or what we focus on.
    
    	Well, that's where it begins. As an example it takes a child which
    is into destructive behavior and how that energy can be channeled into
    something positive, like music or sports. From there it goes into the
    idea that we are constantly choosing where we channel energy and from
    there it goes into many delightful places. 
    
    	I think the author's last name is Reed. Something like that.
    
    
    
    	Craig
    
    	
       

    
    Getting back into my own topic, I would like to bring up a discussion
    about the affects on the "true" resident (meaning the person who is
    usually present when an entity is not being channeled).  Assume the
    type of channeling is full body takeover.
    
    In my opinion, the amount of time spent channeling is important, and
    should be limited.  This is time taken away from the current primary
    resident that could be spent acheiving his own purposes.  (I won't
    accept "to be a channel" as a purpose - reincarnation is a better
    alternative).  I doubt (because of personal experiences) that the
    ability to channel implies that you have reached some spiritual height. 
    So that means the channeler still has some things to do in this life. 
    Yet, some of them spend 30-40 hours a week somewhere else.  Where?  Do
    they have the opportunety to "learn" while there, just as I have the
    opportunety to grow while at my "normal" job (which is 40+ hours of
    each of my weeks ;-) ?
    
    I find it hard to believe that spending 30-40 hours a week channeling
    is really healthy for the channeler's spirit/soul/self.
    
    Beth

    Makes sense, Marcos...

    
    Re: .30
    
    I don't agree that you have to be in a trance state to gain access to
    main memory (meaning some of the data can be placed into cache OR both
    cache and main can be referenced at will).
    
    You get back to my main issue with channeling or being a medium: the
    inability to retain any memory of your actions/thought/sensations while
    doing so.  What good is it to be able to access the information if you
    are excluded from the benefits.  You can harm yourself by being too
    selfless, helping others to grow while you stagnate or even
    deteriorate.
    
    Beth

    re: .33 (Cliff)
    
         The entity Michael as channeled by Fred Hyslop (see note
    from two years ago) is one that Fred also communicates with.
    Fred's told me that he'll make a tape recording of what he
    wants to talk about and that then while in trance Michael will
    turn it on and listen to it and then respond to it.
    
    Frederick
    

    .34
    
    Topher?

re:  Marcos

Synchronicity strikes again.  I'm just reading Dr. Deepak Chopra's book 
_Quantum Healing_, in which he discusses the mind/body connection, particularly
as it relates to spontaneous remission/healing of disease.  His main premise is
that there is an unknown field, or '?', which he believes is intelligence, into
which we all have the inate ability to tap, and it is this field of pure
consciousness/intelligence from which spontaneous healing occurs.  

Dr. Chopra discusses medical science as well as quantum physics to back up 
his theories, and also draws parralels (sp?) with recent dicscoveries in science
to principles of ancient Ayurvedic principles.  I'm no scientist, but I've been
fascinated by this information, and am anxious to get into the parts of the 
book in which he discusses how to access this field (I've reached the beginning
of his discussion on Transcendental Meditation as a means to achieve this).

At any rate, it seems to me that what Marcos is talking about regarding
channeling is exactly what Dr. Chopra is talking about as it pertains to 
healing.  Since Dr. Chopra refers to 'it' as pure intelligence/consciousness,
it could be looked at as a 'soup' (I think he even uses that word) around us
which is there for us to access, but for which we need the instructions.  He 
also likens consciousness to radio bands, and we are the receivers.  We are
tuned into just a few bands at a time, but we can learn to access more and more
bands.

Enough rambling. IMO, Dr. Chopra appears to bring a wide spectrum of knowledge 
to his work. The book is facsinating, and even though it doesn't discuss
channeling, it seems relevant to this discussion.

Mary
  

 

    Re .34
    
    Topher and Steve Kallis come to mind, but wait! Digital has struck and 
    we're about to lose one of the two great minds of most of the
    notesfiles I read! 
    
    Isn't there something like a statue of St. Joseph we can make Steve
    carry around with him for the next day that will get him a job?
    
    Marilyn
    
    
    

    re: .35 (Cliff)
    
         It was note 1300.
    
    re: .36 (Mary)
    
         You might also be interested in note 358.72...towards the bottom
    of that note there is information from Lazaris about healing,
    from 0-100, with 0 representing no healing to 100 representing the
    most elegant healing, which is spontaneous healing.
    
    Frederick
    

re:  .40

Frederick,

Thanks for the note info.  Very helpful and informative ...

Mary