FOTCM Logo
Cassiopaea
  • EN
  • FR
  • DE
  • RU
  • TR
  • ES
  • ES

The Wave Chapter 25: A Walk In Nature Among The Names of God Where We Have An Interview With the Vampire And Discover a Cosmic Egg

A Walk In Nature Among
The Names of God Where We Have
An Interview With the Vampire
And Discover a Cosmic Egg

At this point, I want to share with you the fact that, like many of you who write to me, coming to understand the whys and wherefores has been a process that has had its moments of extreme frustration and rebellion against what is. Even if our observations of reality are constantly telling us things that are true, we all tend to want to stay asleep and dreaming in the Matrix-like illusion. In the following excerpt, I only wish I could reproduce in writing the frustration and puzzlement in my voice. The words that are capitalized were practically shouted:

Q: (L) I am in a little bit of a quandary here because, here we are talking to you guys who are supposed to be “us” in the future; here we are in this period of time on this planet, where things are in a very strange state; there is some kind of huge transition going on, and I am just wondering what is the whole point? Why are we talking to you? What’s the point?

A: It is the lesson. Do you not understand still? The lesson, the lessons, that is all there is. They are all immeasurably valuable.

Q: (L) Okay, we are having these lessons. You have told us what is going on. We see it going on around us. I am convinced that what you have said is so from a LOT of other evidence as well as the research of others who have come to the same conclusion and, DAMN IT, IT’S UGLY! DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME?! IT’S UGLY!

A: That is your perspective.

Q: (L) Well, as C** said on the phone the other day, what are we supposed to awaken to? Are we supposed to just awaken to the fact that we can SEE all this stuff going on?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Okay, once we wake up and SEE it, why can’t we just check out at that point? If you know what the script is, you don’t have to watch the movie!

A: But then you miss out on the experience.

Q: (L) So, we are all here to experience being munched and crunched…

A: No.

Q: (L) Imprisoned, controlled, being treated like rats in a cage in a laboratory…

A: Ecstasy, remember?

Q: (L) Ecstasy?! WELL SWELL! We can just ALL be BURNED AT THE STAKE! I understand that is QUITE an ECSTATIC experience! I’m sure William Wallace felt perfectly ecstatic when they castrated him and removed his bowels and burned them in a brazier in front of his face!

A: Not so long ago, your face smashed upon the pavement… 1

Q: (L) Was that an ecstatic experience?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) So, when you say “ecstatic” you could just be talking about jumping out a window and croaking? You gotta understand here! The perspective here on third density! You don’t have faces to smash on pavements!

A: Neither will/do you/us.

Q: (A) You say knowledge protects. It protects against what?

A: Many things. One example: post transformational trauma and confusion.

Q: (L) So, knowledge is going to protect us against post transformational trauma and confusion. You are implying that this transition to fourth density is going to be traumatic and confusing. Do you mean transformation from third to fourth density, or third to fifth density, i.e., death?

A: Both.

Q: (L) So, if one does not have the shock and trauma and the confusion and so forth, one is then able to function better?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Well, you said “both”. That implies that persons can transition directly from third to fourth density without dying. Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) How does that feel? How is that experience…

A: Alice through the looking glass.

Q: (A) Okay, you say that knowledge is supposed to protect from trauma and confusion. On the other hand, all is lessons, so trauma is a lesson. Why are we supposed to work to avoid a lesson?

A: You are correct, it is a lesson, but if you have foreknowledge, you are learning that lesson early, and in a different way.

Q: (L) So, if you learn the lesson in a different way, does that mitigate the need or the way or the process of the way of learning at the time of transition?

A: Yes. Smoother.

My beloved grandmother always said to me, “A wise man learns from his mistakes; a genius learns from the mistakes of others.” (I wonder if there is a special school that grandmothers attend to learn all these clever sayings?) But her point is exactly what we are dealing with here. We need to learn not only from the mistakes of others, but from our own mistakes, and from applying our greatest assets, our minds, to the matter. If “all there is is lessons”, then it seems only logical to think that we can infer some principles from the world around us, from our studies, and from direct observation.

Many occult teachings state that one can learn all of the secrets of creation by studying nature. The alchemists say that the truth is hidden in plain sight. As I quoted in the last section, the Nexus Seven guys think that we need “a language of hyper-dimensional symbols that codify human relationships with nature. Symbols and ritual that codify the elements and forces of nature codify the life processes of nature, from the little insects all the way up to the supposedly angelic and demonic ETs.” And I respond that we already have it. It is nature itself.

The only problem is, you cannot obtain knowledge and understanding of nature by simply reading about it or wandering around in the garden. You have to think.

A: You see when you speed too quickly in the process of learning and gathering knowledge; it is like skipping down the road without pausing to reflect on the ground beneath you. One misses the gold coins and the gemstones contained within the cracks in the road.

We cannot rush the process. Nature’s greatest secrets are always close to us. In nature, God manifests in all his many faces. Nature is the organ which proclaims the creator. It is important to learn everything you can about the physical world before you begin to investigate the spirit world because, as Chittick writes, “there are innumerable realms in the unseen world, some of them far more dangerous than the worst jungles of the visible world.”

Once you have learned about the physical world many things about the spiritual world, which have previously been inexplicable to you, will then be understood.

A: All there is is lessons. This is one infinite school. There is no other reason for anything to exist. Even inanimate matter learns it is all an “illusion”. Each individual possesses all of creation within their minds. Now, contemplate for a moment. Each soul is all-powerful and can create or destroy all existence if [they] know how. You and us and all others are interconnected by our mutual possession of all there is. You may create alternative universes if you wish and dwell within. You are all a duplicate of the universe within which you dwell. Your mind represents all that exists. It is “fun” to see how much you can access.

Q: (L) It’s fun for whom to see how much we can access?

A: All. Challenges are fun. Where do you think the limit of your mind is?

Q: (L) Where?

A: We asked you.

Q: (L) Well, I guess there is no limit.

A: If there is no limit, then what is the difference between your own mind and everything else?

Q: (L) Well, I guess there is no difference if all is ultimately one.

A: Right. And when two things each have absolutely no limits, they are precisely the same thing.

Now, notice that the Cassiopaeans have said, “It is fun to see how much you can access”. What we are supposed to be accessing is universal creative powers that exist within our own minds — the zero point energy as suggested by David Bohm. But that coy little remark about fun also tells us something very important. It tells us that there are constraints in place to make the game more interesting.

The very idea that the whole of creation is a game or a challenge that God has set up for him/herself is totally repugnant to some people, and, admittedly, when any one of us is in the midst of many of the various challenges, it is hard to see the humor. Does the mouse see the humor of God when the cat toys with it before eating it? Is it a monstrous blasphemy to reduce the sufferings of humankind throughout millennia to a cosmic round of hide and seek? The following will certainly illustrate my point:

Q: (L) What is the meaning of the number 666 in the book of Revelation?

A: Visa.

Q: (L) You mean as in credit card?

A: Yes. Isn’t just credit, also debit.

Q: (L) Are credit cards the work of what 666 represents?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Should we get rid of all credit cards?

A: Up to you. How are you going to do this? World will soon have nothing but credit and debit. Have you not heard of this new visa debit cards this is the future of money as controlled by the world banking system, i.e., the Brotherhood, i.e., Lizards, i.e., antichrist.

Q: (L) If I don’t have a credit card then I don’t have to belong to this system?

A: No. You will have no choices: belong or starve.

Q: (L) What happened to free will?

A: Brotherhood AKA Lizards AKA antichrist has interfered with free will for 309000 years. They are getting desperate as we near the change.

Q: (V) It has always been my nature to rebel against that which I did not feel was good for me. Is rebellion against this system possible?

A: If you are willing to leave the body.

Q: (L) Leave the body as in death, croak, kick the bucket?

A: Yes. Changes will follow turmoil; be patient.

Q: (L) We would like to move into the country. Will it be possible to get along without this credit/debit card leading that kind of life?

A: No.

Q: (L) Are they going to have the kind of capability of controlling everything and everybody no matter where they are?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Even if we moved to Guyana and built a log hut in the rain forest and didn’t bother anybody, we’d still get sucked into this thing?

A: Laura you will feel the effect of the Lizard beings desperate push for total control no matter where you go.

Q: (L) That is inexpressibly depressing. Do you understand?

A: Why? Change will follow. Refer to literature Bringers of the Dawn. Challenge will be ecstasy if viewed with proper perspective, which is not, we repeat: not of third level reality, understand?

Q: (L) In the reference cited, Joan of Arc is described as feeling ecstatic while burning at the stake. Is that what you mean?

A: Sort of, but you need not burn at the stake.

Q: (L) That’s small comfort. There are other ways to die.

A: We are not speaking of death, Laura. If you listen to those who are firmly rooted in 3rd level this is when you run the risk of slipping in your knowledge learned no matter how good the intentions.

Q: (L) What do you mean, “Challenge will be ecstasy”? What sort of challenge?

A: Living through the turmoil ahead.

Q: (L) Several books I have read have advised moving to rural areas and forming groups and storing food, etc.

A: Disinformation. Get rid of this once and for all. That is 3rd level garbage.

Q: (L) We feel pretty helpless at the mercy of beings who can come in and feed off of us at will. Do we have someone on our side, pulling for our team, throwing us energy or something?

A: Whom do you think you have been communicating with?

Q: (L) Are you going to be able to assist us through this turmoil?

A: Yes. All you have to do is ask.

Q: (L) Will we go through any periods when we may be cut off from help?

A: You are never ever cut off.

Q: (L) Oh, I don’t want to suffer!

A: You need not suffer. Stop thinking 3rd level.

Q: (L) I don’t want anybody I love to suffer either. I don’t want any pain. I’ve suffered enough!

A: You are stuck at 3rd level tonight.

I guess you can tell that I was feeling pretty desperate and sorry for myself with all of this. So desperate, in fact, that I didn’t really pay attention to the important things. Notice a couple of keys above: “Change will follow”, and the challenge of living through the turmoil will be “ecstasy”.2

As human beings, it seems that an essential part of our nature is to feel that there is more to life than the immediately apparent material world. We don’t like to think that our lives are a game of chance played by the gods. Yet, we can observe that the heartless randomness of the world is at odds with the religious views of a loving, caring God.

It seems, upon observation, that the only constant factor of the physical universe is change. As the Sufis say, “Every day God is upon some different task”. However, we can also observe that change operates in a sequential and progressive manner manifested as patterns recognizable to human consciousness. These patterns take shape as the forms inherent in the nature of the instant of time when they are observed. They are manifestations of the present state of cosmic being and have much to tell us of the nature and potential development of that state. Even those things that seem to be random, according to chaos theory, conform to certain mathematical principles of randomness. We also have synchronicity, which tells us that all things are in some way linked to each other.

The eighteenth century Icelandic mystic, Jon Jonsson said, “God plays at Forkjaering with man in this world”. Forkjaering is a dice game. Later, Albert Einstein said, “God does not play dice” with the universe. I think the truth is somewhere in between. We are pawns in a game, only the players are, in some sense, ourselves. And we are pawns as long as we don’t know the rules of the game. Once we have served our apprenticeship as playing pieces, we are then able to take our place with the players.

The important thing is that we have to gain a perspective on our existence that is not third density in order to fully enter into third density with the “proper perspective”. This is reflected in the saying of Jesus that we are to be “in the world, but not of it”. The Cassiopaeans have reiterated this point by saying:

A: You would not exist if someone didn’t “dream you up”.

Q: (L) Who dreamed me up?

A: You literally are the “figments” of someone’s imagination, and nothing more!!! Remember, “God” is really all existence in creation, in other words, all consciousness. This is because all existence in creation is consciousness, and vice versa.

Q: (L) Then what is the explanation for the “manyness” that we perceive?

A: Perception of 3rd density.

Q: (L) The problem is accessing it, stripping away the veils.

A: That is the fun part.

Well, ha ha ha! Aren’t we having fun? It reminds me of a passage from the book of Romans that used to just make me foam at the mouth!

What shall we conclude then? Is there injustice upon God’s part? Certainly not! … It is not a question of human will and human effort, but of God’s mercy. … So then he has mercy on whomever He wills (chooses) and He hardens — makes stubborn and unyielding the heart of — whomever He wills. You will say to me, Why then does He still find fault and blame us? For who can resist and withstand His will? But who are you, a mere man, to criticize and contradict and answer back to God? Will what is formed say to him that formed it, Why have you made me thus? Has the potter not right over the clay, to make out of the same mass one vessel for beauty and distinction and honorable use, and another for menial or ignoble and dishonorable use? (Romans 9:14-21)3

Of course, at this point, Paul diverts off into his wrathful theology and starts ranting about divine judgment and doom. But, what he was saying above is actually quite similar to the mystery teachings that were prevalent at the time, and which were preserved and expanded in the Gnostic and Sufi paths. It is in these teachings that we will find the rest of the story.

But, getting back to the Bible for just a moment: in my reading of years past, I came across several passages that really struck me as curious, considering their origins. The first is, of course, one that I quote frequently from the Book of Romans in the New Testament. It is generally attributed to Paul, and actually has been computer analyzed and the result of this analysis was that whoever wrote the book of Romans, also wrote the two epistles to the Corinthians as well as the epistle to the Galatians. Internal evidence from these documents indicates that they were written before 70 ce, probably close to 60 or even 40 ce. That is to say, they were written before the Gospels.

These epistles make no allusions to Jesus as a historical figure as depicted in the Gospels. They say absolutely nothing about the parents of Jesus, the virgin birth, a time or place of earthly existence, a trial before the Romans, an execution in Jerusalem, or any of the main characters of the Jesus story, with the exception of Peter who is referred to as a hypocrite by Paul.

If there had been a real incident such as the denial of Jesus by Peter, it is fairly certain that Paul would have brought it up and used it in his flame war against the Rock of the Church. When Paul does refer to Jesus’ death, he says repeatedly that he was crucified or delivered up but never that he was killed. And we know from many ancient sources that to be crucified meant an initiatory event rather than being nailed to a wooden cross and dying in a physical sense.

When Christianity originated, Jewish writings included a considerable body of wisdom literature that had been, to a great extent, “borrowed” from more ancient sources with which the Jews had come in contact throughout their period of formation as a national entity. A lot of this literature derived from Egyptian and Babylonian sources. Very often, this material was modified or interpreted to suit the Hebrew perspective, and was often ascribed to their god, Jehovah or Yahweh in terms of source, even though more contemporary research clearly shows it to have been more or less plagiarized. Thus, within the pages of the Bible there are many passages in which this ancient wisdom literature makes itself known.

The interesting thing is that, even though much of the wisdom literature was borrowed and redacted, it often appears to have been included with very little modification. Apparently, those who were engaged in assembling the Bible either did not understand the material fully, or they were unable to change it completely because it was so generally well known. So it happens that in some passages wisdom is not merely abstract, but personified as a supernatural being created by God before he created heaven or earth. Very often, wisdom or knowledge figured as “a breath of the power of God”. It is written that “she is the sustainer and governor of the universe who sits by the throne of God”, (Wisdom of Solomon, 8:1; 9:4) and “she comes to dwell among men and bestow her gifts on them”, but most of them reject her. Hmm. The “Mother Stone” that is rejected as the corner of the foundation?

Paul, as an educated Jew, was strongly influenced by the wisdom traditions. Paul’s Jesus, like wisdom, “assists God in the creation of all things.” (I Cor. 8:6) If we do not begin with the assumption that Jesus was a historical person as depicted in the Gospels, there is little in the writings of Paul to suggest that he was, while there is a great deal to suggest that a different explanation for the expression “Christ Crucified” must be considered. That said, our purpose here is simply to point out that in Paul’s day, the Wisdom literature did exist, and he seemed to be in the habit of musing on it and extracting meanings from it to serve his own ends. With this in mind, let’s have a look at something else Paul said:

For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God has shown it to them. For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is His eternal power and divinity have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made — His handiworks…” (Romans 1:19-20)

This remark is so similar to the following, from ibn-‘Arabi that one cannot help but think that they are obtained from the same ancient source.

Each creature is a word (kalima) of God. ‘Though all the trees in the earth were pens, and the sea — seven seas after it to replenish it — were ink, yet would the words of God not be spent.’ [Koran, 31:27]

There is nothing in existence save God, His names, and His acts.

As noted, there is much of the wisdom literature preserved in the Old Testament even if it is interspersed with plagiarized myths, mythicized histories, and entirely fabricated genealogies. Many of the Psalms have been identified as preexistent Egyptian songs and writings:

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows and proclaims His handiwork. Day after day pours forth speech, and night after night shows forth knowledge. There is no speech nor spoken word; their voice is not heard yet their voice goes out through all the earth, their sayings to the end of the world. (Psalm 19:1-4)

To every thing there is a season, and a time for every matter or purpose under heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die, a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted. A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; a time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. … He has made everything beautiful in its time; he also has planted eternity in men’s heart and mind so that man cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. … That which is now, already has been; and that which is to be, already has been; and God seeks out that which has passed by. (Ecclesiastes, 3)

These passages, which reflect very ancient sources, reveal to us a very great truth: nature and the cycles of nature reveal to us the Faces and Names of God. God has many faces, not all of them pleasant to behold.

All around us in the natural world there are wonders and horrors. Mountains are not only being built but also simultaneously worn down by glaciers and rivers. Rivers clog and change their courses. Lakes fill with sediment and turn into swamps and eventually grasslands. Some creatures adapt and survive these changes, and some do not. On almost every corner of the planet, from the highest mountains to the lowest valleys, from the hottest to the coldest climates, above the oceans and within them, there are populations of interdependent plants and animals. Most of the time this term interdependence really means that they eat one another.

At the bottoms of the deepest oceans, there are enormous tube worms that feast on bacteria that consume the chemicals that result from volcanic energy of the planet. On the summits of high mountains, where nothing else can survive the most ferocious winds and lethal cold on earth, there are lichens composed of symbiotic algae and fungi. The fungus produces an acid, which etches the surface of the rock, enabling the colony to attach to the smooth surface, and the acid also dissolves the minerals into a chemical form that the alga can absorb. The fungus provides a spongy framework for the colony, which absorbs moisture from the air. The alga, with the help of sunshine, synthesizes the rock minerals, the water and carbon dioxide from the air into food substances on which both it and the fungus feed. Both plants reproduce separately and the next generations have to reestablish the liaison afresh. The partnership is not equal, however. Sometimes the fungal threads inside the lichen wrap themselves around the algal cells and consume them. And the alga, if separated from the fungus, can lead an independent life; the fungus cannot survive without the alga. The fungus seems to be using the alga as a slave to enable it to colonize these bleak areas otherwise closed to it.

In the Himalayas and the Andes, in the Alps and the mountains of the Antarctic, some stretches are as pink as a slice of watermelon. … Only with a microscope can you discover, among the frozen particles, the cause of the color — a great number of tiny single-celled organisms. These, too, are algae. Each contains green particles with which it photosynthesizes, but this color is masked by a pervasive red pigment which may well serve the alga in the same way as your snow goggles serve you — by filtering the harmful ultraviolet rays in the sunshine.

At one stage in its life, each of these algal cells has a tiny beating thread, a flagellum which enables it to move through the snow to reach a level, just below the surface where there is exactly the amount of light that best suits it. There, sheltered from the wind by the snow itself, temperatures are not as cripplingly low as they are in the open air.

These tiny plants take nothing from the world except sunlight and a minute quantity of nutrients that are dissolved in the snow. They feed on no other living thing and nothing feeds on them. They scarcely modify their surroundings except to bring a blush to the snow. They simply exist, testifying to the moving fact that life even at the simplest level occurs, apparently, just for its own sake.4

These examples of life existing in some of the most extreme conditions on our planet serve not only to frame the picture of our reality, they manifest great truths about our own state of being. Creatures of all sorts live under all kinds of conditions, from icy tundra to seething swamps, from incandescent deserts to sweltering jungles. And all of them express fundamental essences of the Names of God just as humans do, individually and collectively.

On the great Serengeti plains of Africa there are herds of many different kinds of animals. Anybody who has seen the circle of life presented in the animated movie, The Lion King, can see a colorful depiction of the play of forces that exist in our natural world. There are elephants, antelope, giraffes and zebras moving across the landscape in great herds, eating the plant life and moving on. There are lions and cheetahs on the plains, and crocodiles in the rivers, lying in wait for a young, weak, or feeble member of the antelope, zebra or giraffe herds to become available so that they can have dinner. Then there are the hyenas and vultures that eat the remains of the predators’ feasts. In the jungles, there are great serpents among the amazing varieties of predators and prey. There is also a great assortment of plant life, much of which serves as food for some of the creatures.

In the simple garden behind my house, there are birds and lizards, insects and plants of all sorts. The lizards eat many insects and the birds in turn, eat them. There are roses — beautiful but deadly — which grow in soil composed partly of plant detritus converted by earthworms into usable nutrients. There are also grubs and mole crickets that seem to do nothing but destroy what I work so hard to produce and maintain. In the evenings, the bats and mosquitoes both come out in force, the former preying on the latter (thankfully) and the night blooming jasmine opens to feed a particular species of night moth that delights in its nectar.

The earth spins around its axis bringing night to cool the planet and to provide rest for the sunlight seekers of our world. Night also provides an environment for the night creatures to come forth in their shy or sinister forays for food.

The earth, spinning on its axis, circles ponderously around the Sun, which drags all its planets in a mad dash around the outer reaches of the galaxy. The companion planets seem to have significant influence on the life forms on earth, most particularly our own satellite, the Moon. Not only that, but they mark seasons. And, according to the wisdom literature, the celestial bodies “pour forth knowledge”.

There is Spring, when I spend eight hours a day getting the garden in shape; there is Summer, when I relax and watch my efforts grow and blossom; there is Fall, when I pull up the dead annuals and prune the overgrowth; and there is Winter when everything rests and builds strength to burst forth the following Spring, to initiate a new cycle. Cycles within cycles; birth, growth, maturity, reproduction, decline, and death. To everything there is a season.

Now, imagine that you are observing the Earth with a high-powered telescope out in space. This telescope gives you detailed close-ups of any point on the planet, but you cannot hear anything. You can only see. Forget everything you think you know about the principles of biological life. Forget that you think you know anything about what living things are or how they are supposed to behave. Now, what do you see?

The first thing you notice is that the surface of the planet is teeming with activity. This includes areas under the soil and deep within the ocean. The activity on the surface of the planet consists of an immense number of different shapes and sizes of living things going about in circles eating each other.

Further, you notice that there is a whole class of these living things that are, essentially, immobile; incapable of escaping being eaten. In fact, they don’t seem to object being eaten at all. Maybe if they could run away, they would, but they can’t, so it may only seem that they don’t object. But, the fact of the matter is that these immobile beings, (call them plants) use this fact of being eaten to their advantage. By being eaten, they are often able to propagate themselves in far distant places that they would otherwise be unable to populate on their own.

However, all the other living things clearly resent being eaten. They very often make strenuous efforts to not be eaten.

By now, you have probably decided that this planet is a monstrous environment, and hideously dangerous to boot! We are already learning from nature.

Nevertheless, if you begin to examine the situation in another way, you begin to notice that many of the living things have fundamental similarities in shape and behavior and this leads you to think that maybe they all have something in common. After a bit of reflection, you come to the idea that this thing they all have in common is the faculty of assimilating a food and transmuting it. This process of transmutation of food seems to be directed at reproduction. When the living being achieves this aim, the organism begins to deteriorate and die. But this death is not an extinguishing of life in all the component parts of the being, because they are assimilated by other forms and recycled into new life whether animal or vegetable.

But, in considering the matter even more deeply, we discover that even those things that are not considered to be capable of assimilating and transmuting food are part of the cycle. Such things as minerals become part of the cycle and therefore partake of the process through various chemical reactions.

So, perhaps we are looking for an even deeper principle: that of the faculty of reaction. The vital phenomenon is that of reacting.

But, to have reaction, or life, there must be action and resistance to action.

Action + Resistance = Reaction/Life. We have learned something else from nature. There are two fundamental forces that result in a third.

So, we begin to think that all of these many living beings we are observing have a common, structurally very simple origin. We begin to think they are all not only manifestations of a single source, but that they have all been changing their shapes over an immense period of time. And we now come to the critical questions as to how and why this endless process of change has been occurring.

Of course, we can easily comprehend the question how in a general sense: all the changes occur via reproduction. These creatures we are observing, not having eternal life, begin to reproduce themselves as early in their life cycle as possible.

Now, in a static and stable environment, it might be expected that all the creatures would be exactly alike. They would reproduce copies of themselves that would be the same from the beginning to the end. But there is something else to consider. The planet is constantly bombarded by cosmic rays of various sorts that affect the “blueprints” or genetic codes, which determine the offspring’s likeness to the parent. Sometimes, these blueprints get changed in one way or another. Many of these altered copies do not survive — in fact, most of them don’t. But every once in a while, one of them does and reproduces. And sometimes the altered copies have some features which actually makes them better than the original. These individuals not only reproduce, they thrive.

So, we see a certain pattern emerging here: the variations of biological systems have to do with whether or not one variety of creature can survive the competition in the terrifying planetary game of life and death. It is clear that danger is omnipresent and only the most vigorous and adaptable survive. This is another important rule that Nature teaches us.

Many of the creatures often considered prey are equipped with elaborate sensing organs that help them to stay out of harm’s way. Many of the predators have horrifyingly efficient organs of destruction such as teeth and claws.

This terrible vista is what we see when we look at nature. So, what are we to think? Is it mindless cruelty, or purposeful activity from another level of being?

Are we to think that this is the sinful natural world that has nothing at all to do with our spirituality? Is this what we are to “change” or “lift up” or “spiritualize” so that all of this monstrous eating and being eaten is done away with or transformed into a blissful garden where the Lion lies down with the Lamb and everybody munches on, well, something?

Is this dreadful condition of nature an error? Is it the result of the sin of Adam and Eve?

Or, is there a great truth there for those who will open their eyes and look?

The secrets of nature are there for all to see. Nature is its own teacher. She initiates and shows her inner sanctum to those who search and labor in the vineyard. Even the most wholesome herb can turn into a dangerous poison, if we lack knowledge of its power. It is the nature of the moth to fly into the flame because it lacks the knowledge of what effect the flame has. It is the nature of a spider to spin a web. It is the nature of the cat to torture the mouse before eating it. It is the nature of some creatures to eat their own young. It is the nature of the black widow spider and the praying mantis to eat their mates during the act of mating.

In Hostage to the Devil, Jesuit and exorcist Malachi Martin wrote: “A bird doesn’t fly because it has wings; it has wings because it flies.” That is to say: a bird is the incarnation of “Bird-ness”, which includes flight and, in many species, song.

Taking this idea a little further, we could think of a black widow spider that kills and eats her mate right after mating as the embodiment of a certain combination of Names at that moment. Destroyer, Slayer, Devourer, and Terrible come to mind. The same would be true for a cat torturing a mouse before eating it. But, when not torturing the mouse, the cat is embodying other Names or Ideas. A cat is a Dreamer, Sensitive, Proud, and many other things. The same is true for many creatures, but it might be thought that each class of them has some essential spiritual idea that is exclusively theirs. But, in their physical nature, they are basically devourers and slayers.

Human beings, individually and collectively, are the incarnation of specific ideas as well. In fact, it could be said that they are the embodiment of all the things we see in the natural world.

Q: (L) I would like to know what is the source and nature of these nearly universal visions that occur in shamanistic practices; the various creatures including serpents and bird-headed dudes, and so forth? What is the source of these hallucinations? In these chemically induced trances, why is there the common experience of seeing these bird-headed or serpent-like creatures?

A: While you have physicality, some part of you will maintain the connection to its roots.

Q: (L) Are you saying that all these people who say that human beings have reptilian genetics, are telling the truth? Do we have reptilian genetics?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Do we also have bird genetics?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And that is our physical connection or basis?

A: Yes, as third density bioengineered beings, you lead the smorgasbord parade of that which surrounds you in the physical realm.

We have a clue then that we can learn a great deal about ourselves, our reality, our destiny, and the proper response to our environment by studying that which surrounds us in the physical realm. But, it is not just observation of the outer structure that we are after; it is the discovery of the inner nature, or the idea of a thing. The Platonic Idea of a thing is referred to in some philosophical systems as noumena. In Kantian philosophy, this is an “object reached by intellectual intuition without the aid of the senses”. It is the essence of the thing, independent of the mind, the thing-in-itself.

We have already mentioned the fact that the Sufis, using Islam as their operational platform, refer to something that amounts to an inclusive principle. The Sufis refer to the qualities or essences as the Names of God. A Name is thus a principle or function. These Names include Alive, Knowing, Life Giver, Slayer, Powerful, Weak, Forgiving, Vengeful, Mercy, Compassion, and so on.

Now, an important thing to consider about this is that these Names are ordered according to a sort of essential preeminence. This means that the highest Name designates the widest specific reality, or relative relationship. It does not mean that any one of them is better than any other in terms of value. A man who is a genius is as valuable as an idiot in the scheme of the cosmos, just as a maggot is as valuable as a peacock. All are made of the stuff of God, and therefore, all are equal in those terms.

But, what we are talking about here is something akin to the Cassiopaean concept of density, or relative relationship. For example: the Names of fatherhood and sonhood are based on the relationship that the son comes into being through the father. In this sense, neither the father nor the son are more important, it is just that the son archetype is relationally an offshoot of the father archetype.

The relationships of the Names distinguish between God and the Cosmos and, according to the Sufis; the Names manifest the realities of the Divine. That is to say, the Names or faces are like templates through which the Divine creative force extrudes into being-ness, and this process of extrusion is followed by mixing and mingling the principles and functions to result in a great variety of engendered or created beings. Some of these Names have more inclusive connections than others and some make use of others; some of them are opposites, and it seems that they all occur in balance.

For example: the Name Alive designates the precondition for the existence of all the Names, and is thus at the top of the scale. It is all inclusive. The Sufis then go on to postulate that knowledge is born from Alive and that it includes awareness of all the other Names as intrinsic to its own existence. Knowledge, as an all-inclusive principle, necessitates knowledge of all.

We also know that the knowledge of the Name of Knowing is more inclusive in connections and more tremendous in compass than the Name of Powerful or Desiring, since these Names have less inclusive connections than Knowing. They are like gatekeepers for Knowing. There is a similar situation to be seen in the fact that the Name of Hearing, Seeing, Thankful, Clemency, Compassion, and other similar Names, are less inclusive in connection. All of them stand lower than Knowing.

In thinking about the Sufi concept of the Names of God, and hypothesizing that each and everything that exists is a manifestation of one or more of these Names in its essential nature, we begin to get the idea of what it is we must understand in terms of our reality. The Sufis say that we are to learn to put each thing in its proper place. That means we are supposed to learn from it so that we can name it.

Umberto Eco writes in The Search for The Perfect Language:

God spoke before all things, and said, ‘Let there be light’. In this way, he created both heaven and earth; for with the utterance of the divine word, ‘there was light.’ Thus Creation itself arose through an act of speech; it is only by giving things their names that he created them and gave them an ontological status: ‘And God called the light Day and the darkness He called Night… And God called the firmament Heaven.’

In Genesis 2: 16-17, the Lord speaks to man for the first time, putting at his disposal all the goods in the earthly paradise, commanding him, however, not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We are not told in what language God spoke to Adam. Tradition has pictured it as a sort of language of interior illumination, in which God, as in other episodes of the Bible, expresses himself by thunderclaps and lightning.

…It is at this point, and only at this point (Genesis 2:19), that ‘out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.’ The interpretation of this passage is an extremely delicate matter. Clearly we are here in the presence of a motif, common to other religions and mythologies — that of the nomothete, the name giver, the creator of language. Yet it is not at all clear on what basis Adam actually chose the names he gave to the animals. … The Vulgate has Adam calling the various animals ‘nominibus suis,’ which we can only translate, ‘by their own names’. The King James Version does not help us any more: ‘Whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.’ But Adam might have called the animals ‘by their own names’ in two senses. Either he gave them the names that, by some extra-linguistic right, were already due to them, or he gave them those names we still use on the basis of convention initiated by Adam. In other words, the names that Adam gave the animals are either the names that each animal intrinsically ought to have been given, or simply the names that the nomothete arbitrarily and ad placitum decided to give to them.

From this difficulty we pass to Genesis 2:23. Here Adam sees Eve for the first time; and here, for the first time, the reader hears Adam’s actual words … ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman…’ In the Vulgate the name is virago (a translation from the Hebrew Ishha, the feminine of ish, ‘man’. If we take Adam’s use of virago together with the fact that, in Genesis 2:20, he calls his wife Eve, meaning ‘life’, because ‘she was the mother of all living’, it is evident that we are faced with names that are not arbitrary, but rather — at least etymologically — ‘right’. (Eco, 1995)

Aside from the fact that in pre-biblical myths Adam was a creature formed by the Goddess of Earth from her own clay, and given life by her blood, the issue of the Nomothete, as Dr. Eco points out, is a theme common to other religions and mythologies. Nevertheless, when we consider the later Tower of Babel issue, in which the theme was the confusing of languages, we find that Names or words as a significant motif keep coming up to remind us of something crucial.

The theme of names or words as something that gave one power is brought forward again in the Bible when we are told that, after the Flood of Noah, “the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech”. (Genesis 11:1) At this point, humankind decided to build a tower. The passage reads:

“Come, let us build us a city, and a tower whose top reaches into the sky; and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered over the whole earth.” (Genesis 11:4)

Now, it is very curious that the very idea we are discussing is specifically identified here. “Let us make a name for ourselves.” What happens next is most interesting.

The Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and now nothing they have imagined they can do will be impossible to them. Come, let Us go down and there confound (mix-up, confuse) their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. (Genesis 11:5-7)

Now, just what the heck happened here? We can easily figure out that it had nothing to do with language in the sense of variations in spoken speech because in Genesis 10:5, 10:20 and 10:31 we find references to the diffusion of the descendants of Noah after the flood: “…In their lands, each with his own language … their families, their languages, their lands, and their nations…” and so forth.

So again we find ourselves in the presence of a very subtle idea that needs our attention. Why is it that the tradition focuses on a story in which the confusing of speech was understood as a tragedy, as a divine malediction? If the languages of man were already numerous after Noah, why does this story of the confusion of tongues exist as an allegory of a curse upon humankind?

Ba-Bel, ‘God’s Gate’, was the Babylonian heaven-mountain of ziggurat where the god descended from the sky to the Holy of Holies, the genital locus of his mating with Mother Earth. … Babylon’s famous Hanging Gardens occupied the seven stages of the ziggurat, to create a Paradise like that of Hindu gods: ‘Seven divisions of the world… in seven circles placed one above another…’ The ziggurat was a ‘temple’ of the seven spheres of the world. … The Babel myth is found all over the world, including India and Mexico. It was familiar in the Greek story of the giants who piled up mountains to reach heaven. Hindus said it was not a tower but a great tree that grew up to heaven… (Walker, 1983; emphasis added)

We already have disclosed a little clue from the Cassiopaeans on this matter, but let’s look at it one more time and see if we can discover something more that will help us to understand:

Q: (L) What was the event a hundred or so years after the flood of Noah that was described as the confusing of languages, or the tower of Babel?

A: Spiritual confluence.

Q: (L) What purpose did the individuals who came together to build the tower intend for said tower?

A: Electromagnetic concentration of all gravity waves.

Q: (L) And what did they intend to do with these concentrated waves?

A: Mind alteration of masses.

Q: (L) What intention did they have in altering the mind of the masses?

A: Spiritual unification of the masses.

Q: (L) Who were the “gods” that looked down on the tower of Babel, at those who were building it with the intention of unification, and decided to destroy their works?

A: Lizards.

Having already talked about humankind being a “Fragmented Soul Unit”, we now have the idea that making a name as it was described in the Biblical text, had something to do with spiritual unification of the masses — possibly reassembling members of that soul unit.

We also have a clue that this action was not acceptable to the Control System because the Bible clearly says:

“And the Lord said, Behold, they are one people, and they have ‘all one language’; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and now nothing they have imagined they can do will be impossible to them.” (Genesis 11:6)

Aside from the fact that this passage pretty much confirms the Cassiopaeans’ interpretation of the event, it suggests other possibilities that we need to consider, namely the idea that with spiritual unification “nothing they have imagined they can do will be impossible to them”.

What a concept!

But we need to note another thing about this Tower of Babel business: The Cassiopaeans also said that it was designed to function via “electromagnetic concentration of all gravity waves” and that this would accomplish the “mind alteration of masses”.

Now, let’s think about this for a moment. They said “all gravity waves”/ Plural.

Let’s go to another series of curious remarks made by the Cassiopaeans. And, it should be noted that this series of remarks was initiated by my questions about the Sufi teachings:

Q: (L) As you know, I have been studying the Sufi teachings, and I am discovering so many similarities in these Sufi “unveilings” to what we have been receiving through this source, that I am really quite amazed, to say the least. So, my question is: could what we are doing here be considered an ongoing, incremental, “unveiling”, as they call it?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Now, from what I am reading, in the process of unveiling, at certain points, when the knowledge base has been sufficiently expanded, inner unveilings then begin to occur. Is this part of the present process?

A: Maybe.

Q: (L) My experience has been, over the past couple of years, that whenever there is a significant increase in knowledge, that it is sort of cyclical — I go through a depression before I can assimilate — and it is like an inner transformation from one level to another. Is there something we can do, and if so, is it desirable, to increase or facilitate this process in some way?

A: It is a natural process. Let it be.

Q: (L) One of the things that Al-’Arabi writes about is the ontological levels of being. Concentric circles, so to speak, of states of being. And, each state merely defines relationships. At each higher level you are closer to a direct relationship with the core of existence, and on the outer edges, you are in closer relationship with matter. This accurately explicates the seven densities you have described for us. He also talks about the “outraying” and the “inward moving” toward knowledge. My thought was certain beings, such as fourth density STS, and other STS beings of third density, who think that they are creating a situation where they will accrue power to themselves, may, in fact, be part of the “out raying” or dispersion into matter. Is this a correct perception?

A: Close.

Q: (L) Al-’Arabi says, and this echoes what you have said, that you can stay in the illusion where you are, you can move downward or upward. Is this, in part, whichever direction you choose, a function of your position on the cycle?

A: It is more complex than that.

Q: (L) Well, I am sure of that. Al-’Arabi presents a very complex analysis. Nevertheless, it almost word-for-word reflects things that have been given directly to us through this source.

A: Now, learn, read, research all you can about unstable gravity waves. Meditate too! We mean for you, Laura, to meditate about unstable gravity waves as part of research.

Q: (L) Okay. So, we are onto something with the Sufi teachings. It is clear that there is something under the surface, and, I was convinced by seeing this underlying pattern that it was possible to penetrate the veil, and that gave me the impetus to push for a breakthrough.

A: Unstable gravity waves unlock as yet unknown secrets of quantum physics to make the picture crystal clear.

Q: (L) Gravity seems to be a property of matter. Is that correct?

A: And antimatter! Gravity binds all that is physical with all that is ethereal through unstable gravity waves!!!

Q: (L) Is antimatter ethereal existence?

A: Pathway to. Doorway to.

Q: (L) So, through unstable gravity waves, you can access other densities?

A: Everything.

And we have just discovered that “Ba-Bel” means “God’s Gate”. Hmm…

Q: (L) Can you generate them mechanically?

A: Generation is really collecting and dispersing.

Q: (L) Okay, what kind of a device would collect and disperse gravity waves? Is this what spirals do?

A: On the way to. When you wrote “Noah” where did you place gravity?

Q: (L) I thought that gravity was an indicator of the consumption of electricity; that gravity was a byproduct of a continuous flow of electrical energy…

A: Gravity is no byproduct! It is the central ingredient of all existence!

Q: (L) I was thinking that electricity was evidence of some sort of consciousness, and that gravity was evidence that a planet that had it, had life…

A: We have told you before that planets and stars are windows. And where does the gravity go?

Q: (L) Well, where does gravity go? The sun is a window. Even our planet must be a window!

A: You have it too!! Gravity is all there is. Gravity is “God”.

Q: (L) [So we have our own inner “window”.] But, I thought God was light?

A: If gravity is everything, what isn’t it? Light is energy expression generated by gravity.

Q: (L) Is gravity the “light that cannot be seen”, as the Sufis call it: the Source.

A: Please name something that is not gravity.

Q: (L) Well, if gravity is everything, there is nothing that is not gravity. Fine. What is absolute nothingness?

A: A mere thought.

Q: (L) Do thoughts produce gravity?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Does sound produce gravity?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Can sound manipulate gravity?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Can it be done with the human voice?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Can it be done tonally or by power through thought?

A: Both. Gravity is manipulated by sound when thought manipulated by gravity chooses to produce sound which manipulates gravity.

Q: (L) Now, did the fellow who built the Coral Castle spin in his airplane seat while thinking his manipulations into place?

A: No. He spun when gravity chose to manipulate him to spin in order to manipulate gravity.

Q: (L) Does gravity have consciousness?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Is it ever possible for the individual to do the choosing, or is it gravity that is him that chose?

A: The gravity that was inside him was all the gravity in existence.

Q: (L) Well, I thought the Sufis were tough! (F) Well, it’s probably because of your studies that this door opened. (L) Good grief! What have I done! All right. I am confused.

A: No you are not.

Q: (L) Then, just put it this way: I am befuddled and overloaded.

A: Befuddling is fun! How many times do we have to tell you?!?! Learning is fun! The entire sum total of all existence exists within each of you, and vice versa.

Q: (L) Then what is the explanation for the “many-ness” that we perceive?

A: Perception of 3rd density.

Q: (L) The problem is accessing it, stripping away the veils.

A: That is the fun part.

Q: (L) So, the fellow who built the Coral Castle was able to access this. Consistently or only intermittently?

A: Partially.

Q: (L) According to what I understand, at the speed of light, there is no mass, no time, and no gravity. How can this be?

A: No mass, no time, but yes, gravity. Gravity supersedes light speed.

Q: (L) What would make a gravity wave unstable?

A: Utilization.

Q: (L) I feel like I am missing a really big point here…

A: You are, but you can only find it at your own pace.

Now, let’s run some of those key points by one more time:

Gravity is no byproduct! It is the central ingredient of all existence! Gravity binds all that is physical with all that is ethereal through unstable gravity waves!!! We have told you before that planets and stars are windows. And where does the gravity go? You have it too!! The entire sum total of all existence exists within each of you, and vice versa. Gravity is all there is. Gravity is “God”. Gravity is manipulated by sound when thought manipulated by gravity chooses to produce sound, which manipulates gravity.

Now, remember that the Cassiopaeans said that the Tower of Babel was designed to artificially concentrate all gravity waves and that this would result in unification, which the Control System immediately saw as a threat. From the above, we can conjecture that the remark about concentrating all gravity waves must refer to the aligning of individuals as being able to access God, considering that the “sum total of all existence exists within each” human being in the form of gravity. Sounds to me like they are describing what is known today as the zero-point energy state.

David Bohm computed the zero-point energy due to quantum-mechanical fluctuations in a single cubic centimeter of space, and arrived at the energy of 1038 ergs (a unit of energy in the centimeter-gram-second system of units). This is the energy equivalent of about ten billion tons of uranium. Joseph Chilton Pearce compares this zero-point energy proposal to the saying of Jesus that if we have the faith of a grain of mustard seed, we might move mountains. There is a little catch, however. According to David Bohm, under present conditions this energy is inaccessible in the material sense. It is merely a mathematical representation of a theoretical state. But, as we have already proposed, this zero point energy source is really the state of pure non-anticipation of the left-brain in its analysis of the observations made through the right-brain thought processes. It is the mirror of mirrors of Grail consciousness.

On the subject of alphabets, Nigel Pennick wrote:

Because they contain the potential to describe and transmit all the knowledge in the universe, alphabets have a magical quality. … Several ancient alphabets have names for each character, which are descriptive of an object or quality, and to which magical and divinatory possibilities are attached. … The Roman alphabet in use today is not usually considered to be of any magical or divinatory significance… (Pennick, 1992)

Ancient alphabets were more than a means by which phonetic symbols were put together to make words that denoted people or things. These signs had concepts associated with them. The word rune is related to the meaning to whisper (as Wisdom is described doing above) or to give indications of the nature of something. Each sign of the ancient symbol systems was a unit encapsulating a wealth of information. They represented a formless eternal reality, which is manifested in the world we experience as objects, powers, feelings and attributes.

Going back to our right and left-brain functions, we find that it is the left side of the brain that possesses the abilities needed for reading and writing in our modern sense of the words. But the ancient symbol systems represented logographic imagery that was more efficiently recognized by the right side of the brain. The key is to unify the two halves of the brain in response to a sign.

In the Prose Edda (Snorri Sturlson), Odin makes this synthesis. In the Song of Havamal (The Utterances of the High One), stanzas 138-139, we read:

“I know that I hung on the windswept tree,

Through nine days and nine nights,

I was stuck with a spear, and given to Odin,

Myself given to myself,

On that tree, which no man knows,

From which roots it rises.

They helped me neither by bread,

Nor by drinking horn.

I took the runes,

Screaming, I took them,

Then I fell back from there.”

What does this have to do with “making a name” for themselves? What can it tell us about the Names of God? How does this relate to our individual access to the zero-point energy function?

A name, in esoteric terms, is considered identical with the thing itself; it is a spiritual handle by which one becomes aware of how to deal with a person, thing or issue. Ancient Britons believed that the name and the soul were the same and there are many stories about Celtic heroes refusing to give their names to strangers. In some myths, knowledge of the name could bring destruction as is noted in the fairy tale of Rumpelstiltzkin.

From all the things we have discussed so far, it seems reasonable to assume that the oldest civilizations had some knowledge of sound as a means of creation and destruction. The belief that pronouncing a divine name could activate such forces is only a pale remnant of that knowledge. It could even be said that there was some element of this idea behind the saying of Jesus that “In my name shall they cast out devils”. It is also reflected in the idea that one could only be saved “in the name of Jesus”.

However, if we track this idea back to the wisdom literature, we find that Wisdom is the sustainer and governor of the universe who sits by the throne of God, and She comes to dwell among men and bestow her gifts on them, but most of them reject her.

Nevertheless, the tradition has been passed down that the holy names were not merely symbols because words spoken in the name of Jesus or in the name of the Father, son and holy spirit were supposed to have absolute efficacy in expelling demons. The Christian church taught that no demon could be exorcised before his own name was known, following the example of Jesus who demanded to know the names of the devils that were possessing the Gadarene.

We can see that there is a key in this shadow of truth. If these ideas are twisted perversions of the idea of knowledge and wisdom as the giver of all good things and protector of humankind, then we come face to face with the realization the naming something is to know it. And, by the same token, naming it is to separate it!

In the passage quoted from Genesis about the creation of the world being accomplished by naming things, the thing that we really need to notice here is that the “let there be light” business was essentially the fact that God separated the light from the Darkness by naming them. The One became Two. The “parent” produced the “child”. The un-manifest sea of potential contracted infinitely, leaving a void, or zero-point, and everything else, or One. Everything in the cosmos can be expressed by two figures, 0 and 1, on or off, STO or STS, creation or entropy.

This zero point function with its incredible energy potential is known in the Sufi teachings as the Breath of God. God was constricted and so breathed out to ease His constriction. This breath is the cloud, or the mirror in which God sees his reflection. And the reflection is seen in everything that comes into being through the constant fluctuation of God’s being as he looks in the “mirror”. As God looks he is activating the positive creative potential of the idea which is responded to by the zero-point energy potential of the breath, and all creation comes into being. That which is dispersed toward the periphery, the Breath of God, becomes the clay of creation. Without it, light would not shine and the cosmos would not come into existence. And, once this full outward manifestation is achieved, it is time for the unitive movement to take over, and an active and conscious participation in this movement is the prerogative of human beings.

Here, we come to another great mystery:

The root of the Breath is the property of love. Love has a movement within the lover, while “breath” is a movement of yearning toward the object of love, and through that breathing enjoyment is experienced. And God has said, as has been reported, “I was a Treasure but was not known, so I loved to be known”. Through this love, breathing takes place, so the Breath becomes manifest and the Cloud comes into being. (Koran, II 310.17)

As an aside, we deduce from the above that love serves knowledge, not the other way around.

Getting back to the matter at hand, thus breath is a vapor, relieves constriction in the breast, and is the vehicle for words. The existent things or words come into existence within the breath as the result of God’s speech. This word is described as “Be!” yet this word is addressed to each thing in its state of nonexistence. And, thereby, the thing becomes existent. The place of articulation is that which determines what comes into being. In bringing the cosmos into existence, the breath of God assumes the contours defined by the Names. Just as each word that a human speaks issues from a particular point, known as the place of articulation within the vocal apparatus, in the same way, each letter/reality of the cosmos manifests Being in a specific mode different from other modes. Each, therefore, is connected to a specific Divine Name.

According to Ibn al-‘Arabi, “The One” or the Divine Presence comprises Essence, Attributes and Acts. This embraces all that is. The Essence is God without reference to relationships. The Acts are all created things, including man. The Names are the Barzakh, or isthmus between Essence and Creation. In other words, the Names define the relationships between God and the Creation. The Names are not like the creatures of the universe, which can be noted as separate things; rather, they are relationships, attributes, ascriptions or correlations between God and the cosmos. The Created things are the secondary causes of the Names.

Once God has created the cosmos, we see that it possesses diverse levels and realities. Each of these demands a specific relationship with the Real. These names allow us to understand that they denote both His Essence and an intelligible quality that has no entity in existence. Examples of these intelligible qualities include: creation, provision, gain, loss, bringing into existence, specification, strengthening, domination, severity, gentleness, descent, attraction, love, hate, nearness, distance, reverence, contempt and so on. Every attribute manifest within the cosmos has a name known to us.

The Divine Names allow us to understand many realities of obvious diversity. The names are attributed only to God, for He is the object named by them, but He does not become multiple through them.
God knows the names in respect of the fact that he knows every object of knowledge, while we know the names through the diversity of their effects within us. (Koran, III 397.8)

The Names are also called realities. As qualities or essences they are the genetic code of the offspring of God — and it is really uncertain how many there are. Each system has its own list. Some commentators on Judaism say there are 72 Names of God. The Islamic view is that there are 99. Some esoteric literature lists the “Twelve Pairs of Twin Characteristics”. My guess is that to try to list them all would be limiting. And it should be noted that the Judeo-Christian view is that those which are not “Beautiful Names” do not apply to God, but rather are the result of sin. In this respect, they effectively judge and condemn half of creation, and seat this judgment upon half of humanity, i.e., women.

The multiplicity of relationships that can be discerned in God results in a multiplicity of relationships in the cosmos. All things in the universe manifest the effects and properties of the divine names. Even conflict, quarrel, strife, war have roots in God. The cosmos is a great collection of things, and things go their own ways, not necessarily in harmony with other things on the level where they are being considered. True knowledge of God demands knowing Him through both kinds of names. (Chittick, 1989)

Now here we come back to the same issue the Apostle Paul was working with when he was musing about why one vessel should be called to grace and the other to wrath. Paul’s view is exposed as very narrow and presumptuous when compared with the Sufi view.

The properties of the divine names, in respect of being names, are diverse. What do Avenger, Terrible in Punishment, and Overpowering have in common with Compassionate, Forgiving, and Gentle? For Avenger demands the occurrence of vengeance in its object, while Compassionate demands the removal of vengeance for the same object. So, those who look at these manifestations will think that it is Divine Conflict, or error or accident.
This conflict is because, as Al-’Arabi explains, different Names call the creatures in different directions! If the object of the call responds, he is named ‘obedient’ and becomes ‘felicitous’. If he does not respond, he is named ‘disobedient’ and becomes ‘wretched’. (Chittick, 1989)

The word demon comes from the Greek daemon, which was something like a guiding spirit or guardian angel. The medieval concept of the demon evolved from the Christian blanket condemnation of all Pagan ideas. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, all bad weather and natural catastrophes were brought about by demons. But, we can see that the archaic idea that the daemon, as a divine power, inner spirit, fate or secondary divinity is rather close to the idea of the Names of God.

Now, in this following dialogue from the writings of the Great Shaykh, Ibn al-‘Arabi, note how close to the concept of the daemon, as the ancients understood it, the Names are:

The Shayhk says: You should know that the divine call includes believer and unbeliever, obedient and disobedient. … This call derives only from the divine names. One divine name calls to someone who is governed by the property of a second divine name when it knows that the term of the second name’s property within the person has come to an end. Then this name which calls to him takes over. So it continues in this world and the next. Hence everything other than God is called by a divine name to come to an engendered state to which that name seeks to attach it. If the object of the call responds, he is named ‘obedient’ and becomes ‘felicitous’. If he does not respond, he is named ‘disobedient’ and becomes ‘wretched’.

You may object and say: ‘how can a divine name call and the [person] refuse to respond, given that [he] is weak and must accept the divine power’?

We will answer: [He] does not refuse to respond in respect of [himself and his] own reality, since [he] is constantly overpowered. But since [he] is under the overpowering sway of a divine name, that name does not let [him] respond to the name which calls to [him]. Hence there is conflict among the divine names.

However, in terms of power, the names are equals, so the ruling property belongs to the actual possessor, which is the name in whose hand the [man] is when the second name calls to it. The possessor is stronger through the situation.

You may object: ‘Then why is a person taken to task for his refusal?’ We answer: Because he claims the refusal for himself and does not ascribe it to the divine name which controls him.

You may object: ‘The situation stays the same, since he refuses only because of the overpowering sway of a Divine name. The person who is called refused because of the name.’ We answer: That is true, but he is ignorant of that, so he is taken to task for his ignorance, for the ignorance belongs to himself!

You may object: ‘But his ignorance derives from a divine name whose property governs him.’ We answer: Ignorance is a quality pertaining to nonexistence; it is not ontological! The divine names bestow only existence; they do not bestow nonexistence. So the ignorance belongs to the very self of him who is called. (Futuhat, II 592.32 in Chittick, 1989)

Here is a huge clue to our problem. First of all, we learn that each and every human being is under the call of one or more of the Divine Names. It seems as though one particular Name must be in charge at any given time, until it has finished with the person. If another Name calls to the person, it has less influence over him than the one that possesses him at a given time.

Now, we already know that there can be a great multiplicity of Names in operation at any given time and that this is the reason for the great variety of manifestations of secondary causes or created beings and situations in the cosmos. These can be macro-beings and situations or micro-beings and situations. There are universal, galactic, solar, global, national, racial, metropolitan, social, familial and personal manifestations of or dispute among the Names.

Gurdjieff talked about this problem in a somewhat different way, though we can see his Sufi roots showing through rather plainly.

‘I want you to understand what I am saying. Look, all those people you see,’ he pointed along the street, ‘are simply machines — nothing more’.

‘I think I understand what you mean’, I said. ‘And I have often thought how little there is in the world that can stand against this form of mechanization and choose its own path.’

‘This is just where you make your greatest mistake’, said G. ‘You think there is something that chooses its own path, something that can stand against mechanization; you think that not everything is equally mechanical.’

‘Why, of course not!’ I said. ‘Art, poetry, thought, are phenomena of quite a different order.’

‘Of exactly the same order’, said G. ‘These activities are just as mechanical as everything else. Men are machines and nothing but mechanical actions can be expected of machines.’ …

‘Can one stop being a machine?’ I asked.

‘Ah! That is the question’, said G. ‘…It is possible to stop being a machine, but for that it is necessary first of all to know the machine. A machine, a real machine, does not know itself and cannot know itself. When a machine knows itself it is then no longer a machine, at least, not such a machine as it was before. It already begins to be responsible for its actions. What to do? It is impossible to do anything. A man must first of all understand certain things. He has thousands of false ideas and false conceptions, chiefly about himself, and he must get rid of some of them before beginning to acquire anything new.

‘… Man’s chief delusion is his conviction that he can do. All people think that they can do, all people want to do, and the first question all people ask is what they are to do. But actually nobody does anything and nobody can do anything. This is the first thing that must be understood. Everything happens. All that befalls a man, all that is done by him, all that comes from him — all this happens. And it happens in exactly the same way as rain falls as a result of a change in the temperature in the higher regions of the atmosphere or the surrounding clouds, as snow melts under the rays of the sun, as dust rises with the wind.

‘… Man is a machine. All his deeds, actions, words, thoughts, feelings, convictions, opinion, and habits are the results of external influences, external impressions. … To establish this fact for oneself, to understand it, to be convinced of its truth, means getting rid of a thousand illusions about man, about his being creative and consciously organizing his own life, and so on. There is nothing of this kind. Everything happens — popular movements, wars, revolutions, changes of government, all this happens. And it happens in exactly the same way as everything happens in the life of individual man. Man is born, lives, dies, builds houses, writes books, not as he wants to, but as it happens. Everything happens. Man does not love, hate, desire — all this happens.

‘But no one will ever believe you if you tell him he can do nothing. This is the most offensive and the most unpleasant thing you can tell people. It is particularly unpleasant and offensive because it is the truth, and nobody wants to know the truth. It is one thing to understand this with the mind and another thing to feel it with one’s whole mass, to be really convinced that it is so and never forget it.

‘With this question of doing, yet another thing is connected. It always seems to people that others invariably do things wrongly, not in the way they should be done. Everybody always thinks he could do it better. They do not understand, and do not want to understand, that what is being done, and particularly what has already been done in one way, cannot be, and could not have been, done in another way. … Actually everything is being done in the only way it can be done. If one thing could be different, everything could be different. … Everything is dependent on everything else, everything is connected, nothing is separate. Therefore everything is going in the only way it can go. If people were different everything would be different. They are what they are, so everything is as it is.

‘In order to Do, it is necessary to Be. And it is necessary to understand what to Be means. … Then one must learn to speak the truth. In most cases, people think they speak the truth. And yet they lie all the time, both when they wish to lie and when they wish to speak the truth. They lie all the time, both to themselves and to others. … But they cannot help lying. To speak the truth is the most difficult thing in the world; and one must study a great deal and for a long time in order to be able to speak the truth. The wish alone is not enough. To speak the truth one must know what the truth is and what a lie is, and first of all in oneself. And this nobody wants to know.’ (Ouspensky, 1949)

And then, in the same vein we have don Juan telling Carlos Castaneda in The Active Side of Infinity:

‘I want to appeal to your analytical mind,’ don Juan said. ‘Think for a moment, and tell me how you would explain the contradiction between the intelligence of man the engineer and the stupidity of his systems of beliefs, or the stupidity of his contradictory behavior. Sorcerers believe that the predators have given us our systems of beliefs, our ideas of good and evil, our social mores. They are the ones who set up our hopes and expectations and dreams of success or failure. They have given us covetousness, greed and cowardice. It is the predators who make us complacent, routinary, and egomaniacal.’

‘But how can they do this, don Juan?’ I asked, somehow angered further by what he was saying. ‘Do they whisper all that in our ears while we are asleep?’

‘No, they don’t do it that way. That’s idiotic!’ don Juan said, smiling. ‘They are infinitely more efficient and organized than that. In order to keep us obedient and meek and weak, the predators engaged themselves in a stupendous maneuver — stupendous, of course, from the point of view of a fighting strategist. A horrendous maneuver from the point of view of those who suffer it. They gave us their mind! Do you hear me? The predators give us their mind, which becomes our mind. The predators’ mind is baroque, contradictory, morose, filled with the fear of being discovered any minute now.’

‘I know that even though you have never suffered hunger… you have food anxiety, which is none other than the anxiety of the predator who fears that any moment now its maneuver is going to be uncovered and food is going to be denied. Through the mind, which, after all, is their mind, the predators inject into the lives of human beings whatever is convenient for them. And they ensure, in this manner, a degree of security to act as a buffer against their fear.’ (Castaneda, 1998, 213-220)

All of the above sounds absolutely crazy! Here we have a Sufi mystic from hundreds of years ago, a peripatetic jack of all trades, including mysticism, from Asia Minor living in the first half of the 20th century, and a semi-mythical shaman who may have been a figment of the imagination of a peyote-eating, contemporary anthropologist, all saying something that is absolutely savage to our ideas of the Love of God, self, personal sovereignty, free will and enculturated belief systems!

They are all saying there is clearly some larger force, being or influence behind our reality about which we desperately need to become aware. Are they the only ones saying such things?

Barbara Hort, Ph.D., a Jungian psychologist is saying something quite similar. In Unholy Hungers she writes:

The Beast has always been with us. For as long as our hearts have pumped blood, for as long as our souls have glowed with life, for as long as we have yearned for love, the beast has always been there. Sneering and stalking, drooling and scheming, it licks its full, soft lips in anticipation of its next warm meal. For the beast is essentially a feeding thing. Oh, yes, it has many faces, all of them human, and it has our endearing manners as well. But those human graces are a camouflage born of necessity — they are the disguise that enables the beast to prevail. Beneath its veneer of humanity, the core of the beast is hunger, and survival is its only goal.

The beast hungers for survival, but not for life as we know it. … It has a clever mind and an insatiable hunger. To survive, the beast must appease its hunger, and it can feed only on the thing it lacks — the essence of life. So the beast must prey upon us, the living. It must suck our lifeblood and drain our force.

If we are lucky, we will merely die. If we are less fortunate, we will succumb to the deepest horror of the beast’s predation, which is that most of its victims will not die. Instead, we will become the thing to which we have fallen prey, and we will be compelled to feed in the same parasitic way. Thus the feeding frenzy spreads, swelling into a bestial legion whose progenitors haunted prehistory. The beast is ancient and global and growing. I have many stories, and shapes without number, and all are like shadows — elusive and dim. But the name that we call the beast itself is clear and cold and precise. We call the beast vampire.

The story of the vampires is as old, as tangled, and as evil as any on earth. … So many, many names, and among them lies a hard truth. The vampire stalks the living in every corner of the human world. Dracula is only a single vampire among a global horde, and what’s more, he is a young member of the clan, for he was born in the mind of Bram Stoker only one hundred years ago, and he was based on a warlord who lived less than six hundred years ago — a mere breath of time, considering it was more than three thousand years ago that the Assyrians and Babylonians described the monster ekimmu, an undead corpse who preyed upon the blood and flesh of the living in an effort to evade its own death. So it is between us and the vampire. Wherever we have lived, whenever we have lived, the beast has always been with us.

What can account for the ancient, global presence of the vampire in myth and lore? (Hort, 1996)

Well, that’s a good question. There are other Jungian psychiatrists and psychologists who have been working with the idea of archetypes who have suggested that our myths and folktales have a great deal to tell us about our reality, both apparent and that which is hidden. The plain fact is, the stories about vampires are so widespread and prevalent that trying to account for it by many of the modern theories of disease, sexual perversity, sadism, necrophilia, and people who have mental aberrations causing them to steal, drink, or bathe in human blood simply doesn’t cut the mustard.

According to Jung, every human psyche is composed of basic elements called archetypes. We can define archetypes as the constellations of energies or traits that make up our personalities. The images used to symbolize archetypes can help us comprehend the variety of psychic energies that compose who and what we are. According to Jungian theory, when our archetypes are activated, we feel as if we are moved by internal characters who are acting out gripping stories upon the stages of our lives. Sometimes we feel that we possess these powerful psychic energies, and at other times it feels as if they have possessed us. Jungian analyst Marion Woodman, quoted by Dr. Hort, writes:

When we contemplate the archetypal energies that move us, it seems as if each archetype has a distinct personality with positive and negative aspects. … The energies of our archetypes can ‘fill us with radiant light, or overwhelm us with destruction and despair. They are our gods, within, spiritually and instinctually. Relating to them [consciously] allows us to work at incarnating our angels.’ … I would add that relating to an archetype unconsciously leads us to incarnate our demons as well. … Archetypes ‘are like hidden magnets [that] attract and repel. Gods and vampires, goddesses and witches are alarmingly close in this domain. They make us or break us, depending on our conscious relationship to them.’” (Hort, 1996, 5; emphasis added)

Jung’s idea was that when an archetype was activated in a group the images of its energy would appear in the group’s stories, myths, and folktales. He also believed that any story that was widespread through space and time was an important clue to a psychological experience that was common to all. If Jung was right, then the story of the vampire, the oldest and most widespread myth of all, is more than a byproduct of ignorant people in bygone times. The vampire archetype has been with us since the dawn of history, and the fact is, it is with us in ways we are only beginning to comprehend.

I would like to draw your attention to some remarks made in the previous two sections. The first is my statement that evil is a real and cogent manifestation in our world:

I can assure you that evil insinuates itself into our lives in the guise of goodness and truth. The difficulty in talking about evil nowadays lies not in the weird or bizarre, but rather from the insistence by our culture that religious views of good and evil are outdated. … The fact is, the selves which create evil and wish to perpetuate it are those at higher density levels and against whom we have no defense except through knowledge of who they are and how they work. We must learn about the lies in order to perceive the truth.

Later, I again referred back to this evil:

As my perspective expanded, the more the evils disappeared! Now, don’t get me wrong. When I say they ‘disappeared’, that does not mean that they went away or were transformed. Not at all. I just stopped seeing them as evil. … No indeed. I still can see demons in the world and at work; I still see the creeping darkness shadowing the souls of mankind, blotting out their access to their creative potential. I still see war and genocide and famine and plague as part of our reality. … And, even though, for convention, I use terms such as dark and light, and good and evil and positive and negative, in order to talk about things in a practical way, I no longer see these things as an essential error … What I see now is that all of these things exist, the light and the dark, the good and the evil, the positive and the negative, the STS and STO beings, as part of the superb framework of the infinite Creator or Prime Source. … What is more, I see the reason for it to be this way, above and beyond just the simple ‘choice’ of humankind to experience learning at a faster rate.

Those who have read my book Soul Hackers may recall that as soon as I fully entered into the Christian Fundamentalist mindset which posits the idea that one needs to seek salvation for one’s self as well as the world at large, my reality immediately crashed around me and I did indeed need salvation!

The offshoot of this Christian Fundamentalism, the New Age idea that “you create your own reality” by excluding any thoughts about anything that is unpleasant, was also a disaster that nearly killed me. Clearly, there was some sort of relationship between my view of the world and my experiences within it, though it was not precisely that which was suggested to be true by either of these paths.

I then continued to consider the likelihood that the reason for these manifestations is that, indeed, we do create our own reality in some obscure way, but that the devil is in the details, so to speak. I then examined the idea that when one is trying to change the reality, the truly creative part of the mind understands that the reality is broken and that this is what gets created. What this really boils down to is “however you judge, you are judged”.

I would like to take just a moment here to make a point: judging, in a general sense, is something altogether different from examination, assessing, evaluating or forming an opinion. It suggests acting for or against something “other”, since a judgment generally carries with it the idea of a “sentence” or reward and punishment. This is a crucial issue since it is at the root of the you-create-your-own-reality controversy.

Joseph Chilton Pearce, in his classic, The Crack in the Cosmic Egg, wrote:

There is a relationship between what we think is out there in the world and what we experience as being out there. There is a way in which the energy of thought and the energy of matter modify each other and interrelate. A kind of rough mirroring takes place between our mind and our reality.

We cannot stand outside this mirroring process and examine it, though, for we are the process, to an unknowable extent. Any technique we might use to ‘look objectively’ at our reality becomes a part of the event in question. We are an indeterminately large part of the function that shapes the reality from which we do our looking. Our looking enters as one of the determinants in the reality event that we see.

…The procedure of mirroring must be considered the only fixed element, while the products of the procedure must be considered relative. … We represent the world to ourselves and respond to our representations. … A change of worldview can change the world viewed.

Metanoia is the Greek word for conversion: a ‘fundamental transformation of mind’. It is the process by which concepts are reorganized. … The same procedure can be found in worldview development [and] can be traced in the question-answer process, or the proposing and eventual filling of an ‘empty category’ in science. The asking of an ultimately serious question, which means to be seized in turn by an ultimately serious quest, reshapes our concepts in favor of the kinds of perceptions needed to ‘see’ the answer. … A question determines and brings about its answer just as the desired end shapes the nature of the kind of question asked.

Exploring this reality function shows how and why we reap as we sow, individually and collectively — but no simple one-to-one correspondence is implied. The success or failure of any idea is subject to an enormous web of contingencies. (Pearce, 1975)

“A change of world view can change the world viewed.” What a concept!

Most importantly, Our looking enters as one of the determinants in the reality event that we see. … The asking of an ultimately serious question, which means to be seized in turn by an ultimately serious quest, reshapes our concepts in favor of the kinds of perceptions needed to ‘see’ the answer.”

These remarks take us, again, to the idea of Grail Consciousness, which is the “asking of the question”, and of course to ask a question with no assumption about the answer is the key to being able to more completely see the universe as it is. And here we arrive at another sticking point. Once you see something in the reality, what are you then supposed to do? What is the proper reaction? Or is it that you are not supposed to react at all? How can you tell?

This is where we find “the success or failure of any idea is subject to an enormous web of contingencies”. It is the contingencies or reactions that we will begin to explore.

First of all, let me remind the reader what we are trying to accomplish: we are learning about our present world so that we can arrive at the “simple understandings” that are supposed to be the final exam of third density reality. Those understandings apparently will not only determine if we do graduate, but will also determine how prepared we are to begin the lessons of the next grade. It seems that an important part of this preparation is the achieving of this Grail Consciousness.

The God Odin, discovering the secret spring of wisdom and poetry, asked the guardian of the spring for a drink. He was told: ‘The price is your right eye.’ … The ‘universal pool’ is as much ‘in here’ as anywhere. … Anything desired can be gotten from it, if one is willing to pay the price and has an ultimate commitment around which the process can orient. … The mirrors of reality play are brought into alignment by a non-ambiguous commitment from a conscious mind. The ‘other mirror’ is automatically unambiguous. (Pearce, 1975)

We already know the “right eye” that must be paid to drink from the spring of wisdom and poetry is our linear, conceptual thinking which defines a certain narrow scheme of things as good and designates all others as aberrant energy that is somehow amiss or at odds with the universe. With our left-brain, we pick and choose what we like to believe. We ignore and dampen and obscure what we don’t like. We invest what we like with “faith”, believing that focusing on these concepts will make them part of our reality, while forgetting that our organism, our right-brain, is observing reality in a clear and unbiased way. The possibilities and realities that are excluded from conscious acknowledgment create a mind divided, confused and robbed of power. The body will reflect this by acting as a “machine out of phase, working against itself, tearing itself up”.

Robert Frost saw civilization as a small clearing in a great forest. We have hewn our space at no small cost, and the dark ‘out there’ seems ever ready to close in again — a collapse into chaos should our ideation fail. … I shall consider the dark forest to be the primal stuff, the unconscious, the unknown potential.…

Our clearing is a worldview, a cosmic egg structured by the mind’s drive for a logical ordering of its universe. The clearing is an organization imposed by us on a random possibility.

Teilhard de Chardin saw human destiny spreading the light from our small clearing out into the dark beyond. In archaic times we feared lest the dark engulf our fragile construction of reason, and all actions were oriented toward keeping the cultural circle intact.
… We have been passionately involved in strengthening our ideation, cataloging and indexing our clearing in the forest. Some unanimity of opinion has begun to form. But the nature of the dark forest is the real problem. For our attitude toward the forest influences sharply the way we look upon our clearing, and affects the kind of new clearing we can make. (Pearce, 1975)

These words of Pearce bring our problem into focus. It is our attitude toward what is that creates our reality, because it is this attitude that determines the “center” of our consciousness. The center of our consciousness is the zero-point energy access of reality. It is in this sense that we have to look at some things in order to find what is the true source of the center of consciousness and how to shift this in order to truly change our reality.

Now it is time to form a little hypothesis in order to better analyze the situation.

1 This is an allusion to my “immediate past life” in Germany where I jumped to my death after the Nazis took my Jewish husband and children away to a camp. See my autobiography, Amazing Grace, for details.

2 This passage is a lot more meaningful after 9-11, eh?

3 All Biblical quotations are taken from Zondervan’s Amplified Bible.

4 Attenborough, The Living Planet, 1984, emphasis added.

Related Articles: