How did you build trust in Cassiopaea?

heinrich said:
1.3 session of ???
Q: (L) When I asked the question about Jesus or something, and there was something about three days in a comatose state, 96 hours of clear-channel meditation, emergence, prophesying to his followers, and then ascending into a mother ship? WHERE did that come from??
A: You and Frank mostly. so. the cass took into account their interlocuteurs...

1.4 session of ???
jesus caesar. why were you giving me answers that sometimes could have been applied to Caesar, but other times could not?
A: You would not have been able to receive. When you ask a question with strong prejudice, we cannot violate your will to believe.
Click to expand...
How is this not clear?

The answers came from the subconscious of those asking the question. If I ask a question, of anyone, but I already have a belief and am certain about the answer, if they tell me something that disagrees with what I believe, I will simply won't accept it, and if the answer is vague enough, I will interpret it in the way I wish.

You may think you're asking for the truth, but in reality, you just want confirmation of a preconceived notion, in which case.. you're free to believe whatever you choose, at which point, providing that person with the truth is violating free will, because that is not what they're asking for.
 
Alejo said:
How is this not clear?

The answers came from the subconscious of those asking the question. If I ask a question, of anyone, but I already have a belief and am certain about the answer, if they tell me something that disagrees with what I believe, I will simply won't accept it, and if the answer is vague enough, I will interpret it in the way I wish.

You may think you're asking for the truth, but in reality, you just want confirmation of a preconceived notion, in which case.. you're free to believe whatever you choose, at which point, providing that person with the truth is violating free will, because that is not what they're asking for.
Click to expand...
Well that’s the problem I think. It IS clear. I think this is perhaps a phenomenon that flew under the radar. The question now becomes: how many questions and answers have been distorted this way? Does that require some kind of double checking or second guessing to gain certainty? So, the questioning has to be without prejudice. Certainly many questions have been asked without prejudice, but… all?

It’s hard to do your own research without developing a hypothesis. And then it becomes a matter of how attached to being right about the hypothesis is the questioner? (Not to mention the underlying assumptions upon which the hypothesis is based which go unexamined. A prime example might be that the C’s would never skew an answer to accommodate a tightly held false or preconceived notion about what the answer is going to be. Talk about the devil in the details! Whew!)
 
heinrich said:
thank you for your elaborate answer. still, my confidence into the cass was total, and the evidence against them is evident. in this case, they led us astray clearly. how did laura take their answer? i still find that wanting to deceive us over such an important subject is unacceptale.
Click to expand...
This is how I see it.

Small children believe in the story of Santa coming once a year through the chimney and leave presents for them. Most non-Christian parents won't say that story to them, but children hear it in the nursery or school , talk about it, so parents get the cue from it and most probably they follow that tradition to avoid the disappointment to the kids.

As children grew little older and naturally become little more tolerant of the reality, parents slowly leak the fact that Santa is a fiction. Is it deliberate lying or unacceptable deception? I think not.

Children believe in Winnie-the-pooh , barney, Thomas the tank engine, transformers etc. at some point in childhood, soon get over with it as they grow older, get the capability to absorb the surrounding reality. They is no point in reminding them it is all fiction, that creates friction when every body knows it is only transient phase of growing up.

Parents may choose not to show these TV shows and dedicate themselves to engaging children with other things. But, they inevitably hear them in school or in parties where they meet other children. They surely feel they are losing some thing or uber curious of them, even resentful towards the parents.
 
Alejo said:
How is this not clear?

The answers came from the subconscious of those asking the question. If I ask a question, of anyone, but I already have a belief and am certain about the answer, if they tell me something that disagrees with what I believe, I will simply won't accept it, and if the answer is vague enough, I will interpret it in the way I wish.

You may think you're asking for the truth, but in reality, you just want confirmation of a preconceived notion, in which case.. you're free to believe whatever you choose, at which point, providing that person with the truth is violating free will, because that is not what they're asking for.
Click to expand...
dear alejo, no, it is not clear.

the mechanism you propose, i.e. that the answer comes from the subconscious of the asker, has never been evoqued in the sessions. it is, of course, a reasonable answer, but using an ouja board to extract something from your subconscious cannot be called a supraluminal method as ark has formulated it. your answer makes the whole cass phenomenon an earthly trick, worth of c.g. jung, who also has its portion of unexplainable...

when i read replies to questions, i am indeed looking for answers, but not from the subconscious of the asker.

when reading the cass answers, i really believed that they gave valid answers, independent of my or anybodies expectations. i know this is not how the physical world works, but i was ready to accept the assumption of the existence of the ether to explain the superluminous communication. i even started a thread on the ether.

you answer makes me clearly doubt the validity of the cass experiment, should it be only a method to reveal the subconscious.

this statement does not invalidate the enormous work done by laura, her books, sott, the forum. but before i live with the implications of your answer, i would have liked to see it confirmed by laura, even if she is, as always, very busy.

i was also interested in the scientific answers of the cass to the ark questions. do i have to assume that ark also knew, unconsciously, of the answers to his technical questions? if so, then my explanation by krishnamurti that a question already contains the answer would habe been vindicated without recourse to supernatural effects...

and what remains mysterious is how the expectations of the questioner are translated into ouja board answers. here, we come to uri geller. therefore, the mystery remains...

let me conclude:
- the image on the turin shroud remains real, to me...
- christ as an egregore would alreay be sufficient for me
- the world remains mysterious to me
- my cat is hungry...
 
Trust in the C's or whatever source of info is function of the trust in my own sensitivity to provide signals that received info is worthwhile in terms of fitting somewhere in the grand puzzle of my own quest to higher knowledge, understanding and embodiment. Beyond whether the info can be trusted or not, is it timely? Is it helping me to make actual progress in self-consciousness the moment I receive it?
 
ontologia said:
What really convinced you? ...
Other than that, what would you like to say to scientific skeptics?
Click to expand...
No one thing is specifically convincing. If one is into alternative ideas in the first place, as well as channeling, history, religions, maybe even just psychology, then the information here is not surprising... though it could be considered surprising in that the work put into it over several decades is extraordinary.

I personally wouldn't speak to either scientific or religious skeptics about this, except possibly indirectly. Otherwise there'll be quiet insinuations, hidden anger, innocent misunderstandings, or responsibilities I'm not sure I want to take on. If people are asking these sorts of questions, then it strikes me they are closed off from this sort of knowledge, and some other subject is necessary if you must communicate.
heinrich said:
. this book is so detailed that one would have to be of bad faith to negate the existence of these garments.

...
- can the answers of the cass be possibly wrong also in other cases?
- am i naive to believe them?
- could they also be linked with evil?
- is the ouja board a vehicle open to evil influences, as i have read somewhere?
Click to expand...
Do you mean "of bad faith" or "of different faith"? A garment, a Bible, or a material item has a lot of meaning for some people, though such things can easily be forged. For others, philosophy carries more meaning. Is it that Christianity has a good philosophy? I would generally agree. I would suggest that Greek, Roman, West Asian, and Egyptian philosophies, specifically about the "afterlife" and spiritual realms, philosophies about virtues (like mercy), and exaggerating the issues of life through stories, are largely to be found in Christianity.

Yes, it's possible that answers are wrong, but, even more worryingly, it is certain that all answers are incomplete. However, that's just the nature of reality: the more we know, the more there is to know.

Is naivety a problem? Perhaps with research, naivety decreases. Do I feel tricked into believing something? Not in this case.

I doubt that they are evil. As we go through life, we all agree with whatever seems to work. I'm not worried about being seduced into doing evil, so I don't think I understand this question. Are you more worried about evil or about being misdirected? It is smart to make sure you're not being misdirected. In general, they may lie so that we won't behave rashly, or so that we don't kill the conversation. It may also be that their answer requires a perspective we haven't thought of. And, as others explained, they take our emotions into account. In daily life, I usually take others' emotions into account before answering or acting the way I want to. There's no way to avoid a lie or two, but that could be my own misconception.

Yes, ouija boards can be very dangerous. I think they've mentioned that some small percentage of answers could be other influences coming through, but that was more likely in the beginning stages.
 
hobnob said:
No one thing is specifically convincing. If one is into alternative ideas in the first place, as well as channeling, history, religions, maybe even just psychology, then the information here is not surprising... though it could be considered surprising in that the work put into it over several decades is extraordinary.

I personally wouldn't speak to either scientific or religious skeptics about this, except possibly indirectly. Otherwise there'll be quiet insinuations, hidden anger, innocent misunderstandings, or responsibilities I'm not sure I want to take on. If people are asking these sorts of questions, then it strikes me they are closed off from this sort of knowledge, and some other subject is necessary if you must communicate.

Do you mean "of bad faith" or "of different faith"? A garment, a Bible, or a material item has a lot of meaning for some people, though such things can easily be forged. For others, philosophy carries more meaning. Is it that Christianity has a good philosophy? I would generally agree. I would suggest that Greek, Roman, West Asian, and Egyptian philosophies, specifically about the "afterlife" and spiritual realms, philosophies about virtues (like mercy), and exaggerating the issues of life through stories, are largely to be found in Christianity.

Yes, it's possible that answers are wrong, but, even more worryingly, it is certain that all answers are incomplete. However, that's just the nature of reality: the more we know, the more there is to know.

Is naivety a problem? Perhaps with research, naivety decreases. Do I feel tricked into believing something? Not in this case.

I doubt that they are evil. As we go through life, we all agree with whatever seems to work. I'm not worried about being seduced into doing evil, so I don't think I understand this question. Are you more worried about evil or about being misdirected? It is smart to make sure you're not being misdirected. In general, they may lie so that we won't behave rashly, or so that we don't kill the conversation. It may also be that their answer requires a perspective we haven't thought of. And, as others explained, they take our emotions into account. In daily life, I usually take others' emotions into account before answering or acting the way I want to. There's no way to avoid a lie or two, but that could be my own misconception.

Yes, ouija boards can be very dangerous. I think they've mentioned that some small percentage of answers could be other influences coming through, but that was more likely in the beginning stages.
Click to expand...


dear hobnob, i will try to reply to your questions:
- regarding the "bad faith", i mean that the evidence available in my references can not be denied. it is not a matter of faith but one of accepting the documented evidence. have you looked at the second bibleetnombres reference?
- my other comments are only suggestions to explain the obvious initial denying the evidence.
- well, naivety is not appropriate when seeking evidence
 
heinrich said:
dear alejo, no, it is not clear.

the mechanism you propose, i.e. that the answer comes from the subconscious of the asker, has never been evoqued in the sessions. it is, of course, a reasonable answer, but using an ouja board to extract something from your subconscious cannot be called a supraluminal method as ark has formulated it. your answer makes the whole cass phenomenon an earthly trick, worth of c.g. jung, who also has its portion of unexplainable...

when i read replies to questions, i am indeed looking for answers, but not from the subconscious of the asker.

when reading the cass answers, i really believed that they gave valid answers, independent of my or anybodies expectations. i know this is not how the physical world works, but i was ready to accept the assumption of the existence of the ether to explain the superluminous communication. i even started a thread on the ether.

you answer makes me clearly doubt the validity of the cass experiment, should it be only a method to reveal the subconscious.

this statement does not invalidate the enormous work done by laura, her books, sott, the forum. but before i live with the implications of your answer, i would have liked to see it confirmed by laura, even if she is, as always, very busy.
Click to expand...

It's not a black and white situation. Some answers at some points are affected by the subconscious. It has been discussed within some sessions. The C's themselves have warned against deifying them, and encouraged us to network and find answers ourselves. All this is a fundamental part of the experiment, it's mostly hard work before or following the sessions themselves.

Try to avoid black and white thinking. See the words I highlighted in bold.
 
I would start by asking why this particular question&answer is SO important to you, @heinrich. Does it really matter whether it's true or not? If so, why?

It seems to me that your question isn't really related to the Turin shroud, but rather to faith in general.
 
heinrich said:
the mechanism you propose, i.e. that the answer comes from the subconscious of the asker, has never been evoqued in the sessions. it is, of course, a reasonable answer, but using an ouja board to extract something from your subconscious cannot be called a supraluminal method as ark has formulated it. your answer makes the whole cass phenomenon an earthly trick, worth of c.g. jung, who also has its portion of unexplainable...
Click to expand...
I think that it would be worthwhile that you take a step back and actually do some more reading. The wave series explains the channelling process and when and how the board came into use. You don’t seem to have enough background information to make your point logically.
 
I don't think this has been asked yet, but if so, apologies:
heinrich said:
4.1 here, we have a discrepancy between the cass explanation, which attributes the shroud to the year 399 and with an unsatisfactory explanation for the creation of the image, and the factual analysis of the data which attributes it to the christ time frame and explains the creation of the image in a manner we cannot yet reproduce.
Click to expand...

Why is that an unsatisfactory explanation of the image? And are you taking into account the possibility of years removed in the timeline of official history? And is everything we cannot reproduce proof of something that wasn't? And why is the "factual analysis" any different from the Cs' answer? (And remember that around here, we DO take things as hypotheses, not THE truth. "10% inspiration, 90% perspiration". So, homework is needed before we can decide on what seems the most plausible, and it's always open to new data).
 
C's came through in response to a genuine request for help. The onus for learning is always on us. Are they a source of information? Okay, you could certainly make that argument. Are they akin to a higher level tutor of sorts? Seems to me, that is closer. They teach us by what they answer, what they don't answer, and what they answer as a reflection of the strong beliefs of the questioner. All three yield important clues about the nature of the "school" and ourselves.

There are no absolute guarantees at this level of experience other than maybe death. After 20 years of exposure to this source, I assign a high probability to the information that comes through it.

FWIW
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom