• EN
  • FR
  • DE
  • RU
  • TR
  • ES
  • ES

The Wave Chapter 12: All There Is Is Lessons

November 24, 1994

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

The above remarks by the Cassiopaeans reflect the general core of many teachings down through the ages. So what’s the difference between what the Cassiopaeans are saying and what has already been said?

Perhaps we can answer that question with another one: what good is it to know all the other things that the Cassiopaeans have told us? What practical purpose does it serve?

I am a very practical person. For me, and for my husband, Ark, it is the results that count. I guess you could call it the “Fruits agenda” derived from the saying: “By their fruits you shall know them.” It’s all fine and good to have a philosophical view of the world that admits to an underlying unity of everything, but for all practical purposes, despite the claims of numerous teachers and gurus down through history, including a plethora of New Age promoters of the “You create your own reality” ilk, we can see that this is somehow not precisely applicable in our world.

Yet, the Cassiopaeans have just said it. But, they said something else: “IF YOU KNOW HOW.”

Clearly that is the problem. We don’t know how. And it is in the knowing how, the developing of the tools of the mind and psyche that there seems to be a difference. In plain words: what the Cassiopaeans are saying about our reality, when applied in the ways that become obvious when one is aware, works.

We have been dealing with this issue from a couple of different perspectives already, and now I want to go in a different direction to see if we can’t get a better handle on all of this.

In addition to my idea of the Fruits agenda, there is also what I call the “Mumbo Jumbo factor”. I have two six foot tall, three foot wide, bookcases here in the house filled with what I jokingly refer to as the Mumbo Jumbo category. I am not sure what the Dewey decimal system would make of this, but after I read a book, I can generally tell if it goes in that particular section.

I really don’t like ambiguity. And it seems that much, if not most, information that comes down to us from so-called higher sources is very ambiguous. Terry once asked a question that opened a door to helping me understand this:

November 26, 1994

Q: (T) One last question. How do I know you are telling me the truth?

A: Open. For you to decide. Listen: Now would be a good “time” for you folks to begin to reexamine some of the extremely popular “Earth Changes” prophecies. Why, you ask. Because, remember, you are third density beings, so real prophecies are being presented to you in terms you will understand, i.e., physical realm, i.e., Earth Changes. This “may” be symbolism. Would most students of the subject understand if prophecies were told directly in fourth density terms?

Q: (L) Is this comparable to my idea about dream symbolism? For example, the dream I had about the curling cloud, which I saw in a distance and knew it was death dealing and I interpreted it to be a tornado, but it was, in fact, a dream of the Challenger disaster. I understood it to be a tornado, but in fact, what I saw was what I got: a death dealing force in the sky, a vortex, in the distance. I guess my dream was a fourth density representation but I tried to interpret it in terms I was familiar with. Is this what you mean?

A: Close. But it is easy for most to get bogged down by interpreting prophecies in literal terms.

Q: (L) In terms of these Earth Changes, Edgar Cayce is one of the most famous prognosticators of recent note. A large number of the prophecies he made seemingly were erroneous in terms of their fulfillment. For example, he prophesied that Atlantis would rise in 1969, but it did not, though certain structures were discovered off the coast of Bimini, which are thought by many to be remnants of Atlantis. These did, apparently, emerge from the sand at that time.

A: Example of one form of symbolism.

Q: (L) Well, in terms of this symbolism, could it be that [when you tell us things about our reality], you read events from third density into sixth density terms and then transmit them back into third; and while the ideation can be correct, the exact specifics, in third density terms, can be slightly askew due to our perceptions. Is that what we are dealing with here?

A: 99.9 per cent would not understand that concept. Most are always looking for literal translations of data. Analogy is: novice, who attends art gallery, looks at abstract painting and says, “I don’t get it.”

Q: (L) Well, let’s not denigrate literal translations or at least attempts to get things into literal terms. I like realistic artwork. I am a realist in my art preferences. I want trees to look like trees and people to have only two arms and legs. Therefore, I also like some literalness in my prognostications.

A: Some is okay, but, beware or else “California falls into the ocean” will always be interpreted as California falling into the ocean.

Q: [General uproar.] (F) Wait a minute, what was the question? (L) I just said I liked literalness in my prophecies. (F) Oh, I know what they are saying. People believe that California is just going to go splat! And that Phoenix is going to be on the seacoast; never mind that it’s at 1800 feet elevation, it’s just going to drop down to sea level; or the sea level is going to rise; but it’s not going to affect Virginia Beach even though that’s at sea level! I mean… somehow Phoenix is just going to drop down and none of the buildings are going to be damaged, even though its going to fall 1,800 feet… (T) Slowly. It’s going to settle! (F) Slowly? It would have to be so slowly it’s unbelievable how slowly it would have to be! (T) It’s been settling for the last five million years, we’ve got a ways to go in the next year and a half! (F) Right! That’s my point! (T) In other words, when people like Scallion and Sun Bear and others who say California is going to fall into the ocean, they are not saying that the whole state, right along the border is going to fall into the ocean, they are using the term “California” to indicate that the ocean ledge along the fault line has a probability of breaking off and sinking on the water side, because it is a major fracture. We understand that that is not literal. Are you telling us that there is more involved here as far as the way we are hearing what these predictions say?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) So, when we talk about California falling into the ocean, we are not talking about the whole state literally falling into the ocean?

A: In any case, even if it does, how long will it take to do this?

Q: (LM) It could take three minutes or three hundred years. (T) Yes. That is “open” as you would say.

A: Yes. But most of your prophets think it is not open.

Q: (T) Okay. So they are thinking in the terms that one minute California will be there and a minute and a half later it will be all gone. Is this what you are saying?

A: Or similar.

Q: (T) So, when we are talking: “California will fall into the ocean,” which is just the analogy we are using, we are talking about the possibility that several seismic events along the fault line, which no one really knows the extent of…

A: Or it all may be symbolic of something else.

Q: (L) Such as? Symbolic of what?

A: Up to you to examine and learn.

Q: (L) Now, wait a minute here! That’s like sending us out to translate a book in Latin without even giving us a Latin dictionary.

A: No it is not. We asked you to consider a reexamination.

Q: (L) You have told us that there is a cluster of comets connected in some interactive way with our solar system, and that this cluster of comets comes into the plane of the ecliptic every 3,600 years. Is this correct?

A: Yes. But, this time it is riding realm border wave to 4th level, where all realities are different.

Q: (L) Okay, so the cluster of comets is riding the realm border wave. Does this mean that when it comes into the solar system, that its effect on the solar system, or the planets within the solar system, (J) or us… (L) …may or may not be mitigated by the fact of this transition? Is this a mitigating factor?

A: Will be mitigated [made less severe].

Q: (L) Does this mean that all of this running around and hopping and jumping to go here and go there and do this and do that is…

A: That is strictly 3rd level thinking.

Q: (L) Now, if that is third level thinking, and if a lot of these things are symbolic, I am assuming they are symbolic of movement or changes in energy.

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And, if these changes in energy occur does this mean that the population of the planet are, perhaps, in groups or special masses of groups, are they defined as the energies that are changing in these descriptions of events and happenings of great cataclysm? Is it like a cataclysm of the soul on an individual and or collective basis?

A: Close.

Q: (L) When the energy changes to fourth density, and you have already told us that people who are moving to fourth density when the transition occurs, that they will move into fourth density, go through some kind of rejuvenation process, grow new teeth, or whatever; what happens to those people who are not moving to fourth density, and who are totally unaware of it? Are they taken along on the wave by, in other words, piggybacked by, the ones who are aware and already changing in frequency, or are they going to be somewhere else doing something else?

A: Step by step.

Q: (T) In other words, we are looking at the fact that what’s coming this time is a wave that’s going to allow the human race to move to fourth density?

A: And the planet and your entire sector of space-time.

Q: (T) Is that what this whole plan is about, then, if I may be so bold as to include all of us here in this. We could be beings who have come here into human form, to anchor the frequency. Is this what we are anchoring it for, for this Wave; so that when it comes enough of us will be ready, the frequency will be set, so that the change in the planet can take place as it has been planned?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) Okay, when the people are talking about the earth changes, when they talk in literal terms about the survivors, and those who are not going to survive, and the destruction and so forth and so on, in fourth, fourth, and fifth level reality, we are not talking about the destruction of the planet on fourth level physical terms, or the loss of 90 per cent of the population on the fourth level because they died, but because they are going to move to fourth level?

A: Whoa! You are getting “warm”.

Q: (T) Okay. So, we are anchoring this. So, when they talk about 90 per cent of the population not surviving, it is not that they are going to die, but that they are going to transform. We are going to go up a level. This is what the whole light thing is all about?

A: Or another possibility is that the physical cataclysms will occur only for those “left behind” on the remaining 3rd level density earth.

Q: (T) Okay, what you are saying, then, is that we are anchoring the frequency, so that when the Wave comes, we move to fourth level density as many people as possible, in order to break the hold the “Dark T-shirts” (as Barbara Marciniak calls them) have got on this planet. Those who remain behind will not have enough energy left for the “Dark T-shirts” to bother with the planet any longer. There will be less of them so the planet will be able to refresh and they will be able to move on in their lessons without interference?

A: Close.

Q: (L) Let me get this straight. At this point of dimensional transition, is what we are doing, anchoring a frequency, are we creating a sort of network that will literally create another earth in fourth density, which will then exist in fourth density, and the old fourth density earth — almost like the splitting of a one celled organism, only in this splitting one half of it moves into another dimension and is energized and quite literally created by the anchoring frequency, while the old one remains and experiences fourth density reality?

A: Step by step.

Q: (L) Are we anchoring frequency to create a split?

A: One developing conduit.

Q: (L) We are developing a conduit?

A: Yes. One.

Q: (J) How many conduits do we need?

A: Open.

Q: (T) Is this conduit going to allow those who remain behind to be able to move to fourth density easier when they are ready?

A: No.

Q: (T) What is the conduit for?

A: You and those who will follow you.

Q: (L) This conduit. Is this a conduit through which an entire planet will transition?

A: You are one. There are others.

Q: (J) So, at this point we are developing a conduit?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) There are other groups on this planet developing their own conduits?

A: Yes. Knowledge is the key to developing a conduit.

Q: (T) I am working on the assumption that all of us here are part of the family of light, is this true?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) And we have been drawn together in order to develop this conduit from where we are?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) Are there others in this area?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) Are they supposed to join with us or are they working on their own?

A: Open.

Q: (T) Okay, so it is up in the air as to whether we join with them, they join with us, or we all work independently. We’re developing a conduit to move us from fourth density to fourth density. Once we have moved through the conduit does that mean we have completed what we came here to do, and that is anchor the frequency?

A: Partly.

Q: (T) Is the conduit kind of like an escape hatch for us?

A: Close.

Q: (L) Let me get this straight. When we move through this conduit, are the other…

A: You will be on the 4th level earth as opposed to 3rd level earth.

Q: (L) What I am trying to get here, once again, old practical Laura is trying to get a handle on practical terms here. Does this mean that a fourth density earth and a third density earth will coexist side by side…

A: Not side-by-side, totally different realms.

Q: (L) Do these realms interpenetrate one another but in different dimensions…

A: Close.

Q: (L) So, in other words, a being from say, sixth density, could look at this planet we call the earth and see it spinning through space and see several dimensions of earth, and yet the point of space-time occupation is the same, in other words, simultaneous. (J) They can look down but we can’t look up.

A: Yes.

Q: (L) So, in other words, while all of this cataclysmic activity is happening on the third density earth, we will be just on our fourth density earth and this sort of thing won’t be there, and we won’t see the third density people and they won’t see us because we will be in different densities which are not “en rapport”, so to speak?

A: You understand concept, now you must decide if it is factual.

Well, I tried! I was really getting close and then they went ambiguous on me! But the important thing is the fact that the Cassiopaeans were trying to get a point across about Symbols of Reality. They are proposing to us the idea that our reality is a symbolic one. But, remember the first quote:

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.

We have already talked about reality being pseudo-symbolic; that is, our world is most likely a limited version of a greater reality like Plato’s shadows on the wall of the cave were symbols of a greater reality; but even when talking about hyper-dimensional space and fourth density, we are still speaking in a material sense. Remember the tesseract?1 Well, now we are going to talk about all of it being symbolic in another sense: symbols of ideas and energies in a strictly non-material sense.

Further, as we go along (in this book and others in the Wave series), we are going to talk about the possible realities behind these symbols of third and fourth density — and most importantly, the reason it is the way it is. And this, we will find, relates directly to the ambiguity of information from higher realms. Michael Topper writes about this ambiguity, or Mumbo Jumbo factor in the following:

We consult the channeler because, basically, we are concerned, in a very ordinary conceptual way, like every personality anxiously poised on the psychological tight wire spanning the temporalized chasm of existence. […]

It would always be oh so helpful if we could see the future in advance, be informed of the respective consequences in the alternatives confronting the present perplexing moment of decision.

We would like if possible, to be underwritten not only for our monetary but also for our psychic commitments; insured in advance against the usual contingencies. And the channeler proffers the prospect of just this excelsior potential. […]

The myriad channeled voices to which we have been opened in recent years do indeed present an avalanche of prediction, of advice on principle and in particular, and a massive characterization of planes, states, levels and dimensions of reality which introduce whole other magnitudes to the ultimate questions of purpose and consequence.

Through the innumerable contributions of channeled sources we have been, in a certain sense, asked to reappraise the whole matter of success in terms beyond the conventional, so that the horizon upon which the grail of accomplishment rests has been, as it were, elevated; the sights raised to the prospect of a more comprehensive and crucial, indeed sacred, focus.

On the “plus” side then, the phenomenon of channeling has supplied a verbal chorus of confirmation tending collectively to install our usual questions and concerns in a setting offset by distinct considerations of Soul.

The “answers” to our most mundane queries as to future, choice and result have been furnished a whole additional dimension of meaning.

The most casual skimmer of “channeled” material can’t help but perceive, at least implicitly, the bearing, which every conventional ego-choice has upon the larger destiny of soul-growth. Never mind for the time being that such emphatic intimations result from a cutting in, an abrupt verbal tunneling of the basic meditative stream that was ostensibly moving toward the unique value of personal (unmediated) cognition and direct perception of those very, spiritual and high-psychic modes now presented by descriptive approximation.

Never mind that the whole phenomenon seems, in a certain light, to express the impatience of higher-dimensional intelligence long waiting for the sluggish personal development characteristic of this “material plane”.

And so, they simply intrude with the necessary packets of information at the minimal achievement of some meditative quietude.

To be fair, some “channeling” circumstances seem to promote the actual personal progress of the channeler in gaining direct access to the planes, states, phenomena and degrees of mind-body integration otherwise only described or verbally characterized by ventriloquist voice-transmission (cf. the Seth material, and the late Jane Roberts’ occasional description of her personal development in “inner plane” understanding).

But for the most part, the expressed Ryerson2 attitude prevails. This amounts to a curious dissociation between the person of the channeler and the content of the communication resulting practically in an overall substitution of the description for the thing described.

More immediately, on the minus side of the phenomenon we end up (in this avalanche of description from various sources) with a collision rather than a smooth confluence of materials. At the “higher” levels of consciousness (not limited to the space-time framework of the blindered channeler) there still seems to be contention or discrepancy in the respective characterizations of Reality; there still seems to be division regarding that which is perceived or known even in these greater and more allegedly comprehensive Domains of Knowing.

Any who’ve scanned more than one of these sources in print, or compared notes with “live” sessions attended, are bound to notice (if minimally conscious) that, beneath the general agreement as to the existence of higher states and planes, of different orders of knowledge and action from those assumed in the context of strictly physical expression there is a welter of large and small divergences ranging from minor variations to an embarrassment of glaring contradictions.

This is explained in one such source. Cosmic Revelation “channeled” by Virginia Essene and Ann Valentin, as the inevitable condition of confusion resulting from the urgent/unprecedented need of the higher dimensions to disseminate changing patterns of information belonging to “revamped educational programs,” brought about by this critical epoch of transition through which we’re hesitantly passing.

Such confusion, according to this source results from the requirement of transmission along the spiritual hierarchy of inner plane beings through which such “information”, formulated at the highest levels, must pass.

Consistent with what may be gathered from other source-channels, the various levels along which the orders of intelligence transmit the flow of data “downward” formulate the patterns of information according to the understanding of their particular plane. Tinctured already by that qualification, the information may receive its most noticeable distortion at the level of the channeler where, according to the variable of the given “linkage” there may be greater or lesser reliance on the personal memory-record, conceptual matrix or vocabulary of the channeling agent.

The resultant verbal product is, in any case, several dimensional steps removed from the originating Intention.

Add to this the recognition that all such knowledge emanates in its highest form from levels of creative intelligence that are basically nonverbal and that conduct all processes of knowing in abstract spiritual terms not directly translatable into concepts congenial to a physically-focused framework, and we seem to have on the surface a convenient explanation as to why Seth and Hilarion don’t agree, why Ramtha and the “Christ” material of The New Teachings apparently quarrel on the shelves. (Emphases added.)

Well, that certainly seems to explain the problem: different sources say different things because of the filtering down process from the higher realms. And, of course, when it reaches the channel, it gets its greatest twist from the knowledge, vocabulary and assumptions of the specific channel. So, the obvious solution is to seek the information from the highest source possible with the least noise.

This was, in fact, the problem that prompted me to approach my channeling experiment in the way I did. I was not going to be satisfied with “dead dudes”, who generally have very little more information or insights than we do ourselves in our state of third density illusion. In fact, as I learned from many hypnosis subjects and many conversations with dead dudes, the level of ignorance at that stage of existence is often abysmal! I very definitely did not want to waste my time with dead dudes, because it was a sure path to deliberate obfuscation, innocent disinformation, or useless speculation. As Cayce said: “A dead Presbyterian is just that: A dead Presbyterian.” And, the fact of the matter is: as dead dudes, most of them are still in the prison!

But getting back to the Symbols of Reality as mentioned by the Cassiopaeans above:

November 26, 1994

Q: (T) So, when we are talking: “California will fall into the ocean, which is just the analogy we are using, we are talking about, as far as earth changes, is the possibility that several seismic events along the fault line, which no one really knows the extent of…

A: Or it all may be symbolic of something else.

Q: (L) Such as? Symbolic of what?

A: Up to you to examine and learn.

This places the responsibility squarely in our laps.

But, at the time, because I was still influenced by the teaching that the higher truths ought to be free and easily acquired, this question drove me crazy. Why couldn’t I get a straight answer about anything? Well, that is not entirely fair. The Cassiopaeans gave us many straight answers about many things, both of the verifiable and unverifiable sort. But on certain subjects, the ambiguity was left hanging there like the proverbial Sword of Damocles. It seems that it was something I had to figure out on my own.

As I have written before, I had read Ouspensky’s In Search of the Miraculous back in the mid-eighties and many of the things said in that book outraged me so completely that I would literally throw the book away from me.

At the time, I was bedridden and had little else to do but think. So, I would slam the book against the wall across the room, and fume indignantly at what Gurdjieff had said — very much in the way Carlos Castaneda reacted to many things said by don Juan Matus — until, gradually, I would cool down and a very small voice inside would suggest that I think about the matter without the heat of my emotions. I would ponder a bit longer, examining many experiences of my life in my mind, and soon would come to the realization that what Gurdjieff was saying, if not the whole picture, was certainly going in the right direction.

So, I would call someone to come and retrieve the book for me and settle down to read another few pages until — yes, over and over again — I felt outraged and blasphemed, and then the book went flying! That very book is sitting in front of me at this moment, held together with duct tape.

What was it Gurdjieff said that was so outrageous to me?

You do not realize your own situation. You are in prison. All you can wish for, if you are a sensible man, is to escape. But how to escape? It is necessary to tunnel under a wall. One man can do nothing. But let us suppose there are ten or twenty men — if they work in turn and if one covers another they can complete the tunnel and escape.

Furthermore, no one can escape from prison without the help of those who have escaped before. Only they can say in what way escape is possible or can send tools, files, or whatever may be necessary. But one prisoner alone cannot find these people or get into touch with them.

…It is necessary to understand that man’s being, both in life and after death, if it does exist after death, may be very different in quality. The “man-machine” with whom everything depends upon external influences, with whom everything happens, who is now one, then next moment another, and the next moment a third, has no future of any kind; he is buried and that is all. Dust returns to dust. This applies to him. In order to be able to speak of any kind of future life there must be a certain crystallization, a certain fusion of man’s inner qualities, and a certain independence of external influences. If there is anything in a man able to resist external influences, then this very thing itself may also be able to resist the death of the physical body…

Fusion, inner unity, is obtained by means of “friction”, by the struggle between “yes” and “no” in man. If a man lives without inner struggle, if everything happens in him without opposition, if he goes wherever he is drawn or wherever the wind blows, he will remain such as he is.

But if a struggle begins in him, and particularly if there is a definite line in this struggle, then, gradually, permanent traits begin to form themselves, he begins to “crystallize”.

But crystallization is possible on a right foundation and it is possible on a wrong foundation. “Friction”, the struggle between “yes” and “no”, can easily take place on a wrong foundation.

For instance, a fanatical belief in some or other idea, or the “fear of sin”, can evoke a terribly intense struggle between “yes” and “no”, and a man may crystallize on these foundations. But this would be a wrong, incomplete crystallization. Such a man will not possess the possibility of further development. In order to make further development possible he must be melted down again, and this can be accomplished only through terrible suffering.

Crystallization is possible on any foundation. Take for example a brigand, a really good, genuine brigand. I knew such brigands in the Caucasus. He will stand with a rifle behind a stone by the roadside for eight hours without stirring. Could you do this? All the time, mind you, a struggle is going on in him. He is thirsty and hot, and the flies are biting him; but he stands still.

Another is a monk; he is afraid of the devil; all night long he beats his head on the floor and prays. Thus crystallization is achieved.

In such ways people can generate in themselves an enormous inner strength; they can endure torture; they can get what they want. This means that there is now in them something solid, something permanent.

Such people can become immortal. But what is the good of it? A man of this kind becomes an “immortal thing”, although a certain amount of consciousness is sometimes preserved in him. But even this, it must be remembered, occurs very rarely.

In what way can one evoke the struggle between “yes” and “no” in oneself?

Sacrifice is necessary. If nothing is sacrificed nothing is obtained. And it is necessary to sacrifice something precious at the moment, to sacrifice for a long time and to sacrifice a great deal. But still, not forever. This must be understood because often it is not understood. Sacrifice is necessary only while the process of crystallization is going on. When crystallization is achieved, renunciation, privations, and sacrifices are no longer necessary. 3 (Emphasis added.)

When I began to think about the why of the symbols of reality, I remembered this passage. Somehow, I felt, there was a connection. This passage seems to be saying, in opposition to many current teachings, that, as third density human beings, we may not be as special and chosen and wonderful as we have been taught to believe by most of the world’s religions and their offshoots. Gurdjieff’s comments just fly in the face of the standard New Age dogma, which, for the most part, says we are “special beings” even if we may have made a few nasty mistakes; it’s okay. A few lifetimes will straighten it all out and we will be right as rain. If we just think about good things, we can create a good reality because what we focus on is what we “create”, so we must forget altogether about bad or negative things, and “love is all you need”. La la la la la!

But Gurdjieff is saying that we are in prison and we have no hope of escaping without certain knowledge, the primary realization being that we ARE in prison. Further, that we cannot escape without help and group effort, and that this help cannot even be obtained or accessed without a certain “crystallization” or effort. He also seems to be saying that our concepts about our souls being integrated and consistent may be a bit egotistical, and possibly not a fact at all!

That’s pretty scary stuff!

At one point, Carlos Castaneda’s Don Juan told him:

We have a predator that came from the depths of the cosmos and took over the rule of our lives. Human beings are its prisoners. The predator is our lord and master. It has rendered us docile, helpless. If we want to protest, it suppresses our protest. If we want to act independently, it demands that we don’t do so… You have arrived, by your effort alone, to what the shamans of ancient Mexico called the topic of topics. I have been beating around the bush all this time, insinuating to you that something is holding us prisoner. Indeed we are held prisoner! This was an energetic fact for the sorcerers of ancient Mexico.

“Why has this predator taken over in the fashion that you’re describing, don Juan?” I asked. “There must be a logical explanation.”

“There is an explanation,” don Juan replied, “which is the simplest explanation in the world. They took over because we are food for them, and they squeeze us mercilessly because we are their sustenance. Just as we rear chickens in chicken coops, the predators rear us in human coops. Therefore, their food is always available to them.”

I felt that my head was shaking violently from side to side. I could not express my profound sense of unease and discontentment, but my body moved to bring it to the surface. I shook from head to toe without any volition on my part.

“No, no, no, no,” I heard myself saying. “This is absurd, don Juan. What you’re saying is something monstrous. It simply can’t be true, for sorcerers or for average men, or for anyone.”

“Why not?” don Juan asked calmly. “Why not? Because it infuriates you?”

“Yes, it infuriates me,” I retorted. “Those claims are monstrous!” […]

“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.4

Don Juan continues:

“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.”5

Note, most particularly, don Juan’s remark:

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.

Essentially, what is being said here is that “nothing is as it seems and never has been!” We can trust almost nothing, if anything at all, about our reality, if we try to read it through the lenses of our “systems of beliefs, our ideas of good and evil, our social mores.”

We are being informed by Gurdjieff, don Juan, and the Cassiopaeans, that our jailers are the ones who set up our beliefs, our hopes and expectations and dreams of success or failure — and we note that these things — our beliefs, hopes, dreams and ideas of good and evil — are all ideas that have been derived, over millennia, from essentially channeled sources. We consult priests, priestesses, pastors, the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, and nowadays endless channeled books because we are, as Mr. Topper noted, “concerned, in a very ordinary conceptual way… It would always be oh so helpful if we could see the future in advance, be informed of the respective consequences [of our choices]…”

And the many sources that we consult do, indeed, offer us the “answers”. Michael continues:

The myriad channeled voices to which we have been opened in recent years do indeed present an avalanche of prediction, of advice on principle and in particular, and a massive characterization of planes, states, levels and dimensions of reality which introduce whole other magnitudes to the ultimate questions of purpose and consequence.

So, what’s wrong with that? Isn’t it a good thing that we are being guided to think of our reality in something other than material terms? Isn’t it a generally good thing to be made aware that our lives have meaning in a larger, cosmic context? Isn’t it a good thing to have some hints and descriptions of higher levels of reality to which we may ascend if we adhere to the spiritual principles being presented to us? Don’t they pretty much agree, in principle, and does it matter one way or another whether one subscribes to this or that system? Don’t most of them say that there are “many paths to the mountain top?” Don’t they encourage us to “create your own reality”, to “get saved”, or whatever version is being offered?

Yet Gurdjieff, don Juan, and the Cassiopaeans are saying that we are prisoners, in opposition to the vast majority of other teachings.

The Cassiopaeans have said:

January 21, 1995

Q: (L) [Has the government been engaged in faking UFOs, abductions, and cattle mutilations] to protect themselves from the public knowing that they were engaged in alien interactions?

A: They do it to protect the public from knowing that which would explode society if discovered.

Q: (L) What is this item that they were protecting so that society or the public wouldn’t know about it. What activity is this?

A: Humans eat cattle; aliens eat you. […]

Q: (T) [You say] the government, our government, the U.S. government, is holding 36 alien craft of one kind or another that they have gotten in one way or another. How many other governments have craft?

A: All is one.

Q: (L) We already have a one-world government is what they’re saying. (T) Yes, they’re just waiting to make it official somehow.

A: Has been so for long time, as you measure time.

Q: (L) What is the “ultimate secret” being protected by the Consortium?

A: You are not in control of yourselves; you are an experiment.

December 26, 1998

Q: (L) Is the “buried treasure” of the Templars or Cathars, or whoever, manuscripts from the Alexandrian library telling about the true origin and nature of man?

A: Well if so, maybe that would explain the structure you live under.

Q: (L) What structure do we live under?

A: Forced choices.

This is not sounding very friendly, for sure! And there is something else to consider. The coming of Ra was, as far as I know, the first exposition of densities via a channeled source. But the idea of the “octaves of reality” as seven levels of experience was already being taught by Gurdjieff and in later offshoots of his work, and was certainly present in the ancient Sufi teachings. As far as anyone knows, Gurdjieff was taught in some of the secret Sufi centers of Asia Minor. He often alluded to man being “food for the Moon”, and what he was saying is pretty much equivalent to saying that third density is the prison and the only way to get out is to graduate to fourth density.

He made another curious remark that really grabbed me at one point.6 For the sake of comprehension, Gurdjieff described these different worlds, obviously meant to suggest densities, as:

1) Absolute

2) All Worlds

3) All Suns (Stars)

4) Sun

5) All Planets

6) Earth

7) Moon.

How these relate to densities can be understood by reading In Search of the Miraculous, however the point that gave me the shock came during the following exchange between Ouspensky and Gurdjieff. Ouspensky writes:

G. drew a small diagram and tried to explain what he called the “correlation of forces in different worlds”. This was in connection with the previous talk, that is, in connection with the influences acting on humanity.

The idea was roughly this: humanity, or more correctly, organic life on earth, is acted upon simultaneously by influences proceeding from various sources and different worlds… All these influences act simultaneously; one influence predominates at one moment and another influence at another moment. And for man there is a certain possibility of making a choice of influences; in other words, of passing from one influence to another… It is impossible to become free from one influence without becoming subject to another. The whole thing, all work on oneself, consists in choosing the influence to which you wish to subject yourself, and actually falling under this influence. And for this it is necessary to know beforehand which influence is the more profitable.

“In what relation does the intelligence of the earth stand to the intelligence of the sun?” I asked.

“The intelligence of the sun is divine,” said G. “But the earth can become the same; only, of course, it is not guaranteed and the earth may die having attained nothing.”

“Upon what does this depend?” I asked.

G’s answer was very vague.

There is a definite period,” he said, “for a certain thing to be done. If, by a certain time, what ought to be done has not been done, the earth may perish without having attained what it could have attained.”

“Is this period known?” I asked.

It is known,” said G. “But it would be no advantage whatever for people to know it. It would even be worse. Some would believe it; others would not believe it, yet others would demand proofs. Afterwards they would begin to break one another’s heads. Everything ends this way with people.”7 (Emphasis added.)

Gurdjieff is obviously, in my opinion, alluding to The Wave and the possibility of the Earth moving into fourth density and the graduation or “harvest” of some individuals to the fourth density state.

As we have noted, there are any number of probable futures at any given point of universe branching. It seems that these options may narrow as one approaches the moment of singularity — or branching. And it also seems that the direction the earth is heading, judging by the signs we observe in our environment, is NOT the future we want to manifest. The fact may be that it is the very work of our religions and beliefs and many of the current day channeled messages that have brought us to this perilous point, and that continue to propel us in this direction, so to say.

So, what I want to say is this: just as the teachings of the Cassiopaeans have produced a real change in my personal reality of so dramatic a nature, as well as having had similar effects in the lives of others who have begun to use this “Blueprint of Reality”, it may be that we have an opportunity to select a different future by becoming aware, and that this is also represented in Gurdjieff’s talk about being in prison.

First, one must become aware that one is in prison in order to even begin to think about how to get out. At some level, yes, it is a prison we have chosen when we entered third density. But, by entering, we have agreed to forget our true nature and to operate in the reality we are given for the purpose of learning. It does no real good to speak in terms of “cosmic oneness” and “we are, in our true natures, all-powerful beings,” because we don’t have access to those realities BY CHOICE. The chain of circumstance, the chain of choices, it seems, must be followed in logical steps of access. We may be able to accelerate our progress, but apparently, it is frowned on to try to “skip” over the lessons.

Very few there are who can meditate on Cosmic Oneness and — POOF! — just hop back to seventh density and be done with the whole mess. And, in real terms, it may be that this is not what is wanted at a deep level. I once asked the Cassiopaeans:

December 28, 1996

Q: (L) Well… is there any activity a person could do to stimulate their DNA to become superconductive?

A: No need. You would like to find an activity to stimulate [your youngest child] to grow up faster?

Q: (L) Of course not! She’s just a baby! She needs to have fun! Oh, I get it.

Remember what the Cassiopaeans said at the beginning of this section: “It is ‘fun’ to see how much you can access.” So, I don’t think the point is to just look for a short-cut to seventh density. The point is to “follow the Yellow Brick Road,” to engage in the adventure, and the task, at this moment, seems to consist in the fact that we are in prison and it is up to us to figure out how to get out.

But, it is impractical, for the sake of the lesson, to think of the prison as being non-existent unless we have created it. It has obviously been constructed from a level of reality that we are not yet capable of accessing, (again, because at a much higher level, we have chosen this drama); so it is useless to say, “If you don’t think about or focus on it, the prison won’t exist.” That becomes nonsensical when we consider the larger scope of the problem. We are in the prison. But, we are not in it because we think about it or focus on it at this level. In fact, if we don’t think about it or focus on it, learn all we can about it and the ways and means of escape, we will be choosing, by default, to continue to live within its walls!

If we are seeing our present state of limitation as a prison, and making efforts to escape, we have a hope of doing so — of learning the present lesson. If we decide to sit in our prison, in our present state of limitation — which is self evident — and “think it away” by not seeing it as a prison, we have done nothing but change the color of the walls or something similar. We have changed the appearance of the prison to that of a park or a luxury hotel. But, we have done nothing to emerge into the larger universe.

And it seems that we are misinformed by those sources that teach us that we can do this — just focus on or think about nice things — that you have access to all, that you are all “one” or whatever. To do so is to simply “take the blue pill” of The Matrix, to refuse to wake up, to remain available to feed more and more energy to the system that operates to keep us blind and captive. Yes, if you just think nice thoughts and “surround yourself with love and light,” you may certainly manifest an illusion of a paradise. But such illusions have a nasty way of collapsing. That is not to say that the makers of such illusions don’t have seemingly endless desire to patch such illusions and reconstruct them after each calamity; and, perhaps, after many lifetimes of such experiences, they reach the point of ultimate disillusionment that causes them to seek the true nature of reality as it is, and not as they would wish it to be, and then they begin to realize that they are in prison.

Most teachings and systems of belief are designed to perpetuate just such illusions. These systems are built almost exclusively on “faith”. And there is the rub, the real reason for the teaching that “you create your reality by what you think and focus on.” It is a defensive maneuver to conceal the true nature of the Cosmos!

In such teachings, nothing is allowed to challenge the system. The reason is: it is a fragile world that has to be protected at any cost. It is a theological domino that, if it is allowed to fall, all the rest of the lies and illusions begin to fall soon after. In such a system, all of life has to fit into place. That is, there really is no evil, and if there is apparent evil, it is only because you have allowed it to be apparent by thinking about it. No ambiguity on this point can be tolerated. Mystery is outlawed and doubt is exiled. All who believe differently are a threat and such persons must keep up their guard to protect themselves from such contamination. Of course, the best idea is to convert them by bombing them with love and light.

Faith, as it is generally understood, always seeks order in the midst of disorder; it builds habitable worlds in the midst of chaos and absurdity. Better to live in Awe of the mystery, to choose in the face of doubt, than to have faith in an illusion. Doubt is not the rival of faith. It is its sister. The opposite of faith is self-righteousness.

When we observe such systems built on faith, what do we see?

We see that such systems do a very funny thing: they end up producing acute guilt in those who don’t manage to manifest all they need and desire — which is generally everybody some of the time, and most people most of the time. And then, they proceed to sell the remedy for the guilt in the form of more teachings, more workshops, more seminars, more books, and more verbiage that is supposed to solve the problem. In effect, they are producing a syndrome, which they then “cure”. Only nobody seems to be noticing this little fact. In the beginning, for the drowning soul, such teachings seem to be a lifejacket — but they end up being a straitjacket.

Think about this: many people who are advocates of the “faith trip”, whether in the garb of standard religious teachings, or New Age versions of “you create your own reality”, (which amounts to the same thing), encounter the usual spate of life’s disappointments and heartbreak. The response is generally a pious assumption that God/the Self sent the experience for a purpose. When something positive happens/manifests, it is assumed that God/the Self has answered the prayer/affirmation.

The only problem with this is: when you begin to count the number of disappointment and successes, you find that the number is evenly distributed regardless of belief. You begin to understand that there is something else going on behind the scenes and those disappointments and successes are symbols of something else.

Yes, human failures and immaturity are an adequate explanation for about any of it, and that is the point: to learn about human failure and immaturity, to learn about the origins and causes of same, that it is a prison described by don Juan:

“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, and 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.”

When you begin to think about it this way, when you begin to think about third density and the domination of beings who represent “forces”, then you begin to realize that it is a prison — a maze — that has been chosen in order to learn.

One correspondent wrote:

I’m beginning to see what I can most simply call a “cult of the Lizzies”, i.e., an overwhelming concentration and fascination with same, to the point where endless rumination, endless “what if’s”, endless speculation on the causes of this and results of that begin to take over one’s daily thoughts.

We are here as sentient, aware beings, born into a physical world which is sometimes frustrating to some of us — but of which we are a part, and we cannot divide ourselves from the laws of our nature or the world’s nature, for it is not the right time.

This is very simple and should be obvious to all.

So as far as I am concerned, the Lizzies be damned, nor am I setting up the C’s as another substitute for a guru or godhead or all-wise source of wisdom. I personally find much of great interest in what they have to say, and I have learned to look around me with more open eyes than before, but keeping in mind what they have taught me, I shall continue to make my own decisions and follow my own conscience and personal intuition on life, love and the pursuit of happiness until I am wafted — wherever. Or left behind.

The point the writer is making, and which is valid, is this: it is as dangerous to use the Lizzies as a crutch or explanation for lack of success, as it is to say that we didn’t have enough faith in this or that exposition of reality.

But, it is also dangerous to say “the Lizzies be damned,” because that is not taking the full import of the imprisonment into account. Until we know the full nature of the prison and the habits and powers of the jailers, we have no hope of escaping. And, for some — it is true — it is not the right time. They have no desire to see or to examine the situation in the depth and detail required to become free.

But the examination of the situation must lead to something, or again, there is no point. And this is the crux of the matter: the Fruits agenda.

There is an interesting discussion of these matters in Ouspensky’s The Fourth Way. It is clear from obvious implications that we can infer that Gurdjieff knew about Lizzies, to one extent or another, though that may not have been the symbol system he was working with. Gurdjieff was Ouspensky’s teacher, and it is clear from research and hints given by Gurdjieff himself, that he was more or less putting his own spin on far more ancient teachings. In the following dialogue, it is Ouspensky answering the questions put to him by the audience at one of his meetings in the decade before his death in 1947:

Q: Do the many laws under whose influence we are produce the different “I’s” in us?

A: Yes, very many. Forces pass through man and he takes this as his own desires, sympathies, and attractions. But it is only forces passing through him from all directions.

Q: You said we are under the law of accident. From what source of influence does this law come? Can we be free from it?

A: Accident has many different manifestations. The simplest forms begin to disappear very quickly if we are more awake. But you cannot take this literally: this law is very big and many sided. It is a question of degree. Only in the Absolute are things absolute. For us it is a long stairway and on each step one is freer. If you are below, you cannot speak about what will happen when you are at the top. You can only say: “If I begin to work so as to be free from the law of accident, would my life be less chaotic?” Certainly if you have a permanent aim, you will be free from accidental aims.

Q: How can one extricate oneself from bad influences?

A: Before we can even think about “doing” we must try to understand what these influences are. This is a constant mistake that everybody makes always to think they can “do”. We cannot “do”, but if we know, we may change something. [And we can begin to know when we open ourselves to higher forces]… Higher forces or higher influences are normal, cosmic; but we can open ourselves to receive them, or shut ourselves off from them. If we are asleep, we are more closed to them, and the more we are asleep the more we are closed. If we awake, we open ourselves to higher influences.

Q: As we have not developed our higher centers, how do we receive the influences coming from higher worlds?

A: Our ordinary state is relative; in our best moments we are receptive to higher influences. They reach us through centres. Though we are not permanently connected with higher centres; they influence us if they are not too deeply buried, and something manages to reach us through them.

Q: What is the purpose of man’s existence?

A: Man and even mankind does not exist separately, but as a part of the whole of organic life. The earth needs organic life as a whole — men, animals, and plants. The Ray of Creation is a growing branch, and this communication is necessary in order that the branch may grow further. Everything is connected, nothing is separate, and smaller things, if they exist, serve something bigger… Organic life is a particular cosmic unit and man is a unit in this big mass of organic life. He has the possibility of further development, but this development depends on man’s own effort and understanding. It enters into the cosmic purpose that a certain number of men should develop, but not all, for that would contradict another cosmic purpose. Evidently mankind must be on earth and must lead this life and suffer. But a certain number of men can escape; this also enters into the cosmic purpose…

Q: Did you say it was intended that some of us should develop?

A: As far as we can see it is under the same law as, for instance, street accidents. It is well known that in every big town a certain number of people will be killed by traffic. Who will be killed is not determined, it need not necessarily be one or another person, but a certain number. In the same way, a certain number of people MAY have a chance of escape — but there is no must about it in this case. This is the difference.

Q: Are we given the possibility or must we create it in the teeth of circumstances?

A: The possibility is given. Every normal person has this possibility. The rest depends on us.

Q: How many laws does a man live under?

A: We do not know… It is not a question of catalogue but of understanding what the idea means. Man is not under one type of law but under many different types. First of all man, life, every creature on earth, lives under physical laws, which means that he can live only within certain limits of temperature. Then, there must be a particular amount of humidity in the air, and the air must be of a special chemical consistency for man to breathe. Man is also limited to a certain kind of food, which he can digest. These things are all laws for man. Then, coming to quite simple laws, there is, for instance, our ignorance. We do not know ourselves — this is a law. If we begin to know ourselves, we get rid of a law. We know that all men live under the law of identification… Those who begin to remember themselves begin to get rid of the law of identification. So in order to free oneself from laws it is first necessary to find one law from which one can liberate oneself, and get free from it. Then, when one has freed oneself from this law, one can find another. Again one liberates oneself, and so on. This is the practical way to study laws… There are laws, which hinder us on all sides or keep us in subjection…

Q: Can we get free?

A: We can — on conditions. The Ways enter here. The four Ways are ways of liberation from unnecessary laws. You can be shown the Way… but you must work yourself. Most of the laws we have to obey are the result of our sleep and our unconsciousness. Every step we make in becoming more conscious sets us more free. Suppose a man is satisfied with mechanical life; then he cuts himself off from higher influences [that could teach him how to awaken] and receives only influences [from lower levels, including his own inclinations]. Certainly he is then in a worse position than a man who receives influences from higher worlds. Many influences can be received mechanically, but many others need effort…8 (Emphasis added.)

Note particularly the following remarks extracted from the above excerpt:

The simplest forms [of accident or attack] begin to disappear very quickly if we are more awake. … If we know, we may change something. Every step we make in becoming more conscious sets us more free.

So in order to free oneself from laws it is first necessary to find one law from which one can liberate oneself, and get free from it. Then, when one has freed oneself from this law, one can find another. Again one liberates oneself, and so on. This is the practical way to study laws.

Thus, to know about the forces/laws, i.e., Lizzies, acting against us in the great Cosmic Drama of Creation is a crucial step in becoming Free. And we are going to begin to get into some of these examples in a very practical way. You remember that I said I was a practical person. I don’t like mumbo jumbo and nebulous, ambiguous statements that lead to no useful result, so I am going to share with you some of the things that we have learned along the way of becoming aware.

1 A tesseract is a four-dimensinoal cube or hypercube. Just as a three-dimensional cube is made of 6 two-dimensional faces, a hypercube is made up of 8 cubes. Four-dimensional space is hard to comprehend at first, so I refer the reader to discussions in Riding the Wave and the recommended reading listed there.

2 The reference that Topper is making here is to the fact that Ryerson’s personal life and behavior is not in keeping with that of a spiritual seeker, that his normal speech is full of prurient and scatological remarks. From Patrick O’Reilly’s “Channeling: A Skeptical View” ( skepticism _channeling.htm): “Kevin Ryerson is a “trance channel” who has achieved fame and riches. He was brought to the public’s attention through the books of Shirley McLaine. Ryerson’s message is that we are all divine and he has created a strange cosmology that includes, among many other aspects, chakras, intuition and ecology. Ryerson has frequently been on television talk shows, has written popular books about his channeled messages, and holds workshops at which he channels his particular entities. According to him, our society is devoid of healing psychic imagery, so we allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by technology. We must step out of our world into a sacred mandala. Kevin Ryerson — at one time — charged ‘$250 per session, has had so many inquiries at his San Francisco office that he is referring business to other channelers.’”

3 P.D. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous: Fragments of an Unknown Teaching (San Diego: Harvest/HBJ, 1977).

4 Carlos Castaneda, The Active Side of Infinity (HarperCollins, 1998), pp. 213-20.

5 Ibid.

6 I recommend the reader obtain a copy of Ouspensky’s In Search of the Miraculous to get a good background in these matters. I have condensed his thoughts in the following.

7 Ibid.

8 P.D. Ouspensky, The Fourth Way (New York: Vintage Books, 1971).