A reader writes to Laura: Thank you for your courage to publicise such an amazing site. I often find myself surprised by the depth of the answers you receive. It seems that the seemingly cheeky and elusive responses contain hidden meaning and just beg for attention.
Amazingly, for a long time now, I have been contemplating similar issues. Certain ideas began to come to me and basically caused my rebellion against organised relligion – I love to analyse and deliberate. Still, the thoughts were rather private and I didin’t even suspect that anyone else might share them. But then I found your site and experienced shock at the similarity of the C’s responses and my own deliberations. This is what convinced me that there is something real in this phenomenon – after all, having been raised in a Christian environment without the exposure to any of these radical ideas, it is hard to JUST HAPPEN TO think up something of this sort.
When C’s mentioned that some people just channel ideas without knowing it – maybe that is what is happening to me on an ongoing basis.
This is also where my question is coming from:
The other day I had this bizarre thought about the purpose of life. I thought that the only purpose is to progress onto higher levels of consciousness and eventually give life to other forms in the universe (not just life but also stars and so on). And this would take place since as we progress in the levels, we eventually become one – sort of unified energy and the process starts from the beginning – that unified energy gives life to the stars (being the beginning of life). I also thought that you cannot go backwards in this process, at worst you will halt.
What would be your or C’s response to that? Is the purpose of life to give or continue life (existence) (I do not mean the Christian procreation but the universal, long-term meaning of the process)? Is this the Great Cycle mentioned so often in your transcripts?
I would like to conclude by making a request and a critical observation.
The interviews seem to focus more on the scientific side of life. That is very interesting but how about, for a change, trying to challenge some ‘universal truth’ promoted by religion? You could do some research on the more human activities like marriage, love, sexual permissiveness, homosexuality, religious fundamentalism, violence. Or inquire about the issues that have not been resolved so far like the origin of structures, their purpose, races, DNA, various illnesses? The phenomenon can be used to shed light on a more varied array of issues than just how to get into such and such density.
Since I have known about this site for only a couple of days, I’d decided to download the entire concept and bring myself “up to speed”. I’ve read most of the articles and noticed some inconsistencies, eg.:
-with regards to the piramids it is first stated that they were built to gather cosmic rays. Couple of years later, in comparison with the Stonehange, it is said that the piramids are used to gather amient megnetic energy from the atmosphere and the English site is used for the cosmic energy. Why?
-in one place I read that 19 deg. is a significant figura with relation to some magnetic disturbances in the Universe and on Earth (volcanoes eg.). Then the figure 18 takes precedence. Why is it changed? In the case of Earth is it because of the magnetic shift?
I choose to learn.
Adam Kozielski
Brisbane, Queensland Australia
Thank you for your courage to publicise such an amazing site. I often find myself surprised by the depth of the answers you receive. It seems that the seemingly cheeky and elusive responses contain hidden meaning and just beg for attention.
Hi Adam!
We had a good laugh at this assessment! It is so true. They are VERY clever and subtle sometimes, and even use anagrams and little snippets of poetry sometimes to convey a secret without violating our Free Will.
Amazingly, for a long time now, I have been contemplating similar issues. Certain ideas began to come to me and basically caused my rebellion against organised relligion – I love to analyse and deliberate. Still, the thoughts were rather private and I didin’t even suspect that anyone else might share them. But then I found your site and experienced shock at the similarity of the C’s responses and my own deliberations. This is what convinced me that there is something real in this phenomenon – after all, having been raised in a Christian environment without the exposure to any of these radical ideas, it is hard to JUST HAPPEN TO think up something of this sort.
I would have to agree. You are lucky that it came to you in this way, because I have had to struggle very hard sometimes against my own programming! Sometimes when an idea you hold very close is proven to be wrong – not just because the Cassiopaeans say so, but because you find other compelling evidence – it is like a little death to let go of it!
When C’s mentioned that some people just channel ideas without knowing it – maybe that is what is happening to me on an ongoing basis.
Sounds like it to me. They have said that they are also in contact with some others in different ways… but told us that we would have to discover who the others are ourselves. As I noted above to Alex, this is one of the reasons for the website.
This is also where my question is coming from:
The other day I had this bizarre thought about the purpose of life. I thought that the only purpose is to progress onto higher levels of consciousness and eventually give life to other forms in the universe (not just life but also stars and so on). And this would take place since as we progress in the levels, we eventually become one – sort of unified energy and the process starts from the beginning – that unified energy gives life to the stars (being the beginning of life). I also thought that you cannot go backwards in this process, at worst you will halt.
What would be your or C’s response to that? Is the purpose of life to give or continue life (existence) (I do not mean the Christian procreation but the universal, long-term meaning of the process)? Is this the Great Cycle mentioned so often in your transcripts?
You got it!
A: Here comes a shocker for you… one day, in 4th density, it will be your descendants mission to carry on the tradition and assignment of seeding the 3rd density universe, once you have the adequate knowledge!!! I would like to conclude by making a request and a critical observation.
The interviews seem to focus more on the scientific side of life. That is very interesting but how about, for a change, trying to challenge some ‘universal truth’ promoted by religion? You could do some research on the more human activities like marriage, love, sexual permissiveness, homosexuality, religious fundamentalism, violence. Or inquire about the issues that have not been resolved so far like the origin of structures, their purpose, races, DNA, various illnesses? The phenomenon can be used to shed light on a more varied array of issues than just how to get into such and such density.
Well, we have, at present, over a thousand pages of material. There is a great deal of this on the very subjects you have outlined. The thing has been that we decided to begin with dealing with issues that would help people to “wake up” and realize the peril they were in at the present time – to resist, to become aware, to learn about the environment of deception all around in the most immediate way. Naturally, some of this is shocking.
I am a “history buff” if you want to call it that, and I did spend about two years covering all the historical stuff I could think of. I would actually go through books to find “historical mysteries” that had never been explained and compose long lists of questions. For me, it was like being a kid in a candy shop – what direction to choose? What question to ask first? As a result, all of this information is a complete jumble, jumping from one subject to another. But, the Cassiopaeans were not only very patient, their answers were consistent and had internal integrity. The picture that emerged of the history of the Earth and our various civilizations is astonishing. Yes, it mirrors some other channelled information, but also introduces many things that explain problems other channelled as well as mainstream research has never been able to satisfactorily resolve – such as the origin of the Aryan race. It is also information that reveals -literally – the “Secret of the Grail.” I cannot overemphasize how stunning some of this material is going to be.
I WILL be getting this material together and make it available! It is an enormous job, to say the least, even with all the clever computer tools I have at my disposal. It will include not only what the Cassiopaeans have said, but the results of independent research in more traditional disciplines of history, archaeology, paleontolgy and sociology. To me, it is an exciting project, but daunting as well.
Since I have known about this site for only a couple of days, I’d decided to download the entire concept and bring myself “up to speed”. I’ve read most of the articles and noticed some inconsistencies, eg.:
-with regards to the piramids it is first stated that they were built to gather cosmic rays. Couple of years later, in comparison with the Stonehange, it is said that the piramids are used to gather amient megnetic energy from the atmosphere and the English site is used for the cosmic energy. Why?
-in one place I read that 19 deg. is a significant figura with relation to some magnetic disturbances in the Universe and on Earth (volcanoes eg.). Then the figure 18 takes precedence. Why is it changed? In the case of Earth is it because of the magnetic shift?
I don’t know. These are questions that are going to have to be addressed. It could be as simple as the idea that they are referring to different things, but the fact that the numbers are so close would tend to make me think that this is not the explanation. Very often, and people should always keep this in mind, the strong beliefs of guests present at the sessions have “skewed” the material – rather like turning on a vacuum cleaner in front of the television. I did an analysis at one point and discovered this “problem.” I then asked the Cassiopaeans about it:
Q: (L) I have a question about some discrepancies in information from last Saturday compared to previous information. What is the cause of this?
A: Static.
Q: (L) There was static?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What was the source of the static?
A: Static always present to some degree. If corrupted, came from 3rd level.
Q: (L) Was there an element of… I don’t want to lead here… my impression was that the group was in a state of tension, is this correct?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Well, I felt a little strange about this. J___ was expressing certain ideas that I felt were incorrect, and then the information reflected this same attitude and content. What’s the story here?
A: If there is strong prejudice by any member or members of level three channel participants it may cause messages to be altered at the point of reception.
Q: (L) Well, it seems that the prejudice came through in a specific way.
A: Yes. Result of strong prejudice.. Careful not to make hasty moves based upon events which may be transitory in nature.
Q: (L) Is there any qualification that needs to be established for us to get absolutely un-corrupted answers? Is there some thing we have to do, or be, or think, or say?
A: Completely pure intent, i.e. open.
Q: (L) Completely open?
A: Nonanticipatory.
Q: (L) Our anticipation can constrict the channel when we ask for information to which we have an emotional attachment?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) So, we have to be completely uncaring whether we get it or not, so to speak?
A: Happy-go-lucky attitude helps. As you were before.
Q: (L) So, as long as we are worried, tense, anticipatory, and attached to the idea, we constrict the flow?
A: Yes.
And then, later:
Q: Is there some issue about asking this question of accuracay that needs to be addressed? One main thing that we have discuss is: the presence of certain persons. Some sessions were more accurate than others depending upon who was present…
A: You got it!!!
Q: Therefore, it would be difficult to assess an accuracy rating for the C’s themselves… But, we CAN assess the material itself, the total body of transcripts; keeping in mind that some parts can be more accurate than others…
A: 71.7.
Q: Okay, that takes into account corruption from different people, typos, reconstruction, and so forth. And, the same ideas of corruption apply to the any other channelled Material… If we deduct the parts of the material which consists of the remarks and discussions of the group itself, which is probably more than 20 percent, but we will use 20 percent just to be conservative, that leaves the Cassiopaean material itself at about 91 percent accuracy. That’s not bad. But also, not 100 percent, either.
So, you see, this is why I tell people to analyze, test, check, study and learn. As hard as we try to keep the environment “clean,” for this work, it is still difficult. We have had to give up completely having “guests” at the sessions because time and again they came expecting to have their assumptions confirmed. We had the “Hoagland” aficianados present at the session where the 19.5 degrees business was given, and it was just us when the 18 degree answer was given. Some people are more emotionally “powerful” and therefore create more static. At times, when a sensitive question was being asked,(particularly those related to religious teachings) the tension in the room was so thick you could cut it with a knife! At other times, the differing beliefs of those present could and did cancel each other out and we managed to get something through that was fairly clear. But, there is a downside to that, too… it can result in the answer: “Open” or “up to you” or “maybe” or other non-answers. Yes, in some cases these ARE appropriate answers, but when a lot of non-answers occur in any given session, I start looking for hidden agendas in myself or the participants. The issue of anticipation is so tricky!
Q: (L) OK, we’ve been talking earlier this evening about intent, and of course, our own experiences with intent have really been pretty phenomenal. We’ve come to some kind of an idea that intent, when confirmed repeatedly, actually builds force. Is this a correct concept, and is there anything that you can add to it?
A: Only until anticipation muddies the picture… tricky one, huh?
Q: (L) Is anticipation the act of assuming you know how something is going to happen?
A: Follows realization, generally, and unfortunately for you, on 3rd density. You see, once anticipation enters the picture, the intent can no longer be STO.
Q: (L) Anticipation is desire for something for self. Is that it?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) OK, so it’s OK to intend something, or to think in an intentional way, or to hope in an intentional way, for something that is to serve another, but anticipation defines it as a more personal thing.
A: And that brings realization.
Q: (L) So, wanting to serve others, and to do something because it will help others, brings realization…
A: But, realization creates anticipation.
Q: (L) Well, how do we navigate this razor? I mean, this is like walking on a razor’s edge. To control your mind to not anticipate, and yet, deal with realization, and yet, still maintain hope… (J) They said it was tricky… (L) This is, this is, umm…
A: Mental exercises of denial, balanced with pure faith of a nonprejudicial kind.
Q: (L) OK, so, in other words, to just accept what IS at the moment, appreciate it as it is at the moment, and have faith that the universe and things will happen the way they are supposed to happen, without placing any expectation on how that will be?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) This is… this is something we have talked about in terms of shaping the future. We talk about shaping the future as an intentional act of shaping something good, but without defining the moment of measurement. In other words, adding energy to it by intent, but not deciding where, when or how the moment of measurement occurs. When the quantum jump occurs, it occurs on it’s own, and in it’s own way. Is this the concept we are dealing with here?
A: Avoiding anticipation is the key to shaping the future. When realization that you are doing it hits you, it stops unless you cancel out all anticipation.
Yet, conversely, we are told to “anticipate” attack and take action against it.
A: Lesson number 1: Always expect attack.
Lesson number 2: Know the modes of same.
Lesson number 3: Know how to conteract same.
Just remember that anticipation is the “mother of preparation,” and defense.
So, it comes down to being completely “open” yet intentional for positive action in our lives, and being anticipatory, and thus “closed and protected” to prevent negative occurrences. This is rather the opposite of most teachings about “creating your own reality,” yet we have found that it works amazingly! It’s like anticipating all the things in your house that can hurt a small child, taking precautions, and thus averting accidents.
There is another interesting idea connected to this: We notice a regular series of “prophecies” that more or less go “splat,” and don’t happen… over and over again the assorted prophets of history and our time make predictions that do not come true. Things like Photon Belts, Mass Landings, catastrophes of various kinds and so on. A prophecy gets made, everyone gets excited and worried, and nothing happens. Why is this? Could it be that the anticipation actually “blocks” the occurrence… “ties up the line,” so to speak; sort of like waiting for an important phone call, but instead of leaving the phone line open, one starts to call everyone to tell them that an important phone call is coming – only it CAN’T because the line is tied up!
I read somewhere, and wrote in my notes:
“Negative existence is the silence behind the sound, the blank canvas beneath the painting, the darkness into which light shines. Emptiness is the stillness against which time moves. Negative existence enables a man to be what he is. It is the mirror of mirrors. Non-anticipation is non-interference, and allows the most perfect reflection of creation.” I thought that this was a nice way to express it.
Q: Would you please tell us what constitutes objectivity?
A: The effort on the part of the observer to leave prejudice “at the door.”
Q: Okay, what is the distinction? You say that objectivity is the ATTEMPT on the part of the observer to leave prejudice at the door.
A: Without consciousness, there is neither objective or subjective!!
Q: So the crux is the attempt to leave prejudice at the door in the same manner as one would be non-anticipatory in order to create?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, that is a VERY tricky… (A) Is consciousness objective?
A: Consciousness is objective, until it has the capacity to choose to be otherwise.
Q: What is the stimulus for the change, for the giving of the capacity to choose?
A: The introduction of prejudice.
Q: In a cosmic sense, cosmic consciousness, in the sense of The One Unified Consciousness, what is the stimulus there for the ability to choose?
A: When the journey has reached union with The One, all such lessons have been completed.
Once again, thank you for your fantastic site. I am a really big fan of your experiment. I wish I could be a witness to the fascinating events.
Well, we try to make it like “home” here so that everybody who wants to participate can feel like they are here with us! If we could get a large enough group of really “open minded” and “non-anticipating” folks together, who knows what would happen?
I choose to learn.
Adam K.
It is certainly fun!
Laura
Discover more from Cassiopaea
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.