Oneness With God?
writes to Laura: Forgive me if I seem skeptical, but some of the information
on this incredibly intruiging site seems kinda far-fetched.
club! As you read through some of the transcripts, you may note my regular
expressions of incredulity. As I suggested in the "Disclaimer,"
we are not into "belief," we are into research. We did a lot
of work for many years that ultimately led to this contact. (See "Amazing
Grace" for some of the details, though an upcoming book will go into
this far more thoroughly) and, rather than reject it all because there
were truly outrageous things being said that we did not like or want to
think were true, we decided to just start checking things out. The upcoming
book mentioned, as well as a lot that we are trying to get posted to this
site, will detail the results of this checking and cross-checking process.
To say that we have found an enormous amount of information from mainstream
researchers with no "agendas" in these matters, is an understatement.
careful of what I allow to enter my reality, and many of the things
on this page are very interesting. Some things even ring a bell with
me, and I find myself agreeing with what is being said, but...
I had a similar
experience when reading Ouspensky's "In Search of the Miraculous."
You might want to have a look at this book. I confess to having nearly
destroyed a perfectly good copy by repeatedly throwing it across the room
when it said something that I did not wish to allow to "enter my
reality," yet when the "ringing bell" would finally intrude
and signal to me that, perhaps I had better take another look, I would
retrieve the book and read on for another page or two before the book
went flying again.
a problem with the whole Lizzies scenario. I've heard of Reptoids before...
lizard like entities that are malicious in nature and are trying to
manipulate people and have power over them.
history and in all cultures, all myths, all religions... they are ubiquitous.
We have to ask ourselves "Why?" And this is the first step in
a long process of digging in what is now being called "Archaeomythology."
The easy answer given to us by material science is that these stories
and images and archaeological artifacts are the result of archaic man's
attempts to explain the Order of the Universe in the face of his scientific
naivete. But, there ARE other explanations, as one finds when the records
are searched diligently. As I noted above, I am going to TRY to put all
of this research together into a book so that others will have a more
or less condensed view of literally 30 years of work.
course, there is the "modern" phenomenon of the "alien
abduction" scenario. But, when one digs into the past, as described
above, one finds that it is not really "modern" at all - these
beings have been with us for millennia. They are just appearing now in
a new outfit to match our understanding of the Order of the Universe,
i.e. space travel.
I don't get it. Why would a group of beings, in a higher vibration than
we are (4th density) seek to control others?
and most concise explanation actually has been written by another gentleman,
Tom, whose letter is posted on the Q&Amp;A page right after your own.
enlightenment come with the ascension into higher densities?
all like to think so! And it has certainly been a tenet of religious faith,
and the New Age versions of the old Belief Systems that are presently
being propounded. But, a deep study of this matter, as well as experience
in the realms of psychical phenomena tends to show that this is not the
"students of metaphysics" and there are STUDENTS of Metaphysics
in this world. The former could be described as "hobbyists,"
or dilletantes, who wish to be entertained or thrilled or excited, or
they simply want to be avant garde. This has always been the case. But,
when things begin to get difficult or truly scary, they "pull down
the blinds of the personal myth" and "hear no evil, see no evil,
speak no evil."
vast systems of belief incorporating what they would LIKE to be true -
what they DESIRE to be true. But, it seems that truth is little affected
by liking and desire. The general result is that, not only do they make
themselves vulnerable, they also close the door of knowledge for others
who then are also vulnerable.
STUDENTS are those who ask questions. They belong to what I call the "Missourian
School of Metaphysics." They never accept anything at face value;
they experiment, they dig, they check sources and claims and challenge
what they are told with "Show me!" And they do this with the
full awareness that truly ASKING a question can be extremely dangerous...
the answer can be a whirlwind that sweeps away all of one's comfortable,
warm and fuzzy belief systems.
terms of this question: in my work as a hypnotherapist, I found that there
are innumerable "souls" that are "lost" in darkness,
so to speak, as a result of erroneous "religious teachings"
about what one should truly expect after death. This problem is enormous
in scope, and staggering in its implications. If our religious (and now
New Age) teachings create so much suffering - and I DO mean create - then
what can possibly be at the root of them? This is another matter I will
be detailing in the above mentioned book that is in process.
why would anyone waste their time trying to control those of lower densities?
Why bother? What's their alterior motive? Why wouldn't they seek to
enter into higher states of consciousness instead wasting "time" with
3rd density beings?
many angles to this question. One of the first is the very idea of "time"
being wasted. What do you suggest that they do? As Tom pointed out in
his post, if everyone, every single consciousness unit of creation, had
the same objective and motive, there would simply be NO creation.
I once pointed
out to a woman who was declaring that her purpose in life was to "convert
the darkness to light," to "spiritualize matter," and to
"bomb the blighters with love and light" so that they would
see the error of their ways and "go home to God," that what
she was actually proposing was to "kill" God - to bring His
creation to an end, to put Him back into perpetual, blissful sleep of
non-existence. Further, that she was proposing to do this by the very
act of judging that what was a part of creation was "evil" in
her judgment. God must have made a mistake; or, worse, there was a "rebellion"
against God, which implies an intrinsic error in Creation, and it was
her job, and the job of all others who felt that they were completely
informed about the "goodness" or "evilness" of different
matters, (thereby justifying their judgment) to bring the whole thing
to a screeching halt. This is clearly an act of violation of Free Will,
the most important law of Creation.
is related to this idea:
Q: (L) Okay, now Eddie writes: 'Laura brought up several comments about
Love that confused me. I do not understand how could giving love when
not being asked could harm instead of improve.' Can you remark on this?
A: "Giving" love is not giving, in such a case.
Q: So, if you give love when you have not been asked, you are NOT giving?
A: You are taking, as usual.
Q: When you say you are 'taking,' what are you taking?
A: Energy, a la STS.
Q: How does it come that you are taking energy from someone by giving
them love when not asked?
A: Because an STS vehicle does not learn to be an STO candidate by determining
the needs of another.
Q: I don't understand how that means you are taking energy?
A: Because the act is then one of self-gratification. If one "gives"
where there is no request, therefore no need, this is a free will violation!
And besides, what other motivation could there possibly be in such a
scenario?!? Think carefully and objectively about this.
Q: My thought would be that, in such a scenario, that if one gives love
to someone who has not asked or requested, that it seems to be a desire
to change the other, i.e. a desire to control. It is a judgment.
A: You got it!!
Q: Now he says further: 'Yes, everything is lessons and if a person
has chosen a specific path they should be allowed to go and learn their
way. But, let's say this is happening to someone you really love. And
let's say that the person may be in a period of his life that his/her
thoughts are probably taking her/him to commit, let's say, a murder.
Don't you think that if you send this person love, even unconsciously,
that it may provide the necessary energy or influence to stop that murder?'
A: No, no, no!!! In fact, if anything, such an energy transference even
could enhance the effect. Imbalanced waves could be drawn upon by the
[I will insert
here a small bit from another session that relates to this]
Q: One of the things I have learned is that these individuals seem to
attach via some sort of psychic hook that enters through our reactions
of pity. Can you comment on the nature of pity?
A: Pity those who pity.
Q: But, the ones who are being pitied, who generate sensations of pity,
do not really pity anybody but themselves.
Q: Then, is it true as my son said, when you give pity, when you send
love and light to those in darkness, or those who complain and want
to be "saved" without effort on their own part, when you are kind in
the face of abuse and manipulation, that you essentially are giving
power to their further disintegration, or contraction into self- ishness?
That you are powering their descent into STS?
A: You know the answer!
Q: I think that this word he used is a clue: 'Don't you think that if
you send the person love, it could provide the person the necessary
energy', and he has the word 'influence' there which implies control
of the other person's behavior, to 'stop that murder.' So, it seems
that there is a desire to control the actions of another person.
Q: But, his intent is entirely benevolent because he wants to stop a
murder which is the saving of a life, as well as prevent the loved one
from going to prison. So, it SEEMS to be benevolent in intent. Does
this not make a difference?
A: Have we forgotten about Karma?
Q: Well, both Sylvia and I mentioned the fact that one cannot always
judge these situations because we don't know. We cannot know. For all
we know the potential murder victim is an Adolf Hitler type or the potential
parent of one, or something like that, and then the murder would save
many lives with the sacrifice of two lives, or that this murder is supposed
to happen because of some karmic interaction that is essential between
the murderer and victim, and that we simply cannot KNOW these things
and judge them.
Q: Eddie further says: 'I believe that if we do not send love energy
to the world that the egocentric STS energy will be dominating.
A: Why would one choose to send this? What is the motivation?
Q: I guess the motivation would have to be to change it to your idea
of what it is supposed to be. To control it to follow your judgment
of how things ought to be.
A: Exactly. The students are not expected to be the architects of the
Q: So, when you seek to impose or exert influence of any kind, you are,
in effect, trying to play God and taking it upon yourself to decide
that there is something wrong with the universe that it is up to you
to fix, which amounts to judgmen?
A: Yes, you see, one can advise, that is okay, but do not attempt to
alter the lesson.
Q: He also says: 'I believe that an enlightened being is emanating love
where ever that person is, and this is even without being asked. It
just happens because that is what they are - love.' Comment, please.
A: An enlightened being is not love. And a refrigerator is not a highway.
Q: What?! Talk about your mixed metaphors! I don't get that one!
A: Why not?
Q: They are completely unrelated!
Q: What IS an enlightened being?
A: An enlightened being.
Q: What is the criteria for being an enlightened being?
A: Being enlightened!
Q: What I am trying to get to is an understanding of an enlightened
being. Eddie and a LOT of other people have the idea that an enlightened
being IS LOVE, and that is what they radiate, and that this is a result
of being enlightened.
A: No, no, no, no, no. "Enlightened" does not mean good. Just smart.
Q: Okay, so there are STS and STO enlightened beings?
A: Yes, we believe the overall ratio is 50/50.
Q: Okay, what is the profile of an enlightened STO being?
A: An intelligent being who only gives.
Q: Well, since we have dealt with the idea of not giving love to those
who don't ask, what do they give and to whom do they give it?
A: All; to those who ask.
Q: Which implies that an STS being is one who gives to those who have
not asked. The problem is, of course, the "asking." Some people
ask, but what they really want is a confirmation of what they already
believe, and if you give them an answer they don't like, they reject
it, even if it is truth, because it does not serve there desires or
their emotional agendas. Somebody who really asks, is completely open
to consider any answer, and to investigate and "try it on"
and so forth.
Q: Eddie says: 'As you can see, I believe in the power of love. I am
open to try to understand that which I have not yet been able to. Perhaps
that is why I am here with you guys. So, could we talk more about this
subject? Could provide more of what the C's have said about Love?' I
collected the excerpts from the text about love and how you had said
that Knowledge was love and light was knowledge and all that. Anything
further you can add to that?
A: No, because the receiver to this does not wish to receive.
fact, this proved to be the case. After these answers were given, "Eddie"
never corresponded again because he did not "like" them; they
did not agree with what he believed.]
Sylvia responded: 'Eddie thank you for your pointing out the paradox
of the concept of the expression of love between what the C's say and
what some of us think we know. I feel that it may be very difficult
for the C's to deliver adequate understanding into our 3rd density or
dimension. [...] My view of the paradox is thus: If one emanates love
as a natural course to the Universe it is not consciously limited or
directed; that simply is the way some of us are a lot of the 'time.'
To eliminate groups or individuals by sending them, specifically, love
and light to "change" them is beyond my comprehension; on
has to constantly define or judge (though a lot of this is done unconsciously
anyway); and it certainly would compromise my experience of sending
love. Unless one is Bodhisattva, love is probably only directed with
greater intensity when focused toward an individual; in other cases,
how is one to know whether the intended recipient is not ready/able
to receive?' [...] And 'receive,' I think is a clue: the intended recipient
can either remain oblivious or ward off the love energy - free agency.
Q: If it IS 'love energy' is it subsequently corrupted by STS? Can they
use our 'love energy' for evil purposes if we send it?
Q: She then says: 'Giving love to the Universe may be the best way generally,
but if one does focus toward a loved one and it CAN be effective, could
the general Universe be JUST as effective?'
A: The universe is about balance. Nuff said!
like that whole bit from the movie Contact about trying to exterminate
a few microbes on an anthill in Africa. . .what's the point?
If one considers
the idea that human beings, individually or in groups, can be "extensions"
of higher density beings, just as your fingers are an extension of your
hand, and your hand of your arm, and your arm of your body, and your body
of your brain, and your brain of your soul/mind, then it is much easier
to contemplate the interest and interaction. I think it is a product of
erroneous, self-abnegating religious teachings to think of humanity as
a "microbe" or a "virus" or something in need of "saving"
because of "original sin."
if these Lizzies do, in fact, have evil intentions. . why is this? Aren't
they part of the Whole too? They are One with God just like we all are,
and this being so... the concepts of "good" and "evil" are meaningless...
Now you are
getting the idea. In an "anti-universe," Time must flow in the
direction opposite to ours... and that does not mean that they start out
old and get young, but that the flow of time, is going another way; but,
to the inhabitants of an "anti-universe," our universe is an
"anti-universe"; like mirror images. Which position you are
in determines your perspective. This is why the Cassiopaeans specify the
difference between STS and STO, rather than good and evil. STS is inward
turning, implosive, disintegrative, and seeks to absorb all to itself
in order to "return to God." To such a mind, at 3rd density
level, the expression: "kill them all, let God sort them out,"
makes perfect sense. To such a mind, converting everyone and everything
to a single thought of "love and light," makes perfect sense.
Therefore, it can be seen as the well-concealed energy behind the "Unitive"
teachings of most religions that are presented as loving, caring, and,
most of all, proselytizing and converting! This is why the STS image is
the pyramid... a vast, pyramidal "food chain," so to speak.
motivation of the STS mode is FEAR, plain and simple; FEAR OF CREATION.
Fear that some part of the self will be "lost" in the process.
Jealousy which drives the engine of reabsorbing all the energy into self.
The fear is expressed in the desire to find a "Savior" who will
"reconcile" them with God.
STO, on the
other hand, is expanding, creative, joyful in playful creation, curious,
active, out-raying, and, most of all: NOT AFRAID! STO is full of un-conditional
love for all that exists AS IT IS, because it is a manifestation of the
Creator which is the Created.
surely, these Lizzies can't be all bad.
does not follow from your previous remark except to relate it to that
of perspective. Yes, they can be "ALL BAD" from the perspective
of STO, but from their own perspective they are all good, and from the
perspective of the ALL, they are neither, for, as Ra said: "The All
blinks neither at the darkness nor at the light."
if they are, why don't other 4th density beings help them grow into
a positive reality tunnel or something?
STO beings would not violate Free Will in this way.
all, nobody can reunite with the One until we ALL do, correct?
that what you want?
for all of the questions, I'm just really curious about this.
to apologize. Curious is good. That's what Creation is all about: infinite
potential in infinite permutations in infinite BEing.
You are visitor number .