Q: (L) Toren, the first thing on my mind is an experience I
had several nights ago. It seemed as though there was
some sort of interaction between myself and something
"other." Could you tell me what this experience was?
A: Was eclipsing of the realities.
Q: (L) What is an eclipsing of the realities?
A: It is when energy centers conflict.
Q: (L) What energy centers are conflicting?
A: Thought energy centers.
Q: (L) Whose thoughts?
A: Ahh, we're getting ahead of ourselves, are we not?
Thoughts are the basis of all creation. After all,
without thought nothing would exist. Now would it?
Q: (L) True.
A: Therefore, energy centers conflicting involve thought
patterns. You could refer to it as an intersecting of
thought pattern energies.
...
Q: (L) Well, it seemed to me that something happened to me
that blanked out a period of my experience, and you say
this was an eclipsing of energies caused by an
intersecting of thought centers. Now, this intersecting
of thought centers, did this occur within my body or
within my environment?
A: They are one and the same.
Q: (L) Was this eclipsing of though centers brought on by any
of my activities?
A: Well, again we must ask you to slow down in your own
perceptions for just a moment, for one sees the truest of
answers when one is open to all possible responses and is
not prejudiced. And again, unfortunately we sense a
leading in your seeking of answers which indicates
prejudice which is perfectly alright, however one would
assume that one seeks the truest of all possible answers
and prejudice does not allow that. So, if it would be
possible, please try to ask questions that do not lead to
any particular type of conclusion.
Q: (L) Can I ask about my specific perceptions of the event?
A: That is what you are already doing. We sense that you
desire the truest of all possible answers and if one
desires the truest of all possible answers, one must avoid
expressing one's own perceptions to any great degree and
simply allow the answers to flow. The best advice to
accomplish this is a step-by-step approach - to ask the
simplest of questions with the least amount of prejudice
attached.
Q: (L) Alright. I was lying in bed worrying about being able
to get to sleep. The next thing I knew, I came to myself
feeling that I was being floated off my bed. Was I?
A: No. When you say "I" you are referring to your whole
person. There is more than one factor involved with one's
being to any particular definition.
Q: (L) Was some part of my being being separated from another
part of my being?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Was this an attempt to extract my soul or astral body?
A: Attempt is not probably the proper term.
Q: (L) In other words...
A: It is more just an activity taking place. Attempt implies
effort rather than the nature present in a conflicting of
energies and thought centers.
Q: (L) I also seemed to be aware of several dark, spider-like
figures lined up by the side of the bed, was this an
accurate impression.
A: Those could be described as specific thought center
projections.
Q: (L) I seemed to be fighting and resisting this activity.
A: That was your choice.
....
Q: (L) Alright, was this the ending of an abduction that had
already taken place?
A: Not the proper terminology. It was the conclusion to an
event, not necessarily what one would refer to as an
abduction, but more what one would refer to as an
interaction.
Q: (L) What was the nature of the interaction?
A: The conflicting of energies related to thought center
impulses.
Q: (L) Where are these thought centers located?
A: Well, that is difficult to answer because that is assuming
that thought centers are located. And, of course this is
a concept area in which you are not fully familiar as of
yet. So, an attempt to answer this in any way that would
make sense to you would probably not be fruitful. We
suggest slowing down and carefully formulating questions.
Q: (L) At what level of density do these thought centers have
their primary focus?
A: Thought centers do not have primary focus in any level of
density. This is precisely the point. You are not
completely familiar with the reality of what thoughts are.
We have spoken to you on many levels and have detailed
many areas involving density level, but thoughts are quite
a different thing because they pass through all density
levels at once. Now, let us ask you this. Do you not now
see how that would be possible?
Q: (L) Yes. But what I am trying to do is identify these
conflicting thought centers. If two thought centers, or
more, conflict, then my idea would be that they are in
opposition.
A: Correct.
....
Q: (L) Okay, in the experience I felt a paralysis of my body,
what caused this paralysis.
A: Yes. Separation of awareness. Which is defined as any
point along the pathway where one's awareness becomes so
totally focused on one thought sector that all other
levels of awareness are temporarily receded, thereby
making it impossible to become aware of one's physical
reality along with one's mental reality. This gives the
impression of what is referred to as paralysis. Do you
understand?
Q: (L) Yes. And what stimulates this total focus of
awareness?
A: An event which sidetracks, temporarily, the mental
processes..... It was an eclipsing of energies caused by conflicting
thought centers.
Q: (L) What energies were being eclipsed?
A: Whenever two opposing units of reality intersect, this
causes what can be referred to as friction, which, for an
immeasurable amount of what you would refer to as time,
which is, of course, non-existent, creates a non-
existence, or a stopping of the movements of all
functions. This is what we would know as conflict. In
between, or through any intersecting, opposite entities,
we always find zero time, zero movement, zero
transference, zero exchange. Now think about this. Think
about this carefully.
Q: (L) Does this mean that I was, essentially, in a condition
of non-existence?
A: Well, non-existence is not really the proper term, but
non-fluid existence would be more to the point. Do you
understand?
Q: (L) Yes. Frozen, as it were?
A: Frozen, as it were.
Q: (L) Was there any benefit to me from this experience?
A: All experiences have potential for benefit.
Q: (L) Was there any detriment from this experience?
A: All experiences have potential for detriment. Now, do you
see the parallels. We are talking about any opposing
forces in nature, when they come together, the result can
go all the way to the extreme of one side or all the way
to the extreme of the other. Or, it can remain perfectly,
symmetrically in balance in the middle, or partially in
balance on one side or another. Therefore all potentials
are realized at intersecting points in reality.
....
Q: (L) Was one of these conflicting thought centers or
energies some part of me?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And was it eclipsed by interacting with a thought
center energy that was part of or all of something or
someone else?
A: Or, was what happened a conflicting of one energy thought
center that was a part of your thought process and another
energy thought center that was another part of your
thought process? We will ask you that question and allow
you to contemplate.
.....
Q: (L) Does it ever happen that individuals who perceive or
think they perceive themselves to have experienced an
"abduction," to actually be interacting with some part of
themselves?
A: That would be a very good possibility. Now, before you
ask another question, stop and contemplate for a moment:
what possibilities does this open up? Is there any limit?
And if there is, what is that? Is it not an area worth
exploring?
Q: (L) Okay, help me out here...
A: For example, just one example for you to digest. What if
the abduction scenario could take place where your soul
projection, in what you perceive as the future, can come
back and abduct your soul projection in what you perceive
as the present?
Q: (L) Oh, dear! Does this happen?
A: This is a question for you to ask yourself and
contemplate.
Q: (L) Why would I do that to myself?
A: Are there not a great many possible answers?
Q: (L) Well, this seemed to be a very frightening and
negative experience. If that is the case: a. maybe that
is just my perception, or b. then, in the future I am not
a very nice person! (J) Or maybe the future isn't very
pleasant. And the knowledge that you gained of it is
unpleasant.
A: Or is it one possible future, but not all possible
futures? And is the pathway of free will not connected to
all of this?
Q: (L) God! I hope so.
A: Now do you see the benefit in slowing down and not having
prejudices when asking questions of great import? You see
when you speed too quickly in the process of learning and
gathering knowledge, it is like skipping down the road
without pausing to reflect on the ground beneath you. One
misses the gold coins and the gemstones contained within
the cracks in the road.
...
Q: (L) Okay, when this experience occurred, am I to assume
that some part of myself, a future self perhaps, of course
they are all simultaneous but just for the sake of
reference, came back and interacted with my present self
for some purpose of exchange?
A: Well this is a question best left for your own exploration
as you will gain more knowledge by contemplating it by
yourself rather than seeking the answers here. But a
suggestion is to be made that you do that as you will gain
much, very much knowledge by contemplating these very
questions on your own and networking with others as you do
so. Be not frustrated for the answers to be gained
through your own contemplation will be truly illuminating
to you and the experience to follow will be worth a
thousand lifetimes of pleasure and joy.
