Session 23 July 1995

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
23 July 1995
Frank Direct channeling, Laura, SV, Terry and Jan


Q: (L) When you are ready please indicate.

A: Okay.

Q: (L) We have a number of questions and I think Jan wants to lead off this evening. (J) First off, who do we have with us?

A: Curious that you should ask that? What is the expected answer?

Q: (J) A name.

A: You still desire a name. We'll say: Toren.

Q: (J) If it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter.

A: What matters is what matters to you and our desire to comply.

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) Could you be a little more explicit.

A: We sense you are leading. The true effort to gain knowledge should always be to be open to any response, any question. Therefore asking to be more specific is assuming that the answer is not explicit.

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 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) Was I successful?

A: Now, we are back to leading again.

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) And, what I want to know is, was this in opposition to me, or was this an opposition in which I simply was caught in the middle, so to speak.

A: Well, you are drifting away from the true nature of your experience, because you are making suppositions. And we are not trying to scold you, we are merely trying to guide you and this is not always easy. But, let it be known again that the simplest way for you to gather knowledge on this particular subject matter is to ask the simplest questions without prejudice.

Q: (L) Okay, you said I wasn't abducted, that an event of some sort occurred. What was the event?

A: We have already described this, but the problem that you are having is that you are assuming that the description we are giving is more complicated than this. It is not.

Q: (L) Did I leave my body?

A: I'm very sorry to tell you that you are drifting again.

Q: (L) Well, I am trying to ask simple questions.

A: The problem is that you are pre-supposing answers. Please limit prejudice.

Q: (L) What is my prejudice, what is my presupposition?

A: Well, just to give you an example: how do you know that you ever "leave" your body? The question is not: do you ever leave your body, its how do you know that you do?

Q: (L) I guess you don't.

A: Let us give you a parallel. If you saw a rainbow in the sky and that rainbow was later no longer visible, would you then say: "Did that rainbow spill onto the mountain?"

Q: (L) I don't get it. No I wouldn't because I would know that the rainbow is the refracting of light on water or ice in the atmosphere.

A: That's what you know. But, then again how do you know that anything you know is, in fact, the true representation of reality?

Q: (L) We don't.

A: The only way to solve this problem when asking about a complicated issue is to ask very simple step-by-step questions without prejudice. In order to do that, one must pause and reflect, and take one's time, as it were, to formulate the questions carefully in order to make sure that they are very simple, step-by-step questions and not questions containing prejudice.

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.

Q: (L) And what event can sidetrack the mental processes to this extent?

A: Any number.

Q: (L) In this particular case, what was it?

A: 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 the energies that was intersecting with another energy, the energy that constitutes who and what I am?

A: Well, now, you are drifting again.

Q: (L) Was one of the thought centers me?

A: That is presupposing that you, what is defined as you, or how you define yourself as "me" is of and by itself a thought center.

Q: (L) Well, I am trying to find this out by asking these questions. I am not presupposing here, I am just trying to find out what is going on here!

A: Part of what is you is a thought center but not all of what is you is a thought center. So, therefore it is incorrect to say: "Was one of these conflicting energies or thought centers me?"

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) Was it?

A: 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? (J) To gain knowledge of the future.

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) Let's pause for a moment. [leaves room]

A: Does anyone else inquiries.

Q: (J) I think I'll wait until Laura gets back.

A: If that is your choice.

Q: (SV) Laura is in great conflict with herself; I know this for a fact. Can we help her or is this something she has to do on her own?

A: How do you know this for a fact?

Q: (SV) When I am doing bodywork on her, it is how I perceive, what I hear and what I feel and see.

A: We suggest that you explore that further.

Q: [Laura returns] (L) Now, getting back to this eclipsing of energies. Is an eclipsing of energies, such as we are discussing, is this something that can and does happen to everyone at one or many points in their existence where choices are made.

A: We regret to inform you that you are speeding up and jumping ahead of yourself.

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.

Q: (L) Okay, just a few days prior to this experience, I experienced a couple of headaches brought on by marital interactions. I would like to know what was the source of this sudden, extreme pain.

A: Have you not answered that for yourself already?

Q: (L) Not satisfactorily.

A: No. It is that you perceive it as being not satisfactory.

Q: (L) Well, I have a couple of choices and I haven't selected one as being the one.

A: Well, then select one.

Q: (L) What if I select the wrong one?

A: You won't.

Q: (L) Okay, also seemingly tied in with this experience, because all of these things have happened in a circle, was an experience when Susan was doing some bodywork on me and I suddenly saw a flash of myself tied to a crossed beam, crossed in the shape of an X, in expectation of being devoured by a lion that was working on tearing my arm off at the shoulder. Was this an opening up of a doorway to another life?

A: How does one normally access that information?

Q: (L) Well, it is normally done through hypnosis, but since there is nobody around to hypnotize ME, then I usually get left out in the cold on that one.

A: You say there is no one around to hypnotize you?

Q: (L) Who?

A: We asked you the question.

Q: (L) Well, it seems that way.

A: Very interesting. Hmm. Apparently the world is much more limited than we thought it was.

Q: (T) Was Frank's dream significant?

A: Before we answer that question, we heard one of you say "pick on Laura night." That is not the point of any of this. The point is to help you to gain true knowledge which can only be done by opening up your own channels. We are more than happy to assist you in any way possible in doing this, however, it would be detrimental to you to focus in entirely on our assistance rather than on your own abilities which are truly and completely unlimited. Now, as far as the perception of being picked on, as you describe it, this is merely a perception. The process of learning is sometimes difficult when the greatest amount of progress is being made and we commend Laura for making efforts to learn that are sincere and persistent. There is no reason to ever perceive that she, or anyone else present, is being picked on when one is learning, when one is attempting to gain true knowledge, this may be perceived as difficult, however, it is, in the long run, very beneficial. And again, while we may seem to scold, we caution that we do not scold, we merely direct when asked to direct. And, if we sense that one's mental energies are diverting or dispersing, oftentimes we return with what seems to be a rather sharp answer merely in an effort to refocus one's attention. Because that is the way with which all of you are familiar for that purpose. As you will now know as you access your memories, it is instinctive in your minds and in your souls. We suggest that you pause and reflect on this because you will see, if you do, the truth in what we have said.

Q: (L) Speaking of truths, we had a discussion earlier, and we are somewhat curious as to whether the law of free will would require that some of the information we receive through this source be a) distorted, b) false?

A: Well, we do not wish to close off any possibilities for an answer to that question, but we will suggest that if there is any falseness, perhaps one possible answer as to why would revolve around what we were speaking of earlier, which is prejudice. Prejudice may be contained within the question itself or it may be contained within the expected answer. Either one can interrupt or divert the flow of energy in such a way as to produce varying degrees of what one would perceive as correctness of response.

Q: (L) So, prejudice on the part of anyone in the room as to what the answer should or should not be, or could or could not be, can, in effect, create an answer?

A: It can divert the energy flow as we mentioned earlier when you asked about your own experience. If you recall, we cautioned you repeatedly not to involve prejudice either in your questions or in your expected responses. This was an effort on our part to help you to gain valuable information and to help you to learn how to gather valuable information, thus leading to an extensive expansion of your own knowledge base. Again we also cautioned you not to perceive our efforts as scolding, but as assistance.

Q: (L) So, the prejudice was my assumption as to what did or did not happen, that it was an "Abduction," or whatever and my questions were framed on that assumption? And, I wanted to hear answers that confirmed my perceptions?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Where else can prejudice enter in?

A: Well, you have described the most important possibilities. And your own reflections, your own perusal of your own thought centers can and will produce any and all possible answers.

Q: (L) Could prejudice that inhibits or deflects the information also originate from spirit attachments on any or all of us?

A: That is possible, though very doubtful.

Q: (L) If one or any of us had an attachment which altered our thinking or emotions, could our altered thinking or feeling create the prejudice which would deflect the information.

A: Well, it is doubtful that there is any limit to the possibilities. There are only varying degrees of potential. However, again, we caution against any prejudice when asking a question either of yourself, or of you accessing of the universal bank of knowledge which is always there at your disposal. For, example, when you say "Spirit attachment," that is presuming, or again, expressing prejudice, that such a thing exists, or that it exists in such a way to be a common problem. Either one of those two possibilities, on the path of prejudice, is present. For example, what is spirit attachment?

Q: (L) What is spirit attachment?

A: No, we asked you first.

Q: (L) Well, my thought is that it is just as it has been described and exhibited throughout centuries of interaction.

A: Who described and exhibited it?

Q: (L) Many individuals have exhibited it and it has been described by doctors, psychiatrists, priests, shamans, psychologists, exorcists, my own experience working with it; and I don't say that it is necessarily another entity or being, although it may identify itself as such, my thought is that it is entirely possible that it could just be something, some energy that is packed or contained within that person, that is of that nature, and takes on a life of its own, perhaps.

A: That's good.

Q: (L) My thought also is that when one goes through the actions of spirit release, it really doesn't matter if it is cousin Harold who has come to live in your left shoulder or whether it is years of anger, packed in your right hip or past life pain in your heart, none of those things really matter. What matters is: does the technique work to release you from it?

A: That's a nice theory, but we suggest further study. Because, in truth, as you know, deep within yourself, you cannot know that these things are actual. And, if they are actual, in what segment of reality they reside. You can only suppose that their existence is as you have described.

Q: (L) Well, I said that it doesn't matter what they are, it just matters that the releasing process works. (J) Or that you perceive that it works. (L) It gives you a script to make changes in yourself.

A: The original question we asked was: How this relates to the prejudice that affects the energy flows of informational dispensation.

Q: (L) Well, if a person has the attachment energy, whatever it is, can that type of prejudice or that type of energy create prejudice which then restricts the energy?

A: Well, that is certainly one possibility. But, as we said, we suggest further study.

Q: (L) Study in terms of books or in terms of working with individuals?

A: All of the above and then some.

Q: (T) Was Frank's dream significant?

A: May we ask that you be more specific in your question?

Q: (T) The dream that Frank relayed to us earlier this evening about there being another force, another entity or group of entities involved in what's happening.

A: Well, that is not the area we wanted you to be more specific with. We are aware of the dream as described, but we are asking you to be more specific about the term "significant" because...

Q: (T) Well, is it important to what we are doing? Was it factual information?

A: Again we caution that you not be prejudiced in the formation of your questions because the terms "important" and "significant" imply a generalization of levels of intensity of reality, that they can be seen differently from different vantage points. In other words, what is important to one is not important to another. What is significant to one is not significant to another. It all can be confused as to what is important and significant and what the definitions of important and significant are. Therefore, we ask you to remove those two terms, carefully ponder the question, and re-ask it in more specific terms.

Q: (L) What was the source of the information Frank received in his dream?

A: Well, actually that is jumping ahead of the previous thought pattern as expressed by a different individual, which creates confusion and also restricts the energy flow by diverting it.

Q: (T) Is the word 'accurate' acceptable?

A: Acceptable for what?

Q: (T) In reference to the question.

A: We ask you to carefully formulate the question you wish to ask, and then ask it in complete form.

Q: (T) Is there another force involved in what is happening on the planet, that is manipulating the Reptoid beings the way they are manipulating humans?

A: We do not wish to appear to be scolding, but we are trying to help you to gain knowledge. And, as we have stated previously, the formulation of questions is very important in this process. It has been asked previously, in this particular session, if anything can cause the response to questions to be other than factual in the best definition of what factual is. And, the answer given was any degree of prejudice or expectation of response. Therefore, we must caution you again, to please try to refrain from having any prejudice or expectation of response. And, prejudice can be, again, in one sense, a presupposition of existence. Do you follow.

Q: (L) So, we don't even know if the Lizzies exist or not.

A: Well, we have previously given you information that such entities do exist. However, the question is not tantamount to the existence of what is described or referred to as Lizzies, therefore it would be best to leave that out of the question until confirmation that such entities exist and that they are an important part of the question being asked. Please bear with us and be patient. The results gained will be beneficial for all.

Q: (T) I don't understand... Is there another force involved with the events on this planet, in third density, that we have not yet discussed in previous sessions?

A: Perhaps it would help to have a review of what forces it is you have in mind. And then, once those forces have been described, we can answer your question more completely and, more importantly, more accurately.

Q: (L) May I ask a question?

A: You may always ask a question.

Q: (L) Was Frank's dream an accurate representation of the interplay of energies on the planet at the present?

A: Well, as described to those present, in general terms, it was moving in the right direction, however, the information given was somewhat splintered or fractured. There was not beneficial cohesiveness due to the fact that the subject referred to, did not have complete recall of the information given. It could be considered a basic guideline, but not a complete database.

Q: (L) Could you give for us, at this time in toto, the information that was given to Frank in the dream?

A: Well, yes that would be conceivable, however it would require your attendance for approximately 52 units as you measure hours of time, to give an adequate breakdown of the information previously given to Frank. And, we believe that you would be unwilling to participate for that length of time, or that you would be able to physically hold up.

Q: (L) Can I give post-hypnotic suggestions to Frank that he would remember all of this?

A: Certainly.

Q: (L) May I ask if Frank's exposition as to why I seem to be under such severe attack was correct?

A: That is difficult to answer because it is close, as we are accessing the thought patterns, to being factual. However, there are conflicting thought patterns. The thoughts coming from you in this particular instance are confused. If you could be more specific, it would be helpful.

Q: (L) Then, just let me ask it straight. Why have I been under such severe physical, material, and emotional attack in the past 6 months. Frank thinks that I am under such attack because I work and move too fast in the gathering and attempts at dissemination of information; that I charge ahead and do things, thereby exposing myself to retaliatory attacks.

A: That has the potential for being partially correct in the sense that you disseminate information, perhaps less carefully than you should. The gathering of information holds no potential for attack from any particular realm. However, dissemination DOES, because those whom become aware, become empowered. And, in any struggle between opposing forces, there is always danger in allowing anyone to become empowered without realization of the ramifications.

Q: (L) So, I can continue to seek information, as long as I keep it to myself?

A: You have free will to do that which you please. But, when you are framing it in terms of the question: where is the danger, this presupposes that you are concerned about dangers to yourself. And, if this be the case, we will be happy to give advice where and when needed.

Q: (L) Well, right now it is needed. I am almost completely debilitated physically and materially, which creates a severe barrier to focus and concentration, and also my ability to assist other people.

A: Well then, perhaps it is true that you should be careful as to how you disseminate the information and how you disseminate knowledge gained, and where, and when. This is not to say that you must stop, but rather to think carefully before you do it, as to what the ramifications will be. And then your instincts will lead you in the proper direction. The dangers are always that when one proceeds too quickly, the instincts may be overrun and become confused with other thought pattern energies, and thereby opening one up to attack and other unpleasant possibilities.

Q: (L) Well, if I promise not to tell, make a vow, can't we just stop all this other?

A: It is not necessary to stop, it is just to be careful as to how one does it. The flow of information is never a harmful thing. As we have previously described, the Service to Self involves the constriction and restriction of energies, and the focusing within. The Service to Others orientation involves an outward flow of energies, the focus being from within to without. Therefore, the passage of information, or dissemination is very helpful and is of Service to Others orientation. But, one must also be aware of the dangers involved. One must not lose control of the flow and the possibilities that can result. This is where you need to be more careful. You need to regulate. And, attack can come from any number of sources for any number of reasons. It is not always for the same reason. And, of course, there is the short wave and long wave cycle. The short wave cycle is one which closes rather quickly. The long wave cycle is one that closes more slowly, therefore take a longer amount of time, as you perceive it, to close. Therefore it also involves a more complicated issue. This is just one example as to how attack can be the result of what we were just describing.

Q: (L) Can attack be a left over from another cycle?

A: That is one possibility, certainly.

Q: (L) Can you give us any advice as to how to navigate our way out of such situations?

A: That is a VERY vague thought concept.

Q: (L) Well, Frank and I both seem to repeatedly face the financial flow issue, and it seems to be one of the primary modes of attack against us at this point. How can we overcome this?

A: Are you asking us how to make more money?

Q: (L) Yeah!

A: My dear Laura! You are already in position of literally thousands of possibilities to accomplish that end, are you not?

Q: (L) Everything takes money!

A: There goes that prejudice again. We have given much food for thought in that area to help you to learn, to contemplate, to meditate.

Q: (L) It is rather difficult to do that when one is worried.

A: That is interesting. You can't meditate or contemplate when you are worried about your next meal. I guess then that this means that no one on third density has ever been able to contemplate or meditate while worrying what was going to be eaten at the next meal. Hmmmmmm.

Q: (L) The point is that a constant state of worry, another crisis every day, the perpetual worry, eventually wears a person down to the point where one can no longer focus on any other issues.

A: Perhaps one can solve the crises by focusing on other issues? You see, when you constrict the flow, you constrict the channel. And when you constrict the channel, you close down possibilities. And, you make it difficult, if not impossible for you to see that which is there. In other words, the obvious becomes oblivious because of constriction of the flow. This is why we have recommended against all rituals, because ritual restricts the flow, thereby restricting the possibilities. And, what you are describing is a situation of "dire straits," as you call it, and financial pressures of great magnitude which is restricting you. But actually, it is your concentration on same that is restricting, not the situation itself. And we realize that it is difficult for you to focus your attentions, or, more importantly to open up the flow of the channel. But, it is certainly not impossible. Especially for an individual as strong as yourself. It is what you choose to do, not what you MUST do. It is what you CHOOSE to do.

Q: (L) So, you are saying that this situation is a result of my own constriction, rather than as a result of attack?

A: No, the situation can be a result of anything or any numbers of things. But, the sought after resolution to it may be impeded by your own choice to concentrate on the problem, rather than opening up the channels to seek the solution. We never suggested that you were solely responsible for creating your own financial situation, only that you may be partially responsible for preventing a resolution to the problem, that is all.

Q: (L) Is that also the case with Frank?

A: Of course.

Q: (L) Anything further on that subject? You say 'opening the channel...'

A: And not concentrating on the problem, but rather the solution by opening the flow. The answers come to you when you open the flow.

Q: (L) And what might that answer be?

A: That is for you to discover!

Q: (L) That's what I thought. (T) What is the cosmic wheel?

A: Cosmic wheel? Whatever gave you the idea that there was a "cosmic wheel?"

Q: (T) It was just something that popped into my head awhile ago.

A: Well, our best suggestion is: when anything pops into your head, to follow it as far as you can, because therein lies your answer. Do you not do that?

Q: (T) As far as I can...

A: As far as you can? What prevents you from doing that?

Q: (T) Well, thank you for your answers tonight.

A: Have you then answered your own question?

Q: (T) Several of them. Thank you.

A: You are most welcome.

End of Session
 
Top Bottom