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.
