Questions from Readers:
Oneness With God?

A Reader writes to Laura: Forgive me if I seem skeptical, but some of the information on this incredibly intruiging site seems kinda far-fetched.

Dear Peter,

Join the 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.

I am 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.

I have 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.

Indeed. Throughout 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.

Then, of 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.

But I don't get it. Why would a group of beings, in a higher vibration than we are (4th density) seek to control others?

The best 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.

Doesn't enlightenment come with the ascension into higher densities?

We would 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 case.

There are "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."

They develop 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.

The latter 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.

In specific 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.

If so, 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?

There are 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.

The following is related to this idea:

09-19-98
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?' Comment please.
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 receiver.

[I will insert here a small bit from another session that relates to this]

05-03-97
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.
A: Yes...?
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!

[Back to 09-19-98]
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.
A: Yes.
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.
A: Yes.
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 school.
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!
A: Exactly!!!
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.
A: Exactly.
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.

[And, in 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.]

Q: Okay. 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.
A: Yes.
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?
A: Maybe.
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!

It's 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."

And 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.

The true 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.

...so surely, these Lizzies can't be all bad.

Well, this 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."

Even if they are, why don't other 4th density beings help them grow into a positive reality tunnel or something?

See above. STO beings would not violate Free Will in this way.

After all, nobody can reunite with the One until we ALL do, correct?

Sure. Is that what you want?

I apologize for all of the questions, I'm just really curious about this.

No necessity to apologize. Curious is good. That's what Creation is all about: infinite potential in infinite permutations in infinite BEing.

Laura

 

You are visitor number .