Dear S,

I can guarantee you that with the luxury of so many interesting questions, this will not be a short tape. I will simply go through your letter, which may make somewhat abrupt changes in subject from time to time, but it is really the only way you can deal with questions from a person who has a rational and logical way of putting things down and can be answered because you don’t have an underlying neurotic mindset that’s causing you problems and that’s the reason you’re asking questions—you’re asking questions because you’re a curious person. I am one of the most curious people I know and it’s nice to know someone else who is equally fascinated by learning anything.

You must never apologize to me for not responding at a time that is quick enough, because the only reason you’re getting a letter back within a couple of weeks from me is that I gazed at the inch and a half of letters from troubled people and I’ve been dealing with that for a couple of days and I was willing to give myself a break to answer a wonderful letter with intelligent questions.

We are here as a resource for asking questions. We are an educational research institution. Admittedly our area of research and education is such that it would never be accepted by orthodox scientists, but I follow the lead of a man who was as orthodox of a scientist as I’ve ever known, Don Elkins, and he had one of the finest minds I’ve ever known, and it was his feeling that this was the area of research that was most important.

He did teach physics and mechanical engineering and founded the Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Alaska so he was an extremely capable teacher and had put a good deal of time and emphasis into his education as a scientist.

He did begin in 1962 by attempting a normally controlled experiment—it became uncontrolled—the results, however, were overwhelming. He decided at that point to move on in the only way we had open to us—to collect data—just collect data.

I’m very flattered by the fact that you listened to my tape several times. You make me very humble. So we cannot ask too many questions—it is our nature to do this kind of work and we are absolutely delighted. Jim gave you to me because your questions are not specifically on the Ra Material—of which he is a scholar—but are questions of basic concept. I am the person he gives letters to that do not fall under answering questions about the Ra Material.

I guess the additional IQ points help because some of these questions I see one way and he sees a completely different way, and the way he sees it is usually linear, the way I see it is usually not one topic to the other but several perhaps to make the answer complete. I am the kind of teacher that people hate in college because they don’t take baby steps with their information. I don’t know how to do that. Jim writes back to people who need baby steps—I write back the people either who are troubled because of psychic greeting or Christianity—which has been my area—or because they are asking questions Jim is simply buffaloed by.

A lot of times you have to simply gaze at the letter and say, okay, what’s behind all the distortion here—what would cause this. I have excellent logic circuitry and can usually help in that situation more than Jim.

Question No. 1: You talk about the difference between reading a letter versus listening to the voice and hearing it, as opposed to seeing the face and the voice and the body language as well as the words. And certainly there is the greatly enlarged field of data from which the brain can draw, if it chooses, more specific and clarified conclusions as to what the person is discussing or questioning.

The next level or type of communication involves an even greater view of the person than the body language, the voice, the intimations, the expressions and the words themselves. It is called telepathy, and I have experienced enough of it to say a few things about concept communication or telepathy.

I have only begun to feel that I am a solidly prepared beginner in channeling and make no claims to being a good, excellent or great psychic channel or whatever. I am a person and I have had the various experiences that I have had, so what I am saying to you is opinion—as a matter of fact, everything in this letter will be opinion, mine. Given the fact that I am very intelligent—given the fact that I have been in the field since 1962, I may have some interesting observations, but if you don’t agree with me don’t try to make yourself agree with me. They’re just opinions.

My basic feeling about the concept communication of telepathy is that it introduces an aspect of non-relativistic perception. As the veil is dropped between conscious and subconscious lines, which occurs during the channeling process and which occurs as a way of life in the fourth density and on upwards, there is increasingly a completer (pardon me, I will speak English)—a more and more nearly complete opening up of what we might consider very private and intimate information about ourselves.

As I grow older, even within this very heavy and dense illusion, I find there is less and less I feel unable to speak of. I also receive the impression that concept communication is far more based upon our true natures and the sharing of them and is much closer to absolute information—certainly more objective and clarified information.

It is also open ended. In other words, the gestalt of a concept is infinite, depending on how sensitive the one who receives the information is, the grasping of that concept can go to any length to which the person receiving the concept is able to go itself without damage to itself.

And I have never yet had one of my contacts say “that’s all there is on this subject”, the door is always left open because there is always more. What we have been doing as entities before third density is experiencing the undiluted and absolute love of the one infinite Creator. In second density we have learned to turn to the light and to be of service to one another instinctually, just as trees give off oxygen and people give off carbon dioxide and we help each other. So basically, that would be my answer.

But in the next level of communication you don’t simply get what the person has been able to construct as clothing for the idea he is trying to express—you get the idea that he is trying to express—ideation is not in words, it just seems that way because the first ideation, the first gathering together of a new idea, a creative idea, is subconscious, because it’s new and consequently it’s not feeding into your biocomputer. It is not given that choice by a very efficient and ruthless biocomputer that has been programmed for your survival—physical survival, and survival with other people—behaviors and so forth.

It has absolutely nothing much to do with anything but proper behaviors for appropriate situations, and the maintaining of that which is necessary for our survival—those differ quite a bit from person to person, and in one person from year to year and decade to decade.

In the case of communication, as communication increased in its clarity, that is, the mind opening to another mind without shame or purposes of evasion of any kind, then the communication to the other person would be as complete and perhaps confused, perhaps in several parts, but in any way, not simple the way we have to make sentences, so that the answer can also carry gestalt nuances—nuance upon nuance upon nuance, and I think you see this as Ra attempts from higher densities—that’s the highest density I’ve ever channeled and that was the most obvious attempt I’ve ever seen to try to create concept communication using words. There’s just so much more, so many undertones and overtones and harmonics in words and I studied linguistics and I can say that.

Now your discussion about language seems to me to be a bit wrongheaded because you go from the cart to the horse, when in actuality, I know which came first this time—the chicken—the egg’s the language. We had people who wanted to communicate with each other—we didn’t have language so the beginning of language is not a finite set of primitive parts called an alphabet from which we form words and meaningful sentences by means of certain reasonably well-defined rules of construction [inaudible] ipso facto, language is anything that communicates—mathematics is a language, musical notation is a language, computers have a language, and as you described, language, yes, that’s the way the language sits as a dumb thing. But I think the language begins in the character and nature of habits, ideals, and belief systems of a people, an epoch and a culture.

The language is clothing and as a writer I am fully appreciative of the fact that you can make beautiful clothing or very boring clothing writing about precisely the same thing, so we always have the choice of speaking more carefully, more thoughtfully, more gently, and certainly in working as a channel, I feel that is part of my job. But as I use the language I am not simply expressing the system of notation—I am expressing what people really believe in, what they put their emphasis in in this culture, what the beginnings of this culture are like, what has influenced this culture.

As you gaze at the new words, as you gaze at the degeneration of old words. The word “darling” for instance used to mean “Christ’s own”. Now look at it—shot to hell by people who just couldn’t bother. “Like” is one of those words that has lost all meaning whatsoever and has merely become a place keeper to keep a person listening while you assemble your next coherent thought. That goes for “you know” and “you see” and “well” and “to be perfectly honest” and other tics of language which do not express any concept in and of themselves but because they’re there, it indicates the person has paused and is in a state of unfinished thought, or no thought whatsoever depending on the source.

So I think it is well to see linguistics as portraits of a people—portraits of a culture and working your way from that back to the use of words and the learning of the actual language as it is used. It is all very well to study a language but I am a great fan of reading the literature—reading whatever means the most to these people, for instance, when I was taking Russian, I read Tolstoy, I read lots of shorter literary works, plays, short stores, novelettes. I did not attempt War and Peace or Anna Karenina. I only took 19 hours of the stuff—I think those come somewhere in the PhD program.

But I understood the people, I didn’t understand all of the language, but I was able to synthesize a feeling about the people because of the way that they spoke. For instances, in the United State today—what do you think is on people’s minds? Computers. Look at all the neologisms that computers have spawned—input, output (used, by the way, as verbs, not nouns which is enough to make me stark raving indignant, but I won’t get into it), interface, the list goes on and on—you know about computers, you know about the language.

Consequently, you can see that this language is changing to wrap itself around the fact that computers have become a large part of our culture.

As you look at the language, you look at the way people describe things and some words seem to simply go together like “dirty rotten scoundrel”—can there be a clean, and perfectly ripened scoundrel? Sure, the mechanics of the language are just as you say. But the heart of language is the heart of the people. So as you speak you are reflecting not simply yourself in your own thinking, but unless you are a very unusual person, to some extent you are reflecting the culture in which you live.

I would point out that at this stage in 20th Century America chaos, great liberties are being taken with these so-called reasonably well-defined rules of construction—nouns made into verbs, the addition of “wise” to almost anything being acceptable, which it is not—the abandonment of the use of the impersonal “he” because we do not have a language of masculine and feminine neuter words which are defined as such by the form of the words which modify them.

And that’s rather interesting, because words have a good deal of power. We take it very lightly—we are trashing the language, trashing being a neologism which has no place in classical English, it is another noun made into a verb. We have been in the process of changing the language ever since it became the first recognizable form of old English—if you’ve read Chaucer, you’ll get the idea—it’s been changed a lot.

That because we’ve changed a lot. Our concerns have changed a lot. The buzzwords change—the heroes change—the language changes. Instead of people saying, “Well, everyone has their own idea” which is incorrect grammar, it’s supposed to be “everyone has his own idea”.

Women’s libbers in their forever magnificent folly, are attempting to topple a perfectly simple rule of grammar, and that is that instead of having an impersonal and a personal, a “you” singular and a “you” plural, instead of having an inflected language, we do not, and consequently we do not have a word that means “he” or “she” and we have always simply used the word “he”, just as we’ve always used the word “mankind” to mean all of us.

I am not one to get upset about these things. Every male is a female and every female is a male, why fuss. I’d much rather keep the language as much like itself as possible so that those things that were written some time ago are as readable as possible by those in contemporary life.

So, yes, mechanically speaking, we make our languages up from what you call “the primitives”—I expect that’s a word I don’t know—I expect that means “first parts”, the root being number one, or at least the main one, usually called an alphabet. Now you see, in many languages you don’t have an alphabet—you have pictographs. What do you do with that? You are getting more of a phrase sometimes, or a nuance.

Even in the tone of voice in Japan or China, something said in one tone means one thing and the same pronunciation said in another tone means a very embarrassing something else, which says about the culture not that it has decided to use relative pitch as a way of making sense, but that the culture itself is sensitive enough to sound in tonal vibrations, that one is able to make use of the tone.

So before that you say that the language consists of alphabets then words then sentences and so forth, I believe it might be useful to consider language as being the artifact—the original artifact—of people coping with their environment and that the study of linguistics through the centuries is a study of what people were coping with at any particular time, and what words had the power to hurt and what words the power to heal, what words were considered neutral. All those things, before you get to simple mechanical language.

I spend a good deal of my time on tape picking the vocabulary that I can use for someone who is really in trouble and floundering because of one thing or another, which is a lot of my correspondence.

Listening to the vocabulary they themselves are using, attempting from how they speak to interpolate further as to “if they were going to say this, then how would they say it?” If they wanted this question clarified or if they wanted an answer, what vocabulary leaves their emotions alone and is composed of neutral meaningful words, which could get the information across the best.

So, the tools of language are alphabets, words, sentences, etc., the heart of language is the heart of the people and what it is experiencing as a people.

Then you go ahead and say “well, if this is so about language” (first the alphabets, then the words, then the sentences, then the grammar), you assume that a concept language to have as primitive and undetermined number of concepts, such as feelings, pictures, facts, emotions, symbols—try not to use etc. by the way, in my opinion it is something that is written down when often it doesn’t need to be—it’s pretty well understood—that there are plenty of other things you could say, to name a few. It’s private peeve of mine. Some people use it because they’re lazy, let’s put it that way. I doubt it of you.

Pardon me for treating you like a colleague—it was very disconcerting to my third grade teacher—but I’ve never known a teacher and I’ve never known a student—we are colleagues, all of us. Actually, my favorite teachers loved it—in college, not high school

So you then say that these concepts are then put into meaningful sequences according to certain rules of composition, like word language, it does end up, of course, being subject to the rules of simply making sense. I won’t say rules of composition because I have not experienced this concept as composed, they are gestalts, sometimes quite complicated. One can see them as shapes of meaning that you simply describe; one can see them as pictures, one can simply get the concept, sort of like invisible balloons, and somehow you know what the air in that balloon is gestalt about.

Certainly as we progress in positive fourth and then fifth density, we will be communicating more and more and certainly more intimately, richly and meaningfully. This is because as we solidify our social memory complexes, we voluntarily and gladly, open every single experience we’ve ever had to the common pool of knowledge of our social memory complex. We try to do this in fourth density; we’re working on it in fourth density.

By fifth density it has been more or less learned, and fifth density is often a density wherein a social memory complex will each singularly go and work with a teacher, because it is the wisdom density—marriages, close friends, and so forth are the beginnings of a social memory complex here on earth, unfortunately, all too often, rather than that being so, it simply means that we have to contend with a good deal of what Don used to call “adversarial [inaudible due to movement of microphone] because we’re [inaudible]. Obviously, they don’t have to be that way.

We, in third density, are terrified of true intimacy because we do not know ourselves, and therefore the possibility of self betrayal is something we fear, that is why I encourage people to know themselves. To ask themselves the serious questions of “what are you living for” and “what would you die for”. Simple, but absolute questions in a relativistic world. People stare at me as if I were crazy: “I wouldn’t die for anything or anybody.” That sort of thing. But this is only third density.

I don’t see, in concept communication, where I would call anyway a sequence of events. I simply do the mental equivalent of catching a ball, which is a gestalt, clothing it with words, as best I can. The more I channel, the more I get. It’s a matter of opening up the channel through the veil to the subconscious mind. But that’s the mechanics. To say that I am receiving a sort of slideshow of concepts or pictures in my mind is not at all true. I am receiving at a subconscious level. I often do not know what I am going to say next.

I’m afraid that when vocal channeling is done carefully, which is appropriate, sometimes you do not know what your next word is going to be, or you’ll get something like “now there are three points to be made in this regard.” And you don’t have three points—but well, they do, so it’s all right. But I do not see a picture book, I do not know where we’re going with any particular kind of channeling. I simply flow with it and try to keep myself out of it, unless I sense that some negativity has entered into it, and then I simply stop. That hasn’t happened in years because I’ve learned to challenge before I begin.

The second question is not one question, but a cluster of them and I will enjoy pulling this one apart.

“As the questioner, you are turning back and looking at yourself and asking about the nature of those who ask questions. What’s the point? Metaphysical books say if you have knowledge then you don’t need to ask questions, or do they?”

If this sounds flip I do not mean it to be so—I would phrase it another way: If you have questions then you don’t need knowledge. Basically we are seeking for the right questions here. So many questions are meaningless except in this illusion. And will die as surely as our physical vehicles will bite their own dust. No question about it. To say that we feel subjectively that we do have knowledge—that never stops us from asking questions, and you, if you think about it, know that extremely well.

As long as you have been studying theoretical mathematics or physics, have you run out of curiosity? Or has it only been wetted and honed by the constant disappearance of the final line—the answer. The line always comes back to a mystery—the seed of life—gravity field, action at a distance [inaudible] and that’s just in your field and I don’t know very much about your field (laughs).

Why do you think that all the knowledge that you have sought and shared… (Side 1 of tape ends here).

Truth moves itself further along the road. The carrot before the stick of our curiosity is truth, which, within this illusion, seems often to be relative. There are truths that work for six months, there are truths that work for two days, and there are truths that work for 10,000 years. All knowledge is not of the same caliber. So the worthwhileness of seeking knowledge to me has an irrelevancy in it equal to the instinct of human entities to be curious about their environment. We’re going to be asking questions: “Daddy, why is the sky blue?” It starts early.

I think it is only when people have, for some reason, discovered their own mortality that they begin to ask questions that are accepting the possibility of the absolute.

You said that Q’uo has mentioned that at the end of every search for knowledge is mystery and paradox. That is, in essence, correct. But it isn’t where the knowledge seeking ends, the seeking then goes on to ask about the mystery. That’s the difference between people who stop thinking and people who continue to think. Some people, if they hit paradox, throw up their hands and say “I’m out of here—this is a paradox and I can’t solve paradox. These two things are mutually exclusive.” And so are the two sides of a coin, but they’re very close together.

When we know answers to this and answers to that and we repeatedly come upon paradox, we begin to recognize paradox as an earmark of spiritual questioning, and we realize we are on the right track when we encounter paradoxes. A good rule of thumb is: If we’ve found a paradox, we’ve found a spiritual principle. And it’s time to contemplate that.

As to the mystery, it is the mystery of the one infinite Thought, that is the Logos, or Love, the active principle of Intelligent Infinity, which is even a mystery to itself. We are gaining experience for it—it is learning about itself and it created us for that purpose and it will draw us home again one day

So at this point, it is indeed that beyond the paradox and beyond the mystery is the sense of Godliness and its nearness to us. Naturally, we wish with all our hearts and seek to have immediate experiences of the presence of the one infinite Creator. Some have experiences having to do with light and are convinced that they have been in the presence of the Infinite One. Others have other stories to tell that are also convinced that they have in an altered state of consciousness, been in the immediate presence of the one infinite Creator.

However, in Pascal’s “Pensees” he experienced the presence of the Infinite One. In this normally extremely verbal person, he was unable to say anything a sentence long. He was expressing purified emotion which is another way of saying worship, praise, thanksgiving, prayer. He was saying “joy, joy” and things of that nature.

The content intellectually of that encounter of the immediate presence of the Infinite One, has little within it of an intellectual content, which will give us information about the nature of the Infinite One, except for the fact that the Infinite One creates, by its presence, a feeling of unspeakable joy, over and over again. I, myself, have experienced that. It’s not to be hung on to. It is only with people that are unrealistic in their estimation of their own ability within one incarnation to attempt to spend all of their time in the immediate presence of the one infinite Creator.

But the seeking of knowledge does not end. God does not end. The mystery does not end. It is a basic part of human nature to ask a lot of questions, that is, if we have the wit to do so, and the desire to know. Many people wish not to know, but to be distracted, to eat, drink and be merry. And I don’t blame them if they want to be happy here—they can be happy here for another 75,000 years—not here, but on another third density planet.

I really have no desire to suggest to someone a different way of going about walking the path of the spiritual seeker, as each entity is infinite and unique, so are the paths to the Infinite One.

People who ask a great many questions, but don’t listen to the answers, are just basically playing around—I could say it in a more crude way, but I won’t. They’re only pleasing themselves because they’re not listening and taking responsibility for the truths they hear, which then makes them able to hear a truth which builds upon the looking into the light of that person of the truth they’ve already heard. If you do not act upon what you know—you don’t know it. It’s all up in your head and that’s not something that’s going to go with us when we pass into our next incarnation.

The deep things of our hearts are our true metaphysical selves. Certainly if you ask a question, it is not a sign that you should spend some time thinking about possible answers, but it is almost inevitable that at some point you will ponder and ruminate upon a question, or that galaxy of questions—it’s healthy.

It’s also healthy to run your tentative conclusions past someone who will mirror effectively to you—who understands what you’re talking about, and who can give you kind of a reality check on the direction of your thinking. Even people who don’t quite get what you’re saying can sometimes be very helpful because of the kind of misunderstanding that they have.

What one really has a responsibility to as a person who wishes to accelerate the process of spiritual evolution is that whatever we think up, whatever we question, when we receive what we consider to be subjectively a satisfactory answer, that is, subjectively and personally correct for us, then we learn to manifest it in our lives. We are certain to get stuck if we do not do that, and that is the only harm in asking questions because you can have an intellectual interest in the answers, but you also need to put those answers into blood and sinew and the changing of the programming of your own mind so that it allows in an expanded field of data from which you make your choices.

This is a painful process which will occur through the aid of persistent daily meditation.

Now if someone asks very few, if any, questions he is either uninterested, unable to think, or shy. When people come, week after week, which hasn’t happened lately, and don’t ask anything, eventually I ask them: “What do you seek here—how can we help you?” The answers are as varied as the people.

Next question: “Why is this an illusion? Okay, I accept that. Is it also an illusion in fourth and fifth density?”

Yes. It is my belief that both space and time are illusory and that the illusion consists firstly of a matrix in which to place an illusion, which in this case is the space and time as we understand it empirically. A local physics is Pythagorean mathematics and so forth. The rules work for here—the local neighborhood in this galaxy uses the rules of normal physics and we can create theoretical models which can predict many things and create many gadgets which we use with an abandoned delight since they distract us from asking these difficult questions.

All of manifested life is an illusion because there is no place, there is no time, there is unity, which does not imply either space or time—everything else is an illusion. The illusions, however, are graduated and it is quite obvious from talking with these extraterrestrial entities, alleged, that the time and space laws of other entities are extremely different from third density. So much so that they almost cannot understand the concept of time at all and space means nothing.

Question Four: “Was Q’uo speaking to me through you when you really got into it?”

I sincerely doubt it since I have not requested for Q’uo to speak through me. I do not feel the need to channel sources outside myself when I am answering letters. That would mean that I would need to keep two other people from their jobs just so I could answer your letter. Instead, I depend upon my own intuition and a channeling of a deeper portion of myself which, because of a lot of channeling, is a little bit more open to me than some.

We are truly intelligent and truly spirit fed [inaudible] consciousness, but I have been through the veil of forgetting time and time again through the work that I do, consequently, it is fairly not only natural but expected that I would, when facing such fascinating questions, move into that mode.

So basically I am channeling a part of myself that has a metaprogram that is missing from the conscious mind brain. The metaprogram has incredible capacities to make clear the opaque in thinking, but first of all you have to be able to hollow yourself out to the point where you are willing to set aside your own opinions and listen to the other part of your brain, the part of your brain that sees mathematics as art. A good deal of trust of yourself, confidence in yourself, and some portion of a genuine gift is part of the dynamic here.

Obviously when you begin doing this work within yourself, getting to know yourself better and so forth, you are learning about your deep self, but you are also suffering, or at least in pain. It is not necessary to suffer if you know what you’re doing—you’re not suffering, you’re accepting the pain as a necessary accompaniment to dumping programs that don’t work and installing new ones in the biocomputer.

Question Five refers to a comment I made that the whole universe is within my self. This is theory that is mine alone and I’ve never heard anybody else say this—I may well be reinventing the wheel, I don’t know, but I am not fully convinced that there is anything outside of my mind. I know that everything that I look at is an illusion. I know that as I gaze at my hand, I know that basically I am gazing upon a galaxy—galaxy, upon galaxy, upon galaxy. That there is empty space there for 99 and 44/100 percent of my hand and combinations of various elements and so forth, held by empty space with an energy field around it.

You know we’ve never been able to see mass—we have to take the illusory appearance of things as mass in an empirical way—it’s all relative, it’s part of the illusion, we know that the illusion basically says “there’s a mass there—there’s energy there.” In fact we know that everything is held together in an energy field—electrical, electromagnetic, what have you.

Now I took that a step further—we are in reality all one. We are not separate—there is no distance between us in any way. There is no distance between anything in creation—the creation is one thing—the Logos, the active principle of the Creator. That which in the field of metaphysics, philosophy, or religion, constitutes a convincing argument for one person does not constitute a convincing argument for another person with a different point of view.

No two people see consensus reality in just the same way. We come close enough to seeing consensus reality in the same way, that there is a consensus reality which is necessary for us to experience this illusion in order to become used to working in groups so that we can begin to form in the next density social memory complexes. We have to begin somewhere.

The honestly cherishing, mutually supportive and forgiving negative relationships, the relationships between parents and children, these are the beginnings of a social memory complex—people gathering together and sharing in a more and more intimate fashion. In many case it is very very difficult for people, especially men, either to experience or to act out true intimacy—it is a frightening thing. In that intimacy one is not in control and we are taught that we should be in control. Intimacy takes an atmosphere of perfect trust and perfect faith. We have to take on blind faith the level of trust between us and the other person—we cannot read their minds the way you can in fourth density. We must rely on our discrimination.

Consequently, there is no stimulus that has occurred in my life, mentally, emotionally, physically, spiritually, that has hit me the way it has hit anybody else. From these two trains of thought came a synthesizing thought and that was, if we all have our own version of the illusion, we have our own universe and there is nothing to substantiate in any final way the concept of an objective reality.

Who’s going to be objective? A camera? The camera is part of the illusion—it’s mostly space, it’s also an energy field. Are you going to use the instrumentation developed within the illusion to document the illusion? Hardly. We do not have instrumentation to find out if there is objective reality.

I believe that in this illusion there are simple rules governing the illusion and may be considered truth within the illusion, but in the sense of ultimate reality? As each of us is described by the Confederation people as a holographic part in which all of the creation lies as it does in any part of a hologram. So I can see any of us as the creation in miniature. What we see outside of us is called macrocosm, what we see by gazing with better eyes than we have without magnification, microcosm. We are the cosms. We are the cosmos.

Now I have not come to a final conclusion on this one—it’s possible there’s a world outside of my eyes, my ears, my senses; it’s possible there is a reality within this illusion that meets this illusion besides me and all the other sparks of the one Creator which are called humankind—and which are the first self-conscious manifestations of the Creator. But evidence points at least to the substantive possibility that ours is, in fact, a completely subjective universe, and that your reality to me depends not on yourself, but on me, and my reality to you depends not on myself, but on you.

And this is why truth is so misunderstood. One person’s truth is seldom another person’s truth. By the time you find a truth that will fit enough of consensus reality to be a truth, it has almost the quality of cliché. It is difficult to speak in original and ground-breaking truth.

It is indeed a concept that inspires a somewhat stunned feeling. I would describe it as “stunned” rather than an awed feeling, because “awe” has the undertone by means of the language root it comes from of also meaning “fearsome” and I think the one thing that a subjective creation is not is that which contains fear. I think that the biggest single mistake that mankind has ever made in its conscious or consciousness is to accept as reality metaphysical fear of any kind.

It’s not that I don’t believe in loyal opposition, it is not that I don’t believe they can make metaphysical study and the offering of them to others when the light is being spread very difficult. They’re just the loyal opposition. The Republicans make it difficult for the Democrats. The south rebelled against the north. This is not a harmonious environment here and if you know history, you know it never has been.

It’s within us that all of those things occur. And what we are doing, you see, in third density, we start out with these instinctual animals, hairless apes who have willingly sacrificed their instinctual life so that our consciousness could take manifestation in this illusion to make the choices and learn the lessons about love that this illusion is designed to bring forward and to teach. All the lessons have something to do about love—how to love, how to be loved.

So we, who are also in our conscious minds illusory, set about attempting to pay attention. It’s as simple as paying attention. Of course, the morning meditation or the evening meditation is the cornerstone of all that follows, because you’re listening. But you can bring with you, for your entire day, the habit of paying attention. Not just to what gets other people’s goats, but to how you respond to the various situations that you encounter during the day. Note them. And when you have time that evening as you’re going off to sleep, or if you want to make it a more ritualized thing [inaudible] take that time to do it, look at what has swayed you to negative emotion or positive emotion during the day. Gaze back into your subjective memory, your personal myth, because none of us remember things correctly, we remember them mythologically, we remember them for the impact they have on our lives, which is often times seemingly only tangential to the events which transpired to do so.

When we write our own memoirs without reference to other people and records and stuff for fact, we do not tell a objective story of our lives, we tell our impressions of what has occurred to us, and the more you pay attention to your reaction, the more you have as grist for the mill, as Ram Das entitled a book once, the more you have to chew over, to ruminate upon, and to see if you can trace back why you had an untoward emotional reaction to something that could have easily be seen several other ways, some of which were neutral emotionally.

In this way, without doing harm to yourself by simply saying “I don’t like this about myself—I am going to change.” You are looking at why you are like that and you are looking at the programming that you probably got as a child that gives you this inability in this one area to use your catalyst properly.

Basically, what you want to do is never overcome or beat back or repress your feelings and your instincts, unless, of course, it would cause harm to another person or infringe upon freewill in which case you work it all out in your head—you think it through in your head and have the experience there. That’s quite valid on the level of thought plane.

As you go on with this paying attention and seeing what gets your goat and what makes you thrill, you begin to see deeper and deeper into your behaviors and what lays behind the behaviors you exhibit to yourself. Basically people know very little about anything but behavior. So it’s good to get beyond that point. It is necessary to get beyond that point in order to be honest and pure, and clear enough to do that work in consciousness that you honestly want to do.

I don’t know whether Q’uo has commented on each of the world’s great religions—I’ll have to ask Jim that. I challenge and channel and then forget what the information was unless I read the transcript. But I will say one thing—they all have similar, if not identical thoughts about love, peace, brotherhood—there is a strong difference in vocabulary for instance, between Buddhist and Christian beliefs. Like the concept, for instance, of content vs. emptiness, or form vs. emptiness, is quite unemotional, but linguistically equivalent to our good and bad. Form being bad and emptiness good. Now, of course, there is no emptiness without form, or form without emptiness and there is neither form nor emptiness but that which is greater than both.

In the same way there is no good without bad or bad without good, and there is that which lies beyond both good and bad. I have chosen consciously to follow the Christian mystic path, because, for one thing it is a sentimental favorite, I just love Jesus, but for another thing it provides a path towards the Creator, a path towards knowledge of the self, a path towards thinking on the mind of someone like Christ who can tell you a great deal about yourself. It is this culture’s main religion and consequently there are many many programs available of which I can take advantage.

The problem with creating your own personal myth from scratch (what I call religion is actual personal myth) is that you don’t have a group of people to experience group worship with. One who has a personal path of service is often fuzzy about the symbol or the ideal that would briefly and with great metaphysical clarity be a symbol or description of the path upon which they are walking. It slows down progress considerably—a lot of confusion.

So I think that the culture shapes the spiritual paths that are orthodox in order to express just as language does a gestalt of the epoch of that society or culture. And consequently it would not be my choice to move into Zen Buddhism or Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, or the philosophy of Confucius, or any of the perfectly satisfactory systems of theology that are historically present and experientially present. But the world in which we happen to live right now, has to some extent, attempted to adapt to the culture in which it lives and this is helpful.

Now most churches are hopeless. I would never recommend to someone else unequivocally that he attempt to learn the feelings connected with the reasons behind religion because those reasons manifest themselves in me in a unique way and in you in another unique way, and so forth. In other words, you can’t clone one religion to another.

There are distinct differences and there are distinct difficulties in the dogma and collected doctrine of each and every path, and I reject most of the doctrine of the Christian church and still call myself Christian. Because it is my understanding of the function of religion in general that it moves your attention and your living of a life, from the grabbing of the gusto, from it being as good as it ever gets, from life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—I do not consider happiness an objective in this context—to the kind of consciousness that looks at the world with the eyes of a mystic.

That is, one who is moving from a point of mystery which is eternal into a time/space locus within the self, so that one is always moving from a wider viewpoint to consider whatever matter is at hand. One then has a greatly expanded ability to read a situation. Again, it simply is getting more information in the program of the mind that has been reprogrammed to include as much of the metaprogram as you have been able to reach in the subconscious which aids entities in retaining data having to do with spiritual matters.

Whatever does this for you is de facto, your religion. If you’ll think about the Ra material as a whole, you will see it is not religious. It is a cosmology or theoretical model of creation within which the central and important place, this illusion and this moment in time has for us and the need for a personal path of faith and a life in faith, is clearly explained as the center. That cosmology does not suggest any particular religion or philosophy, nor would it, although I would witness to my having had incredible experiences as a Christian mystic.

As we are in the density of choice, one has to be motivated to make that choice. Now in the Bible, let’s take Christianity, since it’s my bailiwick and I don’t really know that much about the Asiatic religions. The mystic gazes upon the story of Jesus the Christ, and knows one thing beyond all others—that this man doesn’t quit and doesn’t stop loving. Notice the second thing, this man never refers to himself in any way that is not humble. If he calls himself anything, he calls himself the “son of man”.

The rest of what he has to say about himself is in my opinion alone, things that a Jewish mystic would say, because the name of the Jewish God was “I am”—as a matter of fact, it was repeated—“I am that I am” or “I am what I am” or “I am and I am” very difficult, I understand, to translate, except “I am”. So Jesus says “I am the way.” The Creator is the way—the Creator within is the way. The “I am” of your own being is your way.

The point is: how do you get there. You need some sort of a bridge across the chasm that separates the mundane from the infinite or, I like to put it another way and say: “separates the x-axis from the y-axis, if the y-axis is vertical. We live life on the horizontal axis, following the stream of time, reacting to the things that are put in front of us.

What we don’t realize, most of us, and this is again my opinion, is that there is an axis, a vertical axis that intersects the horizontal axis at each and every present moment. Our mundane life is intersected at all times with eternity—the vertical axis that gives resonance to otherwise relatively meaningless relativistic actions, thoughts and behaviors.

If the path works for you and you feel that you have been able to contact Intelligent Infinity using the powers that this path gives you to feel worshipful, to feel adoration, to feel passion for one’s Creator (he loved us first, he created us, we didn’t create him—it’s only logical to love the man, or it, or whatever, back). But that is why religion is there—it is necessary to have a story that brings people into contact with Infinity—to unmask for them, even for just a moment, or an hour, their true nature, as light beings that shall always be and that have always been, even before the beginning of time, before the foundation of any matter.

Seventh Question: You were wondering if Q’uo was perhaps being a little bit hardnosed in allowing students to choose the time of their start along this line of thinking. There is a spiritual principle here that makes perfect sense, but you have to sort of think sideways.

If Q’uo were you, and if Q’uo/you offered a class in the important stuff and people signed up for that class, then your methods of teaching would be impeccable. Of course, sometimes you have to help people along. However, there is not a class for Q’uo. Even the people that are sitting in the circle are lives unto themselves—this is a density of freedom of choice, and each of us has the right to think about what we wish to think about, to do what we wish to do, and to be whatever manner of entity we wish to be.

Consequently, Q’uo waits to respond to questions asked by someone who has begun to seek, and since that entity has begun to seek, Q’uo, being an outer planes’ entity, does not have the right to abridge freewill. He must give a general answer in order to preserve the tuning of the contact and the tuning of the channel. Each person chooses freely the moment of his first action which takes into account the information he has received, and when one tries to give another what one considers to be the truth, without it’s been having asked for, one is quite unliable to receive a favorable thank you. One is much more likely to be seen as a manic apostle who has set out to bring people to the truth, which may not be their true.

Now ultimately, in order to get off this rock and move on to other lessons and the refinement of the choice we’ve made in this density—service to others, therefore to God, or service to self, therefore to God, then you will find constant encouragement and support from a channel like Q’uo, but not any hint of Q’uo doing the person’s metaphysical work for him. All choices are to be left free. He has not the right to do it any other way. And actually, I think enough of that approach that in many cases I do pretty much the same thing. In letters when I am not sure what level people are speaking from, I try to give a bunch of general information on the subject and then see where the person wants to run with it which will tell me a lot more than I know.

I do not decide anything when I’m channeling, except if I think the channeling is going sour to stop, which hasn’t happened in years. As a matter of fact, it’s never happened to me, but I’ve seen it happen. The contact is operating on its own (or their own, since Q’uo is a multiple entity) ethical consideration, and I think it is indeed a fine line and I have seen it stepped over slightly, due to the fact that the question is being asked about the channel, which is already a small part of that social memory complex by virtue of having been with that social memory complex while that social memory complex was using your vocal apparatus and experience and vocabulary and so forth, to give a message.

In that case, every once in a while I have seen one of our contacts step a bit over the line to say “you know, this person is going to die unless you do something.” Did it for me, did it for Don. I listened, Don didn’t. Don died. I took a vacation. I was told either you figure out how to be nice to yourself or you’re not going to make it much longer in this world, so I took my first vacation in eleven years.

(Reads another question) “Subjective proof is the ticket for metaphics, I said, and you said subjective proof is almost a contradiction in terms. You were being very kind and perhaps not quite accurate—I think it is a contradiction in terms, but it is a term that I created because of what I had noticed occurring as I moved along the path of my own life.

Let me give you the example I give in the channeling handbook because it is probably the most dramatic. I’ll back it up with one a little less dramatic so that you can see how these things work. The most dramatic case occurred to me personally when I was teaching channeling to an extremely gifted student named L.C. who was in our wedding and is much beloved by us to this day. He was making really good progress and we had persevered even though he was going through a divorce—not messy on his side, but messy on the side of his wife who was finally, I believe, institutionalized for a while.

He would show up at meditations with teeth marks on his arms because he’d been protecting the baby from her. That’s not something that you can laugh off, but he was a stable enough person so that I felt he would be all right channeling, and I was right, but he was staggering and didn’t know which end was up and was wondering if the effort he was making was truly worthwhile in view of the fact that he had so much going on on the surface of his life.

It was the middle of winter and it was one of those very cold wet days that occur in winter when it’s not only 25 degrees out but it humid with a wind chill factor of maybe minus 2—it was really cold. He came in and we prepared to meditate and I began channeling and I got some information about a butterfly, amongst a bunch of other stuff.

The butterfly theme was kind of a light motif for the whole discussion and he exercised his channel and it was getting better and we stopped. And he said “it was really amazing that you were speaking of butterflies right then because the butterfly has always been my own personal symbol of the spirit of love and beauty and truth and so forth, it’s my symbol.” We said that was nice—he had come in complaining that he was deathly cold because his ex-wife had borrowed his down jacket and had never brought it back and it was the only warm winter coat that he had.

Well, he looked up, and about 20 feet into a room that was 34 feet long, was crawling a caterpillar—the very furry kind that comes in brown and black, that is supposed to tell you what kind of a winter you’re going to have. Well, obviously that’s the pupas stage of some moth or butterfly, and that was interesting, but the most interesting part—and this is what I mean by subjective proof—was that as he sighted along, and I sighted along the caterpillar, I saw a dark blue ripcord bundle that looked a little bit like a sleeping bag, but smaller, and I said “L. is that yours over there—I don’t remember you bringing it in?” And he looked at it and said “I think it’s my coat.” And it was.

Now I could have gone and gotten the coat and put it there—he could have put it there—a third party could have put it there, but the fact was he got a series of interlocking, subjectively interesting events—he got the message, the example of himself before he turns into a butterfly, and of course, wooly worms are not supposed to be alive in January or February and that’s about the time this was. And then to sight along that personal symbol in its unfinished state and see what he needed—the coat—that blew his mind to the point where he no longer had any questions about what was occurring.

Now this doesn’t convince another soul because of what I said before—I could have saved that little wooly worm from summer—who knows that I didn’t, but myself. The same with L.—who knows but himself, but since L. knew that I hadn’t because I said I hadn’t and I’m always honest, and he knew he hadn’t, he knew that there was no longer any room in his personal life for doubt as to the reality of the path he was on or its importance. That’s what I mean by subjective proof.

You asked a bunch of questions, and I sure hope you wanted answers—this is three hours of talk here.

Other examples of subjective proof: Don had subjective proof when he visited Uri Geller. Geller was an acquaintance of his through Puharich who Don had done a lot of work with—I had too. I personally never had been much interested in phenomena because I was always a mystic, which meant I took very few things literally. So you see, I am predisposed to consider the universe as subjective because I don’t listen to what anybody says. I do not consider anybody in authority that is greater than my own powers of discrimination.

That was an attitude that got me into a good deal of trouble when I was in grade school, but by college it was appreciated by the good teachers—there were those who disliked me intensely (laughs)—I got a 99 in one class, logic or philosophy, and my logic circuit is strong so when doing the homework I just worked the problems and didn’t check them because I knew the theory and it was homework.

So I only had a 93 average on that homework because I missed some real simple things that I really knew, but I hadn’t checked it. I got a 99 on my midterm and a 99 on my final (it should have been 100 but my name was in the wrong place). So I had 99, 99 and 93—so we’re talking about an A average—and he gave me a B.

Well, I had corrected him a couple of times in class, in front of the students—I’d corrected the textbook a couple of times, so I was not appreciated because I constituted some sort of personal threat to this person—but I went into his office to find out why he had given me a B and he told me that he had given me a B because there were a lot of people in the class who had tried a lot harder than I had. Figure that out. And this was a philosophy teacher—he teaches ethics (laughs)—we’re in trouble. The man now heads the Department of Philosophy at the University of Orville—thereby proving the Peter Principle once again.

Don tested Uri Geller in a very subtle manner because he was a pretty sophisticated researcher by then—this was in about 1974-1975. He would tell Uri in his mind, for instance, what kind of car he drove, I give this example because I’m sure of it, some of the others he said different things at different times, but this one I’m sure of. He told him he had a Cadillac mentally. Then he asked Uri “what kind of a car do you drive.” And Uri told him and then Uri said: “you drive a Cadillac, don’t you?” and Don said “why, no I drive an Oldsmobile.” And Uri said “I thought you said you drove a Cadillac.”

Later, they were sitting together in Uri’s hotel room (they were both on a trip out to California and Don was flying and Uri was passengering) and they took the opportunity to spend some time together. They both really liked each other’s company. Uri liked Don—not only did he understand so much of what was going on in the physics of it, which I’m afraid I cannot reproduce for you, but Don was a good audience—he was not a skeptical audience so things happened very easily because the scientist is part of the experience.

Don held a key—a heavy house key—with his fingernails, not his fingers, he kept his fingernails just long enough to be able to do that, it is a very delicate way of holding something and it’s easily dropped. Uri bent that key so lightly that it did not come out of Don’s grasp—he bent all the silverware in the place. Yes, it was in 1975 because that’s when Don and I worked on a movie called “The Force Beyond”—when we saw it we called it “The Farce Beyond”.

At one time Don wanted to be in the movie business so he could make metaphysical movies and save the planet. It will be saved one person at a time, that’s my feeling.

He flew me and two friends of ours that were very very close to the group and really are key members (one was the vice president and the other sits on the Board of L&L—four people) to Fort Smith, Arkansas to a UFO Convention that a mutual UFO network was giving. This network is located in Texas and you should be able to find references to that periodical. They are oriented towards the belief that there are actually UFOs and so forth, and aren’t quite as hardnosed about their reporting as some of the other UFO organizations—either way: “They’re here! They’re here!” or “They’re not real—show me something I can believe.”

Another kind of proof that cannot be objective, you see, But he was flying in a Baron, which is a very nice twin-engine, kind of comparable to a Cadillac Coup de Ville, and it worked fine on the way down, but on the way back the gyroscopic horizon went out, and like any top that runs down, it’s not going to regenerate it’s spin. So in the middle of pretty bad weather, icy conditions and lots of precipitation, Don was not able to get above it without getting into airspace that is kept strictly for the larger airplanes, and so he really had no choice but to get as high as he could and to fly on the needle ball—which tells you the attitude of the plane—if it’s yawing, if it’s tipping in one way or another—and when it’s flying straight and level, the needle is intersecting the ball, and if it goes off you’re able to see the needle go off the ball.

So he was flying on that in a locked in situation—we were completely in the clouds and the clouds were going up to maybe 50,000 feet. Finally, Don got tired of looking at a horizon that wasn’t working so he put a piece of paper over it, because it was distracting him. We kept falling off of one end and then off of the other—but he wasn’t worried about it because he had enough training and he knew the terrain. He didn’t feel it was dangerous—at that point. But he did, as soon as the horizon went out, make arrangements to change his flight plan and land at the nearest airport. So we did play it conservatively—which was Don’s forte.

Well, at one point he was falling off one wing and then the other, really really fast—there was almost no time to recover until he fell off again because he was also fighting the rapidly icing windshield and wings and there wasn’t any electrical heating on the wings—so we are getting into a dicey situation. So Don decided to go down below the place he was—it might still be in the clouds but it would be warmer and he might not be encountering as bad icing conditions, and he was pretty close to Evansville and felt that he could make his way to the airport better if he were able to navigate by looking at some kind of horizon, and physically put the plane down where it was supposed to be put down and not just run on his instruments, which is what he did.

But as he was going down into Evanston, he pulled the paper off of the horizon and it was working. It was impossible that it was working, but it was! It affected Don so much that he wrote it up for “The Enquirer” and sent it in. It never got published but it was the doggone truth and it was amazing.

A couple of weeks later, he was with Uri again, this time in Las Vegas. Again, they were sharing a flight out—Don really liked to go to California, it was one of his favorite flights out, and Uri just needed to go from coast to coast a lot because he was doing shows, so they met up a couple of times. I think Uri kind of arranged it—he would find out when Don was flying and get on that plane because he really enjoyed sitting with Don when Don wasn’t busy.

So they got off the plane together and went to the motel and they were sitting in the motel room, and Don was done with bending keys—he didn’t have to see anything twice, although that marks him off from most scientists right there, instead what happened was Don started to tell Uri about this amazing occurrence that happened to him with the horizon going out. Uri got very excited—he was an excitable person—he started hopping and jumping around, all the exuberance of a 27 year old.

He said “let’s put it in the manila folder, quick. Well Don was sitting on the manila folder—he was sitting on a big mess of papers that covered the bed that Uri wasn’t using—so he found the manila folder, and right there on the front page over and above a list that Uri had started, in big print were the words “Horizon went out”…

[Missing several words.]

…earphones, so that other people wouldn’t be disturbed by the blast and he got a voiceover that said “the horizon was out” and he felt power going through his hands the way he would feel it when he healed. By the way, don’t tell anybody that Uri can heal people because it’s not publicly known—he’s afraid of the ability himself, and really doesn’t want anything to do with it. But, at any rate (when he makes watches work it’s the same thing) he was aware that power was coming through his hands so he figured it must have something to do with his hands, and so he figured it must have something to do with the horizon.

So they looked at each other in mutual surmise—and Uri said, “I think I fixed your horizon.” And Don said a bottle took off (one of those you get in first class section) and hit the plate glass window, which as you know is very tough in motels, and bounced off and landed on the rug, and Uri said, “yep, I fixed your computer—that’s the way they tell me.”

Are you going to believe this? You didn’t see it. Is that objective truth? No. Is it subjective truth? Yes. For Don it was. Certainly for Uri it was beyond proving—it was just something that happened to him all the time.

So, the way I see it—the spiritual path is one in which, as you progress upon it, and as you are paying more and more attention to who you are, how you are reacting, how you would like to react, what you actually believe, what you don’t believe, but would kind of like to believe, and then just the sheer listening, which is the deepest work of all in meditation, things begin occurring to you in subjectively interesting coincidental patterns. Eventually, the coincidences mount up so that you are personally convinced that what you are doing exists, is important, is intelligent and is appropriate for you to be doing at this time. But you can’t prove it to another soul. Why? It would infringe on their freewill.

I can say to my neighbor “quit beating your wife” and the neighbor can just tell me to go and take a flying leap—I’m a neighbor. If an entity obviously far more advanced, comes to the door and informs the man that he has to no longer beat his wife and the guy thinks he looking at the deity or at least a representative of one, he may well follow authority and not beat his wife any more, but he hasn’t learned what he was learning by beating his wife, so something else will occur.

All you do when you interfere with freewill to make the situation better is to give that person a harder row to hoe the next time and so is the person who accepted the victimization of beating. So you simply can’t interfere with freewill. It’s as simple as that and as complicated as that.

Metaphysically, because there is no true understanding in this density, you are correct—the word “proof” is a poor word, not a bad word, but not a relevant word. Basically, what we are doing in this life is making a blind choice to live a life in faith, thinking of the Creator as loving us and loving the Creator back with all of our hearts and all of our souls and all of our minds, all of our strength, at the same time thinking about the Creator, thinking how we can serve and to notice our gifts, to identify them and to share them with each other. That’s what the positive path is about and the reason for this lifetime.

I don’t know if you know the old Episcopal hymn: “Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide, and to strive twixt good and falsehood, for the good or evil side, some great cause God the Messiah offers each the bloom or blight.” Well, bloom or blight—which do you choose? It’s not something you can legislate for anybody but yourself.

So yes, the word proof is pretty irrelevant here. This is an area of our learning upon which the rest of our learning, up until the middle of sixth density, will depend. Do we graduate positive, do we graduate negative, or do we just sort of sit in the gravity well of not doing anything in particular and eat at McDonalds for another 75,000 years?

I just as soon go on, consequently I tend to serve the Creator by serving others, and I find the best way to serve others is to wait for people to ask me.

Number Nine: You mention that you got very depressed almost every time you engage in metaphysical conversation with anyone because either the person is troubled by the conversation or the person laughs it off. That’s two very distinct ways of dealing with the unknown. Almost everybody has fear of (fill in the blanks). I am irrationally afraid of bugs. I’ve been held at bay by three butterflies. I’m working on it.

As far as metaphysics is concerned, I’m not at all afraid, because I’ve been through too much and I know that an abiding faith and a persistent will will balance, harmonize and offer forgiveness to any situation, any relationship, anything that you, yourself, have done. That doesn’t mean that if you’ve done things you’re sorry you did and the person is still alive that it wouldn’t be a great idea, and a freeing one, to go and make it all right, one way or another. Or do the best you can to make it right. It just means that the thing you really have to worry about in forgiveness is yourself. Because it is the Christ within you, the love within you that judges you, and if you know anything about how you judge yourself as opposed to how you judge others, you are the hardest on yourself by far.

Better to work on that forgiveness now than to find after the incarnation that you have been beating yourself down and sabotaging your own path by giving yourself negative information that your heart takes in, that you’re being less than appropriate or intelligent, or whatever.

But forgive yourself now, not later. Of course, that is what people are looking for—that bridge to eternity—they feel that in some way they need to be made worthy of eternity. It isn’t that we are worthy of eternity, it is that that is our destiny. Christ lived the life for us to follow—he didn’t suggest, he said: “if you want to follow me, take up your cross.”

So, it’s a little bit scary. We’re talking about the process of chipping away at the pettiness of yourself; making changes in why you are the way you perceive yourself—hollowing yourself out so the person that is looking at you is looking at the Creator. As Jesus said “he who is talking to me is not talking to me but to my Father.” Jesus was transparent like that and we all try to be transparent like that but most of us never quite make it, I don’t think, except for the saints, and I’m certainly not one of those.

There are several reasons that people are not receptive to discussions at this time. The first and most obvious one is that most people are not interested in abstract thought. With the advent of television, the last remnant of abstract thought and imagination, were taken gently from the hands of a willing populous. If you read a book, you can imagine. If you see it on the television, that is the world that you see, there is no room for your imagination unless the author writes the script in such a way to leave room and this is unlikely.

People think of these things in college and when they are done with college, they usually, like lemmings into the sea, follow the inevitable route of a job, a wife and a growing family. There’s nothing wrong with that, I’m not making fun of it, it’s just that it’s a pattern that people do without thinking about it and that’s too bad. They’re basically relieved that they don’t have to think abstractly any more. College was difficult for them, they did it for one reason only, either to get married or to get a job or both. Not many people appreciate the marvelous lore of our people.

You’re talking to someone who has an enormous love of the abstract—who is basically an abstract or a theoretical person. I see myself as relatively theoretical. I do very little in the physical illusion any more. I’ve been bedridden recently, by the way, probably for life. I’m ignoring that though when it comes to singing in church.

That’s the first answer. The second answer is: They honestly feel that questions such as this are sophomoric because of course they are asked by people of a sophomore age, and that real life, which they don’t see as an illusion at all but an all too heavy reality is now upon them and they have responsibilities. They don’t have time to think about “where did I come from—where am I going?” and honestly think it’s irrelevant to their lives because their lives consist of social accepted behaviors amended by the personality of the entity—becoming more ambitious and whatever. Basically they know the rules of society and will deal with it one way or the other according to their nature.

Thirdly, everybody knows they’re going to die so they ignore it. When you talk about metaphysics you’re moving into the area of the absolute and the infinite and the imperishable. That means that we would be around to appreciate the absolute, the infinite and the imperishable—that means we’re going to die. Who wants to think about that? I’ve heard this a lot. “I have enough trouble in this life why would I want to worry about the next? I don’t think there is another one—we’ll just die and go in our grave.” Okay, fine, you don’t belong here.

It scares people. So that’s three strikes. Number one—metaphysics is hard, it takes a few grey cells to wrap your mind around some of the concepts, especially since a lot of the most excellent and central philosophies are laden with areas of dogma and doctrine linked to theological origins of the authors of the philosophy, that it’s difficult to get at the germ, the heart of the information and gets stuck on this point or that point.

People have a good deal of trouble philosophizing, I learned that early on in my career, when I took a graduate philosophy class in my first semester. Our only assignment for the final was to philosophize about some point we had covered about ethics. I thought about it, and wrote a page and a half. I didn’t have a typewriter, I didn’t know how to type, didn’t know you weren’t supposed to write on both sides, didn’t know you were supposed to write on a certain kind of paper, I was only a Freshman. But that page and a half won the only “A” in the class and won me a friend for the rest of his life. He was the Dean of the Arts and Sciences.

So imagine my chagrin—also my pride in the chagrin of many graduate students who turned in 40 page papers with impressive bibliographies—I had no bibliography, no footnotes, I had simply thought about freewill. I hadn’t started meditating and listening to channeled material at that time. People feel safe with authority—to think something out seems very difficult for people. To think abstractly is not a skill many people have by nature or pick up easily. People don’t particularly like to do hard things. Nobody ever said philosophy was easy to read and as I said, I think it’s a great relief to people when they don’t have to deal with that anymore.

Everyone, however, is okay. They can spend as much time as they want puttering around, [inaudible] is not going to disappear—people will always be going on pilgrimages, there will always be company on the road—there will always be people with you on the road, and we all have eternity to grow in and to go back home in. I think of ourselves as prodigal sons and daughters.

We got born, the [inaudible] is getting dropped, we’re out of Eden, not sinned, just out of Eden. We were given free will—that’s the source of duality. It makes us make choices—that’s what this whole thing is about—making choices.

Basically, I would suggest that to find people who are really receptive to metaphysical discussion, you just drop little seeds here and there, like Johnny Appleseed, only let each one be sort of a provocative statement and then drop it. If somebody picks it up, you’ve got yourself a live one. If nobody picks it up then you could have wasted a lot of effort and not gotten anywhere. I have never seen or heard of a conversion taking place from someone who was unwilling or unready to make a commitment. Sometimes, of course, that occurs very quickly. But you don’t talk anyone into believing anything—and I certainly wouldn’t. Faith is a totally personal thing.

And I really do believe that philosophy and religion are different, because one describes the structure within which we live, and the other serves a specific function within the structure.

And, are they afraid of something? Fear is the single greatest deterrent to progress in anything. I just remember one sentence when I feel fear—one metaphysical sentence—“fear not, for I am with you.” I am—why in the world be afraid?

So don’t feel that you can help other people by bringing all this to their attention. Drop seeds and let the people come to you. And be prepared to bear the brunt of some scorn, criticism, accusations of being nuts or studying the fringe area, all that stuff. People aren’t very comfortable with serious thinkers. You might take away their beer and pizza, I don’t know.

If you do offer a course in metaphysics and metaphysical thought—I took a course in metaphysics, there are pretty good text books. Of course, I don’t know what’s on the market now. When I took it, there were excellent text books and I very much enjoyed the course. It, however, did not cover extra-terrestrial philosophy, which I’m sure would be a real draw. Kids are not afraid. They are the sophomores and they are very interested.

“Don’t you have the responsibility as a teacher to share that knowledge with others?” Yes, I think you do. You have the responsibility to offer to share it, you don’t have the responsibility for drumming up business. A bootless venture where this sort of thing is concerned. People will be ready to raise their own consciousnesses and not before, that’s all there is to it. It’s their choice, and not ours.

But if you can raise your own level of consciousness—keep doing that—that’s the greatest service anybody can perform. You need that, that’s true.

As to coming to see you—[inaudible] South Carolina, I love that country. I used to vacation about 18 miles south of Myrtle Beach on [inaudible] Island. I wouldn’t want to put you out paying for it and we can’t afford it, but as far as coming and offering a guest lecture or two, I’d be glad to do it, given that I am able to deal with the airline and get wheelchairs and entering into the frequent flyers executive lounge or whatever, on layovers, for the simple reason at this point is that I’m supposed to be doing nothing but sitting here for the rest of my life. I’m doing other than that, plus I’m doing hard won exercises, figuring out some I can do, but for the most part I have been scratched off the list of the able bodied.

I think that with the airlines allowing me to lie down between flights, and with South Carolina being so close (relatively), it would not be that hard of a trip and I would be glad to make it. I can’t speak for Jim, but I will show the letter to him. Jim is, of course, a fantastic lecturer. His only fault is he has such an economical mind that he gives very dense material and he’s not the easiest person to follow. But because he knows his subject, he’s very impressive and leaves a lot of people in the dust. I ramble, but I’m more user friendly. So usually we do our thing in tandem so if people want thrift of words, they go for Jim and if they want some kind of breadth of answer or resonance, they’ll come to me.

I love to do that kind of thing, but if you thinks it’s really worth it and can get some money that is set aside for seminars and things like that, and not spend your own money…

Thank you so much for your letter. Luckily, so very much of my work can be done in the hospital bed that I’m now enjoy in the living room. I’ve got it all filled with pillows and hopefully it just looks like a strange couch, but it’s necessary. I’ve resumed going to church and really enjoy it—services are always for me, home. It’s just a quirk of mine—that appeals to me and I find strength in it. I sympathize with all other paths and would never be a stumbling block by saying anyone else should be a Christian, besides, a lot of Christians wouldn’t call me a Christian, anyway. I refuse doctrine and dogma on principle. Give me a life in faith. Faith in what? Love. Faith in there being nothing to fear because we have a kindly father. That’s it. As little content as possible—be abiding and quiet and constant—that’s the ticket.

In November a very interesting thing might happen to me. Barabra Brodsky, whom you wouldn’t know because she hasn’t published yet, but she is a very good channel, and wrote me, with pretty much the same sentences and of course, we fell in love with each other almost immediate. Excellent channel—totally different kind of channel. She happens to know Pat Rodegast who is published and channels the “Emmanuel” source. She also is an excellent channel and this is a field where there are very few excellent channels, so the three of us will get together and hold sessions for a week and let our contacts write a book. So that will be very interesting.

My idea in making up this project was to show people how very similar all the messages are. People keep trying to say “well, so-and-so says this, and so-and-so says that, which one is right?” If you have to ask that one then you haven’t gotten to the heart of the material yet. They never could tell time. It was always our joke that Ra could only count to one.

We just inadvertently, but I’m very pleased with it, switched publishers and are now being published by Shiffer, which is also known as Whitworth. Shiffer publishes “best of” books. Shiffer doesn’t have a lot of books in one area. It covers anything non-fiction that seems to be the best of its type. Like the best book on Venetian glass is probably published by Shiffer. The reason I was familiar with it before was that if you saw two books on a subject and one had the Whitworth or Shiffer publishing on it, and the other one didn’t, then you just picked the Shiffer one.

It’s a third generation international publisher, and they decided, bless their hearts, that we were the best in the area of channeling, and they bought the right to Book One and want to print Books One, Two, Three and Four in a quality paperback format, much like the Ra Material which was actually Book One, and they will retitle it “Book One—The Law of One” and will keep the same cover for all of them.

I like the cover—I had no quarrel with it whatsoever. Jim did most of the work in designing it in coming up with cartouches that meant something with interesting colors and things like that.

That will be very nice to be in new markets and to see the series sitting together on the shelf. I think that will really help because as it is, of course, Volume One is sitting on a regular shelf and Volumes Two, Three and Four are in the oversized books, and not that easy to find.

I think that’s probably good news even though we were too naïve to ask for more money (laughs). So they’re printing all of the Ra Material stuff for free—they don’t have to pay us anything—we signed the rights of printing away because we felt that just getting the work out was important—neither of us was really thinking. I’m not a good businesswoman at all and Jim studied business and has a business degree, but his metaphysical ideas square with most business training.

Other than that, we’re just doing what we doing. I spend my time doing what I’m doing with you right now and taking care of a prayer list of people, telling people in my group for whom to pray and what’s wrong with them, letting the people that are being prayed for that they are being prayed for every day, and keeping the household accounts—that’s all I do. Jim, of course, poetry in motion, as he dances through the day doing any number of things. We always start the morning with a meditation. Jim meditates and I contemplate in the evening—for a while—we don’t do it too much, we know we need to take baby steps ourselves. Eight hours of meditation can make you real crazy.

And let’s see, I just finished singing a concert of Mozart’s “Requiem”—if you saw “Amadeus” you know that one. Sort of an Italian operatic take on “Requiem” which is much fun to sing, and the “Magnificant”, a magnificent work, and probably my second most favorite thing to sing in the whole world, by Bach. They are both brilliant, but Mozart’s all over himself, sort of splatters—a beautiful splatter, quite operatic, and the “Magnificant” is structured to compress the passion, really make an architecture of it that expresses grandeur and inner nuance of all kinds and word painting and so forth, he uses the art of the fugue, subject, inverted subject, point, counter point—fascinating to sing, fascinating to think about. My only more favorite thing to think about is the “B minor Mass”, also by Bach.

That’s over, sadly enough, and we are now practicing Brahms’ “Requiem”—Brahms wasn’t particular happy and neither is the piece—it is a very subtle piece, very difficult to do properly. When it’s done properly, the audience can’t hear it, so it’s a little bit dicey. It’s also very hard to sing. The Bach Society heads are counting on a lot of older members of the Bach Society remembering it. I hope they’re right. I’m having a good time with it—I do remember it. I do tend to come in sometimes on the wrong part because I’ve sung three in that exalted work—first and second soprano and alto, but I think I’ve about got it down now and that will be on October 14, if that’s a Sunday.

Jim’s parents come at the end of October and it’s fun for me to watch them enjoying him. They don’t relate to me very well except through him and really I don’t blame them. Can you imagine what they must think of a man who marries an invalid because he wants to spend the rest of his life with her. They’ve never quite worked that one out. And this isn’t counting how they feel about channeling and so forth.

They’re of the Christian variety that likes structure and not having to think, but simply to know the Church’s stand on each and every thing and their church’s stand on channeling is that it’s satanic, which is very hard for them to match up with either Jim or me and to their credit, they do not. They simply accept us though they don’t have a clue what we’re doing but somehow they have this faith that it’s okay.

My mother just completed a move into an apartment, my Dad died about a year ago, and that is certainly a bunch of brouhaha that’s finally come to an end, so all is really very very well here. And wish you much light on your path. You will find what you seek—just be careful what you seek.

God bless, lots of love and light, and give us a call if you want to come up again, and make sure we’ve got it nailed down. We’d be glad to make arrangements for you. I’ll be talking to you, and no, you don’t ask too many questions, it was a blast talking to you, I really enjoyed it. I hope you’re not too tired of listening and I hope that you enjoyed at least some of the thoughts I put forward. If you didn’t, for heaven’s sake, just put them down and walk away. We all have our personal truths and some of them don’t translate at all.