Lazaris stated many times that they would never hypnotize us without our knowledge and permission. Another lie glossed over and ignored.

quote:

---

Lazaris uses guided imagery, not as a mind control technique...

---

How do you know that?

The mind numbed state that many are in right now speaks loudly to me that you are completely incorrect.

I don't mind you expressing your opinion on this, but I seriously wish you would not state your case with such authority.

There is an outline for an "alchemical hypnotherapy session" on the internet. I don't have time to provide the link. It closely follows the pattern of a Lazaris "meditation" and it has a specific purpose and function, it is not a generic hynotic relaxation technique.

I take strong issue with your attempts to diminish the concerns others may have about having been hypnotized without permission or knowledge, and also not being responsible as a hypnotist yourself to present hypnosis in a true light, by admitting that it can be used as a tool to control the minds of others.

There are many books written on this topic for those who care to give some thought to what may have been going on in your subconscious over the years during Lazaris "meditations".

Mind control techniques are well documented and analyzed.

Chris, I think you are really working hard to encourage people into a state of complacency, and I really object.

quote:

---

It is general hypnosis because it isn't specifically geared to any one individual and is intended to help any who will listen.

I suppose that while you were missing Lazaris's repeated denial that he was using hypnosis, you also missed his oft repeated statements that he was working with each of us personally.

[quote]This is the standard used by any manufacturer when working with a faceless (personally unknown) client.

General suggestions and imagery utilized to speak to the largest audience.

---

Do you seriously suggest that people attending these events do not fully and completely believe the promises and assertions made to the complete contrary of what you are saying here? Or were we all just playing little mind games with ourselves, and that we REALLY knew that this was a bunch of generic hogwash being foisted on us, but we kept shelling out anyway?

Maybe you Chris, maybe that is fine with you.
Possibly you can fathom that it isn't ok with others.

quote:

---

Because of the evocative nature of personal imagery (that which resonates with the individual personally) it is far more likely to cause the upwelling of possible traumatic memories and emotional responses.

Generic imagery (such as that used by Lazaris) tends to have much more subtle effects as it only rarely speaks to any one person specifically enough to evoke energies one cannot handle.

---

Wow, you do speak as an expert. What is your degree in psychotherapy?

quote:

---

There are many book on the subject of hypnosis and very few will contradict anything I am saying and I would certainly challenge any conclusions to the contrary.

---

What I have read completely contradicts what you say, and so has the input of other hypnotherapists, several of the licensed degreed therapist. For that reason, I personally have no interest in your dispute with them.

I leave you with this thought from a higher authority. It is illegal to hypnotize anyone without their knowledge or permission.
It is also illegal to practice psychotherapy without a license.

Cult leaders have been prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned for doing exactly what you put forth here as a jolly little way of helping people.

The law has been broken here Chris, and you fundamentally agree that it has, you just don't seem to think that's any kind of a problem.

Given the nature of your own practice, you might want to give some serious attention to researching my statement. You may well be breaking the law yourself.

quote:

---

When you say you didn't give permission, were you thinking that the guided meditations were something other than tools to access your inner mind? Did you at one time think that somehow hypnosis and guided meditations are somehow two vastly different things? What exactly would be the point of entering trance if not to reprogram faulty mental programming?

---

I was thinking that they were exactly what Lazaris claimed them to be, and I believed him when he repeated over and over and over on many many occassions that they were NOT hypnosis, and that he would NEVER hypnotize us without our permission.

On one occassion of my experience, he did ask our permission to hypnotize us, clearly and definitively making that distinction between the "meditations" and hypnosis.

Why is this so difficult for you to address?
And why are you encouraging anyone to ignore that lie, or trying to talk down to us for being upset about being hypnotized against our will?

I do very much appreciate your expert validation that these meditations are hynosis sessions. You have used your authority on this topic to establish and prove one more big lie.

Whether or not they were beneficial is up to each of us to decide.

Being lied to and misled is never beneficial.

As to your opinions on other matters, your credentials as a hypnotist do not make you an authority on those, and it is to that I am speaking.

Also, I should mention that the techniques Lazaris uses are those practiced by licensed hypnotherapists who are also credentialed psychotherapists.

A quicky hypnosis class does not license one to use hypnosis as a psychotherapeutic technique.

All hypnosis is not created equal.

I am happy you brought this topic up again, I believe it to be of enormous significance.

Katie

PS, sorry if this is a bit disjointed, I was distracted several times while writing.

I must add my voice to this thread, as I was the one on another post that stated after one session in SF. when we'd gone deeply into a meditation, and were told to take three deep breaths, and really really ground ourselves well, because that was a doozie.

I walked out to get a bite to eat, and almost got hit by a car!!!!!!
I had a "hypnosis hangover" for more than an hour, and it was NOT Pleasant!!!! not at all.
I take exception to having been led down that path without knowing it.

I have had experiences which led me to believe that when one is hypnotized many environmental factors can work their way into the subconscious, I truly believe this is true.!!! It is obvious to me.

Those influences can be devastating.

I truly believe that Micheall's suicide was the result of his being under the influence of this type of control.

And I truly fear that other persons in and around the Orlando gang may fall into that mode as well. We will never hear about them I know that much for sure.

Influence of the kind that Jach played around with is the MOST despicable, because he covered his lie with so much luuuuv to guarantee we'd be there with open hearts, and THAT is what upsets me the most.

I offer this information in light of our seeming agreement.

quote:

---

The American Medical Association's Council on Scientific Affairs issued a report on the use of hypnosis in 1984. No therapist or client should consider using hypnosis for any purpose without first reading the full report and studying the known risks of this technique. Here are some quotes from the report:

"It is the consensus of the Panel that hypnotic age regression is the subjective reliving of earlier experiences as through they were real--which does not necessarily replicate earlier events."

"Although the Panel recognizes that there are many factors--including leading questions--that affect eyewitness testimony in the non-hypnotic state, subjects in hypnosis are more vulnerable to the biasing effects of leading questions."

"[T]here are clinical case reports that appear to demonstrate memory enhancement in hypnosis. The vast majority of these reports are anecdotal, and most fail to provide independent corroboration of the memories recovered in hypnosis or to establish that hypnosis was responsible for any effects observed."

"In no study to date has there been an increase in accuracy associated with an appropriate increase in confidence in the veracity of recollections. Consequently, hypnosis may increase the appearance of certitude without a concurrent increase in veracity."

"Witnesses and victims, however, are not selected for their mental health .... the Panel believes that it is essential that hypnosis be conducted by a psychiatrist or a psychologist who is competent to help the witness or victim deal with overwhelming affect."

"Not only is there a question about the accuracy of a subject's recollection during hypnosis, but there is also the problem that hypnosis leads to an increased vulnerability to subtle cues and implicit suggestions that may distort recollections in specific ways, depending upon what is communicated to the subject. Both the expectations of the hypnotist and the prior beliefs of the subject may determine the extent of confabulations or pseudomemories during hypnosis. The manner in which a question is framed can influence the response and even produce a response when there is actually no memory."

"Before proceeding with hypnosis, informed consent should be obtained from the subject."

"The Panel found no evidence to indicate that there is an increase in only accurate memory during hypnosis and recognized that there is no way for either the subject or the hypnotist to distinguish between those recollections that may be accurate and those that may be pseudomemories."
One of the known risks of hypnosis is the deliberate or inadvertent suggestion of information to the client by the hypnotist. Research studies have shown that even without the use of hypnosis, interviewers can suggest information to and cue desired responses from interviewees unintentionally and without either party being aware that suggestion has taken place. This unconscious "cueing" is believed to occur through body language, tone of voice, and other implicit means of communication. Consider this warning issued by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in 1997:

"Forceful or persuasive interviewing techniques are not acceptable in psychiatric practice. Doctors should be aware that patients are susceptible to subtle suggestions and reinforcements whether these communications are intended or unintended." -- "Reported Recovered Memories of Child Sexual Abuse: Recommendations for Good Practice", Report of Royal College of Psychiatrists' Working Group on Reported Recovered Memories of Child Sexual Abuse
When hypnotized, a person's succeptibility to suggestion (whether deliberate or inadvertent, conscious or unconscious) may increase. Individuals vary in their degree of response to hypnosis. Herbert Spiegel, M.D., studied suggestibility and hypnosis and classified 10 percent of the population as highly-hypnotizable "Grade Fives:"

"Spiegel also claims that Grade Fives exhibit 'readiness to trust; a relative suspension of critical judgment; an ease of affiliation with new experiences; a telescoped time sense; an easy acceptance of logical incongruities.' He thinks that they possess a capacity for intense concentration, 'overall tractability [and] role-confusion, [with] a subtle sense of inferiority.'" -- Victims of Memory, p.184
Such individuals probably have a greater-than-average risk of developing false memories of events which never occurred, particularly if hypnosis is used during psychotherapy, if the individual is not warned about the risk of suggestion, if informed consent is not obtained, or if the therapist assumes that problems in adult life are always rooted in childhood experiences. Research studies currently underway may shed light on the possible connection between suggestibility, hypnotizability, and the development of false memories

---

More to come.

I wonder what the penalties and settlements will look like for an unlicensed therapist?

quote:

---

You get the facts - then you decide

Renee Fredrickson wrote a book called Repressed Memories

Some people think she's an expert on "boundaries" [But see below]

But she and her ideas hurt people and she got sued. She settled for $175,000!

The Minnesota Board of Psychology investigated Fredrickson and wrote an order outlining her harmful practices found she had committed 15 counts of professional misconduct, including:
inability to practice with reasonable skill and safety to clients due to a mental illness or condition
failed to limit practice to areas of competence
failed to consult with other professional and failure to inform clients of innovative nature and known risks associated with a newly developing service, technique, or specialty
failed to safeguard private information on clients
impaired objectivity and failure to terminate services and refer clients when objectivity or effectiveness impaired
failed to terminate a professional relationship even though the client was not likely to benefit from continued professional
services

The Minnesota Board of Psychology
permanently restricted her from providing therapy to clients whose therapy issues involve cult, ritual, or satanic abuse
restricted her from providing hypnosis or guided imagery services without supervision until she is competent to provide them
ordered her to be psychologically evaluated
ordered her to take and successfully complete a boundaries course
fined her $15,000

---

Speaking of failure to safeguard private information on patients, how many of you are aware that the newly disembodied Ms. North was believed to have to listened to private reading tapes and discuss the contents over dinner and with buds over the internet?

Am I angry? Yes, are you? If not, why?

Author:C. Roy Hunter, M.S., Certified Hypnosis Instructor

NB, he is not a licensed therapist, just one of the multitudes of folks who chose that course over truck driving school when planning their career path during the commercial break of Sanford and Son re-runs at 3 AM.

It is also the site where Chris lifted verbatim much of his argument here. So, for the sake of counterpoint from his not so well-credentialed, self-serving source, I offer the following which Chris's selective
reasoning seems to have missed.

quote:

---

if a hypnotist convinces a client that he/she starved to death in a past life, it is amazingly easy for the subconscious to fantasize something to validate that opinion.

In short, no matter what degrees you do or don't have, avoid using hypnosis to validate a preconceived opinion about the cause of a client's condition

---

quote:

---

One religious organization actually has practitioners who employ hypnosis under a different name while telling its members to avoid using hypnosis! YOU decide the ethics of this. How would you like to be hypnotized by the same person repeatedly, and be given suggestions to return week after week, and then be given suggestions to refuse to let anyone else ever hypnotize you?

---

It seems Chris' source isn't too keen on this tactic either.

quote:

---

If you go to a hypnotherapist who, prior to hypnosis, tries to convince you that your problem originated in a past life, then go elsewhere.

---

Ok, enough of this cardboard cowboy, I'll be back with legal and medical decisions. I prefer my authority to come from people who bothered themselves to get a real education in their chosen field and who are universally accepted via their work as experts. This isn't "Cuticles 101" in Manicure College we're discussing here, it's people's minds, hearts, and souls.

http://www.royhunter.com/HYPNOFAQ.html#BM6.

One notable lift is from Item 20. I don't have time to find the others, if anyone wants to do the research there is the link.

In the meantime, here's something else for us all to ponder.

quote:

---

The official position held jointly by ASCH, the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis (SCEH), and APA Division 30 is that lay hypnosis and the training of lay hypnotists are unethical. The ASCH By-Laws and Ethics Code are clear and specific: hypnosis is a treatment modality--not a treatment in and of itself--that should be strictly limited to qualified practitioners of the healing arts. Of course, ASCH has over the years modified its view of who is "qualified." For example: When I first inquired about membership in ASCH, I was a Masters-level licensed psychologist and was told I could not join (as a full member) because I lacked a doctorate. ASCH has since changed this requirement,and now allows Masters-level mental health professionals to become full members,and to seek certification. Nobody knows how many lay people have received training in hypnosis, and how many of those are practicing lay hypnotists. NGH claims thousands of certified members. It is safe to assume that there are several thousand more who have been trained and certified by other lay hypnotist organizations. I do not know how many patients or clients have paid for the services of lay hypnotists over the past decade or so, but it is probably safe to assume they number well into the tens of thousands. At worst, this means thousands have received incompetent treatment, or treatment of at least dubious value.

---

Sorry that you don't like my irreverence Chris. I have no respect for weekend seminar attendees who hang out shingles, write books, and provide therapy to people.

You have not provided us with your credentials, so I wouldn't have known that I was referring to you, and would hit a nerve by making my irreverent statement.

I'll be back later, I have company.

You are welcomed to your style of communication, which although polite also is fervently encouraging of people to blindly believe and follow beliefs for which you consistantly fail to provide documentation.

You may find my sense of humor to be offensive, I find your lack of substantiation and willingness to lead people down garden paths to be dangerous.

In my opinion there is nothing polite or respectful about propagating dangerous beliefs and practices, establishing oneself as an authority without providing credentials, or plagiarizing and getting pissed when it's noticed.

Katie

You wrote:

quote:

---

Lazaris said that we would not be hypnotized without out permission. Absolutely true. Our permission is granted every time we pop in a cassette or sit during a seminar and "close our eyes and begin to relax".

---

Sorry to be so blunt, but this is absolute horseshit. During my second Lazaris seminar, Lazaris said they were going to hypnotize us, as opposed to taking us "on a meditation". They explicitly asked our permission, because they said they would never hypnotize us without our explicit permission.

there is no such thing as tacit permission. If one does not know what one is getting into, they can't grant permission. That's why the law demands that one be of sound mind and body in order for a contract to be binding.

The fact that Lazaris tells us we can leave the "meditation" whenever we want don't mean squat. Of course we can - we don't need their permission. It's a tactic to keep us off balance.

You say you've used hypnosis to great effect for years with no bad side effects. Perhaps you did. People use guns for years without hurting anyone. But they sure can hurt someone with a gun if they choose to.

Do you have your clients sign a form granting you permission to hypnitize them? You probably should, because I'm sure a court of law would not recognize the concept of "tacit" permission, should someone decide to sue you.

quote:

---

My point, repeatedly is that you were NOT hypnotized against your will, call it guided meditation if you like, but you went on those meditations aware that you were entering trance.

---

"Lazaris" is the one who made the specific distinction between hypnosis and guided meditations. "Lazaris" also made the promise about not using hypnosis without specifically informing us. Since you continue to follow "Lazaris", why are you ignoring what "they" stated repeatedly???

quote:

---

Does it make it better if I choose to call it guided meditation or guided imagery as opposed to hypnosis though it is still fundamentally the same state of heightened suggestibility?

---

Doesn't matter what you choose to call it. The issue is how "Lazaris" defined hypnosis, "their" promises about it's use, and the distinction that was clearly and repeatedly defined by "Lazaris" between "their" use of meditation and hypnosis. Apparently "they" found the need to do so. But you find it convenient to ignore "Lazaris's" own words.

quote:

---

PS. Maybe, just maybe the reason that others are not leaping into the fray on this one is that they simply don't know enough to effectively comment on the subject matter and not that they agree with you.

---

I didn't jump into this because I've been away. Agree I do indeed. Informed I am. You are off on a self justifying tangent. You are side stepping what "Lazaris" said about hypnosis.

I have posted to you several times Chris, without getting a response. Do I leave you speechless?

Jade

A few points, and then I'm leaving this topic unless you continue to endorse hypnosis without INFORMED CONSENT,, citing your 10 day 10 hour hypnosis course as your credential as an "authority". Statements of authority here will always be challenged by me.

I like it that you declare yourself one, but then trash those who have taken the time to get post-graduate degrees in their field. Something seems a bit unbalanced there Chris, and it has to do with more than money.

I have not "implied" anything that I think about the claims you make. If you are angry then be angry about exactly what I've said, because I've been as clear as glass with you since day one as to how I feel about your claims and ambitions. You are welcomed to them, but don't think that you can use this message board as a self-promotion tool and not hear about it.

As to the issue of thousands of people being hypnotized without their permission, or INFORMED CONSENT, I think we've clearly established that you find that to be funky groovy cool and I find it to be an abomination. More posting on that topic is just tiring.

I'm sure those reading along can draw their own conclusions, both about Jach's ethics in doing so, and yours in supporting him.

Those who wish to study up on hypnosis, especially how its unauthorized, uninformed use is one of the criteria for identifying a cult can find boundless information on the internet.

Beyond the self-promoting sites of week-end degree hypnotists, there is much information, including US Supreme Court decisions which discuss in great detail the implications and dangers of hypnosis, informed or not.

My personal experience has been the ongoing discovery that my mind is feeling much less like cornmeal mush these days, and my thought process and responses are much much more clear since I stopped being hypnotized frequently.

Hypnosis, especially repeated hypnosis is known to have questionable, if not dangerous and damaging effects. Even the Kinko degreed hypnotists recognize that memories, thoughts and ideas can be hypnotically implanted that are in some cases virtually impossible for the subject to distinguish from the real thing. This is why Chris's mentor advises against the use of hypnotists who discuss their own belief systems prior to a session. That is widely accepted as a very effective way to implant ideas, memories, and thoughts that cannot be later sorted from the actual ideas, memories and thoughts of the subject.

It is my reading on this topic extensively over the past year or so that has made me aware that Lazaris seminars and tapes follow that exact pattern. It isn't just that we were hynotized that I object to, it is the fact that well-known techniques were used to implant the Jach/Zaris material subliminally.
The more I read on this, the better I understand why all of us were such strong and unquestioning followers and believers in a big pile of hogwash.

For those who are courageous and willing enough, search engines are awesome tools for
finding information.

Chris asks us to just relax and feel groovy about it all, I suggest that might not be the best way to go.

Don't forget, Chris's wallet is just as pertinent to this discussion as those of those elitists he mentions. Everyone has their agenda, and it isn't a bad thing to sort through and evaluate that fact either.

Chris, all the best to you and your clients, I hope you continue to educate yourself too.
Your zeal to pronounce yourself an expert authority based on a very very limited amount of education really concerns me.

You sent me the introduction to the book you have started, and as you know, I find it to be shockingly irresponsible in the extreme. The fact that you were once depressed and now feel better does not make you an expert on anything other than yourself. You asked, I reported.

quote:

---

However, I would also ask what criteria and definition was Lazaris using. That is were the answer truly is.

---

What I recall from a couple of workshops is that "Lazaris" talked about hypnosis and then used it to implant a post-hypnotic suggestion. On one of these instances, "they" suggested that we squeeze a particular finger in a certain spot (three times, as I recall) while repeating, "It's a dream" or "I'm dreaming". When performed in the future, that would trigger an internal reaction of remembering that reality is an illusion. Both of the "hynosis" sessions I experienced involved triggering a post-hypnotic response through touching a particular part of the body and repeating specific words.

I agree that hypnosis, trance, and meditation can overlap. But as I said in my previous post, "Lazaris" went to some lengths to explain a difference between hypnosis and meditation. "They" were actually describing the use of post-hypnotic suggestion.

I know you still think "Lazaris" is worthy, wise and real. But to me this misuse of conventional terminology is further evidence that the sense of trust and authority given to "Lazaris" by followers is thoroughly misplaced.

Something to consider, you want to be a leader but so far, you are being a follower.

Jade

Welcome back from paradise! I hope your home is also paradise.

You wrote:

quote:

---

I know you still think "Lazaris" is worthy, wise and real. But to me this misuse of conventional terminology is
further evidence that the sense of trust and authority given to "Lazaris" by followers is thoroughly misplaced.

---

Yes, the trust factor is of paramount importance. I did once grant permission to someone I thought was "Lazaris" to hypnotize me - for one specific session. I most likely would have granted permission on an on-going basis, once I was convinced that they were who they said they were, which was not after one tape.

Since I now believe that they are not who they said they were, I feel that the permission I may have/would have granted would have been attained through deceit. I think most of us here agree that they are not who they say they are, even if they are a non-physical entity. They say they are from the Higher Realms, with grand insight and are totally honest. Can anyone here really claim that they were honest in their desciption of Peny?

Even if - and it's a big stretch - they saw some greatness in Peny that we're missing, honesty would dictate that they take responsibility for the impact of their build up of her. Something like, "You know, we often tell about how wonderful Peny is, how her shining light attracted us to your plane, but we need to tell you that that doesn't put her in a position of authority over you. It doesn't mean that she cannot make a mistake. It doesn't mean that you need defer to her judgment, else you are not growing properly".

Of course this "honest and wise" being went further than to simply say that they were attracted to Peny - no accounting for taste. No, they claimed she was an avatar, one who does not need to return to the physical plane, but does so out of love. Then again, according to Lazaris, karma is what we make it, so nobody needs to come back. They left that little piece out when they glorified Peny.

Sorry for the tangent :) - the point is, no matter which way you turn it, we were hypnotized through deception.

Not only were we hypnotized by deception, we were subjected to hypnotherapy techniques which were developed by psychotherapists as a way to heal life issues. It's up to anyone's judgement whether or not this kind of therapy is effective, but it clearly was never developed with the thought in mind that it should be used in a generic fashion.

The explanation of an alchemical therapy session which I found on the internet, and I believe to have been later somewhat revised,
went into detail as to the purpose and function of such a session. The idea was for the therapist to help the client identify their own UNIQUE issues and then their own UNIQUE archetypes and imageries which would then be used in the hypnosis session. It was stressed that the therapist should take care to not impose any of those identificatons, that it was most important for the client to identify them on their own.

So, what does Jach/Zaris do? I guess he ordered up one of those mail order books himself, and read up on this technique and modified it to serve his own purpose, throwing in a bit of Silva Mind Control for good measure.

The problem is that you can't provide a personal therapy to a large group of people by indentifying one issue and assigning it to all of them, and then providing the archetypes and images of your own choosing as a way to help them. Everyone can relate to a toothache, but that doesn't mean we all need our teeth pulled.

I wrote about this before, but I think it bears repeating.

Is this how we want our therapy flung at us, like scraps of raw meat to a pack of hungry dogs? The arrogance, greed, and complete contempt of the whole scheme sickens me.

Many come here pondering whether or not Lazaris is real. The fact that they are using identified techniques, slightly modified for their own purposes screams out at me that these "meditations" are the working of a human mind, desperate to find a way to make big bucks and prop up the person for of whom he is obsessed.

Obsession is a strange motivator. It can yield results that the average mind could never conceive.

Which brings me to my second but possibly my most convincing reason, that being that Peny was simply not worthy by any account or experience of that kind of obsession, so the liklihood that some all wise multi-dimensional being would be equally obsessed to Jach is unlikely in the extreme. I would say carelessly that the odds make it impossible. Lazaris is a creation of Jach's obsession, I believe that with my entire being.

The Love that many of us thought of as Lazaris is the most real thing in the Universe. Jach is just smart enough to have
put his trademark on it, and used it to feed his obsession.

My, my, I DO go on!!

Quoting Ted:

quote:

---

Since I now believe that they are not who they said they were, I feel that the permission I may have/would have granted would have been attained through deceit. I think most of us here agree that they are not who they say they are, even if they are a non-physical entity.

---

Well said Ted! Since Chris is not in agreement about the deceit, his viewpoint is different. But I did try to clarify L's stated use of hypnosis to clarify the issue.

Love,
Jade

I just want to say welcome and I hope you don't go away.

I don't have much time to write at the moment but just a few thoughts.

As one of those who is fast and loose with the swearing, I am sorry it offended you. But I am not going to stop because I believe in it..

Personally, I think certain situations demand for a well chosen resonat cuss.

I think sometimes the only really reverent response is a strong cuss word.

Lazaris used to swear from time to time I always found it refreshing and a piety buster.

With respect to making fun of Peny's physical appearance, I understand your point.

I am not however, about to do a mea culpa over it.

Peny's physical appearance is an issue to the extent that her extreme obesity and willingness to dispense health and longevity tips are reasonable things to criticize.

Peny elevated herself to a dangerous status and relied on fear and control to keep silent reasonable questions about her own ability to apply the teachings she grew plenty rich selling.

It isn't about perfection. It is about extreme levels of self abuse that were being exalted as the picture of health and enlightenment.

Does anyone rememeber a forum thread somebody started about weight and loosing weight and how roundly and quickly they were bullied out of discussing what is an important health/spiritual issue for many people?

I have also enjoyed the lack of reverance on this site for it represents a demand for truth rather than the fear induced "hands off Peny at all costs" reality of the forum.

I will definitely swear again so no promises there. I hope you will look the other way and accept it as a difference in style.

I think you have an interesting story and I hope you stick around.

Cheers,

Jeremiah

Welcome to the site. Like, Jeremiah, I also hope you stick around for awhile.

The agreement that you read when you registered came with the software. Perhaps I should revise it. We (Katie and me) have stated here that the only restrictions are that posts are not threatening, litigatable or commercial.

We are fervant believers in free speach, and that includes "colorful" language. In the past, I have tried to avoid the use of profanity, or at least use asterisks (does that really make a difference?) between the letters. However, I feel that recent events have warranted stronger language. That's just my opinion. Others are welcome to express themselves in any way they desire. Yeah, the downside of freedom of speach is that sometimes people will be offended. But I think the upside far outweighs that.

As for the allegation of bashing those who don't agree - agree with whom? There is no hierarchy here. Anyone is free to "take apart" anyone else's post.

You wrote:

quote:

---

So I understand your pain and frustration and anger, but must Peny be laughed at, made fun of and ridiculed?

---

Peny has set herself up - and has been set up by others - as a sacred cow. Sacredness can be very dangerous. Especially when that which is deemed to be sacred is anything but. It is often at odds with real freedom of mind and conscience. I believe this to be particularly true in this situation.

Humor is a very effective antidote to sacred cow disease. The higher the pedastal, the more dynamite needed to bring it down. (I know that isn't true literally). Peny has been placed on the highest of all pedestals by "Lazaris" - yes, effectively higher than God, of whom they speak almost in passing. Humor also offers a relatively harmless release of anger, hurt, etc.

You wrote:

quote:

---

She is as much a part of Source as we are

---

Yes, she is. And she will return home as we all will. We do need to remember and honor that fact. And I'm sure we all will in our own time. I appreciate the reminder.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Again I was appreciating the many comments, pro and con but have to come back to what appears to be a pattern here - that if you do not agree fully with the "awfulness of the Lazaris material" and Con-Sin you are out of it

---

I must disagree with this statement. We have had posters here for months who believe in the authenticity of Lazaris. There have been disagreements about it, but not assaults on people's character. Just a few days ago, I complimented Chris on his ability to balance his belief in Lazaris with his anger towards the Gang. Fingerprince received a very warm welcome.

When a specious argument is made, it will be challenged by someone. You mentioned that you were here for awhile and went away. A few months ago, there was someone who tried to take over this site and dictate the tone and direction of the conversation. I don't know if this is one of the occurances of which you speak, but I will say that people who try to infringe on other's freedom will most certainly be called to task. I don't consider that to be abusive - I consider it to be self-respect.

I do take your criticism to heart and I will try to maintain a balance. No promises on the swear words, though.

You wrote:

"Peny's physical appearance is an issue to the extent that her extreme obesity and willingness to dispense health and longevity tips are reasonable things to criticize."

Exactly.

This isn't Monica Lewinsky territory. Mocking a morbidly obese guru promising untold mastery of the universe itself who has no mastery over her own body is no different than mocking televangelists for preaching sobriety and fidelity as the path to heaven after they've been caught boffing cocktail waitresses while doing poppers; it's the inherent hypocrisy in the preaching that is being mocked, not the particular form that hypocrisy took.

If Jane Roberts had initially said she wanted to cure her arthritic condition then started proclaiming that being crippled and in deep pain not only wasn't a problem, she was now banging her joints with bricks everyday, I'd be making jokes about "Seth's Kids", telethons hosted by a near paralyzed channel and the Elmira Gang working credit cards on the phones so as to avoid forcing any Seth supporter into facing the contradictory moment of trying to fill out a check with claw-like hands.

This level of obesity isn't about esthetics, it's about basic health and it didn't just "happen" to her, Peny created that reality supposedly using the very same "raw materials" we all have--the ones she had assured us she had so finely tuned (courtesy of Lazaris)until her own life was a neverending case of bring on da' funk, bring on da' magyck.

Look where her beliefs got her. Look.

You wrote:

"It isn't about perfection. It is about extreme levels of self abuse that were being exalted as the picture of health and enlightenment."

And given that, forgive me if I say "The Empress has no waistline" without any shame whatsoever.

flo

Welcome!

quote:

---

I have enjoyed this site and I have also not enjoyed this site. I appreciate what this site is attempting to do.

At first I read everything and then realized that if someone did not agree, their posts were thoroughly taken apart and I feel that some posters did not feel safe in coming back.
Because of the continued use of 4 letter words and what I perceived to also be a beating of an old issue over and over, I had stopped reading and came back when I heard the news.
Again I was appreciating the many comments, pro and con but have to come back to what appears to be a pattern here - that if you do not agree fully with the "awfulness of the Lazaris material" and Con-Sin you are out of it.

---

It is simply not true that people who don't agree about Lazaris are "out of it" here. If they are, it is because of their own choice. No one to date has been given a hard time or taken apart about their belief in Lazaris. It requires not a lot of discrimination to understand the difference between beliefs and behavior. Many people here have been called on their bad behavior. No one has been thrown out of here though, because there is no authority or ability to do that. This is a public message board.

It seems that you would like us to have rules here. You are not the first to suggest that people on this board should in some way be restricted in what they say.

I wonder who would get to make those rules?
Upon whose authority and wisdom would we rely to provide us with rules that were fair by everyone's standards and which would offend or restrict no one?

When people exercise their fundamental right to free speech, they will offend someone. That's what makes it a bit of a challenge to afford others the same rights we claim for ourselves. It is an exercise in maturity to allow for others to speak their minds.

That does not however mean that all must sit quietly by in the face of abuse, insults, manipulations, or control tactics. Freedom of speech works both ways.

This board is an experiment in the practice of free speech. So far, it is a very successful experiment, and I celebrate that.
I also celebrate every word which has been written here as proof that it is possible to allow for freedom within a group of complete strangers, and that the conversation can continue for months and still provide interest,benefit, and even comeraderie. Very few have suggested that this board is not beneficial in one way or another. I attribute that to Freedom.

You can be sure, Donna, that should we accept your ideas on what the rules should be that we would alienate and offend others.
There is no perfect world here. I realize that a community with very few laws is frightening and upsetting to some, but that cannot serve as a control mechanism. We must each be in control of ourselves, and if that means not posting, or not sticking around, so be it. That is an individual choice.

Your story about the sound system is interesting. Ted and I attended a week-end in SF a few years back where the sound on one side of the room was horrendous. We really couldn't hear. Complaints about that were met with the same kind of attitude that you describe. Rather than fix the sound system, we were told to fix our own ears. At the time I swallowed that bs, that there must be some deep reason that I was missing most of what Lazaris was saying. Another testament to mind control and the contempt in which attendees are held.

I would suspect from the stories I've heard that all complainers were noted and reported on to Peny. Maybe that's why they didn't fix the damn system, it was too juicy a way to get some of us lame complainers to "out ourselves" and show "disrespect" for Lazaris and Con:Sin. Those stories were carefully carried back to Peny and served up to her as juicy little tidbits to feed her insatiable ego.

Is it bad and wrong that we know these things about Peny now, and report them here, or that we speculate based on these facts as to what has been or is going on at Con:Sin?

Maybe to some it is indicative of criminal disrespect. To me it is vitally important information and perspective.

Each of us is free to form our own conclusions on that.

If no one was interested, this site would have died a long time ago.

Your thoughts are most welcomed here, I hope you do continue to post.

Once again, what is not welcomed by me is any attempt to control, manipulate or claim authority. Lies aren't too high on my list either.

That's me, my personally stated limitations, but each of us is free to make that determination and respond or not.

Thanks for writing and sharing your thoughts.

Katie

Don't know if you're still here, cuz you posted "after this I'm outta here"

But if...I just want to say welcome, and I know it is difficult to post on most sites.

I almost never posted on the Forum outta being so scared all the time. but now I'm glad I never did.

Anyway, a response that comes to mind when I read your post is simply: the internet is a part of society. As such it has many types, all shapes and sizes, differing beliefs different EVERYTHING.

One was NOT allowed to be an individual at the con;sin site, here one is URGED to be individual.

I have bristled at posts here, but all are entitled to their viewpoint, and have all had diverse experiences.

I do not feel that Chris was attacked here, nor was Frank, we are all going through varying stages of healing, separating, and renewal of our spiritual selves. I'm sure you know what courage it takes, leaving a catholic nunnery seems a daunting event.

Thanks,
Audrey

quote:

---

I almost never posted on the Forum outta being so scared all the time. but now I'm glad I never did.

---

Many did not for the same reason. Fear. And rightfully so. They fear that their souls will be dissected by their spiritual leaders, publicly and relentlessly. They fear that those who claim to love them, and demand their love and loyalty will withold that love, and that their own will not be valued. They fear rejection and banishment from a group which bills itself as being in ownership of the most important information available on the planet.

That's a far cry from having some faceless person with no authority disagree with you, colorful language or not. Fear of that is a different issue entirely. There will always be people who are afraid to put their thoughts out in public, but no one here has to be responsible for that Fear, regardless of attempts to get anyone to do so.

Con:Sin on the other hand has a lot to take responsibility for, the responsibility that they took on when they set themselves up as our spiritual leaders. They took the benefits, sooner or later those left on the planet will have to pay the piper.

Katie

I finally read through this entire thread in its enirety and want to add that from my perspective I do not see Chris positioning himself as an authority.

However, I do not agree with the statements that Chris made about tacit permission being granted by sheer fact of going on a meditation. The argument seems to ignore the direct staements that Lazaris made to the contrary. It is a reaching argument that to me seems like an attempt to justify and rationalize a difficult question away in defense of Lazaris.

It reaches too far and doesn't address the basic issue of what was said by Lazaris and of trust.

I do see shades of grey here, about terms and definitions. The thing is that Lazaris did make the statement they would not use hypnosis with us except in apparantly a particular instance where I was not present.

Honestly, I can also see how Chris might feel
his credibility has been attacked with the criticism that he was using the board for self promotion. I just dont see it.

Is what Lazaris did with us hypnosis? It seems by most standards, yes it is.

Was it damaging? That question is worth exploring.

Lazaris talked about how the meditations work on a subconcious, unconcious level. The counting down etc.,
using the counting down methods and vocal inflections it seems to pattern clearly hypnotic induction.

Why didn't Lazaris call it hypnotic meditation or qualify that this is a kind of meditation using images and vocal inflection?

Lazaris was clear that you were entering an altered state but all altered states are not created equal and do not create the same level of vulnerability in the subject.

I am seeing some grey here as I said but not where the out and out statement " We will never hypnotize you without your permission" is concerned.

Cheers,

Jeremiah

I don't think Chris is promoting his services either. There maybe some beating his own drum in relation to knowledge and expertise, but that is certainly different than soliciting clients. I regret not posting my sentiment sooner, but I lost steam last night. Been doing a lot of catching up here and elsewhere since I returned home.

Love,
Jade

My reason's for believing that Chris is managing to promote himself here is because of a post someone wrote suggesting that he should guide us in a group meditation.

Where, I thought, did that idea come from other than this site? I have since had it pointed out to me that Chris has possibly promoted himself to that individual via email or other means in which case, my theory is incorrect.

I know from Chris's posts here and via private correspondence that he fancies himself a spiritual counsellor, teacher, healer, etc.

That is fine, but he may not promote those services here. If he has not done so, then no worries. I know that it doesn't take much for anyone to get followers. History has shown us that even really stupid, ugly, sick, drunken slobs have succeeded at gaining followers, simply due to their self-proclamations about themselves. Co-dependency is a strange and interesting thing. So is the ready and eager acceptance of leaders by many. It doesn't take much more than proclamation to gain followers. Sometimes it doesn't even take that. I know this from my own experience at fending off wanna be followers, probably due to my enormous charm.

I don't know if Chris has succeeded in promoting his services here or not at this point, but my statement stands.

I hope you can excuse my extreme zealousness on this topic. My absolute disdain and hatred for spiritual authority is one of the prime motivators for my participation on this site. Chris' assertions of his own do not sit well with me, but I also value the opportunity they afford to open up this topic to discussion.

I have many times over stated my respect for Chris' willingness to hang in through these debates. It is ironic for that reason that now Chris accuses me of not being able to accept disagreement. As someone recently said to me, this message board is pretty much an invitation for disagreement.

As to the topic of whether or not Chris is speaking from a place of authority, I very strongly hold to my position on that. He has even taken that to the extreme of diagnosing and prescribing Audrey's reaction to being hypnotized without her knowledge or permission by Lazaris. Diagnosing and prescribing without a license is a federal crime and carries a large fine. For those who don't agree with such laws, it is still irresponsible and reprehensible for someone to provide such an authoritative diagnosis on someone he has never even laid eyes on.

Some may agree and some may disagree that Chris is using his self-proclaimed authority to make his assertions about the effect the Lazaris hynotherapy sessions have had on us, but I believe that he has. Given that I myself am not myself the world's foremost authority on all things, I may be wrong. But, until I find that I am, I will continue to oppose his stated authority.

It is abundantly clear to me that Chris would have us all just "get over" worrying about how these sessions might have effected us, and does so not as an opinion, but as an authority. He dons his hypnotist cap, and holds forth as though speaking fact. I'm sorry, but his limited studies do not qualify him to diagnose or analyze the mind of another.

Chris tells us that he has studied hypnosis, and I take his word on that. He has also told us that he practices therapy. He has not told us where he received his therapeutic training.

Hypnosis is not therapy. It is a technique used to put another/s into a trance state.

What is done once that person is in trance can be therapy. It can also be manipulation, suggestion, image implantation, etc.

Not everyone is qualified to provide therapy simply because they have learned how to hypnotize others.

I object to both Jach and Chris providing therapy without a license or training.

Chris, if you are a trained and licensed therapist, I missed you telling us that, and I apologize.

Otherwise, I stand on my position here, but do appreciate the input of others.

Disagreement makes for interesting dialogue.