It seems as though there is a significant piece of common ground amoungst all (or at least most) of us who post here: that C:S is not a nice group of people. Some of us believe Lazaris is exactly who they say they are, some believe Jach is a total fraud, some believe that Lazaris is real, but Jach is an impure channel, some have not reached any conclusions. Some may believe that Lazaris is seperate from Jach, but is a malevolent entity.

But it seems that the vast majority of us believe that Jach, Peny and the Orlando Gang are not the kind of people we want to emulate, nor do they represent the ideals of the Lazaris Material.

I'm of the group - in case anyone hasn't noticed - that believes that the phenomenon is an outright fraud. Possibly Jach has some minor psychic abilities. Possibly he has tapped into some information from the Collective Unconscious. But I don't think there is a being on the Higher Realms that calls itself "Lazaris" and has chosen to speak exclusively through Jach.

Though I think there is some good stuff in the material, I will not be using it for several reasons:

1. I don't trust the source, and therefore don't trust that the information is any more valid than information I can get elsewhere.
   
2. I don't want Jach in my subconscious
   
3. I want to be clear that my ideas are my own, not "Lazaris'".
   
4. I can't stand to listen to that bogus accent anymore.

I'm interested in what others, with different beliefs, feel is a practical approach to this situation. If one distrusts C:S, does it still make sense to work with the material? If Jach is an impure channel, does it make sense to work with the material? What are the potential benefits and risks involved with using the material? Can Lazaris and C:S really be compartmentalized? What if it were to be proven that Jach is faking it? Are there other alternatives to the beliefs I presented above?

Welcome to the site!

Would you care to expound on why it saddens you that some can't (won't) seperate the teachings from C:S?

I do enjoy your posts, thanks. They provide much to think about. In the spirit of open expresssion, I offer the following.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TedV:
I don't trust the source, and therefore don't trust that the information is any more valid than information I can get elsewhere.

---

I have a different perspective. It's not that I don't trust the source, although there is much on the site here to suggest why this is a valid perspective for some, it's that I don't rely on a single perspective from whatever direction it comes, except when that perspective is mine. Until I own it, and become responsible for it, it is not mine. I have great trouble with statements by others who seem willing to accept something just because "so and so" said it, therefore it must be. I don't see a sense of ownership in that statement. I have greater trouble with some who follow Lazaris because of the "higher attributions" of the source and the "they promised they wouldn't lie". In the end for me, I must do the work which includes much more that simple acceptance. I believe to do otherwise is giving my power away. For me, this was a difficult lesson to learn.

As I've stated elsewhere, I haven't found anything particularly unique about the things Lazaris talks about, other than the style of presentation. Since I've chosen to work the way I do, I don't find anything that should be dismissed outright simply due to the source either. Given the breadth of the material, I do find it difficult to avoid "the appearance" of being a "follower" of Lazaris - simple choice of wording is not necessarily suggestive of the source, although for some based on my experiences here it appears that the suggestion is sufficient to earn the label.

For those that choose to be a "follower" of the material, I say fine, do so with integrity and be responsible. I believe that this attitude is consistent with the materials to the extent I understand them. When asked about what do I mean by integrity, I can point them to their own source:

"Can you apply the teachings to your life? Is there a pragmatism amid the esoterics?"... How is this going to help you become more real; how is this going to add dimension to who you are?... "As you apply the teachings, are you becoming happier, are you finding joy? Are you becoming more of your real self and real Self? Is your life working better and moving you forward upon your metaphysical-spiritual path?...When you come away from the teachings, are you feeling and thinking more positively? Are you more open to the possibility of new feeling and new thought?...Where's the power?... An entity who may be worth listening to should not be disempowering nor should they be "taking your power."...You and your conscious mind are the seat of your power: current, present, here and now. If this truth is not evident, be cautious."

And again, for responsibility, their own source:

"Learning to have fun means being responsible for what "works" in your life. It means figuring out the "why's" and the "how's" of reality creation so that the fun you have is the fun you know you created. It is self-generated fun. You never have to wonder if it will last, because you create it -- you are the source of the fun, then the happiness, and finally the joy you are having in your life.
...
You can't avoid responsibility."

quote:

---

Originally posted by TedV:
I want to be clear that my ideas are my own, not "Lazaris'".

---

I agree with you. This is how I would interpret the teachings of responsibility above. As I've said elsewhere, for me the realization is that the value of the teachings, from whatever source, come from me putting the power in them. Others have expressed the same thought in different form.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TedV:
If one distrusts C:S, does it still make sense to work with the material?

---

For me, the answer is yes, to the extent that I can get something out of it. I have experienced utility in hearing the same thing stated differently and the difference in the way it was stated providing a crystalization of thinking. This experience is not unique to the Lazaris material. Since I do not rely on a single source of outside information, I do not feel the danger in using the material that has been expressed by others. Based on where I am in the development of spirit, I do find utility in exploring insights of others to help me along. I do not have an argument with your choice of a different way. I do not believe there is one "right way".

quote:

---

Originally posted by TedV:
Are there other alternatives to the beliefs I presented above?

---

In the words of Sparky, "Certainly So".

The following is fiction. Any resemblence to anyone else's reality is circumstantial. For myself, it does not represent my reality, but it does create a possibility. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion of the question at the end. I do not have an acceptable answer for myself, so I pose it for consideration to this group.

Beyond space time there was a meeting of the seven member higher council on the matter of Some-of-the-People vs. Concept:Synergy and Lazaris.

The council speaks with a single voice, "We are most happy that you have chosen to bring this matter to our attention and to seek guidance. You have well articulated the case before us, and we would like to share our perspective before we choose the course of action to take."

"We see very much the hurt, anger, and despair that has been expressed by you on behalf of yourselves and those that you represent. While this is troublesome for us, we are also aware that you have within you the power to heal when you are ready, as you have acknowledged and your presence here testifies. So we will instead focus on matters which are of more of our concern as guides."

"We clearly see the transgressions you have pointed out by the members of Concept:Synergy. For us, the most significant is the absence of proper custodial care of that which was entrusted to them."

"We understand the perspectives you have shared regarding the transgressions of Lazaris. While your perspectives have merit, for us the most significant is that Lazaris stayed beyond their original purpose, an observation which has been alluded to in the case you brought before us."

"The above realizations are sufficient to compel us to take action. Our possible course of action is simple; to censure Lazaris and discontinue their presence among you."

"To those of you here, our course of action has no impact, as you have already reaped whatever benefits Lazaris's presence has afforded and moved to a different part of your spiritual development. Each of you has managed to find a way out of the situation that has been manifest by the combination of Concept:Synergy and Lazaris."

"There are others whom you do not represent that have made different choices. Some say they have a personal relationship with Lazaris outside of Concept:Synergy, others clearly rely on Concept:Synergy as their connection to Lazaris. It is consideration for those who have made different choices that makes our decision difficult. As you have articulated, without Concept:Synergy there is no Lazaris and vice versa. It is not within our scope to alter this arrangement."

"We turn to you and ask you to consider the anger, hurt and despair which will be manifest should we take the course of action open to us. You have, through your own efforts been able to witness some of this. Is not the realization and growth you have been able to achieve more valuable than if it were imposed by an outside agency? While you have found the courage, what do you say on behalf of others who have not yet reached the realization you have? We ask that you consider the vacuum which will be created. Are you ready to help fill this vaccuum, and, if so, how?"

"We also ask that you consider the futures which you have already started to create in offering challenges and options to others who are finding the courage to remember the lessons that have been given. In spite of the lessons, some have chosen to give up their power by forgetting - you express that there is more than forgetting, but we hope we can agree that forgetting was an operative part. Who will help them remember? What has happened with and in Concept:Synergy serves as a reminder, but you suggest that more is needed."

"We turn to you and ask what say you to our questions? We ask that your answer be as thoughtful as the case you have presented."

No offense intended, but your post is reflective of exactly the kind of "crystallized thought" I'm so glad to be rid of via the Con:Sin teachings.

Your bit of fiction, which I assume you intend to illustrate the possibilities we face in critically discussing Con:Sin, Lazaris, and each others ideas here, misses a few points, and implies some kind of intergallactic power on the part of Lazaris critics.

You mention pain, anger, and despair. I would very quickly edit out despair. I have seen no signs of that here anywhere ever from regular posters, especially not from us critics.

By leaving out independence, celebration, freedom, and self-empowerment, and the Smilie Guy fan club, you leave your story truly to the realm of fiction. If you were to add those components your hypothetical counsel would have something different to say.

In your story we are all still the subjects of some kind of higher decision making body, so I don't like it at all. It doesn't reflect anything that represents the truth about human consciousness as I understand it.

Your fictional hypothesis seems to indicate a sense of fear that some people can make decisions which on a spiritual level have significant impact on others, that some of us have more "drag" with the grand holy wazoos and so we should have mercy on those who don't.

No, I don't like your story at all.

Anyway, I guess you can tell, I won't be providing any fictional response to your story.

No fear Chuck, no one here has any power over you, and I'm pretty sure that most of us don't want any, even if we're begged to take it.

Katie

What a beautiful and comprehensive post you wrote, Chuck. It certainly is giving me a great deal to ponder and to think about.

quote:

---

I have experienced utility in hearing the same thing stated differently and the difference in the way it was stated providing a crystalization of thinking. This experience is not unique to the Lazaris material. Since I do not rely on a single source of outside information, I do not feel the danger in using the material that has been expressed by others. Based on where I am in the development of spirit, I do find utility in exploring insights of others to help me along. I do not have an argument with your choice of a different way. I do not believe there is one "right way".

---

You express this beautifully, and I heartily concur. I find that I can easily separate the material from whatever source it happens to come from as long as I find an inner resonance and empowerment from the energy of its message. This has nothing to do with the messenger or its underlying source.

Also, I want to thank you so much for your beautifully crafted allegory. It took a great deal of very careful thought, and you presented it very clearly.

quote:

---

"We also ask that you consider the futures which you have already started to create in offering challenges and options to others who are finding the courage to remember the lessons that have been given. In spite of the lessons, some have chosen to give up their power by forgetting - you express that there is more than forgetting, but we hope we can agree that forgetting was an operative part. Who will help them remember? What has happened with and in Concept:Synergy serves as a reminder, but you suggest that more is needed."

---

You present a clear and objective picture of the dynamics surrounding the issue, and I find it very thought provoking. The points your allegory raises really need to be thought through objectively, I feel.

I, for one, am giving each issue thoughtful consideration... especially the last one you address. How important it is to allow ourselves the freedom to look at these issues clearly and unemotionally with as much objectivity as possible.

I don't have the answers, but please know that I'm giving your post very careful and sincere thought.

Again, Chuck, thank you for putting it out here for everyone so clearly!!!

Crystal

I'm gonna read this post again. Maybe I missed something.

Did I miss your point Chuck? It's been known to happen.

Katie

Thanks to each of you for responding. I will be back with further elaboration and can only offer excuses as to why not now, which I find aggrivating for self. I ask your indulgence, with appreciation in advance.

Crystal, I thank you for the encouragement, not as gratification for self but as reinforcement of courage. It is helpful to me as that is an area that I have determined deserves work, and I hope will be helpful to others who are doubtful. In my world, this is what is important.

Katie, between the two of us I believe we do have a problem of sending and receiving messages. I read in your response a different description of where I am than where you say I am (based on what I read from your response, my interpretation). I do promise to elaborate further, having begun the composition on another computer not within my reach at this time. I do thank you for the offer to go back and read again what I wrote. I truly do not think our perspectives, as it relates to CS are substantively different. I was focused on what comes next given the perspectives. I can see many possibilities, one of which I wrote about. I chose this one because it does deal with work I have to do - not in its specific form, but in its metaphysical content. I have no axe to grind with anyone on this forum nor within CS. My purpose here is to deal with the axes I do have to grind. My story is a metaphor of one of my axes, having nothing to do with the specifics I chose to represent. If you find this to be an intrusion of purpose, then let me know.

I'm encouraged by the willingness for consideration.

Chuck

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I agree that good information can be garnered from the Lazaris teachings, and I agree that it's more valuable if one makes it one's own. That's why I don't summarily reject everything I've heard from "them". If they say the sky is blue, I won't say it's green just for spite

You wrote(quoting Lazaris):

quote:

---

...As you apply the teachings, are you becoming happier, are you finding joy? Are you becoming more of your real self and real
Self? Is your life working better and moving you forward upon your metaphysical-spiritual path?

---

Right. That's what the Where Are All the Happy People thread is about. Based on these criteria, I don't see much evidence of the value of the teaching, at least not beyond the value of reading lots of other self-help material.

I appreciate the thought that went into your fictionalized story. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for me. Not because it's wrong, but because it doesn't fit with my perspective and philosphy.

The story makes the premise that Lazaris is really a channeled entity. I disagree with that premise, which kinda makes the rest of it moot.

But even if I did think that Lazaris was really a channeled entity, I wouldn't want to take my issues to a tribunal. Why give my power to them? Why try to restrict others' freedom to work with Lazaris - real or not? No, I wouldn't want a tribunal to forbid Lazaris from communicating with humans. Nor do I want or need their understanding concerning my pain, anger, dispair or whatever.

Actually, I don't really want anything other than what already exists - the freedom and opportunity to question and to gather information which may be used to discern. Ideally, I would want Jach and company to come clean and admit whatever lies they may have told, especially if Lazaris as a Higher Being is a lie. But it's not required. All have the ability to discern that. The more freedom and the more information, the more elegant the discernment.

I don't need "Lazaris" nor a tribunal. I need self-respect, self-esteem and freedom and they can't give it to me, even if they wanted to.

Thank you for such a beautifully thought-out post using the words of Lazaris and for your presentation of the "possible." Rather than perceive it as a tribunal, I see it more as intimate and honest conversation with loving friends where the facts are presented with trust and love and a sincere request for help and healing.

My anger at Lazaris has not overpowered the positive experiences and the love I have received and have been free enough to give.
I don't know if "Lazaris" is real as channeled by Jach or not but I DO know that my trust and belief in his realness enabled me to have some of the most wondrous experiences beyond-imaginable to me and that I most certainly do have a Higher Self and counselors who are ready and willing to help the moment I allow it. My experiences with Lazaris were definitely more positive than negative as far as my own Spiritual growth and connection.

My anger with Lazaris, if he is real, can be well-handled between Lazaris and me. I am not afraid of Lazaris and with all my heart "want" him to be real. Even my anger at him carries forgiveness and understanding, because "just maybe" Lazaris made a mistake in handling a few things I wholly believe he should have handled differently. Just as I should have handled some things differently, too. Should I be "disregarded" because I did, or did I plainly make mistakes and wrong choices and deserve forgiveness myself...from myself. God/Goddess just plain loves me no matter what mistakes or wonderous acts of love I do. Knowing this, wouldn't it be arrogant of me to not at least "try" to consciously do the same while still being honest about my anger? Just because one is angry doesn't mean that the love stops. I do hold Lazaris accountable for a few things, but Lazaris did say they make mistakes and create their reality just as we do...

I say that with the belief that we create our reality every minute and that includes Jach, Peny, AND Lazaris...I know that I often change my mind about things either through knowledge or experience, and it's possible that Peny changed her original intent by getting caught up in the material and greed. Only Peny knows for sure. I also know that just as Lazaris loved Peny with all her "human frailties or limitations," Lazaris would love us with all of ours. Wouldn't it be just natural and fair to do the same for Lazaris?

Also, just as Lazaris has said that "history is no more," well, perhaps his dealings with Peny in the last ten years were new, unexpected, and unchartered territory, too! She does create her own reality and it impacts/effects Lazaris, just like those close to us effect us.

For me the problem really began in the forum, where many of us had our very rude awakenings and abuses, in the name of love and Lazaris. I could really relate to the possibility that perhaps there was an "absence of proper custodial care" of the Lazaris Material, IF Lazaris is real. That lack of proper care was insulting to Lazaris and made a mockery of the Lazaris Material.

The thing here is that I have to ask "WHY" would Lazaris allow that to continue? "WHY" didn't our dear friend intervene out of respect to those of us who loved him so dearly and embraced him to our very souls? "WHY" didn't he?! when he could surely see that things were going array and knew that there was unnecessary abuse to his many friends...in his name? "WHY" did he tell my daughter that she should break ties with me in the "way" that he did, and "WHY" did he say that my thinking IS all wrong and not WAS all wrong?" IF Lazaris is who they say they are, then Lazaris KNOWS me and KNOWS that my love and integrity are real, deep, and honorable and would welcome even regretfully my questioning. No, Lazaris wouldn't have hurt my daughter by taking a cheap shot at me to empasize a point!

There are many unanswered questions and my doubts are in the extreme. I wish they weren't. I truly do.

Your post was very touching and brought memories of the love to the forefront of my mind and heart. More than a few tears were shed when I read it...and later when I thought about it and shared it. Thank you for that. Now I'm off to ponder what answers I might give to my counselors in that "possible" scenario. One thing I do know is that IF Lazaris is truly who they say they are, I'd want them to stay but would expect clear and thorough answers from them to ALL the "WHYS," not only my own.

Marilyn

quote:

---

Katie wrote
Your bit of fiction, which I assume you intend to illustrate the possibilities we face in critically discussing Con:Sin, Lazaris, and each others ideas here, misses a few points, and implies some kind of intergallactic power on the part of Lazaris critics.

---

My intention was different than what you stated. My intention is to engage in a discussion of how far is far enough, and what are the implications and responsibilities for going further? Our collective human history is littered, IMO, with examples of where we have gone further than we should in "influencing" the spiritual choices of others. I consider certain actions engaged in, and others expressed on this board as an attempt to influence others. I see a difference in the expression of an opinion or position as different than an open challenge to someone else who holds a different opinion. Perhaps we differ in style, perhaps it is a difference in intent, I am not certain, but there have been expressions, in the spirit of freedom of expression, that I would not make even though I hold an underlying opinion of the matter that is consistent.

quote:

---

Katie wrote
I would very quickly edit out despair.

---

Perhaps I read something more into some of the posts than was there. The basic gist of the sentence came from one of the posts I saw regarding what happens to people who are confronted with withdrawal from a cult (I think it was one Melinda wrote).

quote:

---

Katie wrote
In your story we are all still the subjects of some kind of higher decision making body, so I don't like it at all. It doesn't reflect anything that represents the truth about human consciousness as I understand it.

---

What I wrote certainly allows that conclusion. It also allows what I intended, which is each of us consulting with our higher sense of being and the Divine within each, by whatever name we use. I did use plural, which I acknowledge is a source of confusion. I will try to be clearer next time, but I am challenged to pick the correct symbology given the richness of expression within this site and the broader material base dealing with the subject matter.

quote:

---

Your fictional hypothesis seems to indicate a sense of fear that some people can make decisions which on a spiritual level have significant impact on others, that some of us have more "drag" with the grand holy wazoos and so we should have mercy on those who don't.

---

I believe everything I do has an impact beyond that which I am immediately aware. I allow this possibility for others as well. If you consider absence of awareness a "fear" then you have named it for me. I prefer to address it as more fully understanding "responsibility". I do have a paradox in this situation, how far is far enough. I believe that each of us is responsible for the choices made during the journey. If I knowingly act in a manner which precludes a set of choices for another, I have violated my own integrity. At the same time, playing ostrich is an equally unacceptable choice for me. My story was nothing more than an attempt to engage in the discussion around this set of questions.

quote:

---

Katie wrote
No fear Chuck, no one here has any power over you, and I'm pretty sure that most of us don't want any, even if we're begged to take it.

---

I am not asking for someone to take power, nor do I fear that someone here has power over me.

quote:

---

Crystal wrote
How important it is to allow ourselves the freedom to look at these issues clearly and unemotionally with as much objectivity as possible.

I don't have the answers, but please know that I'm giving your post very careful and sincere thought.

---

Thanks, if you uncover any good possibilities for yourself, I hope you will share. As stated above, I do not have any answers for myself which pass muster.

quote:

---

TedV wrote
You wrote(quoting Lazaris):

---

Actually that was from the CS site, not attributed to Lazaris. The responsibility material was attributed to Lazaris.

quote:

---

TedV wrote
The story makes the premise that Lazaris is really a channeled entity. I disagree with that premise, which kinda makes the rest of it moot.

---

I respect your expression of reality. I also respect the expression of others who believe differently. This creates an interesting possibility, how is it that two apparently conflicting views can exist? Is it possible that this apparent conflict is an illusion of something bigger? I don't have meaningful, and certainly not provable answers.

quote:

---

wise crone wrote
You indeed have put some ''hope'' in my own personal ''vaccum''..Again manys thanks for 'showing up' in my Reality.

---

Molly, I feel honored that you have allowed me into your reality in the way you have expressed. Thank you.

quote:

---

Marilyn wrote
Rather than perceive it as a tribunal, I see it more as intimate and honest conversation with loving friends where the facts are presented with trust and love and a sincere request for help and healing.

---

It's simple -- the son-of-a-bitch abuses Marshall McCluen's most famous precept: The MEDIUM Is The Message.

That tone of ASSUMED spiritual authority that Lazzyass uses -- is EXTREMELY dangerous to listen to IMO.

None of us are completely immune to an assumed TONE of PROFESSORIAL *fatherly* expertise -- and what can be SLIPPED in amoungst VERY VALID *stolen* spiritual growth information:

"Smoking will only hurt you if you believe it will!"

"NEVER -- EVER exercise aerobicly for more than 15 minutes -- or you WILL go *spiritually numb*."

Need I quote more from Lazzyass -- the spiritual authority abusing "expert"?

IMO FAR -- FAR better to go to the original HUMAN source of effective spiritual growth information -- at least *then* you have the originator of the information to hold responsible if something proves medically deadly.

Steve
sb6@altavista.com

I also understand how some may not like it after seeing the posts. Some of us made the big L jump long ago and much easier than others. Some of us need to take it slower and integrate our experiences in a way that makes sense for our own spiritual growth.

I have to admit to having a hard time following your thinking. Given that others are finding it very clear, I guess I'm missing something.

Let me ask you this. Are you saying that you believe that by criticising Lazaris and expressing doubts about the material that we are somehow restricting others from believing as they wish, or putting at risk their access to Lazaris, should that entity be real?

That is what I'm reading from your post, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

quote:

---

I respect your expression of reality. I also respect the expression of others who believe differently. This creates an interesting possibility, how is it that two apparently conflicting views can exist? Is it possible that this apparent conflict is an illusion of something bigger? I don't have meaningful, and certainly not provable answers.

---

I'm not sure I understand this question either. I'm not as puzzled as you that two conflicting views can exist. It happens all the time.

I think maybe you are looking for a way for everyone to be right in their own way, rather than someone's opinion to be so right or wrong that it invades the rights and beliefs of another.

In my opinion, the only time the rights and beliefs of another are invaded is when the the beliefs of others are being imposed on them, either by brute force, psychological coercion, or emotional manipulation.

In this country the first two tactics are against the law of the land. The third is against the rules of respectful society.

So, what I think, is that when we define, acknowledge and stand up any time we see those rules being broken, we are very much standing up for the rights of others, especially the right for all to believe as they choose.

I think that if you read this site carefully, you will see that this is what those critical of "Lazaris" are reflecting in our discussions, not any enforced belief one way or the other.

The two beliefs that I see co-existing unpeacefully are not whether or not Lazaris is real, they are the existance of a loving being named Lazaris vs. the pain that has been caused by and in the name of that entity. There lies the true dilemma of conflicting beliefs here in my opinion.

I agree with Ted, Jeremiah, and others who have said the same thing, that for me it's an easy dilemma to solve. Given that I don't need Lazaris for anything, why would I want to go through the difficult exercise of trying to figure it all out, or finding excuses, justifications, or rationalizations for "him"?

If someone punches me in the face, robs my home, or rapes my daughter, it's enough for me to know that it happened, I don't feel any great need to resolve within myself why they did it. I know enough to keep away from that person, or to keep them away from me by force if necessary.

That is why we commit people to prisons instead of group therapy sessions. Some behavior just isn't tolerated by society.

I'm not fan of the US prison system as it exists, but I do very much support the concept of isolating people who exhibit dangerous and invasive behavior. If they aren't willing to deal with their reasons for doing that, why should I take it on as my challenge to provide them with an excuse?

I see the same thing in your hypothesis, please correct me if I'm wrong, that you are looking for a way to find an excuse for Lazaris so we can all feel better about taking the "good" from the materials.

Thanks,

I try once more.

quote:

---

Katie writes:
Let me ask you this. Are you saying that you believe that by criticising Lazaris and expressing doubts about the material that we are somehow restricting others from believing as they wish, or putting at risk their access to Lazaris, should that entity be real?

---

I am not saying or trying to say anything. I am questioning a lot of things. I am not questioning your right to believe or to express your beliefs or doubts. I believe there is great value in doing so. For me, most of the value received is through the learning opportunity the process affords. For me, the most effective process is one in which an open dialog proceeds. It is within the spirit of having an open dialog that I continue.

quote:

---

Katie writes:
I'm not sure I understand this question either. I'm not as puzzled as you that two conflicting views can exist. It happens all the time.

---

I am not puzzled by the fact that conflicting views exist. The question as I originally posed it (based on my understanding of TedV's set of questions) was in the sense of a duality - either A is true (Lazaris is a real channeled entity) or B is true (Lazaris is a fake). For any duality, there are three paths toward resolution: find convincing, irrefutable evidence of A, find convincing, irrefutable evidence of B, or find convincing, irrefutable evidence of C which encompasses both A and B and more. From what I've read on the site thus far (if someone has explored this possibility, please let me know where), there hasn't been much discussion about the possibility of C, so I ask the question. The discussions that seem to be centering around resolving the question in favor of either A or B aren't doing anything for me. In your example, you have posed a different duality which could also have a possible C.

quote:

---

Katie writes:
In my opinion, the only time the rights and beliefs of another are invaded is when the the beliefs of others are being imposed on them, either by brute force, psychological coercion, or emotional manipulation.

---

I agree with you in an ideal situation. Where I have pause with this statement is found in the "evidence" posted on this site which suggests that those who have followed the CS plan have relinquished some portion of their power to CS or to Lazaris (either by choice or by more subtle means). In accepting this reality, I feel that we are dealing with less than an ideal situation. Given the premise of less than ideal, I ask whether the definitions of psychological coercion or emotional manipulation might be different, and what behavior or tactics are appropriate to restore the ideal. While I acknowledge that the legal definitions do not change, I am uncomfortable that the moral or spiritual definitions do change. Perhaps your perspective is different, it seems so.

quote:

---

Katie writes:
I agree with Ted, Jeremiah, and others who have said the same thing, that for me it's an easy dilemma to solve. Given that I don't need Lazaris for anything, why would I want to go through the difficult exercise of trying to figure it all out, or finding excuses, justifications, or rationalizations for "him"?

---

I guess I missed the point of Ted starting this thread. I thought it was an attempt to explore possibilities and options. It was with that motive that I responded and have continued. Given what you have said it appears that I misunderstood Ted's intention.

quote:

---

Katie writes:
I see the same thing in your hypothesis, please correct me if I'm wrong, that you are looking for a way to find an excuse for Lazaris so we can all feel better about taking the "good" from the materials.

---

No, as stated previously, I am trying to explore the questions and possibilities that might have been overlooked, in line with my understanding of Ted's original post. I do not feel that the laws of Human are adequate analogs in dealing with matters of spirit, perhaps another difference between us. I do not equate moral and legal. I quite honestly would be loathe to allow Human law or any definition of consensus morality to even suggest what is right for matters of spirit - although many, including the Moral Majority, seem to think such territory is quite appropriate.

Cheers,
Chuck

You wrote:

quote:

---

I guess I missed the point of Ted starting this thread. I thought it was an attempt to explore possibilities and
options.

---

No, I don't think you missed the point. In my first post here, I stated that I have come to resolution on this issue - at least for now - that I have no interest in working with the material.

I did present more than a duality - e.g. the possibility that Lazaris is real but Jach is an impure channel. If by duality you mean that Lazaris is either who/what he says he is or he isn't, then I think it is a duality. Those really are the two possibilities, at least within linear logic. Multiple sub-possibilities exist within each of those possibilities, but those possibilities are mutually exclusive. If Lazaris is 90% of what they claim, then they are not what they claim - they are 90%. If I give you 90 dollars and claim I'm giving you 100 dollars, then I'm lying.

I don't care that much whether Lazaris is a channeled entity. I care that they are not whom they claim to be. Of that I'm quite sure. Because of that, they have no more credibility than any other imperfect source. Because I believe they (Jach or Lazaris - take your pick) have purposely set out to deceive, as opposed to just making a few mistakes, I think they have less credibility than many other sources.

quote:

---

Beyond space time there was a meeting of the seven member higher council on the matter of Some-of-the-People vs. Concept:Synergy and Lazaris.

The council speaks with a single voice, "We are most happy that you have chosen to bring this matter to our attention and to seek guidance. You have well articulated the case before us, and we would like to share our perspective before we choose the course of action to take."

"We see very much the hurt, anger, and despair that has been expressed by you on behalf of yourselves and those that you represent. While this is troublesome for us, we are also aware that you have within you the power to heal when you are ready, as you have acknowledged and your presence here testifies. So we will instead focus on matters which are of more of our concern as guides."

"We clearly see the transgressions you have pointed out by the members of Concept:Synergy. For us, the most significant is the absence of proper custodial care of that which was entrusted to them."

"We understand the perspectives you have shared regarding the transgressions of Lazaris. While your perspectives have merit, for us the most significant is that Lazaris stayed beyond their original purpose, an observation which has been alluded to in the case you brought before us."

"The above realizations are sufficient to compel us to take action. Our possible course of action is simple; to censure Lazaris and discontinue their presence among you."

"To those of you here, our course of action has no impact, as you have already reaped whatever benefits Lazaris's presence has afforded and moved to a different part of your spiritual development. Each of you has managed to find a way out of the situation that has been manifest by the combination of Concept:Synergy and Lazaris."

"There are others whom you do not represent that have made different choices. Some say they have a personal relationship with Lazaris outside of Concept:Synergy, others clearly rely on Concept:Synergy as their connection to Lazaris. It is consideration for those who have made different choices that makes our decision difficult. As you have articulated, without Concept:Synergy there is no Lazaris and vice versa. It is not within our scope to alter this arrangement."

"We turn to you and ask you to consider the anger, hurt and despair which will be manifest should we take the course of action open to us. You have, through your own efforts been able to witness some of this. Is not the realization and growth you have been able to achieve more valuable than if it were imposed by an outside agency? While you have found the courage, what do you say on behalf of others who have not yet reached the realization you have? We ask that you consider the vacuum which will be created. Are you ready to help fill this vaccuum, and, if so, how?"

"We also ask that you consider the futures which you have already started to create in offering challenges and options to others who are finding the courage to remember the lessons that have been given. In spite of the lessons, some have chosen to give up their power by forgetting - you express that there is more than forgetting, but we hope we can agree that forgetting was an operative part. Who will help them remember? What has happened with and in Concept:Synergy serves as a reminder, but you suggest that more is needed."

"We turn to you and ask what say you to our questions? We ask that your answer be as thoughtful as the case you have presented."

---

I appreciate the creativity, but I really think there is something strange about projecting some kind of cosmic justice tribunal out there to deal with the ethical failings of Lazaris.

Is this somehow something you wish would happen?

My question is: Why do you need a "tribunal" even in fantasy to evaluate Lazaris when you are quite capable of doing it yourself.

I cannot share your enthusiasm or the enthusiasm for others for such a concept.

If I am reading this wrong or missing something here, please illuminate.

Jeremiah

Thanks for attempting to explain yourself, I must admit again that I'm as confused as ever.

You talk of finding this hypothesis C which encompasses A and B, those being that either Lazaris is real or isn't real. I don't see how that can be.

There has been much much hypothesizing on this site about all the possible permutations
and possibilities, I don't think there is anyone here who isn't considering all of those and coming up with a few of there own.
No one except the hard core true and faithful who are very angry that anyone is questioning anything, and find it to be verging on criminal that we have.

I have stated over and again that I believe Jach to be a fraud, and that I'm not interested at all whether or not there is an entity known as Lazaris, because the information coming from that alleged entity has shown itself to me to be flawed, inconsistant, manipulative, and damaging. Not all of it, no, but I'm sure there is edible food in dumpsters outside of expensive restaurants too, but I don't choose to dine there nevertheless. I don't think you or anyone else would fault me for being disturbed and concerned by the sight of someone else rummaging through and having a happy chow down. Nor would anyone have a problem with me declining their offer to join them.

You and I might disagree as to the appropriateness of the dumpster analogy, but the garbage and rot I have identified within the Lazaris materials and Con:Sin organization amply serve to fuel it in my mind. So has the poisoning that is the result of a large group of people feeding from a source which we were told was safe and clean. The fact that we have seen the resultant toxic poisoning in even one person, and Michaell North comes to mind as a clear example, is evidence enough for me that this is not a happy feeding ground.

I must admit that it bugs the hell out of me to recognize that there are still many, including yourself who would attempt to argue that this "food" is safe to eat, or that those who were sickened or poisoned were made so of their own inability to distinguish contaminated food from healthful and delicious gourmet delights.

Why go through the challenge, when we are all perfectly capable of preparing our own food at home?

You know what they say "trick me once, shame on you, trick me twice, shame on me."

I'm done with the shame.

quote:

---

For me, the most effective process is one in which an open dialog proceeds. It is within the spirit of having an open dialog that I continue.

---

Yet in your fictitious story you suggest that harm and pain could come to some should the assertions of others result in some form of censorship. That really feels and sounds like an emotional attempt at censorship through the imposition of some kind of false responsibility and guilt.

You present your hypothesis as a fictional story, one possibility, but are you not willing to be personally responsible for the moral of it? You say you are not trying to say anything, only ask questions, but I'm sure you have to agree that the nature and content of questions hold statements within them. If I asked you "Why are you so stupid?" could I claim no thought that you are, and state that I was merely asking a question and making no comment about your intelligence in doing so?

I really do hate these games of "honesty" and "innocence" Chuck. The new age community abounds with them, and they really are games.

I ask a lot of questions here too, but I am certainly willing to stand up for the thinking and perpectives that cause me to aske them.

quote:

---

The discussions that seem to be centering around resolving the question in favor of either A or B aren't doing anything for me.

---

Then for God's sake stop ignoring all the posts that reflect all the thoughts, opinions, and hypotheses in between and stop pretending they aren't here.

I'm at the end of my rope with this dismissive and dishonest bullshit, Chuck. I have yet to see one post here which is an attempt to disprove the existance of Lazaris. There are many many statements as to why some people disbelieve, doubt, or feel the need to question, and precious few on why anyone does believe though.

If there is A or B thinking here, it seems to always come from the defenders and supporters of the Lazaris material.

Your request for a C here is like hearing someone ask for water while standing in a downpour.

It is completely false, inaccurate, dismissive, and dishonest to claim that there is no discussion here about anything beyond whether Lazaris is real or not.

quote:

---

I agree with you in an ideal situation. Where I have pause with this statement is found in the "evidence" posted on this site which suggests that those who have followed the CS plan have relinquished some portion of their power to CS or to Lazaris (either by choice or by more subtle means).

---

What you refer to as "evidence" is actually testimony Chuck. I know that I gave a lot of power to Con:Sin, I know why, and I know how it happened. I also know that others are of the same perspective. Are you contesting our personal experiences by attempting to diminish them to the level of some kind of evidence, contrived to change people's minds about something? If statements of personal experience do not serve as evidence for you, that is perfectly fine with me. But please do not in any way attempt to dismiss or misrepresent the experiences of others by relabeling them and attempting to turn them into debatable theories.

quote:

---

In accepting this reality, I feel that we are dealing with less than an ideal situation.

---

So, you would prefer us to accept a reality that has nothing to do with our personal experience and observation.

quote:

---

Given the premise of less than ideal, I ask whether the definitions of psychological coercion or emotional manipulation might be different, and what behavior or tactics are appropriate to restore the ideal.

---

What standard of ideal are you looking for?

If you can show me a standard where manipulation and coercion have different definitions, I'd like to see it. While your at it, could you create an ideal for us where air is not air, or where a hard blow on the head with a hammer doesn't cause damage?

quote:

---

While I acknowledge that the legal definitions do not change, I am uncomfortable that the moral or spiritual definitions do change. Perhaps your perspective is different, it seems so.

---

I think it's fair to say that my perspective is different. The reason that certain forms of coercion are illegal is because they have been generally recognized as immoral by a society which does not allege to support any specific spiritual beliefs beyond one in a god of some kind. The law is an extention of social morality, and morality is often an extention of spirituality. I don't see how you can make that separation.

But, let's forget the laws made by a flawed and imperfect judicial system. Let's just talk about humanity. Under what circumstances are coercion and manipulation subject to shades of definition?

quote:

---

I guess I missed the point of Ted starting this thread. I thought it was an attempt to explore possibilities and options. It was with that motive that I responded and have continued. Given what you have said it appears that I misunderstood Ted's intention.

---

Forgive me for noticing, but there seems to be a lot of points you have missed here, and many misinterpretations of what is said as well. I admit to finding that to be annoying at best. I wonder how many times some of us have to repeat ourselves before some start noticing and stop responding to things that have never been said, or perspectives which have never been offered?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katie writes:
I see the same thing in your hypothesis, please correct me if I'm wrong, that you are looking for a way to find an excuse for Lazaris so we can all feel better about taking the "good" from the materials.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

No, as stated previously, I am trying to explore the questions and possibilities that might have been overlooked, in line with my understanding of Ted's original post.

---

So, I'll ask you again the question which you didn't answer. Is one of those possibilities that you say Ted missed the one in which we should stop criticising and instead find excuses for Lazaris so we can just all feel good?

quote:

---

I do not feel that the laws of Human are adequate analogs in dealing with matters of spirit, perhaps another difference between us. I do not equate moral and legal.

---

quote:

---

I quite honestly would be loathe to allow Human law or any definition of consensus morality to even suggest what is right for matters of spirit - although many, including the Moral Majority, seem to think such territory is quite appropriate.

---

I see, so we have this separation of the spirit consciousness and the human consciousness that no one is capable of breaching. Now I understand why you want to cling so tenaciously to a connection with some being who claims to be of the spirit world. Powerful stuff, that claim of non-humanity.

I see your perspective as being completely in line with that of the Moral Majority, not at all different, in that you all just want people to believe in something, no matter how convoluted, nonsensical, or potentially dangerous rather than just rely on our own individual free access to the wisdom and support of the Universe.

I see how you are trying to lump me with the fundamentalist movement, but right back at ya Chuck. I'm not the one trying to convince people to live by some alleged endless sea of possibilities which just ends up as an attempt to get people to stop thinking and just follow along cause we ain't smart enough to figure out these fathomless mysteries.

Thanks for the detailed response. I am not sure how to continue our dialog. Given the nature of the response, and your pointing out I have done an inadequate job ("It is completely false, inaccurate, dismissive, and dishonest to claim that there is no discussion here about anything beyond whether Lazaris is real or not" - this is not what I intended to state or imply and I thought I acknowledged so) of doing my homework, I am at a loss as to how to proceed. Given my interpretation of the words reflected back, I can see differences in both intent an meaning, both acknowledging your interpretation and my intent. In you words I see attributions of me which do not ring true but you suggest they are.

You state there are no rules, but use unposted rules (It is completely false, inaccurate, dismissive, and dishonest to claim that there is no discussion here about anything beyond whether Lazaris is real or not) of your construction and interpretation to reply. If there are no rules, then what basis do you have to claim I'm false innacurate, dismissive, dishonest? This is your reality, not mine. I acknowledge I did not complete whatever homework assignment you had in mind which would satisfy your criteria for making the above statement. I did not know there was an assignment. Perhaps the next visitor will be wary enough to understand that there are no rules, but there is a set of expectations that one should respect and if failing to do so to expect the kind of post you have afforded.

My mention of other opportunities of focus was not intended to be a suggestion that you were of the disposition of the Moral Majority. Rather it was a suggestion of a wider, deeper cause to focus on. Your response suggesting that I am somehow associated with that group (I see your perspective as being completely in line with that of the Moral Majority) is in left field in my realization of where I am. We have very different perspectives of what my reality looks like. I find some amusement in your suggestions that I am at once part of the CS regime (I must admit that it bugs the hell out of me to recognize that there are still many, including yourself who would attempt to argue that this "food" is safe to eat) and at the same time part of the Moral Majority (I see your perspective as being completely in line with that of the Moral Majority). It presents an interesting perspective to resolve, one I hadn't thought of. Hmmm...

What is also clear to me in the above is that I haven't been able to effectively communicate with you. This comes as no surprise - another of my items to work on.

Hopefully,
Chuck

Your fictional account made some assumptions: 1) that Lazaris really is a channeled entity, 2) that his primary infraction was to hang around too long, 3) that a vacuum would be created by Lazaris' departure.

A more down-to-earth version might replace the tribunal with a court of law, and the charges with that of fraud. If ample evidence were presented to show that Jach made the whole thing up, then he should be taken to a court of law. Upon conviction, I can't imagine a responsible judge concerning herself with the "vacuum" that would be left after the fraud was exposed.

We have many ways to fill that vacuum: books, friends, meditaion (not hypnosis), Nature, religion, cosmicfool.com, Fingerprince's balanced discussion board, introspection...

Lazaris versus vacuum - there's a true duality. It's the scary "reality" that C:S would like us to believe.

quote:

---

I also send a ray of hope in an attempt to lift a bit of darkness.

---

I appreciate your good intention here. In my experience, attempting to reconcile the incongruities around "Lazaris" is the darkness.

Coming to terms with the obvious -- that
"Lazaris" is not what he claims to be, opens the door to the bright light of truth.

For me, that darkness vanished with L when I found such a tainted source to be unacceptable. Ain't no darkness here.

As Ted wrote,

quote:

---

Lazaris versus vacuum - there's a true duality.

---

That people are even thinking in these terms , is a screaming indication that the "Lazaris" material has displaced individuals from Self.

Jade

Great thread, I appreciate the thoughtful questions you pose.

Chuck,

Still sifting through your posts. Your ideas are dense, to say the least. Still trying to digest them, much food for thought. Methinks Katie's objections have more to do with your giving L due consideration rather than a dismissive kick in the pants. Since for the non-believer, due consideration is not a possibility, the only recourse is, there must be something wrong with you.

Thanks for the time and effort you put into your thoughtful posts!

TedC

quote:

---

I have noticed that those who defend Lazaris are strangely silent when there are actual personal attacks made by those of similar perspective against those of differing ones. Have you noticed that?

---

I have noticed it and it pisses me off.

Fingerprince opened part 4 of that "many eyes" thread with a scathing denunciation that NONE of his defenders chose to address.

Probably, they felt it was a justified attack because he had so completely convinced them of his persecuted maverick truth teller status.

Bullshit.

If people bought into his victim routine they do so at their own expense.

He was treated in the most welcoming manner upon his arrival and only through repeated manipulative tactics did he wear that welcome thin.

Look the way I feel about it those people that were suckered by him can have him and all the attendant bullshit that comes with not being able to identify the basest forms of interpersonal manipulation.

But I would welcome some insight as to why there was no objection to his scathing and repeated attacks. I guess that his fans see his cause to be a noble one. Well, they can have him and the cause.

But lest this whole thing become just another largely irrelevant rant on a message board somewhere in cyberspace, I think it is very interesting to see that this is symptomatic of the desperate need to defend Lazaris.

quote:

---

I have been called every name from here to Sunday, and been accused of every kind of rotten behavior yet I don't recall one time that any Lazaris defender has provided me with any "support" in those cases.

---

Interesting isn't it? I wonder about the agenda? Do they think you deserve it and people like FP who defend Lazaris however ineptly and with virtually no grasp of what Lazaris talked about?

I would like to know why you deserve it according to those who have spent such energy encouraging a "safe" atmosphere.

quote:

---

It's ok, I'm not looking for that kind of support, but it is interesting for me to note the seeming paradox of ethics. It's as though there is a sense that those of same thought should be defended, and those of differing opinion are the enemy so the same rules do not apply.

---

I agree and I think it is because people are really frightened they are going to loose their spirituality if Lazaris is questioned. Nothing could be farther from the truth of course, but that is my guess as to why.

quote:

---

I wonder if it has occurred to my critics to notice that I manage to function just fine in the face of not only dissent, but character assassination and the most vile of insults.

---

Maybe that is part of it. You aren't playing that game. And by not playing it you
weaken the arguement of those who would insist that it is the only game to play.

quote:

---

The only way I know to counter these dangers is to allow for an open dialogue about them. This fear of expression, and attempt to manipulate and control free expression are more scary to me than any thought, opinion, or idea could ever be.

---

I wonder if some people writing in defense of Lazaris interpret disagreement with a lack of support. I wonder if they feel they are owed agreement.

quote:

---

One thing I learned about the concept of dominion is that when you are in it, you know that no one can take your power. It is the only ironclad defense we have against the control tactics of others, physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual.

---

Agreed.

Jeremiah

Hey Ted C,

quote:

---

Methinks Katie's objections have more to do with your giving L due consideration rather than a dismissive kick in the pants. Since for the non-believer, due consideration is not a possibility, the only recourse is, there must be something wrong with you.

---

Methinks that is a demonstration of selective attention.

Me also thinks it a condecending "kick in the pants" to say that Katie hasn't given due consideration to the phenomena of Lazaris.

Jeremiah

quote:

---

Since for the non-believer, due consideration is not a possibility, the only recourse is, there must be something wrong with you.

---

Ted, a thorough reading of the threads would reflect that every "non-believer" has already gone over the top in giving consideration to the reality of "Lazaris." Everyone of us had a huge investment in maintaining belief in the realness of L. Everyone of us did a lot of soul searching individually.

I don't think there is something wrong with you, or that this a prevailing attitude on this board towards you and others who continue to believe that "Lazaris" is legitimate. In fact there is probably more understanding than you realize because we have all been through dealing with the confusion and doubt while holding onto the belief.

Jade

Your questions deserve some response from me which I neglected the first time around.

You wrote:

quote:

---

If one distrusts C:S, does it still make sense to work with the material?

---

It depends on how the distrust manifests. My distrust of C:S extends to their counseling skills via the forum and their back-table businesses. The material itself I continue to trust.

quote:

---

If Jach is an impure channel, does it make sense to work with the material?

---

It depends on what you consider impure. Katie likes the analogy of eating out of a dumpster. Sure, there's food there, but is it worth it? I rather like the analogy, diamonds in a dumpster. I have no problem recognizing what's valuable and what isn't, gathering what I can use and leaving the rest behind.

quote:

---

What are the potential benefits and risks involved with using the material?

---

Again, it's a point of view question. Benefits to me are limitless and the risks low. In fact, I would say the risks aren't in the material but in how the user implements the material. Setting L up as the guru and only compass in life is a risk, but that risk is inherent in any teaching. L is one of the few who explicitly states he is not one of those and should not be seen as such.

quote:

---

Can Lazaris and C:S really be compartmentalized?

---

Yes. While L's praise of P. is disturbing, I like Marilyn's take on it. We all can recognize a mistake when we see it. Should we never forgive the mistake? Some may not want to for their own reasons. Some forgive and forget. Some forgive but listen more carefully. It depends on your viewpoint.

quote:

---

What if it were to be proven that Jach is faking it?

---

quote:

---

Are there other alternatives to the beliefs I presented above?

---

I'm still trying to figure out Chuck's alternative. I think it's a total allegory and should not be taken literally (ie. L is real, tribunal passing judgement, etc.). The key sentence for me is "Is not the realization and growth you have been able to achieve more valuable than if it were imposed by an outside agency?". What that says to me is, L's reality isn't the point, your growth is the point. Can any of us say we haven't grown?

TedC

Perhaps I was harsh with Katie. Again, I feel she is going off on someone without cause ("dismissive and dishonest bullshit, completely false, inaccurate, dismissive, and dishonest"). What need for the diatribe?

I'm wondering where the quotes from your previous post are from? Not this thread.

Jade,

Apologies for putting all non-believers in one basket. Your thoughtful consideration, TedV's provocative questions and pointed responses, Jeremiah's keeping me honest, prove me wrong.

TedC

Thanks for putting your thoughts out here about the questions I raised. I think you know how I feel about the questions - which is not the way you feel - so I won't go into my own answers. That I feel differently than you doesn't really mean anything except that we're two different people. No need to convert or be converted.

There were a couple of statements you made though that I would like to address:

quote:

---

...Should we never forgive the mistake? Some may not want to for their own reasons. Some forgive and
forget.

---

One forgives behaviour that has changed. If you stole something from me 5 years ago, and haven't stolen anything since, it would make sense to forgive you. If you continue to steal from me, I don't want you around. I may forgive, in the sense that I don't hold on to my anger, but I won't trust in that situation. Lazaris' praise of Peny, as well as their refusal to deal with the consequences of that praise, their insistence that they never lie, their abuse of their position in trying to break up Marilyn's family is recent and ongoing. To refuse to consider that behaviour is dangerous.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Can any of us say we haven't grown?

---

Well, that's a loaded question. Who would want to admit that they haven't grown in the last 5, 10, 15 years? And the reluctance to make that admission could well keep people in the game.

However, I refer back to my recent post about Ronald Reagan's question, "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" After Reagan was in office for 4 years, I was better off. I had gone to school to learn a skill. I had gotten married. I had studied Yogananda's teachings and meditated regularly. I started to work out regularly. I was much better off. But none of it had anything to do with Reagan being president.

In fact, I would say that I've been better off after any 4-year period in my life. Because I work at it. Because I care about myself and my impact on the planet. I embraced Lazaris out of that same sense of caring. I'm absolutely sure that I would have grown during that time with or without Lazaris. I have grown in the past year, since I rejected Lazaris.

I don't doubt that there have been a few specific situations where I grew as a result of the Lazaris Material. But not generally. And at what cost? How much more would I have grown without the baggage? I guess I'm finding that out right now. Back to Katie's dumpster analogy: can any dumpster diver claim they never found a tasty morsel in a dumpster? Not an argument that would cause many people to start eating out of a dumpster.

Cheers, Ted

In my opinion, Chuck presented us with an obviously flawed but very workable story that seemed to work for him. The arguments made against the story were sound, but felt like you were discussing a real situation in a court of law. You say that you do not need Lazaris for your spiritual growth. SHOW IT.

Why not show Chuck how to set up his own meditation. How does he find his own voice? Increase his own power? Evaluate his own answers and try again?

quote:

---

I rather like the analogy, diamonds in a dumpster.

---

Why look for something preciousin a dumpster at all?!

Actually, diamonds are a good analogy for "Lazaris." Their value is artificially inflated by a greedy monopolistic family/company that created the popular desire for diamonds through hard core promotional campaign during the past 80 or so years. They release just enough each year to keep prices where they want them.

If not for DeBeers, diamonds would be as readily available and reasonably priced as semi-precious stones.

Available to all, just like spirituality. We'd all be sporting sparklies.

For fine quality, why not Cartier or Harry Winston, instead of a dumpster.

Jade

quote:

---

None of us are completely immune to an assumed TONE of PROFESSORIAL *fatherly* expertise --and what can be SLIPPED in amoungst VERY VALID *stolen* spiritual growth information

---

"Lazaris's" actions often belie his words.

He talked up the feminine principle and the Goddess, but the Jach & "Lazaris" Room (that is L's name on the marquee) exudes patriarchal domination.

This "friend" has the air of paternalistic authority.

He'll always be there, except when it comes to the wonder of Peny.

He promises personal power and freedom, but his teachings leave you like a fly trapped in a spider web.

So sorry, no turd icons -- but thought you'd like this,

or this,

Jade

Gosh this is fun. Thanks for the chance to learn. Based on Katie's remarks, it appears that it is prudent for me to spend more time reviewing the material here and less time posting.

And Katie, I did get your point about questions having statements within. There is for me another perspective, one in which asking questions does not imply statements. This perspective is one I use quite often where I try to create possibilities without prejudging the validity of the possibility. I was given this tool by science, and have found its utility in other venues as well. It appears that my use of this technique within this site is not a way for me to effectively communicate, so I will refrain from further posts using this mode of operation.

Thanks to all,
Chuck

You wrote:

quote:

---

You say that you do not need Lazaris for your spiritual growth. SHOW IT.

---

I don't take kindly to imperative statements from anyone, much less strangers. And just how would I show it, anyway? Do you wish to give me a test to see how spiritual I am? So you can determine whether I'm able to grow without the Grand Orb? I don't think so.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Why not show Chuck how to set up his own meditation. How does he find his own voice? Increase his own power? Evaluate his own answers and try again?

---

Where have I written that I have a desire to replace Lazaris as the object of anyone's co-dependency? Or to be anyone's guru.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Have you become so jaded that you only seek a legal solution? Where is your freedom and power in that

---

I don't seek a legal solution. As I stated in my first response to Chuck, I'm doing exactly what I want to do. The legal avenue was presented as a more realistic approach than the cosmic tribunal. And if I did seek a legal solution, so what? Are you of the opinion that fraud should not be prosecuted?