Lazaris teaches us that we consciously create our own reality either by causing it or allowing it. No asterisks, no fine print.

I am beginning to think that this is another of those "ultimate truths" that just does not apply to us yet. I believe that when we have grown enough so that we are always in a place of love, then this truth will indeed have no asterisks or fine print. Until that time, I find the exceptions and the reasons why we didn't create a given reality to put quite a stress on the use of both asterisks and fine print.

Lazaris makes many quick references to quantum mechanics. At times he will say that quantum mechanics suggests the validity of his hypothesis, while at other times he will say it proves it.

My very limited understanding of quantum mechanics is that it suggests that we can have influence on reality through the act of observation (or consciousness). Once we observe something, it stops being a probability and is at that point determined as a "certainty". This has been more or less proven at the quantum level. That does not mean it necessarily applies 100% to higher levels.

I would like to quote Ken Wilber in his preface to the 2001 edition of "Quantum Questions. Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists" (Shambala Publications, 2001). He talks about how the hope is that science will support mysticism. He then states that "From Einstein to Eddington, from Bohr to Plank, from Heisenberg to Pauli, they uniformly reject that conclusion...yet eveyone of them was an avowed mystic!". He later states that "to confuse these two [science and mysticism] is to misunderstand and distort both science and spirituality."

He then says:

"In these days when so many spiritual seekers feel that they need to rest their souls on the findings of physics, it is important that we listen to the true masters of physics as they point to the fundamental importance of both science and religion--without confusing their perspective tasks and goals, yet finding them both as part of that All which only alone is."

I hold a similar, though not identical, opinion. I feel that science may provide theories that are consistent with spirituality. I believe that we will be able to reconcile the two views. But, we will never be able to use science to "prove" spirituality just as we will never be able to use spirituality to prove science. There is a HUGE difference between proof and reconciliation.

Back to creating our reality, I must ask each person to review their own personal experience with it. Does anyone truly find that they have no asterisks or fine print in their ability to create reality?

In my own life, I have found that my ability to create reality is more appropriately termed my ability to influence reality. The extent of that influence depends on my current state. I have often noticed that when I am in a more loving state, I influence my reality more positively, more quickly, more magically and with less effort than usual. For this reason, I tend to believe that when I can operate consistently from a 100% loving state, then I will indeed create my own reality without asterisks or fine print. At that time, I will also probably have "graduated" from physicality. I intuit that our sojourn into physicality is designed to allow us to "play" with this concept of reality creation along with its varying degrees of applicability.

I feel there is some risk in how Lazaris presents the topic of reality creation. It makes it all too easy to use the metaphysical club of "yes, but you create your own reality" to make either oneself or someone else feel less than. I feel the same way about the overuse of "negative ego".

I look forward to everyone's opinions.

Cheers, Craig

PS: I posted this to both the CF and GP sites

As I pointed out in another thread, Lazaris contradicts himself when he says that there are no asterisks, then says that "one cannot lift one's own shame". Anytime Lazaris says that one "must" do something or "the only way" or that two conditions (such as love and martyrhood) cannot exist simultaneously, he is contradicting himself.
L does this so often that to claim consistency in the material is a joke. Without these inconsistencies, the majority of the material would be unnecessary, as we would simply make up our own rules and follow them.

Frankly, I couldn't care less what "Lazaris" says because I believe it to be a scam. Whether Jach purposely lies or Lazaris is from Lower Realms or the reception is lacking doesn't matter - Lazaris ain't the Higher Being we've been led to believe he is. Therefore, his "teachings" hold no more water than Joe Blow down the street. And if I know Joe Blow to be sincere and honest, then Lazaris' words hold even less water, even if Joe is uneducated.

Back to the subject
No, science will never prove or disprove spirituality or vice-versa. So what? Science is a tool designed to serve us, not for us to serve it. A hammer is a valuable tool as well. But when my hammer tells me I can't perform a job with any other tool, then it's time to get rid of the hammer!

You wrote:

quote:

---

...I tend to believe that
when I can operate consistently from a 100% loving state, then I will indeed create my own reality without asterisks or fine
print.

---

The fact that you may not be creating the reality you ostensibly want doesn't mean there are asterisks. It means that you are creating your reality with anger, lust, fear, etc. instead of love, and that helps to determine which reality will be created.

An analogy: A computer will do exactly what you tell it to do, no fine print. If you tell it to do something other than what you want it to do, it will do something other than what you want. But it still does exactly as it is told. That you had a logic error in your program does not negate that fact. It also means that the ability to fix said logic error is with you, not with any external force.

To say that you absolutely create your own reality does not mean that you will always create what you want or ask for. If means that the entirety of your reality is created by you, not by God, fate, luck, government, etc. It doesn't mean you will always do it elegantly. Perhaps when you learn to love perfectly (can you?), you will always create exactly what you want.

You wrote:

quote:

---

I feel there is some risk in how Lazaris presents the topic of reality creation. It makes it all too easy to use the metaphysical club of "yes, but you create your own reality" to make either oneself or someone else feel less than...

---

There is always a risk in people having more power, be that the power of an automobile, the power of a gun or the power of knowledge - all can be used for good or evil. I don't think the solution to to remove the power. "Lazaris" does repeatedly warn against using meta-physics as a club. That people insist on doing it is on them.

Since witnessing all of the C:S shenanigans over the last year, culminating with the death of Peny and Michael, my doubts about the validity of Lazaris and the material itself have grown to an all time high, including the degree to which we create our realities.

I even wonder at times whether we really do create our realities anymore, or at least to the degree that many of us would like to think that we do. Of course, there are problems with this concept as the universe shows an amazing consistency in even fundamental matter, so it doesn't necessarily make sense that we create our realities some of the time, and yet not others.

Getting to the heart of your post however, I think that I agree with you for the most part-I can remember hearing the way other FOL's that I knew claim certain reality creations/miracles etc, and when things went poorly, they really beat the hell out of themselves.

I also found after a certain point the L. material became so weighty with technique and process that I simply couldn't keep up with it. For some time, I felt really bad about my growing lack of enthusiasm for the material, as I had invested over ten years' worth of money on tapes and workshops, and was so "attached" to the Lazaris material as being the ultimate source of spiritual knowledge.

While Lazaris reminded us many times to not beat ourselves up for failing, how could one not, with such a danger ridden path with spiritual imperatives such as breaking dark laws, dealing with our nemesis, ad infinitum. In addition, Lazaris quite often predicted overly dire consequences for not dealing with various issues in a thorough manner. While every tape or workshop promised greater ease just around the corner filled with more and more miracles, another would come out describing some new challenge to process and deal with. And this is still going on. When does it ever stop? This is not to say that growth doesn't have many stages and inherent challenges within each stage, but I do feel that the landscape that Lazaris describes at times is overly wrought with hidden dangers of various kinds that fly in the face of his oft reminded statement about the universe being a friendly place.

I personally do not know anyone who has achieved the kind of miraculous success that Lazaris describes as "just a belief away" or whatever. and we talking quite a few folks who've been diligently working on this stuff for decades who are still struggling and processing/meditating themselves silly. After working with the material less and less over the last five years, I'm more successful than I've ever been. I can't of course chalk that entirely up to not working with the material anymore, but it does say something.

As far as the overuse of "Yes, but you create your own reality", I certainly heard that statement bandied about by some really arrogant L. people who had nothing better to do than to exercise their spiritual superiority. Quite nauseating, I must say.

What I'd be interested in knowing from any of you is whether you believe that we create our realities totally and completely? Do you think that we can achieve the levels of masetery that L. describes as possible?

Best,

You said: An analogy: A computer will do exactly what you tell it to do, no fine print. If you tell it to do something other than what you want it to do, it will do something other than what you want. But it still does exactly as it is told. That you had a logic error in your program does not negate that fact. It also means that the ability to fix said logic error is with you, not with any external force.

I disagree that there is no fine print. Unfortunately, there are outside influences. Denial of service attacks or viruses can bring a computer to its knees. A power failure without proper power protection will stop a computer from working. Hardware failure may stop the program from working. At the individual program level, some other program corrupting your data files will stop the program from working. Therefore, I consider all of these causes and others to be fine print which would prevent a computer or its programs from working.

You seem to agree pretty closely with Lazaris on the issue of reality creation. On what do you base your belief? Knowing the little I know about you, I would doubt it would be because Lazaris said so. I ask the question out of curiosity as I am currently re-evaluating the whole reality creation topic and am extremely interested in both what people have to say and WHY they say it.

Welcome to the site!

Sorry if I'm brief in my reply, but I'm getting a little tired of posting for the moment.

I resonate with a lot of what you said, such as having similar successes since diminishing my reliance on the Lazaris material.

You said: What I'd be interested in knowing from any of you is whether you believe that we create our realities totally and completely? Do you think that we can achieve the levels of masetery that L. describes as possible?

I think I've already answered that, but let me say it in different words.

I do not believe that in our current state of evolution we create our realities totally and completely. I feel we can have a very strong influence on our reality at times. I feel we are also susceptible to other people's influence. At some point I believe we will be evolved enough so that we will have the total and complete mastery Lazaris claims. I can only hope it is in this lifetime, but I am not so sure perfect mastery is a requirement for "graduation" back to higher levels.

I love this topic. Thanks Craig for getting it started.

I look at this question in a slightly different manner. From much of what we know and understand, the following seems to be a safe statement:

"Reality is just an illusion"

(I can't take credit for that, but it seems true for me based on the studies of multiple disciplines I've tried to get a grip on).

On the assumption that those following along here can agree with the statement (for those that agree that we create our own reality, I find agreement implicit), the statements of L flow into place:

Student: I understand reality is just an illusion.

L: Whose illusion is it?

Student: That of the one experiencing it.

L: Ergo, the experiencer of the illusion is creating the reality since reality is an illusion.

This line of argument is known, according to my understanding, as circular reasoning.

Let me not diminish the import of what L has stated, as it to has merit in our growth. As a starting point of awakening, what L has said is an awareness that was important to my growth. As an end point, or a club as others have stated, it is something I believe to be rejected. A beginning is not an end, IMO.

Analytically, the statement is a "nether" statement in my value system, having truth and value but not providing much understanding. Given what I have come to understand about the teachings and dealings of Concept:Synergy and the teachings of Lazaris as they have evolved over time, I would advise those uninitatiated to regard this with caution. It is one of those statements that cannot be disproved as it allows all possibilities, placing the burden of reconciliation on the believer. It is a statement that can be partially proven based on historical, scientific, psychological, spiritual findings and combinations of the above. Since it cannot be disproven, due to the built in escapes, and can be partially proven, it needs to be taken with care (I believe that anything that cannot be proven is of this ILK, not simply because L said it).

As for the teachings themselves, as I understand them (a relative neophyte compared to many here), I find some interesting puzzlements in the topic related to the archetypes, faeries, impact and those entities with whom I'm dealing with in this post, specifically those reading along and those having posted. Unless I totally withdraw from natural and social interchange, I am always "allowing" someone else to influence or create my reality. Isn't being here, in the moment, what life is about? If so, the teaching that we create our reality can become a significant diversion to what we are trying to accomplish. IMO.

Chuck

I think you got me on a technicality concerning my computer-program analogy, which is why I hesitate to ever use the term "absolute". However, all the examples you stated can be identified and dealt with - they may not be part of the failing program, per se, but they are within the realm of things fixable by technicians. And, in my 21 years as a programmer, I have very rarely encountered a problem with a program I wrote that was not something the program could have handled. Even if the data was bogus, my program could have checked for bogus data. I don't consider it a failure on my part if my program was not written to handle all bad input, vicious attacks, etc., but it could have been, just as we could create all of our reality, but we're not failures because we don't do it perfectly.

You wrote:

quote:

---

You seem to agree pretty closely with Lazaris on the issue of reality creation. On what do you base your belief?
Knowing the little I know about you, I would doubt it would be because Lazaris said so.

---

OK, I'll make an exception and use the word "absolute". You can be absolutely sure that I don't believe anything simply because Lazaris says so As I've stated many times, if I agree with something Lazaris says, it's in spite of, not because of Lazaris saying it.

I won't go so far out on a limb as to say that I believe we can reach the heights that Lazaris suggests, but I will say that I believe we can reach some extraordinary heights. Yogis have defied physics for centuries. Athletes and artists have surpassed what most would have believed possible. The overwhelming majority have done so with no help from Lazaris.

Why do I believe that we create our own reality versus having influence on it? Well, how much influence? Where do a whole lot of influence and a not-quite absolute reality-creation differ?

We all agree that we influence our reality by choosing to take one job over another or by eating certain foods, or by smoking, taking drugs etc. But the concept of Reality Creation implies that we impact our reality in much subtler ways - ways which cannot be measured with physics. Reality Creation means that we have dominion with phenomena which is apparently outside our control: weather, economic indicators, "luck".

Influence means I can choose to take a job that happens to be available. Reality Creation means I can make that job available, even if no other jobs exist. I've done exactly that on a few occasions. I've also manifested other "syncronicities" which don't defy logic, but certainly stretch it quite far.

If one believes that God exists and that God is all-powerful and that God loves us, then I think the only logical way to set things up would be for us to create our own reality. To have someone or something else create our reality would be unfair. It would deny us the fruits or consequences of our Free Will. What is the point of Free Will if the same consequence will occur regardless of what one wills?

Now if God hates us, then She might make our lives a cruel joke by disconnecting our actions and choices from our reality. Or if He is not so powerful - He meant to give us that power, but failed. Or if God does not exist at all... But, given the premises which most of us believe about God, I think it is only consistent that we create our own reality.

As I've written recently, I think that whatever good has come from Lazaris has been the reinforcement and/or initial suggestion of a belief in our ability to create our own reality. While many may kind-of believe it, it becomes more real when a "Higher Being" agrees.

When it becomes more real, we may become more determined: We're faced with a crisis - do we move ahead with determination or do we give in. A lot of it depends on the depth of our belief that we can win. If we don't really believe it, we're apt to give up much sooner.

I believed in meta-physics long before I heard of "Lazaris". The (short-term) benefit was that my belief in meta-physics was enhanced, reinforced by someone I believed to be wise and honest. That reinforced belief inspired me to keep at a meta-physical project that I may have abandoned without it. It inspired me to look first to magic, rather than try manipulation first and then turn to magic only if the manipulation fails.

Why then am I not grateful to Lazaris for this reinforcement? Let me count the reasons: They/Jach lied. The reinforcement is no longer effective, now that I've concluded that Lazaris is a sham - good reason to not accept that idea - except dishonesty robs our power. As I said, the benefit was short-term - a drug with severe side-effects. One benefit of a drug with side effects, though, is they can remind us that we can live without pain, so they can inspire us to find healthier ways of dealing with it.

So, no, I'm not grateful to the drug pusher, even though the drug made me feel good temporarily. I'm not grateful that the pusher never told me I can feel that good without his drugs, or that the drugs would atrophy my own power and talent. I'm not grateful that the pusher never told me that they intended to make me dependent on them, to turn me into an addict, willing to sacrifice my principles for another hit, which becomes less and less satisfying. (Note the wholesale sacrifice of principles in the J&L Forum)

Cheers, Ted

I will call an end to the discussion of the analogy you mentioned. As a fellow programmer, we could play with this one for a long time! Your initial use of the analogy was a good one, and I regret opening my fat mouth to have a little fun.

Thanks for clarifying your position regarding reality creation. I found it beneficial.

quote:

---

Lazaris teaches us that we consciously create our own reality either by causing it or allowing it.

---

Past tense puleeze. "Lazaris" does not teach me or most of the rest of the posters here any more.

Jade

I must admit I am deeply confused. When Lazaris came into my life 8 yeras back I was at a low point. Now 8 years on I am doing very well indeed (in every aspect). I have often attributed this to my working with Lazaris although I have never liked the CS money making machine.

There is a lot of me invested in the Lazaris material (including several expensive trips from UK to the USA) and I would hate to think that it is really a scam. Istopped posting on the lazaris forum after being flamed because I spoke disrespectfully of my Crystals!

I will keep an open mind and continue to visit this site and would be happy to enter email conversation with anyone out thre.

Hey, I was just thinking of a trip to Orlando - maybe I'll put it on hold )

Also I think in all these groups there is often a split between the "sacred" and the "profane". People tolerate problems with the "profane", such as Concept:Synergy's moneymaking, because they see that as the only route to the "sacred".

Have you seen <a href="http://www.freedomofmind.com">Steve Hassan's site</a>? That site is a good explanation of what might be called counterfeit religions.

At the same time, of course, only you can decide whether Concept:Synergy falls into Steve Hassan's definition.

[This message has been edited by Pete (edited 10-13-2001).]

Thanks for writing. How interesting that after all your reading, you chose this thread to link to. It really is appropriate given the information we all have recently received. I guess it's having it's impact, because I've heard from a few people today who have gotten an email about this.

Pete and I were having a hot discussion just the other day which I think ties into this topic of reality creation. It had to do with truth actually, but having just read through this discussion again, it all ties in in my mind.

One thing I have learned, maybe THE thing as a result of hosting this site is that the Truth hurts. We say may say that we are spiritual seekers, but what do we do when confronted with a Truth that doesn't feel good, or doesn't support our existing belief system?

For years, Ted and I swore to all and sundry that there was not one inconsistancy in the Lazaris materials in all the years we had been studying and using it. Yet, once we allowed ourselves to start actually looking for the answers, we realized that not only we, but just about every other "friend of Lazaris" was full of questions about inconsistancies. What I see now that we were all doing in discussing these is finding excuses and justifications (usually, "I'm not good enough") to explain them away, rather than just admitting that they are inconsistancies, or outright contradictions and inaccuracies. The human mind is an interesting instrument.

Studies on the mind show that certain types of brain activity actual register exactly the same way as physical pain or discomfort.
For that reason, I believe that when most of us experience discomfort in thinking something through, we pull our away as quickly as we would our hand if we had just been burned.

We have posted a lot of factual truths here on this site, and we have also been accused of every kind of abuse known to man. Clearly, we are responsible for causing a lot of discomfort and pain, and yes, there has been some actual abuse here, but I don't think that's the real source of the pain. It's the resistance to hearing information that hurts that causes the pain. The Truth can hurt.

So, how does all this tie into reality creation?

What I think is that the extent that we are operating from the Truth is relative to our ability to create or more accurately "be" in a reality that reflects our desires. The more I think about it, the more I agree that we do fully and completely create our reality. Our lives are in any given moment a perfect reflection of our state of consciousness.

I think the L materials work on a certain level, simply because they often inspire us to improve our mood, or encourage us to clean up our perspective on something. Anything that causes us to focus more clearly, take responsibility, and feel better about ourselves will surely improve our functionality. That is common sense.

But, there is deception in the materials, they often cause us to be less than honest with ourselves, they make us feel better about lying to ourselves, and provide a very attractive escape hatch from the discomforts of facing the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.

I also believe that there is an apex that exists between Love and Truth, if I'm using the right terminology. I think that when we are in Truth we are in Love, and vice versa.
So, the L stuff comes in handy because it does certainly inspire us to go for love. Sometimes, not because of the materials, or Lazaris, but out of our sincere desire, and our sincere Love, we do lift closer to that apex. But, we can never get there through the materials, because they are fundamentally dishonest.

Someone suggested that not all cults are destructive, and that what determines that is whether or not there is deception. There is a lot of deception coming from Con:Sin, that is a Fact, not a conjecture. The police and medical examiners reports are has hard proof of deception as anything else that has been written here.

Yet, without a doubt, there will be many who will still pull back from the pain of that Truth, the Truth that Peny was a very very sick woman for a long time, and that she did not have a frivolous desire one night to leave her body and stay gone. Her body stopped working, she had no choice but to stay out of it. It rejected her, she did not reject it. Jach, Lazaris, and all the Con:Sinners who knew better are lying about this, and perpetrating a deception.

So, if my theory of Truth, Love, and Reality Creation is correct, this is one more instance where Jach/Lazaris is serving to thwart our ability to create a stellar reality, rather than inspiring and help us to create one. They are insisting that we believe lies, making it a spiritual imperative actually. The highest crime in that group is to ask tough questions, especially about Peny. Access to the Truth about her is verboten.

Anyway, I hope this makes some kind of sense, it's stuff I've been pondering for awhile now, and recent events, and the immediate fallout around it shows people falling into the usual 3 camps; "thanks for providing the information", "go to hell you lying pig", and those whose words are so wrought with deception and insincerity that god only knows what they think, but they do think it's ok to lie and deceive so there you have your mapmakers who can't manifest a glass of kool-aid on a hot day, but still swear by the techniques. Maybe they are worse than the knee-jerk deniers.

Katie

quote:

---

There is a lot of me invested in the Lazaris material (including several expensive trips from UK to the USA) and I would hate to think that it is really a scam.

---

Hope you will continue to read through this site. You'll find that most of the regular posters invested many years and plenty of money into "Lazaris."

Each of us has had to sort through many thoughts and feelings about what attracted us and kept us involved with the material. Most had metaphysical types of experiences that were credited to "Lazaris," but have come to realize that we allowed these experiences into consciousness in a the frame of reference that made sense at the time ... just like a Christian, Muslim or any true believer.

You'll find that most of us feel that there was value in some of the material, but what was valued is not unique to "Lazaris." And whether L is actually a channelled entity or not -- he certainly is not all that he claims to be, starting with honesty and integrity. This is key because the turning point for followers of any spiritual teaching is when they decide to trust. After that "investment" is made, the mind works to continue validation of that trust, and in the process dismisses discrepancies that become blatant once outside that mind set.

Jade

Welcome! While I would be happy to do the email thing with you, I would prefer you to interact on this board. In that way, everyone can benefit. Of course, if you feel vulnerable for whatever reason, that is understandable. An email address I set up just for this board is "DoubleCheckCS@comcast.net".

You said: ...after being flamed because I spoke disrespectfully of my Crystals!

I was never a forum member, but I get the impression they take their crystals very seriously since they impose such a huge mark-up on them. This is against Florida state law. That is why I asked people in the "A request for information" thread for information on any obviously overpriced crystals.

Again, welcome.

Cheers, Craig

I think that was Pete inviting David to e-mail him.

Pete's trying to start up a cult in the UK. We were training him while on holiday.

You said: Pete's trying to start up a cult in the UK. We were training him while on holiday.

I think we're all pretty darn qualified. Seriously, I think with our experience any of us would be able to get some type of cult following. It is so easy to look down at cults as mindless idiots. The reality is that intelligence no more correlates to "culthood" than it does to hypnotizability.

As demonstrated from some group experiences you related in which some weird stuff happened, if we banded together we could create a world class cult that might give Scientology a run for its money. Think of the dollars and the power.

Pete and others could help us with the European market. I know we have a strong representation from Canada.

This could be big!

I think starting a cult might be more difficult than it at first appears. In a sense a cult is a business which sells spirituality.

Probably starting a cult would be quite similar to starting any other kind of business. At first there would be a big marketing hurdle to get over; later it would get easier.

(I thought I'd better add something for the benefit of people who don't know me. Of course I'm not going to start anything like this! The way Peny died should be enough to put off anyone who thinks it would be a good idea to be a cult leader.)