It's interesting to note that the Con:Spin on us posters here has recently expanded from just "envy, jealously, and rage" to "powerless".

Con:Sin is deeming that those who state that the techniques don't work, or don't work as promised are bitter losers who can't make the grade.

Well, all I can say, is that's one way to look at it. A shaming and nasty way, but a possibility. Maybe in all those years none of us were ever really good enough, even inspite of Lazaris' constant assurances that we were. Or, maybe "they" weren't speaking to "US" as they said they were.

Hmmm..I don't know, all things considered, I'll stick with the conclusion that the materials and techniques are hog wash and that Jachass is lying self-promoter.

If there is any indication that people here are losers, I haven't noticed.

If we start pulling out our crystal grids to manifest chump change for the subway I'll start worrying.

quote:

---

Con:Sin is deeming that those who state that the techniques don't work, or don't work as promised are bitter losers who can't make the grade.

Well, all I can say, is that's one way to look at it. A shaming and nasty way, but a possibility. Maybe in all those years none of us were ever really good enough, even inspite of Lazaris' constant assurances that we were. Or, maybe "they" weren't speaking to "US" as they said they were.

---

I know that some of the lazaris people will believe this. When most of my friends gave up on lazaris I continued on and I felt sorry for them. I saw them as not willing to do the work to get what they wanted. I knew I would continue to process and FINALLY be able to create success 80% of the time like lazaris said. He said we must be willing and being willing meant getting the tapes and doing the work.

When I failed at the tecniques I looked inward. After all, lazaris said about the 33 second tecnique that it was scary and would call our bluff. We always got what we WANTED, not necessarily what we asked for.
It was always back to the drawing board - listening, processing and hoping that this time I could do it.

So I always believed it was me, not the material until I found out lazaris lied.

So I was as judgemental (and I am sorry for that) as those who want to believe that if we had really done the work we would have created the reality.

I do apologize for my judgementalness.

Sincerely,

Mickey

Ditto me on everything you said. I also functioned from an extremely judgemental place about those who weren't "getting" the materials, or who didn't take it seriously enough, or who Peny and her Gangstas deemed to be in negative ego, etc.

I think judgement of ourselves and others is inherent in the materials and practice of them. So is SMUGNESS, a much ignored but ugly and significant state of consciousness that Lazaris seems to have missed.

I join you in stating my apology to myself and everyone else who I judged, whether they knew it or not.

[[[It's interesting to note that the Con:Spin on us posters here has recently expanded from just "envy, jealously, and rage" to "powerless".]]]

Really? Who is dead of a very awful and slowly painful death and who isn't? Who committed suicide? Who is now sending out lame emails like a pissed off papa?

Just curious.

Pippa

I spent some time this week end reading my notes from different SEMINARS (because they really aren't just workshops, are they?) and was struck at how pedantic they were, and how, if I hadn't been so into being loved by the L man, they might be the result of a really great showman. So, maybe that is what it all was.

I still wonder about a few things, but apparently over on the other site, someone pulled some research on the origin of Sirius and I thought that it really is possible that even Jack the Ripper, the one who can just access what is out there in the ethers, isn't appropriate...that it is all bullshit, every bit of it.

I am not sure to what degree it is all faux, but enough of it is in my mind to pull the plug.

I was thinking that if I had been in Brad's situation, I would have considered that even with that amount of exposure that I wasn't familiar enough to conclude much about the validity of it all, much less the levels of deceit happening at CS; and that I could see how Brad might want to defend his own experiences as all good since for him they were.

Expanding a little...unless the phone conversation was way the hell off and Brad never read any grossly abusive threads in the Forum, then I could imagine that the rest of what he experienced was benign, maybe even just like all the other stuff out there.

I brought up "the structure", because I believe if I'd heard Lazaris at a few events but then came in here and read all this, it would be easy to assume that somehow I had missed something and I would claim I wasn't really familiar with it.

Does this answer your question?

Brad, any thoughts?

quote:

---

Really? Who is dead of a very awful and slowly painful death and who isn't? Who committed suicide? Who is now sending out lame emails like a pissed off papa?

---

That depends on how you define reality. Maybe we suffered and died, and Penny is still the Supreme Empress. Maybe Michael didn't really commit suicide, and maybe Papa Jach keeps sending us flowers but we are too paranoid to open the door to receive them.

You know, reality is an illusion, and we all create our own reality.

New Age "logic" is so much fun, isn't it?

We can believe anything we want, isn't that very cool? Hey, let's meet in the ethers and hang out with King Arthur!! Hey, can I be Guineviere, just this once?? You can be anyone else you want, ok?? I'll give you dibsies.

Katie

quote:

---

I still wonder about a few things, but apparently over on the other site, someone pulled some research on the origin of Sirius and I thought that it really is possible that even Jack the Ripper, the one who can just access what is out there in the ethers, isn't appropriate...that it is all bullshit, every bit of it.

---

If you take the time to break it down, there is no mystery.

Leave out the Love Bombing, and you ain't got Jachshit that isn't yesterdays warmed over Tibetan ghoulash.

But then there is the rewriting of the Arthur legends, hey, doesn't that just give Jachass all the freedom in the world to wank in public?

Sorry to say, every time I revisit a tape, that is what I'm hearing these days...stroke it Jackass, and my apologies for the disgusting imagery, but that's how I've created my reality so no one can question me.

The pathetic asshole has to get his jollies somewhere.

Katie

Pippa John said:

quote:

---

Brad, you have said you haven't much experience with the Forum, but that is so much where the CS universe really broke apart and the real Penny was made apparent to many.

---

No...no...as I've said, I probably have more experience with Peny's public forum persona than anyone here. It was partly due to me that Peny drove C:S's migration to the online realm, and Jach began expressing Lazaris online.

Pippa John said:

quote:

---

But, she was clearly exempt and Lazaris however obliquely or directly, referred to Penny as beyond what the rest of us had to do, while all the time we witnessed her amazing acts of very unspiritual behavior.

---

I understand the schism experienced by many people. When confronted with a person's private and public personae, if they differ, I suppose I'm inclined to feel that the private person is the underlying person. Especially if the public person is engaged in some kind of processing work. The history of spirituality and gurus is full of characters who behave atrociously, supposedly to some higher end that involves breaking down illusions, or the ego, or something. Now, perhaps all gurus are full of shit--I get the impression Katie inclines to that perspective. But there are plenty of cases in which spiritual geniuses are portrayed sympathetically despite extremely puzzling behavior (Maharishi in Ram Dass's "Miracle of Love" comes to mind). I never knew enough about "the work" to understand what Peny might have been up to. But I did feel I was privy to the real deal in my extensive association with her privately, and it was all good from my viewpoint.

Pippa John said:

quote:

---

Anyway, I go back to supporting you in your hoping to methodically outline the facts,

---

Thank you for this, and your previous supportive message.

Katie and Ted, thank you for your detailed and thoughtful explanations of why you believe C:S customers deserved an explanation of Peny's illness.

quote:

---

Lazaris said she left her body and decided not to return.

---

Well, maybe she did. If you believe death has any consciousness to it at all, that's probably exactly what happened.

quote:

---

Then he tells us that Peny did not tarry with her choices and decisions. Her actions were swift and decisive.

---

Perhaps they were. If I were escaping the kind of suffering she was in, the point would probably come when I'd make a swift and decisive exit, too.

quote:

---

If her death was an accident as a result of the drugs and alcohol then she did not die the way Lazaris said on the tape. That is the truth, not my conclusion.

---

No, it's your conclusion, not shared by me, nor by either of the two smart, experienced, and utterly uninvolved friends to whom I've described this whole mess. I do think it's *possible* that there is deception occurring here, but that wasn't my first guess when I first heard about this bit of discrepant information, and it's not my conclusion after all this time thinking about it.

It seems to me that Lazaris offered an explanation of Peny's metaphysical passing, and there is too much tangling going on here between that explanation and Peny's physical condition. It is Lazaris's job to provide metaphysical perspectives that, if I'm not mistaken, often recast our physical perceptions. I recognize that if you've already decided Lazaris doesn't exist, this apparent discrepancy is just another nail in Jach's coffin. But to someone without hostility, there is nothing at all unusual about a channeled entity furnishing a startlingly peaceful metaphysical explanation of a painful death. Nor does it seem at all implausible that Peny, lifted out of her physical condition, might make a conscious, decisive passing much as Lazaris described.

quote:

---

Brad, I don't mean to speak of you in the third person, I hope you understand that I am posting these words in response to your cynicism about our cynicism.

Maybe what I'm trying to suggest is that if you are sincerely interested in the Truth, and not just here on some agenda to defend or seek the renewed approval of a wealth and influential old pal, get into the heart of this message board, and ask yourself how it came to be.

---

I cannot possibly get into the heart of this board, but thank you for the invitation. I'm not being caustic--I am grateful for your suggestion. In another thread there's a discussion of what emotion is primarily expressed here. I would say it is loathing. Under the circumstances, considering that you're excoriating my friends, two of whom have recently died, I think I'm doing well to remain halfway civil. I *do* understand in theory the heart of this board, but for two reasons I don't think I'll move beyond an intellectual appreciation of the feelings here.

First is my inexperience with the material. I can't get into the betrayed mindset since I never got involved with the tapes, and never hooked any of my spiritual aspirations to the Lazaris work. Second, I just don't have any feeling for cults, and little interest in the phenomenon. I think this is rooted in my nature, by which I'm more of a grazer than a joiner. My scattershot approach might be more shallow than a deep involvement, but it has kept me away from any experience with over-involvement.

These two points create a chasm between myself and the most outraged members of this forum, that I don't believe can be bridged.

quote:

---

Ted and I have been characterized by
Con:Sin as two bitter people whose bad marriage has caused us to be angry and vengeful. All of us posting here have been explained away by Con:Sin as being jealous, envious and in a rage.

Is that true? Is that why you perceive we are here? Is there anything that indicates any truth in this authoritarian assertion about us?

---

There is no envy in the air here, that's for sure. I don't know anything about your marriage. Yes, you're bitter, but also easily express sweetness and warmth. There is plenty of rage.

quote:

---

Can you suspend your jolly happy pizza sharing days with Jach et. al, and grant that there is something a bit more profound than just some silly whimsy, or misdirected envy and rage at the bottom of this site?

As a metaphysician, can you find it in your heart to believe that there is nothing more than negative emotion and blind foolishness fueling this site?

---

I'm not a metaphysician by any credible definition of the word. Here's what I think. I think that groups tend to amplify emotions, and amplification is always a distortion of truth. There's a feeling of extremity to this site--pushed intently to more purple extremes every day. Cosmic Fool resides on the edge as much as the J&L Forum does. I think that in this case, probably, as in all other continua of reality, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Thanks,

quote:

---

It is Lazaris's job to provide metaphysical perspectives that, if I'm not mistaken, often recast our physical perceptions. I recognize that if you've already decided Lazaris doesn't exist, this apparent discrepancy is just another nail in Jach's coffin. But to someone without hostility, there is nothing at all unusual about a channeled entity furnishing a startlingly peaceful metaphysical explanation of a painful death.

---

To someone without hostility. Wow. So either we believe that Lazaris exists or we are hostile? There's a oneway choice. Very cultlike, I must note.

quote:

---

Nor does it seem at all implausible that Peny, lifted out of her physical condition, might make a conscious, decisive passing much as Lazaris described.

---

Yeah, I wonder which came first, the shut down of her liver, or the decisive passing?

Give me a break Brad, every death that has ever occured could be explained away as a decisive passing if you want to turn yourself into silly putty.

Some people are running around saying that the WTC victims made a conscous and generous choice to the cause of world peace and brotherhood. Tell their kids and spouses about it.

It is clear from the police reports and the interviews the cops had with Jach, Michaell, Jennifer, Barbara, and all, that Peny's intention all along was to get well, that they were all working on that, had purchased equipment to assist in that, and Jach told the cops they were all doing the woo woo dance around Peny and thought she was getting better.

Ok, so let's agree, the mess got to be too much for her. I'm on her side, I'd check out too ASAP. Sooner even. Give me my circulation, or give me death.

But, no goodbyes? No explanations for how the most powerful magician in the world got into this mess in the first place?

Do you think she impetuously gained an extra few hundred pounds and allowed her bodily functions to deteriorate to the point of incapacity and intolerable pain?

Conscious, responsible, loving, spiritually aware beings do not leave their loved ones in pain, shock and confusion, as Jach admitted he was in his Suicide Not the Best Choice retraction e-mail. They do not regurgitate twice into the mouth of the loved one giving them CPR. They do not suck down Blue Sky Vodka and pain pills as a way to make their conscious and impetuous departure to the higher realms. They do not give a flying fuck who discusses the details of their departure.

Come on Brad, really? REALLY??

Thanks for your message.

quote:

---

(I'm going to try and do this as cleanly as possible, but if I offend you, my apologies in advance.)

---

No offense at all--thanks for your message, and for paying such close attention to what I've written.

quote:

---

You've said that your involvement with Lazaris has been limited to the
following:

1) A private phone consultation, part of which impressed you positively.

2) Membership in the Forum, in which you regularly lurk.

3) Attendance as a guest at four weekend seminars.

4) Ownership of one book (but no tapes.)

5) Regular examination of circulars released by Con Sin describing Lazaris events.

6) Co-moderating of the Lazaris section in the Compuserve Forum.

Given the above, I'm puzzled as to why you say you're not familiar with the material; if you spent close to eighty hours listening to Lazaris over four weekend seminars (roughly two eight hour days, one three hour evening per weekend)I'm unclear as to how you avoided being exposed to the material (did you skip out, tune out or mentally go somewhere else?

---

Hehehe...actually, there were some skipped session, I believe. I showed up to see Jach primarily--we ate meals together and I'd attend sessions. At any rate, I certainly saw a lot of Lazaris live, and I understand your point. It has always been my perception that the Lazaris work is presented mostly through tapes, and the live events are supplementary. Since I'm utterly ignorant of the tapes, except to the extent they have been quoted online, I consider myself a Lazaris novice. I don't mean to diminish my grip on the basics, but I don't want to appear presumptuous on a message board full of experts (both here and in the J&L Room).

quote:

---

Did none of the private consultation that impressed you touch on Lazaris' perception of reality and how you were operating in that reality? (In other words, whatever the information was, did Lazaris not use the language/concepts he's been using for thirty years to convey that information?)

Has lurking regularly in the forum not brought you in contact with discussions of the material?

Did the book not do the same? Or even scanning circulars released by Con
Sin?

---

Yes, all of that is true (except the phone session, which I remember as being jargon-free). I get the gist of the metaphysics involved. But my impression is that the taped material richly detailed and practical, full of exercises and mega-historical revelations. Since the canon of taped channeling is so immense, I assume I don't know most of the details. Also, sometimes on the board I don't what the heck people are talking about.

quote:

---

And since the fact of Lazaris has been part of your landscape for so long, is it possible that this familiarity has slipped under your radar regarding objectivity?

---

Let me clarify. I'm not objective, and I'm sorry if I said that I am. As you say, we all bring baggage. My perspective is very different from the mainstream here, and I do think I'm more detached. Whatever I know of the Lazaris work, it doesn't play any part in my daily spirituality.

You also question whether my friendship could make me less objective, and I heartily agree. I'm not trying to hide that aspect of my feelings here at all. I have warm feelings about Jach, Peny, Michaell, and everyone I met at C:S, I was terribly saddened by the recent deaths, and this makes it difficult to negotiate the emotional momnentum in here that I've referred to.

quote:

---

I have no interest in offending or lecturing you, Brad, but given your personal, business and metaphysical exposure to Jach, Peny, Michaell and Lazaris I'm feeling uncomfortable with comments from you indicating that you're somehow less invested in a particular outcome than others here.

---

Oh, I definitely am less invested. Are you kidding me? [smile] There is bloodlust in this forum. I am nowhere near as involved in these issues as the regulars who post here. I think generally your observations about me are true, but my relative detachment makes it easier for me to see alternate explanations for the information surrounding Peny's and Michaell's deaths, which is what drew me here. For most people here, the new information isn't even important--the case is already closed.

Thanks for your message,

quote:

---

[[[[Has lurking regularly in the forum not brought you in contact with discussions of the material?]]]]

That would be where I would wonder what, Brad, did you believe you were witnessing? When you say you lurk, do you read over each thread? Many threads are pretty benign. For example, it was pretty much only certain topics where the fights would occur, such as the political threads and a few others.

---

I read everything in the CompuServe Forum, and in the current site I tend toward the political and news threads, plus some of the discussions about TV shows. I also browse around for messages by particular people.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but in general, regarding in-forum fights, I believed I was witnessing a sometimes harsh form of group processing that enforces Lazaris-inspired standards of interpersonal behavior. Nothing I haven't seen in harsher forms offline.

quote:

---

What was dead wrong was the double standard for the Gang as opposed to everyone
else.

---

This reminds me of an incident from last year that contradicts the Gang theory. I'm not saying that in-forum fights haven't always been characterized by the same people grouping together--they obviously have. But the possibility of some legitimate process occurring can be supported by this incident. I believe the site archives all its threads, so this episode can still be found, I suppose.

I remember this happened during the presidential campaign last year, in the politics threads, around the time of the debates, which would be October. I expressed some contrary and negative opinion about Bush's performance in a debate or something. The person I was writing to, a hard-core in-circle regular, took offense and she sniped at me in a relatively minor way. Instantly, one of the forum managers yanked her chain and the other regulars chewed into her as fiercely as they ever have done, in the usual group style. She went into t aserious sulk and even announced in a huff that she was leaving the forum. She came back fairly soon, with the requisite round of apologies.

I am by no means on the inner circle of the C:S community. And anyway, the group's reaction was not so much a defense of me as it was an enforcement of adult and clear communication, and the safety of the forum. I know the reaction that last sentence is going to get here [g], but hey, it happened. The "gang" dug its fangs into one of its own. It's not always "the Gang as opposed to everyone else."

Brad

You said, referring to my experience with the forums:

quote:

---

No offense to Brad, but I wonder why he wasn't as interested in the details there as he is here.

---

There's a misunderstanding here. I was extremely involved in the details on CompuServe...admittedly less on in the Web forum. On CompuServe, the J&L Room was extremely controversial, and it was my job in those days to try to make it work. I devoted part of every work day sweating the details, and struggling with my partners and with C:S to keep everyone--us, our members, C:S, and C:S's members--happy.

quote:

---

As flo asks, is Brad anymore clear or objective in his search for the Truth than any of the rest of us?

---

I think "clear" and "objective" are impossible to measure in the way you suggest. Clearly, though, I'm less emotional; I don't feel betrayed; I have no axe to grind nor principle to defend; I'm not hysterical but I am interested. My relative detachment gives me a wide view; your greater understanding of Lazaris's promises gives you a wide view. Our views don't overlap much, it seems.

quote:

---

Brad, you've mentioned reading many other channeled books--did the Lazaris material you heard just fit into the same general category as your previous reading (i.e., heard this kind of information elsewhere in a format better suited to me, no need to pay much attention to it)or was there something else about it that didn't grab your attention?

---

Interesting question. When I first met Jach and Peny I had an extremely full plate of spiritual content. I was exposed to almost the entire New Age field simultaneously, both in the forum and in outside research and approaches by people and companies who wanted their stuff exposed to our membership. It took some extraordinary hook or synchronicity to get my sustained attention.

Beyond that reason at that time, I think the intensive methodical quality of the Lazaris work turned me off. I'm not commenting on its quality, but merely the fact that when it comes to channeled content I prefer theory to exercise. I like meaty poetry that lights things up inside me. Even with the Course in Miracles, which definitely grabbed my attention in the 1980s, I explored the main text inside-out, but never got into the daily exercises in any systematic way. When I met Lazaris, I quickly got a technical vibe about it--lots of techniques and exercises and history. That sort of channeled schooling is always a hard sell to me. But I liked my personal session a lot, and also the public personal sessions I witnessed as part of weekends.

Welcome back, I was afraid you'd got fed up with the 'Fool and decided to stay away.

Interesting what you say about having no feel for cults. No one does in my experience, so don't let it get you down. I feel I have to accept that they exist, because I've seen it happen (to myself for example). At the same time I find it hard to believe that a cult would work.

In a sense this is why I am still interested. In my day job I'm an engineer, and the issues are quite well understood. With cults they aren't, so exploring different ideas is much more interesting.

I'm surprised you feel more objective than a lot of the posters here; in another post you were saying that you found it hard remaining civil. Of course no one is completely objective. The people who feel ripped off by Con:Sin are not objective. I was never involved with Lazaris I am quite sceptical about a lot of New Age ideas. That makes me less than objective too.

This objectivity is a tricky thing. Normally on an anti-cult board, people who appear defending the (alleged) cult are assumed to be members themselves. Read alt.religion.scientology if you want to see how that works... In a sense the assumption is unfair, but it gets made because it is usually right.

In your case I don't know, since you seem to have had a very different experience to most posters. If you are useful to Scientology you get a very different experience to those that just sign up. John Travolta probably wonders what all the fuss is about; he will never be allowed to see the darker side.

quote:

---

It seems to me that Lazaris offered an explanation of Peny's metaphysical passing, and there is too much tangling going on here between that explanation and Peny's physical condition.

---

The Lazaris material makes it very clear that physical reality, though an illusion, is a reflection of a more significant spiritual/metaphysical reality.

Important and significant because of what it metaphorically expresses of the "more real" parts of ourselves and experience of the "allness".

I agree with this perspective.

In short, you seem to be suggesting that Lazaris is describing Peny's death from a metaphysical spiritual perspective and the discussion in this forum is [perhaps misguidedly] focused on the facts concerning the death of her physical body.

Your post seems to suggest there is a split or a disconnect between those physical facts and the metaphysical perspective you say Lazaris is addressing.

One of the cornerstones of the Lazaris material is that physical reality is a reflection of your beliefs attitudes, thoughts and feelings imagination, desire and expectancy.

Physical reality reflects what you believe, feel desire etc., but does not cause it.

In short, Lazaris would say that the facts of Peny's death have metaphysical significance even though they are illusions.

From the Lazarian perspective, Peny's diseases, the fact that she was in so much pain and had so many health complications is communicating something of the "more real".

I digress a moment, using Lazarian vocabulary to make the point.

Lazaris talked about how the physical illusion is always communicating to us with symbols, metaphors and messages.

Ranging from what he termed "whispers" to "shouts"

A whisper might be banging your elbow, a shout might be having the doctor tell you your elbow has to come off.

Lazaris conceptualizes these messages on a scale of intensity that increases or decreases based on the willingess of the person to hear and respond to those whispers or shouts

To return to the example: Say you banged your elbow and interpreted that as a message from other parts of yourself, via the illusion, that you are trying to "elbow your way through life" and that you are "banging up against those beliefs"

Say you saw that and changed the beliefs, thus changing the experience and having heard and responded to the communication, eliminate any need for escalating the whisper to a shout.

If say, you chose to interpret banging your elbow as:

"somebody's negative ego put that wall there to make my life miserable because I am the greatest person on the planet, the most special, the most evolved and they are jealous of me and all my crystals and my big house."

Then, as Lazaris conceptualizes it, your reality would escalate the message progressively to a shout until you heard it.

I don't think anyone would deny that Peny's reality was "shouting" at her at the time of her death.

I say this without judgement. There is certainly nothing "wrong" with being sick or being in pain and it doesn't, in my opinion, imply anything about the state of her spiritual evolution.

What is also significant, and in my opinion, cannot be parsed is that a very definite attempt by CS and Lazaris [if in fact, Lazaris is still present] was made to edit out the truth to present a palatable myth supporting documented falsehoods.

These documents do not just exist in my reality or yours but also in Jach's.

Saying that Peny impulsively decided to leave her body may be true, but the likely reasons for that, the pain and the illness and perhaps unhappy life circumstances that informed that decision were not admitted to.

Not that we have to know every detail of her suffering but the fact that she was suffering at all was lied about.

Perhaps because they think it is shameful to suffer, to die, to have illness.

What could be motivating this coverup but shame and perhaps greed or self preservation?

quote:

---

It is Lazaris's job to provide metaphysical perspectives that, if I'm not mistaken, often recast our physical perceptions.

---

Yes true, but within the context of what Lazaris teaches your point [as I understand it] doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Lazaris often said in effect " if you create something painful, don't throw the experience away and pretend it wasn't, understand the reasons, and learn from it.

quote:

---

I recognize that if you've already decided Lazaris doesn't exist, this apparent discrepancy is just another nail in Jach's coffin.

---

Personally, and I know your post wasn't addresed to me, I have come to no conclusions yet as to who or what Lazaris is.

My only conclusion is that that Concept Synergy is a highly questionable business operation and that the Lazaris material after the mid 80's changed from an open and interesting philosophy/discussion to a [for the most part] self serving fear driven enterprise.

Who or what Lazaris is, well that is still an open question.

Open, but for me, not the most pertinent question.

quote:

---

But to someone without hostility, there is nothing at all unusual about a channeled entity furnishing a startlingly peaceful metaphysical explanation of a painful death. Nor does it seem at all implausible that Peny, lifted out of her physical condition, might make a conscious, decisive passing much as Lazaris described.

---

Lazaris often said that death is the ultimate healing.

Lazaris description of Peny's death could be applied to anyone. She chose to die.. so does everyone.

Again, what is significant, and what cannot be parsed, is the attempt to cover up the less that flattering details.

Again, it is Concept Synergy and Jach Pursel who clearly have determined these details to be shameful and unflattering

So perhaps the question of confusing the physical and metaphysical perspective on Peny's death is best put to them.

Peace,

Jeremiah

you wrote:

quote:

---

This reminds me of an incident from last year that contradicts the Gang theory. I'm not saying that in-forum fights haven't always been characterized by the same people grouping together--they obviously have. But the possibility of some legitimate process occurring can be supported by this incident. I believe the site archives all its threads, so this episode can still be found, I suppose.

I remember this happened during the presidential campaign last year, in the politics threads, around the time of the debates, which would be October. I expressed some contrary and negative opinion about Bush's performance in a debate or something. The person I was writing to, a hard-core in-circle regular, took offense and she sniped at me in a relatively minor way. Instantly, one of the forum managers yanked her chain and the other regulars chewed into her as fiercely as they ever have done, in the usual group style. She went into t aserious sulk and even announced in a huff that she was leaving the forum. She came back fairly soon, with the requisite round of apologies.

---

I remember this interaction well. The person you are referring to is not a member of their inner circle.

I recall her posts to you bordered on the ridiculous.

This individual doesn't, in my observation, have the skills that the core 5 or 6 do and they are very aware of how indefensible her positions are at times.

My impression is that this individual is regarded by the inner circle as earnest but frequently off the handle and unreliable.

She is tolerated because she aggressively agrees with them and is a hearty poster.

It also has to do with you.

I am sure you were a "hands off" person in terms of attacks.

Some people, for various reasons were.

Being a "hands off" person and a member of the inner circle are not at all the same.

I know that I said things in the forum that would have elicited attacks if they had been said by someone else..

Its just another symptom of this mundane group dynamic, not evidence the gang menality doesn't exist there

Just wanted to point that out..

Jeremiah

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then he tells us that Peny did not tarry with her choices and decisions. Her actions were swift and decisive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps they were. If I were escaping the kind of suffering she was in, the point would probably come when I'd make a swift and decisive exit, too.
.

---

You're missing the point. Lazaris said on the "Healing the Broken Alliance" tape (which has been said in several posts) that Peny did not die of a disease or illness. She did not die of coronary, cardiac or respiratory disorders or complications.
He had us believe that there wasn't any illness or suffering, that she just decided while sleeping (and healthy)to leave and never return. This is the lie.

In the above quote you said if you were suffering the way Peny was you'd probably make a swift and decisive exit, too.
You made it clear in this statement that Peny was obviously in a lot of pain and suffering - enough to want to die.
Lazaris (by saying she didn't die of an illness) and Jach made it clear that Peny was fine. THIS IS THE LIE. Since I cannot truly know what Peny's choice was at that final moment of her death I am not disagreeing over what the metaphyical reasons are for her leaving. (The physical reasons are quite apparent if you read the sheriff's report.)
It could be argued metaphysically forever that Peny decided to leave and never return.
The lie is that Lazaris and Concept:Synergy led us to believe she was healthy and she left.

quote:

---

No, it's your conclusion, not shared by me, nor by either of the two smart, experienced, and utterly uninvolved friends to whom I've described this whole mess

---

While it may be true that you and your friends are smarter than me in some areas I know the Lazaris material. I've lived it for almost 14 years and all my friends and family have had to listen to me quoting lazaris. Telling them we don't have to grow through pain and suffering, that we can grow more elegantly through the joy and happiness.
That's what Lazaris came to teach us - the way out of all this pain. So the big question is why did Peny have to die a horrible and painful death?

I really resent your remark about your two smart, experienced (in what?)and utterly uninvolved (why are they a part of this if they are utterly uninvolved?) friends to whom you've described this whole mess. It would be helpful if you tell them all the facts around this and not just what your conclusions were around her metaphysical passing and what Lazaris meant by it.

I don't really care about your two friends opinions unless they want to post them and discuss them, no more than you want to hear all of the opinions from all my ex-lazaris friends.

quote:

---

Jach sent out an e-mail to us (members of the forum) about Michaell's suicide (I saved the e-mail) and he said that Michaell said his final physical good-byes to Peny in the early morning hours of that day. That's strange because it says in the Orange Co. Sheriff's report that Michaell told them Peny was fine when he went to sleep and when he woke up to give her the medication she wasn't breathing. How could he have said his final good-byes to her if she died unexpectedly? So did Jach lie to all of us when he sent out that e-mail about Michaell's suicide? Sounds like it.
Also if Michaell said his final good-byes then there must have been a reason - like he knew she was dying. That is not what Lazaris said.

---

I'm puzzled as to why you didn't address this part of my post when it is so important to the discussion. If Peny said her final good-byes to Michaell then they knew she was dying. Lazaris led us to believe Peny was fine and decided to leave in her sleep. Why did you fail to mention this in your post? These are facts, not my conclusions, and very important to the discussion about Lazaris lying.

quote:

---

I recognize that if you've already decided Lazaris doesn't exist, this apparent discrepancy is just another nail in Jach's coffin. But to someone without hostility, there is nothing at all unusual about a channeled entity furnishing a startlingly peaceful metaphysical explanation of a painful death.

---

I did believe Lazaris existed. For almost 14 years and I lived my whole life according to his teachings. Do you and your "smart" friends believe he exists? I want to know.
You think you are without hostility but plenty of it showed when you first posted to me. One of the others in here posted a message to you about it. (If you missed it please go back and read the posts).

Sincerely,

Mickey

[This message has been edited by Mickey (edited 10-29-2001).]

I hope you don't mind me throwing in my two cents.

Based on what Brad has said about his involvement with CS and Lazaris, I do not perceive that he fell prey to the cult-like aspects of the material. Bravo for you, Brad!

I believe that to fall victim, some or all of the following have to be in place:
* The seeker is at a low point or crossroad in their life when introduced to the material.
* The seeker is looking for a sense of profound love that is more lasting than a normal relationship.
* The seeker feels comfortable with the presentation and style of the material.
* The seeker finds the leader to be charismatic.
* The seeker tends to immerse themselves in the material.
* The material is different in some way from what the seeker has been exposed to so far.
* The material promises a way out of their current problems.
* The material gives a universal perspective of life.
* The leader portrays a constant, unconditional love towards the seeker.
* The leader is authoritarian.
* The group offers a sense of community.

Of course, once the victim is hooked, there is a whole new set of fascinating processes to look at.

I am usually a very analytic, skeptical person. However, I was at the right place at the right time when I found the Lazaris material. I fell for it big time! Although I was slowly losing interest in the material, it took the jolt of the discovery of the information in this site to formally bring me over to the other side of the line of unquestioned belief.

Brad, I know it is easy to write off what is said on this site as coming from a bunch of people with a lot of anger and rage. I admit to having some anger, rage, and a sense of betrayal over what has happened. However, I know myself enough to fell that I am not being influenced in such a way as to blind my analytical abilities (although, of course, they are somewhat tainted).

I also feel that a lot of the points here may be lost to someone who hasn't been through the experience (or a similar one) and has not had the depth of involvement with the material that most of us here have.

As far as objectivity is concerned, I agree with Pete's statements. My own opinion is that you objectivity is influenced by some of the following factors:

1) You were/are good friends with people being attacked on this site.
2) You're involved in New Age ideas.
3) You're a professional author, sensitive to the woes of authors and publishers.
4) You have much experience with moderating forums.
5) According to your website, you're a rampant rantmeister of cyber culture.

You certainly have a unique set of influences (other than #2 which we all share) compared to our other posters.

I would like to address a related theme of this site. It is not universally shared by the posters, although some of us do feel strongly about it.

We are opposed to people and organizations that use their position of authority to pass off ideas that are questionable as if the ideas were fact. A subtext is how easily people fall prey to such ideas.

In the interest of full disclosure, we may be at natural odds as I see you being clearly in a position of authority. Statements as "Hill reaches a global audience of consumers who rely on his writings to help determine their online destination choices" give me pause. However, I don't know enough about your work to know whether your use your position to indeed pass off questionable ideas as facts.

Emotional expressions of posters in no way alter the fact that all regular exFOLs here have deliberated at great length within themselves over the questionable aspects of "Lazaris," and the seduction of cults. That is part of the process of getting out -- thinking and feeling out of the box.

I do believe you are using your claim of detachment, which implies distance and lack of emotional involvement, as a superior position of objectivity. Please realize that former FOLs have had the view from the inside, and now a different view from outside. Inspite of your protestations that you haven't been involved with "Lazaris," the stance you have taken on J/L certainly sounds limited to the inside point of view.

I don't see either distance or lack of emotional involvement on your part. Only that you choose to express yourself without either acknowleging the validity of other posters feelings (I'm not talking about "bitterness"), or revealing your own.

You have been presented with factual evidence and obvious motivation. Instead of honestly responding to that, you trudged off on a general metaphysical description of a death.

J/L was clearly dishonest in what he said, and didn't say about Peny's illness and death. I don't think your argument that neither Jach nor "Lazaris" is lying is rational. IMO, the irrationality in itself reflects your attachment and emotional involvement.

Jade

I agree that while you could look for ways to generalize a metaphysical viewpoint of death, Lazaris really danced around the truth. He seems to be saying that it depends upon what the meaning of "death" is?

This is still lying because it is not really saying what happened.

That she might have rapturaously lept out of her body is, I suppose, possible, it also would have been a very LOGICAL choice given that she was in as much pain as she indisputably was.

This crap about her having *impulsively* left her body, honestly, even you current FOL's, even if you are not willing to go so far as to say that Lazaris is a total scam, I think you can at least look to this and say that Lazaris is NOT leveling with you.

And, it is Lazaris who often said that love can be rebuilt once broken, but trust is almost impossible to rebuild once broken. So, you would have to ask yourself, why would Lazaris wish to risk breaking your trust?

Is covering up the facts of Penny's death worth risking all that integrity he talks about having? Is the fact that he came to "only" touch Penny, and so has the right to protect her "privacy" (by lying) reason enough for him to compromise all the years he has spent cultivating a relationship with you? Are you really that worthless to him in the end?

Think about it.

Pippa

[[[This reminds me of an incident from last year that contradicts the Gang theory. I'm not saying that in-forum fights haven't always been characterized by the same people grouping together--they obviously have. But the possibility of some legitimate process occurring can be supported by this incident. I believe the site archives all its threads, so this episode can still be found, I suppose.

I remember this happened during the presidential campaign last year, in the politics threads, around the time of the debates, which would be October. I expressed some contrary and negative opinion about Bush's performance in a debate or something. The person I was writing to, a hard-core in-circle regular, took offense and she sniped at me in a relatively minor way. Instantly, one of the forum managers yanked her chain and the other regulars chewed into her as fiercely as they ever have done, in the usual group style. She went into t aserious sulk and even announced in a huff that she was leaving the forum. She came back fairly soon, with the requisite round of apologies.]]]

I wonder who it was, but I am not asking you to say...I wonder because I think there was a definite pecking order and it was actually NOT unusual for Gang members to have their "chains yanked" as you say. Also, if the person "left" the forum sulking I suspect that the person was truly hurt and confused, and that when they came back all apologies, that they were hoping to be "ALLOWED" back into the sandbox.

The other point about them leaving the Forum for a while tells me that it was not an actual Gang member: Gang members were PAID people hired to "manage" the Forum by monitoring it and taking off any posts which Penny didn't want on there, whatever the reason, legitimate or just not her style.

The Gang never "left" the Forum for any reason.

Pippa

quote:

---

The person I was writing to, a hard-core in-circle regular, took offense and she sniped at me in a relatively minor way. Instantly, one of the forum managers yanked her chain and the other regulars chewed into her as fiercely as they ever have done, in the usual group style.

---

I suspect that Pippa John's "hurt and confused" interpretation is more apt than that the poster left in a "sulk."

You seem pretty blase about this fierce gang bang launched against what you describe as a minor "snipe."

Jade

You wrote:

"Does this answer your question?"

Yes, it does--and thanks for clarifying that.