[[Maybe it isn't the "negative ego" which is the enemy, but our belief in it which causes the devastation.]]

Excellent point and I agree. The neurosis we have invitation to develop around what Lazaris teaches about negative ego is profound.

The dire descriptions and the purported potential threats of an "unbusted" ego are so vividly portrayed, I think alot of us just out of fear scrambled to incorporate the information and overlooked the mixed and confusing contradictions in the material. Those were dismissed as the negative egos attempts to avoid prosecution..[bg]

Mixed messages:

Lazaris teache the ego is weak BUT the ego can destroy in minutes what has taken you a lifetime to build.

Lazaris also teaches that negativity is weak.

Two statements from Lazaris. Ok, if negativity is weak and the negative ego is all about negativty and yet the negative ego can destroy in minutes what it has taken a lifetime to build HOW WEAK DOES THAT MAKE US? How does our subconcious interpret that message?

Negativity may be weak, but you are weaker..lol

Look, Lazarians would argue that being in negative ego makes you weak..bla blah..

What I think is worth examining is what you pointed out. Perhaps the conception of the negative ego and the process around it is the dangerous, life threatening thing.

Obviously anybody with half a brain knows that you can ruin something precious in a moment by doing something stupid.

Lazaris introduces a steady diet of fear into the concept of self destruction by animating the ego endowing it with purpose and motivation .

Lazaris says the negative ego is out to destroy us. Hates us. Is angry at us for placing too much responsibility on its shoulders and now wants revenge.

What is created is a very palpable image of an ENEMY that is doggedly pursuing you throughout your day. This is a very fearful thing to say the least.

What if that isn't true. What if the simple truth is the ego is a part of the whole personality. What if the ego isnt split into a duality of positive and negative?

What if the ego is not life threatening?

What if fear and focusing on fear makes you defensive, hostile and always ready for attack?

What if it isn't mad at us and isn't out to destroy us?

What if ? Lazaris always said one of the reasons the ego is allowed to take over is that we refuse to think.. so lets think about it..LOL

It sounds so good, so plausible.. yes most people are afraid to think, many people do refuse to take responsibility for themselves and do the other things that Lazaris says create an opportunity for the ego to take over.

However it occurs to me that much of what is considered "Negative Ego" can simply be handled by common sense and by applying basic spiritual principles to your life.

Why the unholy focus on this monster within. Granted it is a worthy concept an people do screw things up pretty miserably out of delucion and self importance.

Speaking of delusion and self importance, Peny North springs to mind, so lets use her as an example.

Now assuming [and we all know what a generous assumption this is] Peny works with her ego, as Lazaris conceives of it and reccomends.

I don't think many would argue that Peny North exhibits every last symptom of Negative Ego that is outlined in the Lazaris material Delusional, self important, doesn't seem to be too intereted in thinking. Judgemental and Punishing.

Lets just assume she has been applying these techniques to herself. IF so they really don't work very well do they? The seem to generate the qualities the process is meant to eliminate or "bust"

Maybe the hysteria and fear and self doubt that Lazaris inspires when he discusses negative ego in fact makes it virtually impossible to focus on anything but fear and the resentment that fear produces.

Maybe thats whay Peny and the Gang are so defensive, hostile and insulated. Perhaps they are so convinced of an enemy within that they see an enemy in anything and anyone that doesn't completely agree with them on everything.

More later..gotta run.

In another thread you wrote:

[[he needs to use multiple examples because we're too stupid to "get it" with just one. He is so great and knowledgeable that he can help us with every aspect of our lives, yet he doesn't need our advice for anything. After all, he is of the "Higher Realms". We have nothing to give Lazaris but our gratitude. But he has so much to give us. We were struggling and asked for help. So Lazaris lovingly and condescendingly chose to enlighten us. This isn't arrogance?]]]

Yes. Your comments here led me to think more about the way "Lazaris" has built a reputation [a positive one for most, it seems] on providing "steps" and "techniques that work"

What is also involved here is a "Lazaris" created glossary of terms defining what is largely regarded the subjective experience of emotion and perception. Love,Fear, Anger, Gratitude etc.

Lucky us, "Lazaris" gives us a checklist approach to organizing our emotional life and a series of processes to identify and "handle" each mutation of Lazarian feeling.

Concept Synergy is fond of boasting in its marketing that "Lazaris" doesn't just tell you to love, he teaches you HOW"

One of the things Lazaris used to emphasize [ I say "used to" because it is conspicuously absent in recent years] is that "We love good enough"

So which is it? We love good enough or we don't know how to love and need to be taught?

Which is it?

SNAP

Well, fuck right off concept synergy.

I think it is a poisonous level of arrogance to presume to tell people not only what love is but how to do it and at the same time tell them they are doing it "good enough" already.

What could the agenda be here?

Why does Lazaris tell us we love good enough and then teach us how to love?

The result of this contradiction is more confusion and dependancy.T

he degree to which this is a consciously cultivated dependency or one created out of expediency is impossible to say at this point.

Unless former associates and employees start talking we may never know.

But back to love:

True, Lazaris says these actions you take [ give, respond, respect etc.] to produce the feelings of [security, being known etc] are not in and of themselves love.

That sounds good and it seems logical, plausible but its riddled with problems in my opinion.

First of all it presumes that we are children and should be addressed on that level.

Do we really need Lazaris to tell us that love is giving? being responsible? et all?

Was there love in the world before "Lazaris" or was it all just black confusion before October of 1974 ??

Is there any credible evidence there is any more love in the world as a result of Lazaris 27 year communication with it?? There is more of the Dolly Mama, that's for sure, but is there more love?

There is a phrase to describe group dynamics that says "Whoever has the clipboard, has the power" and often, that is very true.

Lazaris has a clipboard, telling us what we already know and according to him we already do "good enough"

Why?

Because whoever has the clipboard has the power.

It makes sense when you think about it because the only way to really get a lasting, controlling grip on people is to define their subjective experiences for them and then make them feel they are inadequate in their expression of those experiences.

I believe this is what "Lazaris" does, over and over again. Whether there is malice of forethought involved here or not is a separate issue. This is the undeniable dynamic created over and over again in the Lazaris follower.

I am also looking at the language and the possible manipulations in the language.

Lazaris tells us "you love good enough"
Doesn't that phrasing have the grammatical flavor of a parent talking to a child?

I think "Lazaris" has cleverly set up a dynamic where, as Ted so beautifully points out we can only receive and never give.

Where we are taught [by inference, never overtly] what to feel and how to feel it.

We are treated like children with no positive life experience to draw our own definitions of love and emotion from. The implication is that all our observations are muddied by a "consensus"

Insidious. What do you guys think?

Cheers,

Your post makes me realize yet again, the amazing inconsistency of the Lazaris materials, and also of course the difference between what sparky sez, and what is actually "lived" by those in the "fold" etc.

Remember the tape where sparky sez " no-one is more spiritually advanced than another"... " how can you think you are more advanced than the mother who just drowned her children in a car, or the skid-row bum who just puked" etc. sorry if I don't have the wording exactly.
Anyway, I don't want to imply here that I agree or disagree with sparky sez.... What I want to point out here is the idea again like Katie had mentioned in a past note.... "are any of those people even listening to the seminars"?.
That is precisely how cults work, they get so twisted that one thinks pain is love, one thinks that constant admonishment is growth, one thinks incredible inconsistency is consistency... (but MY ego is in the way, so I am the only one here who thinks he didn't say what he said) etc. etc. ad-nauseum..

One of the things I have been giving thought to in evaluating the Lazaris material is the concept of impact as Lazaris describes it and explains it.

I have come to the conclusion that there are flies in this ointment.

Lazaris, ever quick to point out the deficencies in other people's thinking on this topic hasn't produced such an impressive body of thought on the subject of impact himself.

The Lazaris partyline story goes that the new age is rightly criticized for being selfish because they have done away with the phenomenon of impact.

That is, they say "you cannot hurt me only I can hurt me" and excuse all kinds of obnoxious behaviour in doing so.

Lazaris is also quick to point out that if you cannot hurt someone then how can you love them?

It sounds good: placed on a rhetorical level the implication is there is no answer to that question.

Perhaps there is.

Lazaris also talked frequently about how this paradox of metaphysics "you create it all and other people have impact" would drive most people crazy trying to figure it out.

Hmm..drive most people crazy? wishful thinking Lazaris?? or just a strong "suggestion"??

One only has to watch those nickledicks in Borelando try to apply Lazaris teaching about impact to seriously question its validity.

What it seems to produce is a pretty base level of emotional victimhood.

it goes something like this:

"anytime I feel anything, that is your impact and you "owe" me responsiblity"

It isn't spoken like that outloud..but that is the function, that is the dynamic.

I have come to the conclusion that the way Lazaris teaches impact cultivates emotional victimhood in people.

Who determines how you feel? others do by their "impact" on you.

Sounds like run of the mill victimhood to me.

But the Lazaris follower is brainwashed into believing that they are missing an important part of a spiritual paradox if they do not live that way.

As I said, one only has to observe the grizzly gang de Orlando and notice how hostile, angry, defensive and gullable they all seem to be to wonder about Lazaris teaching on this topic.

"you hurt me" they cry at the slightest infraction when it invlolves them.

When someone outside their agenda claims to be hurt they are attacked for being manipulative.

It seems they can't quite get this impact thing straight either..

So I wondered if people have thoughts about impact.

Currently, I believe that yes, we create it all and people have impact but we can and do choose the impact they have on us.

We do choose how we feel based on what we think.

Just because someone wants to hurt us or anger us doesn't mean we have to respond accordingly.

We have a variety of options available as to how we will think and feel in any situation.

I beileve that Lazaris teaching around impact, when accepted and believed, actually weakens people and creates victim consciousness.

Any thoughts?

You wrote:

quote:

---

It is also strange to me that Jach would make it so hard on himself as to have actual steps etc. to remember.

---

I think that depends on how one's mind works. For some the skeletal structure, such as 7 steps, 7 blockages, etc., probably makes the job easier. I've heard "Lazaris" fumble for words a few times - "they" couldn't remember the word for such-and-such. Huh? They're not subject to time. Are they subject to Alzheimer's?

The Success Cube meditation on an early tape has "Lazaris" saying "just you and I", quickly adding, "just you and us". Did Jach forget for a moment that he was supposed to be a "we"?

You wrote:

quote:

---

It could also be that Lazaris dropped them sometime in the 80's and they have been improvising ever since... The only problem with that argument is wouldn't Lazaris have announced his departure to his "friends" before left?

---

Yeah, that's quite a large problem. And it doesn't address the notion that Jach isn't talented enough to pull it off. He still would have to have done a real good job for over 10 years.

I can't see how the idea that Jach is an impure channel would bring comfort to anyone. From a practical perspective, it's no different than the idea that he is a total fake. Either way, we can't trust any given piece of information. Either way, Jach would have to be a talented actor. But, if Jach "sometimes" speaks as Jach, wouldn't Lazaris have a moral obligation to out him at the next opportunity?

Suppose it was Jach masquerading as Lazaris telling the daughter to distance herself from her mother. Why didn't Lazaris announce, upon his return, that it wasn't "him" who said those things? If I were in Lazaris' position, I certainly would. I would also tell Jach that if he ever tried a stunt like that again, I would find another channel. Then again, why would this "Being from the Higher Realms" make such a fundemental mistake as to choose a dishonest channel in the first place?

You wrote:

quote:

---

He could have more easily done a JZ Knight "Ramtha" act where he just pontificates in a formless structureless manner for several hours. No need for notes or heavy preperation that way.

---

I have a theory that Jach actually has a conscience buried deep below the arrogance and codependency. Could be he justifies what he's doing by telling himself that he's providing good information to people. And the fact that it comes from on-high gives people more confidence in the information. Where's the harm? (Jach, if you're still wondering, read this site.)

There are other possibilities, such as schizophrenia, idiot-savant sydrome.

We know that Jach has downplayed - lied by omission - about his involvement with Silva Mind Control. The official story also says he was metaphysically naive before the grand orb came through. This suggests a conscious and purposeful attempt to create a contrast between Jach the man, and Lazaris the Great Entity.

It's been said in here that Jach is too lazy to pull this off. I don't know where that came from. Of all the negative attribute I can attach to Jach, I don't think laziness is one of them. I think he is a man driven. Driven by greed, but more so by his codependent relationship with Peny. Laziness rarely stands in the way a psychotic drive.

A friend of ours who met Jach at an MLM seminar and had no exposure to "Lazaris" describes Jach as a person who can remember minute details about others and can zone in on their desires and fears. Similar abilities helped propel Bill Clinton to the presidency. Does anyone think that Clinton was channeling?

If Lazaris is real, and Jach is completely in trance while he is speaking, what stops Lazaris from correcting any mistakes or misstatements made on his behalf, or from speaking directly to the issues and questions EVERYONE has about Con:Sin?

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.

Earlier in this thread you talked about the early years of Lazaris.

I have heard from someone on another board about Lazaris in 79:

[[[ I have a friend who went to seminar at Jach' house in 1979. She said you had to be interviewed by lazaris to get to attend. They were week long seminars. ]]]

IMO, this is yet another contradiction. Why would Lazaris need to interview someone? Doesn't he make claims to know us already? Isn't he allegedly psychic? I know he has no problem in the intensives blathering on about people's past lives.

This just doesn't add up.

Cheers, Craig

I am far from versed on the history of "Lazaris" but my conversations with some of the early followers (post 1979) and other information paints a clear picture of a group floundering around looking for the magic marketing strategy. It was one of the first inconsistancies I noticed.

If Lazaris is who "they" claim to be, I'm quite sure that "they" would know right upfront the best way to get their message out. Also, I recall hearing in my early days that Lazaris consulted with Jach and Peny and guided the organization. Maybe it was that phony little fucker Andrew William who told me that when he was busily overselling his unmarketable products to me.

Speaking of Andrew, I keep forgetting to post this question here.

When Andrew used to call me back in the mid 80's he always had a very strong accent, very similar to that of the Orb.

I've asked a few people about that, and no one else remembers an accent. Does anyone have any recollection of that little toe rag speaking with an accent?

I'm at the point of thinking that he assumed the accent as some kind of marketing strategy, or that he just got off playing "Lazaris" with me. He really did work my emotions and capitalize on my awakening feelings of love and trust in Jachzaris.

I have a special little gift for Andrew, and I hope someday to have the opportunity to deliver it personally.

I forgot to mention this little discrepancy:

Lazaris said that Peny, "fulfilled her 2 mandatory life focuses". Um, if she didn't have to come back, why did she have mandatory life focuses? Why do any of us, if we create our own reality? Who made up that rule? There ain't no "Karma Lords", right?

While doing some research on the video, "The Future and How to Create IT" I took some notes on longevity. Sounded pretty interesting after finding out about peny's death.

lazaris said that longevity was the ability to live a healthy and long life, to be vibrant and alive, not a vegetable that is wheeled around....(too bad his intuition wasn't working when he used this awful term)

He also said he was working with doctors and scientists behind the scenes with the health problems we were facing so that we could move into the realm of longevity. Of course he said he could not tell us their names.

He said we would have dominion over aging and would learn to speak with the cells to work with them and keep them healthy and bring them into a place of harmony and balance.

lazaris said we could live to be 120 yrs. old and then when we chose to leave the body we would leave it by conscious choice.

If only all of this had been true.....

Sincerely,

Mickey

Someone posted a transcript of a private consultation on the Lite Site. I hesitated to offer a critique because I saw the posting as personal and vulnerable. But since the poster used the transcript as a way to denounce the ideas being presented on this site, I see it as fair game.

One thing that struck me, that I never noticed before, is the over-use of "Lazaris expressions", such as "in that regard", "in that sensing", "indeed", "we would suggest". For fun, I sometimes put on an accent, such as British, Indian or Texan. As an ameteur, I tend to over-emphasize buzz words which are associated with the particular accent in order to enhance authenticity. This seems to be what Jach is doing - this isn't me talking, just look at all the "Lazarisisms"! Methinks thou doth protest too much, Jach.

This poster said that the Gang attacked him when he posted in the Forum about his consultation, until he produced it verbatim for them. He offers this as evidence that Jach is unaware of what Lazaris says and that the Gand does not have access to the private consultations.

I beg to differ. I think it's just more evidence of their inability to think straight. They have access to newspapers, yet they still post their trite, naive nonsense in the political forum. They have access to Lazaris' Interview book, in which Lazaris clearly says that global warming is a real and man-made danger. But that didn't stop the Gangsters from posting that global warming is a hoax.

The transcript was generally about the "paradox of expectation". Lazaris says that, because time is an illusion, we can't create things to happen at specific times. Reading it reminded me of the power that Jach has to make people think he's putting out deep and reasonable information. He's quite good at sounding profound. Unfortunately, this diatribe, like many, contradicts other Lazaris tenets. Such as we create our reality completely. Then why not create the timing of it? And if have little control of the timing, then the ability to create our reality isn't so great. It won't do me much good to create a job five years in the future, or ten years in the past. If time is really an illusion, wouldn't that make it all that much easier to pinpoint it according to our specifications and expectations? Or is this "paradox of expectation" just another loophole to protect Jach from the expectation he creates with the rest of the materials?

Cheers, Ted

It wouldn't be the first time that the Con:Sinners messed up about what Lazaris has said. For that matter, the Orb himself has been known to make contradictory statements.

When I read that transcript it just felt to me that Jack was grasping at straws to fit some kind of sense into an experience this person recounted that didn't follow along with the "wisdom" of the materials. Note that the poster did not share the question he asked, only a part of the response.

It was a bunch of shuck and jive, IMO, hard as hell to follow or make sense out of. So much for Lazaris' stellar clarity.

I don't see any reason not to post the actual transcript here. This site is fair game for others, and certainly the source of 99% of the discussions that go on there both in public and on the not so secret magic word Romper Room sections. It's just an off-shoot of this site anyway. Why pretend it's some private space that has nothing to do with us?

I don't want to advertise that site here, people can find it on their own if they are curious, but given that you and particularly I are being psychoanalyzed and demonized in that environment where lunatics run free, I'm not feeling particularly good about hyping it here. You can bet your ass that it would bring quite the adorable smirk to sweet Helena's face should she know that she incited some nut case to cause you and me harm.

If someone posts something on a public message board, I wouldn't think they should expect "privacy" in doing so. I mean, really, what is the difference in whether a post is publicly available at one URL or another? Resonance???

Neither of these are commercial sites.

What do others think?

Katie

You wrote:

"One thing that struck me, that I never noticed before, is the over-use of
"Lazaris expressions", such as "in that regard", "in that sensing", "indeed", "we would suggest"."

I noticed the same thing and took ten minutes to strip away the filler,
bracketing the excess verbiage; the whole statement is laden with nonsensical excess, but one section stripped down to the bare bones makes no sense at all (I'm including it here because it directly relates to the Lazaris material, not the poster involved.)

"And we would suggest
(here it's not in that way, you see, in)
the answer to the paradox
is not "well,
(therefore)
if I keep my expectations low and
(therefore I)
have least expectations a hundred percent of the time, then I'm going to have a lot of
those experiences,"
(clearly not.)

It is almost
(in that sensing)
"As I raise my
expectations to a certain level
(and in that sensing,)
hold them at that particular level, within that frequency of vibration
there will be
(the sort of the)
waves of energy as they would might be seen
in terms of the amplitude of that wave of expectation.

(There will be,)
when those potential waves
criss-cross in such a way,
to create that moment,
sometimes that is called the moment that you least expect, and
(we would suggest)
it is often those moments, if not the exact experience that you had
[purposely deleted by LL poster here]
that such kinds of experiences do occur."

Lazaris's statement stripped of verbal ticks, repetitive statements and
fluff:

"The answer to the paradox is not, "If I keep my expectations low, a hundred percent of the time, then I'm going to have a lot of those experiences."

It is almost "As I raise my expectations, hold them at that particular level, within that frequency of vibration there will be waves of energy as they would might be seen in terms of the amplitude of that wave of
expectation."

(Say what, brother from another planet?)

"When those potential waves criss-cross in such a way, sometimes that is called the moment that you least expect and it is often those moments, if not the exact experience you had, that such kinds of experiences do occur."

Aside from none of the above really making much sense as a cohesive explanation of anything other than how to string buzzwords together (what's the frequency of amplitude, Kenneth?) why the use of several qualifiers such as "almost" "they would might be seen"
"sometimes that is called" and "it is
often"?

The qualifiers buried under the parenthetical phrases, redundancies and "in that regard" and "in that sensing" flourishes ultimately make the statement extremely tentative--why is Lazaris so reluctant to commit to a definitive explanation about a stunning variation on a key "raw material"?

flo