Extraterrestrial Technologies & Viable Counter Strategies

[janaeb@...]

There is a lot in this link from Kent Stedman's site that is aligned with
David's work.

http://members.aol.com/phikent/orbit/EXTRATER.htm

Janae Weinhold

[srachele2004]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=zey8Z_XoMFHb5oEOEwCiySoWExtMoYJET_JXl4 Hlx9ZB69WTmfU4HBfyOT54rMocwtQVSHuyWQHTdl4), janaeb@w... wrote:
>
>
> There is a lot in this link from Kent Stedman's site that is aligned
with David's work.
>
> http://members.aol.com/phikent/orbit/EXTRATER.htm
>
> Janae Weinhold

Sal: This is actually an article by Anna Hayes, now known as Ashayana
Deane. While there appears to be much valuable information in Ms.
Deane's work, there is also much that I take exception to, and that
does not seem in alignment with David's work. Feel free to read
http://www.azuritepress.com for the latest and greatest from Ms. Deane.

[grantcleveland]

Sal, Janae, All,

I was actually going to hold off from commenting on this but since it
came up...

Below is a critique of the work of Anna Hayes with a comparison to
the Cassiopeia group.

I don't intend to maintain judgment on either of these groups but
I've spent time exploring the Cassiopeia site and even though a lot
of their stuff highly resonated and feels accurate to me, I think
that I now have an appreciation (IMHO) of how a "fear" based group is
comprised and how it "feels." In my own understanding, I don't
consider that a message of wisdom and truth would be delivered in a
manner which would make people feel fearful and dis-empowered, which
the Cassiopeia site does somewhat to me when I read it. It makes me
feel like I'm in a trap that I don't have any real control over, and
one that is intended to prevent me from trusting in myself, the All
and the balance of positive entities that are here with us to level
the playing field, In effect lowering my vibration. This article by
Ms. Hayes did the same to me.

I was a little disappointed when I read this critique because I have
personally seen, experienced and traveled on this grid system that
she refers to. Considering that I am a pretty normal person with very
few direct metaphysical experiences under my belt, it is very
exciting and validating to me when I actually come across a reference
to the grid.
Also included here are additional links to another (and one of the
only others that I have come across) reference to the grid system. I
realize that we are not supposed to post outside channeled material
but I do this more as a scientific inquiry as it pertains to the
oneness of our universe rather than a focus on spiritualality. I am
hoping to find out how it ties into the Convergence Series, so any
direction from you all on this would be greatly accepted.

Anna Hayes Critique
http://www.maar.us/anna_hayes.html

Anna Hayes as she used to be known, (now going by Ashayana Deane) has
a typical cultic persona and ideology dealing with ET - channeling
and is typical of many UFO Contactee cults. It is really a cookie
cutter messiah `Melchizedek'[1] molded type of ideology that is
currently affecting the UFO and New Age communities...

And on to brighter things:

THE COSMIC LATICE I
http://kryon.com/k_26.html

THE COSMIC LATICE II
http://kryon.com/k_29.html

?..We wish to tell you this night of what some of you will think of
as an object, but it is not?it is a phenomenon. It is something so
common that it is around all of you, yet so mysterious that few know
of it. It is the missing piece of energy that you have been looking
for so long. It is the energy of love. It is the energy of Spirit. It
is the energy of the Universe and we are speaking this night of
something in English that we will call "The Cosmic Lattice."

Peace- Grant


--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=edm9ZVDDOt6xZvhLFCLnX-c1DYtjHlN2OBZbErfYLEiNmngPAXJj13xe8uK21BN__oCkRFOl KzUmJrvAhA0-), "srachele2004" <srachele2004@y...>
wrote:

> > http://members.aol.com/phikent/orbit/EXTRATER.htm

> Sal: This is actually an article by Anna Hayes, now known as
Ashayana
> Deane. While there appears to be much valuable information in Ms.
> Deane's work, there is also much that I take exception to, and that
> does not seem in alignment with David's work. Feel free to read
> http://www.azuritepress.com for the latest and greatest from Ms.
Deane.

[David Wilcock]

From: grantcleveland

Sal, Janae, All,

I was actually going to hold off from commenting on this but since it
came up...

Below is a critique of the work of Anna Hayes with a comparison to
the Cassiopeia group.

I don't intend to maintain judgment on either of these groups but
I've spent time exploring the Cassiopeia site and even though a lot
of their stuff highly resonated and feels accurate to me, I think
that I now have an appreciation (IMHO) of how a "fear" based group is
comprised and how it "feels."

DW: Part of why I am loath to even mention that I do channeling is
because of the degree of damage that obviously mixed contacts cause -
which is almost every single publicized body of work out there today. It
lures you in with the "feel-good, curiosity-feeding" stuff and then
pounds you down with fear ... suggesting that the whole universe is rife
with betrayal, suspicion and deceit, and that there's not much we can do
to "save" our future except to make the given channeler's work known
worldwide on a Messianic level.

Some mixed contacts are so watered down that it's almost entirely the
work of an elaborate imagination. Others actually do have "psychic hits"
to some degree and therefore appear to have layers of validation that
lure you in. Nonetheless, with the criteria established by the Law of
One, which agrees with rational sensitivity and with many other
validated sources, we know that if certain questions are asked
repeatedly, if the source emphasizes certain types of information, it is
definitely a mixed contact. Thus these things should be easy to figure
out. That's why I put the "master list of how to spot mixed contact
info" in the Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce? book.

Peace be with you -

- David

[Graeme]

Excuse me, everyone!

BUT,

Why exactly do we need channelers or channeled material at all? Are
we not sufficient? I don't recall the many many extremely enlightened
and light-bringing buddhist monks, taoist sages, and so forth,
resorting to such means.

We have everything within us that is required, and endlessly debating
over the validity or meaning of various channeled material takes time
away from actually useful spiritual pursuits. It's confusing too.
All the channeled sources contradict each other, just like all the
religious texts. And even when it is real 'channeling' (which for all
we know is a tiny fraction of those who claim it), how do you know
who to trust?

Why don't we all try and spend more time meditating instead. Then we
might get some real answers, real progress, and real compassion. YOU
DON'T NEED ANYONE ELSE FOR THIS!

I realise this might annoy some people, but it's the truth. I find
half an hour's meditation infinitely more productive than reading vast
tracts of Ra.

Love and Light, all you perfect and complete beings.

Graeme

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=wHLhaMlO4INyVjM2KOcgxGPtElJKcbWlAvr-h6Gsw6PFoB-LGXby1ZJDX5EEpgT00lHmc6MRiXNEtZWUMDU), "grantcleveland"
<grant_a_cleveland@p...> wrote:

> Below is a critique of the work of Anna Hayes with a comparison to
> the Cassiopeia group.

> Anna Hayes Critique
> http://www.maar.us/anna_hayes.html
>
> And on to brighter things:
>
> THE COSMIC LATICE I
> http://kryon.com/k_26.html
>
> THE COSMIC LATICE II
> http://kryon.com/k_29.html

[Shawn Bernal]

If we can just accept that we have that power within, and build on our
intuition...(!)

Graeme <kimonokraken@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=pNnBzqBrT0vukCtiSaolYI48mJefKn1jd-_kp74obgYfbC2hSOyfzX9B-4vqgnrr_4eh2M0jzAUB-j2nWbozO6Y)> wrote:

We have everything within us that is required, and endlessly debating
Why don't we all try and spend more time meditating instead. Then we
might get some real answers, real progress, and real compassion. YOU
DON'T NEED ANYONE ELSE FOR THIS!
Graeme

[David Wilcock]

From: Graeme

Why exactly do we need channelers or channeled material at all? Are
we not sufficient? I don't recall the many many extremely enlightened
and light-bringing buddhist monks, taoist sages, and so forth,
resorting to such means.

DW: Ideally you become an embodiment of your Higher Self. Then it's not
channeling - you just speak.

We have everything within us that is required, and endlessly debating
over the validity or meaning of various channeled material takes time
away from actually useful spiritual pursuits. It's confusing too.

DW: Over-indulgence in reading channeling ... without actually applying
the principles and using it as a springboard for personal reflection ...
is another clear spiritual problem ... even if it's good, positive
material.

All the channeled sources contradict each other, just like all the
religious texts.

DW: Not all. Real Confederation messages are remarkably consistent and
there are some sources from the 50s that we're working on putting
together that help further show this.

And even when it is real 'channeling' (which for all
we know is a tiny fraction of those who claim it), how do you know
who to trust?

DW: Begin with the one person you can truly reach.

Why don't we all try and spend more time meditating instead. Then we
might get some real answers, real progress, and real compassion. YOU
DON'T NEED ANYONE ELSE FOR THIS!

DW: True. But you also are not in a position to tell others on the list
what to do ... none of us are. Suggestions, yes ... and the suggestion
to meditate is a valuable one.

I realise this might annoy some people, but it's the truth. I find
half an hour's meditation infinitely more productive than reading vast
tracts of Ra.

DW: I find meditating for a half hour while reading the Law of One to
have been more productive than had I gone in there without the "cliff
notes," shall we say.

Peace be with you -

- David

Love and Light, all you perfect and complete beings.

Graeme

[usn_5371]

I read & liked that material, what is wrong with it?
the funny thing is when I fist started reading it I laughed but
decided to give it a chance. the previous posts on this were very
confusing like all this spirtiual stuff, I agree with graeme in that
it should be a personal journey & we can totally do this on our own-
theres no other way, nobody is forceing us to belive what were
reading & I personally just take a bit here & there from what I read
but why cant we just know in plain black & white whats up? the
problem I have is why do you have to be affiliated to one thing or
the next? its not very liberal is it. I see the same pattern over &
over again from worshipping stones to priests to science & to so
called spirtual stuff. it all starts within so we have to get right
in the head & in the heart to achive happyness.

[madonnafra]

I am in Total Agreement with you Graeme.
Love and Blessings,
Gayle
GS5555
Texas Wind


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[grantcleveland]

Wow,

You are excused. I didn't expect to push any buttons.

Graeme: Why exactly do we need channellers or channeled material at
all? Are we not sufficient?

GC: Why would groups such as RA make contact if it wasn't considered
vital? I must assume that our current understanding isn't
sufficient. Would this group exist without channeled material and
isn't this group based on it? How many countless people are out there
who would have never started on the path with out being exposed to
this kind of information? How many scientific "discoveries" and works
of art would have been unrealized? Would our civilization and species
have lasted as long as it has or would we be another dead mars like
planet floating through space?

Graeme: We have everything within us that is required...

GC: We may have everything within us that is required but how many
humans do not realize that? (I would argue all of us and is the root
of fear and conflict) Is there something unnatural or imperfect with
being a student or receiving the energy of another higher entity
(master)? And isn't that the purpose of a wanderer? Doesn't a plant
reaching for the sunlight follow the same principal?

Graeme: how do you know who to trust?

GC: The only thing I can trust is that I do not have all the answers.
I've always enjoyed the following quote "As long as you maintain a
belief that you already know it, there is nothing for you to learn."

If something makes me unhappy or fearful then something else is out
of whack. That was an underlying point of my post.

Graeme: Endlessly debating over the validity or meaning of various
channeled material takes time away from actually useful spiritual
pursuits.

GC: I hadn't realized I initiated a debate (it initially takes two to
tango) but I can't resist a reply either. I will now withdraw and
provide and end to all this endlessness and go peruse more spiritual
matters. Although I've heard (from those Buddhist monks and Taoist
sages) that every action and moment is a spiritual matter. I think
even posting applies.

As for the other channeled links I was more interested in the
technical material and possible relationship to the LOO. If
meditation is your thing, please disregard.

Peace and much much kindness
sorry about the cynicism)-
Grant
>

[Graeme]

Hey David,

I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention to tread on anyone's toes, and this
certainly wasn't meant to be an attack on you, personally I think you
rule. Your books are mega-interesting (I've learned a lot from them),
as are the radio shows you've done and you seem like a really nice
sincere guy too. I was just slightly exasperated by the confusion
that abounds around the subject of channeled material, when of course
many people have achieved 'complete, unexcelled awakening' without it.

I would actually be really interested to see the evidence of
consistency between sources, that would really help
validity/credibility-wise, especially if some the consistent points
were also backed up empirically in some way. I in no way am seeking
to invalidate all channelled information.

I wasn't trying to tell anyone what to do exactly, just trying to
raise the point that with or without channelled material of whatever
calibre, it's a person's own efforts and cultivated qualities and
vibrations that matter.

I should also point out that when I talk about relying on your own
vast resources as a conscious, sentient being, I'm not advocating any
form of isolationism or deliberate ignorance of others. We are all
one, and the real test is of course how much you feel that connection
(although even connection is a misnomer, because it implies that there
was separation in the first place).

Open yourself to everything, and it will 'channel' wisdom to you for ever.

Thanks for your balanced and thoughtful reply, David.

Love and Light,

Graeme

[Graeme]

It's all cool :)

Love and Light,

Graeme

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=RrLvg5ZLKeohCPWJCxRhKnx57RT8_RxKgPakTF xM6BV0i1tyPMLFUI3y3FEqY3w1Tv2B5XsxfGJz7Z29hWA), "grantcleveland"
<grant_a_cleveland@p...> wrote:
>
>
> Wow,
>
> You are excused. I didn't expect to push any buttons.

[Scott A. Robb]

>And even when it is real 'channeling' (which for all
>we know is a tiny fraction of those who claim it), how do you know
>who to trust?

I've found that material that I trust just seems to "resonate". It just "clicks"
inside my soul. I felt this way upon reading the Seth channelings by Jane
Roberts. With that particular material notonly did it click, but I caould relate
it to everything that I had experienced and all the worlds religions and that
also affirmed its validity.


>Why don't we all try and spend more time meditating instead. Then we
>might get some real answers, real progress, and real compassion. YOU
>DON'T NEED ANYONE ELSE FOR THIS!

This is true however, when starting out on this path channeled material can be
extremely informative and thought provoking. It can affirm what we already know
on a deeper level that has not made its way into our everyday consciosness; our
egoic state. It can lead you INSIDE to your Source of all that is.

Scott


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[lealdragon]

Well, you could take that idea to an extreme and say we don't even
need to eat, or to breathe, or to interact with other humans. Then why
are we here?

I contend that, yes, meditation is important, but hey, we can still
learn from one another, too, regardless of whether the other-self is
incarnate or not, regardless of whether it's a fictional story book or
a channeled work. It's all just info, and the bottom line is, does it
resonate as truth, is it useful. If so, then use it.


> I've found that material that I trust just seems to "resonate".

> >Why don't we all try and spend more time meditating instead. Then we
> >might get some real answers, real progress, and real compassion. YOU
> >DON'T NEED ANYONE ELSE FOR THIS!
>

[Charlie]

"usn_5371" wrote:

> I agree with graeme in that
> it should be a personal journey & we can totally do this on our own-
> theres no other way

But what is this our-own that you talk about, there is no you or I in
actuality. We really do have to do it "ourselves" but we need a competent
teacher to guide us as it were, it is a centrist perspective to think that
we can do anything on our own. The "I" doesn't even come into play for the
new born child but slowly creeps into play, assuming this is its body, these
are its thoughts, this is its will, etc. but its presence is never even
questioned by the vast majority of people here, which is testament to how
smoothly it slides in there.

> it all starts within so we have to get right
> in the head & in the heart to achive happyness.

I would personally avoid trying to achieve happiness as it is a goal, a
positive that one is aiming for while trying to avoid the negative, this
splits the world in to this and that and denies the wholeness that is. The
more we try to stuff our whole consciousness into this part, happiness,
money, a job or any perceived part of the whole the more friction we create
or at least this is my understanding so far. I think this is the problem
with the new age call of "you create your own reality", which if you ponder
it, really appeals to the ego's sense of smugness.

If you read Bringers of the Dawn by Barbara Marcianik (sp) (human voice box
to Bashar and the Essassani) where this "you create your own reality"
propaganda is promoted you can see the internal contradictions of this
premise. They don't even explain who you are and go on to say that the field
of experience is neutral and any negativity we see is our own negativity.
Remember that line from The Usual Suspects where Kevin Spacey's characters
says that the greatest trick of the devil is to have people think it doesn't
exist, sounds like Bashar is doing its piece.

So where do we place that whole consciousness so that it not getting stuffed
into a part? What is the common denominator that everything goes into?

I have a great essay by Southern Crown called Why You Don't Create Your Own
Reality that addresses these questions and answers them but I don't have it
to post, however, there is a version at:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/topperycyor.htm

It looks like this essay has been altered by someone as it is different than
the one I have.

Aloha
Charlie

[c bean]

Hi Charlie,
You certainly are providing some good discussion
material.

Charlie wrote:
> But what is this our-own that you talk about, there
> is no you or I in
> actuality. We really do have to do it "ourselves"
> but we need a competent
> teacher to guide us as it were, it is a centrist
> perspective to think that
> we can do anything on our own.

Chill: Our-own that is refered to is the individual
mind/body/spirit complex that can't be reasoned away
into oneness. There exists an effort to undermine the
value of being an individual mind/body/spirit complex
in a sea of oneness. Many of the "compentent" teachers
out there would have you relinquish this Divine
individuality and become a mind controlled slave to
the heiarchy of "oneness". Oneness certainlly seems to
be an Absolute truth, but it can and is used to
enslave mind/body/spirit complexes by the Orion Group.
The slope get really slippery when higher altitudes
are attempted. Through proper tuning (which "I" am
still working on for myself) of the mind and body the
individual can channel through the Spirit alone on a
relative plane. Doing it alone from an Absolute
perspective is a fallacy. The catalysts of our
experience do involve other mind/body/spirit
complexes, thought forms, etc. The Law Of One
"channelings" contain a wealth of clarification that
seems to be only possible through a medium from
outside the local 3d environment. If the teaching
doesn't expand awareness, balance, heal, allow
acceptance and individuality it might be trap. Getting
high on ideas of Oneness to me is not necessarily an
expansion in awareness.


> I would personally avoid trying to achieve happiness
> as it is a goal, a
> positive that one is aiming for while trying to
> avoid the negative, this
> splits the world in to this and that and denies the
> wholeness that is. The
> more we try to stuff our whole consciousness into
> this part, happiness,
> money, a job or any perceived part of the whole the
> more friction we create
> or at least this is my understanding so far. I think
> this is the problem
> with the new age call of "you create your own
> reality", which if you ponder
> it, really appeals to the ego's sense of smugness.

Chill: True with adjustments. The New Age combination
of "create your on reality" and "happiness ONLY goal"
seems to be a big trap aimed a the unbalanced
mind/body/spirit complexes to enslave and drain
energy.
The friction is created by denying the validity of the
negative catalyst. New Age is big business. Follow the
money/agenda and the truth shows itself. A feel good
spiritual book that gives one a buzz for a week or two
is worth about 25 bucks. Yea I got suckered into a few
of them.
>
> If you read Bringers of the Dawn by Barbara
> Marcianik (sp) (human voice box
> to Bashar and the Essassani) where this "you create
> your own reality"
> propaganda is promoted you can see the internal
> contradictions of this
> premise.

Another problem is "you create your own reality" and
here is what you should create. Only through freedom
of the mind/body/spirit complex do we have the
potential to "Create our Own Reality". Without that
freedom it is more like "you create someone else's
reality and we sell to you as your own". Or as the
Mafia says "get in the trunk, be quiet and let you go
when we get there." Yea Right.

Stand Alone in the Oneness. Start a cult. A cult with
one member YOU! Be aware. Be Adaptable.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

[Charlie]

"c bean" wrote:
>
> Hi Charlie,
> You certainly are providing some good discussion
> material.

That is nice to hear.
>
> Charlie wrote:
>> But what is this our-own that you talk about, there
>> is no you or I in
>> actuality. We really do have to do it "ourselves"
>> but we need a competent
>> teacher to guide us as it were, it is a centrist
>> perspective to think that
>> we can do anything on our own.
>
> Chill: Our-own that is refered to is the individual
> mind/body/spirit complex that can't be reasoned away
> into oneness. There exists an effort to undermine the
> value of being an individual mind/body/spirit complex
> in a sea of oneness. Many of the "compentent" teachers
> out there would have you relinquish this Divine
> individuality and become a mind controlled slave to
> the heiarchy of "oneness". Oneness certainlly seems to
> be an Absolute truth, but it can and is used to
> enslave mind/body/spirit complexes by the Orion Group.

Funny thing is I agree with you on this, specifically sects of Buddhism such
as Zen that basically render the practitioner will practically inert.

I don't think the idea is to melt into the oneness or the big guy in the sky
that seems a bit of a cruel joke rather I think we need to align our will
with divine will, which is essentially our true will.

> The slope get really slippery when higher altitudes
> are attempted. Through proper tuning (which "I" am
> still working on for myself) of the mind and body the
> individual can channel through the Spirit alone on a
> relative plane.

The spirit of divine will, right?

> The Law Of One
> "channelings" contain a wealth of clarification that
> seems to be only possible through a medium from
> outside the local 3d environment.

I don't think this is true but what this material does have going for it for
us is that it has no cultural baggage. The Indian sutras, Buddhist texts,
Sufi scriptures have incredible info in them but for me it is so difficult
trying to deal with certain terms or all the terms because they are foreign
to me whereas the Ra Material is in modern English and in such a format that
it is framed by a physics PhD. This is why I love it so much but then others
are turned of by that tech talk and non fluff feeling and some more call it
New Age jibberish.

> Chill: True with adjustments. The New Age combination
> of "create your on reality" and "happiness ONLY goal"
> seems to be a big trap aimed a the unbalanced
> mind/body/spirit complexes to enslave and drain
> energy.
> The friction is created by denying the validity of the
> negative catalyst. New Age is big business. Follow the
> money/agenda and the truth shows itself. A feel good
> spiritual book that gives one a buzz for a week or two
> is worth about 25 bucks. Yea I got suckered into a few
> of them.

Didn't we all, in one way or another.

There are a lot of seekers looking for enlightenment that think
enlightenment will bring them peace, happiness and a better life than today.

Quote:

"As a receptively-oriented focus for the expression of Divine Desideration,
the quality of "personal" experience may be by turns placid or disturbed,
there is never any telling - only its unpredictability is certain. What is
established, however, is that the active agent of change-in-the-world is no
longer the oblique, partial perspective of ego-identitification but the
direct supervision of Divine Mind working events and circumstances into far
more coherent, stable, fertile and potentiating ground for the realization
of Conscious Presence." SC

I think this last sentence describes that process I have been enquiring
about.

> Another problem is "you create your own reality" and
> here is what you should create. Only through freedom
> of the mind/body/spirit complex do we have the
> potential to "Create our Own Reality". Without that
> freedom it is more like "you create someone else's
> reality and we sell to you as your own". Or as the
> Mafia says "get in the trunk, be quiet and let you go
> when we get there." Yea Right.

Yeah it is really important to understand what "you", "create" and "reality"
are from the source before adopting an idea like this.

It is a big subject.

Aloha
Charlie