Spiritual Health Learning Community Center Exploring Life's Horizons   Cassiopaean Hermeneutics - Assumptions (From Cassiopaeans) Q: (L) What determines your assumptions? A: Experience. Every thing that exists is merely a lesson. [Comment - This is really too vague to be of any real value. Yes, experience does help determine our assumptions. However, there is a whole, complex hermeneutical process which shapes, colors, orients, and generates a given assumption within the context of a particular set of circumstances. Delineating - at least in a certain amount of detail - the dynamic relationship among: experience, assumptions, and how these affect the character of a lesson might be more helpful.] (From Cassiopaeans) Q: (L) Okay, so once we have learned certain lessons, as in experience of certain things, then our assumptions change? A: Yes. Q: (L) Okay, is this wave that is coming our direction going to give us an experience that is going to change our assumptions? A: Catch 22: One half is that you have to change your assumptions in order to experience the wave in a positive way. All is merely a lesson, and nothing, repeat nothing, more. [Comment - Does this mean that there is no purpose or meaning to these lessons? Is life just an endless series of correspondence courses which one takes because they are fun and because challenges are interesting? Or, is there a point to all of these lessons? Is there a reason or reasons why lessons are important or necessary? What does it mean to experience the wave in a positive way? What are the criteria of positiveness? Who or what sets these criteria? Which assumptions have to be changed, and how? Is it a matter of changing any and all assumptions, or are some assumptions more helpful than others, and, if so, which ones and why? If "all is merely a lesson, then, what difference does it make whether, or not, one experiences the wave in a positive way?] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) When we look at the Human Tree of Life, which is the mirror image, we see that the position of Knowledge is now the genetic body which is ON the Central axis. We then realize that THIS is our facilitator. [Comment - What does it mean to refer to Knowledge as a genetic body? Why suppose that Knowledge is the only facilitator, and facilitator of what? Moroever, perhaps, knowledge is not enough. Perhaps, we need to act on what we know, or our knowledge may depart from us? Furthermore, one might maintain that acting on Knowledge is not sufficient either - that is, maybe, we need to act on knowledge with an appropriate adab (spiritual etiquette) and niyat (intention) in order that justice be done to such knowledge. Consequenly, we may need to be aware of what we know and why we are doing what we are doing with such knowledge and what purposes we are intending to realize.] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The genetic body is the control center for the physical body since it transduces the Central axis energies, so whichever Thought Center is dominant will control the physical experience. Not only that, but we can see another possibility - namely, that knowledge and genetics are DIRECTLY INTERACTIVE. At the 3rd density level, GENES are the LOGOS! [Comment - How do we know that the genetic body is the control center for the physical body? Isn't it possible that there are other - non-genetic - forces (such as psychological, psychic or spiritual forces) which may also control the physical body? How does a given Thought Center become dominant? What is meant by a Thought Center? Are Thought Centers necessarily an expression of genetics? Why assume that such is the case? In what way are knowledge and genetics interactive? What kind of knowledge is she talking about? Genes may be one manifestation of the Logos, but they may constitute only one of the dimensions which affects consciousness, understanding, meaning, identity, purpose, and methodology on this level. Consequently, to make such sweeping statements as: "At the 3rd density level, GENES are the LOGOS," seems rather reductionistic, arbitrary, and premature.] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) It is through our genetics that we have the potential of aligning with the Central vertical axis and "changing Thought Centers." [Comment - What are the dynamics of this changing of the Thought Centers? Athough, certainly, genetics can shape the way and manner in which thought and spirituality unfold or develop, why should one suppose that either thought or spirituality is reducible to genetics? Maybe genetics just forms part of the playing field on which the game of life unfolds. Perhaps genetics gives expression to sets both of assets as well as liabilities with which an individual must struggle in order to learn various lessons about the self and the Self. ] You see, our genes are more or less encoded copies of all the possible "dramas" of which we can be participants. Much of this information is like closed books, stored in a room that is never opened. We have the potential, via knowledge and exercising certain functions, to open these books and "link up" with the Central Axis and thereby make a "shift" in the essence or Name by which we are dominated. And, in doing this, we have the possibility of participating in a different "drama" or myth or 4th density movie being projected into 3rd density. [Comment - Why assume that our genes are "encoded copies of all the possible 'dramas' of which we can be participants? Isn't it possible that genetics is only one of the encoded structures of potential which constitute a human being. Isn't it possible that these other encoded structures of potential may be rooted in such non-biological faculties as, say, the heart, spirit, and other internal, spiritual faculties? Isn't it possible that genes constitute but one dimension of the ayn al-thabita - or fixed form - of our essential potential?] (From the Cassiopaeans) Q: (SV) I want to ask one question: If there is no time, there is no past and no future; there are no past lives and no future lives, there is no such thing as reincarnation, then how can you be us... A: Yes, there is reincarnation. You are getting ahead of yourself there. We never said there is no reincarnation. [Comment - What is the proof that there is reincarnation? Is there a difference between the ontology and metaphysics of reincarnation as a reality, and the hermeneutics of reincarnation as a way of interpreting certain aspects of experience? One difference is that while there is evidence that people have interpreted certain experiences which they have had as indicating the reality of reincarnation, there is no proof that such interpretations constitute a correct understanding of the experiences which have been undergone. The actual siginigficance of experience is one thing. The interpretation of such experiences may be quite another matter.] (From the Cassiopaeans) A : Picture it this way: we will access some of your memory banks and give you another reference... [Comment - Within certain limits, Jinn have the capacity to access our memory banks. Consequently, to whatever extent the Cassiopaeans have the ability to access the memories of human beings such as Laura, perhaps this is revealing something important concerning the actual identity of the Cassiopaeans.] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) We can study nature and discover what Archetypes are manifested in our lives and, if we don't like the script, we can discover the ways and means to "change the selection," so to speak. That means that we can "create our own reality" in the sense of "changing channels" in terms of which thought center is in control of our lives. It also means that we can have a choice as to which Face of God we behold! [Comment - The breaking of habits, the opposition to nafs (carnal soul), the waking up from our sleep may be all things that we desire. However, we all know that although we might aspire to such things, they do not always come, even with struggle. We may have freedom of intention, but the choices to which we aspire don’t always get co-operation from Divinity. To aspire is not sufficient, we require Divine support because the exercise of freedom or choice, in and of itself, may not be capable of accomplishing anything. Divine succor alone may be the only necessary and sufficient condition for change to come into our lives. The patience, courage, strength, understanding, integrity, sincerity which help underwrite change of some kind, do not come from us but are loaned to us by Divinity. Yes, we may need to aspire to such things, but they may only come if, when, and where Divinity wishes - and, therefore, maybe not at all. What we aspire to may be circumscribed by our rizq (Divine allotment) - which includes spiritual capacity. We may only be able to change to those channels which are resonant with our our essential potential. We may not be free to choose to be anything we desire, but, rather, we may only be free to choose ourselves according to our underlying spiritual capacity. Moreover, perhaps we are only truly free when we are who we are, in essence, and when we are giving expression to what our destiny calls for. Perhaps, everything else is captivity.] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) And again, when searching for answers, it always ended in a maze of insupportable assumptions and irreconcilable facts. Yes, to all of you who have written to ask me if I have checked "this" source or "that" source, it is very likely I have, and more. And I repeat, when you read ALL of them, you find, as Blaise Pascal said: "I reject equally the religion of Mahomet, of the Chinese, of the Romans, and of the Egyptians, for this simple reason that since one has no greater marks of truth than another, my reason cannot be disposed to receive any one in preference to the rest." [Pensees, chapter XI] And you can add a hundred other "sources" to Pascal's list on my behalf. They all end in a maze, assumptions, irreconcilable "facts." [Comment - Why should one assume that Pascal and/or Laura have/has really investigated all of these different systems thoroughly, objectively, or even with correct understanding? Coming to a conclusion does not necessarily accurately reflect what has been hermeneutically engaged. How does one recognize a 'mark of truth'? Just because Pascal's reason "cannot be disposed to receive any one in preference to the rest", this doesn't preclude the possibility that someone else may have discovered good grounds for prefering one possibility over another. Furthermore, maybe Pascal is employing the wrong instrument in his quest to differentiate between the true and the false - maybe, he should have been using his heart and spirit to discern the truth rather than just his reason.] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) But when the Cassiopaeans began to communicate, to say things that did explain the problems I was finding in science, religions and philosophies, and those things they told us were NOT part of my expectations, I became furious and railed at such a bleak picture of our existence. [Comment - In effect, Laura and group are buying into a framework or perspective (i.e., that of the Cassiopaeans) which they like better than other frameworks or perspectives. However, the act of buying into a given paradigm does not, in and of itself, guarantee the truth of what one believes. There are a lot of inconsistencies, lacunae, problems, and unanswered questions surrounding the Cassiopaean material - in fact, in many respects no less so than that which swirls around a lot of belief systems. Finding an explanation which one finds plausible is not necessarily the same thing as discovering an explanation which is correct or accurately reflects the truth of some dimension of reality.] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) I have long pondered the possible true teachings of Jesus. What we know, factually, from the available ancient documents that are generally assessed to be contemporary with the time of early Christianity, is that the Romans and about everyone else in the Pagan world considered Christianity to be an "abominable superstition!" ... So, we have a real problem here in figuring out just what these ancient peoples WOULD have considered an "abominable superstition." And the only thing that fits the definition is the teaching that man is "food" for hyperdimensional beings! That is pretty objectionable at ANY time in history! [Comment - The foregoing is a hypothesis, but it is not necessarily the only hypothesis. The fact of the matter is many Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and Native spiritual sects or traditions, as well as many philosophical and scientific frameworks often consider ‘the other’ - whether from within that general tradition or not - to be "abominable superstition.". To try to argue that the only answer which makes sense of the Roman pagans judgment concerning Christianity is that Jesus - peace be on him - must have been teaching that ‘man is food for hyperdimensional beings’ seems, to say the least, rather premature and unsubstantiated.] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The point is, when Don Juan and Gurdjieff and the Cassiopaeans (and others) tell us that our religions, our social structure, our values, our beliefs about our spiritual nature and condition have been deliberately created to perpetuate the illusion that we are free; that we are (or can be) "special and adored children of a loving God;" that we are or can be "co-creators" with God, that we can DO anything at all of a positive and powerful nature, we need to carefully examine this issue! [Comment - One can agree there is a great deal of evidence to indicate that many (but not necessarily all) of our ideas, beliefs, values, practices, and so on, have been foisted upon us even though such ideas, and so on, are not necessarily rooted in the Truth. However, interestingly, Ibn al-‘Arabi (may Allah be pleased with him) - who is cited by Laura and company again and again in a very positive way - firmly roots his understanding from within an Islamic framework where the five pillars and Shar’iah are of fundamental importance. Yet, Laura seems to turn a deaf ear and blind eye to these latter dimensions of the perspective out of which Ibn al-'Arabi (may Allah be pleased with him) operates. Why do Laura and company accept part of what Ibn al-‘Arabi (may Allah be pleased with him) says, but not the rest? Why do they appear to assume that he only gives expression to the truth in areas where Laura and her colleagues are willing to accept what he says as being parallel with, or as resonating with, their own ideas?] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) When you study the history of social and religious movement and change, you can see the "control mechanism" morphing with every discovery or realization made by human beings. As they outgrew the old religions, the simplistic explanations, new "religions" were put in place. At exactly the right time - the period of scientific expansion and growing knowledge of the nature of reality which brought the old religious views into serious question - the whole spiritualist movement began, leading to channeled information that was designed to patch up the holes in the control net. Newer and more elaborate explanations of the "higher realms" came into our reality. And, with each new question, the control system had a new answer to help everybody calm down, relax, and stop asking questions! At the present time, this is even more amazingly evident. A few years ago, when we first began sharing the Cassiopaean information, many of the issues we dealt with were not even addressed by these other "sources." But, with everything we release, the "other side" brings some new candidate forward with new explanations to "patch the holes" we are tearing in the fabric of reality. And, of course, since Ark is a physicist with degrees beyond Ph.D., some of these new sources are becoming more educated and articulate as if to counterbalance and damp down what we are presenting here. [Comment - It shouldn't be the case that just because someone disagrees with laura and company or pokes holes in their account of things that this means that such critics are agents of ‘the other side’ - knowing or unknowing. If everyone who disagrees with them automatically becomes suspect, then, Laura and company may be wrapping themselves in a closed, delusional system which is impervious to any ideas, understanding, information, perspectives, or experience which runs counter to their 'world view'. Furthermore, there is an apparent blanket condemnation of religion present in the foregoing statement of Laura's (and in many other chapters of the Wave Series). While many facets of religion may well deserve such condemnation, Laura's rejection of all things religious is pretty sweeping and all-inclusive ... a little too sweeping and all-inclusive, and the fact of the matter is, things should be argued on a case by case basis. Finally, while it may be true that science began to poke holes in different theological systems, the fact of the matter is, science, itself, has many problems, lacunae, and unanswered questions. Science is not necessarily the final arbirter concerning the nature of truth. In addition, why is it okay for science to change its story over time, but when a religious system does this, then, this is just an example of a system which is trying to keep us asleep, covering up, and so on? You can’t condemn a spiritual perspective for not changing, and, then, condemn them again for changing or trying to keep up with accumulating data in their own way. Neither standing pat, nor change, are, in an of themselves, necessarily problematic. A great deal depends on the nature of what one is standing firm on, and what one is changing in relation to. The issue should be the truth, and if one has the truth, then, there is no need to change, and if one realizes that one does not have all the truth, then, there is a need to change. Science does this and is commended for it, so, why call what science does, science, but when spirituality does this, it automatically is interpreted to be a patch up job for the 'control mechanism' or the ‘feeders’ in order to keep us asleep?] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Gurdjieff's teachings became known as the Fourth Way as opposed to the three ways that had, as far as we can tell, evolved out of the very religious and social structures that we may think are in place for the purpose of keeping us imprisoned. This is what Gurdjieff meant when he said that many are hypnotized into believing they are Men or Magicians. The problem with these three ways, as we have already discussed, is that they concentrate on only one of the three centers in man: bodily discipline, mental development or the "way of the heart" - Love. Gurdjieff's way incorporated all of these through a form of Conscious Labor and Intentional suffering. [Comment - Actually, the way of the heart does not necessarily refer to just love. Many mystical masters indicate that the heart has dimensions which are capable of, among other things, bearing spiritual witness, of seeing, of experiencing and understanding different facets of the Divine Truth. The heart is an organ not only of love, but of faith, certainty, insight, unveiling, spiritual travel, harmony, adab, ascension, and remembrance. Laura and company do the heart an injustice when they try to reduce the heart down to being only a organ of ‘Love’. Moreover, one's understanding of love really depends on whom one is discussing. The Love of a Rumi, Shams, Hafiz, Muin’uddin Chishti, or ibn al-‘Arabi is much different than what New Agers talk about, as well as being quite different from what many theologians speak about. Many New Agers and theologians often speak from the outside of Love, rather than from the inside of Love, and looking in from outside tends to lead to many distortions and errors.] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) If humanity has any hope of surviving, it will have to have a major "change of mind," or METANOIA, which is incorrectly translated in the New Testament as "repentance." For a change of mind to even be possible, it has to KNOW ITSELF! [Comment - Translating METANOIA as repentance may not be so much a matter of being incorrect as incomplete. Nevertheless, in order to have a change of mind and go toward the truth more faithfully than heretofore may have been the case, repenting from one’s previous way of doing things and understanding things becomes necessary. The essence of repentance is to understand something of the nature of how one has strayed from, or has been straying from, the Truth, and, then, to commit oneself to not returning to such mistakes, and it is through this new understanding of repentance concerning a given thing or activity that one begins to shape, color, direct, and orient one’s life in a new manner - a manner which reflects the change of mind to which Laura and company allude. However, this new manner of understanding is rooted in the realization of a need to repent from, and therefore distance oneself from - a previous way of doing and understanding things.] (From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Once we understand that the reality itself, the illusions of what is or is not "good" or "evil," are masks, or symbols of something deeper, we begin to realize that the two "alternatives" presented to us are clearly not equal. [Comment - The central issue revolves around the problem of having to differentiate masks that have the appearance of good, but are, in fact (that is, from the perspective of Truth), evil (i.e., in rebellion against Truth or anything which might uncover the Truth), from those masks which have the ‘appearance’ of something forbidding or dangerous or risky or unconventional, but which are really designed to help us find the Truth - both within ourselves as well as without ourselves, along the horizons. Laura and company may believe they understand the difference between masks and reality, but I am not sure that they do in many respects, and, furthermore, I believe they have inappropriately labeled something as a distorting mask, when such may not always be the case.] Any religion, philosophy or teaching that sets itself up as the "only way a man can be saved" has immediately aligned itself with the "Mafia/Nazi/STS" school of free will. [Comment - Conceivably, Laura and company are in danger of doing precisely what they are warning against. That is, they sometimes seem to be setting themselves up as possessing the only correct view of things and as offering the only way to ‘real’ salvation from the alleged forthcoming feeding frenzy about which the Cassiopaeans have been warning them. In fact, Laura indicates there are STS (service to self) beings who occupy 4th density. Since there is no guarantee that one will be able to graduate from 4th density being to a 6th or 7th density STO (service to others) being, then, one might suppose there is still a problem of how to keep going in the direction of STO and not become seduced by the ‘dark side’ or STS inclinations which, apparently, still exist amongst those who have graduated to 4th density being. Indeed, perhaps, maintaining that anyone who disagrees with the Cassiopaeans is an agent of the STS monsters who are about to descend on human beings is one of the ways in which one can be seduced by the dark side of our beings.] Return to 'Food For Thought' Menu Copyright © 2004 Interrogative Imperative Insitute. All Rights Reserved.