(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) As I have already written, there are many things we have learned, and not just from being "informed," but by having a suggestion given to us, which we then observed, experimented with, and developed more fully on our own. And, this is one of the keys to the Cassiopaean's: they don't just "hand it out." As I have noted before, they give "clues," but not roadmaps. Their position is that if we don't DO something, work for it as it were, it is useless like candy: empty calories. And, clearly, this approach is designed to make the practice of "channelling" unnecessary and obsolete. We will, eventually, "become" them. Repeatedly they tell us that "leading us by the hand" is detrimental; they have laid the groundwork, given us the boost because we ASKED (and did so repeatedly, consistently, and with dedication for over two years before the contact initiated), but that the real purpose is to get us to learn to walk on our own, aware, protected and free of fear and ignorance.
[Comment - a lot of the clues and hints which the Cassiopaeans have given concern things that are all very interesting but largely marginal with respect to discovering answers to more important issues such as realizing the meaning of one’s ‘Destiny’, or where this destiny comes from, or what its nature and purpose are, or what are the right way(s) to work for our destiny? The Cassiopaeans, of course, have drawn up a road map, of sorts, concerning destiny, but the character of that map is unverifiable before the fact. All one really has is their version of the way things, in general, are slated to unfold - which is no better, or worse, than a lot of other religious and philosophical systems.]
(From Cassiopaeans) Subtle answers that require effort to dissect promote intensified learning. Learning is an exploration followed by the affirmation of knowing through discovery. Learning is necessary for progress of soul... this is how you are building your power center... Patience serves the questor of hidden knowledge... Search your "files." ...Learning is sometimes best accomplished by study and exploration... There are other clues that you can discover by your own study...
[Comment - There is a general vagueness to such communications. On the surface, the communication sounds wise and profound, but what does it really mean since one can interpret such statements in a wide variety of ways.
What kind of effort is necessary to dissect, and what kind of dissection process is required to lead to the right sort of subtle answers. Are all forms of intensified learning equally valuable, and, if not, then, what sorts of things should be dissected? What kind of learning is necessary for the progress of the soul? What kinds of hidden knowledge are being talked about because any knowledge is hidden before one comes to know it? Why do we need to build a power center? What kind of a power center? What kinds of study and exploration generate the best sort of learning? Finally, since everything is pretty much a clue for something, or other, what kinds of clues should one be looking for?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Getting back to our reader who suggests that the Cassiopaeans are "trying to confound you, and with a message as of the good guys, some truth with many lies between ...All the message of C's is of the same: we are damned whatever we can do."
It is a logical inconsistency to teach awareness and defense against "dark forces" as a means of fostering control by these very same forces. This issue has been brought up many times in the past, the most significant treatment of it being expounded by Jesus:
"Then a blind and dumb man, under the power of a demon, was brought to Jesus, and He cured him, so that the blind and dumb man both spoke and saw. ... But the Pharisees hearing it said, This Man drives out demons only by and with the help of Beelzebub, the prince of demons. And knowing their thoughts, He said to them, Any kingdom that is divided against itself is being brought to desolation and laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will last or continue to stand. And if Satan drives out Satan, he has become divided against himself and disunited; how then will his kingdom last or continue to stand? And if I drive out the demons by Beelzebub by whose help do your sons drive them out? ... Or how can a person go into a strong man's house and carry off his goods without first binding the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house. ... Either make the tree sound, and its fruit sound, or make the tree rotten and its fruit rotten; for the tree is known and recognized and judged by its fruit." [Matthew 12:22-33, exc. Amplified, Zondervan]
Curiously, the effect of the demons was the condition of being "blind and dumb." The analogy also included the idea of a "strong man" being bound up so that a thief could come in and plunder his possessions which is pretty much what we are finding to be the case. But, the main point was the issue of the "Kingdom of Satan/darkness" being brought to waste and desolation by division. "If Satan drives out Satan, he has become divided against himself and disunited: how then will his kingdom last or continue to stand?" Jesus was pointing out to the Pharisees that it was completely illogical to accuse him of working in concert with darkness since the effect of his work was to free the man of his demonic attack which enabled him to both see and speak.
[Comment - Whether Jesus actually said the words which are being attributed to him in the foregoing is one thing; moreover, what such words might actually mean (if said or not said by Jesus or someone else) and the context in which such words might be appropriate are additional issues. The fact of the matter is, there is no logical inconsistency to set a trap, save someone from the trap being set, in order to gain leverage with the trust of another human being before one seeks to destroy the object of the trap. Almost all scam operations involve doing little things that 'earn' the trust of the mark so that, eventually, the mark can be taken in a big way.
Laura has referred to the Quranic ayat which indicates that God is the best of deceivers, and God uses Divine Names and Attributes to establish conditions through which people of bad intentions or niyat will permit themselves to be misled. So, God uses Divine qualities to mislead people, just as Satan uses Satanic qualities to mislead people. There is no division here, rather there is a herding of the target to a pre-selected cul-de-sac, and part of the herding process is to provide a variety of pieces of disinformation which will push the target in the desired direction.
Armies and counter-intelligence operatives use this tactic all the time by taking one set of forces and making them the bait, and once the bait is taken, the trap is closed and the enemy defeated. It is the himma or aspiration that is unified and Satanic or 'alien' forces can use their own troops as sacrificial pawns in order to seek to realize that himma without introducing any division into the plan or aspiration.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) As William Bramley noted in The Gods of Eden, when we consider history, we can clearly see that the drive of human beings to have peace is as strong, if not stronger, than the drive to have war. But, when the issue of war is examined, one realizes that, most often, the "trigger" for war and related "inhumanity to man" is that the drive for spiritual freedom is twisted by manipulation. It's easy to look back on history and see where this or that group was "misled" in their beliefs and thereby fell into errors of thinking that led to the perpetration of unspeakable horrors. We can point to the genocide advocated by the God of the Hebrews, or the religious-zeal-run-amok of the Catholic church when it instituted the Inquisition. We can see the twisted version of the "genetic superman" that led to the holocaust. It's easy to discern these errors of the past, because we "know more now." Well, isn't that an interesting thing? We KNOW more now. How much more can we learn?
Well, it almost seems as if the game has just gotten more and more complex, but the same essential errors keep getting repeated. What is at the root? (Aside from the fact that we notice the above examples all relate to monotheistic exclusivity.)
[Comment - It is not the idea of monotheism, per se, which is at the root of the problem. There is only one Reality, whatever that may be and however we may engage that Reality, and to the extent that this one reality is Divine, then, one is talking about monotheism as giving expression to what is.
It is our manner of interpreting such experiential engagements that has the potential for generating the exclusivity to which Laura and company allude. It is those monotheists who insist on arguing that their interpretation of the one God is the only truth who tend to create the headaches for everyone - including themselves.
However, the fact there are many people who seek to impose their own exclusive theologies on the rest of us does not alter the fact there still is only one Reality or Truth to which the term “God” (or any equivalent) gives expression. God encompasses all that is and, in addition, encompasses realms beyond all that is which transcend what we understand Being to be. Being is but an attribute of Divinity which the latter makes possible, and what Divinity is beyond our capacity to understand, we do not know.
There are instances in Laura's writing which seem to indicate that she is clearly aware that there is a difference between, on the one hand, the idea of monotheism and, on the other hand, the idea of a monotheism which claims exclusive authority with respect to the truth of things. Nonetheless, there are other times in her writings, when this distinction seems to become lost and the idea of monotheism, itself, seems to be under fire.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The above reader sees it as "we are all damned in the end." But IS that what the Cassiopaeans are saying? Are they not really saying that we need to wake up to what is under the surface of our very contradictory reality? That we need to become aware and alert and "see the unseen?" Are they not telling us that "Satan can appear as an Angel of Light?" Are they not telling us that we are "strong men" who have been "bound" so that what is ours can be stolen? Are they not telling us to "drive out the demons" and open our eyes and begin to speak?
[Comment - Other than to tell people that evil exists and that is seeks to dominate us and that we need to wake up to the forces which are acting upon us and against us, what are we suppose to speak to - what about constructive issues concerning identity, purpose, potential, meaning, and so on? What does becoming aware actually mean with respect to such issues? Moreover, although most people agree that evil exists, the manner in which evil is characterized often varies from person to person - and both the Divine and the Devil are in the details of such characterizations.
The Occult encompasses certain realms of the unseen, and the Mystical encompasses certain realms of the unseen, but the Occult and the Mystical are not necessarily alluding to the same sort of realms. Yes, Satan may appear as an Angel of Light but so can angels. The question is how does one differentiate between the two modes of appearance?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) It's a little bit curious that just those two terms were used, omitting the "ears" as something that might be "opened" by the casting out of demons. But, the fact is, most of the distortions of our reality come to us by listening rather than observing. Deception and error of perception would have far less influence on us, and we would have no illusions, if we would look at the face value of objects and see things for what they really are. Most of mankind's illusions are the "children of the ear" and hearsay. My beloved grandmother always told me to "believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see." This is very good advice. If we open our eyes and look at the problem as objectively as we can, forgetting all our beliefs and assumptions, and all the things we have been "told," we might be able to draw some conclusions.
[Comment - There is a difference between, on the one hand, beliefs and assumptions, and insight, understanding, and wisdom. However, while there is no need to reinvent the spiritual wheel (although we may need to rediscover the actual nature of that wheel), there is a need to distinguish between falsehood and the truth, and, then, to use the latter to further realize the potential of our spiritual capacities and identities.
Laura is raising the same issue as Husserl, Descartes, and others - How can we be certain of what we know and that what we know is the truth? How can we have yaqueen or apodicticity or certainty? Get rid of the assumptions, biases, prejudices, and presuppositions, by all means, but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. In a sense, one might say that truth is sometimes a bias which just happens to be right - unfortunately, we tend to confuse such biases with the ones which just happen to be wrong.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The point of all this is that it seems that the only criteria we may have by which to judge any phenomenon is the fruit it bears, since it is possible for things to be represented as positive and not be so, in fact. But in this case, the "fruit" can only be seen in a very broad historical perspective.
[Comment - What are the criteria for evaluating ‘fruits’ and what constitutes the character of a fruit?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) To synopsize: An alien presence has been noted at many points in history of great disaster or mass death and cultural darkness. Examination of the few records and documents has led some scholars and researchers to conjecture that many of history's Darkest Hours have been CREATED by the alien presence. The Laws of Probability tell us that, without any intelligent control, 50% of the time events would occur leading to great good and benefit. Factoring in intelligent decisions to do good would bring this average up to about 70%
[Comment - How do the Laws of Probability tell us this? What is the underlying model which permits Laura and company to come up with such figures? How is “great good and benefit” being defined, and what stochastic model justifies claiming that on the basis of chance alone, we should expect such results?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Yet we can clearly see that this is not reflected in our reality. Why not? Who or what is influencing things to the negative?
[Comment - as the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said, our biggest enemy is the nafs (carnal soul, ego) between our two sides. It is not just the aliens/satanic forces which is the problem here ... it is also our capacity to be taken in, fooled, deceived, duped, and to rebel against the truth.
Some of our vulnerability is due to ignorance, and while it may not be our intention to be ignorant, nonetheless, this may be the case. Some of the destructive negativity is due to the nature of the nafs and its inclination to collude with the enemey when the weaknesses of our nafs are exploited by the satanic side of things.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) My work as a hypnotherapist...
[Comment - Isn’t it possible that hypnotherapy is itself a tool which may have been introduced by, or assisted by, or developed with the help of forces who wish to render our hamzats (one of our spiritual bodies which, among other things, is very much affected by emotions and almost devoid of reasoning processes) more vulnerable to suggestion and being manipulated through trance formation? There is a reason why authentic Sufi spiritual teachers have often warned their students against letting themselves be hypnotized because this process opens one up, potentially, to forces which are detrimental to one’s spiritual health . The fact that there may be some ‘good’ which comes through this technique does not diminish the possibility that it might be a tool of conquest, manipulation, and rendering the one who has been hypnotized to be more vulnerable to suggestion even when such an individual is not in the hypnotic state.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) If what the Cassiopaeans are saying is NOT true, will we lose anything by entertaining the possibility? Is Truth so fragile that it cannot withstand scrutiny? And if what the Cassiopaeans are saying IS true, what might we lose if we DON'T consider it as possible?
[Comment - The Prophet has indicated that the Devil will bait us with knowledge - the Devil will say, seek more knowledge before you act, and the people will do this, and they will spend their whole lives in this way, and then, death will take them away before they will have acted. Laura and company have used up a great deal of their lives seeking to check out, verify, research, and study many of the clues which they have been given, and in the process, although they may have accumulated a lot of ‘information/knowledge’, they really may not have made very much progress in determining what to do in a practical, constructive way with respect to realizing their destiny, purpose, capacity, or identity.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) On the one hand, the above correspondent is clearly saying that he believes there are "dark forces" that seek to deceive and bind us. But, would those very "dark forces" do this by telling us that there ARE dark forces that are seeking to deceive and bind us? As noted, that is logically inconsistent.
[Comment - Again, there is nothing illogical about this - it is called a strategem or trap or pincer movement ... that is, attacking the target from a variety of directions - even from the direction of appearing to be a friend ... a gift ... a Trojan horse. The Devil likes constructing real life Chinese puzzle boxes in which there are compartments within compartments within compartments ... and the last, interior compartment often has a very nasty surprise.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Logic tells us that anything "out of sync" with the Creator or Creation would, of necessity, imply error on the part of the Creator which would lead to the conclusion that the "creator" is, himself, limited in omniscience or omnipotence, which then leaves us in an even worse ontological dilemma than before.
[Comment - What kind of logic is it that tells us this? If God has given us a capacity for free will, then, he has given us the capacity to make mistakes (and learn from them) It is inherent in the very structure of human existence to be capable of being out of synch with the purpose of Creation ... this is the very nature of evil, or bad choices, or self-serving intentions or mistakes. Why blame the Creator for our own transgressions?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) This writer goes on to say that evil is:
...Energy that was cast off from humankind's energy when we first learned how to establish ourselves as spiritually apart from the all-life. It is an accidental creation. ...The energy of evil... comes from the human race."
Well, heck! Let's just blame it on Eve, why don't we?!
I repeat: it is logically inconsistent to posit an All-knowing, All-Loving Omnipotent Creator,and then to suggest either accident or rebellion. But how else can we explain it?
[Comment - While I agree that there are no ‘accidents’, there is nothing inconsistent about a Creator who creates beings who are capable of rebellion, or blindness, or being deceived, or ignorance, or error, or evil. As God said to the angels who complained about the fact that a being was being fashioned who was capable of bloodshed and spreading corruption throughout the land - “I know that which ye do not’. If Laura and company do not understand how an All-Loving God could permit rebellion and evil, then, perhaps, they do not understand the nature of Love or the purpose underlying such permission - and, certainly, God is under no compulsion to disclose these details to them just because they do not understand.]
Return to 'Food For Thought' Menu
|
