Dialogue 3 Segment 1
This begins the email exchanges between 'C' and Michael. 'C' is 'A''s companion/partner/lover introduced in the second set of dialogues.
At 09:31 PM 10/17/2000 -0500, you wrote:
C: Hello Michael,
I'm C, 'A''s partner. I've been privy to many of your discussions w/'A', either reading the e-mails or 'A' telling me about them. You've been having a profound affect on 'A', as I'm sure you know. It has led to endless hours of discussions.
M: Known.
C: Last night I had a dream, which seemed significant. I was at 'A''s son's house, P, with lots of people eating, socializing, hanging out. 'A' was around somewhere. I was upstairs on a couch, watching TV w/P & others, at night, the room was dark except for the TV. A large butterfly/moth flew in and landed on the hardwood floor next to the couch. I reached out and gently enclosed it w/my hand and picked it up, moving it in my fingers so I could hold itby the body so as not to damage it. I've just come back from a couple of weeks butterflying in Veracruz, so I handled lots of butterflies.
M: 'A' "would have" a presence in the environment, if for no other reason his son carries his DNA. P tends to immerse himself in the environment of many others as a security function/acceptance. The butterfly, like all things that you touch in nature, was handled carefully. You tend to nature's delicacy carefully.
C: This one was spectacular, a giant owl but with lots of brilliant colors. Giant owls are usually brown, w/big eyes on the wings & stripes like tree bark for camouflage, beautiful but subtle. This one was bright yellow on the ventral wings in wild swirling patterns, maybe outlined in black or white, streaks of yellow coming out from the body. The body was ringed w/red & very fuzzy.
M: Intended to get your attention.
C: I looked it up in a butterfly book I had, and ID'ed it as a very special species, one that was new to me. I showed it to P, and he said that's nice, but was not really interested in it. Others in the room wanted me to be quiet, to not disturb the TV watching.
M: Normal in society: missing very important facts as they simply "exist" in their stasis.
C: I left the room, carefully caring the bug, to find others to show it to. I was looking for someone else, don't remember who. I showed it to several people in the house, but no one really cared. This is common w/me, when I find a bug or a bird and want to show it to others. I'm a hard core birder/butterflier, but am used to the fact that most people could care less about such things.
M: Consider also that your actions, while held in the appreciation of nature, tends to seek out others who share that passion. Although this has previously resulted in some frustration for you, the indication is that there is more acceptance. It is also observed that because there is repeated attempts to outreach to others holding within your hands the concept of delicate beauty, perhaps both a desire to bond to others and a tendency to seek solace through others could be indicated.
C: I went outside the house, still looking for friends who would appreciate it. A butterfly buddy would have been amazed, and loved to see it. One of the guys there drove up next to me in a car, and I showed it to him. He reacted like the others, looked at it to please me, and then I released it and it flew away. I was thrilled it had come to me.
M: Though many things come to you, the suggestion is that your focus tends to be narrow in your own selection of what is permitted to be seen.
C: When 'A' & I talked about it this morning, it seemed obvious that the butterfly represented an awareness of other levels, an appreciation of other levels, due to the yellow color. An awareness most people don't have, or choose to have. They would rather watch TV. 'A' had told me about his dream of the people in gold, like oscar statues, and the significance of the color.
M: Yes.
C: 'A' feels, and in some ways I agree w/him, that I'm a fewmore steps advanced in evolution than he is. I have always felt that I'm here to help him through a particularly rough transition. I am much more serene and not as filled w/angst as he seems to be. He fights most things, and is often banging his head against the wall. I have often told him not to waste the energy, and then he sometimes gets annoyed w/me.
M: There are perhaps other components to review in your discussions. While according to the report noted above, he finds conflicts, the suggestion isthat you find comfort in narrower selectivity. Although the latter tends to conserve energy, it can also be self-limiting.
C: One of my questions is, if I'm more advanced than he is, in other words if I have already gone through some of the searching that he is floundering with, why don't I have more significant dreams?
M: In the question there is an answer, and it is based upon the presumption of advanced level. Consider the notations in the above paragraphs over limitations and selectivity. Boundaries can come in many forms, and some carry illusions of peace through confinement/limitation. One in the form of "noise" as noted re 'A' in your report, squanders energy, while limiting focus causes energy not to be expanded in amplitude. Both "noise" and boundary narrowness in different manifestations, have the result that energy - and awareness - are not expanded.
C: My dreams usually seem the same as if in this level of reality, except sometimes things happen that wouldn't usually happen in the first level,like flying. I often am in the outdoors, finding birds or butterflies and identifying them from books I have with me in the dream, but when I wake up they are much more colorful than any animals in this level of existence.
M: The process that you have reported above displays a consistent pattern of exploration, however it is very limited in scope of the exploration in narrow approaches. The second attention expressions of the profundity of color is to suggest that more is available to you "if" you wouldmove deeper into the second attention of perception. The deeper probe, safari, into the second attention would also enhance what you see in the first attention. There is far more to see in the first attention than is currently being seen.
C: 'A' is filledwith self deprecation, at times self loathing, which has made me frustrated. I have frequently told him he is not a piece of shit, or he wouldn't be my lover. I don't waste my time on trash. He seems to have much power, but doesn't know how to controlit.
M: Mind noise, self-deprecation, is observed to be control in the form of energy waste. Stasis results.
C: My analogy is like being next to a fire hose with high pressure water squirting out, twisting on the ground like a snake.
M: Some, quite a bit, of that leak is happening in the past flow of the water even before it gets to the nozzle.
C: It might take several men to hold it and aim it where they want it to go. He is working on learning that control. Another analogy is he is a fire, which when properly banked can be used for cooking or heating, can be very comfortable to snuggle up to on a cold night. He can be healing.
M: There is no question that when evolved, both of you will hold abilities that can only be imagined for now.
C: I have used him as a source of comfort and warmth when I have cramps, for example, and they go away. But sometimes he explodes and is actually painful for me to be next to him, even in the same room. Like a fire out of control, he can burn you. I ask him to turnit down. He has gotten much better at doing this. He projects very strongly, and has had many examples of having others react to this.
M: Defensive reactions can indeed cause turbulence, particularly when the act of defense is un-natural. The containments that defense cause to the one of power is often dichotomous behaviour.
C: I feel he had some sort of sexual trauma when he was young, around 11 or 12. He was involved w/someone, probably an older male, and when his mother and grandmother found out about it, the shit hit the fan. He was taught affection equalled humiliation, punishment, rejection and degradation. He seems to gradually be working his way out from under this, after much questioning and angst. I told him it was as if his aura or energy was covered w/lint, and he is gradually picking it all of, so he can shine brightly and cleanly. As if he is being washed, and the first couple of rinses come out black, w/clots of mung, but are slowly becoming clearer, lighter, to muddy through tea colorand finally all the way to clear. He has a long way to go. Was this just a random happening, or is there something for him to learn in this?
M: My exchanges with individuals must be point-to-point between ourselves, and of course 'A' and yourself interchange well. Anyone who "really" commits can execute sea changes, and the inference to "a long way" can occur in a short time if energy is directed toward motion and velocity. All negative events for any seeker do indeed hold positive lessons to learn and when the lessons are learned they immediately become positive events since the derivative was positive. Individuals who postpone resolution and learning from early events simply find other distractions that can provide more tangles that eventually have to be worked through.
C: Why would he have set it up for him to live 50 years of agony? What if he had never cleared this up?
M: Ask him.
Hint: every human sets up a form of reference system from which to base life upon. Consider the woman who maintains a destructive relationship as she is beaten. Consider separately the reference systems that you have setup for yourself.
C: To me, he is much more passionate and powerful and affectionate than most people I have met, but of course I may be slightly biased. We have talked about karmic ribbons, and we feel we have known each other many times before, in many iterations.
M: Yes.
C: Another question of mine is - I don't want to just work hard on spending much time on higher levels, when there is so much to enjoy on this one.
M: Then the referenced limitation within stasis has indeed been identified.
C: I love being outside, in the wild, just floating through nature, observing wildlife, getting close to it, feeling it.
M: Yes, with the understanding that it's an oft repeated path through the same nature.
C: I love to travel, and spend a great deal of time in 3rd world countries out birding or hiking, anything to get me out in natural areas away from cities and typical tourist places. Bird trips lead one to these types of experiences, up before dawn all day in the field, magic encounters w/wild things. I like to practice moving through the woods as quietly as possible, stalking birds or animals, or butterflies, seeing how close one can get. Sometimes I videothem, sometimes not. The animal knows you're there, but you can sort of thin yourself out and think harmless thoughts, and sometimes you can get very close. Just being quiet and still in the woods can lead to special happenings. Most people are so noisy and busy, they miss 98% of what goes on around them in the wild.
M: One can venture through many art galleries and visualize the feelings of the artists and their interpretations of the images. One can execute these actions many, many times. The observation is that the viewer of art is not becoming an artist, and moving through countless galleries is only viewing, not participating. The galleries represent stasis, boundaries, safe conditions of viewing.
C: If I had all the money in the world and started traveling tomorrow, I could not see all the wonderful places and creatures in the world. This was one of the primary reasons I wanted to leave Los Angeles last year.
M: We also travel extensively. The travel often takes the form of learning human history. Next year, it's Africa.
C: I was running out of time and didn't want to waste it sitting in front of a computer until I was in my 50's or, horrors, in my 60's. I feel like I'm in this world for a very brief time and have to collect all the experiences I can in that time. Meeting people who live in these outdoor places and who usually live simple lives, sometimes very simple subsistence levels of existence, can be fascinating. They are trying to maintain their integrity and yet they want what the US represents, which is better health care and schooling for their children, clean drinking water, some diginity so they aren't dirt poor campesinos being abused by those in power all their lives. They are often very proud of their forests and birds, and pleased to show them to someone from far away. Their woods skills are far above mine, obviously because their eating often depends on their level of skill, but they are intriguing to spend time with and learn from.
M: Although their experiences are very different from those of the typical American, mostly they represent a variance of systemic survival. It's difficult to "seek" when one is hungry. The question is how to not be hungry, and then, what is efficient to build from with the time and life that remains.
C: Is it a waste of time, and energy, to enjoy such things, or should one be concentrating on advancing to higher levels? I believe we will all eventually advance to living on higher levels, as beings of light and energy, but while we're in this first level why not appreciate the good things of this level?
M: In the third attention, there is a continuum of "abilities" that is primarily derived from the attributes gained in this training ground of organic life. The question, individually, for each individual is to determine what is ultimately important for themselves. If by allegory there are levels "0" to "5" after organic life where "0" indicates non-continuance, and level "3" a traveler who is limited in navigational abilities, cannot influence or conjoin with others, but primarily observes, and level "5" is profound, the candidate's own sentience is the sole deciding element about the ultimate result of ultimate evolution.
C: The sensual things, sunlight, fresh air, beautiful scenes, wild things, the smells of a forest after rain, and many other sensual things. Music for example. Music can move one to tears. Is that on the higher levels? Or sex, for example. Sex w/a passionate knowing caring lover is one of the joys of this level.
M: Yes, as an experience is it higher as a level but as an environment it is safe, and limiting.
C: I have never been comfortable w/those who seem to want to deny the body, restrict all things of enjoyment and practice hair shirt religions.
M: True. Dumb. Dependent sheep. Eagle snacks.
C: Some people seem to act as if the sooner they get out of this body, the better. There are many bad things here, but there is much that is good. Maybe I'm just not in a hurry to grow up. I feel like a child, watching others play dress up and wear mommy's high heels and make up. That will come to all of us in time, why not enjoy your childhood while you can?
M: Your reports indicate that you continue to watch: observe. The question for you to consider is that this is simply watching and observing. The drama of the "dress-up" analogy is only illusionary, like a character in a play.
C: I believe that there are two main reasons for living in the first level, this level of heavy corporeal bodies. The first is to learn as much as one can,to experience as much as one can. My analogy is to be a small scoop, like a test tube, going out into the world and scooping as much as possible and bringing it back to a greater pool or a greater being, like the ocean. There are no good scoops or bad scoops, all are equally valuable. The more you experience, the more you understand, the more you accept, without judging.
M: True. It is suggested that there could be reflections of "experiences" to learn what has been truly expanded in the past 6 years.
C: The second purpose is to enjoy the experiences that are only available to one in a body, the sensual pleasures I talked about earlier. I'm sure there are other pleasures available on higher levels, but the ones on this level are not to be sneered at.
M: If one were to conjoin with another in full bonding of all sentient consciousness between the two individuals executing being conjoined, the feeling, the beauty, the intensity, the unconditionality of love, causes any level - any - of physical sexual contact to seem mild.
C: Enough of this for now, I leave the 18th for the Valley, back the 23rd. Then I leave again on the 26th for several weeks in Morocco. This timing is working out very well for 'A'. He is alone for a while to concentrate on stuff, then I come back & we spend much time talking about what he's dreamed, or what I've dreamed, and his e-mails w/you, then I take off again for him to more fully work on it.
M: Yes. A facilitating process is noted.
Peace
----------
At 09:34 PM 10/23/2000 -0500, you wrote:
C: Hello Michael,
Have read your responses to my earlier e-mail, and have to digest them further. A read me your e-mail last night, while I was still in Mission, and we had a several hour discussion about things. Last night I had a dream which seemed significant.
M: It will be increasingly understood for you that nothing is a coincidence, even the dialogue that we are having. There will, in all probability, some provocative "pings" in this exchange. The intent for these is, or will be, only to motivate self inspection. Should you find yourself experiencing a strong reaction to something perceived as this exchange expands, ask yourself "why" the strong reaction as an inspection into the impact. X, BTW, has posted "dialogue Part VIII" and within that there was a huge impact for him.
C: I was at a public pool w/lots of folks swimming and hanging out. I was climbing a huge diving platform, w/many levels, about 60 feet. I was going all the way to the top, where almost no one went off. As I got higher up, people stopped what they were doing and watched me. I was confident as I climbed, thinking 'I can do this'.
M: Keynotes: climb; high; almost no one participates at that level; they prefer to watch others; platform = new basis, higher level; height = test of fear, provocative.
C: At the level below the top, there were a number of people sitting in the shade in their swimsuits. One was a friend, Tom, who seemed glad to see me and gave me a thumbs up, almost seemed to say 'what took you so long?' Tom in this level is in his late 70's, a butterfly buddy whom with I have taken a few trips. He is actually a friend of a friend, Richard. The 3 of us spent 3 weeks in Thailand last spring. Richard is rather single focus, just wants to chase butterflies. Tom is much more interesting, not near as good of a butterflier but much more thoughtful and fascinating to discuss things with.
M: He may have a contribution to make to you, provided that you facilitate an exchange where he feels it is appropriate to intimately communicate to you. This might be started with some words indicating "that something has been stirring about you and I feel that you have something you know or could relate that would open some concept/knowledge for me".
C: In the dream Tom appeared stronger and younger, still white haired but limber, maybe in his 50's, a trim fit 50's. I am tempted to relate this dream to him, though we have never talked about anything like this.
M: Then it is time. You might be very surprised. It was "in his early 50's" when he really began to "be aware" although he had the propensity for a very long time.
C: I felt the dream symbolizes my decision to finally get off my ass and attempt to move from my stasis position, to move out of my comfort zone. I agree w/your earlier statements, that my narrowing of focus has been a type of containment and sets limits. I was somewhat upset when 'A' read your responses to me over the phone, but when I woke up from this dream, about 1:30AM, I felt much better. As if a decision or some positive steps had been taken. I went back to sleep & slept solidly for another 6 hours. The best sleep I've had all week.
M: Actually the initial response was quite anticipated. When individuals lock themselves into a comfort zone, it becomes so comfortable that the framework and reference is systemic and also an illusion of open growth, when there is none. The reflex angers that you have experienced, the passions fulfilled and also unrequited particularly about 25 years ago, the reflex defenses that you have stored and extended into defense of nature, formed turmoil and conflict that found solace within nature. The comfort zone thus formed over the past fifteen years or so, and the nature of your dynamic and often testing relationship with 'A', all worked together as a new basis that offered more stability for you.
Perhaps it would be appropriate for me to introduce myself: Hello, my name is Michael. I am, and can only be, myself. There are no agendas from me, although in reflex humans tend to believe that "there must be".
C: I agree that stasis is not a good thing, but I'm not sure what steps to take now. Suggestions? Try to see my own hands in my dreams?
M: That would be a distraction if it were to become a focus. If you were asked to "look at your hands" in normal organic life, your impulse would be "what for?", but then you might realize that there would be no harm, and you might comply with the request. When you evolve to be in the deeper striations of the second attention (you'll know by the haze and the lack of fear and the vector/method of approach members of our consortium bring to you) then you might look for/at your hands as a matter of inconsequence. THAT is when it becomes significant, not before.
Peace (wholly extended and sincerely said).
----------
At 11:42 PM 10/24/2000 -0500, you wrote:
C: Dear Michael,
M: Hello, Dear 'C'.
C: In response to your last e-mail, I've been thinking, rereading and discussing some of the dates you mentioned. 'the passions fulfilled and also unrequited about 25 years ago' seemed to refer to my initial lover, S, from my college days. When we graduated from college we got low paid entry level jobs and an apartment together in Hermosa Beach, both for financial reasons and emotional support. It's scary to go out into the big world at first, and it was definitely more comfortable to have a buddy. After a year or two we grew up, became more self confident, got promotions so we had more money, and felt secure enough to move apart to separate living quarters, but stayed lovers and friends. We were spreading our wings and trying other lovers (this was in the mid 70's, after all). Our relationship finally blew apart when I felt he had lied to me, and by lying, prevented me from traveling and doing something I had wanted to do. I thought he wanted to do it also, but he was unable to afford it, so worked the situation so I couldn't do it either. To me this was unforgivable, and to compound matters, he wouldn't even talk about it. I felt betrayed, and left, never to be his lover again.
M: He came up against his own limitations, and attempted to bang you against the same limitations. Both, thee and he, were intertwined in dependency, and you took action to become independent. There were other impacts in these episodes with him that still impact you today, and the perception is that though it has been defensive, the protections are slowly melting away.
C: Looking back, he was more and more feeling unable to 'keep up' w/me. I was receiving lots of promotions at work, and getting more and more money, while he had a tough time holding jobs and was stuck w/relatively menial work, beneath someone of his intelligence. It's quite possible that this resulted in my building defenses so no one could attempt to control or limit me like that again.
M: Dependencies have the nature of needing alignment. If one becomes offset from the other, then the nature of the dependency itself becomes fractured and with that, the relationship. He "did his best", as did you.
C: I met 'A', actually through S, at this time, and gradually became more involved w/him. But we stayed fairly loose, friendly and casual until 83/84, when 'A' & I went on the road on motorcycles, sold everything, gave up jobs and wandered North America for 20 months.
M: The actions of exploration were invoked. Although you didn't mention anything about fear, the perception is that there was anxiety and some level of fear. The thrill of challenge and change caused the anxiety to become exciting thrill, carried upon the wings of your self-understanding that you could deal with whatever would come.
C: During that time, I realized it was more important to be w/'A' anywhere, than to be in a specific location. This was, surprise surprise, about 15 or 16 years ago. We came back to LA, started our computer company in the next year, and spent the next 14 years doing that.
'A' & I have talked, and realise it may be possible that we may eventually 'grow up' the same as S & I did, and no longer need to live as closely together as we have. I'm well aware that I have used 'A' as a defensive shield when I travel w/others, as my long term mate I'm not available for sexual horsing around. Even though sometimes there have been people I was interested in.
M: Understood.
C: Concerning 'passions unrequited', is that something I should spend energy on trying to find at this time?
M: Since there "is curiosity" that intrigues, and since you and 'A' have avery functional agreement that is compatible for both of you, the old saying "if ain't broke, don't fix it" would seem to apply. Every decision and action of life has a "risk/reward" ratio. Intrigue has a way of masking "risk" into an assumption of reward that is often an illusion. The "grass is greener" observation is usually no more than an expression of illusion.
C: Isn't that wasting energy on first attention attractions (passion/sex) rather than working on advancing to 2nd level abilities?
M: Yes, particularly if physical sex were to become obsessive and hence a dependency.
C: Or can I just learn from that without having to actually live it?
M: It is probable that you can learn from investigating and exploring the facets that are held within yourself, without using your body in the exploration.
C: In my perfect fantasy world, I would have a lover who liked to travel as much as I, spend time in nature as much as I, preferably know birds/butterflies better than I, have passionate sex, and not mind if I came back and blabbed incessantly w/'A' in between trips. I have always felt this was a bit unrealistic, but 'A' tells me I can create such a person if I really want to.
M: Yes. True. The "brain" is the largest sexual-organ in the human body, and it works to form those passions all by itself.
C: I have fears of being owned or controlled by a man. As a woman it is very difficult to have a serious partner who doesn't want to keep a fairly tight lease on you. 'A' has always seemed an exception to the general rule.
M: Understood. The nature of dependence impacts the male as well as the female. The note in the earlier paragraphs above about the Scott matter still impacting you are now shown to be accurate.
C: I agree, my relationship w/'A' has been a stable force in my life. Is this a bad thing? Has it limited my growth? I don't think I would be at the place I am right now if I hadn't been involved w/him.
M: No, he has setup a stable "reference platform" for you as you have for him. Think of the very long discussions that you share in both terms of intensity and depth. That by itself is a treasure that most never find.
C: I'm going to contact S and discuss some of this w/him. He has never had another serious lover after we broke up.
M: The suggestion of this file, in whole, is that the S episode does not have full closure. Loose ends are loose tendrils of self that waste energy.
C: I'm also sending an e-mail to Tom, from my previous dream, using some of the language you suggested. It will be interesting to see what responses I get.
About your last paragraph, about looking at my hands, I'm quite intrigued w/your comments about being approached by members of the consortium. Looking forward to it, in fact.
M: When it is all optimum, it will occur. All that is required is to relax and be wholly open.
Now, if you understand anything at all about those with the concepts that have caused our state of being to evolve (and this may be emotional for you), the moment has come to alter my closing to you. This also occurs as an extension for 'A', and it is (and can only be) unconditional.
Love,
Michael
----------
At 06:28 PM 10/25/2000 -0500, you wrote:
C: Dear Michael,
First off, thanks for the love.
M: Remember that in approach, the expression of unconditional love requires wholly no response-in-kind, and for that matter, no response. If it were to somehow require a response, it would be conditional. As a matter of "freedom", meaning within the concept of expansional evolution, it is incredibly a signal of manifested freedom to be able to say to you, or anyone of my own focus: I love you, and I love you unconditionally, and have totally no requirement for any response whatsoever. This is submitted to you both because it is very real for myself, and also as a point of contemplation for yourself.
C: I was thinking of signing my previous e-mail to you w/love, but considered it presumptious. Foolish me.
M: Not at all. Impeccability only would require that the words be issued in reality, and not on some pro-forma concept that so typifies society. You may, indeed, some day love me. If this occurs, it will only because you love yourself, unconditionally and through that have found the freedom to love anyone, including myself, from the stateof "pure being".
C: I think I understand your follow on message about outreach. 'A' told you that it was as if you had been in the camper. That was correct. I had just been saying that was how you meant it. We ('A' & myself) show our affection for each other often by smart ass comments and rug ripping. He had been giving me a hard time about 'Dear 'C'', even though I showed him that was how I had sent my note to you. I address most of my e-mails to many people w/the same salutation.
M: My intent, openly, when that salutation was made was to evoke a response. It did. In truth, in terms of real impeccability, I would not have made the statement of salutation absent the unconditionality noted above.
C: Going back to my previous communication from you, about 25 years ago, I'm having some trouble w/the concepts of defenses and protections. To me, these are good things, to protect oneself from trouble and pain.
M: Apart from physical harm, it is worth while to explore what defenses and protections could be, their form and their significance. First, any emotional reactions within the human organic form are only "responses" produced/generated from within. If one finds oneself saying to self or others, "so and so said this or that and made me feel such and such", one is exclaiming something false. No one can "make" you or anyone feel "such and such". If then the original exclamation is extended, "and because I felt such and such, I did so and so, or made xyz decision", then one executed an action that was based upon a self-lie, which exacerbates the problem even further.
So, given that inspection, what defenses does one need in truth? What protections are valid, apart from physical harm? In virtually all circumstances that come immediately to consciousness, the "defenses and protections" humans extol with such imperative, are based upon the illusion of protections from others when in reality all they are accomplishing is avoidance of stimuli that execute reactions from within.
From an objective view, this process is an extension of dependency of the human form, freedom can never be unconditionally gained, and it wastes energy since it cannot be impeccable.
C: Yet your message sounds like these are good things to be ridding oneself of. 'the protections are slowly melting away'. Is this a good thing, something to be striven for, the melting away of protections? I may be hung up on semantics here.
M: Please review the above and perform inspection on introspection, for yourself.
C: 'A' feels that defenses are things to be gotten rid of, that they cover up vulnerabilities. That one should aim to eliminate all vulnerabilities, to be stainless steel and invincible.
M: It is imperative to define "vulnerability". If one has sufficient self esteem, then one can (for example) say "I love you" to another, and feel that to the depth and core of his/her being, even if the other person responds in hostility. Being steel, being invincible implies that high energy in defensive reactions is required. Consider that one can simply be transparent to the attempt at invoking emotions from others.
C: Then one needs no defenses. But while you can be as invincible as you want, there are always others in this world who can do you harm. Perhaps it is a fear of caring too much, of being vulnerable to being hurt if (when) that person leaves.
M: Then one would not be transparent nor unconditional. One would be highly dependent and conditional. This is NOT "the way of knowledge".
C: Of course, if you are going to still interact w/that person on other, higher levels, than there is no need for fear. I know you told 'A' that there is no fear on the 2nd level.
M: It is not limited to any specific attention. It is an infinite process and state of being.
C: I have always felt it was vitally important to be independent, to not need anyone. One must be able to stand on one's own feet. I have been amazed to see others totally content and trusting to let others care for them, make all the decisions, pay all the bills, etc.
M: They are then highly dependent, and they have even delegated their sense of well-being to another's actions and opinion: Eagle food all.
C: To go back to the S thing, there were times, more than once, where I supported both of us because he was unable to hold a job. I finally told him I would not live w/him if he couldn't pay his half of the bills.
M: He was then a parasite for your efforts, and your relationship to him was economic. His being with you for your efforts, and your being with him for his need. This is only an economic barter system where human energy, emotional and physical, is being bartered.
C: I think this insistence on independence comes from long before S. When I was a child, I would say I never wanted to get married, it was a trap.
M: The fear of dependency is expressed. The fear of control is expressed. The fear of containment. Marriage can never be a partnership under these conditions for then it is only a barter system of conditional exchange.
C: I realize it is a trap for both male and female, which never ceases to amaze me why so many people rush into it. I never wanted to have children, and in fact was sterilized in my mid 20's, as soon as I could find a doctor who would do it. Perhaps I was (am) afraid of the vulnerability one would have to one's own children. There doesn't appear to be anything in this world that can get more of a hook into you than your child. Is vulnerability necessary for growth?
M: By learning that there is no true vulnerability other than formed within self, then is doesn't ultimately exist. My chant, "by being wholly vulnerable one becomes invulnerable", is a taunt to cause individuals to contemplate what vulnerability really is: the vulnerability to self.
C: To me, an evolved being should be invincible, invulnerable and not be able to be taken advantage of. But, if the answer to my above question lies in the question, then are evolved beings vulnerable? I'm confused (smile).
M: Perhaps the above will help. At this time the descriptions that you have offered are indicative of high dependency: on protections; on fear; on containment; on prevention.
C: On this note, I'm off for Morocco early tomorrow, will return Nov 10. Look forward to continuing this most interesting conversation when I return. And finding out what 'A' has been up to while I'm hiking around the hills of north Africa. You said you were going to Africa for human history. Where are you going? Africa is a fascinating place, and of course the birds are hard to beat.
M: Regret that I missed the "reply" window. It's certain that this file will cause more intense discussion with yourself and 'A'. Re Africa, we don't have the full agenda set, however, Kenya and the wildlife preserves are locked in to this point.
C: I'm taking the dialogs w/me, as 'A' told you, for light reading on the plane. Talk to you when I get back.
M: Peace, and love continued.
----------
At 01:02 PM 11/11/2000 +0000, you wrote:
C: Dear Michael,
Back from Morocco, and 'A' got the pc restored and functional, hooray for him.
M: HUZZAH!
Can you resend your 2 previous responses to my e-mails?
M: I have all e/mails in file, so I'll locate and resend them. For you they are stored in the same directory as 'A''s, and typically I save only my outbound responses since those contain the text of the received e/mail.
When the hard drive died, I had your stuff off in a separate folder, and 'A' had not backed up my folders when he saved my in box, so they are lost at this end. Perhaps I should not have relied on 'A' to take care of all computer backups,etc. No fault to 'A', but my responsibility for my things of concern. If you don't have them, no problem.
M: Will locate and resend at the end of this transmission.
C: We have been having heated discussions all morning about my defenses, and what has caused them, and how to change/eliminate them, etc. Your comments, as the usual 4x4 upside the head, have made me look at what defenses I have employed.
M: A comment often heard, and in a way it's unfortunate that provocations have intense impact since soft impacts are more adaptable for humans to bear. 'A' has noted with others, that my responses, provocative or not, are only mirrored reflections of the one with whom there is exchange, and at the level to commit made to both you, they are based in love.
C: I have always felt unattractive to males, and consistently been rejected by the few I was attracted to.(Except for 'A'.) 'A' has helped me realize that they were just reacting to my rejection of them, which reinforced my feeling of unattractiveness, and also was a defense to my getting hurt. Something I probably learned at an early age.
M: Understood. It might be useful to note that you have under the veneer that is presented to the planet, immense capabilities, and ofcourse so does 'A'. With those capabilities, you can influence - on your will - the images and attitudes of others toward you. To this point this process has been inadvertent and "reactive" and when proactive, inadvertently reflexively defensive/protective. Somehow there is intense emotion directed toward you at this very moment, and that compels myself to again state, yet again: This process will change your realities of life forever should you choose to continue to engage, and with that you will never be able to return to the conditions that prevailed prior to this process.
C: I liked very much your couple of paragraphs as to 'it is worth while to explore what defenses and protections could be, their form and their significance. First, any emotional reactions within the human organic form, are only "responses" produced/generated from within. If one finds oneself saying "so and so said this or that and made me feel such and such", one is exclaiming something false.' I agree that no one can hurt you, unless you let them. That the hurt is really coming from within yourself. But, and I want to get personal here (feel free to tell me it's none of my business), if RM was to reject you, wouldn't that hurt? Are you impervious to her actions?
M: In my life, there have been many "rejections" including one from a child (she is now aged 31 years). When that event occurred (6 years ago) my reaction was to view her rejection and separation from myself as something analogous to "a death". Having had the experience of burying another daughter (died from leukemia at aged 11), it seemed like a logical analogy. If RM rejected me, and I can only speculate, my projection is that it would "just be as it must be" and let it go. My actions can impact RM's emotions, as she could impact myself. When, and if, these occur (which is rare) it is because either of us are at that moment distracted and not focused on what is happening between us. With some confidence, I would feel a loss if RM rejected me in the same sense as a death is a loss, but "hurt" doesn't seem to fit my perceptions.
Also, there are no boundaries in these exchanges: they cannot have boundaries or they would not meet my impeccability to myself, and hence to you.
C: Are you saying that emotions are dependencies?
M: If one is dependent upon emotion for his/her decisions, yes, they are dependencies. If one requires emotions, high or low, to explain their actions and tendency to moods, then yes they are dependencies. If emotions occur without understanding of their derivatives, then they are just reflexes that waste energy. If emotions are patterns with chemical/hormone changes, then they are understood, and with application, they can be processed without much impact as any physiological manifestation.
C: Does this mean one should aim to eliminate all emotions?
M: The first concept to be invoked is to eliminate ignorance of the consequences of emotions, of the derivatives of emotions, and of the causes from which the emotions are derived. Then, eliminate sequentially each cause of negative emotion in order that objectivity can prevail. If a form of emotion that is self-elation based in self-aggrandizement is found, then this "alternative reality" is probably based in a dependency to "feel good" about something, which is usually a squandering of energy. If one can feel "good" in harmony based on unconditional love, then the escapement of unwarranted self-elation based on self-aggrandizement is relegated to antiquity.
C: Are emotions shown mainly to evoke emotions in others?
M: Emotions may be viewed as manipulative tools: for self; within self; and by extension, directed at other.
C: I liked your statement that one can be transparent to the attempt at invoking emotion from others.
M: Yes, but only if one is aware of the impact of others.
C: Being transparent instead of steel does sound like a much better use of energy, with much fewer defenses. Letting things pass through without reaction, instead of expending energy to bounce things off a protective barrier, is much more efficient and much cleaner.
M: Yes, and it does something that the armor plating cannot accomplish: it facilitates learning through perception. The armor plate approach may protect, however it also shields out knowledge.
C: I want to get into a discussion about sex here, but feel it may not be appropriate.
M: It is appropriate. There can be no boundaries.
C: In the dialogs there is very little mention of things sexual. Everyone seems to be concerned w/things on other attention levels, dreams etc. My concerns, at this moment at least, are much more w/emotions, sexuality, rejection, defenses, so here goes anyway. How does one deal in an impeccable manner with sex?
M: It might be considered that sex is simply an enhancement of an organic response, that when involved by consent and in harmony, releases natural chemicals in the brain that promote good feelings. In the organic form, they are necessary so consequently sex is necessary, assuming that it is not obsessive to the exclusion of more significant explorations of self. My own concepts think of sex more or less in the category of organic food for organic beings, and at it's best, carries intimacy with it. Sex, though, is not intimacy. When another is conjoined, truly conjoined, the intimacy experienced makes even the most profound experience of sex seem like a handshake.
C: Is it necessary to be monogamous to be impeccable? I have always felt it was important to be totally honest w/those one was interested in sexually.
M: It is only a matter of impeccability. If, for myself, I performed sexually with another other than RM, it would violate my impeccability ONLY because I have made a commitment to RM to be monogamous with her both for her sense of agreement, and for health-safety. If RM decided that she wanted to experiment with others, and we developed an agreement to be "swingers", then impeccability would not be violated. If we became "addicted" to sex and obsessed with sex, then impeccability would be violated because of the addiction and obsession that placed an imbalance of energy into sex as a narcotic, since the chemical releases in the brain are narcotic. This is again analogous to the organic food concept noted above: food is organic maintenance; necessary. Very large quantities of organic food to excess, is negative because it overloads the ability of the body to deal with the excess.
C: But when I am honest, it leads to rejection, because when the other learns about 'A', that I have a permanent partner in my life, they back off.
M: If your sexual experiences are insufficient, then perhaps you could both be "swingers" so that the experiences would be balanced in your relationship - neither becomes left out. There is at least one organization that you could join. First, question within yourselves the motivation and need for sex with other partners.
C: I am intrigued with the idea of just being a luminous being of light in the 2nd attention, where presumably sexual tensions do not arise, where there are no genders.
M: It is true. Sex has, please retain in mind, the goal of survival of the species. Everything else about sex is setup within the organic human state of being to promote sex as good because absent that the species would not procreate. In the third attention, the intimacy experienced is incredible. Being personal, if we were to conjoin even while within the organic forms we hold, you would redefine the magnitude of intimacy regarding sex.
C: But in this first level, it is a thing of much concern. Maybe this shows my own immaturity. Should I try to move beyond such things?
M: Explore within yourself what is missing for you regarding sex. Perhaps it is just a matter of experiences. Perhaps it is using sex as a substitution for the true experience of intimacy. Perhaps it is derived as a desire to be accepted and to be partnered, as evidence of your worthiness, a self-esteem substitution. This could be extended, however the provocation attempt is presented to this point above.
C: Is celibacy a way to eliminate human form dependencies? How about eliminating sexual fantasies?
M: Neither. Celibacy is a distortion of the organic need and form, and also fantasies. Attempting to eliminate what is natural to the human organic system, is as wholly unnatural and these distortions tend to produce OTHER distortions.
C: On my Moroccan trip, for the first time in several years, I had many and vivid sexual fantasies, often during the day while driving around. Others were reading or sleeping, I would fantasize. I used to do this much more, but it had backed way off for the last couple of years or so. 'A' and I have worked through a lot of hassles and tensions in the last few years, getting rid of the company, deciding to go back on the road, he has sorted out lots of his own early sexual traumas. I have always liked to have sex much more than 'A' has, so I have almost always been the initiator between the 2 of us.
M: Understand. RM and self tend to go through these balances about who is the initiator, and it does shift in our relationship.
C: He has often put me off, for various reasons. I had felt that my lack of sexuality was perhaps due to my decrease in hormones, as I go through menopause. But this trip showed that was not the case. I am much more awake and aware sexually than I have been in a while. Maybe this is a dropping of some protections?
M: Yes, it is that, certainly. Explore the "swinger" idea between the both of you and learn if that would alleviate the pressure through experience. If you wish, look over the site
www.lifestyles.org <http://www.lifestyles.org/.
C: Whew, enough for now. Thanks as always for your time.
M: Love! You are welcome.
----------
At 05:08 PM 11/11/2000 +0000, you wrote:
C: Dear Michael,
While in Morocco I had some interesting dreams I wanted to tell you about.
1) 2 people on the trip were a couple, Naomi and Bill. Naomi is the much more aggressive of the 2, while Bill seems fearful and worries unnecessarily about many things that aren't in his control. My dream was about Naomi, she and I were planning to murder another woman. Naomi had sort of coerced me into participating in the murder. I was living w/the potential victim, and I waited until she went to sleep, then turned on the gas and snuck out of the house. Naomi was going to come over to the house and start the fire, which would kill the sleeping woman. Why were we doing this? Only for money, I believe, and not even a whole lot of that. I woke up in my hotel room, shaken and scared that I would be found out, and worried it was too late to stop Naomi from setting the fire. When I realized I was 'safe' in Morocco, and had not killed anyone, I felt tremendous relief.
The next morning, I told Naomi, and the whole small group in the car while traveling, about the dream. They were amazed at the vividness of my memory. When someone asked why we had wanted to kill the woman, Naomi replied 'for the money of course'. The rest of the day, when we were outside birding, there were several times when I felt Naomi moving into my way, blocking my sun. It was cool, so the sun felt good. We would all be standing around looking through our binos at some bird, and all of a sudden I would feel cooler. I would look and Naomi would be between me and the sun, so I was in her shadow. I would move a few feet to the side, out of her shadow, and sometimes she moved again to block me into the shade. She never even looked at me while doing this. It seemed bizarre. When I told this to 'A', he immediately said she was from the dark side. He has met her once, earlier this summer in PA, and didn't like her then. Do such things happen? And what would be her purpose? Can she take energy from me?
M: Yes, these things do happen, and 'A' is/was correct. First, she led you as evidenced by the dream to so something not impeccable. Second, the thing that was not impeccable had two facets to the person under attack by the actions of the two of you: a) her life's energy was taken under the force of the energy of fire with it's pain inflicted; b) the results of her efforts, money, were taken from her through the fire and the pain. Money, in this context, represents a stored-value of a person's efforts in life. The use specifically of fire, takes her life THROUGH intense pain in a slower death, representing a method of punishment through the pain FOR having achieved "storage of wealth" through money. This would indicate that Naomi is probably in her concept politically "liberal" to the point of being a near-socialist. So, the dream instructs the nature of the person, and your vulnerability to follow a non-impeccable path which is something to explore. Naomi regularly also "usurped" energy (of the sun) that was available to you, in a manner like within the dream, since the sun IS a life-force to organic forms. Both the dream and the fact demonstrates that this person, in Naomi, must be a parasite who cannot exist by her own means and steals the energy from others.
C: 2) I was outside w/others by a stream, and saw a mermaid or nymph swimming underwater. She had long reddish blond hair and was beautiful and slender, very sylph like. I reached out to her, put my hand underwater to try and touch her. Or at least put my hand in the water so she could come up to me if she chose. She did swim to me, and allowed me to stroke her arm and hand. Her skin was very smooth and cool, felt wonderful. Nothing was said, and then I woke up.
M: This tended to alert you to the fact that softer and permissive process invoke far better approaches, and you were offered love as you extended yourself toward it.
C: This reminded me of going to the Monterrey Bay Aquarium and seeing the rays in the touching pool. Its about 30' wide, so the rays can stay away from the visitors.
M: Yes, I know the Aquarium.
C: You can put your hand in the water and sometimes if they want the rays will swim to your hand and rub on it, like a cat. They did that to me when I was there, and they felt like cool velvet, very neat.
M: Understand.
C: A question about the dialogues; you mention to X a sentient consciousness who sometimes chooses to appear as a blond woman. 'A' related to you the dream I had in Veracruz where he was a 11 year boy, and we had hired a healer/therapist/magic person to help him, who was a blond woman, w/short hair I believe. You said something about that this was correct. Is this the same entity you are referring to in the dialogues? Can you give me some more information about who this is? Is this an ally?
M: Yes. Her name was Carol. She works with several others. They interface to the consortium. Their roles tend to act as provocative testers.
Love
----------
M: Greetings.
At 05:26 PM 11/11/2000 +0000, you wrote:
C: Forgot to tell you, 'A' & I are planning to spend a month or so in Spain this April, after I bird Israel in March. You talk about your mother in the dialogues, and mentioned Granada and Seville. Do you have any suggestions about interesting places to go? We want to see both those cities.
M: In terms of the region, suggest: The Alhambra (a must); The Cathedral of Seville (Christopher Columbus is interred there, and there's a history about that specifically that is interesting); The Archives (located near the Cathedral) of the New World Expeditions. When one drives between Seville and Granada, note the town/village signs along the road: it is like a trip through Southern California. The region looks almost identical to the landscape through Southern California particularly up through the Santa Ynez Valley. The Spaniards were probably confused: they thought there were home, it is so closely matched in landscape. Southern California receives (today) it's water from the snow pack of the California Sierra Nevada Mountains. Granada the The Alhambra complex receives it's water from the snow pack of the original Sierra Nevada Mountains de Espana, and if you are able, there are very interesting perceptions along that drive and as one approaches the Sierra Nevadas. 'A' - The Gypsies that hang around The Alhambra will really get in your face; it will be a test for you not to anger. It you can, the Archives in Seville are, ahem, interesting because in one building are the records of all the New World Expeditions. If you take a tour with a historically inclined agency, there will be reports of my ancestor, Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca.
C: We're going to head up to Austin to spend Thanksgiving w/some friends, then shortly thereafter back to Mexico for the winter. Maybe Oaxaca, maybe Palenque, maybe Merida and the Yucatan, maybe all of the above, even Belize. E-mail will be much more of a hassle from down there, but it's doable, just not as frequent.
Taa taa for now,
M: Taa!
----------
At 07:15 PM 11/11/2000 +0000, you wrote:
C: Dear Michael,
More discussions w/'A' have led to some interesting comments I wanted to share w/you. I made the statement to him that I wanted to change my behavior that was engendering rejection, but wasn't sure how to change it.. He promptly jumped on me and said that was not the goal, to change behavior.
M: Hummmm. Sounds dynamic.
C: After much debate, I agreed that to change the behavior I need to go through recapitulation to find out what was the seed event that caused me to erect the defenses against getting hurt.
M: Yes. It's the age-old discussion regarding approaching causes and attacking symptoms. Understanding yourself is to understand causes, then the reflexes that causes have as their derivatives.
C: Doing the recapitulation will cause me to retrieve the power that was lost in the seed event.
M: Yes, and more than that. The seed events (said in the plural because one event triggered reflexes in the near-time that exacerbated the impact) cascaded into a "decision/reflex tree" of protections, so the initiating events triggered other effects with a cascading sequence of energy loss. When you get through these matters, you will be surprised how much energy is regained.
C: This should help the defenses to go away, hopefully. The goal is to remove the defense, not just change the behavior. The behavior is merely a symptom. Do you agree?
M: Yes. Wholly.
C: Before your last e-mail before Morocco, I wasn't even aware how limiting these defenses were, or how much energy I was putting into them.
M: Understood. That recognition does tend to emphasize how long these have been integrated into your being as a process that has long not been questioned, at least with any efficacy.
C: The 2 of us seem to be able to spend endless hours discussing this stuff. It seems infinitely valuable to have a fellow plebe, or candidate as you told him earlier, to thrash things out with. It would be much harder to do this by oneself. In Morocco, at times I wanted to blab to someone about these thoughts, and of course no one was interested. They were just there to see birds. I could hardly wait to get back here.
M: It is obviously fortunate that you both have a seeker to work with.
C: Watching each of us go through the Michael process, it's interesting to see the reaction of the other vs to feel it oneself.
M: Oh no!: A term; a label. Sigh.
C: It is much more painful or immediate to be the one receiving the e-mail, or having it directed to oneself, than being the observer.
M: Fascinating.
C: When 'A' started talking w/you, your returned e-mails seemed insightful and accurate, but not as upsetting to me as they seemed to be to 'A'.
M: Although what you have said is fully understood, all that is being described are concepts and my function is not unlike that of a mirror.
C: Now the shoe is on the other foot, and your e-mails to myself seem much more pointed and go unerringly to the heart of the matter.
M: Both of you have very different processes, so there is a variance in my approach to each of you.
C: 'A' meanwhile watches and reads them and feels they are equally insightful and accurate, surprisingly so, but not as penetrating as I find them. You make a marvelous mirror, always honest, and even more important, objective and unemotional, but also always gentle. Thanks again, deeply and heartfeltly.
M: Your kind words are appreciated.
Your love is returned with embrace.
----------
At 06:00 PM 11/12/2000 +0000, you wrote:
C: Dear Michael,
Last night I had 2 more dreams which I want to share w/you. The first seemed to be of a previous existence, an historical setting. I was a young spanish woman, of the upper class, talking w/my maid in my room, packing for a journey. I was beautiful, w/long, black hair and dark flashing eyes, dark skin.
M: Be prepared. The visit to the region of The Alhambra will impact you, as will perceptions penetrate you in Seville particularly near the Cathedral.
C: My husband, whom I had loved deeply, was dead or lost to me, and I was being given to another, whether by right of war or by my father's choice wasn't clear to me. However, I had no choice but to do what I was commanded. I wasn't happy about this, but accepted it as women's lot. My maid was helping me to pack to leave, not to return to this room. But I was secretly happy, because I was very recently pregnant, no one else knew, and the child was from my departed husband, who was also young and beautiful. We had not had any other children, and people had worried that I was barren. But I knew that now I would have his child. Even though others would probably think it was sired by my new husband, I would always know. I told my maid, and she was also delighted for me. She cared for me, and my departed husband, and was sorry to see our home torn apart and me sold to another, but that was life.
I have had 2 other dreams in the past that I felt were previous life experiences. One was set in the early part of this country's life, when there were indians and settlers. I was a pioneer woman, maybe 30 years old, w/2 children about 6and 8. I was meeting 'A' in secret, in the woods. He was an indian, and the father of my oldest child. We had been and were still very much in love, but had been separated. I had probably been captured by the indians as a young child, raised by them and mated to 'A' as a young woman. Then 'rescued' by the white settlers while pregnant, and a good man of the town had taken me as his wife. My 2nd child was by him. But I still loved 'A', and we met very occasionally in secret. We could not be lovers, just touch briefly, and he could see his son. I had this dream fairly early in my relationship w/'A', and it was very vivid.
M: Certainly it can be observed that in both situations there is pregnancy, and indirect and at least partially unrequited elements to both situations.
C: The other previous life dream was later, but it was set at a much earlier time in history. In that one I was a young male nomad, of a clan that lived on the steppes and traveled w/ponies, sheep, etc. I was asiatic, perhaps a hun type. I was off for the day on my pony, exploring like a young boy will, of 10 or so. I ran into a huge army advancing across the grasses, that would destroy all in its path. I raced back to my small group, to warn them so they could pack up and escape.
M: The army is called society. What you are trying in vain to protect is yourself and nature. Your status is called frustration over the displaced energy the conflict causes.
C: But they did not believe me, I was just a child. I remember vividly riding my pony bareback up to the camp in the dust, leaping off and shouting the warning, only to be ignored. I was in terror, trying to get someone to believe me, but to no avail. That night I ran off and hid in the woods, and sure enough, the army attacked my camp and killed everyone. I remember the smell of burning, the sounds and screams, while I huddled in fear. The next morning all was destroyed.
M: Rather much what is represented is the isolation of yourself, the warrior of the individual, not unlike how you really have been living and viewing the world. Beyond these human form issues the cosmos, the third attention, beckons you in a manner that will expand you and everything that you are, into infinity. This is very emotional for you because you already know, but have not admitted, that this is true. You feel it approaching and it is beginning to envelope you. There will be a dramatic recognition that is welling up within yourself, and it is starting - now. It is suggested that it might be wise to sit or lie down and just feel.
C: Do these sorts of dreams have any basis? I have always felt the 2 previous ones were real life experiences, and the one last night where I was the spanish woman seemed the same level. You said in the dialogues that there isn't any reincarnation, memories are passed down through the dna. But you agreed, in one of my earlier e-mails, that 'A' and I had known each other in many iterations before. Reincarnation has made a lot of sense to me, that way a being gets to experience both sexes and many different types of lives, at many levels. Otherwise it seems a huge crap shoot, if one is born into a situation where one can learn and explore vs being born in Morocco as a Muslim woman, w/very few choices.
M: 'C', you are to this point, the highest state of evolution that your particular combination of DNA progression has ever experienced or been manifested toward. The micro-code of every nuance of what you are upon your conception was initiated by that recent-event DNA, however the coding of that DNA has been operative for millennia to bring you, and it, to this level. Consider that reincarnation would be a wholly inefficient process since it would be circular, but past-memories stored as DNA coding would be progressive and sequential in a simple evolutionary format. Consider that you are, in your deepest and most free perception, coming into contact with your own construction of what caused you to be.
C: The 2nd dream from last night seemed to be more of a test. I was in a room w/4 or 5 males, but I was almost naked, wearing only a short tee shirt. They held me, bent me over and spread my legs, ran their hands over my legs and rump, teasing me about being a little fat and saggy. It was totally not sexual, nor mean, and there was no fear. I just laughed at them, and said they weren't as tight and trim as they used to be either. I couldn't get away from them, but I didn't try or struggle, just waited until they let me go and then got up. One of them smacked me on the rump, like one would a horse, and seemed to be pleased w/my actions. I am a little embarrassed about the following, but it is important in the interpretation of this dream. My sexual fantasies often include several men holding me, bent over and legs spread, and taking turns pleasuring me.
M: Ah, yes, the pleasure of receiving without having to take responsibility. Pleasure being "done to you" absent the decision of having to will it. The significance of having pleasure overwhelmed "through" your protections, without your volition to HAVE pleasure, might be a subject of contemplation for you.
C: I thought it was very interesting that if such a thing as the dream was to happen in the first level, it would almost have to be sexual, or scary if it was a group of unknown guys attacking me. But in the dream, there was nothing sexual about it all. The men seemed affectionate, but they were trying to hit my hot buttons, and were pleased when I didn't react that way.
M: On the next approach, rather than attempt to move your body or deflect them away, simply gather your will and will yourself to expand your body and then as your luminous form enhances, there will be a metamorphosis. When that occurs, will them to take the same actions and you will see who they are and what they are, and the communication will take a new form. You are so very close to discovery. Do not use force, do not use physicality, only will and in love of yourself and the cosmos.
C: I appreciated your comments on my sexual questions yesterday, and you were also very open about you and RM. I am taking you at your word that there are no boundaries.
M: Consider that it cannot be otherwise, and even that I could not be myself in any other representation. Actually, your text caused some reflection in myself relative to history, though it was a long time ago, and within that history you would unquestionably find parallels to your own processes.
C: You repeat the statement that if I continue on this path, things will change forever and I can never go back. I can't imagine wanting to go back, or being afraid to evolve and go forward. This is fascinating. How could one go back, once getting a glimpse of the possibilities of going forward?
M: You have issued the only possible statement of a warrior.
Peace, and embrace,
Michael
----------
<Previous
| Next>