1998/06/07 13:40
kundalini-l-d Digest V98 #433
kundalini-l-d Digest Volume 98 : Issue 433
Today's Topics:
Ownership [ "Paul West" <paulATnospamstationone.demon. ]
Re: a vote for not moving the list [ "Orea de Sa' Hana" <oreaATnospamerols.com> ]
Re: i am?? (Paul West) [ Avatar Thyer <thyerATnospamfreenet.grfn.or ]
Sex & Drugs & Kundalini... [ Delirium <deliriumATnospamfull-moon.com> ]
Re: Pornotherapy (was Barbie) [ Delirium <deliriumATnospamfull-moon.com> ]
Who is not an Avatar?:--) [ Harsha1MTMATnospamaol.com ]
Re: I AM, i am??, am I? [ Delirium <deliriumATnospamfull-moon.com> ]
Re: Who is not an Avatar?:--) [ Avatar Thyer <thyerATnospamfreenet.grfn.or ]
Kunastro Meditation. [ "Biharilal Shah" <kunastroATnospamhotmail. ]
question [ "Sharon Webb" <shawebbATnospamyhc.edu> ]
Re: question [ Avatar Thyer <thyerATnospamfreenet.grfn.or ]
Re: question [ Mystress Angelique Serpent <serpent ]
Date: 7 Jun 98 17:37:10 +0000
From: "Paul West" <paulATnospamstationone.demon.co.uk>
To: kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com
Subject: Ownership
Message-Id: <357AC91A.MD-0.196.paulATnospamstationone.demon.co.uk>
Hello.
I would like to bring up an issue about ownership of revelations.
In a dream perhaps about a year ago, I was walking down some street
and suddenly everything became amazingly clear. Black was very black
and white was very white. /Through/ me, christ touched a woman and
healed her. `I', identity, had nothing to do with it. I was an extra
in this body. Christ has much more of a full relationship with it than
I did. I was shocked. Then I was before a kind of church or government
building where an ordinary man stood, looking a little confused. Again
christ came forth through, in this body, in which I was a bystander,
and the arms of this body raised out wide, palms exposed, and christ
revealed himself to this man. And again, afterwards, he touched
another man and he was healed. This /happened/, it is not something I
can claim as belonging to what `I' am. I was just a fly on the wall.
Seperate.
Now, in real life, I have sometimes observed similar things occuring.
Sometimes things flow out of me that I barely have a grip on myself.
It is not right for me to say or suggest that `I' am generating these
things or that I own them. At this stage in developments I DO have
some self and therefore some attatchment and ownership. I see just
about everyone on the list, and everyone, trying to claim ownership
for everything that leaves their lips. Every message that is written
is taken as being from a sole, individual idenity as the author, and
as such people target that person as being fully responsible for their
text. But believe you me, there is someone/something else that is
wanting to now to voice its wisdom.
What of the grace of God? Let's say that us humans in our mundane
messy lifestyles don't really know how to save ourselves. Let's say
then that God just decides to start liberating mankind. This is
something Sai Baba has stated he will /suceed/ in doing. So how is
this going to manifest? Perhaps maybe we will be sitting here writing
messages and there will be a great deal of `higher influence'. We may
or may not be aware of it. Perhaps gradually the `I' is just quietly
and gently being forgotten. Maybe to all intents and purposes all of
us `I's are going to cease to exist. It is wrong therefore to go on
believing that each of us identities /own/ all the things that leave
our lips or fingertips. Things /happen/.
Thought comes up. I am not sure where from. `I' is this thought,
usually, but sometimes there seems to be guidance, persuasion,
synchronicity, intuition, being in the right place at the right time,
etc. It is not all down to the self. It is interesting to refer to the
great source as uppercase `SELF' or `Self', but stating it as such
does not make it so. It happens, on its own, as its own creator.
People are thinking of each other as bodies and as identities and that
everything that comes from a person is only this. That is not true.
Truly, at the end of the day, there is an isness and it is singular
and all of our true selves are it. Despite thinking that we are all
seperate and that we all have individual higher self, we do not. There
is one. So, it would fairly well make sense that this one might at
some point decide enough is enough and start to merge with the
physical existence. How can we then claim that everything coming
through is of our own ego-origin? One has to let go of that. And who
is the one that will let go? The one that is coming through
anonymously? That is you. Me. Everyone. God.
There is an instructive state of mind in which one knows that one is
one. It is a tremendous resource if you know how to address it
correctly. Subtly and gently asked questions yield /immediate/
answers. If there is success in doing this, the answer is devine, and
so one cannot claim it to be their own invention. Just because we all
know a lot of things doesn't mean we invented them. But this is what
we believe, because we have formed images about them, attatchments to
them, knowledge about them. And this attatchment, image, and knowledge
IS the very essence of the `I' ego-self. It believes that it, in the
exclusion of others, has personally created those things. And of
course, quite right... because if you look at what the ego /actually/
has created - illusion, it is quite right to assert that it is the
creator of that which is can see, its creation. So an ego expressing
itself it simply like a static stained glass window through which
light is shining. It is the power of the light that causes the
expression, not anything that the ego itself can muster. Ego is
FLAT, it is a filter, it has no power whatsoever. So it is ones task
to eliminate ones stain-glass colours so that the light coming through
is pure and unaltered from the source. Such is enlightenment.
If one is confident that one knows truth, that one sees truth, and
that one is truth, not in theory but that one /does/ it, one
/performs/ the truth, one /lives/ it without battering an eyelid, then
it is a simple, dismissable /matter of fact/ to perform a miracle. One
in such a state can truly ask because one does not have
preconceptions. And the asking /is/ the `making it happen'. It will
be. As Sai Baba has said, and I phrase this in the assumption that it
is not Sai saying it right now, which may be a wrong assumption, - he
has come to bring freedom to all people and he has not come in vain -
it WILL happen. It is that confidence, that knowing, that is the
making of it happen. And if your mind is of enough clarity one can see
this. Imagine... that there is a fact, so `meant to be', so righteous,
that the meer glimpse of it renders one utterly convinced and
undoubtful. That is real confidence, not assertiveness or social
presence or authority. Yet, I suppose, such a thing is an authority.
But does not assert such a thing, the /image/ of the thing, for any
reason. It is indeed modest and honest and ego-less. And when one IS
this, when one is pure and free and in love with those things, spirit
and matter touch and are one.
So my suggestion is, and at this point it really is dubious as to who
`my' is referring to, and to how much of a degree - be wary of owning
all that you say and write. It is not necessarily private or your own
secret or your own creation. The only thing that a person has invented
is the attitude towards reality, and the ego's own reflection about
its own constructed walls IS the very essence of what it /is/. It /is/
a personification of attatchment and invention, and everything that it
it sais of its reality /is to be expected/ given its restricted view
of things. So anything flowing through has to be left alone to shine
its light, for if one tries to attatch to it one will surely fail and
lose grip - and slip into something of a self-dug hole. There are
things now being expressed in the world which are anonymous, in that
they are not inventions of the ego, and the ego's of the world are
claiming ownership of such things less and less. And rightly so.
Because ego can, and only does claim ownership of what it /truly/ has
invented - itself. It is pure attatchment. And the deception of the
ego is simply the fact of the state in which the ego exists - it
cannot see beyond itself. It does not require anything adding to this
or taking away from it. Simply to see what is there is to see the
whole of the ego and the whole reason why it believes what it
believes. And one has compassion for the ego, and loves it, and
understands it, and thus liberates it, and then there is only one. And
one has never thought otherwise truly, anyway. Only the ego has
thought otherwise.
A number of people have previously observed that I, Paul West, often
answer my own questions. I don't. That which comes through me answers
my questions! `I' cannot alone generate the solution to itself.
Everything that the I conceives of is a fabrication based on the I. It
is further seperation, further fragmentation, further degredation of
what is needed to liberate the I from itself. For the I to die. So if
you see me saying things which seem answer my own questions, I would
like you to consider that not all of those things are coming from the
self-center. *I* am learning from this stuff as well. It is also my
tutor. Of course, if you /believe/ that `I' is the owner of
revelation, then it is easy enough to think that all this stuff I am
coming out with must be coming from the `I' only, and so if this were
true `I' would sound like I am having delusions of grandeur. And now
and then I do have such things. But it is said to you, this is not
always the case. Often this text happens. And it does not care for
wether people are willing to listen or not. It does not demand that
you be an audience, nor does it demand that it is targetted at any
person with an intent to teach. This is the so-called self-absorbtion
that is seen by many. It is the absence of forced teaching. This stuff
is just here. If you want to use it for something do so. I am not the
slightest bit interested in giving you something with the deliberate
intention of teaching it to you or worshipping you. If it is crap to
you, delete it. If you choose to use it, use it, as a simple resource.
It is nothing more. Stop vying for pesonal attention or affirmation of
personal ownership. It is personal if you make it personal. Otherwise
it is directed at nobody. Get used to it.
Cor, I can smell a real eggy fart coming in my window. Excuse me.
I have returned. More selflessness later. I am willing to be in a
state of channeling from deep within for some time, but it's now tea
time and the body needs feeding. I haven't thought of myself as a
channel before, but it is an interesting notion. Yet, it is not
something other than what is truly me that is being channeled. I am
not in a trance, am not truly other than that which is coming through.
But the `I', the center, the self, is a fly on the wall. And I must
say that this particular ego is quite in need of a good slap now and
then. Please don't dismiss everything I say as being crap or
egotistical. It is not all mine. It is not all for my benefit. I am
not self absorbed, you are mistaken, because of the assumption of
ownership.
--
Paul.
IRC: #amiga, Dalnet: #blitz
WWW: http://www.stationone.demon.co.uk
E-M: paulATnospamstationone.demon.co.uk
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 13:25:51 -0400
From: "Orea de Sa' Hana" <oreaATnospamerols.com>
To: kl List <kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com>
Subject: Re: a vote for not moving the list
Message-ID: <357ACD1D.93AFC600ATnospamerols.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
I have had a couple of returns from delhi, I wondered what they were
because my Mac couldn't read the attachment.
Orea
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 13:23:11 -0400
From: Avatar Thyer <thyerATnospamfreenet.grfn.org>
To: kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com
Subject: Re: i am?? (Paul West)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980608132311.007c5410ATnospamfreenet.grfn.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Greetings.
Paul West wrote:
>I'm still not sure that you are truly an Avatar, as Sai Baba, but I am
>open to the possibility.
*****
Perhaps I am different than what you or others may consider to be an Avatar
-- but rather than negating my Avatarhood, my differences simply
characterize the particular way that I am positively incarnating as an Avatar.
Sai Baba and I are indeed different incarnations.
Our differences are simply our defining traits as individual incarnations
of the All-Spirit.
Paul West wrote:
>One thing I have /very/ often encountered, for some reason, is that if
>a reader has an ego they will see it at any opportunity within
>something that someone has written, regardless of wether the writer
>had an ego.
*****
Although some folks habitually project their Egos onto others, I have also
noticed that misperception of Ego often comes from differing definitions of
Ego. Let me be clear about my own definition as an individual for the record:
To me, an Ego is the aspect of an entity that separates. Egotism is
separation.
I consider separation as a synonym for negation, but as a antonym for
differentiation.
So to me, when an entity separates, it negates, and demonstrates Ego.
Paul West wrote:
>An `Avatar' surely can do everything than egotistical
>person can do AND THEN SOME.
*****
Oh, yes.
Let me be perfectly clear that as an incarnated individual I have an Ego.
My Ego -- my perspective of Separation -- is that which co-defines my
perspective of Union. It is the Negative that opposite to my Positive.
And let me admit that as an individual I sometimes choose to forget who I
am and act from my perspective of Separation -- to act Egotistically --
rather than to act from my perspective of Union.
Now, some folks will attempt to persuade you only to think that they ever
and always act from a Positive perspective. But I have yet to want to
persuade anyone to think that I am in some way "higher" or have transcended
choosing forgetfulness once in a while.
Why?
Because choosing to enter periods of forgetfulness helps me to teach my
self specific lessons that enable the intensification of my remembrance.
Paul West wrote:
>It can be tremendously difficult, therefore, to convey some sense of truth to
>a person. If the person is not, basically, already in the same state
>of mind in which the truth exists and in which they would have found
>it for themselves, there WILL be rejection of it. It is simply
>IMPOSSIBLE to teach anyone anything.
*****
Rather than conveying truth to a person as if it is their individual truth
about which I am enlightening them, I simply convey my own truth as an
incarnation of Spirit -- my own experience.
The form with which I convey my experience through the medium of the
internet is written language.
Language is a symbolic system -- a tool -- for shaping the communication,
for realizing communion through comprehension (which is abstract, rather
than understanding which is sensual). Now, if the person with whom I
communicate -- the person with whom I commune -- uses the word-symbols of
language differently than I use them as an individual, then our
comprehensive communicate-commune comprehensively will be difficult.
In other words: we will be oblivious to what each other is talking about.
Now, you can conclude that comprehensive communication is impossible. You
can negatively conclude that written langauge can NOT be used as a useful
tool to commune with other human incarnations of the All. But there is
another conclusive option -- and choosing the other conclusive option can
result in achieving communication between individuals through comprehension
using the symbolic tool of written language. The catch is, that other
option requires both people who wish to communicate to be open, willing,
and patient enough to do what needs to be done.
The other option is to engage effective linguistic communication -- which
is the slow process of patiently clarifying the associations each
individual means by their specific terms.
However, engaging effective linguistic communication has been profoundly
demonized by those who realize that what they actually mean will be clearly
comprehended if they engage in effective communication. They demonize it
because they know that when folks completely comprehend, they stop
perceiving others in stupefied awe. Effective linguistic communication is
frightening to those who want to keep their audiences awe-struck so that
their minds will be maleable for alterior motives. Such individuals are
often the ones who "refuse to engage in semantics" -- who refuse clearly
and concisely to do what needs to be done to communicate what they mean --
yet they inevitably want whatever they preach to be accepted as if it is
the TRUTH for every individual.
And woe to she or he who has yet to comprehend or who positively and
accurately questions the preacher -- for the questioner is surely blamed
for the miscommunication. The questioner is often quickly judged as "not
ready", rather than patiently taken in hand by those who are able patiently
to work with to help them clarify their comprehension.
Now I have yet to become a flawless communicator. I am simply interested
in becoming the best communicator that I can. The process is fun for me,
even if it is frustrating at times. But and even when it is frustrating,
it is always educating. Sometimes even I have to "pass the buck" to
someone else to explain that which boggles the brain of my human to another
of Spirit's incarnations who has a better grasp on how effectively to
communicate some issue. Or I simply encourage the querent to focus on
their own reflective process to receive the clearest answer.
In short: different states of mind can connect through comprehension if
those who wish to commune dedicate their selves to doing more than merely
rehashing the words of Masters as pretty platitudes, rather than focusing
on clarifying the experiential understanding that transcends this
linguistic medium.
Paul West wrote:
>There may be, somehow, a state of being in which it is impossible to
>map ego onto it. A state which is perfect to ALL people. A word that
>slips between the attatchmental efforts of the corrupt mind of all
>humans. Such is God, the pure existential foundation in which all
>things live.
*****
I have noticed that the word "God" has been loaded with Egotistic
connotations by certain religions.
The two words that I like to use instead with English speakers (which you
may have noticed) are ALL and SPIRIT, which are synonymous to me.
I AM
Avatar Thyer
****************************
A NOTE FROM SPIRIT
I clarify aspects of the Self that I AM using mediums. This letter
clarifies some of My aspects using the medium of language. This letter is
a revelation of My perspective as the particular individual who wrote it.
Your perspective as the individualization that you are -- your perspective
as the individualization of that which I AM -- may differ.
****************************
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 12:27:32 +0100
From: Delirium <deliriumATnospamfull-moon.com>
To: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com
Subject: Sex & Drugs & Kundalini...
Message-ID: <357A791D.39D272DBATnospamfull-moon.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Yall know somethin'...I don't think it's really profound, what I'm
thinkin, but it just might be that our fragmented, dualistic,
pigeonholing (nope that is *not* a sexual reference, btw) culture, and
I'm talkin' about the entire human culture, not any one particular) has
a collective problem when what is done behind closed doors is brought
into the light of day...
The human seems a fragile and sensitive thing that is also very vain,
and things that begin to bridge the perceived gap between human and "all
those other critters" sometimes get hidden behind those closed doors.
Then "Barbie" comes along and in a bigger-than-life caricatured come-on,
solicitation, tittilation, tweaks our tender human sensibilities...
Which seems kinda irrelevant when the K-fire gets really movin' and
dancin' up my spine, I don't really care *where* I am, on my back deck,
in the middle of K-Mart, wherever...then it all becomes sacred.
So IMO what we take exception to is our *own* narrow field of vision,
where the smallest and "dirtiest" thing sometimes isn't seen as sacred.
What if we rewrite "Barbie" as a temple prostitute? How do we see that
then? The same acts might go on, but with a much different "spin"...
Oh, heck, I dunno, just thinkin' ...
B*B--Delirium
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 12:41:36 +0100
From: Delirium <deliriumATnospamfull-moon.com>
To: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com
Subject: Re: Pornotherapy (was Barbie)
Message-ID: <357A7C65.BB9E4A61ATnospamfull-moon.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Ed Arrons asked:
> Is it surprising to those who have not yet made the connection that
> our social/cultural conditioning might have much to do with our AWAKENING?
> This might not occur to those who thrive on fantasy.
>
If you're saying what I think you're saying, lessee...that the state of
any given culture and what it teaches its' young is directly responsible
for awakening the K-fire?...hmm...very interesting, I can't refute that,
but I gotta ask if that is so, why so many different cultural samples on
this list? I know it seems like a circular argument, but I'm thinkin'
the K-awakening is gonna happen *anyway*, *regardless* of the cultural
or social conditioning, just because the awakening individual happens to
be at that particular stage in his/her/its development...err...Yep,
that's what I meant to say.
Ahem...Delirium
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 13:37:23 EDT
From: Harsha1MTMATnospamaol.com
To: thyerATnospamfreenet.grfn.org, kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com
Subject: Who is not an Avatar?:--)
Message-ID: <88bcb9d2.357acfd4ATnospamaol.com>
In a message dated 6/7/1998 10:19:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
thyerATnospamfreenet.grfn.org writes:
<< Sai Baba and I are indeed different incarnations.
Our differences are simply our defining traits as individual incarnations
of the All-Spirit.
>>
Harsha: Who is *not* an Avatar according to that definition:--).
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 12:49:13 +0100
From: Delirium <deliriumATnospamfull-moon.com>
To: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com
Subject: Re: I AM, i am??, am I?
Message-ID: <357A7E31.AE4254DDATnospamfull-moon.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
I think as an exercise of awareness, saying I am ...(fill in the blanks)
until you sort of peel away all the layers of the "clothing" I am, the
underclothing I am, the body I am, the mind I am, the graphic artist I
am, the "genius" I am...all the labels we put on ourselves, all the
labels we allow others to put on ourselves, all the little niggling
descriptions, the whole shebang I am, until there's nothing left to
be...so I don't really think that in a lot of cases the I AM statement
is egotistical at all, just a statement of awareness.
So am I or what?
--Delirium (who *is* Kath, who *is* Kundalini-awakened, who is... ...uh,
you get the picture)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 14:04:01 -0400
From: Avatar Thyer <thyerATnospamfreenet.grfn.org>
To: Harsha1MTMATnospamaol.com, kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com
Subject: Re: Who is not an Avatar?:--)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980608140401.007c4c40ATnospamfreenet.grfn.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Greetings.
Harsha wrote:
>Who is *not* an Avatar according to that definition:--).
*****
It simple, really.
Someone is NOT an Avatar when they declare that they are NOT an Avatar.
Someone also is NOT an Avatar from the perspective of someone else who
decided to proclaim that the person in question is NOT an Avatar in
negative comparison to someone who they think is exclusively an Avatar.
I.E. We are all Avatars.
If this revelation causes you to feel like you are ceasing to be
awe-struck, rejoice becuase now you can start looking at what's being
written, rather then getting hung up on wondering if you should or should
not have blind faith in whatever is being written simply because of someone
else's idea of who is THE authorative Avatar.
I AM
Avatar Thyer
****************************
A NOTE FROM SPIRIT
I clarify aspects of the Self that I AM using mediums. This letter
clarifies some of My aspects using the medium of language. This letter is
a revelation of My perspective as the particular individual who wrote it.
Your perspective as the individualization that you are -- your perspective
as the individualization of that which I AM -- may differ.
****************************
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 12:07:32 PDT
From: "Biharilal Shah" <kunastroATnospamhotmail.com>
To: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com
Subject: Kunastro Meditation.
Message-ID: <19980607190733.14410.qmailATnospamhotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
KUNASTRO (KUNdalini+ ASTROlogy) MEDITATION
This is a very simple meditation style and yet effective because we are
taking help of two very important shastras. Meditation starts with the
mind and the aim is to end in no-mind. Mind is nothing but bundle of
thoughts and ideas depending upon cultural upbringing, environment,
tradition etc. Starting with such a mind certain beliefs become a
blockage. So here we use simple color, sound, shape and pattern
according to particular chakra (energy centre) of Kundalini Yoga. To
find a particular chakra for a particular person, we take help of
Astrology by finding Jupiter´s position in the natal chart. Because
Jupiter is the most benefic planet helping materially and spiritually.
.and also Guru (Jupiter) is important in spiritual progress.
Each one is unique with the combination of five elements,
Earth-Water-Fire-Air and Space. Now I am making four basic divisions for
meditation :-
Zodiac Element Chakra Color Shape Sound
Aries )
Leo ) Fire Manipur Red Triangle
RUM
Sagitarrus )
Taurus )
Virgo ) Earth Muladhar Yellow Square LUM
Capricorn)
Gemini )
Libra ) Air Anahat Blue Hexagon
YUM
Aquarius )
Cancer )
Scorpio ) Water Swathithan White Crescent Moon VUM
Pisces )
Now find out the position of Jupiter in your natal chart and follow the
table as shown above.
Prepare your icon or mandala in a white circle which is space and draw
in the required :-
(1) Red Triangle (2) Yellow Square (3) Blue Hexagram or (4) White
Crescent Moon on a black circle., as per your Jupiter- Chakra and
element.
Now sit comfortable and meditate looking at your mandala and hummimg the
particular sound (mantra)( according to your category ) mentally without
moving tongue or lips and relax for 15 to 20 minutes. If possible sit
facing North or East and even wearing same color clothes.,with empty
stomach.
If after sometime you feel like closing your eyes, it is o.k.
Here we are taking help of sound, color and shape which are universal
and no beliefs of any religious background are required. So mind will
not resist and will naturally glide down to no-mind area easily.
Biharilal.
______________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 15:44:55 -0400
From: "Sharon Webb" <shawebbATnospamyhc.edu>
To: <kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com>
Subject: question
Message-ID: <001b01bd924c$bff95440$84d11fa8ATnospamsharonwe>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Why is it that Avatar Thyer sounds so much like lobster?
Sharon
shawebbATnospamyhc.edu
A new fractal gallery and screensaver was posted to this site, 4/3/98:
http://www.fractalus.com/sharon/
USA Today Hot Site; Cosmic Site of the Night: Cool Central Site of the Day;
ENC Digital Dozen; Enchantment Award; ArtSearch Featured Site;
NetTech NeatTech: Web Best ; Eye Candy Award; Studyweb Featured Site;
Lotus Light Award; Wave of the Day; Hot Site Award; Critical Mass Award;
Best of the Planet, People's Choice Award, 1998; WS Award; Treasured Site
Award
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 16:34:18 -0400
From: Avatar Thyer <thyerATnospamfreenet.grfn.org>
To: "Sharon Webb" <shawebbATnospamyhc.edu>, <kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com>
Subject: Re: question
Message-Id: <199806072034.PAA02409ATnospama.mx.execpc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Greetings.
Sharon Webb asked:
>Why is it that Avatar Thyer sounds so much like lobster?
*****
Sharon, perhaps I sound like lobster to you because perhaps you are
noticing some similarities between the perspectives of my incarnation and
the perspectives lobster's incarnations. Perhaps I sound like lobster to
you because you are also noticing some sort of similarities our writing
style.
I say "perhaps" because I have yet to become familiar with lobster's
perspectives, and lobster's writing style, enough to also notice our
similarities.
Now, just as you can notice the similarities between our incarnations, if
you so choose you can also notice our differences.
I AM
Avatar Thyer
****************************
A NOTE FROM SPIRIT
I clarify aspects of the Self that I AM using mediums. This letter
clarifies some of My aspects using the medium of language. This letter is
a revelation of My perspective as the particular individual who wrote it.
Your perspective as the individualization that you are -- your perspective
as the individualization of that which I AM -- may differ.
****************************
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 13:35:59 -0700
From: Mystress Angelique Serpent <serpentATnospamdomin8rex.com>
To: "Sharon Webb" <shawebbATnospamyhc.edu>
Cc: <kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com>
Subject: Re: question
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980607133559.01d72160ATnospamdomin8rex.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 03:44 PM 07/06/98 -0400, Sharon Webb wrote:
>Why is it that Avatar Thyer sounds so much like lobster?
>
>Sharon
I know Thyer from the Lightwork list. He is wise and good.. and very
welcome here, whatever he chooses to call himself. BB, A.
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.