• From: Minneapolis, MN
  • Registered: 2005-02-02

Topic: David Icke and Cassopiea teachings. The differences

As I read through David Icke's material and in comparing it to the Cassiopeia material there are some different conclusions. While they do share *alot* of common ground, there is some stark contrast between the two.

The C’s say that all there is are lessons. That everything is made of gravity. Also, that everything is also illusion (both agree on this). That we are here (Soul) to learn the lessons of 3rd density and soon some of us will move onto 4th density (to continue our learning) via the upcoming wave 3D-4D realm border crossing.

David Icke on the other hand says that we are all infinite consciousness and that we *already* know everything because we are everything. So, that said it would *seem* David Icke is saying there is no need for us to reincarnate into 3D-6D. Based on the limited info we have been given on 4D-6D, one could assume that David's point of view is that 4D-6D are still part of the Matrix. In essence, I *think* what David is trying to say is there is no need to go through densities/lessons, wake up and return to infinite consciousness. Of course it's not that simple.... or is it?

So, what do you make of this?

Discuss...

  • Registered: 2004-04-01

Re: David Icke and Cassopiea teachings. The differences

I think that there is a great deal of similarity between the Cassopiea teachings and the David Icke material.

I suggest that we are all the infinite consciousness and there is a place where we do realize it, but that place is generally well covered.

I think that the lessons learned in the various densities are a way to more fully uncover the realization and consciousness that is already there.

  • From: sw tz rl nd
  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: David Icke and Cassopiea teachings. The differences

I think there is a huge gap between the two. Reading the adventures associated with the C's helps you better understand the initiations, attacks and cosmic drama that can be found in our daily life. It is really practical and down-to-earth and answers a lot of questions for those who have been walking the path of truth. On the other hand, all I've seen from David Icke is that we are "infinite love" and other psychedelic bla-bla which helps little in the face of such conspiracies.

ermolai's Website

  • Registered: 2004-04-01

Re: David Icke and Cassopiea teachings. The differences

Well, I think it's a matter of perspective.  Of course, there are differences between David Icke and the C's.  I can comfortably say that there is a huge gap between them at the same time as they have a lot in common. 

I can understand how a given person might find one or the other valuable or perhaps neither of them particularly helpful.

Yes, the C's have a broader perspective.  In many ways, a much broader perspective.  If they are taken at face value as being 6th density entities (or a single 6th density entity) then this makes perfect sense.  It would be difficult for any 3rd density person to break through the veils of forgetting to such an extent as to see the world the way they do.

Still, given the overall scenario that Icke describes, I think that it has a lot in common with the overall scenario that the C's describe.

  • montalk
  • montalk
  • forum-keeper-upper
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-03-24

Re: David Icke and Cassopiea teachings. The differences

Wandering wrote:

I suggest that we are all the infinite consciousness and there is a place where we do realize it, but that place is generally well covered.

I think that the lessons learned in the various densities are a way to more fully uncover the realization and consciousness that is already there.

Yeah, that's where I noticed the biggest difference between Icke and the C's. On the philosophical grounds, if I had to sum up Icke's latest views compared to the Cassiopaeans, I would say that while both claim reality is illusion, the C's add that illusion is also reality.

The difference is one of practicality. Icke glimpsed the infinite through his ayahuasca experience and was so blown away that it seems he lost sight of the finer points about the purpose of the non-infinite. For example, he realized that higher densities and their entities are still in the "matrix" because they are not the infinite Creator, which is true, but then he dismisses these higher beings and realms as being traps or distractions due to them still being part of the illusion.

The C's on the other hand say that these higher realms serve an evolutionary purpose because each is a bit less illusory than the one beneath it, so entities from below advance through the ones above in an evolutionary sequence that eventually unites them fully with the Infinite. This means that wherever we are in the illusion, we are there for a reason; acknowledging that all is One is one thing....actually becoming One with all is quite another. The first takes perception, say like what Icke did through ayahuasca or what zen monks achieve in meditation, but the latter - the full functional unity of the individual with the Creator - takes evolution, and that means transcending each level of the illusion by learning the lessons it has to offer, by experiencing that part of Creation and incorporating it within the self.

On the conspiracy front, Icke's view of the reptilians is that they are physical shapeshifters who can pose as humans or psychically interface with and control them. The C's claim similar, except that reptilians primarily prefer to stay in their native density and control mankind remotely due to difficulty in projecting their consciousness into 3D human form and maintaining that form; they tend to use robotic or shadowed humans instead of doing the dirty work themselves.

So while both Icke and C's discuss similar concepts, say the idea of reptilians manipulating mankind or the holographic universe theory or that All is One, there are some subtle differences that are enough to greatly affect how these concepts are to be interpreted or applied.

Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

montalk's Website

6 Reply by wandering1 (edited by wandering1 2005-02-15 22:47:55)

  • Registered: 2004-04-01

Re: David Icke and Cassopiea teachings. The differences

Thanks Montalk.  Well done.  I would add that Icke does acknowledge an etheric or density or consciousness level above the typical 3rd density human level and he does see that it is in this level or these levels above our own that "master" negative controllers operate.  He describes negatively oriented humans in 3rd density (regular physical reality) who worship and follow the orders of these controllers who operate from the higher, unseen realms.

7 Reply by Ayahuasca (edited by Ayahuasca 2005-02-16 04:53:13)

  • From: Peru
  • Registered: 2004-08-06

Re: David Icke and Cassopiea teachings. The differences

This subject is actually something I've contemplated quite a lot myself lately, along with the question of what is our true purpose here in 3d?

Personally I think Icke jumped the gun a bit with his last book, and although I enjoyed reading it, quite a few things he said didn't sit quite right with me.  I even wonder if his ayahuasca experience happened exactly the way he said it did but I guess only David himself will ever know the answer to that.

But anyway I definitely side more with the C's on this subject. I believe our interactions with the lower densities are an integral part of our evolution and great value should be placed on that. What I ponder a lot at the moment is if our purpose here is to try and escape the matrix or are we here to transform it into a better matrix?

The infinite love that Icke speaks about is absolutely real and when you have a direct experience of it it's just beyond incredible. However I'm not convinced that we're all supposed to be swimming around in this infinite love for eternity, doing nothing else. It could well lose its novelty after awhile don't you think?

My feeling is that as eternal souls we actually enjoy the drama, excitement and perhaps even the pain, of our various incarnations throughout existance. From an infinite perspective our time here on earth is just a tiny pinprick within the infinite vastness of time and being. It's only from a very limited 3d perspective of forgetting our true nature that life seems to really suck sometimes, and we question what the hell we're doing here!

Andy

Join me in Peru to celebrate December 21st 2012 - Visit: http://2012awakeningretreat.com/

Ayahuasca's Website

  • From: zerone
  • Registered: 2004-08-16

Re: David Icke and Cassopiea teachings. The differences

transform it into a better matrix?

yes, i believe this is possible!

what i dont like about some of the things said "*here and there" (usually regarding the "light-beings" and whatnot-- is the mentality that 'us' "STO" "light bearers" will be "saved" and "taken" off this "Hell" and taken to a beautiful place etc bla bla bla...

thats not what i want to do. i want to make this place better, whether thats done here in my 3d life, or beyond it in higher realms, it seems like earth has the potential to be anything it really wants...

regarding the similar differences of C's and Icke's POV-- well obviously if you keep your perspective broader you will appeal to more people, or your words will be more accepted (at least thats how i think) and Icke tends to narrow it down, he tries to nail it on the head, but i think what hes missing is that theres many heads in this case. it seems like hes obsessed with the lizard thing, even his last name sounds/looks reptilian, doesnt anyone else think so ?

but as with anything there is valuable things that can be learned by observing analyzing or whatever.

* - i dont mean here at noble realms, i meant that in a general term

"...i was taken by the hand, from the ocean to the sand..."
nitin sawhney - 'eastern eyes'

zonabi's Website

  • montalk
  • montalk
  • forum-keeper-upper
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-03-24

Re: David Icke and Cassopiea teachings. The differences

Ayahuasca wrote:

My feeling is that as eternal souls we actually enjoy the drama, excitement and perhaps even the pain, of our various incarnations throughout existance.

Good point -- this means that as eternal souls we move on when we're bored with, done with, and over with experiencing some particular aspect of Creation. Then we play in some new, more exciting area until that, too, loses its appeal. Some wonder why one would want to unify with the Creator, and why this wouldn't be boring...well, if you get to the point of having experienced nearly everything and are thus "done with" nearly everything, then returning Home would be the only thing left to do.

Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

montalk's Website

10 Reply by Neomatrix (edited by Neomatrix 2005-02-16 19:15:16)

  • From: Zion
  • Registered: 2004-09-28

Re: David Icke and Cassopiea teachings. The differences

A complex question, this one. Both points of view--Icke's and the Cassiopaeans--clearly have merit. Surely the infinite *must* know everything, as Icke pointed out. A force that can bring a universe into creation surely doesn't lack anything that a human experience can provide, in terms of knowledge. And yet logically, there must be a reason, and a very good reason, why we all came here in the first place.

So, if it wasn't for knowledge, then it must be for some other purpose. Many people say that creation exists for the benefit of our own spiritual evolution, but what does that mean? How does a spirit evolve?

It seems like a lot of the new age types are always talking about tranforming this world into a "better" place, or in Icke's words "changing this prison into a paradise." I feel however, that this is really flying in the face of the purpose of creation itself.

This desire for such change seems to originate with the understanding that we are all, ultimately, one infinite, multidimensional consciousness and that to do harm to others is ultimately doing harm to ourselves. We understand that we are trapped in an illusion of seperation, and see the only objective truth as universal oneness and harmony.

But when we see things only from this perspective, we strip away all value from the illusion itself. And sure, an illusion it may be, but to us--whilst we are here--it *is* our reality because reality is only that which is percieved within any framework of consciousness, from any point of reference. We deny our dreams as unreal, and yet often speak of our dreams as carrying some hidden meaning for us. I don't think that this reality, this illusion, is any different in that regard.

So it goes back to duality. Unity, or light, appears to be our common origin, but unity tends to be--by definition--uniform also. Creation, i.e. this place of perceived seperation that lies beyond our common Origin, is anything but uniform. Life is found in all manner of expressions, both physically and non-physically. It is no accident that the physical universe appears to be very dark because darkness is its true nature.

A lot of the "love and light" new agers simply cannot accept this, and expend much energy rebelling against the system and calling for change. In doing so they are only seeking to change the unique patterns of physical experience here into the uniform patterns of our Origin. Seeking to change Earth into Heaven is thus quite misguided, because existence here provides a wonderful opportunity for our original uniformity to expand and grow--not through knowledge but through diversity.

So, this would be my definition of spiritual evolution: expansion of our sovereign uniqueness whilst still remaining an integrated and inseperable part of the whole. This is the joy that comes from being a creator: not just to create, but to immerse oneself in the creation in such a way that the creation changes the creator through the process of its formation. Those things that we call "events" are merely the effects of our creation unfolding and taking shape, and how we respond to such changes also irrevocably changes us, the creator, in the process. Any future move into 4D or 5D consciousness isn't going to be into some stagnant spiritual paradise, but merely into a mode of being that presents different challenges and different opportunities to grow, expand, and explore.

The result of all that is that both points of view can be seen as correct, although I feel that Icke has rather thrown out the baby with the bathwater in his latest book. Taken from his approach, the Infinite Oneness doesn't have to do anything because it is already everything. In that case we might as well all pack our bags and leave this place, because we are done being creators forever. I guess we should all just retire to some universal Las Vegas and spend the remainder of eternity wasting our Infinite social security checks playing bingo or slot machines.

Somehow though, I feel that this is not the case.

"Fear is the great barrier to human growth. Unknowns create fears. When these Unknowns become Knowns the fears diminish and disappear, and we are able to cope with whatever confronts us." - Robert A. Monroe
  • Haven
  • Haven
  • bull in a china shop
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-11-24

Re: David Icke and Cassopiea teachings. The differences

Seriously.  I think too many people look down on this existence as being somehow lacking, when it very well may be that we're put in a place like this for a purpose.  If you forget all the conditioning, learn to stop seeing things in "right" or "wrong", you can get to a more realistic morality, based on objective reasoning, and then move in a direction that is more enlightening than merely reacting to what you have learned to love or hate. 

Often times, it takes a bit of darkness to reach a better understanding of the light.  If we could all just choose what we wanted to happen, and choose to believe that this is the only acceptable path, then we might become nothing more than ego-centered, believing that we actually know what's best for ourselves and everyone else, not realizing that we're coming from a totally ignorant place, no matter how enlightened we think we are.  A lot can be learned by accepting reality for what it is and to stop struggling against it so much.  Instead of having your mind on some fantasy place, you could have it here and now, and work with the system, not against it.

* When we start identifying wisdom with our ability to comprehend its form, what wisdom is that?
* Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
* People want platitudes, not progress.
  • Registered: 2004-10-06

Re: David Icke and Cassopiea teachings. The differences

When you refer to different densities etc.  Yes they do exist but you are connected to the infinite and are always.  The illusion is seen by the mind/ego.  you can pass all of the bull of trancscending into 4th, 5th, 6th, etc.  if you let go of your mind/ego and become nothing.  this will be hard for you to understand because you will be thinking about this with the mind.  David is an intelligent man, however most of his readings are filled with duality and what is rigth and wrong.  i.e conspiracies etc.  You bypass everything and become one w/ Self.  but first you have to become nothing.  Be humble and God will come through you and become one with you.  It's not hard.  As some will read this they will judge, but once again when coming from a state of judgement they have already chosen to fall prey to the mind/ego once agian.  Time is not linear in the universe.  It is only linear because man through decades of mathematics has chosen it to be calculate based on points.  But the only point is the present moment.

  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: David Icke and Cassopiea teachings. The differences

As I was reading, this phrase came to mind: " I am a piece of nothing surrounded by a factory of illusions." Yes, friends, all the descriptions
are just that: descriptions. And all  descriptions point to nothing.
The nothing that is, parodoxically, something. Not some "thing", exactly, but "all that is, and all that is not." Yes, few people really understand, it would seem, at the conscious level, at least, some of these finer points which make all the difference. There is so much here on earth to work with, all our words are made of earth, are descriptions within descriptions, never going beyond the bound of themselves. And yet...

There will never cease to be an "and yet..." so long as we can lift a finger.
But I daresay that I would feel remiss if I admitted to a level of boredom
so extreme as to be, well, thoroughly boringness itself.

The good hearted with enthusiasm to help change the world and "make it a better place" are sincere. The pressure is on them by the New Age type believers to "do something" and indeed the world in general constantly tells us to "do something" along the lines of some concept of improvement which is really nothing but ego and subjective longing of a more or less brute nature. This supports and feeds the endless toil and the endless staircase. It is possible to completely step off the staircase.

But that is the ultimate and "no man knoweth the time."

Really, I think with some people, some of the time, it would be best to advise them not to give a damn. Because we all (sincere seekers) will inevitably care anyway, if there is something to care about and practically do. But for that split second when you don't care (or perhaps, ahem, longer) in some sense you really are ego-free and that is refreshing and satisfying in a way no structural gnosis agenda can match.

  • From: zerone
  • Registered: 2004-08-16

Re: David Icke and Cassopiea teachings. The differences

i dont mean to sound offensive or defensive with the following:

but you guys are making it seem like having the desire to help make this world better is an ego issue. i can understand what you guys mean, but i dont really agree with that. i can see that what you all mean (or more specifically Sedna in the last post) by ' not caring is ego -free' but what i think you really mean is that 'not caring' means you trust everything to go perfectly, how it should.

i dont think they are mutually exclusive of each other, 'not caring' and 'believing everything will work out' and i think they can go together, and although it probably does include your ego (at this level)-- i dont think it always has to (on this level, or higher)

its bascially love. unconditional love. not ego, although maybe you could argue that wanting a better world is your ego wanting better, but thats not the case, at least my case, as far as i can perceive. its this great amount of love within me that wants to pour out to others, everywhere. my ego comes into play tricks because for example i see a car with a "W" sticker on it and i dont "like" them immediately. thats my ego. i should be able to still love my enemies, which i try to do.

i see this in your signature Sedna, and im not trying to target you (or the author of it) :

"You can walk away from anything and wind up better off than you were before."

but that sounds pessimistic. i understand what it means, like "letting go" of mundane things, but if i would have walked away from love (the love that i found in my twin flame) i defeintely would not have wound up better.

i can understand what NeoMatrix said earlier about this world being a schoolground, a challenge, or a place of learning-- but i dont think it has to be this way for ever, eternity. things change by nature, things evolve. why wouldnt a planet's matrix evolve as well. certainly anything is possible.

im not saying the challenges and troubles and lessons and stress isnt useful, because it is. it helps us to learn and evolve, and if we all consciously moved on to higher plateus, and if the earth transofmed into a higher level / plane / dimension -- im sure that another planet would become the 3rd density playground (if there isnt already more of them) and then souls that wish to incarnate to 3D (start the game of "life) all over, they can go there.

its liek a transfer. ive read of things like this although they are not much more than speculations, where never ending conflicts (negative) were moved to a new location (to preserve as much life as possible), and also the opposite where the 'light-bearers' move on to a new location to have their own fresh start etc.

i dont know i could very well be wrong in some of the things i say, but im just trying to project my thoughts here not only so that you all can ponder them, but more importantly so i can look over them and see them myself.

good discussion nonetheless!
z

"...i was taken by the hand, from the ocean to the sand..."
nitin sawhney - 'eastern eyes'

zonabi's Website

  • From: Peru
  • Registered: 2004-08-06

Re: David Icke and Cassopiea teachings. The differences

Hey Z

Keep on projecting those thoughts dude! Personally I think the world needs more people who are not afraid to express unconditional love and generally want to make things more positive for everyone.

I think the key to life is to just do whatever comes naturally to you. Whatever you enjoy doing. If it feels good in your heart then surely it is the will of the infinite that we're all apart of. So if you enjoy trying to make the world a better place then keep on doing it.

Even though I'm guilty of it myself there is no point in criticising the new agers or whover because they are just as much the infinite as we are, and therefore just as important. To do so is to fall into the "I'm more spiritual than they are" ego trap. So it doesn't matter whether you want to try and make the world a better place, or whether you think it's a stupid idea to even try. Both ideas are ultimately expressions of the infinite so I would think they are just as valid.

Anyway here's an except from Alan Watts' "The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are"

Alan Watts wrote:

Today the Vedanta discipline comes down to us after centuries of involvement with all the forms, attitudes, and symbols of Hindu culture in its flowering and slow demise over nearly 2,800 years, sorely wounded by Islamic fanaticism and corrupted by British puritanism. As often set forth, Vedanta rings no bell in the West, and attracts mostly the fastidiously spiritual and diaphanous kind of people for whom incarnation in a physical body is just too disgusting to be borne. But it is possible to state its essentials in a present day idiom, and when this is done without exotic trappings, Sanskrit terminology, and excessive postures of spirituality, the message is not only clear to people with no special interest in "Oriental religions"; it is also the very jolt that we need to kick ourselves out of our isolated sensation of self.

But this must not be confused with our usual ideas of the practice of "unselfishness," which is the effort to identify with others and their needs while still under the strong illusion of being no more than a skin-contained ego. Such "unselfishness" is apt to be a highly refined egotism, comparable to the in-group which plays the game of "we're-more-tolerant-than-you." The Vedanta was not originally moralistic; it did not urge people to ape the saints without sharing their real motivations or to ape motivations without sharing the knowledge which sparks them.

For this reason The Book I would pass to my children would contain no sermons, no shoulds and oughts. Genuine love comes from knowledge, not from a sense of duty or guilt. How would you like to be an invalid mother with a daughter who can't marry because she feels she ought to look after you, and therefore hates you? My wish would be to tell, not how things ought to be, but how they are, and how and why we ignore them as they are. You cannot teach an ego to be anything but egotistic, even though egos have the subtlest ways of pretending to be reformed. The basic thing is therefore to dispel, by experiment and experience, the illusion of oneself as a separate ego. The consequences may not be behavior along the lines of conventional morality. It may well be as the squares said of Jesus, "Look at him! A glutton and a drinker, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners."

Furthermore, on seeing through the illusion of the ego, it is impossible to think of oneself as better than, or superior to, others for having done so. In every direction there is just the one Self playing its myriad games of hide-and-seek. Birds are not better than the eggs from which they have broken. Indeed, it could be said that a bird is one egg's way of becoming other eggs. Egg is ego, and bird is the liberated Self. There is a Hindu myth of the Self as a divine swan which laid the egg from which the world was hatched. Thus I am not even saying that you ought to break out of your shell. Sometime, somehow, you (the real you, the Self) will do it anyhow, but it is not impossible that the play of the Self will be to remain unawakened in most of its human disguises, and so bring the drama of life on earth to its close in a vast explosion. Another Hindu myth says that as time goes on, life in the world gets worse and worse, until at last the destructive aspect of the Self, the god Shiva, dances a terrible dance which consumes everything in fire. There follow, says the myth, 4,320,000 years of total peace during which the Self is just itself and does not play hide. And then the game begins again, starting off as a universe of perfect splendor which begins to deteriorate only after 1,728,000 years, and every round of the game is so designed that the forces of darkness present themselves for only one third of the time, enjoying at the end a brief but quite illusory triumph. Today we calculate the life of this planet alone in much vaster periods, but of all ancient civilizations the Hindus had the most imaginative vision of cosmic time. Yet remember, this story of the cycles of the world's appearance and disappearance is myth, not science, parable rather than prophecy. It is a way of illustrating the idea that the universe is like the game of hide-and-seek.

If, then, I am not saying that you ought to awaken from the ego-illusion and help save the world from disaster, why The Book? Why not sit back and let things take their course? Simply that it is part of "things taking their course" that I write. As a human being it is just my nature to enjoy and share philosophy. I do this in the same way that some birds are eagles and some doves, some flowers lilies and some roses. I realize, too, that the less I preach, the more likely I am to be heard.

Join me in Peru to celebrate December 21st 2012 - Visit: http://2012awakeningretreat.com/

Ayahuasca's Website