46 Reply by wandering1 (edited by wandering1 2005-07-13 00:41:26)

  • Registered: 2004-04-01

Re: Who or What are the C's?

Jen wrote:

On the other hand, it seems that Laura often edits the transcripts,  so they may end up being more from her consciousness than from the C's.

Yes, the editing may have an effect.  Still, I find what she writes on her own to be dramatically different than the channeled material.

This is not to say that I think that all of the channeled material is accurate.  In so many ways, I find it to be a fantastic set of tales.  To imagine that it might accurately reflect reality is a huge thing to consider.

As with all material, channeled or not, I think that each of us needs to use reasoning and intuition and whatever other capacities we have to decide what may be correct.

And I think that it also helps to be ready to adapt to new information.

  • From: terra incognita
  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: Who or What are the C's?

Jen wrote:

Fascinating and intense thread about Laura/the C's at Godlike Productions forum:
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/m … ate=7/7/05

I took the time to look over all 10 pages of postings on godlikeproductions. There are many comments I could make, but in the end I'd just be back to where I was before I'd commented... myself incredibly sad to see what those first wonderous years of chanelling and fellowship have come to.

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
------
Life may not be the party we hoped for, but while we're here we might as well dance.
------
If you spin around on your chair really fast, things around here will make a lot more sense.

lol
  • From: somewhere in time
  • Registered: 2005-04-20

Re: Who or What are the C's?

I've seen this whole scenario before.  Years ago, at the height of the New Age frenzy, I owned a new age bookstore.  We had many authors, book signings, workshops, etc.  I've seen many come and go the same way.  They are human, and as such, subject to the webs they weave.   Drunvelo, was another such case.  I knew him "in the beginning".  After a few years, all his humaness was exposed and his reputation started to fail.  He's managed to survive, as I think he's basically got a good heart.   

All public people have their dirtly laundry hung out to dry sooner or later.  Morale is: "If ya can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."  We'll never know if Laura was on the up and up, or not.  Only she knows that.  It's not our job to judge, but it is our responsibility to disscern.

Enlightenment happens!  Attachment to the ego-self leads one into delusion; but faith in one's Buddha nature leads one to enlightenment.

49 Reply by Jen (edited by Jen 2005-07-13 10:33:59)

  • Jen
  • Guest

Re: Who or What are the C's?

Sheesh wrote:

All public people have their dirtly laundry hung out to dry sooner or later.  Morale is: "If ya can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."  We'll never know if Laura was on the up and up, or not.  Only she knows that.  It's not our job to judge, but it is our responsibility to disscern.

I think the evidence about the "house raffle" shows quite conclusively
that she's not on the "up and up."  I'm not interested in judging, either,
but facts are facts.

And yes, Auendove, it's very sad, all around.

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

Re: Who or What are the C's?

Jen wrote:

On the other hand, it seems that Laura often edits the transcripts,  so they may end up being more from her consciousness than from the C's.

She only edits what she can understand, so most of the transcripts remain close to what originally came through. Anything truly important snuck under the radar, so to speak. If anything, there are occasional omissions. As wandering1 said, there's no substitute for reason and intuition.

Perhaps those who are still to this day preoccupied with the raffle event simply find it the most viable spot to leverage their personal vendettas. They stand at the center of a tar pit and it's easy for others with similar inclinations to walk right in. I prefer staying out of it since there's nothing constructive about dwelling on what, in the big scheme of things, is trivial despite its emotional charge for some people.

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

montalk's Website

51 Reply by Jen

  • Jen
  • Guest

Re: Who or What are the C's?

montalk wrote:
Jen wrote:

On the other hand, it seems that Laura often edits the transcripts,  so they may end up being more from her consciousness than from the C's.

She only edits what she can understand, so most of the transcripts remain close to what originally came through. Anything truly important snuck under the radar, so to speak. If anything, there are occasional omissions. As wandering1 said, there's no substitute for reason and intuition.

Perhaps those who are still to this day preoccupied with the raffle event simply find it the most viable spot to leverage their personal vendettas. They stand at the center of a tar pit and it's easy for others with similar inclinations to walk right in. I prefer staying out of it since there's nothing constructive about dwelling on what, in the big scheme of things, is trivial despite its emotional charge for some people.

Good to hear that about her method of editing the channelings.

I agree that we can trust our reason and intuition to lead us to what resonates and is helpful to us.  I've appreciated much of the C's channelings, and some of Laura's own writings as well, although like many others, I wish she would be more concise.

And, you make a good point about the house raffle.  What's done is done, no point in dwelling on it forever and ever.  But I think it's probably inevitable that for many people, this will remain as a shadow over Laura/the C's work.

I myself have tried to inject some balance and a broader perspective into that thread at Godlike, I 've posted there a couple of times under the username Delphine and may post again.  Haven't checked it today!

  • From: LA
  • Registered: 2005-09-18

Re: Who or What are the C's?

Hi there!

I realized the last post on this thread was 3/1/05 but I found the discussion quite interesting and decided to add my two cents in it.

I have read as much as I can stand on the C material (some posted here by Montalk/others and the remaining in the internet) and cannot say that I am completely convinced of its validity. 

I will try to comment without being judgemental but sometimes they go together.  Sorry.  I am having problems believing that high level beings (6D type) are communicating with us via an ouija board.    If they are communicating then they have revealed themselves to us .................Why not being more direct?  Why not using a hollogram (including video/audio)?

I have read Arkadiusz reasoning about the use of the ouija board...........The use of the board in a way validates  that real Chanelling is happening.  I don't know about that!  Chanelling is a very subjective issue.  Perhaps Laura is actually communicating.......I do not know.  Perhaps she is letting her mind take over and say things she believes to be true or want to believe are true.  I do not know.  Perhaps Arkadiusz has influenced her thoughts.  A good amount of the C's material is of the technical flavor (Arkadiusz strength!).    I do not know.

Since I honestly do not know the answers to most of my questions I am approaching in a different way.  I read the material and take what I think is bullet proof or resonates with me.  The rest I throw in the garbage can until I can prove otherwise.  IT WORKS FOR ME!

  • morningsun76
  • morningsun76
  • the answer has been with you the whole time
  • Offline
  • From: In two worlds
  • Registered: 2004-09-10

Re: Who or What are the C's?

For the purposes of making my response to whywhywhy's comment as clear as possible, I've added emphasis (boldface)  to key parts of the following quoted text:

whywhywhy wrote:

I have read Arkadiusz reasoning about the use of the ouija board...........The use of the board in a way validates  that real Chanelling is happening.  I don't know about that!  Chanelling is a very subjective issue.  Perhaps Laura is actually communicating.......I do not know.  Perhaps she is letting her mind take over and say things she believes to be true or want to believe are true.  I do not know.  Perhaps Arkadiusz has influenced her thoughts.  A good amount of the C's material is of the technical flavor (Arkadiusz strength!).    I do not know.

Since I honestly do not know the answers to most of my questions I am approaching in a different way.  I read the material and take what I think is bullet proof or resonates with me.  The rest I throw in the garbage can until I can prove otherwise.  IT WORKS FOR ME!

Whywhywhy,

I notice that five times in two paragraphs you repeat the statement that you don't know the truth of the situation.      While I agree with your habit of taking what you're sure of, or what resonates with you, I question the wisdom of "throwing the rest in the garbage" until you can prove it.  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, or just being nitpicky here, but I'll use your post to make a point, even if I've misunderstood and it doesn't actually apply to you personally. 

I notice that in the mainstream there are a lot of "skeptics" who make a point of refusing to consider anything that cannot be proven to them.   I answer by asking the following question:  If I were to flip a coin behind your back, and you were unable to see the result, would you automatically assume that it was heads because you could not prove that it was tails?  Or vice-versa?  No, of course not, because it's obvious that it's just as likely to be the other way round.        When it comes to paranormal subjects, people often assume that since they have not personally seen or experienced something, they are safe in assuming that it is not real.  But this may not be the case.  In my example of a coin toss, we know the probablity of the alternative result is always 50%.    So, when it comes to a question such as "are the C's for real," before passing judgement on the question based on ignorance, we ought to at least try to figure out what is the probability of their being real, versus their being false, imagined, hoax, or otherwise.   Is it 50/50?  Or 80/20 that it's real?  Or maybe only 5% chance it's real and 95% that it's nonsense?  Can we even determine a number in any reasonably accurate manner?     Since there's no scientific way we can arrive at a certain answer to this question, we have to make a subjective judgement call based on the best information we have.  Whatever information is left over that we CAN'T reasonably classify as probable or improbable, we have to file as "I don't know" -- as you have done -- but the correct thing to then DO with the unknown material is to put in on the backburner ... don't "throw it in the garbage" and automatically assume it's bunk, unless you have good reason to do so.   As the coin might just as easily be tails, the information you discarded might have been true -- and if you've refused to consider that possibility, you've made certain that you will never have a correct understanding of reality.

54 Reply by lyra (edited by lyra 2005-10-02 13:42:19)

  • lyra
  • lyra
  • Naked Emperor Pointer Outer
  • Offline
  • From: my own private idaho
  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: Who or What are the C's?

Well, I'll take a stab at giving my perspective to your questions.  But please don't anybody take it as me feeling a need to defend the validity of the C's, because that's not my intention.  It doesn't matter to me what people think abuot them;  I don't concern myself with what others believe.  smile  But whywhywhy asked some questions, so, I thought I'd provide my take on it.



whywhywhy wrote:

I have read as much as I can stand on the C material (some posted here by Montalk/others and the remaining in the internet) and cannot say that I am completely convinced of its validity.

That's okay..........there's no requirement that everybody has to believe something about anything, let alone about the C's.  smile  And you certainly wouldn't be the first to not believe in their validity!   I don't think any of the C's believers are out there trying to convert people to be a believer;   I think most of us respect that everybody's going to have their own set of beliefs.




whywhywhy wrote:

Sorry.  I am having problems believing that high level beings (6D type) are communicating with us via an ouija board.    If they are communicating then they have revealed themselves to us .................Why not being more direct?  Why not using a hollogram (including video/audio)?

Some would argue that a ouija board IS pretty direct.  wink   With the board, one is getting full sentences and entire paragraphs of information.   So I guess the definition of "direct communication" is kind of subjective in that regard...........

As far the hologram / video / audio, why would that neceessarily be better?   Also, keep in mind that malovant, deceitful STS beings HAVE employed the use of holograms and videos when communicating with gullible humans....although the humans didn't realize at the time this was happening.  When you research the history of Mormonism for instance, you will find that with regards to Joseph Smith, an "angelic being" appeared to him in his room three nights in a row repeating the same message / speech to him, word for word, like a recorded message, which in turn set off a chain of events that eventually led to the founding of the current Mormon Church as it exists today.   If I have my details correct.   But the description of this angelic being sounds exactly like holographic techonlogy.........reminded me of Princess Leia's holographic message transmitted through R2D2 at the beginning of "Star Wars."   wink  For more on this check out "The Gods of Eden" by William Bramley.  He devotes an entire chapter to Mormonism and it's "suspicious" origins.

Point being, I believe this technology has been used, and the evidence is right under our noses, but it seems so implausible to most people who are highly programmed.   Holograms and audio seem so, I don't know, like STS-level technology.   STS beings are all about trying to convince people in their validity, and use flashy technology to achieve this.   A malovent STS being wants to try to lure their gullible victim in, and pulls out all the tricks to do so.  An STO being only comes when called, for starters, out of respect of freewill, and doesn't need, nor desire, the flashy technology to "convert" the victim.



whywhywhy wrote:

I have read Arkadiusz reasoning about the use of the ouija board...........The use of the board in a way validates  that real Chanelling is happening.  I don't know about that!  Chanelling is a very subjective issue.  Perhaps Laura is actually communicating.......I do not know.  Perhaps she is letting her mind take over and say things she believes to be true or want to believe are true.  I do not know.  Perhaps Arkadiusz has influenced her thoughts.  A good amount of the C's material is of the technical flavor (Arkadiusz strength!).    I do not know.

Lot of "I don't knows" there!  big_smile  Well, like I've said before many many times, "Seeing is believing."  And unless people have sat in on a session like we have, then there's going to be some major skepticism.  And that's TOTALLY understandable.   Before I had the privilege of witnessing a session I was neutral to it.   I didn't disbelieve it or believe it.   I took it with a grain of salt, found it interesting, but couldn't vouch for it in any way.   Now I kind of can.  A person can't fake what we saw during the session.  I won't rehash it here, as I've mentioned it quite a few times already and I don't want to bore people by repeeating it, but I do understand your skepticism on the matter. 




whywhywhy wrote:

Since I honestly do not know the answers to most of my questions I am approaching in a different way.  I read the material and take what I think is bullet proof or resonates with me.  The rest I throw in the garbage can until I can prove otherwise.  IT WORKS FOR ME!

My personal research method is mostly like that, but with one slight revision..................Whatever I can't prove, or which I even disagree with, I just put on the backburner.   "When in doubt, don't throw it out."   Just sit on it.  Put it aside.  Move on to other things.   Because if it ends up being true after all, you'll eventually discover it through additional research which corraborates it.    But for me, to throw it out is putting the stamp of finality on it.  "REJECTED."  That's saying that I'm 100% absolutely positively certain that I'm right and know all the answers.  Which I don't.   So anything that I'm unfamiliar with or doubtful on just gets put aside and mentally filed away for later.   I've had many MANY topics that resurfaced long after being put on the backburner, often times, with corraboration.  So, you never know!  smile

"Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "Holy shit ... what a ride!"  - Anonymous
-----
"I get by with a little help from my (higher density) friends."
-----

lyra's Website