Adventures With Cassiopaea

Chapter 9

That gave me even more to think about, but I will leave the speculation to the reader. I can only recount what happened. Because of the exhausting, obfuscatory nature of the following session during which I wanted to ask a few simple questions about this event, I was never able to ask about the films, and never came back to the subject. Another important point: I had not discussed the event with the group before asking the questions. The reader will notice that I do not initially even describe or name the event in order to not lead the answers. Also, I have edited out the tedious rambling around of Frank and have retained only those questions and answers bearing on the event itself. The interested reader can go to the sessions page and read the entire session and see what I mean by "tedious."

07-23-95
Q: (L) Toren, the first thing on my mind is an experience I had several nights ago. It seemed as though there was some sort of interaction between myself and something "other." Could you tell me what this experience was?
A: Was eclipsing of the realities.
Q: (L) What is an eclipsing of the realities?
A: It is when energy centers conflict.
Q: (L) What energy centers are conflicting?
A: Thought energy centers. [...] Therefore, energy centers conflicting involve thought patterns. You could refer to it as an intersecting of thought pattern energies.
[...]
Q: (L) Well, it seemed to me that something happened to me that blanked out a period of my experience, and you say this was an eclipsing of energies caused by an intersecting of thought centers. Now, this intersecting of thought centers, did this occur within my body or within my environment?
A: They are one and the same.
[...]
Q: (L) Alright. I was lying in bed worrying about being able to get to sleep. The next thing I knew, I came to myself feeling that I was being floated off my bed. Was I?
A: No. When you say "I" you are referring to your whole person. There is more than one factor involved with one's being to any particular definition.
Q: (L) Was some part of my being being separated from another part of my being?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Was this an attempt to extract my soul or astral body?
A: Attempt is not probably the proper term.
Q: (L) In other words...
A: It is more just an activity taking place. Attempt implies effort rather than the nature present in a conflicting of energies and thought centers.
Q: (L) I also seemed to be aware of several dark, spider-like figures lined up by the side of the bed, was this an accurate impression.
A: Those could be described as specific thought center projections.
Q: (L) I seemed to be fighting and resisting this activity.
A: That was your choice.
Q: (L) Was I successful?
A: Now, we are back to leading again.
Q: (L) Alright, was this the ending of an abduction that had already taken place?
A: Not the proper terminology. It was the conclusion to an event, not necessarily what one would refer to as an abduction, but more what one would refer to as an interaction.
Q: (L) What was the nature of the interaction?
A: The conflicting of energies related to thought center impulses.
Q: (L) Where are these thought centers located?
A: Well, that is difficult to answer because that is assuming that thought centers are located. And, of course this is a concept area in which you are not fully familiar as of yet. So, an attempt to answer this in any way that would make sense to you would probably not be fruitful. We suggest slowing down and carefully formulating questions.
Q: (L) At what level of density do these thought centers have their primary focus?
A: Thought centers do not have primary focus in any level of density. This is precisely the point. You are not completely familiar with the reality of what thoughts are. We have spoken to you on many levels and have detailed many areas involving density level, but thoughts are quite a different thing because they pass through all density levels at once. Now, let us ask you this. Do you not now see how that would be possible?
Q: (L) Yes. But what I am trying to do is identify these conflicting thought centers. If two thought centers, or more, conflict, then my idea would be that they are in opposition.
A: Correct.
[...]
Q: (L) Okay, you said I wasn't abducted, that an event of some sort occurred. What was the event?
A: We have already described this, but the problem that you are having is that you are assuming that the description we are giving is more complicated than this. It is not.
[...]
Q: (L) Okay, in the experience I felt a paralysis of my body, what caused this paralysis.
A: Yes. Separation of awareness. Which is defined as any point along the pathway where one's awareness becomes so totally focused on one thought sector that all other levels of awareness are temporarily receded, thereby making it impossible to become aware of one's physical reality along with one's mental reality. This gives the impression of what is referred to as paralysis. Do you understand?
Q: (L) Yes. And what stimulates this total focus of awareness?
A: An event which sidetracks, temporarily, the mental processes.
Q: (L) And what event can sidetrack the mental processes to this extent?
A: Any number.
Q: (L) In this particular case, what was it?
A: It was an eclipsing of energies caused by conflicting thought centers.
Q: (L) What energies were being eclipsed?
A: Whenever two opposing units of reality intersect, this causes what can be referred to as friction, which, for an immeasurable amount of what you would refer to as time, which is, of course, non-existent, creates a non-existence, or a stopping of the movements of all functions. This is what we would know as conflict. In between, or through any intersecting, opposite entities, we always find zero time, zero movement, zero transference, zero exchange. Now think about this. Think about this carefully.
Q: (L) Does this mean that I was, essentially, in a condition of non-existence?
A: Well, non-existence is not really the proper term, but non-fluid existence would be more to the point. Do you understand?
Q: (L) Yes. Frozen, as it were?
A: Frozen, as it were.
Q: (L) Was there any benefit to me from this experience?
A: All experiences have potential for benefit.
Q: (L) Was there any detriment from this experience?
A: All experiences have potential for detriment. Now, do you see the parallels? We are talking about any opposing forces in nature, when they come together, the result can go all the way to the extreme of one side or all the way to the extreme of the other. Or, it can remain perfectly, symmetrically in balance in the middle, or partially in balance on one side or another. Therefore all potentials are realized at intersecting points in reality.
[...]
Q: (L) Was one of the thought centers me?
A: That is presupposing that you, what is defined as you, or how you define yourself as "me" is of and by itself a thought center.
Q: (L) Well, I am trying to find this out by asking these questions.  I am not presupposing here, I am just trying to find out what is going on here!
A: Part of what is you is a thought center but not all of what is you is a thought center. So, therefore it is incorrect to say: "Was one of these conflicting energies or thought centers me?"
Q: (L) Was one of these conflicting thought centers or energies some part of me?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And was it eclipsed by interacting with a thought center energy that was part of or all of something or someone else?
A: Or, was what happened a conflicting of one energy thought center that was a part of your thought process and another energy thought center that was another part of your thought process? We will ask you that question and allow you to contemplate.
Q: (L) Was it?
A: We will ask you that question and allow you to contemplate.
Q: (L) Does it ever happen that individuals who perceive or think they perceive themselves to have experienced an "abduction," to actually be interacting with some part of themselves?
A: That would be a very good possibility. Now, before you ask another question, stop and contemplate for a moment: what possibilties does this open up? Is there any limit? And if there is, what is that? Is it not an area worth exploring?
Q: (L) Okay, help me out here...
A: For example, just one example for you to digest. What if the abduction scenario could take place where your soul projection, in what you perceive as the future, can come back and abduct your soul projection in what you perceive as the present?
Q: (L) Oh, dear! Does this happen?
A: This is a question for you to ask yourself and contemplate.
Q: (L) Why would I do that to myself? (J) To gain knowledge of the future.
A: Are there not a great many possible answers?
Q: (L) Well, this seemed to be a very frightening and negative experience. If that is the case, then a: maybe that is just my perception, or b. then, in the future I am not a very nice person! (J) Or maybe the future isn't very pleasant. And the knowledge that you gained of it is unpleasant.
A: Or is it one possible future, but not all possible futures? And is the pathway of free will not connected to all of this?
Q: (L) God! I hope so.
[...]
Q: (L) Okay, when this experience occurred, am I to assume that some part of myself, a future self perhaps, of course they are all simultaneous but just for the sake of reference, came back and interacted with my present self for some purpose of exchange?
A: Well this is a question best left for your own exploration as you will gain more knowledge by contemplating it by yourself rather than seeking the answers here. But a suggestion is to be made that you do that as you will gain much, very much knowledge by contemplating these very questions on your own and networking with others as you do so. Be not frustrated for the answers to be gained through your own contemplation will be truly illuminating to you and the experience to follow will be worth a thousand lifetimes of pleasure and joy.

Continue to Page 58

The owners and publishers of these pages wish to state that the material presented here is the product of our research and experimentation in Superluminal Communication. We invite the reader to share in our seeking of Truth by reading with an Open, but skeptical mind. We do not encourage "devotee-ism" nor "True Belief." We DO encourage the seeking of Knowledge and Awareness in all fields of endeavor as the best way to be able to discern lies from truth. The one thing we can tell the reader is this: we work very hard, many hours a day, and have done so for many years, to discover the "bottom line" of our existence on Earth. It is our vocation, our quest, our job. We constantly seek to validate and/or refine what we understand to be either possible or probable or both. We do this in the sincere hope that all of mankind will benefit, if not now, then at some point in one of our probable futures.

Contact Webmaster at cassiopaea.com
Copyright © 1997-2009 Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk. All rights reserved. "Cassiopaea, Cassiopaean, Cassiopaeans," is a registered trademark of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk.
Letters addressed to Cassiopaea, Quantum Future School, Ark or Laura, become the property of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Republication and re-dissemination of the contents of this screen or any portion of this website in any manner is expressly prohibited without prior written consent.

You are visitor number [an error occurred while processing this directive] .