Channeling Kris
Share >>
Rose-Coloured Glasses

Looking At The World Through Rose Colored Glasses

Transcribed by Ellen Gilbert (Kwaa’Ji)
Recorded in Toronto, Canada on August 1, 2005

[MARK’S NOTES: Prior to Kris’ grand entrance, Janie was talking about a Lazarus concept involving the ‘negative ego’. As you will soon see, Kris was eaves dropping and began his conversation on this topic.]

(Session begins at 8:19 PM.)

KRIS: We trust you are all comfortable.

ALL: (Greetings)

KRIS: We are intrigued by some of your definitions of the ego. You have pointed out that there is a negative ego and that brought our attention. Would you care to define the negative ego, and where it resides?

(Pause)

MARK: Did you hear that Janie?

JANIE: (Laughs) I’m thinking — it’s been a long time since I heard Lazarus talk on that…Well, I believe it resides somewhere within our own self. My guess is some part of the subconscious, I don’t know for sure — but it gets us pumped up to tell us great things we’re going to do, to be discovered, and builds us up and leads us down a garden path; much like you’ve seen with famous actors and actresses that hit it big and then all of a sudden kill themselves or overdose on drugs because of their negative ego. An interesting perspective about the negative ego, it will speak to our hearts and our minds and tells us we’re either better than somebody or less than somebody – maybe not that explicitly, but the feeling is there you see, in comparison. But it’s been a long time since I’ve listened to Lazarus on it, so I’m not one to speak of it proficiently.

KRIS: This interpretation seems to bear much resemblance to systems of duplicity, and hearkens back to a time when people felt that they were under the influence of good or negative forces. In this case, it has been internalized where you may feel the influences of your negative ego. Our intention is to help clarify that as an additional understanding.

The ego itself is a psychological construct. It holds various patterns. You may call them energy patterns, vibrational patterns, regardless – these patterns are based upon the individual’s and the collective’s various belief structures and sets of convictions. Ultimately, the individual is responsible for his or her actions and must recognize that their own behavior is a factor in the events, conditions and circumstances of their lives and that ultimately there are no divisions and divergent camps of a “positive” and a “negative” ego that would influence your behavior or the behavior of others, or even groups or societies.

However, as we have hinted, personal and collective convictions are one of several determining factors in the behavior of the individual or the group, or even the entire collective. It becomes important to identify these items and specifically that the ego is a psychological construct and it holds no definite actions that are labeled negative or positive. And it is also important to recognize that the responsibility is with the individual that chooses to engage various conviction patterns. Without that recognition, the individual or the collective acts by default.

The individual or the collective will feel swayed and influenced and even controlled by forces it would consider outside of itself, foreign to it. And if the individual, and ultimately the collective, are to recognize their own divine origins, then there is a much, and long overdue need to examine what factors influence the lives of the individual or the collective. Without such an examination, you will continue living your lives as if there is a force outside of your self that ultimately can nullify whom and what you are.

A social, political, and religious examination and study of mental habits can lead to a recognition of what is necessary to recognize as the determining factor in one’s life. A force outside of self – or even a force inside of self – that cannot be governed, that cannot be explored, and must be followed. There is a means and methods by which the individual can literally re-program their entire cosmology; and that study has to include the individual over and above any other aspects of reality, because the individual is the determining factor in the outcome of the daily events. And notice we said or used the word “individual”, and not merely your thoughts, your feelings, your attitudes, or otherwise.

The individual is an amalgamation of all of these factors. The individuality is composed of many, many factors, and only by understanding the individual – YOUR individuality – can you come to the conclusion that you can indeed transform consciousness, YOUR consciousness. It is not sufficient to say: “Today I am thinking pretty thoughts, and therefore my entire day will be pretty” at the expense of everything else you will feel during the course of your day. Does that make any sense to any of you?

(Yes)

Utilizing the idea that pretty thoughts alone will give you a pretty day actually mitigates and hinders your growth as an individual in the same manner that you can wear rose-colored glasses, thinking that the world you see is rose-colored. It is superficial and at best very misleading. You are all complex beings and that complexity will never truly be understood or discovered in this one lifetime, though your efforts do not go unrewarded for you learn about the complex nature of your being – EVERY TIME you think! With every breath you take, with every decision you make, with every MOVE that you engage.

Your own neurological structure is so sophisticated, that even with all of their hard-earned knowledge, your best scientific minds can marvel at the wonders of your brain and neurological system and make concerted efforts to explain some of it, but are at a loss to how and why it works. And the determining factor is YOU – the individual. Without your individuality, animating the imagery of your body, there is no reality as you understand it.

Your most precious and lovely individuality is what separates you from what you call the “dead body.” That spark of energy or of life is often unrecognized even by your lovely selves. And yet the energy encapsulated within that one spark of individuality is such that all of the reality and the worlds that you know are instantaneously manifested from one leap to another, from one blink to another. That spark of individuality contains more energy than a billion suns put together because the suns, the planets, the solar systems, the entire spectrum of reality is projected FROM that spark of individuality. Such is its creative power.

Therefore, next time you ponder the mysteries of the ego construction, pat yourselves gently on the back for having created a psychological construct such as an ego that allows the manifestation of the energy from within the spark of your individuality to be made manifest into three-dimensional reality as you understand it and as you deal with it as a feedback mechanism through which you can then study and evaluate the process of your evolving nature. Does that make sense to any of you?

(Yes)

What is the time?

MARK: 8:41

KRIS: We suggest a very small break so that you can take a moment and thank your egos.

(Break begins at 8:41 PM.)

MARK: How was THAT?! (Pause) Any comments?

PAUL: Nothing surprising.

DREW: Pretty straightforward.

MARK: Mmhm. How about in Oregon?

JANIE: (inaudible)

MARK: Can you speak a little closer to the phone?

JANIE: I just said that what we think of all the things that we are, our mental constructs, and our interpretations of things and what we think we are, what we believe about things — we need to examine those very things, I think. I hope I’m expressing that right, getting in touch with what our thoughts are.

PAUL: I was struck by his comment on internal versus external forces, which I think can tie into religious belief systems of evil spirits – “the devil made me do it,” kind of thing, as an explanation and as a story-telling device, or as ego — what makes the ego creative — and he ended up on that “creative power of individuality”, and all of these dead guys talk about Essence or Soul as creating the Sun, the galaxies, the solar systems, they all speak in very big terms.

JANIE: Yes. Yes. (Agreeing with Paul as he is commenting.)

DREW: The INDIVIDUAL creates through their perceptions.

PAUL: No, no no, this is through the involutionary…this is the causal — what creates the Sun? What creates the Universe? This is from the BIG individuality, with the big “I”.

DREW: I agree in involutionary…but the culmination is in the individual.

PAUL: I agree, but that wasn’t my point.

MARK: The fact also that the individual — the energy evolved in the making of that is bigger than a billion suns because it has to INCLUDE a billion suns.

PAUL: See, I was talking about Essence versus Ego.

MARK: Yeah, I see that too, though, Paul.

NORM: A major problem with most of us on this Earth is that we do not realize how much power we have and who we are and we can be clearly influenced by external forces – external concepts and ideas and we totally control that much.

MARK: What I also see or perceive about that is for instance, anything that we do in any given time is in what we believe to be in our own best interests. So it’s not like someone else or some other force is leading us down the garden path. We’re choosing to go down that garden path because we think we’re doing the right thing for ourselves at that time, and later down the road in hindsight, we might look back and say “Maybe that WASN’T the best thing for me. Maybe I could have had a better experience than the one I chose.”

DREW: Not possible!! You always choose what’s right for you. Otherwise you wouldn’t be YOU.

MARK: That’s right, but that’s your experience and that’s the choosing. And then you’ve got to look at the probabilities and the possibilities because you actually experience them all.

NORM: I’m thinking about the sixteen year old Islamic boy in Pakistan, who reads the Koran eight hours a day, and practices the inculcation of hatred, evidently to the extent that – does he really know who he is, what he is, and so on. I mean he’s totally transformed by all of this activity.

MARK: From your perspective.

NORM: From a reality standpoint. From his perspective too, he is transformed, which is nice…

PAUL: That’s similar to a Jerry Falwell who’s taken upon himself as a Protestant to be a Protestant religious leader and inculcate similar hatred in the name of Jesus, killing the terrorists in the name of Jesus.

NORM: Okay, and that there are people who feel like Neville Chamberlain that everything is going to be rosy, and it isn’t going to be that way, and they would speak in German today if he would have been in power.

PAUL: Well, in some probable reality, they are supposedly.

NORM: Right.

JANIE: Well, I think we all have choices, like in this situation with the neighborhood – like if I made the decision to NOT go with what all the rest of them were going to do, deciding to follow my own conscience and beliefs, that I didn’t want to be a part of that. They don’t recognize it as hatred in their minds – they think they’re doing what Jesus would do, and in my estimation, that’s their way of thinking, so they can go their way, but I chose to become maybe an unpopular neighbor because I would not become part of the mass consciousness, seeking to follow the dictates of my own heart and feelings.

MARK: Yeah, and therefore you have a different experience than they do, but by doing what you’re doing you’re also making them think: “What the hell is SHE doing?”

JANIE: Yeah, well, and that is their path and I have to know that they’re on a learning path and I really can’t hold much judgment about their learning path. That’s their reality as they see it, and I have my own path to go on, so I don’t want to be thinking that I’m better than them, I have to watch my thoughts on that. I have to understand that they are in a certain reality according to patterned thoughts and the knowns that have become the realities in their subconscious minds and programming…

MARK: Oh, he’s back. 8:49.

(Break ends at 8:49 PM.)

KRIS: The more the individual fears the source of their being, the more the individual fears his or her abilities and powers – creative powers. The more the individual may indeed gravitate towards any of the many religious bodies upon your planet at this point in time, drawn to such religious teachings as a means to harness, subdue, and hopefully, control those feared forces within the self. Unfortunately it is a model that no longer allows upgrades, unless one separates oneself from such teachings.

For as much as all the major religious teachings on your planet encourage a relationship with a Divine Being, that Divine Being is usually projected outside of self so much so that the Divine Being keeps an eye out on you for anything that you might do that would transgress the laws. And retribution is usually considered as a swift action of reprimand.

Those teachings, though many such teachings are able to strike a certain level of balance, the distortions that have been incorporated over millennia are such that the individual becomes more or less schizophrenic to a certain degree, because it is viewed that there is a constant battle within the soul of the individual within the psyche between two adverse forces. And that is specifically why many people are drawn to the religious teachings that are prominent in this time, because there is the hope that the warring factions within the self will somehow or other be tempered through the rites and rituals and dogmas taught.

Unfortunately, true freedom will not necessarily be had whilst immersed within the teachings of one or more religions. Religions and their teachings can provide clues as to the nature of your being if you are able to read between the lines and actually learn to depend upon your own discerning nature, your intuitive nature; and allow yourselves to question whom and what you are, outside of the references allowed you by the teachings.

That may put the individual in a quandary, because few religious teachings – very few indeed – actually encourage self-exploration and questioning unless it is on THEIR terms. You may indeed find it most liberating when you begin to actually experience the boundless freedom and joy of living those inner experiences, and not merely accept the words even of those such as ourselves; but make it a project to go beyond the intellect, rationalizations, and the intellectual accumulation of knowledge. And actually allow yourself to get your hands dirty, and dig deep within the self to discover what you are all about.

And though this may sound like a critique, our intention is to encourage individuals to go from merely READING or listening to words, and actually going with their GUT; getting on their hands and knees, scraping at the soil of consciousness, and sowing seeds of wisdom acquired through experience. That is the most often – the most very challenging aspect of this type of material and information – is to get down and dirty with it and find your GROOVE in that very specific manner.

This is often the area where many people will not venture, but instead will wear rose-colored glasses and make claim that they understand the nature of reality because they wear the glasses. Does that make sense? Indeed exploration of self, examining the nature of yourself is very dirty business, involves sweat, tears, both of grief and joy. It can at times tug at the heart when you clean house; but indeed, the individual who takes on that challenge, and understands from the inside out what his or her reality is about, has authenticity and merit, because they have lived it. They have not merely talked about it. And this is a very important distinction.

Far too often, we hear of and speak with individuals who read a few lines, a few pages of material from whatever source, but do not read the assembly instructions. How many of you have experienced buying a product, thinking you do not need the instructions to assemble it and find yourselves with a dilemma on your hands? Do you not agree?

DREW: Or a screw left over.

KRIS: Or the assembled product nowhere near resembles the picture, and that is a very important distinction. What is the time?

MARK: 9:02.

KRIS: Indeed then, perhaps some of you would be so kind as to ask questions on this matter.

[MARK’S NOTES: Because we were having difficulty hearing Oregon, Kris asked Mark to listen closely for him.]

NORM: I have a question. I always do! You mentioned freedom and you mentioned open-mindedness. The limit of open-mindedness is critically important for a sociological code of living together. The other conditions that are optimum for each individual…..we have heard from others, such as Seth and Elias, that there is no right or wrong, but I feel that for a sociological code, there has to be an agreement between people to optimize the freedom for every individual. That sociological code has been part of almost every religion and it is perhaps one of the most important parts of a religion.

I do not believe in a personal god, such as Jesus Christ, or so on — I left that idea when I was 13 and a half — and I also, in trying to resolve the capability of the human to live a sociological code that optimizes…how do you determine that optimization and how do you determine the code? Would you care to comment on that?

KRIS: Would you be so kind as to summarize? [Referring to Mark who appeared a little dumb-founded at this point.]

(Laughter)

MARK: Maybe Paul can do that better than I can, can you?

PAUL: I’ll take a stab at it. Sociologically, anthropologically, let’s say the last 10,000 years of our history, we’ve grown as a species across the planet in isolated pockets to produce great religions, certainly beginning around 2500 years ago — what they call the Axial period: Buddhism, Christianity, and others. All of those gave very specific moral codes. They’re still with us today in a certain form. The problem is, the world is 25 years, 6,000 years, 10,000 years more complex, more evolved –

KRIS: Indeed, now we have briefly touched upon this in discussions in the past, about the great global disaster that was manmade. A great war followed by disturbances in the weather patterns and so on, and so forth. If you notice all of the major religions today, those that were founded 2500 to 3000 years past, all have a common thread: that the individual is tainted and flawed, that the individual, even before his or her birth has already seen that there is a spark of what you refer to as evil within the person. And that flaw, that stain — what is in the Judeo-Christian view called the original sin — is feared, and therefore the major world religions are set up in such a way as to try and mitigate the evil that that stain or flaw can unleash onto the world. Do you understand?

JANIE: That was their methodology of controlling their — they control by fear, even 25, a hundred years ago, they had their own group understand they had to be controlled by a religion. It’s completely way out, far out, as far as I’m concerned.

NORM: Which occurs in a large number – maybe all – countries, religions…

KRIS: It is the means to try and control those forces, which we alluded to earlier on this evening. That man, including woman, needs salvation, redemption, and atonement; and even then the slightest faux pas may undo all of those atonements. It has in some respects, greatly restricted the whole of humankind, but the experiment was chosen by every one single individual past, present and future who participated in that collective agreement for very specific purposes: to explore a reality that was founded on the notion that the individual was flawed, and therefore a danger to others and to himself.

There are many other experiments of consciousness that are based upon another principle entirely, but you have, as a collective, gone too far and are now realizing that you must somehow or other put the brakes on before you hit a brick wall. So you are now bypassing your own fears and calling upon inner resources that speak to voices such as ourselves, so that you can hear your own call, and can cherish the flow of that reality, of that experience, and direct its enormous forces on another path.

It is individuals like yourselves, by your deeds, and your words, and your actions, and your authenticity, and your integrity, that can indeed show others that it is possible to experience a different kind of reality altogether. And you still do this with the full knowledge and awareness that there are those in your societies that have become far too fearful of that inner reality and must therefore strongly adhere to the dogmas and principles of orthodox religious teachings; and therefore live in their own pretty bubble until they eventually recognize that what they considered to be a Divine Being outside of their own realm, is merely a projection of their own beliefs about their iniquity.

What they fear the most is projected outwardly into their god, a god that would be vengeful, merciless — even though they will try to speak of that Being as simultaneously being merciful — but they cannot reconcile it until and unless they reconcile their own knowledge of self. And that knowledge of self is that you are the Divine Being in question. You are basically then, rediscovering your own divinity. And we are not speaking here at the superficial, infantile level, where anyone may think that they can do anything they want, and everything is fine. That is also narcissistic. Does that answer the question somehow?

NORM: Partly — there’s another segment of our population that does not believe in any religion other than the fact they’re atheists, they call themselves atheists — they are materialistic, totally materialistic – their moral code is something that I really don’t know, and…There have been societies on this Earth, the Communist societies, that have no deep religion and prosecute anyone that believes in a religion and it seems that their freedom is even less than those that believe in a state religion. So my original question is: How do we develop an optimum moral code, or a sociological code, that we can all live with, with individual freedoms that are optimized? And that is my question.

KRIS: There is one simple philosophy that may provide assistance and that is that you do no harm to others. Do then only good, as you would do to yourself. But you still must contend with a society that believes very strongly that it is best to screw the other before they get screwed. Do you understand?

NORM: That they’re the major part of the population of this world — I believe that, yeah!

KRIS: However, you can subscribe to a different philosophy: one where you do good to others as you would to yourself. Very simple notion, extremely simple approach; and it can indeed work wonders. Are there any other questions?

JANIE: I just have a comment that in my thinking, that life teaches us how we should behave because if we react in one way to our fellow man, we get a certain reaction back. If we don’t treat people good, we reap the consequences of it in some way. So to me, life teaches us, if we listen carefully to it on those matters about what you just said: treat others good, and do no harm to others. That’s my explanation of Life teaching us how we should behave.

PAUL: I just have a question. It’s Paul – Janaki – and you know the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is something that is a basic moral intuition that many, many people hold and in fact, I think that’s the social glue that keeps us from killing each other all this time; but what are your comments, Kris, on those particular individuals – and we had talked about a sex offender, and what our psychologists call general sociopathic or psychopathic behaviors in individuals who – – as an example: if they could get their hands on nuclear weapons, would not think twice about detonating them in one of our large cities.

KRIS: Indeed.

PAUL: What to do about that? There is a time and there is a case, and there may well be a situation where you must harm an individual like that to prevent a larger harm unfolding onto other people when we’re dealing with weapons of mass destruction.

KRIS: Indeed, it must be understood that if you wish to perpetrate good onto others as you would have them do unto you, and if someone comes to you and knifes you in the side, it serves very little purpose to tell that individual, “My good man, here is my other side so you can get a double stabbing in, for good measure.”

Indeed, one should take appropriate action, but overall, pathological behavior of such nature – destructive behavior of such nature – is also a communication. Just as your thoughts are communicating to you the realities and the beliefs that you hold, so do such individuals communicate to the society what that society is neglecting to address. Often society as a whole will stick its head in the sand thinking there is nothing going on. Do you understand?

(Yes)

The longer the collective head is buried in the sand denying there is anything in need of addressing, then the stronger that cancer becomes because it is not being addressed. It is a social cancer in the same manner that symptoms and diseases in the body are a last ditch attempt to communicate that you have avoided your responsibility to your body and your emotions. So those pathologies at the social level are a communication that the society, the culture, has neglected its responsibilities and has acted like a collective ostrich sticking its head in the psychological sand.

By addressing those social ills, not with the purpose of burying them deeper into the ground, but recognizing what they stand for, and dealing with them responsibly, will you as a society be able to embrace the wholeness of your culture. There is great potential in your culture, but it is slowly being eroded away by the teachings – religious, political, or otherwise – that keep the state divided, creating divisions between individuals and groups.

You have experienced this to a great degree with segregation and the Ku Klux Klan. Now there are other forms of it as insidious, but not yet as recognized. Therefore, since your entire physical creation is allegorical, symbolic, it should indicate to you that symbols are communications, correct?

(Yes)

In the same manner that your own physical and psychological make-up is a communication is a prettily packaged concept of communication that mean deeper things. Your society can benefit greatly then from understanding that you cannot segregate the rich from the poor, the rich cannot get richer on the backs of the poor and so on and so forth. Eventually, the experiment will pay off, but it needs to be recognized. Does that make some sense?

PAUL: Yes it does, and I can apply what you said directly to the so-called “War on Terror” as we’re experiencing it now in terms of it being symptomatic of a segment of society that has disaffected youth, disconnected youth; but it’s coupled with a potentially lethal cancerous form of a religious ideology that’s spreading like a cancer across the planet, so it is a symptom, it is –

KRIS: Indeed! And that tumorous growth does not exist in Middle Eastern countries – that is where it is raised – but it begins at home. The disaffected, the disenfranchised –

DREW: WAIT A MINUTE! Let me interject – we keep talking about the disenfranchised as being a cancer, bad, dangerous! From their point of view, they’re messengers of God and we’re the Satan, and we’re the devils, and we’re the cancer!

KRIS: And indeed, what would that teach you?

DREW: Well, I think we just need to be careful here about – we’re getting a little bit lazy about allowing ourselves to suddenly make judgments about the beliefs of those who have other beliefs by using words like “CANCER” and “DANGEROUS” and when in fact, there really is no such thing, is there? It’s all point of view.

KRIS: The collective has a very strong point of view and the longer the society sticks its head in the sand and pretends there are no problems and challenges in the society, the bigger the problems will grow.

DREW: That’s a Western point of view!

MARK: But also Eastern. The reciprocal: America is the cancer to the Eastern philosophy.

KRIS: We are dealing here with collective duplicity systems. They are extremely volatile. However this is also part of your collective agreement: to bring about such volatile issues in order to create specific challenges and solutions to them. Do you follow?

DREW: Yeah – I don’t know who you’re asking – my concern is specifically with the vocabulary that we’re using and the subtle implication in this dialog about how those with other beliefs who were willing to die and kill for them are the bad guys, are evil when in fact, it’s my understanding that the whole purpose of these dialogs is to understand that there is no such thing, it’s all point of view.

MARK: But also, what he’s saying here is that America is calling these people the cancer of the world, but by focusing on the war on terrorism, they are ultimately creating — the other side is mirroring back to them what they’re concentrating on – and vice versa. On the other side, the Taliban and so on – are focusing on their fears and their hatreds and therefore creating on the opposite side of the ocean and mirroring it back to them. So it’s a game of badminton or tennis there, going back and forth.

DREW: When I talk about us calling them the cancer and the evil ones, I’m not talking about America, I’m talking about those of us in this room!

MARK: Mmhm. We are using analogies here.

DREW: I understand, but my — what sparks my — the reason I decided to mention it is because those of us in the room who supposedly are…one of the teachings of all of this information as I understand it, is that there is no bad, good, right, wrong, evil, cancer — and I’m not talking about America and political and collective consciousness, I’m talking about the five of us in this room and the language we’re using and the belief system that the dialog we’re using implicates!

KRIS: Would it be better if we had said instead that there truly are no challenges in your society at this point in time? And everything is pretty, that there are no usages of drugs, that there are no murders, that there is no slavery that still exists, that terrorism is a figment of the imagination, that is a reality indeed that you made now, it is the display of your collective beliefs.

DREW: But are those things bad?

KRIS: No one said that they were bad.

DREW: But we’re using words like “cancer” and “evil” and “dangerous” and those are –

KRIS: In actuality, we never used the word “evil.”

DREW: The implication to me in what you said [that] a group is cancerous –

KRIS: Indeed. We did not point out to any single individual.

DREW: I’m not disagreeing that there are challenges and things we need to face.

KRIS: Indeed, formidable challenges. You exist right now at a turning point, and how your culture will deal with its present challenges will provide the foundation for many future generations to come or not. And you do have social cancers right now in proliferation.

DREW: “Social cancers,” can you define that expression for me? I don’t mean by example, I mean, what do you mean by cancer? How is that different from change, social change?

PAUL: A cancer is something that kills itself and it kills the host. It’s suicidal by nature. It doesn’t heal, it doesn’t innately form growth or transformation, it’s suicidal. If that’s your choice – Nazi Germany, Communist China…

KRIS: It comes about as a result of a lack of fulfillment and you have, especially in North America, two kinds of existences. There is the existence that the consumption, the consummation of goods and services will bring about happiness; but the flip side of the coin is that people are not specifically any happier. In fact, they are even unhappier than they were. And though we are making a generalization, the statistics will show that there is an increase in the usage of dangerous drugs in your societies and very much so with even the younger crowds. This leads to a specific dilemma. It is a symptom and a communication, and like a cancer it can spread as it already is, and as a result, the society is crippled.

This hinders the society’s abilities to unfold toward its objectives and simultaneously the challenge that is taken upon by the individual incorporates the challenge itself. So it is a very difficult quest that your culture, globally and locally, is seeking to bring about with Balance and Harmony. It is indeed GREATER than any of the challenges have been attempted in many, many decades, because this time you cannot use a bomb and blow them away. This time there is a global awareness that literally demands better, more carefully thought out solutions be utilized and in a pro-active manner.

But you are not yet there. It will take time still, but the potentials are great because the efforts are quite great to bring about an acknowledgement and addressing and accepting of the situation. So it is indeed a tremendous challenge, one that demands that the individual dig deep within and use all of his or her resources to bring about change, to bring about a new reality. But just like the birthing process – of which there is nothing pretty about – the end result gives a pretty infant. Do you follow?

MARK: Did you get that?

DREW: Yes.

NORM: Well, are you saying that we have to know who we really are in order for this cancer, or, in order for the development of a new reality to occur? is that what you are saying?

KRIS: We are saying that there are many social ills at this time. They are themselves symptoms, symbols and communications just like when you have an inordinate growth on your body. It signals that there is something much in need of attention. It will not go away simply by covering the area up.

Now, as to knowing who you truly are, that is indeed a tall order. Deal with the knowledge you have about yourself now – use that as a platform from which you can then launch into other explorations through the innate resources and tools of your being. And ultimately, whether there are terrorists, social ills, misfits, outcasts, the disenfranchised, and so on and so forth, these are merely labels – for what they are is also YOU.

For the whole world, the entire planet and all of its activity are reflections of your individual and collective psyches, and that indeed is a most frightening reality to wake up to. But you are not without powers and abilities to transform that reality from something you may not wish to wake up to, into a reality where you look forward to opening your eyes because you know you can transform it. So indeed, ultimately there is no good or evil, IN THOSE TERMS; but we are certain that if terrorists kicked down your door this very moment, you would most certainly not invite them to the dinner table.

PAUL: Drew would! (laughter) Because there’s no evil!

DREW: That misses the point. That completely misses the point though.

PAUL: What point?

DREW: That’s like someone saying to me, if I don’t believe in the death penalty, and someone says to me “If they killed your daughter, wouldn’t you want to kill them?” Well, that misses the point. It’s not a question of would I defend myself. We’re sitting in this room kind of all subtly nodding our heads that yes, they are bad for doing that and they’re criminal and –

PAUL: Yeah, and I want to be unequivocal about that. For the record, I absolutely believe that.

DREW: (Shouting) Well the issue I have with that is from their point of view, they are messengers from God, they’re serving a higher purpose, they’re killing the devil and so, to say that they’re the evil and they’re the bad, when from their point of view, we’re the evil and we’re the bad; the concern I have is that we’re sitting around this room kind of all agreeing that yes, they are the bad ones when I thought the whole point of this information was to understand that good and bad is all a matter of point of view.

PAUL: Here’s what I [Drew interrupts]

DREW: (Still shouting) Allow me to make this last point! You said earlier, Kris, that there are ills in the society, and yet, what is an ill in a society is different – depends on point of view. To some, gays in a society is an ill, and something that needs to be changed, and to others, it’s freedom and lifestyle. To some, drugs is a matter of freedom and choice, to others it’s an ill. To some, pornography is a matter of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, to others, it’s an ill.

Yet, throughout this conversation as you’ve been talking about ills in the society and a need to change things and create the kind of world that we want to have, everyone is kind of nodding as if there is some agreement about what that is.

MARK: Okay, my take on that is that an ill is when we start killing each other and blowing each other up – when we have two sides that are supposedly in the right: that’s the ill. The fact that we’re choosing to destroy and kill each other rather than look at the other options and look at the fact and acknowledge the fact that we’re both coming from a point of view where we are in the right.

DREW: The whole reason we’re killing each other is because we’re assigning who is right and who is wrong kinds of labels!

MARK: That’s not what Kris is calling the “ill.”

DREW: We’re kind of talking about several things at once here.

MARK: [What] he’s calling the “ill” is the fact that we are killing each other.

DREW: Well, I don’t know – let Kris speak for himself! My interpretation was – he said there’s many ills in the society and he gave drug use as an example, and I would argue that there are those that believe that’s a matter of choice and not an ill, as with pornography, as with gay and lesbian relationships, as with less attendance in church, as in MTV being an “ill” in some people’s minds; and so it’s speaking to that kind of framework. I’m confused how we can all be sitting here saying yes, we can all reach the kind of society we want to have, when in everybody’s minds, that’s something different, and applying good and bad to different things seems contrary to this information.

JANIE: Um, I have a question…[Drew interrupts]

DREW: (Shouting) Can I get a response from Kris before there’s another question?

JANIE: Sure.

KRIS: Indeed. We used one example. For example: the usage of drugs. There are many other examples that could have been clearer, but specifically we referred to lack of fulfillment that is compensated for often by use of psychotropic drugs that numb the individual to his or her reality. We also referred to the rich getting richer on the backs of the poor. Someone else may define that as the bad and the good, the victims and the victors. We referred to terrorists, and indeed these are all actions chosen by both those who wish to play victim and those who wish to play victor, and indeed ultimately, these are games, but they are what your reality is based upon in this day and time.

You have to determine what you want as an outcome. When you can do that and others can see what you do and the outcomes you produce, then indeed they may alter their perspective and engage a different reality. We specifically referred to ills in a society in need of being addressed and being embraced for change, and we also mentioned that all of these are reflections of your individual and collective selves — the whole of the world.

Now what is it specifically that you find perhaps even infuriating?

DREW: Well, if I’m talking loud it’s only because I’m not sure if you can hear me over the phone. I’m not infuriated. Let me phrase it a different way. If there are quote unquote “ills” in a society, like drug use – if there are terrorists – and even that label implies that the people doing whatever they’re doing are terrible, and wrong, and bad – but if any of these things exist, isn’t it because that’s the way we created it and therefore, it’s the way we WANT it? Or me, as an individual, has created it within my own reality.

KRIS: Indeed, as we suggested, everything that occurs in the world is a reflection of you and all other individuals and their collective beliefs.

DREW: And our desires.

KRIS: Now, you may have a reality, but it is not necessarily the one you want.

DREW: But – but isn’t the reality that I experience a mirror of my truest desires?

KRIS: What is your true desire?

DREW: Well, that’s…..for myself, I have come to believe that the way to know what my truest desires are, are to look at what I’m creating; and so if I am creating a nuclear bomb in New York City or Los Angeles, isn’t that a projection of my deepest desires?

KRIS: We would have to disagree.

DREW: Okay, then I must misunderstand. Can you clarify for me?

MARK: You get what you concentrate upon, not necessarily what you desire.

DREW: No!! Well let me define — like in Elias’ terms, “wants” and “desires”. “Wants” being those things we BELIEVE we want to have. “Desires” being those things that direct our creation, those things that lead to actual manifestation. What we think we want may not be what we truly desire, and what we truly desire is what we will in fact manifest. That’s my understanding and that’s how I’m using those terms. So if that helps clarify my meaning — is that accurate, Kris?

KRIS: [The] words are understood. The question then would be that, for example again: take the mother and say, two or three young children driving and getting hit by an oncoming vehicle. What is the desire?

DREW: I would say, based on my understanding of the information, that everyone in that car desired that experience and then therefore created it.

KRIS: Then indeed here we are splitting hairs. Even though a society may create many ills, they might not be the immediate desire, but that is what manifests. So what is the desire behind that manifestation? What is it that you are hoping to accomplish by your ultimate desire?

DREW: I’m not quite sure I understand the question.

KRIS: Society creates ills – to what purpose? Is it merely to create an ill, or is it to create some other outcome?

DREW: I would not use that word! Because to me “ill” has a negative –

KRIS: Society creates an affectation.

DREW: A situation, a condition –

KRIS: — word by any other name – it is a symbol. [A rose by any other name…]

DREW: Okay, well I associate the word “ill” in a negative judgmental kind of a way.

KRIS: And that is YOUR interpretation.

DREW: Well, I’m clarifying why I wouldn’t call it an ill, but I guess I would say that anything that exists in society, whether you call it an ill or a positive or whatever, is there because at our deepest levels, it’s what we desire to experience, it’s what we’ve created for the experience of it. That’s why things are created, and so drug abuse would be something that exists in our society because collectively it’s something that we desire to have in or society for whatever reason.

[Mark holds up his hand to prevent Kris from speaking.]

MARK: I’ve got an analogy for you. I have a drug addiction, and I’m not happy with it, and I have a job, and ultimately, because of my drug addiction I get fired from my job. I don’t desire to lose my source of income – BUT, as a result, I end up going and getting help for myself, so I can overcome the drug addiction and re-integrate with society. I have achieved a desired result, BUT by going through an “ill”, something that I did NOT desire. And that’s a true story.

DREW: Well, Kris, is it accurate to say that everything that happens in our lives, happens because on the deepest levels, we desire it?

KRIS: Indeed.

DREW: So, if you have a drug addiction and you’re fired from your job, it’s because that’s the experience you choose to have.

KRIS: Though society may choose to create situations that are very delicate for some to deal with, there are ultimate destinations for those situations themselves. They are transitory. Another side of that coin is something very often experienced in Eastern religions and philosophies where one man may be traveling on the road and sees another man drowning and he will say to himself, “That is HIS karma. I will not help him because it is not my karma,” and will walk away.

Understand that LAYER of interaction as well. It is indeed a fine thing to say, “Yes, a segment of society DESIRES to use drugs, but it is also to be understood that it HAS repercussions that create many other kinds of fallouts and it can indeed destroy the lives of those individuals who may desire to shoot cocaine or crack or any other drugs. Would it be then helpful for someone to sit on the mountaintop looking down and saying, “Yes, indeed, that is their desire. Now let me go about my business.”

DREW: Well, but isn’t that ultimately the point? That – you use the word “destroy” their life, and from an information point of view, wouldn’t a more accurate analysis be that that’s the life they’re choosing to create?

MARK: Actually, too, going back to my analogy, you’ve got to realize that we’re working with individual and collective belief structures. So I have a desired outcome to eliminate this drug addiction, but I’m working within my belief systems. From Essence’s perspective, I have an endless amount of options but from my focus perspective, I’ve got limited options. I’m drowning in my own sorrows, in my beliefs about those sorrows and I think that, “Oh, I can’t get help,” like I’m stuck in this rut. I believe that I’m stuck in a rut, so therefore my intent is to get help, but I don’t utilize all the tools and the resources available to me to get to that desired result.

DREW: Then it’s not your desire!

MARK: But the path that I take might not be my desired path, but it was working within my belief structures of my available path.

DREW: Again, as I understand the information, what you create is what you desire. If you’re a drug addict, it’s because it’s what you desire, regardless of what you believe you desire. For example, right now I have no money and I’m trying to start a new business, and from a conventional point of view, I suppose some would say that what I really want is to be making a lot of money and have a successful business, but from an information point of view, I look at my situation and say “Well, this must be what I truly desire because this is what I’m creating and then therefore accepting of it.” It’s not bad or good, but obviously what I desire to create. If I wanted to have lots of money I would have it.

MARK: Also there, you’re looking, analyzing, from two different sides of the coin so to speak. You’re looking at it from Essence and from physical expression of Essence. From the Essence level, there is no right or wrong, good or bad, but from the physical level, there is!

DREW: There is, but the point I’m trying to make – and thank you for bringing this back around – the point I’m trying to make is – yes there is, but to everybody [right, wrong, good, bad are] different. And I was only concerned because the five of us in this room are kind of in silent agreement about what is good and what isn’t bad; that the terrorist with the bomb is bad, and certain quote unquote “ills” are bad, and that concerned me because we’re doing the very thing, it seems to me, that we’re trying to learn not to do, and that is to place our judgments about good and bad on other people or in other situations.

PAUL: I want to clarify something that I said earlier. The example I used was the “War on Terror.” I didn’t talk about drug addiction, gays and lesbians, or any other issues, which are apples and oranges. My concern is the type of moral relativism that Drew’s expressing and confusing between Essence and physical expression of Essence, as Mark clearly pointed out. My concern with moral relativism, saying there’s no good or evil, at the –

DREW: I didn’t say that – [Paul interrupts.]

PAUL: Yes, you did, you said it repeatedly — (continuing) at the focus level, elevates criminal gangster activity to some kind of spiritually informed activity designed to promote collective value fulfillment; and I’m particularly talking about the London bombing that just happened. That is a textbook case of criminal activity that has no business being confused for some kind of deep spiritually informed opinion that’s going to bring some kind of freedom or great realization into the collective.

The problem with moral relativism is that you can get into extreme forms of it where it’s just “a murder equals a kiss, and so what? La de da,” and the point has been made repeatedly by Mark and by Kris that if someone shows up on your door, Drew, doing whatever, you’re going to have a value judgment based on it. Elias calls it the belief system of Duplicity. We all have it. It’s one of the ten belief systems according to Elias. It infiltrates all the other belief systems. You cannot avoid believing in good and bad.

Now evil: the final thought on this, I want to say too – good and evil are traditionally religious belief systems, with a personified devil who’s there wreaking havoc on the world, that an externalized force – to bring it back to what Kris was saying earlier – outside of self that is somehow controlling things. And Drew, you made a good point that this conversation that’s interior to us — whatever we’re creating – good or bad, whatever we desire, whatever’s going on — is driven by our interior self and what we know.

DREW: At the risk of monopolizing the conversation; you’ve made some comments about things I’ve said, and some interpretations that I don’t think are accurate, let me clarify: I am not saying that people don’t hold beliefs, including myself, about what is good and bad, the point I’m making –

PAUL: Sure you did! You said there’s no good or evil! You said it REPEATEDLY, that the point of the whole information is there’s no good or evil! You said it two or three times.

DREW: It’s hard to clarify when you jump in and don’t let me finish!

PAUL: Well, it’s hard for me to make my point when you monopolize the conversation and talk for a half an hour.

DREW: All right, then I’ll allow others to speak, I’m done.

PAUL: That wasn’t my point. Just allow me to finish my point.

JO: It’s a very emotional subject.

DREW: I’m not emotional. I just want to clarify the point I’m making, which is that we all do hold beliefs about good and bad. The point I’m trying to make – we’ve talked about a couple of different things, maybe that’s why they’re getting confused – the point I’m making is that good and bad is different to every person and we’re sitting around in this room kind of making agreements about what is good and bad when – [Kris interrupts]

KRIS: Indeed then, we would have to ask: how do you know what is being agreed upon or not? That in itself is a judgment call, would it not be?

DREW: Well, it’s a judgment call based on the — yeah, I’m inferring, maybe incorrectly, from people’s nodding of heads and the vocabulary that’s being used – that there are certain agreements about this idea that certain groups of people are bad, certain groups of people are good, and the only point I’m making is not that I don’t hold beliefs about good and bad, but the very people that we believe to be bad, are in their own minds the heroes!

So I just want to be careful as we’re supposedly putting on the record information about Truth, that good and bad is different to everybody. Yeah, if terrorists knocked down the door, I don’t know what I’d do, I’d run, I’d defend myself, I don’t know, I’d do whatever is in the realm of my beliefs –

KRIS: In other words, you would act in the moment.

DREW: In the moment based on my beliefs, I suppose, but –

KRIS: You act with your own convictions.

DREW: But I want to clarify that I’m not saying there’s no good or bad, I’m saying that good and bad is in the eye of the beholder. That’s the only point I’m making. There is no – and I believe that’s the point of the information – ultimately there is no good or bad in Truth. It’s all point of view.

MARK: Who says we were talking Truth?

DREW: (Shouting again) Can we let the dead guy have the last word?

KRIS: That all depends. Fortunately we do not have a head that can be bitten off!

(Laughter)

Now then, do understand that collectively and individually you set up tremendous challenges for yourselves dealing with your belief systems, and out of all of these challenges you learn tremendous amounts of information. You grow in wisdom. You remember what wisdom is and you can then begin to understand what Love is at the same time, because regardless of the challenges and the social symptoms presented to you as a reflection of your own personal challenges, you always hold in the back of your mind – regardless of the emotional intensities in one room or another – you always hold within your mind the motivating factor is LOVE.

Love for self, and love for others because the others are also a reflection of YOU. Thus, regardless of whom is right or wrong in what part of the world, they are – everyone is – an aspect of you. And until that one in those many aspects are embraced, you may continue to haggle with what is right with the world, or not; but you will always know in the back of your mind that there is a choice, and that is to love.

Ultimately, that is the supreme choice. And with that, we leave you to your lovely, loving selves, and that you enjoy the challenge of the upcoming few weeks. The times are intense and emotional. Find your Balance and Harmony within all of that. And with that again, we thank your lovely, loving selves for having listened to our humble voice, even though sometimes it appears not so humble. And may your weeks come to find you filled with blessings, and a good night to all.

ALL: Thank you Kris.

(Session ends at 10:08.)

About the Author Serge Grandbois

Serge Joseph Grandbois channels Kris, a compassionate and intelligent non-physical entity, or Energy Personality Gestalt (as Kris describes themselves). Serge is one of the clearest vessels for non-physical communication in the world today. He has given voice to Kris for nearly 35 years, helping people from all walks of life.

follow me on:

Leave a Comment:

NEW ONLINE WORKSHOP!  >> "THE MAGICAL SELF 2"