(M.J.E. Spirit / Mon., 13 Jun., 1994)

Spirit Dialogues

Explorations of Spirit
by Michael Edwards

Front page: Foreword - Site Map
    <-- Previous dialogue
    <-- Question asked of Sananda in October, 1993
    <-- Letter from my Higher Self (February, 1994, and later)
    <-- Prayer - sample of prayer used before all dialogues from June, 1994 onwards
    Next dialogue -->

Monday, 13 June, 1994

      Bivalia:[a] Well, come on, my beloved one. Feel free to speak your thoughts.

      Michael: I was just trying to think how to begin.

      Bivalia: Yes, I know. It's difficult to know how to begin the first time you do this. But you don't have to worry about that. Just let it come. I've already started things going for you. You don't have to scratch your brains thinking how to begin like if you were writing a story or a letter.[b] While at times irrelevant thoughts not from me may sometimes enter your head, by and large, if you let me guide you, what comes into your mind will be from me, those irrelevant thoughts aside. And once you get into the way of it (which you have already done more than you think you have), you will find it quite easy, almost automatic in fact, to screen out those irrelevant thoughts.

      Michael: I suppose so. But if this is to be structured like a dialogue, I suppose the bits written under my ordinary name, Michael, will be written in the more ordinary way, thinking it out for myself.

      Bivalia: Well, by definition, those bits are written by you. You please yourself what you say there. The purpose of that is so that you can share your thoughts and feelings with me. I don't think you'll have any trouble knowing what to say there. The only problem will be getting it down quick enough. Of course, I already know your thoughts and feelings intimately, but I know it will be of help to you to put them in concrete form, and listen to (or read, to be more precise) my answers to them.

      Michael: Yes, you're right. I think this was prompted by a feeling of loneliness, the realization that in a deep sense I'm alone in the world, even if there are people I'm close to. I'm not even quite sure what I want to say to you. Or, putting it another way, there's so much I could say, thousands of pages in fact, that I don't know where to begin.

      Bivalia: Don't worry about the thousands of pages now. Let's just talk about what's on your mind here and now.

      Michael: Am I really channelling you now, Bivalia?

      Bivalia: If I said either "yes" or "no", would it change your feelings about that?

      Michael: No, probably not. I may not believe the answer you gave me. I just don't know if I believe in channelling generally. I'm afraid I'm very sceptical of it. Secondly, even if I were able to totally believe in it in general, there would still remain the question of whether I am in fact channelling you now.

      Bivalia: It's no good my telling you about that now. I don't believe you're ready now to receive such a definite answer to that now, in the sense that I'm not sure your mind could receive and believe it. But you are not wasting your time doing this; in time, you will get more and more used to channelling, if you continue doing this, and you will get closer and closer to me, and channel more and more purely all the time.

      Michael: Well, I suppose I do feel a bit self-conscious about doing this, and feel it's all a bit contrived. And that prayer I put at the beginning, asking God, the Masters, and you to help me, which I put there with the idea that I could say it each time I began a session here, does seem a little bit pious and pompous.

      Bivalia: That doesn't matter. All that matters is that it reflects desires on your part to get closer to everything spiritual. And, as for the self-consciousness about channelling me now, only time and practice will fix that. Once again, it doesn't matter. You don't have to show this to anyone if you don't want to. And you know perfectly well that there are plenty of people you know now who wouldn't find anything whatsoever wrong with what you are now writing if they were to read it. Some of them might even be genuinely interested in it, and might even be inspired in some way.

      Michael: Yes, that's strange. There are other things I've done which I've a bit sheepishly told someone else about, and they were quite exuberantly interested and said things like, "That's great, Michael. You're doing good work. You've really inspired me and uplifted me", and things like that. It's all a bit embarrassing, really.

      Bivalia: Only to you. They wouldn't say those things unless it truly reflected their feelings.

      Michael: Yes, I guess so.

      Bivalia: You see, you are a much greater and more radiant being than you now believe. I don't know how many people have told you that how many times, right up to and including Sananda himself, but you don't seem entirely to accept it, and feel rather embarrassed by it. Anyone would think you were in danger of getting a swelled head about it.

      Michael: Well, I guess I am a bit conscious of that.

      Bivalia: I don't think that will happen; you're too truthful and honest for that. If anything, you tend to shrink your head too much, thinking how lowly you are, and how hopeless and unspiritual you are.

      Michael: Well, if you look at my life, what a mess it's in, how absolutely little I've accomplished, it's difficult not to believe that.

      Bivalia: I know. But it's your intentions and your ideals, your values, your sincerity, your honesty that make you (or anyone else) a great being, not what you've done in the physical world, or what outward religious or spiritual formalities you observe.

      Michael: I would have thought a deep lack of positive faith in spiritual things, a lack of faith in God himself, was a bit more than a mere formality.

      Bivalia: Well, I guess so. But the problem with that kind of evaluation, based on visible signs only, is that it doesn't take into account all the inner facts about a person. It doesn't take into account that there may be very good reasons why you don't believe fully in God, or other spiritual matters. Put it this way: if there was some way you could know God exists, would you want to know him, would you be on his side? If you knew the reality of spiritual matters, would you want to know more about them, make them a part of your life?

      Michael: Yes, to both questions.

      Bivalia: There you have it. That's what counts. One day, you will come to know all that in an inner sense; and once that happens, there will be nothing that will stop you going ahead.

      Michael: But what about your telling me how great and radiant I am? - I think those were the actual words you used.

      Bivalia: They were indeed, and I didn't use them without reason.

      Michael: But is everyone "great" and "radiant", like you said I am? I have a bit of trouble with that. If not everyone is, it tends to make me feel I must be part of an elite group, spiritually speaking, and I think "who am I to be part of an elite group?" But if everyone is radiant and great, then such a description is a bit meaningless, because it's simply the norm; and what's more, the evidence of one's senses, knowledge about events that happen in this world, and plain common sense, all seem to belie the assumption that everyone is great and radiant.

      Bivalia: Well, it depends how you mean it. In a sense everyone is great and radiant, and in a sense not. It depends how long-term a view you take. Ultimately, everyone is a great being, although some of them have gone astray, lost the path, so to speak. But God loves everyone, and be assured that in the end everyone will reach God, just as they came from him at the beginning of things. There is an essence of greatness in everyone which will never be lost, which has simply become encrusted with various forms of negativity. One day, the negativity will drop off like a snake's skin, and the essence of each being will still be quite unimpaired. It is this essence which is great, which God loves. In that sense everyone is great and radiant.
      But I see what you mean about violating the evidence of worldly events, common sense, and all that. And I'm not about to tell you that all of that counts for nothing, because it does. If one takes into account the situation each being is in now, it has to be said that some of them have gone astray, have departed from God, from the Light, and in some cases have done so of their own free will. Others have not gone so far astray, and have remained much closer to God, and their loyalty is still with him and with everything of the Light.
      I am able to tell you that you are one of these, and the fact that you may consider yourself an agnostic matters not one little bit. One's loyalty to God is not determined by whether one consciously believes a God exists or not, because this is a world of limitation, and some of those limitations can block off the view of God that other people may still retain. God takes that into account, and certainly does not regard as an enemy of himself anyone who does not believe in him, or who is not sure, such as yourself. Like I said, it's your values and ideals that count for or against you.
      Many of your worldly religions have done mankind a great disservice in spreading the idea that anyone who does not have an active faith in the existence of God is, ipso facto, an enemy of God (that phrase actually being one that some religions apply to those who lack faith). Be assured that such an idea is of purely human origin, and God himself has nothing to do with it.

      Michael: That's what I like to believe, but I have no way of knowing it for sure at present.

      Bivalia: But your feeling that it is right is me, your Higher Self, telling you that it is so, that it is only a human idea, that God does not limit his love to those who have an active faith. One day you will see that inner truth more clearly, as you will a great many other truths. An active faith is a good thing to have (don't get me wrong on that), but only in the way that a lot of money is a good thing to have. If the circumstances of one's life allow one to have faith (or sufficient money, or anything else that can be used for good), all well and good: go ahead and use the resources that are available. But if any of those things are, for whatever reason, not available to you, you may unfortunately have to get by without them for a time; but it certainly doesn't make you worth less as a person, nor does it cause God to value you any less. And this is just as true of lack of faith in God as it is of lack of money, or lack of anything else. God reads your heart, where your values are, and everything that you count as most important. He doesn't read belief systems that may not represent that which you actually value, but which may be caused by the particular configuration of limitations that are currently operating in your life.

      Michael: I'm glad to hear it; but I feel I've known this for a while - to the extent that I know anything spiritual, that is.

      Bivalia: Well, of course you've known that for a while. Your feelings about that over the years have come from my telling you these things.

      Michael: I can't believe I dabbled so much in earlier years with religions that told me I would be damned if I didn't believe in God, in fact believe in him according to their particular formula. I think it was partly loneliness that motivated that, because those people who believe that tend to be the sort you meet casually because they go out evangelizing, because I never really accepted their beliefs even at that time. But if I were lonely, it doesn't seem to me I'd go to such religious groups now, because I feel nothing in common with them, and am repelled by the sort of beliefs they have about God and about what he might do to non-believers. I think I would simply prefer my own company to this; or I have other places where I might seek friendship.

      Bivalia: Well, you've advanced quite a lot since then, so I don't find that in the least surprising. Even at that time, you were beyond the need for that style of religious belief, which is why you were in a way repelled by it even at the time; but, as you said, loneliness drove you there anyway. But you have advanced even further now, and have reached a point at which you don't need to go there even for reasons of loneliness. You've found something better, amongst the people you've met over the last 9 months or so who are interested in ascension, and that fills your needs better at present than do those religions you used to have connections with.
      Although you did quite openly and honestly try to see fairly whether those religions might be the truth (for which you are to be commended), it is doubtful at best whether those religions were serving your needs of the time beyond that of relief for your loneliness. I suppose it could be said that they filled the need of verifying to you beyond reasonable doubt what you suspected anyway, that the truth you sought was not to be found here.
      I feel you were more than ordinarily open-minded in investigating each of these religions, in continuing to discuss things with people, to think about them, even to pray to God according to their formula the best you could do with self-integrity, doing these things beyond the point where most people would have given up if they were not convinced. But, as you found out, there came a time when you had to say, "That's enough. I can't go on with this for ever when nothing is coming out of it." You stopped going to those groups, and went on to other things; and the current thing is the circle of people who are interested in what they believe to be the imminent ascension of the Earth.

      Michael: Well, I'm not sure I even believe in this ascension stuff, even though it sounds like a nice idea.

      Bivalia: It doesn't matter. You can take your time considering it, talking to the Masters, and myself, and to other people, about it; and if you decide it isn't right for you, or you simply don't believe it's true, you will find something else that suits you better. If you feel you would be committed to ascension if it were true, even though you feel unsure of whether it is or not, and accordingly you turn to other ideas, but it turns out that ascension is true after all, that will not cut you out from it.
      Once again, it's your deep-down values that count, not your conscious belief or lack of it. You will find more and more that you will be drawn to that which you need. That which you need is that which you feel deep inside is just right for you, that which seems more wonderful than everything else, that which you could not bear to lose forever.
      If ascension continues to interest you (whether or not your belief in its factualness increases or decreases), then it is what you need to do, and you will not miss the boat, so to speak. If you remain interested, but can't for some reason increase your conscious belief in it, then, when the time is right, ways will be made available for you to overcome this lack of belief. I can't say exactly what those ways might be, but I imagine it would be one of these general methods: either, that you will be enabled to believe in it fully, or else, that you will be enabled to ascend even though you don't fully believe in it.
      If ascension loses its interest for you, then maybe it is not what your heart desires, deep down. In that case, if you miss out, you will not mind, because it would not attract you anyway. I wouldn't worry about that now. Leave it for now. It will sort itself out in time, and will do so in time for you to do that which your heart most desires, whatever that might be.

      Michael: Considering that what I'm writing now is a serious attempt to contact my Higher Self, I suppose I'm a bit hesitant to talk too much about ascension, to tie everything to the system of belief concerned with ascension. After all, it is just one system of belief out of many, and if it turns out to be nothing more than a fad, it will render this entire channelling exercise meaningless if I tie it too closely to the ascension system of belief. Do you get the drift of what I mean?

      Bivalia: I get the drift exactly. But it would be a concern whatever belief system you were currently interested in. There is no objective way you can isolate what you in idealistic abstract terms think of as "absolute truth" or "mainstream truth" (in contrast with the myriads of systems of belief about truth that various people believe in).
      If it were possible to objectively isolate that "mainstream absolute truth", I think in the thousands of years of human history someone would have done it by now, and they clearly haven't. Even Jesus, our beloved Lord Sananda, didn't do that (although he didn't set out to, despite what many churches claim to the contrary).
      A demonstrable "absolute truth" would kill all arguments favouring alternative belief systems, just as a proven scientific fact quickly squashes whatever case may have existed for rival theories. No-one believes in phlogiston any longer, now that the true nature of combustion is understood, and proven beyond all reasonable doubt. It is simply a fact that no one religious or metaphysical or philosophical view has done the equivalent of proving itself so objectively that all rival views have died, and I think you realize now that it is a waste of time trying to prove the spiritual truth in this kind of scientific way.

      Michael: Yes, I've known it in some way for many years, but couldn't quite accept it, and used to spend endless hours in discussion with people of varying views, trying to prove or disprove this or that spiritual point; but I've become more conscious of the point in the last few years, and I find I am less inclined to engage in those debates which involved trying to prove points by reasoning and logic. In a way, that realization has been part of what turned me agnostic in recent years.

      Bivalia: Yes, I know you find that difficult; but it will pass. It is a necessary step on the way to a true understanding of the real nature of spiritual truth, as against the dogma that many people regard as truth. If there are people who have that real understanding of truth, and they have never gone through the agnostic phase, then it is certain they have gone through that in previous lives, somewhere, at some time.

      Michael: So we're both agreed that spiritual truth cannot be proven in a scientific way, and it is a waste of time to try.

      Bivalia: Yes. Actually, before I get back to what I was saying earlier before we got onto this, I want to make the point that I'm not implying that such objective demonstration of spiritual truth will never be possible - simply that ways of doing that have not been available up to now. In fact, it is my belief that a time will come, perhaps much sooner than we realize, when spiritual truth will be known by everyone in the same way that they know about the law of gravity, or other everyday scientific truths. The proof, if we can call it that, which will enable everyone to realize spiritual truth, will not come through scientific methods, but will be the result of more and more people developing their spiritual faculties so that they can simply observe and experience truth for themselves, and not have to rely on others' ideas, with the inherent danger there of such ideas being mistaken in various ways. Such common realization of spiritual truth has to be considered a sort of proof, I suppose, and it will be every bit as good as, if not better than, objective proof as you think of it; but it will not be accomplished through means which you think of as scientific.

      Michael: I have no problems with that. I don't demand scientific proof in that sense; I just want some way of knowing what is true from what is not true, and I would certainly gladly accept the sort of verification you're talking about.

      Bivalia: It will come in time. A wonderful time will come when everyone will have that sort of verification. You will not miss out. Nobody will who wants it.

      Michael: I should hope not. But what about this problem I was talking about, with tying this channelling too closely to the ascension philosophy?

      Bivalia: Yes, that's the point I wanted to come back to, before we had that discussion about verifying spiritual truth - although that matter is relevant here.
      You still have the idea in the back of your mind, don't you, that ascension may be a fad, in contrast with what you think of as eternal truth?

      Michael: Yes, I suppose that's about it.

      Bivalia: And you hesitate to put too much emphasis on it in talking with me, as if it would be a mistake to tie your spiritual search too closely to the ascension idea. You're afraid that, if it turns out to be a fad which passes in a few years, especially if the predicted changes don't happen, it will render this whole phase of your spiritual quest meaningless, and in fact rather silly. And you're hesitant to talk about it too much with me here, because you regard this document you're typing as a permanent record of this phase of your spiritual quest, and therefore you have something of a feeling that it should be reserved for so-called "serious" spiritual topics, and not for things which might be considered cultish or faddish, and which you yourself might one day consider to be cultish or faddish. Am I right?

      Michael: Yes, I guess you're pretty right about all of that.

      Bivalia: My feelings about that are that it would be best not to concern yourself with all that, and not to let it influence your writing any more than you can help. Acknowledge those feelings and doubts, but don't let them become a straitjacket which inhibits your freedom of expression.
      Even if ascension does turn out to be a fad, it is important for you now simply because you are interested in it, regardless of whether it is true or not, which is something you've already said you can't know anyway. If it is false, you will find out in due course, and go on to other things. That won't in any spoil your relationship with me, or with God, and won't in any way invalidate your spiritual search.
      You won't make a fool of yourself for having pursued wrong ideas any more than anyone else who pursues a particular religious or spiritual idea who realizes they were wrong about something or other. Everyone is wrong about such things at some stage of their growth.
      And if there are people who would laugh at you because you were "taken in" by an idea which happens to be unconventional in your society, well, do you need to attach so much importance to the opinions of the sort of people who like to laugh at others who have made mistakes? One day, those who scoff and laugh will make a mistake themselves, and they will learn, the hard way in many cases, I'm afraid, that laughing at others isn't such a smart and clever thing to do after all. In most cases, they only do it because they feel inferior or inadequate or insecure. Meanwhile, you don't have to pay any attention to the opinions of those who would like to make you look a fool.
      As for this document being a sort of record of your spiritual progress, with every word being set in stone, so to speak, and taking on almost literary importance - well, there's nothing wrong with that, but I suggest you don't put too much importance on all that. After all, you can alter the words any time you wish, or throw it out, or write a completely new document.
      What is more important than writing things which will still seem important in a few years' time is that you write what's important now. Don't get hung up on the permanence of what you write, and don't try to be literary; just be free and spontaneous and write what comes to you. Your best chances of channelling my ideas as purely as possible is to do just that, and not think about it in the other terms.
      It's no good trying to channel another being (whether your Higher Self, or anyone else), and then trying to exercise conscious control over what is written. It's like saying, "Please give me your thoughts, but I'm going to write what I like anyway." You haven't done this so far, and I think you've done well now, and just keep it up. You will fall into that danger if you start trying to write according to what you think is important, or what will read well in a few years' time, or what seems to concentrate most on "absolute truth" as contrasted with various by-ways or fads of truth.
      You did well to bring up the issue of feeling conscious about tying everything to ascension. I ask you to be as free as possible in future in talking to me about anything that comes up in your thoughts or feelings, and not to hold back because it seems silly or unspiritual or unconventional, or anything else.

      Michael: I will try to do that, although I don't promise to live up to it all the time.

      Bivalia: Well, that's all right; I'm not asking for perfection.

      Michael: I still can't help feeling this is a bit contrived, that I'm just engaging in spiritual masturbation in a sense.

      Bivalia: Well, would it really matter if you did spiritually masturbate, if that's what you are doing?

      Michael: Well, no, I suppose not - but it does seem a bit soppy and self-indulgent somehow to be writing dialogues with my Higher Self.

      Bivalia: Does it? Does that really matter? It is no more silly than many other things people do as a part of their spiritual life, because they find them helpful, or sometimes merely because religious authorities tell them to do it.

      Michael: I felt really self-conscious when I began, so that you opened the discussion because I sat there saying (or typing) nothing. I suppose it's the first time I've had a dialogue with you, although there is of course that supposed letter from you which I pretended to channel - I won't put it any stronger than pretending to channel you.

      Bivalia: Well, that's an interesting exercise anyway. I think there is more wisdom there than you expected. I think I had a hand in that. And besides, while that wasn't an interactive dialogue, you have had dialogues with me before, but you just didn't quite recognize whom you were conducting the dialogue with. A few years ago, you wrote several pages of what appeared to be a conversation between yourself and what you thought of as "an ideal counsellor", a sort of ultimate psychiatrist. I think you called him Richard after a while because you wanted to personalize him, but you never felt easy about that. Can you now see that that counsellor was me, your Higher Self? I think you even realized that to some degree at the time, although you didn't actually use such descriptions all that much. But in the preface, you made speculations about who the counsellor was, which certainly included a number of spiritually-oriented ideas.

      Michael: Yes, I suppose you're right. I intended to have many such sessions with that counsellor, but for some reason I never went back to it, I suppose for the reasons that I've already mentioned about feeling it was a bit silly and self-indulgent. And that was a time of my life when I became more agnostic, almost atheistic, and where I turned against any ideas of exploring inner states of being, and what I thought of as "all that New-Age crap". But the New-Age crap won't leave me alone, it seems. Over the years, I seem to keep coming back to those kinds of ideas, even though I never quite reach the point of believing in them.

      Bivalia: Perhaps I'm trying to gently lead you to that which you need. I know you do dislike some of what you think of as the dross of New-Age philosophy, and certain practices of New-Age groups generally. Well, you don't have to accept all the dross if you don't like it; but I think you realize now, don't you, that you don't need to throw the baby out with the bath-water.
      Also, I know you disagree at a pretty deep level with some of the most fundamental New-Age ideas, ideas which are central enough to be more than merely dross. I'm not going to tell you to ignore that, simply because everyone else who is vaguely within the New-Age area disagrees with you on those ideas. There are good reasons for you to have that difference of opinion from many of the other people you know. Just take the ideas you like, which you think might be helpful, and ignore the rest. You may one day find you were right about some of your differences of opinion, that you had a rare perceptiveness about some matters that few other people shared; and even if it turns out that you were wrong and the majority opinion was right after all, it will become apparent that your different idea was still based on valid ideas that will be of value, and which those who hold the majority opinion have yet to consider fully.

      Michael: What about the time, perhaps over 10 years ago, I wrote what seemed to be a discussion between all the various parts of my personality? I think that one continued for over a hundred pages. I imagined a point of view for each part of myself, like the Optimist, and the Pessimist, and the Child, and the Judge, and the Rational Mind, and the Spirit, and perhaps half a dozen others, and a Chairman to keep things orderly. And God came into it at times. Were you in any way involved in that?

      Bivalia: I think I might have had something to do with that. But because you split yourself up into all those different parts, and had each one speak from its own limited point of view, it would be difficult to isolate whole passages that I directly inspired. There might be some, however.
      I think the Child part of you spoke quite a bit of good common sense in those sessions, although he had his own limitations, owing to his very nature. I think the Spirit might have had a lot of good sense about him too; perhaps he was an alter-ego of mine.
      There were other parts of your personality, such as the Pessimist and the Judge, and to a lesser extent the Rational Mind, who were more representing the various limitations you have allowed to influence your life. I don't think you need the attitudes they represented any more, and even at the time, the lively debates that went on in those sessions about their attitudes indicates that parts of you even then were beginning to have doubts about whether those attitudes were helpful.
      So, I think had an influence, although it was probably less direct than in the later document with the counsellor, which shows my influence much more clearly. And of course this one does too, perhaps even a bit more clearly still, although I think your disguise of me as "The Counsellor" in the previous document was a pretty transparent and thin one, if you don't mind my saying so.
      All your life I have taken a keen interest in all that you do, and have always been trying to guide you to a spiritual understanding, and, yes, I exerted my influence while you wrote those sessions with the parts of your personality, and also during the couple of times you have kept a diary, other than the writings we have already talked about. I think, if you read over any of these now, you would have no difficulty in identifying the parts where my influence comes through.
      For that matter, I have had an influence on the various times you have written fiction, even though many of those stories never got finished. In fact, I have an influence over every part of your life, and I never cease trying to lead you to a greater spiritual understanding, and an awareness of myself, although I cannot directly override your free will, which I think is something we both regret at times.

      Michael: I see. Well, I'm getting cold and hungry, and I think I might have to leave off for a while now. And cold is causing my fingers to make typing mistakes.

      Bivalia: As you please. I am always available whenever you want my presence, whether in thought, speech, or in the form of writing such as now. That is part of my job. I love you very much, and I want to help you in whatever way I can.

      Michael: Thank you. I don't quite know what I wanted to talk about with you now; it just sort of came out.

      Bivalia: Well, that's as it should be. But of course, if you do have an agenda, specific things you want to ask me about, don't feel you shouldn't keep it ready to ask me, simply because I said to be spontaneous. You know that I didn't mean that you shouldn't ask me definite things you want to talk about.

      Michael: Yes, I know what you mean there. I don't know if this will fizzle out like the intended sessions with the Counsellor. Part of the problem is that it takes time to write out a decent session like this, and so unless I've got a good stretch of time ahead of me, an open-ended session, in fact, I put off doing anything at all. That might have been the fate of my Counsellor, that I didn't often enough feel I had enough hours at a time to have a decent session with him.

      Bivalia: Well, I suggest you don't worry about that. I want you to feel free to come to me, whether in writing or any other way, even if you have only one single remark to make to me, even if you write only 2 or 3 lines. This isn't like a psychiatrist where you have an hour at a time and you don't make the appointment if you don't feel you can fill the hour. Will you try and remember that, please? Just come as often as you like, in whatever manner you like, in writing or in thoughts, for just as long or as short as you like.

      Michael: Yes, I'll try to bear that in mind, although attitudes of mind are not easy to change by an act of will.

      Bivalia: No, of course they're not; but try anyway, and it'll get easier and easier.

      Michael: I have a bit of the same feeling about the Masters, you know. Well, I only talk to them, I don't try to channel them like this. I wouldn't dare to.

      Bivalia: Well, you might be able to one day; but I agree that if you want to try channelling, it was wise to begin with me, your Higher Self.

      Michael: But I feel, if I talk to the Masters, I shouldn't bother them with too many little trivial thoughts. Well, I sometimes do bother them with trivial thoughts -

      Bivalia: Good; that's what they want.

      Michael: - although I feel a little self-conscious about it. But there's something a bit in me that keeps it all rather serious, although quite friendly and honest.

      Bivalia: All those Masters you called on when you wrote the prefacing prayer at the beginning of this document are with me now, and they tell me they like the way you talk with them. You're very honest, and you don't ever intentionally misrepresent anything at all to them.

      Michael: Well, that's nice. I find occasionally I might be talking with someone, like Sananda, for instance, and I get involved in a rather long and involved explanation of something that seems important at the time, but sometimes I get distracted by other things I have to do, and stop the explanation, and just do other things, even without so much as saying good-bye, and I feel I'm leaving him out on a limb in a way. Terribly rude of me, I suppose, to just drift away like that.

      Bivalia: Sananda knows what you mean, but he's not offended in the slightest. He knows what your explanation is going to be, and he says, if that happens, and you drift away, don't worry; just take it all as if it were fully explained to him, and he takes it that way himself, and even throws in the "Good-bye".
      He knows, as I do, that part of the reason this happens is that you find words inadequate to express the full depth of meaning of what is in your mind, and you therefore tend to get lost in words which are not really adequate, and you therefore keep trying to reword your thoughts to modify the shades of meaning to get closer to what you really want to express. Finally, you get a bit bored, not with what you are telling Sananda (or any of the others), but with the mechanics of trying to find the right words. You know what you want to say, but you reach a point where you can't be bothered fumbling around finding the right words. Finally, something comes up that you need to do, and you leave off the whole explanation.
      Sananda knows what you mean even if you choose the wrong words, because he can read your aura. If you give him permission, he is able to read your very thoughts, and I know you have on occasion specifically asked him to do this when you wanted to convey some exact thought to him. Putting thoughts into words is actually more for your benefit than Sananda's, or mine, or any other beings here, because we know that humans' ways of thinking are so bound up with words that it's difficult to get away from them.
      As you get closer to the Masters, you will find your ability to concentrate on what you say to them will increase, and you will increasingly be able to finish what you wanted to say. And then, a bit later, you will find that you need to rely less and less on words to convey your ideas, and you will simply be able to project a thought to the Masters instantly, all in one piece, with the assurance that it will reach them just as well as if you had gone to the trouble of thinking it out in words - better, in fact. That realization is indeed a glorious moment, one of those real breakthroughs in spiritual growth.
      But in the meantime, don't worry that offence may be taken at a certain manner you may adopt which is nothing more than the result of attempting to fumble with words at the same time as you focus on the thoughts themselves. Language basically evolved to cope with everyday communications, and concrete thoughts. It wasn't really designed for the subtleties of spiritual ideas. It is indeed an accomplishment that you can use words as far as you can to express spiritual ideas; but I think you realize it does have limits in this area.

      Michael: Well, thanks. I'm pleased that you and the Masters take such a tolerant and understanding attitude about it. Of course, I would hope I could be that understanding with someone else, and not take offence at something that was clearly not intended to offend.

      Bivalia: Well, if you can show such understanding, rest assured that Sananda, and the other Masters, can do so too. And, of course, God himself too.

      Michael: Well, that's a whole new topic. There are reasons why I don't talk with God nearly as much as the Masters, although I know I should. I suppose, just to be brief (because I'm getting hungrier and colder by the minute), it comes down to that the idea of God seems more abstract and remote, whereas the Masters seem a bit human somehow, and many of them were human. And, although I've never really been a believer in orthodox Christian religion, I suppose I've been influenced to some extent by the idea that I'm somehow an enemy of God because I don't believe, or because I try to be open-minded about psychic or New-Age ideas that Christianity has often condemned as wicked or dangerous, or even Satanic. I mean, not that I take this seriously, but I suppose I can't live 40 years in a nominally Christian culture without somehow absorbing such ideas to some extent unconsciously. And I suppose that has helped make me feel more distant from God.

      Bivalia: God understands, and does not hold it against you. It will change one day, as your spiritual awareness grows. Don't you see? - most of your life you've vaguely felt you may not quite be on the right side of Jesus and God, and you're coming to realize you're one of the goodies after all. And once you become fully aware of God's wonderful love for you, you will be quite swept off your feet, and will never look back again. God loves everyone as intensely as if each being were the only being in the whole universe.
      It is time to put behind you any residue of negative ideas you may have picked up from the church, or from people you've met who hold those ideas. You may have had honest intellectual reasons for doubting the nature or even existence of God, and everything that is spiritual; but in terms of values you've always been firmly on the side of the spiritual. And that is what counts. The doubts will be remedied in due course; they are a relatively superficial aspect of the matter.

      Michael: Well, thank you, Bivalia. I guess that's as encouraging an answer as I could reasonably expect.

      Bivalia: It is nevertheless true.

      Michael: Is "Bivalia" your real name?

      Bivalia: It is how you presently know me.

      Michael: That's not quite the same.

      Bivalia: I know you think I'm being a bit evasive when I give an indirect answer to a direct question. But there are things which it might be better to be less direct about.
      For instance, if I were to give a direct answer, you would in some cases be very sceptical about it, whatever the answer was, and it would cause you to have negative attitudes about channelling me, and perhaps even about my very existence. I know you have those attitudes already to some extent, so it would be nothing new; but nevertheless, I don't want to encourage those negative attitudes - I want to encourage positive attitudes that will help you.
      It may satisfy your curiosity to get direct answers to certain questions, such as whether "Bivalia" is my real name or not, and it might even be of real value; but if that knowledge is accompanied by sceptical feelings, which you already have more strongly than would be good for you, the value of that knowledge would be diminished. And it might even inhibit you from getting the inner realization of that knowledge when the time is right, if you already have an answer you feel doubtful about, where you are torn between believing it and not believing it.
      It may be valuable to get certain information directly from me through channelling such as this; but I think it would in the long run be much more valuable to come to your own inner realization of that knowledge, even if that takes longer. What would be more valuable than direct answers from me that you will not believe anyway would be just getting to know me through conversations like this. Once you get to know me better, you will get all the answers you need in a way you will believe, by knowing them inside.

      Michael: I see. I suppose I sort of get your point, although I still have doubts about it. But I can't help having a bit of feeling that it's an evasion resorted to when the information asked for is very specific, so that if it is found to be wrong you will be caught out, if you'll pardon me for saying so.

      Bivalia: You don't need to ask for my pardon. I appreciate your honesty; it is one of the things I like about you, and, as you can guess, one of the things Hilarion likes about you. Why do you think you've worked so much with him over the centuries?
      I understand the feelings you have about the matter you just raised; but to whatever extent you feel that way (and I suspect your feelings are not completely so), nothing I say will change that for now. You will realize otherwise in your own time.

      Michael: What about the name "Bivalia" though?

      Bivalia: Like I said, that's how you know me now. It may change, and it may not.
      I know you don't really have a great deal of time for this business of spiritual names. You feel it's a bit gimmicky, somehow, and it really seems a bit over the top when someone changes their name a few times, only months after the previous change.

      Michael: No, I'm not really all that interested in that, and would feel foolish doing that. I use the name Bivalia here simply as an identifying label. It is convenient to have a name for my Higher Self, and I've never felt comfortable with just saying "Higher Self", like some people apparently do. But it's just a name; it doesn't feel any more right or any less right than any other name might do.

      Bivalia: You are quite at liberty to use the name for me as long as you wish. It doesn't bother me.

      Michael: Okay, thank you. I won't pursue that matter now. I'm really cold and hungry now, so I think I will thank you and take my leave. I hope in the future I can get to know you better, and find out that you really do exist, and feel more comfortable talking with you. So in the meantime, thank you and good-bye.

      Bivalia: Thank you for spending time with me. I give you my love and help at all times. Good-bye until next time.


[a] Tuesday, 26 March, 2002 - "Bivalia:":
      Because most of the documents in this web site are dialogues between my ordinary self and my higher self, I need labels to identify the two parts. The name "Bivalia" is what a mystic once told me is the name of my higher self.
      There are two early dialogues in 1990 and 1991, in which I used "ME" (for "Michael Edwards", or possibly "me") and "C" (for "Counsellor") for the two parts. In these early dialogues, I had not yet properly established a style for the dialogues, and the roles and points of view of the two participants had not quite established a firm direction, although it did partially anticipate the trend that later dialogues followed much further. The counsellor was not formally identified as my higher self, but one of those early dialogues did strongly suggest he might be, at least in part, synonymous with my higher self. At other times he was more like an idealized counsellor, as his label suggests.
      In the dialogues from 1994 onwards, the parts for my ordinary self are labelled "Michael", and are written from the point of view of my everyday consciousness, my everyday way of thinking - as were the earlier parts labelled "ME". This is fairly straightforward, and there is nothing problematical about this. However, the question of what to call my higher self in these dialogues has been a long-term problem.
      My higher self is labelled "Bivalia" in the dialogues from 1994, up to and including the year 1998, and it is the supposed name of my higher self. In truth, I do not know what the name of my higher self is, or even whether one's higher self has a distinct name - but a mystic I met early in 1994 divined various things clairvoyantly about me - amongst other things, that my higher self name is Bivalia. (She pronounced the first "i" short, as in "hit", and the first "a" long, as in "father". I add this, because several people who referred to the name pronounced the "i" as in "bye", and the "a" as in "valley" or "veil".)
      I was at the time moving in a New-Age-oriented circle of people, many of whom had adopted higher-self names which either some mystic had told them, or which they intuitively came up with themselves, and some of these people even used these names in an everyday sense, as a substitute for their given name - at least amongst other people of similar mystical or spiritual interests.
      I never did this, and never got caught up in the enthusiasm for adopting higher-self names, which seemed a bit of a gimmick, a bit contrived somehow - even though these people believed there to be good reasons for doing this, and explained the reasons quite convincingly in terms of their overall spiritual outlook. Thus, I never really accepted the name "Bivalia" as genuinely that of my higher self, and I never really felt comfortable with it. However, if I was going to write dialogues with my higher self, I obviously had to have some kind of label for the two participants in the dialogue, and I used the name "Bivalia" for my higher self, in the absence of anything better to use.
      In 2000, after a break of nearly two years in which I wrote no dialogues, I grew increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of using what seemed to be a made-up name for my higher self, and I think what finally clinched it was my discovery that "Bivalia" is also the scientific name of a genus of bivalves (shellfish). Undoubtedly this is nothing more than a coincidence; however the mystic arrived at the name "Bivalia", it seemed unlikely that she had shellfish in mind, and quite likely she didn't even know about this angle. But somehow it made the name seem even more ridiculous than I had already begun thinking it was, and I dropped it in favour of "Higher Self" for two more dialogues in 2000; then, in 2001, I changed the label again to "Spirit", which seemed to reflect my strengthening concept of one's higher self being a part of Spirit overall, perhaps even of God (a very New-Age idea, that, and one which seems as persuasive to me as any spiritual concepts ever are).
      Because the dialogues that use the label "Bivalia" also refer to this name from time to time in the dialogue itself, I've decided not to edit it out now, but simply leave things as I wrote them. To some extent the dialogues are a record of my spiritual life in past years, and I would be reluctant to falsify that in any significant way.
      For more about this, see
Bivalia in the Glossary. Also, the dialogue on Saturday, 9 December, 2000 discusses, amongst other things, the reasons why I abandoned the use of the name "Bivalia". [Back]

[b] Wednesday, 12 March, 2003 - "... scratch your brains...":
      My Higher Self appears, in this, one of the very earliest sentences of his that I wrote, to have mixed his metaphors. Although he seems to have found his voice quite well early on, with very little awkwardness of style, perhaps I did feel a little uneasy at the beginning of my first attempt at explicitly channelling my Higher Self (except the "letter from the future"), and maybe this caused me to choose a wording that mixed the metaphors of scratching one's head and racking one's brains. On the other hand, you may, if you find it convincing, regard the mixing of related metaphors as a literary device used to give a slightly unusual effect. [

Front page: Foreword - Site Map
    <-- Previous dialogue
    <-- Question asked of Sananda in October, 1993
    <-- Letter from my Higher Self (February, 1994, and later)
    <-- Prayer - sample of prayer used before all dialogues from June, 1994 onwards
    Next dialogue -->

This page created on Saturday, 25 November, 2000;
annotations added or amended, or links to other pages added,
    on occasions up to Wednesday, 12 March, 2003.