Thursday, 24 September, 1998
Michael: Well, Bivalia, hullo.
Michael: I'm reporting in as per orders.
Bivalia: You make it sound so forced. I'm not a Sergeant-Major.
Michael: I'm not used to working in the way you asked me to try for a
week - that is, on an everyday basis.
I didn't think I was going to make it today, actually. I'm at my
mother's and she's gone to bed, and I'm not staying the night tonight, so I
can't go on for hours and hours tonight.
I'm using my laptop computer to do this, actually, my new I.B.M. one.
Bivalia: I guess it's nice to have a laptop that you can take anywhere you
like and do work when you feel like it.
Bivalia: So watcha been up to, mate?
Michael: [LAUGHS.] You've got a bit of practice to do to win the "Ocker
of the Year" Award.
Bivalia: I have to begin somewhere. I'm trying to create an informal
atmosphere to help you come here daily, to share with me whatever you've been
doing, or whatever's on your mind.
Michael: I suppose you realize that if I come to you daily like this the
conversation's not going to be deep and spiritual as great a proportion of the
time as it would if I came to you when I had something important I wanted to
discuss with you.
Bivalia: God forbid if we are only deep and spiritual when we meet like
this. I am not worried, even though I do enjoy that. When you have something
like that to discuss, I don't think anything will stop you bringing it me. But
meanwhile perhaps we can also enjoy lighter moments together.
Michael: Anyway, what I've just been doing is watching Jurassic Park on the T.V. tonight. I'm kind of a science-fiction fan, and there are certain movies in that area I like to see, but I always miss them at the cinema (where it's really better to see them), because I don't find out about them until they're gone.
So my mind is full of dinosaurs, and everything running amok, and also
John Williams's wonderful, soaring score which he wrote for the film.
Bivalia: Yes, he's really written some wonderful film music since Star
Wars, hasn't he? - almost taken film music back single-handedly to the grand,
romantic scores of composers like Korngold.
Michael: Well, I wouldn't say he's made all film composers go back to the
grand orchestral style, but he's certainly made a strike for that in an era
when film music seems to be dominated by either pop music on the one hand, or
electronic or New-Age type of music on the other hand.
The main theme of Jurassic Park is a wonderful theme, and seems to have great nobility somehow, and much feeling, and I can't seem to stop it running round in circles in my brain.
The dinosaurs are not noble, however. They are very realistic, and, if
they are any guide as to how they really were, they were terrible creatures.
The carnivorous ones, at least. They're well-named, because "dinosaur" comes
from Greek words meaning "terrible lizard".
I think there's been a great dinosaur fad amongst some people in recent
years, and this film was probably created to capitalize on it; but watching a
Tyrannosaurus Rex reach down and yank a man up into the air and start eating
him alive should strip dinosaurs of any aura of romanticism they might have.
And the terrible, hollow roars they have, a bit like lions but much
magnified. I find it difficult to see why dinosaurs have a romantic image in
many people's minds.
Bivalia: Yes, I think if people could see them as they really were, it
would be very salutary. They were not romantic creatures.
Michael: I think the whole film has a moral, in a way, on the folly of an
experiment such as creating these creatures which surely don't belong in
today's world. Man dabbles with natural forces he doesn't understand, thinks
he has everything under control, thinks he knows everything, but he doesn't.
Inevitably things go wrong, and it all snowballs into complete catastrophe,
with humans literally being hunted all over the place by giant lizards.
The film itself paid some attention to this moral aspect. One of the
characters summed up the history of life like this: God creates the world; God
creates the dinosaurs; God destroys the dinosaurs; God creates man; man
destroys God; man creates dinosaurs - and I thought he was going to move on to
"dinosaurs destroy man", but another character cut in with "man destroys
woman", which I suppose was meant as a joke.
But at least some characters had qualms about the force that might be
unleashed in recreating dinosaurs, and about whether man could keep it under
control. I would share those qualms myself.
Bivalia: Yes, you are right. It would be a terrible thing to recreate
them. They don't belong in today's world; it is not without reason that they are
gone now. Considering they are dozens of millions of years gone, your planet was
much less evolved then than it is now, and it would be quite wrong to recreate
those creatures. Quite apart from the physical danger they present, it would
immensely drag your world down simply by flooding it with gross vibrations.
There are any number of beings in the lower astral plane who would love to grab
the opportunity to incarnate in that form, but they are not meant to do that.
Let us hope it never happens; let us hope that Jurassic Park serves as a caution to any scientists with more intellect than moral sensitivity who might contemplate such a thing.
Michael: Perhaps it was also a moral against over-dependence on
computers and automation. (Ha, ha - so says me, typing on a super-duper,
hi-tech, cutting-edge I.B.M. laptop.)
Bivalia: Your point is right, but there is nothing wrong with you using a
laptop. It is the abuse of technology that is undesirable, not just the use of
it. It could be a great force for good in your world if used properly. And
there are people using it for good, such as the people who are working on virtual
reality programs and devices for the disabled (just think what hope such things
could give quadriplegics who might have no other hope for a better life); but,
unfortunately, there are people who will use such technology to serve their quest
for oppression and power over others; and I fear this destructive side of
technology is often publicized more than the good side. While it may appear that
those people are going ahead unchecked and getting away with it, they will learn
one day how wrong they were, and the lesson might be very uncomfortable for them.
Michael: Well, I brought up the moral about automation, because in this
dinosaur theme park, many things were operated through computers, and when the
system broke down, and the dinosaurs were wreaking havoc, the people trying to
fix things were hampered by the fact that they couldn't do things manually
while the computers were down.
Bivalia: Yes, I think the film could have some salutary lessons about the
misuse of technology, and the misuses of science and knowledge, too. However, my
friend, if you ever have doubts about whether you should be into computers so
much, rest easy. Your little laptop, although a powerful one, is one of the most
innocent laptops I know of. I see not the slightest evidence that you are even
remotely near using computers wrongly, and I have no fears that you will either.
Michael: I guess I'm not seriously concerned over it; but, yes, I've had
the occasional doubt about whether I should be so much into computers.
Bivalia: Anything else interesting?
Michael: I don't know. I had a feeling there was something else I wanted
to mention; but if it doesn't come to me soon, it'll have to wait a couple of
hours until I'm back home again.
Meanwhile, this session seems to have been little more than a film
Bivalia: Well, that's a nice change, isn't it? It's much less important
what we talk about than that we get to know each other.
Michael: Well, I know you wanted to make this kind of friendly and
informal, sort of chummy. But isn't that a bit phoney when you consider that
I haven't gone about today doing this and that, and chatting away to you like
I would to a friend I was with? Surely that's how it should be if this
getting-to-know-you-like-a-friend bit were for real?
Bivalia: Not at all - not to begin with, at least. In fact, I think life
would be quite unmanageable if everyone went around constantly chatting with
their higher selves (whether out loud or just in their mind). That's not how it
works, in the ordinary way. You can reach a point of sharing life with your
higher self in that kind of way, but once you have sufficient awareness, you can
manage it properly. You reach that point eventually by doing specific work with
your higher self at selected times; but there is no expectation whatever that
people generally and at large should do that, and in fact the higher self has a
duty not to interfere gratuitously in a person's daily life, because they have
things that they've got to do in their own way.
Michael: So you don't find this let's-be-friends act forced and
artificial in a sense?
Bivalia: Not at all. Well, not artificial. It's forced, in the sense
that, after I asked you to consider doing it, you made a conscious decision to
sit down and have a friendly session which was not spontaneous. But that doesn't
matter; as I said, that's the beginning step to developing a relationship that
will ultimately be friendly and spontaneous, but which you will have under
sufficient control that you won't get your life into a mess because you're
constantly communing with your higher self.
Michael: I guess so. Well, I think I'll have to finish up now. Of
course most of these daily sessions aren't going to be very long.
Bivalia: I don't care if they are one sentence long, if that's all you have
to say. You aren't being marked on the number of words you produce.
Michael: You realize that all my sessions with you, whether in this daily
style, or my occasional long but deep pieces, are perhaps little more than a
diary, which I'm choosing to cast in the form of a dialogue.
Bivalia: I think it's a very good way to keep a diary. I am an advocate of
the habit of keeping a diary, actually, because it might help people reflect on
the deeper issues of life, in a society such as yours that gives little time or
encouragement for people to slow down and reflect on things. That's just an
ordinary diary I mean there, where you just write about what you've been doing,
or reflect or speculate on the issues that have been on your mind.
But I think it's even better if you can, in a natural way, bring your
higher self in, and discuss things with him (or her). It doesn't even matter if
you are not really channelling, but just making it up in the ordinary way you
might make up something when you write. Even so, the act of doing it focuses
your mind on your higher self, makes you more aware of him, and, even if the
channelling is not quite what you believe it to be, thoughts from the higher self
will still make their way into the writing, more and more. From my point of
view, whether you are really channelling or not is secondary in importance to the
fact that you are trying to reach Spirit, and finding your spiritual path, and
trying to work out your own answers to things.
That's the only way it works. It doesn't work for me, or anyone else in
the realm of spirit, to just hand you answers on a silver platter, even though I
know you (and many other people) would like it. You probably wouldn't believe
what I told you, and, even if you did, you would probably find it much less
helpful than you think, because it would not be an inner reality, and getting the
answers handed to you might even encourage you to stop thinking about the matters
at all. That's why I'm sometimes a bit cagey about giving you answers about
things that surely you think I should know all about. (It's also sometimes
because the answer is such that the words don't exist in your language to give it
You have to arrive at truth in your own way, through your own reality, even
though it can be slow and difficult and discouraging. The only other alternative
is answers from outside yourself, based on outside authority: whether that be
another human, a "sacred" scripture, a Church authority, God Himself, or your
higher self - or what you believe to be those last two, because they will never
give you answers of the authoritarian type.
The alternative of answers not from inside, from your own working out, but
from outside authorities, is available, and there is an endless choice of
authorities to choose from. You are free to join any church of your choice,
follow blindly any path that someone else has prescribed, or any scripture you
fancy. I don't see you rushing out to find one of these paths, though, and I
don't think the answers you got would make you feel better about things than your
present uncertainty and doubt.
Remember that it is more important to ask the questions than to receive the
answers. Let me qualify that. The answers are important in the long run, and
that's why you ask the questions. They are less important in the short term than
many people think, and more than you are sometimes tempted to think, and the most
fulfilling way to get the answers is to just focus on asking the questions,
rather than trying to force answers that aren't ready to come yet. If you try to
force answers, they will usually come, but they may not be the right answers, but
just a system of dogma. We've discussed the role of dogma before, and we both
seem to agree that dogma doesn't have an important role in real spiritual
awareness. At best, it is a crutch that may give certain people some degree of
help if the crutch is one that suits them; but it still doesn't answer the
fundamental problem of knowing spiritual reality.
Michael: Some born-again Christians would disagree with that, and claim
to know God Himself, and to know ultimate truth.
Bivalia: Many people believe that, but it isn't always so. And many of
those people nevertheless believe in a God who punishes people by tormenting them
forever in hell, for no worse a crime than being unable to believe in a certain
set of dogmas which are far from obviously true. That is a God who uses fear to
control people, who is into separation, and it is not a loving way for God to
behave. To my way of thinking, that is not ultimate reality, but just a rather
middling-to-low level of the astral plane.
Michael: I guess so; I was just telling you that others would disagree
with our view on it.
Bivalia: That is their perfect right, and even God Himself won't interfere
Michael: I've thought of something else I wanted to say, but I don't
think it was the thing I was trying to think of before.
There are those who say you should always go through a kind of ritual
before channelling, or anything of a spiritual nature, calling on God or the
Masters for protection from darker forces, and the like. If you don't do
that, you run a risk of running into unpleasant beings. Yet you are
encouraging me to be more free and spontaneous with you, to just drop in and
say hullo when I have a few odd minutes, and the idea of having elaborate
preparatory rituals seems to contradict the idea of being spontaneous. What
Bivalia: For a person who's quite new to this sort of stuff, I would
probably be conservative and advocate a ritual. What you referred to as dark
forces do exist, just as they do on your planet, and they can be attracted to
persons whose thinking is in harmony with theirs. That might include some people
starting out on a conscious spiritual path. I feel that you have enough of a
feel for this channelling business, at least with respect to channelling me, that
you would not be in such danger without the ritual. You probably don't need to
be rigid, and if you want to spontaneously share something with me, I don't think
it would be a serious breach of protocol if you omitted the ritual. But I think
it is still a good idea, in general, not because you need to particularly fear
the forces of darkness, but because it helps prepare you to be receptive to
Spirit, and calls in some help from God and the Masters.
If you were to try something quite new to you, such as channelling a being
other than your higher self, I would be a little more cautious. There are
impostors in the spirit world, and you might like to guard against them. And if
you were to do astral travelling, I would advocate a preparatory ritual of some
sort, without getting paranoid about what might happen to you in the astral if
you didn't do enough in your ritual. When it is said that the only thing to fear
in the astral is fear itself, this is perfectly true. Calling in some help from
on high is a good way to guard against this. If you are not afraid, no so-called
"dark forces" can touch you, and nor are they likely to be interested in you.
But it is a good principle, in general, with spiritual practices, to take it
easy, and to progress at a speed that you feel comfortable with.
Michael: So, in short, it's not all that critical in channelling you,
which is a familiar activity to me now, but probably a good idea all the same;
but in new territory I should be more circumspect, without being paranoid, and
without focusing too much on the possible hazards.
Bivalia: That's about right.
Michael: I've heard people say, and I have an idea it was one of those
three ladies doing the cosmic consciousness process we were talking about a
day or two ago, that it is not appropriate to call for protection, because you
are buying into separation consciousness, which is contrary to the oneness
they are promoting. If we are all one, there is nothing to be scared of,
nothing you need protection from.
Bivalia: Try telling that to people with terrible, painful illnesses, or
people tortured in oppressive dictatorships, and see what sort of a reception you
get. There are people who want to harm others for some reason or other. I would
advocate the taking of sensible precautions when a real danger appears to be
present, and I don't think that has to detract from the oneness consciousness we
are all in the process of working towards. It is not fully manifest yet,
however, and I don't see what it achieves to pretend it is more manifest than it
It's up to you. Take precautions if you want to avoid dangers you can see;
or, if you think it compromises oneness too much, don't take precautions. You
will in that event have to be willing to take the consequences that might ensue.
But, whatever you do, it is your choice, and I would not want to fall into the
fallacy of saying that one or other option is what you are "meant" to do.
Michael: I get the feeling your outlook is not all that similar to that
of the three ladies.
Bivalia: I guess we see certain things differently. Perhaps they're right
and I'm wrong; but I'm telling you how I see things. There's nothing at all
wrong with what they're doing; but I feel it seems a bit too prescriptive to
imply that this is the only way it is done.
Michael: Anyway, I really think I'll have to make a move now. This has
been much longer than I thought, almost a full-blown session.
Bivalia: Been nice talking with you. Drop in again some time when you've
got a moment.
Michael: Okay. But I'll see you for now.
Bivalia: Good night, Michael.