Text: Color and Sound and Victims and Victimizers Q: Can you speak about sound and color therapy? B: Yes. Q: Can you specifically talk about using colored lights and gels in healing? B: Well, 'tis very creative, and you already know that you have your own symbology for what each vibration represents to you. Our perception of the energy of your mass consciousness generally thinks of the idea of red as being applied to the physical form, of orange as applying to the emotional form, as yellow as applying to certain levels of mental awareness, and green to higher levels of mental awareness -- the collective mental, rather than the individual mental. And what you call blue to the spirituality of the "electricalness" of yourselves. The idea of indigo as more the collective fluid of the consciousness itself, and of the violet as being more the representation of the overall dimensionality of your godhood, creatorhood, consciousness -- the oversoul itself, the high vibration. The idea also of ultraviolet, infrared, extending to some degree into the aspects of other dimensionality, alternate selves. And the infrared being the subconscious mental level, subconscious physical levels, and those ideas. Your physiological band spectrum can be very representative of this idea. Now, those are generalized terms. You will find them basically similar from individual to individual, as we perceive the energy in your civilization at this time. This can change. Simply use your instinct; use your imagination. You will understand what works. The individuals that have attracted themselves to you will understand what works. They will cure themselves. You follow me? Q: Yes. In relation to adding sound to the colorŠ B: Yes. Simply feel your own tonality and strike the chord that resonates within you. Hear what feels right. Allow the person that is undergoing the healing to hear what feels right. Now understand that this idea in your fourth-density reality -- at the very beginnings of it when there may be still a little bit of the idea of separation -- can in and of itself be all that is necessary as one tool of healing. For what you can do is begin to recognize each individual's tone in an ideal state. And when they come to you and sense how maybe the tone is a little flat, what you can do is say, "All right, here is your tone now: Doohh." (a funny sound) "Here is the tone you were when you came to me when you were healthy: Ooooom." All right. Now we will recreate that time, and when you allow your energy field to resonate in a sympathetic vibration with the tone of your ideal state, then you will allow your energy to align all the way through and you will simply be in your ideal energy state. And everything that is not a part of the idea of your ideal state will no longer be there. You follow me? Q: Yes. Are you familiar with the Shaw method of using colors on specific organs, etc? Does that have validity? B: Everything has validity for any individual who believe that it does. Everything is a tool -- everything. Allow your imagination to realize whether or not you resonate to that specific tool. If you do not, it does not mean it will not work with someone else. But you can alter it with your imagination, or choose something completely different that will work for you. Understand this is the great frustration of your so-called scientists: the idea of the need to standardize everything -- and there is no such thing. Something which does not fit into the scientific paradigm can still work for someone whose belief structure is outside the scientific paradigm. You follow me? Q: I didn't get that. B: Shaw method. An idea, a tool, a methodology that does not fit into the scientific paradigm -- or let us say simply, one way of looking at a thing -- it will not work in the belief structure that does not allow it to work. But that does not mean it will not work in a belief structure that does contain it. You follow me? Q: Yes. B: This is why you will find that many times individuals will be healed regardless of what the doctors say. Or they will remain sick regardless of what the doctors say -- until they find within themselves the idea that allows them to accept their power of healing themselves. You follow me? Q: Yes. There is tremendous freedom inŠ B: Oh, yes! Unlimited freedom. Unlimited. There is no one way. There is no one path. If there were only one way, there would only be one person. Look around you. Q2: I understood you to say in the past few words that there is no such thing as right or wrong, but only preferences? Did I understand you correctly? B: You are creating the concepts of right and wrong from attitudes of judgment. But intrinsically -- basically, foundationally -- a thing is not right or wrong. It simply works for you or it doesn't. It simply allows you to know you are self-empowered as a creator, or it creates a feeling of powerlessness. Q: But isn't there something that is generally desirable about some things and generally undesirable about other things? B: You can, again, exercise your own preference: "I prefer this." Q: But aren't there some things that we can agree should not be preferred? B: There are no "shoulds." Q: Yes, but I'd say that for me -- I'm not comfortable with that. I understand what you re sayingŠ B: All right. Q: I've made the same statement myself actually. B: Yes. All right. Q: But I feel that most of the time murdering someone else is something one should not do. B: All right. It is not something that is loving; that is true. It is not something that is self-empowering; that is true. But understand this: it is still the product of a choice -- the choice of the so-called murderer and the choice of the victim, so-called. For it is the murderer's option to not be attracted by the victim. Q: Yes, but in terms of desirability, I would still sayŠ B: It depends upon what your idea of yourself is. I understand your terminology. Let me simply say this: if your desirability is for recognizing yourself as All That is, then the idea, so to speak, directly of dominating someone else and forcing your reality upon them, may not be the most efficient way to go about recognizing your own godhood, no. But that is all there is to it. Q: I feel somehow that that is a dismissal of something I hold very dear. I'm not sure why I feel this; I'm not sure I follow the last fifty seconds. Because I'm kind of preferential to the notion somehow that it is desirable not to murder peopleŠ B: It is only desirable when your desire is to love everything. You follow me? Q: Yes, okay. B: Therefore, if your preference is unconditional love, then the idea of murder is not in that reality, and therefore -- all right, in a sense in your terms it is not desirable simply because when you are unconditionally loving you find yourself never desiring to murder. You follow me? Q: Yes. B: In that way it is not desirable. But there is no need to put a value judgment upon it. For again, each and every one of you has taken lives, and each and every one of you has had your lives taken. And it is... Q: How do you mean that? B: In other lives. And all of that has still gotten you where you are now -- the beginning of recognizing yourselves as All That Is, and loving yourselves unconditionally. So while the idea of murder may have prolonged the time span in which you forgot who you were, you still are going to remember ultimately. Because you cannot ever really be destroyed. You follow me? Q: Yes. B: For in the reality that you are now creating the idea of murder is, and in a sense will be, no longer a part. For the idea of needing to do that to someone else is simply the recognition that you believe you are powerless. For you are powerful enough, as powerful as you need to be, to have anything you want in your reality without hurting anyone else to get it. To feel like you must dominate someone else is a statement that you are powerless. And that, with regard to the idea of recognizing your own godhood, is not something that when you are in your own godhood you desire to feel. Q: I'd like to share something on this, a way to look at it. And that is that as a spiritual being who can do anything, we may select at some point in time to experience what it's like to experience murderŠ B: And you all have. Q: Simply to experience being murderedŠ B: And you all have. Q: ... simply because we can. So in order to be murdered somebody has to do the murdering. B: Yes. Q: Which -- in that case it could be actually a loving gift. B: In a sense. Recognize that simply it is the product of the value judgment of the idea of victimhood. Recognize that what you normally call a victim is also in a sense the murderer, because the victim is creating the radiation that attracts the perpetrator. And thus in a sense the perpetrator is actually the victim's victim -- by falling into the victim's trap. You follow me? Q: Yes. B: Thus it becomes very blurry in that sense. Only in physiological terms does it seem so cut and dried. But the idea of the emotionality that has created that scenario is simply that, when you are through playing victim, you will be through playing victimizer. When you are through playing victimizer, there will be no victims that will call forth that attribute within you. It is all one event. All polarity, cause and effect, it is all the same event. Victimizer and victim are two polarities of the same event -- the same action, the same energy, the same consciousness. They are vibrating at the same reality, and they are in that sense, yes, being of service to one another -- if only to realize that, let us say, in the next life, "Well, we do not want to murder anymore. We do not want to be murdered anymore. So having the experience let us know that. Therefore it served us. Now we will create a life in which there are no murderers, no murders." You follow me? Q: Mhmm, yes. Thank you. B: Thank you for your sharing.

See Also:

Source: