Back to main
Pulse page

Various Pieces
Tomm, Channeled by Sharon

Q: Tomm, J____ has this question for you. Will you comment?

Just one more question. I have long felt that the "Armageddon" some see coming would actually happen for some, but not for others. The picture I have is of several—I guess you'd call them dimensions—at play at the same time. When the fracas hits the fan, it appears to me that some will just "step into" another dimension (or you might say just continue on another plane), in which the new age will be in force, while those who stay in the current one must face all that stuff they've imagined they would. Is this at all in line with what Tomm is saying here?

A: Yes. My name is Tomm. J___, if you alter your 'picture' a bit to include an infinity rather than 'several'—and if you think of them as parallel universes rather than dimensions then you will have a more accurate 'handle' with which to grasp these changes.

I prefer the term parallel or alternate universe rather than dimension or plane, because these last two terms seem to imply a stairstep effect as if one were "climbing in space." No climb or space is involved. It is instead more accurate to think of these things as a change in focus.

Imagine, please, a still photograph. Now further imagine that through the magic of computer graphics a motion blur is applied to this photograph so that many many images now appear, each more 'blurred' than the next. Now, we still have one picture, but this one picture contains many images instead of one. Further, these many images take up no more 'space' than the unaltered image took.

At this point, stretch your imagination a bit further and imagine that you are handed a special pair of glasses which will bring each blurred image into sharp focus as you concentrate on that segment of your picture.

Now if you clean your special glasses and look quite closely with intense focus, you will begin to notice slight differences from one section of image to another. And these differences will become more marked the further "away" from the 'original."

Suppose your photograph is of your living room. The original is quite familiar, but so is the next and the next, and well they should be because your consciousness moves freely, and has always moved freely, from one reality to another. If you think back a bit you will remember times that you entered your living room and felt that it was bright and spacious, while at other times you found it too dark and cramped. Now, your focus is ALWAYS your choice. And as you focus more and more intently on one rather than the next, so will this focus become more and more familiar and 'home' to you.

Now, if your focus includes death and disaster, you will find it. While if it includes peaceful coexistence and joy, you will find it. "Reality," you see, is quite fluid and as you perceive, you alter it to fit your inner expectations. If your focus includes armaggedon or a sudden shift of any sort, you will find it. If it includes a gradual shifting of consciousness, you will find that too. And each and all of these perceptions is as valid as the next; each is as 'real.'

I realize that this concept can be confusing. This is because it is being described in words when words barely suffice, and it is being dragged into your perception of space and linear time when it exists quite independent of space and time. It is sufficient therefore, if simplistic, to simply note that there is much truth to the adage "you get what you expect."

Compilation of Tomm's Focus Map:

Tomm's focus map refers to areas in which we "look" or focus when we channel or attempt to connect with others on a psychic level.

From [Pulse] Conversation with Tomm [05-23-00] on changing focus.

(Tomm's discussion in quotes)

UP LEFT: "As you probably realize, your left brain controls the right side of your body—and the right brain, the left. When you focus above and to the left, you actively engage the right brain which, as you know, recognizes ALL as NOW. This stance is the best for you, AT THIS TIME, to channel as it allows the right brain full access, it superceding somewhat the hold of the left brain here."

UP RIGHT: "When you go to the right, and above, you make Left Brain quite nervous. LB is focused, as you know, on physical reality. When you ask it to assume the function of RB, by placing it in that position, it does not know what to do and responds by 'making' you somewhat uncomfortable....

"Right and left brain fully cooperate down and to the left. However, up and to the right brings a new type of 'configuration.' It involves first the FULL cooperation of LB with the entity. At this time, LB would be MOST uncomfortable in this configuration. It is a matter of beliefs. LB would fear dissolution of self and this is quite threatening."

DOWN LEFT: "Basically, "below" is the province of LB. Yet "left" is the province of RB. When you combine the two, you are readily accessing the synchronistic state which Silva calls "Level." Can you see that? <Maine john> Ok. Would this have seemed "familiar" before I started Silva? Or is it new to me? "It would have seemed familiar in that you go there often throughout the day. If you were to explore deeper, down and to the left, you would have become drowsy. When drowsy enough, you would have then switched to that downward tunnel on the right and gone into deep sleep. The area down and to the left is the area where, AT THIS TIME, you will find manifestation the easiest."

DOWN RIGHT: "Now, when you go to the right and below, you are in a province LB understands. This is the road to sleep. LB is quite happy to go there with you. This is his signal to begin bodily repair and so on. He [Left Brain] is comfortable in this stance."

Tomm continues:

"Now, the reason we speak of these configurations at this time, is because you are ready to consciously use them. There are many other configurations; however, these will do for a start.

"These are quite similar to what Seth describes, however, to those not ready to use them, Seth's description seems quite cryptic."

From [Pulse] Conversation with Tomm 060200 about "how" A new to us being, Alitor, added this about Up Right on 06-02-00:

<Maine john> Can you help us understand more of what we are trying to accomplish?

<Starfish> I cannot help you understand. All I can do is to help you see what lies within yourselves. When you see, then understanding will come.

<Maine john> Ok, then, can you, from your perspective, tell us anything about the path we've chosen that we don't see ourselves?

<Starfish> I can tell you where to see it. Your Tomm has given you the direction. He calls it "up and to the right." The reason that is where your information lies is the unique way your bodies are constructed. Your instinct is deaf and dumb to words yet all you hear is words—language. Only in that place can you fully translate for yourselves. Later, you will not need translation at all. Now it is necessary. Your "left brain" knows language. Your "right brain instinct self" does not. Your left brain communicates secretly with right brain. It translates. In this place, left brain is aware and can translate for your small self.

<Maine john> Did you mean up and "right?"

<Maine john> ok.

<Starfish> Yes. That is the place where right and left brain work together in super conscious mode. It is much more enhanced than the more easy "down and to the left."

12:23 PM 05/28/2001

Q: Tomm, I have some questions about energy and love which I'd like you to clear up. First, I'm going to insert your comments about it from several years ago.

1:16 AM 12/14/97

Q: I have been told by those who perceive energies that my energy changes when I channel your writing, and that it's like another person, "deeper, calmer, colder, with no emotion." Since you are supposed to be an aspect of my higher self, and since I associate my higher self with love, I'd appreciate your comments.

A: Yes. My name is Tomm. As you have already perceived these initial concepts my comments will come as no surprise to you.

Love is not emotion, it is energy. The feelings that you associate with this energy are emotions which you attach to it. These emotions are not intrinsic to this energy.

Conversely, feelings of fear signify nothing more than the absence of this energy due to blockage. Fear and Love are the polarities of emotion. All other emotions are derivatives of these polarities.

Q: It sounds so simple put that way. We remove blocks, thus allowing the flow of energy which removes the emotion of fear and substitutes the emotion of love. But where does that leave us humans when we divorce ourselves from our emotion? What is left in its place? If the emotions that signify bliss and that "warm fuzzy feeling" are not love, and are dispensed with, then it seems to me that pure untempered "love" could be rather bleak.

A: It seems so to you now because you cannot define yourself without associating yourself with emotion. Just as you attach emotions to the energy you call love and then mistake the emotion for the energy, so you attach emotions to your reality and mistake your emotions for your self. You are not your emotions. You are swayed by them, just as a tree is swayed—and sometime broken—by the winds that blow through its limbs, but emotions are not a part of you. They are human projections that mirror quite faithfully your access to the energy of love.

When you have learned to open yourself fully to this energy, you will have no further need of experiencing these emotions because you will have fully become the energy you seek. Emotions, you see, are an indication of the state of that becoming.

It is a mistake to believe that one should "become emotionless" and by so doing become "more spiritual." This is putting the cart before the horse. To attempt to deny one's emotions, is to deny the gauge of one's progress. Just as it is foolish to ignore the gas gauge in your car, so it is foolish to ignore your emotions—both these activities can serious hinder your progress.

Q: So, then, as I understand it, emotions are a tool that we use on the way to becoming love. Once there, we have no further need of them. But still it seems to me that we will miss these tools. They seem to define our human state. Will they be replaced with something of value?

A: At the level of your understanding, emotions may be compared with very low pitched tones. Slow, ponderous movements of sonic waves that batter with their varying pitches. When the frequency of these waves is increased, you experience lighter faster sounds that, if skillfully manipulated, become music. At a higher frequency yet, these waves are experienced as light and color. At this stage of your development, you are still deaf and blind to the music and color of love. With growth you will begin to hear and see.

—continued— 12:26 PM 05/28/2001

Q: First, I want to put in something about my personal experience with unconditional love. I'm doing this because I will probably post this, and it will act to show where my head is/was with all this.

I asked to be a conduit for unconditional love several years ago—before I got the above communication from you about love. Now, on the face of it, unconditional love seems to be a highly desirable state. My expectation about this unconditional love was that it would be an ongoing state of bliss. It would be a means where I could transcend judgement and simply accept those I encountered with pure love.

Be careful what you ask for.

I got what I requested, and it was not at all blissful. It was, however, a state which transcended judgement... in which I simply accepted those I encountered.

And I didn't like it at all.

I remember one day in particular. On this day, I was totally without emotion or feeling. I judged noone and no-thing. I was very detached. I felt no curiosity or desire. Each person I encountered I saw as unique, yet equal to all others. I felt nothing at all. I had no desire for interaction. I felt, in fact, very much like an automaton.

BUT... others didn't see me that way at all. I was a flame and they were moths. People beamed wide smiles at me and opened doors and deferred to me. They gave me their place in line. They struck up conversations with me. They told me that their headaches and problems were now gone after encountering me. They said that their fears suddenly were alleviated. Strangers reached out and touched me and went into a state of bliss.

They FELT what I was broadcasting and I felt absolutely nothing at all.

Later, I said to the universe, um... that's really not what I had in mind. I want to feel SOMETHING.

I got that, too.

Be careful what you ask for.

The extreme detachment was almost immediately replaced with a state of physical empathy, where I picked up everyone's gall stones, migraines, abdominal cramps, and depression, etc. etc. ad nauseum. And this state, though it has waxed and waned, has continued ever since. But, that's another story...

So, Tomm, since we have recently focused on the "energy of love," and since you have given us more information since, I pulled out this old channeling and now want to zero in on a few questions and possible discrepancies.

First, you said, "Love is not emotion, it is energy. The feelings that you associate with this energy are emotions which you attach to it. These emotions are not intrinsic to this energy."

I presume that these emotions are what you mean by the "flavors" of love which we recently explored.

Would you comment, please?

A: Yes. My name is Tomm. You can consider, in a broad sense, that these "flavors" which you give to the energy are emotions. But this is not the whole picture. You see, you color your emotions based on your experiences. Your perceptions alter as frequently as the salinity alters in an estuary with each rain. When your perceptions alter, then you alter your emotions. That which you identify as "love"—meaning the emotion of love—is not constant. There are degrees of emotion and nuances which you usually detect only in a general way. From our perspective we see these as colors—light in infinitely changing patterns.

To put this in understandable words, you might experience "love" as quiet satisfaction or as intense bliss. As you experience, you create these nuances. Then you "replay" them and react to your creation. Now, please understand that this is, of necessity, an incomplete "picture" of the way in which you "flavor" energy with emotion. The nuances and subtleties of this creation defy the interpretation of language.

Each individual is unique. Each "flavors" the energy uniquely. Some, for example, "flavor" most intensely. Others prefer only the faintest hint of emotion.

The changing patterns of these "flavors" are also unique. Each imparts an overall design or pattern to the energy, and the energy "carries" this overlay, much as the sea might carry the "flavor" of a stretch of coastline, or the "taste" of a distant mountain range.

Q: OK. Thank you.

Then you said, "...feelings of fear signify nothing more than the absence of this energy due to blockage. Fear and Love are the polarities of emotion. All other emotions are derivatives of these polarities..."

Yet, more recently, you said that it is impossible to block the flow of energy And that all we do is cause perturbations and ripples in the energy, that blocks were symbols which we react to. (I am going by memory here, so I may have misquoted you.)

Would you comment please?

A: Yes. Now, let me take the second statement first. Fear and Love ARE the polarities of emotion. Let me explain this by going back to the "flavors" which we discussed first above. There is but one energy. This energy does, however, take on many different characteristics according to the "flavors" assigned to it.

That which you call "love" is a flavoring you give to the energy. It is an emotion, of varying intensity and design, which you impart to the energy. Now this emotion is one which you treasure. As you tend to judge, and you judge constantly, "love" is a positive feeling within your perspective. Fear is considered by you to be a negative. We will refrain from going into a discussion of positives and negatives except to say that these are value judgements which are quite subjective.

—interrupted—

Now, the first statement—feelings of fear signify nothing more than the absence of this energy due to blockage—requires some explanation at this point.

We have recently explained to you that we sometimes, due to necessity, lie. Now, understand, please, that these are benevolent lies. If too much information is imparted before the recipient is ready for it, then no communication results.

I shall give you an analogy: The teachings one gives a small child about the concept of God are quite different from those given a theology student. One might tell a child that God is our father in heaven. This introduces two ideas to the child: first, God as an authority figure, but kindly, like daddy, second, heaven, presented to the child as a place of happiness. These ideas are meant to help the child understand difficult concepts. This is gross simplification. Further, the concepts are vastly distorted in the case of this analogy; however, we will allow the analogy to stand at this time.

Now. In your present stage of comprehension, I would amend the above statement to read, feelings of fear signify nothing more than the PERCEIVED absence of this energy due to blockage.

In your perception, fear often imparts a feeling of cold emptiness within your being. The perception is that something is missing. And that which is missing is the feeling of well-being. You equate well-being with the satisfaction expressed by the "flavor" of love with which you embue the energy.

And so, to this extent, the energy—that is, the desired "flavor" of the energy—is indeed missing. It is absent.

In truth, and this is NOT a lie—we are smiling—the energy IS present, however its flow is perturbed. It is to this perturbation that you react.

Now blocks are perceived symbols for something amiss. As your world is perceived symbols, which you interpret as concrete, then so is your interpretation of blockages. These blockages then, are as real as anything else in your physical reality. And while you are in physical reality you must deal with them.

Now it is possible to temporarily reduce the flow of energy by resistance. It is not possible, however, to completely stop the flow. Were you to succeed in doing that, then your perceived body would cease to exist. Even after death, energy pervades the bodily structure as it pervades all "things," and it continues to do so even if the body is rendered into ash.

In some cases, then, a block MAY cause a RELATIVE diminution of energy within a given area. Perhaps a better term than diminution might be the word "detour." Just as a stone in a river causes a detour of water around it, so then can a block cause a detour of energy. However, please understand that the energy continues to flow.

Now. The area of the block is relatively insensitive. That is, the perceptions within the immediate area of the block are blunted to one degree or another. This is by design. Blocks occur because of trauma of one sort or another. It is your way of self-anesthesia. This is a difficult concept to relate with words and so please bear with me. A block is your way of hiding trauma from yourself. Therefore, it follows that it will be an area of less perception than "normal" in the area of the block. However, those areas surrounding the block may be exquisitely sensitive. Your perceptions more or less focus on the areas surrounding the block while conveniently looking away from the trauma which precipitated the block. You have quite literally created a diversion.

It is for this reason that pain often accompanies these blocks. The pain does not arise from the block but from the territory surrounding the block. We have referred to pain as resistance. When you resist looking at the blockage, you then apply your focus to the surrounding areas.

I shall give you an analogy. When one has a heart attack, and there is ensuing dead tissue within the heart, that tissue feels no pain. The pain arises from an interference of blood flow to the surrounding tissues.

Pain always indicates an area which needs your attention, and psychic pain is no exception.

There is much more to say about blockages; however, that is not the main point of this discussion today, and so we shall go no further at this stage.

Q: Ok, then as I understand this, fear is the absence of the emotion of love, or to put it another way, fear is the absence of the sense of well-being which we interpret as love. Is this correct.

A: It is a workable definition, yes. This is a difficult concept, and it is particularly difficult to put into understandable words.

Q: Ok. Thanks.

To move on to a different area, I'd like some clarification about emotions. As I understand it, emotions are not us, but are "things" that we use. It seems to me that we are emotional junkies. You even said that our patterns are colored by the way we use them.

Would you say that we identify with our emotions?

A: All beings color the energy. To this extent you could, without GREAT distortion, consider energy as a carrying agent.

Now, at the risk of causing confusion, I believe that you are concerned that all these "flavors" are turning the energy into a sort of cosmic soup. In a sense, they are. In a sense, that is its purpose. However, it is well to understand that, just as you could distill the water from a soup and end up with pure water, the same is true of the energy. It is, in its ESSENCE, unchanged although it carries these "flavors" within it.

Energy can be colored, or flavored if you prefer, by many means. The chosen method by those in physical reality is to use emotions to do this. You choose emotions as a cook would choose spices and herbs. You create a signature with them uniquely your own.

Now, a word about signatures: just as a hand-written signature might vary from day to day, and from moment to moment, and just as a hand-written signature might take on different nuances according to the physical well-being or lack thereof, of its writer, so too, does your energy signature vary. But regardless of these variations, your signature remains your own and is recognizable by those who can read it.

To answer your last question, yes, you do indeed identify with your emotions to some extent. You, however, do not COMPLETELY identify with your emotions. Instead, you to a much greater extent identify with a portion of your being which we have called ego, or left brain. It is the function of the left brain to pick and choose from among emotions and to manifest them.

This is mitigated by your entire brain, however. The ego chooses the emotion to experience. It then reacts to it. This reaction causes chemical and electrical changes within the brain. These changes are then sent out through the body which will react one way if the emotion is love and quite another way if the emotion is fear.

Now when you find yourself without a physical body, you will, for a time, retain the memory of these reactions. Eventually, however, you will discard them when you realize that they are no longer necessary.

Q: In other words, we will eventually discard the use of emotion?

A: A better way of putting it might be that you will eventually discard the RELIANCE upon emotion. Emotions will still exist should you choose to use them.

Q: Tomm, do you, and the others, use emotions?

A: We do. But not in the way you do. We use them for fun, and with conscious knowledge.

Q: Then, when you say you are laughing, do you really mean you are laughing?

A: You would recognize it as such. And we are laughing now.

Q: I am still confused on a few points. You refer to energy, to love, and to the energy of love. These seem to be somewhat interchangeable. Yet at the same time NOT interchangeable. Will you comment?

A: Yes. I will repeat: there is but one energy. It is your interpretation of energy which varies. The energy of love refers to the energy universally recognized among your species. It refers to the interpretation of energy given it by the species. That interpretation is love. Therefore, to those of your species, energy and the energy of love is largely synonymous. The flavoring of this energy is the emotion of love. The flavoring of fear is the absence of that emotion.

There is a reason why humans chose to use these two flavorings—and all the others in between. It has a great deal to do with the separation experiment. Together, they serve to keep your focus within physical reality. They are the carrot and the whip, so to speak. And they are both extremely powerful.

Let me give you an example: you associate your physical well-being with the emotion of love. Your brains and bodies work together to perpetuate this association. When there is pain or discomfort due to the absence of this emotion, then your natural bent is to strive to "correct" this situation. When you are ill, therefore, with a life-threatening illness, your first reaction is fear. You then strive to move toward healing the condition in an attempt to recover the desired emotion which means, to you, well-being. When you feel threatened, you activate your "fight or flight" reaction, and you activate this through emotion, in an attempt to ultimately regain well-being. Another way of putting this is to say that you use emotion in order to maintain the status quo, or to regain it when it is threatened.

Now the status quo of physical reality, is of course physical reality itself. Anything which threatens this focus calls up the emotion of fear. It is for these reasons that most people fear death, and also for these reasons that they feel afraid when confronted with apparitions, or other "supernatural" entities, and why they, in general, fear change of any kind. All of these things threaten your focus on physical reality.

These "flavorings" of the energy are part and parcel of your physical focus.

Q: OK. You have said that we are outgrowing the need for fear. Are we outgrowing the need for love, too?

A: You are outgrowing the need for reliance on these emotions. You are learning to define yourselves in much different and broader ways than before. You are quite willing to look at discarding fear, yet you are much more reluctant to think of discarding love.

This is because you lack the understanding of your multidimensional existence. You believe that if you discard fear, then you will be better off, but if you discard love then you will be bereft.

I will make this statement, knowing full well that it will not be fully understood: the state of love is not the emotion of love.

I can further make this statement: we love you. And we can say this without needing to utilize the emotion which you identify with this state.

I fully realize that you will not understand just what I mean. I can best suggest it by saying to you that you do not understand emotion. You lack the subtlety at present to understand its nuances. Most importantly, you lack the understanding of emotions' source. I can come closest by saying to you that your emotions are only reflections from this source. When you learn to tap the source directly, you will understand. Until then, we deal only with rhetoric. As long as your focus is so fully directed toward physical reality, you will remain somewhat confused about this.

Q: Then, the lack of emotion I felt when I temporarily became a "conduit" for unconditional love, was because I was disconnected from emotions, yet unable to tap the source of those emotions.

A: The simple answer to that is, yes.

Q: Thank you, Tomm.

A: You are quite welcome. Our blessings go with you.

2:50 PM 07/09/2000

I was going through some old notebooks and came across this Tomm transmission from eight years ago 02-24-92. In it, I was asking Tomm about the millennium. Since it is now the year 2000, I thought some of you might find it of interest.

CHANGE AND THE YEAR 2000

02-24-92

S: Tomm, I have been "put off" by the belief that so many have of a new order occurring in or about the year 2000. Millennialism seems very naive and pat to me. I am always reminded of the year 1000 and the foolishness that went on then. This seems to be a Christian phenomenon, one that is also seem in societies and cultures that were originally non-Christian, such as the American Indian, but that have been "polluted" by foreign Christian cultures. Would you comment?

T: Yes. You do sense changes within yourself and you sense them in others. Therefore, to this extent, you feel that the doom-criers are correct. Further, you sense an urgency that is reflected in the alarm that traditional scientists—that is, western scientists—feel concerning the so-called new age movement.

In addition, you hold the belief that undesirable realities can be conjured by millennialists through their beliefs.

In short, confusion reigns. You would not be so skeptical if the year 2010 or 2065, for example, were the target dates. The problem is with the year. And with the feelings of negativity that you sense. You feel that the new seers are wrong, they are polluting their information with Christian concepts that, to you, are proof-positive of the falseness of the message. In addition, you sense anti-semitic and anti-humanitarian undercurrents along with a feeling that the millennialists are indulging in a type of elitism. In other words, they are "in the know" and the rest of world isn't. They will be saved; the non-believers will perish. And this, you feel, is shared by protestant fundamentalists.

First, consider your own bias here: you feel that believers are acting naively, that they are gullible, that they are not using their logical mind in this matter. Yet, underlying this is the tiny niggling fear that they may be right. This last is the fear you share with many western scientists—a small bud of a belief in millennialism that is intolerable to a "reasonable" person. This belief magnifies your reaction.

You would like me to put these fears to rest—once and for all. Therefore, let me answer you in this way: Changes are occurring. Your world, your concensus reality is not in as sharp a focus now as it once was. many people are sensing this "blurring" of reality and are trying, each in his own way, to make sense of the change.

One way, a way common to those of the Christian persuasion, is to explain away the feeling by ascribing it to millennial changes. This belief, it is true, is shared by some New Age thinkers with fundamentalist Christians. Would you deny the possibility that these fundamentalists are also sensitive enough to sense those things that you sense?

S: No.

T: All people who honestly search have access to the same truths. Yet, it is true that these truths must be filtered through one's belief systems in order to reach consciousness. Belief systems are often blocks and barriers with the result that identical messages are often so cloaked in disguise as to be unrecognizable when filtered through differing systems.

Does all this begin to come more clearly now?

S: Yes.

T: What I am trying to convey here is that large numbers of human beings are receiving impulses of change. These impulses are all the same, yet when filtered through one's beliefs the emerging "truth" takes on many different hues, just as a beam of white light takes on different hues when viewed through a prism. The source is the same; the light is the same. What differs is the orientation of the "viewer."

This orientation—or distortion, if you will—is the result of many things: culture, fear, hope, sexual orientation, wealth, national bias and so on.

These distortions are inevitable. Information is sent in a pure form. It is energy. In order for understanding to occur on any level, this energy must change into symbolism as it enters your system. This is because your brains and bodies cannot receive pure energy communications without translation. It is the translation, then, that varies. And, as with any translations, meaning is changed somewhat and even lost more often than not.

And so now your question is "What is the real translation, the true meaning of these energy transmissions?" Do you being to see the problem here?

S: Yes.

T: The reality of a transmission is subjective and personal. In effect, though there is but one message, there are as many translations as there are human minds to receive it.

S: Then, we're all getting the same message—that of impending change, but we are all seeing it differently according to our personal bias?

T: Exactly.

2:35 PM 08/08/2000

S: Tomm, J____ asks about imagination. She thinks that it is much more than we think it is...and you have often said that, too. Would you comment?

T: Yes. My name is Tomm. It is indeed much more than you think it is. In your culture, imagination is often seen as a child's toy. It is that, of course, but the term "child's toy" means far more than you imagine.

As small children, you have not yet overlaid your being with layers and layers of conditioning and prejudice and outside beliefs. You have not yet learned that toys are trivial. You have not yet accepted that imagination and reality are separated.

In this period of "innocence," therefore, you are not judgemental and rigid in your outlook. Each child, to one extent or another, enters this life with a clean slate as far as judgements on the relative merits of imagination versus reality are concerned. Until the age of around three, the child, quite literally cannot distinguish between imagination and what you call "reality." At this age, the child begins to discriminate based upon learned reactions. At this age, the child begins to experiment with different brain waves and to associate physical reality with certain states of consciousness.

Now, I am oversimplifying here because this learning is a continuum. It begins at birth. An infant, cold and hungry, will cry for attention. It perceives many beings in its reality, yet it does not discriminate at first between self and non-self, nor between physical and non-physical. It receives nurturance from many, yet it soon learns that the physical nurturance from food and a dry diaper come from only a certain segment of what it sees as self. Gradually this feeling of self/non-self grows and it begins to perceive itself as separate from its mother and other beings, seen and unseen. This is necessary for the experiment in physical reality.

Later the child discriminates further. For a time, it literally does not perceive a difference between imagination and so-called reality because it KNOWS that there is no difference. Only when it is taught that there must be a difference—taught by well-meaning parents, and older siblings, and others—does it begin to differentiate. At this point, usually around the age of three, the child is presented with a choice: conform and be accepted, or refuse to conform and risk the consequences. In most cases, the choice is for conformity.

Now there is a severe price paid for conformity to the beliefs of society. Much spontaneity is lost. Physical reality becomes solidified. Outlook 'stiffens' and turns toward others for confirmation.

During this critical period, the child seeks its identity outside itself, in a sense, by measuring itself against a yardstick held up by parents and others. It learns not to trust its own perceptions, because they are not "official." It learns, in short, to doubt its own validity.

Even the most well-meaning and liberal of parents instill this doubt into their children. They do this because they, themselves, have had this done to them, and they consider it normal and desirable. And though they might praise the child for its imagination, they are quick to teach that child to discriminate between what is only imagination and what is real.

During many phases of your earthly history, groups of children have been born who knew of this human propensity. These groups set for themselves the valiant goal of overcoming these human prejudices in the hopes of opening new doors for humankind. In many ways, they had small successes, and these small successes lead to greater ones. In your consensus reality, it takes the aims of many to open these doors. The 'flower children' with their message of hope and love and unity were one such group. Many of the children born to you in the last decade are another.

In the meantime, many of you are moved to experiment and to explore the Self that you were born with, freely and without the encumbrances of conditioning. This is a courageous effort because each of you must learn to overcome the fears of consequence by not conforming to what is expected, and to what has been learned. Each of you knows, innately, that the way to do this is through the focus of imagination. Each of you knows the stone wall of doubt and the resulting lack of self trust which hinders you in this quest. Together, you are moving toward your goals. You help each other toward them.

S: Do you have more to tell us, now?

T: Only this: we applaud your courage and we send our blessings. You will, each in your own way, prevail.

S: Thank you, Tomm.

T: You are quite welcome.

11:16 AM 04/10/2000

Q: Tomm, I have read the channelings "challenge" that John raised. Here is his question: "Why do we think something must be difficult to be worthwhile? How can we change this belief?"

The answers seem to be quite complete. Do you have anything to add to this?

A: Yes. My name is Tomm.

Now, the reasons for these beliefs were covered quite well in the other writings. There is a little I can add, however. I would like to discuss the ORIGINS of this belief.

In human society to begin with, there was no "competition." In tribal communities each person was believed to be unique with unique talents to offer. It was thought that they were born with specific purposes with which to benefit the group. At that time, and to some extent today in such communities, there was no feeling of separation. Each person was looked upon as a "limb" or essential part of the entire community. Each person was believed to function in an effortless way as each fulfilled his or her "job."

This worked quite well for some time. As long as communities were small and isolated there was no strife. However, as time passed, these tiny communities came into contact with other such communities. To the consternation of many, areas known to be rich hunting grounds sometimes were found to be scarce of game due to the recent incursion of other communities.

The belief began to grow in scarcity. From this belief, as a matter of course, competition grew. This lead, in the course of events, to seeing other tribes as "other." Communities began to believe that they must defend their own. To this end they began to develop a belligerant stance; they would defend their territory to the death if need be.

As this belief grew, various alliances were struck. Two or more small communities temporarily banded together against what was perceived as a common enemy. When the threat was seen as ongoing, many began to see an advantage in combining forces on a more or less permanent basis. Finally, the communities became so large as to be rather unwieldy. It was not efficient to send hunters and gatherers out as more and more food was required for these larger communities and the distances grew greater. A crisis presented itself. The communities could split again and each go its way, but that would lead to becoming defenseless against larger marauding communities which had not yet split.

Necessity created other avenues. Tribes began to gather wild animals in compounds so as to insure a supply of food. These animals were allowed to breed and animal husbandry was born. People developed the ability to nurture and care for these animals as a survival tactic. Agriculture was born as well. The first attempts were to gather large quantities of wild plants. It was noted that while stored, some took root. Seeds were also discovered to the be "spirit" of plants consumed, and efforts were made to appease the spirits by giving them what they wanted. This led to intuitive knowledge about plants and their properties, for indeed the "spirit" of the plants "told" these early people what it needed for sustenance. In this way a communal "oneness" developed between the community and the plants and animals which sustained them.

Now as animals became domesticated and as agriculture became known, this allowed communities to become even larger. As they became larger, many became specialists of various types. And as these communities grew the closeness and the oneness began to fade as these experts became literally those with the power of life and death over the tribe.

I will not, at this time, go on with this narrative minutely. I believe you can see how these beliefs led to barter and wars and nationalism. I believe you can also see how the belief in separation grew until it became what you know in your lives today. The close tribal units eventually shrank until in many cases they involved only blood relations. And finally, due to mobility and the "hardening of beliefs" people began to believe that they stood alone much of the time. True, they had their community, but it was a community which was impersonal. It could be relied upon to defend the whole in the event of invasion. It could be relied upon to act as the aggressor in times of drought, crop failure, and other catastrophes. Yet, the beliefs in separation were quite entrenched by this time. With this belief, and its origins in scarcity, grew the belief that the individual was powerless.

In order for the individual to find a modicum of power, he learned to manipulate the community in various ways. He began to sell his services, his knowledge, in return for this power. The power translated itself eventually into the "proofs" of earthly goods which were displayed proudly to newcomers. These earthly goods acted as constant reminders to all that the owner was a power to be reckoned with. The only hope that others had to rise to such status was through work and knowlege, or thievery and aggression. These, in turn, led to more competition and to the acquisition of yet more goods.

This was your heritage. Is it any wonder that you were indoctrinated with these beliefs from the time you were babies? Is it any wonder that you believe in scarcity and separation in your world today? You all have a great deal of conditioning to overcome, and you are all progressing in this endeavor. One way you can help speed this process is to remind yourself that scarcity is illusion, that separation is illusion. Another way is to examine those thoughts which come to you regarding these beliefs.

Our blessings go out to you.

Q: Thank you, Tomm

A: You are quite welcome.