Sharon writes:

this is Sharon speaking....

. . . an exciting and effective way to release and cleanse the body of thought patterns -- which eventually manifest in the body as illness (colds, flu, virus), disease (cancer, MS, arthritic, etc.) and pain.
. . . Also, the willingness of the recipient to continue moving through the many layers of the issue. Healing is a life long journey for those of us on a path to enlightenment and requires constant work. Clarity is a byproduct of continuing energy work -- results are wonderful..... Keep working at your issue -- success comes when it is least expected.





Dear Paul, et. al.,

As an earth healer I ain't much--yet.

But I do know people are complex, so are their problems, which Steiner describes as resulting from the astral (consciousness, desire, thinking) working too strongly on the etheric and physical. I've seen plenty of evidence of people superimposing their expectations, hopes and fears on their bodies--and the results. I, myself, am a living proof.

Acknowledging I cause my own problems, how do I fix things? First I might unravel them, which I guess is what Sharon is aluding to here. Whatever the level we're on, unraveling our problems seldom is a simple, one-stage process. At least this is not true for chronic problems. Acute problems, yes, there's more play. They may be here today, gone tomorrow. But long-standing problems--which we often seek yet another quick fix for--seldom yield thus.

In a way I would it were otherwise. On the other hand, with my usual philosophical aplumb, I like it this way. We have to get to the bottom of things and quick fixes are little help.

Clarity is defined as unobstructedness. Unobstructedness is truly a result of continuing energy work--when this works. If it doesn't work it stands to be continuing. If it works first try? Okay! You are blessed--but also exceptional. Generally about the time you give up hope success occurs. There is some sort of law of the minimum working here.

Ain't that ain't a lesson in keepin' on keepin' on?

Best,
Hugh

Best,
Hugh Lovel

Reply via email to