Welcome to Samuel's Interviews from Phoenix Rising, the quarterly newsletter from Phoenix Institute Here you'll find over 100 Interviews on a wide variety of searchable topics. To search a single topic use the "Search All Interviews" found in the sidebar, and use the Google custom search for searching phrases. Have fun!

Fall 2019

Samuel has rarely spoken about scientific descriptions of the creation of the physical universe. In 2004 he responded to some questions about the big bang theory, which is closely related to the main topic of this month’s interview. Those earlier remarks are reprinted on page 9 and make interesting background reading for the following interview.

This interview is based on questions submitted by Eckehart Messner, who was not able to make the trip from Atlanta to participate in person. Quotation marks in the text indicate his original questions. Other questions and remarks are from the interviewer.

“In this interview, we would like to explore the creation, mysteries, purpose, and workings of the physical (astronomical) universe and how humanity fits into it. As you have told us in a recent newsletter interview, we humans only know a spit-in-the-ocean’s worth of what is out there in the vastness of the universe.

“You told us before that the creation process of the universe began with Source, moved to All That Is, then to the Els. In practical terms (the least airy-fairy possible), please elaborate what part each of these played.”

What I generally say is Source released, and what that means is Intent, but that starts getting airy-fairy so I will hold off on that. And Source released All That Is. Now, all that means right there is Intent became Creation force. All That Is is the Creator aspect of that originating Intent. All That Is, in order to create form, established four directions. And those were four groups of twelve.

Now, the airy-fairy version of those four directions are Intent, Thought, Word and Deed, but each of them is an aspect of creation and essentially, when you get down to it, variations in frequency.

But if you don’t mind me getting a little airy-fairy, you are seeing the ultimate Creator creating, and all the way down the line you are going to have variations of that, because the Creator and the Patterner—that which is making the creation work—is really all there is here. Those are the zeros and the ones, the Creator and the created, God and—ugh—the Holy Spirit. Be sure to get that “ugh” in
there.

Each of those groups of twelve is a grouping of energetic frequency, each with its own Intent. From each one of those four groups of twelve come Ellic Force. That is, Ellic Force along the line of initial creation, so I’m not saying each one of the twelve is an El. It is the combined activity that creates Ellic Force directed toward that specific energetic spectrum represented by Intent, Thought, Word and Deed.

So, you have Source, you have All That Is, you have Ellic Force, and from Ellic Force you continue down in twelves and you begin establishing the universe as you know it, but the basic mechanics are right there.

Your science describes that same process differently. And I cannot describe it in a way you will recognize without using the labels I have used as the questioner did, so I do not know how to answer the question without using them.

Four groups of twelve, forty-eight that make up the Els. Does each group have a different Intent?

Each group of four releases a twelve. That twelve together is one measure of Ellic Force. So there are four measures of Ellic Force. Els as beings show up later, but you need Intent to initiate Creation force; All That Is initiates Ellic Force; Ellic Force initiates, and so forth, on down the line.

“You have told us before that one cannot create without Intent. Regarding the creation of the Universe, what were the specifics of the Intent for this creation?”

Well, it’s important that you realize that this was not the first creation. There were what turned out to be prototypes. And the purpose in all of those was to reunify the original creation through Love as a vehicle and as a tool. So bottom line: the Intent this time was “Is Love enough?” And since this is the fourth or the fifth try, depending on how you count it, that does tend to still be a question, doesn’t it?

Yes, I’m sorry to say.

“The big bang theory is the leading explanation by astronomers about how the Universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.

“According to the theories of physics, if we were to look at the universe one second after the big bang, what we would see is a 10-billion-degrees Kelvin sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons, and neutrinos. Then, as time went on, we would see the universe cool, the neutrons either decaying into protons and electrons or combining with protons to make deuterium. As it continued to cool, it would eventually reach the temperature where electrons combined with nuclei to form neutral atoms.

“You have said that the big bang theory is versed in Deed because it has to do with form, but that it does not go far enough to explain the origins of the universe, which is based in Intent, because that is the point of creation.

“This brings up several questions:

“You have mentioned the fact that mass consciousness can hold a collective illusion. How does this mass acceptance of the big bang theory affect our ability to move beyond it to an investigation of or understanding of the real origins of the universe?”

Your science is already recognizing the difficulties with the big bang, because, while indeed there was an event—I hate to call it the big bang—it’s not all there is to it.

For many, many years, mass consciousness has accepted the big bang theory because that is what the majority of scientists said, but in the last two to ten years—I’m not that accurate with time—somebody started asking the right question, which was “Well, where did that initial combustion come from?” And one of the things that they will find, if they have not yet, is that Intent, not a bang, ultimately is the singularity.

Gravitation waves plus motion creates form. That is very important, and you need to realize that it is pretty basic. But there is more to it than that: Mathematically speaking—and ultimately that is going to be your best proof—the force of gravity waves plus motion—not acceleration as motion, but the Intent of motion—establishes creation.

Now, I’m not clear enough on the big bang theory as Eckehart refers to it here, but my understanding is that it is considered a coming together of particulate matter that exploded creating an accelerated momentum, and out of that momentum began to draw like objects that eventually clustered into planets and so forth. I don’t have a problem with any of the evolving matter idea. That’s what the big bang is; it’s about evolving matter.

But the particulate itself that came together to create that explosion is the function of All That Is. And the more you work to measure it, the less you’re going to find measurable, except gravitation waves, and the reason for that is the creation force of Intent. So you’re not going to be able to measure Intent, but that is a much more accurate version of a singularity.

Mass consciousness will accept that as soon as there are enough saying it to satisfy.

I want to tell you something though, and this is a problem I see all the time. What mass consciousness does is accept, without looking into those things that they don’t understand, because they’re being too lazy or don’t have the ability to check it out themselves. Authority saying something with great authority—be it me saying something with great authority or Carl Sagan or Albert Einstein saying something with authority—causes most people to believe it. What’s wrong with that?

Well, they will not necessarily be believing something that is true.

Right. And those in authority can make something sound good while it may really be bad science. But if you know how to put it across, you’ll get believers. So when it comes to something like the creation of the universe, that is something you are now calling a quantum level in a
multidimensional housing, there are going to be multiple versions of how it came about, and none of them are going to be fully correct; most of them will not be fully wrong either.

Until humans begin really caring, it’s not going to be possible to shuffle down to one answer, because what I’m giving is one of multiple answers.

This universe is created by the Source of this universe. There are no other universes—except there are, but they’re just multiple layers of the same one. In the same way that I talk to you in layers if we have a private session together, at the end of it you might say, “I didn’t get everything answered!” And I will say, “Yes, but I have answered everything, so keep thinking about it for two or three days. You’ll see that it comes up, because I’m talking to you on multiple levels.” The one right here, face to face, with its own prejudices and limitations, hears a piece of it, and once it gets it, it’s suddenly opened up to hear another piece of it. So I’m not giving the information at different times; I’m giving it all at the same time, but you change to be able to understand it all.

Well, so it is with the idea of creation. There are other universes because there are other dimensions of form than this one. There are other behaviors of that universe within each of those dimensional or frequency levels.

What do you mean by behaviors?

You live in a three-dimensional—four if you count time—a four-dimensional world, and if you stick one finger up in the air, you can see that it is separate from the other things you see behind it, but there is a universe in which it is more two-D, and the behaviors function on what this dimension would call a plane. Well, there is also a six-dimensional one, for instance, in which everything functions as sound. And sound, while it is recognized here as a very definite frequency structure, is not thought of as material on its own. So that’s what I mean by different kinds of behaviors.

“When science moves into an understanding of Intent as a creative energy going back to the origin of the universe, what will be the implications of that knowledge for the spiritual evolution of the planet?”

Does that mean the planetary body itself?

None, unless it causes humanity to begin working with the power of Intent, in which case they can bring about great change, it will be like working with electricity all of a sudden. “Oh, we can use this to power a city!” There was no electricity on Tuesday but on Wednesday there was. Intent becomes that: a usable force that can create, ideally, a healthier planet—remove some of the destruction and do some healing. That would be great, but as for the idea of their figuring out if it affects the planet then, no, there’s not a connection that way.

So if science tells us, “This is what’s behind creation: the big bang,” and it’s accepted as a reality and people start expanding on that understanding, that in itself would then change the spiritual evolution of the planet.

Only if it is used, expanded on, for the purpose of bringing about positive change. Right now the Intent is not recognized as a conscious power. Nevertheless it continues to work, but it is bringing out all of the negative Intents of greed and hunger for power and other aspects of humanity that aren’t great.

You are wearing clothing.

Thank goodness.

How does your thinking about manifestation affect your clothing?

It doesn’t.

It really doesn’t, because you are your own power and you use the clothing.

Now having said that, I’m going to go in the opposite direction. Let’s think of the clothes as what they have come from, and we’ll use the cotton plant as an example just because it was a living plant. That living plant thinks. It survives. It warns its neighbors if there are pests coming to it. It has very high- level attributes to it, but it’s at a wholly different level than the human. And as in the last interview we spoke about cephalopods, go back to that for this illustration, because, while plant life thinks and has friends and works to survive and does so many of the things you as humans do, it’s a very different level. The plant’s evolutionary path is very different from the human’s, even though ultimately they are working together for the same thing. And what a human learns, no matter how “eureka” it is, it’s functioning on a whole different kind of knowing than the plant is.

So let’s say that I decide that I want to wear nothing, but cotton clothing because it’s more comfortable, but then I get interested in who is producing it, and I find out that there is a fair trade movement with cotton, and so I start supporting organizations that support that fair trade. If I take action on what started out being in my own self-interest, can it still have a positive effect?

It might be affecting the future of your clothing but it’s not affecting the clothing you have on right now.

But it’s not putting me into a position to help move spiritual evolution along by taking action.

That’s going to help the life force on the planet. Remember that Guardians work to guide and guard life force on the planet and of the planet. And that’s always been expressed as two different things. So while you are on the planet, that’s different than what the planet itself has as an evolutionary path. Both spiritual beings, both working toward Ascension of all life force on the planet, but in two different directions.

“It would seem that there is a parallel to be found in the personal use of Intent to manifest. If we focus on the success of manifesting what we want, are we missing out on the true power, which is the Intent? If so, how can we change that? In other words, we get what we want and we focus on how well we did it and we’re not going back to the source of it and saying `What can I do with this?”

But think, what would you do with it?

Create something different I guess.

You would just continue to manifest, so what changes is the level of manifestation work. But your only proof as a human is the manifestation. So even if you access the power of Intent it would still be the power of Intent at the level that you can live it, express it, understand it. And that would not be the ultimate power of it.

What would be the ultimate power?

When you create a universe. And you will. And if you want to get to the really big picture, you
have, you are, you did.

Because we’re all One.

Right. And time, as you know it, is an illusion.

“You talk to us often about Spirit (Energy) and that we are Spirit in form. There are three parts to this: What actually is Spirit (Energy)? How does it fit in with the creation process of the Universe? 

How pervasive is Spirit Energy in the Universe?”

Spirit energy is light and dark. And that’s the same thing, not two different things. It is Light as in Light force. It is dark as in the absence of that Light force, which becomes its own force.

Now, do not turn that into good and bad, or sunlight and shadow. Those are illustrations only. They are not a force on their own, all right? So Light in its various densities could be said to be all there is. Spirit is a variation of form. It is a condensate of light and dark. When I see spirit in you, I see two things: First, I see the energy that is yet a function of the whole; second, I see the current version of that energy as it is manifest in form, which causes the Light to become very dense as a property of creation, and leaves a glow. That glow is what you would call an aura. That is what spirit is—a function of wholeness condensed into light and lack of light, then condensed further into form.

So how pervasive is spirit in the universe?

Well, spirit that has condensed into form is less than spirit as a condensate of All That Is. But that goes back to the very beginning where I said Source released All That Is, All That Is released into Ellic force, and it continues on down.

“Astronomers estimate the age of the universe today to be around 13.8 billion years.”

Give or take six months.

“They have indirect evidence that the observable universe of galaxies extends far beyond the region we can see. What is the actual age and size of the universe as we know it today?”

Well, you want to remember that, in creation, time was not a part of it. Thought begins a function of time, Word anchors that time, so the idea of time is a part of creation but not all of creation. And the idea of time is going to be very different the closer you are to the origin point of that idea of time. So while humans might say that it’s 13 billion years old, there is not a time outside of that that could be recognized, because it is too close to creation. Do you understand what I’m saying?

When there is a point of creation, time hasn’t been created yet, so you cannot use it as a measure for anything.

Right. Exactly so. But as far as humans can detect at this point, they are basing everything—and tell me if this is not accurate—on a measurement they have created called light years, and it’s based upon what they are measuring the speed of light to be. But if they have not already, they are going to very quickly find out that that is only one version of the measurement of light, because light functions in various levels. You know that a photon is a wave and a point; that is how it is divided up, correct? And it is a tiny measurement of light, but that light behaves —and here comes the quantum universe—in very different ways depending upon the Intent that is put upon that quantum element. And so it is with light. As you are functioning through a very structured mental system at this point, you measure light as you see it which is simply a limited version of it. And when you come to the place where you can, as an example, measure light in thirteen dimensions, you’re going to find your whole idea of age is really ridiculous.

I realize it may well sound like I’m avoiding, but I’m really trying to answer these questions.

“You have told us before that we humans only know a spit-in-the-ocean’s worth of galaxies. However, the deeper we see into space with improved telescopes, the more galaxies we discover. There is an immensely vast expanse with billions (astronomers now estimate that there may be even trillions) of galaxies beyond our own galaxy (which is the Milky Way).”

I agree with that.

“And each galaxy comprises millions or billions of stars. According to the leading theories, other parts of the universe may look very different from our own—and may even have different laws of nature. Please enlighten us as to what is really out there. And, what is the purpose and potential of all this matter and energy in existence?”

All right, first I want you to remember what I’ve said so far in this interview, which is a discussion about how an earth-directed perception is a limited perception, because everything that you recognize—and far more—exists in not just one state, but in a multitude of states, each of which has its own properties and ways of functioning. And that is the nature of form, and that is accurate no matter if there is one subject you are looking at or three trillion subjects you are looking at. What I have said thus far fits all of that. And it fits on a cosmological scale as well, meaning the cosmos has multiple aspects which are made up of the very same things that make up this aspect. It’s only perspective—and I’m going to throw this in there—it’s only perspective and the boundaries you have put on what you “know”—that should be in quotes—what you “know” to be real.

The universe continues in creation. Every bit of form that is created functions under the Intent of Love as the highest frequency, in an accelerating path toward reunion, Ascension. But all of the universe functions with Love, so it doesn’t matter if you are talking about the Milky Way Galaxy or the one thirty billion light years away. Ultimately it’s going to be a function of the Greater Plan, but how it expresses that will be unique to the particular structure it became through the creation process.

As a quick for-instance there, carbon-based life is the main life form on your planet. The only life that is capable of multiplying is carbon-based. You can, however, visit here and not be carbon-based. But a carbon base, which is essentially all you’re going to get in this galaxy, is not the case throughout the universe. (But that’s another interview.) It’s all you know, so you cannot imagine life based on a different element.

With that in mind, think about the mineral kingdom. Are all minerals carbon-based? No. Are most minerals carbon-based. Yes. Maybe it’s easier to see it that way, but it’s all creation elements.

I love the thing that one of your scientists has said, which is essentially that, of this vast universe, everything that is within it can be brought down into a few basic compounds, and those compounds you would think of as stardust. You are made of the compounds that make up this whole universe, and you are indeed stardust.

There are five to seven variations of the human form around you at any given time. They are also stardust. Outside of this galaxy, it’s still all stardust but it manifests in a different way.

And even if we could visit another galaxy, as humans we probably wouldn’t even recognize that life form because we would have nothing to base our recognition on.

Precisely so. And you do that right here, right now. Let’s go back to that cotton plant. You don’t see it as intelligent life, but it does things you cannot possibly do.

We keep sending probes to look for life on Mars, and I have to think that it’s probably there, but we cannot see it because it’s not what we expect it to be. We’re looking for carbon-based life.

I’m one-hundred percent with you there.

“Why is there a dimensional quality to form itself, and how does that affect the human experience? Please explain that from quantum scale to planets and humans.”

Intent is quantum-scale, and what you see is human scale. And everything in between is also human scale, including what you call quantum—especially quantum. So I just went from one to the other and then back again to one. What you see as the quantum universe is because it’s how you think to see it, and it changes as your science and technology advances. But ultimately it is the world of Intent.

Now, as I said in the beginning, All That Is functions in four major ways. Scientists amongst you should not be thinking the four kinds of force here. That’s not going to be equivalent. If you think of it as Intent, Thought, Word, and Deed, remember that all of those are simply a frequency spectrum that is Intent, that is Thought, that is Word, that is Deed. The quantum scale is Intent, and it moves up to Deed, which is the human scale—not that any of that matters, because all you get is the human scale. You cannot see what you do not believe, as every mystery school has said. You see the quantum because enough people have said “Ah, this is quantum.”

You have a double-slit experiment that you can’t get beyond because the observer affects it. So when I am saying human scale, I am talking about the observed universe.

If what is being asked is what the unobserved universe is made up of, I would say the very same thing as the observed, but functioning at different levels with a multitude of perspectives all coming together to create a whole. And that whole is Intent.

“Some time ago, you told us that once we are back with Source, we could create our own experiments within the universe, similar to the one on planet Earth. How many such experiments are already ongoing among the billions of galaxies, and what is the nature of these creations? On what level do they intersect, and what are the common objects within each creation?”

They are unique unto themselves and there is an infinite number at any given time. And both of
those statements are to say, I cannot really answer that.

“Closer to home, our solar system, supporting humanity, is just a minuscule dot in the vastness of the universe. As for a perspective, beyond our own sun, the next nearest star is incredibly far away, about five light-years (one light-year equals about six trillion miles). That leads to the ultimate question: How much of all there is in the universe is related to humanity?”

Every bit of it, because you are the center of your own universe. And what I mean by that is not that you’ve created this; it’s that you only see what is related to you. All you see is what is related to you.

I think that Eckehart has been viewing space, and that’s great, because he has come to a place where he has a sense that “we are such a tiny speck in the vastness of creation.” And that’s a very good perspective, but it’s important to remember that it’s not the only perspective. You are here for a reason. Everything in the most distant galactic formation is a part of that reason, but it does not all function within your specific mental perspective. There is much detail you’re not able to see, either because you’re two years old and don’t think that way yet, or because you are an astrophysicist and your focus is more planetary than that.

Your whole universe changes as you do. And the more that you become aware of, the more curious you are, and the more you wonder, the more you are capable of knowing, because nothing is a secret. But everything, when closely viewed, is very tricky to understand, because there is so much more, and there is a tendency within the human brain to limit all input to what you already know. So Eckehart is doing a great thing, and I hope if nothing else this interview is letting people know that everything you see is limited, because you’re only seeing a tiny portion of it.

So stretch and be curious and try and explore and seek out discrepancies and make things up and look to see how it works in the world that you just made up. Purple unicorns dancing in a garden of string beans—that’s a picture. Well, you know about string beans, and you can dance in the garden, so maybe purple unicorns can, too. So start looking for purple unicorns—Is it purple? Is it a unicorn?—and play with it. Expand yourself so that all dimensional values of your world become a known, rather than unknown, thing. It’s really good.

I guess when there’s an unknown we tend to go toward fear.

Yes!

Whereas when it’s a known we can embrace it because we feel comfortable.

Nicely said. There is even an expression, “too much information.”

Yes, TMI.

That gives the idea that there are things you don’t want to know, and religion has been great at saying, “You cannot know this.” Try anyway.