1994: The Year of Synthesis

Samuel is calling 1994 “The Year of Synthesis.” With 1993 drawing to a close, we asked Samuel some questions about his teachings over the past year and about the meaning of the word “synthesis.”

It seems as though everything has been accelerated this year. For many people it has been one change and transition after another.

I agree. Do you think they are changing any differently than usual, or that they are just more aware of it?

I would say they’re more aware of it.

That’s right, and that’s an important difference. I get really weary of people putting their power outside of themselves and saying, “All of this change is because of this portal.” Hogwash! They are aware of it because they have been given a label called portal that they can relate to.

In the last workshop you talked about three stages of consciousness: awakening humanity; ascension, for which the key is unity; and synthesis. It seems that ascension involves what you have called the mental blueprint. Is that because we are making conscious choices to act?

And using the ascended chakra system and the higher rays on a more conscious level.

Does that mean that synthesis involves the spiritual blueprint?

No, because the spiritual blueprint is essentially the entity, but synthesis is access to that entity. Essentially, synthesis is the entity acting.

You also said, “Synthesis with individuation is holding the self intact while being All That Is.” Is that the same as saying that you have a true connection to the Source because you know you are the Source?

Yes, all of that. And then the next step from that is that you, in form, are able to use that knowing. Now, that knowledge does not expand what form is capable of, but it does allow you to fully use the potential of form. Knowing that you have full access to and in fact are the Source doesn’t mean that you are likely to be able to regenerate the end of the finger you cut off—not because you don’t believe you can, but because the natural laws in this society right now don’t allow for it. You might have an amazing, fast, unheard-of healing process, but it’s not going to go beyond what is set for this time, this place, this knowing.

Here’s another quote: “The level of your communication determines the level of your relationship.” How does that relate to the communication you taught in the last workshop of 1994, which involved building the inner temple?

You are talking about two separate levels there. The first one is that on a very intense earthly level, your desire and ability to communicate are going to determine the level and the intensity of the relationship itself. On a second level, that of working in the inner temple (Details of this process were explained in the last workshop of 1993—Ed.), each level requires communication before you can go to the next level. You’ve dealt with the guardian of one level before you move to the next, and the whole building process is one of recognition, awareness and consciously created communication, all of it on an inner level. Because of that, you will only build as far as you are, or in other words as far as you can create that temple.

Now putting the inner temple aside, let me give you two examples of what I mean on a worldly level. The first one is (and I think it’s very nice when, as the editors of this publication, you let people know that I draw on your life for examples) you, Paula, want to communicate with David, don’t you? Sometimes it’s painful. Sometimes it’s maddening. Sometimes it’s very pleasant and easy. If the only thing you ever cared about was the pleasant and easy, what would that say about your relationship?

That it was incomplete.

Yes, very shallow probably, because you have not done anything for synthesis, only for unity. Synthesis creates friction because it isn’t easy. It requires commitment: “I am committed to this; we must work it out.” It requires negotiation, and negotiation is communication. Therefore, the level of your communication is a signal, a parallel to the level of the relationship.

The second example is a relationship in which you’re afraid of loss. There isn’t a bond of commitment. There isn’t trust yet—perhaps the relationship is just beginning. You have three choices. One choice is to say, “I am going to make myself vulnerable and lay before you how I feel in this situation, hoping that you will do the same thing and we will then make this synthesis, this bond that comes from working through agreement, disagreement.” That would represent caring, the beginnings of commitment, the beginnings of trust. It would represent a start.

Second choice: not to bother with any of it—turn around and run away as far as possible.

Third choice: denial. Stuff it all down and just act as if nothing’s wrong—and probably believe you deserved it anyway.

In the beginning of a relationship, before there is commitment, there are those three choices. The way that an individual responds in most of these communication opportunities—which one of those three they tend to use—always, always, always is a parallel to where they are in their spiritual growth. Those who are willing to negotiate and work and commit and trust and risk and be vulnerable inevitably are those working at the higher spiritual levels and ready to move to synthesis. Those who choose the option of denial—”It must be me; I’ll work on it myself”—just may be at ascension, surprisingly enough, because ascension allows them to see their issues. The turning around and running as far as you can and sticking your head in the sand is the response of someone who is barely awakened or entirely unawakened.

Because in synthesis you see friction as an opportunity, not as a threat. You are aware that it’s an opportunity to synthesize and therefore transform into love.

Exactly. Remember what I said at the November Sunday night meeting in Lexington? I said that when you fear loss, you fear that what might happen is that you won’t have any better, and you won’t have any better because you don’t deserve it. When you fear loss, you always fear adversity, and when you fear loss it’s because you have no relationship with the all-giving, all-being Source. If you really believed that you had this or something better coming your way, you would risk.

It seems that it would be very easy to take the statement that synthesis creates friction and misinterpret it as “no pain, no gain” or “no friction, no synthesis.”

But it’s at a totally higher level. “No pain, no gain” is disgusting, not because it’s not true, but because it’s not the only thing that’s true. There is a certain amount of pain in gain if you’re in resistance. Now resistance can be a good thing, but it also can not. Resistance can mean the stretch of muscles pulling and creating strength. Resistance can also mean tucking your head into the sands, in which case the pain becomes pure, terrible pain. But it’s different when it’s a part of growth, because you’re aware, you’re working on a higher level than what you’re actually dealing with. I don’t worry about that; I worry about all these deeply spiritual people having an excuse for not dealing with things and not handling old stuff because “friction means I’m a synthesized being.” That keeps you from growing, because you don’t want to risk what might be painful.

That puts me in mind of something you said in the last workshop about some thought forms having to stay on the mental plane in order to be effective. In other words, it’s the threat of the bogeyman that frightens us, whereas, if we actually met him, it wouldn’t be any big deal at all. So often it’s threat of pain as opposed to the actual circumstances of our lives that causes a problem.

And that keeps you from growing, because you don’t want to risk what might be painful. When you actually do, you find out it wasn’t so bad after all.

So it’s the ideas that prevent us from growing.

Ultimately, because Spirit can’t hurt you. It cannot! What happens a whole lot of the time with an individual is that he or she will use fear as an excuse to not deal with the spirit they are. As long as there is something out there with power, it allows you to be the powerless child who will be taken care of. Therefore, it’s good to have the bogeyman, so that you can have the rescuer, the hero.

It’s time to start crushing the archetypes, don’t you think? To recognize that they really are you. The hero you need is the one inside of you. The bogeyman you need is the one inside of you. That’s old information; nonetheless, it’s true.

You have called 1994 the Year of Synthesis. Can you tell us more about what you intend to teach in the upcoming year?

In 1994 I’m going to continue in this vein. There is a lot of danger in that, because it attracts those who love the airy-fairy, who believe that what is hard to understand must be better.

Because it is more challenging?

Actually it’s not that it’s challenging, it’s that it’s unknown. Every bit of the information is sitting in what I have called “the lake of the unknown.” But every bit of information I ever give is in the lake of the unknown. However, because it’s couched in familiar terms like communications, relationships, marketing and getting yourself out there, you think you know what I’m talking about, and so you toss it off. So if I give out the same information cloaked in something no one can relate to, that might create in ‘94 a powerful uplifting and change. The difficulty is that when it’s put in spiritual terms there becomes disillusion and illusion: disillusion, as in “I’ll never reach it; I’ll never make it; I can’t do it”; illusion, as in “I’m there already.” But we’ll see.

I’m working with people who need a push. I’m not satisfied with ascension, because that’s not going to create sacred leadership. It’s not enough to have individuals who are awake and aware and fully conscious and functioning and ascended. Now we need those who are functional enough in the higher levels of Spirit that they can lead the ascended ones. If, out of the hundreds who hear this, one or two connect, that’s enough. So 1994 will be the experiment, a totally airy-fairy year, a year of esoteric mysteries.

It seems that the direction that you are going now is so cumulative that it tends to leave anyone coming to hear you for the first time behind.

That would be so if it were not that the nature of my work in conjunction with what’s going on on the planet right now means that, although it draws people who may not have the language, they have the knowing. Using Phoenix as an example, there were people at our last meeting who have been a part of my work from the very beginning when I began projecting through the Form [Lea Schultz], yet who have never gone past that. Then there were people there who had never come before, but for whom it was the piece of the puzzle that made it all fit together, and who will latch on and connect and grow right with it.

And if you do connect you go and look for what you need.

That’s right. This is not the time to encourage people to be babies. It’s time to grow up. And that is what the workshops are about. Sunday nights are when I say, “Come, and we’ll ease you into it,” but the workshops are not, especially this year. In 1994 in Pittsburgh, Toronto, and Atlanta, we are going to do the low-cost equivalent of a Lexington Sunday night. I’m actually being a magnet, and for those who connect it’s an opportunity to know they’ve done it. There’s a lot of that this year. You get it or you don’t. Getting it doesn’t mean you’ll have the technology, but you’ll have the awareness, and that will get you started.

And the technology is available because we’ve been putting it into tapes and transcripts all these years.

Exactly. It always interests me to see what people will do for themselves. They will go to all sorts of trouble for someone else, but for themselves they won’t ask a question, won’t seek an answer. It won’t continue working that way.