-

[anagogy]

Then you will have noticed, Anagogy, if you've read through Dolores Cannon's works, that she herself is pretty gullible, credulous and naive when tackling the information retrieved from her subjects. Perhaps more importantly, however, as is the case with most channeling nowadays, the "regressed" subjects are not hypnotized into what we may properly call a deep state of trance (as was Carla Rueckert's case). Because of this, one is dealing with the discarnate, albeit still 3rd-density personality complex, with all of its corresponding intellectual/emotional biases and limitations (as well as associated religious predispositions).

You will also notice that after "interviewing" this discarnate portion of the mind complex, Dolores sometimes will proceed to ask to speak with the "higher self" portion of the entity in question, which then is capable of providing a more objective, more enlightened and more accurate perspective on the matter. This is far more acceptable/valuable in terms of accuracy of information.

The point being: when dealing with most hypnotically "regressed" subjects, one is still dealing with 3rd-density understandings/limitations and associated personal biases. This is made evident by the tone and flavour of the message, the choice of words used in the structuring of the syntax, etc.

I agree for the most part, but disagree that calling in the higher self part, makes the information more valid.  Either way, the info is being warped through the 3rd density ego that is sitting in the hypnotherapists chair, relating/translating the information.  But there is a big difference in the veiled 3rd density personality, and the nonveiled 3rd density personality and the information that they have access to in this type of hypnotherapy situation.  You can take nothing at face value, but it is interesting information or "mind candy" to consider.

And as far as deep trance states, Dolores stated in several of her books the importance of getting the subjects into the deepest state possible to afford access to the soul memories and personality.  It was something she made a special effort to do.  Not sure if your comment was in regard her work, but it seemed relevant to state.

If you would like to envision an inverted pyramid, God would be at the top or the longest edge, and humanity would be at the bottom or at the point.

This is a good example of subject's cognitive limitations of awareness. Humanity is clearly not at the "bottom" of the pyramid. We know there are grades of awareness "prior" to the human(oid) state. These are 2nd and 1st density animal/plant and elemental life, respectively.

I agree, and just took it for what it was worth: an very basic analogy to visualize progression through the planes.

Many have already joined God and need never return to lower planes again.

Why are the "lower planes" always so stigmatized? Why is it that many "spiritually-inclined" people (especially of the New Age variety) shun the body and the incarnative experience as something that must be transcended and left behind, like a fetter or, as the title of this thread indicates, a prison? What does this escapism reveal about the entity in question?

In short: to ask for advice or information from discarnate 3rd-density entities is not much different than asking the same from embodied 3rd-density entities.

PS: I very much appreciate Dolores Cannon's well-meaning intentions. Same goes for Jane Roberts, Barbara Marciniak, David Wilcock, David Icke, Greg Bradden, Bruce Lipton, Nassim Haramein, Darryl Anka, Linda M. Howe, John E. Mack and Kerry Cassidy, just to mentioned some assorted names. I truly do. However, just because one is genuinely well-intended and "good-hearted" doesn't mean they are free from fallacy and the endorsement/promotion of misinformation.

I personally see nothing wrong with so called lower planes.  The physical world is the lowest plane of all from my perspective, and is the main vehicle for catalytic evolution, so lower obviously doesn't mean bad or undesirable.  Even the lower astral planes serve many useful functions from my perspective.

Your observation about good hearted nature not equaling accuracy can be applied to all sources, even Carla.  There were plenty of errors related through Carla's words (many of which were caught in the sessions), so even when a sixth density being of light is communicating, we all have to carefully think about these concepts, and use our own personal discernment capabilities to ascertain the truth of any communicated piece of knowledge.  The assumed veracity of the source does not ever excuse us from personal truth discernment.  I never automatically accept any concept unless it agrees with me on a very deep fundamental level of intuition and logic.