As Rob points out, this site has received many posts on the good vs. evil/ right vs. wrong  polarity and the demon question.  The "Newbie--Worry" thread has been interesting, but has meandered a lot and has lately focused on this question again.   The unwieldy character of that thread makes it seem prudent to start a new thread on this discussion with a narrow focus to prevent excessive repetition.  I'd like my new thread to address the question of definitions of value terms (e.g. love, hate, evil) and methods of testing New Age claims that arise from the use of these terms.  
I will begin by reposting my reply on the "Worry" thread discussion. Then in my next post I will reply to some of the relevant comments on that thread.

To me it is either meaningless or wrong to say that hate does not exist, but is rather the absence of love.  It is meaningless because acts of hate (e.g. torturing Jews or Blacks) cannot simply be explained by the absence of something.  Acts of hate are very real acts that cause intense pain and even death.  More importantly, it is wrong because of what Malachi Martin has discovered as the decisive factor that  convinces the skeptic of  the reality of demonic possession in a major exorcism. (See his analysis of several major exorcisms in "Hostage to the Devil".)

It is not the bizarre lowering of room temperature as the entity sucks up heat energy to manifest itself.  It is not the psychokinetic effects (objects being teleported around the room, etc.).  It is not the serpentine expression on the face of the possessed that psychiatrist Scott Peck, for example, tried without success for hours to imitate in a mirror.   It is not the fact that the entity knows you better than you know yourself and reveals some of your most embarrassing life moments to humiliate you at key junctures during the exorcism.  
For example, one saintly priest was greeted by the demoniac with the snide comment, "Well, if it isn't Peter the Eater."  The other priests gazed curiously at this priest's ashen face.   That expression was a dirty nickname his girlfriend had given him in his misspent youth.  The gross revelation temporarily put the demon in charge of the exorcism.

All of these symptoms can be present in a major exorcism.   So what convinces even the skeptic of the reality of demonic possession?   The searing energy of pure hatred, says Martin, an energy that sears the soul like a hot iron with effects that continue after the exorcism.  This energy is every bit as real as love.   Martin describes one case in which the energy of hate instantly killed one young athletic priest the moment he approached the bed of the possessed.  Conversely , it can be questioned whether love is properly viewed as an energy at all.   In my view, love is more properly regarded as a way of being, which may or may not be experienced as energy.

Martin is a Catholic priest. But his key observations find independent corroboration from New Age OBE adept, Robert Bruce.  Robert has confirmed the reality of hate and evil by direct experience. I quote from one of his online articles at "Astral Dynamics:"

"I have seen babies as young as nine-months-old under strong, direct psychic attack from unquestionably evil spirits.   I have seen toddlers attacked, overshadowed, possessed, and tormented.  I have stood in nurseries and seen manifestations (visible to the naked eye) that would make normal person's hair turn gray...."

"I once became possessed myself and was almost killed, while trying to exorcise a powerful entity from a five-year old boy.   I have also seen animals attacked, even possessed and driven mad by negs".

"The popular New Age model states that everyone has spirit guides and/or spirit protectors attached to them from birth to death.  But if this were true, how can babies of pre-language age and very young children be attacked and tormented, even possessed?  Where is their protection and guidance when they need it most?"
 
Don

I will assist by insisting that YOU define the terms you are used in your opening post first, as well as a couple of others:

New Age
New Age Value
Act
Intention
Love
Demon
Evil
Good
Right
Wrong
God
Reality
Evidence
Test/Verification
Conciousness

If we cannot agree on basic terms such as those above, I don't see how we can attempt to communicate without talking past each other, at best. Another reason is because the taxonomy used by most of us is problematic because we borrow terms from belief systems and popular culture that carry baggage we don't necessarily need (ghost, enlightenment, et al.). This isn't a new problem. I've seen it in theological discussions between Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox Christians who sometimes use that words that have different meanings/nuances for each group.

If we can't agree on definitions of basic terms, I don't see how we can have much of a discussion. Let's define our terms first.

Next, I would like you to explain what, fundamentally, sets apart what you believe from those you label as "New Age."

Bob

Don,

Respectfully speaking, I think the Newbie thread did define two different camps' ideas on right/wrong and good/evil.   On the one side, there was the higher ideal that evil does not exist, and was an absence of love.  In that camp, were those who felt "there was no right or wrong, only beliefs."  This, despite the fact that there is ample evidence of divine laws, separate from physical law.

In the other camp, were those who understood the notion of PUL, but felt that in C1/reality we had to acknowledge good/evil  right/wrong, eventhough these notions may dissolve as one ascends to a higher plane of existence.  I am in this camp, for the time being.  I think you may be too.

I'm not certain that we can bring these to camps together.

BTW, I am re-reading the Swedenborg thread of yours; it is a treasure trove of insight and information.

Best,

Matthew

Doc,

"This, despite the fact that there is ample evidence of divine laws, separate from physical law."

Couldn't make your point without taking a passing swipe at those in the other camp? So, we're stupid? We ignore or can't see the 'ample evidence' , the obvious that any intelligent person such as yourself can clearly see?

Besides, the idea of evil/sin as separation from God, missing the mark, and being the absence of Love is well grounded in the theology of Eastern Orthodox/Byzantine Catholic Christianity (a very mystical, experiential theology), and has been for two thousand years, but hey, I'm a "New Ager" and I'm stupid, so what do I know?

Bob

My "swipe" as you call it was a statement of fact.  I am an advocate for my positions; passionate as such, but never personal.  If you look at my past postings today, I did note that you and I had much in common with study of aikido and the Bhagavad Gita.....

I don't think we should get touchy about these replies.  Intellectual discourse may be directed, and done with passion, but can be friendly.  My saying, "this despite"  is meant along those lines.  And I don't think both camps need to be brought together.  I simply meant that the Newbie thread did flesh out the opposing camps.  I think that you, Kathy, myself, Don and others filled out those positions nicely.

Matthew

Dave,

No, I hadn't read your posts for today. I just did. That synopsis of the Bhagavad Gita was very good.

I don't practice Aikido. It's not available where I live (I wish it were). I will be starting Tai Chi in January for developing of Chi (Ki), of which I do have some limited experience already in healing.

I do have a copy of Aikido And The New Warrior (Heckler). In it I was searching for another expression of PUL. I found that in O'Sensei's mystical experience and his redefinition of Budo.

I can say without hesitation that Aikido is the highest, most beautiful, and most spiritually advanced of the martial arts, because PUL is it's starting point. It is PUL in action. It's a great gift that Japan has given the rest of humankind.

Even so, that WAS a swipe! :-)

Bob

At that moment I was enlightened: the source of budo is God's love - the spirit of loving protection for all beings.
                      - Ueshiba Morihei, founder of Aikido

Hi Matthew,

As I read the descriptions of both camps, I felt like I could agree with both of these even if these appear to be separate.  I don't see duality here.  I guess I see co-existence.

Each person is free to believe as they so choose.  This has to do with their own consciousness and in this respect their beliefs are neither right, nor wrong… they simply exist.  

From a moral evolutionary standpoint the creation of right and wrong, good and evil was necessary or we would not be able to become individualized consciousness.  These things clearly exist as well.

Love, Kathy :-)

I will reconsider.

Bob

Don-

In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, I too believe in the reality of evil.  There are new age folks who dismiss evil as being something we ourselves project, and that all we have to do is replace evil with love because supposedly those two things cannot exist at the same time.

That sounds great, but it is way too simplistic.  Yes, we might have a nightmare with some kind of evil looking creature staring at us and scaring us half to death.  And yes, chances are very good that it's our own projection.

But it ignores "the rest of the story."  Namely, those exorcisms where true evil was manifested, and where it physically attacked those who were trying to exorcise it and where objects were sent flying around the room, etc etc.  I would love to challenge anyone who thinks they can get rid of that kind of evil by "sending" it PUL to get involved in a real exorcism and try out their theory in that kind of scenario.  I'm convinced they would change their mind in a NY minute.

And that's the problem with so much of the new age thinking.  It is feel good stuff that works only up to a point.  The new agers are seldom confronted with a situation where they can truly test their beliefs.  They confuse nightmares with the real deal.  

I don't wish anyone to have to witness firsthand a real exorcism.  It is frightening beyond description.  What I don't understand is why there aren't more cases of demonic possession, since especially children make plentiful and easy targets.

R

Quote:

But it ignores "the rest of the story."  Namely, those exorcisms where true evil was manifested, and where it physically attacked those who were trying to exorcise it and where objects were sent flying around the room, etc etc.  I would love to challenge anyone who thinks they can get rid of that kind of evil by "sending" it PUL to get involved in a real exorcism and try out their theory in that kind of scenario.  I'm convinced they would change their mind in a NY minute.

Rondele, im not familiar with pul.  Anyway theres a show in the sates about exorcism.
Its not possession it seems, but individuals who have been hiding their anger and in that situation where a 'priest' is involved, its then acceptable to lash out about the things you hate.  Its acceptable in those situations to express the hate for yourself or another or an experience or whatever it is you really hate but have stuck in the corner of your mind and have ignored or havent accepted.. and its not acceptable to express hate en society. at large, but acceptable in certain forums under certain guidelines.  
So all this repressed anger and hateful feelings build up, in a sense, to when the individual in an acceptable situation will release all that anger and hate they have pent up.  
And the effect can look quite evil, like the individual is possessed by a demon.  Though thats just pent up anger and hate and fears that hadnt been expressed here, or there, every now and then, buiilding up.  Its not possession, but i would say a repression being projected.

Two definitions of "New Ager":
(1) "Someone who buys more books from the New Age section of book stores than from either the Religion or Inspiration sections."

(2) "Someone who believes in "I am God" theology and embraces reincarnation on the basis of modern occult teaching rather than devotion to ancient Eastern religious traditions.  New Agers typically (but not always) deny the reality of evil."  

My initial comments will be focused on this patronizing comment from Bob:

"Since you are operating within a different paradigm, I'm not going to address your specific concerns because others have tried to show you The shortcomings of your way of thinking to no avail."

What paradigm is that?  My chief criticism of New Agers is that they operate within a rigid paradigm.  I am trying to inspire research and reflection based on multiple paradigms that often conflict in key ways.  Jesuit Malachi Martin's book "Hostage to the Devil" is just one of the research-based sources I study.  I am not Catholic like him.  But his experiences are corroborated by the paranormal aspects of my own family's exorcisms and psychiatrist Scott Peck's own encounters with exorcism.    Raz's myopic prior post can be refuted by even a cursory investigation of the standard treatments of exorcism.  

Like traditional Christianity, Peck and Martin conclude that the demonic is nonhuman.  But I supplement these insights with those of Emanuel Swedenborg whose astral experience teaches him that demons are discarnate evil humans.  I respect ES's verifications and astral insights, but sharply disagree with his symbolic biblical interpretations.  Robert Bruce is a reincarnational New Ager to the core, a man (unlike myself) with lilttle respect for the historical Jesus.  Yet his terrifying observations "resonate" well with the findings of Martin, Peck, and my own family.  Like ES, RB has often encountered astral aliens, but unlike ES, RB acknowedges that angels and demons (negs) can be nonhuman entities.  Especially intriguing is RB's observation that real angels (nonhuman) can be seen in the astral, but cannot be approached and questioned.  

So what do I conclude from all this?   That one must not simply stick to one paradigm, but must rather look for common ground displayed through conflicting paradigms.  What does this mean in practice?   That the identity (human or otherwise) of demons should be tabled until it can be subjected to decisive verification tests.  Since these entities routinely lie, the researcher cannot simply take their word for it when they claim to be Satan.
Final definitions of terms like "evil", "demon", and "possession" must defer to an adequate investigation of the possession phenomenon.

This brings me to a more important point.   Bob is typical of New Agers on this site who imagine that, like themselves,  I operate within a limiting paradigm.   But at least I read authors on all sides of the question.   No one here who presumes to pontificate on evil on the basis of channeled sources has even been willing to read a standard work on exorcism like Martin's.   That ghetto mentality is a crucial aspect of what I mean by "cultic."  Rondele's post is exactly right.

Kyo's post illustrates the myopia of this ghetto mentality.  He says, "Spirit releasement therapists have noted rather curiously that even `'dark' entities themselves never call themselves demons."  This false statement illustrates how New Agers create a straw man out of rather mild oppressive experiences and then misapply generalizations to major exorcisms that they have not investigated.  In fact, demons, whatever they are, conceal their identity in the first and longest stage of an exorcism--the Pretense.   The exorcist team breaks this Pretense by addressing either the patient's healthy core personality or the demon, but "refusing to speak with some unclear mixture of two two."  Peck continues:  

"But as the team became more perceptive and steadfastly refused to be sucked in, ..these patients began to alternate between a progressively more healthy-appearing core personality and a progressively  more ugly secondary personality, UNTIL SUDDENLY THE SECONDARY PERSONALITY TOOK ON INHUMAN FEATURES  AND THE PRETENSE WAS BROKEN (Peck, "People of the Lie," 105)."

At that point, shortly before the expulsion, the demons generally acknowledge their Satanic identity, whatever that means.  The term "demon", so maligned by New Agers, derives from the Greek "daimonion" which actually has a more expansive meaning: "a deity, evil spirit, of independent beings who occupy a position somewhere between the human and the divine."  This range opens the door to a wide range of beings from elementals to aliens.

The New Age ghetto mentality is well illustrated by an eloquent New Age astral adept, Robert Bruce:

"Early new Age spritualist thought began focusing on good and denying the existence of evil for very good reasons.  Lacking the knowledge to understand evil spirits, and with no effective procedures to counteract and protect against them, extremely uncomfortable belief system insecurities arose.  It's far easier to deny evil,...and work around the problem by fostering beliefs that foster security."

"I have also consulted several reputedly advanced spirits, through their respected mediums, on these same matters.  This was done kindly and fairly...But when I have questioned more closely, citing examples concerning very young children and animals, plus my own extensive hard-life experience with psychic attack, possession and exorcism,...said spirits began contradicting their previous statements and, basically, changing the subject.   When this was respectfully pointed out, in all cases, no further spirit communication was possible. ..I was dubbed an unspiritual trouble-making liar.  The spirits I communicated with either did not know the truth of the matters in question, or did not want to discuss them.  BUT ALL THESE SPIRITS AGREED TO A CANDID AND OPEN PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION BEFOREHAND, and all claimed...access to any and all higher knowledge as necessary...I was kind courteous, and non-demanding."

This is a complicated issue.  I'll have nore on the definition of key New Age terms in future posts.

Don

"

Don,

On second reading of the comment of mine you quoted, it does indeed sound a bit patronizing. For that I apologize..

In addressing your two definitions of New Ager, I immediately run into a problem. I suspected this would happen which I why I asked you to define those terms I listed above, which you didn't do with one exception.

The first definition: I am deep into Thomas Merton right now, having just read through (again) the Kabballa, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, Dark Night of the Soul, A Simple Path, The Way of a Pilgrim, and the Philokalia, all of which are found in the religion sections of bookstores. I buy very few books that would be in the New Age section, but I do buy some. Overall, I fail this definition.

The second definition: A couple of problems here. I view theologies as intellectual contructs, extrapolations on Miracle Grow from original mystical experiences. After previously studying the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and LDS theologies, I am quite suspicious of any theology. I haven't personally seen much of what I would understand to be a developed theology in New Age circles, at least one that has any depth and one also that most of the New Age adherents would agree on. In fact, I think the whole thing lacks structure and uses to much borrowed vocabulary.

My understanding that evil doesn't OBJECTIVELY exist and is the absence of Love comes from Eastern Orthodox/Byzantine Catholic theology and not any New Age source. Eastern Christian theology is very different from either the Latin Catholic or the Protestant theologies/mindset. Most people have not studied Eastern Christian theology and so have no idea what I am talking about here. I did mention this in an earlier post but it seems to have escaped your notice. As for ancient Eastern religious traditions, I have not studied any of these in depth. So I have a problem with the either/or set-up given by you in your second definition. Again, my understanding of evil comes from Eastern CHRISTIAN theology, and I am largely ignorant of ancient Eastern religious traditions, as you refer to them.
And so I don't fall into your second definition, either.

"Occult" in normal usage is a rather loaded word. My understanding of evil comes from a source that can hardly be called modern occult teaching, unless you want to call the ancient patriarchial churches  of Christianity occultic.

I think you are typical of many Westerners in that you have not studied Eastern Christian theology, problably have no idea what I am talking about, and so proceed from the typical Latin Catholic/Protestant (Western) viewpoint when discussing Christianity, and utterly fail to recognize the great differences in spirituality, theology, and praxis between the Christian East and West. And so the first thing you do is slap a label on what I believe, which is quite insulting and presumptuous on your part, especially after I've already told you that I got my belief on evil from Eastern Christian theology and not New Age whatever. I especially do not 'pontificate' on evil based on channeled sources.

I am perfectly content to call henious acts evil, to call certain entities evil, and so on. I just happen to understand that evil is a relative term to begin with, and I also understand that evil, taken by itself, does not actually exist. You and others continue to confuse acts with existence. Evil is not a force, does not have a life of it's own, cannot be separated from everything else and isolated. It is relative. And what is it relative to? God/PUL. It is, in Christian terms, separation from God, and regardless of how henious (or not) evil acts may be, all evil acts are fundamentally the same in that they separate a person/entity from God.

I choose to focus on Love/God/PUL. That is not a denial of the reality of henious acts that are called evil. These acts are very real and need to be effectively delt with.

On the other hand, I will go one further now than I have previously: those who believe evil objectively exists and is not the absence of love are letting fear cloud their thinking. They are also putting limits around God beyond that which God him/herself allows in an accomadation to free will.

You do seem to carry on a lot about Robert Bruce and just a few others, which doesn't lend credibility to your claim to read authors on all sides of the question. And when I say that my view of evil comes from Eastern Christianity but you slap the New Age label on me regardless, that tells me that, no, you have not read authors on all sides of this question.

You DO operate within a limited paradigm. We ALL do.

Otherwise a agree with much of what you say. I await your other definitions and your undoubtably thoughtful and insightful response.

Bob

Let's look at the different side of the picture for a minute. I cannot talk other then the material what I resonate with which is well known in this such a loving community and that is Seth/Elias.

I have no idea or interest to find out how many Course of Miracle, or Ramtha or Abraham reader out there, what I do know that even 20 some year AFTER Jane Robert disengagement, and still way over 10 million Seth book sold. Both Elias site reached way over a million reader all over the world, and there is NOT ONE SINGLE CASE known  that anyone who UNDERSTAND either or both material ever comitted a homicide, killed their own children just becuse Seth/or Elias whispered in their ear and told them to do so even though they're "labeled" as deceiving evil "earthbound" low vibration spirits  by the fundamentalist ghetto.  NOT one single Seth/Elias reader EVER needed exorcism, not one children  whos parent read/understand the material see, hear or  posessed by "evil" spirit.There are NO Andrea Yate's and Susan Smiths, nor "respected church member" like the BTK killer among Seth/Elias reader IF they have discernment and clarity about the material.

Why? Because this so called *new age cookery* bring awareness to the reader, bring SELF-KNOWLEDGE, bring freedom of choices, but the same time bring tremendeous responsibility and understandings that each action  EFFECT ALL CONSCIOUSNESS. and that understanding brings INTEGRITY.

On the other hand let see what the statistic says.

Religion and  child abuse study

The violence comes full-circle now and serves to perpetuate child abuse in our nation. In a booklet written for the National Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect, Dr. Brandt Steele revealed that child abusers had themselves been abused as children. A pattern of violence was established early in their lives and they passed it along to their offspring.

The time has also come to recognize the painful truth that traditional Judeo-Christian moral values of pain and pleasure in human relationships have contributed substantially to child abuse and to the prevalence of physical violence in Western civilization. The religious system upon which our culture is based holds that pain, suffering and deprivation are moral and necessary to save one's soul or to make one a "good person." The crucifixion and scourging of Christ are examples. I mentioned before the biblical proverb that reflects the religious necessity to beat children with the rod to save their souls from hell.

This doctrine was dramatized in Molly Ivin's article "Whippings for God" in the January 25, 1974, issue of New Times. She reported on a home for delinquent girls operated by Lester Roloff, a former Southern Baptist minister from Texas, who was prosecuted for spanking, whipping and beating the girls. He was quoted as saying, "Better a pink bottom than a black soul." State Attorney General John Hill said: "I don't mind pink bottoms. What I do object to is black, blue and bloody."


Abuse by Christian Groups

In 1994, a three month old boy was ritually murdered in Quebec, Canada by members of the International Chivalric Order Solar Tradition, a doomsday cult. They follow a syncretistic religion, combining Roman Catholicism, homeopathic medicine and high finance. This religious group believed that the murder was required because the infant was the Anti-Christ mentioned in the Book of Revelation of the Christian Scriptures. They ritually murdered the child by driving a wooden stake through his heart. The group went on to engage in mass murders and suicides among their membership in Quebec and France.

During 1995, a young Oriental woman in California was accidentally killed during a Christian exorcism which involved extensive physical abuse. A small group of Christians were trying to drive a demon from her body. Her corpse was left for a few days before the police were called, in the hopes that she would return to life.

During 1995, an infant in Ontario Canada was tortured and accidentally killed during a Christian exorcism by her grandmother. The infant had cried a lot and was believed to have been possessed by a demon. The murderer was convicted and received a 18 month jail sentence.
Just fee of the sample.

The study reveal that

The incidence of Christian Ritual Abuse. when it results in death, it often comes to the attention of the authorities and is reported in the media. But for every known murder case, there are probably many instances of physical, emotional or psychological ritual abuse which did not result in a death; these might well have gone unreported. A massive study of ritual abuse and what was called "religious abuse" involved questioning 6000 members of the American Psychological Association. Their definition of religious abuse includes abuse which may or may not involve some degree of ritual. They concluded that of the 2,297 cases of religious abuse reported

58% involved "abuse by religious professionals"  38% abuse involved religious setting, religious shcool or daycare, 24% abuse related to get rid of "evil" spirit from the child, 14% involved abouse witholding medical care for religious reason.

These data would SEEMS  to indicate that the incidence of ritual abuse during exorcisms should be considered as a serious social problem

2003-05-13
Deanna LaJune Laney, 38, of Tyler, Texas, member of the choir at the First Assembly of God Church, beats to death her 8- and 6-year-old sons, telling authorities afterward that God told her to kill them. Her 14-month-old son was also found beaten and bloodied, but still alive, under a pillow in his crib.
The case bears similarities to that of another Texas woman, Andrea Yates, who was sentenced to life in prison for drowning her five children. Yates believed that she was possessed by Satan and that by killing her children she was sending them to heaven and saving them from the fires of hell.

London, Ontario, Canada--Walter Zepeda was possessed by the devil. His parents, devoutly religious members of a Pentecostal church that believes in such manifestations, knew that much to be true. They had seen their shy 19-year-old son engage in behaviours that could only signal the presence of Satan. So Diego Zepeda-Cordera called his friend Alex Osegueda, a fellow member of the Missionary Church of Christ and a man of equal devotion, to help him rid his son of the evil. They had no idea the seven days of forced confinement it took to drive away the devil would also, literally, drain the life out of Walter. He lost nine litres of fluid as he lay strapped with men's ties to metal chairs in the basement apartment he shared with his family in this western Ontario city. Ultimately he died of dehydration. Yesterday, the squarely cut shoulders of Mr. Zepeda-Cordero heaved silently as a judge sentenced him and Mr. Osegueda to four years in jail for the ritual that caused the teen's death.

Sometimes in the near future I'll present the official statistics brake down to the homicide/crime rate among the individuals who are regularly attend in church activities

Bob, you might be interested to know that Howard Storm (of NDE fame) is also a Thomas Merton fan.  In fact, not long after his miraculous recovery from his life-threatening physical affliction, he visited Gethsemane to meditate at Merton's tomb.  Storm sensed the presence of the deceased monks buried there.  Suddenly, Merton's spirit appeared and handed him a book of his poetry, including his poem on Gethsemane in which he too expresses his sense that the spirits of dead monks can be sensed there.   Storm read the poem and handed the book back to the late Merton, who then just vanished.   This scene was witnessed by Storm's new UCC pastor who was seated on a nearby bench.   You can read about this spirit contact in Storm's  book, "My Descent into Death (117-119)."

Thomas Merton taught at the university where I was a Theology professor for 12 years.   I have always had the highest respect for Merton and contemplative Eastern Orthdox spirituality (Philokalia/ Desert Fathers, etc.) that you cite.  Your other mystical readings qualify as excellent companion readings for that spirituality.

Bob, notice that I brought your points into comparison with New Agers without actually labelling you as such.   I wanted to give you a chance to identify with the label or distance yourself from it.  From what you've shared, I would not consider you a New Ager.   The scope of your inquiry is far too broad to warrant that label.   In fact, it sounds like you and I are kindred spirits.   I have shared only a tiny portion of my spiritual quest on this site.

Unfortunately, Bob, I will probably abandon this thread very soon and again leave the site for a few months.   This means I won't be able to complete my intended explorations for this thread.  To understand why just read the last two posts on my thread.  Blink's irrelevant and insulting blasphemy, so typical of New Agers who refuse to immerse themselves in interdisciplinary research.  And Dora likes to spam up my threads with irrelevant anti-Christian hate speech that has nothing to do with the topic in question.   It goes without saying that Christian groups that do exorcisms without first ruling out possible psychiatric diagnoses can do a lot of harm.   In the Martin's cases, the psychiatric interpretions are of course initially considered.  Catholics are admirably more careful in this regard than many Protestant Charismatics.  

Both these New Agers often lavish their PUL pretentions on their sympathizers and fail to realize that their rudeness exposes just how big a joke PUL claims can be.   So rather than contribute to their hysterics again, I will soon just leave the site.   I must say that my recent return has had some satisfying moments.

Don

Ok, Don, I have removed the post that I knew would offend you.   I made that post to illustrate how shocked I myself can be by the idea that, might I continue in my "freedom of expression," someone might think I need a "devil" to be cast out of me.   I find the very idea repulsive and I think such belief systems should be challenged.

Additionally, I don't use the term PUL nor new ager in any of my conversations.  I feel that labeling and defining people is "dangerous," to use a word that you often employ.

Despite this, many people, including me, enjoy your contributions.  But I will continue to speak up on occasion if I feel inclined.

blink

Dora,

To say the followers of Seth/Elias don't committ atrocities but christians do is irrelevant, and in the wrong spirit of discussion.

If Don attacks the concept of being a "New Ager," as he defines it, simply ask yourself if you fit that description.  Do not take personal offense or assume that his was meant as an attack against Seth or Elias.

Jane Roberts' philosophy has given me important insights into reality.  Thus, whether Seth was or wasn't real, I appreciate that.  

I doubt that Don means this thread to be a broad based attack, and therefore, you should not respond as if attacked.

Discourse and debate are good.  References are good.  Personal attacks, attacks on religions as a whole are best left out.

Peace,

Matthew

Where has anyone been attacked? lol

thats another new age term...personal attack....
You cant challenge an opinion or opinions without being thought of as attacking???

And is anyone being 'harmed' by that so -called attack from dora...?  Was berserk being attacked?, i think not.

Why would and evil spirit possess a baby? So it can mess it's diapers, get burped, spit up pee soup, and say goo goo, ga ga with an evil voice?

Don't believe everything you read. That's someting silly new agers do. ;)

And what's this fallen angel business? The story goes, God created an angel who had access to his infinite wisdom, love and light, and for some peculiar reason it chose darkness and evil, and has been allowed and continues to be allowed to negatively influence countless other souls, who were created so they could experience God's love and joy. Does this make sense?

If you were an angel, and had God's love and light within your heart, would you make the choice to become the prince of darkness? How about some of the people you know, who aren't angels, but are good hearted? Would they choose to be a prince of darkness, if given a chance, eventhough they don't currently experience the amount of love, wisdom and light that an angel experiences? If you answered "no," well then, why would an angel be beguiled, when even you're good hearted friend wouldn't be beguiled?

And why did one of God's angels supposedly choose the path of darkness, when none of his other angels made the same choice?  What was the difference? If such an angel had access to the same wisdom, love and light as other angels, why would it choose the path of darkness, when the other angels didn't?

Some people say you need evil to exist in order for goodness to exist. I don't believe this for a second. For example, why would something such as unconditional love need an opposite?

Sometimes people do negative things, but this is because they get lost within unloving psychological conditioning. Not because they are influenced by Satan.

Is Beserk trying to scare people into seeing things his way?

Is he trying to convert this website into a Christian website? Don't be suprised if he comes knocking on your door some day.

In fairness to Don,

You have to address his points.  He is not talking of fallen angels, or someone else's doctrine.  He is assuming that there may be evil souls, discarnate humans or otherwise who choose to create havoc.  He is not denying that they may be confused and need to understand PUL - as far as I can tell.  

Now the situations he cites, may be examples of a low level astral entity affecting someone.  I ne'er to well, who can't realize their own light, and sees and opportunity to get back onto the earth plane, and grabs it.

I think we should all read the posts we are responding to well, before stating our own views about the misconceptions of another.  Don is, I'm sure quite aware of the religious inconsistancies mentioned.  

That does not negate his post on possessions and the existence of negative entities.


Matthew

Quote:

And Dora likes to spam up my threads with irrelevant anti-Christian hate speech that has nothing to do with the topic in question.

First my post is very much relavent! Since the original post IS about the  discussions of the  *demonic possession*


Secondly  while my post  lacking any *hate speech*  But pointing out that the years after years PERSONAL ATTACKS, toward individuals including myself  constantly labeled as "NEW AGERS" what you SPECIFICALLY called a Dangerous and breed crime - do NOT need exorcism, since the idea is not implanted.

I attacked NO one, only posted statistical references, and expressed my opinion about the DANGER of the religious beliefs!

Thirdly Spam YOUR THREAD????? Let me inform you that I post whomever, whenever and whichever thread I choose! This is a public board, The thread belongs to NO ONE!


Doc

If may I ask in what ground you feel compelled to direct me that what should be left out? Why is there any Taboo in this board what I don't know about?


Quote:

If Don attacks the concept of being a "New Ager," as he defines it, simply ask yourself if you fit that description.  Do not take personal offense or assume that his was meant as an attack against Seth or Elias

The lack of discernment and the incredible Double standard is truly amazing! So it is all right to ATTACK not just concept but each every individual who expressing different beliefs but responding to this attacks are innapropiate, example calling  Blink  a  Blasphemy maybe hard NOT to take personally!
Of course you being fairly new in this board you have no knowledge of the year after year how many time  Donald attacked and labeled many people here especially Seth/Elias readers, even Bruce was called flat out fraud numerous time.

And one more comment for your and anyone information, I do not need to ask myself if I FIT to anyone discriminatory beliefs, and even though I do NOT align with many individual beliefs in his board I don't believe that ANYONE need to FIT to anyone highmighty standard. Everyone resonate according to their own awareness, their own understandings, their own discernment, but that doesn't give anyone the *green light* to label anyone as they please and eventually not to expect  response  to that.  

It's probably quite obvious by now that I don't believe in the devil or major forces of evil. It just doesn't make sense to me nor feel right in my heart that God would eternally set things up so that forces of evil always have to be contended with. The only thing that could be eternal is God's love, light and wisdom, and how he shares these gems with the souls he created.

Just in case I might be wrong, I asked my guidance.  I was given the name Saint Augustine, a person for which I know nothing about. It turns out that Saint Augustine pondered deeply about where evil comes from, and he spoke out against the concept that it is an inherent force that is always there. Here are a couple of paragraphs regarding what he said.

"Despite its dualistic overtones, the overall unity of the picture is central to its ability to provide a resolution of the problem of evil. The sensible world, for example, is not evil, nor is embodiment itself to be regarded as straightforwardly bad. The problem that plagues our condition is not that we are trapped in the visible world (as it is for the Manicheans); rather, it is a more subtle problem of perception and will: we are prone to view things materialistically and hence unaware that the sensible world is but a tiny portion of what is real [Confessions IV.xv.24], an error Augustine increasingly attributes to original sin [De Libero Arbitrio III.20; De Civitate Dei XIII.14-15]. Thus, we have a tendency to focus only upon the sensible, viewing it as a self-contained arena within which all questions of moral concern are to be resolved. Because we fail to perceive the larger unity of which the sensible world is itself a part, it easily becomes for us (though not in itself) a realm of moral danger, one wherein our will attaches itself to transitory objects that cannot but lead to anxiety [Confessions VII.xi.17-18]. Given the essentially rational nature of the human soul and the rational nature of the Neoplatonic ontology, there is nonetheless room for optimism. The human soul has the capacity to perceive its own liminal status as a being embodied partly in the sensible world while connected to the intelligible realm, and there is thus the possibility of reorienting one's moral relation to the sensible world, appreciating it for the goodness it manifests, but seeing it as an instrument for directing one's attention to what is above it [see Confessions VII.x.16 and VII.xvii.23]. Augustine's employment of this Neoplatonic hierarchy is thus central to his Hellenistic eudaimonism [see O'Connell 1972, pp. 39-40; Rist 1994, pp. 48-53; Kirwan 1999, pp. 183-4] which would redeem appearances by means of situating them within a more primary, if often unacknowledged context.

With respect to questions about specific instances of natural and moral evil, this ontology is even more subtle. Natural evils are attributed to the partiality of our perspective, a perspective that is often the result of our myopic materialism and tendency to focus upon our own self-interest. Understood within the larger context -- both the underlying order of the appearances and the providentially governed moral drama within which they appear -- natural evils are not evil at all [e.g. Confessions VII.xiii.19 and De Civitate Dei XI.22]. With respect to the moral evil which is the product of human agency, these are the culpable products of a will that has become attached to lower goods, treating them as if they were higher. Moral evil is, strictly speaking, not a thing, but only the will's turning away from God and attaching itself to inferior goods as if they were higher [ibid.]. In De Civitate Dei, Augustine emphasizes the privative nature of evil by referring to the will's pursuit of inferior goods as being a deficient rather than efficient cause [De Civitate Dei, XII.7]. The inherent difficulty of this notion aside [see Rist 1994, pp. 106-8], the point behind it is clear enough: Augustine is using the resources of Neoplatonism to account for the phenomena we label evil while stressing human responsibility, thus avoiding either substantializing evil (as the Manicheans do) or making it the result of God's creative activity."

Regarding possession, my guidance has shown me that if you're a good hearted person who is committed to higher good, and who would rather have your existence vanquished than be a tool for a negative spirit, then there is no way that a negative spirit could effect you.

If a negative spirit is going to gain control of anybody, it would be a person who provides a fertile field of negative thought patterns.

I don't care what some supposed super guru says. My common sense, heart and guidance are much more trustworthy.

 

I still say, keep replies on this thread on point.  If you find yourself responding to an idea, respond to it, without demeaning a religion (i.e. christianity bashing, talking about sexual abuse, etc.), or a specific person.

Its true, Don should keep to this standard too, and he does not.  It is, fairly simple to do.

M

To Dora:

Dora thunders: I post [on] whomever, whenever, and whichever thread I choose."   And so you do!  Regardness of my decision to start a new more highly focused thread and my pleas to honor that limitation.   But one mustn't expect a paragon of PUL like you to display a modicum of courtesy.  And I have to hand it to you--you win again!  You've succeeded in knocking this thread off  topic.  You know very well that your tirade against Christianity and child abuse is both hate speech and irrelevant to this thread.  By the way, you have no way of knowing how many Seth/Elias readers have committed murder or needed an exorcism.  Like Robert Bruce, I have criticized Jane Roberts (Seth) as at least somewhat self-deluded.  But I have never labelled Roberts or Sethians as "kooks."   I reserve that label for specific absurdities like Monroe's uncritical acceptance of the astral claim that aliens have come here to collect jokes.

To Blink:

I'm deeply moved by your apology and removal of that post.   I just surveyed some of your recent posts and saw no PUL pretension.  So I apologize for confusing you with someone else.  I've never implied that your views might imply a possible need for exorcism.   On the contrary, the ultimate in "kookery" is the uncritical ease with which some Christian charismatics perform exorcisms without first adequately ruling out the possiibilty of conventional psychopathology.   Malachi Martin estimates that 99% of exorcisms are misdiagnosed psychiatric disorders.  It is the !% that psychiatrists pass on to exorcists that are worth analyzing here.

Recoverer: "Why would an evil spirit possess a baby? ...Don't believe everything you read."
___________________________________

WhY?  There are various possibilities.  (1) The entity might want to enslave a soul for exploitation in this life and the next.  (2) If the demon is a discarnate earthbound human, it might want to exploit the child's mind to vicariously experience earthly pleasures.   That motive is widely attested in astral observation of earthbound humans.  

The strong evidence for the possession of young children initially trumps the why question.  Robert Bruce is my ideological adversary in many ways.  But he is a man of integrity and I don't believe he is fabricating his childhood possession reports.  

Besides, my family has experienced this danger.   Many years ago, my Uncle G was performing an exorcism in a home, while my aunt R kept my cousin E (just 3 years old) in the car outside.  At the very moment of demonic expulson, E fell into a deep trance and, to his mother's horror, his eyes rolled up in his head with only the whites visible.  Only after his parents' fervent prayers was E restored to normalcy.   E (now a psychiatrist) told me that all he recalls of this attempted possession is Jesus coming and lovingly cradling him in His arms."  

To Matthew (DocM):
Thanks for your tireless efforts to champion fairness and courtesy in an attempt to teach posters to disagree agreeably.

Don

Beserk:

Regarding the below, how do you know that a demon was involved? Couldn't it had been an earthbound spirit with negative tendencies.

I believe it's possible that there are spirits who try to possess people. But why are people so quick to glamorize such spirits by assuming that they are demons.

Certainly there are cases where certain spiritual leaders try to control their flock by making them afraid. It is much easier to make your flock afraid and make yourself seem more powerful, when you exorcise demons, as opposed to earthbound spirits. After all, there is a big difference between a supposed demon who represents forces of evil, and a lost spirit who has a personal aim in mind.



[quote author=Berserk link=board=afterlife_knowledge;num=1134349594;start=15#22 date=12/13/05 at 14:12:25]To Dora:


Besides, my family has experienced this danger.   Many years ago, my Uncle G was performing an exorcism in a home, while my aunt R kept my cousin E (just 3 years old) in the car outside.  At the very moment of demonic expulson, E fell into a deep trance and, to his mother's horror, his eyes rolled up in his head with only the whites visible.  Only after his parents' fervent prayers was E restored to normalcy.   E (now a psychiatrist) told me that all he recalls of this attempted possession is Jesus caming and lovingly cradling him in His arms."  

Beserk:

Give me a break on the below. As if this is what you exemplify. You come to a site that has been started by somebody else, and use it as a pulpit to preach your own agenda, as opposed to being in harmony with what the spirit of the site is.

I haven't read all of DocMs posts, but sometimes it seems as if you and he have a good cop, bad cop routine going on.


[quote author=Berserk
To Matthew (DocM):
Thanks for your tireless efforts to champion fairness and courtesy in an attempt to teach posters to disagree agreeably.

Don




[/quote]

I do not know Don, but I enjoy his posts.  We are certainly not good cop/bad cop.  I am very interested in keeping the posts relatively free of opinions about people or other personal issues.

We can debate what has been written, experienced, or thought about.

When one person starts telling another what their "agenda" must be, you can bet that poster has broken the forum rules, and is going off track.

However, all that being said, we are all big boys and girls.  We are not so fragile that a few comments will break us.

Matthew

recoverer, I've answered that question in reply #10:

"The identity (human or otherwise) of demons must be tabled until it can be subjected to decisive verification tests.  Since these entities routinely lie, the researcher cannot take their word for it when they claim to be Satan."

I don't know if the demon exorcised by my uncle was human or non-human.  I accept the original and broader Greek conception of "demon" (Greek: 'daimonion").  The more important issue is the physical and psychological harm that these entities can wreak on their victims.  

Only rarely is the entity able to kill its victim.  In both possessions witnessed and analyzed by psychiastrist Scott Peck, the victims suffered many years "of fixation at the age of onset."   In other words, though now adults, these victims were "demonically" prevented from progressing emotionally beyond the maturity of the young child they were when first possessed.   It took a long period of psychotherapy to correct this problem, but with the possession terminated by the power of Christ, mental health was steadily restored.

Don

Quote:

But one mustn't expect a paragon of PUL like you to display a modicum of courtesy.  And I have to hand to you--you win again!

I had NO idea that I'm in some kind of a contest!

And I posted that I'm NOT or NO longer align with many of the beliefs what this board share I have NOT expressed neither HATE or PUL.
Hate never was or is in my dictionary, that emotion is forigner to me.


Quote:

But I have never labeled Roberts or Sethians as "kooks."

Oh really? Do you want me to find all of your posts and copy all of your comment? You know that, that I know  well that you being dishonest with your statement.


Quote:

By the way, you have no way of knowing how many Seth/Elias readers have committed murder or needed an exorcism

Oh YES I do know, because I know any individual who UNDERSTOOD Seth/Elias  material neither will commit murder or need exorcism simple because they have SELF-KNOWLEDGE, and INTEGRITY and they UNDERSTAND what are beliefs, and how those beliefs influence their experiences and their reality.

Beside there is not one single case known publically that anyone committed any crime in the name of Seth or Elias.
Not like the many many case which were committed based on religious beliefs.


To Doc,

I guess I have to spell it out for you, stop telling me what I can or cannot post, especially that I have NOT bashing anything, other then again posted just a few of the well documented cases which are committed because RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.Beside expressing DISLIKE, NOT ABOUT  INDIVIDUALS, but the ideas what I don't align with, what make no sense to me, even about religion  is MY choice far as I know.

Don-

Why not just overlook Dora's posts and continue with your own.  Many of us respect your point of view and especially the great care you take with all of your posts.  Don't let yourself be distracted by her, and above all please don't withdraw from the board.

R

Question number 1:

What happens more often,

people get possessed by demons or something of this nature, or

people get possessed by teachers who use scare tactics to gain control of them?

.................................

Question number 2:


Are people more likely to spiritually advance if they lets go of fears and make contact with their higher self and/or guidance, or

if they become too afraid to do so, and instead rely on a teacher who warns them against doing so?

"...absurdities like Monroe's uncritical acceptance of the astral claim that aliens have come here to collect jokes."

    Hi Don,

           I don't mean to sidetrack the thread...  It sounds absurd, Monroe's experience of meeting non-physicals coming here to collect jokes, and Zeus only knows what y'all will think of me for saying this..

          I've always felt that was one of the truest things Mr. Monroe said, just makes sense to me.

          I have no reason to give for why it makes sense. If you'd ask me to explain I'd just tell a joke.

          I feel like I've stepped into a lion's den here. O.K., I'm just gonna back out slow, everybody relax, nothings going on, shows over, keep it moving...

          Now please, don't let this post derail the thread! Ignore it! Go back to the serious discussion, please!

             Best to you all, Tim F.

Don,

I should clarify a couple things about what I believe and how I view things.

I believe in PUL. I believe it is synonomous with God/All There Is. I also believe that fear contradicts Love.

I give a lot of weight to the reported experiences (collectively) of those who are graduates of the various programs given at The Monroe Insititute. This is because I believe that personal experience and a preponderance of the evidence outweigh any particular theology/belief system.  I also believe that any religion that teaches that fear is the beginning of knowledge is dead wrong and is in contradiction.
I do not spend time worshipping God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or venerating saints, all of which I believe are fear based practices.  I believe that practicing PUL is the absolutely the best thing a person can do. While I can hold two contradictory ideas in my head at the same time and still function, I cannot focus on PUL and hold fear at the same time. Because of this I find that ALL the Christian Churches/Eccesiastical organizations are problematic.

That is not the same thing as saying that religions are useless, wrong, or outdated. They have much to offer, even now. I respect them and borrow from them often.  

I like Thomas Merton because he understood/understands PUL. He was also a very lucid writer.  I also wonder if he understood a lot more than what he let on to in his books.

Anway, I don't know what you think of what I just wrote but there it is.

Bob

Hi Tim F. , you wrote:
"I've always felt that was one of the truest things Mr. Monroe said, just makes sense to me. "

That's what I thought too when I read it. Sometimes it's like the stranger it gets, the less I suspect something to be cooked up. (Well not in every case...)

Spooky

  Hey Spooky,

     Yeah, what were the other details? That they were collecting jokes here because it was a rare commodity elsewhere and "you don't know how precious something is when it don't exist nowhere else"

   Makes ya feel that a sense of humor, of play and fun, is something you DO take with you when you die, something that is uniquely human and of the utmost value in the after-life.

Dang! I'm sidetracking the thread! Lemme get it back on track...

A man walks into a bar, sits at a stool. Turning to look for the bartender, he notices a very strange thing. Sitting on the stool next to him is a man with a head the size of a baseball....

Hey Tim, I've been thinking about taking a journey to the Humor Center in Focus 27. Want to join me?  Seems like it's really needed here.  So what's the punchline of the joke............... ???

Tim:

First of all, thanks for your kind words in a PM.  As for aliens coming here just to collect jokes,  the key is that you realize most people would view this as a kooky claim just as I do.  What I take exception to is this: Monroe reports such events with no regard to how a normal person would react to them.  And what about his other "kooky" claims:
(2) his alleged past life as a prehistoric pilot flying a machine who must dodge the spears of angry cave men; (2) his alleged past life as a novitiate priest whose Catholic order demands that he ritually rape a young girl who just happens to be his wife Nancy in this life!  To me those claims are also "kooky."  But I respect anyone who is willing to come clean with their disagreement on this point.

Bob:

Time restraints only allow me to reply to one of your points: "...any religion that teaches that fear is the beginning of knowledge is dead wrong."

Two points:
(1) The Bible teaches, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge/ wisdom (Proverbs 1:7)."    
But the Hebrew term for "fear" means "reverential awe" in the face of divine presence and mystery, not "fear of punishment."  I was raised Pentecostal and often spoke in tongues in my youth.  In retrospect, only a couple of these experiences were unequivocally divinely inspired.  For example, when I was 16, I was losing my faith.  So I went to a Pentecostal camp meeting, where I was going to give God one last chance to make Himself real to me before renouncing Him.  The ecstatic manifestations I witnessed there all seemed phony and contrived.  I was determined not to succumb to wishful thinking and the power of suggestion.  

One day there I was so depressed that I fasted and put my meal money into the offering plate.  After the evening service, most people left the amphitheatre and I remained in a kneeling position at the altar with defiantly clenched fists.  I felt nothing but depression and seething skepticism.  

Then suddenly I felt a supernatural wind striking my back, despite an evening with no breezes.  I was forced against my will to speak in tongues at the top of my voice.   I experienced wave on wave of divine love of such increasing intensity that I felt real fear that I would die and my ego would be absorbed in the divine mind that was enveloping me.  But this fear was not fear of punishment; it was an astounding sense of awe that such a loving God really existed after all.  I have since read about similar fears of dying during comparable Christian ecstatic experiences.

After a few minutes, the empty amphitheatre began to draw people who sat and stared at me.  One stoic Lutheran pastor (a fish out of water there) approached me and said, "I've never really believed in this sort of thing, but it's obvious to me that God is blessing you in a unique way.  Would you please lay hands on me?"  When I laid hands on him, he immediately exploded in other tongues, deep in ecstasy.  I later asked one of the women  who reentered the building why she returned.  She replied, "I was drawn by the radiance in the darkness of your glowing face."  Fear can be bliss!

During the experience. God communicated with me not in conventional speech but in a rote (a ball of thought I was later able to unravel).   God told me that my theology was wrong in key ways.  God would not correct my misunderstandings.  Rather, I must seek His presence and truth by striving to identify and live the most vital questions.   This experience established the oourse of my life (an eventual doctorate in theology, etc.).  It also initiated a long series of paranormal gifts that I now experience to a lesser extent.  I often draw nourishment from the memory of this ecstasy when I'm enveloped in one of my major weaknesses--a penchant for deep-rooted skepticism.

(2) The Bible agrees with the common New Age claim that PUL and conventional fear are ultimately incompatible: "[True] Love has no fear, because perfect love expels all fear.  If we are afraid, it is for fear of judgment, and this shows that His love has not been perfected in us (1 John 4:18)."  But surely you'd agree that fear has an important role to play for survival and the moral development of children and some nonreflective adults?  The point is that we must strive to eliminate our fears to embrace the highest form of love (Greek: "agape").

Don

 Yes Mair, I would love to join you at the humor center in 27, I will keep it in mind when I fall asleep tonight.

Dang! You know I'd love to tell the rest of the joke but I feel bad about taking the thread off-track...wassit about? Oh yeah... Demons!

To get us back on track (or me on track) here is my own ACTUAL and TRUE encounter with a... demon!

This is all true. Now, it'd be a mistake for you to believe me. Why bother? It was MY experience. As such, the only one who could possibly believe it is me.

( I've told this story before here a zillion years ago, if you've heard it before just pass this by... Or, if your eyes glaze over and you start to fall asleep from boredom, pass it by... It's totally fine with me. Heck, my eyes glaze over reading posts here all the time and buddy... I  pass 'em by when they do! Show me the same courtesy please!)

 It was during a obe. I was standing in my room, my body on the bed. It was a period of time when I was focusing on seeing how clear I could get each non-physical sense, so I was making effort in that direction. That's when I noticed someone else in the room with me.  A little misshapen man with glowing eyes. Boy was I  curious! I bent down and asked "What's your name?"  It looked confused and then said "Demon".  I shook with.... laughter! "You got to be kidding! That's what all the little midgets say!" The demon didn't seem to get the joke. Well it wasn't a good joke, but I laugh at bad ones too... especially if they're my own. It's eyes were confused and utterly humorless. "Hey little buddy, it's ok" But I couldn't stop laughing and making jokes. The little guy had the intelligence of either a very smart dog or a very stupid human. "I'll look out for you little buddy, you need help" and patted it on the head... It seemed to like that.

More happened, but dinner's on the table and my eyes are glazing over as I type, who is this boring ditz writing this? Oh, what a second...

  Hey Mair, see you in 27!

Quote:

It was during a obe. I was standing in my room, my body on the bed. It was a period of time when I was focusing on seeing how clear I could get each non-physical sense, so I was making effort in that direction. That's when I noticed someone else in the room with me.  A little misshapen man with glowing eyes. Boy was I  curious! I bent down and asked "What's your name?"  It looked confused and then said "Demon".  I shook with.... laughter! "You got to be kidding! That's what all the little midgets say!" The demon didn't seem to get the joke. Well it wasn't a good joke, but I laugh at bad ones too... especially if they're my own. It's eyes were confused and utterly humorless. "Hey little buddy, it's ok" But I couldn't stop laughing and making jokes. The little guy had the intelligence of either a very smart dog or a very stupid human. "I'll look out for you little buddy, you need help" and patted it on the head... It seemed like that.

Tim F.,
you are serious?...you actually projected an audience who didnt get your comedy,? Even a little demon who was waiting for the punchline?
Any way, that seems like a fabricated obe experience. Its your projections at best. or another dumb joke?

Hey "Raz" dude! I told ya I ain't responding to ya no more! Hey, it just occurred to me... maybe that humorless little guy was... you!

Hi Don,

         If you lived in my town I'd invite you out for dinner. I'd ask a lot of questions. I think it would be fascinating.

        I do think Robert Monroe reports his experience without regard for how 'normal' people will take them. He just lays them out, warts and all. I'm not sure if he expected anyone to believe his experiences. As to the caveman event... I don't believe it. How could I ?  If B-Man was here he'd say, "What is this, the age of the flintstones?" I believe Robert Monroe experienced that. I don't dismiss it entirely, well more that I don't think about it. Other things in his books made a big impact on me, that one didn't...  His dream of a past life? Again, I'm not him. How could I possibly believe it? It's possible in my view. But it's also not important to me. It's his life, not mine. There were things in his books and in meeting him that did inspire me deeply though. I'm grateful every day of my life for those...

  Hey Don! You were talking about taking a break from this site again. Please don't do it. You are one of the most interesting characters on the site. How about..... I take a break instead? It's good to take breaks, how 'bout my turn to do so and you stay?

Best to you Don,
                            Tim
                           
                   

Quote:

Hey "Raz" dude! I told ya I ain't responding to ya no more! Hey, it just occurred to me... maybe that humorless little guy was... you!

It was rob roy who wasnt responding to me no more, i thought.  Maybe your his clone.....

Dont get me wrong, I laugh whens somethings funny......im not gonna fake a laugh at you jokes, because they arent funny.  So ignore me and label me just as you would that little demon. Im merely standing here, observing your dumb jokes.

Don,

Point taken. Thanks. And please stay.

Tim,

I guess we're clones, according to the kid.  I did used to live in the Bay Area when I was a kid (EAST Palo Alto before the crackdown by the governor and the CHP, and Mountain View).

And so there is a .000000002 percent chance we knew each other in a not-so-previous life! How's the traffic?  Love all those water stores, he he.

I pay two hundred a month for my apartment. he he. And I have free water. Why don't you move to New Hampshire?

Ok, I'm done teasing you, homeboy.

Bob

ahhh,keeping in line with the smooch fest that is this forum.
i thought there was a topic here, the 'testing of new age value terms.' Though no one allows to be tested or challenged in any way. So whats that result in?.... read rob roys last post.

Well, that was a mighty short break....

Bob, I moved FROM New Hampshire 28 years ago. I could do without the high rent and the un-free water where i am now. I do not miss the snow one bit though! Last few years in NH, I lived in a place that was heated just by wood. Wouldn't have been bad if it wasn't three stories high. Winter was on my mind almost all year long. All summer and fall I'd be chopping wood to get ready for it.... I do miss some things about it though. The change of seasons. Except for mud-season; ya know between winter and spring, when all the dirt roads become rivers of mud...


   

ahhh,keeping in line with the smooch fest that is this forum.
i thought there was a topic here, the 'testing of new age value terms.' Though no one allows to be tested or challenged in any way. So whats that result in?.... read Tim F. 's last post

Ok you guys have me cracking up here!  

I woke up this morning dreaming of Tim telling jokes. Hey Bob, Mair and Don. You were all in the dream, too.  Laughing and having a great time! Then I come here and read this thread.  

Yeah Don, please stay. I promise to get back on track... just as soon as I stop giggling so much...  ;D ;D :P

hey Mair and Tim would love to join you in the comedy class..comedy is one way my guides tease me along in dream, to get me to release tension. it works well, as tension in the body can block neurol pathways of endorphins. plus I was always the serious one. you know what Tim? I think you are seriously of my essence group, or can I be your clone too? don't mean to seem needy, but don't people need people? isn't that what Barbara Striesland sang?
People, people who need people, they're  the luuukkkiiiesssttt people in the world.... http://images.bravenet.com/common/images/smilies/music.gif

I've decided also that highly intellectual contrary "testers" such as Don, Justin who is Raz, B-man, and all non-believers everywhere are very much acceptable persons and so cast my vote for heated debate to continue. if they weren't here, why would we bother to improve our communications? isn't it about communicating? self expression? it is good to back off now and then rather to over-do the points we feel are not being accepted..that's where the laughter comes in..if you can't lighten up now and then, you will get sick, as you need to take care of yourself by releasing what is painful. believe me, even on a board, if someone puts out a hurtful comment, if you're human, it's going to fester inside and hurt you. learn to let go.

one time Don hurt me, but I don't think he wants to talk about it, so I won't say much, not to embarrass him, although embarrassment is what I felt. I bring this up, not to Don specifically, but because Tim said that if Don were in town, he would invite him out to dinner and ask him questions.

thats too too ironic, because that's exactly a conversation I had with Don. I rarely get private pm's. one day you Don, said if you were in my town, you would invite me to dinner. I think u had pm'd me because I had been messing up your thread once on ES. guess I had misunderstood and thought I could talk there. u had slam dunked me to my perception. so when Don flattered me in the pm to ask me to dinner..all my bad feelings just melted away and I felt love. I'm a fluff head, I admit it, I fall in love too easily, not romantically, it's just my failing to think of all others to be my family. Don thinks I'm needy..but I don't call it that..forumitis maybe...but I'm stronger now, I can quit this place anytime! ha ha! Tim, my jokes are not funny either, but I'm light hearted as I travel thru. we all have guidance. so back to the invite to dinner. so I was real happy, as I'm a simple person, I thought I had made a new friend in Don and that we would not be saying hurtful things to each other on the board, using words like hypocrite (not a new age term btw) and making snide remarks about the TMI founder or the moderator of this board Bruce. I thought we could have threads then where we each felt we had something of value to say and would be treated respectfully, as frankly, I did think Don had a lot he could share with us; I just wished it didn't take so long to read it....
well, shortly after the invite to dinner (if) he  was in town..Don slam dunked me again..just when I thought everything was all right between us and maybe he thought I had something valuable to say here..but I didn't, in his opinion, so thats where I had to build myself a little stronger so I didn't get taken in by a mere friendly overture which didn't mean anything to him at all. see, I'm not a fluffy head anymore...not at all, you see Don and people who manipulate me, they only make me stronger, they make me discover the real value of myself, and my input here, when I contact them. nobody in the end can touch this..not if I don't let them, they teach me what it is I want to teach. I would teach only PUL..oh dear! another new age term! whatever is my proponents going to do with me?
and as for you Raz/Justin..don't blame others who have hurt you, release the hurt and be the strong hearted person you are in truth. you are obviously getting fed here even though you are still hurting. stand tall and quit yer sniveling. now you are angry, but that is because you were hurt. surrender to your god-like being..get on with it. I believe you know how.

ok, sock it to me if u want. I think the worst has already happened here. I truly do. as usual, the opinions expressed above are not those of the management.
vayacondios you maniacs and lovers....

Even though I never met Robert Monroe, it seems to me that he was an intelligent man. So why would he make up a story about humor seeking aliens, just so some sceptics could criticize him?

He was guided to a lot of places as he journeyed. This being the case, is it essential that every journey he took had a serious purpose to it? Couldn't some of his journeys be just for fun (all work, and no play makes Jack a dull boy)?

Or perhaps this journey was serious, and showed that beings in the spirit World have a sense of humor, and like to joke around at times. I've found that my guidance can be quite funny at times.

Regarding aliens who looked like W.C. Fields, well spirits don't look like anybody in particular. My guidance appears to me in all sorts of ways. It's a matter of what kind of message it's trying to pass on. Perhaps aliens appeared to Robert Monroe as W.C. Fields, because doing so was most appropriate to the message they were trying to send at the time (a message of lighten up, and enjoy life).

Regarding their wanting jokes, if one has visited a place such as a library, book store, museum, or the internet, one would have noticed that intelligent beings are interested in all sorts of things. "INCLUDING HUMOR!" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Occasionally I'll watch Everybody Loves Raymond (a situation comedy). This doesn't mean that I seek humor during every moment of my life. Perhaps the same is true with the aliens Robert met. They looked for humor at the time, but on other occasions their race looks for other things.

Seriously, going by what my guidance has shown me, it wouldn't surprise if some alien spirit beings with a sense of humor, appeared to Robert Monroe looking like W.C. Fields.

And speaking of Everybody Loves Raymond, sometimes while I meditate, my guidance will show me moving pictures of the show's cast members in order to communicate things to me.

Perhaps some us don't have faith in Beserk's testing methods.


wrote on Dec 14^th, 2005 at 1:04am:

ahhh,keeping in line with the smooch fest that is this forum. i thought there was a topic here, the 'testing of new age value terms.' Though no one allows to be tested or challenged in any way. So whats that result in?.... read Tim F. 's last post

Kathy, that's amazing about your dream.  I couldn't go to sleep last night, had a heck of a time but kept putting my Intent out there to go to the Humor Center. I finally had to take something to make me sleep around 2:30 am and was still restless after falling asleep but don't remember much from dreams. But I know I made it, you confirmed it for me.  Even Don was there huh.  That's cool, very cool and Bob too (I'm not surprised at all about Bob being there ;-)  I'll try to go back into my dreams and see what I come up with.

Love, Mairlyn

Alysia, would love to meet you in the Humor Center.

Oh, btw, Donald also told me that if he was ever up this way, he'd ask me out to dinner too. Hmmmmm, must be a lonely man. But I can relate to that.

So Raz is Justin. :o Now why would he do that. He hasn't been booted off, just reprimanded. To each his own.

So glad your back is better too. ;-)

Much Love,
Mairlyn  ;D ;D ;D

Im am not justin, you knitwits...:)

Alysia enjoyed your post.

DocM I appreciate how you would like to keep it like a good academic class, but...well, we've been through alot with Don...

Jokes...don't know any good ones...the folks from/in NH aren't close enough to beantown to appreciate my fav local joke....better spoken than written..

What's a one- L lama?
(think priest)

what's a two-L lama?
(think animal, llama)

what's a three-L lama?

a feye-yah in Suhmahville.

correct spelling is S-o-m-e-r-v-i-l-l-e

I was kind of thinking that Raz was Spitfire in disguise.

I always thought Spitfire was Marilyn in disguise.

Just kidding. :D


wrote on Dec 14^th, 2005 at 12:36pm:

I was kind of thinking that Raz was Spitfire in disguise.

Ah, could be. BTW, it's nitwits, not knitwits. That would be using knitting needles to knit something and I don't knit, only crochet.  ;D

Quote:

I always thought Spitfire was Marilyn in disguise.

ROFLMAO

Hey Mair… yeppers that was a funny dream!  Tim always tickles me and makes me smile. Now he’s got me giggling all day, too. And Alysia, I’m so happy to hear your back is better, too.  You know, dinner with Don would be an interesting evening. I’ve got at least a thousand or so questions I’d like to ask him. I'm not kidding either. He is pure gold when it comes to knowledge.

I have been looking for the one RM book I own and read about 10 plus years ago and haven’t found it yet. I do remember some things that I thought were a bit strange, but don’t remember much of what I read now. Senility setting in I guess. LOL  ::)

Seems like I remember one being that RM ran into and I thought… whoooaaa… sure hope I don’t see one of them.  And you know now that I think about it, I’m thinking my dog could be possessed.  I mean how many dogs do you know that chew holes in walls the size of basketballs?  :o  >:(

Naw Doc… I kinda thought Don was Spitfire in disguise. He reminds me of me. LOL  ;D

Ok… getting back on track… seriously now.

Don, thank you for sharing this beautiful experience that directed the course of your life.  Chills ran through me as I read it. I look back on my life sometimes and see so much guidance that has led me throughout.  I guess if we’re following our heart’s desire and doing what we long to do, we can never go wrong. Or at least that’s how I feel about it.

Much love and lightheartedness to us all,
Kathy

Beserk:

Thank you for the below points. Especially the Hebrew definition part. I didn't know this.


wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 10:37pm:

Tim: Two points: (1) The Bible teaches, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge/ wisdom (Proverbs 1:7)."     But the Hebrew term for "fear" means "reverential awe" in the face of divine presence and mystery, not "fear of punishment." (2) The Bible agrees with the common New Age claim that PUL and conventional fear are ultimately incompatible: "[True] Love has no fear, because perfect love expels all fear.  If we are afraid, it is for fear of judgment, and this shows that His love has not been perfected in us (1 John 4:18)."  But surely you'd agree that fear has an important role to play for survival and the moral development of children and some nonreflective adults?  The point is that we must strive to eliminate our fears to embrace the highest form of love (Greek: "agape"). Don

Don: But surely you'd agree that fear has an important role to play for survival and the moral development of children and some nonreflective adults?  The point is that we must strive to eliminate our fears to embrace the highest form of love (Greek: "agape").
______

I'd say the end result does not always justify the means..meaning PUL can be behind a command to a child or a child in an adult body, but so can Fear come from behind a command...only your own intuition can guide you on this one, but children automatically can tell the difference and they will act out the love or fear you as the parent have placed within them..as adults.

in general fear can produce an adrenalin within the body which we still have to choose carefully what choices we are making from such a state...is possible to make the wrong choice if it involves harmfulness to another in taking away their own choices

love, alysia

Alysia,  

I've known people of great spiritual depth who would never have embarked on their quest, were it not for fear of judgment.   Then once they grew in spiritual maturity, they recognized the limitations of  a fear-based approach and replaced it with a more positive orientation.   When Christ is encountered in NDEs,  He is sometimes asked why He permits so many contrary denominations and faiths.  He typically replies that people vary dramatically in their needs and level of spiritual perception and that religious variety can provide  useful belief systems for each developmental level.  For example, some New Agers and Christian Fundamentalists need to operate within a domino theory of truth.   Find one conclusive error in the Bible and many Christians imagine that revelation must all be rejected as unreliable.  Similarly, many New Agers would experience a debiltating belief system crash if even one of their major sacred cows were butchered.   Many people simply have little emotional tolerance for basic inconsistencies, ambiguities, and uncertainties in their belief system.    Others are so averse to intangible spiritual isses that fear (of meaninglessness, death, judgment, etc.) is the only wake up call that can put them on the right path.  Of course, I'm personally opposed to fear-based proselytzing.  

I'm always amused by the testimony of HB, a highly effective leader in the church of my youth.  When HB was a young teen, he attended our church camp.  He was an incorrigible discipline problem.  Finally, the exasperated counselors could take it no more.  They tied him to a tree and left him there!   They told him they would only untie him if he repented and committed his life to Christ.  [These leaders would probably be arrested for this in today's politically correct climate!] At first, he was defiant.  But eventually he got restless from his immobility and made the faith commitment.   Far from damaging HB psychologically, this intrusive restraint was just what he needed.  He quickly became a mature and well balanced Christian leader, husband, and father.   The only lasting impact of his camp ordeal was a more wicked, wry sense of humor that enhanced his personality.  

Don

oh, ok, thanks for that story Don but somehow tying people to trees to get them to see the light just doens't sound quite right and ranks up there with extremism to me. I'm a more middle of the road type person and don't believe in lying on a bed of nails either for enlightenment. as a matter of fact I'm way past wanting enlightenment or nirvana. for my point of view I was simply accepting you as a member of this board in my last post. I've never really accepted you before today. I find your value here in my own way. take care and you are loved just as you are. I really mean that.
as for fear to use as some sort of teaching aid, I wouldn't use it on a dog, and I wouldn't use it on a human, but thats just me and we can still be tolerant of one another even though we differ.
cheerio, and keep playing chess, alysia

Quote:

I've known people of great spiritual depth who would never have embarked on their quest, were it not for fear of judgment.   Then once they grew in spiritual maturity, they recognized the limitations of  a fear-based approach and replaced it with a more positive orientation.

of great spiritual depth? what does that mean?

This statement by you berserker is absurd.  They would have never embarked on their quest were it not for fear of judgement, ok.. but then you go on to say that they then went on to 'mature' to be POSITIVE...  Its is still a reflection of their own fears about judgement. Dont you see that?

How is positive not a judgement?
In this case, the negative is feared to such a degree that its attemted to be eliminated. Therefore the reinforcement of a "positive.' in its place instead of fear.
Though its still a judgement. What isnt feared is judgement of something as positivite, then.  Negativity is feared.  And the basis of your friends with deep spiritual depths so called deep spirituality, is a reflection of their own fears of negativity. their own fears of judgement, but have just shifted the emphasis from a fear of something to the denial of its existence. Shifting from one judgement to another.
Again, this is not acceptance of judgement to deny its existence.

I have seen these new age paridigms.  And they are not paridigms of the universe at all...to focus on a one sided judgement and to fear alll the other impulses, or impression, or not admitting a negative thought, you dont like or... an angry thought, or a little negativity.  That is at best an imbalanced 'spiritual structure', where the negative is feared and attempted to be negated.

That is not deep spiritulality but new ager confusion from you berserker., "light and love". and all that stuff.

VERIFICATION AND THE CONCEPT OF A MORAL ABSOLUTE

I want to refocus this thread on its stated objective.  What follows is sketchy, but it is designed as food for thought and is meant to orient your thinking towards the quest to ground New Age value terms in verification tests.

Is is the "right" thing to do to manifest a loving lifestyle?  One might object: "There is no personal God of love.  Nature {evolution) is brutally amoral, based as it is on natural selection and the survival of the fittest.  So human morality is nothing more than a herd instinct to concoct rules that make our herd life viable."  One might object: "Society cannot function without respect for other people's right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness."  His opponent might counter: "True, my life would be horrid if everyone ignored morality and took pleasure in controlling and hurting others.   But in fact, most people are naive enough to buy into our abitrary herd instinct.   This means that I can commit any crime I desire if it brings me gain or pleasure.  As long as I don't  get caught, my quality of life will not be adversely affected."   The other objects: "But how can you live with your cionscience?"  His opponent might reply, "My conscience can be seared once I realize guilt is just cultural conditioning designed to reinforce an indefensible harmonious conformity." The bottom line: if there is no postmortem justice, than "right" and "wrong" are vacuous concepts.  

So how can the concept of "right" and "wrong" be elevated beyond the status of relativistic personal belief that may safely be ignored?  Only if the concept of a moral (spiritual) absolute is meaningful in the afterlife.  Ask yourself, "Does God embrace a moral value because it is right or is it right because God embraces it?  The first question seems misguided because it assumes that God might be subject to a moral order that transcends "Him."   The second question has more potential.  

Suppose God were a sadist.   If God advocates a set of rules that assume might is right, we would rebel.  We simply are not wired to accept such a view.   But suppose God is love.   We are wired in such a way as to embrace the principle that guidelines essential to promote love provide us with a basis for right and wrong.  

But what then is our answer to a Devil's Advocate who challenges this as arbritary?   The concept of a moral absolute is meaningless only if it is grounded in the nature of postmortem existence. Let's provisionally assume the conventional Christian view that there is only one moral absolute-- PUL. On this view, other values would merely be consequences of PUL, and so, would not be independent absolutes.  
 
Suppose that progress towards PUL raises one's spiritual vibration and this facilitates spiritual ascent through the astral planes towards union with God.  Then PUL can serve as a meaningful basis for the concept of right and wrong.  "Wrong" (e.g. sins and vices) can then be defined as those attitudes and lifestyles that lower one's spiritual vibration, causing one to drift further and further away from progress towards union with God.  Suppose someone objects: "Your concept of a PUL absolute strikes me as arbritrary.  Why should I accept it?"   My reply: "If you are willing to embrace the consequences of shunning PUL, then this concept is indeed arbitrary--for you.   But if you want ultimate spiritual fulfilment, you must embrace PUL as if it were a binding absolute.  Of course, what "sins" and "vices" drive one further away from union with God can be disputed.  

But how could this model ever be verified or falsified?  Most of this site's retrievals sound like jailbreaks rather than moral graduations from lower planes.  If I can be sprung from a lower plane and function well in Focus 27 without any progress towards PUL, then PUL can be discredited as a moral absolute.   But that assumes that astral planes are not really governed by the principle of like attracts like.  In this regard, I am struck by one of Gordon Phinn's follow-up explorations of a retrieval.  Gord found that the retrieved soul had returned to his hollow heaven. He and his mentor wereangry at Gord's meddling.  With the best of intentions, Gordon had apparently helped cause the equivalent of a jailbreak. The retrievee evidently had not yet made the requisite changes in his energetics to function well in a higher plane.  This report rings true to me and supports the notion of PUL as a moral absolute.   More astral research needs to be done on the conditions needed for for successful retrievals.  Such research might confirm my perspective on the PUL absolute.

[By the way, integrity forces me to acknowledge that i cannot honestly recommend Gordon's book on the afterlife.  It rings fictitious to me.  But the retrieval alluded to above does ring true to me.]

In a future post I will challenge a common view of PUL expressed on this site.

Don

Raz,

You naively ignore the fact the people can shift spiritual paradigms as they mature.  When I was young, i went through a phase where Hell scared me.  Now I believe God's love never permanently abandons anyone after death.   My faith is not fear-based at all, apart from the fear of missing out on new empowering truth.   It is absurd for you to argue that the fear-based outlook of a young HB cannot be shed in a favor of a PUL-based outlook.  Besides, you don't know HB at all.  So you're not even entitled to an opinion about his current status.

Don

Don said: [By the way, integrity forces me to acknowledge that i cannot honestly recommend Gordon's book on the afterlife.  It rings fictitious to me.
_____

Don, what is this about integrity? are u saving us from reading a bad book or what?
:P  we are capable of finding our own reading material, thank u very much.
____________


TO All: I have read Gordon Phinn's book "Eternal Life, How to Enjoy it."

I did indeed find his book refreshing, one of it's kind, it's forges a new perspective about the afterlife, wanted to give it a thumbs up if anyone here is interested. Also I respect Gordon and his character is impeccable. I know GP; I've met him out there more than once and I back him 100% .
so...Don..written any books yourself which we could review? you are knowledgable enough to do that I suspect, why waste time here when you could be giving your public a book? whats that u say? you are still researching? ok, carry on.
I respect anyone who writes a book, even one I don't agree with, it's hard work :P I would not stoop to the level that you do to put down another's work.

Alysia,

When I used Gordon Phinn's reported retrieval as a credible example, I created the impression that I might approve of his book as well.  Books can be very helpful and inspiring.   It is very important to me to recommend books on the afterlife that I deem valuable (authors like Howard Storm, David Fontana, William Van Dusen).  Of course, people must decide for themselves.  But I don't want to create the wrong impression of what I do and don't find valuable.  I regret my purchase of Gordon Phinn's book.  By the same token, it is important for me to let people know that while I often use the TMI Gateway tapes, I don't think their worth what they cost.   "Mastering Astral Projection" by Robert Bruce and Brian Mercer is much cheaper and seems just as promising to me.  

Don

P.S. I have several published academic articles, but no books.  I wouldn't recommend that anyone hear read them.  Their too technical.

Quote:

"Your concept of a PUL absolute strikes me as arbritrary.  Why should I accept it?"   My reply: "If you are willing to embrace the consequences of shunning PUL, then this concept is indeed arbitrary--for you.   But if you want ultimate spiritual fulfilment, you must embrace PUL as if it were a binding absolute.  Of course, what "sins" and "vices" drive one further away from union with God can be disputed.

Ok, wow, i didnt know the nature of the beast.  Let me say instead, that is truley absurd. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt before by calling it only absurd.  but yeap, thats truley absurd...

"The consequences of shunning pul"

these i got to hear, what are the consequences, berserker?
and
Ultimate spirtitual fulfillment??  lol, which is?  i would call that the consequence of shunning pul:) whatever it is that pul is besides your absolute.
Let me guess, it has something to do with positivity? Yes?
and show me some evidence of how negativity lowers our 'spiritual vibration' and prevents the 'ascension through the astral plane' while your at it.
You have to excuse me, but your terms are very cliche' and very disputable.
I mean, feelings exist....emotions exist, but these ideas you have berserker are illusions.  false beliefs.  Inventions, theories, assumptions, what ever you prefer to call them. Hardly an absolute, eh?

Raz,

The Consequences of Shunning PUL:  
e.g. The often joyless life of the lower spiritual planes like "the thief's hell."  For the sake of argument, I take for granted popular descriptions of the astral territories.  

By "spiritual fulfilment" I mean the path of bliss fueled by PUL (which transcends emotion) that leads to ultimate union with God.  Raz, in philosophical discourse, one must provisionally grant certain models to probe their implications.  The question of truth or falsity is a separate issue that must be postponed until a careful explication of what is at stake has been attempted.  In philosophy, the assessment of an argument's validity has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of its premises.  The validity of an argument depends on whether its conclusion follows from its premises.

Don

P.S. As I announced, my next planned post will deal with the definition of PUL.  

Re: the book thing

     I appreciate the hard work that it takes to bring anything to completion, whatever the form of the craft. Since I work with books it's hard for me not to respond here.

     I buy books to sell that I'm not personally interested in because other people are interested in them and might want to read them. People get to make their own choices. There's books I've read that I haven't liked. If someone brings up a book to me in the store and asks if I read it and liked it, I'll tell them if I did or not. It kills a sale sometimes, but I need to be honest about it. Don's expressing his opinion. I respect that. I don't agree with it, but he gets to like what he likes.

    I loved Gordon's book. Especially the sense of humor. I recomend it. I look forward to his second book. But not everyone is going to like his work. Not everyone likes my music. We all get to like different things. I dunno, I like the free-will aspect of that.

     I love the creative process and respect anyone who is engaged in it. I don't like all the music I hear though. Some of it makes me want to leave the room. Some of it makes me want to dance. I like that we get to choose what we listen to though.

    I don't think Don was being harsh. He's just saying it's not his cup of tea.

       Love to you Alysia, you too Don!

     (and my hat off to Gordon for a great book!)

       Tim

Quote:

Raz, The Consequences of Shunning PUL:   e.g. The often joyless life of the lower spiritual planes like "the thief's hell."  For the sake of argument, I take for granted popular descriptions of the astral territories.

 

hahaha, oh youll take for granted popular descriptions, but thieves hell is acceptable? lol


Quote:

By "spiritual fulfilment" I mean the path of bliss fueled by PUL (which transcends emotion) that leads to ultimate union with God.  Raz, in philosophical discourse, one must provisionally grant certain models to probe their implications.  The question of truth or falsity is a separate issue that must be postponed until a careful explication of what is at stake has been attempted.  In philosophy, the assessment of an argument's validity has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of its premises.  The validity of an argument depends on whether its conclusion follows from its premises.

Ok very well, but forget all of that for a second, because im telling you right now your premise and conclusion are both false but you believe them as true regardless.


Quote:

By "spiritual fulfilment" I mean the path of bliss fueled by PUL (which transcends emotion)

Nothing, nothing transcends emotion.  first of all. Secondly, its another conception of new agers to always be transcending things.  Again, what do you think you are transcending?

P U L
Pure unconditional love, as i have been informed of once again.  The Absolute. though a farce and contradiction and with some denial thrown in for flavor..
Shall we count the conditions of love, or will we debate about how unconditional love is an invented condition itself?
 Not unlike the 'love/ absent of love', new age hero rob roy was throwing around before..

But, I know what pul is now, so game on.  I have met fundamentalist new agers before.  They are good eating.

Raz,
    You said,
"Nothing, nothing transcends emotion.  first of all. Secondly, its another conception of new agers to always be transcending things.  Again, what do you think you are transcending?"

Raz, I would have to say that yes, there is something which transcends emotion.  That would be an "ultimate" experience of love, peace, acceptance.  When we have moved through emotion that is our destination.  We have only words to describe these things, so it will always be possible to argue such experiences out of existence with the use of our words.  

We can also claim that no one has pure, unconditional love for even one second of their life, and that would be incorrect.

It is all a gift for our taking, if we are ready, if the time is right.  Our arguments cannot change one iota of what is real.

blink

Tim said: I don't think Don was being harsh. He's just saying it's not his cup of tea.

       Love to you Alysia, you too Don!  

     (and my hat off to Gordon for a great book!)
_____

you're absolutely right Tim. Don was not being harsh at all, it was totally my perception because I realize I am attached emotionally to GP's success and got so much out of his book, that I cannot even begin to tell readers here how much I would like to be his business manager...it's just due to the experiences I've had with him out there, and I apologize to Don for coming on so strong when he said he believed GP's book was based on fiction...as I am backing up GP that he does go out of body and works in a healing way with others. so he is like an angel to me and I need to control my need to defend him if someone says something which I know is not true. I also know, none of us are angels as I still don't think angels would want a body experience..it would totally mess up their purpose! just a thought. but although GP's not an angel, he sure has the art of communication down, as well he helped heal me once just by being a friend.
and thanks for kind of setting me straight Tim, I value your input and always have! love, alysia

Just wanted to say that I highly recommended Gordon's book. It's right up there among the best of the best on the afterlife.

Namaste,
Mairlyn ;-)

[Note: Phinn's book seems too well-written for its own good.  It reads like a novel.  But in my view, its monolithic, articulate, and witty characters are clearly an extension of Phinn's personality.   My quibble is that it does not ring true for me as credible descripion of the afterlife.]  

VERIFICATION AND THE CONCEPT OF A MORAL ABSOLUTE

I'm going to try one more time to refocus this thread on its stated objective.  Terms like "rignt" and "wrong" are meaningless unless the can in principle be subjected to some sort of verification test.  This post tries to demonstrate how the use of these terms can be meaninful within a New Age model of the afterlife.  

Is is the "right" thing to do to manifest a loving lifestyle?  One might object: "There is no personal God of love.  Nature {evolution) is brutally amoral, based as it is on natural selection and the survival of the fittest.  So human morality is nothing more than a herd instinct to concoct rules that make our herd life viable."  One might object: "Society cannot function without respect for other people's right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness."  His opponent might counter: "True, my life would be horrid if everyone ignored morality and took pleasure in controlling and hurting others.   But in fact, most people are naive enough to buy into our abitrary herd instinct.   This means that I can commit any crime I desire if it brings me gain or pleasure.  As long as I don't  get caught, my quality of life will not be adversely affected."   The other objects: "But how can you live with your cionscience?"  His opponent might reply, "My conscience can be seared once I realize guilt is just cultural conditioning designed to reinforce an indefensible harmonious conformity." The bottom line: if there is no postmortem justice, than "right" and "wrong" are vacuous concepts.  

So how can the concept of "right" and "wrong" be elevated beyond the status of relativistic personal belief that may safely be ignored?  Only if the concept of a moral (spiritual) absolute is meaningful in the afterlife.  Ask yourself, "Does God embrace a moral value because it is right or is it right because God embraces it?  The first question seems misguided because it assumes that God might be subject to a moral order that transcends "Him."   The second question has more potential.  

Suppose God were a sadist.   If God advocates a set of rules that assume might is right, we would rebel.  We simply are not wired to accept such a view.   But suppose God is love.   We are wired in such a way as to embrace the principle that guidelines essential to promote love provide us with a basis for right and wrong.  

But what then is our answer to a Devil's Advocate who challenges this as arbritary?   The concept of a moral absolute is meaningless only if it is grounded in the nature of postmortem existence. Let's provisionally assume the conventional Christian view that there is only one moral absolute-- PUL. On this view, other values would merely be consequences of PUL, and so, would not be independent absolutes.  
 
Suppose that progress towards PUL raises one's spiritual vibration and this facilitates spiritual ascent through the astral planes towards union with God.  Then PUL can serve as a meaningful basis for the concept of right and wrong.  "Wrong" (e.g. sins and vices) can then be defined as those attitudes and lifestyles that lower one's spiritual vibration, causing one to drift further and further away from progress towards union with God.  Suppose someone objects: "Your concept of a PUL absolute strikes me as arbritrary.  Why should I accept it?"   My reply: "If you are willing to embrace the consequences of shunning PUL, then this concept is indeed arbitrary--for you.   But if you want ultimate spiritual fulfilment, you must embrace PUL as if it were a binding absolute.  Of course, what "sins" and "vices" drive one further away from union with God can be disputed.  

But how could this model ever be verified or falsified?  Most of this site's retrievals sound like jailbreaks rather than moral graduations from lower planes.  If I can be sprung from a lower plane and function well in Focus 27 without any progress towards PUL, then PUL can be discredited as a moral absolute.   But that assumes that astral planes are not really governed by the principle of like attracts like.  In this regard, I am struck by one of Gordon Phinn's follow-up explorations of a retrieval.  Gord found that the retrieved soul had returned to his hollow heaven. He and his mentor wereangry at Gord's meddling.  With the best of intentions, Gordon had apparently helped cause the equivalent of a jailbreak. The retrievee evidently had not yet made the requisite changes in his energetics to function well in a higher plane.  This report rings true to me and supports the notion of PUL as a moral absolute.   More astral research needs to be done on the conditions needed for for successful retrievals.  Such research might confirm my perspective on the PUL absolute.

[By the way, integrity forces me to acknowledge that i cannot honestly recommend Gordon's book on the afterlife.  It rings fictitious to me.  But the retrieval alluded to above does ring true to me.]

In my next planned post I will challenge a common view of PUL expressed on this site.

Don

PUL:

In the academic field of religion, what astral-projecting New Agers call PUL has always been called ecstasy.  I suspect that this more modest term is a more accurate description of what they mean.  For "ecstasy" can with greater justification be labelled an energy or emotion.  

To use words in an unconventional sense merely courts obscurity and prevents the concept in question from being subjected to critical scrutiny.  If we analyze the components of PUL, its equation with some sort of cosmic energy must be deemed an abuse of language, whatever its merits.  I use Webster for the ensuing two definitions.
 
"Pure" = "free from anything that taints, impairs, infects, etc."  This definition implies that love is not tainted by lust, impaired by personal agendas, or imfected by egotism.  Such claims are meaningless unless this love has been exposed to human dilemmas that might expose such contaminants.  Therefore, it is a way of being, not an energy or an emotion.  The purity of love already points to its motive: the highest good of its recipient.  

"Unconditional:"= "without condition or reservation"
This love is in no way contingent upon an acceptable response from its target.   It  is expressed to others no matter how insulting, harmful, or obnoxious they are to the lover.  So 'love" in this sense only has meaning if it is tested by confrontation with such offenses.  So again, unconditional love refers to way of being, not an emotion or an energy.

When modified by the terms "pure and "unconditional," the term "love' means something like "willing the highest good for the other without requiring anything in return."  

We distinguish "Love" from lesser passions and forms of sensory stimulation such as a crush,
infatuation, pupply love, and lust.  My claim to express love cannot be separated from my maturity, my emotional stability, and the amount of altruism in my life.  Again, it is way of being.

In the mental astral world, the retriever might project ecstasy as an emotion or energy to the soul in need of retrieval.   But PUL cannot be projected in the same sense.  Instead, the retriever might communicate his intention to promote the retrievee's highest good and the retrievee might warm up to this kindness and comply with his request to ascend to a higher plane.  This interpretion might explain why many retrievals involve no projection of a so-called PUL energy at all.   These other retrievals might succeed simply because the retrievee senses the retriever's warmth and pure motivation.  The projection of ecstasy, mislabelled as PUL, might be a flashy, but inessential accessory to the process.

Don

this pretty much resonates with me Don, although I would say that we are energy beings when the denser body is removed, in that what remains is a form of energy. I agree this thing we discuss is a state of being. I say it is both being and energy then.
I do remember doing one retrieval where PUL was not employed. I don't know about terming PUL as ecstasy..as the word ecstasy has certain connotations attached to it. so I'll stick to my own label for it until I can come up with a better one. sometimes I am leaning towards "pure life force" meaning when imbued with this substance, there is a sense of well being and health and a wish to smile upon all others, yet I don't relate it to nirvana, or ecstasy or bliss in any way. I do see PUL as being in a center, or in a balanced state. I can see PUL working in our nation during the time of 9/11. everybody gets real cooperative and helpful towards one another in such emergencies...thats how I came up with the idea that there is basically good inside at our basis. I have one more thesis I'm working on; that is PUL is in degree of evolvement. I also work from another angle, death is in degrees of evolvement simultaneously with life, as two ends of the same spectrum while the observer self stands aside and watches.
cheers, alysia

Dave,

While the academic field of religion has made many contributions to humankind's understanding of the most important issues of life and its meaning, I beg to point out that the academic perspective is sometimes lacking when it comes to practical reality.

PUL is as much of a common expression as it is a formal one. I would say it's more of the former (common). Those of us who use this term understand what it means. We understand also that, taken literally, it has its shortcomings.

Using ecstasy outside of the religious academic setting presents a problem, that is, most people equate that word with either high orgasmatic experience, drug induced euphoria, or extreme positive emotion.  Most people do not think if it in religious terms. And this is not a religious forum, despite the subject matter.

Another problem is a lot of people who use the term PUL have left behind belief systems that use the same terminology indigenous to the religious academic setting.  Borrowing heavily from belief systems does not imply that they are the standard(s) of correct terminology.

As you well know, within Chistianity different Churches/eccesiastical organizations [I avoid saying 'denominations' because you understand why] use terminology that appears common until actual usage is considered for each group. This becomes problematic, for example, to someone new to the nuances of ecumenical discussion.  Theologians, both lay and professional, may have little difficulty with this, but everyday churchgoers couldn't care less either way. They continue as always, lack of absolute correctness of understanding and usage notwithstanding. I suggest the same applies to the common, lay usage of the term PUL.

My first experience of PUL was given to me via a lucid dream by the Virgin Mary, someone I used to ignore despite prior adherence to a belief system that fostered a cult of devotion to her. The indescribable depth of my understanding of PUL comes from that experience.  It did not and does not need to be exposed to human dilemmas for validation because there are no contaminants within it, coming directly from an ascended master in purity.  And yes, I would also describe it energetically, although that terms also falls short of the mark.

And yes, I would agree that in an academic or ecumenical setting ecstasy would be technically correct, but misleading in everyday usage.

Your thesis here points, I think, to a much larger problem: the terminology we often use on this board is often borrowed and carries nuance baggage from the belief systems borrowed from and imprecision regardless. But substituting another borrowed term for one that is imprecise does not solve the problem, especially one that may have radically different meanings between laypersons and theologians.

Bob

Dave,

Addendum: When I write I am speaking to you but also whoever happens to be reading this. So if I comment on the obvious or use simple examples, it's not meant to be insulting.

Bob

Dave?  !! ???  Bob, I guess my point boils down to this simple observation: fpr PUL to be meaningful, the words "pure" and "unconditional" must have meanings appropriate to ordinary linguistic usage.  

Alysia,  you point to a way of relating "a way of being" to the projection of energy.   You're right.  In the astral realm thoughts are things and communication is relepathic.  In a sense, then, all astral thought--not just the reality underlying PUL-- might be experienced as energy.  So I guess my remaining reservation is this: if I'm incapable of EVER expressing PUL in my earthly life, how can I be said to express it in the astral realm.  Of course, God's grace might occasionally infuse me with a quality of love that transcends my current spiritual development.  And I think that most of us have experienced PUL at some point in our lives.

Now what do my readers think of my attempt to translate the abstract notions of right and wrong into a conceptual framework that can verify their appropriateness?

Don

Sorry, DON! I'm tired.

Who determines what is appropriate for ordinary linguistic usage? Not academics. Remember when 'ain't' wasn't a word? Well, despite the best efforts of academics to exorcise it from the common vernacular, it is now very much a word, even though it's really a conjunction, even though it's a crude substitution. The elitists lost.

Who are *your* readers, Don?

Bob

Ordinary people in daily usage, Bob!  All I ask is that "pure" and "unconditional" be allowed to have  their ordinary meaning in the PUL expression.

Don said: So I guess my remaining reservation is this: if I'm incapable of EVER expressing PUL in my earthly life, how can I be said to express it in the astral realm.
______
Don, am I reading u right when you say you don't believe u are capable of expressing PUL in your earthly life, so then u don't believe u can express it in the astral realm either?
well, I remember a couple of stories you told me where it seems u did experience PUL, and I assume when you visit with the dying that this is an expression of PUL on your part. so in that regard, I do believe it is possible that what u experience in the giving of yourself, your time, that it will be duplicated in the astral realm or remains a strong probability, that what you give of yourself, that also returns to you in like measure.
___________
Don said:
 Of course, God's grace might occasionally infuse me with a quality of love that transcends my current spiritual development.  And I think that most of us have experienced PUL at some point in our lives.
_______
yes, I believe in grace also as a part of that thing we are calling PUL right now. we sure could use that in our world right now, grace, I think that is even more difficult to discuss than PUL. I would sing to you, might be the only way to express something like grace. I think gratitude, that is part of it..some days I get up and I just keep saying over and over oh thank you! oh thank you! not sure what I have to be grateful for even sometimes but think that spirit moves in our life this way, and I'm sure it moves in your life, and everyone's according to the cup they hold up to be filled, as in a prayerful way, or if people don't understand prayer, maybe I could say that there seems to be many ways to gladden ourselves which we overlook.
_______
Don asks:
Now what do my readers think of my attempt to translate the abstract notions of right and wrong into a conceptual framework that can verify their appropriateness?
_____

am I a reader? I guess so. uhmmm. are u asking readers to verify your appropriate attempt? I'm a little confused what u mean by the way it's worded.
how can something be appropriate, and an attempt at the same time?
a riddle.

I'm trying too. or attempting appropriate response here too, but I'm not going to measure you with my invisible measuring implement. you're doing ok.
but I'd wish you'd tell me a joke.
cheers, alysia

Why is that? Who says things have to be so well defined? This mindset reminds me of a common criticism of the Orthodox towards the Catholics and Prots. The Westerners seems to always have to define things to the nth degree (how many angels and that stupid pin thing, Mortal and Venial sin, exactly how many Hail Marys and Our Fathers for each sin, and so on).

Ordinary people during ordinary usage don't get all jacked up about precise definitions.

You already said that PUL isn't the right term, so what's the point of forcing definition when you've already made that point??

wishing Ecstacy for you,

Bob

Alysia,

Yes, I've experienced PUL in radically varying degrees of intensity,  I experience it most wonderfully in my volunteer ministry to the terminally ill.  But when I'm not feeling well or am preoccupied with my own problems, I usually shut myself off from PUL.  I'm also ever alert to the areas of my life where I don't express PUL and the danger of overrating the purity pf the so-called love I express to those in need.  All I know for sure is that I really want to be a PUL channeler!

Bob,

I would say I expressed PUL, not ecstasy, in my retrieval dream in which I encountered Janet, an ex-girlfriend who committed suicide.   It was one of the most powerful emotional experiences of my life.   I'm trying to understand why I gradually came to the conclusion that it was just a lucid dream.    When I express skepticism about the genuiness of retrieval claims on this site, I'm not just basing this on the lack of adequate verification.   A revulsion envelopes me first and then I try to grasp the hidden criteria that have triggered this revulsion.   If I ever adequately identify them, I MAY decide that my skepticism is overwraught and that I need to reconsider.  The quest for truth can often be a roller coaster.  Anyway, I guess I now have to say this: what retrievers project might be PUL for some and just ecstasy for others.   An outsider may not be able to make this judgment of someone else's experience.  

This discussion is analogous to evangelicals who revel in their "born again" experience.   Technically, there is no such thing from a biblical perspective.   "Born again" in Greek refers to a change in spiritual status, not an experience.  The experience described is more accurately described as a transforming encounter with the Holy Spirit.    But that can vary dramatically from person to person.   What I object to in both Christian and New Age circles is the transformation of jargon-based beliefs into presumably identical experiences.  What this often means in practice is the substitution of a belief about an experience for the marvelous experience itself.

Don

Don,

Yes, while I'm no Koine translator, I'm familiar with the Greek understanding. I'm ex Eastern Orthodox, if you haven't guessed that already. And you are quite right, of course. A lot could be said about the Eastern and Western churches being out of balance without full communion with each other. But that is not relevant here.

I just realize I haven't been quite fair to you. What I need to do is print all of your posts and study your views first, since they are far from simple. I will do that.

Bob

Hi Don,

I'm resonating with what your saying here, too.  

Many blessings,
Kathy

Perhaps PUL is just one way of experiencing an energy that can take on many forms.

Consider God's creative energy. He is able to manifest it in a manner that allows it to take on many forms. Apparently, it has no limit.

The same is true of the awareness/consciousness aspect of his being. There seems to be no limit to how many things it can be aware of, even when it is used by individual beings.

Perhaps PUL is one manifestation of an aspect of God that enables everything to have meaning. It wouldn't make sense for beings to be aware of so many things, if they didn't have the ability to value them. Just as awareness and God's creative energy are very flexible and apparently unlimited, so is the energy that PUL comes from.

And somehow intelligence got into the picture too, because the universe was created in an intelligent manner (despite what we humans do at times), awareness can understand just about anything (as long as barriers aren't put in front of it), and PUL can move a person to see things from a very intelligent perspective.

The fact that God was able to create the universe with the above factors intact, shows how logic falls short when it comes to explaining how things work. For if you went by logic alone, you would say that it's impossible for anything to exist at all, because how could something come from nothing? Yet we exist, and in a very marvelous way.

Could logic ever explain how God came to be?  

well thanks for speaking so honestly Don, I had the wrong idea, that you were just playing devil's advocate here. apparently, you are trying to understand yourself more than other retrievers accounts.
I'm intrigued also about how you came to the conclusion that a lucid dream is somehow not going to cut the mustard for you and then you have a revulsion feeling when u consider it. thats heavy. I wish you luck to figure it out..but think u are on the right track to try to discover the basis of the revulsion feeling, there must be a belief system behind it?
please, if u get it cleared up, maybe you could share it with us, in the interest of the exploration we are all doing. all I would say is personally speaking, it doesn't do me any good or in growthwise terms, to put myself down in false humility terms, as it closes off my good if I do put myself down, or think there is something wrong with me, so I'm sorry I thought things about you, that there was something wrong with you, when now I've changed my mind, due to your most recent post, and I'm keeping you under my new age crystal where I desire to channel PUL also, which is so healing. I would like u to get up each morning feeling great and ready to face whatever comes to you, as you seem to have great strength coming your way, even though your skepticism puts a damper on things for the time being..well, trust as a child, maybe that will open you up more to your abilities. bless you Don. alysia

Kudos for Berserk? Ok, I'll bite.

I never doubted his commitment to his spirituality.

And I believe that he works so hard at his posts, because he sincerely wants to help.

I just don't agree with all of his viewpoints.

Who knows? Perhaps some day if he passes on before I do and sees things from the spirit World's perspective, I'll channel him. ;D

I agree with recoverer.  

And I think we would be lacking something without him.

Bob

Berserker,

Quote:

So I guess my remaining reservation is this: if I'm incapable of EVER expressing PUL in my earthly life, how can I be said to express it in the astral realm.  Of course, God's grace might occasionally infuse me with a quality of love that transcends my current spiritual development.  And I think that most of us have experienced PUL at some point in our lives. Now what do my readers think of my attempt to translate the abstract notions of right and wrong into a conceptual framework that can verify their appropriateness?

huh?

 And why cant you achieve pul in waking state?
lol
 for you to 'feel the love', merge with its quality.  
Listen,
You are love, it is not something you attain to. Its is a quality of your being already.

The translation of love in ordinary terms is acceptance, appreciation, and knowing. which are to me the 'conditions' of love ,which is why i disagree with pul or with its ordinary term of 'unconditional'.
Nor is it important to glamorize love with 'pure' and,
its equally misguided to think you are giving love to someone, or recieving love from someone.  Once again , you are love, already. So i challenge these new age beliefs about the understanding of love itself in those sytems.  Do they even know what love is?.
You are trying to achieve something with pul that you already possess, which is love. Its in your being already, its not 'higher in the astral plane' and only held by 'god' ,for christs sake! lol
So once again, to experience is to be in a state of aprreciation, acceptance, and knowing of...
I say of self, self love.  Aprpreciate, accept, and know yourself. That is the state of being in love you can experience and 'feel' for yourself

Here are 4 definitions of key value terms:

(1) "PUL" = "A way of being motivated by the promotion of the highest good for others."

PUL is "pure" in the sense that it is uncontaminated by ego, lust, or personal agendas and "unconditional" in the sense that it is expressed without regard to whether it is reciprocated, respected, or deserved.   Though neither an emotion or an energy in the earth plane, PUL can be experienced as an energy in the astral planes where all communication is telepathic and thoughts are things.  

(20 "Moral absolute" = "A moral rule which, when consistently applied, raises the vibrational frequency of one's spirit and thus allows one to make progress towards PUL and unity with God."  

These moral rules are more than beliefs; they are in principle falsifiable.  If spirits can be retrieved like a jailbreak without regard to an upgrade in their energetic make-up and can thereby comfortably flourish in a higher plane, then moral rules are meaningless.   Of course, if PUL is a key basis for progress and if the principle of like attracts like governs spiritual progress, then such jailbreak promotions are impossible.  

(3) "Evil" = "Any lifestyle, orientation, or action that lowers one's vibratory frequency, and separates one from the experience of God's grace and love."

(4) "Separation from God" = "A vibratory state in which one is incapable of experiencing PUL without loving intervention from outside one's astral plane."

Don

P.S.  Raz says: "You are love."  That unverifiable claim is as absurd as saying, "You are an isosceles triangle."   If you're going to blaspheme, at least make sense.  And in future, actually read the relevant post (reply #85) that addresses your question before formulating your metaphysically incoherent jibberish.  

Don,

These "jailbreaks "do not invalidate the moral code.  They deal with free will, and conscious beings changing their belief systems.  If there are "vibrational states," these may change with changes in belief systems.  Thus, if a bible thumper goes to a "hollow heaven," but then sees inconsistencies in the existence there, and a retrieval helps him change his/her beliefs, then "poof," he is retrieved.  In reality, his consciousness has expanded and prior belief systems have been discarded.  

I also think its time someone took you on point for point on your attack of the Monroe/Moen doctrine.  I do not myself accept their definition of the afterlife and hollow heavens as certain by any means, however you should note the following:

1.  If I hear about Monroe's caveman episode, rape or meeting aliens collecting jokes again, I'll puke.  Those are obvious delusions or misinterpretations of astral events, but so what?  Many people have traveled to focus 27, and had shared experiences.  Thus, one must look at the man's entire research and work, not just point to the goofy instances and invalidate  the rest.  

2.  Bruce's imagination method does leave him open to criticism of what is real and what is imagined.  However, the creative power of the mind is real, and certain validations over time have been quite real.

3.  The people at TMI and Bruce encourage people to explore and come to their own conclusions of the nature of the afterlife, consciousness, and the meaning of our true nature.  That is a healthy and open way of engaging people, and leaves their definitions of focus states and other issues open to change as more and more people gather information.

All that being said, I am not sure why swedenberg and Monroe/Moen's views of the afterlife is different.  I would say that our conscious mind interprets whatever information is gleaned either in the astral or in focusing our minds.  I don't know that one model is better than the other.  Swedenberg's verifications are a bit bizzarre, such as telling a man he will die at 445 the next morning!!!   And it happened.

That smacks of the power of suggestion, foul play or a type of use of consciousness to a bad end.  While I am impressed with Swedenberg's verifications, there are things that transpired back then that we simply are not privy to.  

I admire your search for a source that is accurate and verified.  I think that the jury is still out as to what the afterlife is like.  I like Monroe's concept of a change in focus of our consciousness as it seems to me to fit with the notion that consciousness is a primary phenomenon.

Best to you,

Matthew

Quote:

1.  If I hear about Monroe's caveman episode, rape or meeting aliens collecting jokes again, I'll puke.  Those are obvious delusions or misinterpretations of astral events, but so what?  Many people have traveled to focus 27, and had shared experiences.  Thus, one must look at the man's entire research and work, not just point to the goofy instances and invalidate  the rest.

Am I having deja vu or what? I could have sworn that I read this a day or two ago. BTW, I totally agree with this statement.

Namaste,
Mairlyn  ;D

Yes, Marilyn, despite the fact that I've made and abandoned my Monroe critique long ago, Matthew tiresomely repeats this point again and again and even uses crude language {"puke") in an tasteless effort to bait me and provoke a response.  I guess it's time to reiterate unanswered aspects of my critique of Monroe's kookery, though I had not planned to revisit the matter.    

Monroe's first book was innovative and fascinating. It wisely resists the temptation to impose a narrow New Age straight jacket on his experiences.   His last two books are dreadfully written New Age propaganda, utterly bereft of critical discernment.   They suffer dramatically in comparison with the works of other OBE adepts such as Robert Bruce.  And I say this, despite the fact that I find some of RB's attitudes more offensive than anything written by Monroe.   RB simply has far superior critical skills, despite his eccentric use of shamanistic remedies for various astral problems.  RB's one book "Astral Dynamics" is far richer in intelligent insights than all 3 of Monroe's works.  Hmm, I need to ponder how I'm going to handle this issue this time.

Don

Don,

I used the word puke to spice things up.  But I have read your description of Monroe's slips on at least three different threads. So, I thought it appropriate to note that his kooky adventures do not necessarily take away from a body of work, such as hemi-sync experiments, partnered explorations and hundreds of people gathering their own information and confirming some of his observations about focus levels and the afterlife.  

I am really not championing a defense of "New Age," so much as showing that for this one OOB pioneer, his flaws do not necessarily outweigh his contributions.

Each person be it Bruce, Monroe, Moen, has to do away with the perceptions through colored glass of a prior belief system and decide what is objectively real.  Some succeed better than others.

If Swedenberg does it for you, that's fine.  You want as much consistency as possible.  But I think what has been difficult for many readers is the notion that many different ideas are being summarily lumped under the term "new age," and then discarded.

Either way, as in any of my posts, no bad intention on my part is meant.  Only a lively discussion.

Best to you,

Matthew

LOL OK Don, as long as I'm not going nuts.

Matthew, I enjoy your posts, wasn't making fun of you but I really felt it was deja vu. ;-)

Don, as far as Monroe's kookery goes, it doesn't really matter what you say about him. Those of us who love him and know that everyone has their own experiences will continue to believe in him and his experiences.

I don't understand why everything has to be picked apart down to the last letter, i.e. PUL.  Next will it be discussing what each letter means..... p-u-r-e-u-n-c-o-n-d-i-t-i-o-n-a-l-l-o-v-e ???  Then maybe down to each atom which makes up each letter ???

Namaste,
Mairlyn  ;D ;D ;D

Marilyn,

If we get to atoms, then we get to subatomic particles, then to pure energy, then back where we started - PUL.

Love,
Bob

Quote:

PUL can be experienced as an energy in the astral planes where all communication is telepathic and thoughts are things.

Thats not PUL. it seems thats inner sense awareness, not 'pure unconditional love'.
You said its "experienced as an energy..." but how  vague can you be....  "where all communication is telepathic"...well, why dont you call it insteadd of pul: 'pure unconditional telepathic communications'. What has love have to with that at all?

in light of this:

Quote:

"PUL" = "A way of being motivated by the promotion of the highest good for others."

 

So the experience of pul is acheived somehow through telepathic communications on the astral plane to promote the highest good for others?
what are you talking about?

and Where does that attainment idea come from?
Was that not suggested to you somewhere, berserker, a suggestion you believe that this is how you attain love??

Though, in any case, this is good because it proves to my awareness what i have discovered about our motivations, they do follow our beliefs.

"A way of being motivated by the promotion of the highest good for others."

could be changed to, 'a way of being motivated by the belief that we should promote the highest good upon others.'
that is ,no doubt an influence of judgement, once again.

Pul is conditional, hate to keep reminding that to you folks. but even if it takes me to the defining of each letter of pul to show you what i think it is, so be it.

Bob, the unverifiable sequence you postulate--atoms traceable to subatomic particles traceable to PUL--is as absurd as advocating the sequence--dental cavities traceable to poor dental hygiene traceable to disrespect for the tooth fairy. Either PUL is first and foremst a way of being or the terms 'pure" and "unconditional" are meaningless.

This sort of pious nonsense is the inevitable result of the ghetto mentality of New Age thought, a mentality that refuses to learn from the experts in other intellectual disciplines.  And the last  time I checked, PUL is not a respected theoretical contruct among either nuclear physicists or cosmologists.  To argue otherwise, it does not suffice to hide behind New Age dogma and then wait for the gurgling nods of the unwashed herd.
As Carl Sagan wisely cautioned, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."  

Don
 

Quote:

This sort of pious nonsense is the inevitable result of the ghetto mentality of New Age thought, a mentality that refuses to learn from the experts in other intellectual disciplines.  And the last  time I checked, PUL is not a respected theoretical contruct among either nuclear physicists or cosmologists.  To argue otherwise, it does not suffice to hide behind New Age dogma and then wait for the gurgling nods of the unwashed herd.

Ghetto mentality?  Unwashed herds.
Have you totally gone over the edge Donald?

Don does not seem to realize that everyone here brings different backgrounds with them and is not part of a ghetto or herd.  I am a physician, with a background in science.  I do not subscribe to any pat New Age dogma.  I question much, but I come to resonate with ideas of others on this board.

And so, if everyone here comes with different beliefs, we are not so easily lumped into a New Age ghetto.  So really, its more an exchange of ideas that interests me.

For I believe in the mind, conscious awareness as a manifestation of an individual's divinity and connection to God.  I am not sure about the rest.  So far, I am keeping it as simple as possible, but investigating.

M

Matthew,

I'm very tuned in to both the differences in background and the ghetto/herd mentality.   I knew you were a doctor.  You ramped up the rhetoric with your "puke" comment and your repetition of the same point about RAM.

And you just revealed that you come from an untestable theistic belief typical of New Agers.  In my terms, that does not make you a New Ager. I'm uncomfortable with that label for both you and Bob.  But you signaled a challenge that I'm glad to meet.  I like to take such challenges as an opportunity to rethink my case.

By the way, I feel no unfriendliness about all this.  Remember, I'm an academic accustomed to the parry and thrust of hard critiques after reading research papers at national conferences.   Those debates were usually followed by whne and cheez hours where we could laugh and occasionally vent our displeasure at how we were misunderstood.

When I left academia to become a minister, I was asked to submit a critical review of a new book entitled "The Wisdom and Wit of Rabbi Jesus."   I was pretty hard on the author's superficial treatment of Jesus' sense of humor.  After my review was published, , I attended the national conference of the American Academy of Religion in Anaheim, this time as a minister.  In the gargantuan ballroom book display area, I was checking out the breakthroughs in my field when I noticed a stranger glaring at me with his arms folded.   I checked my fly and it was zipped up; so I was unconcerned.   But when he continued to glare, I looked at his name tag and suddenly realized it was the guy whose book I had recently critiqued in a journal  I had forgotten that he could identify me as his critic by my own name tag!  5,000 people at a conference!  How likely is it that I would run into him?  He never approached me.  He just stared in disapproval.   Hilarious!

Don

 

Quote:

Bob, the unverifiable sequence you postulate--atoms traceable to subatomic particles traceable to PUL--is as absurd as advocating the sequence--dental cavities traceable to poor dental hygiene traceable to disrespect for the tooth fairy. Either PUL is first and foremst a way of being or the terms 'pure" and "unconditional" are meaningless.

Don, LOVE is what holds everything together even down to sub-atomic particles.  And yes, even dental cavities. And don't knock the beloved tooth fairy. She is very, very real.  :o

Namaste,
Mairlyn  ;D

Harsh response to Don deleted on second thought. Still pissed at him, though.

Here is my response to the points worth discussing in Bob's otherwise vulgar deleted post.  One day while peering through his telescope, Bob excitedly informed his companion Don that he had just observed a little green man eating toasted cheese sandwiches.   A puzzled Don asked to look through the telescope but saw nothing but sky.   Bob explained, "Oh, well this little green man is so shy that he moves beyond range when he is about to be viewed by strangers."   Seizing the telescope, Bob said, "Look, I can see him again!"   By then, other site members arrived on the scene and insisted on gazing through Bob's telescope to see what the excitement was about.  But like Don, they saw nothing but sky.   Bob offered fresh excuses for their failure.   'Your skeptical belief system is preventing you from seeing him.   Surrender your preconceptions and really look!   Not all science is verifiable," he explained.   His claim is meaningless because he set up the game so that nothing EVEN IN PRINCIPLE can decisively count against it.  

Bob's claim that not all science is subject to verification does not apply to his sensationalistic claim that an indefinable love energy underlies subatomic particles.  Nor is his point that I don't know what subatomic particles are relevant.  Duh, for starters subatomic particles include protons, electrons, a nucleus, and then at a deeper level quarks and leptons.   At a deeper level still, we get into string theory.  But at no point is it permissible to claim that something as etherial as PUL energy, nature spirits, etc. can be the foundation of ,say, string theory.   Why not?   Well, for one thing, such a claim lacks any scientific heuristic value and cannot be tested.    

Though we can quibble over just how to define "love', we all know what normal people mean by the term.  Our problem arises from the need to fine-tune any definition.   But once "love" is prefixed by the modifiers "pure" and unconditional",  it is firmly established as primarily a way of being, not an energy, because words derive their meanings from ordinary parlance and neither Bob nor New Agers get to invent new definitions of standard terms.   Of course, they can thumb their nose at normal people, retreat into the New Age ghetto, and redefine all  their terms so that the underlying realities can never be verified.  

One prominent physicist recently claimed that the more scientists study the universe, the more it begins to look like a cosmic thought.   If Bob wants instead to postulate consciousness as the reality underlying subatomic particles, he is at least no longer guilty of a fundamental category mistake, but he is still hiding behind an unjustifiable belief that cannot advance our knowledge or help us achieve am meaningful consensus.  The status of love as one feature of consciousness may be worth discussing; but it is inadmissible to simplistically equate consciousness with love.

Don

Don

I DID delete that post, and it wasn't up for very long.  Yes, I did tell him to take his arrogance and shove it up his black hole. I had second thoughts, realized it was uncharitable, and deleted it. But that didn't and still doesn't mean I wasn't offended in a singular way. But Don knows no humility and proceeds along the path of recrimination without second thougt.

His mocking of me above is completely unecessary and totally uncalled for and lies beyond the bounds of love, of which he presumes to lecture me.

I'm asking him to please reconsider before a flame war gets started. Nobody wins in a war.

Bob

Bob, the telescope analogy used in my post above is a standard example that is typically used in philosophical analysis of the verifiability criterion of meaningfulness.  You can be immature and take it as a personal attack, but I am simply addressing the issues you raise in a philosophically responsible way.  I may occasionally use colorful language to get people's attention, but I relentessly stay focused on the serious issues.   Lighten up!

Don

Don,

1) You called attention to a deleted post. That was unecessary, esp when it wasn't up for long.

2) You didn't have to name me as an example, esp. with respect to little green men. That was demeaning, and intentional.

3) Doing the above is not responsible at all.

You need to learn humility. Arrogance is insidious and you aren't guarding against it very well. I say this from experience.

I summarily dismiss your last post but not you.


Rob

hey, were you the one, rob roy, with the little black spirit you have 'seen' ,also? that wasnt getting your jokes...

Posters have recently discussed the nature and reality of evil.  Though this thread is unfortunately very contentious, the discussion here might be stimulating for newbies on this site.  So I'm bringing it to the front in the hope that new posters will position themselves somewhere within this debate.

Don

Man this thread is old. Some of my beliefs have changed since it started. I believe there are evil minded influences out there, so unless one wants to be fooled by them, one needs to be warry of the plethora of misleading channeled information that exists.

I understand why people want to underestimate negative influences, it is more pleasant to believe that they don't exist. But if we want to see reality as it is rather than according to what is preferable, we have to be willing to see that there are unfriendly influences that are trying to find ways to mislead people.

Warren Smith wrote a book called "The light that was dark." He was into channeled sources including ACIM. He and his wife started to get troubled by some negative beings. The only thing that helped is when they asked Christ for help.

They were members of an ACIM reading group. When they tried to explain to other members that they were having problems with negative beings, the group members, because of how ACIM influenced them, just wouldn't believe that Warren and his wife were actually having problems. They concluded that they were imagining the whole thing.

This isn't surprising, because even though ACIM goes on and on it doesn't say anything about what negative influences are about. One would think that if the spirit of Christ actually spoke to people, he would provide them with such info.

But no, the only thing the course does is say that Satan doesn't exist and that's it. I agree, there isn't one being named Satan. But why end the discussion there? Provide some information about the negative influences that do exist, rather than say the same few things over and over and over again, until the words reverberate within a person's mind like a broken record that won't stop.

Don-

the thread was started over four years ago, has contact with the posters on this board caused you to reappraise your views ?

Both the posts, and some of the replies show just how intolerant many members here are of others beliefs. Some of the new age beliefs, and things like exorcisms of babies, and faith healing fit well together here. All of them being as ridiculous as the other.

I am not a big Robert Bruce fan, but the importance of his exorcism experience lies in the virtual paralysis of his free will as he repeatedly felt forced to the crib of his young son with a sharp knife in his hand poised to kill.  However this be explained, it is appropriate to take this as a warning of the perils of flirting with evil and the need to transcend metaphysical theories and instead explore the harm that can actually be done through negative spirit activity.

Also, I think the debate over the nature of PUL is extremely important. 

Don

Because of his Sai Baba story and other things, I wonder if Robert Bruce's possession story is true.

Nevertheless, I believe there are people who get afflicted to varying degrees by negative entities.

Don might rebuke the idea of dealing with them by using PUL. Perhaps there is another way to view this.  Divine love and divine will are connected, so if you respond to them with this combination, it could help.  It has helped me on a number of occasions.

I believe Robert Bruce's story because he has devoted an entire book to this topic and because I know of various possession cases of young children.
Such cases are in my view an effective counter-argument against Dr. Ian Stevenson's research on the past life recall of young children as evidence for reincarnation, especially since in 2 of his cases the alleged prior personality was still alive at the time of birth of the child in question.

I have shared the story of my Uncle George's exorcism of a lady in her home.  My cousin E was just 2 or 3 at the time and stayed in the car with my Aunt Ruth while George was performing the exorcism.  At the moment when the demon was expelled, E's eyes rolled up in his head so that only the whites were visible and he screamed relentlessly.  E was clearly thrust into a bizarre altered state of consciousness.  He was eventually delivered through his parents' prayers.

E and his Dad are my sources for this experience.  E is now a psychiatrist.  His most powerful memory of this ordeal is his vision of being safely cradled in Jesus' protective arms.  Remember, E was just 2 or 3.

Don    

Berserk2 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 5:23pm:

Such cases are in my view an effective counter-argument against Dr. Ian Stevenson's research on the past life recall of young children as evidence for reincarnation, especially since in 2 of his cases the alleged prior personality was still alive at the time of birth of the child in question. Don

Hi Don,
just as a side comment, I believe that various writers (including Bob Monroe?) have postulated the idea that you can be experiencing overlapping lifetimes. So you may be born for the next incarnation before you check out in this one.
As there's supposed to be no linear time over there, or all time occurring at once, then surely this fits in with the idea of overlapping lifetimes and doesn't negate Dr. Ian Stevenson's research?

Just a thought.
Best wishes,
David.

Hi

Also a note about overlapping lifetimes -- Others might say that some layers of what we think of as a cohesive self can pass on before the physical self moves into the afterlife. Perhaps those layers are enough to start a new physical incarnation.

I have photographs and valid documentation of a soul who was born into this life approximately two years before the prior passing of his double in all things--appearance, profession, beliefs, attitudes, etc. To protect his privacy I don't share it, but should I hear that he has passed on before I go, I'll put it all out in a thread here. I think it could surprise even a disbeliever of the 'transmigration' of souls.

"Overlapping lifetimes' and 'a layered self' could just be inadequacies of our vocabulary when discussing the same aspect of the non-physical.

Bets

Berserk wrote on Dec 19^th, 2005 at 8:04pm:

Here are 4 definitions of key value terms: (1) "PUL" = "A way of being motivated by the promotion of the highest good for others." PUL is "pure" in the sense that it is uncontaminated by ego, lust, or personal agendas and "unconditional" in the sense that it is expressed without regard to whether it is reciprocated, respected, or deserved.   Though neither an emotion or an energy in the earth plane, PUL can be experienced as an energy in the astral planes where all communication is telepathic and thoughts are things.   (20 "Moral absolute" = "A moral rule which, when consistently applied, raises the vibrational frequency of one's spirit and thus allows one to make progress towards PUL and unity with God."   These moral rules are more than beliefs; they are in principle falsifiable.  If spirits can be retrieved like a jailbreak without regard to an upgrade in their energetic make-up and can thereby comfortably flourish in a higher plane, then moral rules are meaningless.   Of course, if PUL is a key basis for progress and if the principle of like attracts like governs spiritual progress, then such jailbreak promotions are impossible.   (3) "Evil" = "Any lifestyle, orientation, or action that lowers one's vibratory frequency, and separates one from the experience of God's grace and love." (4) "Separation from God" = "A vibratory state in which one is incapable of experiencing PUL without loving intervention from outside one's astral plane." Don

Don,

I agree with your definitions, but would like to expand a little more. 

Based on my experiences of contact with beings of light that radiate PUL, I would say that PUL is a state of being that seems best described as an essence.  This essence resides within our core and is the same state of PUL as that of our total being of which we are an aspect of. By this I mean that a total being can have varying degrees of purity, just as gold for example can have varying degrees of purity within its substance. 

Impurities could be described as disorganization within an entity's consciousness. An entity that has little disorganization within its consciousness is a purer essence of PUL at the core of its being and when this aspect is incarnate, it exhibits expressions similar to those of Christ, Buddha, etc. at the "higher" end of a scale.  At the other end of the scale, those entities with a lot of disorganization within their consciousness when incarnate exhibit expressions similar to those that are described as evil.

Love is the expression of better organization of consciousness and fear/ego is the expression of disorganization of consciousness. It is intent that changes the state of our core being essence. If our underlying reason or motivation for an action is loving we are changing our core being towards that of PUL.  If the motivation for an action stems from fear/ego we are inhibiting our spiritual growth at the core of our being.

The point of incarnating here or anywhere else is personal spiritual growth. The entire consciousness system seems to be designed to facilitate spiritual growth through a system of encouragement toward a higher quality PUL at the core of our being without us having to do anything other than follow the dictates of the rules and protocols that have evolved from and are built into the system. Morality would be one example having evolved from the consciousness system and continues to evolve as growth takes place.

Kathy

Hi Kathy,

I am a little over halfway through reading Tom Campbell's "My Big TOE".  The thoughts in your post seem to come right from Campbell's theories as expressed in this book (our goal of personal spiritual growth = greater organization of consciousness, etc.).  Were your ideas influenced by Campbell or derived from completely different sources or experiences?

I've been reading various books, etc. and this forum, expanding my perspective and trying to make sense of all of it for myself.  I'm always curious how others who seem well along the path, such as yourself, have developed their thinking and beliefs.  I'm working on the personal experience part, having gone to Gateway Voyage and continuing to use the TMI CDs for regular practice, but I feel I'm still a novice at it all.

Thanks for any response you can provide,

Pat

Hi Pat-

Your post brought to mind something I've always wondered about.

Specifically, to what extent our own beliefs are influenced by personal experiences or via reading.

I would guess a personal experience would spur lots of reading on the subject, but on the other hand lots of reading may or may not lead to personal experiences.

Maybe a poll on this would be interesting.

R

I would rethink this one:

Quote:

(3) "Evil" = "Any lifestyle, orientation, or action that lowers one's vibratory frequency, and separates one from the experience of God's grace and love."

I don't think anyone here would consider an alcoholic or drug user to be evil because they are addicted to their substance of choice, and yet this lifestyle fits your definition perfectly. 

I believe evil is better defined as a lifestyle/belief system/action(s) which purposefully causes physical, emotional, or even spiritual harm to another individual(s).

Hi Pat,

Yes, I have read TC's books and also participate on his forums occasionally. I think he puts everything together all in one source very well and I'm sure to a certain extent he has influenced my thinking and the ways in which I discuss things in recent months, though my understanding has come from many sources and 30 plus years of experience of the paranormal. TC's discussion of consciousness stems from understanding everything from the standpoint of consciousness and conscious evolution. Very useful indeed, although much of his theory can be understood from other sources as well. Threads of truth can be found in many, many sources, but understanding how consciousness works is paramount for growth in my opinion.

Organization of consciousness is basically a creative process through which we create our entire life experience. The creative energy from our core moves down through all of the interpenetrating levels (spiritual, mental, emotional, physiological) of our being on its way to the physical reality. In each level, our core essence is infused with the aspect of human life existing on that level. This can also be understood as the stream of consciousness from our Total Self that we are always connected to. It is a feedback process between our core essence and our physical experience. There is never any true separation. It's only because of the laws of physics that separation seems to occur. It is all happening (the exchange of information, sensory and otherwise) within our mind.

For example, the creative essence from our core being is infused with individual mind (our PMR self-awareness in TC's terms) and it is through the individual mind that we become self-aware. With focused conscious awareness we can use our perceptions to differentiate and integrate all of the information coming to us. This is how we gain clarity and understanding of ourselves and any situation we may be in. Once we have an understanding, we can then be appropriate with ourselves and any particular situation. Thus our interaction can stem from a loving intent and it is this loving intent that improves the quality of our personal being as well as core essence/total self and the entire system.

When differentiation, integration, clear understanding and appropriate being are not present we have what I call cross-purposes in our way of thinking and we are not able to create what we intended because of underlying fears. Clarifying our fears, understanding and facing them enables us to let go and get them out of our way so they don't continue to interfere with our clarity of thought. One of the biggest problems we all have is a propensity for rationalization where we use our reason to make up excuses or we tell ourselves stories of why not, which basically amounts to alibis and justifications to explain why we didn't accomplish what we wanted. Our reasons of why not help us to avoid something in ourselves that we are afraid of. Otherwise there would be no need for us to come up with reasons of why not in the first place.

Avoidance and denial serves to keep us away from our fear. But most important is that it keeps us disconnected from our core essence, which gives us the feeling of separation, which in turn creates more fear, like a vicious circle. However, we can turn that all around by finding our fear, facing it, which many times means allowing it to be felt instead of creating resistance in an attempt to avoid it. This process brings clarity and freedom from our internal tiger.  :)

Anyway, I guess I got a little long winded here, though I hope this helps.

Kathy

Dude- 'I believe evil is better defined as a lifestyle/belief system/action(s) which purposefully causes physical, emotional, or even spiritual harm to another individual(s)'

surely that would include any form of warfare which definately intends and causes physical harm to the enemy! I think defining evil is really tricky as it seems to end up as being defined as something other people are/do. I would tentatively go with something along the lines of a retardation or reluctance to spiritually grow/raise vibratory rate.

Dude: "I would rethink this one:
(3) "Evil" = "Any lifestyle, orientation, or action that lowers one's vibratory frequency, and separates one from the experience of God's grace and love."

I don't think anyone here would consider an alcoholic or drug user to be evil because they are addicted to their substance of choice, and yet this lifestyle fits your definition perfectly."
____________________________ 

You have misread the definition; it does not imply that the alcoholic or drug user IS evil; only that the victimization of such lifestyle addictions can lower vibrational frequency and consign the addict to lower, even hellish reams based on the principle of like attracts like.  Moral value definitions are arbitrary unless they specify consequences--in this case, the experience of separation from God's love.  Whether the person with the evil lifestyle is himself evil is a separate issue that is relevant to the possibility and difficulty of retrievals from lower realms.    

I agree with heisenberg's objection to your alternate definition.

Don

I am speaking about the definition of evil that most people use today, not this new one that you invented.  The intent of the individual plays a big role in this classification, IMO.  An alcoholic is not necessarily trying to do harm to someone else, they are simply looking for an escape from an issue they refuse to deal with.  And yes, this separates them from God's love- but I wouldn't put them anywhere near the classification of someone who gets off on killing children.  I feel your definition needs to be a more specific.  I believe evil, as the term is used today, is more about the intent and purpose of the individual and how their actions directly affect the victims than it is the result of that individual's actions in the afterlife.  But then again, I am speaking of the common definition, not your altered one.   

But Dude, my defenition reflects the standard Christian understanding of "evil."  The Greek word for "sin" means "to miss the mark" in a state of separation from God.  The experience of union with God is not something to be earned; it is the result of grace or unmerited favor.  Feelings of spiritual entitlement generate unctious pretense and invidious comparisons with the spirituality of others.  Love motivated by gratitude for God's acceptence leads to altruism performed from a sense of privilege rather than burdensome duty.  This insight is the heart of the grace-based life and thus the heart of the Christian Gospel.

Don

heisenberg69 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2010 at 2:45pm:

Dude- 'I believe evil is better defined as a lifestyle/belief system/action(s) which purposefully causes physical, emotional, or even spiritual harm to another individual(s)' surely that would include any form of warfare which definately intends and causes physical harm to the enemy! I think defining evil is really tricky as it seems to end up as being defined as something other people are/do. I would tentatively go with something along the lines of a retardation or reluctance to spiritually grow/raise vibratory rate.

This feels warm to me...

Howdy all, I was at a used book shop looking for some other stuff  when I wandered into the small metaphysical section. This old book sorta jumped out at me so I bought it! It was written by Rudolf Steiner(1861-1925). Google up his name in Wikipedia, it contains some great info on him, including in the 'Steiner & Christianity' section where he had a inner encounter with the Christ being which changed his life. What an interesting heavy dude he was! I added some parts from his book 'An outline of Occult Science'. Geez! I'm not looking forward to the first part of my death if what he says is true!

                                 ********

"The first experiences after death are very different in still another respect from those during life. During the time of purification the human being, as it were, lives his life in reverse order. He passes again through all that he has experienced in life since his birth. He begins with the events which immediately preceded death and experiences everything in reverse order back to childhood. Thus everything passes spiritually before his eyes that has not arisen out of the spiritual nature of the ego during life, only he experiences all this now in reverse order. For example, a person who died in his sixtieth year and who in his fortieth year had done someone a bodily or soul injury in an outburst of anger will experience this event again when, in passing through his life's journey in reverse order after death, he reaches the time of his fortieth year. However, he now experiences not the satisfaction which he had in life from his attack upon the other person, but the pain which he gave him. From what has been said above, it is at the same time also possible to see that only a part of such an event can be experienced painfully after death. This part has arisen from passions of the ego which have their source only in the outer physical world. In fact, the ego not only damages the other person through the gratification of such a passion, but itself as well, only the damage to itself is not apparent during life. After death, however, this whole damaging world of passion becomes perceptible to it. And the ego then feels itself drawn to every being and every thing which has enkindled such a passion, in order that this passion may again be destroyed by the " consuming fire," in just the same way it was created. Only when the human being in his backward journey has reached the point of his birth have all the passions of this kind passed through the fire of purification,
and, from now on, nothing hinders him from a complete surrender to the spiritual world. He enters upon a new stage of existence. Just as, at death, he threw off the physical body, then, soon after, his ether body, so now that part of the astral body falls away which can live only in the consciousness of the outer physical world.
For supersensible perception there are, thus, three corpses : the physical, the etheric, and the astral corpse ; and the point of time when  the latter is thrown off by the human being is at the end of the period of purification which is about a third of the time which elapsed between birth and death. The reason why this is so can only become clear later on, when we shall have considered the course of human life from the standpoint of occult science. By means of supersensible perception, astral corpses may be seen constantly in the world surrounding man, which are discarded by people who are passing over from the state of purification into a higher existence, just as for physical perception there are corpses in the world in which men dwell.
After purification an entirely new state of consciousness begins for the ego. Whereas before death external images had to flow towards the ego, in order that the light of consciousness might fall upon them, now, as it were, a world flows from within and penetrates  to the consciousness. The ego lives in this world also between birth and death. There, however, this world is clothed in the manifestations of the senses ; and only there where the ego, taking no heed of all sense-perceptions, perceives itself in its innermost sanctuary, is that, which otherwise appears veiled by the sense world, revealed in its real form. Just as before death the self-perception of the ego takes place in its inner being, so after death and after purification the spirit world in all its fullness is revealed from within. This revelation, in fact, takes place immediately after the stripping off of the ether body. But, like a darkening cloud, the world of desire, which is still turned towards the outer world, pre­sents itself. It is as though dark demoniacal shadows, arising out of the passions " consuming themselves in fire," intermingled  with a blissful world of spiritual experience. Indeed these passions are now not mere shadows, but actual entities. This becomes at once apparent when the ego is deprived of the physical organs and can thus perceive what is of a spiritual nature. These creatures appear like distortions and caricatures of all that the human being knew through sense-perception.

Supersensible perception has this to say about the world of the purifying fire : it is inhabited by beings whose appearance for the spiritual eye can be gruesome and painful, whose pleasure seems to be destruction and whose passion is bent upon a spiritual evil, in comparison with which the evil of the sense world is insignificant. The passions which human beings bring into this world appear to these creatures as food by means of which their power receives con­stant refreshment and strength.
This picture, drawn from a world imperceptible to the physical senses, can appear less incredible if we for a moment observe a part of the animal world with unprejudiced eyes. For the spiritual eye, what is a cruel, prowling wolf ? What does it reveal to us through what our senses perceive? Nothing else than a soul that lives in desire and acts through desire. One can call the external form of the wolf an embodiment of these passions. And even if a person had no organs with which to perceive this form, he would still have to recognize the existence of a creature corresponding to it, if its passions were invisibly manifest in its actions ; if in fact a power, invisible to the eye, were prowling about, through which all those things could happen which happen through the visible wolf. The creatures of the purifying fire do not exist for sensible, but for supersensible consciousness only ; their activities, however, which consist in the destruction of the ego when it gives them this nourishment, are clearly revealed. These activities become clearly visible when what began as a normal pleasure increases to lack of moderation and excess.
For, even what is perceptible to the senses would attract the ego only in so far as the pleasure has its source in its own nature. The animal is impelled to desire in the outer world only by means of the cravings of its three bodies. The human being has higher enjoyments, because a fourth member, the ego, is added to the three bodily members. But if the ego seeks for a gratification which serves to destroy its own nature, not to maintain and further it, then such craving can be neither the activity of its three bodies, nor that of its own nature ; it can only be the activity of beings who, in their true form, remain hidden from the senses. They can set to work on the higher nature of the ego and arouse in it passions which have no relationship to sense existence, but which can only be satisfied through it. Beings exist who are nourished by desires and passions which are worse than any animal passions, because they do not
express themselves in the senses only, but seize upon the spiritual part and drag it down into the realm of the senses. The forms of such beings are, for supersensible perception, more hideous and gruesome than the forms of the wildest animals, in which are em­bodied only passions that originate in the sense world. The destructive forces of these beings exceed immeasurably all destructive fury which may exist in the visible animal world. Supersensible know­ledge must, in this way, enlarge the human horizon to include a world of beings which, in a certain respect, stand lower than the visible world of destructive animals."

Wow.  That guy gives no level of grace whatsoever.  I can't believe you read all he wrote...even as much as you read would have been enough for me to close the book and take it back to where I bought it.  Fire and brimstone is actually more satisfying than that guy.

Imagine an afterlife that makes the greatest orgasm you have ever experienced pale in comparison to what you experience in every moment.

usetawuz wrote on Feb 28^th, 2010 at 9:04pm:

Wow.  That guy gives no level of grace whatsoever.  I can't believe you read all he wrote...even as much as you read would have been enough for me to close the book and take it back to where I bought it.  Fire and brimstone is actually more satisfying than that guy. Imagine an afterlife that makes the greatest orgasm you have ever experienced pale in comparison to what you experience in every moment.

So you don't masturbate, or have inner fantasy sexual images in your physical consciousness while sexually aroused in private? Or with your sexual partner in private union?? Keep Cool. Biker Chick.

Usetawuz- I bet you were'nt expecting that responce ! 

;)

Bikerchick, those are a lot of words for him to say...uhm, not so much. So, the passionate fantasies are a little bit distracting. They feed into other possible distractions, call them entities if you will. You'll relive them. Okay, got the message there. If you're healthy doing what you do I see no reason to start comparing yourselves to animals and classifying people as higher or lower than certain animals. Silly.

Hi,

Steiner had an influence on US education and in other areas, but never as much as I thought he should, having only read bits and pieces of his ideas.
BikerChick, thanks for that quote. I think I know now why his influence has been limited.  ;)

Bets

The use of spiritual jargon (higher self, astral realm, soul disk, Christ Consciousness, Akashic records, chakra) betrays beliefs, and beliefs can be fuzzy, inconsistent, and even unconscious.  Because beliefs can be unconscious, jargon can unwittingly prevent growth and and a healthy consideration of the possibility that one just might be mistaken in important ways.  So we should always strive to find new ways to label mysterious and poorly understood truths and experiences.  More importantly, we should employ a pragmatic concept of Truth.  For example, we should ask ourselves questions like these: if my beliefs in a higher self and a soul disk are fundamentally flawed, how could I ever discover this?
i might "pray" to my higher self instead of a personal God.  How am I to evaluate whether I am making a big mistake?  Perhaps I experience far more frequent and convincing answers to prayer if I pray to God.  Or perhaps I sense that when I pray to my higher self, I am unwittingly unleashing ego ratitifcation in a way that inhibits my experience of pure love.   Here I must be careful because "ego" is another elusive jargon word.  Or suppose I ask for a personal relationship with Jesus.  I might campare the emerging feelings and perceptions with what I experience when I ask for a closer relationship with impersonal guidance.  Then if the result is a confusing concoction of emotions that are hard to distinguish, I might try another question: e.g. Must I be willing to surrender to Jesus' will or my higher self before I can have self-authenticating experiences or insights that aid my journey and my belief choices?  In my view, this approach is more productive than looking for a never available objective proof for a particular New Age, philosophical, or Christian overview. 

Don