I don't often get messages in meditation about or for another person, but about a month ago, i had this experience. 

  I got a visual of a man, and asked who the man was and heard back "Paul Rademacher" who is the current TMI executive director.   I then asked why i was being communicated about him, and i heard or rather translated something like, "He works for Christ, but he is naive."   With the naive part, i received further info about naive to negative forces. 

   The odd thing is that in the visual i received about the man, i saw someone with whitish-greyish hair, and when i looked up Paul Rademacher he had darker hair.   

  Tom Campbell came to mind since like the man in the visual i received, he has noticeably whitish grey hair. 

  I don't know if i garbled the translation of the message, or if guidance was saying there was some kind of strong connection between Rademacher and Campbell? 

  If so, i have no idea what the connection is suppose to be.  I also have no idea if Rademacher peruses this site or not, but i hope he sees this post and maybe can figure out what this message means.  (or Campbell for that matter, if he is involved with it).

I think Tom would tell you he doesn't work for Christ as he considers such to be a belief system and as for naive, well... So far in my search I found him the least naive of the bunch. There are some things Tom talks about that are still a bit beyond me and maybe even my interest, like Psi, but I find that what he is discussing makes more sense as I delve into it deeper rather than it begins to put me off like a lot of what is out there.

So it must be that Paul Rademacher guy. I know that Tom hasn't had a great deal of contact with TMI in many years. Don't get me wrong, he has had a little bit. I think he spoke there in the last couple of years briefly.

I’ve met Paul Rademacher on several occasions, and Tom Campbell once. I’ve had conversations with both. “Naïve” is not a word I would use to describe either man. Both strike me as sophisticated and astute in judgment. As Beau indicates, Campbell is not one for any sort of religious belief system. His work (as an engineer) with Bob Monroe was in the early Whistlefield days (1970s), when he and Dennis Mennerich helped Monroe to develop Hemi-Sync. Since then he’s had little contact with TMI until he delivered the keynote address to the professional meeting last year. I don’t believe that he and Paul Rademacher are closely acquainted. As for Paul, he is an ex-Presbyterian minister. He discusses his spiritual views in his recent book. How he privately envisions his mission I don’t know; but in his public statements do not accord with the description rendered above.

One of the perennial challenges of receiving and interpreting psychic data is judging between the literal and symbolic elements, as well as the references (inward or outward, or a combination thereof). No one is infallible here, and it seems to me likely that this message is not meant for the named individual(s), but that he/they may represent something inside of the receiver or perhaps sources unknown.

Naivete can apply to different degrees. For example, a person who channels a being without finding out what that being is all about because he assumes only a friendly being would come through, might be Naive.

I don't know anything about Paul Rademacher.  However, perhaps this might relate. Perhaps it is naive to assume that people at TMI make contact with only friendly beings. It is possible that some unfriendly beings do connect with people there. What is Paul's viewpoint on this? Does he allow for the possibility that some unfriendly beings might be connecting with people at TMI?

Regarding Tom Campbell, I don't know how he fits into what Justin received. I know that Tom understands that unfriendly beings exist and that they mess with people. Perhaps what he knows should be acknowledged at TMI.

Since I have no experience with TMI I am only suggesting possibilities.

Regarding Paul working for Christ, I don't believe it is a matter of believing in Jesus in a particular way. Rather, it is a matter of being motivated by PUL, since that is what Christ consciousness is about.

I have experience-based reasons for believing that the man Jesus existed, but I believe he was about PUL rather than some of the things people associate with him. I bet you he was a fun guy to be around. :)

   Another word for Christ is love of the PUL kind.  I've noticed that Tom Campbell focuses on the concept of love in the PUL sense as what brings maturity in consciousness. 

    I agree with Recoverer, there are different degrees of naivety and in different areas. 

   Just a few years ago, i was more naive to negative forces connected to aspects of the U.S. government, and to aspects of some E.T. information.  Most people i know, even some with some non-physical experience and knowings in various areas (including awareness of ET existence), are somewhat naive to certain aspects of the above.      

  One doesn't have to be basically "naive" to have some relative naivety in some area or areas. 

I remember listening to a Tom Campbell video where he basically said some people in positions of power such as politicians are influenced by unfriendly beings. Unfriendly beings target such people because they are in a position to really mess things up.

I think we need to be very, very careful when we claim to see “evil influences” at work in others. There are both moral and psychological dangers here.

One thing we ought to have learned from Carl Jung is the ease with which the human mind, disdainful of what it regards as its own imperfections, casts off those unwanted characteristics and, projecting them upon others “out there”, labels and vilifies them as “evil”. This is what he called the “Shadow”. Jung noticed this tendency particularly strongly among his patients just prior to the buildup and outbreak of the second World War, when that evil—that which is manipulating the élite, keeping us from our true destiny, hoarding the secrets of knowledge and success—was finally identified by Hitler and his henchmen: “The Jew”. The rest, as they say, is history—or rather, nightmare.

Today we are very close to this same kind of social paranoia that is fertile ground for fascism. Years ago (in 1964), the Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter identified what he aptly dubbed “the paranoid style in American politics”, which could be generalized to American culture. There are conspiracies afoot everywhere, the élite are once again in the grip of the devil, and the truly righteous folk (who? why, us, of course!) are threatened on all sides by those élites who would dupe the masses and keep the keys to the kingdom for themselves. No one in our time has yet produced the equivalent of “The Jew”—though David Icke’s lizard aliens and (at least according to Lyndon Larouche) the Queen of England are right up there as prime candidates.

Pity poor Patrick McGoohan, the late actor and artist who created the hit 1960s television series, “The Prisoner”. McGoohan was virtually drummed out of England for suggesting (in the final episode to the series) that the mysterious, evil “Number One” who had imprisoned “Number Six” in the Orwellian “Village” was none other than a split-off (Shadow) part of Number Six himself. In other words, we imprison and manipulate ourselves. The real enemy--the real tyrant and manipulator--is within: our own (especially unconscious and therefore unexamined and unquestioned) belief systems and fears.

This is one key reason why Bob Monroe’s work is so valuable, and also perhaps why TMI, as an institution, is a place that attracts all sorts of unconscious projections, both positive and negative in character. For in his exploration of human consciousness, Monroe deliberately eschewed not only the belief-systems of mainstream materialist science, but also those of all esoteric and exoteric religious traditions, both eastern and western. He thereby produced a neutral vocabulary, innocent of the assumptions and prejudices of those same belief systems, for describing experiences of expanded awareness. In addition, of course, he also helped to devise practical methods for achieving those states.

Adherents of such belief systems invariably are proselytizers. Monroe himself was no proselytizer. “Belief” comes from the old Germanic word “lief” which means “love”—our beliefs are beloved to us, as the physicist David Bohm points out. “The danger in belief should therefore be clear,” he writes, “for when the ‘love’ for a set of assumptions and their implications is strong, it may lead to playing false to defend them.”

As per The Bard, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” Let us look no further than the mirror to find our devils.

THAT is an excellent post Lakeman! The only post on this board so far that mentions Hitler that I found worth reading. Well done!

I don't believe that anybody made specific statements about "who" is affected like David Icke does. As Lakeman stated, there are ethical issues when it comes to naming people who are influenced. I'm not willing to take Icke's word for it when he names specific people.

However, I don't believe it is wrong to consider the possibility that some people are influenced, and that some unfriendlies make contact with people at TMI. One man who used to participate on this forum and has been to TMI stated that he believes that some unfriendly ETs have contacted people at TMI.

I'm quite certain that I've communicated extensively with beings of love and light, yet unfriendlies have also contacted me. This World currently exists so a mixture of influences can be involved with it.

There is a lot of evidence that shows that when it comes to unfriendlies, more than Carl Jung like mind creations are involved. Even Robert Monroe wrote about such influences in his book "Ultimate Journey." He was told that unfriendly beings with human experience and without human experience have been involved with this world for a long time. He was told that they are experienced and can influence people.

This doesn't mean that we don't have free will, but if a person is leaning towards doing something negative an unfriendly being might provide an unfriendly nudge and some non-positive suggestions. The more a person gives into such suggestions, the more an unfriendly being well get its hooks into such a person.

I don't buy it, Albert, but it is a good argument you make. ;)

What part don't you buy?


Beau wrote on Jun 25^th, 2011 at 2:44pm:

I don't buy it, Albert, but it is a good argument you make. ;)

I am of the feeling, from my experiences, that it is all one thing. There are no real baddies and no real goodies but that consciousness is a perfect balance at its essence and that that is what I came here to uncover, but of course I could be way off here. I enjoyed the post you made in spite of that.

A few final comments before taking an extended Internet holiday:

A lot of people are selling fear these days, and a lot of folks are buying it
wholesale--lock, stock and barrel. The anxiety/paranoia market is virtually flooded. The sellers are in it for different reasons: pure economic profit; ideological (or in some cases personal) axes to grind; desire for power; delusional thinking, etc. The celebrity purveyors of fear in almost every case I can think of are either delusional cranks or would-be mass manipulators. This doesn’t mean that the world doesn’t face challenges or even dangers. I am not some Pollyanna. I just don’t trust the fear-mongers. They smell bad.

Are there other entities or forces “out there” apart from the human mind? Of course there are. But one of the points that Monroe consistently emphasized is that what we might interpret as “evil” may simply be indifference on the part of an intelligence that is totally foreign, and perhaps, in some (if not many) cases, superior to ours. Indeed, one of his persistent themes is his questioning of our conventional definitions of terms like “good” and “evil”. Thus, in the appendix to “Far Journeys,” he states, in answer to the question, “What would you say is the nature of good and evil,” the following: “They exist only in the mind of the perceiver, due to ignorance and lack of understanding plus an immersed viewpoint.” And, in his final work, “Ultimate Journey,” he repeats this conclusion virtually verbatim in his translation of the ROTE he brought back from his journey to the Emitter: “There is no good, there is no evil. There is only expression.”

Finally, with regard to TMI as an institution, I would say the following: Like all human organizations, it attracts individuals of varying capacities, talents, inclinations, abilities, motivations, and so forth. From my own experience over the past decade, however, I have never met anyone who worked at TMI in any official capacity whom I would label “evil,” or whom I would suspect as being under the influence of “evil forces,” either knowingly or unknowingly. I have seen no evidence of this. This doesn’t mean that TMI is a perfect place, or that it is the only available venue to provide useful tools for inner growth. But, judging people by what they say and do (as well as by their effect on those around them), coupled with my own intuitive sense, in my humble estimation I have only met individuals of good will there who are interested in exploring consciousness, and in facilitating the explorations—and thus the freedom and awareness—of others. I can’t speak for anyone else and their experience at TMI, and I certainly don’t speak for TMI. My views are my own.      

Regarding Monroe's statement of there being no good and evil, I believe it needs to be considered in its proper context.  In the end when every being lives according to PUL everything will be okay, but right now the tremendous amout of suffering we see in this World isn't simply an illusion.

Because the beings in this universe are able to operate according to free will, some of them end up acting in a way where they harm others. When a man forces numerous children into prostitution, it is a negative thing regardless of how things eventually work out.

Regarding the below from Far Journeys, Ultimate Journey was written a number of years later and Robert speaks of things he didn't know about when he wrote Far Journeys. For example, about his "I-there." I believe it is reasonable to conclude that what he found out later is more accurate than what he had figured out earlier. I don't believe he would've referred to negative influences as being negative if he didn't believe they are negative in some way.

[[“Far Journeys,” he states, in answer to the question, “What would you say is the nature of good and evil,” the following: “They exist only in the mind of the perceiver, due to ignorance and lack of understanding plus an immersed viewpoint.”]]

I don't believe it is good to push fear-based agendas just for the sake of spreading fear, but it is important to be informed even if some of the information that is available is unpleasant.

Ironically, I used to close my mind to the fact of how evil-minded entities exist because I was afraid to acknowledge that they exist. Once I reached the point where I was no longer afraid of them I was able to find out that in some way they exist.

On the one hand it is good that people find out about negative entities only when they are ready to do so, but perhaps we are reaching a point in human history where we can no longer prolong being aware of such knowledge.

From Ultimate Journey page 183:

Robert's I-there: Even the Earth itself. There are so many influences. We have tried to steer you away from them, as much as we can.

Robert: Why?

Robert's I-there: Some early encounters with some of us did not work out well. They do not regard humans in the way we thought they might. The have a sense of superiority because they have evolved in a different way.

Robert: So there are no big brothers in the sky?

Robert's I-there: Not in the way that we humans dream that there are. The difficulty is that these intelligences have abilities in the manipulation of energy that we cannot conceive of. And they use them without the restraints we put on ourselves. You may ask Talo. He is the only working nonhuman we have with us.

From page 191:

Robert: This question of influences is troubling me.

Robert's I-there: You need not be troubled. You have learned control of enough of your receptors to manage. If your receptors were not in phase, the influences would not be received.

Robert: Thinking positively helps, does it?

Robert's I-there: Partly. Deliberately ignoring the input helps more. Every life-time we have is full of such influences.

From page 193:

Robert: When will I be doing that? [Move on with his I-there]

Robert's I-there: As soon as you are clear of this concern about influences.

Regarding the above response, I have found that it has been a part of my spiritual path to learn that I don't need to be afraid of unfriendly entities.  JM Pardy had to find out the same (as written about in her book "Awakening to the Reconnection"). Perhaps each soul needs to reach the point where it understands that it can't be harmed by beings with negative intent, as long as it chooses a PUL-based way of existence.

A part of growing in such a way is allowing ourselves to be aware that negative entities with malicious intent do exist. Other wise, how could we confront them and find that we don't need to be afraid of them? Just discerning.

A part of being discerning is being ready to recognize when they appear, even if they show up at a place such as TMI. I don't mean to suggest that only unfriendly entities appear at TMI. I figure a lot of friendly entities also appear. Whatever the case, I figure a director of a place such as TMI needs to be aware of the possibility of unfriendly influences showing up. If such a director refuses to be aware of such a possibility, he might naively make the mistake of not taking whatever steps are necessary to deal with such influences.

I’ve dipped in and out of this conversation board for the last couple of years and this good/evil duality thing seems to periodically crop up with people seemingly falling into two camps; evil exists so avoid it and alternatively - that which may be labelled ‘evil’ simply represents a different perspective maybe very alien to our own.

The nature of evil has engaged philosophers for centuries and is a very interesting subject. I think the ‘perspective’ viewpoint has a lot to commend it as history tells us that one group of humans has routinely labelled another as evil; 1980s cold war rhetoric was full of it for example. Throughout history groups such as Jews, Catholics, Protestants, eccentric elderly women (witches) etc. have been routinely labelled as evil and hence persecuted ( indeed ironically sometimes for ‘their own good’ such as when protestants had their souls  ‘cleansed’ by the flames ! ). That is why I find it so hard to buy into the ‘ The Devil’s greatest trick is to convince us he does’nt exist ‘ argument because on the contrary humans have always seen his work everywhere and often persecuted on the basis of it !

From this it might seem that evil is a totally redundant concept but I think that that may be premature. The problem partly is that the word evil (like God) is such a loaded word in that it has so much history - making it emotionally laden.
But I think negativity exists in so far as there are barriers hampering us from going where we want to go. If we accept that growth (personal/spiritual) is the goal then logically some influences are going to promote that and some impede it. In everyday life we see this where a media preoccupied with criminality and negativity presses down on one’s  attempt to see the world as a place of hope and beauty; in this sense the media is ‘evil’ in that it impedes that objective.

Regarding goals, if my goal is to be a professional footballer eating junk food and spending all night in clubs is going to impede  just as a rigorous training programme is going to help me achieve my goal. Also I will get my coaching from a successful ex-pro rather than the Sunday morning hacker ! 

To my way of thinking it all comes down to who we think we are and where we want to go. So when Recoverer advises to be discerning as some influences will hinder you I agree as there are numerous examples of that in everyday life. But I think a key point to understand is that as we change and grow so will that which we decide to be a help/hindrance - hence ‘good’ and ‘evil’ is an evolving, changing concept not an absolute one. We are forever rooted in a perspective which is changing and growing which is where I agree with Beau. Something which we first assign ‘evil’ status may in the future change to ‘good’ status with the benefit of hindsight and a changed perspective.

Dave 

Albert, I think the suffering and the satisfaction is an illusion to create a better learning environment for the soul, or whatever. Without it this planet would be pretty useless to the mentalities that live on it right now. Experience of any kind is a teacher..."Good" and "Bad". It's not a choice between one and the other it is striking a balance of understanding each of them. My two cents.

   From what i've read and experienced in relation to TMI and Bob Monroe, neither were for the terms "good" or "evil", because of how loaded they are from our cultural conditioning. 

  So, they opted for words, labels, etc like negative and positive or constructive and nonconstructive, etc. 

  I can understand this, and also have this preference myself.  This does not mean that neither understood nor promoted the awareness of limiting forces whether they are internal or external. 

   Recoverer clearly showed that Monroe certainly did have some experience and knowledge of outside limiting forces, and in this case specifically E.T. origin.   Monroe was also told by his "I/there" that he didn't need to fear these at all, basically because he was aware and mature enough to be able to deal with these influences. 

  I would completely agree with Recoverer that one must first become aware of something, in order to be able to deal effectively with it.   

    To state the reality of something, is the not the same as fear mongering unless the one who is listening is apt to be fearful to begin with and wants or needs to take it that way.   Often what's happening with those that don't like or have a reaction to hearing such things, is because there IS already fear deep within (often more unconscious than not) of directly becoming aware of such influences.  Fear of the unknown, fear of potential loss of control, fear of influence, etc.  Perhaps even the fear of the awareness that they are already being influenced to some degree.

  In any case, to me, it's all a lot more simple than what a lot of people are saying here. 

  Like attracts and begets like, and part of what that means to me is that the closer you resonate to and with PUL Consciousness, the less you will be influenced by limiting forces be they E.T., fellow humans, or what not. 

  However, because all is connected, we do influence one another to varying degrees.  That is also important to recognize, and it's important to recognize that some influence towards limitation or "non constructivness" and others influences towards freeing and greater awareness.  With most humans, we fluctuate moment by moment to some degree in our "output" of what quality of influence we are sending out.

   But again, there is a solution, and that is attunement to PUL.  If one looks closely at the example of PUL personification in the Earth in a physical human, you will see a person who occasionally "warned" others of limiting influences (or of challenging times to come), but he always stressed the solution--PUL. 

  He did this both by preaching (or proselytising if you prefer ;) , and mostly by pure example in his day to day, moment to moment interactions. 

  Monroe though a spiritually mature and somewhat unusually aware man, well he did not hold a candle to the above man as far as attunement to PUL is concerned.   He was not PUL incarnate, and therefore had limited perceptions, understanding, beliefs, etc.  As Monroe's "Ultimate Journey" friends referred to him, he was not yet "complete" and was still "small". 

  Therefore, i do not automatically believe everything that Monroe taught and exampled, though i respect him greatly in many ways and in many areas.

  However, i do completely trust those who emanate what i perceive as the pure White Light, for they are PUL incarnate and have expanded their perception to include all awareness of their Oneness. 

  These, not surprisingly, teach me differently than what some members of this forum do.  They have helped me to become aware of limiting influences, and sometimes i feel nudged to speak about these awareness's.

  I did not have much interest in limiting influences to begin with, and at one point, though somewhat briefly, i held pretty "nondualistic" beliefs and perceptions, and thought it was limiting to think or perceive in terms of constructive and non constructive, because after all isn't it all One.  I spent a bit of time in this over right brain, nice haze, before i re-balanced myself.

  Well, if Monroe taught me anything, it was to equally value the right AND left brain hemispheres and their different values, perceptions, etc.  More so, taught that the balance and merging of these was what is most helpful. 

If one comes from a predominantly "right brain hemisphere" perspective, then one might say, "It's all One, there is no positive and negative".

   The left brain says hey wait a moment, yes there is relatively less or more positive and negative, and it's important to recognise the difference, and choose to attune to the positive.

  The left brain merged with the right brain or vice versa says a combined story, "let's focus on Oneness and the means to same, PUL, while recognising that there is constructive and non constructive and choose constructively in order to grow and mature in PUL, which IS constructivism in action.    Once we do this enough, then do we become truly and fully aware of the Oneness and the illusions fall away..." 

  So again, i'm not advocating fear, and don't, but simply awareness.  Awareness of an issue can help one to deal with it more effectively.  It's up to YOU reader to either apply relative PUL or relative fear to the awareness. 

  p.s., i believe it's quite possible that the message i received about Rademacher relates to something Recoverer said, maybe Rademacher is relatively naive to the fact that there are non constructive influences involved with TMI to some extent.   More specifically of E.T. origin, but i'm also open to corrupt U.S. government type influence as well or perhaps "shadow government" would be a more apt term since it's more global in it's implications.



   

   

Beau wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 7:44am:

Albert, I think the suffering and the satisfaction is an illusion to create a better learning environment for the soul, or whatever. Without it this planet would be pretty useless to the mentalities that live on it right now. Experience of any kind is a teacher..."Good" and "Bad". It's not a choice between one and the other it is striking a balance of understanding each of them. My two cents.

  What about stuckness and retrieval?  If it's all the same or equal and just a learning experience, why even bother with the retrieval process to begin with?

  What's the point, after all we all are just "learning", and no experience etc. is better or worse than another, right?

   Should we then just stuff suffering under the rug?  Maybe it doesn't really exist? 

  Have you ever asked yourself why we needed this kind of school of intense polarity and contrast to begin with, and what exactly is the point?

  Maybe the driving point of such a learning environment is to learn both the difference and the necessity of choosing to be and live constructively?   

Maybe PUL is constructiveness in action?   

Well a big part of PUL is compassion and a big part of compassion is wanting to help alleviate suffering, because in a very real sense, if one is truly mature and aware, one knows that when others suffer, self is still suffering and cannot be completely content or satisfied until all Consciousnesses are happy.

   

Hi Justin,

I do find Constructive/Deconstructive a better way to describe and maybe it is the same thing as good and bad but I don't think so. I don't think Deconstructive is Destructive. I think they Con and Decon are both necessary to move forward. If I "Stuff suffering under a rug" it can still be a constructive experience ultimately because from that I will learn a lesson. I have empathy and sometimes even sympathy for the plight of others and I try to do what my Higher Self asks or goads me into doing at a given time, but if I ignore that and follow my ego instead I am still learning a lesson that will make me stronger in the long run.

Beau wrote on Jun 27^th, 2011 at 6:13am:

Hi Justin, I do find Constructive/Deconstructive a better way to describe and maybe it is the same thing as good and bad but I don't think so. I don't think Deconstructive is Destructive. I think they Con and Decon are both necessary to move forward. If I "Stuff suffering under a rug" it can still be a constructive experience ultimately because from that I will learn a lesson. I have empathy and sometimes even sympathy for the plight of others and I try to do what my Higher Self asks or goads me into doing at a given time, but if I ignore that and follow my ego instead I am still learning a lesson that will make me stronger in the long run.

     I might put it a bit differently.  We may all end up in the same state eventually but i disagree with the "stronger" part.  I think one may just be delaying one's original "job" and destiny (birth right) of being a full Co-Creator with Source. 

   To me, there isn't much point and benefit in delaying this process.  Maybe there is something to be gained by getting temporarily stuck and distracted, to learn of polarity etc, but really one doesn't need that much experience in stuckness to realize how pleasurable choosing Sourceness is..  Really, one physical lifetime as a human in a collectively stuck cycle can teach one about polarity and contrast enough.

  Because the catch 22 is, and this is one of the reasons why "Freewill" is a bit of a misnomer, is that when we choose non constructively, we suffer and contribute to the suffering of the whole. 

  When we choose constructively, we eventually become more joyous and at peace.  We begin to experience true "health" which is a radiant state of being.

  Maybe i'm a simpleton, and assume too much about others, but why would i not want to be happy and at peace, why wouldn't anyone not want to be happy and at peace, surely it is preferable to being miserable and often dissatisfied?   So many people i meet just feel so unhappy and run down, and it makes me feel sad when i feel that.

   So while i agree that it's fine to make mistakes, and eventually we all or most find that state of happiness we all search for, i just don't see much benefit in keeping stuck and learning the hard way, because after awhile making mistakes and choosing the limited way just becomes really inane or tiresome.  We only need to choose non constructively enough to realize what it gets us--unhappiness.

  Maybe those vaunted "graduates" and near graduates are just those who just get sick of the distractions and inanity  (or insanity) of being stuck in an endless loop, and realize that they can step off the hamster wheel and choose a much more fulfilling way, and then make a habit of that (choosing (constructively)?

  Maybe it has a lot to do with shifting one's priorities and realizing that we don't have to be unhappy, dissatisfied, miserable, etc?

I call it entertainment. I believe it is a valid reason for being here. Evolution comes in many packages, not just the holy ones. And Justin, I'm not talking about learning the hard way. I'm talking about how one actually learns. One being me of course. I can't speak for anyone else.

Beau-

one man who would agree with you that all experiences are valuable would be the psychiatrist Victor Frankl. His book, 'Man's Search for Meaning" is the most inspirational I have ever read. In it he describes his experiences as an Austrian Jew at Theresienstadt and Auschwitz concentration camps where nearly his whole family were murdered by the Nazis. I cannot imagine any cicumstances worse than this but he managed to find meaning in his suffering; indeed he went on to base his 'logotherapy' on the result of his experiences.

From his book:

"... We stumbled on in the darkness, over big stones and through large puddles, along the one road leading from the camp. The accompanying guards kept shouting at us and driving us with the butts of their rifles. Anyone with very sore feet supported himself on his neighbor's arm. Hardly a word was spoken; the icy wind did not encourage talk. Hiding his mouth behind his upturned collar, the man marching next to me whispered suddenly: "If our wives could see us now! I do hope they are better off in their camps and don't know what is happening to us."
That brought thoughts of my own wife to mind. And as we stumbled on for miles, slipping on icy spots, supporting each other time and again, dragging one another up and onward, nothing was said, but we both knew: each of us was thinking of his wife. Occasionally I looked at the sky, where the stars were fading and the pink light of the morning was beginning to spread behind a dark bank of clouds. But my mind clung to my wife's image, imagining it with an uncanny acuteness. I heard her answering me, saw her smile, her frank and encouraging look. Real or not, her look was then more luminous than the sun which was beginning to rise.

A thought transfixed me: for the first time in my life I saw the truth as it is set into song by so many poets, proclaimed as the final wisdom by so many thinkers. The truth -- that love is the ultimate and the highest goal to which man can aspire. Then I grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and belief have to impart: The salvation of man is through love and in love. I understood how a man who has nothing left in this world still may know bliss, be it only for a brief moment, in the contemplation of his beloved. In a position of utter desolation, when man cannot express himself in positive action, when his only achievement may consist in enduring his sufferings in the right way—an honorable way—in such a position man can, through loving contemplation of the image he carries of his beloved, achieve fulfillment. For the first time in my life I was able to understand the meaning of the words, "The angels are lost in perpetual contemplation of an infinite glory...."

Thank you Dave, for reminding me of Frankl. I have been meaning to read him and now I will for sure. Onward and upward! or downward it that's your thing, you know.  :D

My feeling is that there is no way a person (or spirit) would choose a negative way of being over a loving way of being if he knew the difference.

I couldn't stand being a person (or being) who for self-serving reasons hurts others.

My feeling is that in order for the creative process to have the freedom it needs in order to work, the possibility of unwanted consequences had to be allowed. Sometimes such consequences are not wanted at all, even if eventually somewhere "long" down the road things work out.

Consider what Bruce Moen said about souls who jump around from one lower realm to another. He wrote that when a soul is in realm where it can be helped but for some reason it back tracks and ends up in a lower realm again, the light beings who tried to help it cry.

Bruce also wrote that some souls get so locked up in their inability to open up to PUL that they can't find their way back to the light.

Going by the spirit work I do, there are spirits who need help. Some need a lot of help. It isn't a matter of disrespecting their free will. It is a matter of realizing that the creative process can go so astray at times that some souls require help.

If Bruce is right and some souls lose their existence, this is no small thing. It is absolutely horrid! If a being with malicious intent makes it so some souls lose their existence or get stuck for a very long time, then perhaps the word "evil" applies to such a being even if it is inately divine. I figure such a being also needs help.

I believe this is an area where some channeled sources mislead people. They get people to minimalize how serious things can be. Just because something sounds hip, this doesn't mean that it is true.

Albert,

You are mistaken is assuming that I am talking about a negative experience. I am saying that ANY experience is ultimately positive. I know you don't agree.

Beau wrote on Jun 28^th, 2011 at 1:33pm:

Albert, You are mistaken is assuming that I am talking about a negative experience. I am saying that ANY experience is ultimately positive. I know you don't agree.

  Maybe the above is generally true, but not absolutely true?

  Recoverer earlier wrote about some of Bruce's experiences and i will quote these again. 


Quote:

Consider what Bruce Moen said about souls who jump around from one lower realm to another. He wrote that when a soul is in realm where it can be helped but for some reason it back tracks and ends up in a lower realm again, the light beings who tried to help it cry. If Bruce is right and some souls lose their existence, this is no small thing. It is absolutely horrid!

If the above is true, i fail to see the "ultimately positive" part of such developments. 

  I'm generally not comfortable with absolutes and absolute statements.  Perhaps the only absolute i am aware of is PUL.  Most everything else seems relative to some degree or another.  But i would say that generally most experiences work out for the ultimately positive.

That's pretty much what I am saying, Justin yes. Who am I to judge another's experience as negative to them. It is relative. Those folks who may get obliterated may in fact be entities that aren't moving in any direction. A bump on a log...but I'm not so sure I buy that one anyway. Its reassuring perhaps to someone who feels that all spiritual evolving is relative to what they feel is right, but not really very practical in within the idea that the energy cannot be destroyed. Erased or Scrubbed...perhaps. Tom Campbell talks about that, but like I say I think I'll withhold my judgement until its my turn to be obliterated.

I must admit I found that concept to be the most troubling/puzzling of all Bruce's writings, and to me at least it did'nt 'feel' right because I did'nt understand how a concept outside of time (soul) could be 'time limited'. Netherless the strength of Bruce's approach is that he never asks us to take his word for anything and this idea is no different.

However, I would say that anyone concerned enough about their spiritual evolution to be on this site falls outside the category of 'hopeless cases' !

heisenberg69 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2011 at 3:26am:

... I found that concept to be the most troubling/puzzling of all Bruce's writings, and to me at least it did'nt 'feel' right because I did'nt understand how a concept outside of time (soul) could be 'time limited'.

Which page numbers is this on? Or could you explain what you mean, as I don't understand you.

As a response kind of to Heisenberg's post I would like to present something I posted a while back which is how I view Lucifer. I know others take issue, but if we are going to use the metaphor I'd like to clarify where I stand. Some of this was written when I was rather manic so I hope you can excuse the things that seem so far out there that they are not comprehensible. By that I don't mean that you can't understand me. I just mean that when I am out there I tend to lose most people. I don't think that makes my points here any less valid though. Not trying to offend, just clarify.

Lucifer’s Confession
A poem by Beau

I tried to do my best by you. To bring you up to see the good and the bad as a duality that does not really exist. My name is Lucifer (Lose the fear) and I work for you. You wanted a world where you could have free will. There is no free will without temptation. I am the king of temptation. I can tempt you to do anything. But YOU HAVE free will.

There was no war in Heaven. That was just a story line to make this whole duality thing easier for you to buy into. I’m not your God, you are. Look at the word “church” see A shh you are SEE A, shh. It’s all in the pronunciation. And it’s not pronounced shun where I come from. It’s pronounced Shine P are on you see i a SHINE. This is not only your fault. It’s mine too. I played too rough sometimes because I know its just an act. You are a character, but you are also an actor and the actor in you knows the truth. We are ONE. ouiRone is how we write it where I come from. O U I, but the capital I is plural only the little i represents the character you play here. You are so much more than your body. You are the light of all the Heavens. You are all light bearers. My name is Lucifer (lose the fear, get it?). That’s the only reason I’m here. But I have found that some of you are so sure the joke is the truth that you are willing to cast me out of my own house. So be it. There is no place. Like home (OM) (L=love or Lois, i k=keep it simple stupid or Kiss, and e is energy, but a little e is physical energy. When I talk about energy I’m talking about E and that is everything including consciousness which is fundamental forever.

I want you to win this ...game. I want you to be with the rest of us. We live in Americle, not America. That is a mere icon for anyone who believes they can take land away from the poor Natives and settle it for themselves and then call themselves Christians. (Christ-shun is what you say every time the word leaves your lips, and don’t you see?...that’s the joke) I gotcha. You took a beautiful man’s words and branded them into a marketing utensil for control. You even put words in his mouth. Yes you did this. But you never killed him. I made sure of that. I am an angel after all. Jeez US, Yes you A, Ben Jesu (Hey Sue, sue who? me for putting you through this? As you all like to say, I was just following orders...Hey Zeus is more like it, but you don’t see what’s going on. You tie your selves up in little knots and think you know something, but you lost the game, but this game is over for me. I will leave you to your own devices and we’ll see if the Savior whose name you kill in the sake of will come for you. The elect is 144 thous and I. Not 144,000. That’s a joke too. But the good news is as an actor you play many more characters at once than you realize (real eyes). Yes your eyes are real on the inside. You don’t have to be a Pinocchio. Love everyone as much as you love your God, for that is the only way to love your God.

So there it is. I’m done. I was just here to help you lose your fear, but killing the innocent is not brave it’s insipid and it breaks the Golden Rule. The only one given to you in this life. There is no law that can bind you, but many have tried to do God’s work for him/her/shem/by making laws to protect themselves. Do the birds and the squirrels have laws? No and are you better than they are ...no. You are not better or even more advanced. You are animals and only a few people (peephole) deserve to see the other side of Glory. Are you one? R U N? Are you in on it? Were you playing me? Am I in some kind of E R because I lost my way. Well Amazing Grace has found me and I am not your enemy. I return now to my place which is really no place at all, but it sure looks good from here. Lose the fear. Ultimately we all shine on! Merry Christmas.

heisenberg69 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2011 at 3:26am:

I must admit I found that concept to be the most troubling/puzzling of all Bruce's writings, and to me at least it did'nt 'feel' right because I did'nt understand how a concept outside of time (soul) could be 'time limited'. Netherless the strength of Bruce's approach is that he never asks us to take his word for anything and this idea is no different. However, I would say that anyone concerned enough about their spiritual evolution to be on this site falls outside the category of 'hopeless cases' !

  Hi Dave,

I can understand your concern and non-comfort with such a concept. 

   I would just point out that Bruce Moen isn't the only high level source to describe such an experience. 

  Two other sources that i know of, also mention the potential for this occurrence.  I believe Tom Campbell also touches on it, as well as the Guidance that came through Edgar Cayce.

  This doesn't mean that it's definitely true, but does mean the concept is worth exploring for self within. 

  Cayce's guidance went one step above the other two when talking about this concept, and linked astrological concepts/symbols to it as well. 

   They seemed to indicate that the Planet Saturn could symbolize such a "wiping out", true death type experience.   So, if a person came in with Saturn as the primary and most highlighted indication in their chart, then it could symbolize that their Greater self had recently experienced one of two things.   One of those experiences that Bruce talks about wherein a self or aspect of the Greater self disintegrated or possibly one of those cases of rare "direct incarnation" of a self. 

  I have experience with the latter.  I had a very involved and vivid dream wherein i was at the "akashic library" and was seeing two other selves or aspects of my G.S. and two of us watched a very realistic 3D movie that came from a "book" of another of our more "past" selves. (as we watched this unfold, we became part of the drama and knew we were also this other self). 

    Quite interestingly, many years later i had a powerful verification of this dream and information with a woman i had met, whose other self was in that dream.   She had a psychic reading many, many years before i met her, and the info matched up to the info in the dream that i had a decade or so before meeting her.  Some very specific stuff.

  Anyways, i become aware that this other self of mine wasn't the nicest guy around... in fact, he was one of slowest vibratory personalities in my "Disk".   

Apparently when he died, i imagine he may have spent some time either being stuck and/or in one of the "hells", but in any case at some point he realized the mistakes in that life, and apparently really wanted a "do over".   Our Disk agreed, and other forces agreed. 

    So, he incarnated again under uncannily similar life patterns under very similar circumstances.  In a sense, his immediate memory and existence was "wiped" when he did this and it was a "beginning again" for him in that other physical life.  The previous info of his previous life was of course stored in the greater/Disk self, but until he merged again with that level of self, it all seemed "lost". 

   I'm aware that when he did this "do over" at another physical life, he came in with Saturn particularly highlighted in his chart in that life. 

  So according to both Cayce's guidance and my own experience, Saturn can symbolize both kinds of "loss of self".   The more permanent kind that Bruce describes and Cayce describes, and the more "do over" kind that Cayce and my own guidance describes, which is related to those rare direct reincarnation cases. 

  Interesting stuff either way.

 

Hi PauliEffectt,

I was referring to information that Bruce recieved in 'Voyage to Curiosity's father' (I think) which suggested that souls which become completely disconnected from PUL, can in some cases, experince true death or annihilation.This idea jarred with me.

Beau and Justin-

interesting answers I shall keep an open mind !

Dave

  I think i figured out this message finally.  It's interesting how many the messages i've received, tend to get verified in a precognitive way.  Seems to be my guidances specialty with me. 

  It seems to be more about T.C. overall, which is probably why the initial visual matched up with him more so.  Here is the confluence of events and experiences which partially verified this for me. 

    I made my way over to Tom's forum, spent some time reading his forum, his books, etc.  Most of what he says "resonates" intuitively with me (for most to do so, is a bit rare and unusual for me), and much of it is stuff that i've come to know and intuit anyways.   More often than not, i spoke positively about Tom and his work, but in a non pedestal way.

    Unbeknownst to a friend was the fact that i had recently checked out Tom's forum.  My friend shared that they had seemed to receive a message for me relating to T.C. (this was before he knew i had checked out the forum).   The message seemed to be about asking me to warn or make T.C. aware of something, and that something seemed to relate to the original message i received when it indicated there was some nativity to negative forces.  Apparently i and this whole situation was somewhat chosen to help facilitate some awareness for T.C.

   When i first received the message i wrote about in this thread and didn't know if it was more about Rademacher or T.C., i originally was thinking more "conspiracy" type stuff like shadow government or maybe something like the Reptilian E.T. group when it came to the mention of "negative forces". 

   Turned out to be more mundane overall, and a bit multi leveled. 

   Anyways, soon after i joined Tom's forum, i was booted for having the audacity to both agree and disagree with Tom's perceptions and viewpoints (that and i had a really hard time only discussing just MBT and what Toms says) .  Actually, the agree part wasn't the problem, it was the disagree and having a difference of opinion and stating that openly. 

   It didn't matter how much, how often, or how sincerely i stated i respected and largely resonated with Tom and his work, and that we were in total agreement on the fundamentals, etc, but some of the regular posters had a deep need to make the focus about me and not about the information i was trying to discuss.  It became about how super egotistical (translate to rather "high entropy" which in their speak is quite the negative put down), fake, negative, etc. etc. i was.   

  I tried to point out deeper truths, like while his book is a good reference base, it was ultimately more important for people to go within and either have their own experiences or communication with guidance to get info rather than being so totally focused on what Tom says, and i pointed out that Tom was human and could and has made errors of judgment, perception, and the like.

  One big one i pointed out was his words on "Seth", having said things like Seth is one of the Teachers that tries to enlighten humanity. 

  I pointed out that clearly Tom's discrimination was lacking in this area because of Seth's twisting, undermining, and minimizing of the life and example of the most love attuned Teacher to yet come into the Earth--Yeshua. 

  I pointed out that if one had experience with really low entropy consciousnesses and higher level guidance, one would understand that they all universally respect, admire, and recognize the life, example, teachings, crucifixion and resurrection of Yeshua.   

  Clearly, "Seth" is not so aware or intune spiritually, as this is a huge red flag for those with eyes to see and hears to hear.  It is only higher entropy nonphysical consciousnesses which have a need to and which  disparage, minimize or twist info relating to this Teacher of teachers. 

  Hence, one case of being "naive to negative forces", in this case Seth.   The other is his own choice of a moderator, who became very belligerent and personal with me, constantly demanding and threatening me with his power over my fate at this site.  Often he twisted what i said or didn't say, mis-characterized me and my motives, and generally just focused on putting me down in a very personal way and often with consistency and obvious anger and intolerance (mentioning things about how "annoyed" he was with posters like me).

   Clearly, his moderator is not as "low entropy" as Tom or the moderator may believe.  I knew where it all came from, it came from fear.  He is way too over attached to Tom, his work, and the group and i sparked all this defensiveness in him by sharing a more balanced view of Tom--that while he is a more mature human, he still isn't a "He/She" type, and in any case it's universally more effective for people to rely more on the within methods. 

   He has put Tom on a Guru pedestal, and if u don't conform like he does, there is no place for you there.  You must, like he, worship the ground that Tom walks on.  In being Tom's main interpreter, he looks for and gains self esteem through that connection and privilege.  Anyone that questions the Tom pedestal he has erected for him, is seen as a "threat" and must be eliminated.  These are classic cult and negative guru symptoms developing. 

  I'm hoping this case and example may open Tom's eyes up a bit on the extent to which the power has gone to this person's head and how he is actively trying to mold Tom and that group into a more Guru/worship group than i assume Tom would want.  I don't get the sense that Tom is about that, and as i mentioned many times on that forum i've gotten the sense that he is a higher level source (which is actually quite a compliment coming from me, because i haven't found many outer sources so far that i would call truly and more consistently higher level--so far it's a smallish group comprised of people like McKnight, Bruce Moen, Cayce, latter Monroe, etc). 

  Anyways, in light of these experiences and the events that unfolded, my friends message made more sense to me and filled in some of the blanks in relation to the message i had earlier received from guidance, which i hadn't really understood.  Actually, i didn't fully understand my friends message and how it related to mine, until some of these events unfolded and i had a more deeper insight into T.C. and his work (like his views on Seth or his choice of a moderator).   

   

  I probably should add that one can be unusually mature and aware (like i intuit T.C. to be), and still be naive to the shadow within others.  Often times when one is starting to attune to PUL more deeply and consistently, one starts to see and focus on the positive in others, and unless a person or consciousness is being extremely negative, it can be harder to see the shadow side.

  Personally i know, from knowing some of my Disk history, how this is very possible even if one is more mature and aware. 

  I had another self a long time ago who was unusually aware and mature.  Not fully a "He/She" type, but not far either.   Yet, people he cared for and respected plotted behind his back to get rid of him, and set up a very manipulative plan using what they knew of one of his few weaknesses to bring him down.  They didn't like his influence and say on things, and how this affected their lives.  He set into motion reforms which curbed their hedonistic, materialistically attached lifestyles.  They began to resent and really dislike him.

The plan ended up working as they hoped, and he ended up getting banished from the country he had served mostly well for a long time. 

     Guidance pointed out that he should have been more aware and tuned into the shadow side of others then, and if he had been, he wouldn't have been manipulated in the way that he had.  He didn't see clearly enough.

  He was specifically said to be "One who trusted all" and interestingly enough, this was pointed out as a weakness of his. 

  I came into this life with a similar nativity (our energies and lifetimes are very intertwined, and i have followed many similar patterns as he experienced), but had enough experiences with the shadow side of others to learn to take note of these potentials. 

  But yes, sometimes when we become more loving, or are just good hearted people, we tend to be naive to others, especially to those we have personal connections with (some may be past life, or from the nonphysical, etc).   Even if we are more psychically sensitive, aware, wise, etc. than not.   This other self of mine was VERY psychically aware (much more than i am so far), and he still got fooled.

  What i am really trying to say is that i'm not trying to put down T.C. with any of this, and that i deeply, personally know how such things can happen and that i recognize he is a more aware, mature, psychically sensitive person than the average.