This board more than any other I belong to seems to find it necessary to condemn certain sources. I know its not everyone, but I think its a shame. There is a great deal to be learned from finding what works in a source even if it doesn't meet with the approval of someone else on the board. What it really boils down to is a condemnation of what one person perceives of as a New Age source vs a biblical or what resonates with someone as if the only thing that is worthwhile is what resonates with a particular individual.

I find that being able to make my own mistakes helps me grow much faster than following someone else's advice in this particular realm. If I find good material to consider in Tolle or Robert Bruce (I have only read one of his books) or ACIM (not that I find much here anymore, but for a few years I found a lot and it lead me other places that have been beneficial) Seth (Some good stuff, but I usually only read it on the toilet, so I don't know what that says) and truth be known I have found many things in the bible that have helped me to, as Tom Campbell says, lower my entropy towards love.

I don't condemn anyone's source even though it may not work for me or I get the feeling that it is BS. We are not all on the same path even though we may be headed toward similar destinations. If I have seemed harsh in any of my posts defending the right to choose freely and without restraint from judgment by others it was not my intent.

I think it is fine to say you don't agree with certain choices...which is what I'm doing now, I suppose...BUT going after the validity a source based on our own prejudices thus attempting to deny another poster's effort toward their choice does get under my skin. It happens a lot here. I think it sabotages the journey of others. I have fallen prey to it on occasion and if I was new here I'd probably just keep on surfing to a more open minded board. Sometimes here it borders on bullying. It does not come off as an opinion anymore when that happens. Its more like defending an idea that isn't even relative to the discussion once a source has been mentioned it a thread the whole thread turns into defense and condemnation of the source rather than a discussion of the source itself.

So I just thought I would speak up about it as it was on my mind this morning. After reading thru the Robert Bruce thread again I thought I'd add my thoughts, not on him, but on the general "policy" that seems to come about from attempting to discuss a source found to be beneficial.

I must say S- that certainly we are all bound to butt heads on occasion. I was just expressing a concern that would hopefully help us hang on to posters who are not crazy about some the chiding and loftier "be carefuls" that come from posts that seem to imply a knowledge greater someone else's. I find it rather tiresome as you can see from my post. But certainly all your points are well taken. I don't think however that there is a "wrong". I believe that any action taken is ultimately leading in the right direction. Ultimately of course it can take lots of time, but it's kind of like me and my girlfriend when we are going on a trip. She will insist on taking the longest possible means of arriving somewhere and I mean she always does this. While I try to find the quickest route. We both get there, but either one of us can get lost for a bit, but we learn from the experience, you know?.

  If my car needed some work done on it which at the time was beyond me, and I didn't know a good mechanic and was looking around for one...  I personally would hope that others
that i talked to and asked would share both the positive and critical/not so great experiences they had in helping me find out a decent mechanic. 

  Otherwise, if people shared only their positive opinions and experiences, then i just might end up getting swindled or mislead by a not so helpful mechanic.  Maybe that would teach me an important lesson in the long run, or maybe it was just a waste of time.  I guess that depends on the individual case and individual, but i would still hope others would share both their positive and their not so positive opinions and experiences.

  So this world goes.  Personally, it is my hope that more people would choose to consciously and directly hook up to higher guidance energies under ideal circumstances and go more within, and in being led that way they will figure out more directly and truthfully which outer sources are most beneficial or not.  For some reason, many do not seem to choose to do so when it comes to outer sources.  They let primarily their intellect lead them.  For me, this is self evident when i look at the state of the world and of most of the people in it.

  Some do do this and report back what they find. both positive/helpful and the non helpful, and then they are in a personal manner criticised and belittled for it even when they do not personally attack anyone they are speaking to, and speak out of a concern for others.  Notice how some talked to and treated Albert and I on the Robert Bruce thread.  Notice how we talked to them even though.

  There are sources that are more or less "b.s." out there, but are otherwise pretty much harmless.  I rarely ever comment on these kinds of sources.  Some are so ridiculous that most can and will see through them.  For me, it's a discrimination of numbers game.

There are sources out there which are b.s. and which block or hinder certain important realisations, which distract, or mislead about important info, and these i occasionally speak on.  Some of these sources have A LOT of adherents. 

  Listen or don't listen.  But realise this about this world and how things operate, and you can see this by looking at politics but also applies to spiritual sources.  (speaking of which, notice how the U.S. President Obama isn't turning out to be for the change he promoted about himself?  Yet again, we got hoodwinked about another deceptive/self serving outer source)

  In a world wherein the majority of people are internally unbalanced, not so attuned to PUUL, and generally finding their way around in the dark, e.g. more stuck than not, then most outer sources out there that are most listened to will not be the most spiritually helpful ones because like attracts, begets, and likes like.

  It is constantly circling cycle of stuckness here.  What we need are methods, techniques, and the simple awareness that we need to get beyond ourselves a bit in order to find, be attracted to, discriminate from the spiritually unhelpful sources the most spiritually helpful sources (most of which can be found within more than without).  That our intellects will not tend to lead us to these most helpful sources if we are not already powerfully attuned to PUUL ourselves. 

  Course, many don't like hearing this, especially if they are insecure.  Usually it's the truth that hurts the most though.  The good news though is that anybody with enough desire and true intention, can with the right awareness of how things work, find ways of hooking up to those most helpful guidance energies to have help in this whole discrimination process.

  The two most helpful i know is Bruce's remembering love method (though i personally like to universalise it after i bring up the feeling of it), and specifically stating or asking something like this during meditation or prayer, "I deeply desire to attune to the most Source (or PUUL if you don't believe in Source) attuned consciousnesses and energies, and deeply desire and ask for ONLY the help, guidance of such sources"

  These are some ways and methods of helping ourselves get past ourselves and the natural like attracts and begets like reaction that happens.  Since i personally realised some of the issues in the above, and started practising some of these methods, it has helped expand my awareness.  It's partly a humitly thing when you realize you don't necessarily know what's best for you and so you ask to be led by sources (from within!) which are far more aware and expanded than self in this moment.  You just simply have to ask and really want the involvement of such sources, and again attuning to feelings of love, gratitude, etc. all help out in the process.

Albert (aka "Recoverer")

I've peeked back into this site after many months, having been driven away by the your harsh & unrelenting judgments of my practice of Buddhism...    

and still I find you playing the role of "Spiritual Cop"!!!

WTF ????

Albert...everybody has to accept Jesus by your law-book...right?

Otherwise they're following a false path by your thought?

Who here asked or accepted you as their Savior?

(Anybody here ask Albert to save them?)

No?

Then..... shhhhh (stfup)

Sometimes I think you would be better off on an on-line dating site, instead of spending so much time  here at this site. This is just talking about ideas.
You need something more then didling away at a computer screen.

(Don't think about it)

The real point of life ( while you are living )
is to be in relationship.

Tim F.

Oh Boy

Freedom of Religion meets Freedom of Speech

= War

______________

The attempts to point out the flaws do not sound like or feel like warnings. They don't even feel like open discussions of the topic that serve to maybe warn of a bad mechanic.

Quote:


The "warnings" feel like being shamed.

______________

There used to be more of a variety of people who posted here. Some had experiences beyond what I had and some had ideas or beliefs different from mine. But it was good that they felt safe to post here. But then people would come on and make posts that perhaps they believed were warnings or at least were counter arguments. A bunch of folks who used to post here just left.( Maybe Tim was one of them? Hi Tim. Welcome back?)

Even now I hear about people not posting things here because they are afraid of being subjected to the ridicule that can pass as ..."warning".

And maybe there is time and space to make strong arguments for or against certain things.

But this board was supposed to be a place where people can talk about experiences they have beyond C1, shall we say. Now, are those things you can go into YOUR workplace and freely discuss? Hey, I work in a hospital, people come here all the time to die. But nobody seems to be walking around talking about the conversation they just had with so-and-so, who passed over yesterday...Would they end up on the psyche ward if they did? Well no it isn't that repressed.

So some of the topics that may come up may not directly have to do with conversations with the afterlife, but they fall into a realm outside of conventional topics. But we've established that this is a safe place to talk about the afterlife, so why shouldn't that safety be extended to other non conventional topics?

It is a good point, S-, about censorship. Certainly I would never propose such a thing anywhere though I can see how my comments might suggest that idea at times. I don't  have a problem with what anyone writes so much as how they write it. If someone writes as if they are an authority on a subjective subject such as the afterlife it is tiresome I feel. Lucy's point about shaming people is well taken and there are a few who use words like this as if they know something beyond the scope of the others. We all start on this journey from somewhere and if guidance is asked for it will be given in one form or another. I have a tendency to steer clear of guidance that has a Christian flavor to it because I think anyone who is dabbling in it isn't on the path that I'm on. They are going in a very different direction and thinking themselves further evolved than those around them. I'm not saying this is true for all Christians, but self righteous condemnation of anything outside of their sphere of experience or understanding always means the result if not holy to their eyes gets the Kai-Bosh. Of course that is ultimately true of any religion. When people start shaming each other on here I am immediately reminded of my Grandmother who believed that her guidance was IT and poo pooed everyone else's ideas because they didn't match her conception. What ultimately happened is she was spiritually abandoned by her entire family as they understood what was happening with her. Her mind was closed to all things not Hell, Fire and Brimstone...until one day she realized she had nothing to show for her "holier than thou" attitude and began to, at least outwardly, take new stock of the situation.

Most people I would imagine come here to talk about where Bruce's books have lead them and where they would like to go, but I see no evidence of Bruce saying  Jesus is lord in his books or Jesus will always save you. He mentions Jesus a couple of times and basically states that those who find comfort there will have it if they ask for it, but it is still a belief system. The mission it seems to me is to evolve past fears to love, but if I call on Jesus to save me then I have given up my challenge and I wind up in a hollow heaven. I seem to recall Bruce implying that it might not be a hollow heaven, but I'm not sure I ever understood how it couldn't be one if I conjured Jesus out of fear since Jesus is a metaphor in the first place (IMHO).

And just to address the Tom Campbell comment from up the thread a ways: Campbell speaks of these entities emanating from ourselves to test us and when we pass the test with no fear we are free to go on our merry way. He would I should think also say that belief in a Christ to pull your fat out of the fire is a belief system that ultimately will weaken your resolve as you continue to explore, because you depend on something like "magic" to get you by.

But enough of that, I'm not trying to argue a person's rights to their views in this thread. I was trying to open a discussion about censoring fellow posters with "shame" and condemnation of sources because they don't agree with someone else's Almighty guides. I don't think such attitude promotes any growth but merely squelches those who want to take part in the discussion. If some of us want to teach (and some, it appears fancy themselves teachers already) it is one thing, but to carry off a conversation into the bowels of "Be Careful", "how shameful" and "I know what I'm talking about and you are going to regret taking that path because my guide says so" is fruitless to me. And if I'm only speaking for myself then so be it.

I will also say this: There is no one on this board that I would not be thrilled to meet someday. I think we all get passionate on here about what we think ...or "know" and I bet we could still all find agreement in many areas of this diverse subject. I don't think anyone on here is a kook and I find merit in many things posted here. I figure even though the ridiculing will most likely not stop at least now there will be a thread that we can come to and blow off steam rather than infect every thread with the same mundane antics. My best to all of you.

Yours,
--beau

Beau wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 10:28am:


I find agreement with you on the authority issue because there are no authorities… a Monrovian confinds oneself to personal knowns… aware that they are personal knowns and each individual has to arrive existentially to their own personal knowns… that said it should be just be pro forma understood that this is the case and one writes with personal authority, readers should always be aware of that fact otherwise you are always qualifying yourself in text which is exceedingly tedious and not good literary expression.

S.

Beau,
"My best to all of you."

I've got a message from your granny: your best isn't good enough. Besides the dame aflame joke, it's subtle, but you're in the shame game too. Now I just blamed and shamed you, but there you go. Other than that, you've got some good thoughts and nicely worded.

DocM,
"I got the same feeling you did from Tim's post, and this surprised me because I know him to be a loving, gentle soul.  However, we are all human, and all have our ups and downs.  Our likes and dislikes.  The "stfu" comment has no place here, but it came out of true anger and honesty, so there it is."

Many are loving, gentle souls, and while not everybody sees their true identities as humans, there's more to one's self if one dares to take a look at the whole.

Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people, living in stfu.

DocM wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 10:34am:


Very well said Matthew, and re: the highlighted part i know this all too well.  I remember going through a particularly difficult cycle some years back, becoming very uncentered for a time, and it showing quite strongly and extremely here and unfortunately others suffered for it.  I've forgiven myself for this, but i won't ever completely forget. 

  It's because of experiences like these and the general human experience is why i don't personally judge someone when they say things from an uncentered space.  I don't see that as the sum of the person.  I've seen a lot of positive in Tim F. as well.

  But just because i don't personally judge Tim for saying what he said, doesn't mean that i won't point out that doing and saying such things is a limited way.

recoverer wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 1:00pm:


  Very good question Albert though i would make it more general.   

  I've seen Christianity bashed here a number of times.  It's probably the single most bashed belief system on here, and yet most of the good forum folk, the regular non Christian posters do not say anything about this.

  I've seen Doc/Matthew (a non Christian), and an occasional other poster stick up for principles sometimes.  But mostly otherwise silence.

  I don't tend to say much then either, because while i seem to get pigeon holed by some posters to being a "Christian" because i speak so highly about Yeshua sometimes, i actually don't identify with Christian religion and haven't ever in this life (this difference apparently is hard to get for some.) 

  I see plenty off with Christian belief systems and ways too.  Hence i tend to remain silent, since i would be a hypocrite since i sometimes speak critically about some other beliefs and sources.  I also remain silent because i know that some people have had such difficult childhood etc. experiences with Christianity in it's fundamentalist forms and i know that sometimes one needs to "vent" about such things. 

Seraphis asked: Isn't it possible to have well deserved criticism and expose and not be bashing...??



Recoverer responds: Yes it is.  Even when people speak about their reservations about people such as Robert Bruce. But some people become overly defensive just as a fundamentalist Christian would do.

Quote:


Is it possible to site the sources of the backpedaling and the original teaching and his reversal or inconsistency... I've only study bruce's work relative to obe's and I have found no inconsistency it that part of his body of work... perhaps you could make your case with more detail.

S,

  Hi Seraphis, i covered it enough in another thread.  We apparently have a difference of perspective and interpretation on what i was referring to.

Lucy wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 4:47am:


Hi Lucy: You have this exactly right. As we know ‘helpers’ can appear in any form they deem useful and communicative… these are all personal epiphanies and not transferable… one either believes the experiencer is telling the truth as they know it or choses not to believe it… but, we cannot argue anyone out of their personal realities… that IS a waste of time and energy…

S.

If a person wants to know whether it is possible to make contact with a particular spirit in a manner that is certain, then perhaps they should make an attempt to do so, rather than engaging in experience-lacking-intellectual activity.

If we set things up so we can never become certain, then we basically place ourselves within a psychological trap. Doing so reminds me or moral relativism. If we don't allow ourselves to see the difference between right and wrong, we won't do so.

Regarding what makes me certain about making contact with Jesus, first of all, years ago, I had what I refer to as my Night in Heaven experience. I was an atheist at the time. If somebody would've tried to tell me that the afterlife exists I would not had believed he or she. But then I had my experience, and it became crystal clear that the person of Jesus did in fact exist, and that in some way he represented divine reality (his spirit still does). There was nothing stodgy or repressive about this. It wasn't a matter of my engaging in some belief system because my way of understanding was at a deeper and far more certain level than we ordinarily understand. The funny thing is that eventhough I was open to this new way of understanding, I was still able to think in my old atheistic way. Therefore, I was able to compare my old way of understanding with my new way of understanding. I was quite surprised to find what I found out about Jesus and other things.

As significant as this experience was, I forgot about it for years, just as some near death experiencers forget what they experienced for a while. This doesn't mean that my experience lacked validity. When I remembered it was as if the experience happened yesterday. There are reasons for which it was necessary for me to forget it for a number of years.

At some point after I had made contact with my spirit guidance I started to receive hints about Jesus. For example, I did a retrievel one time and at some point the guy I was helping forgot about me and went to where Jesus was. Gold light radiated from Jesus and filled the entire scene I found myself within. When I took part in this retrievel I didn't have prior thoughts of Jesus.

On another occasion I received a three-part message about my awakened kundalini. First I was shown a life-size image of a heavy metal rocker dude. I could see kundalini flowing within him. He said I use my kundalini for evil. Next I was shown a life-size demonic image of myself. Next I was shown the face of Jesus Christ. I figured this series of messages meant that if I'm going to go through the kundalini ascension process I better make certain I do so with Christ consciousness/love in mind because kundalini (the creative aspect of being) can be used in just about anyway. In the above case Jesus' image could've been symbolic, but it also could've been a pointer to him, when later experiences are considered.

I reached a point in my life where I realized that I didn't actually know who Jesus is and what he is all about. I only had knowledge-lacking concepts about him. As I went for a walk one day I sent thoughts towards God and said, "I can't believe in Jesus in the way that some people do simply because a book speaks about him. If I believed in him for such a reason I would be dishonest with myself and with you (God)."

A few days after I stated the above and as I lay in bed one night I was shown a crucifix. I asked, "why" and was shown an armless and headless manikin that was placed on a department store floor. On this manikin was a white fur coat with black polka dots. I understood what this message meant quite quickly. "They killed him (Jesus), they spotted his reputation (the black polka dots on a "white" fur coat), they put him on display (like a manikin in a department store)." Next I experienced myself press the high C note of my piano (non-physically), which is a way of saying Jesus represents the highest consciousness level there is.

This sequence of images appeared in a manner for which it is hard to believe that nothing more than my imagination took place. For one thing, it didn't feel as if my imagination was responsible. Also, the symbolism was probably too clever for it to be the result of my imagination. Rather, because I was humble enough to realize that I didn't know what Jesus is about and because I was open to finding out what was true, I received an answer.

On another occasion I was meditating one night and feeling love, peace and expansiveness. Suddenly the image of Jesus appeared to me. He gave me a couple of messages and left. Because at the time I was trying to figure out what Jesus is about, I find it hard to believe that my spirit guidance would lead me astray by showing me an image that isn't representative of what's true. Because I was feeling love, peace and expansiveness when I had this experience, I doubt that some deceptive being found a way to enter the realm of my consciousness and show me an image of Jesus. The manner in which the exchange took place seemed to be beyond what my imagination could create. I did not have the intent to make contact with Jesus on this occasion.

One evening I read some of Elaine Pagel's book about Jesus. She wrote that the Gospel of Thomas speaks of Jesus as if he was an enlightened man, the Gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew as if he is the son of God, and the Gospel of John as if he is God himself. Before I went to sleep that night I prayed and asked to have a dream which let me know which gospel is accurate. In the middle of the night I woke up in order to write dream notes. I turned on my night lamp and grabbed my notepad and pen. Before I could write anything I saw a light flash. Before this experience I had seen spirits appear as flashes of light numerous times. But they were significantly smaller and didn't radiate as much energy and light as I saw on this occasion. The presence I experienced felt more real than this physical world. The existence of divinity couldn't be doubted. I forgot about writing my dream notes, put down my notepad and pen, turned off my night lamp and lay on my side. I was overcome by the spirit presence that visited me.

I didn't see an image of Jesus during this experience nor was I told this is who is visiting me, but it "felt" like it was his spirit. Plus, this seemed like a natural response to my prayer. This being worked on my energy for about 15 minutes in a way that was beyond what kundalini had ever done. Ever since, my upper chakras have been more alive, clear and balanced.

I've had other experiences where a spirit with the image of Jesus appeared to me, but I believe it should suffice to say what I've said. It is also important to state that during the same time period I remembered my Night in Heaven experience.

I've read of other people who have made contact with the spirit of Jesus in a way where it seems quite certain that this is what they did. For example, during his NDE David Oakford was led by a guide who introduced him to the spirit of Jesus. Therefore, it wasn't a matter of David erroneously assuming that the light being he met was Jesus. This is what he wrote:

"He talked about Jesus too. He told me Jesus was a master God sent to Earth to teach humans how to act toward each other and find their way back to the path of harmony with each other as well as with Gaia.
--I was told that Jesus is the being that is entrusted by God to ensure that souls evolve. He said that Jesus is of the highest in vibration than any other soul. He said that God holds Jesus in the highest of favor because he was the best example of what humans need to do. I then got to see Jesus. I saw his light. Jesus' light was the purest I have ever seen. There was no need for words. There were only love feelings that I cannot even begin to describe."

Here is the link to David's experience. Does it sound fundamentalist?

http://www.near-death.com/oakford.html

Regarding ACIM, I gave the course a good try for a while, despite some hints from my spirit guidance to be careful with it. Then I realized it was having a brainwashing effect on me. So I decided to be humble about the matter and realized that I wasn't able to discriminate it with certainty. So I prayed to God and Christ and asked them if the course comes from Christ. On every occasion I asked I was in some way told "no." Because I felt love, peace, expansiveness and divinity each time I asked this question, it seems reasonable to believe that a being who represents the light responded. This is especially so since my guidance has proven to be trustworthy.

Eventually I reached the point where I allowed myself to read ACIM with discernment, and despite some of the nicey things it says, it does have errors and is misleading. Whoever the words came from, they were delivered in such a clever way where unless a person uses keen discernment, he isn't likely to see how the course is misleading. This is especially so if a person lacks the openness to thoroughly question the course. I have found that some people become so psychologically and emotionally caught up in it that they lack the freedom of mind to question it in a thorough way. They would much rather throw rocks at a person such as myself. I have received several messages that stated that the course has a malevolent source.

Regarding Helen Schuchman, she was very anti-spirituality when she started to receive the words. She didn't want to continue to do so but the spirit who fed her the words forced her to receive them (it wouldn't allow her to sleep until she took notes). Also, William Thetford, a man who worked as a mind control specialist for the CIA, talked her into continuing to take notes. I find it hard to believe that the spirit of Christ would choose a lady with a strong distaste for spirituality to be his messenger. It also seems hard for me to believe that Jesus would select a lady who has a strong association with a CIA mind control specialist.

Helen Schuchman ended up in a dark, angry and depressive state of mind. She referred to ACIM as that damn course. I find it hard to believe that a lady who supposedly received messages from Jesus for years would end up in such a state. Going by my experience such contact has opposite results. My ability to open up to divine love has improved significantly.

recoverer wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 2:26pm:


Well as I see it this is a perfect example of achieving a PERSONAL known… but, one needs to realize that it is a personal known… and applies ONLY to yourself… the objection many have is when that personal known becomes a cause celebre to brow beat others into believing your way…

S.

recoverer wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 2:26pm:


Can you tells us who the malevolent sources are… it is easy to cast dispersion, but, can this be proven… some Christians believe that Obama is the antichrist, some believe Hitler was the antichrist… or Osama ben Laden… all pulled of the air and tacked on to whoever they dislike. And how many anti-christs are there. Glen Beck is screaming the sky is falling and the Middle east is in a conspiracy with the Bush family, communist (do they still exist) and islam all conspiring to create an Kalifate…) he pulls this all out of his puny brain… making it up as he goes… the facts on the ground are that the Arab League was pulled kicking and scream into the UN call for a no fly zone… in Libya… and when it happened the screamed that’s not what we wanted… is this the group that is going to create a central governing Kalifate when they can’t make up their minds whether to have a nofly zone…

S.

I don't believe that pointing out questionable things about some sources of information is the same thing as disrespecting somebody else's beliefs.

I believe that people should be free to find out for themselves, but this is a hard thing to do when there are many sources of information that will lead them astray. So many sources present themselves in a way where people end up getting brainwashed by them to varying degrees.







Volu wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 3:31pm:

Here is what recoverer left out of the Schucman reference:

When Schucman experienced some personal difficulties and hesitance after hearing the Voice, Bill Thetford, her work supervisor and friend, contacted Hugh Lynn Cayce (son of the celebrity psychic Edgar Cayce) at his Association for Research and Enlightenment in Virginia Beach, Virginia to seek his advice and counsel. Shucman later met with Cayce before she began to record the Course.
Kenneth Wapnick was a clinical psychologist who directed a school for disturbed children and served as chief psychologist at Harlem Valley State Hospital from 1967 through 1972. In 1972, Wapnick left his Jewish faith and converted to Catholicism so he could become a monk.[5] Fr. Benedict Groeschel, a priest and a member of the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin, who also had a doctorate in psychology, heard of Wapnick's conversion, which interested him, and so they met.[citation needed]
Groeschel, who studied under Thetford and worked with Schucman, arranged an introduction of Wapnick to Schucman and Thetford in November 1972.[citation needed] In 1973, Schucman and Thetford presented the third draft of the complete manuscript to Wapnick and Groeschel. Wapnick subsequently became a teacher of the Course, co-founder and president of the Foundation for A Course in Miracles (FACIM), and a director and executive committee member of the Foundation for Inner Peace (FIP). Groeschel was sharply critical (see Reception).
Wapnick reviewed the draft and discussed with Schucman further revisions that were needed to place the book in final form. Over the next thirteen months, Wapnick and Schucman edited the manuscript by rearranging necessitated by deleting personal material, changing chapter and section headings, and correcting various inconsistencies in paragraph structure, punctuation, and capitalization.[6] This editing process was completed in approximately February 1975.

S.

P.S.: This looks like just another New Age book written through the auspices of a 'non-physical' source... who did not explicitly identify itself but, others seemed to have ... identified it...

Seraphis1 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 3:45pm:


  I know you were addressing this to Albert, but since my experience was very similar to Albert's in the general, i will take it on. 

  I was initially very excited and enthusiastic about ACIM.  It was highly recommended to me by someone who at the time i thought was a closer friend to me.  I did not hesitate to spend the 20 or so dollars i spent on it years ago to buy it brand new. 

  I spent a lot of time reading it.  One odd thing that i noticed is that invariably i would become very sleepy reading it and so would have to put it down not long after.   

   While i thought this odd, i persisted.  In hindsight, i started noticing myself talking a lot about the big EGO word and concept.  I started to focus a lot more on ego in myself and others.  "Yup, that's ego talking" or "ego this, ego that".   Ego became number one enemy. 

  Then i had a vivid dream wherein i was climbing a tall strong, straight tree.  I came to a point on the tree where there was a large branch branching off.  This branch looked strong and sturdy to me, so i started to walk out onto the branch thinking that it would more than hold my weight. 

  Well i was mislead by how the branch looked, the branch snapped and i started to fall.  As soon as i awoke, i intuitively knew that this dream was symbolizing my involvement with ACIM.   Like Albert noticed and was told by his guidance, it actually makes ones "ego" bigger rather than reducing it. 

Here is how it works to do this. You have to understand princples of the subconscious mind, hypnotic suggestion, and other related phenomena.

A good hypnotherapist knows that to change a person's habits, you often have to reach deeper into their subconscious mind to make such changes.  The subconscious mind is receptive to any positive suggestion whether it be helpful/constructive or non constructive.

   What you need to do is simply to relax or bore the person's conscious mind enough so that some of that "chatter" subsides, and the receptive/passive subconscious mind comes to the fore. 

  Then you have to make a positive suggestion in terms of the present.  For example, if one is afraid of water, you don't give a suggestion like "you won't be afraid of water anymore."  That won't work effectively.  What would work is saying something like, "Every-time you enter water, you feel completely comfortable, relaxed, at peace, and in control." 

In other words, you don't tell the subconscious what you don't want ONLY what you do want.  If you give a positive suggestion of what you don't want, THAT is what will get programmed.  A suggestion has to be completely positively/ONE WAY directed.

  Ok, how does this related to ACIM.  ACIM is written in a somewhat unique way in that it's extremely repetitive.  It says the same things over and over in slightly different ways. 

In other words, it's specifically designed to lead one into a hypnotic/subconsciously receptive state by boring the conscious mind through constant repetition.   But that's not the problem in and of itself with ACIM.

It's the suggestions contained there within, which is the problem.   Go back to the above hypnosis examples i give of how to make constructive change to the subconscious. 

  ACIM speaks a lot about ego throughout the whole of the regular part of the course (not as much during the exercises).  Not only does it constantly mention ego, but it does so in a polarized-fighting-is an enemy of Love/Spirit/Oneness manner. 

  See the words it speaks on Love/Spirit/Oneness are all very true.  This part resonates with the deeper "Soul" aspects of a person as truth.   But half truths are worse than whole lies, for unlike whole lies, half truths can deceive even the Soul.

But what does it actually program?  It programs polarization.  Polarization leads to imbalance and leads to more ego expression. 

To really change or transform "ego" in self, you don't focus on that (especially not during a hypnotic state), but you focus on what will transform that within you.  That is attunement to Love, Oneness, givingness, patience, tolerance, etc. 

   If ACIM in it's hypnotic/suggestive ways spoke solely about the benefits and necessity of attuning to Love/Oneness/Spirit, it would be a great course, but it programs polarization instead.   Hence why Albert's guidance specifically told him one time, "drop it, it makes the ego bigger".  It just focuses too much on capital EGO.

   I believe this was all done on purpose, either as a public mind experiment of which the U.S. gov. (particularly the CIA) is known to have done a number of these via clandestine operations, or as the product of an ill intentioned nonphysical Consciousness trying to work through Helen. 


  Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, will understand what i'm saying. 

  And sorry to say, i may sound like i'm arrogant when saying this, but there are those who do have more discernment about these things than others, and such people have a responsibility to state their experiences and perceptions when it comes to such potentially misleading/brainwashing type sources. 
 

Seraphis1 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 4:07pm:



  Monroe was not involved in this except as to let some agents come down to TMI and train in his courses.  He and his staff said that they were usually pretty easy to spot despite that they were trying to be "under cover". 

  Monroe and McMoneagle btw, had a falling out for some years, which was only reconciled when Monroe was on his deathbed.  It states in his 2nd biography that he would not speak to either Nancy or Joe for a long time.

No one but they know what this falling out was truly about.  There is plenty of speculation though.

recoverer wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 4:42pm:


The very fact that you are (seem to be) angry that your personal known does not resonate with me or others and you demand that we see it your way because your way is the right way is what has various posters at odds with you and you intimate there is something lacking in our intellect IS brow beating!!


I can accept you have a personal known… my personal known was that Jesus was a leader of the Essene community a bonified spiritual leader of significant awakening… but I am a Buddhist and a Monrovian… so I spend almost no time in attempting to relate to Jesus… QED!!

S.

So do we all agree there such things as Subjective Facts? That is the only way I can call Albert's (anyone else's) explorations factual,  at least as they have been described so far. I know I don't have any objective facts to offer of my experiences, only feelings that feel very different from anything else I've had happen, but I couldn't say what I have learned is at all factual

So why bother with reading anything? If the only thing people share is subjective facts, then this also applies to Tom Campbell, Bruce Moen and Robert Monroe.

Or in other words, what they say has nothing to do with a greater reality.

Or, perhaps sometimes people learn about things that are more than subjective fact.

This subjective fact business gets way overdone just like moral relativism. If people don't look out they will lose the ability to see what's right in front of them.

When I felt divine love emanating from Jesus it wasn't a subjective fact. It was a reality. 


Beau wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 8:57pm:

Lucy wrote on Today at 2:47am:
See, even claiming to make contact with Jesus' spirit is not verifiable. Why is recoverer's "contact" sacrosanct but not Helen Schucman's?


Hi Lucy: You have this exactly right. As we know ‘helpers’ can appear in any form they deem useful and communicative… these are all personal epiphanies and not transferable… one either believes the experiencer is telling the truth as they know it or choses not to believe it… but, we cannot argue anyone out of their personal realities… that IS a waste of time and energy…

S.
....................


Above is why I wrote what I wrote about my experiences with Jesus. I wanted to let it be known that a person can have experiences with the spirit of Christ in a way where he (or she) is certain that he had genuine experiences.

It is true that people don't have to accept what people say about their experiences with Jesus; however, there are people who are inspired by what such experiences share just as some people are inspired by reading about NDEs.

When people make comments like Seraphis and Lucy made, it is almost as if they are saying people don't have the right to inspire others.

Lucy's standpoint that we can't determine what others have experienced is self defeatist. There are numerous people who have claimed to make contact with Jesus who haven't done so. As opposed to denying what all people say or accepting what all people say, it is much wiser to use our discrimination and try to determine if somebody is speaking the truth.

recoverer wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 10:25pm:


You love to employ crude devices of debate to twist your opponents ideas and arguements... hopefully, people see thru that... Pauli Effect does... what I said and it is in keeping with Monrovian doctrine... seek personal knowns... that is the basis of certainty... not an attempt to inhibit inspiration... and it can only be real to the individual... you definitely had a life time as a Jesuit.

S.

Quote:


I assume your source is a biography and not first hand. I was in a tmi seminar situation wherein McMonegale talked with us openly and directly he said that he and Monroe had knockdown dragout discussions but it was never with animus... The president of the Monroe Institute is Skip Atwater who was the primary leader of the CIA remote viewing effort and he knew Monroe personally and that Monroe was intimately involved in the developement of the program... and he he no way suggest his group came to Faber undercover... tho it WAS a secret program so they obviously probably did not advertize what they were doing if they indeed operated within the seminar civilian population... there is something missing in your source material.

S.

recoverer wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 4:30pm:


This is interesting because there is NOT one anthropormorphic God… there are thousands of anthropomorphic ‘gods’… beings who have harnessed the Astral Mud… the Facilitator for example. There is the Manifest/Unmanifest (some call this God)… which is pure Love and everything that manifest is perfect… this is the paradox… there is no source… things just are… why wouldn’t you be able to experience divine love, it is a place on the scale to the Absolute… but Pure unconditional Love… is another thing entirely.

So this concept is not far from the mark if understood in its proper context.

S.

Pat Benatar rocks!

         

Recoverer

I think your description of your experiences is moving and beautiful. That post that begins
"Regarding what makes me certain about making contact with Jesus, first of all, years ago, I had what I refer to as my Night in Heaven experience."
is a wonderful post. I don't doubt that you have had (and will probably continue to have)  profound experiences.

The disconnect comes when you then proceed to somehow use that as an authority to question the validity of other systems of thought, and you tend to use what I call ad hominum arguments to do so.

And the net effect of that is that it makes some people reluctant to post here. And you make it impossible to discuss certain topics because without doubt you are going to pop in and discredit what is being discussed.

I don't know much about Christian Science. In some ways it seems similar to ACIM.  Either Helen Schuchman or William Thetford or both were exposed to Christian Science as a child (my memory of which is foggy).

Regarding healing, I believe it is a complicated affair. I've found that some physical problems are a result of energetic blocks that are caused by unresolved psychological issues. If a person isn't willing to deal with this issue, I doubt a healer could do something.

An example of what I meant when I spoke of ACIM, it says there is no point in overcoming a particular fear because until you undo the seperation it won't matter (I don't remember the exact words). I have found that it is possible to overcome specific fears without ending the so-called seperation. It has benefited me significantly to let go of some of my fears. One of the reasons I used to have lower back pain is because of a fear-related issue. Such fear also clogged my heart chakra.




Seraphis1 wrote on Apr 14^th, 2011 at 1:08am:

Seraphis:

Regardless of what definition one has of God, ACIM makes statements that makes it seem as if God is seperate from this world and doesn't want to have anything to do with it.


Seraphis1 wrote on Apr 14^th, 2011 at 1:21am:

recoverer wrote on Apr 14^th, 2011 at 3:53pm:


The problem with your approach is you are trying to prevent people from indulging in there own personal illusion... when they finally get to the point they have had enough... they will do what the Harlem drug dealer did... shift channels... they don't need you to tell them when they are ready..

S.

I surely don't want folks thinking I am trying to suppress anyone. I looked over my posts and I thought well, maybe it could be construed that way. I put this thread up so that we had a place to air this out rather than have it come up over and over in threads that aren't really on this subject. Granted the "Robert Bruce" thread is what prompted me to finally make this thread, but I am learning so much about what everyone thinks now about how we treat posts. I would get pretty bored if everyone saw it just like me. There were a few people on Campbell's board that were always going at each other and one of them started a thread that allowed for airing it out and it made a big difference in the quality of later threads since the reasoning got hashed out.

I hope this thread helps more than it hurts us as a group.

Bets, I love that "Right now I'm in my pollyanna pov."!  Perhaps we should all try for the pollyanna pov more often instead of the (whatever the anti-pollyanna pov would best be called) pov. 

And maybe when folks are posting something that could be misunderstood, they could identify their current pov when posting (since we do change our pov from time to time). 

So now I'm in my whimsical pov.

Pat E,

"We should all" & "they could" is kind of the crux of this topic.

"Now, now, children; let's just play nice."

Those words are lacking the respect complained about is lacking, with a mile high nose pov as a bonus.

Hi Pat,

Coming to a point where one really and truly is allowing someone to be who they are isn't child's play, pun intended. I get that once you've learnt something it's sort of like the kids are playing, it's a beautiful day and they can't see it. BUT your comments show your not an adult in that regard neither, but nice try with the big clothes/words. The sugar adds another layer of (self) deception. There's much to be said about conflict, one of the positive things about it, when not getting completely out of hand, is the magic of showing particular sides of our beings we've used smoke and mirrors for our selves and other selves not to see, or don't know about.

Life is an experiment in self-expression, not always a 'safe' and 'cozy' place. So we must reinvent ourselves over and over to adapt  to what we cannot change. Which does not necessarily mean we must 'ignore' what we cannot change. But Bruce Moen's advice in places of personal conflict during meditation is, I find, a good one to practice at other times as well. To 'see it not there' is not actually 'putting the blinders on' but placing oneself in the center of a prayer of intent. What would you have 'in its place' is the question. Something, nothing? To recognize choices is a pause, is a pause and then a step in the 'right' direction. What is right for you? Do you wish to participate, or not? It is always a choice. Sometimes, for me, this results in a sense of 'unreality', a sense that life is so slippery, a sense that I don't actually 'know' what is real. And this leaves room for my imagination to grow. I suspect that is good for me, so my feelings are of gratitude. I respect and am grateful for you all, with all of your colors and sentiments. It is all good. Love to you all.

recoverer wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 4:30pm:


I accidentally stumbled in the material below:

recoverer you got ACIM all wrong… you mixed it up with spiritual paths which are designed to guide one toward enlightenment… the following from a ACIM practicianer states the primary goal of ACIM is like AA… it is designed for recovering addicts, alcoholics etc…

[b]One way is through what's called A Course In Miracles.  The course itself, contains three parts: The Text, The Workbook, and the Teacher's Manual. 
The part that I recommend is the workbook.  It has been highly recommended by David Hawkins and many others as the path to healing addictions, physical disease, and many other mental and emotional disorders. [/b]

You overstated Hawkins connection to ACIM and what ACIM is
supposed to do… you should get your facts straight.

S.

recoverer wrote on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 1:53pm:


So now you are the direct link to Christ and we are not supposed to question what you say and take your 'personal known' as the only truth accepting it without regard to what the facts on the ground just because you said it.  I see... do we have to prostrate ourselves and bow three times toward your post before reading it.

Just wonderiing??

S.

No, I suggested that people can try to find out about ACIM by asking Christ himself, which is quite a different thing than taking my word for it. I'm not the only person who has made contact with Christ.

Since "some" people claim that ACIM comes from Christ, I believe it is fair and reasonable to ask him if it actually does.

Seraphis1 wrote on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 2:43pm:

Seraphis1,
"I see... do we have to prostrate ourselves and bow three times toward your post before reading it."

Hey padawan, I've trademarked the usage of hyperbole on this site, and for that you may bow three times. Your service as an esteemed sideburn holder isn't quite over yet, so please don't trip while bowing, you'd look clumsy and I'd take the pain. http://tiny.cc/on2i5

As for the topic,
At some point during one's progression I think it's only fair to learn to listen to the inner voice and trust one's decisions. For one thing, there's nobody else to blame if one makes a poor decision, and victimhood turns out to be an equally poor excuse in that regard. Move on. There are so many whom in different degrees want one's power and will gladly tell one what to believe. I haven't been and isn't void of that sentiment, though I may feel like having good intentions while doing my thing. The one thing I do know is that one learns the basics before the advanced, and part of that learning does include mistakes. If one takes away the mistakes or room for making mistakes, there wouldn't be much to do on earth. One's mistake is another's ladder onto greatness.

Volu,

"I've trademarked the usage of hyperbole on this site..."

I'm glad to hear that.  Thought for awhile you were specializing in meanness and mockery.  Or are those just sidelines?

Lucy wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 7:14am:


Precisely!!

S.

Lucy:

If people receive different answers, it would probably be because they receive answers from beings that have differing natures .

I trust the beings I receive messages from because their energy feels like love, peace, expansiveness and divinity. Also, if you receive a sufficient number of messages from a being (or beings) and consider how they are delivered and what  is said, you will be able to tell that such beings represent something very positive.

I do not believe that beings of a like-mind will answer differently about ACIM.  Instead, they will strive to tell the truth. If they don't know the answer, they won't say anything, rather than make something up.

I believe it is a mistake to set things up so we can't get definite answers that can't be trusted.

The only way to tell if it's possible to make contact with spirit beings you know you can trust, is to communicate with them on a regular basis over an extended period of time, and see how it goes.

Perhaps it is significant that even though I am very conscious of all of the frauds that exist, I was still able to make contact with spirit beings I can trust. This shows that I'm not a complete cynic.


Lucy wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 7:14am:

Quote:


I am now reading Bob Monroe's biography 'Catapult' and in it Monroe in his first foray into show business borrowed money to start a Theater group... needless to saw the show failed and he had no money to meet his obligations and out of panic and confusion he bolted leaving every one high and dry... in a subsequent attempt to resolve the issue his father confronted the angry participants who called him a crook and a thief and all that... saying my son may be stupid and incompetent but he is not a crook... essentially he made a serious mistake and is not capable of fixing it.

This is the problem when attempting to evaluate leaders and teachers... are they just incompetent and made a mistake or are they really charlatans... this is a difficult judgement and it should not be a knee jerk response and certainly can not be made looking at spurious source material... if you are going to destroy a man's work you should have the curtesy and integrity to put money and boots on the ground to be sure... and this is not what recoverer does... particularly in the case of Robert Bruce... it is unconsionable to trash a man's life work over a possible off hand remark about a questionable teacher.

S.

The con man Sai Baba passed away 2011-04-24. I found an interesting article by the Swedish actor Conny Larsson, see article -> My God, My Guru, Raped Children

One celebrity got conned:

"...Goldie Hawn.

...she came he put me in front of her and pretended that he was not in the least interested in her in particular. He 'manifested', did miracles for someone who was sitting close to her. Her jaw dropped and she donated everything she owned to him. She lost herself completely in the movement for a while."


C Larsson also mentions other con men:

"...strong personalities like Fidel Castro, Stalin...

...the new Kalki with his Amma (trans. Mother) in India and his monkey tricks.

Those who have left Maharishi and Sai Baba are hoping that Kalki (Avatar) will now be their image of God. They will find in time that they have lost everything... ...a course with Maharishi today costs US$1 million." Sylvia Brown, anyone?


After C Larsson's allegations 2001, the Sai Organization in Sweden was shut down. And as RB previously has stated on his forum: "Most of the allegations against Sai Baba are basically true." (wiki link)

Anyone can be conned. It's a big step forward in realizing you've been conned and to become un-conned.

Lucy,

In general, you've got some good points.

"It creates a situation where some folks don't want to post their experiences or ideas because of potential criticism."

If so, the fears of these folks are their own and they will have to deal with them. Their fears could also involve more than just the "scary" people here. Are our selves good enough, is that the thought you folks are having? Small step, small step, bigger step, huge steps, and suddenly you folks aren't blaming the board for your fears, and the hood of victimization can be lowered.

I'm saying it's mozart, but all you folks are hearing is bubblegum? Oh well, I'm waiting for the miracle to come then. Still waiting, by the way. Guess it'll be a while, huh?

"it is unconsionable to trash a man's life work over a possible off hand remark about a questionable teacher."

And I disagree with that. To trash a man's life work?  Out of proportion. I've seen dissent that hasn't taken into account that one can find important bits of information in the weirdest places, but trashing? Maybe it has slipped me by. Can you show me where it hurts?

Lucy wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 7:26am:


  I can understand that in a certain context, but what happens when we enlarge the perspective a bit?   For example, it seems that a number of us here were at some point inspired by Bruce Moen's and/or Bob Monroe's work. 

  Much of their work and their tellings, comes from what they were told by their guidance.  If these folks weren't receiving this seemingly "exotic" nonphysical guidance, and not telling us some of their experiences, perceptions, etc. as well as how to do it likewise, i doubt their work would be as interesting or attractive to us. 

To some extent, everytime we open our mouths to talk to or communicate with others, there is some kind of "front-loading" going on, though yes we can lessen it by being more vague, general, etc.

  I see me sharing what guidance has shared with me, as no different in some ways socially than talking about any of my other opinions, beliefs, experiences, and perceptions especially when i have not set myself up in the position of an authority of some sort (meaning I have not made definite, concrete steps towards "teaching" in any official or structured capacity. If i did move into that capacity, i would perhaps change my approach some). 

The only difference for me is that it's coming from a level more expanded than just my conscious awareness and intellect.  If i more personally respected a person and they told me something that guidance told them, if it was sufficiently interesting or pertinent to me, i would listen, not necessarily automatically believe but then later check up on myself. (One of the reasons why i support Bruce Moen's work, is that i was pleasantly surprised to find that some of his info corroborated with previous intuitions i had had about some issues important to me). 

  This is not dissimilar from people sharing info with me that comes more from the intellect or from physical world data; the only difference is is that the "checking up" has a different, nonphysically oriented process.  It's no less real or pertinent than info involving the intellect or physical world data.  Maybe that is one of your beliefs that is blocking more clear receiving of such info (i mention this only because i've seen you mention this issue a few times on this board)?

Quote:


   Sure, that is a potential i suppose, but there are ways to talk about ones perceptions and experiences without getting personal or emotional about it.  I find it's the way you interact which matters more than whatever specific info you are sharing or relating. 

  If a person starts to personally insult others, yell at, call names, swears at, and in other ways puts down or belittles another board member i.e. being personal with it, then YES this is not a constructive path to walk on.  But if a person shares their perceptions etc. in a more impersonal way and keeps it about the subject at hand, then of course their will always be some disagreeing or what not, BUT i find a definite difference between the two. 

  It's alright to share experiences, beliefs, etc. which contradicts anothers, and again it's how you do it and interact with the people who have different beliefs, experiences, and perceptions. 

   Also, it is my experience that if two different people are truly hooking up to expanded guidance levels or whatever you want to call it, then chances are unless they are misinterpreting the info they receive then there will be more similarities than differences between such info. 

  It is not a mistake to me that i have found so many similarities between different sources that i particularly resonate too, for example when i compare a lot of the general info between the Cayce work, Monroe's latter work, Moen's work, McKnights work, etc, i see a lot more similarities in the general info than i see differences. 

  And often the "differences" are rather more lack of info in a particular area rather than contradicting info.  For example, in Cayce's, McKnights, and Campbell's work we see some emphasis on diet and health lifestyles potentially affecting nonphysical experience and perception. 

  In Bob Monroe's and Bruce Moen's work, there is a lack of info about such issues.

  But of course, since we are individuals and very few of us are "He/She" types, then we will interpret and perceive some things a bit differently than others when it comes to more specific and narrow kinds of information. 

  It is a total waste of time debating about these kinds of discrepancies.   The kinds of discrepancies or rather contradictions i'm more concerned about and talk about are the big red flags in relation to sources that have a limiting effect as a tendency. 

Quote:


  Well, i am connected to a male body and i'm sure sometimes i sound a bit paternalistic here though that's not my intent.  I mentioned it before, when one speaks confidently about a particular issue then sometimes others perceive that as paternalistic or arrogance.  Sometimes there may be some of that in the person speaking, and sometimes it's more the insecurities in the receiving end, and sometimes it's a mix of both.  I have a hard time, usually, seeing in blacks and whites though. 

  When it comes to such stuff like that, i find it's more worthwhile to worry about what self is doing and not so much the other person.   That is why for example, i just shrugged off the somewhat recent personal insults, underhanded jabs, etc. that were handed to me when i disagreed impersonally with anothers views on another thread.

  Focusing a lot on what others are doing to you, can drive a person crazy after awhile because usually there is very little one can do about what others do or say. 

  Back to the issue at hand, there has been very little personal criticisms pointed at individuals here with Recoverer and i addressing what we perceived as lacks within some outer sources.  Speaking critically about a belief or source you are interested in, is not the same as speaking critically about you individually.  We're not coming from a "personal" and emotional space here. 

  Time and time again, we kept it about the issue and topics at hand despite that personal insults,  put downs, huge generalizations etc. were being handed back to us as "debate" or disagreement of the issues and points we've brought up. 

  I found it interesting that a couple of other posters felt they had to keep it about us so much rather than sticking impersonally to the issues and points we brought up. 

  When it came to the actual experience of others, again their was not personal criticism involved.  I will give an example.  A poster named Elanor shared a Sai Baba experience here.  I responded to her post but i did not personally criticize her or say her experience was not real or authentic.  I said i was not definitively sure what her experience meant, but i offered a couple of different explanations for it from the more straightforward, literal interpretation. 

  This is similar, in my experience, to often what a mature and real nonphysical "Guide" type will do when we request info or ask questions.  We generally aren't forcefully told anything, but offered suggestions in an impersonal manner.  (though i've have had some more critical and/or firm info handed to me on occasion).   

  I strive to emulate guidance and those more constructive ways of transforming beliefs, perceptions, etc, but in being human, male ( ), not fully attuned to PUL, not perfectly balanced, etc. i miss the mark more than i like.

  Despite my personal preference, i feel it's important for me to interact and be more positively charged in this process, rather than primarily retreating and/or being silent.   The latter two are actually easier for me to do coming from some of the other lives and childhood experiences i've had.  Growing up, i very much disliked confrontation and disagreement.  I was a born "people pleaser" and often catered to what i thought others wanted to hear or what caused least friction.  I've had to move out of that both for personal growth and for other reasons.

Justin,

"Growing up, i very much disliked confrontation and disagreement.  I was a born "people pleaser" and often catered to what i thought others wanted to hear or what caused least friction.  I've had to move out of that both for personal growth and for other reasons."

Those are knowns for me too. There is a recurring thought however, at least for my part; as a participant on a forum one can get to have too much focus on others' paths, thoughts and the like. Which is backwards, really - meddling with others' paths instead of taking care of one's own path.

What do you think about that?

"I could be standing next to a man, who at a very moment, decides to cut off my hand."

Man, that would be the very definition of offhand.

Paulieffect:

That is a worthwhile interview to read. Thank you for providing.

PauliEffectt wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 5:36am:

Quote:


This is a question that we obviously can't answer yet.

If time doesn't really exist and god, or all that is, is all-knowing, what does "random" mean?

Do we choose our deaths or not? was 9/11 random?

I was thinking abou this issue today durign a radio interview with Kevin Cullen, who wrote the article linked below regarding the death of Chris Hondros. How could it be that these three did not on some level make a plan to come back and deliver this powerful message to the world?

what does it mean to say "Fate threw them together ...."



http://boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/04/24/the_fatal_touch_o...

I brought up the priests in the Catholic clergy scandal because I don't understand why Sai Baba should be singled out for a behavior that is much more widespread. I don't doubt the complaints of the victims. I don't doubt that people at the top knew. This mirrors what has happened in the Catholic Church. Cardinal Brnard Law was scuttled off to Rome just as the legal heat was about to be put his way. Is the Pope not involved?

Maybe a better discussion would involve figuring out why unmarried men in positions of religious authority are attracted to children...mainly boys? or is that just what makes it shocking..

Tonight our local radio talk guru, Dan Rea, was talking about what happened with some parishoners whose physical church buildings were closed and sold to pay damages in the aftermath of the lawsuits. What did they do for Easter? Some had services in other buildings and without a priest.  People are moving on. I wonder how the people around Sai Baba will move on.

Lucy wrote on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 3:58am:


"unmarried men"...Hmmmm - good point. I dont understand that anyway. Maybe its because of my love for ying/yang that I cant understand that aspect of the religion, but why exactly do they have to stay unwed?
Nanner

Nanner wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 11:22am:


It had to do with inheritance... the church was losing too much money and property to the heirs of the priests.

S.

Quote:


That is interesting. So much ado was made in the history I read about emulating the pop-start monk ascetics that I failed to consider that aspect.

That is interesting because I think the tradition of marriage exists in part in order to protect the property. This goes far beyond the arranged marriages of the nobility over the course of history, but that is one good example of marriage existing to protect property.

Still in play, too, as you can learn if you ever have the "pleasure" of sitting in probate court and listening to the content of the cases (in US or at least in MA, divorce, inheritance, child custody and support are handled in probate court). It's all about the money.

(That's a cultural level. Probate is a cultural level that affects the individual. I'm not saying people don't really think they love each other when they marry, and some sctually do. That's the personal level.)