Please elaborate on the "dark side", which sounds reminiscent of Star Wars and Carlos Castenada. You mention these forces in your posts on BatGap and here. Why do you think its so important to mention these forces, since if practically speaking, and assuming they are present in daily life, most people are unaware of them and therefore can't do anything about them anyways? Most happy successful people I know don't give this a 2nd thought and go on with their daily routines. Its like the policy of "don't ask, don't tell." Inquiring minds want to know (before the dark forces swallow them up whole).
--- In [email protected], Don Miller <pod1...@...> wrote: > > When I knew the TMO they liked to throw all stray thoughts into a single simple waste bin and say that it is all unstressing, and this is where perhaps they are overlooking the other 50% of the energetic world, which includes in our case as humans a conscious organization of dark parasitic energy beings. >  > Instead of throwing all stray thoughts into the garbage bin I will provide a few categories here. >  > 1)Some stray thoughts are the creation of our own active mind and creativity. >  > 2)Some stray thoughts are not our own, but the thoughts of other people physically near to us, or people who are connected to us through knowledge, or even by pure random chance. And likewise some stray thoughts are those of other awarnesses, like plants, animals, or any life-form. >  > 3)Some stray thoughts are deliberately planted in our minds by parasitic shadow creatures without physical bodies, with the intention to direct us towards action or inaction which drain us of our most basic energy, that of attention, through wasteful senseless activities. >  > A careful study of the origins of these stray thoughts in meditation may lead over time to âseeingâ the form of the energetic world composed of lines of attention. >  > Transcending and seeing the world for what it is without veils, even if it be temporary, makes one an important target for dark shadowy forces that intelligently and consciously keep most of the world under their domain. This is an organization of beings, intelligent bottom feeders of sorts, which feed off of the broadly scattered and wasted energy of the attention of common people. They implant thoughts in all people to maintain these wasteful and misdirected activities. >  > The dark side is indispensable to the positive side and perfectly counterbalances it, and progress on the positive side cannot progress far without some understanding of one of the two most fundamental forces, the dark force, which I could describe in a series of equal terms such as; >  > 1) an infinite force of sadness, loneliness, melancholy, which is irreducible, beyond explanation, and forms the basis of all other human emotion and motivation (all other human emotions, including love, are just temporary islands floating upon and empowered by this basic reality); > 2) The destiny of an ever expanding universe, of universal dissolution; > 3)Freedom; > 4)Death. > To understand this force one must find it within ones self, and grow to love and respect it as a component part of self. One may also become aware of the beings that inhabit this other realm, and their motives. >  > I wonât elaborate on the light side too much here, except to say that it is the desire for life; structure; beauty; unification, all that Maharishi stuff basically. >  > A meditator which transcends, and perhaps occasionally âseesâ the energetic world in relation to that pure transcendence is a prime target to these beings, and vulnerable if they are anything but a total saint, and I donât believe that there really is such a thing as a saint, outside of the human desire to create legends. >  > Dark parasitic forces stalk us and try to find entry based on our routines and habits. In my opinion there is no such thing as a good habit, such as meditation strictly twice a day at the same time each day. These habits squelch the development of fluid intuition of what to do and when, that a transcending mind naturally develops. >  > On the other hand, and this is very important, most people will use this dissolution of so called âgoodâ routines such as meditation, to forego it altogether, and that is perhaps worse, like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I meditate sort of on the average twice a day, and in various places, depending on calls from the âspiritâ. My meditations do have some amazing quality of calming down local noise and strife, beyond any logical explanation,... except for a certain insane explanation which would state that reality is basically dream-like, and where transcending touches the structuring property of that dream. >  > I see the structure of the TMO then as providing a sort of initial framework of security, such as nursery, but something which must also be transcended eventually for advancement. > > --- On Mon, 6/28/10, authfriend jst...@... wrote: > > > From: authfriend jst...@... > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No one starting TM or "Dome-ing"? Rewrite the sales brochure. > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, June 28, 2010, 10:25 PM > > >  > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB no_reply@ > wrote: > > > > I have written before on the difference between talking > > the talk of one's spiritual path and walking the walk of > > it. And yes, as some have said, I have written about it > > enough that they claim to find it boring. I think that a > > larger reason than "boring" for the people saying this > > might be "I couldn't find a way to refute it the first > > time and I can't find one now, so I'm going to call it > > 'boring' in hopes that he'll stop saying it." :-) > > Actually, I called your raps (not just this one by any > means) "repetitious," not "boring." Interesting that > you felt you needed to escalate the criticism, but I > guess "repetitious" didn't work so well with your > fantasy about the "larger reason" for the criticism. > > The whole point of "repetitious," of course, is that > your trademark "raps" have been *repeatedly refuted*. > You keep bringing them back, in slightly different > clothing, in the hope that this time they'll pass > muster. > > Sorry, Charlie. The new outfit for the "rap" in > question suffers from the same poor workmanship in > its current iteration as all the other times you've > inflicted it on us. > > The question is, why on earth did you think you were > the only one aware of the difference between "talking > the talk and walking the walk"? It's a *cliche*, Barry. > It was a cliche long before you ever attempted to > preach it here. And it doesn't get any more original > or insightful with repetition. >
