Open for discussion and exchange of views.
The above link is to an article by Henry Reed - who has spent his life in applying and studying and teaching re living one's spiritual truth. His personal focus is on dreams. He has an online magazine - intuitive connections - in which are posted summaries of current 'new age' type books. Anyway - recognizing that some, like Joe, have no positive regard for the Edgar Cayce readings, it's my perspective that this article makes valid points and valid 'guidelines'. Bottom line always for the Cayce readings - the Kingdom of God is within -- there shall He meet you. And always, always - what is your Ideal - what is your deepest spiritual intention/motivation/desire.
Anyway - if nothing else, the article if food for thought.
You are correct, I have no repect for Edgar Cayce's channelings yet I understand why others feel his "truth is within" illusion is not an illusion but very real.
?For truth is a growing experience in the hearts and the minds of
individuals as they apply those tenets of the law in their individual
I say: A lie can be a growing experience too. The inner self cannot readily detect the difference. Cayce could not [all his failed prophecies are evidence]. All ex-RSE members are evidence as well. While they believed in their "experience" of Ramtha "within" it all seemed so true. Cayce's "law" is merely the reliance on an inner voice as if it was always from God or universal truth.
The article states:
The question always is how well prepared are you to test the teacher or do you merely rely on your inner "higher" self?When the student is ready, the teacher (whether an inner teacher or
an external one) will appear, but not before.
Also, when the student is ready the deceiver can appear as well.
As always, the better our sources of information and the more skilled we are at questioning the more likely we can avoid mistakes and lies.
Also, when the student is ready the deceiver can appear as well.
As always, the better our sources of information and the more skilled we are at questioning the more likely we can avoid mistakes and lies.]
How very true and well stated.
Thanks for that.
Seems to me neither of you read the article -- because it clearly agrees with you =joe and unbound.
I'm quite astounded at Catholic Joe in this season of Pentecost -- the whole point of which is the Holy Spirit communicating within. Of course there needs to be discernment - which is why understanding our own motivations/intentions/Ideals is so essential. To encourage diistrust of listening for the 'still small Voice' is to reinforce the jz's of the world.
Henri Nouwen:(a Catholic priest) "When we speak about the Holy Spirit, we speak about the breath of God, breathing in us. The Greek word for "spirit" is pneuma, which means "breath." We are seldom aware of our breathing. It is so essential for life that we only think about it when something is wrong with it.
The Spirit of God is like our breath. God's spirit is more intimate to us than we are to ourselves. We might not often be aware of it, but without it we cannot live a "spiritual life." It is the Holy Spirit of God who prays in us, who offers us the gifts of love, forgiveness, kindness, goodness, gentleness, peace, and joy. It is the Holy Spirit who offers us the life that death cannot destroy. Let us always pray: "Come, Holy Spirit, come.""
and -as absurd as it makes my getting hooked in jz - I don't believe in channels - an attitude actually learned and encouraged via my experience with the cayce material. And, co-facilitated a group on dreams once long ago - and the dream work we did outdid what the available psychics had to say. So, I'm neither encouraging going to channels or psychics -- perhaps if the article was read without prejudice, helpful info could be garnered.
"Giving consideration to ideals needs to be a top priority in seeking guidance, not only because of the importance of aligning our purpose with our values, but because of the quality of the energy that?s activated. The ideal determines the pattern of creative energy that gives form to the guidance obtained.
The danger of obtaining misleading information is especially great in the case of seeking guidance from discarnate entities, disembodied ?beings,? or even psychic sub-personalities of a channel."
more questioning, perspiration and research, incubation, and so on. "
The article is food for thought but I consider the evaluations of many others' perceptions equally so. I did read the article before responding to Joe but his statement quoted from the article really hit home with respect to the RSE/Ramtha experience.
We were often told in 2008 that "When the student is ready, the teacher will appear, but not before." It really would have been great if Joe's comment would have been added to that. Now THAT would have really been food for thought for students of RSE.
With respect to the article, I have to question if Reed uses his own philosophy. Why would he choose to rely on Cayce as a source of truth and not support his theory through relating his own spirit-experience. Some evidence of how someone had put the theory into practice and the result would have been good.
When I try to apply his theory to my personal RSE experience and more specifically to how I got involved in that whole thing in the first place, I'm left with the same questioning that would happen at RSE when while focusing on a card in the field I'd end up at the fence near the latrines (had to go). It is possible that what we think we want consciously, apparently gets over-ruled by what we want subconsciously?
I think that this sort of thing happens a great deal more than what we'd like to admit to. So if we use Reed's philosophy again and then try evaluating whether the information received is what we want or not, what aspect of the mind makes that judgment and on what does it base that choice? The conscious mind's desire might want info on increasing loving compassion and the subconscious mind's desire might just want to go to the latrine
So maybe by taking the body to the latrines instead of to a focus card, the subconscious mind is expressing loving compassion to the body instead of letting the conscious mind to continue dragging it around a field in the rain. Would the conscious mind pick up on the subtle message and accept that the desire for greater loving compassion has been received?
What if the mind is influenced by an external source to want something other than what has its seed internally? What if that influenced desire is delusional from a practical evaluation? How can one who is so influenced possibly judge any incoming information correctly and not avoid letting one's mind be used or manipulated in such a way?
Similarly, lets say that one has a desire for gaining information on increasing compassion and they are motivated by a sense of pure love. The definitions of those two terms would be influenced by each person's associative memory so that is open for debate from the get go. But what if an individual understood compassion the way it is defined at RSE because they were programmed to think that way?
Judith as Ramtha has said that compassion does not mean helping someone but can actually mean pushing them to their end so as to speed up the inevitable. Presumably this is what the mind control, abuse and "runners" are for. Love was defined as being unconditional allowance and non-interference but that definition flies in the face of the RSE definition of compassion.
After reading the article I was left to question if Reed's philosophy proves to even partially be true; meaning that the conscious mind would be in control of the subconscious mind, how would a person avoid making a mistake when so much in the world today influences the conscious mind through subconscious manipulation?
That contemplation has me seeing a great truth in Joe's comments.
In a sense the article is taken out of context - that is - Henry is very associated with the Association for Research and Enlightenment - the organization which holds the Readings from Edgar Cayce. And, he is addressing an 'audience' that is interested/studying that material. So that's why he's using the Cayce Readings. Meanwhile, I can tell you with absolute certainty that Henry walks his talk, and has not written about what he has not personally applied and experienced.
In response to what seems your central concern - which is also mine - is how can we tell if it's our conscious or unconscious thoughts/desires etc. - how do we 'know' it's garbage or it's truth.... This, for me, is where the concept/practice of establishing one?s ?Ideal?/primary motivation/intention ? Spiritually, Mentally/Attitudes, Physically/Emotionally. ? It is the plume line by which we live and measure our life/experience. The Ideal is not a unique concept to the Cayce Readings ? in fact, a few years ago I gave a talk about the essential-ness of establishing an Ideal to an excrutiatingly and utterly Christian gathering. I learned it first 30+ years ago through the Cayce Readings. And, more importantly ? to establish one?s Ideal requires careful consideration and prayer and listening and self-examination;?. and it isn?t a static thing ?. because if in fact we live our Ideal, have mindfulness of how we aren?t, we learn more about those unconscious wants/thoughts/drives/needs which lead us astray.
Although I too obviously got suckered/hooked/manipulated, ultimately it was my Ideals that led me/awakened me/guided me out of jz?s world.
So for instance, the contradictory-ness re compassion ? If my primary motivation is to be powerful/more important than others then there?s no contradiction in Ramtha?s compassion; if my primary motivation is to for instance, live Love ? then there?s a contradiction. If I live my life with mindfulness, then I?ll recognize my behavior is not living according to my Ideal. If I continue to self examine than I?ll recognize the seeds in me that in fact do want to be powerful/more important ? and I?ll refine my Ideal and those seeds will get weeded.
When the student is ready the teacher will appear is a concept long before JZ was born ? it?s not hers, and I believe it?s true. I also believe that everything is teaching us and it depends on our Ideal what we see and what we learn. What kind of ?spectacles? do I look through ? how much money I can make? how much power I can have? how much control? how much I can serve? how much I can be loving? how much do I want to know recognize/ understand my unconscious motivations? ?. And there?s fertilizer and there?s flowers ---- my experience with jz was a lot of fertilizer ? but because of my Ideals, and although there?s been lots of weeds, there?s been lots of flowers and fruits and nutritious vegetables ? metaphorically speaking.
Another value of the article to me is that our evaluation of anything is multi-faceted; is spiritual, mental, physical ? not just our ?intuition?, not just our ?feelings?, not just our thoughts/knowledge/mental concepts, not just someone else?s opinion, etc. And, the bottom line in the Cayce Readings, and the bottom line learning for me regarding my jz experience is ? don?t ever give your power away to anyone, seen or unseen. One of the most profound statements and beacons in my life ? which I forgot to apply ? was by what I considered at the time an ?old wise woman? ? ?when you put your light on someone else, you?re left in the dark?. ? I put my light onto Ramtha? and it was my Ideal that made me finally finally allow myself to see that I?d left myself in the dark?. and I left.
They can begin to sound like two separate personalities when in fact they are simply parts of one personality.
From my own experience and from hearing many of others many underwent significant personality change as they became more involved in their group.
I would hazard a guess that if a group told its prospective members that they were going to use parts of their personalities and set them against each other they wouldn't get many members. But in fact that is just what many do.
Thanks for clarifying Reed's association with Cayce; I did not know that.
With respect to "the concept/practice establishing one's ideal/primary motivation/intention...", this is a principle that I put to use for quite some years before RSE. In Buddhism it is termed "bodhichitta"; a term given to the desire to attain complete enlightenment for the benefit of all. In more common terms it simply means that the individual's motivation in all things is to gain omniscience, compassion and love to the highest degree possible so that they can relieve the sufferings of all sentient beings.
For the devout, the whole life is dedicated to this one desire because there is no other option.
For me it was a dose of self doubt in the midst of bodhichiita that led me to RSE. It was not that I ever thought that it wasn't possible to attain complete enlightenment at some point. It was that I wondered if I was doing all that I could to attain it. I questioned whether following a religious path was the best way for me to proceed and that doubting didn't last long before the Ramtha character appeared in my life.
By Reed's philosophy am I to understand that because I held doubt that I was attracted to information that would allow me to know more about doubt itself? Well, the RSE experience did do that in some respects; since leaving RSE there is a great deal of doubt in many things where once there was little. Sure I can take responsibility for all of that because I engaged the information as it was presented (at RSE), then re-evaluated it (with an RSE deluded mind), then re-experienced it over and over until I finally caught on to a relationship between blind faith and doubt.
I can identify the path that led to that realization fairly clearly; even admitting that the trainings of Buddhism require that a disciple maintain a certain amount of blind faith (like most religions). Here's the question with respect to Reed's philosophy though. Even if the ideal and the motivation seem to be well established and not in conflict, can doubt or something similar running in the background bring information that is what one wants to hear rather than what one needs to hear? How does one tell the difference?
This is where journeythroughramthaland's thoughts on the subject bring up a good point. How does one hope to see the forest for the trees when in reality one is not only in the forest but is the forest itself? How can the aspects of one's mind discern the whole mind when even establishing what the whole mind encompasses remains beyond certain definition? Where does the motivation and idealism come from?
Do we delude ourselves with attempts to divide up the aspects of mind for convenience of explanation/examination; when such division might not be possible? How can we know the answer to that from a perspective of limited thinking? How about from a perspective of programming designed to limit acceptance of incoming information to one particular ideal? That ideal could be from a cult, belief (deluded or not) or any one of the many religions.
In the end it may not even be important whether our ideal/motive is altruistic or not...we might just be attracted to what "seems" right based on our habitual thought pattern; and that might just be based on the totality of mind rather than any one aspect. Our habitual thought pattern might also be an altered program resulting from intentional mind control. How one ends up getting into a cult or a system of mind control might just as easily stem from a desire for a change as from something resonating with one's thoughts of an ideal. The problem comes when one's mind is trained to see only through that ideal to the exclusion of all other perceptions.
RSE does in fact tell students that anything to do with a personality is emotion driven and/ or based in the past, and that each of those aspects of the self are to be done away with. They are in RSE's view the obstacles to enlightenment. So journeythroughramthaland, it seems that RSE skirts the whole issue of messing with a student's personality by simply discarding it as detrimental to enlightenment and in need of replacement. It is interesting that emotional associative memory to past information is often the very thing that fires up the survival mode in the brain and has us fight or flee.
As a student of RSE I did actually look forward to having the "limitations of personality" done away with by any means that Judith as Ramtha saw fit. I held that desire because I came to believe that any doubt that I had was a limitation (Ramtha said so and I believed it), and that such doubt was coming from a deluded past-oriented aspect of my self that was resistant to going forward into the future. I wanted my emotional associative memory to be overcome through any means because that is what I accepted to be the main obstacle to enlightenment. I wanted that to happen because that is what Judith as Ramtha said must happen before liberation and unlimited freedom in the future could be attained...and I believed it. How twisted is that sort of thinking and more importantly, how capable of discernment is such a thought pattern?
Now I can get a chuckle out of the whole deluded past-oriented self philosophy as taught at RSE. That isn't to say that there isn't some truth to the theory but how it is presented at RSE takes it to the extreme. Their philosophy seems to be that anything that stands in your way should simply be done away with even if that something is caution, resistance or a basic survival mechanism like the fight or flight response.
Getting back to the subconscious and conscious aspects of mind questions, it is difficult to say for sure which is which or even if there is actually independence of one from the other. With respect to the experience of leaving RSE, of course the emotional associative memory aspect of my personality was resistant to going into the future...at least the future I was heading toward at that point. Perhaps it allowed me to perceive something that the programmed aspect of my mind could not or would not.
So did I wake up out of RSE because of a personality aspect's resistance and fear factor, or was it a desire for something else? Perhaps it was because of a remembrance of original motivation or??? I suppose that in the final analysis one's perspective holds the trump card on that one. Those at RSE would undoubtedly say that I may have been awake but that now I've gone back to sleep
In short, I am as of yet unable to give myself over to any one philosophy of thought. The doubter inside this mind seems to go on full alert at the mere suggestion. In Reed's philosophy I'm left to wonder what sort of information that high alert doubting might attract even though my intent/motivation is something quite different from that. I also wonder if I am better equipped to recognize what is not in alignment with my motivation; and will I recognize it...and be able to take responsibility for it when and if it does come.
I'm still holding to the motivation and ideal of loving compassion.
AD60, you are correct...its all food for thought.
Unbound,In the end it may not even be important whether our ideal/motive is altruistic or not...we might just be attracted to what "seems" right based on our habitual thought pattern; and that might just be based on the totality of mind rather than any one aspect. Our habitual thought pattern might also be an altered program resulting from intentional mind control. How one ends up getting into a cult or a system of mind control might just as easily stem from a desire for a change as from something resonating with one's thoughts of an ideal. The problem comes when one's mind is trained to see only through that ideal to the exclusion of all other perceptions.
You bring up here a very enlightening point. Put aside for a moment the term mind control. I am leaning more towards a behaviorist form of the RSE phenomena . The methods being used are to habituate behavior. Of course the behavior is habituated in ways that benefit the old gal/guy. Think about it. all the disciplines are repeated again and again. Those habits then get attached to the alcohol and tobacco. Two of the most habit forming substances around.
We all are creatures of habit. What amazes me is through the methods used, how quickly and efficiently the old gal/guy is able to instill those habits in others. One of the habits that is (IMHO) the most detrimental is the habit of self-examination in the context of what the old gal/guy has taught. The mind F&^$ of having to find a lesson or reason for every little thing that happens to ones self. Once one has formed the habit it becomes self generating and only needs a bit of fuel here and there to keep the habit rolling along at top speed. Hence the "required events". RSE is a really bad habit. One which is understandably hard to break.
I don't really think RSE skirts the issue. Ones personality is really the totality of the individual. Good, bad all rolled up into a complex unique package. Rse does not discard the package, nor do they open it carefully to preserve the wrapping. They rip it apart so that to piece it together again becomes a very difficult chore. It is a divide and conquer strategy. They set up an internal dialogue that is at war with itself i.e. "monkey mind, analogical mind" The us and them become a within battle. While one is so preoccupied with having to sort through the never ending contradictions, they have less and less time to evaluate information and so, instead of becoming more "unlimited" The circle of choice becomes narrower and narrower. Much in the same way alcoholism is a disease which tells you you don't have a disease, The more ones life is limited in RSE the more they think it is full of unlimited potential, which in a way is true, however, it remains in the potential stage because the methods being taught are set up to keep it that way. Such is the carrot and stick.RSE does in fact tell students that anything to do with a personality is emotion driven and/ or based in the past, and that each of those aspects of the self are to be done away with. They are in RSE's view the obstacles to enlightenment. So journeythroughramthaland, it seems that RSE skirts the whole issue of messing with a student's personality by simply discarding it as detrimental to enlightenment and in need of replacement. It is interesting that emotional associative memory to past information is often the very thing that fires up the survival mode in the brain and has us fight or flee.
What a great way of looking at the issue of RSE and the issues of mind control vs behaviour habituation. I hadn't perceived that they aren't the same thing. After reading your post I am begining to see the difference between method (mind control) and result (behaviour habituation). Thanks for the insight.
QUOTE "The methods being used are to habituate behavior."
I agree with you. I think that RSE uses many methods, including mind control to cause an altered thought pattern; which in turn causes an altered behaviour pattern.
QUOTE "One of the habits that is (IMHO) the most detrimental is the habit of self-examination in the context of what the old gal/guy has taught."
A huge part of that altered behaviour pattern seems to be an alteration in HOW one thinks rather than what one thinks. For example, at one event it was suggested by Judith as Ramtha that we repeat the following statement in prayer: "May my teacher's words be my thought."
It was then suggested that we take the same ideal into our neighbourhood walk (TM). The repeated statement that was to be installed in the students' minds came out something like this: "My teacher's words have always been my thought."
Consider Reed's philosophy of "Evaluating Guidance" and what a person who has adopted an altered thought and/or behaviour as taught in RSE would do with it. Without even getting out of the starting gate, the person would most likely discount it outright because that thought is installed early in the teachings. I know that I would have when I was dedicated to RSE and what was promoted there.
RSE teaches that most introspective evaluation of thought is evidence of a monkey-mind because "a god does not judge itself." Oh sure there is the contradiction to that idea within the RSE teachings, because RSE also teaches that a Master (presumably the ideal), self corrects any thought, speech or action that is not in alignment with the god persona. That thought is also handed to students on a platter with: "My personality reflects that of my god perfectly."
The sorts of statements quoted above are to be repeated over and over by students of RSE in a discipline called the neighbourhood walk (TM). More over they are to be repeated throughout the day, before arising and before going to sleep as well. IMO the sort of thought pattern and behaviour that is being habituated through just this one method of mind control encourages delusion and discourages independent thought in those who follow the instructions.
Perhaps you are right in suggesting that the method of attaining the behaviour habituation isn't as important as looking at the total effect but I do have difficulty putting aside the the term mind control when ever I think about or discuss RSE.
Getting back to Reed and his philosophy, he suggests that the "IDEAL" be used as a reference point for evaluating incoming information. Consider that the ideal from RSE's perception settles somewhere beyond the realm of a being that is of
super-human intelligence and ability. This being is called a Master and supposedly exists as a vessel for a personal god until the Master realizes that they are the god.
What the #*&@* Bleep (chuckle) is going to satisfy that ideal especially if it is coupled to thought behaviours that exclude the old personality traits and whatever amount of critical thinking that went with it? More importantly, what sort of information is going to be accepted if in fact a person that was habituated to think according to RSE's model actually attempted to utilize Reed's philosophy?
You sum up the model of RSE very well.
QUOTE"Ones personality is really the totality of the individual. Good, bad all rolled up into a complex unique package. Rse does not discard the package, nor do they open it carefully to preserve the wrapping. They rip it apart so that to piece it together again becomes a very difficult chore. It is a divide and conquer strategy. They set up an internal dialogue that is at war with itself i.e. "monkey mind, analogical mind" The us and them become a within battle. While one is so preoccupied with having to sort through the never ending contradictions, they have less and less time to evaluate information and so, instead of becoming more "unlimited" The circle of choice becomes narrower and narrower. "
When I consider what you have said as well as what I have contemplated since leaving RSE, I come to the conclusion that the only type of information that can be accepted by an individual caught in the RSE web (what RSE calls a dedicated student), would need to come from Judith as Ramtha and/or from RSE. Pretty much anything else falls into the domain of the "villagers" and is ridiculed and degraded without a second thought. RSE teaches that villagers are destined to die so aren't really worth the bother of a second thought. Such an attitude would be some of that unconditional love and compassion of the Master's personal god coming through...feel it?
Here is more food for thought though. Somewhere along the line those who have left RSE changed the thought behaviour of the dedicated RSE student to something else. Clearly we evaluate incoming information despite obstacles being placed in the mind to detract from such evaluation. Are the red flags that woke us up, simply information that leaked past the obstacles; and if that is so is it the result of a conscious decision to see beyond the obstacle?
As previously quoted, perhaps there is more to contemplate with respect to:
"When the student is ready, the teacher (whether an inner teacher or
an external one) will appear, but not before."
I certainly find that there is food for thought in all that has been discussed on this thread and in Reed's article but as I try to make sense of it all, I do find Joe's comments especially nutritious:
"The question always is how well prepared are you to test the teacher or do you merely rely on your inner "higher" self?
Also, when the student is ready the deceiver can appear as well.
As always, the better our sources of information and the more skilled we are at questioning the more likely we can avoid mistakes and lies."
Thanks to EMF, people like you, AD60, Joe and others who post, we can share our thoughts openly and through doing that, perhaps we as well as others can obtain greater information and gain a better understanding.
Also, when the student is ready the deceiver can appear as well.
In fact, to me, the whole purpose of the article, or at least one of its primary purposes is to address the fact that we have not always been ?well prepared to test the teacher?, and in fact there is a lot of fraud and fakery and unreliable ?channeled?/psychic teachers out there. Each time I read the posts here I go back and re-scan the article, and am more baffled. It would seem, that just because the name of Cayce is used, and Joe thinks he was a fake, what?s being said in the article is not heard. The following are the paragraphs introducing what Henry refers to as Cayce?s Heuristic. I don?t care if the heuristic comes from Mickey Mouse ? if it has value in me not getting suckered again.
Cayce?s Guidance Heuristic
Heuristics refer to certain methods of discovery. A heuristic method
based on the assumption that there is no perfect, absolute truth, only better and more workable approximations to it. Cayce?s method of discovery, although oriented toward psychic awareness, is universal in its nature. One expression of his heuristic is, ?pray hard, as if everything depended on God, but work hard, as if everything depended on you!?
The psychiatrist Carl Jung frequently noted that the unconscious seemed to produce its best results when the person had exhausted all conscious avenues of exploration and progress. He presented cases of people whose dreams, previously full of insights and helpful hints, dried up when the person became passive, relying exclusively on the dreams for help, but without making any personal effort.
Cayce?s method parallels Jung?s observations. You need to do your best with what you have available, and then more will be given. Priming the pump with your own best efforts begins the channeling cycle.
Cayce?s guidance heuristic includes a complete, full cycle of the discovery process, similar to the well known sequence of creative problem solving: questioning, perspiration and research, incubation, inspiration, further perspiration in the testing and application; then more questioning, perspiration and research, incubation, and so on.
Getting guidance is like creative problem solving. Only a piece of the solution, a tentative or partial answer is available at first, or the details of a solution need to be ironed out. Cayce?s most important principle is that if that little bit of guidance is tested, evaluated by being put into practice, further guidance will be forthcoming down the line. Cayce often suggested to do what you know to do, to do your best to apply what you do have, and more would be given later. It?s a variation on Cayce?s Law, ?in the application comes the awareness.? This approach, based upon successive approximations to the final solution, is the guidance heuristic that Cayce advocated, regardless of the source of guidance, whether from one?s own dreams or from a psychic adviser.
What I said re the Ideal is garnered from a lifetime of experience ? mine, not Henry?s. Obviously I haven?t articulated well. The Ideal is more than a nice idea/philosophy/thought. Although it can be someone else?s words/concepts, ultimately it has to be ours, from the depths of us ?articulated from the ?best? of us ? and because addresses all of us = Spiritually, Mentally, Physically/Emotionally, so too it articulates what would it look like what kind of thoughts what kind of emotions what kind of activities would the manifestation of our Ideal be?....
For instance, then, for me ? ?red flags? were all the behaviors and activities that did not reflect/articulate/manifest Love. Nor did I ever see shop lifting as manifesting; or cheating, lying, stealing as the other person?s problem ?cause they created me to cheat, lie and steal from them.
One of the things that struck me about the described ?heuristic? is the emphasis on applying what we know. ? I was one of those ?sincere? students who did do my best in every activity. If there were free days at ?Paradise Beach?, I was there. And, I believe it was the sincerity of my sitting in silence for days/nights at a time that ultimately awakened me from the dream of jz?s ramtha.
Simultaneous to contemplating the responses I?ve been reading about Paul of the Bible?s New Testament and it struck me how the story exemplified the ?heuristic?, as well as the questions regarding our unconscious and/or subconscious and/or habituated behavior patterns and/or hypnotic and/or manipulative motivators of our behavior ? i.e. how come we end up in the toilet when we?re looking for our card? Paul was absolutely passionate and focused on serving God, and sincerely believed that persecuting Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah was the right and just and highest obedience to God. The toilet. Through which he ultimately arrived at ?his card?/truly serving God. (This is a story ? I?m not trying here to argue re Jesus or Christianity or Paul?s theology or anything else.)
I?m coming to realize that we are in fact ?led? to the ?wrong? place/ ?wrong person? /wrong job /wrong neighborhood, etc seemingly in spite of our best efforts, thoughts, realizations, insights, Ideals etc. For me it was being ?led? to the smoke circle during sitting on ?the Beach? time. That ?wrongness? became the gateway through which the awakening that began while sitting on the Beach became a conscious shift/unveiling of what was really going on in ramthaland. And I?ve heard other people?s stories of ?awakening?/ ?getting it? which involved going to the toilet instead of being on the field, or napping in the woods while walking blind folded through them, or snacking while wandering through the tank?.
If the Ideal is applied, ie if we have mindfulness of ourselves and our behavior, to the best of our ability, as often as we can, then, in spite of the ditches/mistakes/wrong turns/bad decisions we?ll end up where/how we truly want to be. And hopefully we?ll be able to make lemonade from all the lemons we?ve acquired. Was my being in ramtha?s world wrong ? oh yeah; did it provide me with profound learning and bring me to places I needed to be?. oh yeah ? I?ve got a lifetime supply of lemonade from my experiences with ramthaland.! - which isn?t to say that I?d recommend going there anymore than I?d recommend spending a decade in a Nazi concentration camp.; or 20 years with an abusive partner; or staying in a job that daily diminishes your Soul?s yearnings.
I wasn?t in a cult, I didn?t believe in ?following? any teacher or guru or channeler or ?doing disciplines? - - and there I was, in a cult, following, doing disciplines. Once again I gave my power away to someone else believing I wasn?t. What I?ve learned from my ramtha experience and what Henry?s article emphasizes to me is how subtle-ly easy it is to give away our power away, and we can learn not to. I?m still learning ? but I?m getting better at recognizing the ditches before I end of stuck in the muddy bottom.