Go Back   EarthSong Forums > Spiritual and Religious Pathways > Creative Spirituality

Creative Spirituality A forum to discuss emergent and eclectic spiritual practices, traditions and personal paths

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-15-15   #51
SunSister
Bog Fairy Fox
 
SunSister's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 4,500

Reputation: 507
Default Re: ..and the other burning question of the day...

Quote:
Originally Posted by feranaja View Post
What does it actually mean when "everyone" creates their life circumstances, for better or worse, independent of external factors, and all suffering is the working out of some kind of "karma"?
I don't even think that really.. works? If we all create our life circumstances independent of external factors, then wouldn't it stand to reason that we would also lose the interconnectivity between all of us that the New Age validates and praises? If we're all on our own islands attracting and rebuffing whatever karma we've got, it would mean that our islands wouldn't really be in a state of interaction with each other but we would just be "the means to another's end". You could only be someone's positive or negative karma work-out as they could also only be your karma work-out. There's no real sense of genuine reciprocity or presence -- other human beings are just tools to your own life that way. Reading into it like that almost makes it sound stiflingly psychopathic and void of any real empathy.

I think some things are just out of our hands. That no matter what we put out there, no matter what we do ourselves, there'll always be some things that we can't exercise control over. I don't even think we should be in a position where we can. New Age tells us we are masters of the universe.. I think the universe is too big to master and that we're really just deluding ourselves into being more important than we are if we really believe all of this is designed around us.
__________________
She had studied the universe all her life, but had overlooked its clearest message:
for small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.
- Carl Sagan
SunSister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-15   #52
feranaja
 
feranaja's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Edge of the forest
Posts: 25,674

Default Re: ..and the other burning question of the day...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SunSister View Post
I don't even think that really.. works? If we all create our life circumstances independent of external factors, then wouldn't it stand to reason that we would also lose the interconnectivity between all of us that the New Age validates and praises?
It infuriates me that it doesn't even need to make sense.


Quote:
If we're all on our own islands attracting and rebuffing whatever karma we've got, it would mean that our islands wouldn't really be in a state of interaction with each other but we would just be "the means to another's end". You could only be someone's positive or negative karma work-out as they could also only be your karma work-out.
Yep. and how spiritually lovey-dovey is THAT, really.



Quote:
There's no real sense of genuine reciprocity or presence -- other human beings are just tools to your own life that way. Reading into it like that almost makes it sound stiflingly psychopathic and void of any real empathy.
Believe me, I'm not the only one who critiques the NA this way - and by no means its harshest critic.
When I've said that people are using the term without seeing these analyses, I meant it.


Quote:
I think some things are just out of our hands.
Right there, you've stepped out of the NA circle.


Quote:
That no matter what we put out there, no matter what we do ourselves, there'll always be some things that we can't exercise control over. I don't even think we should be in a position where we can. New Age tells us we are masters of the universe.. I think the universe is too big to master and that we're really just deluding ourselves into being more important than we are if we really believe all of this is designed around us.
Exactly. Take the control you an, change what you can - but with regard for the larger reality around you, and the core humility to understand you don't actually, create "everything".

Thanks for the balanced reply, I've been too busy to come back to this thread but I was glad to see this post when I made it here today.
__________________
"if you don't know how to think, you'll always be a one legged man in an ass kicking contest".

Shane Parrish
feranaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-15   #53
SunSister
Bog Fairy Fox
 
SunSister's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 4,500

Reputation: 507
Default Re: ..and the other burning question of the day...

No problem. It sure doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you start dissecting it in earnest, which I actually think says more about people's weariness in spirituality than it does the NA itself. People click with its rampant positivity mainly because they have become disenchanted with another brand of spirituality/lifestyle. They're willing to accept that it doesn't make sense on more than a surface level, because they're exhausted from questioning everything and this thing actually feels good.

Which is all fine and all, but if you don't grow beyond that in the years that follow.. that's when I get critical. Because the NA keeps you in a stasis. It tells you that there are many 'levels of consciousness' you can attain, but the reality is that you're constantly being talked down to as though you're a child learning to tie shoelaces for the first time. The number one thing I know for sure about NA is this: nobody wants you to grow beyond their level. People are stiflingly jealous of spiritual prowess. You're not meant to grow. You're not meant to question. You're sure as hell not meant to raise your eyebrow at channeled messages, ascended masters, and rays of light. But I do all that. I can't help it. For someone so innately curious as me, the NA is the most controlling thing aside from other dogmatic religions and cults.

You know that shout of "the NA does not recognise official dogma"? That's why you get sage and white light thrown at you when you dare not believe in its current big hype, right?

I think it's also.. we dare not be humble.
__________________
She had studied the universe all her life, but had overlooked its clearest message:
for small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.
- Carl Sagan
SunSister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-15   #54
petrus4
Leaper

 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,497

Reputation: 499
Default Re: ..and the other burning question of the day...

My attitude towards Neville Goddard's material, (and I think possibly what led to me discovering it in the first place) is that if Goddard's thesis is not true, then the only viable alternative that I can see for myself is suicide.

This is because I live in a world, and a society, which I consider utterly repugnant in virtually every possible respect I could name. I absolutely, passionately hate twenty first century, American-based society, for the most part. There are isolated elements of it which I do not, but to a large degree I do. On going to the men's toilet here at the hostel a few minutes ago, someone had left a couple of bottles of shampoo in there, which had the name, "Hello Hydration."

This is a stupid example, and I know I shouldn't care about it. I'm just tired of the continual, relentless barrage of idiocy. More than anything else, that is what I am tired of. I'm tired of idiocy, and immaturity, and superficiality, and degeneracy. I'm tired of people like the moron who is living here at the moment, who is the stereotypical white gangster rapper who is covered in tattoos, and who constantly needs to brag about himself and attempt to start conflict with other people, because of what a pathetic, insecure child he is. I just want to go out to the tables, and smoke and meditate; and I can't do that because of people like him being there. There is always at least one of his kind out there at all times, and the owner generally is not willing to ask them to leave either, because she wants their money.

Indulging in a celebration of victimhood really was not what I intended with this post, but truthfully I really feel like a victim right now. I first got beaten up in fucking kindergarten, and it's been all down hill from there. The only means I have of obtaining genuine security is isolating myself as completely as possible. Human beings are annoying at best, and lethally dangerous at worst.

That's why I need the Law of Attraction, Fera. I need it because I live in a world that I hate, and Kali and the LoA represent the only two defensive weapons I have against said world. That's truthfully the only real reason why I care about magick, as well. It's not remotely about spiritual advancement. It's just about having an untraceable, unaccountable means of making people get the fuck away from me, and stay away. The first spell I ever cast was a sigil to block my father's narcissistic, evil bitch of an ex-wife from attacking me. I didn't do anything to harm her, either; I just wanted to stop her from harming me.

That's also why I don't have a daily ritual practice either, or take things seriously in academic terms like you've suggested; because I don't fucking want to at all. My father very successfully taught me to view literally any form of structure as an absolute disease, and I am fanatical about avoiding it. The one aspect of life here that I revel in, is my ability to remain completely devoid of structure and routine; to go to bed when I want, get up when I want, eat when I want, and do whatever else when I want.

For me, that's not what magick is for. Magick is about one thing and one thing only; stopping the monsters.


Last edited by petrus4; 11-22-15 at 10:24 AM.
petrus4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-15   #55
Indamarion
 
Indamarion's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
Posts: 26

Reputation: 1
Default Re: ..and the other burning question of the day...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Windsmith bat Gaia View Post
YES!!!

This for sure.

Part of the problem of trying to apply principles of positivity to other people is that you have no idea what institutional or biological or . . . anything issues they're dealing with. A positive attitude is probably better than a negative one if you're job-hunting, for instance, but no amount of positive attitude will change the racist, sexist, ageist, ableist, homophobic, transmisogynistic, and other discriminatory systems that favor able-bodied, cishet white dudes over pretty much everybody else, regardless of qualifications. A positive attitude may help you heal faster after illness or injury, but if you're living with chronic pain or disability, the day may come when you just don't have the energy to be "up" anymore.

When positivity becomes another excuse for victim-blaming (even, or maybe especially, when the victim is yourself), then it becomes a problem.
Yes, very good.


Sollie said -
Quote:
But if I tried to just parrot them over and over to other people, regardless of their circumstances, personality, and influences, I would not blame anyone for slapping me for being annoying.

When trying to help someone feel better, I try to think of things that they relate to, that they find comfort and draw strength from, using specific examples of times that they rose to a challenge if I can.
This is key and/or crucial. The spirit of and behind “positivity” is obviously something we all could or want to relate to. The point of it ideally is not to tell a person to remain positive or to persist positively, but rather to produce positivity out of and from within the circumstances that are less positive (“negative”). It betrays a level of arrogance and ignorance to assume being positive turns lives around for the better - such people who do so are either serving an agenda, catering to a "naiveté," or are speaking from their own personal experience forgetting the impersonal nature of the world we live in and the forces of incidence/co-incidence that makes it all go 'round. A child is born not because some sperm cell decided to mind-control the man's brain to impregnate a woman - none of us are here or "born" because WE chose to. I do not buy into the notion that I chose to incarnate here to "learn lessons" - what the fuck do "I," before even being born, need to learn lessons for? There is no "I" to it. Does doing and being (becoming) in a “positive” manner effectively produce and continue producing positive circumstances – or MORE positive circumstances? It can only seem to, IF it does! And yet driving down the highway with a smile on your face, some lemonade or iced tea in your cup holder, and some bossa nova in your CD player on a bright, warm, sunny day after you just got a promotion at your job is not a physically impenetrable firewall against the incident of any potential drunk (or even sober) driver that might just become the ruin of your good day, good car, good mood and good life. This we all know, even if the glamor of apparently consistent good fortune lulls us into forgetting so – or of being less mindful of such on a regular basis as part of our "normal" moment.


Recently the Dalai Lama decided to tell the world to stop praying for Paris because it's not helping, because “God won't help us solve our own problems” and work for world peace instead. UH!? Thanks Mr. Lama, you have definitely helped Paris out by your announcement. Here's another newsflash – WORKING for world peace doesn't help Paris either (actual world peace would), but a time machine could, and standing there telling us all shit we already know neither helps Paris nor contributes to world peace-making efforts. I'm not a particular fan of the Dalai Lama, moreso especially now – political puppet or not, it's a stupid thing to say and comment to make to people at this time.


Bottom line is, be effective with your positivity pursuits (both in acquiring and in spreading it). Cultivate it for REAL. Be smart – be smarter than smart. It IS mindless tastelessness to belittle the hardships and “downtimes” of people, groups, cultures, subcultures, etc with this rhetorical tripe. And it IS belittling, even if not done so for that effect or in that spirit - it IS if it is taken to be, and it is easy for people in crappy circumstances to take it that way. Yes, it's damn easy for someone who is comfortably making $25K a year or more to speak well about positivity (and many would think I'm crazy to think $25K a year is a prosperous income!). Head down to the "hood" and preach this same rhetoric to the strung out street thugs and street thieves having a "bad day" and their bad day may just quickly become yours too. (Yes, I live in a proverbial "hood" and have even been a strung out low-life in my time)



You all seem to have good heads on your shoulders, you've got this issue figured out.
__________________
Jai Jai Jai Hanuman Gosahin
Kripa Karahu Gurudev Ki Nyahin!

Last edited by Indamarion; 11-22-15 at 06:36 PM.
Indamarion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-15   #56
petrus4
Leaper

 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,497

Reputation: 499
Default Re: ..and the other burning question of the day...

A verification of Fera's argument, here. I came across the below video from Wayne Dyer, via a post in the /r/lawofattraction sub on Reddit, which landed on my front page yesterday.


As I listened to this video, the one thing that I started noticing, was the amount of name dropping Dyer was engaging in. Wikipedia defines name dropping as the following:-

Name-dropping is the practice of mentioning important people or institutions within a conversation, story, song, online identity, or other communication. The term often connotes an attempt to impress others; it is usually regarded negatively, and under certain circumstances may constitute a breach of professional ethics. When used as part of a logical argument it can be an example of the false authority fallacy.

He does it at the very beginning of the clip, mentioning Ralph Waldo Emmerson, and Henry David Thoreau. Later on in the video he talks about association with Ram Dass, and then mentions a few casual encounters with Deepak Chopra.

Now, assuming that he genuinely did know Chopra in a relatively ordinary sense, mentioning him might not be such a big deal. However, I've watched a few of Wayne's videos now, and I've noticed that aside from his mother and his daughter, the only people I can remember him talking about, are those who are famous in some way; usually others in the self-help movement. Louise Hay, Deepak Chopra etc.

Dyer's material is consistently very positive, and I think that he genuinely did help a large number of people. At the same time, however, I think this is an interesting example of subtle narcissism on the part of someone within the self-help or New Age communities, which does lend weight to Fera's argument.

A counter-argument from Dyer's followers, or Dyer himself, might be that the example of famous individuals often can provide inspiration or insight. I won't argue with that. I will, however, say that when someone leans on the tactic of citing such people, as heavily as Dyer does, it starts to resemble both snobbery and plagiarism, to an uncomfortable degree.
petrus4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-15   #57
feranaja
 
feranaja's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Edge of the forest
Posts: 25,674

Default Re: ..and the other burning question of the day...

Quote:

Dyer's material is consistently very positive, and I think that he genuinely did help a large number of people. At the same time, however, I think this is an interesting example of subtle narcissism on the part of someone within the self-help or New Age communities, which does lend weight to Fera's argument.
You know p, I don't actually equate name-dropping with narcissism. I think sometimes people do it to back up a point, which in itself points more to insecurity. I guess it can be narcissistic, but in itself this isn't enough for me to start raising an eyebrow, questioning validity.
I do it sometimes, as I am friends with some of the top herbalists in the world, and was recently included in a large book on Clinical Herbalists, my articles were included,and I feel proud and a little giddy to be in such company. That might be seen as narcissistic, but I feel it inside myself as a long awaited nod of recognition and I want to share it, not to say how great I am, but because I expect my real friends to be happy for me.


When I refer to the innate narcissism of the New Age, I mean this: "WE ALL CREATE OUR OWN REALITY". Nothing else factors in.
We are completely in control.
Not that we co-create.Not that focusing the mind carefully can bring great results (eg, Magic 101??) but we are MASTERS of the universe and can "manifest abundance"(eg get more stuff, in this obscenely self-obsessed world that's just the most important thing, right?)
The shallow, unthinking focus on self and not just Self in the LHP sense, but Self as ALL THAT MATTERS.
This idea is encoded into the blatherings of these gurus, it fools the weakminded and it is deeply, intrinsically pathological. About as anti-spiritual as anything I know of.

And you know this is true, petrus, I am sure you do. Spirituality is not at all about the enshrinement of the individual ego/consciousness with the goal of attaining all its wants and needs. And that's exactly what the New Age is about. Read between the lines. It's all there.



Quote:
A counter-argument from Dyer's followers, or Dyer himself, might be that the example of famous individuals often can provide inspiration or insight. I won't argue with that. I will, however, say that when someone leans on the tactic of citing such people, as heavily as Dyer does, it starts to resemble both snobbery and plagiarism, to an uncomfortable degree.
Agreed, there can be value especially in sharing one's developmental path (eg I trained with so-and-so).. but the repetition HERE can also be a marketing ploy. All these billionaire exploitationists are in it together. They saw the vulnerable state of the spiritually confused, and worked it for all its worth...together.
__________________
"if you don't know how to think, you'll always be a one legged man in an ass kicking contest".

Shane Parrish
feranaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-15   #58
petrus4
Leaper

 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,497

Reputation: 499
Default Re: ..and the other burning question of the day...

Quote:
Originally Posted by feranaja View Post
When I refer to the innate narcissism of the New Age, I mean this: "WE ALL CREATE OUR OWN REALITY". Nothing else factors in.
We are completely in control.
It's highly appropriate, I think, that I am writing this on the tail end of a mushroom trip; and a trip which has been particularly pre-occupied with the issue of sovereignty.

The answer, fairly simply, is the same as it has always been. Sovereignty, whether this is viewed paradoxically or otherwise, is directly proportional to the individual's knowledge of, and willingness to abide by universal Law.

Now, I know. This is a statement on my part which would get me past certain examinations; that would cause certain...former, if not necessarily current...members of this forum to nod their heads with vast, arbitrary, and in many cases more than slightly hypocritical self-importance, and declare that young Petrus is finally developing some genuine maturity.

I accept said condescension, because the statement made above is sincere, and not a mere resort to stereotypes. Correspondence and the various other Laws absolutely hold, as has been demonstrated by Goddard and who knows how many other people.

A person can declare themselves the master of their reality as much as they like. If they remain mired in avidya...ignorance...then it will earn them nothing.

I have control over what I choose to perceive.

Do I have control over how I act, you ask? If my perception is flawed, is in denial, or is otherwise inconsistent with my fundamental intention, then the resulting action can not have a positive outcome, irrespective of what action is taken. This is true to the point where freedom of physical action is completely irrelevant. The cage door can be wide open; if you don't think you can step through it, you can't.

That is what I have. I have consent. I have the ability to know whether or not something will or will not happen with my approval. Unlike what is standard for many, however, I differ in that I am also realising that I can consent to whether or not something will actually happen. It's not merely a case of mentally knowing that it's rape if I've been fucked in a public shower without my approval, and still being incapable of preventing the act; it's a case of realising and asking myself, which variables I might have been able to change, which in turn may have led to a different outcome.

This is very, very politically incorrect thinking. I am in thoughtcrime territory, here. However, before you get angry with me, let me try and untangle this particular knot.

For some reason, the level of empathy which we show someone, or believe that they are entitled to, is apparently proportional to their demonstrated innocence or lack of consent. I am apparently expected to show less conscious or intentional emotional support to someone who has not had their consent violated. This, of course, is not the way that it is usually perceived; but the interesting thing about some arguments, is that they always have multiple perspectives.

Victim = abnormally high compassion.
Non-victim = normal, low to non-existent compassion.

So a victim deserves conscious, deliberate nurturing. Unfortunately, this also tends to set up an unspoken assumption that those who are not victims, do not deserve conscious, deliberate nurturing; because we live in a society where misery and hatred are considered normal, rather than joy and love. So if your condition is considered normal, and said condition is also consentual and a result of your own actions and choices, then supposedly you can go in the next created landfill with all the other garbage.

This is why we have victims.

This is why we have endless, literal parades of victims. It's because what we really have, are scores of people who are unloved and who consider themselves unloveable, but who have caught on to the idea that if they identify themselves as victims, then their status will change, and they will get the love and the empathy and the basic recognition that they so desperately need. That which we all need.

In a psychopathic society like ours, you can't just love people as a normal matter of course. You have to come up with insane, conditional rationalisations as to why someone is temporarily eligible for a reprieve, in what is otherwise a ceaseless barrage of cannibalistic, omnicidal, inhuman sociopathy. It also helps if there is some degree of novelty involved.

So lack of responsibility is craved. If I know that the only way I'm going to get the sort of emotional input which previously, I would have got continually as a normal part of life in indigenous societies, and which as a result I am genetically hardwired to accept, by either being raped or being involved in a car accident, then being involved in either of those two supposedly adverse experiences, is going to potentially feel a lot like winning the lottery.

This isn't where I live any more. I live in an environment where I and the others present, are continually exposed to several different entheogens on a sufficiently full time basis, that even if we did need reminding that continual empathy is in fact a basic requisite for survival, we would (and do) get that reminder.

As a result, victimhood literally can not happen. We put sufficient energy into building up and maintaining each other, that the proverbial kissing of bruises is done before it has a chance to be asked for. Adverse situations (otherwise known as "emergencies" among those who are addicted to them) are virtually unheard of, as well. We help each other when it is needed, but none of us are pathologically addicted to creating unpleasant situations for ourselves either, because we are already getting our emotional needs met.

Quote:
The shallow, unthinking focus on self and not just Self in the LHP sense, but Self as ALL THAT MATTERS.
I think we might have reached the central issue, here; and it's apparently the usual one, of Randian psychopathy on one end of the spectrum, and Gandhi on the other.

The problem with living on that particular perceptual axis, is that someone always loses. If you're on Gandhi's end, it's you. If you're on Rand's end, however, it's everyone else.

To the extent that I think I am universally in charge of anything, I am in terms of perception. That's it. How I view things, as I've said. So the question then becomes, how do I want to perceive myself, and do I want my perception to be consistent with environmental feedback, such that it does not lead to lack of trust in said perception, which is otherwise known as insanity?

If someone wants to create a self-perception as the second coming of Victor von Doom, complete with consistent environmental feedback, then they can have fun with that as far as I am concerned, but they won't be doing so anywhere near me.

My ability to choose what I perceive and how I perceive it, also includes the ability to create lines of energy, or energetic circuits, between myself and that which is being perceived. Again, if you're a magician, this claim isn't excessively grandiose.

So which perception of myself and what is happening, am I devoting my awareness to, and therefore my energy?

I am choosing to perceive and work towards a scenario in which I and the other people around me, mutually nurture each other; and this is because of a shared, almost implicit understanding that the survival of each individual, radically increases the likelihood of the survival of the collective, and vice versa. There is no difference, and there is no contradiction. As Bashar said, the one is the all, the all are the one.

I am not talking about anything hypothetical here. I am not talking about anything that has not already happened. I am seeing, and am going to see, the advent of what in the past has been described as a Utopian society, and it is going to happen simply because I utterly refuse to tolerate any other alternative.

This is also not "Utopia," in the sense that it is in any way repressive; or based, as it is on Reddit and among the neo-Atheists, on enforced consensus. Where neo-Atheism is concerned, if I reject evolution as an idea, then I am not in the club. In the scenario that I am describing, I am free to hold whatever ideas I choose, irrespective of how divinely inspired or utterly idiotic they may be. There are three rules.

a} No lies. I do not deliberately misrepresent anything to either myself or others. That path leads to insanity, and in my own case, the just wrath of Kali as well.

This requires some clarification. Saying that I have freedom of perception, does not mean that I can hallucinate that two and two equal anything other than four, with impunity. The relationships between many things hold, and will continue to do so.

So I do not lie about what physically has happened. Where I can and will freely exercise maximum creativity, however, is in how I choose to more subjectively (for example, emotionally) perceive a given event, which also for the most part completely dictates my available choices for responding to it.

The cat still dies, and it is still mathematically verifiable that it does. I choose how (or even if) I skin it. Aquarius isn't so much about deterministic, pre-quantum physics going completely out the window, as it is about how to beneficially and completely master said physics, by also understanding the culmination of them. As Jesus said, the point isn't to destroy the Law at all, but to complete it.

b} No stealing. That which is offered, is offered openly, and is to be taken openly. If you do not want to give, then do not take. I give because I understand that I can not receive abundantly otherwise.

This is in the Devi Mahatmaya, as well; Kali's scripture. "He gives, he receives. In no other way is She pleased."

The one form of consistent or formal ritual that Kali gets from me on a daily basis without fail now, is two readings of the Saptaslokistotra Durga, once after I wake, and once before I sleep. As long as I do so, it goes well with me. If I do not, then it does not. If I do not give, I do not receive.

c} No violence. The usual word games will be played about psychological or verbal violence will be played here; but I judge this on an individual basis, and I know it when I see it. At its' most basic, violence is an attempt to coercively change the state of an individual, in a manner which is contrary to the will of said individual; although again, this gets messy because it assumes that non-consentual state changes can even happen in the first place, and my perspective at this point is that they really can't.

Quote:
And you know this is true, petrus, I am sure you do. Spirituality is not at all about the enshrinement of the individual ego/consciousness with the goal of attaining all its wants and needs.
Getting everything you want, is about as useful developmentally speaking, as not getting it. It's completely possible to learn the same developmental lessons at either end of that axis. From my own perspective, scarcity has been a somewhat more effective teacher; but then again, I honestly don't think it would have been if I hadn't also started from some degree of affluence.

Economically speaking, I've been all over the map. I've eaten with people who owned a $70 million mansion, and who took me around parts of it. My parents had a beachhouse in Torquay, not far from Bells Beach, which is of course one of the more famous surf beaches on the planet. They were also friends with some millionaires who had a second house in Templestowe as well; before my fifth birthday, there were several nights when I went to sleep within earshot of the sea.

At the other end of the spectrum, there were periods in Sunbury where I was lucky if I ate once every two days. While living with my ex-girlfriend, "food" was often defined as instant mashed potatoes, tofu, or MSG-flavoured pasta. I've had the reservation diet, and I can say that literally; a Maori woman who I love lives here and occasionally makes frybread. Said diet is not recommended.

As I'm currently writing to someone on Reddit, money is quite literally condensed fear. Once enough of the fear subsides, money fairly simply becomes irrelevant. I need a roof over my head, a good pair of shoes, the clothes on my back, a minimum of one meal a day, Internet access, and either Coke or vegetable juice. I genuinely consider the love of Kali to be a far more valuable metric of wealth than money, at this point. Money can stay or go as much as it pleases; I have always believed in Jesus' advice on that score. Treasure in Heaven is much more useful than that on Earth.

Quote:
All these billionaire exploitationists are in it together. They saw the vulnerable state of the spiritually confused, and worked it for all its worth...together.
I honestly don't believe in completely absolving their customer base of responsibility. To me it doesn't make a lot of sense if on the one hand we accuse Wayne Dyer or Eckhart Tolle of being narcissistic, avaricious con artists, and then on the other hand give the followers of these men a completely free pass. There's as much choice involved in being a sheep, as there is in being a shearer. I don't consider either to be a commendable moral position. They are both wrong; merely in different ways.
petrus4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Current time: 07:00 AM (GMT -4)


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2019, EarthSong Forums. Most rights reserved.