Carl (also known as 'joesus')

since I can't be heard on your own board ( http://pub141.ezboard.com/ftheishayatraditionfrm1 , here Carl is known as 'maha') without being seen as 'abusive', I thought I'd bring it over here.

Your 'philosophy' is junk, all you do is convince people to ditch their life and follow you into your own narcissistic delusions. The fact of the matter is that you are a sociopath, manipulating people without conscience.

http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/socio.htm
http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwas...nwashing11.html

your little cult is laughably transparent to anybody who is not fooled by your 'charm' and your philosophy of intentional ignorance. I pity all the fools who believe in you and follow you, because in the end they will have to come to terms with the dismal condition they have fallen into.

keep erasing everything I post over on your board, because your control over your subjects depends on it

hi Dan,

I found your links very interesting, and your iconoclasm laudable, but what is it that gives you such an impression about Joe? It's too bad there aren't any former disciples or students (or whatever they're called) that could provide some sort of testimonial.

Joe is fond of saying, "When the Student is Ready, the Teacher will appear." - While I think that, for the most part, we can all learn things from each other, there's something about designating oneself as 'Student' or 'Teacher' that's a bit troubling. Most people would want to play the role of 'Teacher', I suppose, because that would give them an elevated sense of self-importance. But what about those people who want to be 'Students'? Does it mean that they'll follow anyone who claims to be a 'Teacher'? What sort of personality characteristics underlie the self-designated 'Student' who's searching for a 'Teacher'? Submissiveness, lack of self-confidence, emotional dependence on others? In any event, the whole Student-Teacher thing seems to me just a form of role-play, for the most part. If someone's willing to pay a 'Teacher' so that they can play the role of 'Student', then I guess that's their choice and they can do what they want. What's really interesting are the forces and motives underlying such relationships, though. I mean, what would motivate someone to play the role of 'Student' and what would motivate someone to play the role of 'Teacher'? Human nature would seem to dictate that these motives are anything but altruistic or self-less, though I don't rule out some exceptional cases (and in these cases, I suppose it can be said that it's not human nature at all that's involved, but rather something beyond human).

Interesting links.

The only thing I enjoyed, however, was the graphics!

If the Truth were spoken there, and just one persons' life improved, it would be applaudable.

By the same token, if what is stated there is false, or without substance, then the ashaymarians should be held to account for misleading people.

'Things' are offered and things are acccepted.
Unfortunately, vulnerable people, and others too, need unbiassed guidance as they seek the Truth!
They are the ones I am concerned about.

My own feeling is that the Truth should be freely available to anyone, and so I decline any offers which are not free, including all advertising material!

Best regards, Bill.

[quote author=rhymer link=board=7;threadid=3183;start=0#msg15488 date=1067987837]
My own feeling is that the Truth should be freely available to anyone, and so I decline any offers which are not free, including all advertising material!
[/quote]

Amen, brother!

In reading up on cults, I've found the information on Scientology to be quite interesting and useful, and in fact, regard Scientology as a cult benchmark.

Hi Shawn

I understand how you might want a little testimony with regard to Carl's cult, as there is nothing more convincing than an actual victim of his sociopathy. I have had a little contact with one of Carl's former contemporaries and one of the original 'ishayas' (who informed me of his 'pre-ishaya' name). Their leader, a guy named Vaugh Abrams (his 'ishaya' name is Maharishi Sadashiva Isham, or 'MSI') developed this religion after becoming disenfranchised with TM and hallucinating an 'astral' visit to the himilayas where he purports to have made contact with the mythical 'ishayas'. I was informed that MSI subjected his 'students' to a strict brainwashing regime that included severing relations with family, isloation from all except the 'group', chanting and meditating on dogmatic ideas endlessly(the 'ascension attitudes'), disclosing sensitive emotional information during group sessions (which was, of course, used against the disclosee to manipulate them), and more. Here's an excerpt from this communication (hopefully I'm not overstepping my bounds in displaying this)
[quote]MSI (Vaugh Abrams) was an ex TM teacher. He left 2 ex-wives and 3 kids in Fairfield, Iowa and took off with another TM teacher, Annie, across the country. This was during the time when he supposedly went to the Himalayas and encountered the ishayas. Later he maintained that he never said he went to the Himalays on this plain; he went there on another plain (astral, or whatever) that was just as real if not more so. He and Annie developed the first sphere along the way, and started teaching it in Charlotte, North Carolina. He dumped Annie for Sarah and started developing his teaching. He hadn't thought of the Ishaya story until later, after reading the Celestine Prophecy. As I recall, the other spheres are phrases from the Vedas, stuff he got from TM.
[/quote]
(this source also informed me of having lost most of their personal belongings and having spent some $40,000 on this nonsense)

This is most definitely not an honest religion (if there can be such a beast). Rather, it is a new-age religion full of mythical nonsense that is used by sociopathic individuals as a means to psychologically manipulate vulnerable people into a position of submission. Carl, having been subject to physical and psychological abuse by his father at an early age (according to my source), was likely 'primed' for the experience of following a 'spiritual' sociopath and taking on the mantle for himself. Now he is simply acting out the role presented to him, without conscience and with full deliberation (or, as he sees it, 'without wavering'). In fact, it is this lack of conscience and everpresent intelligent deliberation of how to achieve his goals that allows him to put on such a convincing front to those who are simply unable to recognize his sociopathy.

[quote author=Dan link=board=7;threadid=3183;start=#msg15494 date=1067989020]
this source also informed me of having lost most of their personal belongings and having spent some $40,000 on this nonsense
[/quote]

that's very disturbing. How credible is source? I'm curious whether Joe will try to justify this or whether he'll choose to dismiss it as false. :-

I'm actually impressed that you were able to find so much dirt on MSI and the Ishaya's Dan. I can only imagine what that drive could create if focussed on love rather than what you choose to put your energy into.

I won't deny any of your dirt, I'm sure there are others who have some grudge against their experience with Ascension, I have known a few.
It is usually relative to what they demanded from themselves and others as it would in any group dynamic or teaching atmosphere. Someone always hates the teacher and hates what they didn't get from their experience.
I would hope that intelligence will win when it comes to beliefs and accepting truths outside of ones own experience.
Your testimony is not unlike the accusations that took place at the Salem Witch hunts or the Spanish Inquisition.

As a teacher I get mixed reviews. My philosophy is simple,
It doesn't matter what anyone says, without direct experience any belief is tantamount to suspicion. Any thought or experience can change and I have no favor for suffering in doubt.
Belief is not required. What one believes, attempts to add to or take away from the reality of the Unlimited Self that resides within the human body.
Consciousness can not be bought or sold or manipulated, but it can be realized.
Helping others realize themselves is what I do and that is always subject to belief.
Does it matter? To the more paranoid possibly. Can I do what I say? I would say yes, another might say otherwise.
It's really not important, but eveyone has a mission in life and they are all connected together.
In the bigger picture every action leads to greater awareness and expansion of consciousness.

Dan you are still not welcome to post on our bulletin board as long as you continue to harrass its members and call them names. You have your point of view and I am not trying to take it away but I will not tolerate your abusive behavior. I'm glad you are able to have your hissy fit here in light of my deletion of your posts, I'm sure you are feeing much better.

I'm not here to judge, but am feeling a little playful.

I would say that Joe just used Rules 7 and 8 from /yabbse/index.php?boa...y;threadid=3187

Rule 7: Question motives

Rule 8: Invoke authority

I must say, the 25 Rules contained in the link allow for some very entertaining interpretations of people's posts. ;D
Not that I necessarily believe the interpretations, but it's a bit like Freudian analysis in that it allows all sort of things to be explained.

I see that I, too, am also guilty of using some of these rules, in addition to the ones above. The following list is by no means exhaustive of what I've (ab)used:

Rule 2: Become incredulous and indignant.

Rule 10: Associate opponent charges with old news.

Rule 11: Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.

Rule 12: Enigmas have no solution.

Rule 14: Demand complete solutions.

[quote]I must say, the 25 Rules contained in the link allow for some very entertaining interpretations of people's posts.[/quote] Don't they tho ??? As does any relative standard and set of rules.

hi Joe,

to a person just reading this thread, they will probably be wondering who to believe. What would you say to them? If you were to convince them that you were legitimate, how would you do it. or would you not bother yourself with trying to convince them?

[quote]It doesn't matter what anyone says, without direct experience any belief is tantamount to suspicion.[/quote]
I've been 'directly experiencing' you for months, Carl.


[quote]Any thought or experience can change and I have no favor for suffering in doubt.[/quote]
you may not suffer from doubt, but you surely suffer from extreme closed-mindedness and unwarranted self-assurance


[quote]Belief is not required. What one believes, attempts to add to or take away from the reality of the Unlimited Self that resides within the human body. [/quote]
'the unlimited self that resides in the human body' is a belief!


[quote]Consciousness can not be bought or sold or manipulated, but it can be realized.[/quote]
people can be manipulated, Carl. Further, it is in your interest as a manipulator to convince your manipulatees that they are not being manipulated.


[quote]Helping others realize themselves is what I do and that is always subject to belief.[/quote]
all you do is prey on people who are confused, satisfying your need to feel revered.


[quote]Does it matter? To the more paranoid possibly. Can I do what I say? I would say yes, another might say otherwise.[/quote]
Of course you can't do what you say. All you can do is convince people that not believing that you can do what you say is 'limiting' and contrary to enlightenment.


[quote]It's really not important, but eveyone has a mission in life and they are all connected together.
In the bigger picture every action leads to greater awareness and expansion of consciousness.[/quote]
and why should every action lead to 'greater awareness and expansion of consciousness'? It sounds to me like you are rationalizing your actions as 'unavoidably good', which means you can do anything you want and feel good about it.


[quote]Dan you are still not welcome to post on our bulletin board as long as you continue to harrass its members and call them names.[/quote]
so much for your philosophy of 'no victims'


[quote]You have your point of view and I am not trying to take it away but I will not tolerate your abusive behavior. [/quote]
Translation:
I am the leader of my cult, and I cannot let you disrupt my authoritah




8)

[quote]hi Joe,

to a person just reading this thread, they will probably be wondering who to believe. What would you say to them? If you were to convince them that you were legitimate, how would you do it. or would you not bother yourself with trying to convince them? [/quote]
It is not up to me to make anyone believe anything. I think this is where Dan has his hat on a little too tight.
People make assumptions way too easily. Mostly because they do not want to take the time to find out themselves from first hand experience. I find that most are instant gratification junkies and are willing to give up any effort to accept what feels good.
Feeling good is always subjective in that what makes one feel peachy can definately rub another the wrong way.
Why? Subtle internal programs that are engraved into the subconscious.
My Job is not to convince anyone of anything but to lead each to their own self discovery. I have neither the time or the inclination to save the world, but I will affect anyone that comes within my presence by our interaction.
I live my life as I know it and I need not compromise myself if another apparently has some adverse reaction or carries their own subjective grooves that cause them to react.
IF someone asks me to interact I will, possibly not to their satisfaction, but probably with best intentions and without being co-dependant.
The world is what we make it. We have demons or we don't. Usually when facing our demons we find they are a product of our own fears built through subtle programming and they can be healed if we want to heal them. No one can heal anothers demons if they do not want them healed and so it is impractical to try. Having the wisdom to leave one alone who is not willing to change is part and parcel to the process of expanded intuition or consciousness. Pushing an angry person only makes them angrier.
Trying to sell someone a belief system is without any ethics and certainly a waste of time, so why try to sell a point of view when direct experience is available.
Dan has is perspectives and I haven't tried to convince him otherwise but I have responded to his questions.
What he has surmised from our conversations only seems to cause him more frustration and fueled an obsession to do something about me and what I have told him.
Only he knows where he would like this to go and to what result he will find satisfaction.
I don't feel a responsibility to change his attitude or anyone elses. That is for them to do, when they get tired of fighting demons they will do so. When they get tired of judging they will stop, when they decide to focus on love instead of their anger and hatred they will do this also.
I can only be and do what I do and be and by example show that this is all anyone needs to do and accept.
When one finds union with all things they always act in accord with the will of the whole. Always

[quote author=Joesus link=board=7;threadid=3183;start=#msg15526 date=1068007047]
My Job is not to convince anyone of anything but to lead each to their own self discovery.
[/quote]

isn't furthering your own self-discovery part of your Job?

[quote author=Joesus link=board=7;threadid=3183;start=#msg15526 date=1068007047]
I have neither the time or the inclination to save the world
[/quote]

what is the world to you after all, or rather, what do you make it? Does not having the inclination to save the world free you from the responsibility to save the world?

[quote author=Joesus link=board=7;threadid=3183;start=#msg15526 date=1068007047]
When one finds union with all things they always act in accord with the will of the whole.
[/quote]

do you believe there's just one 'will of the whole'? If there's just one will of the whole, then why is it so, umm, messy and, on the surface, randomly directed in large part? Is the messiness not part of the 'will of the whole'? What I mean by 'messy' can be illustrated in the following: I will to move my arm to reach for a cup and it travels in almost a straight line; it's not like I move my arm around in some awkward motion or in circles to reach the cup, which I would characterize as a 'messy' arm movement. So, if there is just one 'will of the whole', then why does it seem so 'messy'?

Carl, I would like to know if you can demonstrate the paranormal abilities that you advertise to potential recruits and initiates. You say that 'limitation' is all in the mind, yet you refuse to demonstrate this purported fact but simply claim that a one needs to 'experience' your nonsense in order to 'see for themselves'. How'z about you just start floating and let me see? What's so hard with that? Why should I have to 'experience' anything other than watching you float about?
???

(p.s. Shawn, ask Carl about 'somatids')

[quote]isn't furthering your own self-discovery part of your Job? [/quote]
Absolutely, but what does that have to do with wrestling with opposing thought streams?

[quote]what is the world to you after all, or rather, what do you make it? Does not having the inclination to save the world free you from the responsibility to save the world?[/quote]
From what I know the world is as I perceive it. With the study of the Self and sharing this perspective openly with others it becomes rather obvious that each has a unique perspective of life and the world.
What I have also learned through experience is, what we think of the world appears in front of us in all of its subtle layers. Fears, likes dislikes etc. The world is a mirror image of our interpretation of ourselves.
When you heal the self of its illusions of anything separate from pure potential the worlds appearance and dimensional reality changes with the change of perspective, with the change in the point of reference. That point of reference needs to go beyond belief into the pure potential.
This controversial idea is more than an idea, it is an attainable reality that has been experienced by everyone. Mostly unnoticed due to its subtlety and mostly overshadowed by the mind in its activity with beliefs, it becomes a reference point where one can witness the manifestation of the physical from belief. Rise above beliefs and what is the world without belief but purely the expression of God. When I say God I mean consciousness which is what we are. In this experience divine expression is pure energy and there is nothing to change for the need to change only comes from the idea that something is amiss.
Each is responsible for their own manifest reality and it comes about through the beliefs that create manifestation which in turn substantiates belief through perception.

If I try to change the world according to my interpretation of anothers belief system then I impose my thoughts onto anothers beliefs. Without the experience of Union and the ability to merge with that belief system then there can be no change only an agreement or acknowledgement of interpretation or conflict. The only place that two can meet as One is at the point of conception, or what is called the bindu point where consciousness meets manifest reality or what we call the Ascendant. From there there is nothing to save and nothing to change only the underlying nature of all things. What God draws forth in its multidimensional ability to express is not a problem but more of a miracle. In actuality it is just the nature of God to express itself. Only the ego anchored in duality loses sight of the bigger picture because it gets lost in the manifestation and belief.
[quote]do you believe there's just one 'will of the whole'? If there's just one will of the whole, then why is it so, umm, messy and, on the surface, randomly directed in large part? Is the messiness not part of the 'will of the whole'? What I mean by 'messy' can be illustrated in the following: I will to move my arm to reach for a cup and it travels in almost a straight line; it's not like I move my arm around in some awkward motion or in circles to reach the cup, which I would characterize as a 'messy' arm movement. So, if there is just one 'will of the whole', then why does it seem so 'messy'?[/quote]

The interpretation of Chaos or random events is the ego's interpretation of the world through separation and duality. The Ego has the ability to be the medium of communication or the bridge between the unmanifest and the manifest in the expereince of God creating. But at different layers of immersion into the manifest reality it sometimes becomes more of the manifest than the creator and gets lost in the shuffle. This can be illustrated by the immersion of the senses into a great movie, one can lose all track of time and the outside world, or to give another example like someone thrown into the midst of too much stimulation where one loses their point of stability and reference. Have you ever seen someone who loses their composure in a fatal auto accident? Sometimes the person/s involved can get hysterical, losing their normal point of reference they can be quite irrational.
Having a stable point of reference that is anchored always beyond changing thought streams and experiences gives one the ability to oversee any situation and remain focused on the truth of all things. To feel and experience the traits of the physical world and the bodies senses without ever getting lost or ever perceiving the world as a mess.

Carl basically assumes certain core beliefs as true (as learned in his 'ishaya' training), and interprets in ways that support those beliefs. The real trick to his little religion is in the single-minded intent to maintain his assumed core beliefs. This singlemindedness generates the feeling that he calles 'ascendant', and the result of such focus on these core beliefs gives him the sense that he calls 'having a stable point'. Based on this decisiveness he has been able to gradually make sense of the world in a coherent fashion that, by design, supports his beliefs. He truly believes all the nonsense that he preaches is true, because his single-minded focus to maintain his core beliefs has led to a cognition that is stable and flexible enough to enable satisfactory reaction to situations he encounters in the world.

Metaphorically, the Self is an infinite abyss. There are always layers beneath layers. Even the 'Ground of Being' experience has additional layers to be peeled away, and depths to manifest, and boundaries to transcend.

If you think you know what speaks through me, think again. Whether you choose to label it the Self, or the self, or the ego, these are just words. Within each of us is something, we know not what, though many of us are often presumptuous enough to maintain all sorts of notions, beliefs, and interpretations regarding it. We experience it, partially, at times, and we call these 'mystical experiences' or 'transcendent experiences', but there is always something more. Is it a potentiality, a hidden actuality, an emergent property, or an immanent property? Is this even the right question to ask?

If you think there is an activity OR a stillness, a changing OR a timelessness, a universal OR a particular, a one OR a many, a God OR a Godless, an existent OR a non-existent, a potentiality OR an actuality, a being OR a becoming, a transcendence OR an immanence, an identity OR a non-identity, an illusion OR a reality, an all OR a none, then you haven't realized the Totality. There is a saying: God [or Totality] is the alpha AND omega, or did you think the Totality was either an alpha OR omega?

What I see here are different perspectives. Dan does not accept Joe's claims which stem from his perspective, and neither does Joe accept Dan's. Playing the role of devil's advocate, I would ask Joe whether he understands how his 'experience' which he insists is necessary to understand or appreciate his truth could be compared to 'brainwashing'. With a brainwashed individual, they may well be convinced that they've attained the holy Truth and have realized the Self and are God, but is this really the sort of 'experience' we wish to put ourselves through? Do we really want to brainwash ourselves into believing something which we would be far more critical of in other states of mind where our faculty of Reason is intact? I know that I do not desire to be brainwashed into believing any and all sorts of fanciful notions, and so when someone insists on having the 'experience' in order to understand or appreciate their truth, while I understand the necessity in having certain experiences, I also recognize that there is always the possibility that the 'experience' they speak of is brainwashing or otherwise killing off or silencing our critical or rational minds, unless they can convince us otherwise, which they either willingly refuse or cannot do. I don't mean this in any derogatory sense, but it's merely the fact of the matter, whether any brainwashing is actually involved or not. And so I understand Joe's plight in this regard. Other issues, like the identification of Jesus with Ascension, though they seem much more open to attack or debate, are nonetheless, peripheral relative to the central issue of regarding the legitimacy of claimed experiences, and whether the experiences are not the result of anything like brainwashing. To fall back onto the position that 'you must experience them for yourself' must be understood within the context that possibly brainwashing is involved in this experience, and so the previous statement can be interpreted as 'you must become brainwashed yourself'. Then, I guess it comes down to, do you like to gamble with your life?

Fortunately, there are other paths one can follow, without a 'teacher'. For example, Buddha never had a teacher. While I certainly don't regard Buddha as the culmination of spiritual realization, nonetheless, most people will take that particular example as proof that you don't need a 'teacher' for spiritual realization.

Spiritual realization, aka enlightenment, is capable of utterly transforming us, and as such, should be discernable to others by our actions. It is no longer sufficient to merely meditate contentedly under a bodhi tree in order to be deemed enlightened to any significant extent, at least not by the new standards. If you are enlightened to any significant degree, then there shouldn't be any problem with allowing your actions to speak for you. Words are empty. Private experiences can easily be dismissed as delusion. Instead, show us what enlightenment means to you, let us see how your self-transformation overflows into your actions. Let your actions speak for you. This is the proof Dan desires. Without it, you might as well be reciting passages from some new age spirituality manual and few people would know the difference.

Of course, it's completely acceptable to, like you said, interact without trying to prove anything. Nonetheless, the proof does exist, maybe not all of the time, but when it does, the proof is in our actions. For you, these actions may reside in transforming others, or helping others find themselves, and if this is true, then you should just say as much.

Shawn,
I find your position full of holes. It tries to discern the infinite as indescribable and out of the ability to truly experience anything more than fragments or layers and yet within reach to experience. It describes enlightenment within the terms of definable boundaries and actions.
I don't personally believe in Brainwashing.
I don't think the human has the ability for anything less than self choice and motivation. This is my experience from a greater awareness of humanity. Believe it or not, that is each persons choice to define reality, to put no limits or limits to define it and the experiences in it.
I know that for every trade and school of thought that the teacher helps the student from stumbling down the repeated pathways of the past so that one does not have to rediscover fire and the wheel all over again. It is not necessary to accept but somewhere in sometime one has a teacher that has passed their experiences and wisdom down.
I know the infinite has not changed in 5000 years and the path to enlightenment has not become more complex. The only thing that has become more complex is mans ability to try and define reality and it has moved him further away from his heart and deeper into his intellect.
The supreme use of the intellect is thru Union with God and not with the ideas of what the world is, what God is and what enlightened actions are.
Each person finds their way to that understanding and at their own pace. Eventually they surrender all ideas back into the One and become that rather than this and that.
I don't teach others that they are victim to circumstance or another persons ideas. I teach the reality that each is the divine expression of God and there are no exceptions to that rule. To whatever degree one accepts another is up to them.
I can accept Dan's point of view but I choose to remove him from the range of my website while he tries to spit on me and the members of it. I tolerated him for several months while he called me names, that included psychopath, sociopath, and Cult leader, just to name a few.
It's that simple. I do what I do and everyone else does what they do. I accept all action as being in synch with what the world sees as reality. That includes my ability to make the choice to step out of range, or to remove Dan from the range of my bulletin board as long as he insists that I cannot, or other members of the Bulletin board cannot make our own choices that are different than his, without him being abusive.
I'm not interested in his witch hunt. For every great person in the world there is a devils advocate and a disgruntled person who for whatever reason needs to change the world so that it is going in the same direction as his. C'est la Vie, I can't stop that choice but I can step out of his way when he swings at me.
I do not tell people how to live their lives, that is strictly up to them but I can offer my experience if it helps them.
People come to us because they are interested not because we set psychological traps for the weak minded.
If you or anyone thinks brainwashing is a problem you should look at societel programs that insist the cold and flu season has arrived every fall, that in order to be popular it is acceptable practice to invite one to drink the right beer and drive the right car, or how to please your wife with a penis enlargment.
What you focus on grows. I would rather people learn to Love rather than dissect each other according to learned and programmed standards that are filtered through emotional stress and desires.
In my understanding and experience there are no limits to the human condition other than those that are self imposed.
We continue to change the rules and they continue to get more complex with each change. Life used to simple and we used to be able to move freely about. Now you have to be searched and x-rayed to get on the bus or a plane, this is not progress as far as humanity is concerned, it is devolution.
I am not interested in changing the surface appearances of life but I am in teaching those that wish to live from the inside out how to change the beliefs that are built of fear and mistrust. Those things that build these surface actions that are just emotional frustration, exploding from the pent up hearts of humanity.
All great teachers of enlightenment did just that, they taught people how to recognize and expand Love, by enlivening their hearts through infinite possibility.
Only the dissapointed with personal agendas who want to take are ever dissapointed and they are the first to shout Dogma and Cult. When they're selfish motives are not completed they are the first to lash out against what they believe is the perpetrator.
Life is what you make it. Understanding yourself and how you perceive things allows you to make greater choices and build a better life. One that is what is dreamed of and thought to be unreachable for some.
Whatever it takes. To join a church or a club to find someone who has a like mind often strenthens ones spirit. Not everyone relies soley on their pride to make life what it is because not everyone is so fearful and full of distrust for humanity.
Anytime a group of like minded individuals get together they could be suspect by some ignorant mind to be a cult.
There is possibilty in life if you look for it. There is also the Dark side.
"Follow your feelings Luke and surrender to the dark side of the force" --Darth Vader.
Feelings can be deceptive, intuition is and can be a greater source and one that is connected to the heart and will always lead to where you want to go. How to discern the difference between emotional attachment and the heart can sometimes be tricky and involves wisdom, not from just experience but from greater knowledge than can come from surface appearances and judgments that divide humanity and action into categories.

notice how Carl is trying to paint himself as some kind of altruist, his cult as a charity, and me as the devil. Simple fact is, he's still spewing his 'brainwash-prep' drivel but in a more aggressive way in order to drown out doubt and induce new faith.

I'm still waiting for him to demonstrate his claimed paranormal abilities, and I am not surprised that he is avoiding the challenge.

amicus joe amicus dan magis amica Veritas

[quote]amicus joe amicus dan magis amica Veritas[/quote]

Shawn, you are a wise man. Subtle and distinctive, your posts are insightful, witty, and pragmatic, yet with a focus on spiritual awareness. I like to read your posts more than once just to get the full import of what you're saying. I can see why you're admin here; you deserve it. I hope you touch a lot of people with your wisdom and common sense.