A Good Tool for Psychics, Too:

[Don_Croft]

Doc Dirk in Holland (one of the psychics for EW) sent me the following in an email:

Whenever understanding exists, accepting or rejecting is unnecessary.
The mind that believes, the mind that does not believe and the mind that doubts is an ignorant mind.
The path of wisdom does not lie in believing, not believing or doubting.
The path of wisdom consists in inquiring, analyzing, meditating, experimenting.
Truth is the unknown from moment to moment. Truth has nothing to do with what one believes or stops believing, neither does it have anything to do with skepticism.
Truth is not a matter of accepting or rejecting, it is something to experience, live and understand.

~Samuel Aun Weor

[Dirk’s comments:]

Samuel Aun Weor, the author, is/was some kind of guru, there are afew films on youtube I believe, but it did not really appeal at the time, never took the time to look into it deeper.

[Me:]

During the time I was first experimenting with orgonite James Hughes was teaching and coaching me about the uses of subtle energy. He explicitly advised everyone he knew to avoid following gurus and he even refused to put a name on the techniques he was using to heal and educate people. All of that sort of fell on him in the moment that he was struck by etheric lightning in 1979. Richard Alper also got this information but he ignored that guiding principle and started an organization with him at the top. He didn’t do so well [Image Can Not Be Found]

James’ advice about detachment is similar to Weor’s but is a lot simpler: Imagine yourself in the middle of a big triangle and at each point are belief, denial and judgement; keeping clear of those points guarantees that one will progress.

I like Weor’s use of the word, ‘understanding,’ though. Notice that when we as a species finally understand something it becomes ‘conventional wisdom.’ An example is the idea that race prejudice is heinous. Who doesn’t know that, now? When I was a kid in the 1950s very few people knew that, though, then we eventually ‘got it’ as a species. A few individuals won’t get it, of course, but they’re the odd ones, now.

Another ‘common sense’ principle that’s finally coming to the fore is that it’s foolish to try to get an entourage of blind imitators; sycophants. These fickle flatterers are pure poison. The old paradigm of leadership is falling away and the new one, which is based on personal example and entails no assumed personal authority, is emerging. There’s no money or sex payoff with the latter, so ambitious folks don’t seek it [Image Can Not Be Found] but if one will pursue personal integrity one will generate a lot of good examples for others and will make a few genuine friends in the process.

As Doc Stevo and Coach Dooney say: Friends help you move [furniture/household]; real friends help you move bodies. [Image Can Not Be Found]

~Don

[psychiatrist]

The reason why I like this quote is because it really lays bare one of the most annoying reflexes that exist in man at the moment: the urge to judge, catagorize.
Whenever I see one of those polls in the mainstream media asking people what they think about something (yes/no- agree/disagree), I’m allways looking for the ‘I don’t know (yet)’- button. We’re supposed to have an opinion on everything. It’s often used to manipulate the masses of course, when they give the opposition a face, for they know very well the people’s tendency to be part of a group, feel the comfort of an opinion’s niche. Vaclav Klaus for ex heavily opposed the European Union giving the best of arguments, but stated recently that ‘It’s too late now, it has gone too far already’. People that sympathised with him before will feel the urge to agree on this statement and let go of their oppostion.

Another sad example of wanting to classify everyting as relevant or irrelevant can be seen in mainstream science: Statistical relevancy is the Nec Plus Ultra of a good scientist. Which means he thinks he is so clever that he does not have to take into account any possibly interesting anomaly because the he’s limited the parameters to just the ones he deems important. So instead of examining the problem meticulously, gathering as much information as possible making as little assumptions as possible, he starts to throw most of it away, or worse, doesn’t even notice some aspects. Not the way Miss Marple would have solved the murder mystery… Thus they infringe on another good adagium: ‘absence of evidence is no evidence of absence’ meaning it’s not because you can’t prove it that’s it’s not there. Imagine you entered a room in which averything is falling to the ceiling (including you) instead of on the ground. Would you rather walk away stating it’s statistically irrelevant, or would you be happy to have found such a treasure of knowledge to discover? You would start wondering what it is that makes everyting fall the other way, quite possibly discovering the principle of gravity.

Dirk