Messages

Hmm.  If one could do that then there would be few worries about electromagnetic radiation as it could simply be converted into something healthy.  Maybe that happens.  It's all very interesting, but it will take time to really explore such things and assuredly more background in my case.

Have you asked your teacher for clarification?  He may say something like "Grasshopper, you will understand when it is time."  But then again, maybe he'll suprise you and actually clarify the point.

seekenergyaz

Hi

I've barely started to look into NEW, and one impression I do get is that the work isn't always happy-go-lucky comfortable.  If you have read that similar things can take place in posession, or attack, and  then you start feeling nervous or uncomfortable while engaging in the energy work, then I would wonder if the fears and subtle expectation can cause your mind to create things to go with it.  There is danger that such a situation could then invite negs, but I don't know if I'd be too quick to conclude that that has happened.

From where I sit now (and that isn't in a place of great experience by any means), it seems that what you have in mind to do, namely, keep your eyes open as you continue to go forward, is a sound idea.  Of course that's the observation of a pretty inexperienced person NEW-wise, so take it with a grain of salt.

Best of wishes whatever the nature of the challenge.

Hi

I have to apologize because when I replied I had mistakenly read RainyDaze's reply as a reply from KP.  Since, however, they are two different people it tends to change the picture.  

I hope I said something helpful to someone all the same.

seekenergyaz

Hi

When I first started reading what you were saying, I was thinking "Oh, he has a subconscious self hatred that he needs to clear, or something like that."  That could still be true, but...  

After you replied to Fallenangel77, and mentioned what appeared to be an implied history of taking LSD and maybe other drugs sometime in your life, it made more likely in my mind  both the possibilities of long term or even permanent brain chemical change, which could cause strange things to be in your head, as well as the possibility of negs, who from what I understand are renowned for taking advantage of such things.

If you did have problems with negs maybe because of drugs and have since made positive changes, there may be some trying to keep you.  If you left some nasty things in your life, they may still have an active in, despite everything you've done, to get at you, so look at that too and see if you need to change some things yet.  Look for hatreds, grudges, ill will that you may harbor for someone,  objects with questionable histories (or personal associations that you have with them) that are in your posession, etc.  Do you obsess about things that make you angry or sad?   What kind of people do you hang out with?   Movies, TV, music (note mode of melody, beat, lyrics, etc.), etc.  

Note on music: Music is powerful stuff, for good or bad.  Hitler, e.g., knew this and used its power.  It would be a great mistake to underestimate it.

One thing might be to try some defenses that make sense for your situation (you would have to bent your research according to what you perceive about your situation) and see if they make any difference.  

EITHER WAY, it seems to me that consulting a good physician and getting good, qualified, and reasonably open minded psychiatric or psychological help are in order.  It may be that you will want to pursue this thing in both pysical/physiological/mental as well as spiritual modes.

How vivid are these "horrible images"?  Do you see rough shapes in your mind that your imagination might be turning into, say, vague images of human skulls with sinister faces?  Or do you have vivid nightmares or visions of say, blood rivers and severed heads floating in them, or stuff like that (as some persons have described)?  Those were just examples.  Insert your experience as appropriate.  But the first situation and the second are different, and the subject matter and degree of vividness, etc., may be clues to take note of when considering the possibility of what you may or may not be dealing with.  

Don't run wild with conclusions, but don't ignore even subtle clues either.

Best wishes for better things.

seekenergyaz

This will take a little time to get going.  Maybe I'll need to make some time by stopping with my long post replies.  

I will think about how best to deal with the picture issue.

Since it takes discipline to get energy but energy to get discipline, and I could use more discipline... it may indeed be well to consider help, but there are some things I must get started on my own before it would help.  So please bear with me on response.

Thank you for replying.

seekenergyaz

The more I think about this one, the more I think it goes back to a statement I made on another subject, which was something like: When it comes down to it, what one hasis his instincts.  Pray that your instincts are good.

This would have to do with the accuracy of our instincts, which raises a question or maybe more, but they might be better asked under a whole different subject line, as they would be about so many other things as well.

By the way if anyone is getting the idea that I'm a bigot against gays, I'm really not.  You have no idea how not.  My questions are simply very serious.

What does seem to belong here is a new subject, but related.  WHOLESOME lifestyles are spoken of by Mr. Bruce as well.  When I think of wholesome lifestyles, I think of healthy lifestyles and habits, and lives containing healthy relationships, with family (or at least people that "become" family to a person), loyal friends, and if there is a lover in the romantic sense involved then that would be healthy and constitute loyal relationship too.  The sexual orientation part of this I think is meaningless when it comes to what is POSSIBLE.  However, when it comes to what is POPULAR, PROBABLE, or READILY FOUND, then I have a problem with much of what is known as the gay community.

Let's first separate the word "lifestyle" from "sexual orientation," at least for the purposes here, otherwise emotion might make us miss the point...

Many homosexual people grew up to be very bitter about everything that "heterosexist society" taught them about what was good and wholesome, and seem to reject the whole lot of it by association, and have adopted an extreme counterculturalist view.  There seems to be a great split in the making within the gay community between these counterculturalists and those who believe that not everything that takes root in a heterosexually dominated society is necessarily bad.  I believe this division may become bitter.  Ultimately, it seems to me, a more emotionally secure and moderate gay community will have to win out, since that is what is more likely to survive long term.  (As far as I can see societies will always be dominated by heterosexuals by force of pure numbers, only makes sense.)

But, since negs seem to prey on less than wholesome lifestyles (again, I am trying to be careful with this word lifestyle when broaching this particular subject), it behooves any individual, hetero or homo, to surround himself with a climate that is wholesome, healthy (particularly in the arena of emotional health), and generally repugnant to negs.

I'm afraid I must confess, I believe it will be harder for a homosexually oriented person to find this situation while still having many friends who are personally aware through their own experience of what it is like to be oriented homosexually.  Since homosexuals, understandably, crave association with a group with that understanding, then it seems only realistic to say that they do have some challenges in living a neg free existence.

Mr. Bruce also comments on the negs taking advantage of sex as a way to spread themselves.  Since promiscuity is cosidered central to the protest against heterosexism among the extreme counterculturalists, and many more homosexuals just sort of fall into it, herein lies another challenge yet.

Hello,

The gay movement, if you will, teaches typically that a person who is homosexually oriented was basically meant to be that way, just as a heterosexually oriented person is meant to be that way.  What I wonder is if the possibility of neg influence should cause people to rethink that one in any big way.  

One cannot go about conquering something if he's not sure that there is anything to be conquered.  But if he isn't sure, he will always wonder, and this one just doesn't seem like a good thing to be left wondering about.  A person needs to know about something like that.  Sexuality is too much a part of life and social identity (quite apart from matters of actual sexual practice) for ambiguity of any long duration in this matter to be healthy.  Indeed the damage could begin long before a person knows what a sex act even is.  If one is left wondering about this one indefinitely, it is going to cause trouble in his life.  If there was ever "a need to know," this would surely be a case of it!

The question would have to be what was a person meant to be in the physical world.  There not being a natural orientation in the spiritual wouldn't mean a lot in this matter since a physical living person is still left to deal with it as a physical entity.  

This thing about "It sounds like that Devil-made-me-do-it excuse" is ridiculous when one applies it strictly to the presence of an orientation.  One does not "do" an orientation, one "does" a sexual behavior, and there is a definite difference between the two.  That is one of my problems with fundamentalist religion, while some do acknowledge that difference, others get so caught up in the emotion of the thing that they seem incapable of doing so (and those among them who DO understand that rarely make much of an attempt to set the record straight on the matter when the ones who don't shoot off their mouths).

seekenergyaz

It would seem to be counter indicative, again, according to Mr. Bruce's works as I understand them.  

He did mention that if something is attatched and a person makes positive lifestyle changes, it might see fit to try to reassertitself and its control mechanisms by starting up attacks again (normally they move on to other things once attatched, the attacks having served their nasty purpose).  So if any of that applies there could be an attatchment, albeit a  threatened one, which would make the water thing less effective or maybe even ineffective, but also include restarted attacks.

IF I understand the whole thing correctly, which could be a large IF.

Hi Tom

I've looked it up, but have not done anything with it yet as I'd like to print it and read it that way as I sometimes find, speaking of energy, that too much reading on the computer screen makes me sleepy.  Maybe if it is downloadable it would be faster, but the download page was down earlier so will check again.

I can get back to you, but I'm a bit guarded about pictures of my face.  Could I upload one of my arm or something?  Or maybe to a private e-mail if there's anyone not minding.  I live in Mountain Time zone in U.S., but always Standard, not Daylight Savings Time (Arizona).

Thank you.

seekenergyaz

If you suspect that, you could try the crossing running water thing that Mr. Bruce talks about and see if it comes to a halt instantly.  Shouldn't harm to try it should it?

I wish I remembered who wrote THE HIGHLY SENSITIVE PERSON.  It is an interesting book.  We do those things that James said, but when we get overwhelmed or stressed, we can be anything BUT empathic and fluffy little kindness machines.  We get a bad rap that way.  I really agree with the author that what we could really use is a neutral rap.  Sensitivity neither good nor bad in itself.

Evil.

Is a being that brings evil upon you an evil being?  Not necessarily.  But if it is bringing evil upon us then more than likely it is having a negative effect on us, and is therefore a neg.  It could be argued however that someone could bring evil on you for some higher purpose such as a lesson, which would be for your greater good.  This would not be a neg would it?  It seems to come down to a combination of intent and effect.  

It intends higher good, but the effect does not add up to that.  Possibly that would be a neg, but not an evil one.

It intends true harm, but a higher good is attained anyway, sort of like the tables are turned on its intentions in the long run.  A neg, maybe evil, certainly destructive if it had gotten its way.  Just happens you were lucky or got intervention that time.

It intends to bring evil upon you to say, teach a lesson for higher good.  It succeeds by doing just that.  In your case at least, it turns out not to be a neg.  Perhaps a pos in disguise.  

I don't think I'd trust that last one too much however, how can you really know?  If it tells you it's for your greater good, how do you know it isn't lying?  A true pos would surely know the position that a human finds himself in with this conundrum, and would surely understand an act of defense on the part of a human who cannot know for sure from where he sits.

In the end, each of us will have his instinct to go on, and not somebody's opinion.  Pray that your instincts are good.

It seems to me that Mr. Bruce is saying in his self defense book that he believes in negs as actual beings, but he also seems eager to avoid pushing that belief on others so as not to scare them off from getting the help he feels that he might offer.  Some,  in his view, are intelligent, some not.  They run the gammit.  They vary in nature and intensity of danger, but the term "neg" was coined to describe all such spirit entities that have  negative effects on humans, and that is the common thread of all negs by definition of the guy that as far as I know coined the term.  He does not make a blanket judgement on all negs as being "evil" although he does appear to believe that some are.  I am sure that there are some humans that have a negative effect on those around them, but are not "evil" people.  Heck, we all problably have relatives like that!  Some of us may fit that description ourselves, having come here, in part, to see if we can change it.  Then again, some people may be truly evil too.  Mr. Bruce appears to apply the same sort of logic to the variety of beings of the other dimensions, etc.  

I suppose there is left here some room for subjectivity, but I personally believe that there is little value in a lot of philosophical nitpicking about what constitutes "negative" and "evil."  Most of us will go with our instinct no matter how others try to define them.

seekenergyaz

[Originally posted by Qball:]

Originally posted by Qball:

I have never really fit into the crowd either. I've never been a popular person, and I usually find that people just don't like my opinions about anything. But somebody else can give the exact same opinion and it's  hailed as some great gospel.

Qball,

This hit home.  Like crazy.  I say something, ignored.  The "right" person says the exact same thing, accolades.  There are many explanations for this phenomenon, if you will.  The secularistic ones rely in the large on the evolution model with its dominance hierarchies based on genetics, pheromone output, etc.  A lot of the supporters of this pure physiological model take on an attitude of "Life isn't fair, nor the least bit interested in fairness, kindness or compassion; therefore, I need not be either.  Life is cruel, so there's nothing wrong with me being cruel either.  I can have contempt for anyone I want, for any reason I want, or no reason at all if I so choose.  It is my American (or Australian or whatever the patriotic loction word is where they are from) RIGHT!  Nobody has a right to criticize me for exercizing my evolutionary right to have contempt for anyone I want, or for destroying the lives of those I consider weak or evolutionarily inferior within the species.  It is survival of the fittest, and the fittest are the most cunning.  The fittest are not the most moral, but are those who are the most cunning and best at getting away with their immorality, and making it look good in order to fool the crowd, who they are evolutionarily destined to RULE!  Too bad for the rest!  That's just too bad for them!  Nya nya nya nya NYA nya!"  (As in the sing-song child's taunt)

That is a very popular view, even though most will not admit it straightforwardly (because of the "make it look good" part of their view).  Some Secular Conservative idealogues come close to admitting it, but they too stop short so as to avoid making the wrong appearances.  Many religious consevatives and liberals believe it too, they are just a little more invested in their seemingly righteous veneers.  I think that explains the success of shows like "Survivor."  They are based on an arena-styled version of the view above.  It also explains a recent car commercial in the U.S. for one of the Japanese manufactured cars, which went something like: people will offer gracious emarks to their opponent when they win a game but what they're really thinking is "I'm better than you are."  (Also said in sing-song taunt.)  

Often moralistic reasons are manufactured, but unmasking the reasoning behind them will only make them angry (for blowing their moralistic cover) rather than change their mind.

Hmm, no wonder I'm not a popular person.  I'm exposing, and therefore desecrating too many people's Holy Duplicity!  I'm not supposed to DO that!

Other people depend on other explanations, such as karma.  Of course, one has to be careful there too because karma can also be used as a veneer to cover the above.  Many people believe it sincerely of course.  Either way it can be a bit of what Mr. Bruce calls one of those "blaming philosophies."

Many others take the Christian view of sin.  People are pretty much bad, sinful, and need saving and healing from Christ.  Again, many people believe this sincerely, while others use it, often shamelessly, as a veneer to cover that first view which is what they REALLY believe deep down.

There are other views too I'm sure, but those are the biggies I think.  But the one that seems to permeate here in the U.S., its relatively high degree of open religiosity not withstanding, is that first one.

The thing we need to do though is find PRACTICAL ways to deal with the results of that societally encompassing attack on our conscious and subconscious minds to prevent further damage and heal the damage already done.  When you think about it, society itself makes a pretty convincing neg.

One more twist, society is like a person who assaults you, then with uncanny abilities of persuation convinces everybody that he shouldn't be charged with a crime, reasoning that it was your own fault you suffered injury, because it was YOUR responsibility to know how to prevent or successfully repel any attack on yourself.  It's amazing,  the glaring double standard that we apply to different types of assault, or to the different people who commit them.

I'm no fan of Crowley.  Nevertheless, they're right who say that people in general don't have a clue.  They really don't.  But then, maybe most of them like it like that too.  

Hi

Thank you for your replies.

What I question here is the idea that it would have been God's will to be trapped in a situation in which I would have the energy sucked away or fleeced regularly.  It has seemed as if there has been a block put on my ability to expand the energy.