889Re: making and destroying saints we wish we had
- Jan 6, 2000Hi everyone,
Andrea, you have been very enlightening. I have a few comments below.
Andrea Arden wrote:
> .................................................There cannot be true spiritual or personal growth without questioning. It is
> a list member asked me privately why what seemed to him to be so simple to
> resolve never did. I answered by basically saying the same thing: that
> Patrick is unwilling to allow anyone to disagree with him or question his
> methods. Unfortunately, some of us here are unwilling to embrace those
> methods. I think *questioning* is a sign of good mental health. The
> insistance that everyone in a group see things the way it's leader does is
> one of the signs of cult behavior.
one thing to have something right in front of you and you deny its existence
and another to ask questions to try to come to grips with what is there. The
open mind is always ready to confront reality the closed mind runs away from
it. Socalled realists often laugh at the gullibility of New Agers. I don't
blame them. Many of New Agers swallow New Age teachings without questioning and
maybe victims of those trying to make a fast buck off them. This does not mean
that all New Age stuff are scams or so much smoke and mirrors. But unless you
are discerning, you will be wasting precious time and hard earned money and
being made a fool of. A good leader encourages independent thought and is a
good team builder. He learns to give and take at the same time. He delegates
decisionmaking and welcomes feedback from his staff. This I learned both from
professional training as a school teacher and as a manager in a large
organisation as well as years of experience in teaching and applied man
management and team work and building.
>I was going to add a couple of points here but felt that it would be
> I think Patrick's reactions here are interesting when you consider the fact
> that Faith and Fiona left the list voluntarily soon after he arrived and
> haven't returned. I don't consider my remarks to him to be an attack,
> though he did. Yes, I challenged the misrepresentations he made here and
> refused to close the list (which was never his, BTW), but I consider that
> to be more defensive than attacking. In the past year, I haven't posted
> anything about him anywhere, and there's nothing on my website about him,
> so I don't think he has a good reason to think I was persecuting him.
misinterpreted as hostility against him. I think what I have said in other
messages already covers what needs to be said without appearing
>I hope so. However, in this case he intervened then withdrew?????
> >I think a short while ago he was doing more than
> >speaking out. That is why I thought he was fostering the same situation
> which may
> >have happened in his class.
> Yes, in my view he was, which is interesting to me because in the core
> group he was much less "active" (to use his word). At that time, his focus
> was more on encouraging that sort of negative interaction between the class
> members, and then he would withdraw and not respond to our requests for
> intervention. In thinking about it now, the fact that he could get so
> "active" here suggests that maybe there *has* been some healing and he's
> having an epiphany! :)
>I also see an extention to your point. People won't change their negative
> But seriously, I don't mean to make light of it or be cynical, because I
> truly would like to see him have a better understanding of his part in
> creating the situation -- not because I need vindication, but because after
> 20 years of counseling people about their negative life patterns, I know
> that you can't change anything until you see how you've created if for
> yourself. This concept is a pretty basic piece of spiritual awareness, so
> I'm really surprised that he's so resistant to embracing it.
patterns unless they want to.
>Thanks Andrea. I wonder if we can discuss SKHM without discussing Patrick. I
> Again from Ruy to Margaret:
> >You assumed I was "irritated by him" because of my message. It would seem
> >you are saying I am one of those stoning him. If my messages here do make
> >appear that I am doing that I am sorry. I offer my deepest apologies to
> >yourself and others who feel the same way. And if I am not welcomed on
> this list
> >because I am expressing views that do not agree with Patrick's and others
> on this
> >list I am prepared to leave it.
> Ruy, you are most certainly welcome on this list. The only reasons anyone
> should feel unwelcome here is for making untrue statements or pretending to
> be someone other than they are for the purpose of misleading the list. As
> far as I'm concerned, having a different view is NOT a good reason for
> anyone to leave this list. In fact, it's all the more reason to stay.
have a topic for discussion. Does anyone on the list teach Seichim in such a
way as to attract people who are only interested in practical results not
mystery schools or ancient history?
- << Previous post in topic