Regarding Internet Anonymity

Are you speaking from…experience?

So it’s okay for anonymous defamers to slander and besmirch a man’s name and character, a man who’s withstood all sorts of vicious attacks, assassination attempts, attacks on his family, his home and his privacy…but requiring these parasites to stand up and identify themselves “…could cause someone to be concerned.”?

Get your moral compass fixed – fast – before you’re really lost at sea.

Some comments on Dyson’s post.

Dyson named two people as the absolutely worst kind of “trolls” (“An Internet ‘troll’ is an abusive anti-social user who delights in causing disharmony and conflict online.”). One is my friend Randy Arena, who I et at the FIGU center, who I’ve known for several years, who’s visited me with his family and in whose home I’ve been a guest. Apparently Dyson has some issue with Randy’s expressions when he’s posted here or elsewhere and is nastily attacking Randy. I also happen to be unaware of whatever, according to Dyson, Randy had particpated in that was against Dyson. I’m not saying that he doesn’t have valid points, only that the details of the issue from nine years ago aren’t in my current awareness.

Matthew recently wrote me several emails which, as he requested, I forwarded to Dyson. He made a number of points that I understood to include that he was taking responsibility for his past actions that weren’t in alignment the truth, etc. I’m not trying in the least to minimize whatever Matthew had done in the past, the actual described depth of which is also not in my current awareness. Certainly when a person is themselves at the center, or the target, of perceived abuses he will remember them much more clearly, as Dyson does.

If we are to be working on ourselves, our consciousness, etc., we also at times have to “risk” being open to others with whom we’ve previously had even intense disharmony, disagreements, etc., recognizing that they are fallible, mistake making human beings as well. Billy writes about loving our “enemies”. Of course he also has put forward firm advice about calling out disruptive foes, etc., as Dyson had linked to previously. In our evolution here, we’re kind of a loose communiuty at a distance. We’re not meeting and rubbing shoulders in person, we don’t even do tele-meetings, etc. There are challenges for sure because it’s fast and easy to make online comments but the lingering effects may go on much longer, for many years even, as Dyson demonstrates.

But Dyson also demonstrates an apparent unwillingness to open to the possiblity that not only may he have mischaracterized someone, quite brutally in fact, but that one of the people held out the olive branch – which Dyson failed to mention – and may deserve the same consideration that, as Matthew points out himself, was offered to Ashtar…by the Plejaren. I’d at least give him a gold star for willingly describing himself in such glowingly unflattering and truth-opposing terms.

Dyson also has expressed unhapiness with me for a number of things, one in particular was an incident that also happened about nine or so years ago. When he learned that I would be appearing at events in Australia then, he asked if he, his then wife Vivienne and I could meet privately. I agreed. The circumstances though turned out to be such that our initial meeting took place at one of the venues that I was appearing at. I had no choice to be anywhere else and they came up to the event. At that event, there were some people that made both of them uncomfortable for a few minutes with their comments. However, we soon left and spent the rest of our time together privately at a restaurant.

As I understand it, Dyson is still angry and blames me for his being subjected to some people that he felt were nutty and/or that made remarks that he felt were threatening, suspicious, etc., especially because of the serious conflicts that he and Vivienne were involved in with various parties. Understandable as he feels that may be, Dyson neglected to take…self-responsibility for a number of things. One, he agreed to meet me at the venue. Two, we were able to leave and have our private meeting. Three, how we react to what other people say or do in a public place, etc., is strictly up to us; it’s that old self-responsibility thing.

Perhaps most importantly Dyson didn’t (and perhaps still doesn’t) seem to graps that the nature of his concerns and difficulties were of his own making, not mine or anyone else’s. He had chosen to take on powerful enemies in the government, religions, business, etc., accusing them of very vile crimes, etc. Right or wrong as his accusations may have been, he had chosen to make himself and his wife targets of hugely powerful forces. He had chosen to “play another man’s game”, as the saying goes, and in the process had perhaps negelcted to practice another one of the core principles in the spritual teaching: seeing things exactly as they are. In seeing things as they are, when one takes on all of the powers that be, one would have to expect certain things to come with that territory, and nut cases at a New Age event would seem to rate fairly low on the threat scale in comparison to the really powerful ones he’d chosen to provoke.

Dyson was also upset with me for things I may have said publicly that he didn’t see as supportive of him during these times. Again, these things are far more present and accessible to him because of the impact all of the circumstnaces were having on him. I don’t remember the details well except that I was among those who, in various emails, had argued against his continuing to embroil himself in battles with these powerful forces that were going to be, as I and others saw it, UNNECESARILY costly to him and his wife.

But even if circumstances ultimately vindicate him him for the rightness of his cause and battle, which I hope they do, by not taking complete self-responsibility for all of it he has also blamed others for their perceived failures, lack of support, etc., which also may not at all be the case.

In his comment here, Dyson explains what Billy says happens at the time of death pertaining to what the consciousness experiences, especially as it applies to the torment one experiences in relation to the deaths they caused in life, etc. I think it’s not only fascinating but also fairly clearly conveyed…even though in English. As a matter of fact, while I don’t argue with the recommendation that everyone learn German, sooner or later, Dyson’s also been quite emphatic about how it’s near impossible to understand the spiritual teaching, etc. without doing so.

Self-responsibility and seeing things as they actually are would be two of the basic principles that are understandable in most languages and it’s up to the person to either act upon them or not, language being no barrier there. As I suggest, while Dyson clearly “understands” those two principles in German and English, he may not demonstrate that as well as his abilities to translate the information for us.

Being able to perfectly understand a language doesn’t automatically mean that we grasp and apply the actual meaning of the message, teaching, etc., in our own lives. We may be tempted to hit other people over the head because they don’t have the same linguistic abilities that we do but we should be careful to not only first apply the teaching in our own lives but to not judge others – falsely – when it may be our own inability to see that they are embodying the teaching in their…actions.

So while we very much appreciate the information provided to us in “baby-talk” English, perhaps Dyson will lose the equally baby-ish victim, all-knowing, long-suffering, misunderstood martyr persona and thereby demonstrate that he’s taken the…baby step in being completely self-responsible for his actions and their consequences, as well as seeing things as they are, not just from that immature, self-centered perspective that babies have when they require that everyone and everything be the way they want it to be.

P.S. The usefulness of books like The Might of the Thoughts and the Psyche is also that we can apply the teaching self-analytically. If for example someone was a very highly intelligent child but wasn’t heard and understood by their parents, etc., they may later take aggressive and forceful positions without being aware of how they may be trying to control and override any opposition, assert their superiority, etc.

However, if they are aware of these tendencies through self-observation, self-awareness, self-analysis, etc., they can learn to control and reserve their more aggressive tendencies for situations in which they may be appropriate. And while they use their intellectual abilities to research, delve into information, etc., they still must understand that such things as the spiritual teaching aren’t meant to bang people over the head with; they must first, and repeatedly, be applied within and to ourselves.

So it’s best if we are going to confront people to first emphasize where we perceive them to be factually wrong, omiting or ignoring information, etc. If we think they are deliberately disinforming or misrepresenting something, that can be pointed out too. But it’s really best not to try to set ourselves up as authorities on the spiritual teaching, since even though we may be benefiting from our understanding of it at our current level, certainly we are in no way experts.

And of course not only do I have personal experience with these dynamics, my own success in applying the teaching is marked with the same challenges, successes and failures as everyone else.

That’s why if we focus on the basics, the foundations in the core principles such as self-responsibility, seeing things as they are, neutral-positive thinking, the Law of Causality, etc., we’ll be better able to proceed with the teaching, in all aspects of our lives.

I also recommend my Conscious Awareness Workshop (http://theyfly.com/newproducts/newproducts.html also available in a less expensive digital download) and which Meier asked me to teach whenever possible.