--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony...@...> wrote: > > > Though it seems there is most always a back story to what you list too. Way > more nuance than black and whiting. >
Thats true, there are nuances and lots of gray. Though I am open to anything, and I read this (had read before) tonight positively and openly looking for things I could validate in Earl's letter. Its interesting. Some elements fit the data as I know it, others not so much. Things like his comments about "not sure the effect" could easily be true. Certainly MMY's unfulfiled predictions, TMO financial darkenss are valid. The higher hurdles for me are the vampire sucking thing, blocking kundalini, etc. That SBS had a ruby Sri Yantra is corroborated by SwamiRama. Activating it, harnessing astral beings, is plausible for me. But these (in this paragraph) things have nothing to do with Earl being there and me not. > I think it is much more interesting to take EK at face-value. That was my starting point. And my points don't for the most part challenge Earl's validity. I simply asked, if I do take Earl at face value, what would be the implications. I sense you and Joe think I am some sort of a TMO apologist. That would be funny. I am hardly a pro TM mouthpiece. I have many issues with the TMO, far more against than for. > EK was there and you were not. Which has little to do with the vampire sucking energy and kundalini block which are the major gaps of plausibility in my mind with regards to the implications I listed. >Though like yourself many of us were certainly around. I know EK from way >back and I'd give him more benefit of the doubt than you do. True, I respect it that you knew Earl for a long time and trust him. > In my experience I think what EK is writing rings pretty true. Energy sucking and blocking kundalini? Really? > He's the eye-witness and I think he has a pretty good eye all around. Try > reading it again Thats a large presumption that you have any idea what is going on in my head (or me knowing whats inside yours.) I read the piece with a open mind, taking Earl at face value - no running counter arguments in my mind while I read. Upon finishing, I pondered a bit - and then began to think of the implications. Little if any of my comments are directly countering Earl. And my points were hardly any attempt to make a definitive case. I was thinking out loud about the implications -- and invited others comments to discuss the pros and cons. For example, that SSRS was duped by all of this is almost incomprehensible to me. You may not have any relationship or experience with him, so that may not have any sway for you. I understand that. As well as other implications I listed, they may mean nothing to many. They do to me, I listed them to see if others had similar issues with these implications and to discuss. I am very open to gain more insight - and that may reduce my questions regarding the implications. Question: why would you be promoting the Domes if you believe they are grand schemes to suck peoples energy and block their kundalini. > It has its own honesty. > > JGD, > -Buck >
