Teaching?

One of the side issues of writing here is the possible element of teaching. Technically I can’t know if I teach anyone anything new unless they tell me. But most of my life I’ve been aware of noticing things not many others do. Having the blog at my disposal now means I can share these areas as they become relevant, and though another writer told me there’s nothing new in the world, it doesn’t mean many people are aware of much of it. So only by one person at a time telling me if I allowed them to look at the world in a new and more useful way will I know if I have any teaching role here at all.
I also realised how I manage to turn out so much material regardless what has or hasn’t happened, it’s because I’d saved up 44 years of information and experiences when I started this, so am really writing stuff saved up all my life I didn’t have a chance to share like this.

I could look back at all my archives for specific examples of useful information, which would only be to create an academic case for it, but instead wait till any new information comes in, and point it out then. There are various themes, including direct communication and finding more direct ways of doing things than we use now. But I also appear in total contrast to manage to find a series of questions I’ve posed to the cleverest people I know, and seem simply not to have answers. Humans may be designed not to have direct ways of achieving certain aims, but rely on grace, ie total chance. I wonder if there a few rare individuals who have natural abilities that may disprove at least one of my theories here, and if I ever find one I’ll know what I thought was impossible couldn’t be. There are very expensive courses advertised claiming short cuts to these very areas of success, and I’ve invested in a few just in case they were genuine. They are divided into either common sense and indirect supernatural methods. The common sense is nothing new so not original or valuable, the supernatural are usually so complicated and time consuming I didn’t bother to try them long as it would take over half your life trying a method which may well have no effect at all.

However, on the plus side, I have researched many routes to success and happiness, and some do exactly what they say on the box. Well, one mainly, meditation. I went on my ‘Knowledge’ course in 1996, which took some time over a year of preparation. As I was desperate to meditate instead of just waiting till I learnt at the end of the course I looked for any other way while I was waiting, and found each method worked on different parts of the mind and body. Knowledge meditation is probably the best and most comprehensive, but takes longer each day and I let it drift after a couple of years as the results were very erratic. Barry Long’s complex cassette, freely available, is called ‘Start meditating now’, and for anyone who doesn’t want to study every week for months can buy this and get going immediately. Getting a wee bit technical, there are two areas meditation affects, the consciousness and the kundalini. This is the power that when awoken will develop you into a superhuman, and is an extension of sexual energy. Overlaps are probably covered by each method, working a proportion on each, but the effects are very clear if you know what to look for. Kundalini is the basis of much of yoga, but totally overlooked in non-dualism and knowledge. But as I know kundalini is real but not enlightenment, I can’t dismiss it as an element of self-improvement as it takes little time and effort to raise it enough to know you have. Mantra meditation is effective as well, but long users tend not to show the changes I see using the others. It seems to work easily and quickly but doesn’t go very far.

What other areas can I think of? Sex? I will say one thing I know about sex is it’s the best treatment for any problem, and those who say it isn’t are missing out big time. By culturally learning to restrict sex women and governments are using a powerful method to control and squash the people they want to. Women enjoy sex as much as men, often more simply as they can’t lose energy from it as men inevitably do unless they practice tantra. But to them it’s a privilege not an act of pleasure. They tend to be told from an early age it’s wrong to enjoy sex, and nowadays at least to be very restrictive who and when they have it with. It’s not natural though. Girls and boys awaken sexually the same way, but boys aren’t told it’s wrong so look like the baddies as they have unrestricted desires. Girls on the other hand are kept in, told off, and most parents brainwash them as much as possible not to do it for as long as possible, and then only if you really have to. I don’t mean intercourse here, but all sexual contact. Religions are the worst offenders of course, but even atheists pick up the same cultural crap and means there’s an imbalance by the age of consent where boys already find it very difficult to crowbar an experience out of a girl, except for the few in each community who appear to get it all, but that’s the exception. I genuinely feel this is a totally learned imbalance, where mental twists are built over tens of years for the men who don’t have such an easy run as others, and end up with all sorts of psychological problems. And not only men. Going against your nature as a woman can catch up in subtle ways which may well not even be obviously connected to sex, but just as troublesome. Women who didn’t have sex before marriage often end up being totally lost to begin with when they do marry, and then feel very annoyed they missed out for so long when they were free to try it with more men. Affairs happen, marriages break up and there are all the unnecessary consequences purely as women are told by most of society they are to ration any sexual contact.
Of course, if you’re a heterosexual, it takes one of each to have sex, and now women have discovered they can enjoy it as well (which happened in my lifetime around 1965, apparently) there is no reason, I repeat, no reason why women should feel it’s wrong, dirty, embarrassing, degrading or any other negative to enjoy something we were all designed to do. I’m definitely not being original here as the whole formula has been given in the books ‘Conversations with God’. The simple formula for those who believe in God is: If we are God’s children, would he give his children toys to play with that were dangerous? Of bloody course not!
The restrictions religion and society put on every aspect of sex between consenting adults is purely to keep them down. Why? Because if the people are happy, balanced, content and stable they will tend not to be desperate enough to fear foreigners, criminals, and all the other things politicians want us to hate so we’ll vote for them to fix it (which they don’t do). They won’t be so easy to control as how can you promise a better world to people that already have a good one? It does make sense. And by making people feel guilty for a biological equivalent of breathing the power of evil forces will rise by making the masses beg for forgiveness (catholics and beyond). Really, it’s all a load of bollocks. Animals (as we are) do not riot, kill each other in the same species (usually) or go on drugs as they have sex freely. Humans are the only animals with any sexual hang-ups at all, with absolutely no need. Sex and violence. More double speak. Funny how all the fascists like Mary Whitehouse always put these two things together. What about ‘Love and cancer’, ‘Food and heroin?’ You see where I’m going? The two things, using a method called remote hypnosis, are put together as if they must be connected. Violence is never good, sex rarely, if at all isn’t, if chosen to do by both parties. Being a therapist I am party to enough inside information to prove this with no doubt at all. Children who are rare enough to grow up in a family with no problem around sex enjoy it all their lives with no related hang-ups.

The only thing I can have above Neale Donald Walsch was that by the time he wrote his book, meant to be the direct word of God, I’d had these views for a long time already. His formula of God only giving his children safe toys to play with was the best sentence to sum it all up, but the ideas were mine long before he published them!

So, the test is in the practice. If anything I write makes someone look at something in a different way and it actually helps, I am a teacher. Last time I wrote about sex I got an angry (apparent) feminist calling me all the tired stereotypical names from the 70s, as I dared to say women ought to go into sexual activity more freely than they do. I see more of a personal experience behind that opinion than anything academic, and as all I was saying there is ‘Men and women both get an equally good experience from sexual activity so why do women need to make it such a big deal?’, and society has done more to pretend this isn’t true, for many negative reasons, anything else people read in is their agenda and not mine. It’s such a simple message and as I didn’t design human beings one only based on my observations on what was created, and one pretty easy to test.
If the logic I present removes or prevents guilt in a single woman, or allows a woman to ‘let go’ and allow her man a little more, then I will have succeeded. One person can’t change the world, but one person at a time. And ideas are so deeply held changing one is a miracle in itself.