PDA

View Full Version : Malai is unsubscribed...



David Wilcock
07-13-2005, 09:13 AM
dear group,

members have been privately emailed and harassed by this person malai. and
it is obvious that we have someone here who is dead-set on using this group
to try to advance their own work and agenda, as this is perhaps the largest
audience he / she has had yet to try to attack and control. the only way we
can teach this entity that free will actually does exist in this universe is
to exercise it.

i would recommend not answering any emails you might get from this person
now that i have unsubscribed them, as they will spend a period of time
feeling very vindictive. in their world, where they are by far the most
enlightened and valuable person there is, i have just committed a terrible
crime against all the "droids" waiting to be unsubscribed from the matrix
before they are all washed away with 2/3rds of their cohorts in the great
apocalypse. i'm not putting up with the game anymore, and neither should the
rest of us. even the tfel cult (this goes way back) wasn't this blatant in
promoting the negative path.

besides, the news i'm about to drop on you all is so big, this person would
go nuts if they were still subscribed - the coattails could potentially be
ridden a lot farther soon enough! better that we get him / her out now as
the news is only 2-3 days away.

it is actually the spiritual advice given by malai in his own final post,
included here, that has made me realize that this unsubscription is way
overdue, simply by the sheer number of you who have publicly and privately
voiced your frustration. we really need better boundaries and not be so 4d
unconditionally loving at the expense of 5d wisdom. of course someone's
feelings will be hurt, but they show no respect to begin with, so it's not
as bad as it first looks.

we teach / learn the law of one and it is very clear about serving on behalf
of the greater good. and when someone so nakedly preaches the very concepts
that ra warned about as the path to the dark side, time and again, and is
completely unaware of their own self-obsession, even as it is a bull in a
china shop to everyone else, we need to weed the garden.

we have given this person plenty of chances to advertise, but it is now time
for them to start their own discussion group and cease participating in our
own. when he / she creates this group, i will announce and post a link to it
here, so that those of you who wish to continue speaking with him / her can
do so. i'm sure you'll find plenty of "wilcock is the antichrist" posts...
;)

i will include malai's final answer to neil hereafter - a very clever
subterfuge / attempt to disguise the negative path in law of one-sounding
terms by someone who has barely cracked the cover of the book, only enough
to try to play along and advertise - which ultimately means "followers" that
will give up their money and their lives to a cult. if it's a guy he's
especially going to want women who can also provide sexual gratification as
well as financial and physical support. we've been down this road many times
before - and this guy has the brains to sucker people in, for real.

this is clearly the bottom line of malai's self-generated religion - a
worship of the self, which again is the definition of the negative - and a
religion where malai will always be the wisest, most evolved soul in the
pantheon. remember - negatives' self-worship is believed to be helpful to
others, and therefore serving to others. let there be no doubt, though, that
the self is always the focus of the teaching.

i have included my comments in the reply so as to make my points clearer,
since a lot of you might not see what i see right away. i didn't want to do
this until i was 100-percent sure that i could see the truth, and this post
put me "over the top," especially when i began reading the others - like
when he / she said "jesus was service to self," et cetera.


-----original message-----
from: asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=lwbko-5p2s-uk-gn2dmbvwgdlj_1vi-wyxzm06uzydzgu_wzsabf_jy5fy5hrcm5tsxzxwvxe7nnros) [mailto:asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=lwbko-5p2s-uk-gn2dmbvwgdlj_1vi-wyxzm06uzydzgu_wzsabf_jy5fy5hrcm5tsxzxwvxe7nnros)] on behalf of neil
haddon

malai wrote:

"it is
the sts that is the very least we can do for our own evolution."

sorry, malai,
can you explain?

love.
neil

from: malai

hi neil

>the line you quoted refers to the unconditional love of self, as
well as others.

dw: notice self is mentioned first, and "self" is capitalized, like
christians do with jesus and / or god. "others," however, is not!
interesting, eh? probably subconscious on this person's part, but
indicative. the capitalizations indicate the statement of a religious truth
in this person's system.

>this sts alows us as individuals to embark and
maintain our journey of discovery of self and everything it pertains
to. to put conditions on the "love" you show for yourself, is to
limit one's ability to correctly pursue your life's journey of
discovery of who and what you are.

dw: a negative entity clearly puts no conditions on its love of self - it is
95% or more dedicated to serving self just for fourth-density alone. in
other words, malai is teaching that if you aren't totally dedicated to
serving (loving) the self, without even one condition, you will not
correctly "find your purpose" and discover who you are.

in reality, the law of one teaches us that the physical self, or
"personality self," is innately confused. it will often not know what is
best for itself. it will often want too much, grasp too strongly. and, there
is no one way to "correctly pursue" your life's journey of discovery. all
paths are correct because they are the ones you chose at that level of
confusion/understanding.

people get all swept up in "unconditional love" as if it is the biggest,
greatest thing ever, whether for others or self in this case, but remember -
this is only a 4d understanding. in 5d you learn boundaries - boundaries
that you draw up with others, and boundaries that you draw up with yourself.


if you set no conditions upon loving yourself you might well sit with a tub
of ben & jerry's and gobble the whole thing down, and not go to work because
you need to eliminate any "conditions" that would stop you from "correctly
pursuing" your love of self. then if the bill collector starts calling
you'll need to go on the run so that you can keep pursuing this
unconditional self-love, and you begin stealing from the "droids" not yet
awake like you are so you can sustain yourself, since they're not really
human yet anyway so they don't earn the honorific of being "others", hence
they do not need to be served... :)

just think about it - it's all there in this person's philosophy. you have
to be pretty advanced to earn the status of an "other" in this system if
2/3rds of humanity aren't even there yet.

here's another angle: legal contract marriage was said by ra to be an
"adversarial" relationship, because it is assuming that you know the will of
your higher self enough to legally bind yourself to someone else for all
time to come, without conditions.

with the 5d teachings of wisdom come conditions that you place upon your
acceptance of self. just like malai was shocked that we actually defended
free will, he/she would be equally shocked that this philosophy could
actually stand. and yet, this rather tricky concept is called "discipline,"
and then when you say it that way, a bulb lights up and you say, "right. of
course. discipline is a good thing."

discipline simply means that you learn to put conditions on your self-love,
your self-focus, your self-obsession, and at this stage of the game, since
the human condition is innately going to trend towards serving self, since
we have a body that gets hungry, feels pain, desires touch and intimacy, et
cetera, the real work is not on further obsessing on the self, but realizing
that others are really out there, and that they deserve your love, and they
deserve to have their free will preserved by you. and if you don't do that,
your higher self is going to mete out balancing karma. guaranteed.

everything i've said here sounds good, but it would go nowhere with malai. a
person like this will simply adapt their attack to every comeback you make,
and never concede even an inch.

>if you limit yourself, as to your
unconditionally of love for self, you will have no idea how to be
unconditional with others and as such your sto will be limited as
well. all your perceptions spring from what you are and what you
know. the only other "perceptions" are from your higher self and
come in the form of intuitive knowings, but these can also be
limited by miantaining a rigid 3d perceptional base and the
conditionality this implies.
remember, unconditional means just that, no conditions and that
includes judgments, expectations, perceptions and all 3d learned
knowledge.
you cannot apply 3d conditional logic to 5d unconditional knowing

dw: notice the seductive-sounding appeal of these words. but pay attention
to the last sentence. nowhere in the law of one does it speak of
"unconditional knowing" in 5d. ra is in 6d and they admit that they
themselves are still distorted and confused and do not know everything.
there is no such thing as unconditional knowing outside of "logic" until you
actually merge with the oneness again.

yet this person clearly thinks they are already there. they "knew" that they
would not be unsubscribed because we're all too codependent and
people-pleasing. hence i've just given the most valuable gift that can be
given in this case.

remember: "unconditional" is not innately a positive concept. the law of
free will sets all kinds of conditions, and if you don't follow them, there
are consequences. exactly like what has happened here.

we can send love to malai (as we have by allowing the participation to go on
this long) while also recognizing his / her innate confusion, which is not
useful enough on this list to warrant allowing it to continue to roam free.

over and out ...

peace be with you -

- david

lealdragon
07-13-2005, 10:48 AM
excellent response, david! i would add that we might remain aware that
s/he might attempt to re-subscribe under a different name, as well as
try to contact others privately under a different name.

i submit that maybe a more accurate term for what you defined
as 'unconditional love' (as not being innately positive) might
be 'unconditional acceptance.'

'unconditional love' brings to mind the example of the woman who
allows her husband to abuse her because she is supposed to 'love' him
no matter what! when in actuality the greatest 'love' she can extend
to him would be to stand up to him and say 'no!'

to me, 'unconditional love' means what you just suggested: sending
love to entities like malai, while at the same time not allowing them
to impose on our own free will; this was mentioned in the same post as
being the response to negative entities; to thank them and wish them
well, while at the same time establishing firm boundaries.

i think of unconditional love as remaining steadfast in our desire to
remain on our path and not be deterred by negative greeting, while at
the same time remaining steadfast in our perception that all is one.
we extend that love to anyone, positive or negative, so in that sense
there are no conditions.

however, i don't think that establishing boundaries means that we
necessarily 'love' any less. we can extend unconditional love with
conditional boundaries. the boundaries are on what we are willing to
accept, not on the love. like with children who want to eat candy all
day: we need not allow them to do that to love them. they might think
we aren't being loving, but it is a love combined with wisdom that
says 'no, no more candy.' so again, the conditions are placed on what
is acceptable, not on the love itself.

if anything, the hardest thing might be to send love to a negative
entity who is clearly trying to harm us or derail us. yet, that is
exactly what affords us the most protection.

i know i'm splitting hairs here, and i think we are saying exactly the
same thing, but it's just a terminology thing.



--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=1nd-xd7jkr1o0gl3cbq5oqvvjypdrba1rj-fbgdbuj7iaen272ienua5hu89g7owrnkglyrlbqebbghv4q), "david wilcock" <djw333@i...> wrote:
> we can send love to malai (as we have by allowing the participation
to go on
> this long) while also recognizing his / her innate confusion, which
is not
> useful enough on this list to warrant allowing it to continue to
roam free.

Mary
07-13-2005, 11:31 AM
well, yeah . . . i think it comes down to the fact that if you allow
someone else to harm you with their sts actions, they are also harming
themselves. technically they are using you to become more negative, right?
if you don't let them by lovingly establishing a boundary your action is
still sto because you are not allowing them to use you to be more negative.

i'm not sure if that makes sense, it does in my head . . . lol . . .
sometimes it's really hard to find the words to explain these things.

mary

-------original message-------

from: asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=gtzpg5ptznv3-bxmk8hstm6ll3zphb5y65oowzntazkcuqigm2yyaz1fsbvleun djrpq9d6gcu2yyrl3l4p2)
date: 07/13/05 12:15:25
to: asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=gtzpg5ptznv3-bxmk8hstm6ll3zphb5y65oowzntazkcuqigm2yyaz1fsbvleun djrpq9d6gcu2yyrl3l4p2)
subject: [asc2k] re: malai is unsubscribed...

i submit that maybe a more accurate term for what you defined
as 'unconditional love' (as not being innately positive) might
be 'unconditional acceptance.'

'unconditional love' brings to mind the example of the woman who
allows her husband to abuse her because she is supposed to 'love' him
no matter what! when in actuality the greatest 'love' she can extend
to him would be to stand up to him and say 'no!'

if anything, the hardest thing might be to send love to a negative
entity who is clearly trying to harm us or derail us. yet, that is
exactly what affords us the most protection.

i know i'm splitting hairs here, and i think we are saying exactly the
same thing, but it's just a terminology thing.








[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

David Wilcock
07-13-2005, 11:40 AM
from: asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=6iatm4fkoiqyxizfrheygxheg6hrag5_ivqasm pizbsh1fiytdduac3k-c1ijblpioiczod9tpsgzdp4) [mailto:asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=6iatm4fkoiqyxizfrheygxheg6hrag5_ivqasm pizbsh1fiytdduac3k-c1ijblpioiczod9tpsgzdp4)] on behalf of
lealdragon

>excellent response, david! i would add that we might remain aware that
s/he might attempt to re-subscribe under a different name, as well as
try to contact others privately under a different name.

dw: absolutely. in fact i whacked two heads of the hydra off at the same
time when i unsubscribed this person. they slipped one time when they were
arguing with you a few days back, and used one of their other email
addresses that was a "stealth" member of the group - so i knocked them both
out simultaneously. that still might not be the end of it. theoretically
people could just look up a name, address and telephone number and we
wouldn't know if they were a fake unless we actually called the numbers,
which we usually do not do. nonetheless all they really can do is lurk now.

>i submit that maybe a more accurate term for what you defined
as 'unconditional love' (as not being innately positive) might
be 'unconditional acceptance.'

dw: that might work - or perhaps something a bit longer, like "unconditional
acceptance of the self in all its innate distortions and confusion."

from some of the insider things i've read, the bush administration uses the
new age saying "create your own reality" to explain why they mess with the
media and do whatever they do to try to get their needs met. "unconditional
love" is not innately a bad thing, but it's only two words that leave huge
room for interpretation, some of which can be negative. unconditionally
loving the self does not mean that the self is unconditionally wise:

"it is entirely necessary that an entity consciously realize that it does
not understand in order to be harvestable to the next density." - law of one

>'unconditional love' brings to mind the example of the woman who
allows her husband to abuse her because she is supposed to 'love' him
no matter what! when in actuality the greatest 'love' she can extend
to him would be to stand up to him and say 'no!'

dw: absolutely correct. this is why "unconditional love" seems seductively
complete as a spiritual teaching, but in fact is only the fourth-density
level and therefore can lead to massive self-damage due to martyrdom.

>to me, 'unconditional love' means what you just suggested: sending
love to entities like malai, while at the same time not allowing them
to impose on our own free will; this was mentioned in the same post as
being the response to negative entities; to thank them and wish them
well, while at the same time establishing firm boundaries.

dw: yes. i admit that i have trouble with it myself. you have to slow down
the craziness enough in your life to allow the feminine self to heal, and
things have been so busy lately that she's been a bit war-weary in my own
case. the malai situation was just a little feather on top of the stack,
quite honestly - another issue that just kept propagating because i was
distracted with other, far more intense things.

only recently, in the last few days, have i finally started to slow down
enough to be able to remember longer-duration chunks of dream material in
the morning. and if you are alienated from your feminine self too strongly
it will be very difficult to 'love your enemies'.

>i think of unconditional love as remaining steadfast in our desire to
remain on our path and not be deterred by negative greeting, while at
the same time remaining steadfast in our perception that all is one.
we extend that love to anyone, positive or negative, so in that sense
there are no conditions.

dw: yes - that's the challenge. it's good to accept how difficult it can be
while also seeing it as the goal.

>however, i don't think that establishing boundaries means that we
necessarily 'love' any less. we can extend unconditional love with
conditional boundaries. the boundaries are on what we are willing to
accept, not on the love. like with children who want to eat candy all
day: we need not allow them to do that to love them. they might think
we aren't being loving, but it is a love combined with wisdom that
says 'no, no more candy.' so again, the conditions are placed on what
is acceptable, not on the love itself.

dw: exactly.

>if anything, the hardest thing might be to send love to a negative
entity who is clearly trying to harm us or derail us. yet, that is
exactly what affords us the most protection.

dw: that's also why negative greeting ultimately does lead to personal
growth. you end up constantly testing and re-testing your own system.

>i know i'm splitting hairs here, and i think we are saying exactly the
same thing, but it's just a terminology thing.

dw: semantics are the whole problem here. we had someone coming in who
wanted to co-opt law of one-sounding language in an attempt to marry it to a
philosophy that was at least 70% leaning directly towards the negative path,
once you lay it all out on paper. yet the other 30% can be written smoothly
enough that people get sucked in. hence we do 'quarantine' this list from
such infections so people can actually trust what they are reading in here.

peace be with you -

- david

David Wilcock
07-13-2005, 11:47 AM
from: asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=0nfhyox9d9gpca5rzpxozhtdqtkj3oiizifwe3 vtoo0eavusbkc0iydqvp0swjaqc0ouau5ycuakez2onv8) [mailto:asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=0nfhyox9d9gpca5rzpxozhtdqtkj3oiizifwe3 vtoo0eavusbkc0iydqvp0swjaqc0ouau5ycuakez2onv8)] on behalf of mary


well, yeah . . . i think it comes down to the fact that if you allow
someone else to harm you with their sts actions, they are also harming
themselves. technically they are using you to become more negative, right?
if you don't let them by lovingly establishing a boundary your action is
still sto because you are not allowing them to use you to be more negative.

i'm not sure if that makes sense, it does in my head . . . lol . . .
sometimes it's really hard to find the words to explain these things.

mary

dw: mary, you are precisely correct. if you allow a negatively-oriented
person or entity to continue to have their way with you, then you are an
enabler. you enable their confusion to continue and impede the natural
balancing flow of karma from allowing them to see their own self-reflection.


peace be with you -

- david

mawk
07-13-2005, 06:57 PM
hi all and one,

first i would like to express my pleasure in seeing dw more active on the
list. i for one appreciate this.

now to some semantics. some time ago i expressed to jeremy on the list that
i thought a good definition for love was,

"the phenomena of radiating light unconditionally."

at the time he said he would sleep on it but over the course of time i guess
it got forgotten. so in short if we are prepared to accept this definition
then "unconditional love" would be tautology. it is my view that love has no
condition and like light just is. hence the two are not mutually exclusive
but are moderated by consciousness which in turn is determined by our
focused intent (e.g. sto or sts).

once an entity is able to work with a certain amount of love/light (e.g. sto
greater than 51%) then that entity is then able to use that level of
love/light on a service path that seeks the appropriate application of
wisdom. in contrast, a sts focused entity misses the 4th density step
initially of working with love/light, and generally focuses on the 5th
density path of self serving wisdom. at some point according to ra, and
their interpretation of the law of one philosophy, these sts entities will
have to take a step back to learn the lesson of 4th density love.

the 5th density lesson of wisdom can be a harsh teacher. it is at this point
that 6th density compassion needs to be reinfused with wisdom. in my humble
opinion the way that dw has handled the "malai situation" is indicating a
blossoming of this level of awareness.

yours embracing compassion,

mawk

Jeremy
01-08-2006, 03:35 PM
--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=zzd0eb0n2w4nintgloiorzkersh8v1vz7yr_jj bxdnfjw52rmmphy2lpmuwd0e4ptiho0xf70owmmd84ovty), "mawk" <mawk109@o...> wrote:
> now to some semantics. some time ago i expressed to jeremy on the
> list that i thought a good definition for love was,
>
> "the phenomena of radiating light unconditionally."
>
> at the time he said he would sleep on it but over the course of time
> i guess it got forgotten.

you're right - i had forgotten about it, and i'm sorry about that. i
think that's a good definition, so long as "light" is defined
according to ra's definition. it would probably also be helpful to
point out that this understanding of love (in an "agape" sort of
since) is different than simply the emotion of love. in fact, the
most precise way to descibe it might be that love, as a human emotion,
is the phenomenon *resulting* from the choice to unconditionally
radiate light.

of course, too much semantics and we get bogged down, so take it with
a grain of salt. :)

l/l,

jeremy