Next Nearest Alternative

[TheSpoon]

It seems to me that groups often develop severe antipathy towards their next nearest alternative - the next door camp gets labelled as the opposing camp. In most cases, it's the lesser/more recent/less well established group that's most vocal in it's denouncement.

For example:
Scientologists putting down the Psychologists
Scots put down the English
Protestants putting down the Catholics
Homeopathy putting down conventional medicine - as seen in the INOCULATIONS thread.
Mods putting down the Rockers
SotT putting down the Love'n'Light Brigade
And of course well documented hatred of the Judean People's Front for the People's Front of Judea.

Are the (admittedly real) differences between groups talked up so as to avoid the smaller group being "lumped together" with the larger group in the mind of the general public?

 

[Tigersoap]

It seems to me that groups often develop severe antipathy towards their next nearest alternative - the next door camp gets labelled as the opposing camp. In most cases, it's the lesser/more recent/less well established group that's most vocal in it's denouncement.

I think it's just a tactic straight out Machiavelli's book.
If two parties are set up against each others by a third party then it is easy to keep feeding those parties and manipulate them to what his needed by the third party.

As long as people or groups are busy pointing fingers at each other, the third party (aka 4DSTS and the PTB.) will continue to manipulate in the shadow.
Of course it is much more complex than this as there are layers upon layers that can be set-up to confuse the picture.

I think that you could safely remove the Sott team from your list because I don't see them putting down anyone (unless they go terrorizing the love and light crowd by driving their objective motorbikes into the new age neigborhood.). They don't crusade against them or anything.

Are the (admittedly real) differences between groups talked up so as to avoid the smaller group being "lumped together" with the larger group in the mind of the general public?

I am not 100% I understand your question but I think that generalizations are easier to handle than to try to see all sub-groups and their complexities imho.
I guess that it requires to make an effort and that most people don't bother and ties in with the divide and conquer tactic.

 

[PepperFritz]

Spoon, I was with you until you started listing "examples", most of which are quite perplexing and don't seem very well thought out.

Could you explain how you see "scientologists" and "psychologists" as being "the next nearest alternative"? I think a more logical juxtaposition would have been "Psychiatrists putting down Psychologists". "Protestants putting down the Catholics"? Don't get that one either. The history and core values of these two "religions" are diametrically opposed, not closely related. A better example would have been something like "Lutherans putting down the Calvinists". "SOTT putting down the Love'n'Light Brigade" is bizarre. Again, the groups are diametrically opposed in their methodology, so it's difficult to see them as being "alternatives" to each other. And as far as "Scots put down the English": Whaaa? You seem to be quite unaware of the history between those two peoples. For the majority of that history, the English were occupying oppressors against whom the Scots had to fight long and hard to earn their independence and freedom. Maybe to an American they seem like "the next door camp", but for most of their history they have indeed been "opposing camps", and for whom mutual toleration is a relatively recent development. Homeopathy and Conventional Medicine are perhaps more applicable to your theory, though the "antipathy" between them seems to run pretty strongly in BOTH directions.

Spoon: Can you tell us what this thread is REALLY about? Reading between the lines, you seem quite irritated by something, and I suspect that it is something about SOTT and/or this Forum. Although you were careful to slip the SOTT example into the middle of your "examples", considering that this is the SOTT Forum it kinda sticks out like a flashing beacon.

 

[TheSpoon]

Hi PepperFritz

Yes I take your points on most of those, except the Scotland thing. Unfortunately, checking my facts about my country's botched overseas investments which caused us to require to enter into a Union with England in 1707 uncovered things that happened in 1660 which were not covered in my school history lessons! Further reading needed there - found this useful site: _http://www.electricscotland.com/history/genhist/

The thinking between the Scientologists and the Psychiatrists (as I should have said, won't correct now since you've listed both) was that both are attempting to bring about mental health. They're playing in the same ballpark.

Spoon: Can you tell us what this thread is REALLY about? Reading between the lines, you seem quite irritated by something, and I suspect that it is something about SOTT and/or this Forum.

Good spot PepperFritz, you could well be right. I did come up with this post prompted by the polemic article in the Inoculations thread, but I seem to be lumping this Forum in with the source of my discomfort - whatever that might be. I had an HR manager once who was very big on the stages of team integration: forming, norming, storming and performing. All of which he said were necessary. Perhaps I am entering my storming phase.

I think what's bothering me is that considering the differences between groups (as a primary piece of analysis) seems divisive and conflict causing, when considering first what they have in common could serve to bring people together. I mean the Catholics and Protestants really have a lot in common. They both go to church, they both worship God, they both like Jesus. It seems like the main points are covered. If you were instead to consider the Catholics and the National Basketball Association, they have nothing whatsoever in common and because of that, have never come into conflict.

I suppose the stance of Love'n'Light being "diametrically opposed in methodology" is bothering me. Perhaps I'm holding on to a sacred cow there. I'm feeling very loving towards humanity and connected to the Universe at the moment - I treated my first terminal cancer patient at Reiki last week and it was a really lovely session. Anyway, I've got another posting on the go comparing Ra to the C's in their views on Ritual, so we'll see what comes out of that.

Thanks,
Spoon

 

[PepperFritz]

I suppose the stance of Love'n'Light being "diametrically opposed in methodology" is bothering me. Perhaps I'm holding on to a sacred cow there.

I hear what you're saying here, Spoon, and often had the same feelings when I first started reading Laura's work and SOTT. What changed? In my case I did not need to let go of "a sacred cow", but rather needed to come to a fuller understanding of what Laura has been reacting against in her work when she rejects the concept of "Love'n'Light". I don't mean to speak for Laura, but rather present my own current understanding of her work, and I hope she and/or others will step in to correct me if I've got it wrong:

There is a branch of "New Age" philosophy that relentlessly espouses "Love", "Light", and "Positivity" as a cure-all for everything, to the point that anything that does not fit into those categories is automatically rejected as "Negativity" and "Wrong", and pushed away in fear. Obviously that is not a balanced way of dealing with objective reality. I think that in her work Laura can be seen as hitting the point home VERY HARD because so many of us coming from that particular kind of "New Age" background need the SHOCK to be jolted towards a more balanced view. As pointed out by the C's, despite the heroically important work they achieved, the channelers of "Ra" ended up paying a very heavy personal price for failing to protect themselves with knowledge about the flip-side of the universe, so it is no small point.

So that's the context in which Laura is writing. Does her work and SOTT seem to lean a little heavy in the opposite direction of the "Love'n'Light Brigade", perhaps to the point of imbalance themselves? For sure -- if the operative word remains "seem". When you're the only one out there trying to draw attention to a vitally important part of the big picture -- versus a sometimes overwhelming chorus of New Agers shouting "No Negativity" -- it's necessary to be loud, hard-hitting, and sometimes SHOCKING to get your point across. But if you read Laura's work and the C transcripts very carefully, you see that the message really does represent a balanced view. The "Love and Light" is there, but its represented with different language, in light of the degree to which those words have become so corrupted and misunderstood in our society. Laura has been faced with the daunting task of trying to teach important concepts without resorting to the kind of tired and worn-out vocabulary that could seriously obfuscate the message. It really is a question of "methodology" -- the means she uses to reach a particular end point.

I'm feeling very loving towards humanity and connected to the Universe at the moment - I treated my first terminal cancer patient at Reiki last week and it was a really lovely session.

You seem to be working under the assumption that such experiences would be viewed here as "wrong", and I certainly do not believe that is the case. If that's true, then I'm certainly in the wrong place! I don't think it's your experience that might be viewed skeptically, so much as the language used to describe it. Ask 100 people what "Love" means and you'll get a 100 different answers that have nothing to do with genuine "Love" ( i.e. "STO" behaviour). And while your experience of "Love" in your work probably stem from genuinely STO impulses, for the most people "Love" is just another form of STS-feeding. Hence the disinclination to use the "Love'n'Light" language.

In that sense I think that SOTT represents a different kind of "culture" where its community rejects much of the language of the "old" culture, in the interest of reducing misunderstanding and noise and promoting more direct and clear communication. Does that make sense?

I hope you (and others) will continue this discussion, because I think it is an important one. Consider this no more than an "opening", subject to refinement....

 

[jlarka]

The Spoon,

You shall cease and desist watching the Monty Python's Flying Circus, the full Monty or anything involving mounting, at once!

And above all, You shall never, ever again watch the life of Brian... If, however you should continue in these horrid ways of yours you WILL be inflicted with the funny walk!

Listening to 'the wall' is also prohibited.

 

[TheSpoon]

Thanks for your perceptive reply PepperFritz, very helpful.

Feelings are a bit up in the air at the moment, I think I'll let that one roll around a bit and see what settles out. Might edit a bit more into here later.

Interesting to have come to this stage just as I reach "Padawan Learner". It seems like a demotion from "The Force is Strong", but perhaps humility isn't immediately achievable. Ahh, and another 42 shows up in the seconds of my posting time.

Thanks again,
Spoon

 

[TheSpoon]

I can see that methodologies featuring head-in-the-sand thinking which shy away from uncomfortable truths aren't the way I want to go. Also YCYOR wishing is totally off my list of things-to-do. I suppose I'm concerned that the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater in diametrically opposing Love'n'Light. It's a position of opposition, not balance. Given that - as Tigersoap says above - the methods of STS control include divide and conquer tactics, then seeking unity and harmony would seem to be the antidote to that - rather than continuing to seek out differences.

There's a story that Ra tells in Session #89 about two fifth density STO entities who come back to third density and then find themselves switched to STS despite their best intentions:

Ra: I am Ra. In our peoples there was what may be considered, from the viewpoint of wisdom, an overabundance of love. These entities looked at those still in darkness and saw that those of a neutral or somewhat negative viewpoint found such harmony, shall we say, sickening. The Wanderers felt that a more wisdom-oriented way of seeking love could be more appealing to those in darkness.
First one entity began its work. Quickly the second found the first. These entities had agreed to serve together and so they did, glorifying the one Creator, but not as they intended. About them were soon gathered those who found it easy to believe that a series of specific knowledges and wisdoms would advance one towards the Creator. The end of this was the graduation into fourth-density negative of the Wanderers, which had much power of personality, and some small deepening of the negatively polarized element of those not polarizing positively.
Questioner: What was the attitude of these two entities after they graduated into-fourth density negative and, the veil being removed, realized that they had switched polarities?
Ra: I am Ra. They were disconcerted.

I smiled at that, I imagine "disconcerted" would be putting in mildly.

If I were map two objects into a computer, describing all their attributes, then I could very easily write a program that told me what attributes the objects share, and in which attributes they differ. But the predator's mind seems to have a bias towards spotting difference. If I see someone in the street who seems "not quite right", then they stick out like a sore thumb, my mind seems drawn to them until I can work out what it is that's different about them. They might be completely normal in 100 ways, but my mind is drawn to identify the few ways in which they differ. I can see how this could have developed from a survival trait.

I don't know that I've got an actual point I want to make here - I think I'm just presenting a snapshot of my thought process.

In that sense I think that SOTT represents a different kind of "culture" where its community rejects much of the language of the "old" culture, in the interest of reducing misunderstanding and noise and promoting more direct and clear communication. Does that make sense?

It does, yes. And I can see that using new language would be useful. I guess I'm holding on to the sentiment - the expression of love towards all other beings. But yes, a problematic word.

if you read Laura's work and the C transcripts very carefully, you see that the message really does represent a balanced view. The "Love and Light" is there, but its represented with different language

Yes, I agree I do see it in the C transcripts. I guess I'm more thinking about the 'tone' of this forum in what I'm discussing. Oh, spook - your post count as I write this is 342.

 

[vinny]

hi spoon,

about the "love and light" thing. the problem comes when attempting to impose one's personal 'expectations' of reality onto someone else. eg "sending out love and light to the world", which often seems to be an essential part of these new age ideologies. And if you do that, then it ends up being totally the opposite.

like trying to forcibly impose democracy. it's a contradiction!

to put it another way "attempting to determine the needs of another is STS". well, I can't really explain, but there's this:

I do not understand how could giving love when not being asked could harm instead of improve. Can you remark on this?

A: "Giving" love is not giving, in such a case.

Q: So, if you give love when you have not been asked, you are
NOT giving?

A: You are taking, as usual.

also:

Q: (L) So, it is a judgment and a disservice to try to convert someone to your path, even if you perceive the end result of the path they are on, that it leads to dissolution? It is still their path?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And, if you send 'buckets of love and light' to such a one, and that is their path, you are violating their free will?

A: You might as well send "buckets" of vomit as that is how they will react.

and also Laura made a great post on the subject, here (4th post on the page):
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=4343&p=2
which might join a few dots.

 

[TheSpoon]

also Laura made a great post on the subject, here (4th post on the page): http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=4343&p=2

I wasn't sure about the above link - it's more about the synchronicity Laura was seeing in 7-7-7 rather than anything to do with "sending love"? Or am I going wrong somewhere?

about the "love and light" thing. the problem comes when attempting to impose one's personal 'expectations' of reality onto someone else.

I totally take the point that attempting to change others would be an STS activity. Luckily in my Reiki practice the clients have chosen to be there, so I can radiate happily without fear of infringing on their free will.

I suppose what I was doing above was defending - or not wishing to let go of - my meditation practice. It's called Metta Bhavana - development of loving kindness for all beings. Which sounds about as Love'n'Light as you can get.

In one stage, the practitioner calls to mind a person they're experiencing difficulty with (more traditionally, an enemy) at the same time they hold and develop feelings of kindness and compassion for that person. Because of the energetic nature of emotion, it feels like you're radiating loving kindness towards that person. But of course that would be magical thinking, it seems unlikely that this practice has any direct effect on the "recipient". However the effect on the practitioner can be dramatic.

There's a bloke at my work who really winds me up by talking loudly, pretending he's a total expert in all things, criticising his colleagues, etc. I've never actually spoken to him, and yet every time I see the guy I get this knotted up, unpleasant feeling - revulsion even - and I can't even look at him when I pass him in the corridor.

Now my reaction is, of course, completely disproportionate. He's just trying to convince the world he's clever, covering up for his insecurities. But that intellectual recognition doesn't do anything about my feelings towards him. My perception of reality has very little to do with who this bloke really is, and is much more likely coloured by my programs, prejudices...probably I'm seeing elements of myself in him that I don't like.

Anyway, I put this chap into my meditation one evening, and the next time I saw him - although my intellectual assessment of him hadn't changed - that same feeling of warmth and kindness came back to me and I was able for the first time to look him in the face and smile.

I hope that he would prefer me to smile at him rather than ignore him - I certainly would - but I don't feel like I need him to appreciate it.

So on the one hand you could say that I'm artificially changing my emotional reaction, or on the other hand you could say that my emotional reaction is irrational and I'm bringing it back under my conscious control by choosing an emotional state that allows me to function politely, even positively - an antidote to my own negative nature. The meditation balances out the "Hate'n'Darkness" I've been radiating whenever I've heard him talking.

Perhaps it would be more useful regarding The Work for me to get to the bottom of why I reacted against this guy. After all, it's probably impractical for me to meditate for 40 minutes every time I meet someone who winds me up!

 

[vinny]

also Laura made a great post on the subject, here (4th post on the page): http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=4343&p=2

I wasn't sure about the above link - it's more about the synchronicity Laura was seeing in 7-7-7 rather than anything to do with "sending love"? Or am I going wrong somewhere?

check further down that page. It's the next one, where Laura is responding to aristar.

it starts:

"Sending love to the earth" is quite all right. But trying to change anything about the earth is a violation of the free will of the earth to follow its own destiny. Sending love to those who have not asked for it is also a violation of their free will. More than anything, it depends on your motivations.
...

about the "love and light" thing. the problem comes when attempting to impose one's personal 'expectations' of reality onto someone else.

I totally take the point that attempting to change others would be an STS activity. Luckily in my Reiki practice the clients have chosen to be there, so I can radiate happily without fear of infringing on their free will.

I suppose what I was doing above was defending - or not wishing to let go of - my meditation practice. It's called Metta Bhavana - development of loving kindness for all beings. Which sounds about as Love'n'Light as you can get.

well... yes it does, but it depends what's underneath.

maybe you do have a 'sacred cow' that needs to be banished?

a common new-age thing seems to be to frantically hold the vision that "everything's peachy" and to deny the uglier side of reality (even if all might be considered to be 'perfect' on some abstract level, down here in the thick of it we surely live in a 'predatorial' reality). but this is denying a full half of all of existence, so would seem to be hubris, or extreme self calming. and any action taken from a view that denies half of everything is bound to end in tears. (Like driving a car with the strident belief that all traffic goes in ONE direction along it, stubbornly ignoring the oncoming headlights...)

So, I guess the thing is to be able to get some glimpse of the TRUE nature of reality, in all its facets, the creative and the destructive, without flinching, and THEN be able to 'love' all of creation for what it is. And stop with this: "If I just smile at the crocodile it's not going to eat me" rubbish (not saying that's what you're doing, but as an example of the level of reality-denial that occurs)

Though, ahhh... maybe I'm just wiseacreing?

...snip...

So on the one hand you could say that I'm artificially changing my emotional reaction, or on the other hand you could say that my emotional reaction is irrational and I'm bringing it back under my conscious control by choosing an emotional state that allows me to function politely, even positively - an antidote to my own negative nature. The meditation balances out the "Hate'n'Darkness" I've been radiating whenever I've heard him talking.

Perhaps it would be more useful regarding The Work for me to get to the bottom of why I reacted against this guy. After all, it's probably impractical for me to meditate for 40 minutes every time I meet someone who winds me up!

I guess it depends on intent. either you are expecting a particualr reaction from HIM (is very difficult not to 'anticipate'!). or you are trying to observe and get some control of your machine, to 'defend your being' by adjusting/containing your reactions, and so gain some objectivity, and stop being drained by him etc.

 

[TheSpoon]

check further down that page. It's the next one, where Laura is responding to aristar.

Ahh, I've got my options set to display 75 postings per page, so I'm seeing one page where you're seeing two. Yes, I've found it now, thanks.

a common new-age thing seems to be to frantically hold the vision that "everything's peachy" and to deny the uglier side of reality
...
Though, ahhh... maybe I'm just wiseacreing?

No I don't think so. I certainly don't disagree with anything you're saying. I may just need to let this roll around in my head for a bit and see if I can (or if I should) retain a positive outlook in the face of an ugly reality.

I guess it depends on intent. either you are expecting a particualr reaction from HIM (is very difficult not to 'anticipate'!). or you are trying to observe and get some control of your machine, to 'defend your being' by adjusting/containing your reactions, and so gain some objectivity, and stop being drained by him etc.

Is it possible I'm doing neither? ;)
I'm certainly not anticipating any reaction from him. I appreciate being able to pass someone without feelings of revulsion, so that seems like positive and worthwhile work. However if I'm just manipulating my emotional state to give me a Pavlovian "good feeling" on seeing this bloke, then that would seem to be a step away from objectivity. On the other hand, my previous reaction was just as subjective and illusionary. At least this one makes my life more pleasant.

Is it easier to use the positive or the negative emotion to do Work do you think? Neither seem to have much basis in reality.

 

[vinny]

Is it easier to use the positive or the negative emotion to do Work do you think? Neither seem to have much basis in reality.

I think that's quite a big question. simple answer, as I understand it thus far: emotions might not have much basis in external reality in our current hopelessly subjective state, but I think they are definitely something to pay attention to.

Firstly as a clue to what's going on 'inside', and then (once one can work through some of one's various programs and idiosyncrasies) as a connection to what's going on 'outside' - ie empathy works through the emotions. it provides the 'heat', the fuel necessary that I don't think can possibly come from intellect alone. Mastering and then utilising that 'heat' appropriately/effectively is a whole other matter though.

well, I dodged the negative vs positive question. I can't really answer that.

 

[PepperFritz]

I suppose I'm concerned that the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater in diametrically opposing Love'n'Light. It's a position of opposition, not balance.

OKAY, I think we need to get down to basics here and define our terms, so that we all know what we're really talking about. So, please bear with me, and let me introduce some basic questions and concepts:

Can we agree that the Laura/SOTT position is not opposed to EVERYONE who talks about/expresses/espouses "Love and Light" towards others, but rather those who (a) do not clearly define what "Love and Light" MEANS, to the point that it could mean whatever someone WANTS it to mean, including something very STS; and (b) those who associate those words only with "Positivity", to the point that any consideration of "negative" realities is rejected out of hand as "wrong"? If you do NOT agree (i.e., that is NOT your current understanding of the Laura/SOTT position), please explain how your understanding differs.

If you DO agree, I think we can say that the "Love and Light Brigade", as defined by Laura/SOTT, really refers to an ill-defined and highly unbalanced "New Age" way of thinking that I think we all agree needs to be corrected -- i.e. balanced. Let's choose the symbol of a WHITE BALL to represent THAT Love and "Light Brigade". STILL WITH ME?

NOW: When you say that you believe that SOTT is "diametrically opposing Love'n'Light", you must not be referring to the WHITE BALL (as defined above), because you have already agreed that the WHITE BALL is an unbalanced position, one that you yourself do not aspire to. Yes? So when YOU talk about "Love'n'Light", you must be talking about something else. I believe you are talking about a way of responding to others and the universe that incorporates and acknowledges the reality of both "positivity" (STS) and "negativity" (STS). Let's call YOUR "Love'n'Light" the GREY BALL.

Now, because you think that Laura/SOTT are referring to the GREY BALL when they say the "Love and Light Brigade", and that I am referring to the GREY BALL when I say that they are "diametrically opposed" to it, OF COURSE you're going to have a problem with that and see it as "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". However, that is a misconception on your part. Because are NOT referring to the GREY BALL -- they are referring to the WHITE BALL, which we all agree is a ball that needs to be tossed aside.

You currently see Laura/SOTT as concentrating solely on the "negative" to the exclusion of the "positive", to the point that "Love and Light" does not play any kind of part in their vision of the Universe. Let's call that perceived unbalanced position of Laura/SOTT as the BLACK BALL.

ALRIGHT, RECAP: You don't want the WHITE BALL and you don't want the BLACK BALL, because they are both limited, incomplete, and unbalanced views of the universe. You want the GREY BALL. Fair enough.

And herein lies the problem/misconception. The Laura/SOTT position is NOT a BLACK BALL. It only seems that way because, recognizing the uselessness and dangerousness of ill-defined and ill-used words like "Love" and "Light", they have rejected them from their working vocabularly. I propose that the essence of what you probably mean by "Love and Light" has a very real and important place in the Laura/SOTT position, but it is simply expressed by different language and concepts. In other words, their position really is the GREY BALL that you're looking for, but you're having a hard time recognizing it because of the different "trappings" involved.

The work of Laura/SOTT does not demand that you give up what you perceive as "Love and Light". However, it DOES demand that you very clearly define those concepts and very brutally and honestly examine how, when, where, and why you use them. It demands that you place them into the context of a different framework -- STO and STS -- that is more conducive to clear communication and clearly-understood motivations.

And that is the "sentiment" that you refer to, which you may in indeed need to "let go" of. When it comes right down to it, you like the words "Love" and "Light" a lot more than "STO", because the latter seems to lack the EMOTION and SENTIMENT and WARM FEELINGS you associate with the former. And there's the rub, my friend. The C's are telling us that "Love" (i.e. STO) is not a FEELING, it is an ACTION. And they are telling us that we have to become a lot more precise in our thinking and communication if we aspire to be STO candidates.

When you experience "Love" in the course of your work as a Reiki therapist, you probably ARE experiencing and using ACTIVE LOVE (or, in the C's language, practicing STO behaviour). However, when you "send Love" to someone who irritates you, you are probably practicing self-calming at the expense of another's free will, and probably to a certain degree indulging your own self-importance ("I am a good person, even if he is not"). It's all in the INTENT and MOTIVATION.

The Ra Material talks about making it a practice to look at another and to "See the Creator". To me, this is a wiser alternative than "sending buckets of Love and Light" to someone who has not asked for it, and for whom you really don't want to give it anyway. Because it is a NEUTRAL behaviour that consists more of "realization" than "action". It is not for the (pre-determined) "good" of the other person, but for the benefit of your own understanding. It takes you to the place where you can say, "Yeah, that guy's a jerk, but so am I. He's as much a part of creation as I am."

Hope the above brings us closer to clarification....

 

[PepperFritz]

In one stage, the practitioner calls to mind a person they're experiencing difficulty with (more traditionally, an enemy) at the same time they hold and develop feelings of kindness and compassion for that person. Because of the energetic nature of emotion, it feels like you're radiating loving kindness towards that person. But of course that would be magical thinking, it seems unlikely that this practice has any direct effect on the "recipient". However the effect on the practitioner can be dramatic.

There's a bloke at my work who really winds me up by talking loudly, pretending he's a total expert in all things, criticising his colleagues, etc. I've never actually spoken to him, and yet every time I see the guy I get this knotted up, unpleasant feeling - revulsion even - and I can't even look at him when I pass him in the corridor.... My perception of reality has very little to do with who this bloke really is, and is much more likely coloured by my programs, prejudices...probably I'm seeing elements of myself in him that I don't like.

Anyway, I put this chap into my meditation one evening, and the next time I saw him - although my intellectual assessment of him hadn't changed - that same feeling of warmth and kindness came back to me and I was able for the first time to look him in the face and smile.

You seem to want to avoid "bad feelings" and replace them with "good feelings". It is clear from your post that you do not care whether your meditation work has any effect on this "work bloke", that you simply want to "get rid of" the feelings he invokes in you. So, the meditation seems get rid of the feelings -- problem solved. What could be wrong with that?

Well, let's look at the complex nature of those "feelings". Every time you see him, you are reminded of some very unpleasant facts: e,g, he reminds you of elements of your own behaviour (either past behaviour that you have now changed, but obviously still feel ashamed about, or current behaviour that you have either failed to modify or have avoided addressing); he also reminds you that you are not the "spiritual, meditative, kind, all-loving" person you aspire to be, but just as negative and prejudiced and petty as everyone else.

We already know that your meditative technique has done nothing for the "work bloke" and that you don't really care anyway. But have you really done YOURSELF any good by "getting rid" of those unpleasant feelings? When you practice "self-calming via meditation, it is no different than the self-calming other people practice via alcohol, sex, drugs, video games, television, etc. It still all comes down the same thing: AVOIDANCE.

When I was into the SETH books many years ago, some things he said really stayed with me. One was that it is helpful to look at the events of a given day as you would recall a dream upon waking -- see every person and event as a dream symbol, and a possible key to something you need to pay attention to. Another thing was the importance of paying very close attention, and dealing very directly and awarely to every single thing that happens to you in a given day, because everything is there for a purpose.

In that light, the "work bloke" has been a glaring opportunity for you to further the Work, to see yourself even more clearly than you do now, and to maybe identify some Programs that you were not previously aware of. In the context of the "work bloke" story, I think its safe to say that you are only missing "Love and Light" as a useful avoidance method that helps you stay asleep but feel "spiritual" at the same time. And, yeah, I think you could say that SOTT is "diametrically opposed" to THAT "Love and Light"... hehe... ;)