let's be plain and not labeling

09. Tantra - A Holistic View of Spirituality
1

Hi all,
Here are some thoughts after reading the recent “black magic” thread:
I guess much of our different opinions here are merely semantic, although I agree that rhetoric can have a great influence on us.
On the other hand, careless use of terms like “energy”, “dark” can (just “can”, not always) greatly limit us. We are labeling someone when we say he’s “dark” due to our certain feelings, and the label strengthen our feelings. At the end we tend to have irrational conclusions about that guy, without being able to fairly treat him.
“Darkness” (or absence of light), although very vague, could be a true feeling. But I am sure the feeling is due to what that person has actually done/said, or in some cases his/her appearance. There are many factors here. These factors can trigger strong emotional responses in others around, including “darkness”(whatever it is).
Many people dramatize or mystify these real factors too much. That’s superstitious and will only weaken us unnecessarily.
When we have certain feelings, e.g. darkness, about someone, why don’t we stop and see clearly what the feelings are, and observe what that guy has done that lead to our feelings, rather than just promptly react by saying that “his negative energy influence us”? The labeling is not just misleading, but also irresponsible. It hurts us back, and do not give us a chance to communicate constructively with the others.
Alvin

p.s.
If you are not convinced that the so-called “negative” or “positive” energy we feel from the others are due to a “chemical reaction” of real factors (rather than via a certain secret “energy field” independent of our other senses); try doing some control experiments to see if you can “feel” whether a certain “dark” guy or guru is in a room with door closed without any conventional clues (the “real” factors like sound). For example, try if you can locate that guy out of , say, 10 rooms. See if you can If you can do this 100% success rate. If you can, do tell me. There are some scientific organizations (forget the name) which are trying hard to find such phenominon. The test they employ is not very different from the one I describe. You can prove to the scientific world, for the first time, the possibility of these extraordinary feats.

2

Paranormal phenomena is not often easily repeatable, so it doesn’t mix well with science. But who knows, as spiritual energy increases. . .
I’ve always thought of “dark” energy as energy from people who are either obsessed with personal gain without thought of others, or
purposely desiring to hurt others.
Then there are realms where incomplete entities would be considered dark because they are “stuck” in some needy way. I know people like that too. They have the illusion that they are not whole within themselves, and suck energy from other people to try to complete themselves. They don’t mean to harm anyone in the process; they just can’t see the truth. Been there.

3

Absolutely agree. In fact “not repeatable” is the reason why a Paranormal phenomena is “paranormal”.
But the problem is: do you consider the “dark” guys “paranormal”? You mean you don’t always feel such thing as “negative” energy from them, may be not even more often than the others, and yet we describe them as “dark”? Isn’t that a quick and shaky judgement we put on them then? And as I’ve said, this labeling will only create more illusion.
If we are convinced that someone is really sucking energy from the others with a reasonably high frequency, and this is not due to our interaction with them via our five senses, then try the experiments. If you can “feel” where that guy is about 7 or 8 out of 10 times, you will considered to have passed the test.

4

May be the experiment could be done in following way:
2 persons participate, the first one is the “silent sender” of energy
the second one is the “receiver”.
Those 2 persons can know each other, may be it is even a great
advantage if they know each other very closely.
The experiment could run this way:
The sender writes down on a piece of paper what kind of energy he/she
is intending to transmit.
The receiver without being in physical contact then should
try to tell the kind of energy (could be loving thoughts,
peaceful, agressive, laughing, joyful, sad, lonely etc.)
Somehow, as I write these lines, there comes the thought
that such experiments surely have been done already …

5

Hi Wolfgang,
A good suggestion which I’ve read that the Chinese scientists did on paranormal children, but I found no official record. So I seriously doubt the credibility of the source I’ve read. By the way, they

This part is problematic. The “kind of energy” to be sent has to be determined by a third party, or decided randomly by playing dices after they sit in different room(the latter method is even better). Send a series of “energy” 20 times. Even the toughest scientists would say they pass the test if they can get 17 or 18 correct our of 20 in every trials.
Alvin

6

i’ve never met anyone who is always dark. I’ve thought so a few times, but eventually found that they change.

7

Hi Alvin,
I agree with you on this issue about writing it down on paper.
The testing scientists could prepare 50 pieces of lots with
the word “positiv” (or with a + sign) and 50 pieces with
the word “negativ” (or with a - sign).
Also neither the receiver nor the sender will know the
amount of available lots.
The “sender” draws a lot and then sends the appropriate
energy. The receiver (in another room with no physical
communication) then has to tell either + or -
I think such a kind of setup could not be argued with.

8

Hi Alvin,
You make two excellent points here which are good guidelines for all of us to remember when posting on this forum.
Labeling
I meditate so that I can know unity
Yet I insist on labeling you and me
My separateness is sure to endure
If I think my heart is so pure…
My ignorance will always cloud my sight
If I am so certain you are wrong and I am right…