This is part 2 of the above post. I had trouble posting as one post ...I would like to respond again, and hopefully finally, to this endless questioning of my qualifications as a Dream Analyst. I put it to anyone to inquire of any University psychology department; out of all the different subjects they cover, ask them-
how many hours a psychology graduate dedicates to learning dream analysis or the dynamics of the unconscious?. Out of that, ask them -
how many of those hours are spent reading and regurgitating and how many hours are practical? I can tell you at Sydney University the answer is in
single digits for all of those.
Those who may have resented their studies, or barely comprehended what they were regurgitating, but managed to get their degrees or diplomas, according to ex-l, are to automatically be given more credence despite his own criticisms of them elsewhere as inneffectual and dangerous. I partly agree, some are excellent therapists but others are hopeless, despite having the same pieces of paper. ex-l swings from on extreme (qualifications good) to another (qualifications useless) depending on his point at the time.
According to ex-l, that I went through at least
120 hours of specialised practical study and practice under the one teacher, & thats excluding further studies, attending lectures, and so on, it all counts for nothing.
I have run classes at 3 different Adult Education Colleges where I am required to be interviewed and assessed by education administrators as to my competence, experience and ability. I have done private sessions and group work, which has included psyche students and graduates.
Out of the many hundreds of dreams I have analysed, in a field where negative and angry responses are expected, only one person ever took umbrage, and that was because her own dream undid the years of effort to deny her own discomfort with herself. Her anger was really at herself. One other thought it was meant to be a party trick, more fun, and left. The rest have given positive feedback, I have received emails from some participants years later thanking me, and I stay in touch with some others.
A point was made - as a criticism - that I had run workshops at a BK establishment (not a fully fledged centre). I have answered that at
in earlier posts - including the fact that I chose
not to continue after 3 sessions, as I did not want it to be identified as a BK service. Yet this is thrown up at me repeatedly as "proof of collusion".
ex-l wrote:What do I mean by Brahmakumaritis? Hmmn, roughly, as I don't have the time right now, tendencies to;
a) exaggerate one's own experience and qualifications
b) pronounce on subjects that you really don't know very much about or have experience
c) unaccountable dabbling with other individual's psyches. By "unaccountable", I mean 'professional unaccountability' just like the BKWSU's teachers which is why I asked, and
d) attempts to personalise the discussion of issues, focus on identities (especially me); even to make a big issue about your own personal identity, as if that was important.
If you are interested dear reader, have a look for my response to this
here .
You don't need to understand archetypes to recognise a red herring. I am genuinely concerned that you are still involved with or channeling spiritual energies that you are not fully aware of - to the extent now that you are even deny the like exists. This is why I asked you to qualify your ability to experience of the same "seed stage" as BKs do since leaving Gyan; and the pre-, during and post-BK psychic experiences you mentioned.
OK, this links back to an earlier point above, but it is also saying that deep meditative states - what BK jargon calls "seed' stage" and earlier as "fire of Yoga" or "tapaswi" - these experiences are either copyrighted by the BKs (meaning these are experience are only because of influence of low flying "entities") or it says that all the people and paths through the ages that have had similar experiences are influenced by same entities.
You cannot beat this church at it's own game.