John Lash's Kalika war party

[PurpleLama]

Posted by Sierra (here)
PL,

You meant spiritual honor (in defense of those in harm's way), not masculine honor (the kind currently killing girls and women), right?

Right.

I mean honor. I am not sure what you mean. Honor is honor. It does not forsake Life, innocent life most of all.

[Sierra]

Posted by PurpleLama (here)

Posted by Sierra (here)
PL,

You meant spiritual honor (in defense of those in harm's way), not masculine honor (the kind currently killing girls and women), right?

Right.

I mean honor. I am not sure what you mean. Honor is honor. It does not forsake Life, innocent life most of all.

The meaning can become tainted, watching the "honor killings" taking place in other countries, killings apparently needed to restore "honor" to men, when their women and female children do not behave as they deem fit.

And I've grown up knowing for the most part, females are not considered to either have or need honor, which really appalls me...

I mean, I use honor as a baseline if you know what I mean.

[Shezbeth]

In the words of Little John from Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves,...

"Love to mate" ^_~

Posted by Julian (here)
"it is with the force of love that one destroys one's opponent; love for one's self, love for those who otherwise can't/won't resist, and yes love of one's opponent."

Could you clarify what is meant by "destroying one's opponent"? Please be specific, what does a destroyed opponent look like?

That depends entirely on the opponent. If corporeal, a destroyed opponent can manifest as an individual who's desire/will to be adversarial has been destroyed, or they can manifest as a destroyed corporeal form. These are only two examples, and reality is most capable of calling for/necessitating variations beyond my simple illustration.

"The opponent is not evil,... but it is unacceptable. Those who engage the opponent aren't evil either, they're simply getting their hands dirty."

Could you provide a concrete example of "destroying an opponent" and "getting one's hands dirty" that serves as a constructive model for the process you are talking about?

I can't provide a particular 'concrete' example, but I'll do my best to further illustrate. Bruce Lee aptly suggested that 'a fist is a tool for defeating the ego (of one's opponent)'. Imagine you were witness to an individual brutalizing their spouse (pick whichever gender as the aggressor and the recipient). Imagine also that you possess sufficient martial skill to mitigate the confrontation. In this illustration, I am not even beginning to attempt any moral or ideological boundaries or guidelines, simply that there is an obvious aggressor and an obvious recipient.

Destroying the opponent can include - but is not limited to - placing the aggressor in a 'lock' (a joint manipulation where the aggressor is unable to continue), placing one's self in between the two parties, and - of course - smashing the aggressor to the point of unconsciousness. Per the clarification you request, any of these scenarios qualifies as 'destroying the opponent', as the opponent in this case is the participant who produces discord, violence, etc. To be more specific, I would require more specifics in the inquiry.

As for the rest, I have difficulty following as I find your reasoning to be disproportionate - and thereby unsupportable (even in a hypothetical sense) to my own. I am not suggesting that one is flawed and the other is sound, simply that they seem to be divergent.

In my understanding, the Masculine and the Feminine are dual poles of the same creative force. Having said - and in that they are oppositional representations of the same phenomenon - they have differing properties but the same inherent purpose. The underlying idea is that both poles are resolved to create, with one pole being particularly more conducive to the act, and the other pole being particularly suited to removing obstacles to the act. This is the pith to my assertions of the Masculine and Feminine, that one is more suited to the purest and most involved aspect of creation, whereas the other is more suited to eliminating/removing the obstacles to the former.

That there are obstacles is an aspect I will not claim to fully understand the origins or purpose of, yet I'm not about to deny the existence of and would question any who might attempt to.

I hope this has been of assistance; the latter part was a bit of a stretch as I am not entirely certain of the overall idea or where it is intended to 'go'.

[Deega]

Hi, I have read most of the first page, and I think that even if the Kalika War Party was ever fruitful, their leaders would reproduced a similar (or worst) organization as the one we live in right now.

IMHO, we are dualistic people, and when power is in our hand, we don't, always, have enough wisdom to act virtuously toward people, so a repetitive cycle restart unfortunately.

The best to everyone.

[Shezbeth]

Posted by Sierra (here)
PL,

You meant spiritual honor (in defense of those in harm's way), not masculine honor (the kind currently killing girls and women), right?

Right.

Whoa. WHOA, pardon me for taking exception to the usage of the term 'Masculine' and 'Honor' in the context you supply! One can simply look up the word 'honor' and see that it is not applicable in such a context, and I have a hard time identifying the benefit of attempting to render it in such a context as appears.

Surely Sierra, you are aware and cognizant of the overwhelming want/inclination to ignorantly use terminology in the incorrect context, yet it would appear that in this case ('honor killings', etc.) such caution is thrown to the wind. How many brutalities have been attributed to the enlighten(ing)ed teachings of prophets and saints which have a diverse methodology or principle than those who claim to follow?

I will be the first to assert: any individual who suggests that the Female (whether conceptual or literal) 'has' or is 'entitled to' no honor is a fool, an ingrate, and is operating from a compromised perspective (not dissimilar, though perhaps so in magnitude) to the subject of this thread, Mr. John Lash; I present that purely as example.

I would hate to leave this discussion with a dismissal of your perspective, so I would ask you to please clarify what you mean with allowances for the many divergent positions that surround the idea of 'honor'.

[Chester]

Posted by Sierra (here)

Posted by PurpleLama (here)

Posted by Sierra (here)
PL,

You meant spiritual honor (in defense of those in harm's way), not masculine honor (the kind currently killing girls and women), right?

Right.

I mean honor. I am not sure what you mean. Honor is honor. It does not forsake Life, innocent life most of all.

The meaning can become tainted, watching the "honor killings" taking place in other countries, killings apparently needed to restore "honor" to men, when their women and female children do not behave as they deem fit.

And I've grown up knowing for the most part, females are not considered to either have or need honor, which really appalls me...

I mean, I use honor as a baseline if you know what I mean.

The honor I have come to know has no gender... never had.

I also understand Sierra's reaction... given what we have seen in this world for far too long.

[Sierra]

Posted by Shezbeth (here)

Posted by Sierra (here)
PL,

You meant spiritual honor (in defense of those in harm's way), not masculine honor (the kind currently killing girls and women), right?

Right.

Whoa. WHOA, pardon me for taking exception to the usage of the term 'Masculine' and 'Honor' in the context you supply! One can simply look up the word 'honor' and see that it is not applicable in such a context, and I have a hard time identifying the benefit of attempting to render it in such a context as appears.

Surely Sierra, you are aware and cognizant of the overwhelming want/inclination to ignorantly use terminology in the incorrect context, yet it would appear that in this case ('honor killings', etc.) such caution is thrown to the wind. How many brutalities have been attributed to the enlighten(ing)ed teachings of prophets and saints which have a diverse methodology or principle than those who claim to follow?

I will be the first to assert: any individual who suggests that the Female (whether conceptual or literal) 'has' or is 'entitled to' no honor is a fool, an ingrate, and is operating from a compromised perspective (not dissimilar, though perhaps so in magnitude) to the subject of this thread, Mr. John Lash; I present that purely as example.

I would hate to leave this discussion with a dismissal of your perspective, so I would ask you to please clarify what you mean with allowances for the many divergent positions that surround the idea of 'honor'.

I think I was clear when I spoke of honor killings, that that is not the kind of honor we want to propagate.

As for women not having honor, growing up in the 50s in the US, honor for females did not exist in movies, children's books, cHildren's TV shows (think Mighty Mouse or Superman lol)... I never heard girls or women speak of it either, except as something the husband or father would take care of. And the only honor that anyone seemed to be interested in, was that no male touched the female ... It made me feel forlorn in a way, that no where in sight that I could see, was I considered capable of the attribute, honor.

But I always knew it was honor that I used to determine what I would do or not do, and it was honor that taught me how bad it felt when I didn't.

I could use the word integrity just as well.

Perhaps I should have. I seem to have offended Purple Lama, which would never be my intent. I consider PL extremely honorable. A man of integrity.

Boohoo... And rats.

Love you Purple Lama, yes I do.

[3(C)+me]

[QUOTE=sandy;919333]We can also stop feeding the parasites. We can stop playing the games that these psychopathic interlopers have trapped us in, but I don't see much of that happening. Commerce seems to roll right along.

I think the battle starts in ones personal life and the choices we make. Do we honor the masculine and the feminine in our own lives. Do we take responsibility for the choices we make and the behavior we engage in. Do we see how we have make remarks that implies we see others as separate and below us or better than us. Are we still worshiping other people like they got the inside scope. This is where the battle will be won or lost. We can change things otherwise what is this whole thing about why would we agree to participate in a world where it's an automatic defeat. Just the title Kalika's War party is a dead giveaway. Remember the War on drugs, look how that turned out.
I have read this whole thread and you guys made some very good remarks. Thank you!

[Gardener]

My understanding of the divine feminine/masculine which is being discussed here has more to do with each man and woman internally, that each must balance their own m/f aspects (R & L brain) for it to manifest externally. Neither is better, both are necessary like two halves of a circle.

When its an internal balancing doesn't that make a bit of a nonsense of tantric sex, not to diminish in any way such powerful energy circulating between two balanced individuals.

Some totally mind blowing and beautiful posts here, thank you all. I felt the waves of sincerity and integrity from everyone flowing through me bringing tears and smiles, energy bouncing around.

I stopped listening to JLL over a year ago, just not for me, 'Justone' has a better grasp of Gnosticism imho

Archons have become a fasionable subject for discussion is all, and with the many 'opinions' about what they are and why. Archons cease to be relevent when through diligent work the slings and arrows fail to penetrate our fragile sensitivities and we no longer supply them dark jagged energy. Friction is necessary, without it how could we overcome. Its my thinking that anger is not an emotion but a powerful energy for change, one that sometimes overpowers us, a duel edged sword, just as the sexual energy can have two destinations.

Gurdjieff called it 'food for the moon' when the archons soak up the loosh fest, the moon being the least developed on the ray of creation, so nothing is wasted. Its up to us when we stop them feeding. Easier said than done.

[Omni]

Doesn't the word Archon just mean ruler?

Seems it's applied to an extraterrestrial or interdimensional source usually. From my experiences/opinion human technology could be seen of as an equivalent of "Archontic" tech. I consider those in human circles within electronic telepathy and all that, basically 4D as well.

I suspect John Lash was mind controlled to begin with. His divine feminine was probably mind control too. I have seen the archtypes for that as I have seen the archtypes for what he is doing now.

[Gardener]

Interdimensional/multidimensional, inner landscape, yes i would say so, and Archon yup the word used as a ruler or judge, here is the merriam webster definition page; from ancient Greek, I guess the word came closest to the description the Gnostics wanted to portray. These inner parasites (the ancient as opposed to the tech/mindcontrol) do have a control over our life, like a flea infestation, nibbling away at the flesh of psyche through the thousands of Mr Smiths we are surrounded by, the tricks and traps which fool us into releasing the low frequency energy; by way of fears of lack, loss, and abandonment, imposed upon us by all that was implanted from birth. And that's all without the high tech parasites in your experiences Omni, sheesh! I can only imagine. What is good though is your ability to transmute your experiences into music and writing. JLL hasn't made that leap yet it seems, though early on he seemed to.

Interesting point you make about classifying the tech as 4D, makes some sense in a way I can't quite articulate. (example: Bill being put to sleep during the interview discussing same.)

Posted by Omniverse (here)
Doesn't the word Archon just mean ruler?

Seems it's applied to an extraterrestrial or interdimensional source usually. From my experiences/opinion human technology could be seen of as an equivalent of "Archontic" tech. I consider those in human circles within electronic telepathy and all that, basically 4D as well.

I suspect John Lash was mind controlled to begin with. His divine feminine was probably mind control too. I have seen the archtypes for that as I have seen the archtypes for what he is doing now.

[ulli]

This is a part of a Baha'i prayer in which a person addresses God asking for protection against archon interference:

" Keep us safe, then, through Thine unfailing protection, O Thou the Beloved of the entire creation and the Desire of the whole universe, from them whom Thou hast made to be the manifestations of the Evil Whisperer, who whisper in men’s breasts. Potent art Thou to do Thy pleasure."

[eaglespirit]

Posted by ulli (here)
This is a part of a Baha'i prayer in which a person addresses God asking for protection against archon interference:

" Keep us safe, then, through Thine unfailing protection, O Thou the Beloved of the entire creation and the Desire of the whole universe, from them whom Thou hast made to be the manifestations of the Evil Whisperer, who whisper in men’s breasts. Potent art Thou to do Thy pleasure."

Daniel Michael...
freely choosing to step into the higher rhythms of my name, I can personally vouch for that protection : )

There is joy, and may I be so forward as to say, 'loving fun', in this!

Enjoying Higher Responsibility Transforms Good Works To Good Pleasures and More Are Finding This, imho : )

Aho Mitakuye Oyasin...Here, There, Everywhere!

[Roisin]

Posted by gripreaper (here)

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
There was an infiltrating intention for that to occur... I and others could feel it. Here's the rub: it was clear to me that John Lash was the one who was Archontically infected. I meant that seriously at the time, and that's still my view.

Seems we have seen this happen to a few great minds and researchers over the past few years....once they tip too far there really is no return way back for them it seems....

And this is how the deep truth which is emerging gets distracted and infiltrated, the same process which has occurred for millennium. The truths which John Lash did bring forth are tainted by his character and we need to not let this happen. This illustrates the massive power and ability to control consciousness and to create memes, and to apply artificial intelligence to taint and obfuscate the truth.

Was John Lash originally of pure intent when he started researching the Nag Hammadhi scrolls and the Archonic parasite, and he got caught up in a patriarchal approach to solving the problem, and lost his way and thus lost the divine feminine essence of the truth?

Seems likely. Let us not fall into the same trap, but let this be a lesson to illustrate the massive infrastructure in place, the ability to apply artificial intelligence within our very being without us hardly recognizing its presence. This technology has really ramped up in the last decade, and our only defense against it is to hold a strong energy boundary filled with the essence of pure love. This is our remedy and our protection, otherwise we are subject to being vamped.

I would like to find out what Lash's belief system (a mixture of Paganism and Gnosticism?) was prior to him interpreting the Nag Hammadhi scrolls because anyone who attempts to do that will interpret that material through the filter of their own existing philosophical and/or religious belief system. Bill, for example is a Ron's Org. member so he will be interpreting Lashes interpretation of that material through Hubbard's teachings.

And naturally, anyone who strongly believes in any given system, that belief system is going to prevail over any new informaton that's presented to them that's outside of their existing belief system.

A Fundamentalist Christian will be reading Lash's material through the filter of his/her own belief system so naturally they are going to find Lash's interpretation of the Nag Hammadhi contrary to their own beliefs in many area's because they interpret the Bible literally unlike Lash's approach which is to give his own spin on it.

So any opinions from anyone on if Lash is right or wrong in his interpretations of the Nag Hammadhi scrolls, will definitely depend on the reader's own existing belief system.

A Fundamentalist Christian will say that Lash has got it all wrong... as will a Rons Org/Hubbard follower.

As always, any strong believer in their own chosen religious or philosophical belief system is going to say that there's in the only right one out there.

[ulli]

Posted by Roisin (here)

Posted by gripreaper (here)

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
There was an infiltrating intention for that to occur... I and others could feel it. Here's the rub: it was clear to me that John Lash was the one who was Archontically infected. I meant that seriously at the time, and that's still my view.

Seems we have seen this happen to a few great minds and researchers over the past few years....once they tip too far there really is no return way back for them it seems....

And this is how the deep truth which is emerging gets distracted and infiltrated, the same process which has occurred for millennium. The truths which John Lash did bring forth are tainted by his character and we need to not let this happen. This illustrates the massive power and ability to control consciousness and to create memes, and to apply artificial intelligence to taint and obfuscate the truth.

Was John Lash originally of pure intent when he started researching the Nag Hammadhi scrolls and the Archonic parasite, and he got caught up in a patriarchal approach to solving the problem, and lost his way and thus lost the divine feminine essence of the truth?

Seems likely. Let us not fall into the same trap, but let this be a lesson to illustrate the massive infrastructure in place, the ability to apply artificial intelligence within our very being without us hardly recognizing its presence. This technology has really ramped up in the last decade, and our only defense against it is to hold a strong energy boundary filled with the essence of pure love. This is our remedy and our protection, otherwise we are subject to being vamped.

I would like to find out what Lash's belief system (a mixture of Paganism and Gnosticism?) was prior to him interpreting the Nag Hammadhi scrolls because anyone who attempts to do that will interpret that material through the filter of their own existing philosophical and/or religious belief system. Bill, for example is a Ron's Org. member so he will be interpreting Lashes interpretation of that material through Hubbard's teachings.

And naturally, anyone who strongly believes in any given system, that belief system is going to prevail over any new informaton that's presented to them that's outside of their existing belief system.

A Fundamentalist Christian will be reading Lash's material through the filter of his/her own belief system so naturally they are going to find Lash's interpretation of the Nag Hammadhi contrary to their own beliefs in many area's because they interpret the Bible literally unlike Lash's approach which is to give his own spin on it.

So any opinions from anyone on if Lash is right or wrong in his interpretations of the Nag Hammadhi scrolls, will definitely depend on the reader's own existing belief system.

A Fundamentalist Christian will say that Lash has got it all wrong... as will a Rons Org/Hubbard follower.

As always, any strong believer in their own chosen religious or philosophical belief system is going to say that there's in the only right one out there.

I agree with your point here, but JLL's momentum in coming to his current conclusions and plan of action is an important factor as well.
Because when one suddenly jumps to the greatest AHA moment there will be clashes, naturally, with those who haven't seen the same lightbulb, if one is not wise enough to make allowances that no two people can be at the same level.

So if both Bill and Christine noted that he was "arrogant" there may well have been something to their perceptions, and not just normal projection of their own unresolved material.
My view of the workings of the universe are different, and not just based on my earliest filters, but more to do with the workings of physics...and what would be the most effective approach.
All action causes a measurable reaction. Ripple effect...
So with me simply a commitment to the best outcome via a Ghandi style response to the world's situation would be better than experimenting with specific rituals.

[Sunny-side-up]

Good observation/question Roisin

I am of no Religious teachings or indoctrination, never have had!

I do believe in 'Great-Architect as it where!

I do believe the knowledge as it is of the Gnostics is close to the first knowledge.

We directly and or indirectly being given: Sun, Moon and A Planet as our domain makes sense to me. Maybe in our self-view-of-grandeur we take things for granted
Maybe we aren't meant to travel the stars and universe as if it was all just there for our taking!
Maybe upon our reaching a state where we might, by means of technology go out into the stars (Or at least we are lead to believe we could), well at such a point in our evolution might also mean we get to go higher dimensional and skip the illusion of the material universe altogether

As an example to your question Roisin, the co-called 'Light-Trap' subject.
My own experiences in NDE (or as near to a NDE that I might have had a few times) have never been full of Winged angles or of any kind of beings!

I only saw incredible geometrical forms and grids, including phases of pulsing colors and shapes etc!
And then the great calm totally peaceful, loving place/image which I interpretation as the entrance to the tunnel in static form, showing all it's composite parts in focus and not blurred into a tunnel of light!

So maybe I have seen the true form of the entrance to the Tunnel of Light, or the true non-religious version of my reality 0.0
I've always been Artistic and was once a Draughtsman , so maybe Geometry is my Religious foundation. Just got-ta love them Mandala
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala

Love
Alan

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by ulli (here)

So if both Bill and Christine noted that he was "arrogant" there may well have been something to their perceptions, and not just normal projection of their own unresolved material.

Yes... there's a very unified view here. Every single person who's heard the original recording is now of the same mind, as best I know.

The way I see it, it's not a matter of metaphysical orientation that it's inappropriate (to give just one standout example!) to call Moslems 'cockroaches'. If anyone reading this does think that's fine, then please raise your hand!

[Roisin]

Well, Lash certainly didn't come across that way in this book "Not In His Image" so I"ll listen to that recording where he's talking like that as it's definitely a turn off in every way... One wonders how he could have any followers/fan group to begin with if he's talking like a Neo-Nazis in it and not the spiritually enlightened person he claims to be! This is very disappointing indeed because I thought his presentation on the Nag Hammadhi material was very elegant and coherent.

--- update ---

I much prefer to listen to recordings with subtitles like the way some You Tube video's are but from what I'm able to catch in this one so far, he's definitely coming across as a racist.

http://rediceradio.net/radio/2014/RI...4-johnlash.mp3

[donk]

Any spiritual teaching has the dual characteristics of containing some truth, and the potential to be a trap (a lie)

Male/female is another distraction, dividing us. Free will nullifies these superficial differences.

John Lash, like most who receive a certain level of attention, has been "captured", with the intent to twist anything close to "truth" that he was presenting.

His current direction is a dangerous one, enticing to those stuck in old paradigm. Whether it a deliberate creation from the gate of those who guide his path now or a gradual process where he was overcome somewheres in the journey, declaring war on war (using sex magicsk) is not the John Lash of a decade ago.

Those who would have us argue over relative morality and our emotional attachments to ideas (I have no problem with him sharing contempt of a race/religion...it shows who he is and is to be integrated into discern of the information he presents) are getting more sophisticated in their programming.

Up until recently, lash was among the most responsible teachers, always respectful of others views, always careful to qualify that this was HIS understanding of reality. The seemingly overnight change to a militant with no self-awareness and blatant hypocrisy is sad to me...but hopeful. It shows that truth will always emerge, no matter how subtle and compelling the lie.

Seems to me "They" can't hijack the truth without it becoming glaringly obvious to a real seeker, those of us who dedicated to brutal self honesty and can look at sensitive topics with loving detachment. Don't throw away babies with the bath water here...it could be one more distraction...or there can be important lesson to be learned...

[Feritciva]

This is an important thread for me, thanks to everyone who shared really valuable info & insights.

JLL was somehow important for me as his writings are one of the sources that I first learnt about archons & archontic influence.

But as it is wisely said, one transforms into what he heavily resists & fights if he's not careful enough. Especially if a powerful intellect is there to make that division between "us & them". One part of me still understands JLL, maybe he studied & researched too much about archon tactics & strategies and he eventually reached to a conclusion where only acting like them is enough to beat them. Then what does this turn "us" into? Probably there will be another JLL organising another group to take down Klika Warriors.. welcome to the wheel of karma!

Finally that famous cockroaches... my experience showed there are many cockroaches who use Islam or Christianity or Jewish beliefs or scientific truths for their agendas. Discernment comes handy here, it saves you from horribly wrong generalisations like we see here with JLL.