divinecosmos hacked again

[Derek]

a lot of circles in conspiracy/new age interest group dislike him for his ego.

His ego comments can be quite endearing (or annoying, depending on your perspective of course!).

On one particular video, he mentions his previous incarnation of Edgar Cayce, saying he doesn't like talking about it, then moves on to explain the similarities between characteristics, his group of friends and the celestial ordering at birth :¬)

To his credit, he always admits that he has an ego, and his own set of challenges.

Here is a repost from another thread. I hope to put those assumptions at rest.


"I have listened to almost every radio show he's ever done and watched every video he's ever done and can count on one hand all the times he has mentioned that he is the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce . He does not like to dwell on it.


He has no ego problems and regularly talks about this on his blog from time to time citing or talking about various angry emails from people accusing him of such things (which is laughable to those of us who follow his work). [example:

WHAT, EXACTLY, IS 'EGO' -- AND WHY IS EVERYONE SO HUNG UP ABOUT IT?

The most common attack-word thrown at me is 'ego'.

The basic idea is that feeling positively about yourself, writing articles in first-person tense with stories from your own life's journey, pursuing greater exposure and offering products so you can afford to keep doing your best to reach people, is a bad thing.

If everything I did were free, then we wouldn't be able to function and our service would end.

If I didn't bother to try to spread the word, then many people who might benefit from my work will never hear about it.

And if being 'humble' means that I answer every email I receive, there will be no new material for people to email me about.

It's very easy to pass judgment. It's much more difficult, but far more rewarding, to forgive and accept those who push your buttons the most, realizing that they wouldn't upset you if they didn't remind you of some unhealed aspect within yourself.

http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option...&Itemid=70 Note: I also reccomend you study this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection ]

He does do channeling but keeps most of it for personal guidance. If he wasn't following his teachings from his channeling he would have experienced massive negative greeting by now [He openly admits that conscious channeling is much more biased and he is probably around 80% accurate]
"

[quote='unity100' pid='32072' dateline='1300190399']a lot of circles in conspiracy/new age interest group dislike him for his ego.

His ego comments can be quite endearing (or annoying, depending on your perspective of course!).

On one particular video, he mentions his previous incarnation of Edgar Cayce, saying he doesn't like talking about it, then moves on to explain the similarities between characteristics, his group of friends and the celestial ordering at birth :¬)

To his credit, he always admits that he has an ego, and his own set of challenges.

He has never admitted he has an ego problem.

---

Yes indeed. I remember hearing him channel Ra (Sons of Law of One podcast), and heard a few phrases that David uses himself a lot.

Conscious channeling = flavoured output :¬)

Ya, thats how concious channeling works.

We can, my brother, but it may not be totally sensible. Because of the fact that each individual’s mind works so differently, that when we work in an individual’s mind, it is like learning an entirely new computer system, shall we say. The electrical impulses are not in any two cases formed in the same way. There are minds whose intuition is linked very closely with conscious thought. There are other minds who have almost no memory, but whose day-by-day sensations and thoughts are as clear as a brook and we can use those things. Other minds are wired in such a way that there is a very large amount to retrieve from memory of those things thought and read. This instrument is of that type, which among your peoples would be called intellectual. The only unfortunate thing about this instrument is that her fields of knowledge are not particularly those of the Renaissance person and so many questions go completely from one ear to the other without stopping in any way shape or form. Therefore, we have difficulty.

In each case, we use what there is to use. We begin with a vocabulary that must be the instrument’s, for we give to the instrument only concepts. The instrument must find the words to speak what is given. We also attempt to scan the instrument’s knowledge, books, experiences and thoughts to find the closest to which we would call “enlightenment,” so that we may use certain touchstones within that person’s experience upon which to hang a more complex framework, a more varied tapestry of thoughts.

We do this in order that we may touch as many different minds as possible in whatever size group to which we speak, so that in each mind we have struck a chord which may cause a small transformation in thinking; which may in turn cause a feeling of joy, peace or happiness; which may in turn cause each person to seek. Our desire is to challenge your desire.

Thus, we start with the instrument and we proceed therefrom, touching with the instrument’s mind again, and then again, as we scan—we will correct this instrument—as we scan the minds of those within the circle to find what they may wish to listen to.

May we answer you further, my brother?

http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/is..._0803.aspx