Have it your way Bardon was a charlatan and he is fooling people, may be you can make it your life's work to prove Bardon wrong and write books. Good luck.
If you're replying to me....that's not my stance. I actually like Bardon's system. I'm only playing devil's advocate here. That's not my stance at all. I'm not here to prove him wrong, but we're examining everything in this discussion, so I'm just trying my best to look at all sides.
I was only playing devil's advocate and entering into dialectic discourse to help out Beyond Everything. If I'm correct, he's disappointed with Bardon, and I say that's ok.
A question I have for everyone is: if Bardon and Crowley are shams, who is better? Does someone have a better author/system that we should rely on, where there's proof that it works and that they healed?
I would like to be proven wrong, but my stance is, probably not. These authors and their flawed, incomplete systems are the best we have. That's occultism/esoterica. That's why it's controversial.
And I'm
ok with reading and even potentially practicing something unproven. My point is, you pretty much
have to be ok with that in this area of study.
If someone wants treatments that are proven with practitioners who have documented proof as healers....you'd have to look at allopathic medicine. Doctors would be the ones in our society today. We no longer rely on shamans and medicine men.
But for me personally, I like what Bardon brings to the table. I personally wish he hadn't died, because I wish I could see what else he had to say.
I just figure that in discussions like this, I want to consider everyone's side deeply, rationally, and fairly.
I also do empathize with those upset that Bardon is being criticized here. But I wanted to give the criticisms a deep and fair shake as well.
I feel that we have, mostly, at this point. Bardon's work is up in the air, IMHO, and it depends on whether you want to believe it or not.
Personally, I'm someone with a neurological disease. It has absolutely wrecked my life. A huge portion of my shelves is dedicated to healing. It's probably one of the most controversial parts of occultism today, because when you start to talk about going outside of mainstream medicine, people get nervous. My first occult book ever purchased was Mental Therapeutics by William Walker Atkinson. It might still be my favorite to this day. People criticize the
hell out of W.W.A. as well because of The Kybalion. But 'Mental Therapeutics' is in alignment with Bardon's ideals. Atkinson recommends repetition of affirmation to program the subconscious mind. He recommends looking in the mirror to program your vessel/body more deeply, among other techniques.
Personally, I see esoteric study on a topic as a practice of piecing together all of the little fragments we have. It's an experiment, a journey, and an experience. I try to let go and see what's there. Personally, I think when you combine a little bit of Atkinson, a little bit of Bardon, a little bit of Crowley, etc., you start to see something really interesting. That's my personal take anyway.
One thing I've learned is that you can't make any one person your messiah. People do that with modern figures like Joe Dispenza. You
will be disappointed. Every human is human. They're eventually going to show flaws, ego, contradictions, etc.
I just take a position of one foot inside the door, one foot out. For example, I've confirmed that Joe Dispenza was telling a few white lies in his programs. I have all of them. During his courses, he takes a break to give little anecdotes to keep people's interest (they are hours-long lectures). In one story, he claimed that after meditating ahead of time, he went to the airport and was scanned by the millimeter wave scanner (the one where you raise your hands, not the metal detector), and the TSA agent saw a large glowing spot on his heart. He said they pulled him aside. My understanding is that this is impossible. Then again, I could be wrong. I'm always willing to be wrong.
But I've
also researched a lot of claims he's made, particularly in the core course material, and have found it to be relatively
correct. I mean, within reason. I'm not able to back everything up with the gold standard of, peer-reviewed studies necessarily.
My point is this: I can admit that someone has flaws and still take information from them. Just because they were a flawed human, were wrong, or made mistakes, doesn't mean that everything they ever wrote or taught was wrong. I think a lot of people have made that point here, and I have to agree. Just because Bardon got sick, died, and basically had a similar end as Crowley doesn't mean his ideas were bunk. Not necessarily.
I definitely did not mean to cause any upset in anyone's direction, I just wanted to give the examination a deeply clear shake. I think everyone has made some great points.
I'm not sure if we can find someone better than Bardon, Atkinson, Crowley, etc. They're all flawed in some way. My take is basically....that that's not ideal, but that's ok.