Allan Hardman and the value of teaching

[Lisa W]

I went to all 5 of Allans' workshops on the New Agreements and found them to be useful and enjoyable. They helped me to see how I have run the same relationship modus operandi over and over and to realize why so many relationships, mine included, are not successful. We, as a culture, need to evolve within the context of relationship, just as we have evolved in so many areas since even our parents generation. Allans' teachings may seem oversimplified, yet what he teaches to people who are receptive to change, are simple truths, they are just not always easy to integrate. Depending on our willingness, type of programming and personal history, we can change in an instant or take a lifetime to do it. I appreciate people sharing their epiphanies, wisdom, teachings and anything they might have to help me to evolve and change in positive ways. How many of can learn or think of it all, and in that way, we do have need of each other to give and receive these gifts of wisdom. Sure, we can come up with these simple truths through some contemplation, but teachers offer deeper understanding through experience and observation, and tools to help bring the teachings home.

Allan, in my opinion, is not a snake oil salesman, nor does he have any kind of holier than thou attitude. He's a man with a message and he is a teacher by profession and he has a good heart, and helps people to see something beyond their own noses. People who have spiritiual teachings to impart have been making money via books, workshops, counseling and other avenues for many years.

If you want an entertaining, simple view of "being complete within ourselves", read Shel Silversteins "The Missing Piece Meets the Big O".

All for now,

Lisa

[Sonomamark]

Lisa, with all due respect, I couldn't disagree more. Yes, "people who have spiritual teachings to impart [have been] making money via books, workshops, counseling and other avenues for many years"...and I would argue that not one of them deserved a nickel for any of it.

Generally speaking, people who think of themselves as "having wisdom to impart" are the very last people to whom anyone should go to find it. Those who present themselves as such are inherently ego-needy and invested in being viewed as "wise". Not to mention that they've set up their lives to depend materially on being so viewed.

I find it hard to believe that you couldn't have recognized your relationship pattern all by yourself without going to a "relationship workshop" by a guy whose bullet-point opinions (...sorry: "teachings") on relationships border on the sociopathic.

The only teachers worth listening to are the ones who would say, "why are you asking me? Think about it for yourself and decide what YOU think!".

But of course, that isn't profitable, either in ego-strokes or money.


Mark





I went to all 5 of Allans' workshops on the New Agreements and found them to be useful and enjoyable. They helped me to see how I have run the same relationship modus operandi over and over and to realize why so many relationships, mine included, are not successful. We, as a culture, need to evolve within the context of relationship, just as we have evolved in so many areas since even our parents generation. Allans' teachings may seem oversimplified, yet what he teaches to people who are receptive to change, are simple truths, they are just not always easy to integrate. Depending on our willingness, type of programming and personal history, we can change in an instant or take a lifetime to do it. I appreciate people sharing their epiphanies, wisdom, teachings and anything they might have to help me to evolve and change in positive ways. How many of can learn or think of it all, and in that way, we do have need of each other to give and receive these gifts of wisdom. Sure, we can come up with these simple truths through some contemplation, but teachers offer deeper understanding through experience and observation, and tools to help bring the teachings home.

Allan, in my opinion, is not a snake oil salesman, nor does he have any kind of holier than thou attitude. He's a man with a message and he is a teacher by profession and he has a good heart, and helps people to see something beyond their own noses. People who have spiritiual teachings to impart have been making money via books, workshops, counseling and other avenues for many years.

If you want an entertaining, simple view of "being complete within ourselves", read Shel Silversteins "The Missing Piece Meets the Big O".

All for now,

Lisa

[Barry]

...
The only teachers worth listening to are the ones who would say, "why are you asking me? Think about it for yourself and decide what YOU think!".
...So are you saying there is no role for teachers? And is learning how to be in relationship any different then learning another skill? Since being in relationship is significant challenge for many people any help that can affect real change is most worthwhile as well as worth money as a way of honoring the teacher's time and contribution.

[bird]

"With all due respect" sonomamark it sounds as if you are the one with a holier than thou attitude. You seem to think that folks can't learn from teachers and then teach themselves.......it's been going on for thousands of years.......many folks have talents and gifts to offer the world, and if they can't teach, then how is this information to be learned? We don't all know everything (especially you). Did Allan step on your toes or insult you in some way to warrent these ongoing, misguided attacks?? Have you ever met him?
Or spoken with him even? You might benefit greatly from a teacher who can help to open up your apparently very closed mind.
peace.





Lisa, with all due respect, I couldn't disagree more. Yes, "people who have spiritual teachings to impart [have been] making money via books, workshops, counseling and other avenues for many years"...and I would argue that not one of them deserved a nickel for any of it.

Generally speaking, people who think of themselves as "having wisdom to impart" are the very last people to whom anyone should go to find it. Those who present themselves as such are inherently ego-needy and invested in being viewed as "wise". Not to mention that they've set up their lives to depend materially on being so viewed.

I find it hard to believe that you couldn't have recognized your relationship pattern all by yourself without going to a "relationship workshop" by a guy whose bullet-point opinions (...sorry: "teachings") on relationships border on the sociopathic.

The only teachers worth listening to are the ones who would say, "why are you asking me? Think about it for yourself and decide what YOU think!".

But of course, that isn't profitable, either in ego-strokes or money.


Mark

[Sonomamark]

drumgirl, a lot of things have been going on for thousands of years, and many of them aren't particularly good. Say...war, for instance. Just because something is old doesn't make it valuable.

Yes, I have met Hardman. He struck me as a man who needed a lot of attention. But rather than talk about his specific case, what is important to me is the whole issue of whether someone who represents himself as selling what he, and many others, claim to sell are doing good or harm.

For example: Barry asks if what I'm saying is that there is no role for teachers. Of mathematics, sure there is. Of "relationship skills", or of "wisdom"? I'm much more skeptical. People are individuals, and how they relate and what works best for them in life is not a one-size-fits-all affair. Broad truisms are as likely to be harmful as helpful. When someone makes the kind of absolute statements that AH makes, that person is basically saying, "I know how you need to be, even though I don't know you." I see no reason to believe that is true. I don't believe it from the Scientologists, Mormons or Catholics, and I don't believe it from Hardman, either.

And exactly what qualifies someone like AH as an "expert in relationships"? Is he even in one? If so, how long has it been going on? How happy and healthy is that person--is s/he a sycophant, adoring his Amazing Wisdom, or is s/he an equal partner? Aren't facts like these somewhat important for judging whether he actually knows about relationships? Seems to me that this whole realm of people offering to "teach" things just because they say they can goes back to the snake oil sales problem.

If I invent "Aetheric Shamanism", buy a banner ad on Wacco and beat the drum by getting some friends to post raves about how "amazing and wise" I am until a roomful of poor unhappy saps who believe my hype give me dough to tell them a bunch of nonsense, does that mean that what I tell them somehow has value--or that I am suddenly qualified to teach this nonexistent "ancient wisdom"?

I don't have a closed mind: I have a thinking mind. That means that when I hear someone make an outrageous claim, I expect to see some evidence to back it up. Hardman catches flak from me because he heads his announcements with overstated absolutist platitudes which can't possibly be true all the time--and then, when pressed, he backpedals (well, he did. Now it appears he has others do it for him).

To the degree that I could "benefit from a teacher", I suspect it would be someone who doesn't put on airs, engages others as a co-equal explorer of ideas, isn't locked into some kind of canned brand-name ideology (e.g., "Toltec shamanism"), and thinks things through enough not to make the repeatedly silly claims that keep showing up here under AH's name. I think about philosophical issues a lot. What interests me is signal, not self-promoting noise.

I don't think that's "holier than thou", but I will grant that I don't have a lot of respect for decision making that is driven by ignorance or ideology rather than informed thought. I'll wear that.


M




"With all due respect" sonomamark it sounds as if you are the one with a holier than thou attitude. You seem to think that folks can't learn from teachers and then teach themselves.......it's been going on for thousands of years.......many folks have talents and gifts to offer the world, and if they can't teach, then how is this information to be learned? We don't all know everything (especially you). Did Allan step on your toes or insult you in some way to warrent these ongoing, misguided attacks?? Have you ever met him?
Or spoken with him even? You might benefit greatly from a teacher who can help to open up your apparently very closed mind.
peace.

[Clancy]

People who have spiritiual teachings to impart have been making money via books, workshops, counseling and other avenues for many years.

True, and you'd think that with all the money spent on workshops, retreats, books, secrets revealed, counseling, healing, body working, therapy, meditation, and spiritual teachers of all kinds that our 'conscious' community would be shining examples of vibrant health, fullfilling relationships and undefended communication but in my admittedly subjective experience, it looks like many if not most of us are floundering around just like everyone else in this world, teachers or not.

[ThePhiant]

just think for a moment
what do you think the world would be like if there weren't a whole bunch of people trying to make it a better place?
phony or greedy teachers or not
every little bit helps


True, and you'd think that with all the money spent on workshops, retreats, books, secrets revealed, counseling, healing, body working, therapy, meditation, and spiritual teachers of all kinds that our 'conscious' community would be shining examples of vibrant health, fullfilling relationships and undefended communication but in my admittedly subjective experience, it looks like many if not most of us are floundering around just like everyone else in this world, teachers or not.

[Moon]

"Barry asks if what I'm saying is that there is no role for teachers.
Of mathematics, sure there is. Of "relationship skills", or of "wisdom"?
I'm much more skeptical. People are individuals, and how they relate
and what works best for them in life is not a one-size-fits-all affair.
Broad truisms are as likely to be harmful as helpful." --sonomamark

Well, yes and no. We are individuals, and at the same time there
are some elements in common--and learning from someone else's experience
can give us a shortcut out of the same, boring pain and into the wide variety of
flavors of happiness. For instance, i interviewed a lot of womyn who'd been raped
and found four common themes in helping oneself recover: 1)Have partnered sex
ASAP, to have a good experience with that part of your body before the bad feeling
gets lodged there. 2) Get the rapist locked up. 3) Take on some fairly demanding
adventure that proves to you at a gut level that you can still make things happen in
your life. 4) Reframe the experience as a test of your strength.
You don't want to wait to reinvent the wheel when you're in severe pain.

[Willie Lumplump]

drumgirl, a lot of things have been going on for thousands of years, and many of them aren't particularly good. Say...war, for instance. Just because something is old doesn't make it valuable.

Yes, I have met Hardman. He struck me as a man who needed a lot of attention. But rather than talk about his specific case, what is important to me is the whole issue of whether someone who represents himself as selling what he, and many others, claim to sell are doing good or harm.

For example: Barry asks if what I'm saying is that there is no role for teachers. Of mathematics, sure there is. Of "relationship skills", or of "wisdom"? I'm much more skeptical. People are individuals, and how they relate and what works best for them in life is not a one-size-fits-all affair. Broad truisms are as likely to be harmful as helpful. When someone makes the kind of absolute statements that AH makes, that person is basically saying, "I know how you need to be, even though I don't know you." I see no reason to believe that is true. I don't believe it from the Scientologists, Mormons or Catholics, and I don't believe it from Hardman, either.

And exactly what qualifies someone like AH as an "expert in relationships"? Is he even in one? If so, how long has it been going on? How happy and healthy is that person--is s/he a sycophant, adoring his Amazing Wisdom, or is s/he an equal partner? Aren't facts like these somewhat important for judging whether he actually knows about relationships? Seems to me that this whole realm of people offering to "teach" things just because they say they can goes back to the snake oil sales problem.

If I invent "Aetheric Shamanism", buy a banner ad on Wacco and beat the drum by getting some friends to post raves about how "amazing and wise" I am until a roomful of poor unhappy saps who believe my hype give me dough to tell them a bunch of nonsense, does that mean that what I tell them somehow has value--or that I am suddenly qualified to teach this nonexistent "ancient wisdom"?

I don't have a closed mind: I have a thinking mind. That means that when I hear someone make an outrageous claim, I expect to see some evidence to back it up. Hardman catches flak from me because he heads his announcements with overstated absolutist platitudes which can't possibly be true all the time--and then, when pressed, he backpedals (well, he did. Now it appears he has others do it for him).

To the degree that I could "benefit from a teacher", I suspect it would be someone who doesn't put on airs, engages others as a co-equal explorer of ideas, isn't locked into some kind of canned brand-name ideology (e.g., "Toltec shamanism"), and thinks things through enough not to make the repeatedly silly claims that keep showing up here under AH's name. I think about philosophical issues a lot. What interests me is signal, not self-promoting noise.

I don't think that's "holier than thou", but I will grant that I don't have a lot of respect for decision making that is driven by ignorance or ideology rather than informed thought. I'll wear that.


M

SonomaMark: You aren't sure that it's possible to teach relationship skills? Some people don't know how and when to listen. It's possible to teach them that. Some people think that a marital argument is a contest that they should try to win. It's possible to teach them different. Some people think that every problem has to be resolved according to a schedule that they themselves set. It's possible to teach them otherwise. Some people don't think that a relationship involves any skills (at least not any skills they don't already have). It's possible to teach them that there are such skills and that they would be better off to learn them. Skepticism is often a fine thing, but it's not so good if you're skeptical of established facts.

[Dixon]

...If I invent "Aetheric Shamanism", buy a banner ad on Wacco and beat the drum by getting some friends to post raves about how "amazing and wise" I am until a roomful of poor unhappy saps who believe my hype give me dough to tell them a bunch of nonsense, does that mean that what I tell them somehow has value...?

I just want to acknowledge the profound changes I've experienced since opening my heart to the Aetheric Shamanism of His Holiness Guru So-No-Ma-Mark AKA Maharaj Sheesh. Immediately upon overcoming my unenlightened attachment to my money so that I could receive His PENIS (Panacean Engram-Nullifying Inertial Suppository) treatments, I was filled with Divine Love; all uncertainty and negativity vanished; I manifested wealth; I was cured of acne, cancer, hoof-and-mouth disease, the heartbreak of psoriasis, borderline personality disorder, late luteal phase syndrome and skepticism; and Angelina Jolie insisted on blowing me for hours while Brad Pitt stayed outside washing my new limousines. His Holiness Maharaj Sheesh is truly amazing and wise. I would highly recommend His teachings which, by the way, are ancient, to all sensitive, spiritual people who aren't so hobbled by the patriarchal chains of logic that their minds are tragically closed to idiocy.

And did I mention that it's Sacred?

By the way, I don't want to hear you closed-minded skeptics insulting me by suggesting that I could be wrong (sorry about using the w-word). If you're not open-minded enough to accept (and pay your hard-earned money for) bizarre claims with zero evidence, I feel sorry for you.

Yours in Truth;

Dixon :^)

[Dixon]

I would agree that it's quite appropriate to offer oneself as a teacher of relationship skills if what one is teaching is really effective for enhancing such skills. The same goes for life skills in general. But when at least some of the teachings, including some of the main tenets, are nothing more than simplistic, absolutistic, feelgood nostrums which, when exposed to the light of scrutiny, evaporate into a funny-smelling mist, it's appropriate to raise concerns re: whether it's wise for people to spend their money on such stuff, or ethical to offer it for sale.

Mark attempted to initiate a reasoned discussion of that issue. I think his apparent frustration when Mr. Hardman pretty much sidestepped the issue is understandable.

One thing's for sure: No one with a satchel of the aforementioned simplistic, absolutistic, feelgood nostrums for sale will ever starve in Sonoma County, especially if they're "Sacred".

Dixon


SonomaMark: You aren't sure that it's possible to teach relationship skills? Some people don't know how and when to listen. It's possible to teach them that. Some people think that a marital argument is a contest that they should try to win. It's possible to teach them different. Some people think that every problem has to be resolved according to a schedule that they themselves set. It's possible to teach them otherwise. Some people don't think that a relationship involves any skills (at least not any skills they don't already have). It's possible to teach them that there are such skills and that they would be better off to learn them. Skepticism is often a fine thing, but it's not so good if you're skeptical of established facts.

[donallan]

There Is No Allan Hardman

The lively discussion and opinion sharing about the value of teaching in general and that of Allan Hardman in particular, is a wonderful example of what the Toltecs call "Dreaming."

The most powerful teaching that has come to us through this path of personal transformation is the understanding that each of us distorts reality into our own unique Personal Dream.

Here is how it works:

Remember the illustration in your high school physics book, the one with the eye and the tree, showing how the light bounces off the tree and comes through the lens the eye, and projects the image of the tree onto the rods and cones in the back of the eye? (upside down, actually). The rods and cones translate the message of the light into neural impulses, that go to the brain and create an image of the tree in the brain.

When we think we are looking at a tree "out there," the truth is we are looking at the tree "in there" -- in a little virtual reality, the Dream, in our own minds. You cannot see what is out there.

The Toltec wisdom adds to the physics book explanation by teaching that the light passes through Channels of Perception on its way to the part of the brain that will create the image-- and that those channels of perception are filled with stored light from the past.

The stored light is emotional memories, language, fears, successes, hurts, fears, opinions from others, the beliefs and agreements from childhood, and everything since.

The Light is a perfect messenger. It brings the image of the tree, or the Allan Hardman, directly to the eye unaltered. Light that travels through space for millions of years is the same perfect messenger. When the light and its message enters the human Channels of Perception, it picks up the stored light that resonates with it, which distorts the original message.

When the light then creates the little dream in the mind, it is not really re-creating what is out there. The light has been distorted in a unique and perfect way by the one who perceives. That is why everyone in this discussion about teaching and Allan Hardman has a different opinion, perspective, and defendable perception on the subject. Everyone thinks they are right, because everyone thinks the little virtual reality in their mind, their Dream, is actually what is out there.

And humans are willing to fight, argue, insult, or worse, to convince others that they are right and the other is wrong. To those that do not understand they are dreaming, it all seems so obvious that the other is wrong, because they know they are right! They can see the light! (distorted!)

It happens here in Wacco, and it happens in the world. Why else would Israelis and Palestinians kill each other, if they were each not dreaming that they were right and the other was wrong. . .?? When planes flew into the Twin Towers, many people grieved, and many people celebrated. What is the difference? Only how they were dreaming.

If you were to ask Allan Hardman what he thinks of his teaching, why he does it, and its value, he would have a unique dream, different from any of those expressed here. Would he be right? No, he would only be sharing the description of his dream of Allan Hardman.

So, we can say that everyone who expresses an opinion about Allan Hardman and teaching in this place is absolutely right! FOR THEMSELVES! Everyone-- including Allan Hardman-- is describing the way they have uniquely and perfectly distorted Reality into their Personal Dream. So they are right.

We can also know that each person is right ONLY for themselves. Their dream will never be like anyone else's, because each of us has our unique stored light with which we distort reality. When humans argue or insult each other because they disagree with each other's dream, it is because they are afraid that their dream might be wrong-- which would mean the entire personal identity they have built with their opinions and beliefs might be wrong.

Most humans do not have the personal power to face the challenge to their identity being wrong, so they fight to be right. To be right, they must make others wrong. Since nobody can afford to be wrong, they must fight back. I call this "right-wrong ping-pong." There are no winners to the game.

It is a game based solely in fear. It is played by humans, governments, armies, romantic partners, institutions, parents and children, friends, and strangers. There are no winners to the game.

In the Toltec tradition, there are no rules about how one "should" be, but many tools to help clear the channels of perception of old distorting light, so we can see more clearly the truth of what is out there. When we can see without the distortions, we learn to see with love and acceptance What IS.

We learn to honor and respect our own dream and the dreams of others for what they are: Beautiful, unique, and personal perceptions of reality. This acceptance begins the end of conflict-- in our own minds as well as between humans.

So you see, the arguments are fruitless, because there is no Allan Hardman.

There are only the many dreams of Allan Hardman, in the minds of the humans, including the mind of Allan Hardman. They are all real, they are all true for the dreamers, and there are no two alike. If there are no two alike, then there could not be an Allan Hardman that anybody could agree was the REAL Allan Hardman.

If you take away any unique dream of Allan Hardman in the mind of any human, that Allan Hardman vanishes. Take away all the dreams of Allan Hardman in the minds of all the humans, and he vanishes.

There is no Allan Hardman!

And that is the great teaching of the Toltec tradition.


•••••••••••••••

(If you would like to know more, you might like to read my new book, The Everything Toltec Wisdom Book -- available on Joydancer.com and at all bookstores).

Thanks for reading, and. . .

Keep dreaming!

Yours IN love,

Allan Hardman, Toltec Master
in the tradition of Miguel Ruiz
and The Four Agreements

[Willie Lumplump]

Anthropology is a wonderful thing, and from what has been said here, it appears that Toltec anthropology is especially interesting and possibly even edifying. However, if one values rationality (many don't), Toltec ideas of how the universe functions will have to be tested against science.

There is no doubt that the brain uses sensory input (from eyes, ears, etc.) to constuct a model of reality. How closely that internal model conforms to an external reality we can never know, because our model is the only means we have of making sense of the outside world. But before we drown ouselves in Toltec metaphors, we need to remind ourselves that metaphors are not reality. Before one can reasonably state that light is a "perfect messenger," one must rigorously define the criteria for "perfect" and the meaning of "messenger." Without those definitions, the statement is just nonsense. And what does "resonate" mean in the statement, "it [light] picks up the stored light that resonates with it"? The purpose of this intellectual sloppiness is to confuse the reader and thereby soften his mind for acceptance of a giant nonsequitur: "Since our familiar reality is only a model constructed by the brain, no external reality exists." Or even worse, "Objective reality exists, and it is whatever our individual models tell us it is." Does Allan Hardman exist? Not if our models tell us that he doesn't. And since some models will say that he does while others say that he doesn't, the entire concept of reality crumbles, leaving us with only an obstructionist, sophistic, and solipsistic philosophy that is supposed to somehow explain why different people have different opinions.

This is not the way forward. To get ourselves and this planet through the current crisis intact, we need to think clearly. We need to resurrect the values of the Enlightnment rather than find new ways to construct the Dark Ages, be they Toltec or any other kind. Whether we believe that God gave us the magnificent instrument of rational thinking or whether we believe that it's the product of several billion years of organic evolution, it is precious. Let's not just give it up to gain some temporary emotional advantage.

[Dixon]

"Willie"

Thanks for your well-reasoned and articulate response to Mr. Hardman's latest evasion. You've pretty much saved me the trouble of responding, and I've been spending way too many hours posting lately as it is.

I am left with a couple of questions for somebody, though probably not for Mr. Hardman, as he purportedly doesn't exist.

1) If Allan Hardman doesn't exist, who is cashing all those checks made out to him for his "services" (which presumably don't exist either)?

2) Would whoever's cashing those checks be willing to sign them over to me? I do exist--I promise!--and will make good use of the money. Allan can't possibly have an objection to that, as he doesn't exist and therefore needs no money.

I suspect that I won't be receiving those checks, because Mr. Hardman exists when it's time to cash them, then winks out of existence when it's time to evade a reasonable critique of his claims.

Dixon




Anthropology is a wonderful thing, and from what has been said here, it appears that Toltec anthropology is especially interesting and possibly even edifying. However, if one values rationality (many don't), Toltec ideas of how the universe functions will have to be tested against science.

There is no doubt that the brain uses sensory input (from eyes, ears, etc.) to constuct a model of reality. How closely that internal model conforms to an external reality we can never know, because our model is the only means we have of making sense of the outside world. But before we drown ouselves in Toltec metaphors, we need to remind ourselves that metaphors are not reality. Before one can reasonably state that light is a "perfect messenger," one must rigorously define the criteria for "perfect" and the meaning of "messenger." Without those definitions, the statement is just nonsense. And what does "resonate" mean in the statement, "it [light] picks up the stored light that resonates with it"? The purpose of this intellectual sloppiness is to confuse the reader and thereby soften his mind for acceptance of a giant nonsequitur: "Since our familiar reality is only a model constructed by the brain, no external reality exists." Or even worse, "Objective reality exists, and it is whatever our individual models tell us it is." Does Allan Hardman exist? Not if our models tell us that he doesn't. And since some models will say that he does while others say that he doesn't, the entire concept of reality crumbles, leaving us with only an obstructionist, sophistic, and solipsistic philosophy that is supposed to somehow explain why different people have different opinions.

This is not the way forward. To get ourselves and this planet through the current crisis intact, we need to think clearly. We need to resurrect the values of the Enlightnment rather than find new ways to construct the Dark Ages, be they Toltec or any other kind. Whether we believe that God gave us the magnificent instrument of rational thinking or whether we believe that it's the product of several billion years of organic evolution, it is precious. Let's not just give it up to gain some temporary emotional advantage.

[Jester]

<st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Dixon</st1:place></st1:city> and Willielumplump:

I am very impressed with the vocabulary you use to blow Mr. Hardman and his theories away. Good work. Willie, I especially like the drama and power of the phrase, “the entire concept of reality crumbles, leaving us with only an obstructionist, sophistic, and solipsistic philosophy.” That was amazing - like listening to Mr. Spock describe the wicked character of a villain on the <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Enterprise</st1:place></st1:city>. And <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Dixon</st1:city></st1:place>, your description of Mr. Hardman’s teaching “as nothing more than simplistic, absolutistic, feelgood nostrums,” gave me goosebumps. Thank you both. I, too, have been known to employ pedantic language to convince someone of their stupidity and I applaud you. Do-gooders like Mr. Hardman should know by now that efforts to spread light and enlightenment will always be criticized, scrutinized and CRUSHED by great minds like ours that value critical thinking over understanding and love. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
You should write a book, Mr. Dixon, about how teachers rob us blind. And then YOU can laugh all the way to the bank. Or, you can leave the writing to people who intend good for the world – like Mr. Hardman – and let him be compensated for his good work without all your whining and histrionics. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Yours truly,<o:p></o:p>
Jester<o:p></o:p>

[Clancy]

I am very impressed with the vocabulary you use to blow Mr. Hardman and his theories away.

Three questions;

1. What theories? I see no theory at all in Mr. Hardman's assertions.

2. If Dixon and Willie used small words to make their point would you be more inclined to try to refute them rather than flame them?

3. If Allan Hardman's assertions have any practical use in the real world, they can certainly stand up to questioning, especially since he's charging money for them. Do you have the wherewithal to answer the questions instead of throwing a tantrum?

[Willie Lumplump]

It's an old trick. If you can't counter an opponent with substantive arguments, attack your opponent's language. Sarcasm works the same way. It can be used to reduce an opponent's credibility while avoiding the need to construct a rational argument.

--"Wille"


<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 /><st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Dixon</st1:place></st1:city> and Willielumplump:

I am very impressed with the vocabulary you use to blow Mr. Hardman and his theories away. Good work. Willie, I especially like the drama and power of the phrase, “the entire concept of reality crumbles, leaving us with only an obstructionist, sophistic, and solipsistic philosophy.” That was amazing - like listening to Mr. Spock describe the wicked character of a villain on the <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Enterprise</st1:place></st1:city>. And <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Dixon</st1:city></st1:place>, your description of Mr. Hardman’s teaching “as nothing more than simplistic, absolutistic, feelgood nostrums,” gave me goosebumps. Thank you both. I, too, have been known to employ pedantic language to convince someone of their stupidity and I applaud you. Do-gooders like Mr. Hardman should know by now that efforts to spread light and enlightenment will always be criticized, scrutinized and CRUSHED by great minds like ours that value critical thinking over understanding and love. <?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
You should write a book, Mr. Dixon, about how teachers rob us blind. And then YOU can laugh all the way to the bank. Or, you can leave the writing to people who intend good for the world – like Mr. Hardman – and let him be compensated for his good work without all your whining and histrionics. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Yours truly,<o:p></o:p>
Jester<o:p></o:p>

[ThePhiant]

so it is an old trick?
I am so glad that you finally exposed yourself and good old Dixie
so your use of such meaningless but impressive words is just smoke and mirrors
I appreciate your confession!


It's an old trick. If you can't counter an opponent with substantive arguments, attack your opponent's language. Sarcasm works the same way. It can be used to reduce an opponent's credibility while avoiding the need to construct a rational argument.

--"Wille"

[mixmaster]

quite a vocabulary indeed.. Allen isn't rich.. just a really nice guy with some powerful insights to share, or not..

mixmaster


<st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Dixon</st1:place></st1:city> and Willielumplump:

I am very impressed with the vocabulary you use to blow Mr. Hardman and his theories away. Good work. Willie, I especially like the drama and power of the phrase, “the entire concept of reality crumbles, leaving us with only an obstructionist, sophistic, and solipsistic philosophy.” That was amazing - like listening to Mr. Spock describe the wicked character of a villain on the <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Enterprise</st1:place></st1:city>. And <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Dixon</st1:city></st1:place>, your description of Mr. Hardman’s teaching “as nothing more than simplistic, absolutistic, feelgood nostrums,” gave me goosebumps. Thank you both. I, too, have been known to employ pedantic language to convince someone of their stupidity and I applaud you. Do-gooders like Mr. Hardman should know by now that efforts to spread light and enlightenment will always be criticized, scrutinized and CRUSHED by great minds like ours that value critical thinking over understanding and love. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
You should write a book, Mr. Dixon, about how teachers rob us blind. And then YOU can laugh all the way to the bank. Or, you can leave the writing to people who intend good for the world – like Mr. Hardman – and let him be compensated for his good work without all your whining and histrionics. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Yours truly,<o:p></o:p>
Jester<o:p></o:p>

[Clancy]

quite a vocabulary indeed.. Allen isn't rich.. just a really nice guy with some powerful insights to share, or not..

mixmaster


Allan is not a victim here, it borders on ridiculous to suggest he is, and I'm sure he's really, really nice.

You do zero in on the question though, and that is: Are the insights he's selling to our community powerful? Do they have the power to relieve suffering? If someone is grieving the loss of a loved one and you tell them (nicely of course) that they're just dreaming their grief and that they could choose to dream something else instead, will it help them?

[ThePhiant]

people can only hear what they want to hear
you can focus on whatever you choose
and this forum is proof of that


Allan is not a victim here, it borders on ridiculous to suggest he is, and I'm sure he's really, really nice.

You do zero in on the question though, and that is: Are the insights he's selling to our community powerful? Do they have the power to relieve suffering? If someone is grieving the loss of a loved one and you tell them (nicely of course) that they're just dreaming their grief and that they could choose to dream something else instead, will it help them?

[Willie Lumplump]

Allan is not a victim here, it borders on ridiculous to suggest he is, and I'm sure he's really, really nice.

You do zero in on the question though, and that is: Are the insights he's selling to our community powerful? Do they have the power to relieve suffering? If someone is grieving the loss of a loved one and you tell them (nicely of course) that they're just dreaming their grief and that they could choose to dream something else instead, will it help them?

Clancy,

I see some problems here. Is anything that relieves suffering justified? Many people find relief in astrology. It can relieve anxiety by assuring people that the entire cosmos is somehow organized to take their human needs into account. It allays doubts by giving a picture of the future. Does that make it OK? The same might be said about Scientology. Or National Socialism. Or Heaven's Gate. In a sense, suffering itself is often justified. M. Scott Peck made this point in his famous book, "The Road Less Traveled." And when we go out in search for answers, let's not leave our minds behind. If something doesn't make sense, chances are that we're on the wrong track.

[Jester]

Hello Clancy.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
You ask whether the insights he’s selling to our community are powerful. Well, we have heard from a couple of people who have listened to his talks and claimed to get a lot out of them. The people who have written in this regard (Lisa W. and Light) have both been challenged by others here who have never heard him speak (for a ten dollar donation) or listened to one of his teleclasses (which are all free, by the way). But only you can be the judge of whether his insights have value for you. And if you don’t find them valuable, who is to say that they are not of value for others?
<o:p></o:p>
Jester



Allan is not a victim here, it borders on ridiculous to suggest he is, and I'm sure he's really, really nice.

You do zero in on the question though, and that is: Are the insights he's selling to our community powerful? Do they have the power to relieve suffering? If someone is grieving the loss of a loved one and you tell them (nicely of course) that they're just dreaming their grief and that they could choose to dream something else instead, will it help them?

[Willie Lumplump]

so it is an old trick?
I am so glad that you finally exposed yourself and good old Dixie
so your use of such meaningless but impressive words is just smoke and mirrors
I appreciate your confession!


Good point! Now we can scratch these meaningless words from the dictionary since we don't need them anymore. If I may add to your scratch list, let's also do away with "smoke" and "mirrors." "Exposed," "and," and "so" also sound like good candidates for erasure.

[Clancy]

I see some problems here. Is anything that relieves suffering justified?

I think you misunderstand my position, I doubt Allan's philosophical point relieves any suffering.

[Clancy]

...only you can be the judge of whether his insights have value for you. And if you don’t find them valuable, who is to say that they are not of value for others?

I respectfully disagree.

Placebo pills and treatments are a proven value to a significant number of people, that is a fact. Does that mean you can sell sugar pills to cure disease? No. People's subjective experience is NOT enough to prove that something is valuable.

Allan sounds bright and charismatic, I've spoken to him on the phone, and I have no doubt that some people would feel good hearing him speak about just about anything.

[Valley Oak]

Good reflections, if I may call them so.

I have some questions:

If possible, can we use religion as an example of a 'social placebo?' If so, then maybe (just maybe) religion serves a great social need because, after all, the vast majority of Americans believe in some kind of religion. Now what that exact number of Americans is exactly I can't know but I do know that it is a whole lot of people because there are approximately 300 million people living in the U.S. today. The great majority of 300 million IS a lot of folks and the enormity of the social impact of those many people is undeniable, as is their religious, moral, and political outlook as well (god hates fags, liberation of Iraq, etc, etc).

Now, if we continue with the idea that religion is a good thing (red flag on this point because many argue otherwise) then even if there is no such thing as "god" then that means that we better take care to make sure that all those people continue to believe in their respective religions (doesn't matter that they're all different as long as they believe in something that we can manipulate them with) otherwise, the whole system and social fabric will...collapse? The sky will fall? What?

With these general ideas in mind, can we reasonably think of religion as a placebo? If so, should we continue to encourage the public to be religious (or perhaps even better: fanatically religious! Yeah, then we can really get them to do just about anything no matter how mindless) even IF there is no such thing as "god?"

What if there is such a thing as "god" then supposedly all religious questions will sort themselves naturally and divinely because everyone knows that Jehovah is the only real god and everyone else will go to hell and burn in eternal damnation?

Edward



I respectfully disagree.

Placebo pills and treatments are a proven value to a significant number of people, that is a fact. Does that mean you can sell sugar pills to cure disease? No. People's subjective experience is NOT enough to prove that something is valuable.

Allan sounds bright and charismatic, I've spoken to him on the phone, and I have no doubt that some people would feel good hearing him speak about just about anything.

[Clancy]

...can we use religion as an example of a 'social placebo?' If so, then maybe (just maybe) religion serves a great social need because, after all, the vast majority of Americans believe in some kind of religion.

Yes, as I've pointed out in another thread, many studies have shown that people who believe in God live longer, healthier and more satisfying lives than those who don't, so whether God exists or not, belief in God seems to be beneficial.

On the other hand, conflicting beliefs about God seems to cause a whole lot of wars, so, is the net effect positive? I don't know.

[Sonomamark]

See, this is the kind of nonsense I'm talking about.

This is a first for me: a guy who not only does that I'm-Important thing of talking about himself in the third person, but then makes the substance of his message a claim that he "doesn't exist"...and then signs the post!

Allan, you're not getting the lesson you could be learning from this exchange on WACCO, and if nothing else, that is what tells me that you are not someone anyone should listen to about anything. What kind of "master" is so incapable of listening and thinking about ideas that all he can do is stick by his overstated claims?

I should begin, by the way, by pointing out that AH's claim of "what Toltecs call" things is almost certainly fabrication without any relation to the actual culture of the Toltecs, about which little is known and which has been gone for centuries.

From Wikipedia:
"The word Toltec in Mesoamerican studies has been used in different ways by different scholars to refer to actual populations and polities of pre-Columbian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian) central Mexico (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico) or to the mythical ancestors mentioned in the mythical/historical narratives of the Aztecs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec). It is an ongoing debate whether the Toltecs can be understood to have formed an actual ethnic group at any point in Mesoamerican history or if they are mostly or only a product of Aztec myth...During the late twentieth century, the word Toltec acquired a new meaning within New Age (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age) circles, largely because of the use of the word by Carlos Castaneda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Castaneda) and others inspired by him such as Victor Sanchez (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Sanchez)."
Castaneda, of course, is now well-documented as a fraud. That there your lineage, Allan?

Back on the more immediate topic is the tautology you present in speaking from an "I" place and yet claiming not to exist, and then further claiming to have something valuable to say, all predicated on the well-recognized--yet limited--differentiation between perception and what is perceived.

Yes, perception is a process that happens in the mind. The mind is a function of the brain, which is a physical object, and perception occurs through stimulation of that neural net by physical events via the sensory organs, and then interpretation of these stimuli. Yes, that interpretation can be inaccurate, and in extreme cases (hallucination) even completely illusory. But to take this fact--that perception isn't 100% accurate--and blow it up into a black-and-white claim that the world is a "dream" is the most arrant nonsense, and, BTW, is territory that the likes of Descartes went over and passed centuries ago.

Can't you tell the baby from the bathwater, Allan? All available evidence is that there is a physical Universe outside us, of which we are a product and to the forces of which we are subject. We can't just become immune to the laws of physics. However powerful a "dreamer" you may be, you're a physical creature in a physical Universe, and if you don't think so, I sure hope you don't drive.

There is a kernel of truth in your nonsense, which is that people should be able to step back from their assumptions and consider how they interpret their perceptions. They should be open to looking for patterns in how they behave and respond to things. This is common sense.

But you have taken this common sense and blown it up into an overstated claim which is no longer true. As with your overstated claims about relationships, truth has been lost out of a desire to make a big, splashy statement that might attract more devotees.

And here, with this example, ladies and gentlemen, is the encapsulated reason why I suggest that no one in their right mind would go to this person, or anyone with a similar modus, to learn anything:

Overstated, unsubstantiable and irrational claims.
Apparent inability to listen to others if their statements might imply a need for the would-be teacher's ideas to change or evolve.
A clear lack of self-reflectiveness, as shown in the failure of someone who presents as a deep thinker to even consider whether his ideas are coherent or sensible.So: back to other bits on the thread. I'm going to evolve my position a bit. I think someone with a strong education and experience background in relationships--say, a licensed and experienced marriage counselor, for example--can legitimately claim to teach relationship skills. There are things in relationships that can be useful to learn, and a real expert will know to start out by listening to the people in the room and finding out what THEY need and want, instead of trying to "teach" a one-size-fits-all cartoonish philosophy.

But this man, and others like him, don't meet that standard in any way. Happy shiny "relationship skill teachers" whose total qualification is that they adhere to some New Age philosophy and have a splashy slogan?

Snake oil.



SM



There Is No Allan Hardman

The lively discussion and opinion sharing about the value of teaching in general and that of Allan Hardman in particular, is a wonderful example of what the Toltecs call "Dreaming."

The most powerful teaching that has come to us through this path of personal transformation is the understanding that each of us distorts reality into our own unique Personal Dream.
...

There is no Allan Hardman!

And that is the great teaching of the Toltec tradition.
...
Allan Hardman, Toltec Master

[Sonomamark]

Clancy, Dixon, Edward, Willie LumpLump--just wanted to chime in to say thanks, I completely agree with your refutation of the spurious accusations leveled by the likes of Jester and mixmaster. And, as always, I have ThePhiant on my Ignore list and don't read anything It says--a practice I recommend highly.

Also Dixon, now that I know how much you enjoy my PENIS, it just got more expensive. :2cents:


Sonomamark


Yes, as I've pointed out in another thread, many studies have shown that people who believe in God live longer, healthier and more satisfying lives than those who don't, so whether God exists or not, belief in God seems to be beneficial.

On the other hand, conflicting beliefs about God seems to cause a whole lot of wars, so, is the net effect positive? I don't know.

[Valley Oak]

Here is a video clip that exemplifies what Clancy and others are talking about:
www.uberclip.com/out.php?id=51845

The clip lasts only a few minutes. It would be useful to watch part of the clip and then comment on how it sheds light on Clancy's statement below.

Edward



Yes, as I've pointed out in another thread, many studies have shown that people who believe in God live longer, healthier and more satisfying lives than those who don't, so whether God exists or not, belief in God seems to be beneficial.

On the other hand, conflicting beliefs about God seems to cause a whole lot of wars, so, is the net effect positive? I don't know.

[Jester]

...Allan, you're not getting the lesson you could be learning from this exchange on WACCO, and if nothing else, that is what tells me that you are not someone anyone should listen to about anything....

Sonomamark: Your words are poison. I wonder if anyone here or anywhere else wants to listen to YOU about anything. Your constant negativity and disdain merely proves once again that you love to fight and you love to be right, which seems to be your main way of relating to the world and everyone in it. At least Allan tells a nice story with his "snakeoil." Your particular brand of snakeoil is akin to the sludge that blankets marine life after an oil spill.

jester

[bird]

oy!!! I can 't believe that this discussion is still going on.
Let me first say that I have not paid Allan Hardman any money for anything.
I have done some work on his home and the money he paid me was real enough (I won't get into the whole "Allan Hardman doesn't exist" part of this).

My question is this (for whom ever would like to respond)......
How is what Allan doing any different from Christians, Pagens, Goddess worshipers, Tantric follwers, meditation practicers, witches, etc.......?????
Over the years I have seen ads for all of the above offering workshops or retreats or camps that all charge money.

I don't know of any of the above mentioned practices that really have any "scientific" or actual solid, proof that substantiates what each one of them "preach and/or teach". What I do know is that some folks find solice and inspiration from whatever practice speaks to them as individuals and who is anyone to judge that?

It's a big, bad world out there, and many feel lost and over whelmed.
There seem to be many folks who have found what Allan teaches to be beneficial to their lives......and again, who is anyone to judge that?

If you don't want to pay Allan money for anything then don't. I'm not quite sure why there seem to be some who are hell bent on continuing to shread a fellow that they've never even met!!! I think that everyone is well aware of the outstanding opinions at this point.........and I'm sure Allan probably appreciates all the free air time he's been getting......

Peace.

[Valley Oak]

Jester, I for one, and I'm not alone on this forum when I say this, enjoy listening to Mark very much. And much more so than charlatans like Allan who, disgracefully, abound in this gullible society because there are so many who pay to listen to their psychobabble, just like the TV preachers like Oral Roberts, religious 'politicians' like Pat Robertson, gross hypocrites like Ted Haggard, and other spin-offs like Tony Robbins. The list of religious and neo-spiritual phonies in the U.S. is almost endless. Allan is simply new age packaging for a variation of essentially the same content.

It's a good thing that there are still a few people around like Mark who are willing to stand up to the likes of Allan who make a living from the impressionable by painting themselves with a new variety of pseudo-philosophical stripes and a homemade variety of quasi spirituality.

Thank you Mark and the others. No thanks to Allan, the Moonies, Jerry Falwell, etc.

Edward



Allan, you're not getting the lesson you could be learning from this exchange on WACCO, and if nothing else, that is what tells me that you are not someone anyone should listen to about anything.

Sonomamark: Your words are poison. I wonder if anyone here or anywhere else wants to listen to YOU about anything. Your constant negativity and disdain merely proves once again that you love to fight and you love to be right, which seems to be your main way of relating to the world and everyone in it. At least Allan tells a nice story with his "snakeoil." Your particular brand of snakeoil is akin to the sludge that blankets marine life after an oil spill.

jester

[Willie Lumplump]

[quote=drumgurl
How is what Allan doing any different from Christians, Pagens, Goddess worshipers, Tantric follwers, meditation practicers, witches, etc.......?????
I don't know of any of the above mentioned practices that really have any "scientific" or actual solid, proof that substantiates what each one of them "preach and/or teach". [/quote]

Response:

Good question! I think they are all basically the same--a lot of unsubstantiated beliefs. Except yoga and meditation. It's been documented that some yogis can gain control over involuntary nervous system functions. They can greatly slow their heart rates and breathing rates, and they can alter their brain waves. In fact, many people can alter their brain waves. Transcendental meditation is famous for this.

[Valley Oak]

Except for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is the only true god:
www.venganza.org

Edward



Response:

Good question! I think they are all basically the same--a lot of unsubstantiated beliefs. Except yoga and meditation. It's been documented that some yogis can gain control over involuntary nervous system functions. They can greatly slow their heart rates and breathing rates, and they can alter their brain waves. In fact, many people can alter their brain waves. Transcendental meditation is famous for this.

[bird]

Actually.....if you want to get right down to it, (now i don't want to get too heavy here)....... gravity is the only "god"....without which none of us would exist......(EVEN the flying spaghetti monster!).
Peace.

[Jester]

Dear Everyone,

I re-read what I wrote earlier to Sonomamark and realized just how mean it was. I'd like to apologize to everyone - Sonomamark, Willie, Dixon, and anyone else who might have taken offense at my posts.

I wish you all well.

With Love,
Jester



Jester, I for one, and I'm not alone on this forum when I say this, enjoy listening to Mark very much. And much more so than charlatans like Allan who, disgracefully, abound in this gullible society because there are so many who pay to listen to their psychobabble, just like the TV preachers like Oral Roberts, religious 'politicians' like Pat Robertson, gross hypocrites like Ted Haggard, and other spin-offs like Tony Robbins. The list of religious and neo-spiritual phonies in the U.S. is almost endless. Allan is simply new age packaging for a variation of essentially the same content.

It's a good thing that there are still a few people around like Mark who are willing to stand up to the likes of Allan who make a living from the impressionable by painting themselves with a new variety of pseudo-philosophical stripes and a homemade variety of quasi spirituality.

Thank you Mark and the others. No thanks to Allan, the Moonies, Jerry Falwell, etc.

Edward

[ThePhiant]

but Jester,
Telling the truth is not always nice.
Sonomamark does neither


Dear Everyone,

I re-read what I wrote earlier to Sonomamark and realized just how mean it was. I'd like to apologize to everyone - Sonomamark, Willie, Dixon, and anyone else who might have taken offense at my posts.

I wish you all well.

With Love,
Jester