The Ancient Secret of the Flower of Life

[CFTraveler]

Well, since I'm not the first one with criticism- I'll share mine. DM. is obviously a very smart guy and has good ideas that can be implemented if you suspend disbelief- but the style of the work bothered me a little. One of the things that bothered me the most was how he mixed in channeled information that had no basis in reality and stated it as fact, mixed with stuff that was shown or proven. This bothered me a little bit, not because of the quality of some of the information. For example, statements like "all beings from binary systems have two hearts and all beings from a single star system have one heart" is not only unprovable (since we haven't gone to another binary system, let alone checked) but we do know that there are animals (like the earthworm and the octopus) that have more than one heart here. Stuff like this bothered me. Now, if he had said-for example, that the heart chakra system is a symbolic representation of the solar system with the heart chakra being the center like the sun is the center, then I would have been fine with it. This is only one of the things he does that are in that style, which he does a lot with other stuff.

Another thing that bothered me a little bit was the liberal use of the word 'proof' when 'seems right to me' would have sufficed. Most of the time he did say 'you don't have to believe me' which I liked, and I'm still going to finish the work and implement some of the spiritual practices he will recommend (I'm sure) because I do think that the work has value and reflects 'truths' that are buried deep in the collective unconscious. But the sequence of the way he communicates his thoughts or his causality does not impress me.

[VioletImagery]

have any of you guys read The Serpent of Light in 2012?

No, but I am interested to read it. I liked the parts in The Flower of Life that were from his personal experience best. I am just not quite enthusiastic enough to buy a brand new copy. I figure I'll come across it for cheap at some point if I really need to read it.

i must say, having watched a few interviews with him online, i do feel he seems to be genuine enough... but again... who knows eh?

I have also enjoyed his interviews. That was how I got introduced to him a few weeks ago, my friend sent me a link.

Well, since I'm not the first one with criticism- I'll share mine. DM. is obviously a very smart guy and has good ideas that can be implemented if you suspend disbelief- but the style of the work bothered me a little. One of the things that bothered me the most was how he mixed in channeled information that had no basis in reality and stated it as fact, mixed with stuff that was shown or proven. This bothered me a little bit, not because of the quality of some of the information. For example, statements like "all beings from binary systems have two hearts and all beings from a single star system have one heart" is not only unprovable (since we haven't gone to another binary system, let alone checked) but we do know that there are animals (like the earthworm and the octopus) that have more than one heart here. Stuff like this bothered me. Now, if he had said-for example, that the heart chakra system is a symbolic representation of the solar system with the heart chakra being the center like the sun is the center, then I would have been fine with it. This is only one of the things he does that are in that style, which he does a lot with other stuff.

Another thing that bothered me a little bit was the liberal use of the word 'proof' when 'seems right to me' would have sufficed. Most of the time he did say 'you don't have to believe me' which I liked, and I'm still going to finish the work and implement some of the spiritual practices he will recommend (I'm sure) because I do think that the work has value and reflects 'truths' that are buried deep in the collective unconscious. But the sequence of the way he communicates his thoughts or his causality does not impress me.

Yes, I agree. I had to do a lot of suspending disbelief in order not to give up on the whole thing. If I had really tried to take it as a 'scientific' work, I would have thrown it out the minute the first fact was wrong, which was probably somewhere around p. 2. But, he did give a pretty clear explanation of his intention in the introduction and so I tried to take what were presented as 'facts' to be metaphors instead and try to gage the overall 'feel' of it. It is not an easy read for this reason. It requires a lot of interpretation. I plan to read it again as I do think there's a lot to learn from it. I also feel that it contains some important truths that are very difficult to grasp consciously and I think that also partly explains the style. It reminds me of a rough draft, where you just write down everything that comes into your head without worrying whether it's right or wrong or even makes sense, you are just trying to make sure you have enough raw material from your subconscious down so that when you refine it you are left with a few flakes of pure valuable truth. Here, much of the refining is left to the reader which is more than a little annoying.