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.