Is murder evil?

Last month I wrote an article “Does evil exist?”  It turned into one of the most-read and most-commented articles on this blog.  Today I received a comment from “Jeff” that said:

You are an idiot…evil exists. killing is evil, murder is evil… you are evil for your lying tongue.

Actually that’s the edited version, I removed the F-bombs.  You can read his unedited comments and my replies at the bottom of that “Does evil exist?” page.  In case you are wondering, no I do not allow abusive comments on this blog, but Jeff’s had that perfect combination of (a) raising a valid question and (b) being funny rather than insulting.

Is murder evil?

I’ve already said that I don’t believe that evil exists. It’s just a lazy label that people use when they can’t define why they disagree with something.  If you read my “Does evil exist” article you already know my answer to this question is going to be “no.”   I’m hoping you still read today’s article though to see:

  1. how we explain “why murder is not evil” to an angry teenager;
  2. why people who think evil exists are themselves the source of “evil” actions; and
  3. what I think our responsibility is to educate the community, and why this can really change consciousness of humanity.

Murder is not evil. Murder is murder, it’s a crime and in almost all cases it causes terrible pain and suffering.

Not all murder is evil. Sometimes good people go to jail for murder (I’m thinking of a rape victim who kills in self-defence, or people who assist a cancer victim to die without pain).  There are lots of good people with big hearts that are charged with murder even though they are not “evil.”

Is murder ever evil?  What about psychopaths? Are they evil?

It is tempting to call a person who kills innocent people “evil.”   The fact is – now scientifically demonstrated – that brain damage causes people to be psychopaths.  There are types of trauma that block people’s empathy, enabling them to harm others without remorse. Saying a murderer is evil is like saying witches should be burned.  It is Middle Ages thinking.

Psychopaths are not evil people. They are damaged people.  They are victims who need help.  Demonizing them as “monsters” does not help them, the victims, or society. Yes they should be locked up, but not because they are “evil.” They should be locked up to protect innocent people.  Evil has nothing to do with it, science does.

Calling a murder “evil” helps no one. It is just sloppy thinking using empty words. But saying that a murderer has brain damage to the part of the brain that causes empathy is meaningful. It begs the question “can we cure this person?

Here’s a really interesting question. If a murder is caused by some brain damage to the empathy section, “Is there a test for this brain damage so that we can predict who else might commit murder in the future and help them now?” (I know, it’s a bit Minority Report, but you have to admit it’s a really exciting question.)

These are real scientific questions that will benefit humanity. You can only ask those questions if you have a scientific mindset and stop using empty words like “evil.”

Imagine if, in the future, there was a simple test for who was most likely to kill or rape others.  What if you could find them as children and help them?  You might reduce violent crime by 90%.  But – this is the critical bit – you can only do that if you think of murder as a symptom, the effect rather than the cause.

Our entire medical and legal systems are stuck on symptoms, probably because of our history of believing in good and evil.  That’s why we lock people up in jails instead of trying to fix the root cause of their behavior and prevent future crimes.

In other words – people who believe in “evil” use the word to avoid taking responsibility.  It’s a way to dismiss something or someone you don’t agree with.  It’s only when we delete the word “evil” from our vocabulary that we can start to make huge changes in the world, to solve the world’s problems instead of creating them.

Our responsibility

Yes, I am saying that saving humanity means growing up and letting go of duality like “good and evil.”   We (RPT practitioners and people on this wavelength) have a responsibility to educate our community.  We need to help people to grow up and stop whitewashing the world with “good and evil.”

If you understand this article, if you “get” what I write on this blog, then please help.  Chances are you know at least one person like “Jeff” who wants to lash out and attack people who say things he doesn’t understand.  Try to help. Try to talk  his language (minus the F-bombs). Help people to understand that believing in “right” and “wrong” or “good” and “evil” is what justified the 9/11 attacks (“for Allah”) or George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq (“I checked with God”).

In other words, the people who believe in “evil” also believe in it’s opposite, call it “righteousness.”  They believe that they are righteous and everyone who disagrees with them is evil.  It is these people I am most afraid of.  The 9/11 bombers were brought up to  believe in a world in which good and evil exist.  A world in which America was evil and dying for Allah is good.

People who believe in evil scare me.  And they should scare you. They are the people who burned witches in the middle ages, or communists in the 1950s.  They are the people who are trying to criminalise spiritual healing techniques today.

This is no longer about “does evil exist?”  That debate is about is as archaic as “is the world flat?”  We have grown up.  The new conversation is about how can we educate the public, to help people to understand all the shades of gray which you can appreciate when you stop painting in black and white.

We have a duty to educate the public about cause and effect.  To train people to ask questions like “why did they do this?” Or “what happened to that person to cause them to act this way?”  These are the sort of real questions that give real answers that help us to understand human behaviour.

Your comments and questions

OK I’ve finished my little rant!  What do you think?  I invite all our readers to comment on these issues such as:

  • is murder evil? Do you agree with my conclusions?
  • was I fair in my reply to Jeff?
  • do we have a duty to educate the public?
  • do you agree with me that people who believe in good and evil are potentially dangerous?
  • what conversations can you have today to help people to release dangerous thinking?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes


August 2, 2011 in RPT theory and teachings, Thoughts For the Day
Tagged , , , , , , ,

45 Responses

  1. Renee from Melbourne

    Hey Simon,
    I did not really know what to expect when I opened this post :) . Yes I do agree. I think that in calling someone evil, it is a judgement that is used to separate and to create a feeling of superiority.
    Do we have the duty to educate the public? What makes me think that I know everything or what I know, think, do, feel, have is more valuable than the public – whoever they are… I think if you are the best you you can be, are open, share and give freely, some of your gold will rub off on others (if they choose to see and accept your gold). And who is to say that what you call gold now will become as valuable as a brick in the future. (Bricks do make a solid foundation though lol).
    Catching more flies with honey certainly is a valuable lesson. Blessings to you Jeff.
    Love to you. Can you send some warm weather?


    Simon Rose Reply:

    Hi Renee, congrats on being the first to comment on today’s article!

    I tend to agree with you. We need to be careful about the difference between “teaching” and “preaching.” In fact I take it for granted that today’s gold will be tomorrow’s mud. But I don’t see that as a bad thing. What matters is the only that we are asking the right questions. The answers will change. This is the nature of the scientific method. (For those interested in this philosophy I HIGHLY recommend Carl Sagan’s classic book Demon Haunted World.)

    Clearly I don’t know all the answers, but I hope that I help people to ask more intelligent questions.

    Sorry I can’t send you warm weather! But a little birdie told me you might have a tropical vacation coming up in a coupe of weeks?



  2. Hi Simon,

    Just thought I drop a few thoughts of my own onto the blog before answering your questions you like to hear.

    I found this angle of thought interesting regarding dualisim (looking at it from one end such as learning what “evil” means and what it applies such as lack of empathy [reflecting a sciencific reason and meaning]) as it clicks with me on what I had learnt of conventional practices of many sages/self-practicing masters we are becoming (anyway!) also see and attempted to explain our love in action to the best of their ability.

    is murder evil?

    The answer is no having read both blogs you described knowing now there is a scientific basis that attempts to explain the “why” it happens with a “how” it happens methodology to a “what” happens if I am referring to “evil”.

    Pity, this is putting Darth Vader out of his job! So much for the dark side of the force that is….:) Turns out just a lack of empathy there…

    Do you agree with my conclusions?

    The “does evil exists” blog showed unfortunately one book and your thoughts. Your thoughts are profound and deep, mind you! It still lingers aftewards too. Nothing wrong with that. Um, is there any other supporting material along this path so I could learn more so I could be confident that when my daughter reaches to teenager years that she may say ask me the “one day” questions such as why evil exists, I would be ready to explain my interpreation.

    was I fair in my reply to Jeff?

    I believed you acted “in the name of love” of what you do. Nothing wrong with that also.
    Having toned down the volume so to speak you’re given other people examples how dangerous thinking can lead to positive solutions once they understand it…

    do we have a duty to educate the public?

    One could say “Yes we do under obligation of the universial law that exists to all” (does that sound right?) by responding positively our own thoughts and deed whenever they rise.

    do you agree with me that people who believe in good and evil are often dangerous?

    I feel I would be generalising the general population where a small number are set in their ways no matter how you look at it. Since the motto, what you think, is! Thus, they can be dangerous outright, how to handle it is another matter in practice….

    what conversations can you have today to help people to release dangerous thinking?

    Can good old fashion humour help you out here?


  3. I like the bit about burning witches – thanks for the chuckle. These are great topics.

    It is a stretch for me to assume we know anything “factual” about 9/11, other than many lives were lost for someone else’s gain – it was purposeful, and may have been done for more than one group. I can’t call it evil for the same reasons you list in the blog, but many people will and do. It’s like “evil” is used when the intensity of emotion (?) takes over, and folks lose sight of compassion/understanding. As if the logic switches off, and wounds are speaking. Evil is used to explain away the unthinkable. Once we get deep enough into the heart of the “evildoer”, we can find the places you speak of where there is something keeping them from love/empathy/etc. So, what many call evil is more like deep pain or confusion expressed in ways that can perpetuate more pain and confusion in another… This makes another good case for doing our own healing work to break that cycle of reactions.

    Maybe this is opening a proberbial can of worms, but I also wonder about the concept of keeping “balance”, which is similar to the duality model you spoke of in your last post. I mean the one where to have positive, we need negative, and there must be equillibrium. Some argue that without fear, love ceases to be definable. In musing here, I can identify this as a limitation of language & perception, but it’s also been used as an argument to support the good/evil paradigm. Obviously, positive/negative is not the same as good/evil (especially in an atom!), but the ideas are used interchangeably in many circles. I didn’t read all the comments in the last post, so maybe you’ve already addressed this, but I’d like to know your take on balance in this regard… Especially as it relates to love/not love or however you like to define that. There are a lot of ideas out there on the need for balance, and I’m beginning to think some of them are half-baked (including some of my own writing).


    Simon Rose Reply:

    Hi Ginger
    Thanks for visiting the blog.

    > It is a stretch for me to assume we know anything “factual” about 9/11

    Notice how I didn’t mention any specific terrorist group or agenda. My point is simply that the “bombers” must have believed they were doing “good,” whilst the rest of America thought it was “evil.” One man’s pain is another man’s pleasure. Hence there is no inherent meaning to evil, it is something we make up as we go along.

    > So, what many call evil is more like deep pain or confusion expressed in ways that can perpetuate more pain and confusion in another…

    Yes, well put.

    > This makes another good case for doing our own healing work to break that cycle of reactions.

    Well yes, but of course those most drawn to doing their own healing work are probably those that least “need” it.

    There was a bit of a discussion in the comments on the previous blog about whether psychopaths can be cured. My view remains that the secondary gain is too great – they think that their condition (not having to feel empathy) is a blessing. So why would they want healing?

    > Maybe this is opening a proverbial can of worms, but I also wonder about the concept of keeping “balance”,
    >which is similar to the duality model you spoke of in your last post.

    Bring on the cans of worms! That’s where ideas for new blog posts come from.

    And yes, balance does seem to me to invoke duality. Without duality there’d be nothing to balance.

    > Some argue that without fear, love ceases to be definable.

    Nah, that’s just gumf (not even sure if that’s a word, but that’s my opinion).

    Once upon a long time ago, when my spirituality was very different than it is today, I read books like a Course in Miracles, and I believed that there were only two real emotions, love and fear. Then I woke up from my New Age dream … well keeping the story short, I realized that inside the dream, only love and fear are real. But the dream is duality (or “maya” in the Eastern traditions). Outside the dream, the only thing that’s real is your own consciousness, everything else is a symptom or projection. Love and Fear are symptoms of your consciousness, not causes. They aren’t real, they are just emotional responses to biological stimuli. It is our (Western) culture that gives them meaning.

    It is fairly easy to disprove the bit about fear being real. Fear is a symptom of trauma, usually pre-natal trauma. I can prove that in about 5 minutes – making your fears disappear by healing trauma. So fear isn’t real and it’s certainly not the opposite of love.

    A similar thing applies to love, but it’s a more complicated argument because the Illusion of Love is so ingrained in our Western culture. Following I think from ancient Greek poetry, the emotion of love has been given some special meaning. In the modern New Age ideology you even hear “god = love” and so on.

    (Western) people don’t stop to question it because it’s so ingrained in our beliefs systems. It’s not true. Love is just one of many wonderful emotions. Neuro-psychologists now know that love is a product of the mammal brain or limbic system. Reptiles can’t feel love, but mammals can. What does that tell you? For a start, love has only existed for as long as there have been mammals. Let’s call it 100 million years. How can God=Love, if love has only existed for 100 million years in a 14 billion year old universe?

    [Note to New Agers who might be angry at that bit - you are entitled to say God=Love (note capital L love), because that's just a definition. You can define whatever you like. But don't pretend that capital L love is the same as our human emotion small l love, which is just a biological mechanism. Small l love is the illusion. I would love to think that capital L love exists, but it exists outside the realm of human biological experience.]

    Sorry, I’m having a philosophical rant again aren’t I? Where was I headed? That’s right: in short, love is a mammal / human emotion. It’s beautiful, I recommend getting as much of it as you can, but it’s not the ultimate. It’s not “god.” And it isn’t the opposite to fear.

    If anything fear is much more real – programmed into a much deeper part of the brain (survival). Fear has existed on this planet a lot longer than love. But that’s me getting to philosophical again.

    > I’d like to know your take on balance in this regard… Especially as it relates to love/not love or however you like to define that.
    > There are a lot of ideas out there on the need for balance, and I’m beginning to think some of them are half-baked (including some of my ow n writing).

    Hmm. Well I am a big fan of balance. My motto is “everything in moderation.” I don’t believe in abstinence of anything, because as a kid if someone said “you can’t have this” I immediately wanted to try whatever it was. Maybe “moderation” is the same as “balance” but without the duality?

    Sorry I don’t have more than that on the top of my head. Balance just isn’t really important to my world view. My life philosophy is basically – live long, be happy, laugh a lot, eat well, work as much as you need to but no more, have great sex, and be kind to animals. Not necessarily in that order. I can see where all those things need moderation, but none need balance because they none of them are defined by their opposites (like love/fear).

    Have I answered your question?

    Thanks so much for your participation here, I hope to hear more from you with your wise questions.


    Shellie Reply:

    Hi Simon, I really liked all the philosophical asides here. It’s not a new idea to me but I especially liked how you expressed one: “Outside the dream [of duality], the only thing that’s real is your own consciousness, everything else is a symptom or projection”. Have you explored this elsewhere on the blog? I’d like to enjoy more reading on it =) Warmly, Shellie


  4. Hi Simon
    I’ve been waiting for the dvd to be updated for quite some time now ( first you said march then july, but still nothing ) sorry if this dosen’t fit in on this comments but i’m frustrated because its the only way i will be able to learn RPT


    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi Thomas, there won’t be a DVD for quite some time. I’m sorry.
    I have started the process about 4 times now and spent quite a lot of money recording courses and paying for DVD production. Every time I was unhappy with the content – mainly because RPT has changed so quickly. I could have sold the DVD that we produced, but it just didn’t feel right to me. I’d rather lose money then sell something that wasn’t right. I know this frustrates you, and I suspect you will say “I’d be happier with the old DVD than nothing,” but that’s how it is.

    We sold several hundred DVDs back in 2009 and to be honest, the content of that DVD has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what RPT is about in 2011. I mean it has changed 100%, every single aspect got changed, one by one. The “perfectionist” inside me wants to contact all those people and buy back the DVDs so that they aren’t floating around out there… luckily I’m not quite that controlling.

    I’m teaching 3 more Level 1&2 courses and 2 more Level 3 courses this year. After all of that (December), I will make a decision about whether RPT has “Settled and matured” and then I’ll look at the DVD again.

    It looks like you are in Denmark, are you able to visit Norway for a course or ask Azaris to come to Denmark if you have some friends who’d be interested?



  5. >”Ginger
    August 3, 2011 at 12:36 am
    I like the bit about burning witches – thanks for the chuckle. These are great topics.

    It is a stretch for me to assume we know anything “factual” about 9/11, other than many lives were lost for someone else’s gain – it was purposeful, and may have been done for more than one group. I can’t call it evil for the same reasons you list in the blog, but many people will and do. It’s like “evil” is used when the intensity of emotion (?) takes over, and folks lose sight of compassion/understanding. As if the logic switches off, and wounds are speaking. Evil is used to explain away the unthinkable. Once we get deep enough into the heart of the “evildoer”, we can find the places you speak of where there is something keeping them from love/empathy/etc. So, what many call evil is more like deep pain or confusion expressed in ways that can perpetuate more pain and confusion in another… This makes another good case for doing our own healing work to break that cycle of reactions…”

    Bravo Ginger! Well said, especially your last two sentences that I quoted here.

    I agree a good 95% with your statements about evil. The five percent is my reserving the option of expanding my understanding. Yet, I’d say that a good 50% of people will not be able to take your ideas on board, like Jeff. It will come across as nonsense. The problem is that we all have tons of confusion. There are lots of things we believe and that we’ve not really examined and there is no obvious way to get to truth.* Even worse we all tend to believe our own confused ideas as THE truth.
    Here are some simple examples; Most people believe that eating fat will tend to make you fat. That is not so and can fairly easily be researched. The book “Protein Power” by Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades have info about two artic explorers that were astounded by the Eskimo winter diet. There was also info about research on three low calorie diets. One was mostly protein, one was mostly carbohydrate and the third was mostly fat. The info is quite clear but, there are those that profit from our confusion and we generally don’t take responsibility in finding out the real facts.
    Many people believe that psychotherapy is the way to go if one is struggling with unwanted emotions. They might say that RPT, EFT etc. can’t be any good because it’s not on TV. It’s the same thing with medical / health problems – one needs to go to the MD doctor and avoid anything else. This as you know is nonsense, yet this is how most people think. The greatest “Evil” (metaphorically speaking) as I see it is this massive and strongly believed confusion. These are VERY strongly held beliefs. Millions of people die each year because of their belief in “modern medicine.”
    Rather than try and educate others out of their strongly held beliefs, I think that we should look at disagreement between two open minded people as an opportunity. This can start small. It looks to me like you have some “insight” tools that if modified a bit could be used in many wonderful ways, one of which would be to resolve disagreements. Just last week I had a good friend disagree with me on the coming changes. So I asked him to do a little work with me to manifest the insights to help us both better align with each other and the truth on that subject. That way either or most likely both of us will shift our thinking and be more in line with each other and the truth.
    I have noticed this problem of widely believed confusion decades ago and worked to get to truth ever since and when I notice someone believing the widely held beliefs that I’ve discarded I don’t try real hard to listen and I do sometimes miss something valuable. That is, I tend to do the same thing on the other end of the scale that I’m talking about here. Like Evette & I. She seems to have a very strong belief that the status-quo will go on almost forever and I’m quite convinced that it’s dying and will soon be gone forever. If we were to both do some work to manifest the insights leading to the truth, that could be wonderful. I’ve seen status-quo thinking almost everywhere and “know” that most of it is off base, so I have little desire to manifest more insights by my self. I strongly suspect that Evette “Knows” that I’m wrong and so will not attempt to manifest insights either. I’m not suggesting anything here with Evette and me. It’s just a handy example of what we are all doing in one way or another. This manifesting of insights can be done quite simply and can spread to others, so that is what I would suggest rather than trying to educate others.
    Re your questions at the end of your post; I think you were quite fair with Jeff. I think that strongly held and unexamined confusion is dangerous and our biggest problem today. There are several good sayings in the Bible. One that I like a lot is “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” How many people will actually actively seek the truth? Not many. I believe I answered your other questions in what I said above.


    *I know of at least one VERY cumbersome and time consuming objective way to get to truth other than manifesting insights, but that is a whole huge other subject. I have no doubt about this as I’ve used it to predict many very significant and surprising future events.


    Simon Rose Reply:

    Hi George

    I’ll limit this to 2 quick comments:

    > Yet, I’d say that a good 50% of people will not be able to take your ideas on board, like Jeff.

    Wow 50%? I would consider myself blessed if 5% of people are interested. The beauty of the internet is in talking to your niche. Mine might be 0.1%, the “New Age survivors” or people who are ready to ask questions.

    > Like Evette. She seems to have a very strong belief that the status-quo …

    You could not be further from the truth if you tried (and you are trying). I know you are committed to self-growth. I have suggested a few times you do some work around why it is that you are so stuck on hearing what she is saying. Instead, you remain stuck, and then project that Evette is. Honestly it’s bizarre.

    If you have an issue with Evette (or anyone), may I kindly suggest you do some work on it and, if necessary, contact that person. It was not appropriate to bring her name into this unrelated discussion.

    I am vaguely saddened that you took nothing from the helpful email I sent you recently about language and communication. I had hoped to meet the new enlightened George (master of communications) by about now.



  6. The interesting that part of the issue with people who hold onto evil so tightly is the similar energy they have with the ‘evil’ doers. If the person who accuses another of being evil cannot find empathy and compassion with the ‘evil’ doer how are they any different? It seems to be their projection.
    On a slightly different note, I have found, in my RPT sessions with clients, they sometimes feel evil or darkness buried deep inside. It is so ingrained in humans that we believe on some level we are bad. I have found that these clients hold onto that energy because it covers up the joy and self love. In many ways our society (maybe only the US) likes the evil and glamorizes it so it is beneficial to keep the evil place inside. In many ways we commemorate the negative people and ignore the good people in the world.

    Simon, Jeff is scared and if you take away his belief in evil he has no way of seeing himself as ‘good’. He needs to compare himself so he can feel a false sense of self love.


    Simon Rose Reply:

    thanks Melissa for sharing your wisdom. I agree with all your comments.

    With the clients who feel evil; in the original RPT technique, I used to take them back to the earlierst reference point for “evil.” Remember (you know this, I’m saying this for the audience), that even though evil doesn’t exist, it is possible to experience it. So you clear it back to the earliest reference point. I found that quite effective. With the new RPT method that does not involve regression to reference points, you could just ask about the secondary gain. How does it benefit the client to feel a darkness deep within? Find the survival instinct that is being served.

    I just did this as a hypothetical healing by pretending to be Jeff. I couldn’t get further than the control = safety. Control isn’t usually a core survival instinct, but it does make quite a bit of sense because the whole “evil” thing was invented to control people. Don’t do that – it’s evil! I think we allow it because we’ve accepted the association that being controlled = being safe. (Why else would we allow government intervention into every area of our lives?)



  7. Hi Simon,

    For starters I find it VERY interesting that you should post this article yesterday.

    Do I believe evil exists…not exactly. I believe that there are varying degrees of trauma and this will obviously dictate the natural emotional response and subsequent action of said person. It is easier to see and label these emotional outbursts of rage or anger as evil and evil is merely a label as is “love”. The more rooted and traumatic, the worse the reaction imo.

    Is it up to us to educate the public. – One thing I have certainly learnt since learning RPT is that if the person who you are trying to help doesn’t admit or realise there is anything wrong with them or acknowledge and release their trauma points and vibrations, you can educate till the cows come home but it won’t make any difference. Same with a healing. In a perfect world it would be great to be able to heal the trauma at an early age but I can’t see that this will work unless the person being healed is open and receptive to the change.

    Were you fair in your response to Jeff? You know your true intentions which you made with your comments so it doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks.

    Do I think people who believe in evil can be dangerous? I don’t think you need to believe in evil persay. Some people have it in their genetics just like cancer, diabetes or heart disease and I can tell you for a fact that they don’t “think” of evil and especially don’t think of themselves as evil. Yes they can be dangerous but this is not because they believe in evil… it is merely their reaction to whatever circumstances they are presently with and their inherit beliefs and/or traumas.

    On a side note, I say it is VERY interesting you have posted this because I myself am very much under venomous emotional and verbal attack which arose again yesterday.

    Although it does hurt me at times because I would prefer love, compassion and understanding above anything else, I also realise very clearly that the way they are thinking and therefore behaving is because they are either incapable of love and understanding or it is easier for them to be venomous rather than to look at a situation from a different point of view. If they were to look at things from a different view they might have to admit that they are ill-informed. imo this would then be a way for them to say they might have issues and of course they do not wish to see or admit this to themselves. It would be a sign of weakness.

    I will NEVER say someone is wrong for the way they think or feel, but I will concede they have potential trauma or are misinformed. Thank you for your post Simon, it helped me to realise what a long way I have come since starting RPT. It also helps me to realise I have a long way to go lol.


    Simon Rose Reply:

    thanks Karin, I appreciate your thoughts.

    Just a quick explanation – the reason why I asked people if I was being fair to Jeff relates to earlier feedback which you might not have read. About 4 months ago I received an equally abusive comment. I wrote a full page reply and then asked for feedback from readers on how I handled it.

    There was quite a bit of feedback that basically said that I should have just deleted and ignored the comment, and that by replying in a somewhat defensive way I would intimidate other people from leaving comments on the blog. I certainly want a lot more comments on this blog, so I’m pretty sensitive to this sort of feedback.

    Anyway I was just gauging feedback. I’ve learned a lot in the last 4 months and I’m sure I’m a better person for it.



    Renee from Melbourne Reply:

    Awwwww Simon, you are beautiful!


  8. Jørgen Mæhre

    * is murder evil? Do you agree with my conclusions?

    It’s just 14 days since a man bombed Oslo’s government district, before he left and headed for Utøya where he shot down 69 people, most of them teenagers. The total number of victims where 77.

    The man who did this believed that multiculturaism was evil. He feared that jihadists would invade Europe – in his own eyes he did something good. In everyone elses eyes, what he was doing was atrocious – or evil.

    Personally, I don’t believe that anyone or anything can be “evil” – it’s too subjective, and it’s too simple. You wrote: “Murder is murder, it’s a crime and in almost all cases it causes terrible pain and suffering.”, and I totally agree. Murder is never the right action to take (but just as I’m writing that, I think “except in self-defence”). I guess there’s always a “danger” in defining anything before you’ve seen the whole picture. With that said – I still see the use of some “dualisms” like right/wrong. There will never be a time where killing 77 unarmed people will be “right”. Perhaps it’s not “evil” – because “evil”, as you said, can be an empty word. But it’ll never be right.

    Even though I agree that we should ask questions like “why did he do this etc” instead of just labelling him “evil”, I have to say it’s beyond me to understand why a person use 9 years of his life to plan what we’ve seen here in norway. I won’t label him evil, but I won’t try to understand him either. That’s the justice departments job. But as I said, on a general leve I agree that we have to ask questions – to meet actions like these with “more openess, and more democracy”. We should also let people with extremist ideas, be they right-wing or left-wing, get the possibility to share their ideas and meet ideas from other parts of the “spectrum”.

    Do we have a duty to educate the public. Hell no :) People are entitled their view of life and their ideas. Should we go around and educate people becuase we think “believing in good and evil is archaic” – “believing in good and evil is not beneficial for the society”? Perhaps it all ends with “believing in good and evil is evil”? Perhaps the reason why I’m reacting like this is that the word “educate” carry a flavor of “top-down”. Like a teacher trying to press some new ideas into his or her wool-headed students. Is it a good idea to begin a dialogue with friends, family and co-workers about the archaic belief in good/evil? Perhaps, if the timing is right.

    * do you agree with me that people who believe in good and evil are often dangerous?

    Absolutly, most of my friends are indeed psychopaths waiting to strike me down. But that’s OK, as it’s been like this since the Viking age, just read the old sagas!

    Seriously: no. I do not believe that people who believe in good and evil are dangerous. To most people it’s a belief system that helps them cope with life. I believe that extremists (that believe in good and evil) and that never have a possbility to express their opinion in public become dangerous.



  9. I’ll bring my Yoga background to bear on this issue, and quote the Bhagavad Gita:
    “The wise grieve neither for the living nor for the dead…
    Just as in this body the embodied (soul) passes into childhood, youth and old age, so also does he pass into another body; the firm man does not grieve thereat…
    This Self cannot be cut, burnt, wetted nor dried up. It is eternal, all-pervading, stable, ancient and immovable.”
    Murder is extreme abuse; it’s a waste of precious life; it causes suffering. But that doesn’t make murder ‘evil’.
    I agree, evil only exists in our minds. If we believe in evil, then we create evil.
    Jeff’s comments are a perfect example of this – he believes in evil, and ends up coming here swearing and accusing and creating suffering (his own, and potentially Simon’s / the reader’s).


    Shellie Reply:

    I like that bit: This self cannot be cut burnt, wetted, nor dried up. It is eternal, all-pervading, stable, ancient and immovable.

    Good reminder, thanks for posting it.


  10. I propose that evil is the central component of one the greatest and longest running marketing campaigns in human history. The concept of ‘evil’ may have been created for the express purpose of giving the early institutional structures their raison d’etre. The institutions created a perceived struggle against evil and hence the need for the institution to provide protection from the inevitable suffering of evil. These institutions convinced us that we were fighting evil, we would go to hell if we did not denounce their concept of evil, we would suffer forever if we were evil, if we were part of another institution we were evil, we could not protect ourselves from evil and needed the institution to do that for us, etc. That marketing campaign was/is so successful it is still in use. The definition of evil was/is variable depending on the ego ‘du jour’.

    The taking of another person’s life is not considered evil, by the institution, if the ‘murder’ was the directive of the institution. I think this was touched on above in reference to the ‘burning of witches’. The difference is that no one individual bears the total responsibility for the act of taking someone’s life and the killing of another person(s) is acceptable when sanctioned by the institution. This then creates the dualistic measure of good and evil as a necessary aspect of the marketing campaign. If you are part of THE institution you are good and if you are not part of THE institution you are evil. So the evilness of murder is relative to your institutional association.

    I have not yet read the book ‘The Science of Evil’ (it will be arriving in a few days) but I concur with what I have read about the pathology of individuals that murder. I wonder if the scientific examination of a brain pathology would have a parallel to the institutions that use(d) ‘institutional’ murder as a form of control and power.

    My two cents,


    Simon Rose Reply:

    2cents? that was more like $2 million! thanks Val! Now we see why you’re the boss @ RPT!

    I totally agree. Evil is a term that was invented by humans and has always been used for human political maneuvering. I don’t expect everyone to understand or agree with you, but I would hope that, in terms of our role as educators, we can help everyone to realize that “good” and “evil” have no inherent meaning. They are just labels that we assign meaning too – each culture does so differently.



  11. Hi Simon

    I don’t disagree with you.

    I have used the word evil in the past as a quick way to describe someone I knew who repeatedly consistently harmed others including me without remorse. I continue to be shocked by this person’s behaviour even though I have escaped and no-one I know now is like that. So I think some people may use the word without the black and white element, and without righteousness. They use the word to describe behaviours that were right up the other end of the spectrum of human behaviour. For some, it can be a shock to the belief system that non remorseful cruelty can exist in a person who is wearing all the right social uniforms. Also its kind of scary because all the love and reason in the world does not change the person’s behaviour. You just have to get away from them.

    I think your article on the causes made perfect sense, but I would suggest if I may, that we don’t whitewash how dangerous such people can be until they are cured.

    And recognise that some people’s use of the word ‘evil’ may have arisen from being on the receiving end of behaviour that is very hard to ‘compute’.

    Thanks for all the continuing work and research. If we can cure this, it will be the greatest achievement for society ever.


  12. I agree with you. Both Evette and I have some really “evil” family members, so we know how to use the word as a meaningful adjective, even whilst knowing that “evil” doesn’t exist. It’s just a helpful description.

    What I really have to emphasize though is the whitewash point you allude to. Explaining that evil doesn’t really exist isn’t a whitewash, it’s the EXACT OPPOSITE!

    The whitewash is saying “oh they are evil” as if that is somehow a valid explanation for their behavior, or an excuse for it. It isn’t.

    Instead of whitewashing the situation with meaningless words (words that have no meaning outside Christianity anyway), it’s much more meaningful to ask what causes this behavior that we call “evil”? That’s what we are endeavoring to do. Anti-whitewashing as it were.



  13. When I first read this article I had the urge to jump right in to add my thoughts to the discussion, but I also wanted to be sure I wasn’t repeating something that had already been discussed. So I have taken some time this morning to read both articles and comments before adding my own.

    First of all – I am really glad to have found this discussion in the first place (Thanks, Simon). It is such a critical subject that needs to be re-cognized, hopefully by many, many more people in the world.

    My own background is in Social Science and psychology, especially developmental psychology. For a long time now I have communicated where I could that much of what we describe as “immoral” behavior is instead (emotionally/psychologically) Immature (or underdeveloped) behavior. Somewhere along the way (with childhood trauma very often being the cause) human emotional/psychological development stops, and although cognitive and physical development may continue, the emotional/psychological deficits or handicaps persist. (Much more can be found on this topic in Lloyd Demause’s book, “The Origins of War in Child Abuse” – read by Stefan Molyneux and available for free here:

    My favorite theorist in this area is Erik Erikson who outlines various “crises” of human development which (if positively resolved) result in the person developing various “virtues”. One book on the subject that includes an overview of the developmental theories from Erikson, Piaget, and Kohlberg is “Stages of Faith” by James Fowler. (I would go into more detail here, but unfortunately, my library is packed away so I can’t put my hand on the book to reference specifically). My main assumption, however, is in line with Erikson’s: If development gets “arrested” at some point, then the “virtues” of the later stages cannot be achieved. As it turns out, and to my current understanding, genuine “empathy” does not develop for children until after about four-and-a-half to five years of age or older. That means there are a few years prior to that for them to experience trauma, and for their development of their capacity for empathy to be undermined.

    Unfortunately, I am afraid this has been the case for MANY PEOPLE in our society (and world), so much so that the characteristics of “ego-centrism”, confusion of fantasy and reality, emotional-sexual aberrations and confusion, etc. that are actually “normal” for the three-and-a-half to four-and-a-half-year-old are also seen and widely accepted as “normal” for (presumably “mature”) adults. However, if there is any truth to Erikson’s theories or observations, such characteristics are not those shared by Truly Emotionally and Psychologically mature adults, these are the characteristics of Children (and again, I feel it is important to emphasize that In Children these are NORMAL expressions of their ongoing development and should not be seen as “evil” in their case).

    Furthermore, as Simon has proposed here, such characteristics should not be referred to as “evil” in adults either. Where I see “empathy” as growing naturally from a process of healthy, un-traumatized, human development, the lack of “empathy” is no longer a “moral” issue, it is a “developmental” issue. And until it is re-cognized as such, then it cannot be treated effectively. From what I can tell so far, RPT helps people to find out where their own development got “stuck” and to consciously “grow beyond” or emotionally/psychologically develop beyond those points; to “pick up where they left off” and finally, fully mature as human beings.

    Now, with respect to the biological aspects of empathy: I am in complete agreement that there may be underlying biological conditions, including genetic traits (or genetic traits that have been additionally triggered by environmental experiences) that have an impact on one’s ability to empathize (intentionally or not), within a broad continuum. I would also point to current research on “mirror neurons” which seem to be of key importance in the way we experience “empathy” (or not) on a biological level. I personally have been inclined to “empathize” very deeply, and, for a long time, very spontaneously with others. However, I feel I have also learned to consciously mediate my own tendencies so as not to be overwhelmed by my experience of other people’s feelings; i.e. once I fully understood why my “radar” was “always on” (and usually at “full power”) I learned to “adjust the power level”.

    I am willing to accept, that sometimes the biology may be too engrained to be changed, as in the case of true psychopaths. And I agree, that such “predators” need to be put behind bars either physically or socially (i.e. certainly NOT accepted and “applauded,” let alone Voted Into Office by other members of society). However, as I have said to others over and over again: When you see a “tiger” in the woods, and you understand its nature is to look at you as “prey”, then you don’t have to “hate” the tiger or judge it to be “evil” because of its nature (nor do you walk up to it calling out, “Here, Kitty, Kitty”!). Instead, you either contain the “tiger” or Stay Out of Its Territory. (Another book I have found particularly meaningful as a source of guidance for developing one’s instincts relative to Recognizing Predators and learning how to deal with them and heal from them is “Women Who Run with the Wolves” by Clarissa Pinkola Estes.)

    And last, but certainly not least, on the whole issue of the “illusion” of duality, I would offer a very simple but profound work by Chuck Hillig entitled “What are YOU doing in MY Universe?”, and another more in-depth work entitled “Not-Two Is Peace…” by Adi Da Samraj.

    In conclusion, I think this is a Very Important Consideration. Once again, Thank You, Simon for blogging on the subject, and Thank You to the others here who have shared their thoughts.

    Yours in Peace,



    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi Lori, thanks for the brilliant comment. You have given Evette and I plenty of interesting articles/books to read.
    I agree with all your observations, sounds like we are on the same wavelength. I am very interested in your areas of developmental psych and sociology, though I lack your academic background. (Well, I have 2 theses and enough years at university not to want to go back and study psych formally!) My biggest interest is in how we can apply this research to help ordinary people to live better lives and understand the world that we live in.

    A question for you: you said that you accept that there are biological conditions which may impact our psychology, such as the ability to have empathy. My question is – is there anything in the formation of our psychology which is clearly not biological? This is as much a philosophical question (fate versus free will) as it is a psychological question (nature versus nurture).

    My personal opinion is well known, at least to those who have studied RPT. A significant premise of our Level 2 course is that many of the seeds that determine our life (health, happiness, spirituality) are already present at our conception, and if not, at our birth.

    Thanks again for your really helpful contribution, I hope we keep in touch.


  14. Hi, Simon – I have to say I am honored that you would pose such a rather challenging question, as you are asking me to move further beyond what can be seen and measured scientifically, to the philosophical or spiritual. As I have had the opportunity to consider this question myself, and have also benefitted from the communication of another who I feel has even greater direct insight into these matters than myself, I am prepared to answer your question (that is, beyond a simple “Yes”… : )). (As I have not had as much time to further my consideration of RPT, I do not know what the overlap in ideas here might be. I look forward to reading more from you in response to what I have written below.)

    The person to whom I refer above is the same as the author of the last book I mentioned in my original comment, Adi Da Samraj. I have been a devotee and student of His Work since 1997. I will say above all His Communications are about Reality Itself – All Aspects, both tangible and intangible, and He certainly sees no separation, and no (fundamental) duality in any of it.

    What I have learned from Him and what I also have come to agree with is that even prior to conception there is a “pattern-patterning” that is a form of Consciousness, a form that is identified with (apparent) separateness. One way to suggest this is “Water, water, everywhere what is this drop I think?” In other words, there is a patterning within the Whole of Consciousness Itself that is “thinking” that it is separate from that whole. For the most part, every being, even every “thing” that comes into material existence is an expression of that kind of “separative thinking”, or at least that is one way to conceptualize it.

    Another way that I have come to understand this is with respect to Newtonian physics and the concept of “entropy”; i.e. the “tendency” of things which are “whole” to “break into parts”. From what I can tell there are two forces at work here, the tendency to “break into parts” and the Process of Realization that allows one to once again become Consciously Identified with and As “The Whole”. Therefore, to “Realize God Perfectly” is to Become Perfectly Identified with the Whole – rather than to be identified with a “separate self” (either as a physical form or as a “spiritual” or non-material form; i.e. a thought “pattern-patterning”).

    Something else I have learned from Adi Da’s Teaching is that: While we are In Our Bodies, we Make Mind; once we die, Mind Makes Us. In other words, while our little bits of (apparently) separate Consciousness are associated with our physical human bodies, we have the power and opportunity to Change the Pattern-Patterning. We have the power and opportunity to Change the Patterns of Consciousness Itself.

    (However, before feeling any [ego] righteousness about that, it is important to recognize it really is just Consciousness Changing Its Own Patterning, through the mechanism of the human-body mind! “I” as this current personality am kind of “along for the ride” on one level, and yet, to the degree “I” become more and more Identified with that Greater Consciousness, then at some point, or at various points along the way, there really is No Difference between “I” and “It”.)

    I know that’s a lot of preface to answering your question, but I felt it was necessary. It is the only way my answer can now make any sense.

    At this point I believe that conception involves the combination of a physical form with a Conscious form (a mind-form, a thought-form, a “pattern-patterning” within the Whole of Consciosness Itself). That “pattern-patterning” may have already patterned through many, many lifetimes, and so there is definitely something “going on” before conception. However, according to Adi Da, the “energy signature” that is psychically projected by the parents prior to and during conception (and who knows how this might apply in cases of test-tube fertilization) is what draws that patterning of Consciousness to one set of parents or another. The pattern finds “resonance” with the parents on some level.

    Keep in mind though, the parents may be in one state of mind during the actual moment of conception and be in a very different state of mind later. In addition, the fetus will be impacted by the mother’s biochemistry and her biochemistry may be impacted by her experiences with others. In general, and this can be tough to accept for some, the “pattern-patterning” is most inclined to Keep Patterning as it is. So even negative patterns will seek to perpetuate a negative pattern (i.e. abused patterns/souls will be drawn to abusive parents). Even after birth, the child is going to be under the heavy influence of the parents, through “mirror neuron” imprinting, as well as sub-conscious programming while the child’s brain stays mainly in a “hypnotic” state (through about 6-8 years of age). (Bruce Lipton’s “The Biology of Belief” goes into much more detail about this.)

    The bottom line is this: Without “Awakening” – without becoming Fully Conscious to the point of seeing one’s own “pattern-patterning” and having the spiritual or psychological Will to consciously change the patterning, or to feel beyond the limitations of that patterning if it cannot be completely changed, then the pattern simply keeps patterning and may very well become worse over time rather than better.

    I believe that there is an interface at the biochemical level between one’s “soul” or mind-form “pattern-patterning” and one’s body. Furthermore, I feel the “influence” works both ways; i.e. the “pattern-patterning” can trigger genetic and/or emotional responses, and our physical bodies and thoughts change in relation to those gene expressions and emotions, and therefore our actions also follow in response to those influences. At the same time, however, our Conscious Thoughts and choices can influence our emotional-biochemistry and even our gene expression as well, and thereby influence the “pattern-patterning.”

    Most importantly though, in any lifetime, the Level of Consciousness and Self-Awareness required to be actively engaged in changing one’s own “pattern-patterning” is really quite high. It requires one to pass through several other levels of basic human maturity and functioning before one can even begin to give one’s full attention to matters of such subtlety as sensing the shift of emotional/biochemicals in one’s own body, and being able to “feel beyond” the limitations of those patterns, or harder still, to actually change the patterning altogether.

    Nevertheless, I know, from direct, personal experience, that it is possible to do just that, if one is truly committed to the Process (of God Realization), and understands the consequences of failure; i.e. failure to “transcend oneself” – failure to shift the patterning of “separate and separative ‘ego-I’” consciousness to identification with the Whole of Consciousness Itself. As Adi Da Samraj put it so succinctly: “All This is That.” In other words, “all this” worldly experience is “that” consequence. The pattern keeps patterning, lifetime follows lifetime, and all that goes on is simply more of the same – whatever the pattern was at death, carries over into the next lifetime.

    As for me – I’ve already decided I’ve suffered enough. I’ve gotten the message of limitation and suffering that comes along with “identification with separate self” (in or out of this body). I have also realized the amazing opportunity that comes along with being fully aware and conscious in this body; i.e. the opportunity for Perfect God Realization and Pefect Freedom. As far as my own patterning is concerned, I am working towards more of the latter; i.e. God Realization and Freedom, rather than the former; i.e. identification with separate self. And a great deal of my own “spiritual work” or “sadhana” in that area has involved learning to consciously mediate my own emotional-biochemical patterning. (I have some really great stories to share along those lines, but I’d say this post is long enough already! Maybe another time?… : ))

    So, Simon, does that answer your question, or just provoke a whole slew of new ones?! : ))

    Yours in Peace,



    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi Lori, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

    I have always held the same view as your teacher that if there’s a soul / spirit / consciousness and / or life purpose, then it draws in the perfect parents for that purpose.

    My question was “is there anything about our health / emotional wellbeing / destiny that our biology can’t explain?”, you answered “Yes” but I answer “No.”

    The “No” is because I believe that everything “spiritual” matches so perfectly with the DNA/ biology that the biology can explain everything.

    Here’s a good example drawn from research I greatly respect. A lot of healing work looks at past lives with very mixed results (it’s very rarely therapeutically effective). McFetridge showed that the past life trauma people talk about seems to all resonate with some ancestral trauma. Healing past lives does not necessarily heal the ancestors, but *IF YOU HEAL THE ANCESTOR’S TRAUMA YOU HEAL THE PAST LIVES TOO*.

    In other words biology trumps past lives because it’s the “right” thing to do healings on.

    Extending or extrapolating from that research, I have reached the conclusion of what I call “the supremacy of biology.” In short, I feel that it doesn’t matter what your spiritual beliefs are, or if they differ from mine, because all the answers we seek are within our cells. Our genetics and epigenetics (and the associated story of trauma and history) tell the complete story about who we are and what we will experience in this lifetime.

    I have not seen an example of where biology didn’t hold the answer.

    Just my thoughts. I imagine that your teacher would say that this reasoning is perfectly consistent with his own insights. After all we’re not ruling anything out, just focusing on different aspects of the whole for the most efficient result.



  15. Hi, Simon. I think where I take issue with focusing only on “biology” is that if people truly believe that is “all they are” – then, they are more willing to simply live a relatively short “biological life” without trying to change anything. If there is no sense of a much longer term consequence, then there are a lot of people who end up with the feeling “Why bother?… I can suffer through 70 or 80 years like this, and when I’m dead I’m dead so what difference does it make…really?” Maybe it will make a difference if someone has children, so their children will benefit, but what if they don’t have children? And where is the self-responsibility if one’s only concept of self is in relationship to others? (i.e. if I only live for others, then will I ever really focus on being truly and completely responsible for myself?)

    I sense that your struggle is to somehow avoid the “spiritual” with people who don’t “believe” there is anything other than the material, and because your methods focus directly on the biological/genetic heritage and healing traumas, then that kind of “faith” in the spiritual is not necessary. I guess for me, then, the question comes back to – “To What End – Ultimately?” To what degree can I manipulate my biology and for what ultimate purpose? And is that really all I’m here to do for 70 or 80 years, i.e. to exploit my body’s capacity for experience? Is that “Really” what All of This is about?

    If that is the case, if I am here merely to exploit my body’s capacity for experience, then I find that to be full of all kinds of limitations, and to not leave me feeling all that “happy” about it ultimately.

    However, if there is the possibility of Perfect Freedom and Perfect Realization, Beyond All Limits of body and mind (while, at the same time, this Body-Mind is the mechanism through which that Realization can take place), well, then – that seems more to me to be something worth living for – i.e. that seems like a much more satisfying purpose for being alive in this body in the first place.

    But, that’s just me at this point. I will add though, that my commitment to God Realization includes a commitment to maintaining my health, maintaining a relatively high functioning in my human life circumstance, with respect to my body, and with what I choose to give my attention to (with the understanding that I “Become what I meditate on”…both “spiritually” and “biologically” – the “biological” part being due to the effects of “mirror neurons”). I am also fundamentally committed to being a “good person” – as part of “Realizing God” is to bring the highest expression of “Love-Bliss-Happiness” I can “make real” into the company of those with whom I associate.

    Does this have a positive impact on what I am experiencing bodily, emotionally, mentally, relationally, in the “here and now”? Of course it does. I just also happen to believe that there are longer-term, spiritual consequences as well, that go beyond the biology of this body, in this lifetime. And to be honest, given what I’ve suffered, if it didn’t have greater implications, I’m not sure I would consider all that suffering “worthwhile” – as I feel it has already been more than enough for one lifetiime. However, if it is part of a purification for “all” of my lifetimes in the past, and to spare me from having any more lifetimes of suffering in the future (i.e. no identification with “separate self” means no more incarnation as an [apparently] “separate self”), then I am willing to accept all of it as Grace, and I can move on in Gratitude rather than anger and/or frustration (which, of course, also has consequences for me biologically : )).

    If other people can realize such lasting Peace for themselves, without any belief beyond biology, i.e. a belief that there is something else going on here besides a bunch of beings exploiting their biological bodies’ capacities for experience, then that’s great! I just know that “I” was not able to find that without also having the Understanding that there Really Is more to this life than that, much more, and that the implications of my day-to-day choices and actions have much more far-reaching, and profound consequences (for better or worse), beyond this particular lifetime, with this particular mind/patterning/Consciousness, in this particular body.

    Again, I will acknowledge, this is what has “worked” (and is “working”) for me. It may not be what “works” (or may “work”) for others. I feel no need to “prove” anything, but my life is definitely an ongoing “demonstration” of what I feel I have come to understand.

    Sincerely Yours in Peace,



    Simon Rose Reply:

    Hi Lori

    I don’t mind having a philosophical / conceptual discussion or debate with you. I just want to make it really clear though to any readers on this blog that philosophy is all well and good, but it has very little to do with how RPT works. What I mean is, you can disagree with my philosophy but you can still use RPT as a tool. It’s just a tool at the end of the day and I’d hate to lose anyone just because they didn’t like some ideas and concepts we discuss here. That would be like an Irish Catholic tradesman refusing to buy a ladder and a hammer from a Protestant hardware store! Silly really (but I’m sure it happens). You should use the best tools that work for you.

    OK with that disclaimer, Lori, here is my reply.

    You have a strong association between “biology” and “materialism.” I am sure you would agree that in many spiritual traditions these are the same thing – in fact people are taught to focus on the soul, not the body, to avoid the evils of materialism. Now if you replace “biology” with “materialism” throughout your email, I would agree with you.

    However I disagree with your email mainly because biology and materialism are not the same thing in my reality. The thing about suffering through 70-80 years, this has nothing to do with my statements about the biological nature of existence.

    Just to be clear I do not wish to debate you. I just think that like most discussions, it comes down to a definition. I think your definition of “biology” is limited to materialism, whereas my definition is broad enough to include all of my spirituality within biology. Just because I believe in the “supremacy of biology” doesn’t mean that I have a limited notion of the purpose of our biological existence.

    The second part of my response is to do with your broader comments about spirituality. It seems to me that what we are debating here is an ancient topic of dualism versus monist. You and/or your teacher appear to be dualists (based on your comments), whereas I am a through-and-through monist. I will explain… but again remember this has nothing to do with RPT and using it as a tool. This is a philosophical discussion between two Truth Seekers, nothing more. I am sure you understand.

    Dualism versus monism

    On a philosophical level, what you are sharing is a form of dualism ( Of course, almost all spiritual traditions are dualistic. Dualists divide (for example) the soul and the biology. That makes it possible to argue (as you seem to) that people should focus on one or the other of body or soul. Even when dualists argue that you should focus on both body and soul, they treat them as two separate things, with different “recipes” for both. [Hence the book title “Chicken Soup for the Soul” – lovely book but a dualistic idea.]

    Dualism unfortunately found its way into the foundations of Western medicine. Descartes who is blamed for bringing his Christian dualism into medicine and saying basically “doctors treat the biology and priests treat the soul.” Later this became “doctors treat the body, psychologists treat the psyche.”

    I’m a monist. Monists believe in Oneness. We don’t separate the mind, body and soul into 2 or 3 different things. We know that there’s just One being. It may not sound like much of a difference, but it can have some huge differences in practice. Healing is a good example. Imagine how different the world would be if doctors viewed mind-body-soul as one thing, not 3 things with 3 separate departments (Doctor for body, psychologist for mind and priest for soul). If they were regarded as one being, we could truly have Holistic (i.e. “whole”) healing.

    We monists believe that there is just one soul-body-psyche. Hence the soul or spirit (if such a thing exists), MUST by its nature be part of our biology, not separate to it. A good example, shared by a reader on this blog, is a Sufi idea that the soul arises from the DNA (not the other way around). I love this idea because it the only truly monist religious ideology I have heard.

    Back to your comments about how we live our lives. Dualists who separate the biology and the spirit may live their lives in pursuit of spirit (hence anti-materialism). Monists may be just as spiritual, but we do not distinguish between biological and spiritual practice. Hence monists may find their most religious experiences during eating and sex, for instance. (consider that many dualistic spiritual schools suppress these two biological activities through fasting and chastity.)

    I want to emphasize again that monists can lead happy healthy and long lives with a clear spiritual sense of purpose. It’s just that we don’t separate any of these things and emphasize one over the other.

    On a scientific level, I can re-state my monist conclusions with the support of scientific research into spirituality. I’m indebted again to McFetridge who showed that no amount of soul work has ever lead anyone to enlightenment. Enlightenment (in the form of a *permanent* peak state of consciousness) can ONLY be reached through clearing biological trauma. His psychology PhD is worth a read if you have a background in psychology (it’s tough going for the lay reader).

    McFetridge is controversial because he essentially showed that you can spend your entire life meditating and seeking the soul over biology, but at the end you will be no closer to enlightenment than the day you began. This of course is not what the guru’s teach, but so be it.

    Lori, I am loving this dialog. Please remember again that these are just my beliefs – those of a died in the wool monist who believes there is no spiritual being other than what emerges from within our Being. That’s who I am. There’s room enough in this world for everyone’s ideas and I’m sure everyone can quote scientific research to support their own beliefs.

    At the end of the day, RPT is a set of tools that just works (for monists AND dualist, atheists AND deists!).



  16. Hi, Simon,

    This is my third or fourth attempt at responding to your last comment, and I’m afraid the discussion is getting a little too “deep” at this point. I cannot elaborate (nor will I try to “defend”) here the entire Wisdom-Teaching that has already been elaborated by my Guru, extensively, over the 69 years of His Life and 30+ years of His Teaching Work. Should you or anyone else be interested in finding out more, there are readily available books, audio CDs, DVDs, and even videos on YouTube. Granted, without further investigation or consideration, you are free to make all of the assumptions you want and “lump” Him into a heap with all (or “most”) of the religious traditions that have come before. You would by no means be the first person to do so, however, I think you, like those many others, would be in error. Nevertheless, that is a matter of each person’s individual choice, and there really is nothing more I can do or say about it…and I am Okay with that. : )

    I did have some questions of my own in my previous comment, though somewhat rhetorical in nature, which you did not address in your response. Let me repeat them here for you to consider more directly and respond to more directly if you care to (although, I will acknowledge at this point that we HAVE strayed a bit from the original blog topic : )).

    Here are my questions:

    1. Why bother? If my lifetime is only 70 or 80 years, why bother doing anything differently? Why bother “improving myself”? Why bother being a nice person, if my DNA patterning inclines me towards gaining more pleasure from being a mean person?

    2. If you feel your “Being” or “Soul” springs from your DNA, then when the body dies, the DNA dies, too, correct? So do you believe that when “you’re dead, you’re dead”?

    3. If I do not pass on my DNA to children, what is the DNA “legacy” of my life in relationship to others?

    4. If the very fact of being alive, with all the consequences of my DNA patterning, is a source of suffering for me, then, wouldn’t the logical conclusion be for me to end my suffering by killing myself?

    5. For all Life Purposes fulfilled, to what ultimate “end” if any, for the individual or for all of Life Itself?

    And, by the way, I am perfectly fine with RPT helping people move beyond whatever is “blocking” them (from being “Happy”… I guess?). And if people from all “points of view” (i.e. dualist, monist, atheist, deist, etc.) can benefit, great. But I think we’re considering some other “issues” at this point, maybe for Why someone would seek out any form of “therapy” in the first place? Which brings me back to my first question, if I can “get by” being “un-happy” for 70-80 years, why bother seeking therapy (or “remedy”) of any kind?

    Oh, and one other thing…I too am motivated to “help people” and to help them learn to be happier (and healthier) in their lives. The questions I am asking you here are the same ones I have recognized as somewhat “universal” for the “helping professions.” So, on their own, I think they are really worth considering and I hope you will agree. : )

    Until Next Time… : )



    Simon Rose Reply:

    Hi Lori

    This discussion has been a real pleasure. And don’t worry about getting off-topic, we are just keeping things educational and entertaining. Isn’t that what blogs are for?

    > you are free to make all of the assumptions you want and “lump” Him into a heap with all (or “most”) of the religious traditions that have come before.

    I wasn’t meaning to sound disrespectful. I consider myself to be a student of comparative religion. I don’t lump all religions together because every single faith has its unique attributes. Isn’t every teacher unique? I do however need to make broad generalizations, or else I couldn’t do my own job. I am always happy to be corrected if you feel I incorrectly lumped.

    I will try to answer your questions because they are great questions. However I don’t feel qualified to answer them all. At best I can answer two of your questions properly. Some are questions for your guru because they are deeply spiritual questions. I am not a guru. I am a practical man, a lawyer, an expert in clearing emotional trauma, and a lover of science. My opinions are practical ones, and so my answers will be.

    > 1. Why bother? If my lifetime is only 70 or 80 years, why bother doing anything differently? Why bother “improving myself”?

    You are asking for the meaning of life? The reason for self improvement? Perhaps there is no good enough reason. Spiritually there is none, but I’ll get to that later.

    But here’s what motivates me (a non-believer for the most part) to self-improvement. Both my wife and I were born to very damaged people. In my case it was Holocaust trauma and 3,000 years’ worth of “Jewish baggage.” In hers, many generations of alcoholism and sexual abuse. You want a motivation for healing? How about making sure our children have a better shot at life than we did. I can’t tell you how motivated we are to improve ourselves by clearing all this trauma from our “DNA” (family history). We want to finish this before we allow our DNA into a new generation.

    This, to me, is a deeply practical answer. Not spiritual, not philosophical. Just a real-world reason why we want to bother to do it differently, to make our 80-100 years on this planet mean something. After all life is about creating new life (a biologist’s definition), and we want to create the best new life we can.

    I don’t believe that there is a deeper spiritual meaning and purpose to life except that which we choose for us as we go along. In the words of my favourite spiritual teacher, Osho:
    I don’t have any purpose, because life has no purpose. Those who have purposes in life, are going against life. Life is a let-go. You are not swimming against the current, you are simply floating with the river wherever it leads. So wherever I reach, I am fulfilled. Or even if I am drowned, I am fulfilled. The purposeful mind is a very mundane mind.
    See the full text:

    One of the worst forms of human suffering is the delusion that “I am failing my life purpose.” As if it is possible to fail at an illusion? To many of my clients have this suffering, but it is very easy to heal. Just clear the illusion.

     Why bother being a nice person, if my DNA patterning inclines me towards gaining more pleasure from being a mean person?

    This person you describe (who may be a sociopath) will never come to a therapist. Therefore, as a therapist, I will never be confronted with this problem.

    (I told you I was going to give practical answers.)

     2. If you feel your “Being” or “Soul” springs from your DNA, then when the body dies, the DNA dies, too, correct? So do you believe that when “you’re dead, you’re dead”?

    I have passed this on to my Sufi friend, he may have a wonderful answer that I don’t know.

    My own beliefs about the afterlife are complex and way beyond the scope of this comment. Perhaps one day, if I really figure this one out, I’ll write all about it on this blog. Till then, it’s an evolving journey. Fortunately “what happens after death” is not a problem that trauma therapists have to deal with because it is not a cause of trauma for my clients.

     3. If I do not pass on my DNA to children, what is the DNA “legacy” of my life in relationship to others?

    Aah, a question which I really am qualified to answer! These are the kind of questions that motivate me because it goes right to a subject I care about, the biological meaning of life, which is basically that “DNA repeats itself.”

    The short answer is that the question is wrong! To put that another way, the question is based on the false assumption that the purpose of DNA is to have children or at least that every animal (or plant) should have children. That is far too narrow. The purpose of DNA is that genes want to make sure that the very same genes are expressed in the future generation. That does not require everyone (with those same genes) to have children. Only a small percentage need to have children.

    If you look at nature, at the animal kingdom, to try to decipher the biological meaning of life (DNA legacy as you call it), it has very little to do with narrow parent-child relationships. I don’t have statistics at my fingertips, but I think that most animals alive on this planet do not have children. Read that sentence again. Most beings will never reproduce.

    As an example, 99.9999% of bees or ants will work their entire lives to allow their mother, the queen, to produce other worker bees/ ants. It’s fundamental that they do this, because if they didn’t, their DNA wouldn’t be passed on. Because of course “their DNA” is really the same DNA for the workers or the queen.

    It’s not just animals. There are plenty of mammals I can think of, from meerkats to wolves, in which only the dominant female reproduces, and her other children or siblings work for her benefit because it’s still benefitting THEIR GENES.

    It’s the same for humans. You don’t have to have children to work for the good of the community (which is a gene pool). This could be in the same narrow sense as the ants and bees or the broader sense of human tribes / races etc. I can think of countless examples of both. The bond between brothers / within tribes can be stronger than the father to child bond.

    I’m getting off topic, but as a student of both biology and metaphysics, I have to point out the beauty of the Law “As Above, so Below, as Within, so Without.” What I have just described for the animal kingdom is reflected inside our bodies. We have 2 types of cells, germ cells (which make sperm and eggs) and somatic cells. Of course 99.999% of our body is somatic cells – and they never reproduce. And yet the somatic cells will slave away day after day for the good of the germ cells, which are said to be immortal because they are the link between generations. Why would a somatic cell sacrifice itself for a germ cell? Simple – they share the same genes.

    Biology is the story of how individual genes and individual cells operate, just as much as it is about whole animals. Just as one cell has a purpose even without ever reproducing (as long as its genes survive in another); so a person can derive meaning from helping others with the same genes.

    And now we ask what does “same genes” mean? Well you obviously share the most identical genes with parents, children and siblings. But you also share some identical genes with every single human. In fact you share some genes with every single animal. In fact you share some genes with bacteria! And so, to an evolutionary biologist, life is about supporting the continuation of genes, whether that means helping the person down the street, an animal or the plants in your garden.

    Despite your loaded question, children or not having children has absolutely nothing to do with it.

    I’ve tried to simplify some pretty complex evolutionary biology in this brief answer. For those who are interested, a relevant book is Richard Dawkin’s “The Selfish Gene.”

     4. If the very fact of being alive, with all the consequences of my DNA patterning, is a source of suffering for me, then, wouldn’t the logical conclusion be for me to end my suffering by killing myself?

    Surely that depends. Do you mean physical or emotional pain. Someone could have a terrible pain from a chromosomal disorder (a consequence of their DNA patterning), they might be dying a slow and horrible death, and they might choose to end their suffering. I have to admit that sounds logical. *I am not condoning or advocating suicide. You only asked me if it was logical. I am giving a logical answer.*

    On the other hand they may be in great emotional pain and think that they don’t have the solution. However in every case I have dealt with, emotional suffering can be healed. So in this case I don’t think suicide is logical. I think it’s usually selfish because it ends one person’s suffering but creates great loss and suffering for those left behind.

     5. For all Life Purposes fulfilled, to what ultimate “end” if any, for the individual or for all of Life Itself?

    Sorry, but if this is a question I don’t understand the question. It sounds like a deep philosophical one which I am not qualified to answer.

     if I can “get by” being “un-happy” for 70-80 years, why bother seeking therapy (or “remedy”) of any kind?

    Actually I have always believed that no one needs healing. Needing and healing are almost mutually exclusive words. (There is great philosophy behind this but I can’t explain it in a single comment).

    One thing I’ve learned, you can’t force someone into therapy. There are two types of unhappy /depressed people. Those that can get by, and those that really want to get better. I am only interested in working with the second group. I learned this the hard way, when people used to drag their children or boyfriend etc to see me for a healing. The guy (usually male) didn’t want to be there, didn’t want to change and resented me trying to help. They don’t need my help because they can get by.

    My self-chosen purpose is to provide the gentlest and safest therapies for (among other things) clearing the deepest emotional trauma from people who can no longer “get by” with being “un-happy.”

    Sorry if that was circular. The short answer is, if you can get by, don’t bother. If you can’t get by, I’m here for you 24/7.

    I mean that as a practical answer not a spiritual one (again because I only have qualifications in one of those 2 departments).

     Oh, and one other thing…I too am motivated to “help people” and to help them learn to be happier (and healthier) in their lives. The questions I am asking you here are the same ones I have recognized as somewhat “universal” for the “helping professions.” So, on their own, I think they are really worth considering and I hope you will agree. : )

    Oh I 100% agree, that’s why I’ve done my best. The one about DNA and children was one of the best questions I’ve been asked because it touches on a hundred different misconceptions about biology, evolution and the meaning of life (the biological meaning, I’m not so clear about the other one).

    Thanks for asking great questions.



  17. Hi, Simon,

    Thank you for your answers. I appreciate the additional explanation of, I guess you could say, “biological purpose”. Sounds like we have some very intelligent genes. Makes me wonder where that intelligence comes from. : )

    I also appreciate your stepping back from answering what, as you acknowledged, were the ultimately “spiritual questions”, better posed to someone who might be recognized as a “spiritual authority.” I feel Adi Da Samraj is definitely one of those. You have mentioned a couple of others, and I think we can both agree that there have been many throughout history of greater and lesser degrees. In the end, I have found that people tend to believe what they want to believe because their beliefs help them navigate what would otherwise be an often difficult and confusing world. They will hang onto beliefs that “work” for them, until they find a new system of beliefs that “works better” than the old one. And, as far as I’m concerned, they are entitled to believe whatever they want to believe if it “works” for them, as long as they allow me to do the same! : ) (It’s when their belief systems include having to convert or excommunicate others that things become problematic! :\ )

    With regards to the more in-depth explanation you have shared about “selfish genes”… I get it. : ) I can see the “sense” of it, and I am willing to accept that there could very well be something like that going on. By any chance are you familiar with Robert Pirsig’s second book, “Lila”? (He’s most famous for the ’70s classic, “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”.) In it he poses the theory that “life” has evolved as a play between “static” and “dynamic” “Quality”, with the forms becoming more and more “dynamic” over time. For instance, humans have more capacity to act, or interact, “dynamically” with their environments than say, a turtle. : ) But a turtle can interact more “dynamically” with its environment than a rock. Nevertheless, at the quantum level, we are all made up of the same energy, the same fundamental atoms, etc.

    Each leap in evolution has involved a “transcendence” of the laws or forces of interaction that come before. For instance, there are forces within atoms that on one hand, make them want to fly apart, but there are also forces pulling them together. Pirsig suggests that because of its unique position in the periodic table of elements, Carbon had the most “options for dynamic variation” because it could combine with so many other elements, or with itself, or remain inert. It is from this point of “freedom” (many options to “choose” from, so to speak), that carbon has ultimately found its way into all living matter.

    And, that movement towards ever increasing “freedom”; i.e. options for interacting in the environment, has ultimately led to human beings that can adapt to and interact with their environments in far more ways than any other species on the planet. And, if you are keeping an eye on politics, more and more people are seeking yet another “advance” in human liberty and freedom beyond what has thus far been realized practically and socially.

    I know I have recommended many books to you so far, but at this point, and given the course of our dialogue, I think “Lila” is definitely worth your consideration soonest, that is if you haven’t read it already. :) (if you have read it I would love to know your thoughts about it.)

    And, Simon, I am enjoying our discussion as well.

    Yours in Peace,



  18. Hi,

    I will try to explain my knowledge in English..

    Sufi path that I follow said: Body is only a hologram of the Brain (the energetic one) and the soul is the same.. body and soul is the hologramic twins and both of them are like a vehicle.. soul is not our core.. soul is a different type of body.. when we died, we use that body.. Actually there is no birthing or dying..

    Consiousness.. The “I” is our core.. and This “I” use all of the body that create.. This “I” knowledge is into the DNA and this DNA’s hologram is the Brain.. Brain’s hologram is the body.. Brain-Body has all the frequencies in the universe.. Actually there is no universe :) (I use it because of creating easy understanding) all of them created in the brain..

    Actually there is no creation also :) Creation’s real meaning is: The knowledge turns into 5 senses and mind perception (off course these perception’s manifestation is also belong to the DNA..) So in the Truth there is no body, no soul.. only “I” so there is no dying, no living.. only imagination and dreaming.. Because we don’t live in the Earth.. we live in our brains.. but also this imagination has their rules so our “Mind” can’t brake it. Mind is our dress (like our body’s skin) and also experiencing vehicle..

    Brain is like a decoder that decode the frequencies and materialize that in our 5 senses.. but this decode process doesn’t take the frequency from the outside.. it takes from deep inside the DNA, like a dimension.. universes in the universes… frequencies in the frequencies.. always one within the other.. Please read the fractal geometry…

    And the DNA is not only the matter, it is also energy and it is also no matter no energy.. these all type of definitions are only from our minds and they are all lie :)

    So we see that the body dies and this means the DNA dies so the Soul has to be die but this is absolutely wrong.. you know that knowledge never disappeares so the hologramhic twin (the soul) continues to live after the body die-transform. And every DNA (the frequency generator has their special imprint) so the Reincarnation is absolutely impossible.. Who remembers the past lives or another phenomenal things.. They actually experience to reach the frequency ocean and read it and this belongs to brain’s imagination-manipulation about that people’s unconscious beliefs-conflicts.. This is not reincarnation..

    This soul-body has the brain and the DNA also.. think about your dreams.. you have a body, you have a mind, you have a brain. you have a consciousness and you have also the “I” sense in there too.. So if this body’s dream finish than our soul-body’s dream stars.. I hope I can explain the Sufi knowledge a very little bit..


  19. Hi, Bulent.

    Thanks for the additional explanation.

    Unfortunately, I will happily admit it is a bit beyond my capacity to understand in a way that I can apply practically to my day to day life. I think I will stick to: “While I am in my body, I make mind [through my ongoing conscious and unconscious choices]” and “Once I die, mind makes me.”

    Again, I will happily admit that I may not know exactly who or what the “I” is, or who or what “mind” is, but I am not sure I have to in order to experience the benefits of making more conscious choices that contribute to my living a healthier, happier, more peaceful, and functional life now, that (again) admittedly, may or may not affect “my” experiencing after death. (Furthermore, as far as my after physical death experience is concerned, if “I” don’t have one; i.e. an “after death experience”, no problem. But, just in case, I’m going to play it safe and try to die being as Happy, and Peaceful, and Loving as I can possibly be… And since I don’t know in what moment I may die, I’m going to practice Being Happy, Peaceful, and Loving as much as I possibly can in every moment. : ))

    Yours in Peace, Love, and Understanding,



  20. Hi, Simon)))
    Thank you, for this post. I almost agree with your conclusions about evil and good.
    But to be honest, I have not always remember this truth. Sometimes I put on labels)))

    I think that people who believe in dualities of good and evil are not dangerous but they do restrict themselves. This is sad…))) But I also sometimes afraid of them and of their actions.

    May I ask you? What do you mean exactly, when you told about “the duty to educate the public”. I think I do not understood this point correctly.
    My opinion is that – who gave me the right to educate society???
    I can educate myself and I can educate those people, who ask me for help them.
    But I do not have the RIGHT to educate smb.
    I hope, you understand me))

    P.S/ sorry about my English/ I am user))
    P.P.S. Kiev is still waiting for you and Evette
    with Love)))


    Simon Rose Reply:

    Hi Marianna, welcome to the blog!

    > people who believe in dualities of good and evil are not dangerous

    I think it depends on what you mean by “dangerous.” People who believe in duality are not necessarily violent. However I think that every person who believes in duality is dangerous to Oneness. I mean that everyone who divides groups into “good” and “bad” or “us” and “them” is dividing humanity. It is these people who create wars. When we realize that there are no bad people, just some damaged people, or people needing to learn compassion and empathy, then we can view the world in a very different way. Remember that most political leaders are psychopaths, that’s the other reason for so many wars (I’m thinking of Ghadaffi in particular, but wondering whether Western leaders are any better).

    > who gave me the right to educate society???

    You were born with that right. However that doesn’t mean people have to listen – they have a right not to!

    Who gave me the right to teach personal development courses (which is “educating society”)? The answer is “nobody.” I chose to do that. For me it’s my job, but for you if it is not your job then it might be your passion.

    All that’s involved is (for example) pointing out to people where their language is slippery. When you hear people say “that man is evil” ask them what they mean? Why “evil”? Does the word really mean anything?

    More than anything I think our role is to help people to think. Duality stops people from thinking, we can help open them up.

    > P.P.S. Kiev is still waiting for you and Evette

    Evette and I look forward to seeing you again. You did great on the last course. Will you be able to come back for a repeat of 1&2 or to do the Level 3? We hope to see you there. If not I hope you can at least drop in to the “healing clinic” to say hello.



    Marianna Reply:

    )) Thanks for your answer)))

    Actually, I would like to know if I could be an assistant on Level 2,
    and without a doubt, I will come in to the “healing clinic”.

    Thank you)))


    Simon Rose Reply:

    I’m sure that’s fine, just check in with Tamara closer to the date as she will be responsible for numbers of assistants etc.


  21. # do you agree with me that people who believe in good and evil are often dangerous?

    Dangerous is a strong word and has a strong vibration. And it is a part of duality. I think noboday is dangerous, might be ignorant..but not dangerous. For me this word has the same connotation like “evil and good”. Think we have to be careful with words.Calling somebody dangerous is a label we put on him, like calling somebody good or evil. So who are we to judge?;)

    just my opinion:)

    Otherwise I agree on some points of your writting.

    Greetings from Slovenia :)


    Simon Rose Reply:

    Hi Nena from Slovenia, lovely to hear from you again.

    I love feedback and I am grateful to receive insights into where I have dualistic thinking.

    You are correct, calling “somebody” (an individual person) dangerous is a label, and as you have indicated, labeling people is dualistic.

    But I didn’t call “somebody” dangerous. I’m not labeling individuals, I’m labeling a group behavior. In my head at least it’s totally different. However I realize that this distinction may not translate well into Slovene.

    Let me try to explain with some more extreme examples.

    If I said that violent alcoholics are dangerous, you probably wouldn’t disagree. I’m not picking on any one individual, I am labeling the behavior as dangerous.

    Similarly I think that people who split “good” and “evil” have the potential to be dangerous. That’s because they always think they are “good.” That gives them permission to call you “evil.” And that gives them permission to do what they like to you.

    Calling a fire dangerous isn’t duality. Calling an alcoholic dangerous isn’t duality. Calling the dualist dangerous isn’t duality either.

    The purpose of our Reptilian mind is to assess what is and isn’t dangerous, in order to keep us safe. It’s THE MOST BASIC function that our brain has. It’s essential to our survival.

    You cannot pretend that the most basic function of our brain (survival, identifying potential threats) is dualistic. If that were true, then duality would be integral to our identity and to all other animals. It isn’t.

    I do slip into dualistic thinking sometimes. But I really don’t think I did on this occasion (happy to hear other people’s thoughts too).

    with love

    PS I hear Ben in Slovenia is teaching in 2 weeks, maybe you can catch up or assist? (Just thinking aloud, I should probably have asked him first…. but get in touch).


    Nena Reply:

    Hi Simon,

    I do understand your thinking.
    I don’t comment much. Just do that when I feel so. I don’t think, I just write what comes at the moment. And I felt so.
    For me…fire is not just is. Yes, it might be “dangerous” , but it also keep us warm. It’s just the understanding of fire. So if you know its law, you just act by it. It’s again the ignorance that make it “dangerous”. I think, that too much analysing is not good, it’s past tense, I think the times are changing. I’m pretty sure you know alright in which way ;) So I wouldn’t talk too much about that.
    But the past I’ve done a lot of thinking and analysing and I’ve just been confuesd. In London at your course I’ve started to feel things more then ever. So I started to rely on that and it makes my life much more easer.

    But you know, I still do believe we talk the same language just in different ways.

    As always I enjoy reading your blogs. For me (just my opinion) sometimes too much words and explanatinon, too much mind thinking, but beyond words there is something that makes me move on. So I highly respect you.



    I don’t know Ben and I don’t know where in SLO he works.


    Simon Rose Reply:

    Hi Nena

    Thanks for the intelligent reply.

    > For me…fire is not just is.

    Really I agree with you and I’ll make a small change to my article. I wrote that these people are “often dangerous.” I still believe that but I accept that “often” is misleading. I’ve changed it to “potentially.”

    The way our reptilian brain works is to acknowledge potential threats. Fire is potentially dangerous. So are people who see the world in right and wrong. I guess anything can be potentially dangerous – but evolution has shaped our brains to be very good at recognizing specific threats.

    > As always I enjoy reading your blogs. For me (just my opinion) sometimes too
    > much words and explanation, too much mind thinking, but beyond words there
    > is something that makes me move on. So I highly respect you.

    Come on Nena, *it’s a blog*. There’s only room for words and explanation. What else is a blog…?

    But I suspect you are making a broader comment – about RPT, not just the blog. And in that case I agree with you. RPT (which is the old method) was a bit too much in the head. Certainly it was back in 2009 when we met. But we have dropped that entire technique and scrapped the manual. The new technique fits on one page in a flow chart. And no, I haven’t put it on the blog (the blog is for words).

    [Insider's tip: Instead of healing thousands of beliefs (Theta) or hundreds of ancestral traumas or "tones" (old RPT), we have it down to just 4 survival instincts: fight, flight, hide or freeze. Every single disease and disorder is caused by one of these basic instincts. We launched this in Russia and will be teaching it internationally soon.]

    > I don’t know Ben and I don’t know where in SLO he works.

    You were the Slovenian on the English course, whereas Ben was the Englishman on the Slovenian course! Crazy . I’ll forward your message to him. If you are interested in the new method maybe you can connect.

    Best wishes

  22. But I suspect you are making a broader comment – about RPT, not just the blog.

    Correct, that what I meant :)
    Of course, blog is all about words. That’s why it’s important what kind of energy you put in them. And probably that’s why I responded.
    I know just the odl RPT, so I can’t talk about it. I believe you simplyfied the whole technique.

    You were the Slovenian on the English course, whereas Ben was the Englishman on the Slovenian course! Crazy .

    I was impatient, cause I read so much RPT and I also had a good reason to visit London for the first time :) And much more…. Love to be “crazy”, it makes me feel alive :)




  23. Svein Tore Nummedal

    Hi Simon,

    Yes I do fully agree on Your views on the matter. If one calls for more police and stronger punishment to solve our crimes, it will just make everybody more unfree and not solve a problem. I am quite new to this therapy, in fact I just happened to stumble over it yesterday as I was looking for more info concdrning Theta-Healing.(which I found last week).
    As I saw Your demo on RPT, wouldn’t it be possible to find the feeling or emotions which make them sick and remove it? I, personally, believe that it is their soul or spirit that are damaged.

    I do also agree that we have a reposnebility to educate or making our fellow man discover thruth.


    Svein Tore


    Simon Rose Reply:

    Hi Svein and welcome to RPT

    > As I saw Your demo on RPT, wouldn’t it be possible to find the feeling or emotions which make them sick and remove it?

    I am not really sure what you are referring to. Whose feelings and emotions?

    I’ll give a high level answer. Contrary to popular new age beliefs, feelings and emotions DO NOT MAKE YOU SICK. This is an example of what’s called “magical thinking.” Google those 2 words and you will see almost everything that wrong with spiritual healing / new age.

    To keep this really simple, there’s something, call it the “X-factor”, which makes people sick. This X-factor is the cause of all our emotional and physical and even spiritual problems. This X-factor causes both physical pain AND ALSO negative emotions and feelings.

    That’s why some people think emotions and feelings make you sick – they see a sick person and they also see negative emotions and feelings. They confuse causation with correlation. See my post on magical thinking for more examples of this – like how Vanuatu people believed that seeing the see caused Malaria.

    When you do any sort of healing work on emotions, beliefs or feelings, you are at best trying to heal the symptom, never the cause. That’s why all the Theta “miracle healings” get sick again within a year. They healed a symptom, never the cause.

    So what’s the X factor that causes both emotions and disease? Essentially it relates to trauma. More specifically it’s the relationship between trauma and survival instincts. We understand this and this is why we get instant and permanent results. [Note that the demo you refer to is 2 years old and relates to an older technique, but is still fairly relevant to this discussion.]

    > I, personally, believe that it is their soul or spirit that are damaged.

    It could be that this is true. But the way to heal it is identical to healing any other form of trauma. In practice it doesn’t matter on what level they are damaged (biological or soul). We do cover both in RPT (Level 2) but what you learn is that the methods are the same.

    Thanks for your interest, I hope my reply gives some food for thought.



  24. I agree with you 100%. I have encountered people who do live in the duality of good and evil. I have tried my best to help them think, so they can make the choices of learning this new way of thinking without the beliefs that EVIL exists. It was a coincidence that your blog came up. I’ve had this subject came up a few hours ago. My friend who is recovering from a trauma of being molested as a young child, was just telling me she is going to forgive her brother. She kept saying she will forgive but not forget. I found myself telling her, “As long as you are not living your daily life resenting him, I am okay with that. I prefer that you focus on thinking about that your brother needs help instead of wasting your energy of the things you resent about him.” I do want the world to start thinking this way. Acknowledging what needs to be done instead of having ill thoughts of things, people or situations. This world would be so much better.


Leave a Reply


Using Gravatars in the comments - get your own and be recognized!

XHTML: These are some of the tags you can use: <a href=""> <b> <blockquote> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>