Healing with the Masters - or the Muppets? [smiley]

Firstly I want to thank Jennifer for making this teleseminar series widely available and free. I know that Healing with the Masters is by genuine people - both her and all her guests really want to help and share their insights and gifts to improve the lives of those listening. There are no phoneys or scammers. Many of them are ridiculously rich, but I don't believe that money is their incentive, and all have offered cut price deals on their own services for her listeners.

But I've heard masters not react well to criticism from listeners, and that's what's made me write this article. it was that part of the talk that whenever I've heard it has stuck with me.

I'm not going to name the speakers who were challenged - who are not confined to Jennifer's series - but I would like to discuss their reaction.

I've heard someone call out in the question time after a talk and express a similar sentiment. In this case, it was an email from a listener. It is a reaction whilst live to an audience, and the speaker has to respond. It's pretty much - 'your show isn't working for me. Is this for real?' The listener didn't exactly call the Masters Muppets (and hey, what's wrong with Miss Piggy and Co?!) The listener seemed angry and frustrated, and wanted proof that the Masters did and could heal.

It's like a Christian hearing - I don't believe in your Biblical miracles and that there's a hell.
I find your church has been only damaging - where's this joy and new life I'm meant to get from your godshop? Christians have more practice at defending themselves than that hard to define attraction, abundance, wealth group that Jennifer works with. All her speakers are North Americans (like her) and share these kind of principles, although their backgrounds vary. Some have come from medicine, psychiatry, psychology. Some have a business and marketing background. Some have an Eastern twist. None are within a recognisable religious faith.

Perhaps this group being newer hasn't yet got to grips with the cynicism and criticism that other spiritualities have endured for a long time. the Jehovah's Witnesses have a book on how to deal with difficult conversations. Maybe the healing masters need to develop theirs? [smiley]

I didn't like how the listener was dealt with. I liked Jennifer's honesty that she said she was angry - although she didn't sound it. Her guest and her show were being called into question on an international open call, which I'm sure she worked very hard to make available. I liked that genuine response. The speaker sounded artificial. He said that in 30 years of his teaching, if he got 'plugged in' at such a criticism, he'd have failed. I sense that he was plugged in, but felt that admitting to it would render him exactly what the listener called him - a false healer. Yet I feel that the truth is the reverse - to not get plugged in made the speaker sound less human and compassionate and composed. He was patronising and did not engage with the questions. He accused the listener of defence, cynicism, and anger. The speaker kept using the listener's name (L) and saying that 'L has never been seen'... but you haven't seen him, speaker! And I don't mean with your eyes.

The speaker said how the listener needs to take responsibility for his problems and deflected it all back onto the listener, who blames others but it's really about himself. In asking the listener to take responsibility for his feelings, the speaker dodged taking any for himself.

The speaker didn't defend himself or consider the criticism. If one really heals - why not explain that rather than say 'I'm not going to go there - it's self evident.' Not to anyone outside your healing room, I wanted to say. The speaker didn't engage with the idea that his methods are not working for some and how can that be changed? That takes real courage, but I didn't see any of that.

The speaker spoke of having compassion for the listener. But rather than reaching out, I saw a glass shield come down to protect the speaker. Like a little crane, I saw the speaker rising above that hurt emailer like a film director above his/her crew, or a manager surveying a building site. I'm in control, I'm above you. I'm somewhere that you can't touch me. That's what I heard from the speaker.

For these 'we are all one' advocates, I see a contradictory view - to be a as separate as possible from anyone needy or difficult. We all know that customer service from behind a glass shield, using preset phrases and company lines is never satisfying. That isn't confined to the bank and the cinema.

Judith Orloff speaks of Energy vampires, those who suck our energy and make us negative. Vampires make those around them vampires. The usual antidote is to hold up a cross - an action involving arms' length and moving away from the vampire. I find 'energy vampire' a value judgement. The ever popular boundaries are a constraint on yourselves and others. Growing is about expansion. Calling someone a vampire means 'you sap more energy than I do, or I as yet know how to deal with.' Perhaps rather than calling out to those hurting from behind our bubble, the way to help a vampire is to do what they do in reverse. Rather than only vampires having the power to bite and make mortals join them in monster world, let the 'mortals' bite the vamps and get them out of the graveyard. And biting involves getting close, and engaging with their vulnerability - and risking getting a bite yourself.