>>129238
I personally think that second article is tongue-in-cheek.
Surely, he could make the website look better. But, he actually does that to trigger people. It seems to have worked.
I reiterate: if you can't look past that to the information being correct, and the energy of the writing, then you're stuck at the intellectual level.
And that's a dangerous place to be, because a lot of occult things can be made to sound good with a logical argument.
If you're going to criticize it, at least say "he's wrong on x point". Otherwise, you're making a very superficial point against the writing, and ironically, that could be interpreted as you being "spiritually slow".
Which idea, for the record, you have introduced here in what seems pretty clearly a case of projection. Having blockages is the default for people, and they are what hold you back. They are in essence, not you. That's the whole point. Prior to my shady comment above, no attacks on your character were made.
Would you throw away spiritual progress because it doesn't look pretty? Most people do.
"There are many paths and the most popular are those which can not work.
And the people know this. And that is why they choose these paths. "
-Swami Satchidanand, from the article
Anyway, something inside you decided to attack the article despite there being no substance to your criticism. Perhaps that's something you should reflect on, and then realize that's only proving the point being made, which "you" were attacking.
Spooky, eh?
Here's one of the books. You will find that it offends your sensibilities less.