posted July 10, 2008 05:06 PM            

Iwas talking about this with a good friend of mine and realized that the proper path is Inspiration. Mediumistic practices are highly unreliable because it involves invoking (and not working with)the purely Spiritual. Also, it is often the case that the practitioner is not properly anchored in these Spiritual Worlds and, thus, it almost always falls within the realm of black/shadow magic. The goal is not to lose control. Inspiration is much more reliable (though not infallible) because it isn't about losing control. It involves conscious surrender and being "unattached to outcomes", but the human being is still doing the work and putting forth a conscious effort that is filled with their presence and the spiritual.

posted July 10, 2008 06:34 PM              

Everything with a grain of salt.

Its wise to take in information from many sources,
before jumping to any conclusions.

I'm not certain of anything yet.

But, whatever happens, I'll do my best to make the best of it.

We can't blame the material, if it appears negative or misleading;
we can only "blame" ourselves for being sensitive or misled.

"There is nothing good nor bad, but thinking makes it so." ~ Shakespeare

An independent mind will dare to consider a wide variety of perspectives,
even when those perspectives trigger deep-seated anxieties and fears.

Apocalytpic visions dont have to be frightening --
or, they dont have to remain frightening.
They can be an opportunity to confront our fears,
and develop a more sincere detatchment.
Who knows, we may even find beauty in the unlikeliest of places.

I've loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night. ~ Galileo Galilei

Many Buddhist monks envision themselves as skeletons,
or they imagine themselves dying by all sorts of horrific means.
They do this in order to bring up their fears for purging,
and to reconcile themselves to the reality of impermanence.
All things pass away, and whatever we hold onto will be torn from us.
Rather than deny the darker truths, we ought to steady ourselves,
and be prepared for anything. After all, anything is possible.

"God help that man who seeks to reform the gods, rather than himself." ~ Seneca

This is a great thread! Good to see people dialoguing,
and sharing their different perspectives peacefully,
rather than just clamming up, making assumptions,
and walking away with preconceived judgements of eachother.

I'm proud of us, lol.

Still Seeking,
HSC

posted July 10, 2008 06:43 PM              

Don't mind if I do take this opportunity for some shameless self-promotion,
to share, for those unfamiliar with it, a "channelled" writing of my own.

This thing practically wrote itself, at the speed of Light.

Where does this stuff come from, anyway???

________________________________________________________

Unio Mystica

Metaphor is the mark of all sanskrit.
To see metaphors is to read from the book of life.
A metaphor is a bridge between peaks.
Where there is distinction,
metaphor illumines a common identity.
Metaphor is meandering as truth is.
Sure-footed is light-footed.

We are full. We are brimming. Life unfolds. Worlds overflow. Contemplate beginnings. Once more, with feeling. All of us spinning. Doctors of nothing. Come again, full circle. You are well remembered. All of us beginning.

Love. Begin with Love and you can never go wrong. Take aim at love, and you can never "sin", which is "to miss the mark". Love is lighter than the wind, lighter than the ether. Your arrows will cut fire and fly straight. A single arrow will point you the whole way to the Kingdom, if its aim is true. Begin with love, or repeat history.

The most incredible experiences are not realized until after they are over. During such experiences, guiding spirits shield from our vision all but the moment. Only in time do great lessons come to light. They are given in an instant, to be pondered for an eternity. Contemplation is the high art of devoting oneself to wisdom, and honoring one's experience of the world, by the patient application of thought to the ephemeral moments which impress their significance upon us. When you chew your food, every bite you take makes it easier on your stomach. Without reflection, indigestion. So, in remembering God, let us remember "Him" frequently. In this way, it must be easier to digest His Word for us, our lesson in the world.

Our Father desires only our freedom. He comes only when we beckon Him, and otherwise leaves us free reign. Like a servant, the Lord waits on our command. Such a servant is worthy of reverence, and what deserves reverence, deserves frequent remembrance. For, truly, a man is indebted to his servant, as the beneficiary of his graces. And how much more are we indebted to our Lord, whose graces themselves serve us, and bestow graces beyond themselves? For by means of gifts, more gifts are discovered. Always, the gifts of gifts.

Everything is holy. A line crossed out is a bible unseen. The scriptures are woven with jewels, and all of them rejected. Even to discover them is to reject them. Every discovered jewel is a rejected star. Every star is a rejected sun. Every sun the center of a cosmos. Sages abandon themselves in this orbital dance and are senseless.

Who does not love to write does not write to love. The work one loves is the work of love. When you love what you do, what you do is love. You all have gifts to be discovered. The light that reveals your gifts shines out from within them, and is one with them.

You are not a chronicler, but a composer of songs. There is nothing to be. When it is said, "Be this," or "Be that," you are already "this", you are already "that". It is your voice that speaks. It is your song that would be sung. And it is not a command but a declaration; a declaration of love for "this" or "that". You ask, "But, how will I know when it is love that speaks?" Because love, my friend, always comes singing, gently singing.

I will beg the muses to linger, though the darkness is all but replaced by the light, and the Moon is barely a shadow. But if the muses be silent, I will read and reflect upon their gifts with the deepest gratitude, lest I stray by following my mortal lights. For truth is alive, and speaks only through the mouth of a muse, - and does not speak, but sings. And all that is not sung is dead; untrue and unmoved. Truly, the greatest sages have all been poets and singers of songs. Lesser sages, at their best, sang us a song. And if they had only one song in them, they learned it well, and sang it often. All truth is sung. All truth is poetic. All poetry cryptic. All love is rejoicing. All life is homecoming.

What is to be remembered? Only what is dead. Shall we remember the Lord in this way? Or do we perhaps mean something different, something unique, when we speak of "remembering" the Lord, who is all life? Truly, to "remember" the Lord means only to forget all that is dead and past, and, rather, to dwell in the life of His infinite presence. Shall we remember a person when he or she is with us? Would this not be to neglect our guest? So, a song is well remembered only when it is sung, for that is not to bury it, but to give it new life. Just so, the Lord is well remembered, even resurrected, when we love.

Love. Begin with love and you can never go wrong. Ending in love, you know you've done right. Love is the beginning and end of all good labors, and all true questions. But love does not seek to uncover, only to leave things be. Love knows that all is well.

To open the Ark is not to heed its inscription: "This ark is Love. All you will find inside it is Love. But if you see no Love in this outer form, or in the modesty, the secrecy, of this form, how shall you see it inside?" Love is fond of mysteries, but does not press. Love is not greedy for more than what is revealed. Love will not undress the truth, but patiently seduce her to disrobe. Love love's foreplay. Love is always on the edge of her seat, but never hurries the truth. Love needs no reason nor argument to love, and does not seek for something more to love, but is content at all times to find the universe in a grain of sand. The Ark is a Pandora's Box, and Love's inscription is the soft lock upon that box. It is locked for love of you, but the key is granted upon request, also for love.

Let them interpret these and other sayings. All they shall discover is love. All they shall ever learn is love. Let there be interpretations. For true words are many layered, and many secrets go undiscovered when any secret is disturbed. The noonday sun shuts out from our sight a thousand stars. Love keeps all secrets. For the only secret is love, and the only mystery is our ignorance and indifference to love.

The mystery does not trouble itself to confound us, or to be mysterious. Its nature is mystery, so it is infinitely mysterious. But if you ask a sage, he or she will tell you every time, "The answer is love." Love. So light, it floats away on the breath when we call it. So heavy, it comes pregnant with mysteries, desperate for a bed. So fine it can't be seen. So dense it cannot be fathomed. A blinding vision to behold.

Darling one, come again! My wonder. Like a grandmother, let me behold you, grandchild. And run free like a child at your choosing, unbound by love. All your choices are for love. And when you have gorged yourself on love, in one form or another, it is to love's bed that you retire. And both forms of love are divine. Both are prayers well received. All love is divine, and all prayers are holy. For God hears only love, and God hears all love. Even the faintest love is a chorus attended by God. And all that speaks of unholiness speaks to unholiness, and is itself unholy. Do not disturb the mystery. Let the mystery be holy. Leave the questions unhurried. Let the questions be holy.

Love is certain. For, to be certain is to rest, and there is no rest but in love. Only love is at rest. Only love is certain.

Breathe in, when you meet with resistance, and breathe out when you meet with acceptance. The greatest wisdom is simple, as a seed is simple. Every seed can sprout a thousand Vedas, and nourish many nations. True wisdom is self-perpetuating. To grasp it is to be inspired with it. Where the song of love is resonant, it is creative.

Can you sing a hurtful word? Who will permit it in her song? The song of love is melodious, and by its delicacy you shall know it. But harsh tones of accusation do not soothe, and bitter reproaches are clumsily sung. Even to make note of them here would be a disservice, were it not done in the service of love.

Let all lessons not be in vain. Leave them be, if they are learned. All lessons are but the restless spirits of lives already passed, crying only to be left in peace, unreconciled and unresolved; their legacies entrusted to living descendants. You are not your lessons nor your karma, though the spirits of your ancestors move within you unperceived. Your heart is a ghost yard, restless and disturbed. Your questions and answers are the plaints and groans of the dead. Relax yourself, and give them peace.

Abandon your lessons, child, and partake of the summer breeze! You have appointments to keep with the flowers and the trees! They have new, adventurous secrets to impart, to whosoever would meet them. Then let the present life inform you! You are not a historian, but a maker of history! In this knowing there is only love, and only love is this knowing. For love is all that is known, and all that can ever be known.

There is no end to God's love for you, and no end of love songs to sing. Only be still, and you shall hear the strains, and they shall move you to dance and sing by themselves. Singing along to this song, you will know you keep synch with the Lord. Dancing, you will know you keep step. Speak of the eternal and your words shall be eternal, immortal. Speak of troubles and your words shall be as dust, shook loose from the soles of His feet. The great work is only interrupted when you doubt yourself, for that is to doubt God's love for you. Speak, then, as the Son of our Lord shines; He does not cease to shine for eclipses. So is my love for you uneclipsed.

We only ever reject ourselves. We only ever reject love. If we had love for ourselves, we would rest safely in that love, and not desire to move from there, in order to heap scorn on another. All we ever want is love, and love is ours to give! Hear this and rejoice! Know your understanding is lifted. And with it, love is lifted from the depths of your spirit, and poured out freely over the parched earth of your soul. You love yourself; tired, beaten down by a thousand ungentle truths; not in glory, but in ruin; not perfected, but incomplete; not the bread, but the flower, ground exceedingly small. You are the child, fit to pass through the narrowest gate.

The Lord gives us all that we have, and is not done giving. Open the gifts of the Lord. Children, do not wonder: All is welcome. All is forgiven. As you ache, I ache for you with you. I'm there, inside you, like a child, welcome or unwelcome. Your contractions are only occasioned by my hastening to you. You, the Virgin Mother, and I, the Lord, your God. To some it is madness, to others a secret bliss. Mother, will you love me, small as I am? Will you carry this child to term? Embrace the formless spirit within this broken form? I, the Lord God, am this child.

God love us! God deliver us! Love is infinite. The only thing is love. The only thing you reject is love. Blessed are the rejected. Loved are they, even as all are loved. But this love is greater in a relative sense, for "The stone that the builder rejected shall be the head stone of the corner." There is nothing to embrace but the Christ, nothing to reject but the Christ. Discard nothing! That which you have in hand is the Christ, and the first stone which must be set. Asking ourselves, "What do I reject? What do I despise?", we locate the stone. Speaking unto the Lord, "This shall I love," we embrace the stone. Silent in our hearts, "Loving the stone," we carry it to the appointed and anointed place. Losing ourselves in love for the stone, we affix it there. Such labor is a joy incomparable. Who labors with the Lord, gives birth to love, and lives in love with love. That which is weakest is wanted. All who grow tired grow strong. To be low is to be flooded in God's love, for God's love must fill all the rivers and channels it runs down, and gather force along the way.

My beloved one, do not trouble yourself to understand this. These mysteries are boundless and not to be circumferenced. There is nothing to know, nothing to be won. All love is free and flows everywhere like the air. Will you only breathe deeply when you draw your last breath?

Alas,
That flesh is hunted,
and taken before its time,
while love grows on trees,
and dies on the vine!

Love is everywhere ripe, and everywhere engenders itself. As you reap it, so is it also sown, as the seeds fall from your lips. To love is not difficult. To love is only to be forgiven. Is it so difficult to be forgiven? Don't ask Saturn. Don't ask Neptune. Ask yourself, if you are given.

You, who hide your beauty under a veil of shame. You are the virgin bride of the Lord, worthy to bear the true prince. Let your tears be for joy. Let His mercy enfold you. There was nothing before, and there is nothing now, but love. Always, it has been so. Only you have desired to hear. Hear me, then. Love me, if you would reject me. And, if not me, love another, for I am in all things, and am not an object to be loved, but the love itself! Only love, love, love, and all accounts shall be balanced, all laws perfectly fulfilled.

Why beat your head against a wall? The only way through it is love. Behold, I shall stand before you in the nakedness of my flesh, and not move from your path until I am fully embraced. My body shall be as an impenetrable wall around the garden of my spirit, and only those who can love the body shall be able to pass through it as spirit. This is the way, the truth, and the life. This is the eternal law of love.

Amen.

posted July 10, 2008 10:09 PM              

quote:

---

This kind of behavior comes from laziness. Any time these questions are asked of mediums and psychics and such come from a will that is too weak to judge and decide things out for themselves.

---

I think this is essential. The corrosion of our Will and Individuality is on the top of the enemy's shopping list. Is there a greater present danger?

quote:

---

I was talking about this with a good friend of mine and realized that the proper path is Inspiration. Mediumistic practices are highly unreliable because it involves invoking (and not working with)the purely Spiritual. Also, it is often the case that the practitioner is not properly anchored in these Spiritual Worlds and, thus, it almost always falls within the realm of black/shadow magic. The goal is not to lose control. Inspiration is much more reliable (though not infallible) because it isn't about losing control. It involves conscious surrender and being "unattached to outcomes", but the human being is still doing the work and putting forth a conscious effort that is filled with their presence and the spiritual.

---

Inspiration! Yes! This is the answer. A completely different animal than channelling.

quote:

---

Apocalytpic visions dont have to be frightening --
or, they dont have to remain frightening.
They can be an opportunity to confront our fears ...

---

You know, HSC, I think that's just what a very good portion of these worldwide apocolyptic visions are ... fears. The product of our collective fears.

Please ignore me if I'm prying, but what led you to conclude you were channelling?

posted July 10, 2008 11:13 PM            

This Götterdämmerung business has a lot to do with our own fears. I am always reminded of the movie Sphere. Has anyone seen that? This crew of people are sent underwater to figure something out and they encounter this giant orb. Having touched it, it begins to manifest their dreams but the only things that come through are their deepest fears. Thoughtful book, too...

posted July 10, 2008 11:30 PM              

Looks like a clear-cut issue of semantics, to me.

Whether you call it "inspiration" or "channelling" makes all the difference to you,
yet, is there any objective criterea you can apply to distinguish the one from the other?

To me, inspiration is just another form of channelling.
It is channelling a specific archetype, or our "daemon", or "higher self".
And this is precisely what I intended when I used the word
(though I put it in quotes to suggest my uncertanty as to the piece's origins).

Of course, distortions are always a concern,
whether you are "channelling" or doing anything else.

I personally find that when a piece of writing flows out of me, at a very free pace,
it almost always appears more beautiful, more eloquent,
and/or more insightful that my usual, plodding thoughts.

But, whatever you see on the page ought to be viewed with discrimination.

And I would agree that SOME people sacrifice their discrimination
when they believe that the source of the piece is higher than themselves.
Just as many devout people sacrifice their own understanding
to the authority of ancient thinkers and sects that tell them what to believe.

As you can see, in the piece above,
I specifically talk about how the inspired moment
(whether or not it manifests in a piece of writing or artwork)
ought to be considered and pondered over conscientiously.
What I mean by that is not that we should strain our minds
to forego any critical thinking, and to take the piece on faith,
but, that the piece should be dissected from a detached and sober perspective.

This is, at least, how I have approached my own "channelled",
or, if you prefer, "inspired" writings.

The word "genius" originally referred to an attending spirit,
belonging to a person place or thing, and excercising a profound influence therein.
The "genius" would reveal itself as the essence of that person, place or thing.
When the genius is attendant upon a person,
it is still seen as something distinct and removed from its object.
This might help to explain why so many artists testify
to the experience of "possession", and, quite often,
they are unable to explain, in more rational terms, the meaning
of the work that has sprung (apparently) from their own hand.

It is said that what distinguishes the operation of the lower mind,
Mercury, from that of the higher mind, Uranus,
is that Uranian wisdom springs from the intuition,
fully formed, and without clumsy deliberations.
The outer planets in general appear to exhibit this
fascinating quality of possessing us and saying their peace.

This is true of many, if not most, of the worlds greatest treasures.
We read the words in the Sutras, and we pressume
that they were written in a state of self-consciousness
(or self-awareness), but there is as much, if not more,
evidence to suggest that even the sayings found in the Vedas,
and in many of the most precious scriptures of the world
were composed in a state of ecstasy, or inspiration;
a state that was fleeting and out of the ordinary,
and may even have been induced with the assistance
of an ally, like the legendary Soma, "drink of the gods",
said to have been enjoyed by the great sages of old,
who exhorted and described its use themselves.

The evidence suggests that Soma, while potentially metaphorical,
in some instances, was, yet, an actual drink.
Many shamans and sadhus make use of plant allies freely.
My own writing, posted above, was written on LSD.

Now, I know you are fond of raining on parades,
but consider that, if you dismiss induced writings,
you may have to dismiss many of the world's most holy books.

quote:

---

You know, HSC, I think that's just what a very good portion of these worldwide apocolyptic visions are ... fears. The product of our collective fears.

---

I suspect you are probably correct,
that many, if not most, if not all,
of these sorts of pieces are born of fear.

But that is a matter of faith.
And the case may be equally strong,
that the "fluffy bunny" visions are
induced by our collective hopes.

And you know what the Buddhists say about fear and hope;
they are two sides of the same coin, after all.

posted July 11, 2008 02:37 AM              

NosiS and thirteen mentioned the Ego. NosiS has a Anthroposophical background so he'll know what I mean when I refer to the confusion surrounding the dreaded "e" word. Most posters here at LL use the word in much the same way a Sufi uses "nafs", or the sum total of those nafs, what they call the Commanding Self. An Anthroposophist saying "Ego" would mean nothing of the sort. Place a New Age devotee, a Sufi and Anthroposophist in the same room and ask them to discuss this ego business and you've created a Tower of Babel situation.

We can sit around all night discussing the human aura, but unless we're also willing to go about the long, hard business of developing the spiritual sight necessary to actually see the aura, what's the point really? Specifically, until we can form a consensus on the precise mechanics of mediumship vs clairvoyance vs inspiration, we're all just shooting blanks in the dark.

The Greek notion of "genius" and "daemon" are lovely, I agree. But the Greek mind was almost altogether different than our own, they truly lived in another Age. So, I'm not entirely sure how the concept relates to the topic at hand. I'll think about that though.

quote:

---

What I mean by that is not that we should strain our minds
to forego any critical thinking, and to take the piece on faith,
but, that the piece should be dissected from a detached and sober perspective.

---

I'm not so sure that a "detached and sober perspective" is as easy to attain as we might think. (those pesky nafs again) But, in general, yes. This is a good part of reason I appreciate Anthroposophy and Sufism. They both insist on personal verification. Steiner approached spiritual matters from the perspective of a experimental scientist and practically begged us to do the same. The constant refrain is "test this out for yourselves, don't go only by my word". Or, as the Sufi says, "He who tastes knows". All others are speaking out of their arse.

posted July 11, 2008 02:44 AM              

quote:

---

Now, I know you are fond of raining on parades,
but consider that, if you dismiss induced writings,
you may have to dismiss many of the world's most holy books.

---

I don't believe any of the Holy Books were channelled by Ra or Seth or Lord Gobbledegook from the 9th Dimension. To even entertain the idea that those responsible for the Vedas required "soma" to attain spiritual vision is .... oh boy, I'm really hesitating here to say bull. How about this - might as well hand a man with 20/20 vision a pair of broken, foggy glasses. Regarding the Old and New Testaments, these were written in a state of spiritual transcedence, or "on the Mountain" as referred to in the Gospels. When the ability to climb that Mountain is earned, I see no reason to think the state would be fleeting.

quote:

---

But that is a matter of faith.
And the case may be equally strong,
that the "fluffy bunny" visions are
induced by our collective hopes.

---

I'm willing to entertain that possibilty. Find me a "fluffy bunny" vision.

Phew! Channeling and LSD in the very same post!? Oh you tempting little bast@rd! How did I do? Did I make it past the mindfield?

posted July 11, 2008 10:32 AM              

quote:

---

Semantics. Yes, I can see why you might bring that up. I'm going to say that terminology might be the root issue here.
NosiS and thirteen mentioned the Ego. NosiS has a Anthroposophical background so he'll know what I mean when I refer to the confusion surrounding the dreaded "e" word. Most posters here at LL use the word in much the same way a Sufi uses "nafs", or the sum total of those nafs, what they call the Commanding Self. An Anthroposophist saying "Ego" would mean nothing of the sort. Place a New Age devotee, a Sufi and Anthroposophist in the same room and ask them to discuss this ego business and you've created a Tower of Babel situation.

---

I'm quite familiar with the confusion surrounding the "e" word, and other words, myself; though I havent studied Anthroposophy, I've studied a wide variety of the worlds teachings (and often been sorely criticized for this versatility), so I'm deeply aware of the many ways in which confusion may arise while attempting to discuss these matters while each coming from our own isolated points of departure. I try to avoid the "e" word, myself, or keep it to a minumum, as it seems to me that people mostly invoke that word in the spirit of the ego, with an eye toward lording themselves, or their perspective, over the other "egos" present. I'm sure we can agree that nothing is more cunning than this ego of which we speak. The astrological Neptune teaches us about false spirituality, or "spiritual materialism", and how we often delude ourselves that we are coming from a superior position, and seeking to selflessly help others, while, in point of fact, this is "one of the subtlest ego trips of all". However, to my mind, all of this is par for the course, and it should not come as a surprise. Miscommunication and a thousand other misfortunes surround us on all sides and continue to occur, and, often, the more progress (or omelets) you are making, the more eggs are getting cracked and the more towers of Babel are being built and torn down. It's all part of the process, yes?

quote:

---

We can sit around all night discussing the human aura, but unless we're also willing to go about the long, hard business of developing the spiritual sight necessary to actually see the aura, what's the point really? Specifically, until we can form a consensus on the precise mechanics of mediumship vs clairvoyance vs inspiration, we're all just shooting blanks in the dark.

---

Well said.

My own limited experiments have suggested to me, though, that the observor necessarily influences and, in a sense, distorts, the experiment, according to his/her intentions and preconceptions. We see what we look for, so to speak. But these dangers are also par for the course, and no reason to shy away from experimentation. Ultimately, though, it seems clearer and clearer to me that, what we discover, in the end, are "truths" corresponding to our own individual natures, and to the lessons which each of us have to learn respectively. And, the deeper you go, the less you see. Some who appear to be the very highest teachers do not focus on the reincarnation of the soul, for instance, as their intentions and experiments are preconditioned to focus on the spirit. Ask them about the past or future life and they will shrewdly remind you of the present one. (Incidentally, Edgar Cayce does not fall into this category.)

Experiments are funny things, and conclusions are funnier still. Where do they begin, and where do they leave off? You are familiar with Sanai's story of the blind men and the elephant... Each of the men was experimenting when he touched the elephant for himself, though each approached the elephant from his own point of view, and each came away from the experiment, not only having discovered something different, but, having formed contradictory judgments about the qualities of the beast (and not merely of the part they touched). It may be that the end result of the most comprehensive experimentation is the leaving off of experimentation itself, and the recognition of our abiding ignorance where ultimate matters are concerned. Its been said, "you cant judge a book by its cover," and I have responded to this with "you cant judge a book by the book", because, in my own experience, the book itself supplies no more definitive a representation of its own nature than its cover does. Always, our experiments, if they are sincere, lead us further and further afield, until, ultimately, we are merely thrown back upon ourselves, and the mystery. Some say that this is precisely what constitutes the experience of enlightenment.

quote:

---

The Greek notion of "genius" and "daemon" are lovely, I agree. But the Greek mind was almost altogether different than our own, they truly lived in another Age. So, I'm not entirely sure how the concept relates to the topic at hand. I'll think about that though.

---

All things are related, TINK. And the Greeks were particularly dedicated to the contemplation of timeless, universal and eternal, matters, so, it is difficult to see them ever going out of style, and easy to see how they have retained such a profound interest for the modern thinker. We are the outgrowth of that past, and it behooves us to come to terms with it. The very words we make free use of have their origins in antiquity, and especially Helenistic antiquity. Understanding the origins of words helps us to trace their trajectory, which, in turn, illuminates numerous insights into the nature of language, thought, and the basic archetypes which we confront on a daily basis. An astute student of history will not fail to see the connections to the past in nearly every single manifestation of the present.

posted July 11, 2008 10:32 AM              

quote:

---

I'm not so sure that a "detached and sober perspective" is as easy to attain as we might think.

---

As who might think?
I never implied it is easy.
Not in the least.

quote:

---

(those pesky nafs again) But, in general, yes. This is a good part of reason I appreciate Anthroposophy and Sufism. They both insist on personal verification. Steiner approached spiritual matters from the perspective of a experimental scientist and practically begged us to do the same. The constant refrain is "test this out for yourselves, don't go only by my word". Or, as the Sufi says, "He who tastes knows". All others are speaking out of their arse.

---

Perhaps, but, as I have tried to show, observation, mere looking, which may encompass the positive acts of both thinking and experimentation, is its own conundrum. Experimentation becomes a form of thought, and thought becomes a form of experimentation. Whichever method you employ, you are still merely dragging up what is within yourself. And whatever conclusions you arive at are necessarily going to be symultaneously right and wrong. This is why the essential thing is the search, and not the insistance upon final results. Results are misleading, if they are not taken to be objects provided for the seeker, to continue his/her seeking. In other words, "Man was not made for the law, but the law was made for man,". Whatever we discover, and however those discoveries insist upon informing and shaping our way of being, ultimately, we are given the choice to remake the entire universe in our own image. The man who obstinately closes his eyes to the results of his experiments may not necessarily be deluded, and reluctant to conform himself to the dictates of some Ultimate Reality. Rather, he may assert himself as a fundamental aspect of that Reality, with a will equal, in some sense, to the will of the creator. The vast and impressive structure of all that is and has gone before may be shattered in this single act of self-will. Whether or not this "self" is the ego, or the Atman, I leave for you to discover.

quote:

---

I don't believe any of the Holy Books were channelled by Ra or Seth or Lord Gobbledegook from the 9th Dimension.

---

You mean channelled from, not by. And, I agree, they were almost definitely not channelled from Ra or Seth, but, according to their own admission, they were channelled from Lord Shiva, or from some specific diety said to represent an aspect of Shiva, of whatever dimension the deity belongs to. After all, "nothing exists which is not Shiva", and, one supposes, this would include Ra and Seth and Lord Gobbeldygook from the 9th dimension. Again, from the very highest spiritual vantage point, there is no such distinction, and the Vedas are as full of Maya as anything else. Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

quote:

---

To even entertain the idea that those responsible for the Vedas required "soma" to attain spiritual vision is .... oh boy, I'm really hesitating here to say bull.

---

I figured you would react this way. But you must realize that, if you speak to a truly enlightened master, whether you ask about the book of Ra, or about the Vedas, the answer will be the same. "That's all bull." Each of us finds a niche with our own bull, and we do our best to respect the bull of other people, while promoting our own bull in the face of it. Its all a very ridiculous and amusing spectacle, is it not? And its all Shiva.

quote:

---

How about this - might as well hand a man with 20/20 vision a pair of broken, foggy glasses. Regarding the Old and New Testaments, these were written in a state of spiritual transcedence, or "on the Mountain" as referred to in the Gospels. When the ability to climb that Mountain is earned, I see no reason to think the state would be fleeting.

---

"Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water."

I myself have had such experiences, so, I can assure you that they may indeed be fleeting. (The writings spawned may, on the other hand, prove eternal.) And you may suppose that I have also earned the right to those experiences, since there are many people who are not open to those experiences, whether because they are afraid to try entheogens, or because they are traditionalists and their tradition disapproves, or because, having experimented with entheogens, they did not have the capacity for these experiences after all. Not everybody who trips sees God. Some people just dissociate, or laugh unceasingly at fart jokes, or turn into Wavy Gravy and say "groovy" a lot, hypnotized by bright colors and flashing lights, taking nothing seriously, and losing themselves in the group-mind of a flashy counter-culture. It may well be argued that, to return from the psychedelic experience with solid insights into the nature of being is the priviledge of people who are already fairly well attuned to such things.

I think you are speaking, not from a place of experience, but from a place of assumption. Its okay, we all do it, and its all part of the show. You believe that the Vedas were written from the highest vantage point. Why? Because the Vedas say they were, and because tradition supports them in this? Ask a Christian fundamentalist why he believes in the authority of the Bible and he will answer in the same way, "Because it says in the Bible that it is the word of God, and the tradition to which I belong firmly supports this,". Well, there you have it. The truth is that, the closer you look, the more you find both similarities and differences among the teachings. Even in India, there are numerous sects who study the Vedas, each interpreting them slightly differently, and applying emphasis on different points. This is possible because the Vedas themselves are full of subtle and gross contradictions. Only a fool would overlook this fact. But it is not a mark against the Vedas that they contradict; rather, it is a sign of their profound depth. There is something for everyone in them, and they are like a mirror, not reflecting the so-called objective truth, but, reflecting the one who looks; for that is the only ultimate truth. "The way that can be spoken of is not an unvarying way." ~ Tao Te Ching

As the following quote from C.G. Jung illustrates, even men lauded as enlightened saints, firmly established in the truth, can disagree on the most seemingly essential points:

quote:

---

Sri Ramana declares unmistakably that the real purpose of spiritual practice is the dissolution of the 'I'. Ramakrishna, however, shows a somewhat hesitating attitude in this respect. Though he says, "As long as the I-sense lasts, so long are true Knowledge (jnana) and Liberation (mukti) impossible," yet he must acknowledge the fatal nature of ahamkara. He says, "How very few can obtain this Union (samadhi) and free themselves from this 'I'? It is very rarely possible. Talk as much as you want, isolate yourself continuously, still this 'I' will always return to you. Cut down the poplar tree today, and you will find tomorrow it forms new shoots. When you ultimately find that this 'I' cannot be destroyed, let it remain as 'I' the servant." In relation to this concession, Sri Ramana is certainly the more radical.

---

Which of these men is correct? Each is firmly established in his position, and does not contradict it, but, which of them is right? And what exactly are they firmly established in, anyway? Truth, or Tradition? In India, this is just how it goes; the insistance is on tradition, and this is what the vast majority of philosophers adhere to, and apply themselves to. One is called a saint because he has the ability to articulate these traditions exceptionally, and is always ready with an answer, having firmly established the tradition in his mind. It seems that, to many people, all you need in order to be considered a serious aspirant, is to firmly align yourself with one, and only one, traditional way of interpreting the world. Then you are considered a reliable source, whether your name is Ramana Maharshi or Ramakrishna. And yet, they disagree. And there's the rub. Another quote will help to illustrate this:

quote:

---

A philosophy based on the mystical experience of the Self, which represents it in the purest way and is least distorted by the addition of hazardous intellectual speculations, is that of the Indian school of Sankya. There the individual purusha is experienced in its separation from prakriti (i.e. all movement, space and time) as immortal and free. Although the same experience is found at the basis of Vedanta philosophy, its followers are not satisfied with the immediate experience which teaches nothing more, and nothing less, than that the true self of man is immortal and free, but they add the postulate that the higher Self is God ("this soul is God" -- "ayam atma brahma", Mandukya Upanishad, 2). The Sankya philosophy, in contrast, remains within the limits of the experience of the higher Self as such and in no way denies the plurality of purushas (i.e. the plurality of immortal and free higher Egos), nor does it raise the individual purusha to the dignity of the Absolute.

~ Meditations on the Tarot:
A Journey Into Christian Hermeticism
Arcanum VII, THE CHARIOT

---

And while some allegedly enlightened masters exhort us to make profound efforts of self-will and self-mastery, others suggest that this is precisely what ensnares us in the web of Maya.
I dont know if you saw the quote from Ramana Maharshi I posted in the Benjamin Fulford thread:

quote:

---

Make no effort either to work or to renounce;
your effort is the bondage.
What is destined to happen will happen.
If you are destined not to work,
work cannot be had even if you hunt for it;
if you are destined to work,
you will not be able to avoid it;
you will be forced to engage yourself in it.
So leave it to the Higher Power;
you cannot renounce or retain as you choose.

---

It is enough to make your head spin. Well, my head, anyway.

This is a great conversation.

Love to you,
HSC

The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled." ~ Plutarch

The sage should study the scriptures in his search for knowledge;
but then he should leave them, like the chaff that is left behind,
when the grains of rice have been winnowed.

posted July 11, 2008 04:26 PM              

"You say you believe in Zarathustra, but of what account is Zarathustra? You are my believer, but of what account are all believers?

"You have not searched for yourself as yet; there you found me.
Thus do all believers, but, for that reason, there is so little in all believing.

"Now I advise you to forsake me, and find yourselves;
and only when you have denied me will I return to you."

Nietzsche is no Messianic founder of a religion; therefore he can wish for friends who support his opinion, but he can not wish for confessors to his teaching, who give up their own selves to find his."

~ Rudolf Steiner, Friedrich Nietzsche: A Fighter for Freedom

quote:

---

The Greek notion of "genius" and "daemon" are lovely, I agree. But the Greek mind was almost altogether different than our own, they truly lived in another Age. So, I'm not entirely sure how the concept relates to the topic at hand. I'll think about that though.

---

"The patriotic feelings of his German compatriots are also repugnant to Nietzsche's instincts. He cannot make his feelings and his thinking dependent upon the circles of the people amid whom he was born and reared, nor upon the age in which he lives. "It is so small-townish," he says in his Schopenhauer als Erzieher (Schopenhauer as an Educator), "to make oneself duty-bound to opinions which no longer bind one a few hundred miles away. Orient and Occident are strokes of chalk which someone draws before our eyes to make fools of our timidity. I will make the attempt to come to freedom, the young soul says to itself; and then should it be hindered because accidentally two nations hate and fight each other, or because an ocean lies between two parts of the earth, or because there a religion is taught which did not exist a few thousand years previously?" The soul experiences of the Germans during the War of 1870 found so little echo in his soul that "while the thunder of battle passed from Wörth over Europe," he sat in a small corner of the Alps, "brooding and puzzled, consequently most grieved, and at the same time not grieved," and wrote down his thoughts about the Greeks."

posted July 11, 2008 04:28 PM              

26

O my brothers! With whom lies the greatest danger to the whole human future? Is it not with the good and just?-

-As those who say and feel in their hearts: "We already know what is good and just, we possess it also; woe to those who still seek thereafter!"

And whatever harm the wicked may do, the harm of the good is the harmfulest harm!

And whatever harm the world-maligners may do, the harm of the good is the harmfulest harm!

O my brothers, into the hearts of the good and just looked some one once on a time, who said: "They are the Pharisees." But people did not understand him.

The good and just themselves were not free to understand him; their spirit was imprisoned in their good conscience. The stupidity of the good is unfathomably shrewd.

It is the truth, however, that the good must be Pharisees- they have no choice!

The good must crucify him who creates his own virtue! That is the truth!

The second one, however, who discovered their country- the country, heart and soil of the good and just,- it was he who asked: "Whom do they hate most?"

The creator, hate they most, him who breaks the law-tablets and old values, the breaker,- him they call the law-breaker.

For the good- they cannot create; they are always the beginning of the end:-

-They crucify him who writes new values on new law-tablets, they sacrifice to themselves the future- they crucify the whole human future!

The good- they have always been the beginning of the end.-

27

O my brothers, have you also understood this word? And what I once said of the "last man"?- -

With whom lies the greatest danger to the whole human future? Is it not with the good and just?

Break up, break up, I pray you, the good and just!- O my brothers, have you really understood this word?

28

You flee from me? You are frightened? You tremble at this word?

O my brothers, when I enjoined you to break up the good, and the law-tablets of the good, then only did I embark man on his high seas.

And now only comes to him the great terror, the great outlook, the great sickness, the great nausea, the great seasickness.

False shores and false securities did the good teach you; in the lies of the good were you born and bred. Everything has been radically contorted and distorted by the good.

But he who discovered the country of "man," discovered also the country of "man's future." Now shall you be sailors for me, brave, patient!

Keep yourselves up betimes, my brothers, learn to keep yourselves up! The sea storms: many seek to raise themselves again by you.

The sea storms: all is in the sea. Well! Cheer up! You old seaman-hearts!

What of fatherland! There strives our helm where our children's land is! Therewards, stormier than the sea, storms our great longing!-

posted July 11, 2008 04:38 PM              

"We have to claim anarchy. And realize that systems have a life of their own that is anti-humanist. There is definitely an anti-humanist tendency in all systems. Luwig Bertalanffy, who was the inventor of general systems theory, said, 'People are not machines, but in every situation where they are given the choice, they will behave like machines,'. We all fall into patterns. We all then hold those patterns ever more tightly, they cannot be violated. And this happens on the thought level. And we are on the cresting wave of a historical wave of this uptightness that stretches back millenium. And I think that we have now come to the end of this phase."

posted July 11, 2008 06:52 PM              

quote:

---

My own limited experiments have suggested to me, though, that the observor necessarily influences and, in a sense, distorts, the experiment, according to his/her intentions and preconceptions. We see what we look for, so to speak. But these dangers are also par for the course, and no reason the shy away from experimentation. Ultimately, though, it seems clearer and clearer to me that, what we discover, in the end, are "truths" corresponding to our own individual natures, and to the lessons which each of us have to learn respectively.

---

Yes, at this stage of the game I also believe they are.
Those veils which seperate ourselves from God, from Truth, fall away slowly and painfully. Whatever "truth" I presently perceive, is, no doubt, still horribly distorted by my innumerable nafs and preconcieved notions. Still, although my truth may be far removed from God, what can I do but follow it with faith and certainty? My experience has shown me that one truth will lead to a more refined truth, which will lead to yet an even more refined truth, which will lead to .... I have faith in the process.

quote:

---

All things are related

---

Yes, they are. No man, no thing is ever an island unto itself. I didn't intend to call that into question.
I don't have a scientific or artistic mind-set. I have a stubbornly historical mind-set. I see, quite comfortably thank you,the thread of Greek learning travelling through Roman culture, then Babylonian, Arabic, and finally European. I see the tattered remnants of Aristotle all over the modern western world. Nevertheless, they are not us. Their very thought processess worked differently than do yours or mine. When considering the past, I believe the greatest mistake we make is to imagine ourselves in that past, complete with our modern day conditioning and structure. Who was it that said, "The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there"?

Etymology is one of my favorite games too. Sooo important in Sufism and soooo insightful. Juni is a top notch practioner btw.

posted July 11, 2008 07:05 PM              

quote:

---

The Greeks are not simply a culture far removed from us in time and space, but, they are, in point of fact, and intrinsic part of our very psychological make-up, whether we are aware of it or not.

---

Absolutely. The child is the father of the man.

quote:

---

As who might think?
I never implied it is easy.
Not in the least.

---

I see people claiming this all the time. Don't you?

quote:

---

Perhaps, but, as I have tried to show, observation, mere looking, which may encompass the positive acts of both thinking and experimentation, is its own conundrum. Experimentation becomes a form of thought, and thought becomes a form of experimentation. Whichever method you employ, you are still merely dragging up what is within yourself. And whatever conclusions you arive at are necessarily going to be symultaneously right and wrong. This is why the essential thing is the search, and not the insistance upon final results. Results are misleading, if they are not taken to be objects provided for the seeker, to continue his/her seeking. In other words, "Man was not made for the truth, but the truth was made for man,". Whatever we discover, and however those discoveries insist upon informing and shaping our way of being, ultimately, we are given the choice to remake the entire universe in our own image. The man who obstinately closes his eyes to the results of his experiments may not necessarily be deluded, and reluctant to conform himself to the dictates of some Ultimate Reality. Rather, he may assert himself as a fundamental aspect of that Reality, with a will equal, in some sense, to the will of the creator. The vast and impressive structure of all that is and has gone before may be shattered in this single act of self-will. Whether or not this "self" is the ego, or the Atman, I leave for you to discover.

---

Yes! And I believe this is why it is so very important. What is within you must be dragged up. We must engage on a personal level, nevermind the endless suppositon and pontificating. You've got to get your hands dirty. It's the only way to progress.

quote:

---

You mean channelled from, not by. And, I agree, they were almost definitely not channelled from Ra or Seth, but, according to their own admission, they were channelled from Lord Shiva, or from some specific diety said to represent an aspect of Shiva, of whatever dimension the deity belongs to. After all, "nothing exists which is not Shiva", and, one supposes, this would include Ra and Seth and Lord Gobbeldygook from the 9th dimension. Again, from the very highest spiritual vantage point, there is no such distinction, and the Vedas are as full of Maya as anything else. Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

---

Yes, I did mean channeled from. You understood of course. You're a smart boy. I'll plead the late hour.

Late hour notwithstanding, I don't believe they were channeled from Lord Shiva either. For instance, Arjuna spoke with Krishna. Arjuna did not channel him. Communion is not channeling. I've seen some serious fruitloops "talk to the dead" or channel a "Pleiadian", but communion requires a bit more than a cyrstal and some incense. Control and awarness.

posted July 11, 2008 07:10 PM              

quote:

---

I figured you would react this way. But you must realize that, if you speak to a truly enlightened master, whether you ask about the book of Ra, or about the Vedas, the answer will be the same. "That's all bull." Each of us finds a niche with our own bull, and we do our best to respect the bull of other people, while promoting our own bull in the face of it. Its all a very ridiculous and amusing spectacle, is it not? And its all Shiva.

---

But you know, while I can easily say "Here is where I make my stand but at the end of the day, what the f-ck do I know?", I trust that the likes of Jesus and Mohammed didn't feel the same. I believe in something greater than my current station and vantage point, steve. Maybe that's were we differ. I make a lousy moral relativist. I believe in the possibilty of Certainty.

quote:

---

Now you are speaking, not from a place of experience, but from a place of assumption. Its okay, we all do it, and its all part of the show. You believe that the Vedas were written from the highest vantage point. Why? Because the Vedas say they were, and because tradition supports them in this. Ask a Christian fundamentalist why he believes in the authority of the Bible and he will answer in the same way, "Because it says in the Bible that it is the word of God, and the tradition to which I belong firmly supports this,". Well, there you have it.

---

You betcha.
Assumption it is then. And here's what led me to it -- everything fits, Steve. After all the doubt, after all the exploring, all the studying and contemplation, I found, to my surprise, that all those puzzle pieces really do fit. I can't find a contradiction to save my life.

posted July 11, 2008 08:13 PM              

I added some to my replies, dont know if you saw.

Your own replies are exceptionally well balanced.

Will get back to you soon.

posted July 11, 2008 08:32 PM              

Steiner was ... hmmmm ... fond? of Nietzsche. Respected his mind certainly. Who wouldn't? But he also recognized the degenerate state of the poor man's spirit. Steiner recognized that, in the end, Nietzsche was a mouthpiece for Ahriman. I think it saddened him greatly.

posted July 11, 2008 10:21 PM            

It's hard to keep up with you two.
I don't even know where to begin.

I guess the only thing I want to comment on, at the moment, is in regards to this quote:

quote:

---

Looks like a clear-cut issue of semantics, to me.

Whether you call it "inspiration" or "channelling" makes all the difference to you,
yet, is there any objective criterea you can apply to distinguish the one from the other?

---

Semantics is part of the issue, but there really is a difference between these two. To avoid further confusion, I want to make the definitions I am using clear. The word "channel" has the same root as "canal" and it was widely used with water. It indicates a movement of sorts (as in running water) where something is directed into an area where its presence was not found before. The word "inspiration" comes from a root meaning simply "to breathe". From this meaning has evolved our current uses of the word. Inspiration is not at all a "channelling" of the Higher Self. You cannot "channel" something that is already a part of you. To extend one's reach perhaps, but there is no need to "channel" it.

Inspiration, in its earlier appearances, was a calling from the Spiritual. This is difficult to understand but it becomes clear when it is heartfully thought upon: "Inspiration", as we know it, was not always as heavily present in our constitution as it is today. It had only begun to become more and more present rather recently in history, namely after the Great Mystery of Golgotha. Before then, only a very lofty few were able to blossom within them this portion of human blessing.

Channeling, in its esoteric meaning, is a calling of the Spiritual. This is not necessarily dark or evil, but it is often very vague. I mentioned that many are the cases in which this practice is used and falls into a black/shadow magic category. The reason for that is because it is most often used by those who do not have a solid foundation in the Spiritual Worlds as the initiates of the old ages did. Channeling is a practice of the past ages. It has become overwhelmingly impractical in our Age. Inspiration is much more practical to us as it gives us the opportunity to become consciously involved with the Spiritual.

There is a criteria that can distinguish one from the other. Possibly, the most distinguishable one is a matter of their differing perspectives. Inspiration is seen as "coming from" the I. Channeling is seen as "coming from" another entity that speaks through the I. And that makes quite a difference.

posted July 12, 2008 03:58 PM              

According to the Zoroastrian teachings,
it is Ahura Mazda who allows Ahriman temporary dominion over the world.

Why?

"So that he may be defeated once and for all."

This is a profound mystery, and Nietzsche, if not Steiner, understood it.

He proposed himself as the tester of virtue.

Virtue becomes lazy and complacent without an adversary.

"Every artist needs a nemesis."

Virtue requires this doubting spirit,
to fully plumb its own depths.

"We can do nothing against the truth but for the truth." ~ Saint Paul the Apostle

Kierkegaard understood this too, in a different way.

It was his genius which perceived the absolute difficulty of becoming a Christian
in a world where everyone already believes they are a Christian.

____________________________________________________

Do I really believe everything I just wrote?

Not really, lol.

The jury is still out.

But, like you said, I cast a wide net.

And, like Oscar Wilde,
I do not believe in one type of virtue,
or one type of ideal man.

Or one way of overcoming.

Sometimes I think there is a logic behind all things
which defies our most earnest attempts to limit and classify it.

And sometimes I think that the deepest substance
may be found in the highest art of style.

Now the clock says 3:33 as that thought occurs to me.

Hmm....

There is something wonderful and irrepressible in the human spirit.

And by that I mean the spirit of individuality.

Of the individual.

But, like Nietzsche, I am not here to persuade you.

Rather, I reflect that there are many paths,
and every path is suited to the one who walks it.

And we each speak our own truth,
and that is precisely as it must and ought to be.

I am glad that you are not like me.

I am delighted with the variety of types.

And paths.

And, in some strange way,
it seems to me that all is right with the world,
and everything is exactly as it ought to be.

And yet....

HAHAHA

But that "yet" is also my affirmation,
and also an unfolding of the mystery.

Nietzsche was a great spirit, and a very ancient soul.
Maybe far older than the society of souls you look to for reassurance.
Or maybe just of a very different kind, not better or worse.

In any case, you dont get a natal chart like that unless you've been around the block a few billion times.

Now maybe Nietzsche failed the test he was given...

But I have never seen a chart so full of tests.

And who are we to judge?

Furthermore, I suspect he was right, when he remarked,
"The errors of great men are more fruitful than the truths of little men."

There is a lot to ponder, and I am young.

But its a trip.

And I wouldnt have it any other way.

TINK, you may see me as immature,
but there are some very amazing people,
very brilliant and loving people,
who have held a very different opinion.

Freud wrote, "[The man who appears to be making no outward progress
may be advancing inwardly by leaps and bounds.]"

According to a very gifted and successful Tarot reader I spoke with:
"you are actually a lot older than you think because of all the inner work you've done...
you're MUCH more mature than you realize. You have an immense amount of depth to you as well."

She says I have been evoking demons and learning how to master them,
and that very soon I will know them inside and out,
and I will be prepared to fulfill my destiny, as a healer.
She says I have fully explored the Lunar side of myself and of creation,
and am just now shifting into my Solar phase.
And other attuned people have also told me: "You are going to surprise a lot of people."

"Surely, what changes we've seen in a sudden instant,
were prepared for ages underground." ~ Valerian

I'm not discouraged by those who misunderstand me
and seek to evaluate my progress by some traditional standard.
I am, like Nietzsche, a heavy drop out of the cloud,
and a true herald of the lightning.

"Advice doesnt help lovers!
This is not the kind of mountain stream
you can build a damn across."

"Your faces are beautiful,
but they are wooden masks.
You had better run from me.
My words are fire."

~ Rumi

NosiS, I'll accept your definition, if you insist.
It really makes no great difference to me,
and it seems to be a relatively insignificant side issue.
All it is, really, is a definition, and semantics.
One website I browsed had this to say:

An important note here is that there are a lot of ways to connect with a spiritual higher plane. Anything you love doing and find that you are good at could be a form of channeling. Who is to say that Michelangelo or Einstein weren't tapping into some higher consciousness as they worked in their fields of expertise. If you love playing music, by all means try music as your way to communicate. If you love reading, try automatic writing (computers and keyboards work just as well as pencil and paper). If you love dance, cooking, sports, painting, crafts, gardening, or any other creative endeavor, feel free to modify the guidelines here to fit your situation and open yourself to a higher plane while you enjoy the activity of your choice. There are as many ways to channel as there are individuals on this earth, and we have all experienced the feeling of "drifting off" as we go about our daily lives. This is the stuff of channeling!

__________________________________________________

What is the greatest experience you can have? It is the hour of the great contempt. The hour when your happiness, too, arouses your disgust, and even your reason and your virtue.
The hour when you say, 'What matters my happiness? It is poverty and filth and wretched contentment. But my happiness ought to justify existence itself.'
The hour when you say, 'What matters my reason? Does it crave knowledge as the lion his food? It is poverty and filth and wretched contentment.'
The hour when you say, 'What matters my virtue? As yet it has not made me rage. How weary I am of my good and my evil! All that is poverty and filth and wretched contentment.'

"Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss...
What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under...

They do not understand me; I am not the mouth for these ears. Must one smash their ears before they learn to listen with their eyes? Must one clatter like kettledrums and preachers of repentance? Or do they believe only the stammerer? ...

"The time has come for man to set himself a goal. The time has come for man to plant the seed of his highest hope. His soil is still rich enough. But one day this soil will be poor and domesticated, and no tall tree will be able to grow in it. Alas, the time is coming when man will no longer shoot the arrow of his longing beyond man, and the string of his bow will have forgotten how to whir!

"I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have chaos in yourselves.
Alas, the time is coming when man will no longer give birth to a star. Alas, the time of the most despicable man is coming, he that is no longer able to despise himself. Behold, I show you the last man.
'What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?' thus asks the last man, and blinks.
The earth has become small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race is as ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest.
'We have invented happiness,'say the last men, and they blink. They have left the regions where it was hard to live, for one needs warmth. One still loves one's neighbor and rubs against him, for one needs warmth...
One still works, for work is a form of entertainment. But one is careful lest the entertainment be too harrowing. One no longer becomes poor or rich: both require too much exertion. Who still wants to rule? Who obey? Both require too much exertion.
No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.
'Formerly, all the world was mad,' say the most refined, and they blink...
One has one's little pleasure for the day and one's little pleasure for the night: but one has a regard for health.
'We have invented happiness,' say the last men, and they blink."

~ Dionysus the Crucified

________________________________________________________________

posted July 12, 2008 05:30 PM              

Here I am claiming to love the history of words, yet didn't think to begin exploring the roots of these two words in question.

duh

So thank you, as always, for your calm reason. I appreciate your ability to see the forest, despite a few pesky trees hampering the view.

I've been considering the Greek genius concept since HSC's mention of it. Would love to hear your thoughts.