K. psychosis / Dharma

[Guest guest]

Hi Dharma,

 

You're right, discussing whether gay ppl have

the right to become ordained and whether

this is ok with god or not, really isn't

what I would like to call theological

discussions either.

 

However, it is not a big yawn to me,

it is a source for tears rather as

many young ppl lately have committed suicide

because they felt their orientations were

at odds with the rest of society,

even in a society such as the Scandinavian

which are very liberal to this issue.

I find it very sad indeed.

 

On Fri, 7 Apr 2000 22:00:33 Dharma wrote:

>Where are you anyway, Amanda? Are you in another country? I was hoping

>you could get to the retreat in mid-July.

 

I'm in Southern Sweden.

I relly wish I could have come to the

retreat. It sounds like it will be a lot of

fun.

Timewise it is not such ways off,

as I will have vacation at that time,

but I just can't afford the plane ticket

over the pond.

>I think you might enjoy it... I really got so interested I didn't want to

>stop reading. But if you saw it in one volume, that might be an

>abridgement... might leave out a lot of the interesting little details.

 

Well, the volume was quite thick.

Or maybe it was only the Rise of the Roman

empire and the Fall was covered in another

volume.

 

The sheer amount of information was rather

discouraging though. I have instead read a little bit of the Spartan and

Athenian

city states... a fascinating subject but

perhaps not as "big" as the Roman empire.

Well, perhaps one day I will become bold enough

to start on it. I do find it extremely

engrossing.

>surfaced at an association

>meeting in Mexico City in about 1970, when one of them revealed that he had

>been working with a psychic. After all, why dig all over the place and

>hope for something, when you can have a good psychic point out the right

>spot to dig? ) I think this man delivered a paper, and the storm

>practically split the association... turned out a fair number of them were

>using psychics.

 

Really ?

No wonder it created such a controversy.

The reason I laugh is that I can just about

imagine the faces of the more sceptical

and anti psychic elements of the

association when this came up.

The scientific indignation !

The scientific humiliation !

The scientific conundrum this must have

caused. Ha ha ha ha !

>Teilhard was a scientist and scholar of considerable reputation, but his

>more philosophical ideas that developed from his work and his spiritual

>understanding got him into big trouble with the church.

 

Oh god ! Just what we were discussing about

socalled theological dogmas...

>Nevertheless, for the Self to

>manifest as a human being, it is necessary to use that "I-making" faculty

>and to express in some way on personality levels... if not through the

>personality of this life, then some substitute.

>

>There are exceptions, notably 1) the Masts of India, who don't seem to be

>capable of normal human expression and interaction, and 2) some holy men

>who are no doubt capable of personality expression but don't find it

>necessary because all of their needs are taken care of by their neighbors,

>disciples, or monastery.

 

Yes, and as you say, not a very practical way

of life.

The trick is as I see it is to loosen on the

identification with the I faculties,

as it is that which also separates the

individual from others and clouds a clear

perception of the Self enough for there to be

a knowledge of the I faculties not being the

true I.

 

(Jung)

>He saw that the same universal symbols arise in people's dreams, fantasies,

>and art in all places and all times, even when they could have had no way

>of knowing about former occurrences of the same symbol. So he postulated

>the collective unconscious that underlies all individual minds.

 

Jung was as I see it quite unusual for his

profession although perhaps not to unusual

for his times.

 

I do feel though, that Freud wasn't

so far off something in his description of

the id.

I have often sensed that the id can in some

ways be seen as the base life force,

perhaps energy associated with the three

"lower" chakras.

Just throwing some thoughts at you.

 

Love,

 

Amanda.

 

 

 

Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com

[Guest guest]

Hi Amanda,

>You're right, discussing whether gay ppl have

>the right to become ordained and whether

>this is ok with god or not, really isn't

>what I would like to call theological

>discussions either.

>

>However, it is not a big yawn to me,

>it is a source for tears rather as

>many young ppl lately have committed suicide

>because they felt their orientations were

>at odds with the rest of society,

>even in a society such as the Scandinavian

>which are very liberal to this issue.

>I find it very sad indeed.

 

Of course it is. I was referring to the discussions you were complaining

about. You said:

>>As you probably can understand,

>>this minimizes at least my interest in

>>participating in or even caring

>>about these discussions.

 

You didn't say you were crying through these discussions. )

>>Where are you anyway, Amanda? Are you in another country? I was hoping

>>you could get to the retreat in mid-July.

>

>I'm in Southern Sweden.

 

Sweden! Wonderful! How do you happen to be there? English is surely not

your second language.

>I relly wish I could have come to the

>retreat. It sounds like it will be a lot of

>fun.

>Timewise it is not such ways off,

>as I will have vacation at that time,

>but I just can't afford the plane ticket

>over the pond.

 

Too bad... I wish you could.

 

>>surfaced at an association

>>meeting in Mexico City in about 1970, when one of them revealed that he had

>>been working with a psychic. After all, why dig all over the place and

>>hope for something, when you can have a good psychic point out the right

>>spot to dig? ) I think this man delivered a paper, and the storm

>>practically split the association... turned out a fair number of them were

>>using psychics.

>

> Really ?

> No wonder it created such a controversy.

>The reason I laugh is that I can just about

>imagine the faces of the more sceptical

>and anti psychic elements of the

>association when this came up.

>The scientific indignation !

>The scientific humiliation !

>The scientific conundrum this must have

>caused. Ha ha ha ha !

 

Sure, and yet the men who used psychics went about it in a scientific way,

I think. A scientist could test a psychic by handing him objects he

already knew about... and asking what the psychic picked up from them.

Besides, once you dig and actually find something, its value isn't going to

be changed by your reason for digging _there_. ))

 

But a lot of people were terribly shocked. The author of the book I read

pointed out that it threatened their paradigm, the prevailing world-view.

After that, I began to see that word "paradigm" being used more and more.

One book even had a chapter titled "Where Will You Be When the Paradigm

Shifts?"

 

>>Nevertheless, for the Self to

>>manifest as a human being, it is necessary to use that "I-making" faculty

>>and to express in some way on personality levels... if not through the

>>personality of this life, then some substitute.

>>

>>There are exceptions, notably 1) the Masts of India, who don't seem to be

>>capable of normal human expression and interaction, and 2) some holy men

>>who are no doubt capable of personality expression but don't find it

>>necessary because all of their needs are taken care of by their neighbors,

>>disciples, or monastery.

>

>Yes, and as you say, not a very practical way

>of life.

 

Practical enough for a Nityananda, who had no wish or need to go grocery

shopping or hold an intellectual discussion. ))

>The trick is as I see it is to loosen on the

>identification with the I faculties,

>as it is that which also separates the

>individual from others and clouds a clear

>perception of the Self enough for there to be

>a knowledge of the I faculties not being the

>true I.

 

When I speak of the "I-making" faculty, I'm talking about what produces

this separative individual consciousness that is human. I can't see it as

either good or bad, but simply as the mechanism or paraphernalia for a

specific purpose. If you want to incarnate as a human being, you start the

process that involves what underlies and produces the chakra system, which

produces all the rest. Not trying to be exact here, but just give my

general view. The mechanism must at least partly involve the human brain,

but it comes through the entire chakra system.

 

I think "identification" is the keyword here. Once you see that the

personality is a kind of mask, a garment to wear for this particular party,

then you can look past it to see who is wearing the mask... and your

identification changes. You become the one who is wearing the mask... and

have worn other masks in other lifetimes. This corresponds with energy

shifting in the chakras, but you don't have to know about that. )

>(Jung)

>>He saw that the same universal symbols arise in people's dreams, fantasies,

>>and art in all places and all times, even when they could have had no way

>>of knowing about former occurrences of the same symbol. So he postulated

>>the collective unconscious that underlies all individual minds.

>

>Jung was as I see it quite unusual for his

>profession although perhaps not to unusual

>for his times.

 

Extremely unusual!!! These men were the pioneers, the explorers in a new

continent! Aside from whatever was known in the secret, esoteric

traditions under other words and concepts, no one 150 years ago knew there

WAS such a thing as an unconscious! You can hardly imagine the difference

now... you've probably heard about the subconscious and the unconscious

all of your life. This was one of the discoveries, the new understandings

that changed the world and the nature of man. Another was relativity and

the new world-view... another was evolution... How this world has changed

in a remarkably short time!!

>I do feel though, that Freud wasn't

>so far off something in his description of

>the id.

 

Another great pioneer, hampered somewhat by his own Victorian background.

) Jung's comments on that in his autobiography are interesting.

>I have often sensed that the id can in some

>ways be seen as the base life force,

>perhaps energy associated with the three

>"lower" chakras.

 

The lower two, the sexual energy, I think. The Tibetans speaks of the

basic life forces, the "winds," (rlung, translated as prana). When I asked

a lama just what is meant by the winds, he said it gets rather

complicated... some have to do with the digestive system or other systems

of the body. in a footnote to Jamgon Kongtrul's _Creation and Completion_,

we have:

>_rlung bcu_, Skt. dasavayu: the five basic vital winds of breath;

>excretion/reproduction; speech; digestion; and

>metabolism/circulation/muscular movement. The five ancillary vital winds

>are those connecting with the eyes, the heart, the nose, the tongue, and

>the whole body. Here the winds maturing means that they have at least

>begun to enter the central channel.

 

The winds in the central channel (sushumna nadi) are what we mean by active

Kundalini, I think. Another footnote says:

>It is a goal of yogic practice to bring the vital winds into the central

>channel, causing the realization of true nature. Conversely, by

>recognizing the intrinsic nature of mind, the vital winds will enter

>spontaneously into the central channel.

 

Love,

Dharma