Conference hydra::dejavu

    Re .0 (George):
    
    You missed a third possibility -- independent creatures composed
    of some sort of [for want of a better word] psychic energy.  This
    may be complicated by the fact that _some_ "evil spirits" may be
    projections, while others may be malignant ghosts, and yet a third
    might be, well, demonic.
    
    My own suspicion is "all of the above," when talking about evil
    spirits (and excluding good and neutral spirits, for that matter).
    
    > Is it usual for there to be a drop in temperature when
    >something is going to manifest itself? ...
    
    That's most usually a ghost phenomenon than one of something
    else that's independent.  My mind's open on projections.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    	I tend to agree with Steve, that these may be independent
    creatures.    But it is well to note that you don't need to
    know for certain the absolute nature of what these things are
    in order to deal with them...
    
	Traditional 'prescriptions' may well work, even if your
    conceptual model is off a little.    I believe that evil spirits
    may be dealt with without needing to prove the validity of
    your conceptual model.     (In the same way we can deal with
    the reality of light, without needing to finally decide
    between the 'wave' model and the 'particle' model.)    I believe
    that there is some validity in looking at spirits as independent
    creatures, and also some validity in seeing them as psychological
    projections.    Perhaps in some way the models are *both* valid,
    and usable.
    
    	Rather than saying; 'which model is true?' we need to be asking;
    'What facts and operations does each model give us access to?'
    
    		Alan.

  .0 &.1 Good points.The reason I lean toward the projection idea
is that most people do not see creepy critters on a consistent
basis.If they were independent creatures I would think people would
be seeing a lot more of them.It could be that they have a validity
of their own and need help to manifest themselves.There are I must
agree many possibilities.So how do you deal with a creepy critter?
Would my sending peace and love toward it and telling it to go it
peace be effective? Or would it have the same results as trying
it on a lion.This is why I think it is important to know if they
are projections created by us or an independent creature with its
own nature.

                   George D.  

    
    
    My question is what of those millions of people out there who
    don't believe an ounce of the stuff in this notesfile?  They
    have been living out their lives without ever thinking in terms
    of evil spirits, or channeling, or Ouija boards, or YCYOR.
    Do they simply have their own systems for dealing with certain
    phenomena?  If they can deal with these things so nonchalantly
    shouldn't we talk to them?  But then, I suppose they wouldn't
    know what we were talking about because at that point the events
    would be a normal part of reality(i.e. nothing out of the ordinary).
    
    Someone mentioned the wave/particle duality of light.  From my own
    experience the stuff of DEJAVU is the stuff of inner life and for
    myself very hard to deal with at times and keep my head above water
    as far as maintaining my personal energy level.  Conversely, when
    I began to read Jung I suddenly felt my self wisked to another,
    different vantage point.  A viewpoint outside myself, looking back
    in and seeing myself and others as very clearly defined and easier
    to understand entities.  At the same time I see both the inner and
    the outer viewpoints as equally valid.  My final question is why
    should I try the inner path when the outer is easier?  I can already
    imagine the answers to this question - "because you need inner growth
    to reach spiritual happiness".  Could it be said that it is impossible
    to experience inner growth through outer growth?  I won't say it.
    Finally (again) why bother with thinking about psychic attacks,
    etc. that drain your energy when you could choose a viewpoint in
    which these things don't exist.  I've found that when I'm not worried
    about activity of this sort it doesn't happen.  Do people want to
    believe that this sort of stuff happens?  Why?  Because if they
    don't believe in attacks then they can't believe in YCYOR, or using
    their power to get what they want?  Isn't that a selfish attitude?
    
    
    Guy
    

    Re.4>  Good points Guy. I also agree that most of this stuff on
    psychic attacks is a crock of B.S. . 
    
                                                  Mike
    

re:    < Note 755.4 by BTO::BEST_G >
                              -< inner vs. outer >-


    
�    ...                      At the same time I see both the inner and
�    the outer viewpoints as equally valid.  My final question is why
�    should I try the inner path when the outer is easier?  
    
    One chooses the path that seems most appropriate.  There's no reason
    to travel the "inner" path unless one wishes to.
    
    
�    about activity of this sort it doesn't happen.  Do people want to
�    believe that this sort of stuff happens?  Why?  Because if they
�    don't believe in attacks then they can't believe in YCYOR, or using
�    their power to get what they want?  Isn't that a selfish attitude?

    People believe in philosophies that work for them, that explain
    their life experiences and provide meaning.  I don't understand
    your statement. To me, it feels like an attack on people who
    haven't adopted a belief system that you have found useful in your
    own life.
    
    	bruce

.4 (Guy)

>   ..............................................  Because if they
>   don't believe in attacks then they can't believe in YCYOR, or using
>   their power to get what they want?

Why do you feel that people who believe in YCYOR wield some power?

You C'dYOR when you said...
>   ...............................  I've found that when I'm not worried
>   about activity of this sort it doesn't happen.

I don't believe in 'phsychic attacks' and such, but I believe I create my
own reality. People who *do* believe in 'attacks' also create their own
reality, just like the lion in the Wizard of Oz...' I *do* believe in
ghosts...', (or not ;')

Jay

    
    re.7
    
    I don't believe those who believe in YCYOR  hold any power - they
    seem to believe it.
    
    re.6
    
    It wasn't intended as an attack of any sort.  It was intended as
    the presentation of a viewpoint(namely mine).  I haven't cut off
    all incoming information to my brain and leave much room for accepting
    others viewpoints, but just as many others in this notefile do I
    am trying to promote my own viewpoint not only for personal reasons
    but for the (hopefully) benefit of others who can perhaps see why
    I think this way.  You have demonstrated the phenomenon of the
    'assumed attack' quite well.  Your assuming that I am attacking
    'people like you' is evidence of the kind of paranoia that I was
    once a slave to.  This is really sounding like an attack now, but
    I assure you that it is not intended that way.  I'm merely saying
    that I, too, have a valid viewpoint, even though at times it may
    be at odds with yours.  This was not really the type of response
    I was looking for, but more a discussion of inner and outer viewpoints.
    Maybe someone can give experiences from an outer viewpoint or just
    a discussion contrasting/comparing the two.
    
    p.s. The opinions of .5 not mine either(at least not completely).
    
    Guy
    

    Re .4 (Guy):
    
    >My question is what of those millions of people out there who
    >don't believe an ounce of the stuff in this notesfile?  They
    >have been living out their lives without ever thinking in terms
    >of evil spirits, or channeling, or Ouija boards, or YCYOR.
    >Do they simply have their own systems for dealing with certain
    >phenomena? 
     
    They may not _encounter_ those phenomena (which tend to be rare).
    Occasionally, some folks might be presented with something paranormal,
    and they just do a "file and forget."
    
    >Finally (again) why bother with thinking about psychic attacks,
    >etc. that drain your energy when you could choose a viewpoint in
    >which these things don't exist. ...
     
    Some people are willing to concede an objective aspect to reality.
    If so, then whether one _wishes_ it or not, the hazards may be
    there.
    
    Re .5 (Mike):
    
    >Re.4>  Good points Guy. I also agree that most of this stuff on
    >psychic attacks is a crock of B.S. . 
     
    Is that what he said?  :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    
    I had thought of the 'file and forget', but was hoping for someone
    to offer another explanation.  
    
    Also, if I believe that these things do not exist then I have
    effectively 'believed them away'.  This is as valid as anyone
    else's belief system.  Maybe I am turning apples into oranges
    here, but that's all anyones belief system does.  Steve Kallis'
    belief system requires him (at least to an extent) to classify
    everything under some parapsychological terminology.  Not that
    that is bad in any way, it's just his way of thinking of things.
    I know I should have addressed that to you more directly Steve,
    because it sounds like I'm speaking for you.  Please don't flame
    me, I'm just trying not to specifically attack anyone.  I'm trying
    to give an example of the way the same things can seem different
    to different people.  I have the feeling everyone will agree with
    that.  How strange....a moment ago everyone disagreed with me.
    
    So I have created my own reality where these things don't exist
    any longer.  At least attacks don't exist.  That's not to exclude
    synchronicity or projection of the shadow or the anima/animus.
    
    
    Guy
    

    Re .10 (Guy):
    
    >I had thought of the 'file and forget', but was hoping for someone
    >to offer another explanation.  
     
    Yes, but it's there.  One unusual incident is turned into an anecdote,
    put in the "imagine that!" category, and just left twisting in the
    breeze in some people's minds.
    
    >Also, if I believe that these things do not exist then I have
    >effectively 'believed them away'. ...
     
    Unless they have objective reality.  Then, they may exist irrespective
    of one's beliefs.  Accordint to traditions, many evil spirits are
    rare, and, more important, one has to seek out actively to find
    (or evoke).  Therefore, if you "don't believe" in them, you won't
    take the effort necessary to find them.
    
    Unless, of course, somebody else finds one and sends it against
    you.  This is orders of magnitude rarer than "merely" finding an
    evil spirit, though.
    
    >..........................................  Steve Kallis'
    >belief system requires him (at least to an extent) to classify
    >everything under some parapsychological terminology.
     
    Are you sure you're not confusing me with Topher?   He's the active
    (and learned) parapsychologist-in-residence hereabouts.
    
    > ..... At least attacks don't exist.  That's not to exclude
    >synchronicity or projection of the shadow or the anima/animus.
                 
     A rose by any other name .... :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    I didn't confuse you with Topher, but there is a small amount of
    similarity.  Topher is more of a purist/skeptic in this way.
    
    
    
    Guy
    
    p.s. But Steve, a rose is much simpler(to me anyway).  A rose doesn't
    usually happen to you and when it does it may wierd you out, changing
    your perception/reality depending on you.
    
    

    RE: .11 (Steve)
    
    > Therefore, if you "don't believe" in [evil spirits], you won't take
    the effort necessary to find them. Unless, of course, somebody else
    finds one and sends it against you.  <
    
    Hmmmm... Like God?   ~/~
    
    John M.

    Re .13 (John):
    
    >Hmmmm... Like God?   ~/~
    
    O, Anchovy, wouldst thou command God?  A certain whirlwind had a
    lot to say about that in the Book of Job... 
    
    Much lower-echelon stuff than _that_.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

    
    The statement, "That does not compute..." (therefore reject) comes
    to mind here.
         
    Cindy

    
    
    File not found
    
    
    :-)
    
    Guy
    
    

    "Next day an evil spirit from God seized upon Saul; he fell into
    a frenzy in the house, and David played the harp to him as he had
    before.  Saul had his spear in his hand, and he hurled it at david,
    meaning to pin him to the wall;..." [1 Samuel 18:10 NEB]
                                           
    I just *had* to!
    
    John M.

    	RE: .17  (John M.)
    
    	Good quote!   So here we have an example of an evil spirit.
    Whatever it was that siezed Saul was an "evil spirit".   I
    suppose we still don't know if it's an independent physical
    entity or a psychological state.   Following the reasoning
    presented in another topic a few minutes ago;  (on animals
    getting cancer...) If the "evil spirit" can get to both animals or 
    humans, then it must somehow be independent of psychological states.

       	In Luke 8:26-33 is the story of a man posessed of many
    demons.   When Jesus was going to cast them out;
    	"...they [the demons] begged him not to banish them into the Abyss.
    There happened to be a large herd of pigs nearby, feeding
    on the hill; and the spirits begged him to let them go into these
    pigs.   He gave them leave; the devils came out of the man and went
    into the pigs, and the herd rushed over the edge into the lake
    and were drowned."

    	Addmittedly the evidence is anecdotal, but it seems to indicate
    that "devils" are independent of human psychological states, since
    the pigs would not have been influenced by suggestion.   For that
    matter, if my cat becomes agitated at something unseen, something
    that *feels* like a wierd presence to me, is this evidence of the
    independent existence of an unseen being?
    
    	Alan.

    re: < Note 755.18 by SSDEVO::ACKLEY "Aslan" >
                   -< real/notreal/real/notreal/real/r.... >-
    

�    ....               If the "evil spirit" can get to both animals or 
�    humans, then it must somehow be independent of psychological states.
         
    There are a lot of assumptions here about animals and psychological
    states that I think are unsupportable...
                            
    
      bruce

RE: .18 (Alan)
    
    > ... if my cat becomes agitated at something unseen, something
    > that *feels* like a wierd presence to me, is this evidence of
    > the independent existence of an unseen being?
    
    It is evidence (not proof by any means, since it might easily be
    coincidence) of either:
    
    	1) Something affecting both you and your cat which
    		a) Might be an "unseen being"?
    		b) Might be something supernatural/paranormal but not
    		   a "being".
    		c) Might be something quite conventional, e.g. ultrasonics,
    		   subsonics, ion concentrations, trace gasses.
    
    	2) You may be affecting your cat
    		a) Through normal means
    		b) Through paranormal means
    
    or	3) Your cat may be affecting you
    		a) Through normal means
    		b) Through paranormal means
    
    It is certainly evidence for *one* of these, but, by itself does
    not distinguish between them.
    
    (Well you asked.)
    
    					Topher

    
      If you all don't mind me asking: How many of you get mad, disturbed,
    upset, angry (What ever you want to call it), when the Gospel is
    preached to you. How many of you, feel like your stomach is crawling
    away from you, when you hear the Gospel preached, against you? Do
    you listen and take heed, or do you get mad?
    
    
    
    LORENZO
    

    Re .21 (Lorenzo):
    
    For me, it's rather the reverse.  Generally (doubtless because of
    my faith), I find comfort in Scriptures.
    
    I know of no care where I've encountered scripture preached "against
    me," however.  _To_ me, to be sure, but that's something else.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    I get really angry when it is preached out of context, misinterpreted, 
    twisted around and shoved down other people's throats....especially 
    in airports. 
    
    I also get angry when I hear hellfire and brimstone (fear God) kinds
    of statements are being used to instill fear in the 'unconverted'
    and thus forcing them to turn to something out of fear as opposed
    to Love.
    
    Does this count?
    
    Cindy

    RE: .21 (Lorenzo)
    
    The Gospel stuff should be in another topic but...
    
    I am thinking more and more that people who have not heard the Gospel
    are the ones who are blessed.
    
    John M.

    RE:23
    
       I love it!! (your answer)
    
    
    Re: 24
    
      In what way? Please explain...
    
    
    LORENZO
    

    Re .last_few:
    
    You might want to check note 461.* on this aspect of the topic.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

re .21

I feel like I would when *anything* is preached to be.  If it makes
sense for me and fits into what I think I am all about, I listen,
otherwise I don't.  The only value the words of the Gospel or any 
other text has is that which I place on them.

Personally, I find some good stuff in there, but don't need anyone
to preach to me about it.  When they do, I don't participate.  

I only get upset when they follow me after I've walked away.

Terry

    < Note 755.24 by DECWET::MITCHELL "The Cosmic Anchovy" >
      
    
    >I am thinking more and more that people who have not heard the Gospel
    >are the ones who are blessed.
     
     John, you mean kind of like 'ignorance is bliss'?  
     
     And might I ask, 'blessed' by whom?
    
     ;-)
     Irena
    
     

re; having the Gospel preched at me;

We had a situation not long ago in the COLORADO Notes file regarding this very 
thing, and the moderator eventually had to write-lock the topic because it 
became very heated.

From what I understand, someone was in the streets yelling fire-and-brimstone, 
you're-a-sinner stuff at passers by, to the point where he was getting inches 
away from various people's faces.  To me, anything yelled at me at short range, 
which tells me I'm no good, is something that really aggravates me.  I view it 
as an intrusion upon my rights.

However, someone preaching anything in a self-help type method, including the 
Gospel, is fine, especially if they're not trying to force me to listen.

An interesting excerpt from book 2 of 28 for your consideration:

 eric \|/
    on the long path to finding enlightenment.
---------------- 
 
                         LETTERS ON OCCULT MEDITATION
                      received and edited by: Alice Bailey
                       Lucis Publishing Company, NY. NY.


                       Chapter: Dangers of Meditation
							    September 25, 1919
"The Dark Brotherhood."

"Today I seek to speak to you on the powers of the Dark Brotherhood. Certain
 laws that govern their actions, certain methods employed by them in work need
 to be realised and certain methods of protection apprehended and utilised. As
 before I have told you the danger is as yet inappreciable to the majority,
 but more and more as time elapses shall we find it necessary to teach you,
 the physical plane workers, how to shield and guard yourselves from attack. 

 The Dark Brothers are - remember this always - "brothers", erring and
 misguided yet still sons of the one Father though straying far, very far,
 into the land of distances. The way back for them will be long, but the mercy
 of evolution inevitably forces them back along the path of return in cycles
 far ahead. Anyone who overexalts the concrete mind and permits it
 continuously to shut out the higher, is in danger of straying on the
 left-hand path. Many so stray... but come back, and then in the future avoid
 like errors in the same way as a child once burnt avoids the fire. It is the
 man who persists in spite of warning and of pain who eventually becomes a
 brother of darkness. Mightily fights the Ego(1) at first to prevent the
 Personality so developing, but the deficiencies of the causal body(2) (for
 forget not that our vices are but our virtues misused) result in a lop-sided
 causal body, over-developed in some direction and full of great gulfs and
 gaps where virtues should be. 

 The dark brother recognises no unity with his species, only seeing in them
 people to be exploited for the furtherance of his own ends. This then, on a
 small scale, is the mark of those who are being used by them wittingly or
 unwittingly. They respect no person, they regard all men as fair prey, they
 use everyone to get their own way enforced, and by fair means of foul they
 seek to break down all opposition and for the personal self acquire that
 which they desire. 

 The dark brother considers not what suffering he may cause; he cares not what
 agony of mind he brings upon an opponent; he persists in his intention and
 desists not from the hurt of any man, woman, or child, provided that in the
 process his own ends are furthered. Expect absolutely no mercy from those
 opposing the Brotherhood of Light. 

 On the physical plane and on the emotional plane, the dark brother has more
 power than the Brother of Light, - not more power per se but more apparent
 power, because the White Brothers choose not to exert Their authority but
 They choose to refrain, working with the powers of evolution and not of
 involution. The elemental forces to be found on these two planes are
 manipulated by two factors. 

 a) The inherent forces of evolution that direct all on to eventual
 perfection. The White Adepts co-operate in this. 

 b) The Dark Brothers who occasionally employ these elemental forces to wreak
 their will and vengeance on all opponents. Under their control work
 sometimes the elementals of the earth plane, the gnomes and the elemental
 the fairy folk of colours brown, grey and sombre-hued. They cannot control
 the devas(3) of high development, nor the fairies of colours bnlue, green and
 yellow, though a few of the red fairies can be made to work under their
 direction. The water elementals (though not hte sprites or sylphs) move on
 occasion to their assistance, and in the control of these forces of
 involution they at times damage the furtherance of our work. 

 Oft too the Dark Brother masquerades as an agent of the light, oft he poses
 as a messenger of the gods, but for your assurance I would say that he who
 acts under the guidance of the Ego will have clear vision, and will escape
 deception. 

 At this time their power is oftimes mighty. Why? Because so much exists as
 yet in the Personalities of all men that respond to their vibration, and so
 it is easy for them to affect the bodies of men. So few of the races,
 comparatively speaking, have as yet built in the higher vibration that
 responds to the key-note of the Brotherhood of Light, who move practically
 entirely on the highest levels (or the atomic and sub-atomic subplanes) of
 the mental, emotional and physical planes. When moving on these subplanes the
 attacks of elementals on lower planes may be felt but effect no harm, hence
 the necessity of pure living and controlled pure emotions and elevated
 thought. 

 You will notice that I said that the power of the Dark Brotherhood is
 dominant apparently on the physical and emotional planes. Not so is it on the
 mental, which is the plane of which the Brothers of the Light work. Mighty
 dark magicians may be located on the lower mental levels, but on the higher,
 the White Lodge dominates, the three higher subplanes being the levels that
 They beg the evolving sons of men to seek; it is Their region, to which all
 must strive and aspire. The Dark Brother impresses his will on human beings
 (if analogous vibration exists) and on the elemental kingdoms of involution.
 The Brothers of Light plead as pleaded the Man of Sorrows for an erring
 humanity to rise upward to the light. The Dark Brother retards progress and
 shapes all to his own ends; the Brother of Light bends every effort to the
 hastening of evolution and - forgoing all that might be His as the price of
 achievement - stays amid the fogs, the strife, the evil and the hatred of the
 period if, in so doing, He may by all means aid some, and (lifting them up
 out of the darkness of earth) set their feet upon the Mount, and enable them
 to surmount the Cross. 

 And now what methods may be employed to safeguard the worker in the field of
 the world? What can be done to ensure his safety in the present strife and in
 the greater strife of the coming centuries? 

 1) A realisation that purity of all the vehicles is the prime essential. If a
 Dark Brother gains control over any man it but shows that that man has in his
 life some weak spot. The door whereby entrance is effected must be opened by
 the man himself; the opening whereby malignant force can be poured in must be
 caused by the occupant of the vehicles. Therefore the need of scrupulous
 cleanliness of the physical body, of clean steady emotion permitted in the
 emotional body, and of purity of thought in the mental body. When this is so,
 co-ordination will be present in the lower vehicles and the indwelling
 Thinker himself permits no entrance. 

 2) The elimination of all fear. The forces of evolution vibrate more rapidly
 than those of involution and in this fact lies a recognisable security. Fear
 causes weakness; weakness causes a disintegration; the weak spot breaks and a
 gap appears, and through that gap evil force may enter. The factor of
 entrance is the fear of the man himself, who opens thus the door. 

 3) A standing firm and unmoved, no matter what occurs. Your feet may be
 bathed in the mud of earth, but your head may be bathed in the sunshine of
 the higher regions. Recognition of the filth of earth involves not
 contamination. 

 4) A recognition of the use of common-sense and the application of this
 common-sense to the matter in hand. Sleep much and, in sleeeping, learn to
 render the body positive; keep busy on the emotional plane and achieve the
 inner calm. Do naught to overtire the body physical, and play whenever
 possible. In hours of relaxation comes the adjustment that obviates later
 tension."


 (1) EGO  Your higher self, spirtitual soul.
 
 (2) CAUSAL BODY  Spiritual stuff that is transferred from your previous
 		  incarnations to the next (the terminating or connector
 		  that's is attached to your Ego, regardless of the physical
 		  body you are currently in).

 (3) DEVAS  Simply put, Christian Angels.
    

    
    <I was going to make this longer but it got rather boring>
    
    so......    
    
    RE: .31
    	    I believe ole Alice needs, or could have used, a refresh
    	course in psychoanalytic theory. She does appear to confuse
    	EGO with SUPER EGO.
    	    If one was to follow her advice using the definitions of
    	EGO learned in basic psychology and "acted under its guidance"
    	one would risk becoming an egocentric (dark brother).
    	    
    		The EGO is a pretty poor place to start a personal
    	philosophy from but that doesn't mean it isn't done. ;-)	
                                
    		but perhaps she invented her own definitions
                or perhaps I didn't get what she wrote.
Sincerly,    
    the incompetent psychologist
    	Craig

I've seen other examples of Lay-experts who use the right terms with the 
wrong definitions.  "Ego" was a psychological buzzword back in early 1900s 
the same way that Frequency, as in a Crystal's Frequency 8-), is used today.

The intent is to sound legitimate and knowledgeable while still trying to 
explain the point.  Alas, things can be lost in the translation.

Dave

    She describes the ego as a seperate entity from the lower self,
    that being composed of a mental body, an emotional body, and a physical
    body. The ego is the spiritual will or higher self. Have I
    oversimplified the concept of the ego by simply saying it's your
    soul? She goes on to say that enlightenment can only be reached
    when your lower self is able to connect and linkup with your higher
    self. At that time, the aspirant will become unaware of their lower
    self and thus move onto the next plane of existance (or become an
    aware spiritual being from then on (if you will)).
    
    Webster defines ego:  one of the three divisions the psyche in
    psychoanalytic theroy that serves as the organized conscious mediator
    between the person and reality. (isn't this the thinking mind?)
    
    superego: ... only partly conscious, represents internalization
    of parental conscience and the rules of society, and functions to
    reward and punish through a system of moral attitudes, conscience,
    and a sense of guilt. (my subconscious mind that stops me from doing
    things like getting pissed off at someone and instead of working
    things out simply killing them).

Any digression appreciated!
    eric \|/    

RE: Last couple.
    
    Ego is simply the Latin for "self" or "I".  In more general usage
    (beyond specifically Freudian psychoanalytic theory) it refers to
    the conscious self.  Unlike many technical terms with very specific
    meanings, it has already been used by so many different schools of
    psychological thought with so many different specialized meanings
    that I can't be too critical of anyone who adapts it to their own
    theories.  Any specialized use requires it to be defined -- including
    the Freudian if that isn't clear from context -- but keep in mind
    that this is an exerpt not just from a single work but from a quite
    large body of works which are meant to be read, to a large part,
    as a course of study.
    
    					Topher

  I believe 'ole Alice' is being given a bum rap here (except for .35-Topher).
 For those quick to relegate Alice Bailey's writings to those of a 'lay-expert'
 using psychological 'buzzwords', consider the following:

- This text was written in 1919.  It is ludicrous to assume that Alice's
  intended meaning matches the 1988 dictionary or psychoanalytical definitions
  of terms such as ego.

- Notice that this is a single chapter out of book 2 of _28_!  Does anyone
  get the feeling that this may be slightly out of context, and that somewhere
  (presumeably book 1 and previously in book 2) Alice more precisely defines
  these terms and concepts?  Especially since Ego and Personality are always
  capitalized in this text, this is a giveaway that a specialized interpretation
  is intended.

- I have not read these books, although I have looked through a couple on the
  prodding of the man who runs 'The Alchemist' bookshop in Hudson, Mass.
  According to him, "The teaching is rather scattered (purposely) throughout
  the books, so you have to read _several_ of Alice Bailey's books before
  you begin to gain some perspective on the context of these writings".
  Here we are basing our perspective on one or two _pages_ of text!

- As I understand Alice's writings, they comprise an extensive description of
  a highly _esoteric_ school of thought, and that these are not presented as
  original 'lay-expert' theories' but rather are a presentation of ancient
  mystery school teachings which have been handed down through these schools
  for millenia.  In this light, I would like to reprint a portion of note
  106.30 which deals with the definition of the term 'esoteric' as it applies
  to another school presented by G.I.Gurdjieff and P.D.Ouspensky.

	  Throughout the Gurdjieff and Ouspensky teachings they stress the
	 possibility for change, the importance of work on oneself in order
	 to change oneself.  These schools are 'secret' only to those outside
	 of the system who have not undergone the initial effort to progress
     ->	 at least to the 'Exoteric  circle'.  Beyond this point, appropriate
     ->	 lessons for the inner circles are presented in a _concise_ language
     ->	 which must be learned by each person (internalized) before they will
     ->	 understand the true meanings.

	  Thus, if this 'secret' knowledge of the inner circle were widely
	 distributed, it would not be properly understood, and would result
	 in an extreme distortion of the actual teaching.  This would not be
	 simply useless, but actually damaging to both the individuals and
	 the school (eg. see references to use of esoteric magic by untrained
	 'inepts' instead of 'adepts').

   It seems to me that the initial responses to Alice Bailey's excerpt are
 an example of this distortion in action.

  Is there anyone who has read _several_ of these books who can shed some
 additional perspective on the terms used in these writings?  I wish it was
 me, but alas, so many books and so little time ...

							Todd

I didn't want my reference to 'Lay Experts' to be negative, but an
explaination of using technical terms in ways that are not normal.  In
replies earlier than mine, people were starting to lean towards a freudian
Ego definition which, at least in my interpertation of what was written,
wasn't what she was talking about.  She seemed to have coined what we call
"The higher self" as the ego.

My observation is that many people, (including engineers!  ;-) get into
this habit of using existing terms with a catch: "It's something like it,
but not quite.  You get the idea though, right?"  I consider anyone who
does this a "lay expert."

After reading this reply, I not sure if it makes any sense to me, either.

    
    
    RE: .36
    	Todd
    		"hold on there bubba-louie"
    	Isn't it sort of silly to assume someone is trying to "relegate"
     something that has been around since 1919 and is still being read?
     
    	<SUBJECT STUFF>
    
    Now it is true that esoteric teachers often teach by throwing a feint
    within a feint within a feint to sneek in a seed that will sprout
    tomarrow, My question lead to the following...
    	was she setting us up for a "fall" so that we would discover
    	something first hand ? (I believe Gurdjief did this quite
    	a lot and also remember something to the effect that this
    	lead to Ouspenskys breaking from Gurdjief and comming to the
    	USA?) Or was she showing us a danger? any teachers word is like
    	a two edged sword, it can cut the way it is intended or can
    	cut another way too. "ouch!"
    
    <regressing to the rathole again>
    
    .31 was entered for our "consideration" and i assume our comment.
    If we were to hold our comments in Dejavu till the whole story is
    told and known i bet there wouldn't be many entries. ;-) As in 
    everything else like Science and Religion. our opinions will change
    when we have more data to base our opinions. Till then .31 is all
    we got.
    
    sincerly
    
    Craig-eater-of-the-HOT-peppers 
                                                                     
    PS. we are all "lay-experts" when we are dealing with something
    someone else has written. 

  
    
    RE: .36 Todd
    
    My perspective is similar to yours.  I have read only 1 full book
    by Alice Bailey and 1 partially.  They are not easy reading.  EAch
    line of text is so full of information that it has to be absorbed
    slowly and new connections made.  A teacher of mine has read almost
    all of her works, and in fact he had made a commitment to himself
    that he would read them all - he started 10 years ago and still
    has a couple to go.  My understanding of the terms Ego and
    Personality ashe used them are differthan we use them today.
    Ego as she used it = Higher Self.
    Personality as she used it = our modern term "ego".

    Try not to jump to conclusions based on one small excerpt from one
    of her many books.  All of them deal with very esoteric concepts.
    Also, though her name is given as the author of all these works,
    much of it was directly inspired by her spirit guide and teacher,
    the Tibetan.  Bailey, along with Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater
    were prolific writers of esoteric material, and they were early
    members of the Theosophical Society.  There is a branch of the
    society in Boston where copies of all these works can be purchased.
    
    Carole
    

    Carole,
    
    Maybe you (or someone else) could answer the following questions which
    have occurred to me since reading .31 :
    
    The references to the Brotherhood of Light and the Brotherhood of
    Darkness intrigue me.  It appears that a collection of ethereal
    beings is described, yet I own a couple of books written or at
    least published by an organization calling themselves "The Brotherhood
    of Light".  These publications are also often (always?) associated
    with the name C.C.Zain, yet I have not figured out whether this
    is someones name, or some kind of pseudonym.
    
    Many people may have seen the numerous characteristicly light-blue
    paperback books from "The Brotherhood of Light".  There appear to be
    _many_ of them covering such topics as the Tarot, the Qaballah, Astrology,
    etc.  If the books that I have are any indication, they are of a
    high quality.  One that I have is a Tarot book which is truly
    remarkable since every card is described first in general terms,
    then with specific interpretations from many different esoteric
    traditions including: Alchemy, Masonry, Qaballah, Magic, Initiation,
    etc.

    So, is "The Brotherhood of Light" which publishes these books related
    to the Theosophists and Alice Bailey, or are they a separate organization
    which is called by the same name?  Does it have any stated connection
    with an ethereal "Brotherhood of Light", or is it an entirely earthbound
    enterprise?  The teachings which they promote have certainly been
    around for a very long time, but how long has this earthbound publishing
    group been around?  Since before Alice Bailey?  Do they do anything other
    than publish books these days?

    Sorry for the ramblings, but I have a lot more questions than answers
    about "The Brotherhood of Light".
            						Todd

    Tood,           
    
    First let me say, that I'm only beginning to read Alice Bailey's
    works. As Carole mentioned, her stuff is *very* difficult to
    comprehend - but do-able if taken in bite sized chunks.
    
    The Brotherhood that Bailey writes about is an etheral collection of
    level_X_enlightened entities (more spirtitualy enlightened than earthly
    man yet, not what I'd call a God). She describes this INCREDIBLY
    COMPLICATED monolithic spiritual hierarchy that exists unbeknown to all of
    us. Where each layer of the hierarchy works as a group towards the
    evolution of both the physical and spirtitual betterment of mankind. In
    turn, this helps propell each spiritual entity onto the next higher plane.
    
    I could be wrong though. Perhaps Bailey expands upon them later on in
    another book. She has a way of teasing you by saying stuff like 
    "You'll come to learn about this later..."
    
    reading....
    eric \|/

    
    
    Oh, this is interesting!  Just what I've always believed!  Sort
    of like public school, and 'we' are in nursery school and the
    elementary kids are 'aids' and the junior high kids assist the
    elementary, etc etc...
    
          Now, are we really at the bottom of the heap?  That's a
    rather...sad?...not sure what word expresses my emotion...thought.
    Are there any 'level' below us, that we are assisting?
    
                      Deb
    
    

    
    RE: .40
    		"Masonry"?
    
    RE: .39     Could we have an address for those who would wish to
    		contact them directly?
    
    "FREE AND ACCEPTED"
    
    	Craig

    
    It is my understanding that the "Brotherhood of Light", as referred
    to by Alice Bailey, are the Ascended Masters and the Dihan-Cohans
    (sp?).  Dihan-Cohans are the overseers of Earth and the human
    civilization.  The "Brotherhood of Darkness" refers to a group of
    "nasty, inherently-evil" beings called Mahma-Cohans (sp?), which are 
    the opposite of Dihan-Cohans.  Negativity stems from the Mahma-Cohans.
    
    Linda

    
    
    For those interested, here's the address and phone number for
    the Theosophical Society in Boston:
    
             122 Bay State Road
             Kenmore Square
             Boston, MA   02215
    
             617-266-0410
    
    The society houses the Quest Bookstore and sponsors a variety
    of classes and workshops.
    
    Carole
    

  I have located my copy of the book "The Sacred Tarot", and have found the
 following partial answers to (only a few of) my own previous questions.
 I thought I would let you all know what I found, and especially the connection
 with The Brotherhood of Light in relation to these tarot teachings.

		"The Sacred Tarot"
		   by C.C. Zain		(I still don't know C.C Zain)

  Each chapter of the book was originally sent out independently in the form
 of a continuing course in the Tarot.  Thus each chapter is independently
 copyrighted as follows :

		  Copyright 1936
		by Elbert Benjamine	(the actual author)

		  Reprinted 1967
		THE CHURCH OF LIGHT
		  P.O. Box 1525		(I don't know if they are still here)
	      Los Angeles, California  90053

  A connection with The Brotherhood of Light is very clearly identified since
 the cover of the book has that inscription prominently displayed (larger than
 the book title) above a fascinating emblem which includes two interwoven dark
 and light triangles in the form of a Star of David, zodiacal symbols, the Sun
 resting on a crescent moon on the top tip of the Star of David, and several
 stars.  Has anyone seen this emblem in any other context?  Also, at the
 beginning of the chapter called "Scope and use of Tarot", is the following
 passage :

	"Iamblichus, a Neo-platonist of the fourth century and an initiate
	 of The Brotherhood of Light, has left us an important document
	 entitled, An Egyption Initiation.

	 It contains an account of the trials of initiation, and of certain
	 information given to the neophyte while passing these tests, in the
	 Mysteries of Ancient Egypt. ..."

  This and other references demonstrate that THE CHURCH OF LIGHT claims to
 accurately represent the teachings of The Brotherhood of Light.  Does anyone
 know whether THE CHURCH OF LIGHT is still actively providing these training
 materials and/or other activities today???

  To demonstrate that this group has a far-reaching perspective on many
 esoteric traditions, I will retype the explanations given in "The Sacred Tarot"
 of the method of presentation and the _ten_ (!) different domains for which
 explanations are described for each Major Arcanum card :

	"In these lessons I have faithfully followed the description of the
	plates, the meaning of the symbols found upon the Major Arcana, and
	the interpretation of the Arcana in each of three worlds (spiritual,
	intellectual, and physical)..."

	Correspondences:

		The corresponding letter and number are a part of the
		translation of An Egyption Initiation.  ... I have (also)
		given the astrological correspondence of each Major Arcana.

		In addition, I have added the corresponding color,
		corresponding musical tone, corresponding occult science,
		corresponding human function, corresponding natural remedy
		and correspnding mineral, to each Arcanum.
		...

	The System of Presentation:

	1. "Number": The Numerological significance of the principle is stated.

	2. "Astrology": It is shown why the principle pictured by the Arcanum
		inevitably corresponds to a certain planet of zodiacal sign.

	3. "Human Function": It is pointed out which one of man's various forms
		and activities are expressions of the principle.

	4. "Alchemy": How this principle, indicated by the arcanum, operates in
		alchemical procedure.

	5. "Bible": As an aid to Bible studies, and the interpretation of
		allegories by means of the tarot, Bible passages are quoted
		which are exemplifications of the principle pictured in the
		arcanum.

	6. "Masonry": To aid the Masonic student to use the tarot to gain the
		esoteric meaning of his rituals, it is shown what Masonic
		teaching is conveyed by the arcanum.

	7. "Magic": In magic, also, the tarot is a valuable aid; and some
		magical principle corresponding to the arcanum being considered
		is set forth.

	8. "Initiation": If I were to omit examples of the use of the tarot
		in pointing out the steps in the soul's pilgrimmage, it would
		be sadly remiss.  This most valuable application is illustrated
		in connection with each arcanum.

	9. "Occult Science": For those who desire to use the tarot in special
		occult studies, the correspondence to some occult science is
		given under each arcanum.

	10. "Minor Arcana and Court Arcana": As a transition function, it is
		shown why the exoteric divinatory significance of the Minor
		Arcana are derived from their numerical relation to the Major
		Arcana, and how their esoteric and more spiritual significance
		derives from a corresponding decanate-division of the zodiac;
		also how the Court Arcana acquire thier significance from the
		zodiacal signs.

  So, has he left anything out? :-)

  One thing is for certain, this book makes it clear that :

	Tarot is not just for parlor games any more ;-)

							Todd