Conference hydra::dejavu

I'd say you've been reading too many Sufi books. :-)

And what of the proposed subject of `inner development'?    -   Chris

    re: Chris
    
         Sounds plausible...not unlike the lead role played by Ellen
    Burstyn in the movie "Resurrection."  (At the end of the movie, she
    moved away from the "maddening crowds" just to be left alone.)
         And in a sense, I agree.  However, what you don't mention
    by name, although it could be inferred, is the preponderance
    of negative ego.  Negative ego is insidious.  Negative ego will
    prevent "dominion."  Dominion cannot and will not co-exist with
    negative ego.  The powers of which you speak are powers of dominion.
    If we live in a world of the five senses, we live in an "outer
    world."  If we search for the inner world, we will utilize other
    senses.  Can the inner world be developed?  Of course!  I personally
    can attest to many people who have developed very impressively
    inwardly.  They do *not* go around advertising...for many reasons.
    Among the reasons, that would be a position of negative ego.  Another
    reason, it would interfere with the magic (for much of magic comes
    from personal belief alone and is not meant to be shared.)
        Another point, it is important to recognize that it can be
    "objective" to talk about content.  But when it comes to form or
    context, objectivity ceases.  Therefore, to attempt to point out to
    someone else what is subjective will undoubtably fail for the 
    other person.
    
    Frederick
    

   Re .0,

-> Those with special powers may occasionally reveal them, in `appropriate 
-> circumstances', but NEVER claim to have them.

-> But perhaps the reason is different - perhaps it is more a question of 
-> `inner development'?    What say you?

   The question with the development of occult powers is, what does the
   one that seeks those powers intend to do with them ? Holding an 
   unusual faculty or power does not absolve one of the responsibility
   for one's actions. Those familiar with the occult laws say that the
   Law of Karma operates even in the realm of the occult. Every thought
   or action returns to its source, and time is no shield.

   Psychic possessions are simply another dimension of people's acqusitive 
   tendencies, and not fundamentally different from material possessions.
   Just as with material possessions, it is possible to acquire to a lesser
   or greater extent, and also to lose psychic powers. 

   Far greater peace is possible without the possession of occult powers,
   than with them, it is said.

   Jana

Re: .4

I very much agree. It is said (in those too many books I have read - from
many traditions and cultures) that the really great examples of spiritual 
development consider the matter of `powers' of various kinds to be 
quite irrelevant to the main issue, and a source of temptation and 
misunderstanding. There is enough evidence of that, right here.

Yet to seek `inner development' is to surely to encounter powers, and no 
easy `peace'.

Chris.

Right. Seeking and discussion are often fruitless, and consume precious
effort without resulting in any insight. I've found that physical
activity is a very good antidote to this preoccupation, and usually has
beneficial side effects, besides. For example, house and garden work
provide exercise, get something done, and may even provide an
opportunity for quiet reflection, meditation, or digestion of this material.

    
    Re.6
    
    Mike,
    
    Yes, that is what is behind yoga - get the energy into the body and
    encounter your own blocks though physical activity.  In the case of
    yoga, it is holding the posture, and integrating the mind, body and
    spirit, provided that yoga is done consciously (be here now).  It is
    one more tool to know thyself.  
    
    Cindy

    Okay, I may be misinterpreting here, but I get the impression that most
    of you feel that psychic abilities won't exist in a person who isn't
    enlightened to some extent - and I add that an enlightened person tries
    to always act with "good" in mind - non destructively.  However, my
    experiences have indicated that there are people of power who ARE
    destructive, who know how to be enlightened, and have chosen to ignore
    or abuse that aspect.  The lack of enlightenment does not appear to have
    lessened their abilities, just redirected them towards destructive and
    selfish goals, rather than constructive goals (I do not include
    selflessness amongst constructive goals yet).
    
    They can use all the tools of the enlightened (yoga, meditation,
    relaxation, etc) towards a different end.  This, to me, implies that
    they are persuing inner destruction (alhtough may not perceive it as
    such).  Their priorities do not hold inner development as important.
    
    To me, certain psychic skills are more like extensions of the senses; 
    they are there to be used, no matter what your intent, you just have to
    exercise them.  Granted, you may be less likely to recognize the skills
    existance if you are not enlightened, but you may still find them.  For
    example, the intense emotions that are readable, or usable.  The
    emotion can be love OR hate.  Each drives the will equally strong.  And
    so, an empath can detect the emotion more easily, or an adept and take
    the energy of the emotion and direct it at another.
    
    Am I making sense???
    
    Beth

Two possible explanations come to mind.

First: I've read that, to some extent, it's possible to learn certain
techniques "on one's own" and abuse them. However (again, from
reading), the amount which can be learned and the damage which can be
done in this manner are limited.

Second: Without knowing the intimate details of the circumstances (and
none of us could possibly know them), it would be impossible to say
that what you've seen is actually malicious behavior. Maybe there is,
in reality, some benevolent motive which isn't evident. Things are not
always what they appear to be.

To say that psychic skills and other forms of perception are an
extension to ordinary human faculties agrees with what I've read. I
believe that the use of the word "enlightened" connotes some sort of
superiority or greater worth, and distorts the issue considerably. The
analogy of the one-year-old learning to speak is appropriate: we don't
think in terms of "superior" or "enlightened" when comparing our verbal
skills to those of the one-year-old.

   Re. .5,

-> Yet to seek `inner development' is to surely to encounter powers, and no 
-> easy `peace'.

   'Inner development' is not a matter of encountering occult powers, any
   more than growing long nails. That is part of the reason why it is so
   difficult to measure 'inner development'. One simple guide, however, 
   is to check the depth of one's peace of mind over time, and how much
   of that peace is dependent on what is considered 'outer circumstance'. 
   Even that  might not be an infallible measure, but is quite a good indicator.

   The tendency is to concur with what is described in 1016.103, courtesy
   Earl Wajenberg -

-> Second: human beings are capable not merely of knowing ABOUT the Divine   
-> Ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct
-> intuition superior to duscursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge
-> unites the knower with the known.

   Keeping that as a guidepost, peace is more easily attainable than with
   worries over the acquisition and use of occult powers or other things.

   Jana
    

    I'd like to propose an alternate way of looking at this.
    
    Suppose you think of life as a process of adapting yourself
    to your environment, as you discover it to be, and optimizing
    your ability to contribute to your world in the ways you
    personally find most meaningful.  Then, you have 'inner development,'
    but not neccessarily organized by a preconceived notion of
    the goal.  
    
    I think an argument could even be made that 'peace of mind'
    is not neccessarily the optimal condition for all people in
    all environments, although it would certainly be high on my
    priority list at times.  :-)
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    re: .9
    
    >Without knowing the intimate details of the circumstances (and
    >none of us could possibly know them)
    
    Well, between the details I do know (what was done, how it was done,
    the personality of the person who did it), there was no concern
    whatsoever for the harm done to others - selfishness was the driving
    motive in this instance.  I doubt that she had to go to the lengths she
    did to acheive her end, but she definitely went out of her way to harm
    me, out of jealousy and spite (remember, I can read emotions,
    especially when strong, and aimed in my direction).  I was in her way
    and she was going to do ANYTHING to eliminate me as an obstacle (note
    obstacle, not threat - I didn't rate that high with her until I figured
    out how to defend myself, and by that time, she had acheived her goal,
    but continued to attempt to harm me anyway).  Granted, in the overall
    scheme of things, I learned a lot from the encounter, but the results
    were NOT what she was attempting to acheive; quite the opposite.  I
    think she unwittingly acheived the good that came from the encounter,
    while deliberately attempting destruction of me.  Maybe she was used,
    by another, or by God (which is my opinion - the encounter was one of
    those karmic things that had to happen for me to learn a lesson).  But
    as far as she was concerned, only ill for me was to come of the
    encounter.
    
    I have heard tales of others who supposedly destroy, using negative
    ego.  A pregnant girl was physically abused by her boyfriend, and her
    teacher supposedly caused him to have a fatal car accident.  Being
    destructive, however, is harder in most cases because, IMHO,
    destructive events tend to go against the "natural order" of things
    (like trying to make a river go upstream kind of thing, as an analogy).
    
    Beth

    Re .11,

->  Suppose you think of life as a process of adapting yourself
->  to your environment, as you discover it to be, and optimizing
->  your ability to contribute to your world in the ways you
->  personally find most meaningful.  

->  Then, you have 'inner development,' but not neccessarily organized 
->  by a preconceived notion of the goal.  
    
    Are not the above two statements contradictory ? On the one hand
    it is said that there is not a 'preconceived notion of a goal'.

    And then what would 'optimizing your ability to contribute to
    your world' be ? A receding goal, that is theoretically never
    achieved ? Quite surely what is 'personally found most meaningful'
    would keep changing over time, and so would the goal.

->  I think an argument could even be made that 'peace of mind'
->  is not neccessarily the optimal condition for all people in
->  all environments, although it would certainly be high on my
->  priority list at times.  :-)
    
    'Peace of mind' is not stated as 'the optimal condition', but
    the process of comparing the depth of peace of one's own mind
    through introspection, over time, and its relation to 'external
    circumstances' is said to be a good heuristic to gauge 'inner
    development'.

    Without a goal, how could there be a development, a movement
    in a direction ? How could it be distinguished from chaotic
    movement ?

    Jana

    Chaotic movement is merely a higher order... a higher pattern.  Those 
    who move with chaos are practicioners of chaos magick.

    This may have been mentioned before but for some reason it springs to
    mind...
    
    The difference between acquiring knowledge and acquiring wisdom.
    
    I tend to think of wisdom as knowledge which has been absorbed and
    understood and has become part of 'experience' (assimilated knowledge).
    The holder is capable of putting the knowledge into practice and there
    is no conflict within the psyche.
    
    On the other hand, people may be able to acquire knowledge without the
    underlying inner maturity required to comfortably sustain the knowledge.
    The knowledge level far outstrips the maturity level, resulting in an
    unbalanced psyche. (eg people who play with ouija boards without having
    the necessary inner growth to sustain the avalanche of knowledge that
    might result, irrespective of wether the 'knowledge' is channeled,
    imagined or sub-conscious promptings.)
    
    I feel the examples given by Beth is very much the case where
    individuals have acquired knowledge without the underlying work that
    should have taken place. They then use it to feed (as Fred would say ;-)
    the Negative ego. 
    
    Like a chap who goes to Karate lessons to beat up other guys..often in
    the process the need to beat up other guys disapears if the training
    has been balanced and thorough. In all the meditation books I've read
    they caution you not to go on "effect trips" but rather to concentrate
    on the inner work.
    
    -Brian

Re: .15

Thanks Brian. Very helpful. I would like to borrow `effect trips' for future
use - an excellent formulation.

Re: .10

I agree with everything you say Jana. The need is for attunement to the higher
and as soon there is any straining for something, it all goes `wrong'. However,
I would add that even `peace' can become allied with `effect tripping' and 
little-by-little appear as an end in itself.

If I am really open about inner matters, I cannot be *sure* in advance about
what will be relevant at any given moment. I guess you would agree.

This may not be part of your tradition, but one of the `greats' (Jesus) 
apparently surprised his followers by telling them: "I come not to bring
peace, but the sword."  Also, many people find it very hard to understand
why, in the Mahabarata, Krishna (another of the `greats') encourages Arjuna to 
fight. Many other examples could be found from the scriptures that have 
inspired so many to wish for something higher. So there is an issue here.

At present, I understand that if `inner development' is possible, it must lie
in the direction of UNITY. Everything would therefore need to be submitted to 
that direction.

But if, as it appears, all cosmic levels include the interplay of 
*opposing forces*, why should we humans be different?  The inevitable 
conclusion is that development in the direction of UNITY must take us in the 
direction of simultaneous participation in the action of opposing inner forces.
Our purpose may be, with higher help, to *reconcile them*. But, in my view, 
there can no be no evasion of the challenge to be part of the struggle.

Peace *and* struggle. Yes.

Yours   Chris.

   Re: .16,

-> However, I would add that even `peace' can become allied with 
-> `effect tripping' and little-by-little appear as an end in itself.

   This whole business of 'inner development' is tied in with the concept
   of a "subjective self", separate from an "objective world". This is a
   knotty problem, because although it is readily acknowledged, it is very
   difficult to pin down the split. ( There's an excellent series of notes
   on the concepts of 'self' and 'consciousness' in "The Mind's I" by Dennett
   and Hofstadter, and the second essay "On having no head" is especially
   interesting.)

   To say that a "subjective self" is developing means to say that there
   is a change in the attributes of the "subjective self". When it is said
   "I have learnt a lot", does it really signify what is commonly referred
   to as 'spiritual awakening' ? Absolutely not, because the split between
   the 'self' and 'other' still remains. It is the dissolution of this split
   that is referred to in various literature as 'spiritual awakening'.
   Referring back to 1016.103, "the direct knowledge of the Divine Ground
   which unites the Knower with the Known" is the essence of enlightenment.

-> If I am really open about inner matters, I cannot be *sure* in advance about
-> what will be relevant at any given moment. I guess you would agree.

   There is a diversion here, because "what is relevant at a given moment"
   is a matter for behavioral decisions. Again, the question makes an implicit
   acceptance of a "developing self" separate from "others".

-> Peace *and* struggle. Yes.

   The struggle is to give up habitual modes of thought, and peace is the
   natural state, they say.

   Jana

    
    Re.16
    
    Chris,
    
    The two passages you referred to in the Bible and in the Gita - I've
    read interpretations that these refer really to the struggle within
    each of us, and the sword is used to separate the 'lower' from the
    'higher' - our own internal struggle...not against our fellow humans.
    
    Cindy

    re: .13, (Jana),
    
->  Suppose you think of life as a process of adapting yourself
->  to your environment, as you discover it to be, and optimizing
->  your ability to contribute to your world in the ways you
->  personally find most meaningful.  

->  Then, you have 'inner development,' but not neccessarily organized 
->  by a preconceived notion of the goal.  

>    Are not the above two statements contradictory ? On the one hand
>    it is said that there is not a 'preconceived notion of a goal'.
    
    Correct.  They are not neccessarily contradictory.  :-)
    
>    achieved ? Quite surely what is 'personally found most meaningful'
>    would keep changing over time, and so would the goal.
    
    Right on all counts.
    
    I don't see any reason why a dynamic, 'receding' goal should not be
    considered as worthwhile as any single form of spiritual dogma.
    
    What's that you say, *you* can't evaluate *my* progress if I define my
    progress in that manner ?  I don't have any problem with that.
    The topic is 'inner development,' right ?  Not measureable progress
    toward a fixed, established goal, neccessarily.
    
>    'Peace of mind' is not stated as 'the optimal condition', but
>    the process of comparing the depth of peace of one's own mind
>    through introspection, over time, and its relation to 'external
>    circumstances' is said to be a good heuristic to gauge 'inner
>    development'.
    
    I agree that there are good heuristics.  The problem is prioritizing
    one over others for one context, or one person's values, when life itself 
    has no fixed context.   Struggle can be quite uplifting or at least
    developmentally valuable, within ourselves or with others, in my opinion.   
    
    To give an example, the Japanese art of Aikido is in some ways the study of
    harmonious, beautiful struggle.  Without a violent opponent,
    giving struggle, the art would be just a simulation of a dead form,
    not a living illustration of the struggles of life.
    
    							todd

Cindy,

My goodness, after all the things I've put in this conference, surely
you didn't think I meant struggle between human beings! Of course, not. What
you say is exactly what I meant.

The interest for me lies in the fact that the question of `inner devlopment', 
in relation the question of `higher' and `lower', in relation, as Jana says, 
to the question of different `selves', is very difficult. I think it is the 
most difficult subject there is, and not everyone wants to face it. 
Why should they?

But for those who are interested, and I know you are, I think it is
important to face up to the implication that there may be different levels, 
or qualities, of human being. 

Some people find this idea totally so unacceptable, that they can get
very hot indeed. It is unavoidable.

But if there can be inner development, in the sense of discovering more
of our real purpose and trying to fulfill it, and if one measures a
person's quality by their relationship to this, what other implication is 
possible than that human beings can be of different qualities.

I am quite aware that this is extremely controversial, and not at all a 
comfortable issue. But if there is no hope of, development, growth, or change,
in our lives and no reason to try, what is the meaning of life?  Not 
philosophically, but actually, for each person one who keeps on from day to day?

I don't think that psychic questions can really be divorced from this
bigger question.

Yours, I hope, in mutual understanding.            Chris.

    Re .19,

->  I don't see any reason why a dynamic, 'receding' goal should not be
->  considered as worthwhile as any single form of spiritual dogma.

    There's a process of discrimination, whereby arbitrary goals and
    dogmas are rejected by some. Sometimes that discrimination is 
    aided by the views of others. Of course, none need practice any
    discrimination until they feel the necessity.

->  What's that you say, *you* can't evaluate *my* progress if I define my
->  progress in that manner ?  I don't have any problem with that.

    There was no mention of "*you*" and "*my*". Neither was there a mention
    of any specific body's problems.

->  The topic is 'inner development,' right ?  Not measureable progress
->  toward a fixed, established goal, neccessarily.

    True. It was assumed that development implied a movement in a direction,
    among alternative directions,and therefore a way of discriminating if the 
    movements were not in 'undesirable' directions. That is the connection.
    
    Jana

    

    
    Re.20
    
    Chris,
    
    No, no, no, no, no...not you!  I was highlighting the point for others,
    since it appeared to not be obvious from that particular note (mho).
    
    Cindy

    To me.. the inner and the outer are the same... all is one... all is
    connected.
    
    Stillness is a natural state but then so is movement.
    
    To me everything is as it should be and it really doesn't matter which
    path one takes as all paths lead to the Whole... are a reflection of
    some aspect of the Whole.
    
    So if one mystic chooses to meditate and 'be peace' ... then that is
    as it should be and he is doing what he should do.
    
    And by the same token, if another mystic chooses to fight the good
    fight,... then that too is as it should be and she too is doing what
    she should do.
    
    It's all just our own dream... what we make it.. what we choose and in
    the manner we choose it to be..
    
    "this must be heaven, here's where the rainbow ends" Grateful Dead
    
    Mary

    
    Actually, Chris, it is very important to explore and get to know one's
    self (or Self).  
    
    So that when someone from an external perspective refers to you as an
    'airhead', you - through knowing yourself - can shake your head, laugh
    and be amused by it all...confident that the other person has NO idea
    whatsoever who you *really* are...(;^)
    
    Cindy

    re: .21, Jana,
    
>->  What's that you say, *you* can't evaluate *my* progress if I define my
>->  progress in that manner ?  I don't have any problem with that.
>
>    There was no mention of "*you*" and "*my*". Neither was there a mention
>    of any specific body's problems.
    
    Not until I deliberately tried to pin down the discussion, that is.
    It was my deliberate choice to try to use a more concrete example
    to be sure we were talking about roughly the same thing with our
    abstracts, which is still not by any means to be regarded as
    a valid assumption, in my opinion.   Abstracts are just too 
    slippery.
    
>    True. It was assumed that development implied a movement in a direction,
    
    Who assumed ?  I don't picture development using the metaphor of
    a straight line with a fixed endpoint.  That's IMO the same mistake
    many people make interpreting Darwin's concept of 
    descent_with_modification, part of the basis for my view of spiritual
    development.  It doesn't imply 'improvement,' it just means change.  Good 
    or bad change is for 'history' and the judgementalists to decide.
    
    I see nothing wrong with chaotic movement in the long run.  
    It doesn't in any way imply that short-term movement is not
    purposeful, just that the environment and the goals change over time.
    
    From your willingness to debate the point about goal-orientation,
    does this perspective seem unreasonable, immoral, or just unclear ?
    
    							todd

      Re .25,

->    It doesn't in any way imply that short-term movement is not
->    purposeful, just that the environment and the goals change over time.
    
->    From your willingness to debate the point about goal-orientation,
->    does this perspective seem unreasonable, immoral, or just unclear ?
    
      How about "None of the above" ?

      The topic was a specific instance of 'goal-orientation', that of
      the case of 'inner development'. There is no implication of 
      extrapolating any specific principle to the generality of the 
      abstract 'goal-orientation'.

      Addressing the question of 'purposeful short-term movements', the
      question arises, just how does a 'subjective self' placed in an
      'objective environment' define purposes, given that it has no
      long-term objectives ? Must a 'subjective self' necessarily react
      to its environment ? 

      Next, does the fact that a 'long run chaotic movement' does not 
      appear as anything 'wrong' to an individual, imply that the choice
      between directed movement ( the straight line analogy might not
      be entirely satisfactory here ) and chaotic movement is even ?
 
->    I see nothing wrong with chaotic movement in the long run.  

      How would one characterize 'wrong' in the long run ? If the answer
      is, nothing is 'right' or 'wrong', does it imply an equivalence of all
      choices within a given context as far as 'inner development' is
      concerned ? Implying thereby that 'inner development' is independent
      of 'purposeful action' ?

      The questions are raised in the context of what is termed here
      as 'inner development'. The intent of the questions is to probe if
      there is a specific view regarding 'inner development' that is 
      yearning to be elucidated, rather than a game of 'Aikido' between
      individual participants.

      It would be useful if the answers were restricted to this context 
      to avoid 'ratholes', the plague of which this conference is somewhat 
      susceptible.

      Jana
    

    re: .26, Jana,
    
>      The topic was a specific instance of 'goal-orientation', that of
    
    	That being the stated definitively as the case, I can see how my 
    	viewpoint here would seem irrelevant or simply distracting --  
    	from your perspective.  Sorry we couldn't find more common ground.
    	Maybe next time.
    
    					kind regards,
    							todd

    
        Re .27,
    
->    	from your perspective.  Sorry we couldn't find more common ground.
    
        I have no interest in reconciling or comparing view points, so 
    	I'll drop out of this topic. However, I'll toss a casual question,
    	
    	Do they that know themselves recognize 'others' ?
    
    	Kind regards to you too, Todd.
    
	Jana
    

    In one of his books, "Learning How To Learn", Idries Shah lampoons a
    popular idea :
    
    "Swami Soanso can stop his heart completely.. he's very spritual."
    
    He may be, but demonstrated control in one unusual, exotic area 
    does not necessarily mean complete spiritual awareness.
    
    karl

Re .22 and .24

1000 thanks, Cindy - what a relief!

You have no idea how jumpy I can get if my `insight' and `self-importance'
seem to be challenged.

But now I can can back to sleep.

Chris

    Mary,
    
    >To me everything is as it should be and it really doesn't matter which
    >path one takes as all paths lead to the Whole... are a reflection of
    
    uhmm...hmmm...yes and well...no...maybe both... Do all roads lead to
    Rome? Well not striclty speaking, but then again, once you are aware
    there is a place called Rome, you could connect the here and there and
    find a path to get to Rome...
    
    ...but then again, maybe some people don't want to go to Rome and there
    may be destinations other than Rome, so will they end up in Rome ?
    ...maybe they'll get spiritually mugged along the way ;-)
    
    geez maybe I should go back to sleep too...zzzz
    
    
    Arrivaderci Roma,
    
    Brian ;-)

Over the years, I have come to rate this topic of `inner development' 
as too challenging for most people, hence a general tendency to bury it 
in `philosophizing', or dismiss it, or ignore it.

The degree to which that happened here can be judged by looking, but, 
on balance, I regret mentioning it and recommend topic 1561.

In that connection, I take the liberty of paraphrasing and adapting part 
of the quotation in 1561.1:

                   -----------------

`Spiritual emergence' brings surprise about the nature of oneself and 
one's world. The result can be disorientation and instability that can 
turn a `spiritual experience' into a `spiritual emergency'.

The capacity to integrate the experience is the key determinant in the 
outcome of `spiritual emergence'. Integration is most likely if:

1. The person has a framework (conceptual or experiential) with which to 
understand and accept the experience.

2. The person has the intellectual, physical and emotional flexibility 
to integrate the experiences into life.

                   -----------------

On this basis, practical `inner development' has to do with creating 
(and sharing in) conditions, for experiences of the primary 
`spiritual emergence', as well as the factors (1 and 2) necessary to 
receive those experiences. 

That's what I try. And I like to encounter friends who have a predeliction
for trying the same. Sometimes I do.

Yours    Chris

>That's what I try. And I like to encounter friends who have a predeliction
>for trying the same. Sometimes I do.

>Yours    Chris
    
    I'm glad you do and I'm glad you did ;^)
    
    -Brian

    I'm curious, wal... why did you choose black magic?  What *is* black
    magick, anyway?  Is the dualism so strong in your perceptions that
    it falls into two separate categories?

    re: .34 (Wal-mart)
    
         Funny, because in *my* perspective, it would be the (negative) ego
    that would say "Give up, don't fight it anymore, don't think anymore,
    don't claim anything...go hide, vegetate, meditate into nothingness,
    escape, anaesthetize, numb out..."
         The brain is a physical tool for thinking with (for humans.)
    Other parts of the self can do other things (like feel.)  
    What you have done is compartmentalized two separate things, which
    could be delineated as masculine/feminine energies...feminine is
    to receive (imagine, feel, perceive, conceive) while masculine is
    doing (action, will, intellect, meaning.)  Running to the feminine
    energies for refuge from run-amok masculine energies won't cut
    it!  (THis is why I get angry at Goddess-based religions...they
    are simply an escape to the opposite extreme===180 degrees from
    masculine or God energy is really the same energy and is NOT a
    solution to masculine energy excess.)
        What you say in that reply of yours indicates a withdrawal or
    a retreat from masculine energy...and your negative ego is setting
    you up to do so.  The more appropriate response would be to embrace
    both sides and to learn how to balance them.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    Re.36 (Frederick)
    
    >This is why I get angry at Goddess-based religions...
    
    Could you be more specific?  Exactly which ones are you angry at?
    
    Cindy

    .38 (Cindy-roo)
    
        ...and happy birthday, by the way...:-)
    
         ...all of them...for they all worship the Goddess, as far as
    I am aware.  For starters, worship is wrong (to me) no matter where
    that power is given away (to.)  Secondarily, to place the Goddess
    above all else, but simultaneously ignoring or discounting "God" is
    misinformed, punitive and is using the same vengeful energy that
    "God"-energy can be (and has been.)
    
    Frederick
    

              
    Re.40
    
    Frederick,
    
    I believe you have a lot of misconceptions of just what Goddess worship
    truly is about.  From what you have written, I can see why you would be
    angry, and why you are against worship.  However I don't believe that
    your view is exactly what the so-called Goddess-worshippers are really
    doing.
    
    Goddess-worship is very, very old - far older than Christianity. 
    Rather than take up this note topic though, I'll start another one so
    that the Goddess-worshippers can present their views.  Perhaps some
    greater understandings will come from such a discussion.
    
    Cindy

HAMER::MONTALVO 
    
>    magick is magick, is that what you are asking? i say "black" magick
>    because the intent was to hurt, not heal. there is supposed to be
>    "white" magick, but i see that as akin to catholism, i.e., prayer.
    
     'Intent' is the differentor... but your reference to "white" magick
    being "as akin to catholism, i.e., prayer" is such a strange and
    bizarre thing to say, wal.  It makes me wonder about you.... about
    your own personal motive and intent.
    
>    by "black" magick, i mean ritualistic satan/demon worship/supplication;
>    i mean using others to carry out your evil deeds; i mean animal 
>    sacrifices; i mean using cemetery soil in food, or being sprinkled on
>    people's clothing, or hiding it in people's houses; i mean one becoming
>    one with a candle (if you know what that means, you know. if you don't,
>    don't ask).
    
     Becoming one with a candle hardly equates to animal sacrifices.  
     You appear to be a person of some extremes.
        

	re. .36  

	Wonderful response Frederick.  I feel Balance is the key word here!

	Not better than, or one-upism, but just little ole Balance.
	thank you for saying that.

	8-)
		
	Meredith

Re .44 (Mary):

     >Becoming one with a candle hardly equates to animal sacrifices.  

Symbolism is many-faceted.  Just worth pointing out that becoming one
with a candle is the obverse of animal sacrifice.  Neither is particularly
healthy, from my perspective.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Why not?  
    
    What did the candle ever do to you? :-)
    
    I mean... the existence of the Fire Elementals preceeds ours by many
    millions of millennium...  their knowledge and experiences and
    perspectives are of great value... one would think.  
    
    What is unhealthy about the sharing of wisdom?
    
    Sometimes I think we get entirely too caught up in our programming.

HAMER::MONTALVO 
    
    I was told once (by a being I highly respect), that thinking in opposites 
    is a very bad habit.  It's difficult to see the whole when one is
    enmeshed in dualism.  It distorts one's perspective... and when
    thinking in opposites, good is *usually* a matter of perspective,
    you know?  One man's Great Satan is another's Hero Of Desert Storm.
    When the time comes to choose in a dualistic world, then yes... we
    usually end up on one side or another... but as a general rule, it's
    better to "picture the bright blue ball just spinning, spinning free"
    "dizzy... with possibilities" as the Dead say.
    This is merely my own very humble opinion of course.
    
    
>    i.e., to have "good" done. that's all. {I am probably {sic} more
>    catholic than most people would believe. my conditioning is of a
>    catholic. 
    
    Mine too.
    

HAMER::MONTALVO 
    
>    yes, we are. but can the program know its programming is faulty if no
>    safeguards were put in.
    
     Well... thats the difference between a conscious, sentient being
     and a piece of software, you know? :-)  Life gives one the ability
     to make quantum leaps.. unsuspected and unexpected.
        
>    do you know what candle magick is? i don't mean where you bring two
>    candles slowly together to "get" the one you love. i mean where one 
>    becomes one with a candle through the application of oil.
    
     Probably not.  I don't belong to any specific tradition and my own
    experiences with candle magick are probably different.
        
    >as to Fire Elementals, yes, I burn candles, i just do not become one
    >with it. why become one with an Elemental? you are you. it is it.
    >why use prayer? why not just be?
    
    Well... why not communicate?  Humans have a great desire to communicate
    with each other... to understand each other... to acquire wisdom from
    the experiences of the other.  The natural progression of this aspect
    of human nature is to extend that thirst for knowledge and wisdom
    outside of the human family.
    
    You are you, your wife is your wife... why communicate?  Why not "just
    be"?  Well... it is the nature of the tree and the bird to just
    be...but we humans are by nature decidedly curious and ever seeking.
    
>    magick by its very nature is "used" to control the forces of the
>    universe. 
    
    Au Contraire my friend... magick by it's very nature is used to
    *understand* the forces of the universe.  Only power freaks seek 
    to control and power freaks don't make very good magickians.  One
    can never really control the forces of the universe, one can only
    work with them and at that... only with their express consent.
    Somethings cannot be forced. :-) (but you knew that, didn't you)
    
    >i would rather find that universe within myself. i would
    >rather practice yoga, and find where my moon is that day, to find
    >where my mercury has moved to, where my venus nature is going, where
    >my mars energy is being directed to, than seek the universe outside
    >and try to change it according to my will (mercury).
    
    To each his own I guess. :-)  ... our diversity is part of our charm..
    or so I've been told. :-)
    
    >when i speak of magick, i speak from experience. i seeked it out
    >because it was used against me. why? so i learned palmestry, i decoded
    >my dreams, i learned the language of astrology, both esoteric and
    >otherwise (natal, mundane), i searched all of the ritualistic
    >literature, i know of the meaning of numbers and letters, i read
    >cards, i travel the astral. all to what end? 
    
    That is for you to decide, I guess.  Many of us have experience with
    magick.  You sought it out for protection.  I sought it out of
    curiousity.  Perhaps our own personal intent in seeking it out colored
    our experiences with it and our attitude towards it.
    
>    i'd rather just enjoy my tea, please. death can come at any time. why
>    not enjoy each and every moment, instead?
 
    Instead? :-)  Why not enjoy each and every moment as well as! :-)   
    
    mary

    Just as human individuals and societies and cultures can find common
    ground in which to communicate... so too can humans communicate with
    species and beings outside of the human family and experience.
    
    Everything that exists shares a common ground... survival.
    
    If everything is connected (and I believe it is), then it is in the
    vested interests of evrything that lives... in fact, of life Itself...
    to see to it that life survives.
    
    And there my friend... is our common ground.

    And actually... everything has a great drive to communicate... even
    trees and birds and fire... one need only speak to it in it's own
    language... 
    
    ... there is a point where everything knows and understands everything
    else... where everything communicates... I guess when you get there, 
    you call it love.
    
    BUT... I'm dithering again... back to work

    re: off-the-Wal
    
          ...can't say I have a problem with your "i"...
      
          Something in last entry (.57 varieties) was disturbing to me, though.
    Somehow, laughing at someone else's emotions doesn't seem particularly
    appealing or appropriate.  In fact, reading that reply sounds
    punishing, cruel, sadistic or just plain inconsiderate to me.
    I question who was the real dominator in that scenario?  
          We all want freedom...we all also admit that others have impact
    on us.  Most of us hesitate to understand the impact that we have
    on others, however.  Further, too many of us refuse to take the 
    freedom with its mandatory responsibility.  The result can be
    freedom without responsibility--which is the child's view of 
    reality.  Awareness is the first step to self-realization.
    Self-realization is understanding the impact...and taking
    ownership (responsibility) for it.  You are free, of
    course, to value your response.  I am free to dislike
    it.  I do.
         As for ego, I will discuss that later.
    
    Frederick
    

From: "Peace Is Every Step", by Thich Nhat Hanh

Real Love

We really have to understand the person we want to love.  If our love is 
only a will to possess, it is not love.  If we think of only ourselves, 
if we know only our own needs and ignore the needs of the other person, 
we cannot love.  We must look deeply in order to see and understand the 
needs, aspirations, and sufferings of the person we love.  This is the
ground of real love.  You cannot resist loving another person when you 
really understand him or her.

From time to time, sit close to the one you love, hold his or her hand, 
and ask, "Darling, do I understand you enough?  Or am I making you 
suffer?  Please tell me so that I can learn to love you properly.  I 
don't want to make you suffer, and if I do so because of my ignorance, 
please tell me so that I can love you better, so that you can be happy."
If you say this in a voice that communicates your real openness to 
understand, the other person may cry.  That is a good sign, because it 
means the door of understanding is opening and everything will be 
possible again.

Maybe a father does not have time or is not brave enough to ask his son 
such a question.  Then the love between them will not be as full as it 
could be.  We need the courage toask these questions, but if we don't 
ask, the more we love, the more we may destroy the people we are trying 
to love.  True love needs understanding.  With understanding, the one we 
love will certainly flower.

	last two..

	Thank you guys, for 'great' replies.

	8-)...love,

	Mikki

    re: .61 (Stone-wal)
    
         I'm not sure why you are apologizing to me...you didn't insult
    me or hurt me in any way, as far as I can tell.  To be honest, I
    have been impressed by lots of what you have written.  I think
    there is value in it.  There were a couple of points wherein I
    disagreed, some of which I have mentioned, some I don't have time
    to get into.  But overall, most of what you stated comes across
    better than lots of other things I read--here and elsewhere.
    So if you leave notes, don't do it on my account, please.  
         I have been made aware that sometimes I say things in a 
    pedantic manner...which may have its place or may not.  Usually,
    I don't notice it until someone points it out.  The down side
    is that some people read rigidity into it, see it as uncompromising
    domination.  The upside is that it can be powerful if it's confident,
    and not arrogant.  Your entries seemed similar in tone to what I'm
    talking about.  What impressed me was your confidence, and your well of
    wisdom.  What caught me enough to respond, was perceived "arrogance."
    Hey, maybe I'm mistaken.  I called what I interpreted and saw.  In
    any case, don't tuck your tail between your legs and scamper home, if
    that's what you're doing.  You appear to be stronger than that.
    All you have to do ;-} is own what you've said--either to stand by
    it or admit a mistake and move on.  No big deal either way, I think.
         As for the episode you mentioned, context is certainly very 
    important.  Reading it as it was written, however, what I took at 
    face value was that the woman was attempting to manipulate you
    (with anger, with weakness, whatever...) but in return, you attempted
    to out-dominate.  Again, based on your subsequent entry, maybe the
    context needed more description.  But I will say that I have had the
    experience of a "laugher" laughing *at* me or someone close to me,
    and though the results may "work out," I really have to question the
    concern or care or understanding by the laughing party.  There is
    lots of room for various interpretation when something is so seemingly
    out of place (like laughing at a funeral, for example.)
        Anyway, do as you will, but apologies to me are unnecessary in my
    opinion, and don't leave if it's because somehow you feel you don't 
    meet my approval (like, so what? and, I'm not "big daddy" or
    anything...)  Okay?
    
    Frederick
    

	last two:  I certainly agree. Please stay Wal.  I also have enjoyed
	your confidence, and wisdom....and humor.


>>    talking about.  What impressed me was your confidence, and your well of
>>    wisdom.  
    
	I feel you *both* have alot to offer.... 

	Nice Reply Frederick

	8-).... the Laug-her

			mikki    

It is pleasing that, after having gone round a big circle, this topic has 
returned fairly close to its point of origin.

Inner development was meant to mean just that - INNER development. It could
even be defined as the enemy of that `ego', that false `inner god', that 
implacable tyrant who has been principally instrumental in messing up human 
and planetary existence.

The teaching I respect most highly and have tried to follow daily, with 
increasing intensity, for many years, speaks of three successive stages:


                 To AWAKEN, to DIE, to be BORN.


The real inner development, or birth, depends on the previous two. Death refers,
of course, to the death in ourselves of all attachments to the sensory and 
egoistic foundations of our current erratic inner lives.


Now, I have probably heard more sophisticated `nihilisms' about `the effort of 
non-effort', including from DEJAVU noters, than many people. But they don't 
carry weight. For me, the `bottom line' is that `God helps those who begin 
trying to help themselves'. Maybe this is truly an objective mistake and that 
the real effort is indeed non-effort, but as things are, this mistake can no 
more be avoided than an adult can avoid having to pass through the stage of 
being a child.

The `next-to-bottom line' is that human beings really do differ in such 
qualities such as `awareness', `self-control', `conscious manifestation', 
`inner authority', `vision', `psychic power', and `genuine non-sentimental 
love and respect for other living beings'.

I know, for sure, that such differences in inner devlopment do exist. I have 
met such more-developed people in circumstances where there could be no 
mistake or deception, and I am not considered, by those who know me, to
be exactly weak, credulous, or easily led. However, I am equally certain that 
those qualities did not arise by themselves. They are known to be very costly, 
and were paid for by much inner work and sacrifice on the road to that 
death already mentioned.

The question that I have wanted to share with everyone who reads this notes 
file is whether some of us are able really to accept the possibility of 
differences between people based on INNER criteria, not EXTERNAL criteria as 
is everywhere the norm. 

If some of us can and do give credence to this possibility of inner development,
the question must then follow: `how can one pass from an inner inadequate to 
an inner somebody of objective value'. Or since there are some who already try 
in this direction: `what can I share of this search with others?.

Yours, as always,

Chris.

Re: -.1

Dear -wal,

I am not surprised your head hurts. Mine probably would also if it had such a 
cascade of notions bubbling through it.

Looking for comman ground, I see that we both care for meditation, and we both 
like the book: `Zen Flesh, Zen Bones.' 

I remember vividly the powerful impact that book had on me when I first read it.
It was in the spring of 1961. I had not long finished university and was doing 
postgraduate research into the molecular biology of cell motility with a cancer
research group. It was the time when I was beginning to take two aspects of my 
life really seriously. One was `inner development' and the other was, of course,
sex. That book was both an education and an inspiration.

Do you remember the story in that book -- it may well be the first one -- about
the `Professor' who came to tea with the Zen `Master'. As I remember it, the 
`Master' filled the `Professor's cup and kept on pouring. The `Professor' 
watched the overflow for a while, but could not restrain himself, and eventually
cried out that the cup was full and could not hold more. "Yes", replied the 
`Master', "it is like you, who are so full of your own opinions and speculations
that there is no room for Zen."

Well, excuse me, but reading your various notes, I am reminded of that 
`Professor'.

But that is not really what I want to share. The point is that, like those 
marvelous Zen stories, you have used the word `master'. It must mean something 
to you. What exactly does it mean? What attributes does a master have? 
How would you know one?

Take the example of myself. About 50 people of `all ages and sexes' consider 
me directly as their `spiritual guide' and `example for inspiration'. I `teach' 
meditation, self-exploration, and many other spiritual and practical skills, 
such as woodwork, batik and breadmaking. I also act as a reconciling
influence in their daily attempts at inner work, and sometimes also in their 
relationship problems. Some hundreds of others, by virtue of a common 
organization, hold me in a similar, but less direct esteem. Does that make me 
a `master' by your definition? I doubt it.

So what is a `master'? 

This question lies right at the heart of the question of `inner development' 
and I thank you most warmly for introducing it.

On other topics from your note:

You picked up my phrase `pass from an inner inadequate to somebody of objective
value'. Surely you have no problem with this?! Going back to the Zen story, the
`Professor' obviously symbolizes the `inner inadequate'. He is not open to 
intuitive perception of the lesson being given; he cannot restrain himself; 
I dare say that his head is overfull of unreal questions, while his heart is 
empty and untranquil. And for him, it is if his body did not even exist. 
What about yours? Were you aware of it as you began to read this .... ? 

The `Master', on the other hand, symbolises `somebody of objective value'. 
Somebody who not only helped the `Professor' understand his situation but, by 
propagation of the story (true or fictional - it matters not), helped many 
others, including the writer of this note.

The interest, for me, of interaction with you, even if only by these limited 
electronic means, is that we can explore the divergence between ideas and 
experience. 

You mention in several of your notes, the question of sex. You also use the 
image of husband and wife. It matters to you. Well, I have to share with you 
the fact that I now leave the externalization of sex to my daughters. They 
seem more than sufficently active in this field to keep the planet turning 
sweetly on its axis for some years to come. The reason for this is that it is 
a fact of experience, for my wife and me, that `a more intensive innner life' 
has quite other and richer uses for sex energy than that understood by our 
daughters, or implied by your `tantra of meditative copulation', which I too 
once felt as so wonderful and important.

You are concerned about thr `right brain'. I don't much use the `left brain' or 
`right brain' terminology, except in communicating with others who do. But, 
by analogy with things I understand better from experience, I suspect that, 
unlike the `left brain', the `right brain doesn't really need `developing'. 
What is more likely to be needed is to stop getting in the way of its natural 
sensitivity and responsiveness. This would mean starting by letting go, more 
often, more deeply, and longer, of all the crude, slow, boring, internal 
dialogue, and other `associative mental garbage' that creates such a numbing 
noise pollution in our inner silence.

It's more or less what you said yourself, yet I get the strange impression that
you don't yet fully believe it from an indubitable conviction born of your own 
experience. If you did, there would be a difference in ...... 
But then maybe I am mistaken.

Yours,     Chris.

    I rather see Inner Development as an attempt to make the cup obsolete.
    
    I remember a quote (forget the source) about how a man who is proud of
    his intellect is like a condemed man being proud of the size of his
    cell.
    
    Brian

    Brian .71,
    
    I like that quote too.  It's attributed to Simone Weil:
    
    	"The intelligent man who is proud of his intelligence is
    	 like the condemned man who is proud of his large cell."
    
    Perennial words of wisdom. :-)
    
    Karen

>    	"The intelligent man who is proud of his intelligence is
>    	 like the condemned man who is proud of his large cell."
    
    Try living in a closet, and then see how you feel about large cells.  
    Might put a new perspective on things.  ;-)
    
    							todd

�    	"The intelligent man who is proud of his intelligence is
�    	 like the condemned man who is proud of his large cell."
    
    I hate to say this, but this statement makes no sense whatsoever.
    
    Laurie.

You meant "this statement makes no sense whatsoever *to me*", right?

The meaning is:

People are generally prisoners of their conditioning, their egos, their
intellect, and many other aspects of themselves which prevent them from
exercising their true free will, and being all they could be. (As an
aside, most of what we believe to be exercise of free will is illusory,
and is mostly conditioning, which can be easily demonstrated by someone
who knows how).

To be proud of one's intellect, or any other of the imprisoning aspects
of our minds, is, like the analogy said, the condemned man who is proud
of the size of his cell. Why would one be proud of a hindrance?

The "condemned" part of the analogy is also accurate: the person who is
imprisoned by such things is condemned to fail to achieve the freedom
of spirit being discussed, and condemned to perish (spiritually) in a
sea of confusion and frustration.

Now intellect, by itself, doesn't necessarily imprison us, but it's
probably true that a person who is *proud* of their intellect is
imprisoned by it. Other people may effectively use their intellect for
the tool which it is.

    re: .75 (Mike)
    
         That sounds like a good interpretation of the quote...
         The difficulty, for me, is in the use of the word "proud."
    When the pride is based on negative ego (better than, worse than)
    then it is, as you say, a limitation.  If the pride is more in
    terms of gratitude, then it becomes a boundary, perhaps, but a
    much less confining one.
    
    Frederick
    

Yes, you're right. The American usage of the word "pride" is vague: we
usually say "pride" when we mean "vanity".

    
    I took it to mean vanity as well, the way I looked at it, intellect is
    a God-given gift (IMO) and being proud or vain about it, is taking
    false credit for something. I prefer being proud of things I've done 
    or created rather than for something that was given to me. Of course,
    this is somewhat off the context of the quote, but it was the best way
    for me to illustrate.....

    Pride = Vanity makes a lot more sense. The problem is that the word
    "pride" as a noun means "inordinate self-esteem", "to be proud" means to
    "take pride in" or to "value", and is a transitive verb. The quote or
    saying uses the word as a verb, hence my querying of the sense of your
    collective reaction. This is a classic example of the subtlety of
    meaning in words having been lost through uncorrected misuse.
    
    Leaving the significant differences between English and American to one
    side, it doesn't seem unreasonable to replace intellect with some other
    "gift" such as the ability to play virtuoso piano. Like intellect, such
    a gift can be wasted, or trained and tuned. I'm afraid, that for me at
    least, the saying is too vague to carry much weight in this context.
    
    Laurie.

    
    Re.-1 
    
    A conference should never be without a member of the DEC Grammar Swat
    Team.    
    
    Cindy

>    We feel safe in our beliefs of marriage, family, religion, nation,
>    caste (blue collar, white collar, or otherwise), colour, race, sex,
>    etc. Just like a prison cell.
    
>    If we are not prisoners of our own countries, why must we have
>    passports to get back in?
    
    Would you mind expanding on the intended meaning of your analogy ?
    
    Why and how would I leave my mind, my convictions, or my beliefs and what 
    kind of passport do I need to get back into it ?
    
    If the point of the analogy is to show that human beings
    are not Gods but finite beings, we have to wonder about why
    it is considered worthwhile, and why it draws responses.
    
    I'll tell you why this draws a 'red flag' in my mind.
    My take on this is that commonly this sort of rhetoric is used to try to 
    persuade people to try bizarre belief systems.  'All you've ever been
    told is a lie !   Read our book and learn The Truth !'
    
    This is often implied to be related to the similar concept of spiritual
    growth, which in some views, such as variations on the popular Jungian, 
    involves re-examination of our own beliefs and dreams in light 
    of our ability to 'individuate,' or reorganize our psyche around the
    archetypal structure of the Self.  The tactic itself of implying
    that people's belief's are meaningless is very commonly used
    as a persuasion tactic by groups that have a lot to gain by
    converting new members.   There are two very closely
    related sides to this process of Initiation or Imprinting.  The
    personal growth through self-insight, and the re-imprinting of
    new beliefs.  
    
    So what does it say exactly on this passport ?
    
    								todd

    I suggest that you drive north to Canada and then come back. I was not
    asked for my passport the last time I did it. The car's plates got me
    in.

    Also I can drive round most of Europe these days without being stopped
    for a passport control. Should I wish to return to the UK I can do so
    without a passport. They don't really it but as a citizen they may not
    deny me entry. My passport is just a quick way of identifying me as a
    UK citizen.

    Jamie.

    Maybe hair dryers are considered deadly weapons in Canada ?  
    Way up in the frozen Tundra, you might melt somebody's house with one ...
    if you could find a place to plug it in.  :*)
    
    								todd

(continueing the rathole :-)  I have gone local within the US, and had to 
repackage some items, and remove a small hot glue gun from carry on to checked
luggage.  It is not out of the ordinary for people to disguise guns and other
dangerous items as common safe items - hair dryers, portable radios, glue guns,
etc.  Did they take apart your hair dryer, or offer you the option of checking
that item, rather that taking it as carryon?  Or did you insist on them breaking
their own safety practices?  Yeah, 9 times out of 10, the item is genuine, but
that 1 time is more than enough to warrant the paranoia, IMHO.  Remember, most
of the security people doing the frontline checking for weapons don't know all
the ways there are to conceal weapons.  They just follow the instructions handed
down to them.

Beth