The Kundabuffer, kundalini, chakras and yoga

[Saman]

This passage reminds me of little sea turtles trying to reach the ocean before being eaten by sea birds and other predators...it is up to them to have Faith in themselves to make it, and perhaps some of those that do, have a higher probable chance of making it, or so I think.

You're being nihilistic, Saman. It is present in almost everything you have ever written that I've seen in the last few years.

Hello Azur. I looked up the word "nihilistic" at dictionary.com to strive to better understand what you mean by stating that I have been almost nihilistic in everything I have written in the last few years, and how I am being nihilistic again now.

_http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nihilistic:

1. total rejection of established laws and institutions.
2. anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.
3. total and absolute destructiveness, esp. toward the world at large and including oneself: the power-mad nihilism that marked Hitler's last years.
4. Philosophy.
a. an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.
b. nothingness or nonexistence.
5. (sometimes initial capital letter) the principles of a Russian revolutionary group, active in the latter half of the 19th century, holding that existing social and political institutions must be destroyed in order to clear the way for a new state of society and employing extreme measures, including terrorism and assassination.
6. annihilation of the self, or the individual consciousness, esp. as an aspect of mystical experience.

Looking at these various definitions and putting them together to perhaps get at what you mean, I am shocked to read to that my writing has come off to you as rejection or denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth. I can't recall ever writing anything that would be in accord with such extremely wishful notions.

it is up to them to have Faith in themselves to make it, and perhaps some of those that do, have a higher probable chance of making it

Everybody makes it. EVERYBODY. But what it is they make it to, that is the question at hand.

When I wrote that, it was in relation to one perhaps making it in their intangible aim. You are correct that everybody makes it somewhere in general, and I think that "somewhere" correlates with their current level of Knowledge and Being and Understanding, but here I was writing in relation to the context of one's aim in the abstract sense of graduating to a STO Realm from the current STS Realm. I apologize for not being clear enough.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

You're being nihilistic, Saman. It is present in almost everything you have ever written that I've seen in the last few years.

Considering the number of possible meanings of that word, could you please elaborate?

Everybody makes it. EVERYBODY. But what it is they make it to, that is the question at hand.

Fwiw, I am not sure why you are emphasizing this as I didn't see any confusion on Saman's part about this, nor do I understand the importance of the point you seem to be making. If you're going to say that everybody makes it, you might as well say that everybody already made it - after all, we are where we are. Wherever you go, there you are. So we've all "made it" to wherever we currently are. I just don't the relevance of pointing that out and stressing its importance as you have, with respect to what Saman said about the turtles.

 

[Azur]

Hello Azur. I looked up the word "nihilistic" at dictionary.com to strive to better understand what you mean by stating that I have been almost nihilistic in everything I have written in the last few years, and how I am being nihilistic again now.

_http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nihilistic:

1. total rejection of established laws and institutions.
2. anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.
3. total and absolute destructiveness, esp. toward the world at large and including oneself: the power-mad nihilism that marked Hitler's last years.
4. Philosophy.
a. an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.
b. nothingness or nonexistence.
5. (sometimes initial capital letter) the principles of a Russian revolutionary group, active in the latter half of the 19th century, holding that existing social and political institutions must be destroyed in order to clear the way for a new state of society and employing extreme measures, including terrorism and assassination.
6. annihilation of the self, or the individual consciousness, esp. as an aspect of mystical experience.

Looking at these various definitions and putting them together to perhaps get at what you mean, I am shocked to read to that my writing has come off to you as rejection or denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth. I can't recall ever writing anything that would be in accord with such extremely wishful notions.

Saman,

I looked it up too, but only after you answered. None of these definitions fit with the impression I got from your original message or why "Nihilistic" blared bright in my impression. It came down to where I got my idea of what nihilism is, so I went looking. It's Nietzsche's take on it that I had come across before that resonated. Here's a small treatise on it:

From _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

In most contexts, Nietzsche defined the term as any philosophy that results in an apathy toward life and a poisoning of the human soul—and opposed it vehemently. He describes it as "the will to nothingness" or, more specifically:

A nihilist is a man who judges of the world as it is that it ought not to be, and of the world as it ought to be that it does not exist. According to this view, our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning: the pathos of 'in vain' is the nihilists' pathos — at the same time, as pathos, an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists.

– Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 585, translated by Walter Kaufmann

Nietzsche asserts that this nihilism is a result of valuing nonexistent or non-extant "higher", "heavenly", or "divine" things (such as God). The nihilist who began by holding these values, after rejecting them, retains a belief that all "lower", "earthly", or "human" ideas are valueless (or so little valuable as to be essentially valueless) because they were considered so in the previous belief system. In this interpretation, any form of idealism, after being rejected by the idealist, leads to nihilism. Moreover, this is the source of "inconsistency on the part of the nihilists". The nihilist continues to believe that only "higher" values and truths are worthy of being called such, but rejects the idea that they exist. Because of this rejection, all ideas described as true or valuable are rejected by the nihilist as impossible because they do not meet the previously established standards.

[...]


To Nietzsche, it was irrational because the human soul thrives on value. Nihilism, then, was in a sense like suicide and mass murder all at once. He considered faith in the categories of reason, seeking either to overcome or ignore nature, to be the cause of such nihilism. "We have measured the value of the world according to categories that refer to a purely fictitious world".[11] He saw this philosophy as present in Christianity (which he described as 'slave morality'), Buddhism, morality, asceticism and any excessively skeptical philosophy.

As the first philosopher to study nihilism extensively, however, Nietzsche was also quite influenced by its ideas. And while he would endorse neither its modern definition nor the definition given above, he certainly was a nihilist in an important sense. Nietzsche's complex relationship with nihilism is most evident in the following well-known quote:

I praise, I do not reproach, [nihilism's] arrival. I believe it is one of the greatest crises, a moment of the deepest self-reflection of humanity. Whether man recovers from it, whether he becomes master of this crisis, is a question of his strength!

– Friedrich Nietzsche, Complete Works Vol. 13

While this may appear to imply his allegiance to the nihilist viewpoint, it would be more accurate to say that Nietzsche saw the coming of nihilism as valuable in the long term. According to Nietzsche, it is only once nihilism is overcome that a culture can have a true foundation upon which to thrive. He wished to hasten its coming only so that he could also hasten its ultimate departure.[6]

Nietzsche's philosophy also shares with nihilism a rejection of any perfect source of absolute, universal and transcendent values.[7] Still, he did not consider all values of equal worth. Recognizing the chaos of nihilism, he advocated a philosophy that willfully transcends it. Furthermore, his positive attitude towards truth as a vehicle of faith and belief and his recognition of (human) nature distinguishes him from the extreme pessimism that nihilism is often associated with.

'To the clean are all things clean' — thus say the people. I, however, say unto you: To the swine all things become swinish! Therefore preach the visionaries and bowed-heads (whose hearts are also bowed down): 'The world itself is a filthy monster.' For these are all unclean spirits; especially those, however, who have no peace or rest, unless they see the world FROM THE BACKSIDE — the backworldsmen! TO THOSE do I say it to the face, although it sound unpleasantly: the world resembleth man, in that it hath a backside, — SO MUCH is true! There is in the world much filth: SO MUCH is true! But the world itself is not therefore a filthy monster!

– Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

it is up to them to have Faith in themselves to make it, and perhaps some of those that do, have a higher probable chance of making it

Everybody makes it. EVERYBODY. But what it is they make it to, that is the question at hand.

When I wrote that, it was in relation to one perhaps making it in their intangible aim. You are correct that everybody makes it somewhere in general, and I think that "somewhere" correlates with their current level of Knowledge and Being and Understanding, but here I was writing in relation to the context of one's aim in the abstract sense of graduating to a STO Realm from the current STS Realm. I apologize for not being clear enough.

Ahh. Ok. I didn't get that and that's more my issue than yours.


The impression I got when reading your message (and I re-read to check the first impression) was of your speaking on Faith, the strength to move oneself, and then reading the highlighted quote:

A: One must get past the idea that there is some sort of "cheerleading squad" attached to individual consciousness units if one is to
progress... it just doesn't work that way!

It was to me a subtle inversion (an impression of one, I don't know why), such as you speak of Faith logically but really might feel some sort of mourning at this statement from the C's.

With this thought, I came across:

This passage reminds me of little sea turtles trying to reach the ocean before being eaten by sea birds and other predators...it is up to them to have Faith in themselves to make it, and perhaps some of those that do, have a higher probable chance of making it, or so I think.

.. and all I could think of is that you ascribed to the "surviving" turtle some reason to their survival (i.e. Faith) that could potentially, if understood, be used like some salve to escape the vagaries of the Universe.

And this is where something in the back of my mind brought forth a pattern, maybe a subtext, to your message(s) that was kinda like my understanding of what nihilism was, via what I read from Nietzsche.

To wit:

"The nihilist continues to believe that only "higher" values and truths are worthy of being called such, but rejects the idea that they exist. Because of this rejection, all ideas described as true or valuable are rejected by the nihilist as impossible because they do not meet the previously established standards."


I may be and probably *am* way off base here. Our reading instrument is all we got, and mine may need adjustment if I'm seeing things that aren't there.

Cheers.

 

[Saman]

Looking at these various definitions and putting them together to perhaps get at what you mean, I am shocked to read to that my writing has come off to you as rejection or denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth. I can't recall ever writing anything that would be in accord with such extremely wishful notions.

Saman,

I looked it up too, but only after you answered. None of these definitions fit with the impression I got from your original message or why "Nihilistic" blared bright in my impression. It came down to where I got my idea of what nihilism is, so I went looking. It's Nietzsche's take on it that I had come across before that resonated. Here's a small treatise on it:

From _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

Thanks for clarifying your impression Azur. I had actually finished writing my reply in regards to my impressions from the small treatise on Nietzche you linked to, and I was going to post it; however, I stopped and realized that I better do my homework to further verify to myself what I am going to say here before I do so. Perhaps I might, although I currently don't think it will be very likely, possibly reevaluate my impressions of him as a "lost" and duped "fragmented soul unit" in the future, that is, with further research and understanding of the context of his life and views from various sources, and not just from wikipedia. I do not really trust this source on most matters. I briefly looked at Cassiopedia, but I have other more important reading tasks to attend to before I start researching with more time and effort on Nietzche. So in order to not have "haste make waste" through ITS hasty "big mouth", I am going to put this on my to do list for later.

Cheers

 

[Cyre2067]

Hey Saman, i wanted to pull out a part of what ya wrote:

This is of course no guarantee that one is not going to have their FRV ( Frequency Resonance Vibration: as Laura has explained it in the Wave Series) dampened through the mind/personality of their "machine" (as Gurdjieff calls it), or say the "Predator Mind" as Carlos Castanda terms it; however, I think that if one keeps opposing the mind in this manner, then gradually one's Will is not given to IT. For instance, speaking from experience, instead of IT, the "False Personality" (another term by Gurdjieff) crying itself to sleep on consecutive nights due to not being able to attain the Will to carry out wishful and self gratifying thoughts and likes within and without, IT starts to gradually become more and more silent on the consecutive nights - due to the firm opposition/"battle" rooted in the more or less "spiritualized" Personality's Faith of Self Respect for it's aim. However, it still tries to steal back the more or less "spiritualized" Personality's Will through various emotionally charged dreams that leave one feeling as IT, that is due to again identifying with IT and thus giving their Will to IT, as one's wakes up from their nightly sleep.

As one who's had his FRV dampened, multiple times, due to my indulgence of the predator's mind I can empathize. However, every experience is a lesson, so when i viewed my recent past as such I was able to see that my Work was suffering from a false-premise. If we start the work on a incomplete or otherwise flawed basis then any results from that will only be temporary, and at best educational. Personally, i got 'as far as i could' and then suffered a huge fall, right back to zero and complete immersion in A influences.

Now I did manage to forge a 'center of gravity' and to wake up my emotional center, however both those bits were ephemeral and temporary. They come and go, and are not permanant. Though I do have a sense of both now, I can recall the 'taste' of the experience, which is useful simply from an educational standpoint.

So when i read your bit above I got the impression that you were suffering and you didn't quite understand why. Maybe that's off base, but that's what I felt. If that's anywhere near accurate perhaps examining the basis with which you are Working might be apropos.

 

[anart]

As one who's had his FRV dampened, multiple times, due to my indulgence of the predator's mind I can empathize. However, every experience is a lesson, so when i viewed my recent past as such I was able to see that my Work was suffering from a false-premise. If we start the work on a incomplete or otherwise flawed basis then any results from that will only be temporary, and at best educational. Personally, i got 'as far as i could' and then suffered a huge fall, right back to zero and complete immersion in A influences.

Interesting. I'm just curious if you think that this line of reasoning could be self-calming? You have presented a 'logical' reason for what has happened. Is that the truth of the matter, though?

Another way to ask this question would be: how can anyone, when just finding and starting the Work know whether their premise is 'false' or not - how can they not have a 'false premise'? Have you given yourself a 'reason' for the actions you have taken that gets you off the hook a bit in your own mind - as in, 'it could not have been any other way, since I started with a 'false premise''?

Now I did manage to forge a 'center of gravity' and to wake up my emotional center, however both those bits were ephemeral and temporary. They come and go, and are not permanant. Though I do have a sense of both now, I can recall the 'taste' of the experience, which is useful simply from an educational standpoint.

This also might be worth examining. It is my understanding that if you had actually forged a 'center of gravity' - things would be different for you at the moment. There is nothing 'ephemeral or temporary' about such an accomplishment. While you may have begun to awaken your emotional center, is this really what you recall when you say you can recall a 'taste' of the experience? Just some questions.

So when i read your bit above I got the impression that you were suffering and you didn't quite understand why. Maybe that's off base, but that's what I felt. If that's anywhere near accurate perhaps examining the basis with which you are Working might be apropos.

Ahhh, that ever-adored suffering. So hard to let go of, so hard to get on the other side of it - so hard to turn it from an unconscious indulgence into a conscious impetus.

Anyway, I just wanted to comment on a few things - no offense intended at all - it just seems that the stories we tell ourselves are so often told to make things easier on us - goodness knows I do it often enough.

 

[Cyre2067]

Heh i love ya Anne

As one who's had his FRV dampened, multiple times, due to my indulgence of the predator's mind I can empathize. However, every experience is a lesson, so when i viewed my recent past as such I was able to see that my Work was suffering from a false-premise. If we start the work on a incomplete or otherwise flawed basis then any results from that will only be temporary, and at best educational. Personally, i got 'as far as i could' and then suffered a huge fall, right back to zero and complete immersion in A influences.

Interesting. I'm just curious if you think that this line of reasoning could be self-calming? You have presented a 'logical' reason for what has happened. Is that the truth of the matter, though?

Self calming it could very well be, thou it's the only explaination that makes sense to me at the moment. Another could be I wasn't ready, or I didn't 'burn with desire' to push through a lot of the 'resistance'. I didn't want to give up those A inf's, wasn't done 'wallowing in the mud' sotospeak. Eitherway, I blew it, and did so repeatedly when offered a myriad of opportunities.

Another way to ask this question would be: how can anyone, when just finding and starting the Work know whether their premise is 'false' or not - how can they not have a 'false premise'? Have you given yourself a 'reason' for the actions you have taken that gets you off the hook a bit in your own mind - as in, 'it could not have been any other way, since I started with a 'false premise''?

I guess one cannot know where one's premise lies, for me, I was sitting between two stools, trying to have my cake and eat it to. Didn't work, and I learned the hard way. I wouldn't say I've given myself anything that 'gets me off the hook', since it happened the way it happened I'm trying to learn from it, and my attitude toward the Work must change completely if it is to be successful. It was my bad, and until I 'fell' I didn't see what I was/was not doing. I also totally under-valued the resource that is networking, and allowed myself to retain 'my own judgement', which was an obvious mistake, I didn't even realize I was doing it.

Now I did manage to forge a 'center of gravity' and to wake up my emotional center, however both those bits were ephemeral and temporary. They come and go, and are not permanant. Though I do have a sense of both now, I can recall the 'taste' of the experience, which is useful simply from an educational standpoint.

This also might be worth examining. It is my understanding that if you had actually forged a 'center of gravity' - things would be different for you at the moment. There is nothing 'ephemeral or temporary' about such an accomplishment. While you may have begun to awaken your emotional center, is this really what you recall when you say you can recall a 'taste' of the experience? Just some questions.

I used center of gravity specifically because I wasn't referring to a magnetic center, maybe you thought I meant the same thing. When I used that phrase I meant I had a general pull toward the Work, and it allowed me to overcome many A influences, but it was nebulous and ephemeral and thus not a true magnetic center.

What I recall is feeling guilt for not pursuing B influences, and that driving me to not answer my phone, to push myself to finish a book. I would get sparks of anger and confusion and using that as a sort of fuel. But again, it was very short lived, but I now know what it was like and that makes it easier to attain it again, osit.

So when i read your bit above I got the impression that you were suffering and you didn't quite understand why. Maybe that's off base, but that's what I felt. If that's anywhere near accurate perhaps examining the basis with which you are Working might be apropos.

Ahhh, that ever-adored suffering. So hard to let go of, so hard to get on the other side of it - so hard to turn it from an unconscious indulgence into a conscious impetus.

Anyway, I just wanted to comment on a few things - no offense intended at all - it just seems that the stories we tell ourselves are so often told to make things easier on us - goodness knows I do it often enough.

I appreciate your insight, and i love your directness. No doubt I am self-calming to some degree, when i think about it, it was almost automatic -

"What was I doing wrong?"
"Sitting between two stools."
"How Can I avoid the same?"
"Vigilance, perspiration, trust."

There's also the key that you really have to WANT it. And not just, "well in the future it'd be nice to have..." you have to want it every waking moment of yer life, and that i think is the difference, fwiw.

 

[Saman]

So when i read your bit above I got the impression that you were suffering and you didn't quite understand why. Maybe that's off base, but that's what I felt. If that's anywhere near accurate perhaps examining the basis with which you are Working might be apropos.

Hi Cyre. Thank you for sharing your impression. I believe I should make a clarification here in order that others better understand where I am coming from. The basic basis with which I am Working with, that is in terms of having Faith in my own Will to have Self Respect for my aim, is the following in a nutshell: Saman, if you give in a relationship that is not reciprocal, then you are not giving when Asked, you are indeed taking due to your own wishful and self gratifying thoughts. Hence, only give when the giving is reciprocal, and thus Asked for.

Therefore, I oppose ITS feelings and sentiments that wish to "give", which is actually taking for the self. I oppose dreams which make me identify with ITs desire to "give". As Laura interpreted Fulcanelli's set of symbols that were mentioned in the Adventure series, "science is the ruler of strength and love. One must oppose the minds superiority for the physical manifestations of power and feeling." In other words, Knowledge leads to pure Will, and through Knowledge one must not give their Will to the "Predator Mind's" chemical yearnings for power and feeling, or so I think. And this opposition causes suffering for IT, but it is conscious suffering by ones true Will. As Laura mentioned in the Wave series, one must acquire a pure Will through making an "unweighted choice", rather then will power in terms of only strength - "the minds superiority for the physical manifestation of power and feeling" - as Nietzche appears to be advocating, or so I think.

 

[henry]

I believe I should make a clarification here in order that others better understand where I am coming from. The basic basis with which I am Working in term of having Faith in my Will to have Self Respect for my aim is the following in a nutshell...

It's kinda strange to read the bolded sentence after reading the word "clarification" in the previous sentence....

 

[Saman]

I believe I should make a clarification here in order that others better understand where I am coming from. The basic basis with which I am Working in term of having Faith in my Will to have Self Respect for my aim is the following in a nutshell...

It's kinda strange to read the bolded sentence after reading the word "clarification" in the previous sentence....

Yikes. Very bad grammar. I will make an edit to the original right now. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[thorbiorn]

A small note on faith. Tickle Me » Left Brain versus Right Brain "test" has a link to a left brain, right brain test. On the site there is given the typical qualities of the left and right brain respeictively.

LEFT BRAIN FUNCTIONS RIGHT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
uses logic uses feeling
detail oriented "big picture" oriented
facts rule imagination rules
words and language symbols and images
present and past present and future
maths and science philosophy & religion
can comprehend can "get it" (i.e. meaning)
knowing believes
acknowledges appreciates
order/pattern perception spatial perception
knows object name knows object function
reality based fantasy based
forms strategies presents possibilities
practical impetuous
safe risk taking

If one looks at the list, it appears that faith involves the right brain more than the left. And that faith being married to knowledge means integration of the functions of the right and left sides of the brain. Just an idea.

On the link above there is a rotating dancer. It is claimed that it turns clock-wise or anti-clockwise depending on which side of the brain the viewer uses predominantly. In the SOTT thread, where I found the link, there are people who reported that they had seen it spin both ways at different times. So far I only see it spin anti-clockwise, but I think it does show something about how I relate to faith as I need knowledge first. Do you think the way we use our brains affect how we relate to faith? Or is faith something different?

thorbiorn

 

[dant]

The way I see it personally, I think that it is a matter of getting the right
perspective. I mean, I see it akin to 'Deja Vue', like Neo saw regarding
the 'black cat' scene. You may have to adjust your *mental* perspective
to see the unexpected. I think this goes with anticipation. What I did was
NOT to anticipate but to allow it to appear freely and to allow for all
possibilities. At least, this was how I was able to change the perspective
and it was easy after that. Somehow, I think, that you have to 'let go'
of the first perspective and look again.

It was a real eye-opener for me and it worked.

Imagine, that we have the opportunity to review the "script", over
and over, unlike what happens in real life, a ONE SHOT view and you
don't most likely have a second opportunity to rewind the film. Wow!

OSIT.

 

[Saman]

A small note on faith. Tickle Me » Left Brain versus Right Brain "test" has a link to a left brain, right brain test. On the site there is given the typical qualities of the left and right brain respeictively.

This list seems opposite to the list provided in the following link:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave12a.htm:

[...]
Now, we are getting somewhere. "Believing that one source contains all knowledge is contradicting reality." It is "conceptually limited."

Over the years, many scientists have studied the effects of head and brain injuries. These studies were aimed at understanding the physiological and psychological effects and used a number of experiments to "map the brain." The results have led to theories about two different modes of thinking or "styles of thought," which are generally attributed to the left and right hemispheres of the brain.

In general, the left side of the brain controls the right side of the body, and the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body. According to the test results and the developing theory, the right brain is most often associated with direct sensual experience of the five sense organs as well as the "sixth sense" of intuitive thinking. "Feelings" are also associated with this side of the brain, and these feelings are often observed to be the result of the person's "sensation" of the environment. This "sensation" of the environment can be the external world or the internal "state of being." Also, we must note that the Right brain, as the Observer of the external and internal environment, only perceives NOW.

The Left Brain is associated with the process of CONCEPTUALIZATION and IMAGINATION in its many forms, including the powers of symbolic imagination and those functions related to the symbols we know as language such as labeling, categorizing, following verbal rules and rules in general. The left hemisphere mode of operation is much like a computer screen on which the whole range of concepts of the mind are portrayed and manipulated in the "mind's eye." One of the main "concepts" we utilize is TIME as in Time future and Time past. Have a look at the chart below to see how the different hemisphere's seem to operate.

Left Hemisphere Consciousness Right Hemisphere Consciousness
Conceptualization/imagination/dogma/TIME future/TIME past Sensing/Perceiving Directly via observation/Empiricism/NOW (no time)
Theoretical imagination Physical connection
Linear logic Nonlinear logic
Ritual/habit/fixed roles/repetition/fixation Creativity/spontaneity
Morality/judgment Compassion/acceptance
Superstition derived from imagination; often misuses limited direct Science based on collecting of data, direct observation; can create
observation and experience. theories with proper use of theoretical imagination
Asceticism/sense deprivation Celebration
Theology: Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Greco-Roman Religion, Judaism, Mysticism: Taoism, Tantrism, Yoga, the "Mystery Traditions,"
Christianity, Islam Gnosticism, Alchemy


Now, this is enormously important to grasp: religions, philosophies, "beliefs" in general, through which we view the world and by which we interact with the world also fall to one hemisphere or the other in terms of how they activate our consciousness. There are teachings that place emphasis on the sensual Right Brain, and there are teachings that place emphasis on the abstract, imaginative Left Brain.

Belief systems organically reflect one or the other of the two kinds of human consciousness.

The "sense oriented" traditions encourage direct interaction with the physical environment. This has been often corrupted to "gala sensuality" of physical pleasure. Nevertheless, the pure Mystical Traditions tend to identify spirituality with the Cosmos itself and urges its followers to seek their unity with God THROUGH the physical world.

On the other hand, concept bound theologies tend to forbid sensual experience and observation, relying instead on imagination to support certain beliefs/faith. In this mode, spirituality is equated with conceptual constructs, images, symbols and words that must be "pictured in the mind's eye," or upheld in an abstract thought of imaginary belief, so that the person is effectively attempting to IMPOSE an imaginary construct on reality rather than observing reality and allowing the observations to form the abstraction.
[...]

I had to edit the format of the table because I didn't know how to paste it properly here. Anyways, what you think about this?

 

[thorbiorn]

The list from Aussiland: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22556678-23272,00.html
It is true the two lists do not completely overlap, but are the differences important? I went to look at Wikipedia to see what they say there about the right and the left side:

Wikipedia under Human Brain

Popular misconceptions

The following are some commonly held misconceptions of the mind and brain perpetuated through urban legends, mass media, and the promotion of dubious products to consumers (Sala, 1999). A number of practitioners of pseudoscience, New Age philosophies, and mystical or occult practices are known to use some of these ideas as a part of their belief systems (also see popular psychology).

[...]
-Humans use only 10% or less of their brain: Even though many mysteries of brain function persist, every part of the brain has a known function.[6][7][8]
--This misconception most likely arose from a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation in an advertisement) of neurological research in the late 1800s or early 1900s when researchers either discovered that only about 10% of the neurons in the brain are firing at any given time or announced that they had only mapped the functions of 10% of the brain up to that time (accounts differ on this point).
--Another possible origin of the misconception is that only 10% of the cells in the brain are neurons; the rest are glial cells that, despite being involved in learning, do not function in the same way that neurons do.
--If all of a person's neurons began firing at once, that person would not become smarter, but would instead suffer a seizure. In fact, studies have shown that the brains of more intelligent people are less active than the brains of less intelligent people when working on the same problems.
--Some New Age proponents propagate this belief by asserting that the "unused" ninety percent of the human brain is capable of exhibiting psychic powers and can be trained to perform psychokinesis and extra-sensory perception.
-Mental abilities are separated into the left and right cerebral hemispheres:[/] Some mental functions such as speech and language (cf. Broca's area, Wernicke's area) tend to be localized to specific areas in one hemisphere. If one hemisphere is damaged at a very early age however, these functions can often be recovered in part or even in full by the other hemisphere. Other abilities such as motor control, memory, and general reasoning are spread equally across the two hemispheres. See lateralization of brain function.

Wikepedia on Lateralization of brain function
Which side?
Linear reasoning functions of language such as grammar and word production are often lateralized to the left hemisphere of the brain. Dyscalculia is a neurological syndrome associated with damage to the left temporal-parietal junction[3]. This syndrome is associated with poor number manipulation, poor mental arithmetic, and an inability to understand or apply mathematical concepts.[4]

In contrast, holistic reasoning functions of language such as intonation and emphasis are often lateralized to the right hemisphere of the brain. Functions such as the transduction of visual and musical stimuli such as spatial manipulation, facial perception, and artistic ability also seem to be lateralized to the right hemisphere.

Other integrative functions such as intuitive or heuristic arithmetic, binaural sound localization, emotions, etc. seem to be more bilaterally controlled.[5]
Left brain functions Right brain functions
sequential simultaneous
analytical holistic
verbal imagistic
logical intuitive
linear algorithmic processing holistical algorithmic processing
mathematics: perception of counting/measurement mathematics: perception of shapes/motions[citation needed]
present and past present and future[citation needed]
language: grammar/words, pattern perception, literal language: intonation/emphasis, prosody, pragmatic, contextual
[6]

So what to conclude. It appears to me that the Australian site and the Wikipedia are in accord, but the Wikipedia is shorter and also matches better with what Laura wrote. At the moment I can not completely understand what is in the Wave. Perhaps it is not so simple to relate faith to any one side of the brain. Faith could also be of many types, is that what Laura means, and you?

Regarding the formatting I also had problems. What one can do to line up the column after the post is completed is to pres 'edit' and then immediately 'preview'. Now you will see your text in the editing window and also have it in the general window. Then you go to see what has to be moved. To fix a skewed column you go to the general window and make an estimate of where the heading should be. Should it go to the left you count how many letters. Then you go to the editing window and move the word to the left using the backspace. If a word has to go to the right you use the space bar. When you have done some adjustments you then press preview again and see what more has to be done. Then go back and continue the process until you are satisfied. It is possible that some smarter way exists, still this is at least one way to do it.

thorbiorn

 

[Azur]

I used center of gravity specifically because I wasn't referring to a magnetic center, maybe you thought I meant the same thing. When I used that phrase I meant I had a general pull toward the Work, and it allowed me to overcome many A influences, but it was nebulous and ephemeral and thus not a true magnetic center.

What I recall is feeling guilt for not pursuing B influences, and that driving me to not answer my phone, to push myself to finish a book. I would get sparks of anger and confusion and using that as a sort of fuel. But again, it was very short lived, but I now know what it was like and that makes it easier to attain it again, osit.

Anyway, I just wanted to comment on a few things - no offense intended at all - it just seems that the stories we tell ourselves are so often told to make things easier on us - goodness knows I do it often enough.
I appreciate your insight, and i love your directness. No doubt I am self-calming to some degree, when i think about it, it was almost automatic -

"What was I doing wrong?"
"Sitting between two stools."
"How Can I avoid the same?"
"Vigilance, perspiration, trust."

There's also the key that you really have to WANT it. And not just, "well in the future it'd be nice to have..." you have to want it every waking moment of yer life, and that i think is the difference, fwiw.

Cyre,

If I may, I'd like to point out a few subtleties.

When you say:

What I recall is feeling guilt for not pursuing B influences

.. you should know that 'B' influences aren't things laying out in a field that you can make your way to finding like lost treasure, after figuring out how to cross a barbed wire fence that you labeled 'A' influences.

They are more like things that come out of the blue, in whatever you are doing, but relevant to what you are doing, at any time, while not being subsumed, distracted, immersed or behaving at the behest of 'A' influences.. The thing is, is that when you are "clear", in moments, or for longer periods, of distraction, self-deception, automatic behaviour, etc, anything encompassed by 'A' influences, you still find yourself living the same life, but it is much quieter.

And then, only then, do you notice subtle impressions, information (relevant to something you may have been asking yourself), or something you were looking at, observing, and you find insight into things you could not capture via words, film, poetry, etc if you tried!

You cannot reach for a 'B' "thingie". They are more subtle than an 'A' influence once the latter has been noticed. But you know without doubt, that something came in. Sometimes a soft wave, other times an arrow resolving complex thoughts into a perfect representation, that encompasses, or organizes it perfectly. Eureka moments are good examples, although NARROW. Sometimes it's a feeling, a filling up of a sense that you can't put your finger on, but when stuck with no real world data, you know to trust implicitly, all things being equal.

You cannot perfect a method to capture them, for they are dependent, and reactionary to how you are. This is why the Way is the way it is. Drop the scales from your eyes, and then whatever you are doing will be aided by what you can now see that you couldn't before.

There are methods for the 'A', but after that, it's all you and who you really are and what you can do and what you want to do, even here in this constraint World.

There's also the key that you really have to WANT it. And not just, "well in the future it'd be nice to have..." you have to want it every waking moment of yer life, and that i think is the difference

Understand that clearer seeing is not an object. It is not a special arrow in your quiver to pull out when you need it. You cannot posses it, point your finger at it, or nurture it.

It is more like discovering that you can breath through your skin underwater. The influences are simply there, available in precise moments when you ask, to be taken in, like taking a breath of air underwater.

In this analogy, breathing through your skin was always physically possible, but you could not get around yourself enough to find out, because everything/everybody said you couldn't, even without being explicit about it.


It's not a goal you can attain, it is simply something that is finally noticed, and was always available.