T.C. said:I'm rereading SH at the moment and I came across this passage where Laura quotes Mouravieff:
p117 said:... as we have already stated, all the 'A' [influences] have counterparts which neutralise them - ['B' influences].
In Gnosis I, Mouravieff wrote:
The black arrows represent influences created within life by life itself, this is the first variety of influence by which man is surrounded. These are called 'A' influences. We will notice that they are distributed almost equally over all the surface of the circle of life. As in the case of all radiant energy in nature, their effect is inversely proportional to the square of the distance; thus man is subject most of all to arrows influencing him from those immediately around him. He is pulled every instant by the way they act at that moment.
The influence of the 'A' arrows on exterior man is imperative; driven, he wanders in the circle of his life from birth to death, following a broken line which is sometimes subject to dangerous changes of direction.
The ensemble of 'A' influences forms the Law of Chance or Law of Accident. Man is subject to its rule, yet if we examine the figure more closely we will perceive that each black arrow is counterbalanced, neutralized in some other part by another arrow equal in force and diametrically opposed, so that if we had left them to effectively neutralize each other the resultant force would have been equal to zero. This means that in their ensemble the 'A' influences are illusory in their nature, although the effect of each one of them is real, so that exterior man takes them for reality.
I thought that what cancelled out A influences were other A influences?
Yes, that is in fact a typo in the first few runs of SH. It will not appear in future print runs. The important point is that the influences of normal life, like the ones that you see on billboards, your TV screen and that you hear repeated by friends and family, serve only to inhibit evolution, they are a morass of contradictions. For one simple example: 20 years ago we were all still told to eat red meat. Then we were told to stop and go more vegitarian. These are contradictory influences, and they cancel each other out for sure, but even if only one was promoted, it would not help humanity evolve. The same goes for differing eligions etc etc.
So maybe Mouravieff was not explaining the process very well. These influences do neutralize each other because of their contradictory nature, but even if there were no contradictions, following 3D influences would still not lead to evolution. From this point of view, to say that they neutralize each other is a bit misleading. As Mountain Crown has said, the only thing that really neutralizes the illusory power of such influences is the other more subtle influences of a higher order