The Capra Book and all of Gienger’s writings on healing properties of Gemstones have an elevated place in my library. I have always read a lot and am a curious person who likes to “understand” things, however futile that endeavour may be and however limited my success in it.
I also like to see our small but apparently consequential network in a bigger frame of reference.
How come THAT WE ARE HAPPENING at this point in time?
On the one hand I agree with you on the bigger picture of occult motivated control in the unfolding of the new world odor. On the other hand there is also a liberating and enlightening stream, that is woven through the same history of humankind and I would even say through the unfolding of the various schools of thought, however manipulated they may be in some respect.
A thread of genuine inquiry into the nature of our universe, consciousness, matter etc…
To make things more complicated, a lot of people who have contributed valuable insights are somewhat connected to secret societies, cult religions et cetera.
Possibly because this kind of inquiry only survived in these niches.
I am just reading a book on the history of “ether” in the history and philosophy of humankind (By Marco Bischoff, a Swiss author) and it’s not the first time that I find a lot of intelligent contributions have been made by rosicrucians, alchemists, masons, theosophists, and the like. (even Jesuits, shudder)
Some of the broadest and most interesting thinkers, scientists and artists of their time were Freemasons. Take Leibnitz or Goethe in Germany.
Why am I saying this?
Because I wanted to aim at another distinguishing mark.
This has more to do with the story of the fallen egos than with anything else.
I am looking for that definition of what makes the difference between a satanist and a genuinly spiritual person.
Is it the seeking for control? The “separation from god”?
Both may be striving to awaken slumbering potentials (the kundalini force or whatever you want to name it)
Both are talking of enlightenment or bliss.
Is a yogi who sits under a tree for 5 (or 50) years in order to finally see the 1000 petalled lotus flower of total bliss pop up in his crown chakra when the kundalini snake hits the point, a member of the insidious theosophical paradigm, or is he a holy man?
Maybe that’s a stupid question, but it is one that interests me.
If we were the only ones who understand anything at all, the world would be a very depressing place and instant suicide would be well advised.
I prefer to think that there’s a lot of hope and what we do is just a manifestation of a general awakening trend.
G.
Good topic title Georg. It seems to point right to the heart of the problem, though perhaps my take on it is a bit different that what you intended.
“Real”, to my mind, implies something out there, independent of how we look at it: something we cannot change with our desires, thought forms, affirmations, or denials. Being real does not mean it is readily apparent to our ordinary senses, or even extraordinary senses, at all times. But whether or when we can sense it, or accurately describe or even fully understand it, has nothing to do with it being there or not.
For instance the “ether” or “qi” is real, as is the effect on qi of Don’s orgonite inventions: the CB and the TB. That orgone can be “positive” or “deadly” in Reich’s sense is real, but its reality would still be valid, whether Reich had ever observed it or not.
“But what does this have to do with ‘spirituality’, ‘new age’ ideas, or ‘satan’”?, you may ask. I will try to explain.
Reality may have bearing on what we should do, or should not do – in fact it may give meaning to the word "should". The reality that there is a "should" which goes beyond the purpose of gratification of the senses or the ego, is one that is quite difficult to demonstrate strictly through logic: perhaps impossible. Even to define it, or to explain what it is, is not easy. It may require insight, rather than reason, to discern it; and it may change with context and time. But the reality that determines, or is inherent in, the "should", is there nonetheless.
As I understand it, the term "spiritual" indicates non-corporeal things which nonetheless are alive, or have some relationship to the living. "Spirituality" is somewhat more difficult to pin down. It may just mean concern or interest in things spiritual, but it is also used to describe something more specific.
Since reality is not always readily descernible, and since the spiritual is not as well, it may seem plausible that understanding and communicating with things spiritual may help in understanding the real. It may be that certain spiritual entities understand the "real", and can somehow communicate their understanding or help us to understand it. Concern for that aspect of the spiritual is sometimes taken as "spirituality".
There are, however, many kinds and levels of spiritual entities, and the knowledge and perception of reality may vary much among themselves. "Fake" spirituality could come from communication with unreliable spirits just as well as from those who merely feign to have commerce with the spirits and consciously deceive.
A good example is the pendulum. If ones reaction to a pendulum is influenced by a spiritual entity, confidence in the result is essentially confidence in the knowledge and honesty of that particular spiritual entity.
I admit to not knowing much about "new age" philosophy, and this is due to my not having been persuaded that it is worth the study. Its theory seems to be that man and his understanding of reality is evolving, and spiraling upward; that we are now recovering knowledge and understanding that which was lost before; that the bonds to which our behavior and thinking have long been subject are now dissolving, and we are entering a new age in our progress.
This may be or it may not be. Until I see enough evidence that it is true, I see no reason to take it more seriously than any other theory.
It is a "positive" theory in that it seems to indicate that we can achieve progress and understanding rapidly and without excessive work and travail, provided we attune ourselves to, and avail ourselves of, the opportunities of this coming "new age".
But reality is reality, and we cannot determine reality according to what seems to us would be pleasant and easy.
This is not to say that reality cannot be inspiring and uplifting: something which leads us beyond pursuit of pleasure or power. Understanding what this is, and being faithful to what our inspiration through insight tells us we should be doing, and how we should be living, is what i tend to think of as the best use of the term "spirituality". Though it may not be entirely accurate, for I simply do not know if the insight, inspiration, and wondering awe that we are sometimes blessed with, comes always from, or through, spiritual entities.
"Satan", if I properly understand the term, refers to a particular spiritual entity which denies that there exists some reality rationally leading to striving after, and appreciation of, things beyond sense gratification. "Satan" tries to demonstrate to us, and persuade us, that there is not, and cannot be, such a reality. That does not mean he tries to persuade us that there is nothing spiritual, but rather that powers obtained from the spiritual world and spiritual entities are to be acquired ultimately only for selfish purposes.
~Laozu
Kelly, I do not exactly know what I wanted to hear in response to my post. Basically I wanted to get a ball rolling and get us all thinking about what we’re all up to.
I read a very interesting book not too long ago by a guy named Armin Risi from Switzerland, (Machtwechsel auf der Erde) who defined the satanic consciousness as an ego casting a shadow on devine reality because of overestimating the perks of separatedness. (hehe) I found that a very nice definition. Kind of nice and clean, without too much undue excitement.
Our very peculiar contribution to mankind’s quest for “awakening” (probably another poisoned term with mind control connotations) is possibly part of a subterranean avalanche.
After gifting many places and seing the confirmations for more than 5 years now, I feel a need to expand the scope of discussion beyond the “day to day fight”.
In my feeling there is a bigger and much more joyful reality that’s unfolding before our eyes and those misguided WHATEVERTHEYTHINKTHEYARE who passed for the “global elite” for some time (due to lack of a better paradigm) become reduced to a mere nuisance factor that can be handled in due time.
So where do we go from here?
Maybe it’s innapropriate to bring up the question of an overall vision.
I know we all come from very different angles and have different biographies.
What’s our dream?
How do we envisage the world to look like in 2010 or 2020? Maybe it’s not our task to speculate about the future.
I’m not asking us to hammer out a political program, but maybe an exchange of visions would be nice. Just for fun…
Georg
