I could hear-via-sense IG's voice chanting foreign language over me during this. I had forgotten this experience entirely. Even now, nearly four years later, I can almost sense it. Like it must have made a real impression on me. I wonder if this is based on some kind of "genetic memory."
Journal Fragment, January 10, 2006
Today I had truly mindblowing frolics in my body, and just as I was leaving my inner space later on, as a surprise my IG (inner guide) went digging for something to give me.
He does all kinds of things, ranging from simple stuff (clothes, jewelry, chainmail once, put on or in me that I 'absorb') to really weird energy lines etc., but tonight he was searching through boxes and such.
I laughed and said, Wait a minute. You're in my head. You're all mental. How can you need to search through anything to find something?!
"It's a bit like searching memory, but more complex," he says.
He finally finds some little box, the size/shape you might buy executive pens in, and he opens it repeatedly, and each time there is something different in it. I grok there is some magic number and when he opens it that count, there is a small necklace in there.
It's an oval of gold. I thought it was a locket at first, but it looked really old, and more like just an oval of hammered gold with some inscription. Instead of putting it on me he made me kneel all formally.
And as I kneel, he puts it around my neck, chanting some official ritual chant in some strange language that I innately understood (somehow) was a form of ancient Gaelic.
When he's done, I say, I know a guy emailing me recently had some Gaelic words in his note, and that must be sparking this energy. But how could I actually "sort of hear" the language from you, when I only see his words on the screen? And what is the odd feeling I have inside me as you say it? And why would his email spark something this major?
IG says, "Just seeing the Gaelic words, even in English letters, holds an energy of its own. You know the warnings about the Enochian letters also. And, how you have covered up books you didn't want the energy of in your room while you slept." (Yes and I was embarrassed at how silly it is, but intuitively sometimes I have.)
I kind of grinned, thinking of "Gaelic energy by osmosis via email!" which seems like a helluva tenuously-magical (or magically-tenuous?) relationship to me.
I felt the effect of his incantation of sorts going through my body still, though. Very odd. I said, "What is this? This is different than how we normally do this."
He tells me (to simplify into end result here, as I don't recall the exact way it came across), that the necklace is "something I've a right to." That it is one my genetics recognize, but I'm getting it only because my genetics 'support' this, not 'because' of them.
I roll my eyes in some disbelief even while closed; I'm a genetic mutt. He says "Really, it's true; the irish, english, scot, and some other things in you carry energy of that type, and combined it may be more than you think."
He added, and I felt this was what made it possible to 'get', while it was my genetics he was saying made it possible for me to 'hold the word' once he'd gotten it for me: One specific woman in your body's past was given this necklace as a recognition and as a blessing.
I realized he meant blessed by some magical people or person. I looked down at it. By today's standards it was fairly small and dull to be honest, though it felt heavy on me.
I say, I feel this going into me, but instead of gradually merging into me until it's gone, like your stuff normally does, I feel as if the tiny symbols on it are somehow breeding and multiplying all throughout my body, like some creative pattern replication, somehow geometric and mathematical, as well as -- well the word "Lyrical" comes to mind.
He indicated that was ok, though different than normal. I was thinking of 'ancient Gaelic' and the bright people of myth, and I said, Do you think the Sidhe or whatever magical entity, would mind some ignorant American wearing a necklace they had blessed in antiquity?
He shrugged and said, "Should you encounter any of them, they will know you by this, any of their number will recognize it. It is more likely to do you good than harm in that respect."
The complexity of how any invisible magical entity would recognize an invisible magical necklace on someone who was never given it but acquired it via genetic-access from a psychic inner construct was so much demand on my suspension of disbelief that it actually started to hurt my brain, so I decided to move on, and I just thanked him and left.
PJ
Showing posts with label Inner Guide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Inner Guide. Show all posts
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Changing of IG
I had forgotten a lot of my previous work with previous Inner Guides. I had forgotten that they taught me things, talked to me now and then, and that "lessons" were often involved. This is important stuff, geez. Practical hands-on energy stuff.
I regret spacing this out. I see that in fact, I have spaced out many 'fluency' points, my works with IGs and OGs and more, that I had forgotten were even possible.
I understand now why I've been driven to collect old accounts. Not only have I seen a lot of new things via the 'connective' overview, but I've been reminded of a lot of options and opportunity.
I think this was the change from IG#2 to IG#3. (I am currently 12/12/09 on IG#4. The change from 3 to 4 is here.)
Journal Fragment (a later part of another med), January 11, 2006
I reminded myself to get to the med already. I went down into the arch area and when my guide went to get up, like to hug me or say hi, I saw that he was leaning on a silver cane with his left hand. My Inner Guide was injured?! I couldn't even imagine such a thing so I started thinking, what does this mean, why am I creating this? I go to him and I realize that this is different, but I feel it must be done: I have to work on him as if he is an archetype.
So I put him on an elevated table of light and I pass my hands over him and I feel that the problem is from just below his hip to just above his knee -- the entire left upper leg. I give myself xray-style vision so I can see 'into' the leg to see the injury, and I see the whole thing -- and it's (this is so funny) like clockworkings or something. It's like he is an android or something. I can see how gears are gummed and things like that.
Now I've had tech symbols in archs before, no big deal, but I still couldn't figure out why he was showing injury, let alone what it meant that this was metallic inside. So I do an ordinary visualization on him, and I clean everything et al. All seems well and better.
But something wasn't right. I stepped back from him, and looked at him. He was looking at me (I've gotten to 'see' him though it's still 'sensing', much better the last 11 days).
"What's wrong?" he says.
"Something isn't right," I say hesitantly. "Like I don't feel... it's not just like I don't feel a connection, as lack of practice or something I've a real problem with can cause that. It's more like... well ok, it's like, I did everything, and I finished it, and now I am looking at you and it, and I don't feel that "sense of rightness" in my gut. The one that tells me that it is ok, that I have done what needed doing."
He sits up, then stands up, and reaches for my hands and takes them, and as I look at him and he looks down at me I realize and understand: he is leaving me.
We just had this conversation not long ago about how he could NOT LEAVE ME without telling me. I said, "Oh no! Oh, no, why would you be leaving me? Why would I need to get a new guide now? Noooo! I've had you for so long! I love you!"
And he hugs me and I "grok" without words that it was a test. That seeing if I could differentiate between "just a visualization" vs. "a visualization based on a legitimate energy construct" was the point of it. His 'injury' and the inner leg he showed me, none of it was real, though it seemed no different to me on the surface than anything else. It was only the gut sense that made me feel it wasn't like other things I worked with.
I gave him a rather tearful goodbye, and he left.
I was standing there thinking, that is a lot of inner change for one day, having your inner landscape change drastically, and now my guide I've had for years has left me.
A new guide appears. I can't see him clearly, which is normal for me when just-meeting an inner guide, except this is different: most of them, I just can't see anything, just a vague sense of them. But him, I could see something pretty well, it's just that all I could see was a sort of white "energy envelope" around him, blocking him, rather than seeing him normally with features and so on.
I can't help but be a little distant from him. I know I will love him muchly, but right then all I could feel was that he wasn't the guide I had gotten so attached to.
I told him I'd like to do a meditation on an archetype that would do me the most good at this moment in time, whatever that was.
A gigantic, sort of inflated bird, maybe eagle-ish but not proportional (like a cartoon maybe), like 10 feet tall and nearly that wide, appears in front of me. I eye the bird, deciding not to auto-force it to size to suit me, feeling that the oversize was one of the things I needed to deal with as a process. I start the work of the first basics (cleaning/clearing, etc.) as that often has some effect on any symptom right off.
Then I feel that, like a meditation I had recently, that I needed to learn to work on issues as if they "were" me, rather than "projected outward" into the archetype. So I began to do what I'd done in the previous med where this idea first came across, go 'into' him, but it didn't work. He didn't want me there, or I wasn't ready, or for whatever reason it wasn't doable.
I was a little disconcerted, and then I remembered this movie I once saw, where a 'faith healer' sort of 'took on' a woman's musculature disease to heal her of it. I wondered if that was safe all things considered! Then I thought well, the archetypal universe in here is all ME though right? I mean it's already me. So I don't see why 'taking on' my archetype's issues would be a big deal. It's just then I'd be dealing with it very personally instead of from the outside.
So I 'took on' the bird's issues, and literally my physical body did this weird shifting at the same time I was visualizing all this. And then I called in various dynamics and processes to cure 'myself', with the clear intent that I was reflecting that arch and it was getting the same energy.
My mind wandered a bit. Then I felt as if my IG whacked me or something! Not hard, just a thump for attention. I suddenly came back to what I was doing, realized I'd fallen into a half-sleep half-dream instead of my med, and realized that my new IG had a way diff response to this: he totally expected better of me and was not as "open to whatever" as my last guide was. For some weird reason I felt the need to say out loud exactly three times, "I'll do better! I'll do better! I'll do better!" and then refocused.
When it was fully done I put my hands out and sent it my energy like a bridge or "confirmation" of our connection. Then I stood back, and I looked over at inner guide, and his face got slightly clearer for me, and all these realizations HIT me at once like a ROTE sort of. To summarize it all, it's like:
If you learn to attune yourself, you can feel everything outside, on the inside.
I used to do "reality med" exercises, where I'd look at 'patterns' inside to see a situation outside in my world, and work to change the patterns as needed. And "archetype med" exercises, where I assumed the archs represent my inner belief systems/relationships with energy. And often in either type of med, I'd get a feeling that a given "issue" for me was for example manifesting in my body in tension or an actual issue in a certain place.
The new IG made me realize I was breaking up into separate pieces a process which is really just a "continuum," just like RV and Tarot and other things are part of a continuum of psi.
I had a rewind of the memory of being in Seattle and once "feeling" colors inside my body, actually feeling where inside my body they impacted. (I'd had a small dose of that when highly 'aware' with classical music, of feeling the sounds as if they were colors and shapes moving around inside my torso.) In Seattle one day I could feel how different colors of 'real' things touched me inside my body and how fake colors mostly didn't (like signs). Walking to work a different way I came around a corner facing a vividly deep red rose bush, and it felt like those sudden shocking air-blowing eye machines at the old optometrists, except right on my heart! -- WOW. I still remember that pretty vividly.
I realized that this was an example of "feeling what is outside you, inside you."
I might feel it in my body; I might feel it like it is a geometry or shape; I might feel it like it is a strange creature I need to interact with somehow. But everything OUTside me, is INside me.
Yes I know! -- we know this, we've even talked about this. I do know that even my trashcan is a "reality dream symbol" that means something. If I desired to have a tall skinny silver trashcan vs. a short wicker basket vs. an ugly bag next to my desk, all these things would be very literal, physically manifested symbols, representing energies of me and of relationship with me. The same goes for people, events, locations, etc.
I abruptly realized that this was the point of the previous archmed with the inflated bird, that I half-got but then missed while doing it. I was right, in that, the arch is *already* part of me, so why would I need to recreate it inside myself. It was not that I actually created inside me the arch's shape etc. I already had it. What I did was *find it inside myself.* And then I went WHOA! flash to remote viewing and "if you could find it within yourself..." this ALL ties together.
There are several other 'layers' and things I don't even remember that was part of this but it really kind of amazed me, this really different way of looking at things -- and realizing that now, PRACTICE means actually DOING THIS in my life, just like I used to do a decade ago when I was really into reality meds and energy work -- feeling inside myself for anything that got my attention, and 'working with' whatever I found, even if it was just offbeat geometrical shapes or whatever. (I mean in normal life.)
Long ago, I had spontaneously done it right. I just had no idea what the hell I was doing. Now I understand what I need to do and how to do it and why. And better yet, I understand why this connects internally to RV yet is a way bigger subject even than the larger world of psi.
So, all that finally passed, and my new IG and I were then much more friendly and affectionate-feeling after sharing all that, compared to initially. And I say ok well, I need to leave, but my former IG has usually been giving me something to wear or absorb or otherwise interact with before I go, do you want to do anything like that?
And he said yeah, and he gave me a little container just like the one my former IG had just given me yesterday, which had contained a flattened oval of pure gold with ancient script on it. It's about the size and shape of an executive pen-set gift box.
So, eager with anticipation, I open it, and I can't really see what's in it; there is a vague sense of something actually blocking my sight, like a tiny piece of his white energy envelope.
I decide I'll just ignore that and reach out for the gift but then I think, no, wait a minute. I don't feel it's right that I should allow myself to "ignore not seeing." This in fact is a very literal problem I've had spiritually, resulting in dreams where I yell at myself, 'You must seeeee! You must seeeee!' so it seemed kind of ironic that I would be willing to "not see" in this case.
So I stopped and forced the tiny energy cloud away from me so I could see, and as I reached for it, I realized that inside the box were two sharp as knives horrid insects of some kind. Now, insects are common symbology for me as you know. So that alone wasn't shocking. And oddly I had no inner "gut sense" of revulsion or fear that I normally have with any archetypal energy that takes that form. It was just something that personally, I felt that was not good for me.
"I am not touching those things." I say flatly to my new IG.
Wow. Understand, I've never, ever, even considered NOT accepting something an IG gave me before. I've had meditations that took DAYS to complete, hours per day, required calling in every good arch, hiding behind them, doing the med with my eyes wide open in the daylight -- I mean, that intense, that frightening or scary. But I have never once questioned that what an inner guide gave me is what I should work with.
"Pick them up," he says.
"I'm not touching the f-ing things" I snap, not angry, just confused about WHY a guide would be giving me something that I just don't feel is right.
I wonder, is he a real guide? Maybe something weird is going on?? How could he not be real, he was so good for me in that med we just did with all those realizations about reality!
And he waves the box into oblivion and suddenly I can see him so much better! And he smiles really kindly now, and he says, "You passed a lot of tests today. This is a lesson of import: you are responsible for yourself."
I say, "Oh.... oh, wow. But wait. You're my IG. You wouldn't hurt me, you're part of me!"
And he said, "The only thing that really IS likely to hurt you is something that is a part of you. Just because something is a part of you doesn't mean that it is fully -- if at all -- integrated with your conscious intent, or that it will not on some level work against you or even harm you."
I thought, like subconscious sabotage. He said "Yes, though this is a much bigger subject than that. You need to FEEL inside you for what is outside. You need to FEEL whether a visualization is working for real or is just an exercise. You need to KNOW, and trust that knowing, when something is not good for you, and not allow yourself to accept things that harm you."
I had a variety of thoughts on many levels then, that he was showing me, about how this pertains to my daily life and relationships.
There was also a sense that I was about to get into deeper water in my meditations and interactions with.. whatever, and that these various lessons were critical to my operating on that level and safely.
I figured I better write it down before I forget it.
PJ
I regret spacing this out. I see that in fact, I have spaced out many 'fluency' points, my works with IGs and OGs and more, that I had forgotten were even possible.
I understand now why I've been driven to collect old accounts. Not only have I seen a lot of new things via the 'connective' overview, but I've been reminded of a lot of options and opportunity.
I think this was the change from IG#2 to IG#3. (I am currently 12/12/09 on IG#4. The change from 3 to 4 is here.)
Journal Fragment (a later part of another med), January 11, 2006
I reminded myself to get to the med already. I went down into the arch area and when my guide went to get up, like to hug me or say hi, I saw that he was leaning on a silver cane with his left hand. My Inner Guide was injured?! I couldn't even imagine such a thing so I started thinking, what does this mean, why am I creating this? I go to him and I realize that this is different, but I feel it must be done: I have to work on him as if he is an archetype.
So I put him on an elevated table of light and I pass my hands over him and I feel that the problem is from just below his hip to just above his knee -- the entire left upper leg. I give myself xray-style vision so I can see 'into' the leg to see the injury, and I see the whole thing -- and it's (this is so funny) like clockworkings or something. It's like he is an android or something. I can see how gears are gummed and things like that.
Now I've had tech symbols in archs before, no big deal, but I still couldn't figure out why he was showing injury, let alone what it meant that this was metallic inside. So I do an ordinary visualization on him, and I clean everything et al. All seems well and better.
But something wasn't right. I stepped back from him, and looked at him. He was looking at me (I've gotten to 'see' him though it's still 'sensing', much better the last 11 days).
"What's wrong?" he says.
"Something isn't right," I say hesitantly. "Like I don't feel... it's not just like I don't feel a connection, as lack of practice or something I've a real problem with can cause that. It's more like... well ok, it's like, I did everything, and I finished it, and now I am looking at you and it, and I don't feel that "sense of rightness" in my gut. The one that tells me that it is ok, that I have done what needed doing."
He sits up, then stands up, and reaches for my hands and takes them, and as I look at him and he looks down at me I realize and understand: he is leaving me.
We just had this conversation not long ago about how he could NOT LEAVE ME without telling me. I said, "Oh no! Oh, no, why would you be leaving me? Why would I need to get a new guide now? Noooo! I've had you for so long! I love you!"
And he hugs me and I "grok" without words that it was a test. That seeing if I could differentiate between "just a visualization" vs. "a visualization based on a legitimate energy construct" was the point of it. His 'injury' and the inner leg he showed me, none of it was real, though it seemed no different to me on the surface than anything else. It was only the gut sense that made me feel it wasn't like other things I worked with.
I gave him a rather tearful goodbye, and he left.
I was standing there thinking, that is a lot of inner change for one day, having your inner landscape change drastically, and now my guide I've had for years has left me.
A new guide appears. I can't see him clearly, which is normal for me when just-meeting an inner guide, except this is different: most of them, I just can't see anything, just a vague sense of them. But him, I could see something pretty well, it's just that all I could see was a sort of white "energy envelope" around him, blocking him, rather than seeing him normally with features and so on.
I can't help but be a little distant from him. I know I will love him muchly, but right then all I could feel was that he wasn't the guide I had gotten so attached to.
I told him I'd like to do a meditation on an archetype that would do me the most good at this moment in time, whatever that was.
A gigantic, sort of inflated bird, maybe eagle-ish but not proportional (like a cartoon maybe), like 10 feet tall and nearly that wide, appears in front of me. I eye the bird, deciding not to auto-force it to size to suit me, feeling that the oversize was one of the things I needed to deal with as a process. I start the work of the first basics (cleaning/clearing, etc.) as that often has some effect on any symptom right off.
Then I feel that, like a meditation I had recently, that I needed to learn to work on issues as if they "were" me, rather than "projected outward" into the archetype. So I began to do what I'd done in the previous med where this idea first came across, go 'into' him, but it didn't work. He didn't want me there, or I wasn't ready, or for whatever reason it wasn't doable.
I was a little disconcerted, and then I remembered this movie I once saw, where a 'faith healer' sort of 'took on' a woman's musculature disease to heal her of it. I wondered if that was safe all things considered! Then I thought well, the archetypal universe in here is all ME though right? I mean it's already me. So I don't see why 'taking on' my archetype's issues would be a big deal. It's just then I'd be dealing with it very personally instead of from the outside.
So I 'took on' the bird's issues, and literally my physical body did this weird shifting at the same time I was visualizing all this. And then I called in various dynamics and processes to cure 'myself', with the clear intent that I was reflecting that arch and it was getting the same energy.
My mind wandered a bit. Then I felt as if my IG whacked me or something! Not hard, just a thump for attention. I suddenly came back to what I was doing, realized I'd fallen into a half-sleep half-dream instead of my med, and realized that my new IG had a way diff response to this: he totally expected better of me and was not as "open to whatever" as my last guide was. For some weird reason I felt the need to say out loud exactly three times, "I'll do better! I'll do better! I'll do better!" and then refocused.
When it was fully done I put my hands out and sent it my energy like a bridge or "confirmation" of our connection. Then I stood back, and I looked over at inner guide, and his face got slightly clearer for me, and all these realizations HIT me at once like a ROTE sort of. To summarize it all, it's like:
If you learn to attune yourself, you can feel everything outside, on the inside.
I used to do "reality med" exercises, where I'd look at 'patterns' inside to see a situation outside in my world, and work to change the patterns as needed. And "archetype med" exercises, where I assumed the archs represent my inner belief systems/relationships with energy. And often in either type of med, I'd get a feeling that a given "issue" for me was for example manifesting in my body in tension or an actual issue in a certain place.
The new IG made me realize I was breaking up into separate pieces a process which is really just a "continuum," just like RV and Tarot and other things are part of a continuum of psi.
I had a rewind of the memory of being in Seattle and once "feeling" colors inside my body, actually feeling where inside my body they impacted. (I'd had a small dose of that when highly 'aware' with classical music, of feeling the sounds as if they were colors and shapes moving around inside my torso.) In Seattle one day I could feel how different colors of 'real' things touched me inside my body and how fake colors mostly didn't (like signs). Walking to work a different way I came around a corner facing a vividly deep red rose bush, and it felt like those sudden shocking air-blowing eye machines at the old optometrists, except right on my heart! -- WOW. I still remember that pretty vividly.
I realized that this was an example of "feeling what is outside you, inside you."
I might feel it in my body; I might feel it like it is a geometry or shape; I might feel it like it is a strange creature I need to interact with somehow. But everything OUTside me, is INside me.
Yes I know! -- we know this, we've even talked about this. I do know that even my trashcan is a "reality dream symbol" that means something. If I desired to have a tall skinny silver trashcan vs. a short wicker basket vs. an ugly bag next to my desk, all these things would be very literal, physically manifested symbols, representing energies of me and of relationship with me. The same goes for people, events, locations, etc.
I abruptly realized that this was the point of the previous archmed with the inflated bird, that I half-got but then missed while doing it. I was right, in that, the arch is *already* part of me, so why would I need to recreate it inside myself. It was not that I actually created inside me the arch's shape etc. I already had it. What I did was *find it inside myself.* And then I went WHOA! flash to remote viewing and "if you could find it within yourself..." this ALL ties together.
There are several other 'layers' and things I don't even remember that was part of this but it really kind of amazed me, this really different way of looking at things -- and realizing that now, PRACTICE means actually DOING THIS in my life, just like I used to do a decade ago when I was really into reality meds and energy work -- feeling inside myself for anything that got my attention, and 'working with' whatever I found, even if it was just offbeat geometrical shapes or whatever. (I mean in normal life.)
Long ago, I had spontaneously done it right. I just had no idea what the hell I was doing. Now I understand what I need to do and how to do it and why. And better yet, I understand why this connects internally to RV yet is a way bigger subject even than the larger world of psi.
So, all that finally passed, and my new IG and I were then much more friendly and affectionate-feeling after sharing all that, compared to initially. And I say ok well, I need to leave, but my former IG has usually been giving me something to wear or absorb or otherwise interact with before I go, do you want to do anything like that?
And he said yeah, and he gave me a little container just like the one my former IG had just given me yesterday, which had contained a flattened oval of pure gold with ancient script on it. It's about the size and shape of an executive pen-set gift box.
So, eager with anticipation, I open it, and I can't really see what's in it; there is a vague sense of something actually blocking my sight, like a tiny piece of his white energy envelope.
I decide I'll just ignore that and reach out for the gift but then I think, no, wait a minute. I don't feel it's right that I should allow myself to "ignore not seeing." This in fact is a very literal problem I've had spiritually, resulting in dreams where I yell at myself, 'You must seeeee! You must seeeee!' so it seemed kind of ironic that I would be willing to "not see" in this case.
So I stopped and forced the tiny energy cloud away from me so I could see, and as I reached for it, I realized that inside the box were two sharp as knives horrid insects of some kind. Now, insects are common symbology for me as you know. So that alone wasn't shocking. And oddly I had no inner "gut sense" of revulsion or fear that I normally have with any archetypal energy that takes that form. It was just something that personally, I felt that was not good for me.
"I am not touching those things." I say flatly to my new IG.
Wow. Understand, I've never, ever, even considered NOT accepting something an IG gave me before. I've had meditations that took DAYS to complete, hours per day, required calling in every good arch, hiding behind them, doing the med with my eyes wide open in the daylight -- I mean, that intense, that frightening or scary. But I have never once questioned that what an inner guide gave me is what I should work with.
"Pick them up," he says.
"I'm not touching the f-ing things" I snap, not angry, just confused about WHY a guide would be giving me something that I just don't feel is right.
I wonder, is he a real guide? Maybe something weird is going on?? How could he not be real, he was so good for me in that med we just did with all those realizations about reality!
And he waves the box into oblivion and suddenly I can see him so much better! And he smiles really kindly now, and he says, "You passed a lot of tests today. This is a lesson of import: you are responsible for yourself."
I say, "Oh.... oh, wow. But wait. You're my IG. You wouldn't hurt me, you're part of me!"
And he said, "The only thing that really IS likely to hurt you is something that is a part of you. Just because something is a part of you doesn't mean that it is fully -- if at all -- integrated with your conscious intent, or that it will not on some level work against you or even harm you."
I thought, like subconscious sabotage. He said "Yes, though this is a much bigger subject than that. You need to FEEL inside you for what is outside. You need to FEEL whether a visualization is working for real or is just an exercise. You need to KNOW, and trust that knowing, when something is not good for you, and not allow yourself to accept things that harm you."
I had a variety of thoughts on many levels then, that he was showing me, about how this pertains to my daily life and relationships.
There was also a sense that I was about to get into deeper water in my meditations and interactions with.. whatever, and that these various lessons were critical to my operating on that level and safely.
I figured I better write it down before I forget it.
PJ
Friday, December 4, 2009
Rambling 04Dec09
I have a variety of e-post-it notes that I'd wanted to collect here, so it's archived, together, and later I can find it. Many different topics here.
***
My memory is so bizarrely "iffy" when it comes to this entire topic that if I didn't blog everything (to the point of boring even myself) it would be gone forever. Not only does re-reading my blog remind me of things that I had forgotten and their details, but often it reminds me for the fourth time. Is that weird or what. It just falls out of my brain.
It's like that movie '50 First Dates' where the woman has brain damage and every day is the same day from years ago and she has zero memory of anything since. So she wakes up each morning to a video that explains her situation, shows her her kids, and so on! I'm not quite THAT bad, but when it comes to remembering my "shamanic" life, so to speak, at any given time I have pieces, not the whole.
On the other hand, I notice in talking with other people that even if they record their dreams or meditations they tend to forget them and in re-reading them, finding their dream log later, some are refreshers they'd forgotten and some they don't remember at all. Maybe this is normal.
...or not. I'll say more about this later but I think I'm going to do a series of archmeds based on my concern about this.
***
I wonder: what else can IG do, besides archetypes and Aeons? Could this identity/role serve other purposes in my exploration of self/reality?
I don't even know what to ask for, but it feels as if that must be true. Given she and I do not tend to have easy verbal conversation, how can I find out?
I had the impression while typing that I should ask the Private Oracle. I need to get in a very altered state for a bunch of work SOON, like this weekend.
***
You know, in viewing, just like in sports or music performance, it's often very useful to do a lot of "set up". I came up years ago with what I called "emotional sequencing." Basically I map out a list of emotions that I think, when experienced, in a given sequence, prior to the session, actually "amplified" the seeming results. The "power" we have in the "now" is often correlated to emotions when it comes to energy work. So intentionally 'designing' those emotions, seems like a smart thing.
I wonder if this is something that should or could be done, not just for archetype work, but for specific entity conversational work, like talking to the Private Oracle. He did say recently that a big part of getting an answer was truly wanting one. So maybe before attempting that kind of communication, one should do a brief emotional-sequencing effort, to kind of set up an energy base to 'feed' that 'want' first.
***
Long time ago I had this dream that this man came to me, said that my driving-'want' related to remote viewing had called to him, and that he had a feel for me now, and he was going to be my mentor. He told me that he'd been in 'secret projects' of the government for this but that he was one of several that nobody will ever know of in the public.
He was a really big guy, dark hair. I think his name was Ben.
He started by insisting on some things for me to do in my outer reality that had to do with health, the first being exercise. I was hugely resistant to that being part of it. I refused. Maybe that's why I didn't see him again.
I wonder if it was "just a dream" or there was something more to it.
***
That reminds me of the 'soldier in the graveyard' that I encountered in '95, who had been doing something 'unusual and mental' before he died and wanted to talk with me. I had repeated OBE's where I tried to get to him as he was calling me. (He somehow was locked to near his gravesite so I had to go there.)
And every time, just before I reached him, something in my reality -- cats, people near me, people not near me but in cars not far away -- freaked out to some extreme that dragged me out of the OBE state. This happened several times and was so extreme that to this day it brings questions.
Like, just HOW much do we create reality -- did I really cause all those freak-outs in those around me?? Or, is it possible for someone 'else' to be aware of your experience and 'force' that (aliens? inner entities?) to prevent your going there? At the time that was happening I was having so much apparent-interference from other-entities, it's a serious question.
I never reached him. He and I gave up. A short time later I was introduced to soldiers who'd been part of a secret program doing 'remote viewing'. It was someone else who, reading my Bewilderness account one day, say the notes on that and said, "A soldier doing some unusual and mental? And shortly later you ran into this topic in such a big way and became part of it in such a strong way? Don't you think this might be related?"
Which is a good point but I'm a little confused about the part where he died, as although I did not get that info directly, my impression was that whatever he was doing was at least partly responsible for his death. Not sure how what I know as RV could relate to that.
***
One of the big things in remote viewing is the attempt to find a binary potential set with a high level of differentiation in data and its evaluation. In english that means, pick two different 'potential' targets and get data, in a double-blind, that makes which one 'the target' is obvious. If you could do this, you could bet on sports games for example, and not choose 'which' was the target until one wins. And some people do, and have some success, but not much or not for long. This is a complex subject and not as easy as it sounds.
Now you might think anything psi-accurate would fill this need but it doesn't. It might be something about the whole nature of the 'two' potential targets being part of 'one' effort, that blends them at some psychic level. It might be language, since there are limited forms and dynamics in our reality (only the scale, scope and detail vary) and any general description that accurately fits one thing will have at least some areas where it accurately describes any number of other things too. It could be bad luck, or creation-of-reality problems, such as viewer or tasker not 'wanting' to be right at some subconscious level (e.g. they feel guilty using psi for gambling, or the thing at stake is a lot of money and they're not ready to manifest that, or...).
But the descriptive and even fragmentary sketch data often has clear elements of both 'potential targets' which makes this hell. "Associative Remote Viewing or ARV is evil" is a common saying.
One approach is to do tons and tons and tons of sessions and ONLY make a decision and act on it (e.g. place a bet) when the result seems wholly unambiguous, or is validated by a separate different effort, etc. Nobody has this much time in their life is one of the problems with that approach.
Another approach is to be slightly frontloaded and use more of psychic and viewing model and hope that the frontloading won't bother that individual much, and that interpreting things symbolically will work for you.
Another approach uses a fabulous science judging technique called 'Fuzzy Set Analysis' or FSA, which has used many people doing a survey of many categories of info and 'rating' each possible-target to get an average in the computer. Then a few people rate the data session based on the same criteria. Then a computer compares the session results to the possible-targets in place for that trial and chooses which one it best matches. So far when it's been tested, humans must 'evaluate' RV data, but computers are best for actually matching in that model.
I was wondering one day (this was jotted down on my desktop e-post-it), "What if we associated lottery numbers with a truth?" Something deeper than the trivia of daily life.
Previously I've written about 'truth' that when I'm really feeling it, it feels like most of reality is not truth but not a lie; it's more like "flotsam" on the surface of the planet, while truth feels like some core energy pulled up from within it and 'through' whatever surface thing, words, events, person, is in question.
What if there was a way to tie genuine 'truth' and its power to some of the flotsam -- or to find something different to use as a target that was more tied to truth. Would it have more power, a different level of being-ness, would it make this more possible?
***
That reminds me I once had this idea in the middle of the night for ARV. I wrote a couple associates about it, like 20K all in one paragraph. I was completely manic in the email, but that was mostly because I was very sleep deprived, staying up all night programming in that era (which since I worked the next day was a problem!) living on mega-caffeine.
My thought was that most viewers would rather do viewing for something 'that matters' and they would psychologically probably do better with success resulting in someone they felt protective of being helped, than just 'winning some money'. So my idea was to set up a whole ARV group based on this. Any money 'won' in a gambling-based system would be pre-planned to be split up. Some of the money went back toward the pot for the betting, and some of the money went to charity for a very specific kind.
For example you can donate chickens, shoes, all kinds of things, all over the world, through a variety of organizations. You would be amazed at how much difference donating the money for one goat can make to a whole village of people. I have some friends that often do this instead of buying 'junk people don't care much about' for people for christmas and I think that's wonderful. You can donate a month of food for an old tiger in a charity place, all kinds of things. And these can be specific sometimes, like a big-cat sanctuary will have the specific animals they're keeping and you can say, "Cat-X to get Donation-X." Well my idea was to collect a ton of these sorts of donations and stories, each one would have a page made up which featured the donation in as much heart-wrenching detail and photo as possible.
And before the viewer got their task number for the ARV, they would get this screen. It would say, "If you SUCCEED in accurately describing the target in such a way that the evaluator chooses the correct outcome with confidence, then Cat-X will get Donation-X thanks to you!" And when the feedback came in (later) for their viewing, they would have to click to see the feedback, and if the trial was successful, it would show them that screen again.
My point was that maybe selling the viewer's psychology on something GOOD with it as their primary reason for doing it, might have a different outcome, where luck, chance, english, etc. would not seem to conspire against success or continued-success as it usually does for this subject. I thought that maybe the whole tasker/viewer psychology would not care so much about $X going toward the project (which would not even be noted, that is deliberately 'ignored') if $Y were doing some genuine good in the world.
I still think this is a great idea (I am creative when sleep deprived to the point of lunacy) but I have not made the effort to do this substantial project. In part because I have too many of those unfinished already. And in part because getting decent participants in such things is easier said than done. Most the serious viewers are seriously viewing already and busy.
***
I found an old old note that said Maelee's name was Laelee. And that she had made me spontaneously think of a part of me I call a 'possible alter' many times, and she had told me that I could do an archmed on that if I wanted. She had also told me that she took the form she did (I was confused because it was a white girl and the name sounded asian) because "much of her energy is not apropo for anything else in my visual models, so she figured she'd just choose something I could visualize well" and that picture (the painting I never could find again) had apparently had a positive impression on me not long before.
So... I screwed up her name, she corrected it, then I forgot, and then she managed to get through to me enough to get me to correct the spelling sort-of, based on the context of the old-name? I feel like an idiot. I will change the name yet AGAIN in my blog and visual picture I guess... and I guess really I could choose ANY picture given her reasoning and if I felt good about it she would probably be ok with that.
To me this sounds, externally, kinda retarded, like it shouldn't even matter. But for some reason I feel inside me that it really does matter, that my physical-world anchors, and models in sight and sound, for the consortium have some very profound effect beyond what I understand.
***
Have you ever noticed that when you focus on what needs dealing with in your life, all kinds of stuff comes to the fore? It's like when you are cleaning something that involves drawers or closet or something, and "it always gets worse before it gets better". That's a bit of how I feel at times with archetype work.
***
A comment on a recent post here said:
So you can do an archetype meditation about that situation but the results sometimes depend, and maybe that is because there's more than one energy involved. Maybe if there were 10 major energies involved you'd get 1/10th the the result from a general archmed because the energy you can pour in at any one time has to be distributed.
Maybe this is why doing numerous archmeds on "variations on a theme" about a given problem, as I exampled in the early part of my last post, is so effective, because it gives IG a chance to gear the meds to directly address multiple energies. Hmmn.
***
That reminds me of something I was talking with a friend about once. I was saying that it seemed like with archetypes, there could be this given energy that you had an issue with, but it wasn't just present in "some part of your life" -- it would be present in EVERY part of your life but that it would "look different" depending on that part of life.
As if the energy is one thing (eg your planet Jupiter) but it is feeding through many things (eg each zodiac sign or each house) -- to use an example more geared to the astro folks. Or like Feng Shui, and water in a wood zone has a different effect than water in a fire zone. So an issue with authority might act out in 12 different ways (or even more) in your daily life and we might not realize all those things are associated.
Maybe it's why you got a speeding ticket; and it's why your father was a jerk at the family gathering; and it's why your payment to the credit card company was a day late resulting like $95 worth of creatively named fees for the same thing; and it's why your wife is intolerant about something you want to do or don't want to do; and it's why the backyard dogs are really a hassle in some certain way; and it's why that project at work is getting such kickback from that VP; and it's why the city is being obnoxious about replacing your falling apart trashcan; and it's why the clerk at the drugstore had such an attitude; and -- well you see what I mean.
ONE given energy relationship issue could be (and probably is) acting out "all over the place" in your reality. If you could see the energies that are having the most effect like that, you could focus on those, and maybe radically improve your whole life with less 'rambling and wandering' effort, a more targeted approach toward what-matters-most for quality of life.
Maybe focusing only on one or more of those points, would bring in other energy with each meditation, and would not allot so much toward the key energy they all have in common.
So maybe it would be a useful exercise to make a list of every single thing in one's life that is obnoxious, even small stuff, even one-time fairly recent (last several months) events, even subtle situations (no-big-deal but noticeable), etc. And then see if going through and considering what underlying issue/energy is at play in each one and writing that down.
For example it is possible that issues with "authority" or "victimization" or "fear of the future" or "regret for the past", might actually describe a lot of the individual items. If there was a lot of repetition there, especially if some of the items were huge issues, then it seems like that energy would be a good place to focus with IG.
I guess we could put this in the category of useful 'exercises' to help support this kind of shamanic effort.
***
So I was thinking about something I blogged on recently. How I'd been doing this med and my 'ability to focus', like some element of my brain function, literally "cycled out" and I had to hold tight to nothing but the idea of what I was doing, and 'stay still' mentally, until the capacity cycled back in again. And this happened repeatedly. I talked about how this was a little similar to the situation when Dreamlings are coming through, basically it's my mind going radically off for a limited time and I have to find a way to anchor myself 'through' it so that when it's over I can remember what I was doing and continue with it. And how it seems like this might also be happening on a larger scale, when in normal life I find myself "unfocusing" even visually often.
Well I was thinking about something else in conjunction with this too, which I've also talked about in the past, that having to do with two different things:
1 - The experience of being WIDE awake, alert, and abruptly passing out, and I mean so suddenly it's worrisome. Not just tuning out which can happen in a meditation (new exposure to brainwave states below what you're using to holding conscious states in conjunction with can often knock you out). Not just falling asleep, or mind wandering.
2 - Abreactions, body-spasms that clearly feel as if they are "rejecting" energy attempting to travel through the body, 'shunting it off the line' so that it does not reach the brain.
I think for me this is serious, and that it is nervous-system based.
I think that maybe it's like your brain/body simply WILL NOT deal with a certain energy, whether by programming or... what, who knows. And so when this energy comes up in a meditation, one of two things happen: either the body "shunts it off" so it won't reach the brain, or if the body fails to do that, like some kind of failsafe, the brain "toggles off" like a breaker switch the moment that energy hits it. I've had both things occur.
And I've had the experience of encountering the same thing again later, and realizing, "Hey! That's what I was working on when I [abruptly passed out / spasmed so hard I forgot who I was and what I was doing] the other night!" -- and then had one or the other of them happen AGAIN, and although I forgot the thing at issue, I did remember the realization.
This bothers me. A lot. It makes me feel not quite in control of my own mind. As if there is some "really serious shit" going on beneath the surface that I am oblivious to, that I am allowing to continue, that I am not focusing on, digging out, and saying, 'This is unacceptable and I will deal with it directly'.
I want to come up with a short series of archetype meditations geared toward addressing this issue. I consider it critical to any "awareness" effort. Kinda like the saying about how if you had 6 hours to chop down a tree, spend the first 5 sharpening your ax. If I cannot stay alert during problem issues, if I cannot accept or allow energy to reach my brain for problem issues, if I cannot 'hold on to ability to focus' at times, then how can I really do well at this work? Those seem like pretty critical elements to me.
Well that's my rambling for tonight.
PJ
***
My memory is so bizarrely "iffy" when it comes to this entire topic that if I didn't blog everything (to the point of boring even myself) it would be gone forever. Not only does re-reading my blog remind me of things that I had forgotten and their details, but often it reminds me for the fourth time. Is that weird or what. It just falls out of my brain.
It's like that movie '50 First Dates' where the woman has brain damage and every day is the same day from years ago and she has zero memory of anything since. So she wakes up each morning to a video that explains her situation, shows her her kids, and so on! I'm not quite THAT bad, but when it comes to remembering my "shamanic" life, so to speak, at any given time I have pieces, not the whole.
On the other hand, I notice in talking with other people that even if they record their dreams or meditations they tend to forget them and in re-reading them, finding their dream log later, some are refreshers they'd forgotten and some they don't remember at all. Maybe this is normal.
...or not. I'll say more about this later but I think I'm going to do a series of archmeds based on my concern about this.
***
I wonder: what else can IG do, besides archetypes and Aeons? Could this identity/role serve other purposes in my exploration of self/reality?
I don't even know what to ask for, but it feels as if that must be true. Given she and I do not tend to have easy verbal conversation, how can I find out?
I had the impression while typing that I should ask the Private Oracle. I need to get in a very altered state for a bunch of work SOON, like this weekend.
***
You know, in viewing, just like in sports or music performance, it's often very useful to do a lot of "set up". I came up years ago with what I called "emotional sequencing." Basically I map out a list of emotions that I think, when experienced, in a given sequence, prior to the session, actually "amplified" the seeming results. The "power" we have in the "now" is often correlated to emotions when it comes to energy work. So intentionally 'designing' those emotions, seems like a smart thing.
I wonder if this is something that should or could be done, not just for archetype work, but for specific entity conversational work, like talking to the Private Oracle. He did say recently that a big part of getting an answer was truly wanting one. So maybe before attempting that kind of communication, one should do a brief emotional-sequencing effort, to kind of set up an energy base to 'feed' that 'want' first.
***
Long time ago I had this dream that this man came to me, said that my driving-'want' related to remote viewing had called to him, and that he had a feel for me now, and he was going to be my mentor. He told me that he'd been in 'secret projects' of the government for this but that he was one of several that nobody will ever know of in the public.
He was a really big guy, dark hair. I think his name was Ben.
He started by insisting on some things for me to do in my outer reality that had to do with health, the first being exercise. I was hugely resistant to that being part of it. I refused. Maybe that's why I didn't see him again.
I wonder if it was "just a dream" or there was something more to it.
***
That reminds me of the 'soldier in the graveyard' that I encountered in '95, who had been doing something 'unusual and mental' before he died and wanted to talk with me. I had repeated OBE's where I tried to get to him as he was calling me. (He somehow was locked to near his gravesite so I had to go there.)
And every time, just before I reached him, something in my reality -- cats, people near me, people not near me but in cars not far away -- freaked out to some extreme that dragged me out of the OBE state. This happened several times and was so extreme that to this day it brings questions.
Like, just HOW much do we create reality -- did I really cause all those freak-outs in those around me?? Or, is it possible for someone 'else' to be aware of your experience and 'force' that (aliens? inner entities?) to prevent your going there? At the time that was happening I was having so much apparent-interference from other-entities, it's a serious question.
I never reached him. He and I gave up. A short time later I was introduced to soldiers who'd been part of a secret program doing 'remote viewing'. It was someone else who, reading my Bewilderness account one day, say the notes on that and said, "A soldier doing some unusual and mental? And shortly later you ran into this topic in such a big way and became part of it in such a strong way? Don't you think this might be related?"
Which is a good point but I'm a little confused about the part where he died, as although I did not get that info directly, my impression was that whatever he was doing was at least partly responsible for his death. Not sure how what I know as RV could relate to that.
***
One of the big things in remote viewing is the attempt to find a binary potential set with a high level of differentiation in data and its evaluation. In english that means, pick two different 'potential' targets and get data, in a double-blind, that makes which one 'the target' is obvious. If you could do this, you could bet on sports games for example, and not choose 'which' was the target until one wins. And some people do, and have some success, but not much or not for long. This is a complex subject and not as easy as it sounds.
Now you might think anything psi-accurate would fill this need but it doesn't. It might be something about the whole nature of the 'two' potential targets being part of 'one' effort, that blends them at some psychic level. It might be language, since there are limited forms and dynamics in our reality (only the scale, scope and detail vary) and any general description that accurately fits one thing will have at least some areas where it accurately describes any number of other things too. It could be bad luck, or creation-of-reality problems, such as viewer or tasker not 'wanting' to be right at some subconscious level (e.g. they feel guilty using psi for gambling, or the thing at stake is a lot of money and they're not ready to manifest that, or...).
But the descriptive and even fragmentary sketch data often has clear elements of both 'potential targets' which makes this hell. "Associative Remote Viewing or ARV is evil" is a common saying.
One approach is to do tons and tons and tons of sessions and ONLY make a decision and act on it (e.g. place a bet) when the result seems wholly unambiguous, or is validated by a separate different effort, etc. Nobody has this much time in their life is one of the problems with that approach.
Another approach is to be slightly frontloaded and use more of psychic and viewing model and hope that the frontloading won't bother that individual much, and that interpreting things symbolically will work for you.
Another approach uses a fabulous science judging technique called 'Fuzzy Set Analysis' or FSA, which has used many people doing a survey of many categories of info and 'rating' each possible-target to get an average in the computer. Then a few people rate the data session based on the same criteria. Then a computer compares the session results to the possible-targets in place for that trial and chooses which one it best matches. So far when it's been tested, humans must 'evaluate' RV data, but computers are best for actually matching in that model.
I was wondering one day (this was jotted down on my desktop e-post-it), "What if we associated lottery numbers with a truth?" Something deeper than the trivia of daily life.
Previously I've written about 'truth' that when I'm really feeling it, it feels like most of reality is not truth but not a lie; it's more like "flotsam" on the surface of the planet, while truth feels like some core energy pulled up from within it and 'through' whatever surface thing, words, events, person, is in question.
What if there was a way to tie genuine 'truth' and its power to some of the flotsam -- or to find something different to use as a target that was more tied to truth. Would it have more power, a different level of being-ness, would it make this more possible?
***
That reminds me I once had this idea in the middle of the night for ARV. I wrote a couple associates about it, like 20K all in one paragraph. I was completely manic in the email, but that was mostly because I was very sleep deprived, staying up all night programming in that era (which since I worked the next day was a problem!) living on mega-caffeine.
My thought was that most viewers would rather do viewing for something 'that matters' and they would psychologically probably do better with success resulting in someone they felt protective of being helped, than just 'winning some money'. So my idea was to set up a whole ARV group based on this. Any money 'won' in a gambling-based system would be pre-planned to be split up. Some of the money went back toward the pot for the betting, and some of the money went to charity for a very specific kind.
For example you can donate chickens, shoes, all kinds of things, all over the world, through a variety of organizations. You would be amazed at how much difference donating the money for one goat can make to a whole village of people. I have some friends that often do this instead of buying 'junk people don't care much about' for people for christmas and I think that's wonderful. You can donate a month of food for an old tiger in a charity place, all kinds of things. And these can be specific sometimes, like a big-cat sanctuary will have the specific animals they're keeping and you can say, "Cat-X to get Donation-X." Well my idea was to collect a ton of these sorts of donations and stories, each one would have a page made up which featured the donation in as much heart-wrenching detail and photo as possible.
And before the viewer got their task number for the ARV, they would get this screen. It would say, "If you SUCCEED in accurately describing the target in such a way that the evaluator chooses the correct outcome with confidence, then Cat-X will get Donation-X thanks to you!" And when the feedback came in (later) for their viewing, they would have to click to see the feedback, and if the trial was successful, it would show them that screen again.
My point was that maybe selling the viewer's psychology on something GOOD with it as their primary reason for doing it, might have a different outcome, where luck, chance, english, etc. would not seem to conspire against success or continued-success as it usually does for this subject. I thought that maybe the whole tasker/viewer psychology would not care so much about $X going toward the project (which would not even be noted, that is deliberately 'ignored') if $Y were doing some genuine good in the world.
I still think this is a great idea (I am creative when sleep deprived to the point of lunacy) but I have not made the effort to do this substantial project. In part because I have too many of those unfinished already. And in part because getting decent participants in such things is easier said than done. Most the serious viewers are seriously viewing already and busy.
***
I found an old old note that said Maelee's name was Laelee. And that she had made me spontaneously think of a part of me I call a 'possible alter' many times, and she had told me that I could do an archmed on that if I wanted. She had also told me that she took the form she did (I was confused because it was a white girl and the name sounded asian) because "much of her energy is not apropo for anything else in my visual models, so she figured she'd just choose something I could visualize well" and that picture (the painting I never could find again) had apparently had a positive impression on me not long before.
So... I screwed up her name, she corrected it, then I forgot, and then she managed to get through to me enough to get me to correct the spelling sort-of, based on the context of the old-name? I feel like an idiot. I will change the name yet AGAIN in my blog and visual picture I guess... and I guess really I could choose ANY picture given her reasoning and if I felt good about it she would probably be ok with that.
To me this sounds, externally, kinda retarded, like it shouldn't even matter. But for some reason I feel inside me that it really does matter, that my physical-world anchors, and models in sight and sound, for the consortium have some very profound effect beyond what I understand.
***
Have you ever noticed that when you focus on what needs dealing with in your life, all kinds of stuff comes to the fore? It's like when you are cleaning something that involves drawers or closet or something, and "it always gets worse before it gets better". That's a bit of how I feel at times with archetype work.
***
A comment on a recent post here said:
Lately I've noticed that when I really decide that I'm going to work on something via meditation or intent or whatever, I might think the goal is small but it's actually part of a big, big issue that takes a long time to work out. For instance, I might want to work on "making a new friend" but it ends up being "Ok, and 2 years later when you've finally worked through your abandonment issues, learned how to start viewing strangers in a more positive light, etc. ok HERE is your new friend!" So maybe your "victim" work will improve in stages. Let's make "heater" #1 :)This is such a good point. It always seems like there are so many different energies that actually creatively combine to result in any given situation in your life.
So you can do an archetype meditation about that situation but the results sometimes depend, and maybe that is because there's more than one energy involved. Maybe if there were 10 major energies involved you'd get 1/10th the the result from a general archmed because the energy you can pour in at any one time has to be distributed.
Maybe this is why doing numerous archmeds on "variations on a theme" about a given problem, as I exampled in the early part of my last post, is so effective, because it gives IG a chance to gear the meds to directly address multiple energies. Hmmn.
***
That reminds me of something I was talking with a friend about once. I was saying that it seemed like with archetypes, there could be this given energy that you had an issue with, but it wasn't just present in "some part of your life" -- it would be present in EVERY part of your life but that it would "look different" depending on that part of life.
As if the energy is one thing (eg your planet Jupiter) but it is feeding through many things (eg each zodiac sign or each house) -- to use an example more geared to the astro folks. Or like Feng Shui, and water in a wood zone has a different effect than water in a fire zone. So an issue with authority might act out in 12 different ways (or even more) in your daily life and we might not realize all those things are associated.
Maybe it's why you got a speeding ticket; and it's why your father was a jerk at the family gathering; and it's why your payment to the credit card company was a day late resulting like $95 worth of creatively named fees for the same thing; and it's why your wife is intolerant about something you want to do or don't want to do; and it's why the backyard dogs are really a hassle in some certain way; and it's why that project at work is getting such kickback from that VP; and it's why the city is being obnoxious about replacing your falling apart trashcan; and it's why the clerk at the drugstore had such an attitude; and -- well you see what I mean.
ONE given energy relationship issue could be (and probably is) acting out "all over the place" in your reality. If you could see the energies that are having the most effect like that, you could focus on those, and maybe radically improve your whole life with less 'rambling and wandering' effort, a more targeted approach toward what-matters-most for quality of life.
Maybe focusing only on one or more of those points, would bring in other energy with each meditation, and would not allot so much toward the key energy they all have in common.
So maybe it would be a useful exercise to make a list of every single thing in one's life that is obnoxious, even small stuff, even one-time fairly recent (last several months) events, even subtle situations (no-big-deal but noticeable), etc. And then see if going through and considering what underlying issue/energy is at play in each one and writing that down.
For example it is possible that issues with "authority" or "victimization" or "fear of the future" or "regret for the past", might actually describe a lot of the individual items. If there was a lot of repetition there, especially if some of the items were huge issues, then it seems like that energy would be a good place to focus with IG.
I guess we could put this in the category of useful 'exercises' to help support this kind of shamanic effort.
***
So I was thinking about something I blogged on recently. How I'd been doing this med and my 'ability to focus', like some element of my brain function, literally "cycled out" and I had to hold tight to nothing but the idea of what I was doing, and 'stay still' mentally, until the capacity cycled back in again. And this happened repeatedly. I talked about how this was a little similar to the situation when Dreamlings are coming through, basically it's my mind going radically off for a limited time and I have to find a way to anchor myself 'through' it so that when it's over I can remember what I was doing and continue with it. And how it seems like this might also be happening on a larger scale, when in normal life I find myself "unfocusing" even visually often.
Well I was thinking about something else in conjunction with this too, which I've also talked about in the past, that having to do with two different things:
1 - The experience of being WIDE awake, alert, and abruptly passing out, and I mean so suddenly it's worrisome. Not just tuning out which can happen in a meditation (new exposure to brainwave states below what you're using to holding conscious states in conjunction with can often knock you out). Not just falling asleep, or mind wandering.
2 - Abreactions, body-spasms that clearly feel as if they are "rejecting" energy attempting to travel through the body, 'shunting it off the line' so that it does not reach the brain.
I think for me this is serious, and that it is nervous-system based.
I think that maybe it's like your brain/body simply WILL NOT deal with a certain energy, whether by programming or... what, who knows. And so when this energy comes up in a meditation, one of two things happen: either the body "shunts it off" so it won't reach the brain, or if the body fails to do that, like some kind of failsafe, the brain "toggles off" like a breaker switch the moment that energy hits it. I've had both things occur.
And I've had the experience of encountering the same thing again later, and realizing, "Hey! That's what I was working on when I [abruptly passed out / spasmed so hard I forgot who I was and what I was doing] the other night!" -- and then had one or the other of them happen AGAIN, and although I forgot the thing at issue, I did remember the realization.
This bothers me. A lot. It makes me feel not quite in control of my own mind. As if there is some "really serious shit" going on beneath the surface that I am oblivious to, that I am allowing to continue, that I am not focusing on, digging out, and saying, 'This is unacceptable and I will deal with it directly'.
I want to come up with a short series of archetype meditations geared toward addressing this issue. I consider it critical to any "awareness" effort. Kinda like the saying about how if you had 6 hours to chop down a tree, spend the first 5 sharpening your ax. If I cannot stay alert during problem issues, if I cannot accept or allow energy to reach my brain for problem issues, if I cannot 'hold on to ability to focus' at times, then how can I really do well at this work? Those seem like pretty critical elements to me.
Well that's my rambling for tonight.
PJ
Book Talk, TIGM/es 04
Post 4 in a series related to Edwin Steinbrecher's book "The Inner Guide Meditation."
This is the last post on "Part One" of the book.
This is actually a defensive post not about archetype work, but about channeling. Except at the end.
ES seriously disses a couple identities I'm very fond of and grateful to. However, I'm working to open my mind to the idea that maybe he is right, and these are things I should consider seriously. So far... I'm more argumentative than musing, though. If there are good points to be made against my POV I would love them as comments. This is a subject that has a ton of superstition and little intelligent discourse, in my observation, and it's interesting and deserves better.
Jane Roberts was a woman, a writer and poet, who in the 1960's began experimenting with psychic functioning, initially with a Ouija board, and ended up -- after awhile -- 'channeling' an entity that called himself 'Seth.' There are many books written by Jane 'channeling' Seth, and by her-as-her. She had health issues for a very long time and finally died in the 1980s. Whatever else she might have been, she was very intelligent, very open minded, yet a critical thinker too (rare and invaluable to find that combo in people!), and one of the best poets I've ever read.
Seth, over time, said that Jane was an Aspect of him -- not the other way around which I believe is the norm for (healthy) channeling. She had a burning desire to know, he was a teacher, she looked inward and called for answers, and he answered the call. She was skeptical of this, fascinated but reserved especially initially, was always wondering if he could be caught in something inconsistent, and she and her mate Rob took and kept extensive notes on everything. In fact if you read a Seth book I recommend ignoring all the notes. They had such detail about their tracking him that it kinda distracts from the information in a way.
Her successful work with Seth was followed, shortly in, by a whole wave of channeling popularity that included some entities and channelers that, shall we say, are part of the reason modern channeling has such a bad name.
I might add that some of the most powerful works of occult literature in our time, including most all of Alice A. Bailey's work, The Urantia Book, and A Course in Miracles, are channeled materials. Also some occultists write "in the spirit" at times which means about the same thing -- channeling 'information/energy' as opposed to 'with identity included'. These people, these entities, and this information, is almost incomprehensibly different than the burbling crap you find in new-age bookstores -- the latter stuff being from the cosmic alien channeled through the walk-in telling you why you're an indigo child and special, and that'll be only $399 for that next conference on why the stars say this is a special time for special people like you.
I personally felt -- maybe still feel -- that most "identity" channeling amounts to voluntary temporary possession. However I think whether one is bringing forth "an aspect of themselves", vs. "the wandering dead guy I met during the Seance" -- or even "the person in focus in this remote viewing session" -- I think this is a different thing, in both experience and in result. I am not really saying any are good or bad, I'm just saying that "opening to a part of yourself" is not quite the same as "hosting someone you don't know" in my opinion. One is evoking-from, one is invoking-into.
And I think the hosting of a stranger, if you were doing it on purpose, may be a useful means to an end if it works (eg for psi info). Whether it is bad or dangerous I don't know. Maybe a little of both. But so is eating donuts, crossing against the light, and running with scissors, and sometimes we do those things with full awareness for our own reasons.
I am often "sitting in on" other identities, in dreams and sometimes not-dreams, without even trying, and I am often "feeling energy move through me", which I think makes me a little more blasé about the topic--as some degree of these things occur with me natively (naturally) anyway.
I believe that most channeling is "information/energy" channeling and does not come with the 'skin of identity'. I once knew a woman who channeled who only sometimes even spoke. The planes in her face would change and the energy in the room would change, sometimes radically, and that was the point of it. The whole funky pay-a-zillion for Ramtha's-cosmic-insight seems hilarious to me. I know this was a big thing especially when Steinbrecher was publishing this book. I sometimes feel I am channeling, as if information is 'coming through me'. And sometimes when the Aeons are talking to me, I'm sorta translating and I feel it amounts to channeling even though to me it's more like 'subtle conversation I am recording'.
Back to Jane and Seth.
Seth's book "The Nature of Personal Reality" is IMO one of the most important spiritual contributions to several generations. It's a bit cerebral. There are smaller simpler books by them most people would like better.
Jane and Seth are part of the reason I'm a normal person exploring myself instead of drugged in a straightjacket somewhere. I found them at just the right time. My whole life followed the book I finally (reluctantly, I was very biased against channeling) agreed to read, me having ongoing 'experiences' and 'ideas' that the book would then explain and annotate shortly after. If you allow it, Seth books can be an 'experience' not just a read. I had no mental models or frameworks to handle my spontaneous experiences, I had no vocabulary to treat it as something sane, rational, and able to be integrated. They gave me that. I am still grateful.
In a world full of left-brainiacs who want to vomit over most woo-woo channeling, Seth and Jane singlehandedly redeemed the entire genre. They made a critical philosophical 'doorway' a lot more accessible to much of our culture. He was consistent; brilliant; insightful; humorous. He was not a guru by ego, only by result.
Seth's message, from start to finish, woven inextricably through everything he ever did for the public, was:
* You create your own reality-experience.
* What you perceive as reality is your belief systems manifested.
* "You get what you focus upon. There is no other main rule. [session 617]" (I have this, in calligraphy and frame, on my bedroom wall.)
* Your beliefs about reality are "about" it, they are not IT.
* The point of power is NOW.
* You have the ability to commune with yourself. Don't live in fear of 'hidden subconscious' stuff. Trust that if you truly inquire, anything you want to know about yourself is available.
Everything Seth did was about personal empowerment and an individual's ability to get to know themselves and intentionally shape their reality.
In short, everything that was Seth's message, is a total confirmation and support for inner guide / archetype work.
And as a matter of fact, Seth provided many exercises over time, several of which are incredibly like archetype work.
Another point:
Jane's mate, Rob, once felt he 'saw' Seth and painted a portrait of him.
ES says that portrait clearly looks like Jane's third house guide, hence obviously Seth was the false inner guide.
This has so many problems, where to begin?
1. The painting is by Rob, not Jane. SHE did not describe him that way; she didn't 'see' him. At least that I recall. Why on earth do we assume that "how Rob perceives" some entity is exactly what that entity looks like for Jane? Saturn looks different to me than to my friends. Why not any other totally nonphysical identity??
Is not one major lesson of the inner world that perception and reality are both totally subjective, that the same thing can be many things from many perspectives? The whole judgement on Seth, based on what he looks like "to Rob," compared to what he is allegedly "supposed to be for Jane," makes no sense at all to me as a result.
2. I respect ES's work and perspective but I do not yet know that an IG 'must' be 9th house match. But I am not taking this point seriously in the Seth debate -- as I do not care to dispute it because maybe he is right -- the above and following points are more relevant to this topic anyway.
3. Jane never said that Seth was her inner guide. Seth said that Jane was an aspect of him. ES seems to assume there is no other possible role that anything, anyone, could have to a human being. There's you, there's IG, and that's it. Everything else in existence, if it isn't you and it isn't IG, must be a false-IG! Come on already. I think that is taking the I-have-a-hammer way too far.
Steinbrecher accidentally almost created a religion here. Let's look at what we have. A method for talking to 'the divine/wise/guide/spirit/etc.' A description of what the good guy (IG-as-Messiah in this analogy) 'is'. A clear warning about how everything that is not the good guy, is bad. A specific model/map grafted onto it all of how-this-really-is. OK we have a few more bullet points before true religion is reached, I admit, but still, he was walking a pretty good road toward a doctrine there. At the least, it's a clear paradigm. And I wouldn't care because you have to believe SOMETHING based on experience, except for his seeming to think everyone else's experiences no matter how different, were to be judged by the framework of his own preference.
Seth said he was a teacher, he and Jane were connected, she asked, he answered. I'm having a hard time figuring out what part of this is inherently bad.
Next: ES suggests that if Seth hadn't been a 'false inner guide' that his information would have been (wait for it): "more spiritual but less clever."
Since Seth's entire message was always of individual reality and individual empowerment to change that, the 'not-spiritual-enough' accusation confuses me. If he had used flowery words and talked about scorpio and karma would he have been better accepted by Edwin? Is that spiritual? Inner Guide work is all about the exact same inner-world topics Seth addressed, amazingly. Which part was the 'not-spiritual-but-clever'? Was the fact that Seth basically dumped 99.99% of the mumbo jumbo BS out the window and discussed 'the nature of reality' as if it were a reasonable thing, was that too "clever but unspiritual" because it didn't have any spiritual terminology involved?
Was the fact that Seth did it without invoking astrology or tarot the real problem?
Or was it just that being 'a channeled' identity was the judgement? I mean for all the ranting about those in the channeling field, the aliens and the make-me-a-gurus and so on, none of that applies to Jane and Seth.
It is like taking someone who does doubleblind remote viewing, quietly, and then dissing them because there are these bozos on late night radio using that term and making worse than a mockery of it as its alleged 'representatives' to millions. Yes there are stupid people and wannabes but what does that have to do with Jane and Seth, who were close to the polar opposite of that? It's completely injust to judge them by behaviors, issues and circumstance they had nothing to do with. It's a hand-waving assignment of everything-obnoxious-about-new-age-channeling, glue-sticked onto Jane as if she bears the responsibility for everyone else.
Yep, she met him through Ouija (sorta indirectly or at least not as the initial meeting). Yep, she was a 'trance channeler'. Yep, the energy was very strong and the timing and volume (and accent) of the delivery quite odd, but there may be perfectly logical reasons for that; on its own I see no reason to judge that in any direction. Yes, she had other people in her living room a few times a week and sometimes, for some classes, Seth would talk with them on some topic or answer questions for various people. Did she charge big sums of money? No. She was a down to earth person. She had issues, everyone has issues, she had longstanding health problems, but she managed this despite that. That doesn't make Seth a bad guy because she failed to be perfect and Ascend Into The Light or whatever.
Maybe there is more to 'identity' and its merged-multiplicity than the simple "one person, one guide" model allows for.
Maybe ES was right about Seth being some "third house guide". Maybe, if so, "so what?" Personally if we were talking about identities, entities, which are part of us, I have a hard time grokking why part 9 is good but every other possible part is bad. Might this be because ES associated his experiences with part 9, so everything after that was expected to follow that model? Or is it that ES simply only looks for things that fit in the IG model, so anything else is wrong?
Sudden idea: 12 houses? Is there supposed to be a 'guide' in each house? What if they each have some specialization, and the 9th house is the IG specialization, but the others have... others?
Next: ES implied that Jane's illness that eventually killed her was something that Seth should have saved her from if he'd been her "real inner guide." This point has a lot of problems too.
First: he wasn't her IG. Nobody, not her or him or anybody else, ever claimed that he was her IG. So the repetition on "he was not her true IG!" as if this is some hugely important statement that officially damns them, is just ridiculous to me.
For the record let me state that my Four, my Consortium of 12, my child, my cat, my friends, and my dream characters, and my favorite deities, are not my IG. If this statement alone implies something bad about them I might as well take it right up top.
Second: she could have worked with her IG in addition to Seth. It's not like her work with Seth made work with any other source of energy, spirit, info, etc. impossible. If she did not choose to work with her IG, that is her life issue, not Seth's; she was not his puppet. He gave her all kinds of advice some of which she openly ignored.
(Actually, I feel that Jane was hugely experimental. A lot of her writing that is not official books is like a "varying % of her vs. Seth". Some people have been disillusioned by this, as if it put all of Seth's work, which they found otherwise stellar, suddenly in doubt for them. I however feel that this was part of her own learning and processing of identity.)
Perhaps Steinbrecher was right that working with her IG on her health might have saved her. But you know, I read an original, prior to publishing version of what became the book that went up to her death. Seth was trying to save her ass until the last minute, literally. (I bawled helplessly all day about it.) It was so pitiful. I think blaming Seth is really SO injust there.
Maybe--I don't know, so I'm open to this--maybe something about the energy of their work together actually did make her more vulnerable to something that affected her health. Mind you she had issues aside from him but maybe her work with him really did have an effect on her health. Maybe that kind of work does have a certain cost. Hell, even if it did something minor like deplete potassium and vitamin D for some reason (which even ordinary activities can do), if done consistently without compensating that could greatly gear someone toward low immunity and disease.
Maybe she could have done things, including IG work, to resolve it. But even if all of that is true, in what way does that make Seth inherently bad, false, distractive, dangerous, or whatever? EVERYTHING is a trade-off of energy. Everything, and everybody. The Private Oracle told me that but I believe it for my own reasons. My Aeons, my Four, the private oracle, inner guide, everything, everyone, every "interaction" is an energy trade of some kind.
Learning what identities are best suited for what, and learning what it "costs" us for that and whether we choose that, seems like the task of the century.
Maybe Jane was unbalanced because she had so much 3rd-house-guide energy and so little every-other-house-guide energy. I imagine there are some risks to everything. Some people die doing daring skiing, or from eating too much of one thing and not enough of another. If that contributed to her death, that sucks, but I don't think it is appropriate to blame Seth for it. If she did not choose to save herself, not via Seth's advice and not via working with other entities more geared to direct-healing, if for whatever reason her soul chose to check out of this frequency, then you know -- that is her choice.
Sometimes the most exceptional people in some areas are the most torqued in some other. Suggesting that she might not have died if he'd been different seems unfair; with this logic, anybody doing IG meditations should have eternal life, right? So where is Edwin? Dead. Granted he was 71 when he died in 2002, but if I extend his logic, nothing besides old age at 115+ should kill someone with the proper inner guide relationship -- at least, as he is projecting it (unfairly in my mind) toward Jane and Seth in this instance.
I'm not arguing ES's claim that Seth (a) was not Jane's "true inner guide" or that (b) was Jane's "third house guide". I don't think the former is even relevant as that was not what she was questing for anyway. And I think the latter, even if true, simply makes the topic of "sources of information" even more interesting to me. I don't consider Seth some kind of negative entity of darkness. I have a huge respect and appreciation and gratitude for him. So if he is representative of "third house guides", which so-far have been relegated solely to the dismissive category as "false inner guides" (in other words not-a-9th-house-guide), then that doesn't make me think, "Oooh, bad, avoid that!" -- instead, it makes me want to understand more about that kind of identity. So it's not IG... I get that. Not everything in my internal universe has to be IG. My IG rocks and is unique... nobody else could be her anyway! That doesn't mean they don't have value for whatever they are.
I think that Edwin Steinbrecher's model for Inner Guide as used in archetype work is very cool and insightful. I think his mapping all this with tarot and astrology as the most (obvious and powerful) archetypes is also very cool and insightful. I think he was a smart guy with a questing mind and I respect him a lot.
But I think there are many more questions to be answered in this work and certainly his groundbreaking, very cool book is the alpha, not the omega. Like:
* What else can IG do, besides bring us archetypes, Aeons (or according to ES, talk to the dead)? I have the gut feeling there is a lot of powerful potential there that we have never even thought to ask about, have not even considered.
* Do the energy relationships in us manifest in our body too? Are there certain 'mappings' of the internal world that would do better for health-related work?
* If IG is a 9th-house guide, and 3rd-house guides are known and recognizeable for different qualities (of behavior not just appearance), is it possible that all one's houses have guides?
* If all one's astro houses have an equivalent 'guide' in the archetypal realm for the asking, is it possible they each have a specialized function/area that we have not explored yet?
* Is it possible that often the 3rd-house guide comes forward for a good reason, like maybe in our culture that's a part of ourself we actually tend to lean toward more? (Eg more logical and verbally communicative.)
* What other 'maps of the internal universe' besides astrology and tarot can be utilized in an archetype model? How about:
I'll head into part 2 in awhile, might take a reading break for a few days.
PJ
This is the last post on "Part One" of the book.
This is actually a defensive post not about archetype work, but about channeling. Except at the end.
ES seriously disses a couple identities I'm very fond of and grateful to. However, I'm working to open my mind to the idea that maybe he is right, and these are things I should consider seriously. So far... I'm more argumentative than musing, though. If there are good points to be made against my POV I would love them as comments. This is a subject that has a ton of superstition and little intelligent discourse, in my observation, and it's interesting and deserves better.
Jane Roberts was a woman, a writer and poet, who in the 1960's began experimenting with psychic functioning, initially with a Ouija board, and ended up -- after awhile -- 'channeling' an entity that called himself 'Seth.' There are many books written by Jane 'channeling' Seth, and by her-as-her. She had health issues for a very long time and finally died in the 1980s. Whatever else she might have been, she was very intelligent, very open minded, yet a critical thinker too (rare and invaluable to find that combo in people!), and one of the best poets I've ever read.
Seth, over time, said that Jane was an Aspect of him -- not the other way around which I believe is the norm for (healthy) channeling. She had a burning desire to know, he was a teacher, she looked inward and called for answers, and he answered the call. She was skeptical of this, fascinated but reserved especially initially, was always wondering if he could be caught in something inconsistent, and she and her mate Rob took and kept extensive notes on everything. In fact if you read a Seth book I recommend ignoring all the notes. They had such detail about their tracking him that it kinda distracts from the information in a way.
Her successful work with Seth was followed, shortly in, by a whole wave of channeling popularity that included some entities and channelers that, shall we say, are part of the reason modern channeling has such a bad name.
I might add that some of the most powerful works of occult literature in our time, including most all of Alice A. Bailey's work, The Urantia Book, and A Course in Miracles, are channeled materials. Also some occultists write "in the spirit" at times which means about the same thing -- channeling 'information/energy' as opposed to 'with identity included'. These people, these entities, and this information, is almost incomprehensibly different than the burbling crap you find in new-age bookstores -- the latter stuff being from the cosmic alien channeled through the walk-in telling you why you're an indigo child and special, and that'll be only $399 for that next conference on why the stars say this is a special time for special people like you.
I personally felt -- maybe still feel -- that most "identity" channeling amounts to voluntary temporary possession. However I think whether one is bringing forth "an aspect of themselves", vs. "the wandering dead guy I met during the Seance" -- or even "the person in focus in this remote viewing session" -- I think this is a different thing, in both experience and in result. I am not really saying any are good or bad, I'm just saying that "opening to a part of yourself" is not quite the same as "hosting someone you don't know" in my opinion. One is evoking-from, one is invoking-into.
And I think the hosting of a stranger, if you were doing it on purpose, may be a useful means to an end if it works (eg for psi info). Whether it is bad or dangerous I don't know. Maybe a little of both. But so is eating donuts, crossing against the light, and running with scissors, and sometimes we do those things with full awareness for our own reasons.
I am often "sitting in on" other identities, in dreams and sometimes not-dreams, without even trying, and I am often "feeling energy move through me", which I think makes me a little more blasé about the topic--as some degree of these things occur with me natively (naturally) anyway.
I believe that most channeling is "information/energy" channeling and does not come with the 'skin of identity'. I once knew a woman who channeled who only sometimes even spoke. The planes in her face would change and the energy in the room would change, sometimes radically, and that was the point of it. The whole funky pay-a-zillion for Ramtha's-cosmic-insight seems hilarious to me. I know this was a big thing especially when Steinbrecher was publishing this book. I sometimes feel I am channeling, as if information is 'coming through me'. And sometimes when the Aeons are talking to me, I'm sorta translating and I feel it amounts to channeling even though to me it's more like 'subtle conversation I am recording'.
Back to Jane and Seth.
Seth's book "The Nature of Personal Reality" is IMO one of the most important spiritual contributions to several generations. It's a bit cerebral. There are smaller simpler books by them most people would like better.
Jane and Seth are part of the reason I'm a normal person exploring myself instead of drugged in a straightjacket somewhere. I found them at just the right time. My whole life followed the book I finally (reluctantly, I was very biased against channeling) agreed to read, me having ongoing 'experiences' and 'ideas' that the book would then explain and annotate shortly after. If you allow it, Seth books can be an 'experience' not just a read. I had no mental models or frameworks to handle my spontaneous experiences, I had no vocabulary to treat it as something sane, rational, and able to be integrated. They gave me that. I am still grateful.
In a world full of left-brainiacs who want to vomit over most woo-woo channeling, Seth and Jane singlehandedly redeemed the entire genre. They made a critical philosophical 'doorway' a lot more accessible to much of our culture. He was consistent; brilliant; insightful; humorous. He was not a guru by ego, only by result.
Seth's message, from start to finish, woven inextricably through everything he ever did for the public, was:
* You create your own reality-experience.
* What you perceive as reality is your belief systems manifested.
* "You get what you focus upon. There is no other main rule. [session 617]" (I have this, in calligraphy and frame, on my bedroom wall.)
* Your beliefs about reality are "about" it, they are not IT.
* The point of power is NOW.
* You have the ability to commune with yourself. Don't live in fear of 'hidden subconscious' stuff. Trust that if you truly inquire, anything you want to know about yourself is available.
Everything Seth did was about personal empowerment and an individual's ability to get to know themselves and intentionally shape their reality.
In short, everything that was Seth's message, is a total confirmation and support for inner guide / archetype work.
And as a matter of fact, Seth provided many exercises over time, several of which are incredibly like archetype work.
Another point:
Jane's mate, Rob, once felt he 'saw' Seth and painted a portrait of him.
ES says that portrait clearly looks like Jane's third house guide, hence obviously Seth was the false inner guide.
This has so many problems, where to begin?
1. The painting is by Rob, not Jane. SHE did not describe him that way; she didn't 'see' him. At least that I recall. Why on earth do we assume that "how Rob perceives" some entity is exactly what that entity looks like for Jane? Saturn looks different to me than to my friends. Why not any other totally nonphysical identity??
Is not one major lesson of the inner world that perception and reality are both totally subjective, that the same thing can be many things from many perspectives? The whole judgement on Seth, based on what he looks like "to Rob," compared to what he is allegedly "supposed to be for Jane," makes no sense at all to me as a result.
2. I respect ES's work and perspective but I do not yet know that an IG 'must' be 9th house match. But I am not taking this point seriously in the Seth debate -- as I do not care to dispute it because maybe he is right -- the above and following points are more relevant to this topic anyway.
3. Jane never said that Seth was her inner guide. Seth said that Jane was an aspect of him. ES seems to assume there is no other possible role that anything, anyone, could have to a human being. There's you, there's IG, and that's it. Everything else in existence, if it isn't you and it isn't IG, must be a false-IG! Come on already. I think that is taking the I-have-a-hammer way too far.
Steinbrecher accidentally almost created a religion here. Let's look at what we have. A method for talking to 'the divine/wise/guide/spirit/etc.' A description of what the good guy (IG-as-Messiah in this analogy) 'is'. A clear warning about how everything that is not the good guy, is bad. A specific model/map grafted onto it all of how-this-really-is. OK we have a few more bullet points before true religion is reached, I admit, but still, he was walking a pretty good road toward a doctrine there. At the least, it's a clear paradigm. And I wouldn't care because you have to believe SOMETHING based on experience, except for his seeming to think everyone else's experiences no matter how different, were to be judged by the framework of his own preference.
Seth said he was a teacher, he and Jane were connected, she asked, he answered. I'm having a hard time figuring out what part of this is inherently bad.
Next: ES suggests that if Seth hadn't been a 'false inner guide' that his information would have been (wait for it): "more spiritual but less clever."
Since Seth's entire message was always of individual reality and individual empowerment to change that, the 'not-spiritual-enough' accusation confuses me. If he had used flowery words and talked about scorpio and karma would he have been better accepted by Edwin? Is that spiritual? Inner Guide work is all about the exact same inner-world topics Seth addressed, amazingly. Which part was the 'not-spiritual-but-clever'? Was the fact that Seth basically dumped 99.99% of the mumbo jumbo BS out the window and discussed 'the nature of reality' as if it were a reasonable thing, was that too "clever but unspiritual" because it didn't have any spiritual terminology involved?
Was the fact that Seth did it without invoking astrology or tarot the real problem?
Or was it just that being 'a channeled' identity was the judgement? I mean for all the ranting about those in the channeling field, the aliens and the make-me-a-gurus and so on, none of that applies to Jane and Seth.
It is like taking someone who does doubleblind remote viewing, quietly, and then dissing them because there are these bozos on late night radio using that term and making worse than a mockery of it as its alleged 'representatives' to millions. Yes there are stupid people and wannabes but what does that have to do with Jane and Seth, who were close to the polar opposite of that? It's completely injust to judge them by behaviors, issues and circumstance they had nothing to do with. It's a hand-waving assignment of everything-obnoxious-about-new-age-channeling, glue-sticked onto Jane as if she bears the responsibility for everyone else.
Yep, she met him through Ouija (sorta indirectly or at least not as the initial meeting). Yep, she was a 'trance channeler'. Yep, the energy was very strong and the timing and volume (and accent) of the delivery quite odd, but there may be perfectly logical reasons for that; on its own I see no reason to judge that in any direction. Yes, she had other people in her living room a few times a week and sometimes, for some classes, Seth would talk with them on some topic or answer questions for various people. Did she charge big sums of money? No. She was a down to earth person. She had issues, everyone has issues, she had longstanding health problems, but she managed this despite that. That doesn't make Seth a bad guy because she failed to be perfect and Ascend Into The Light or whatever.
Maybe there is more to 'identity' and its merged-multiplicity than the simple "one person, one guide" model allows for.
Maybe ES was right about Seth being some "third house guide". Maybe, if so, "so what?" Personally if we were talking about identities, entities, which are part of us, I have a hard time grokking why part 9 is good but every other possible part is bad. Might this be because ES associated his experiences with part 9, so everything after that was expected to follow that model? Or is it that ES simply only looks for things that fit in the IG model, so anything else is wrong?
Sudden idea: 12 houses? Is there supposed to be a 'guide' in each house? What if they each have some specialization, and the 9th house is the IG specialization, but the others have... others?
Next: ES implied that Jane's illness that eventually killed her was something that Seth should have saved her from if he'd been her "real inner guide." This point has a lot of problems too.
First: he wasn't her IG. Nobody, not her or him or anybody else, ever claimed that he was her IG. So the repetition on "he was not her true IG!" as if this is some hugely important statement that officially damns them, is just ridiculous to me.
For the record let me state that my Four, my Consortium of 12, my child, my cat, my friends, and my dream characters, and my favorite deities, are not my IG. If this statement alone implies something bad about them I might as well take it right up top.
Second: she could have worked with her IG in addition to Seth. It's not like her work with Seth made work with any other source of energy, spirit, info, etc. impossible. If she did not choose to work with her IG, that is her life issue, not Seth's; she was not his puppet. He gave her all kinds of advice some of which she openly ignored.
(Actually, I feel that Jane was hugely experimental. A lot of her writing that is not official books is like a "varying % of her vs. Seth". Some people have been disillusioned by this, as if it put all of Seth's work, which they found otherwise stellar, suddenly in doubt for them. I however feel that this was part of her own learning and processing of identity.)
Perhaps Steinbrecher was right that working with her IG on her health might have saved her. But you know, I read an original, prior to publishing version of what became the book that went up to her death. Seth was trying to save her ass until the last minute, literally. (I bawled helplessly all day about it.) It was so pitiful. I think blaming Seth is really SO injust there.
Maybe--I don't know, so I'm open to this--maybe something about the energy of their work together actually did make her more vulnerable to something that affected her health. Mind you she had issues aside from him but maybe her work with him really did have an effect on her health. Maybe that kind of work does have a certain cost. Hell, even if it did something minor like deplete potassium and vitamin D for some reason (which even ordinary activities can do), if done consistently without compensating that could greatly gear someone toward low immunity and disease.
Maybe she could have done things, including IG work, to resolve it. But even if all of that is true, in what way does that make Seth inherently bad, false, distractive, dangerous, or whatever? EVERYTHING is a trade-off of energy. Everything, and everybody. The Private Oracle told me that but I believe it for my own reasons. My Aeons, my Four, the private oracle, inner guide, everything, everyone, every "interaction" is an energy trade of some kind.
Learning what identities are best suited for what, and learning what it "costs" us for that and whether we choose that, seems like the task of the century.
Maybe Jane was unbalanced because she had so much 3rd-house-guide energy and so little every-other-house-guide energy. I imagine there are some risks to everything. Some people die doing daring skiing, or from eating too much of one thing and not enough of another. If that contributed to her death, that sucks, but I don't think it is appropriate to blame Seth for it. If she did not choose to save herself, not via Seth's advice and not via working with other entities more geared to direct-healing, if for whatever reason her soul chose to check out of this frequency, then you know -- that is her choice.
Sometimes the most exceptional people in some areas are the most torqued in some other. Suggesting that she might not have died if he'd been different seems unfair; with this logic, anybody doing IG meditations should have eternal life, right? So where is Edwin? Dead. Granted he was 71 when he died in 2002, but if I extend his logic, nothing besides old age at 115+ should kill someone with the proper inner guide relationship -- at least, as he is projecting it (unfairly in my mind) toward Jane and Seth in this instance.
I'm not arguing ES's claim that Seth (a) was not Jane's "true inner guide" or that (b) was Jane's "third house guide". I don't think the former is even relevant as that was not what she was questing for anyway. And I think the latter, even if true, simply makes the topic of "sources of information" even more interesting to me. I don't consider Seth some kind of negative entity of darkness. I have a huge respect and appreciation and gratitude for him. So if he is representative of "third house guides", which so-far have been relegated solely to the dismissive category as "false inner guides" (in other words not-a-9th-house-guide), then that doesn't make me think, "Oooh, bad, avoid that!" -- instead, it makes me want to understand more about that kind of identity. So it's not IG... I get that. Not everything in my internal universe has to be IG. My IG rocks and is unique... nobody else could be her anyway! That doesn't mean they don't have value for whatever they are.
I think that Edwin Steinbrecher's model for Inner Guide as used in archetype work is very cool and insightful. I think his mapping all this with tarot and astrology as the most (obvious and powerful) archetypes is also very cool and insightful. I think he was a smart guy with a questing mind and I respect him a lot.
But I think there are many more questions to be answered in this work and certainly his groundbreaking, very cool book is the alpha, not the omega. Like:
* What else can IG do, besides bring us archetypes, Aeons (or according to ES, talk to the dead)? I have the gut feeling there is a lot of powerful potential there that we have never even thought to ask about, have not even considered.
* Do the energy relationships in us manifest in our body too? Are there certain 'mappings' of the internal world that would do better for health-related work?
* If IG is a 9th-house guide, and 3rd-house guides are known and recognizeable for different qualities (of behavior not just appearance), is it possible that all one's houses have guides?
* If all one's astro houses have an equivalent 'guide' in the archetypal realm for the asking, is it possible they each have a specialized function/area that we have not explored yet?
* Is it possible that often the 3rd-house guide comes forward for a good reason, like maybe in our culture that's a part of ourself we actually tend to lean toward more? (Eg more logical and verbally communicative.)
* What other 'maps of the internal universe' besides astrology and tarot can be utilized in an archetype model? How about:
- the i ching?
- The Tree of Life?
- Feng Shui?
- Power-animals?
- What about colors, numbers, and other elements of "correspondence" that qabala also uses?
- (What about Enochian entities? I'm not trying it...)
- What about 'elementals'?
- What about body-parts -- what role does my liver really have on a larger scale?
- What about astronomy, and not just the major planets but other things too (major moons in the system, rings, the galaxy, the asteroid belt)?
- What about the zillion heirarchical angelic troops delineated (ad nauseum) in The Urantia Book?
I'll head into part 2 in awhile, might take a reading break for a few days.
PJ
Book Talk, TIGM/es 03
Post 3 in a series related to Edwin Steinbrecher's book "The Inner Guide Meditation."
ES feels that the archetypal energies are "collective" entities. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I guess I kind of agree. I do feel that 'archetypes' by nature are singular in-themselves. What I mean is, the archetype of green is always the-archetype-of-green no matter who is asking for them. Whether Jane's interaction with green affects Howard's interaction with green--a truly "collective" result for green--now that part, I do not know. (Given the bazillions of humans now, previous and later, how on earth could we ever evaluate such a thing anyway.)
I think that a person's unique relationship with green would make the archetype they experienced--not to be confused with some master/universal archetype--unique to them, at least in some respects.
From the beginning ES had tied the arch work to his astro work. He spoke of introducing others, talking on this publicly, getting people to work with him and give him feedback about their experiences, which is much of what went into this book, the conclusions that brought him to.
I find that very interesting, though I think it's worth considering that him as the point of commonality makes the alleged separate-ness of all the experiences in question. That doesn't mean it invalidates it. Just that I would be intrigued to hear the results of someone with a different paradigm doing the same work.
Which got a great deal more 'doctrinal / predictable' once he decided the experiences of the people he was leading into 'introduction' to their guides, and/or working with, matched his own and each others':
I admit this makes my brain hurt. It does seem possible that it's this way, that all first IG's match the 9th natal Koch house. That's amazing if so! I mean that it's so... universal, or predictable. But other things seem to be like that sometimes, so why not that.
I guess the part that concerns me here is that it is so easy to build anything into religion. Here we are with this mostly-freeform "exploratory" experience, right, unique as your dreams, then bam before you know it we have pre-decided what everybody's personal inner guide is going to look like and act like and anything that doesn't fit that mold...
So you know what's coming next, right. Once we define the good guys, that makes everything ELSE... well. You can take the religion out of people raised in the judeochristian model, but you cannot exorcise it from their personalities. (I'm one of 'em, I should know.) If there is a good, there's got to be an evil, and it's probably lurking behind doorways hoping to ensnare you at every turn.
Not saying this does not exist, mind you. Just saying it seems to get more focus than it should sometimes... it's a big universe, so when we limit the 'good' to what we already have a label for, that sure leaves a big universe of stuff to be bad.
More is coming on that topic a bit later.
The thing I often warn people about with archmeds, is that once your psychology really and truly "groks" -- understands -- just how powerful, how profound, how fundamentally and reality-changing this process can be, the mind gets completely resistant. This takes the 'change=death' to new levels that nothing else in life can touch.
Most people are resistant even to changing software in their job. Imagine how resistant most people are to something that fundamentally changes their entire self and reality! And so, you're going along meditating and feeling delighted with how amazing it all is, and then all the sudden -- you can't "get around to it". The resistance that develops is ridiculous. ES also mentions that:
The following point is a dilemma for me, the kind I mentioned in my first post. Let me give an analogy before I give the detail.
In the QBL (cabala), there is a 'tree of life' with 10 (ok technically 11) Sephiroth. This basically "composes the universe". It breaks it down into major categories of energy, is one way to put it. Eons ago when I had an 'astral college' experience for awhile, there were 3 crystals each with 10 prismic 'sections' and those were each a world. The Enochian Aethyrs also number 30. My so-called "Linoleum Theory" divided 'the universe of my soul' into Four.
I suppose "every number is infinite" is the reality of this. Some people use Tarot. They may use just the 22 trumps. Or they may use all 78 cards like in Thoth. Or they may use astrology and divide it into 12, or many other forms of division which number 12, or the 7 of a rainbow or octave, those are common numbers in metaphysical stuff. Or they may use the 22 Trumps of Tarot plus the 12 signs of the zodiac plus 7-9 planets. It is my personal suspicion that ALL of these ways of "dividing up the energy of the universe" are valid, and probably many more. I do think some are ancient, perhaps created with 'insight', and as a thoughtform, then, may carry a great deal more power -- tarot, astrology, the Tree, being primary examples.
I totally agree that you can use any of these systems as a "map" -- of the soul, of the universe, whatever. But I'm not sure that it's the ONLY map. And every map, just like every model, does come with some assumptions. Not saying that makes them bad. Just saying that assigning "one" map as if that is the only thing, the literal thing, the whole thing, tends to result in doctrine. I know it probably sounds like I'm being pedantic here, but actually I'm actually trying to be semantic instead: I think it's important for the mental models, for genuine creativity and freedom, for me to think of this as "a" model or "one possible model of many". I think if I set it in stone like THE model, it will paralyze my inner world into certain pre-set patterns. I'm willing to bet we could use the i Ching or chinese year-animals or whatever to address archetypes and that would work just as well.
Yes. But I am willing to bet that any 'road map' one chooses to use, particularly that ties into worldwide archetypes like tarot, astrology, or sephiroth, will work and could be verified by personal experience.
That the archetype meditation model actually works is totally brain-crunching up close. ES did a nice job exampling this:
In my own mental model (subject to change), there are infinite variations of his brother, all equal, some manifested some not depending on his brother, and what changed was 'the version of his brother that his reality was associated with'. A prettier way to put it might be like this:
Imagine an infinite kaleidascope universe, with infinite patterns. I'm a fractal flower with lots of petals, leaves, and associations with other patterns around me. The process of the energy work causes me to basically decide that instead of being THIS flower, I'm going be THAT flower now, which is mostly identical except that one leaf (the brother) is a different color in this new pattern. All the pieces and patterns are still just as existent. Nothing moved, nothing changed, nothing appeared or vanished. My ATTENTION shifted, and when it did, of course, my sense of identity moved with it. Now I am 'paying attention to' being pattern-B rather than pattern-A. The only difference I notice is the part of the pattern that is "mapped to my brother" (and probably some other things too).
Does this make sense to anybody but me? I'd like to come up with a way of putting this stuff in words that makes it less, not more, confusing!
Anyway I agree with him in general: we are obviously creating our reality-experience, even when it sucks, which is very frustrating when some part of it sucks and the road to how to change it is not immediately clear. I mean it seems obvious to all of us how to fix a given problem... as long as it's someone else's. :-)
Back to the dark side:
I agree that we have this 'naive ignorance'. What I'm not sure about is -- well, it seems to me he is implying, with the book, that we have now figured it all out thanks to Astrology, Tarot and the Inner Guide, and it's all mapped out and a 'known', so there is no more 'ignorance' about what I would call the universe or the jungian-stew of what's inside us.
I'm not sure I'd agree we are anywhere near that happy place. I tend to think we are all still wandering the masculine polarity of the universe (which refuses to ask for directions...) and while we have found a few 'things that can be mapped' on that universe, I don't really feel like we have THE answer yet.
This matters to the topic at hand. Think about it this way: if you decide that entity-type-1 is good, and you know nothing about entity-types-2 through 29, but you have a few reports on entities 2-4 (which were unpleasant) and 11-14 (which were confusing), it is easy to make it insta-doctrine and say, "entity 1 is good. All other entities are not-good." Because your map has a little legend or annotation with entity 1 on it and who-the-hell-knows who all those other entities might be or what their nefarious purposes might be.
Historically, man-made religion is so quick to do this. I'm reluctant to assume anything is wrong, bad, misleading, black magick, evil, etc. without some personal experience and consideration. For all we know, entity #19 is completely useless for most things, literally harmful for some things, but an ass-kickingly powerful perfect for some other thing. How are we ever going to learn this if we're assuming the whole universe inside us that isn't IG is "a false IG" and hence bad??
I don't remember my first guide much except that I was new to this and nothing including IG seemed like more than crap-I-was-making-up back then, until I adapted to the habit and did them real deep altered state.
The next guides I've had, when I met them I felt shy, and felt they were in a big judgement of me (and not necessarily a good one), silent but ... a sort of 'has an opinion, keeps his mouth shut, is waiting for me to 'prove' myself, has a pre-existing hard opinion about me' sort of feeling. Yes I know that people with resistance to this may manifest all kinds of dark-side/scary things so maybe it's hard to tell.
I keep a positive intent and I pray (literally to God) so the way I see it, if it wasn't the right IG to start with, my intent and prayer would shift it into being so pretty shortly. If it didn't, if prayer had no value, and interior energy/focus had no value, then WTF are we doing here anyway...
I prefer 'dominant males' and I respond to authority, so I suspect that is part of my own psychology; part of my respect for him assigns him some of those qualities, and some father-energy which is not perfect for me. But definitely I was not feeling love and light pouring out of my guides when I met them. Later, I developed that relationship. To start with? Nope. If I'd been using this as a map of what was real I'd have had some real problems at this point and would have thought everything was 'false'.
I do not for a moment believe that my past guides which felt like this initially, were 'false' guides. I suspect that allowing is on the part of the person, not the IG. Much like Nero and Taan told me that channeled info 'style' is based on the channeler not whatever energy they are in contact with, maybe our emotional reaction to the ultimate inner authority(s) is more about us than it is about them.
I might add I never felt that 'prove yourself' feeling with my current IG. She felt compassionate and understanding -- about my trauma of having to give up the previous IG, and me not wanting her -- from the start. I thought it would take me a couple years even to learn to like her. But I ended up crazy in love with her almost right away. She's been quite different for me in several respects than the previous guides.
I often feel like the work she and I do is an 'opportunity' for both of us but her too. As if she is... like a creative soundtrack composer. And when we work together it's a chance for her to see what neat things she can accomplish. And I often feel the urge to work with her solely for this reason -- like because she is very cool and I want to see what she can come up with for me. I didn't have that with any other guide.
ES suggests if you don't feel love/acceptance for your guide that you look to his right and there will be the 'real' guide. That sounds like a programmed belief to me. If you can make people believe this, it would probably work. Of course it might be true, too. Still.
ES has some good general advice about what might constitute a 'true' guide. All the examples he gives of 'warning signs' that a guide is a 'false' guide--ok most of them anyway--are pretty obvious and I would be concerned had I ever perceived those in an IG. The kind of entities he's talking about remind me of the sort most people get from Ouija boards or 'lite' channeling (he actually says the same, later) -- egocentric, pontificating, highly polarized, ego-flattering sorts. Or simply 'other identities' -- which may not be an inner guide, though I don't know for sure that this indicates they are necessarily bad, as just not what we're looking for in this case.
ES has (well, had when he was alive) an organization that uses his theories and astrology and he suggests if there is question to send info to them. He suggests you include this whole long list of physical attributes about your guide. I really laughed about that. I have NEVER seen my inner guides clearly except when I had worked with them for quite awhile and even then I usually see them in pieces, like at one moment I'm aware of their height or their hair and eyes or whatever. When I do get a full-sense of them it's usually a 'sense' more than real visual. But then later on the same page he adds:
I agree, but... well how are you supposed to use the physical appearance of your guide to determine he is the 9th Koch house appearance, if you can't see the bleeping guy? Am I being picky? I am not worried personally, but I feel like people just starting this who are reading the book fiercely and trying to do it "right" would be understandably confused here.
I've already addressed my hesitance about 1) and 4) above; with those caveats I agree on those. I have to admit that 2), 3), 4), 9), 10) have always been true for my guides so far.
5) Will not contact the dead for anyone but.... I beg your pardon?! You're telling me IG will contact the dead for me?! Holy crap! Well here I was recently wondering what else she might be able to do. Now if only I knew someone dead I wanted contacted. Exactly what good would this do, I wonder?
Honestly I am a skeptic on this. I don't mean I disbelieve it's possible. I mean that I think you could work with 'someone dead' as if they were an archetype, including 'via' IG, and how would you know if it was your-archetype-of-the-dead-guy or really IG-contacting-the-dead-guy-for-you? I mean I imagine that people sensing a deep loss from someone they loved having died, could probably use archmeds well to this end, but whether it's really THE dead person vs. something akin to the archetypal energy of the dead person? Who knows?
Maybe it doesn't really matter and that's just quibbling on semantics. But it won't be ME telling people that my IG talks to dead people. :-) For now, anyway.
6) Info on others -- I have never asked for info about other people so I don't know. Actually I have seldom asked for info from IG at all, in part because I so seldom see or hear IG clearly enough to get an answer, and often when I do it is not informative (more a question or feeling and I'm often still wondering), so have kind of adapted away from communication being primary. I talk 'to' IG but it's very rare I actually get talking back. Sometimes, usually in impressions.
2) Never volunteers information unless asked, and 8) are always accepting of where you are... well yes. But my current IG will stuff Aeons down my throat at every opportunity it appears, when I refused to go to the Tower with the Four where they were being urged on me, so it's not like she doesn't have her own opinion on things.
7) Doesn't manifest through autowriting, channeling, trance states. Now this is an interesting one. I would say that generally, yes, IG will not spontaneously arrive via at least those first two states. Mostly because one is not ASKING for him to manifest through those states. Intent is everything. To me this is like saying, "When you look at your astrology chart you won't see Tarot symbols on it." Well... yeah... that's because that's not what it is designed for. That doesn't mean that one or the other are invalid or bad. Just that these things are different. In fact I'm confused about why he seems to insist the entire universe of human spirituality come through his doorway instead of any other.
I think I dispute the assumption in this one. Once one IS connected consciously I think IG could manifest any way IG wanted. Maybe IG would never want to do that. I don't know. But much like IG being human, I think some things are so more because of US than because of IG.
As for trance states, ES seems to have some kind of polarized view of this and judgement about it ('related to channeling eww ick ptooie!') but that's IMO the wrong thing to include. Archmeds are often done in trance states because trance is merely varying degrees of brainwave states and the most powerful inner work tends to be in pretty altered state.
I don't dispute ES's definition of true or false guides. However, I do want to address a couple things. I think that he, like everyone, has certain paradigms and they tend to overlap a little with this subject.
1) Maybe he is right and IG is not an elaborate communicator. I don't necessarily judge any identity that might be as bad, though. Just that maybe they aren't your IG.
4) and 7) How would you know if your 'guide' was making you ill or giving you bad outer circumstance? Isn't the entire point of all this to grok that outer reality is a reflection of inner self? This line item seems like an unprovable tenet. I'm not saying that it is inaccurate; it might be true; I'm saying that there is no clear way I can see for people to evaluate this, since if WE create our outer reality experience via inner energetic relationships, I can't see how anybody would know whether to "blame it on the false-IG!" vs. consider it part of oneself. In fact, geez, I'd think the tendency to blame it on someone else might be worrisome.
10) I consider this whole point another bias-against-channeling issue. I'm happy to agree that one's IG is unlikely to be a pontificating channeled entity. However, (a) you are unlikely to expect IG to be that, or such entities to be IG, anyway, so what's the point here, and (b) all his other comments are not about IG, they are about his negative opinions on channeling. I think that is a separate topic. I could address the issues of channelers, accents and more, but I just don't think that has anything to do with inner guide / archetype meditation work.
I also might add that he seems to ASSUME that any identity anybody works with in any fashion whatever just HAS to be an archetype or your inner guide. Anything else -- say, channeled info -- falls into the category of "false inner-guide." Well that's ridiculous! I mean if someone is channeling and he's going, "Hey! That's not their inner guide!" I feel like, "Er, so? Who said it was?! Who said that IG is the ONLY source of info, energy or interaction anybody is allowed to have?"
It's like Inner Guide became his Jesus. Everything else is not-jesus and hence by definition, bad.
Even good and smart people have biases sometimes. Sometimes they are just, sometimes not. Remote Viewing has taught me a lot about that over the years. What most people have as their definition of psychic or remote viewing or the people doing it, have little in common with reality. If my definition were the same as theirs, I'd be as dismissive as they are. Much of one's evaluation of anything depends on exposure to what's real, vs. the media hype and late night radio bozos. I agree that most 'new age' stuff is eye-rollingly stupid, but, like religion, that is man-made, not of spirit. Here's hoping no part of spirit judges me by someone else in my neighborhood just because I am sometimes found in their company.
A few other points:
OK, all my IG's have been human, I'll admit. However, I think I expected that, so that might be part of why. But on the last IG (which I think was my... third?) it gradually became clear that his human form was designed 'for' me. That his "true nature" was something different and more... amphibian. I ASKED to see him as he really was and to 'truly' know him better. He was a giant creature I've never seen before, couldn't get clearly, our closest concept here being a frog but not that. I imagine if I had not pushed for that he would always have seemed like a normal human to me. So was it that he was some faker and I gradually got more observant of the tiny clues, once I started to gradually be able to perceive him more clearly? Or is it that he, and all guides, appear in human form always by default, because WE are human, not because they are?
I don't mean to be picky but there is a big difference. Since if it's the former, it "implies" that someone like that is "a false guide", and if it's the latter, it implies that maybe we don't know everything we think we know about sentience. I loved him beyond all reason in a way I believe only an IG could inspire, and he was nothing but good in my view, and it was the Four especially Senior that made me let him go and adopt the new IG, which makes me trust him utterly.
Now I can see that the way Steinbrecher put this has some advantages. People will not believe projections they might make of a current guru. They won't believe any alien (or guru) that shows up psychically to claim the role. They won't over-interpret anything like clothing to have some significance it does not (e.g. 'dressed like an egyptian I think it was a god'). Or that it's something from the future which also implies some god-like (at least in information terms) qualities. So there are benefits to insisting that IG will always be 'a normal human not from this time'. I don't think he wrote that to soften the possible wrong-turns for newbs though, he appears to simply believe it is always that way with no exceptions. Whether it is as literally true--given my last IG's eventual revelation--as the book indicates, I am not sure.
This seems to have worked out for me too, actually. I think. I have lost count. I think she is 4th. Although I will mention that while I had zero conscious memory of this detail, I am certain I read that 15 years ago, so who knows what prior expectations might have set up.
PJ
ES feels that the archetypal energies are "collective" entities. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I guess I kind of agree. I do feel that 'archetypes' by nature are singular in-themselves. What I mean is, the archetype of green is always the-archetype-of-green no matter who is asking for them. Whether Jane's interaction with green affects Howard's interaction with green--a truly "collective" result for green--now that part, I do not know. (Given the bazillions of humans now, previous and later, how on earth could we ever evaluate such a thing anyway.)
I think that a person's unique relationship with green would make the archetype they experienced--not to be confused with some master/universal archetype--unique to them, at least in some respects.
From the beginning ES had tied the arch work to his astro work. He spoke of introducing others, talking on this publicly, getting people to work with him and give him feedback about their experiences, which is much of what went into this book, the conclusions that brought him to.
I find that very interesting, though I think it's worth considering that him as the point of commonality makes the alleged separate-ness of all the experiences in question. That doesn't mean it invalidates it. Just that I would be intrigued to hear the results of someone with a different paradigm doing the same work.
It occurred to me that perhaps others could contact their inner guides, so I began trying to get others to their guides at the conclusion of my horoscope readings. [...] I began to get a concept of the archetypal forces as collective entities.
Which got a great deal more 'doctrinal / predictable' once he decided the experiences of the people he was leading into 'introduction' to their guides, and/or working with, matched his own and each others':
I began to notice a remarkable similarity between one area of the horoscopes of the individuals I worked with and their descriptions of the Guides they contacted in their inner world. I discovered that the personality and physical appearance of one's first inner guide always corresponds to the ninth house (...) of the natal pattern (...Koch...). This is traditionally the section called The House of God and Religion and the area describing your philosophical and spiritual views, as well as your own ability to act as a guide or way-shower for others. [...] That we are so completely programmed, internally as well as externally, came as an astronishing revelation. [later, ES writes:] The guide's ascendant or first house (what he looks like and what his personality is like) is the ninth house of your chart.
I admit this makes my brain hurt. It does seem possible that it's this way, that all first IG's match the 9th natal Koch house. That's amazing if so! I mean that it's so... universal, or predictable. But other things seem to be like that sometimes, so why not that.
I guess the part that concerns me here is that it is so easy to build anything into religion. Here we are with this mostly-freeform "exploratory" experience, right, unique as your dreams, then bam before you know it we have pre-decided what everybody's personal inner guide is going to look like and act like and anything that doesn't fit that mold...
So you know what's coming next, right. Once we define the good guys, that makes everything ELSE... well. You can take the religion out of people raised in the judeochristian model, but you cannot exorcise it from their personalities. (I'm one of 'em, I should know.) If there is a good, there's got to be an evil, and it's probably lurking behind doorways hoping to ensnare you at every turn.
Not saying this does not exist, mind you. Just saying it seems to get more focus than it should sometimes... it's a big universe, so when we limit the 'good' to what we already have a label for, that sure leaves a big universe of stuff to be bad.
In addition, "false" guides ... were also described in the natal pattern by the third house. [...] this new insight gave the ability to distinguish the true guide from the false to anyone versed in astrology.
More is coming on that topic a bit later.
The thing I often warn people about with archmeds, is that once your psychology really and truly "groks" -- understands -- just how powerful, how profound, how fundamentally and reality-changing this process can be, the mind gets completely resistant. This takes the 'change=death' to new levels that nothing else in life can touch.
Most people are resistant even to changing software in their job. Imagine how resistant most people are to something that fundamentally changes their entire self and reality! And so, you're going along meditating and feeling delighted with how amazing it all is, and then all the sudden -- you can't "get around to it". The resistance that develops is ridiculous. ES also mentions that:
These sudden outer changes initially produced a common reaction in those experiencing them, including myself. It all seemed "too fast". A resistance to sitting down to work with the Guides and the archetypes would develop and last until our egos got used to the outer changese and assimilated them.
The following point is a dilemma for me, the kind I mentioned in my first post. Let me give an analogy before I give the detail.
In the QBL (cabala), there is a 'tree of life' with 10 (ok technically 11) Sephiroth. This basically "composes the universe". It breaks it down into major categories of energy, is one way to put it. Eons ago when I had an 'astral college' experience for awhile, there were 3 crystals each with 10 prismic 'sections' and those were each a world. The Enochian Aethyrs also number 30. My so-called "Linoleum Theory" divided 'the universe of my soul' into Four.
I suppose "every number is infinite" is the reality of this. Some people use Tarot. They may use just the 22 trumps. Or they may use all 78 cards like in Thoth. Or they may use astrology and divide it into 12, or many other forms of division which number 12, or the 7 of a rainbow or octave, those are common numbers in metaphysical stuff. Or they may use the 22 Trumps of Tarot plus the 12 signs of the zodiac plus 7-9 planets. It is my personal suspicion that ALL of these ways of "dividing up the energy of the universe" are valid, and probably many more. I do think some are ancient, perhaps created with 'insight', and as a thoughtform, then, may carry a great deal more power -- tarot, astrology, the Tree, being primary examples.
I totally agree that you can use any of these systems as a "map" -- of the soul, of the universe, whatever. But I'm not sure that it's the ONLY map. And every map, just like every model, does come with some assumptions. Not saying that makes them bad. Just saying that assigning "one" map as if that is the only thing, the literal thing, the whole thing, tends to result in doctrine. I know it probably sounds like I'm being pedantic here, but actually I'm actually trying to be semantic instead: I think it's important for the mental models, for genuine creativity and freedom, for me to think of this as "a" model or "one possible model of many". I think if I set it in stone like THE model, it will paralyze my inner world into certain pre-set patterns. I'm willing to bet we could use the i Ching or chinese year-animals or whatever to address archetypes and that would work just as well.
It also showed that the horoscope is a literal road map of the inner world's inhabitants, geography and physics, and a tool which can be verified by your own personal psyche.
Yes. But I am willing to bet that any 'road map' one chooses to use, particularly that ties into worldwide archetypes like tarot, astrology, or sephiroth, will work and could be verified by personal experience.
That the archetype meditation model actually works is totally brain-crunching up close. ES did a nice job exampling this:
...if I could meditate in a chair in ... New Mexico, working on an archetypal energy within me that corresponded to my oldest brother in my horoscopic pattern, and have that brothr go through sudden positive change fifteen hundred miles away at the same time that the archetype that I project on him (according to astrological theory) changes in my inner world, something is erroneous in the way we've been taught that reality works. Somehow the energies I carry are making the world I occupy and experience. Not "I," the current ego, but "I" as a totality.
In my own mental model (subject to change), there are infinite variations of his brother, all equal, some manifested some not depending on his brother, and what changed was 'the version of his brother that his reality was associated with'. A prettier way to put it might be like this:
Imagine an infinite kaleidascope universe, with infinite patterns. I'm a fractal flower with lots of petals, leaves, and associations with other patterns around me. The process of the energy work causes me to basically decide that instead of being THIS flower, I'm going be THAT flower now, which is mostly identical except that one leaf (the brother) is a different color in this new pattern. All the pieces and patterns are still just as existent. Nothing moved, nothing changed, nothing appeared or vanished. My ATTENTION shifted, and when it did, of course, my sense of identity moved with it. Now I am 'paying attention to' being pattern-B rather than pattern-A. The only difference I notice is the part of the pattern that is "mapped to my brother" (and probably some other things too).
Does this make sense to anybody but me? I'd like to come up with a way of putting this stuff in words that makes it less, not more, confusing!
Anyway I agree with him in general: we are obviously creating our reality-experience, even when it sucks, which is very frustrating when some part of it sucks and the road to how to change it is not immediately clear. I mean it seems obvious to all of us how to fix a given problem... as long as it's someone else's. :-)
Back to the dark side:
False guides ... become a problem because of our naive ignorance about "inner speakers" and a lack of clear definition of who is who on the inner planes.
I agree that we have this 'naive ignorance'. What I'm not sure about is -- well, it seems to me he is implying, with the book, that we have now figured it all out thanks to Astrology, Tarot and the Inner Guide, and it's all mapped out and a 'known', so there is no more 'ignorance' about what I would call the universe or the jungian-stew of what's inside us.
I'm not sure I'd agree we are anywhere near that happy place. I tend to think we are all still wandering the masculine polarity of the universe (which refuses to ask for directions...) and while we have found a few 'things that can be mapped' on that universe, I don't really feel like we have THE answer yet.
This matters to the topic at hand. Think about it this way: if you decide that entity-type-1 is good, and you know nothing about entity-types-2 through 29, but you have a few reports on entities 2-4 (which were unpleasant) and 11-14 (which were confusing), it is easy to make it insta-doctrine and say, "entity 1 is good. All other entities are not-good." Because your map has a little legend or annotation with entity 1 on it and who-the-hell-knows who all those other entities might be or what their nefarious purposes might be.
Historically, man-made religion is so quick to do this. I'm reluctant to assume anything is wrong, bad, misleading, black magick, evil, etc. without some personal experience and consideration. For all we know, entity #19 is completely useless for most things, literally harmful for some things, but an ass-kickingly powerful perfect for some other thing. How are we ever going to learn this if we're assuming the whole universe inside us that isn't IG is "a false IG" and hence bad??
...the test of love is the test of the true guide. If there is no consistent feeling of love and total acceptance from a figure you think might be your inner guide, you are probably working with a false guide.
I don't remember my first guide much except that I was new to this and nothing including IG seemed like more than crap-I-was-making-up back then, until I adapted to the habit and did them real deep altered state.
The next guides I've had, when I met them I felt shy, and felt they were in a big judgement of me (and not necessarily a good one), silent but ... a sort of 'has an opinion, keeps his mouth shut, is waiting for me to 'prove' myself, has a pre-existing hard opinion about me' sort of feeling. Yes I know that people with resistance to this may manifest all kinds of dark-side/scary things so maybe it's hard to tell.
I keep a positive intent and I pray (literally to God) so the way I see it, if it wasn't the right IG to start with, my intent and prayer would shift it into being so pretty shortly. If it didn't, if prayer had no value, and interior energy/focus had no value, then WTF are we doing here anyway...
I prefer 'dominant males' and I respond to authority, so I suspect that is part of my own psychology; part of my respect for him assigns him some of those qualities, and some father-energy which is not perfect for me. But definitely I was not feeling love and light pouring out of my guides when I met them. Later, I developed that relationship. To start with? Nope. If I'd been using this as a map of what was real I'd have had some real problems at this point and would have thought everything was 'false'.
I do not for a moment believe that my past guides which felt like this initially, were 'false' guides. I suspect that allowing is on the part of the person, not the IG. Much like Nero and Taan told me that channeled info 'style' is based on the channeler not whatever energy they are in contact with, maybe our emotional reaction to the ultimate inner authority(s) is more about us than it is about them.
I might add I never felt that 'prove yourself' feeling with my current IG. She felt compassionate and understanding -- about my trauma of having to give up the previous IG, and me not wanting her -- from the start. I thought it would take me a couple years even to learn to like her. But I ended up crazy in love with her almost right away. She's been quite different for me in several respects than the previous guides.
I often feel like the work she and I do is an 'opportunity' for both of us but her too. As if she is... like a creative soundtrack composer. And when we work together it's a chance for her to see what neat things she can accomplish. And I often feel the urge to work with her solely for this reason -- like because she is very cool and I want to see what she can come up with for me. I didn't have that with any other guide.
ES suggests if you don't feel love/acceptance for your guide that you look to his right and there will be the 'real' guide. That sounds like a programmed belief to me. If you can make people believe this, it would probably work. Of course it might be true, too. Still.
ES has some good general advice about what might constitute a 'true' guide. All the examples he gives of 'warning signs' that a guide is a 'false' guide--ok most of them anyway--are pretty obvious and I would be concerned had I ever perceived those in an IG. The kind of entities he's talking about remind me of the sort most people get from Ouija boards or 'lite' channeling (he actually says the same, later) -- egocentric, pontificating, highly polarized, ego-flattering sorts. Or simply 'other identities' -- which may not be an inner guide, though I don't know for sure that this indicates they are necessarily bad, as just not what we're looking for in this case.
ES has (well, had when he was alive) an organization that uses his theories and astrology and he suggests if there is question to send info to them. He suggests you include this whole long list of physical attributes about your guide. I really laughed about that. I have NEVER seen my inner guides clearly except when I had worked with them for quite awhile and even then I usually see them in pieces, like at one moment I'm aware of their height or their hair and eyes or whatever. When I do get a full-sense of them it's usually a 'sense' more than real visual. But then later on the same page he adds:
When a true inner guide is initially contacted in the visualization procss, it is usually difficult to see his face clearly, while the face of a false guide is usually quite clear. Why this is, I have no idea. Maybe we see the true guide's face when we stop trying to make up a face for him.
I agree, but... well how are you supposed to use the physical appearance of your guide to determine he is the 9th Koch house appearance, if you can't see the bleeping guy? Am I being picky? I am not worried personally, but I feel like people just starting this who are reading the book fiercely and trying to do it "right" would be understandably confused here.
ES gives his traits that define the 'true' inner guides:
1) A feeling of love for the individuals they teach and guide;
2) Never volunteer information unless first asked;
3) Generally don't make predictions for you or others;
4) Don't judge you or anyone else, nor do they take sides in disagreements;
5) Will not contact the dead for anyone but the individual whose Guide they are;
6) Will not give information about other people;
7) Do not manifest through automatic writing, ouija boards, channeling or trance states;
8) Are always accepting of where you are emotionally, physically, mentally and spiritually;
9) Don't lie or give inaccurate information, nor are they inconsistent;
10) Often answer questions with questions, teaching in the Socratic mode.
I've already addressed my hesitance about 1) and 4) above; with those caveats I agree on those. I have to admit that 2), 3), 4), 9), 10) have always been true for my guides so far.
5) Will not contact the dead for anyone but.... I beg your pardon?! You're telling me IG will contact the dead for me?! Holy crap! Well here I was recently wondering what else she might be able to do. Now if only I knew someone dead I wanted contacted. Exactly what good would this do, I wonder?
Honestly I am a skeptic on this. I don't mean I disbelieve it's possible. I mean that I think you could work with 'someone dead' as if they were an archetype, including 'via' IG, and how would you know if it was your-archetype-of-the-dead-guy or really IG-contacting-the-dead-guy-for-you? I mean I imagine that people sensing a deep loss from someone they loved having died, could probably use archmeds well to this end, but whether it's really THE dead person vs. something akin to the archetypal energy of the dead person? Who knows?
Maybe it doesn't really matter and that's just quibbling on semantics. But it won't be ME telling people that my IG talks to dead people. :-) For now, anyway.
6) Info on others -- I have never asked for info about other people so I don't know. Actually I have seldom asked for info from IG at all, in part because I so seldom see or hear IG clearly enough to get an answer, and often when I do it is not informative (more a question or feeling and I'm often still wondering), so have kind of adapted away from communication being primary. I talk 'to' IG but it's very rare I actually get talking back. Sometimes, usually in impressions.
2) Never volunteers information unless asked, and 8) are always accepting of where you are... well yes. But my current IG will stuff Aeons down my throat at every opportunity it appears, when I refused to go to the Tower with the Four where they were being urged on me, so it's not like she doesn't have her own opinion on things.
7) Doesn't manifest through autowriting, channeling, trance states. Now this is an interesting one. I would say that generally, yes, IG will not spontaneously arrive via at least those first two states. Mostly because one is not ASKING for him to manifest through those states. Intent is everything. To me this is like saying, "When you look at your astrology chart you won't see Tarot symbols on it." Well... yeah... that's because that's not what it is designed for. That doesn't mean that one or the other are invalid or bad. Just that these things are different. In fact I'm confused about why he seems to insist the entire universe of human spirituality come through his doorway instead of any other.
I think I dispute the assumption in this one. Once one IS connected consciously I think IG could manifest any way IG wanted. Maybe IG would never want to do that. I don't know. But much like IG being human, I think some things are so more because of US than because of IG.
As for trance states, ES seems to have some kind of polarized view of this and judgement about it ('related to channeling eww ick ptooie!') but that's IMO the wrong thing to include. Archmeds are often done in trance states because trance is merely varying degrees of brainwave states and the most powerful inner work tends to be in pretty altered state.
ES gives traits for false guides:
1) Volunteer information freely, some of which may be valid. They are often very long-winded.
2) Judge you or other, or try to make you feel evil, wrong, or guilty.
3) Communicate often in terms of separation and polarization, good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, good guys vs. bad guys.
4) May make you uncomfortable or ill, or draw illness and unfortunate outer-world circumstances into your life.
5) Inflate the ego. They often may make you feel that you are a "chosen one," a "walk in," better, higher, more special or more spiritual than others.
6) Are often figures from your own reality, e.g. famous gurus, saints, dead relatives, historical figures, or figures from your fantasy system, e.g. entities claiming to be from outer space or other galaxies, or they may be disincarnate entities or one of the archetypes, the latter being quite dangerous to sanity. In order to work with the archetypes safely, it is absolutely necessary to have the true inner guide, who has the ability to protect you from an overwhelming archetypal energy or to pull you out of the situation if necessary.
7) Make the conditions of your life worsen.
8) Will lie or exaggerate, or are inconsistent.
9) Will flatter and agree with your ego's opinions; usually they are definite Yes-men or -women.
10) Are usually quite theatrical, making grandiose claims about themselves, and, when channeled, speak with strange accents and gesticulate in bizarre ways or cause strange body movements to occur in the naive channeler, who is generally sincerely ignorant of who or what is being channeled or the danger of the process he or she is involved in.
I don't dispute ES's definition of true or false guides. However, I do want to address a couple things. I think that he, like everyone, has certain paradigms and they tend to overlap a little with this subject.
1) Maybe he is right and IG is not an elaborate communicator. I don't necessarily judge any identity that might be as bad, though. Just that maybe they aren't your IG.
4) and 7) How would you know if your 'guide' was making you ill or giving you bad outer circumstance? Isn't the entire point of all this to grok that outer reality is a reflection of inner self? This line item seems like an unprovable tenet. I'm not saying that it is inaccurate; it might be true; I'm saying that there is no clear way I can see for people to evaluate this, since if WE create our outer reality experience via inner energetic relationships, I can't see how anybody would know whether to "blame it on the false-IG!" vs. consider it part of oneself. In fact, geez, I'd think the tendency to blame it on someone else might be worrisome.
10) I consider this whole point another bias-against-channeling issue. I'm happy to agree that one's IG is unlikely to be a pontificating channeled entity. However, (a) you are unlikely to expect IG to be that, or such entities to be IG, anyway, so what's the point here, and (b) all his other comments are not about IG, they are about his negative opinions on channeling. I think that is a separate topic. I could address the issues of channelers, accents and more, but I just don't think that has anything to do with inner guide / archetype meditation work.
I also might add that he seems to ASSUME that any identity anybody works with in any fashion whatever just HAS to be an archetype or your inner guide. Anything else -- say, channeled info -- falls into the category of "false inner-guide." Well that's ridiculous! I mean if someone is channeling and he's going, "Hey! That's not their inner guide!" I feel like, "Er, so? Who said it was?! Who said that IG is the ONLY source of info, energy or interaction anybody is allowed to have?"
It's like Inner Guide became his Jesus. Everything else is not-jesus and hence by definition, bad.
Even good and smart people have biases sometimes. Sometimes they are just, sometimes not. Remote Viewing has taught me a lot about that over the years. What most people have as their definition of psychic or remote viewing or the people doing it, have little in common with reality. If my definition were the same as theirs, I'd be as dismissive as they are. Much of one's evaluation of anything depends on exposure to what's real, vs. the media hype and late night radio bozos. I agree that most 'new age' stuff is eye-rollingly stupid, but, like religion, that is man-made, not of spirit. Here's hoping no part of spirit judges me by someone else in my neighborhood just because I am sometimes found in their company.
A few other points:
ES says that all inner guides are human, always. They are always humans who lived in some prior time. And they are always dressed according to their prior life. They never have any "godlike powers," although of course they have full control in the inner world.
OK, all my IG's have been human, I'll admit. However, I think I expected that, so that might be part of why. But on the last IG (which I think was my... third?) it gradually became clear that his human form was designed 'for' me. That his "true nature" was something different and more... amphibian. I ASKED to see him as he really was and to 'truly' know him better. He was a giant creature I've never seen before, couldn't get clearly, our closest concept here being a frog but not that. I imagine if I had not pushed for that he would always have seemed like a normal human to me. So was it that he was some faker and I gradually got more observant of the tiny clues, once I started to gradually be able to perceive him more clearly? Or is it that he, and all guides, appear in human form always by default, because WE are human, not because they are?
I don't mean to be picky but there is a big difference. Since if it's the former, it "implies" that someone like that is "a false guide", and if it's the latter, it implies that maybe we don't know everything we think we know about sentience. I loved him beyond all reason in a way I believe only an IG could inspire, and he was nothing but good in my view, and it was the Four especially Senior that made me let him go and adopt the new IG, which makes me trust him utterly.
Now I can see that the way Steinbrecher put this has some advantages. People will not believe projections they might make of a current guru. They won't believe any alien (or guru) that shows up psychically to claim the role. They won't over-interpret anything like clothing to have some significance it does not (e.g. 'dressed like an egyptian I think it was a god'). Or that it's something from the future which also implies some god-like (at least in information terms) qualities. So there are benefits to insisting that IG will always be 'a normal human not from this time'. I don't think he wrote that to soften the possible wrong-turns for newbs though, he appears to simply believe it is always that way with no exceptions. Whether it is as literally true--given my last IG's eventual revelation--as the book indicates, I am not sure.
ES says the first three guides are male, the 4th is always female.
This seems to have worked out for me too, actually. I think. I have lost count. I think she is 4th. Although I will mention that while I had zero conscious memory of this detail, I am certain I read that 15 years ago, so who knows what prior expectations might have set up.
PJ
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Identities in the Inner Realm
In spontaneous experience, inside meditations, dreams, mixed states or sudden visions, over the years (mostly since 1993) I have come to accept that 'I' am composed of a "merged multiplicity", and in turn am part of a larger merged identity where I am just one of the parts, as well.
I sometimes see indirect or "philosophical" reference to this concept but I have no doctrine or model I am following, only my own sometimes confusing experiences.
I avoid being too cerebral in my studies of spirituality as I am prone to get over-lost in the intellectual and that is a weakness for me. So I've learned to avoid it, in an effort to "live" vs. "think-about-living." So if there is validating info related to my experiences, buried in obscure metaphysical tracts somewhere, I have not yet come upon it.
I would love to meet others who may have similar experiences. I blog my thoughts and experiences mostly because I have a surreal problem with forgetting things in this genre very quickly, but also in the hope that someday, Google willing, others with similar experiences may chance on me.
I also have other identities and places "in my inner world" that my meditations work with. Or, that are a part of my inner cosmology for some reason. I am making this page to outline all these things in summary, as a reference. You can click any term below to 'jump' to that entry, or scroll.
In Nov 1993 in sudden all-consuming "visions", I met another "me." A simultaneous identity slightly 'larger' than mine, sharing the same "source." Same energy via different interface (different person in a different realm). He was having a spiritual awakening, which 'sparked' me by inner proximity. I call him "my mate" or twin though it's as much brotherly as loverly.
I 'sat in' with him as he pursued a female he loved, and there was a man she in turn sought. They are a higher/older set, with us the lower/younger set. He and I 'merge', and they 'merge', and then the result merges (two sets of two into one) into what seems an identity both singular, yet inclusive of all our individual awarenesses. (The two merged identities also seem to exist.) I am the 4th of Four. (Although if you count the two merged and the one result, I guess technically we are seven. A bit confusing!)
I call us "The Four." I am aware when 'with' them that I am always with them; only my surface-identity attention to being so is occasional. A good deal of the awareness in my daily life seems to depend on how much effort I am making to be aware of my presence with them, and whether I'm doing this in an altered state and really 'allowing' it. I am often resistant.
I sometimes perceive us, each two in a gender, as black and white, like polarities. (This seems to relate to a period ('94) when for awhile I perceived everything in polarities and the understanding that these were the same thing.)
When I first really met the Queen, I understood we had 'every possible relationship' with each other that can exist between female humans in my world. One time when we Four were all merged, large white ball-spheres of light (chakras?) within us lit up, and one a little below our feet and above our heads, and then all but the top and bottom one "expanded into 3-D" as multiple spheres and I recognized it as the QBL Tree of Life. I 'grokked' that we compose the universe between us in some literal energetic fashion.
I may have mystical experiences with archetypal symbols when with them. E.g.: high in a mountain cave I am on the ground and the Senior is my doctor beside me. He/mate push me at rapid speed down tiny winding cliff trails in a rickshaw and at bottom lay me into a small flattish boat with my hands crossed on my chest and push me off into a river. Or: the first time I met my twin, he 'claimed his power' and a woman who is also a golden (metallic) bird [one form of the Queen] put a golden cloak on him so bright we couldn't look at it. Some experiences with the Four have this quality of profound with ancient symbols. When I meet my mate one on one, it feels shamanic. But when I encounter the Four of us together, it feels (and the Senior/Queen feel) impactively 'holy'.
I once had a dream that they also had identities 'here' in my reality, though they externally were nothing like the version I meet on the inside. I don't know if that was just a dream or if that might be so, I've never had any other indicator of such a thing. The Senior and the Queen, although I accept that I am part of them, they are on the edge of 'deity' for me, as they feel so "holy" when I am close to them.
Once a few years ago in powerful dreams each of the other three were crucified and I didn't see them for a year. It was horribly traumatic. A year later when I saw them again I bawled at length, begging them to never leave me again. So apparently I have become quite enmeshed with them as more than just a metaphysical model. It was some time after they had returned that they introduced me to what seemed like "the next ring outward" of what composes 'us' particularly 'me'.
I have not seen this kind of modeling elsewhere -- being one of four and that being a larger identity. I vary between not caring that this seems unique to me, because it is real for me and that's what matters, vs. looking for anything which seems to validate such an odd idea.
I once had the feeling that verse 1:51 of Liber al vel Legis somehow symbolically referred to the Four, but of course anything with that number tends to seem like that. The Thoth tarot and its many spheres and cherubs that are light and dark reminds me of it in many places.
I might add that the first time I ever saw a tarot deck it was Thoth, and I understood that Adjustment was "my" card. (I found that nearly disappointing, as I'd heard new-age sorts go on about this, all with much more glorious titles.) I once attempted to work this as an archetype, but it was very difficult for me; I need to attempt it again.
The Aeons (aka the Consortium)
(initially I called it the Coalition)
In 2006-2009 the Four in the Tower brought me a group of new people and I was to 'integrate' with them as part of me. They each had several bright little lights in them I perceived like a constellation, as if all of them added together created the solar system of me (Every man and every woman is a star), a sort of brain-cracking literal-ness to that idea. I was for some reason shocked and felt hugely threatened by this, clinging to my twin in avoidance, and I resisted it greatly.
I met one 'identity' spontaneously and he turned out to be one of them, which opened me to the idea... only a little. I resisted interacting with them so much I ended up wandering the rooftop and avoiding going inside the tower lest they be presented me again. So they started showing up on the rooftop and I stopped going to that area entirely.
Then my inner guide started giving them to me instead of archetypes to force me to meet them. It's the only thing I've ever specifically requested and had her say "no" to me about, was my asking her to stop; she said I needed to meet them and begin interacting with them and there was 'something of a timeline'. There turned out to be 12 total. When it was done and no more seemed to be coming I realized there were 12 total. I had got that it was a multiple of 4 but I had thought it might be 16.
Ironically, once I had met them all and begun a tentative working with them, I started falling in love with them, and now I think of them often, and do a rosary-style mantra with them daily, and often have dreams and meditations and spontaneous experiences or insights with them. They are each quite different. Some I am integrated with and comfortable with much more than others so far. There are 8 male and 4 female although I'm not sure that is relevant to anything. Their names were sometimes hard to perceive or were corrected over time. They are:
(I don't pretend to understand their focus (or names).) This is the order I do the 'round' (a rosary-style mantra) in.
I called them the Coalition at first (as it seemed like a petition to join me) and then The Consortium (as it seemed like a diverse group that made joint decisions). They sometimes talked to me, in a way I could only relate to "guides" as I have read now and then, so I called them guides for awhile, but promptly began to understand that the guides I do have (outer and inner) are something quite different in nature. Every time I wondered what to call them I got the term "Aeons." This made no sense to me as that is a time-span not a thing. (...and it made me sound stupid.) It happened so many times though, I gave up and began calling them my Aeons.
Later, when googling to see if I could find any references to my spontaneous experiences, I discovered that 'Aeons' is a term used in the old Sethian Gnostic religion. Something like what they called some deities. I have no part of that religion and know nothing about it besides the wiki stuff I found that day. So, it's just a coincidence of terms I guess.
Inner Guide
In the interior world, there is a shamanic discipline that allows a creative yet semi-autonomous interaction between a person and ... other identities. Primarily "archetypes." The imagination is the "tool" through which information and this interaction is happening. But although the individual initially is 'helping' this creativity until they begin to 'allow' it, once some fluency is developed and especially when done in altered state, they are not 'creating' it consciously. The identities and even environments range from slightly to fully 'autonomous' in the interaction, although the person can intentionally create as they choose. There are several traditions for this kind of work, the best known being Jung's 'active imagination' approach. Done well these are amazing, surprising, truly exceptional experiences.
These can be powerful to the point of mind-blowing, they can radically alter your reality overnight, and in some unfortunate cases it can be fairly dangerous to health and sanity to go it alone. A few decades ago Edwin Steinbrecher, an astrologer and occultist, had the idea to "look for a guide" in that realm just as he'd been looking for archetypes, as he'd had a bad experience and wanted protection and guidance. He found one, an identity which he named "Inner Guide" and I call "IG". After years of his own work and sharing that of others, he discovered certain predictable qualities that an IG would have (it would look and act like their 9th Koch house astrology qualities) and sequences that people would have with them (eg the first 3 are male, the 4th is female). He wrote a book called The Inner Guide Meditation that is well worth reading (I have some notes on it, click on 'book talk' in my tags). Israel Regardie wrote the foreword.
IG knows all. It's difficult to explain this entity and relationship except to say that while my first three IG's started out difficult to perceive and a little uncomfortable, they ended up with great affection, the third I had such great love for I wouldn't let go for a long time, the Four had to come make me, and I bawled like a child about it. I'm currently on my 4th IG, a female I am completely adoring of, who is wildly creative and I consider one of the best things ever to happen to me. I do not know precisely why or when they change and a new one arrives, only that I hope I get to keep this one for a long time more.
IG is the arbitrar of the inner realm. He/She can control anything there, guide and protect. I used to ask for specific archetypes, and sometimes still do, but now that I know IG better I just whine, gripe, complain, wish, rant, or otherwise convey my feelings to IG and then ask her to come up with whatever "creative composite of energies" that would make the best archetype to work with. The experience with her has been different than previous IGs in some respects, the archs and environs are often far more complex and difficult to figure out how/what to do, but cooler in some respects too.
Because IG is not only the guide for my archetype work, but originally brought me the Aeons and can manage everything in that realm, I tend to talk about "IG" a lot both directly and in passing. I suspect that IG is a part of the-larger-me, but I'm not sure. In any case it is a "named Entity" that anybody can find if they're open to it.
Archetypes
I began my active-meditations via "archetype meditations" (with Inner Guide, above). An archetype in my somewhat expanded definition is any identity, and identity is "an arbitrary collection of consciousness assigned a title". However some collections are more-often-collected and seem to have a great deal more innate 'power', such as Tarot trumps, Constellations and planets, and probably any other culturally-common and ancient way of 'dividing up the energy of the universe' such as the Tree of Life, the i Ching, etc.
Most archetype work I do is not on the standard archetypes mentioned but on personal archetypes, based on events, people, situations and feelings in my immediate reality. In my paradigm, "experiential reality" is an outer reflection of inner energetic relationships. So I "go inside" and work with the energy from there. Examples might be my archetypes of: My relationship with a person; my success at a coming event; my problems with a given person, situation, issue, etc.; any pain, illness, injury, etc.; as well as cultural models that represent certain energies I feel may have issues in my reality (e.g. 'Mars' or 'The Knight of Wands'). There are some archetypes that seem to have a strong positive relationship with me right from the start (e.g. 'the Sun') and some that were problematic (e.g. 'Saturn' when I was 29 years old).
The archetypes themselves may sometimes be difficult to perceive (you can improve that with effort), may be hostile, may be gross or wounded or mutated or bizarre, in my case they are not usually human and may be objects, machines, alien-ish, creatures, environments, or offbeat combinations (eg a collection of cubes). There are repeating symbols or elements that one learns to understand. Archs that are dusty are energies neglected; dirty-sticky dust is repression; wounds and deformities represent problems with clarity in the energy relationship; fish-related stuff seems to relate to natal stuff for me, and insect-related stuff represents fear; blackness esp. combined with insect qualities usually means profound fear and suppression ("spiders in the gooey dark"); things difficult to see I don't have a good rapport with, things huge and with very large teeth, claws, etc. are usually problematic... you see most of this is pretty intuitive. If your archetype is a hostile claw-teeth-fiery dragon 2 miles high there's probably some energy needing work there. If your arch is a disgusting black pit of muck with crawling insects, that needs some real work. On the other hand if your arch is a normal person or something you find lovely, and you hug them and "merge" with rushing feelings through your body, then your relationship with that energy is pretty good.
When the meditation is done you usually 'trade' something on or in the body to begin a 'sharing' of energy, if you are not to the point of being able to 'merge' with the archetype. Inner Guide will bring, and remove, the archs as you request. IG can also just give you archs you most need to work with... you may or may not be able to get what they are from her or from them.
The Teks
I have over time come up with several other kinds of meditations. 'Reality Meds' are based on geometries/shapes. I have a 'Control Center' and a 'Cleaning Room' and a general room, and all of those are staffed by an identity(s) I call "Tek". They sort of overlap in energy but are slightly different from one another, but I call them all Tek.
The Blue Eyes of Soul
Back in '94 after meeting the Four and some other things, I had an experience of "Nothingness" that was really pretty horrible. I came very close to committing suicide as a result of it (I am just a walking corpse without the God-light inside me, I wrote in my journal back then). Just as I was getting to the worst point some time after that, I met an entity. He was "my core" -- I didn't have any other way to describe it. I mostly focused on his eyes and the feeling that unlimited love was pouring through my middle and that I was not alone, could not possibly ever be alone, and so on. Crying in relief and joy doesn't begin to describe it. I felt a state of worship for him, he was the holy center. I have not met him like that since that day, but feel amazed and honored it ever happened at all, and hope sometime before I die I might get another opportunity.
Later after all this, I discovered that much of my experience (at least prior to The Four and The Aeons) was almost embarrassingly predictable. It fit a well known set of development stages in occult studies, or so some people reading my accounts later told me. The Nothingness horror that seemed to "vacuum out my insides" for a long time, they called that "The Abyss". The geometric 'kinesthetic soul language' that WAS the-thing-itself they called "The Angelic Language." The blue eyes of soul, my loving holy core-of-self, they called "The Holy Guardian Angel" or "HGA." Frankly I imagine it would have been easier if I had known all this prior to the experiences, as everything has always seemed "out of right field" and shocking and confusing to me instead. But I think most of my most impactive experiences (those that don't fall solely into psi, ufology, psychology, or other categories) are pretty yawningly-predictable. I don't think the Four and the Aeons are though as I don't hear about this from anybody else.
The Private Oracle
An entity I'm fond of named Seth, who wrote a few books via channeler Jane Roberts, has many 'exercises' one can do experimentally. One thing he suggested was that everyone had something called 'The Private Oracle'. Out of casual curiosity one day I started talking to IG about it, but he was right there. Very communicative. I haven't really had any specific questions since the first day I met him, but I am hoping to utilize his input in the future.
Deities
Intellectually, for me god was long ago reduced to some nebulous dust of lack of clear definition, some cross between everything and nothing. But subjectively, I have always, since I can remember in earliest childhood, had an unshakeable acceptance of God as a singular identity with which I could have my version of a relationship. A skeptic when I grew up, I even tried to be an Atheist for awhile, until I realized I was daily apologizing to God for not believing in him, and I laughed at myself and became an official Agnostic, praying "To Whom it May Concern" for quite awhile. Now I guess I am best called a Gnostic (I am part of two metaphysical churches, one of which has the term 'Gnostic' in its title, so I guess so).
I will admit that intellectually I am biased and reactive to religion based on my rejection of what man has done with it, which sometimes interferes with my clear thinking about the entire "ball of wax" including the entities and deities which come in that bundle. One thing I can say clearly though is that I believe sincere regular prayer to God, concerning entities and parts of self one meets, personal intent and life plans, are invaluable. I don't think it matters whether there is some objective validationg to God-as-a-single-identity. I think our spiritual technology as beings is via "personalization" and that "personal relationship" is critically important.
As far as other-deities go, I have encountered "religious entities", including Jesus, Mary, and Archangel Michael, and I have only honor for them despite that my intellectual beliefs don't match any official religion that validates them. I put my Senior and Queen in the "semi-deity" category, although they are not such large robust thoughtforms as far as I can tell as those mentioned, but they are still definitely "holy".
Other
Once in awhile I encounter archetypes or entities that I don't have a clear category for. My archetype of Responsibility (interpret that as 'True Will' in a way), when I was having trouble in an archmed once, talked to IG briefly and then brought me two light-beings he called "The Angelics." They are not Angels. But they are 'the archetype of Angels'. They are still very helpful to me in meditations and now I often call on them.
I have 'outer guides' that I perceive around me on my plateau inner space. I had one I saw 100% clearly, but I released him a short time later. I have one called Stet that I know helps with my daily physical reality but I don't tend to commune with him or the others there. I once had a thoughtform I called Dor that I talked out of being an implanted-energy-block and into being on my side instead, but the Four made me get rid of him one day for some reason. I have sometimes encountered animals in my inner space (particularly a female black panther). (Oddly enough when I introduced my daughter to archetype work around age 10 she promptly met a black panther as well, go figure.)
This is just an overview of 'identities I work with'. For overview files on environments, and types of meditation, and a table of contents, visit the links near the top of the file.
PJ
I sometimes see indirect or "philosophical" reference to this concept but I have no doctrine or model I am following, only my own sometimes confusing experiences.
I avoid being too cerebral in my studies of spirituality as I am prone to get over-lost in the intellectual and that is a weakness for me. So I've learned to avoid it, in an effort to "live" vs. "think-about-living." So if there is validating info related to my experiences, buried in obscure metaphysical tracts somewhere, I have not yet come upon it.
I would love to meet others who may have similar experiences. I blog my thoughts and experiences mostly because I have a surreal problem with forgetting things in this genre very quickly, but also in the hope that someday, Google willing, others with similar experiences may chance on me.
I also have other identities and places "in my inner world" that my meditations work with. Or, that are a part of my inner cosmology for some reason. I am making this page to outline all these things in summary, as a reference. You can click any term below to 'jump' to that entry, or scroll.
The Four
The Aeons (aka The Consortium)
Inner Guide
Archetypes
The Teks
The Blue Eyes of Soul
The Private Oracle
Deities
Related Overview Files:The Four
A file discussing the various 'environments' I work with:
History & Environment Review
A file discussing my various meditations:
Personalization, Archmeds, Healing, Realitymeds
A file discussing the various 'identities' I work with:
Identities in the Inner Realm (here)
An alphabetical table of contents of the myPsiche blog:
Alpha Table of Contents
In Nov 1993 in sudden all-consuming "visions", I met another "me." A simultaneous identity slightly 'larger' than mine, sharing the same "source." Same energy via different interface (different person in a different realm). He was having a spiritual awakening, which 'sparked' me by inner proximity. I call him "my mate" or twin though it's as much brotherly as loverly.
I 'sat in' with him as he pursued a female he loved, and there was a man she in turn sought. They are a higher/older set, with us the lower/younger set. He and I 'merge', and they 'merge', and then the result merges (two sets of two into one) into what seems an identity both singular, yet inclusive of all our individual awarenesses. (The two merged identities also seem to exist.) I am the 4th of Four. (Although if you count the two merged and the one result, I guess technically we are seven. A bit confusing!)
I call us "The Four." I am aware when 'with' them that I am always with them; only my surface-identity attention to being so is occasional. A good deal of the awareness in my daily life seems to depend on how much effort I am making to be aware of my presence with them, and whether I'm doing this in an altered state and really 'allowing' it. I am often resistant.
- The Senior is a tall dark man who is the most powerful and aware and the authority. I don't perceive him clearly unless he wants me to. He is capable of radically affecting my body. On occasion when something in the inner world is overwhelming he steps in to help.
- The Queen is a tall woman with long black hair and a long skull. She is 'Spiritual Royalty' and mate/twin to the Senior. I've had past-life dreams where she is dominant in a body and I function as her guide. I often perceive her in Egyptian contexts.
- My Mate/Twin once told me he is Noshaimus whatever that really is. I have met him in faery/alien contexts a couple times also. He has white-blond hair and unusually blue, large slightly tilted eyes. He feels like a brother, lover and soldier/priest and I'm closest to him.
I sometimes perceive us, each two in a gender, as black and white, like polarities. (This seems to relate to a period ('94) when for awhile I perceived everything in polarities and the understanding that these were the same thing.)
When I first really met the Queen, I understood we had 'every possible relationship' with each other that can exist between female humans in my world. One time when we Four were all merged, large white ball-spheres of light (chakras?) within us lit up, and one a little below our feet and above our heads, and then all but the top and bottom one "expanded into 3-D" as multiple spheres and I recognized it as the QBL Tree of Life. I 'grokked' that we compose the universe between us in some literal energetic fashion.
I may have mystical experiences with archetypal symbols when with them. E.g.: high in a mountain cave I am on the ground and the Senior is my doctor beside me. He/mate push me at rapid speed down tiny winding cliff trails in a rickshaw and at bottom lay me into a small flattish boat with my hands crossed on my chest and push me off into a river. Or: the first time I met my twin, he 'claimed his power' and a woman who is also a golden (metallic) bird [one form of the Queen] put a golden cloak on him so bright we couldn't look at it. Some experiences with the Four have this quality of profound with ancient symbols. When I meet my mate one on one, it feels shamanic. But when I encounter the Four of us together, it feels (and the Senior/Queen feel) impactively 'holy'.
I once had a dream that they also had identities 'here' in my reality, though they externally were nothing like the version I meet on the inside. I don't know if that was just a dream or if that might be so, I've never had any other indicator of such a thing. The Senior and the Queen, although I accept that I am part of them, they are on the edge of 'deity' for me, as they feel so "holy" when I am close to them.
Once a few years ago in powerful dreams each of the other three were crucified and I didn't see them for a year. It was horribly traumatic. A year later when I saw them again I bawled at length, begging them to never leave me again. So apparently I have become quite enmeshed with them as more than just a metaphysical model. It was some time after they had returned that they introduced me to what seemed like "the next ring outward" of what composes 'us' particularly 'me'.
I have not seen this kind of modeling elsewhere -- being one of four and that being a larger identity. I vary between not caring that this seems unique to me, because it is real for me and that's what matters, vs. looking for anything which seems to validate such an odd idea.
I once had the feeling that verse 1:51 of Liber al vel Legis somehow symbolically referred to the Four, but of course anything with that number tends to seem like that. The Thoth tarot and its many spheres and cherubs that are light and dark reminds me of it in many places.
I might add that the first time I ever saw a tarot deck it was Thoth, and I understood that Adjustment was "my" card. (I found that nearly disappointing, as I'd heard new-age sorts go on about this, all with much more glorious titles.) I once attempted to work this as an archetype, but it was very difficult for me; I need to attempt it again.
The Aeons (aka the Consortium)
(initially I called it the Coalition)
In 2006-2009 the Four in the Tower brought me a group of new people and I was to 'integrate' with them as part of me. They each had several bright little lights in them I perceived like a constellation, as if all of them added together created the solar system of me (Every man and every woman is a star), a sort of brain-cracking literal-ness to that idea. I was for some reason shocked and felt hugely threatened by this, clinging to my twin in avoidance, and I resisted it greatly.
I met one 'identity' spontaneously and he turned out to be one of them, which opened me to the idea... only a little. I resisted interacting with them so much I ended up wandering the rooftop and avoiding going inside the tower lest they be presented me again. So they started showing up on the rooftop and I stopped going to that area entirely.
Then my inner guide started giving them to me instead of archetypes to force me to meet them. It's the only thing I've ever specifically requested and had her say "no" to me about, was my asking her to stop; she said I needed to meet them and begin interacting with them and there was 'something of a timeline'. There turned out to be 12 total. When it was done and no more seemed to be coming I realized there were 12 total. I had got that it was a multiple of 4 but I had thought it might be 16.
Ironically, once I had met them all and begun a tentative working with them, I started falling in love with them, and now I think of them often, and do a rosary-style mantra with them daily, and often have dreams and meditations and spontaneous experiences or insights with them. They are each quite different. Some I am integrated with and comfortable with much more than others so far. There are 8 male and 4 female although I'm not sure that is relevant to anything. Their names were sometimes hard to perceive or were corrected over time. They are:
(I don't pretend to understand their focus (or names).) This is the order I do the 'round' (a rosary-style mantra) in.
- Ithikah (6.5-7' tall male. Mostly "shapes felt within me".) Focus: public perception
- Bolehren (an ordinary young woman with long brown hair, brown eyes.) Focus: insight for internal issues, personal relationships
- Taan (tall male with huge sense of humor). Focus: both my and the world's perception of my body, and general body-energies
- L'Anna (blonde woman.) Focus: doctor/healer
- Ray (short, very strong man). Focus: don't know.
- Marcan (dark haired man). Focus: creative work and psi work.
- Hot Amanakhaton (a huge statue in physical form, like the egyptian things, but an entity/identity.) Focus: don't know.
- Jared and El Nino (a centurion and his black horse) (they are 'one' somehow). Focus: don't know.
- Calmé (a short winged female, faery-like.) Focus: don't know.
- Laelee (says her energy has no easy equiv in body. Is female.) Focus: don't know.
- Nedlund (male. I've only seen eyes so far.) Focus: 'Sound'.
- Nero (male, dark shaggy hair, strong nose.) Focus: I don't know. I am closest to Nero so far though, who was the first I met consciously.
I called them the Coalition at first (as it seemed like a petition to join me) and then The Consortium (as it seemed like a diverse group that made joint decisions). They sometimes talked to me, in a way I could only relate to "guides" as I have read now and then, so I called them guides for awhile, but promptly began to understand that the guides I do have (outer and inner) are something quite different in nature. Every time I wondered what to call them I got the term "Aeons." This made no sense to me as that is a time-span not a thing. (...and it made me sound stupid.) It happened so many times though, I gave up and began calling them my Aeons.
Later, when googling to see if I could find any references to my spontaneous experiences, I discovered that 'Aeons' is a term used in the old Sethian Gnostic religion. Something like what they called some deities. I have no part of that religion and know nothing about it besides the wiki stuff I found that day. So, it's just a coincidence of terms I guess.
Inner Guide
In the interior world, there is a shamanic discipline that allows a creative yet semi-autonomous interaction between a person and ... other identities. Primarily "archetypes." The imagination is the "tool" through which information and this interaction is happening. But although the individual initially is 'helping' this creativity until they begin to 'allow' it, once some fluency is developed and especially when done in altered state, they are not 'creating' it consciously. The identities and even environments range from slightly to fully 'autonomous' in the interaction, although the person can intentionally create as they choose. There are several traditions for this kind of work, the best known being Jung's 'active imagination' approach. Done well these are amazing, surprising, truly exceptional experiences.
These can be powerful to the point of mind-blowing, they can radically alter your reality overnight, and in some unfortunate cases it can be fairly dangerous to health and sanity to go it alone. A few decades ago Edwin Steinbrecher, an astrologer and occultist, had the idea to "look for a guide" in that realm just as he'd been looking for archetypes, as he'd had a bad experience and wanted protection and guidance. He found one, an identity which he named "Inner Guide" and I call "IG". After years of his own work and sharing that of others, he discovered certain predictable qualities that an IG would have (it would look and act like their 9th Koch house astrology qualities) and sequences that people would have with them (eg the first 3 are male, the 4th is female). He wrote a book called The Inner Guide Meditation that is well worth reading (I have some notes on it, click on 'book talk' in my tags). Israel Regardie wrote the foreword.
IG knows all. It's difficult to explain this entity and relationship except to say that while my first three IG's started out difficult to perceive and a little uncomfortable, they ended up with great affection, the third I had such great love for I wouldn't let go for a long time, the Four had to come make me, and I bawled like a child about it. I'm currently on my 4th IG, a female I am completely adoring of, who is wildly creative and I consider one of the best things ever to happen to me. I do not know precisely why or when they change and a new one arrives, only that I hope I get to keep this one for a long time more.
IG is the arbitrar of the inner realm. He/She can control anything there, guide and protect. I used to ask for specific archetypes, and sometimes still do, but now that I know IG better I just whine, gripe, complain, wish, rant, or otherwise convey my feelings to IG and then ask her to come up with whatever "creative composite of energies" that would make the best archetype to work with. The experience with her has been different than previous IGs in some respects, the archs and environs are often far more complex and difficult to figure out how/what to do, but cooler in some respects too.
Because IG is not only the guide for my archetype work, but originally brought me the Aeons and can manage everything in that realm, I tend to talk about "IG" a lot both directly and in passing. I suspect that IG is a part of the-larger-me, but I'm not sure. In any case it is a "named Entity" that anybody can find if they're open to it.
Archetypes
I began my active-meditations via "archetype meditations" (with Inner Guide, above). An archetype in my somewhat expanded definition is any identity, and identity is "an arbitrary collection of consciousness assigned a title". However some collections are more-often-collected and seem to have a great deal more innate 'power', such as Tarot trumps, Constellations and planets, and probably any other culturally-common and ancient way of 'dividing up the energy of the universe' such as the Tree of Life, the i Ching, etc.
Most archetype work I do is not on the standard archetypes mentioned but on personal archetypes, based on events, people, situations and feelings in my immediate reality. In my paradigm, "experiential reality" is an outer reflection of inner energetic relationships. So I "go inside" and work with the energy from there. Examples might be my archetypes of: My relationship with a person; my success at a coming event; my problems with a given person, situation, issue, etc.; any pain, illness, injury, etc.; as well as cultural models that represent certain energies I feel may have issues in my reality (e.g. 'Mars' or 'The Knight of Wands'). There are some archetypes that seem to have a strong positive relationship with me right from the start (e.g. 'the Sun') and some that were problematic (e.g. 'Saturn' when I was 29 years old).
The archetypes themselves may sometimes be difficult to perceive (you can improve that with effort), may be hostile, may be gross or wounded or mutated or bizarre, in my case they are not usually human and may be objects, machines, alien-ish, creatures, environments, or offbeat combinations (eg a collection of cubes). There are repeating symbols or elements that one learns to understand. Archs that are dusty are energies neglected; dirty-sticky dust is repression; wounds and deformities represent problems with clarity in the energy relationship; fish-related stuff seems to relate to natal stuff for me, and insect-related stuff represents fear; blackness esp. combined with insect qualities usually means profound fear and suppression ("spiders in the gooey dark"); things difficult to see I don't have a good rapport with, things huge and with very large teeth, claws, etc. are usually problematic... you see most of this is pretty intuitive. If your archetype is a hostile claw-teeth-fiery dragon 2 miles high there's probably some energy needing work there. If your arch is a disgusting black pit of muck with crawling insects, that needs some real work. On the other hand if your arch is a normal person or something you find lovely, and you hug them and "merge" with rushing feelings through your body, then your relationship with that energy is pretty good.
When the meditation is done you usually 'trade' something on or in the body to begin a 'sharing' of energy, if you are not to the point of being able to 'merge' with the archetype. Inner Guide will bring, and remove, the archs as you request. IG can also just give you archs you most need to work with... you may or may not be able to get what they are from her or from them.
The Teks
I have over time come up with several other kinds of meditations. 'Reality Meds' are based on geometries/shapes. I have a 'Control Center' and a 'Cleaning Room' and a general room, and all of those are staffed by an identity(s) I call "Tek". They sort of overlap in energy but are slightly different from one another, but I call them all Tek.
The Blue Eyes of Soul
Back in '94 after meeting the Four and some other things, I had an experience of "Nothingness" that was really pretty horrible. I came very close to committing suicide as a result of it (I am just a walking corpse without the God-light inside me, I wrote in my journal back then). Just as I was getting to the worst point some time after that, I met an entity. He was "my core" -- I didn't have any other way to describe it. I mostly focused on his eyes and the feeling that unlimited love was pouring through my middle and that I was not alone, could not possibly ever be alone, and so on. Crying in relief and joy doesn't begin to describe it. I felt a state of worship for him, he was the holy center. I have not met him like that since that day, but feel amazed and honored it ever happened at all, and hope sometime before I die I might get another opportunity.
Later after all this, I discovered that much of my experience (at least prior to The Four and The Aeons) was almost embarrassingly predictable. It fit a well known set of development stages in occult studies, or so some people reading my accounts later told me. The Nothingness horror that seemed to "vacuum out my insides" for a long time, they called that "The Abyss". The geometric 'kinesthetic soul language' that WAS the-thing-itself they called "The Angelic Language." The blue eyes of soul, my loving holy core-of-self, they called "The Holy Guardian Angel" or "HGA." Frankly I imagine it would have been easier if I had known all this prior to the experiences, as everything has always seemed "out of right field" and shocking and confusing to me instead. But I think most of my most impactive experiences (those that don't fall solely into psi, ufology, psychology, or other categories) are pretty yawningly-predictable. I don't think the Four and the Aeons are though as I don't hear about this from anybody else.
The Private Oracle
An entity I'm fond of named Seth, who wrote a few books via channeler Jane Roberts, has many 'exercises' one can do experimentally. One thing he suggested was that everyone had something called 'The Private Oracle'. Out of casual curiosity one day I started talking to IG about it, but he was right there. Very communicative. I haven't really had any specific questions since the first day I met him, but I am hoping to utilize his input in the future.
Deities
Intellectually, for me god was long ago reduced to some nebulous dust of lack of clear definition, some cross between everything and nothing. But subjectively, I have always, since I can remember in earliest childhood, had an unshakeable acceptance of God as a singular identity with which I could have my version of a relationship. A skeptic when I grew up, I even tried to be an Atheist for awhile, until I realized I was daily apologizing to God for not believing in him, and I laughed at myself and became an official Agnostic, praying "To Whom it May Concern" for quite awhile. Now I guess I am best called a Gnostic (I am part of two metaphysical churches, one of which has the term 'Gnostic' in its title, so I guess so).
I will admit that intellectually I am biased and reactive to religion based on my rejection of what man has done with it, which sometimes interferes with my clear thinking about the entire "ball of wax" including the entities and deities which come in that bundle. One thing I can say clearly though is that I believe sincere regular prayer to God, concerning entities and parts of self one meets, personal intent and life plans, are invaluable. I don't think it matters whether there is some objective validationg to God-as-a-single-identity. I think our spiritual technology as beings is via "personalization" and that "personal relationship" is critically important.
As far as other-deities go, I have encountered "religious entities", including Jesus, Mary, and Archangel Michael, and I have only honor for them despite that my intellectual beliefs don't match any official religion that validates them. I put my Senior and Queen in the "semi-deity" category, although they are not such large robust thoughtforms as far as I can tell as those mentioned, but they are still definitely "holy".
Other
Once in awhile I encounter archetypes or entities that I don't have a clear category for. My archetype of Responsibility (interpret that as 'True Will' in a way), when I was having trouble in an archmed once, talked to IG briefly and then brought me two light-beings he called "The Angelics." They are not Angels. But they are 'the archetype of Angels'. They are still very helpful to me in meditations and now I often call on them.
I have 'outer guides' that I perceive around me on my plateau inner space. I had one I saw 100% clearly, but I released him a short time later. I have one called Stet that I know helps with my daily physical reality but I don't tend to commune with him or the others there. I once had a thoughtform I called Dor that I talked out of being an implanted-energy-block and into being on my side instead, but the Four made me get rid of him one day for some reason. I have sometimes encountered animals in my inner space (particularly a female black panther). (Oddly enough when I introduced my daughter to archetype work around age 10 she promptly met a black panther as well, go figure.)
This is just an overview of 'identities I work with'. For overview files on environments, and types of meditation, and a table of contents, visit the links near the top of the file.
PJ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
