Advertisement

I NEED SERIOUS HELP dark entities attacking me--

topic posted Fri, December 17, 2010 - 1:08 AM by  Jaime
Share/Save/Bookmark
Hello to all,
I am in need of serious Spiritual Protection. I have been sexuallly attacked since 2003, by some kind of lower level Etheric parasite that attaches to my sacral chakra and rapes me. I have also been attacked in my sleep (if I get any) in my dreams -by other astral travelers who appear to be Human, and I have very good reason to believe other humans are sending the entites to me- to attack me. I do not know why or who, but it's some kind of DARK magic involved, and vampirism. They seem to be a gang of evil people.
What ever the reason, they have been attacking me for all these years, and I am really in serious deep shit, if no one volunteers to give me a hand here.
A Spiritual Protector- or even a tribe of spiritual people- would be needed. I need to know where there is sacrad ground that I can go, to finally get some rest, be protected and to learn how to fight back or protect myself.
Is there anyone willing to step out and offer real help. Serious Shamans, who KNOW what they're doing are all I am looking for. And if you know someone or have valuable advice, please don't hesitate to respond.
Thank you.
Jaime
posted by:
Jaime
Hawaii
Advertisement
  • first off.. STOP SPAMMING tribes!

    LOOK at your actions- over- involvement or broadcasting onto others engenders bad karma.

    then look at diet - it is possible you may have a gene which disallows absorption of a simple vitamin which when corrected may allow you to get sleep and to be at ease.
    There is more.. but all I can say now.
  • Unsu...
     
    then its been seven years...time to shed darkness to light...Jaime "Do what thou wilt. Love is the law, love under will."
    immerse yourself with water and light....this week is heavy with celestial activity. CHANT MANTRA ~

    blessed be,
    vercifyr
    • Love is All there Is

      It's All There Was

      And All there Ever Shall Be!


      Namaste'
      • Love only happens when someone takes action. You are confusing love with peace and tranquility. Pure evil exists as the desire to control, dominate and win whatever game is being played. The willingness to do anything to get what is desired represents ultimate evil. I'm not sure I believe the original poster though. He lives in Hawaii. They have shamans there. All he has to do is put the word out and have some cash on hand. Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku.
      • [[[[[Love is All there Is

        It's All There Was

        And All there Ever Shall Be!


        Namaste' ]]]]

        truer words were never spoken.
        • LOL!
          • My post was intended as a suggestion which followed the advice [CHANT~MANTRA] in the previous post.

            Consider also:

            All there is...is LOVE.
            Everything else is the absence of LOVE.

            And: EVIL is the reflection of LIVE

            i.e.

            LIVE:EVIL

            Meaning: to Live vs. to not Live

            Pure Evil=Pure non-Life

            which, if it does not live, therefore does not exist.


            Suggestion:

            LIVE

            LOVE

            BE



            Namaste'
            • Hi Chronogypsy. You seem to have good intentions but, you aren't making any sense. Word play is for parties. Evil people are just as alive as good people. Good people have friends because they know how to be a friend. Evil people only have victims and potential victims. To an evil being there is no one to trust because they are untrustworthy themselves. Good people and evil people cannot fathom one another. I've heard evil people (while I was in jail) refer to people as suckers while I've heard good people say that no one can be all bad. Opinions don't create truth. Good people have to serve others with a happy heart or feel that something is missing from their lives. Evil people have to fuck over other people and mock their good intentions or they feel that something is missing from their lives. This is as serious a topic as can come up on Tribe.net. I wish you well. Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku.
              • While it is your right to believe that there are good people and evil people, I would like to show you a different perspective. You choose to exist in a world of duality when you have the tools to lift the veil and see as so many others that that duality does not exist. There is no good and evil as many of the unenlightened perceive it. The evil you perceive is the misguided actions of those who have cut themselves off from the unconditional love of the universe or of the divine. Love is the lifeforce that is threaded throughout the cosmos as well as the light that shows all of us that we are the divine--we are all one. When all eyes are openned to see that--all of those missteps will no longer happen.
                • Juliebear. I have not cut myself off from the divine. On the contrary, I serve the divine. I also know that without the proper use of language we can delude ourselves into believing anything. One of the definitions of evil as a noun is- "something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity". If you do not believe in evil it's because you prefer not to use the English language. What do you call the ruthless murder of innocent people? How about torture? You are stuck in a belief system that seems to be convincing you of it's superiority. I do not believe in belief systems for their own sake. They are just possibilities that people cling to out of hope and fear. If there is no action to take, a belief just serves as entertainment. I've met evil head on. I don't need to perceive it.

                  You make it sound as if people just toss aside God's unconditional love. What happens, is that people do something that they know is wrong and feel guilt as a result. Doing this over and over again cuts one off from God as the subconscious is too humiliated to turn it's face toward the light. It will pretend to pray while giving you dreams that point the way to salvation. Unfortunately, most of us do not remember our dreams and would quickly forget the message if we did. The information has to be pulled out during meditation and then acted upon in order to restore one's alignment with it's true nature. As an organization, we've done this thousands of times over 70 years or so with many people (myself included) testifying to the results. Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Good -- Evil... These are mutable IDEAS with varying definitions/perceptions across cultures which change over time.

                    "Nature, in her indifference, makes no distinction between good and evil."

                    ANATOLE FRANCE, The Revolt of the Angels

                    "What we call evil, it seems to me, is simply ignorance bumping its head in the dark."

                    HENRY FORD, Theosophist Magazine, Feb. 1930

                    If, as is generally true from a Deifist perspective, God created the world and all things it, did he not, somehow, also set the order and nature of things too? If, in the process of establishing the nature and ways of what we witness from the world outside our direct control in what we refer to generally as the "Natural Order" do you, somehow, imagine he/she/it/they (meaning the Deity or Deities of your preference) established one set of laws to govern that world, and then secularized humanity and gave them a completely different set of laws that intentionally defies not only the precedent 'Natural Order' but the 'Nature of Man' too?

                    That would not only seem counter intuitive to my rational, but a direct contradiction in intent. If god (remember I am an Animist not a Deist) created all of reality, it seems to me he would have patterned that reality to reflect his values and the morals not only within our own natures but in the world around us.

                    What would I call mass murder? I would call it a tragedy.

                    What would I call Torture? A civil rights violation

                    What would I call Rape? A crime.

                    But to oversimplify such comments is to invite criticism of an overly general view. Marx would defend the Bloody Sunday Massacre as a necessary expedient that sent a firm and resolute message to rebels and revolutionaries. Robes Pierre might agree that killing nobles was disgusting, but a necessary civil service.

                    What we call torture to day, has also changed. It was once not only legal, but common to find rooms made with lye bricks in prisons. Disruptive and violent prisoners would be tossed into these isolation cells for days on end as behavior modification technique. You might even catch a glimpse of the one at Alcatraz. Or, what about the prisoners that were forced to walk on treadmills as a way to produce energy for a town? We would consider these cruel and unusual today, the same as torture and yet they were not only accepted they were state sponsored.

                    The law of first night (a real law in the dark ages) is both barbaric and offensive today, while having been seen as the legal right a lord should expect from his vassal. It also fits with modern definitions of rape.

                    Your implication that Evil is palpitable thing, as real as the sky and the ground, is not reflected in history or the world around us.

                    "The belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it seems to me the deepest root of all evil that is in the world."

                    MAX BORN, as quoted in Judith Sherven's The New Intimacy

                    • Strmraven. It's nice that you have such strong convictions. Using your logic or lack thereof would make any shaman impotent and unable to help anyone as nobody is right or wrong. As a Kahuna who has to help others I do not have the freedom to believe anything other than what I do. I also don't believe in punishment unless it is self induced. I believe it is a perversion and can result in the corruption of the punished person's soul. My church has had to deal with true archetypal evil. If you don't believe it exists, you aren't here to learn shamanism. What makes your sources of information superior and who are you to tell someone who is successful that they aren't doing it right? You've opposed the information I presented without any real logic or substance. Evil isn't a palpable thing reflected in history? Are you serious? I'm sure the victims of the Spanish Inquisition would disagree. I'm sure the little boy who was possessed by a demonic entity and whose story is told in the movie "The Exorcist" would disagree. I humbly disagree with MAX BORN (whoever that is) as to the deepest cause of evil. His thought was incomplete. The desire to be the source of truth has a root cause and that is the desire to control or win. Evil wants to take for itself and is willing to harm others to do it. The level of cruelty being used represents how evil the act is. Evil people enjoy destroying the success of others. It gives them satisfaction to hurt others because it makes them feel that they won something. They own the destruction and feel satisfied. Good wants to give to others and is it's own reward because it often benefits the environment itself. You can use whatever words or concepts you like. Facts are facts and a rose by any other name is still a rose. Evil exists and heroes are made everyday defending the innocent against it. Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku.
                      • Lamaku says...>> "...your logic or lack thereof..." --
                        -- Tsk-tsk (*shakes finger*) we must not let our passions run rough shod over our reason.

                        Please, I beg you to enlighten me as to the immutable definition of: True Archetypal Evil.

                        AGAIN ** -- NON-SHAMAN ANIMIST here who, apparently, isn't serious about learning shamanism as it is written in "the official guide book", whatever that is.

                        All shaman are animists, not all animists are shaman. Thus, being an animist and not a shaman, frees me from the implicit social contract and restrictions that limit most non-indigenous practitioners from serving their community "with both hands" (euphemistically speaking, of course). Besides, I practice a more ascetic version which would mean the proper title for me is Aspiring Sage, and the shamanic techniques become a secondary (even unnecessarily) element within an animist path.

                        The victims of the Spanish Inquisition (to answer your question) would almost certainly categorize their experiences as evil.

                        What do you suppose Torqumada would say, though (to continue your metaphor)? I imagine he considered the victims of his (*Key creepy music and deep, dramatic voice*) PURGING THE WORLD OF EVIL to have been irredeemably corrupted by the same "True Archetypal Evil" you suggest. I have little doubt he was convinced that he was not only serving (his version of) god, but saving the world from exactly the same kind of (*Key creepy music and deep, dramatic voice*) "TRUE ARCHETYPAL EVIL you would have me believe in.

                        The "Possessed Boy" from the Movie 'The Exorcist', is rendered an irrelevant point for:

                        1.) Without copies of the Priests reports the movie cannot be taken at face value for the obvious dramatic licenses they took to inspire more drama. Even the book (which I enjoyed more than the movie) takes literary licenses to impress the reader. Having been invited to witness two exorcisms (one Presbyterian, the other a Small Fundamentalist Sect), I can say they are nowhere near as... exciting.

                        2.) We only have one perspective on the analysis, the Christian version (which is obviously biased and so useless for an objective analysis). Their insistence on lumping everything into one truth where only the clergy have power and influence is somewhat limiting, I'm sure you will agree.

                        3.) As someone who has been in the room when spirits turn... unruly... I can tell you it isn't nearly as exciting as portrayed on TV and its only after the events that the reality of it settles in and you realize how dangerous the situation could have been. (Not during an exorcism, which more resembled healing by the laying on of hands for several hours until the 'victim' was exhausted and possibly brainwashed, but at a seance with a skeptic that intentionally challenged the spirits to manifest for him.) [He later moved to New Orleans and got a job taking pictures of ghosts at haunted houses for the tourists to buy as souvenirs after they pulled his car out of the pond near the cemetery and discovered the skeleton in the driver's seat]

                        4.) Having been a.) victim of a sorcerer's attack where spirits were sent at me for malicious reasons, b.) witness and intervener on behalf of those on the receiving end of such things, c.) the person sending spirits for malicious reasons, I have some insight (or so it would seem). [non-shaman animist serving MY tribe with both hands]
                        • Strmraven. I was present for the first attempt to exorcise a demonic entity (Incubus) that was raping an elderly lady from Carson City, Nevada. Previously, my Kahuna, Lani, had done several dozen exorcisms which usually take one session. This process took about 6 months as the woman had offended her guardian angel and it had turned it's back on her. Amends were made and it helped quite a bit. She needed a bit of acupuncture to put her over the top and completely free of the dark spirit's influence. She was often in the hospital bleeding from her vagina as the rapes were especially violent. I remember her playing with Lani's dog, Mahoney, prior to the ritual. As soon as the entity was called out Mahoney started growling at the woman he previously played with. He was a Lhasa Apso who are used in Tibetan Buddhist rituals. As soon as it showed up, I started to panic as I felt the threat on a subconscious level. I was there as support for the woman but, all I could do was pray for myself. I'm sorry if this doesn't pass your test for true archetypal evil. In reality, it doesn't matter. People have free will and can therefore victimize others. Since there are victims, there have to be people who committed an evil act. Embracing the act as warranted and failing to act on the feelings of the victim can change the nature of person and make them destructive. One way of telling is someone is evil is if their actions lack humanity. It doesn't matter at all what Torqumada thought of himself. He used torture which is evil and corrupts the soul of both parties. I think part of my answer to Takeshi would suit you as well. I appreciate that you are out there helping others. Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku.


                          • From the lion's perspective, the gazelle is dinner. It represents survival. The lion does not consider the feeling of the gazelle in its decision making process. If the gazelle fights back, the Lion does not suddenly rethink his position to consider the feelings or desires of the gazelle, he takes a proprietary position and exerts authority over his meal as you or I would our vehicle should someone want to steal it. The lion is not evil for hunting the gazelle. The gazelle is not a saint for being martyred. The lion is not evil for fighting for what he considers his property, any more than the gazelle is some noble rebel for resisting.

                            As humans we see this as the natural order. Predators hunt prey animals. They do this every day in a cycle of continuance we call the food chain. And, as long as this order stays out there with the ignorant animals, its okay. The moment humans are reminded that we are a part of that food chain and not exempt from the cycles of life and natural orders of things, we have a problem.

                            BUT, ITS OUR PROBLEM. --- NOT THEIRS.

                            A lion goes rogue and begins eating people and hunters are sent out to kill it. A shark attacks swimmers at the beach and we hunt it down and kill it. A bear attacks someone in the woods and we hunt it down and kill it. Wolves are seen in the area and a week later some rancher finds three cows mutilated in his pasture, and the wolves are hunted down and killed.

                            As long as the lion is taking down gazelles in the part of the Serengeti we are willing to reserve for it and leaves people alone, we are content. As long as the shark can somehow understand that public beaches are not feeding zones, we are more than happy to leave them alone. The Bear is an awesome thing to behold and powerful creature, but it won't stop us from protecting our own, even when Darwin should have long since removed them from the pool. What did the wolves do? nothing. They don't hunt domesticated cows. Do ranchers know this? yes. Do they care, no.

                            Let the animals or the natural world intrude on our illusion that we are somehow exempt from its laws and conditions, that we are not masters of the world and we see an ugly side of people. They rise up in droves, overcome the petty religious squabble and economic differences to right this injustice that reminds us that we are still animals, huddling in the flickering light of fires, hoping the wolves and saber toothed cats don't come for us tonight.

                            The lion that hunts human villages, or the jaguar that prowls the edges of jungle camps, are just predators looking for a meal. They will take advantage of anything convenient, whether its a dog, a pig, a monkey, or an eight year old girl. What's the difference to the animal?

                            Now, I ask you this...

                            What is the difference between the jaguar that prowls the camp and takes a young girl, from the malicious spirit that claims an old woman for its meal. Certainly the way they feed is. We would almost universally agree that the jaguar's relatively quick death is more humane than the protracted fear, pain, and suffering the malicious spirit causes woman in order to feed off the intense emotions, like a farmer tilling the soil to harvest crops.

                            Don't misunderstand. The thing is malicious and causing harm. It needs to be run off before it does any more damage. But to see it as evil because you don't want to understand its motivations is limiting... to say the least.
                            • Strmraven. The word "evil" seems to be presenting a problem that you and several others cannot get passed. The act of the lion is necessary evil even though the lion itself is not evil. An innocent creature is being ripped to shreds. That doesn't sound like love to me and the gazelle doesn't think so either. It isn't the cold calculating act that a human can provide but, it is evil none the less. It isn't an act of service, so it isn't love. It is an act where winning is necessary to prevent the lion's own death so, it is necessary. However, it is still evil. I'm just happy that the lion doesn't feel guilty for it's actions. Why do you think that the job of a butcher is considered the lowest of the low in India where they need to be spiritually cleansed every once in a while? It is because they feel guilt for killing an innocent creature. It doesn't matter if the creature isn't a human. The subconscious doesn't care. It knows that the person committed an evil act and needs to be forgiven or cleansed in a ritual. It also doesn't matter if the government tells a soldier that his kills are righteous and that he's a hero for defending his country. The subconscious still sees it as murder and the soldiers feel it. They will have nightmares until they make amends to the spirits of the dead. It is that simple and the Huna Research, Inc has many people over decades that have testified to this phenomenon. It is also the way of ancient Hawaii. Believe what you want. I can't be any more precise on the matter. Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku.
                              • What I find truly difficult to understand, is not that you believe in some imaginary being that represents ultimate evil, but that you image such a creature was given form and life from a being who is supposedly incapable of evil....

                                (*sigh*)... Sorry this took so long. I was trying to find ways to say this without it being a novel.

                                Remember, I'm an animist...

                                The gazelle (physical awareness) will not appreciate the lion's (Physical presence) attentions. The Gazelle (physical awareness) will struggle against the will of the lion (physical presence). This (archetypal) represents a struggle for survival, (metaphoric) the struggle of all life, and is (symbolically) representative of the typical predator prey dynamic. The lion (physical awareness) is seeking to address his/her needs for sustenance and thus the continuance of its life. It does not concerns itself (lion's physical awareness) with the concerns of what it (lion's physical awareness) considers its property. (I believe we've covered this already but it bears repeating.)

                                The Gazelle (spiritual archetype) is acting out a play where it sometimes wins and sometimes loses, but never without a point or some long-term subjective payoff. That long-term payoff may be the near future birth of a new gazelle, as the mother was spared, or as longer term as the ultimate strengthening of the herd by culling the weak.

                                The lion (spiritual archetype) is acting as a force of balance and sustainability as it perpetuates the endless cycle. Sometimes it wins, sometimes it loses, but again, not without some advantage earned that more or less mirrors that of the advantages gained by the gazelle (spiritual archetype).

                                The soil (spirit of place) receives a boost to enrich its offerings to the spirits that live upon and from it.

                                The plants (a network of greater and lesser networks and voices that blend and fold together to form a large part of the voice of the spirit of place) are enriched by the windfall gain of the soil.

                                The plants (physical manifestation) feed the gazelles (physical manifestations) which enriches the herd (enriches the spiritual archetype) and so presents as a healthier, stronger herd with fewer sick, lame, and weak.

                                The stronger herd (physical manifestations) offer greater sustenance and power for the lion (physical manifestation) which in turn grows stronger or perishes by its ability and health, thus serving to strengthen the species (Spiritual Archetype).

                                Eventually, all things return to the soil, (enriching the spirit of place) and the cycle continues.

                                Now, add in the spirits of disease, luck and happenstance, and the spirits of being like starvation and the whole cycle gets infinitely more complicated than a heartless, faceless, emotionless machine left to run and churn.

                                These are the spirits you would call evil, as I understand them. They each have a place in the natural order, a role and purpose. Now, the spirit's place, role, purpose can be corrupted. They are not always that fond of people to begin with, a sentiment I can sympathize with most days.

                                But, to say that the lion's act upon the gazelle is evil, is to say that your god, creator of the world and all things in it, intentionally created a world of sin in which no one is without guilt and so everyone is unworthy of attaining his lofty and unrealistic goals of morality.
                                • Strmraven. If an alien came down and needed to eat the first animal it saw in order to keep living and that animal was your daughter would you feel different about the situation? The alien snapped your daughter's neck and starting eating her right in front of you. Is that necessary evil or is it the alien's expression of self love? In this hypothetical situation I don't see a difference between killing a human being or an animal because either way I'm going to feel guilty about it. That is me. Someone who doesn't acknowledge their guilt will disagree that they've done anything wrong while leaving the spirit and their own subconscious twisting in the wind. This is my self check system taught to me by my Kahuna that helps me to determine what I have to do next. If I feel guilty, then I owe the spirit amends though since I cannot probably do that effectively ( I can't see spirits), I would have to pray for forgiveness and be cleansed by my Aumakua (guardian angel). People that never make amends for any wrongdoing end up with guilt complexes that they have to cover up with drug use, constant music and things like sleeping pills. Then there are the evil or sociopathic people who can do whatever they want and never feel guilty. Since I have to keep my path to my Aumakua open, I have to do my best to make amends wherever possible. If I killed the gazelle for food, I would feel guilty for taking it's life. It's life is no less important than my own. To ignore the path of righteousness that dictates my need for forgiveness would lead me into darkness. I love others too much to ever let that happen. What I see here are very eloquent excuses not to be conscientious for the feelings of the (living) animal even thought the spirit of the animal would probably not feel that we've done anything wrong. I see God as "all life existing everywhere" and to take a life that has a destination is to exert my will upon it. That is the definition of evil. Without that evil act, I would die of starvation. That makes it necessary. Sin means mistake and everyone has to sin their entire life in order to learn. Someone that never sins would lead a meaningless life. If you accidentally cut yourself with a knife, you've committed a sin. You will learn to be more careful or end up sinning again and the next time you could bleed to death. If you hurt someone else, you've committed a sin. You have to learn not to do that or you will end up paying a lot of doctor bills, be sued and feel like an idiot for not paying attention. We were born to sin. As a spirit, we are unworthy to have a place beside our god until we earn it. It takes lifetimes of learning (spiritual growth) to serve with a happy heart. That is when we are reunited with our beloved (another topic) and become deified; the source of light. Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku.
                                  • Strmraven. I also want to thank you for being thoughtful and elegant in your debate with me. It takes me hours to complete a good post and I'm grateful that you are putting your time in here as well.

                                    I would like to leave the reader with a few quotes by Swami Beyondananda. "Life is like photography. You use the negative to develop. And, no matter what adversity you face, be reassured: Of course God loves you- He's just not ready to make a commitment."

                                    "As we go through life thinking heavy thoughts, thought particles tend to get caught between the ears, causing a condition known as truth decay. So, be sure to use mental floss twice a day. And when you're tempted to practice tantrum yoga, remember what we teach in Swami's Absurdiveness Training class; "Don't get even, get odd."

                                    "If you are looking for the key to the Universe, I have some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that there is no key to the Universe. The good news is that it's been left unlocked."
                                    • Once upon a time a young man had a Indian guru bless a citrine crystal that he wore around his neck. Not knowing that the crystal had become self-aware, he added another charm to the necklace. Within a day or so the young man started getting splitting headaches. Not being fully aware of the situation, he stopped wearing the necklace and put it in his drawer where it stayed for several years. He decided to offer it for sale to his mother who thought it would make a nice gift for her friend on the east coast. After having it for several days, her friend noticed that whenever she put on the necklace she would get terrible headaches and as a result had stopped wearing it. The young man's mother told him of the situation and the he said that he would ask his spiritual teacher if he could tell if it were the citrine that was causing it. The citrine was examined and it was determined to have become self-aware and malevolent (evil). It had been insulted that another charm had shared the chain and was in physical contact with it. It was no longer in contact with the other charm but, was still taking out it's anger on whomever wore it. It took three days of soaking in Bach Flower remedies for it to be cleared of the guru's blessing and it's self-awareness. The stone became noticeably lighter in color as well. This is a true story. Don't believe in evil. If you were my family it would worry me but, since you aren't I'm care free. I wish you all the best in the new year. Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku.
                                  • Now you've gone and done it. Don't blame me...

                                    (All definitions and explanations that follow should be considered personal, working models not an empirical or substantive definition of reality and is the opinion of the poster. As such, it should not be considered to reflect the beliefs, views, perspectives, or working models of anyone else, any more than it should be considered a universal or intrinsic system of belief necessary to shamanism or shamanisms.)

                                    Animist, a person who believes in both human and non-human spirits. (If that were anymore vague it wouldn't serve as a definition at all would it?) So, animists are those who acknowledge the anima in all things around them (to varying degrees), the spirits of place and being, the archetypal and the specific spirits that like drops of water can simultaneously be individual and inseparably part of the whole.

                                    What is it to be an animist? I don't know, you tell me... Did your car start that time your battery died after you cussed it out? What about that door that keeps sticking, and though you feel silly if someone sees you, you just can't help arguing with it. And what about that one place, the one that always made you shiver and feel like you were being watched. It just has a feel about it. Ah... so you're a closet animist, afraid to reveal yourself to the world. Don't worry, so is most everyone else. Its a natural instinct, a side effect of evolutionary survival traits that produces an anthropomorphic sympathy with the world around us. We do it subconsciously and it reduces stress, anxiety, and releases neuro-transmitters that make us feel better.

                                    An Animist, however, is more than this. They go beyond the subconscious personification of a door or car, and recognize the anima, spirit, in the world around us that inhabits people, places, things, manifests as hunger, famine, disease, misery, pain, torture, or combines to form the archetypal spirit of a race or species like grandfather bear or brother rabbit. Those who call upon the Angels summon aid from beings that can be classified as animist, just as those who channel the spirits of dead poets in the hope or being given the next great novel or play.

                                    Animism, then, is a character of religion, and not specifically a religion in and of itself. Yet, in many ways it is the defining character of those belief systems that are typically known as shamanic. So that, all shaman are animists, but not all animists are shaman, becomes one of the few universal attributes shared by all shamanic societies and systems. (I'm sorry, but approximately 2 million years of belief in which the reality of external spirits forms the cornerstone of belief excludes the possibility of an internal system where spirits are seen as personal constructs. While such systems are valid and obviously work they are not the same thing and should be considered a completely different system, no matter how superficially they resemble shamanism and mirror its results.)

                                    So, what is the nature of anima or spirit? What is it, where is it? Why can't I see it?

                                    Hmmm.... those answers are as infinitely variable as they are personal and individual. Some, as stated earlier, will see them as angels, others as demons. Some will see people representing places and things, others will interact with animals or shapes and colors. In short, I expect the spirits, anima, represent themselves to us in ways that we understand. So that, if we are comfortable with christian imagery, we see angels. Those more open to nature themes, might see animals. But, I also believe that our expectation plays a role in how we see them too. If we expect to see angels we will, no matter the intent of the spirit as our will makes it manifest.

                                    So, how do we pull solid facts from thin air, or grasp hard facts from smoke and shadows? We don't . Thus the "working definition" idea. This is how I see it, because this is what works for me, though it could just as accurately be said in the reverse as it quickly becomes a chicken and egg debate as to whether your working definition works because that is how you believe, or if that is what you believe because of how it works for you. Outside of sense of personal gratification, the answer is mostly irrelevant and probably some combination of the two with extenuating outside factors we've failed to recognize, much less consider.

                                    So, what do I believe?

                                    Anima is a non-localized, self-aware entity that is independent of the physical realm and manifests only as a superficial reflection off the surface of the physical realm. Like drops of water, anima is both individual and whole at all levels. As we are a complex synthesis of molecules working in concert to form cells that live communally to form the systems and organs that make up the physical body, we are the sum of the whole. The heart in our chest is not us, but we are because of our heart. But, we do not see the sentience of our heart as a whole and separate entity, we do not ascribe to it an individual life of its own, separate from us, and we consider it (consciously) as property belonging to us, though a necessary part of us. This differs from the anima, where each level from the smallest quantum to the largest is itself both sentient and independent while functioning in the greater whole without loss of identity or purpose. To continue the analogy above, the finger of the average human, has three joints and shares a hand with three sisters and larger brother. Each is separable and independent, to a point, while being part of whole where its purpose in not compromised. To an animist, these divisions can retain the individual anima, that reflection from the spirit world, that gives it sentience and makes it part of the layers of greater and lesser orders that make up the whole that is the body, you.

                                    (*gasp*) give me a second to catch my breath.

                                    Okay, anima is restricted to the spirit world, and cannot cross over. Its perceptions, by necessity of the associative principal, (as above so below, if you prefer) of the physical realm is as the physical senses perceive and understand the spirit realm. That is to say, in an imperfect and impressionistic way. (It's a cruel joke that there is a major disconnect between the conscious awareness and reasoning faculties and the subconscious). There also seem to be a radical difference in the means of communication and perception that don't translate well across the barrier that separates the two. Its almost as if the differences between the independent soul and the physical apparatus, are intentionally designed to be incomparable so as to promote the maximum confusion. Of course, you could also say it presents a challenge to be overcome too.

                                    The spirit world is not the physical realm, and so exists independent of our limits on time and space (as well as other laws), and so is not strictly limited by distances or petty concerns with time. As such, it is not only theoretically possible, in my working model as it works for me, that I can simultaneously be the reincarnation (term used for its evocative ideology) of my great-great grand daughter on Mars, and a sturgeon in the Rivers of Russia circa 4000 BCE.

                                    Now, to further complicate matters, as a sturgeon, I would then be part of the whole that makes up the archetypal whole of the Animist Sturgeon. Of course, that would also make me part of the spirit of place where I live, and the spirit of place where the sturgeon lives. I might also be connected to battles across time as a crow, a dagger, a rock on a field, and/or the bodily waste that is evacuated in such cases. (Hey, we can't all be reincarnations of Einstein and Marilyn Monroe, though that might be interesting... or can we? If its possible for a spirit to occupy more than one body at a time across time and space, why not have more than one spirit reflecting in a body at a time?)

                                    I don't know about you, but this is getting complicated. Layers upon layer of awareness and associative purpose and role that is independent and dependent on a greater whole until it becomes clear that we are all blended elements of everything else so that the greatest lie we tell each other is that we are alone, independent, separable and isolated, unaffiliated and in general not tied to the world around in any way we do not willing and knowing decide to take upon ourselves.

                                    So that...

                                    The lion (whose physical awareness in oblivious to the spiritual side) is only superficially aware of its dependence on the gazelle for immediate physical sustenance and fails to even remotely grasp the interconnect relation that the Lion and Gazelle are, in fact, one and the same.

                                    That also means, I am the alien taking advantage of a convenient (if unfortunate) life form to save my own life, my daughter who is transiting from the physical to the spiritual with a shockingly sudden discovers her place in the food chain, and her father, who, witnessing a trauma, feels an overpowering instinct to kill this threat and revenge his daughter (an instinct that served our ancestors well in significantly reducing the real and present threats that plagued out camps and hunted our children).

                                    So, how is something evil that is acting upon its natural, god infused nature? (to use a deist metaphor)

                                    To me, all anima is the same. The anima reflected in me is no greater of lesser than any other, and only has a different purpose from that anima that manifests as the spirit of a open glade with a waterfall that entertains and waters herds of deer in the Colorado Rockies. All anima is connected, in a manner that brings to mind smoke or water, so that there is no easy definition or boundary to conveniently separate one anima from another but that which the anima itself wishes to convey to you, and usually with a specific and intentional purpose.

                                    And, since anima, the localized element of a non-localized phenomenon centralized and restricted to the spirit world, is not manifest in the physical realm it is neither hurt, injured, or affected in any real or lasting way by any force or feature that affects the physical body, which is a separate and distinct manifestation from the anima. So, anima cannot fathom lasting sin as we, the physical manifestations of awareness see things, because they do not understand the limits and boundaries we take for granted. They are not diminished as the physical self can be. Because they are not diminished, they do not understand loss, pain, guilt, regret, or limits.

                                    As we, humans (the physical awareness) defines our world from the point of view of our desires (particularly those unrequited ones), needs, limitations, and pay special attention to the unhappy emotions of pain, loss, suffering, etc... we have a particular view of the world (reality) that takes those limitations for granted, emphatically with the pain of others as a sympathetic response, defines conceptual good and bad actions through the individual's advantage or loss on the issue, we arbitrarily establish a subjective value judgment that is extremely Human-Centric and Biased to the point of being unbelievable unrealistic, and then try to force that perspective on the world around us as if it were somehow a divine truth of the universe set as law, a fact of reality and immutable, when it nothing more than wishful thinking on our part.

                                    That 'demon' is an animist spirit with an agenda. Its actions are malicious and hostile to the person, but as I said earlier, no more so than the equivalent analog to the lion and gazelle where the lion believes the gazelle is its property and refuses to acknowledge the rights of the gazelle (which would be very human and totally counter productive to the need of the lion). Human morality does not affect the lion, and would actually hurt it, and so cannot be held to human standards of behavior, no matter how arrogant and dominant we care to imagine ourselves.

                                    My physical awareness (independent of the animist awareness) will continue to rail against things that diminish me personally by degree and according to association, as I am a physical being that defines my world the same way all other beings in this physical reality do, that being through our limitations and fears. However, I cannot admit to seeing the lion as evil, the alien as evil, or the gazelle or my hypothetical daughter as martyrs, because I see the interconnected layers beyond the physical reality that make us all one and the same and so indistinct and dependent on each other in ways that I can't even begin to visualize, much less understand.

                                    So, I go hunting and kill a rabbit. The physical awareness of the rabbit is going to have the natural reaction of fear. Its survival instincts will drive it to flee. My predatory instincts will kick in and I will chase. This will strengthen my spiritual connection to the land, to nature, and remind me of the food chain in a limited and arrogant way, so that I get a religious experience where I feel tied to the animal. If I'm lucky, I will get a glimpse of the way we are tied together in such a way that I am the rabbit as much as the rabbit is me, and that momentary glimpse of A truth will validate my act as a religious one.

                                    How can I, in the above scenario, feel guilty for the responsible act of feeding myself when seen in that light?




                                    • Strmraven. Your question- "So, what is the nature of anima or spirit? What is it, where is it? Why can't I see it?" According the ancient Hawaiians spirit is made of "aka". This is why spirits have a form of some sort. When people touch they create aka threads between each other which is what the sacrifice during prayer travels on though it goes to the Aumakua at that time. Aka threads allow psychics to pick up information.

                                      I use terms that are generally accepted otherwise people tend to disassociate and start daydreaming. The word Aumakua means "utterly trustworthy parental spirit". It never interferes with free will and is there to help with healing, protection, inspiration and guidance. Mostly, it waits for us to contact it while lamenting how infrequent it usually happens. Good parents want to be involved. People are often too arrogant, afraid or too ignorant to ask for help that is right at their fingertips. The Aumakua is the one that answers most people's prayers. If you pray to Buddha, it puts on it's Buddha costume for you, etc. The life of Archangels and Grandfather spirits are another topic entirely. There are plant spirits you can contact. Animals spirits may or may not respond. I've heard that they generally don't trust people. Before I ever had any spiritual training, I had a situation that I needed help with and screamed into the ether for help and got it. So, I know that I have an innate relationship with God. For over a thousand years the Hawaiians had the same technology Hunians use to restore harmony in relationships and the environment.

                                      Personally, I do not believe in the transmigration of souls. I believe we evolve in a linear fashion becoming more intelligent and eventually graduating into Aumakua-hood.

                                      You asked- "So, how is something evil that is acting upon its natural, god infused nature?" Because it has a will to win and is willing to do anything to obtain that goal. It's not a condemnation. It simply a fact. The lion doesn't have an ego for self reflection so it cannot be held responsible for it's instinctual actions. It kills to live. Just because it feels no guilt does not make it innocent. "Why do you keep dropping the adjective necessary to understand this? It's necessary evil not evil. Good people commit evil acts all the time. That doesn't make them evil. It means that they had to do something self serving to survive. You get a cold. You lovingly chop down one of your oregano plants to make a tincture. That is evil and necessary. You thank the spirit for it's sacrifice, consume the tincture and get over the cold. Evil acts are done with love all the time. Euthanasia is one such act. The spirit of love doesn't eliminate the fact that a life has been taken. Any good person who does it will feel guilty even though they did the noble thing. Repressing the guilt can eventually make one sick. It has to be dealt with. As far as I know, it is only the advanced psyche of a human that has to contend with guilt.

                                      I completely disagree with your analogy of the demon and the lion. The lion lives to serve it's family. It's nature isn't malevolent. It kills to live. The demon is a malevolent spirit who may or may not have ever lived in human form. It can exist without much energy just like we will after we die. We get energy from our family and friends when they think of us and pray for us. Mostly, we exist in the spirit world with only our memories. The demon enjoys the suffering it delivers. When my Kahuna was possessed/obsessed the demon would whisper "let me in. I know how to hurt you so good". They enjoy pretending to be beings of light telling people to hurt others because they deserve it. Sometimes they string people along for years pretending to be an angelic being so the people they talk to can give their friends enlightening messages. They love to state what galaxy or group they represent. They are clever and take advantage of people's desire to be admired.

                                      You asked- "How can I, in the above scenario, feel guilty for the responsible act of feeding myself when seen in that light?" This is the wrong question. The right question would be, "how can I not feel guilty for committing murder?". Not to feel guilty for taking a life is to suppress your good will by making the world conform to your beliefs instead of being honest and living with reality. Killing may not be wrong in order to eat, however, the being you killed whether animal or vegetable had a life that it was living and to honor it we must make sure that it feels our appreciation and contrite heart. Wouldn't you want the alien to at least feel sorry for taking your daughter's life to save his own? It would make me feel better. I don't know about you. Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku.
                                      • KL >> "...I use terms that are generally accepted otherwise people tend to disassociate and start daydreaming..."

                                        I'm going to translate that to mean I'm getting hard to understand...

                                        Why do I keep omitting the adjective...? -- Because the problem isn't the 'necessity', the 'necessity' is apparent and obvious. It is necessary for survival, it is necessary for the continuation of the species, it is necessary to the cycles of life and the natural order. The 'necessity' was never questioned so it was left out because it wasn't important to the discussion.

                                        The real issue is the moral application of a judgment of 'evil' to a process which is natural, unavoidable, apparently approved of and endorsed by the creator deity, and which I suggest is ultimately being used inappropriately here. Since I cannot agree that the term 'evil' is justified in this case, the term 'necessary' (while an accurate descriptive for the actions in question as relate to survival, food chain, and natural order) is not accurate in this case, as I define it (evil) differently than you.

                                        Summary:

                                        I agree...
                                        1. ...the gazelle (or any other prey animal) will not appreciate being the guest of honor at the predator's ball and gala feast.
                                        2. ...the food chain is a necessary part of the natural order wherein we witness desperate struggles for life and survival (note the term necessary)
                                        3. ...should I, my family, or anyone I care about, find themselves on the food chain with a sudden and graphic demise, I will react as my ancestors did (that being instinctively to protect the tribe) and seek to revenge them upon the beast.
                                        4. ...Some see the predator/prey relation in the food chain part of the natural order, as unnecessarily barbaric. (I don't agree with the perspective, but I agree that some people see it this way)


                                        What I do not agree with...
                                        1. ...humanity's need to 'rise above' our animal side as if it is some sort of 'original sin' and something evil to be despised and ashamed of.
                                        2. ...the human need to vilify those things we see as violent or graphic, especially when it is associated with the animal world.
                                        3. ...that it is not nature which exists at our discretion, but we who exist at hers.
                                        4. ...As the youngest interest on the scene, I fail to see how we have any say in things to begin with, much less how we came to the conclusion that we know better than the examples provided (namely nature).

                                        Transmigration of the Soul
                                        ... Reincarnation is when the soul returns to earth in the body of another human, transmigration is when it returns in something else, like a rat, a cat, or a blind worm's sting. It means the soul resides in the body of the person (or animal as relevant) and so only possesses one body at a time. It only moves on when its time in that body is done.

                                        The differences in what I believe...

                                        non-localized event -- when you watch a program on TV, the drama unfolds on the screen but does not take place in the television. The image you see in the mirror, does not originate in or on the mirror, but somewhere else. To say a soul is a non-localized event, is to suggest that the soul does not inhabit or possess the body, but instead projects into it or onto it in some way from somewhere else.

                                        ... The soul never leaves the spirit world, its stuck there
                                        ... The soul is not necessarily any more aware of the physical world than we are of the spiritual world.
                                        ... The soul is not limited in how many bodies it can project into
                                        ... The soul is not restricted by limitations of time or place

                                        Summary of difference...
                                        ... The transmigrated soul moves physically from body to body, where the non-localized one never moves and might inhabit more than one body at a time, around the world, and from anywhere in time (past, present, future) and without distinction of animal, mineral, or plant.

                                        ... The transmigrated soul exists in a linear progression or evolution as it moves through time the same way we do, and is thus changed by the lives it inhabits exclusively.

                                        ... The non-localized soul experiences all of time in the physical realm simultaneously. It can, theoretically, be reflected in more than one place and time (the way we see things) so that Newton, Hawkins, Einstein, Boers, and Bell, could be reflections of the same soul. But then, so could Jack the ripper, Lizzie Borden, Jane Mansfield, and Marilyn Monroe. (Just saying)

                                        ...............

                                        It seems we agree (more or less) on the point that the spirits appear or present to us in ways we understand.

                                        You suggest that the will to win is at the core of evil intent. Not so much that it is the evil itself, but that when taken to the level of winning at all costs, it is evil.

                                        I call that determination, ambition, and drive.

                                        I do not consider this, even in the extreme, to be bad much less evil. Certainly, this has led to acst that have been judged evil, but not, I believe, because ambition or determination led it there. This lacks an intent to do harm which I would suggest necessary to any act of evil... no, let me clarify... the malicious will and intent to knowingly do harm and to revel in it, would need to be in any definition of evil before I could be willing to accept it. The person who, in seeking to do a great act of mercy, instead causes some disaster, is not evil or guilty of an evil act. Good intentions gone wrong or not, there was no intent to harm or hurt. What happened was an accident or a bad decision that led to a tragic outcome. But, I have to warn anyone trying to find a definition for evil that I will accept as you might have a problem convincing me of the intent to do evil.

                                        And there is the heart of the problem with why I cannot accept the idea, that in our model of the lion and the gazelle, the lion is not evil does not intend evil, does not understand evil, and so cannot do evil. Even if the act of being a predator is distasteful to some, it is not evil (though it is necessary for survival) [happy that I included the necessary part?]

                                        Curupira and the Bunyip are demons. Actually they are animist spirits of place that are archetypal examples of exactly how hot and cold our ancestors used to be treated by the spirits. But, they would be demons whose natures and purposes we know. But, as I cannot say for certain what the motivation of the demon to which you refer is with any certainty, I must concede the fact that it was a malicious thing intent on doing harm, though I have only your testimony to base that opinion on. But, as you cannot attest to the motivation of the demon, summarily judging it as evil without having all the facts seems premature. In the example of the lion, the lion views its prey as its property and will fight to keep it. That isn't out of character for a demon. So, judging the actions as intentionally evil or evil in any way, without understanding the motivations and causes is a bit odd to me. You yourself suggested a very strong likelihood when you said she had offended her protector spirit. Who is to say this protector spirit, which was offended, didn't invite an old friend and adversary to come visit for the holiday to prove a point. That would would be evil.
                                    • Strmraven-As long as you are acting within the guidelines of natural law, there is no reason for feeling guilt or shame. These concepts come from the christianity of the dark ages where people were taught to be ashamed of every natural behavior i.e. God is this angery old white dude up in the sky waiting to smite you if you have relations with your spouse on the wrong day etc. It was during these times that the Catholic church came up with the seven deadly sins and the seven virtues. Because of some of the things that Kahuna says, I wonder if his belief structure is hobbled by some of this early christian rhetoric.
                                      • Having noticed his references to angels and such, I sent him a private message during another discussion we were having. He was very patient and explained it quite well. I'm sure that if you ask him, he will be only too happy to explain. I hesitate to do so for him, as it would seem to me a bit odd to detail his views, which I don't know completely, when he could do a much better job and would be more than happy to oblige. But, he does favor a deist structure with Christian influences (if its not rude to say and I remember correctly).

                                        But, while I do not share his view on that point, I respect his path. You have to admit, he has the passion of his beliefs (at the very least) and I can admire it, even if I don't necessarily share it.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    I did not say that you have cut yourself off from the divine--I know that you serve as all of us on the path do. I am not stuck in a singular belief system and I know the sorrow, pain and anguish that exists because I'm one of those who can feel the earth cry. I fought it for a long time until I realized that what I have is a gift that allows me to be one of the channels that directs the pain and the negative energy to the place where the divine can transmute it. The negative energy--evil if you choose to label it that--is like the oil spill or chemical contamination that needs to be spiritually filtered and scrubbed away. The individuals who have cut themselves off from the divine are like the wildlife that gets caught in that negative flow and become coated with the poison which further cuts them off (can you imagine the spiritual pain they must be in?). What happens when you approach an animal wild or not that has been injured? They will strike out.

                    The individual who murders and tortures others is striking out because for them it is the only way to temporarily deaden that spiritual agony--they may delude themselves into thinking these actions bring pleasure but it doesn't. Sometimes the toxic waste can coat an entire organization even an entire country with very dire results--again, however, I maintain evil does not exist as a noun or as an entity or even as a force. I will concede however that the word does exist as an adjective to describe the actions of those who are cutoff and coated and filled with toxic, negative energy. I hope that you believe that even for them the doorway is open to release the pain that causes them to act as they do and rejoin the light.

                    Namaste and Blessed Be
          • "LOL"
            such a concise phrase showing the true wisdom of the kahuna.

            it's funny that internet trolls use that very phrase so often.
            • At least I'm not an ass kisser, Takeshi. My response to Chronogypsy was pretty much straight out of the Shamanism guide book. I'm sure many people have wondered why someone that was supposed to love them was stabbing them to death. "All there is is love" is a statement only a metaphysical person without any real world experience would say. You might as well say all there is is jelly beans. It makes about as much sense. The universe doesn't need humans to try and sum up it's essence up with words. What humans need is compassion and if angels weren't compassionate humanity would have died off eons ago. That's why we are here and what all humans have to learn in order to live a meaningful life. Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku.
              • lamaku, I don't think anyone suggested you were an ass kisser. I made no reference to you or your posts whatsoever but you seem to have pulled that out of the air.
                I'm very sorry you don't understand the nature of love and the meaning of Chronogypsy's post.
                keep working on your understanding and you may get there someday.

                note: I never made any reference to your posts.
                you wrote LOL after mine when all i was doing was concurring with something i agree with because i know it to be true.

                grow up.
                • p.s. I probably would do better not to even respond to such posts, but it's something about the lesser spotted internet troll that can get the back up on even the most well intentioned of us.
                  did you notice that about kahuna lamaku? everywhere he shall go, there occurs shit-throwing.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Takeshi. Let's look at this situation in a practical way. If the original poster is sincere, he is in some deep shit as his soul is drained of life force over and over until he dies before his time. In this case, love comes to the rescue in the form of a loving (good) person praying for the salvation of a man being victimized by evil. "All there exists is balance." On a related topic, how is killing an animal for food considered an act of love? It isn't. It is necessary evil. The same goes for harvesting a crop of wheat. Wheat wants to live just as much as anything else that lives. Chronogypsy's statement is an erroneous concept. "All we need is love" or "love is the only thing that is important" are closer to the truth. Let me ask you a question. What series of events transpired to make you believe that love is the only thing that exists?
                    • lamaku, I do not know what possessed you to write this but ok, I can converse with you about this.

                      first point. killing a beast is most certainly an act of love. that is, killing a beast properly and with permission is an act of love. it is a sacred action between two beings. one relinquishing it's life so that another may go on.
                      if you find that hard to address, lookup Stockholm syndrome.

                      the only thing that brands death and killing as evil is fear. when you do not fear, death is no longer your enemy and when your time comes, you will welcome it with open arms. like an old friend. it's this type of feeling that describes love.
                      love is not wanting something to adhere to preconceived notions of good and bad. love is appreciating something for how it is.
                      even if something is considered bad by some belief system, to accept it and appreciate it for being exactly what it is, that is love. that is the same action as blessing something, affirming it, giving it power and is the same process by which things exist in the first place.
                      well, at least according to many belief systems and also a few scientific theories being batted around these days.

                      [[[What series of events transpired to make you believe that love is the only thing that exists? ]]]
                      in fact, no series of events need transpire to acknowledge that the very existence of the universe is love. they are the same thing.
                      it's generally considered this way by most people, it's just that many don't follow the path of the logic to it's inevitable outcome.
                      you hear so many phrases, so many sayings that reflect this same theme and concept. for example "if you love them, let them go" etc.
                      it seems that what many people mistakenly refer to as love in many occasions is only infatuation, or possessiveness, etc.
                      • Takeshi. I think I understand you now. You see yourself as different and separate from the beast you are killing. To me there is no them only us. To kill and eat my brother the elk would break my heart though it may have to be done if I am to live. If the animal was suffering in pain, to end it's suffering would be an act of compassion. There is no way I could twist words around to make it sound like an act of love to take a life under any other circumstances. If the beast was ripping you to pieces to kill and eat you, I doubt you would perceive it as an act of love. It's necessary evil just like the necessary evil it takes your immune system to kill an infection. If you believe the microorganisms have more of a right to live than you do, death or at least a life of chronic illness awaits you. The chain of life is beautiful but, many aspects of it couldn't possibly be perceived as coming from a loving space.

                        Fear is an instinctual reaction to a threat and that is all it is. Unfortunately, it can become a habit. Your definition is a corruption of the metaphysical idea that fear is the absence of love or a block to love. This idea was created to sell books. I'm not sure if Gerald Jampolsky or Osho said it first. Jampolsky wrote "Love is Letting Go of Fear" but, something as profound as love doesn't pop up like a hot air balloon because fear has vanished. That theory is poo poo. It is proof that people are gullible and have little grasp on the English language or their own psyche. Love rises up in the psyche because you find value in the object you are embracing. If the value becomes all encompassing, you vanish for a moment and become one with that object. If that object is an angel, you come out of it enlightened. Courage is having fear and doing what is necessary anyway. When I walk on hot burning coals, I am afraid and have love for the Goddess who is protecting me at the same time. We are complicated beings and can have more than one emotion in the same moment. If your child is going off to college, you may be happy, sad, afraid and grateful all at the same time. It is our language that betrays us and fools us into believing we are this or that when all we can be is a grain of sand in God's eye; inseparable yet separate and learning to become humane enough to evolve into the next stage of our existence. The archaic Hawaiian language allowed for words to be created that describe several actions or emotions taking place. Our language is inferior and it encourages lies in order to make people feel better. Only the creator of something has the right to name it. It can be "renamed" later on. There is no such thing as a doctor or lawyer. People practice medicine or law. They can only "be" human and be either male or female. Any other definition is false to fact. The concept of "I" is also false to fact as we are connected spiritually to everything else. Our alone-ness is a fantasy and the Hawaiians had no word for "I". When we use the word "I" they use the word "au" which means flow(in the mind of God, of course). There are only different degrees of cohesiveness that we can recognize and be present with. Everyone carries their spiritual connections with them wherever they go. It is only when we reach out to them they we feel their presence. There is no "I" only "us". Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku.
                        • [[[You see yourself as different and separate from the beast you are killing. To me there is no them only us. To kill and eat my brother the elk would break my heart though it may have to be done if I am to live.]]]
                          to be honest i don't see how you could safely make that assumption. you may ask me if i see animals as somehow inferior to humans. i would answer no.
                      • I agree with you on this topic. I grew up on a ranch and I was a hunter. The relationship between the hunter and the hunted is one of love reguardless of method. Mine was a swift bullet or arrow--with the bear or lion, it is claws and fangs.
                        When I was hunting, I loved that beautiful deer or elk that I was stalking and I always honored their spirit by first going for a headshot, making sure my aim was sure and true, then by using every part of the animal including hide and antlers. When I was bringing the animal down, I always made sure that his last memory was of the sunny meadow or ridge surrounded by his does or cows--my love of him made me wish for his spirit to stay in that place of bliss. I showed my reverence for his act of sacrifice by making sure that none of his body was wasted.
                        • Juliebear. You are confusing your feelings with the actions you've taken. Just because you love the animal you are killing doesn't make it an act of love. With that kind of thinking, rape could be a loving act as well. It is the target of the action that gets to say what kind of action it is. If you were dying due to being attacked, I don't think your last words to the attacker wouldn't be "I knew you loved me". I'm sure the spirit of the deer appreciates that you killed it quickly and used it all. Those are indeed acts of love. To convince yourself that the murder itself was a loving act is just delusional. It brought calamity to the animals life. By definition, that is evil; necessary evil. The animal died in order for you to live. That act should be acknowledged every time you eat and no matter what you eat. Every living thing needs to be appreciated. Even a potato needs it. I hope one day you can admit that you've been brainwashed so that reality doesn't taste so bad to you. Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku.
                          • I'm pretty sure juliebears beliefs and feelings are a product of her own thought processes. if anyone has been brainwashed it is the one who was taught by a teacher and ordained into a specific belief system.

                            anyway, this sentence [[[It is the target of the action that gets to say what kind of action it is.]]] is incredibly ignorant. i mean ignorant in that it is ignoring the perspective of the person performing an action. every action we take results in the suffering of another being. every breath we take, our body kills a load of bacteria.
                            that would suggest that our very life is an act of evil. dude, i really don't want to live in your headspace. your view on life is the most tragic thing in this thread.

                            I would say that the person perpetrating an act gets to say what kind of act it is. that would be a proactive approach to life rather than the victim mentality. thats the approach of winners and i'm a winner so if you want to be a winner too, listen carefully ;) (yes this is mildly satirical)
                            when juliebear killed that animal, she was committing an act of love towards herself and all who would benefit from the animals death. she was allowing life to continue for a multitude of living things just by snuffing out a single life.

                            the very first definition that came up in google when i type in evil, "the intention of causing harm or destruction" that is the INTENTION. juliebears INTENTION was to feed herself, her family and to do a multitude of other things. to accuse her of committing evil is a greivious accusation and is potentially harmful to her self esteem. that is a harmful act but i will not call you evil because i believe your INTENTIONS are good.
                            • Takeshi. What can I say to you that I haven't said before? I'm not sure what you don't understand. If I do something to you, you have the right to say how it affected you. I have the right to make things "right" in your eyes. This is called justice. I may think you deserved whatever I did to you. That is irrelevant. The only thing that matters are the feelings of the one who has been hurt. If it could be any other way, nobody would ever have a moment of true peace in their life. Victims wounds would fester and produce spiritual repercussions that would continue on for a very long period. You can see the results of that in the Middle East. Conflict can only be resolved when the guilty party makes amends and restitution. You think that the one who commits an act should get to say what kind of act it is. That is because you haven't thought the whole process through to the end. If we all did what you suggest, we would have very little need for law enforcement as most criminals don't think they've done anything wrong. The ones that do want to be forgiven and not just paroled. Those are the ones who society might be able to trust again. The Nazi's were conducting ethnic cleansing. Aren't those lovely words for murder of the innocent? The Nazi's were winners too until forces of light decided to end their career. "When Juliebear killed that animal, she was committing an act of love towards herself...." is a statement that excludes the will of the animal she murdered and couldn't make sense to anyone who understands English. Juliebear's intentions are meaningless to anyone else. That is what you both have failed to comprehend. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". The meaning of the phrase is that individuals may do bad things even though they intend the results to be good. When Lani was called to save the lives of a bunch of people who violated the sacredness of a place in Hawaii he found out that they had good intentions. Yet, since one of them decided to voice his opinion that they should buy the place and charge admission it desecrated one of the holiest places in Hawaii and the whole bunch were sentenced to death by the guardian spirits. Only by Lani's intervention are any of them still breathing. I don't think for a minute that Juliebear did anything wrong. It is only her beliefs that are unenlightened. Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku.
                              • [[[I don't think for a minute that Juliebear did anything wrong. It is only her beliefs that are unenlightened. ]]]
                                i just can't believe that you manage to be so insulting at such a constant rate.
                                and yet i still do not believe your actions are evil.

                                yes you are right, I have the right to say how any action affects me. my friend hurt me badly through his inaction. do i think his inaction was evil? hell no. i think it was completely self centred. there's nothing evil about self serving, that is self preservation, instinct, that is love for oneself. it's not even about me. does it affect me? of course. so does the sun, the moon, the wind etc. it's only the victim mentality that will get you calling things acts of evil. and if you are a victim you will constantly be fighting with helplessness and anxiety. i actually think it is very immoral for any person to teach others or attempt to teach others that the world is full of evil and that they ought to be victims.

                                by the way, the 'wounds' caused by what my friend did, It is wrong to require him to make restitution to me for those wounds to heal. it is best for me to acknowledge that he was not intending me harm that it wasn't about me, i can forgive him unquestionably. i forgive transgressions on a daily basis, because i know it's not about me. I know there is no such thing as evil and i do not have quite so many complications in my life.

                                you made a terribly shallow, ignorant, inconsiderate, uneducated reference to the Nazi's of world war 2 there. the Nazi's were most certainly NOT winners. they suffered. in some cases they suffered more than their perceived victims, due to having to live with what they witnessed while many victims got released from their suffering. people live to this day in germany in such torment and an entire nation bears an enormous sense of guilt for their ancestors actions. the people who lived in germany under the nazi party lived most of their lives scared for their lives, i just don't understand how you can even say things like that even with the existence of films like schindler's list showing exactly how horrible this time was for all those people.

                                [[[That is what you both have failed to comprehend. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"]]]
                                again with the insults. what is wrong with you, that you have to constantly insult people?
                                that is a quote from a catholic monk. are you now subscribing to Catholicism? because trust me, that doesn't do much for your integrity.
                                that statement reeks of the judgemental nature of the catholic church. you make a mistake, you will be judged!! need i even mention that the leader of the catholic church is partly responsible for mass aids epidemic in the Philippines due to the banning of condoms?
                                let's not go down that road, just be mindful of the nature of the phrase you brought up.

                                it just means, you can't hide your intentions behind good deeds... to be more concise, 'you can't polish a turd'.
                                the phrase is fairly 'tongue in cheek' to be honest. what you're suggesting with this phrase is that a hunter is innately evil and has the intention to cause an animal suffering and uses his excuse "i was hungry" as a front.
                                if you see everything as innately evil... i can see that perhaps we are polar opposites. maybe that's why i always find your words offensive or disruptive.
                                you're focused on evil, the dark, I am focused on love, the light.
                          • Kahuna, dear one, I am not confusing my feelings or actions. The relationship between me and the deer was quite different from the 'relationship' between one who is striking out in pain and confusion and their victim. I took a life to preserve life and I honored my animal brother for his sacrifice. When an individual strikes out and kills another living creature(human or animal), it is merely to destroy and it is done because that misguided individual believes that the act will bring them pleasure when it only temporarily cuts them off from the spiritual pain that is caused by their lost connection to the divine--I addressed this in an earlier post.
                            When I took the life of the deer, I made a covenant with his spirit that none of his body would be wasted--when that poor soul strikes out and kills, they generally discard the body of their victim. For that individual who is cut off from the one and coated with the toxins of negative energy, the act of killing and torturing is the only goal because they feel it is the only thing that will bring happiness and contentment.

                            Note: as I said before, evil does not exist as a thing or as an entity--it is a word to describe the missguided actions of those who have cut themselves off from the divine.
                            • Unsu...
                               
                              And what, Juli, of the person who has no soul ?

                              Did they "decide" to cut themselves off from the devine, or are they missing the part of being human that allows many to know the devine ?

                              And....

                              If there is no evil, then who is to judge when, as you say, an individual is "misguided" ? How would anyone know what is "misguided" ? How could anyone judge what is a good act, and what is "misguided" ? Maybe a destroyer "loves" that which they destroy, because they like to watch the sudden dimming of the light of eyes, just as you you love the animal you destroy, because you have use of their meat, and teeth, and claws, and skin. Both of you, you yourself and the "misguided", take what you need from the destroyed. And make it your own.

                              In a world of no evil, making judgements of good actions and bad actions, may be nothing more than expressions of ego by those doing the judging.
                              • I did not say that the person has no soul--it is the soul which feels the agony that causes the individual to strike out in violence and malice.

                                Yes they did decide to cut themselves off from the divine, indirectly. This can happen when we allow ourselves to be distracted and get to caught up in the material world and upset the balance within our selves between the spiritual and the material. I believe most of you understand that there is a delicate balance within each of us between body, mind and spirit (or soul)--when that is upset is when the connection gets lost. This is when we become susceptible to toxic negative energy. The individual who remains cutoff eventually reaches a critical point and starts striking out because as I said they believe it is the only way to block out an agony that they are incapable of understanding--they may even reach a mental state where they believe that what they are committing are acts of love and that those acts are bringing them and possibly even their victims pleasure. Even in that extreme state, they are not soulless and if balance is restored and the connection is re-established, they can come back from that dark place.

                                One of the hardest lessons for me to learn, was that the spark of the divine exists even in a 'Hitler'. The difference between a 'Gandhi' or 'Mother Teresa' and a 'Hitler' is that the later chooses to be so distracted by the trappings of this plane of existance that they ignore that spark and live in the darkness of their own ego thus openning the door so that they negative toxic energy fills them further blocking the light
                                • Correction in last sentence of last paragraph

                                  The difference between a 'Gandhi' or 'Mother Teresa' and a 'Hitler' is that the later chooses to be so distracted by the trappings of this plane of existance that they ignore that spark and live in the darkness of their own ego thus openning the door so that the negative toxic energy fills them further blocking the light.
                              • [[[If there is no evil, then who is to judge when, as you say, an individual is "misguided" ? How would anyone know what is "misguided" ? How could anyone judge what is a good act, and what is "misguided" ?]]]
                                this is the nature of sin.
                                people only need to listen to 'god' to determine what is sin, sounds like a christian sentiment, but it is not completely, I'll explain. here, god is the higher self and is the part of us that is connected to the other 'us' es, you or your friends. and so it is what i refer to when i talk about permission. permission from our higher self, is tantamount to permission from every living being or non living being. our higher self decides what is misguided, we all each of us suffer when we do not listen to that guide. and that is what characterises 'sin'. sin is against 'god' or rather against ourself, it is the act of doing something without permission or against guidance of our heart.
                • this post/thread is theonly one anyone wrote on in the last 48 hours of my checking tribe.
                  I ams orry about this as the OP is in soem pain self-caused.. which he/she has thrown out into the universe and standsas the top attention-getter at a holy time.
                  be gone evil.
                  Take grown up responsibility for your health. Eat with care. STOP drinking alcohol and taking drugs. STOP spamming this stuff all over tribe. Six healers are not wrong or incompetent.. you refused to be honest deeply with yourself.
                  Be Gone!
              • Boo
                Boo
                offline 5
                There's a wealth of empty rhetoric taking place. I love to read all this.

                I agree with you, Kahuna, in regard to its all being about Love. Kind of the naive twaddle I have come to expect here. Yeah, the Universe needs us to assure everyone "It's all about Love." (Love permeates the Universe. Someone needs to adjust his/her Xanax.)

                I do agree that Compassion is of utmost importance. With Compassion, there is no expectation of personal gain. Kind of a dharma thing.

                Excuse my ignorance, but could someone define Love? The word is being bandied about here.
                • to be honest, there is too many people in the world trying to define words according to their own strict criteria and denying any other definitions.
                  words are malleable due to the existence of slang and dialect. people seem to forget this.

                  if you want a definition of love, you can get descriptions for affection, infatuation, obsession, dependence, comfort, etc.

                  if you look at the phrase 'love is all there is' then you obviously need to work within the context.

                  if you think it's naive twaddle then that shows a refusal to acknowledge the persons knowledge or dialect, or contextual position etc.
                  if you think it is a throwback to hippy drug culture of the 60s then you show ignorance.
                  if you really want to understand, then read my earlier post again, read it twice, if you still don't understand then make a thread about it.
                  this thread isn't about that.
  • Look to your life and the insecurities you feel and derive from it. What stresses and troubles, insecurities and perceived failings or uncertainties are making your world (for lack of a more appropriate term here) unsafe.

    You have called, summoned, or beckoned these creatures into your life and dreams. You have brought them unto you. They are no more powerful or impotent than you yourself are, and you can banish them as easily as you brought them into being. Take from them the power you bestowed upon them with your creation of them by rising above the fear you have of them and deny them what power they would steal from you. This must be done in both the ordinary and other than ordinary realities.

    Seek the darker self within and join with it, accept it, give it appropriate voice and channels to do that which is in its nature but which serves the greater needs and desires of the joined whole and in an appropriate way. Let the darker part of your nature seek its solace and entertainments in the acceptable and appropriate channels that you allow with justification and let that part of you do battle on your own behalf. You will no longer need the shadow of a days bad emotions to haunt you if you have not sacrificed your power and your sense of the egos and agenda's of others.
    • Hi MGvynn. I've had a different experience. I brought home a demonic entity from a peep show when I was 26 years old. They hang around hoping to feed on the energy being created from sexual orgasm and not being given to another person. It felt like static electricity crawling on me and gave me a spontaneous nosebleed while I took a shower which ended when the shower ended. I needed an exorcism. Getting rid of a demonic entity by yourself isn't possible since you are cut off from God by it's presence. Dark magicians send demonic entities to people they hold a grudge with. My teacher fought a Human Sacrifice cult for over a year because he decided to protect some people they wanted dead. The moment he decided to protect them, the cult knew it and attacked him. My teacher said he never knew anyone could be that psychic. They even knew his phone number. They sent a demon to torment him which moved into the attic when it was removed from him. Exorcists risk their lives defending people against the dark. My teacher did an exorcism on a person involved with the Starseed Transmission book. Pictures dislodged themselves from the wall and were sent flying at him. He sustained quite a bit of damage that day. I'm not sure where you've obtained these ideas but, as far as I'm concerned they preposterous. I also feel that your suggestions on how to proceed are reckless. Merry Christmas. Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku.
      • I'm an animist.

        I don't use the deity model but instead deal directly with the spirits of place, being, and effect. They are neither greater nor less than I and we are only reflections of each other upon the surface of time and space, if at times imperfectly reflected on the uneven surface of a pond.

        But to address your experience, I feel the need to ask...

        "How many people swam in the same waters as you and did not meet the needs of the 'demon' you took home with you, if subconsciously?"

        In my experience, the spirits of bad luck, disease, illness, and 'demons' are called to us by our own inner self-turmoil and inconsistent desires warring with each other, and so only have the power we feed them. If they only have the power we feed them, then their power comes from us and they cannot cut us off from that. They can only make us believe we are powerless to defy them. Knowing they are parasites you do not need an exorcism to banish the unwanted entities and you can excise them yourself, thus empowering yourself in the process. You just need to shut off their food source, or make it so sour it is no longer palatable to them (which is often the simpler of the two processes). Failing that, you can always seek out an animist spirit willing to assist you in getting rid of it (which might take some negotiation and sacrifices).

        Now, as for the sorcerer sending spirits to bring misfortune, disease, and ill luck...

        They are the same thing (the same sorts of spirits, that is). The sorcerer may have originally fed them (If, in fact, they are spirits turned to malevolent purposes and not simply shattered parts of their own spirits as servitors), and may in fact be feeding them still. However, they will be getting most of their energy from you as parasites like ticks. Cut them off from the energy and you weaken them. If the sorcerer is still feeding them they will be the ones weakening as you fight the entities off with greater success as the entities drain the sorcerer. You can seek allies in the spirit world, a great job for animal allies and teacher spirits, and weaken the effects of the attacking agents even further.

        If you ignore that/those condition/s which presented the original stressers for your inner turmoil, you will invite the same scenario to recur for failing to deal with the root cause. Deal with the root cause first. If you deal with that, then ask what the next step is. If you cannot or will not deal with that, anything else is a moot point anyway.
        • Hi MGvynn. The reason that the demonic entity followed me home is because I was vulnerable. I can't say why. You are right though. Many people unconsciously allow themselves to become possessed. Drugs suppress the conscious mind and so does sickness. I knew the danger I was in. It was stupid and I was taught a lesson. Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku.
    • so many solutions have been given so far, some very good posts here.
      but ya know, I doubt very much the OP will find solace because she is in the habit of blaming others.
      she takes no responsibility for her own life.
      these other shamans she has seen, may be just as knowledgeable as you or I.

      she's probably already left and we may not get another reply from her.
      • Unsu...
         
        Tak.,
        Could you tell us how your post was helpful ? What I mean is, -by labeling the original poster, and assigning particular habits and traits to the poster, how does that help ? We can guess and suppose all we desire, but does that really improve the situation ? If we say someone is a particular thing, might it be possible that person might become that thing even more ?

        Maybe we (as people of Spirit) could ask questions instead. Maybe ask the person with the problem why they think particular things are happening. Or ask if the words we have offered so far have meaning to them. ..Or, ask if they are still there, if they would like to hear more, and are there particulars we might try to more fully explain.

        For me, saying someone "has a habit" is much like someone saying of themselves they have a habit. Either way the saying of such feeds the "habit". It helps to give it energy, it makes it "stronger".

        --For me this whole posting has been somewhat interesting.

        A person has asked for help. Many of the replies have been of a character of "seek help", "get exorcised", "there's dark entities", and so on. A great deal of the advice has been, for me, somewhat of a character of "there's turmoil", "there's a fight", " there's conflict". I am not sure how any of that helps.

        So what would I advise the original poster, or anyone else who find themselves in such situations ?

        Well, simply don't participate. Don't give energy to things you don't need. If someone, or entity, wants to send you something or travel with you, there's no need to accept it, or to refuse it. That could just cause conflict. Instead you might consider thanking them for the time and energy they took in thinking of you, and then simply return to them the "gift" they sent you. Simply give no energy to what they gift you, and happily and cheerfully return their thoughts and wishes to them.

        ....Just simply be a mirror, simply think of yourself as a mirror. Simply say, "I have no need of that particular thing, thank you, have a good day, enjoy your own desires, and I'll enjoy those I already have that I find useful".
        • Jim, I already decided to be a mirror for the OP.
          my post was intended to bring to the attention of all who are here that maybe the energy they are giving the OP is not actually helping but in fact giving her more fuel for the fire..
          not that many need it spelling out, but just a suggestion or request for concurrence.

          also, if i such label the original poster, and they wish to break out of the cycle, hopefully it can increase the aggressive nature and give her a channel for her aggressive energy. maybe help to strengthen the spirit. my hope was either for an indignant response from OP, and in so doing hope for a focus on change of any such cycle if it exists, or to perhaps have agreement from the peer group and allow the topic to subside.

          reading the latter part of your post, we have similar intentions, I hope you would agree.
  • imho, "dark entities" attack when the body is down / out of shape and when you're malnourished and have neglected getting exercise / exertion and social stimulation ...
    start up a program of strenous yoga, cardio. work outs and high protein diet and avoid asshole people (good luck on that one, heheh ).
  • I would like to say...

    1.) There is a wealth of deep personal and philosophical perspectives being shared here, and we are being reasonably adult in the way we are discussing it. Please allow me to express both my surprise and appreciation.

    2.) There is a wealth of information of value to any person who is newly discovered to the paths, and thanks to the expressive and informative way we have opened up our deepest beliefs, this discussion might offer some insight.

    3.) While it is true that Kahuna Lamaku and I have different perspectives (As my perspectives, points of view, and opinions will deffer from many), I can respect his path as valid. (I wanted to say that clearly and unambiguously in case that wasn't getting through otherwise) We may not see things the same way BUT, that isn't necessary or even recommended. I do not want my intentions misunderstood, in that I don't want to appear at odds with him specifically. I enjoy the lively debate, the challenge to my views and the ways I express them. I learn as much about my own beliefs through our discussions as I hope other do about their own.


    I just wanted to interrupt long enough to interject that, sorry for the interruption. (You may not return to your regularly scheduled debate).
    • Strmraven, as we all know there are many paths to the divine or to the state of being one with the divine. I would like to share a vision that I had when I was on one of my early morning meditative hikes.

      I found myself high above a gigantic beautiful mountain, which I recognized as the divine or that state of oneness. I saw many straight paths aproaching the mountain, like the spokes of a wagon wheel--these I perceived to be the major religions of the world. Occassionally, there would be a war between people traveling on the different paths because each group could see only one viewpoint of the divine and believed that the one facet of the divine was all of the divine--no one on the straight paths could grasp the concept that the divine is multidimensional. As I continued to study the mountain, the plain and the pathways--I noticed that there was a faint spiral path with a growing number of people on it. It intersected the straight paths and circled the mountain going closer and closer each time giving the people on it a clearer vision of each facet of the mountain.

      Take from this vision what you will. What I took from it is that each religion, belief or disipline has validity or one part of the picture. The key to enlightenment is realizing that we are all one and that reguardless of what path we are on, we are all headed to the same place.
      • How did this post end up from one persons call for help.to people attacking one another,and getting away from the original post? Anyway it seems a waste of energy to me.

        In answer to the original question, surround yourself with the light of St. Germain,and put it out to the universe that if they are not of love and light, and for your higher good, they are not allowed to be around you.
        • Jack, if you follow the thread closely, you will see that the needs of the original poster were thoroughly addressed. Spiritual beings from several different disiplines provided counciling and advice to her, it is up to her to use as she will. I believe that all involved in the thread also sent her positive energy.

          It just so happens that so many different individuals coming from myriad points on the spiritual compass ignited a very spirited discussion/debate sometimes verging on condescension and insult. We as spiritual beings in human bodies tend to be quite passionate about our belief systems and spiritual paths.
        • Unsu...
           
          There was an episode of the tv show Twilight Zone, many years ago. A very tall alien came to Earth and said to a meeting of Earth's Leaders, "We have studied you, you are found lacking. Earth will be destroyed next Tuesday".

          Earth's leaders naturally panicked, and begged for more time to solve all Earth's problems, so that the rest of the beings of the Universe would let Earth survive.

          The Earthlings met. They debated. They made treaties. They strove like no Humans had ever striven before. They finally achieved their goal to be better Beings in the Universe. ....They achieved real and lasting Peace and Co-operation and Joy.

          When the alien spokeman returned, the humans said look at what we have done. We are ready to join in the family of Beings. We finally have Peace and Brotherhood.

          ---The alien just laughed and laughed. "Silly humans", he said, "you misunderstand. The Universe doesn't function on Co-operation. The Universe runs on conflict. You humans are found inadequate because you are not warlike enough.


          ..........I tell this story because,..
          Jack, you are just so judgemental. Because who's to say that " 'they' are not of love and light" ?

          (Because, after all, there is so little difference between a hitler and Mother Teresa.)
          • You are right, it is a small difference--but it is that difference that determines the path that individual will follow. Will that person follow a path of love and enlightenment or strike out in fear, confusion and spiritual agony? I hope you don't find it as an insult that even you or I might have the capacity to be either of those polar opposits. I believe that most of us on this planet fall somewhere in between. I admit that as a spiritual being in imperfect flesh--I have been occasionally distracted enough to forget that inner spark, that is the danger of living in human flesh. For me, I get distracted by backsliding and forgetting that hardest lesson--the spark is in everyone and everything.

            Just out of curiousity--are you playing 'devil's advocate' by putting forth the idea that we are not warlike enough to meet Universal standards?
            • Oh, this is one of the numerous reincarnations of Jaime, who regularly gets kicked out of tribe.

              I also had problems with black entities at one point, thanks to a very abusive background but got rid of it following some of the advice given here.
              I posted on my experience and who but Jaime showed up accusing me of attacking her in cahoots with someone else I didn't know from tribe.
              Eventually, she was removed from the tribe and from tribe again but came and posted in a private message that she was aware "of what up to."

              And here it is again at work.
          • a wonderful story about the aliens.
            what do i take from this...
            we are what we are, does that mean we should not strive to be better? no, I think we should all strive to be better. better versions of ourselves. not what others think we should be, but what we think we should be.
            which i think involves first learning who we are and loving ourselves for who we are. then improving on what we like.

            so... if we are to argue, I say we ought to argue in the best way we can. if our intention is to teach with our arguments, they need to be good arguments! written well and with good emphasis.
  • Here is some serious help:

    Before going to sleep, meditate by repeating this phrase:
    "The light of God dawns in us, the love of God flows from us,
    the power of God belongs to us, the presence of God reminds us
    that where ever we are, GOD IS, and all is well."

    Nothing dark exists within GOD.
    • hmm... i've been gone for a long time.
      not sure what the heck is goin on but..

      jamie.. have u ever taken any energy self defence classes?
      where u sit stll, quiet the mind and picture and area just below your naval as light reflective liquid energy. focus on it. feel it. let it grow. this is your power. let it travel upward thru all your chakras slowly and feel it. remember, it is reflective and will reflect any negative energies away from u, back to their source. let is cascade all over u thru your crown chakra and then around your whole body and back up thru your root chakra. meditate on this. this is your enery field.. slowly go over every area of your aura with this. feel it. use your hands if u need to keep track. cover all the holes. and just keep practicing this and feeling this.

      do not fight back. be as peaceful as u can. keep reign on your fear, that is how they control u. keep practicing this exercise. it works.

      simple practices like making a protective circle around your bed before u go to sleep... covering all 4 corners could be helpful. u can use whatever works for u... rocks, cedar branches. remeber to ask the cedar trees 1st before using them and thank them as well. also upon waking every day and looking to the east and saying good morning to the creator or universe and saying thank you for this day, for my body for all creation etc... can change your energy and alot or your inner pshycological working for the better.

      i myself practice all of these. i also stand with the cedar tree every day. and ask it to help me to be strong. to help me to heal. then i brush myself off with the branches, cleansing myself of all negativity. it doesn't have to be a cedar tree. it can be a blade of grass. anything. as long as thought and action are there.

      a good psycologist is always good as well. especially if your in emotional distress.

      good luck
      meme
      • thanks meme

        The Op never came back. Thi sthread go tmuch discussion however.

        I hope we all benefitted from it.
        getting and keeping spiritual safety is an ongoing practice.. we are in LIFE which has uncertain areas and people.
        • amazing thread!
          I recognise this conversation as one that goes on inside me. this quote from strmraven resonates with my current situation:

          Seek the darker self within and join with it, accept it, give it appropriate voice and channels to do that which is in its nature but which serves the greater needs and desires of the joined whole and in an appropriate way. Let the darker part of your nature seek its solace and entertainments in the acceptable and appropriate channels that you allow with justification and let that part of you do battle on your own behalf. You will no longer need the shadow of a days bad emotions to haunt you if you have not sacrificed your power and your sense of the egos and agenda's of others.

          does anyone have a story about how this can actually happen? I recognise the truth in the words, but actually doing it is another thing! any advice very welcome -

          thank you all
          • The first step for me, was in realizing that the idea of "bad" traits, was a corruption of the "Natural Order".

            Certainly, greed, narcissism, jealously, etc... have the potential to lead to excess. Anger has a way of getting out of control and more because we don't want to control it most times.

            We are taught in this society, that angry outbursts are inappropriate and so to suppress that expression. Now we have anger management classes to teach us how to deal with the excess, unexpressed and pent up rage we are not supposed to show.

            In the same way, we are expected to constrain our selfish self interests to serve the altruistic whole of a community. Greed is bad, ambitions is dangerous, and jealousy is unproductive and destructive, when in fact, its only unchecked greed, blind ambition, and improperly channeled jealousy that leads to "bad" or "evil".

            I have said if before, "If god created the world in his image, and that image includes the natural order and nature's laws of survival as well as social dynamic, who are we tell him that he is wrong, that we know better?" (I know, I'm an animist who doesn't believe in god or gods, but its meant to express a point.) If god created a world where our instinctive need was to strive against our fellow man with brutal force and aggressive prejudice, who are we to say he got it wrong, and arbitrarily decide that we know better and impose, socially, constraints on each other that say that is an evil/bad act and a sin against that same god (who created it, and the need for it).

            No, I'm not saying we should ignore the needs of society as a whole or what its accomplished, I just don't seen the value in vilifying traits that are, in and of themselves, nothing more than useful tools for survival, and which, when properly channeled, represent the height of evolution and success.

            So, where are the classes that teach us how to do that?
            • Strmraven. You and Jake say to embrace your dark traits. Buddhism, spiritual masters and shamans say to transmute and rise above them in order to attain harmony with others (and with God). I've seen evidence that uncontrolled anger can change a person's personality from good to evil. If you want to make yourself feel good by making these kinds of statements, that's fine. It doesn't make them desirable however. The "Natural Order" doesn't occur within a single entity. We aren't here in order to accept our faults unless we are ready to work on changing them. That would be pointless. We are here to learn which requires discomfort. We are also here to accept others and appreciate their gifts. Spirit can undo psychological damage that causes people to respond with anger. Anger is hardly ever an appropriate response and it causes damage to the body. People who get angry more often have shorter lifespans. I respect people until they earn my disrespect. That is not a trait capable of someone who embraces their dark side. Virtue and how to obtain it is a more realistic topic for this tribe. How do you respect someone who doesn't respect you? Most people just mirror what comes at them and that is one reason why it would be difficult for them to be shamans. A shaman is supposed to see that everyone and everything is God. God makes mistakes because he is learning. Trust breeds friendship. People who embrace their dark sides cannot be trusted so they have no real friends and that continues on the other side. I encourage you to stop hiding behind your belief systems. They are crippling your ability to think critically. God is inclusive. Religion/beliefs are exclusive. There is no such thing as an Animist. Beliefs are not real and do not define you. You define your beliefs because you are real. You've climbed into an Animist costume and need to shed it to "become one" with the flow of life. I recommend using positive affirmations. They cannot be used to change your luck but, they can be used to change how you react to the stimuli in your environment. People are constantly affirming and reaffirming their own prejudices and calling it thinking because they've never had a decent teacher on the subject. However, I've never met anyone who embraced their dark side that wanted to be a better person. I've had to live with a few of them and all they ever do is complain how stupid and gullible everyone else is. Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku.
              • You spend a lot of time discussion the "out of control" temper. I distinctly remember suggesting that such unchecked emotions were unhealthy, and that society, in expecting us to suppress our emotions in such unhealthy ways as to force us to leave it off and let it build dangerously is tangentially responsible. In anger management classes, they teach that "bottling up your anger" is exactly as bad as you suggest it to be. That personalities change, characters devolve, and morals erode under the festering of unexpressed and 'bottled' emotions.

                The subject then, since anger is unavoidable and must (like stress) be vented off, is to find acceptable, suitable, convenient, and legal outlets. This logic, by the associative principal, is equally justified in the subjects of Frustration, Stress, Angst, and especially with feelings of repression or discrimination (see the blue eyed brown eyed experiment for details). So that, suppressing your needs, your desires, your wants and your whims is a constant degradation of the self, a series of unanswered blows to who and what you are, that builds inside like a time bomb waiting for the "trigger" event to set you off like a bomb, unless you find those acceptable, suitable, convenient, and legal outlets to vent off the pressure.

                As to your statement "...A shaman is supposed to see that everyone and everything is God...". I am an Animist, not a Pandiest. I do not believe the universe and all that resides in it is God. I do not believe in God, yours or that/those of anyone else. I do believe in the layers of spiritual inclusion (see my walls of text posts above for details) and see myself as one and part of the myriad spirits that coexist with us, as one and equal.

                "...We aren't here in order to accept our faults unless we are ready to work on changing them. That would be pointless..." No what's pointless is refusing to admit that anger, jealousy, ambition, greed, and all the other "unpleasant" traits of humanity can be changed. Suppression is unhealthy and dangerous, but "rising above them" is the same as suppressing them. It is the denial of the self, the slavery of personality that insures masks of mistrust abound.

                "...God makes mistakes because he is learning..." -- Not a traditional statement. I am impressed by the admission of an imperfect God, but that implies we, as the human race, 'his' creation, have earned the privilege of not only judging him, but judging his 'mistakes' and bettering them... as if we know better. That' a dangerous circle of logic to get trapped in.

                Now, from your comments on Trust and people who embrace their dark sides being untrustworthy, I can only gather you misunderstand and believe that I am suggesting you give in to those feelings of anger, jealousy, greed, and what not, and let them take over your life. That really would be naive thinking. No, these things are a part of us, undeniable, unavoidable, unchangeable. Suppressing them is unhealthy and dangerous, as you yourself suggest, and so that leaves us little other choice but to accept those parts of us, embrace them as such and give them expressions that are legal, acceptable, and legitimate... giving us control, giving us access, and freeing us from the internal struggles to contain the ticking time bomb.

                How, then, is the person who is not a repressed lunatic, who appropriately expresses and vents his frustrations, his angers, his stresses, and his anxieties in healthy and productive ways, untrustworthy? I would suggest they are far more trustworthy, happier people, and far more healthy than the repressed and subducted character trying to rip itself apart with self loathing, adding to the inner turmoil boiling inside and raging with guilt. That, to me, sounds like a person with deep issues, open to malicious spirits, and one step away from being a Breaking News story. That's the person I won't trust.

                Beside, just because a hundred billion Chinamen say the world is flat, doesn't mean I have to agree with them. That's lemmings, not people.

                (Aside*** Buddhism I understand. Explain what you mean by "spiritual master" who are they and what are they? As far as shaman talking about transmuting and 'rising above' to connect and harmonize... that would be a culturally relevant perspective and one that's typically not indigenous.)
                • Strmraven. You must have buttoned that Animist jacket all the way to your neck as you have missed my point by picking apart my words instead of trying to understand my point. In "Enter The Dragon" Bruce Lee is teaching a student in order to get him to concentrate on throwing a strong kick without getting angry. He says to him, "It is like a finger pointing the way to the moon....don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory." Your beliefs are represented by the finger and you are missing the reality of what is important. What is important is life itself which is what God actually is and is the true meaning behind the "One God" concept. Our beliefs about what God is or isn't are irrelevant and spiritually divisive. When I refer to God I'm talking about all life in all forms including you. When I refer to a deity I use it's name unless I'm talking about my Aumakua or guardian angel if you prefer.

                  Anger isn't always avoidable but, it can be managed using prayer and positive affirmations. Whenever someone cuts me off on the road, I make an excuse for them and take a deep breath. My anger is immediately abated. If someone messes with me hardcore, I give it over to my Aumakua and wait for the fireworks. I've never failed to get rid of any issue when I involve my Aumakua. All the things you claim can't be changed, I've changed. I do it all the time. If I couldn't, I wouldn't be able to call myself a healer. It seems that you are trying to say that cultivating virtue is impossible. I find that pathetic. Maybe it's time for you to look into a belief system that is more effective and I say that out of concern not pride.

                  Almost anyone not under pressure can be trusted up to a point. It's when we are challenged that our true nature emerges. The fact is is that most people cannot be completely trusted because they don't know themselves well enough and haven't faced their inner demons and defeated them. Inner demons or self loathing comes from giving yourself excuses not to do the virtuous thing in a given instance. Not apologizing to someone whose feelings you accidentally hurt will allow the darkness to creep in. "She'll never accept my apology". Blah blah blah. Doing it one time probably wouldn't be much of a problem. However, many people live their whole lives in denial which creates emotional issues and self hatred. To deny righteous behavior plants a seed of despair that gives rise to unhealthy emotions like greed. People are supposed to feel grateful for their relationships and experiences. When that fails it is usually because someone has victimized them or they have victimized someone else in order to gain something which can help to fill the void in their soul. This is the mark of evil. It isn't always bloody or obvious. All relationships require maintenance to thrive and denying that stalls spiritual growth. Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    THE Four (4) Core Emotions... From which ALL other emotions are derived.

                    1.) SADNESS
                    helps you to reflect on the significance of something you have lost, or something that has disappointed you; when you feel sad, it's natural to need to be alone. Solitude helps to work out the significance of the loss and learn from the experience. Withdrawing when you are sad protects you from further hurt until you feel stronger.
                    2.) ANGER
                    motivates you to change or fix something that is not working. Anger may also be a cover for hurt and sadness; if issues are not addressed, unresolved anger may lead to long-term moods of resentment, hostility, even depression.
                    3.) JOY
                    represents all the positive feelings that tell you what is working. Pay special attention to these feelings and re-create the circumstances where feelings of contentment, satisfaction, happiness, peace and joy occur.
                    4.) FEAR
                    protects you from unsafe risks and tells you to be cautious or to prepare - fear is normal in unfamiliar situations. It doesn't mean you can't do something. Fear may be realistic and appropriate to the risk of the situation at hand OR it may get out of hand when a situation poses little or no "real" risk.

                    The Seven (7) Core Emotional Drives... Instinctive drives in ALL animals.

                    1. SEEKING,
                    2. RAGE, .
                    3. FEAR,
                    4. PANIC,
                    5. LUST,
                    6. CARE and
                    7. PLAY

                    SEEKING is "the basic impulse to search, investigate and make sense of the environment."

                    RAGE gives a captured animal the huge burst of energy necessary to get a predator to loosen its grip and be able to then run away. Frustration is a mild form of RAGE. When an animal feels trapped, RAGE takes over. (In people, think victims of crime)

                    FEAR is an emotion that probably doesn't need a lot of explanation, but is in response to not feeling safe and feeling that one's survival is threatened.

                    PANIC refers to the social attachment system. When babies are separated from their mothers, this system kicks in and we hear distinctive separation cries from the babies.

                    LUST refers to sex and sexual desire.

                    CARE is about maternal caretaking and love.

                    PLAY system produces feelings of joy and is associated with bonding in social animals like Humans.

                    The Ten (10) Emotional Motivators of People...

                    1. CURIOSITY. For some reason, we just can’t stand to turn aside from new, fascinating information. This is why the “news” industry is a multi-billion-dollar business.

                    2. VANITY. Most people have a strong, almost uncontrollable, desire to be better than everyone else in some way - physically, socially, mentally, spiritually, etc. And not just to be better, but to make sure everyone knows it.

                    3. FEAR. Decades before I was concerned about things that really pose a threat to health and security, I worried about what was hiding in the pitch-black abyss under my bed. Fear makes us feel that danger is imminent, and we will do almost anything to avoid it.

                    4. BENEVOLENCE. The negative emotion of fear is countered by a drive for the positive emotion of happiness, even euphoria. And the quickest way to achieve that feeling is by doing good for someone else.

                    5. INSECURITY. Are you good enough to be a top-notch wage earner? Parent? Lover? Are you good enough to live in the prestigious neighborhoods? I bet you’ve wondered. (We all have.)

                    6. POWER. Think politicians, here. Corporate CEOs. Generals. Dictators. The Brain. Wave the fact the fact they’ll be the top dog, control large masses of people, conquer their enemies… and they’ll eat out of your hands.

                    7. WEALTH AND ABUNDANCE. This applies to everyone on the planet: the desire to have the jet set life, luxury and leisure…the boat, the house on the beach, the friends in Paris.

                    8. SECURITY. Life insurance ads do this really well. Or Onstar. It’s rooted in fear, because when this hits a person in the gut, it is usually from fear that something bad will happen to them or their loved ones.

                    9. BELONGING. This one is huge. In every single person God has planted a need to connect with other humans. That’s why the family is foundational to God’s plan. Show someone how they can be part of something important or exclusive gives them a good incentive to do what you ask.

                    10. GUILT. Not to many appeals come straight out and condemn you. What happens usually in a guilt appeal is you are allowed to connect the dots. And when you do this, there’s that quite ache in your soul that says, “If I turn my back, Fluffy the ferret is going to die!”

                    Mazlow's Hierarchy of Needs...

                    Physiological Needs
                    These are biological needs. They consist of needs for oxygen, food, water, and a relatively constant body temperature. They are the strongest needs because if a person were deprived of all needs, the physiological ones would come first in the person's search for satisfaction.

                    Safety Needs
                    When all physiological needs are satisfied and are no longer controlling thoughts and behaviors, the needs for security can become active. Adults have little awareness of their security needs except in times of emergency or periods of disorganization in the social structure (such as widespread rioting). Children often display the signs of insecurity and the need to be safe.

                    Needs of Love, Affection and Belongingness
                    When the needs for safety and for physiological well-being are satisfied, the next class of needs for love, affection and belongingness can emerge. Maslow states that people seek to overcome feelings of loneliness and alienation. This involves both giving and receiving love, affection and the sense of belonging.

                    Needs for Esteem
                    When the first three classes of needs are satisfied, the needs for esteem can become dominant. These involve needs for both self-esteem and for the esteem a person gets from others. Humans have a need for a stable, firmly based, high level of self-respect, and respect from others. When these needs are satisfied, the person feels self-confident and valuable as a person in the world. When these needs are frustrated, the person feels inferior, weak, helpless and worthless.

                    Needs for Self-Actualization
                    When all of the foregoing needs are satisfied, then and only then are the needs for self-actualization activated. Maslow describes self-actualization as a person's need to be and do that which the person was "born to do." "A musician must make music, an artist must paint, and a poet must write." These needs make themselves felt in signs of restlessness. The person feels on edge, tense, lacking something, in short, restless. If a person is hungry, unsafe, not loved or accepted, or lacking self-esteem, it is very easy to know what the person is restless about. It is not always clear what a person wants when there is a need for self-actualization.




                    --- Jealousy, Ambition (as it serves personal security and status), greed (for the same reason), derive from fear. As you cannot excise fear from the hearts of people, you cannot banish the emotions you see as evil, even though it's origin (fear) is perhaps the single greatest survival trait ever to have evolved in the first place. Without it, Man would never have banded together in social groups or struggled forward to develop science, religion, culture, art, history, the written word, massive stone monuments of ego to gods and men, or come together as man and wife. It's not just about your fear of death, you know, and it might have led to a few wars. But then, so did Love (Trojan War) and Faith (All the Crusades and the modern Terror Bunk). And yet, those unchecked emotions and feelings are not on your list of "Evil Emotions to Rise Above."

                    "...Whenever someone cuts me off on the road, I make an excuse for them and take a deep breath..." -- Um... I've got news for you... That's repression, not dealing with it. You can only deal with anger by expressing it. (Hey, proven fact.)

                    You know... I love the way BENEVOLENCE is defined above... "The negative emotion of fear is countered by a drive for the positive emotion of happiness, even euphoria. And the quickest way to achieve that feeling is by doing good for someone else."

                    "...that most people cannot be completely trusted because they don't know themselves well enough and haven't faced their inner demons..." Now that sounds a like you're saying people need to address their inner dark side's. Well, a coward is a coward, and that's fine if they know and accept that about themselves. It only becomes a problem if they're in denial and trying to present themselves as something else and putting others in danger. Your assertion that people are vile and despicable because they are not loving and generous to a fault is where I have a problem. As the statement of BENEVOLENCE suggests, that a lot of unresolved inner demons of fear to address.

                    Besides, What are the nine (9) noble virtues?

                    1. Courage
                    2. Truth
                    3. Honour
                    4. Fidelity
                    5. Discipline
                    6. Hospitality
                    7. Self Reliance
                    8. Industriousness
                    9. Perseverance


                    1. Strength is better than weakness
                    2. Courage is better than cowardice
                    3. Joy is better than guilt
                    4. Honour is better than dishonour
                    5. Freedom is better than slavery
                    6. Kinship is better than alienation
                    7. Realism is better than dogmatism
                    8. Vigor is better than lifelessness
                    9. Ancestry is better than universalism
                    • Strmraven. I'm not sure why you felt you had to copy and paste this post. This information is a barrier protecting you from stepping on the path and being in the flow. It didn't teach me anything I needed to know. Maslow also said that "in all ethical situations, the fear choice is the growth choice". You should definitely mull that one over. Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku.
                      • LOL... This information is no more a barrier to my personal growth and understanding than your dogma is a barrier to your continued growth or understanding. The only thing that stands between ANY of us and enlightenment is our own ego, not some out dated and obsolete Asian Ascetic Philosophy of self-denial, self-restraint, self-sacrifice, and self-delusion. One has to wonder if, amid all that denial and personal flagellation, if it is even possible to accept enlightenment on the off chance it happens to stop by for some 'train-wreck' entertainment.

                        The fear choice is the growth choice.... Hmmm... Is that a support for the reactionary tendencies of man to lash out aggressively at those things that scare us? Interesting.... So when we launched a ten year war that's cost thousands of lives based on the fear of another attack on our sense of security that only cost hundreds, that's a 'growth choice'. Oh... oh... or when I decide to stay Christian despite the fact it doesn't meet my needs or make any sense to me because I don't want to deal with the negative consequences... That's a 'growth choice'? But... those are ethical decisions and were made based on fear....

                        Maslow goes on to say, in his Theory of SA (self actualization)

                        "Assume hostility to be primarily reactive rather than character-based, that it will be for good, objective, present, here-now reasons, and that it is therefore valuable rather than evil. It is therefore not to be stifled and discouraged. (Phrased in this way it comes close to being simply honesty.)"

                        "Historically, we are in a value interregnum in which all externally given value systems have proven failures (political, economic, religious, etc.) e.g., nothing is worth dying for."

                        Acceptance
                        Accept themselves, others and the natural world the way they are. Sees human nature as is, have a lack of crippling guilt or shame, enjoy themselves without regret or apology, they have no unnecessary inhibitions.
                        • Strmraven. My dogma is far different than your beliefs. If what I do based on my dogma doesn't work, it is abandoned. I place no value on any of my beliefs. They only serve as inspiration. If someone insults my religion, I do not usually attempt to defend it. The fact is is that someone's opinion is none of my business even if they choose to share it with me. Opinions and beliefs aren't real and many people fantasize their entire lives away. They blow kisses at their religion without ever taking a step onto the path the religion points towards.

                          I can heal anyone who surrenders to me. They do not need to believe I can help them. They only need to be neutral. Strong doubt can reverse a healing's benefit but, it has never happened to me. Like I said to someone else recently, books are learning tools not teaching tools. Information cannot teach anything because words are just as often used to deceive as they are used to convey the truth. Only energy can teach which means that first hand experience is the only way to really learn. Wisdom comes from the use and repetition of that knowledge.

                          What is interesting though is that whatever you are ready for is what will manifest in your life. You aren't ready to take the steps I've outlined but, if you ever become curious to find out the truth things will suddenly start to support you on that journey. Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku.
                          • Why do you assume that I am somehow behind you instead of ahead? That would be a biased assessment of opinion on your part, you don't know enough about me to make such claims. No, this is not a personal attack and I'm not even remotely upset. I'm actually amused that you feel you're more enlightened than I am.

                            As to your statements, If I offended with my previous comment, I apologize. It wasn't intended to be anything more than an observation by comparison.

                            As for the information I posted, its nothing more than my personally enlightened experiences have taught first hand. So I used the words of someone else to save me time, you've done the same and on this site, no less. As have others.

                            I don't require surrender. I see that as weakness.
                    • I ma a little confused about all th elists.
                      If you have soemthing happen.. do you truly run through the entire retinue?

                      NVC teaches 4 or 5 unmet needs which ar eoften at root of anger. By havign just a few it is much easier to think and evaluate and make a decision or determination how one is goign to proceed.
                      • The first list FOUR (4) CORE EMOTIONS is the one you're talking about there.

                        The others are slightly different. All Emotions derive, flow, begin, from the original FOUR listed at the top of that post.

                        The others are motivational emotions and drives. The list of seven is a Biological Study done on Mammals that independently proves the third list. The Emotions of the Emotional Motivators are derived from the FOUR CORE EMOTIONS, but represent the SEVEN (7) INSTINCTIVE MOTIVATORS in mammals (of humans are) and the third list TEN (10) EMOTIONAL MOTIVATORS are those specifically used in marketing and by inspirational speakers and speech writers to inspire and motivate people.

                        The point of the post was to give the information and let you see for yourself how it works together, the CORE FOUR coming together to create all emotions, the MOTIVES both SEVEN and TEN coming together to form the "good and evil" parts of who we are that apparently need to be "Risen Above". The Fallacy of the idea that we can excise emotions like jealousy and greed from the human dynamic as they are conglomerate amalgams of other emotions acting and reacting together within the CORE FOUR and the MOTIVATIONAL EMOTIONS. The animal SEVEN and human TEN that are virtual carbon copies of each other and synchronistic.

                        We are what we were, we are what we are. Biologist can and will tell you that the human mind (and all our ability to process perceptions and emotions) have not changed one slight bit since the advent of Homo sapiens about 250,000 years ago. That means all this evolution of humanity towards some idealized age of enlightenment, is a hoax. In fact, there is reason to believe that human minds are devolving (I'm waiting for that to hit the news and start a panic, let me tell you.)
                        • well, I recall studying Maslow.. and his work was not a Biological Study.. NOY biological an dNOT a study.. It is called a Hierarchy orf Needs.

                          So my problem is wghen you misquote, thus to me misrepresenting, items which you have copied and poasted.. my prblem is that I then donto trust other information which you copy and paste as anyone's Study or Philosophy and I amunsure what you truly know or believe or are tryign to share with us.
                          A hierarchy of needs is NOT a biological study.
                • people may be advised to look at NVC teachings..
                  instead of venting and getting over the anger.. look truly inside - what is the cause or source of the anger?

                  Often it is from fear and loss or fear of loss or hurt or humiliation or pain.

                  So when we are angry when a partner is late or forgets to cal.. this may be fro mabandonamet. Or when cut off by a car, we are angry by the potential fear of a major car accident. if we are able to separate out the emotion which backs the anger.. then there is much less to vent or blow out. Rather there is more self- understanding and appreciation.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     
                    My goodness, you all have so many words.
                    ....And may have what may appear to be ego in defending them.

                    As for me, what seems to work for me is simply breathing. If someone "cuts me off" well, that's their behavior, not mine. If someone wants to "aggressively" profess their "truth" as "the" truth, well, that's fine for them.
                    --Me ? I don't really need to defend who or what I am or believe. I plant my corn, feed the chickens. It grows. They lay. We all eat. That's not too bad a life.
                    All the rest is just ( kinda, sorta, ah-h-h-h you know) fluff.

                    (Oh, by the way. I don't "heal" anybody. But I do try to help lots of people understand and achieve ways they can come into a state of being of the health they choose to be. People will be just as "unhealthy" as they choose to be. They'll be just as "healthy" as they choose. It's all just an illusion really. There to allow opportunity to learn.)
                    • H kahuna - you said:
                      "You and Jake say to embrace your dark traits. Buddhism, spiritual masters and shamans say to transmute and rise above them in order to attain harmony with others (and with God)"

                      I don't think that there is very much between the two views here. What I am interested is the nitty gritty of the transmutation process.
                      Definitions of transmutation on the Web:
                      * an act that changes the form or character or substance of something
                      * transformation: a qualitative change
                      * "the transmutation of base metals into gold"

                      Aren't "dark traits' exactly those parts which enabled you fight/combat the 'evil' entities mentioned earlier in this thread? I think that whether we describe that aggression as being transmuted or that was it simply harnessed in a productive way - is just a way of speaking.

                      My feeling is that people need to avoid demonising themselves, accept and understand the 'negative' forces within them, and in doing so learn when these can be of use. That for me is a definition of transmutation.

                      On this thread your views come across in an extremely stark way, it comes across very black and white, do you consider yourself to be completely free of 'evil' traits as you would see them? The Buddhist master sits alone atop his mountain in serenity, and that type of harmony is good for some. however in more normal existence harmony has to be constantly negotiated through conflict. In other words conflict enables harmony. conflict happens between opposites, between dark and light, as balance in the world, or inside a person.

                      I'm not convinced placing a categoric value judgement on something and making it unreservedly and unredeemably evil is helpful. I'm tempted to think that this might actually 'feed the beast' rather than 'transmute' it. If you fix something as unchanging how can this then be transmuted (changed).

                      Are you able to imagine a world without darkness? I cannot. I can imagine a world with out evil. simply this planet minus the people. There fore evil is not a necessary element in creation - it just an human idea, a dogma. Transmuting this, for me, looks like separating darkness from evil - and living in brotherhood in the full-on light and darkness that necessarily makes up the world around us.

                      If in imagining a world without evil you end up in a heaven of light, love and fluffy cloud and perfect harmony with all men and god - well it sounds great but in the meantime we are still here on earth....

                      Im interested to know how you understand the transmutation - and in particular this categoric evil that you talk about.
                      • Jake. Warriors in balance with nature fight to protect the ones they love and their way of life. They should fight and kill reluctantly and seek forgiveness for it. Soldiers need darkness in their hearts because they are fighting for a paycheck. They are conditioned by their training to hate their enemies. I have no reason to go into battle except out of love. It is definitely not semantics as you suggest. Exorcists have been killed in the process.

                        All energy is attractive. The reason Christ said to love your enemies is because it puts you in control. The whole teaching would be to love everyone until they don't deserve it anymore. Then, when it comes to battle you can be neutral and keep a steady head. This also prevents the darkness of hatred from changing your heart and causing you to be overcome by evil which is really just the desire to win and control.

                        I've never heard of someone demonizing themselves. Demonizing others should be avoided if you ever want to have good friends and come to understand the meaning of harmony. Seeking to understand, appreciate and cooperate with others(harmony) is negotiated through concession not conflict. Harmony and conflict are opposites. Getting along often requires surrendering to the needs of the person with whom you have a relationship. Love of harmony is required in order to internalize the desire to serve. The desire to serve is the opposite of the desire to win. This is the true explanation of good and evil.

                        Most of the evil in this world is born of government that seeks to control everyone from birth to death. I cannot imagine living in a world devoid of evil because of human frailties. However, I can envision a world where government is reigned in so it's evil isn't so devastating. Also, I'm not looking to transmute evil. Evil knows it's evil and loves itself for the suffering it brings to others. I oppose it when I meet it on my path and I've taken a vow to do so every year for the past 22 years. I'm not saying that there isn't some evil in me. However, I do not accept it as inevitable. When it comes up, I examine it and pray to be healed of it.

                        Transmutation is born from understanding which means observing without judgment by emptying the mind and maintaining curiosity. It allows you to obtain knowledge of something through personal contact. If you look up Hawaiian Ti plants, you might see that it has uses in folklore that involve spiritual protection. You have to sit down with one to know that they have taken a stance against evil and can even dispel pain when held on it. Everyone wants compassion and to be accepted. The goal is to do that for others and help them to learn to do the same. It often requires making amends with others whether they hurt you or vice versa. Having a clear conscience allows one to experience things that can be closed off to people with guilt complexes.

                        A quote by Israel Regardie; “It should never be forgotten for a single moment that the central and essential work of the Magician is the attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel." One of the main reasons he said this is because it helps to make sure that your spiritual travels are safe. Many people are out there trying things like psychedelic drugs without any spiritual protection which is irresponsible. To know your guardian angel requires the same harmony as with anything else. You must open your heart with curiosity and appreciation to find that you need each other. I mention this because it is the most profound relationship anyone can have and should be the goal of anyone who wants to live in relative safety in an unsafe world. It also bestows tremendous bliss from time to time. Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku.
                        • Ego, the self, especially when contrasted with the world, from the Latin “I” is the way we define ourselves to ourselves. It is our self image and the values we hold of ourselves and for ourselves.

                          In this way, ego is analogous to the Self. As there is no way to remove the self from the self, all things are biased and influenced by the self. All decisions and actions stem from the self, serve the self and so are inseparable from the self. Thus, selfish, “the exclusion of all others”, and the term selfless, “without a self”, are meaningless terms as the self is immutable and unavoidable and therefore the ego is immutable and unavoidable. Altruism becomes an irrelevant value of association as all decisions and acts serve the self.

                          The egoist, then, is a person who acknowledges this immutable need of the self and, through one filter or another, seeks to meet the needs of the self, either with rationalist tendencies, moralist tendencies, or even sentimentalist tendencies, as the self serving rationalist will see the rational value of serving a group whose needs and desires coincide with our own, selfish acts can be viewed as altruistic, just as the almost instinctive fight or flight response can be seen as a reactionary service to the self; self serving.

                          Which brings me to objectivism. Or, more relevant to our discussion here, the doctrine that the proper moral purpose of anyone’s life is the pursuit of one's own happiness and that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, and is also called rational individualism. Objectivists reject “conventional wisdom” (the doctrines and dogmas of ages of Religious philosophy from revealed religions and sacred books) in favor of a rationalist approach to defining and revealing reality to themselves… objectively. A process which is supported and statistically proven by John Nash’s “Nash Equilibrium”, which shows human nature at its most unavoidable.

                          Am I an egoist, YES. I’m a rational egoist. I serve my self with rational choices, some of which appear outwardly altruistic, some obviously ‘selfish’. But as there is no intent to do good or evil, and there is still good served by any of my choices, there is no subjective value for evil in any of my options. I am not a murderer, a thief, an adulterer, or even a cheater on my taxes. I do not need a “morality” code defined by a religious philosophy I do not subscribe to, to inform my decisions of proper and improper action, subjective or not.

                          The Zoroastrian concept of a dipolar universe divide up into positive (good) and negative (evil) energy is no longer a viable paradigm in a world that understand the esoteric truth behind the subjective hypocrisy of a system that enslaves hearts and minds to a system of control that is supposed to be “good”. Ironic, isn’t it, that the same system that is supposed to set them free (eventually) is the same one used to enslave them to a group mentality? How is that not egoism?

                          Why should a soldier, who is doing what he believe is right, just, and proper, in any way feel guilt for his actions? What value does a system have that seeks to alienate its constituent parts in such a way?

                          What value is “transcending” the baser sides of our nature, when there is no “baser” side? If all of our motivations stem from four emotions and all our decisions serve the inseparable self/ego, then all decisions and actions come from the same place and serve the same agenda. There is no duality in the heart or soul of man, and so no need to “rise above” except for that which is externally provided by a religion that needs the individual to surrender to its own agenda (as organizations develop egos of their own and can manifest the same innate tendencies to make good and bad decisions as any person).

                          So, while “conventional wisdom” espouses self sacrifice, self denial, surrender, suppression, and altruistic asceticism, I see those things as counter productive to spiritual growth and so more harmful and destructive than good.
                          • Strmraven. You live in a world of conjecture. Why don't you ask a soldier why he feels the way he does instead of invalidating them because of your beliefs? Is it because you've learned everything already? Everyone needs an ego. Unfortunately, it is all to common to find people allowing their ego to pretend to have qualities that are beyond it's capabilities. The ego has no intuition but, will pretend to by using logic to deduce the probabilities. It has no creativity and cannot sing. It has no compassion though it can pretend by being thoughtful. It cannot pray and cannot attain union with others though it can go through the motions to satisfy observers. Now that I've made this list, I can see who I've been exchanging ideas with. No wonder nothing I say means anything to you. You have essentially cut yourself off from source and have to keep anchoring your beliefs over and over again to maintain control over the problems hidden in your subconscious. Unfortunately, this will fail eventually. Nobody can suppress their subconscious forever unless you cause brain damage. If you want to do that, I suggest using Scientology techniques. Being a "clear" is a form of brain damage. I won't get into how I know that. Good luck running from yourself. Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku.
                            • Kahuna -- "...You live in a world of conjecture..." >>Truly, as do we all.

                              ...>> As a veteran with a number of friends who are veterans and coming from a long line of veterans, ranging from WWI and WWII through Korea and Vietnam, Central and South American Conflicts, African Conflicts, and both Police Actions in the Gulf in in all four foreign military branches... I do not believe I need to speak with them about their trauma.

                              As I clearly defined above, Ego = I and is Synonymous with SELF. That is the literal definition of the term, not the one used in pop culture that only seems capable of recognizing it when its "out of control". Using the literal definition, YOU are inseparable from YOU and so YOU can only make decisions that serve YOU. Even decisions that serve others, first serve the self, which in this case would be serving YOU.

                              And, by limiting your definition of EGO to what you see as "animal like", "evil", "base", "primal", "uncivilized", desires you want to suppress, you are simply limiting your vision to the whole of the EGO, which is capable of containing the (albeit defunct) concepts of "id, EGO, and Super EGO", where the 'id' represented the baser, animal instincts and desires, the super-ego represented our morals and ethics, with the EGO caught in between. This model is now considered laughable in Psychology circles as there is not distinction, no division along any lines, it is all the EGO and contained within.

                              Therefore, your assertion that the EGO cannot sing or have intuition is incorrect. Ego = I, it is me. It is my personal identity and myself. If I can sing, then obviously my ego can too, as I am my ego (sense of self). So, if my ego has no intuition or creativity, it has nothing to do with the fact it would be incapable of such. No, on the contrary, that failing would likely be a failing in the more genetic sense.

                              And to suggest that the EGO, you, me, ... is incapable of compassion is a bit strong. I love because it feels good. I'm not talking about lust, I'm talking about love. Love is self-serving as it narrows our focus to one thing and one person. We chase it with a single minded will that denies the needs and desires of others with the possible exception of out target, whose desires and needs we center on with the self-serving desire of gaining their favor. Our attention to families and friends all serve the self.

                              I suggest that what you propose is not the EGO in action, but instead short-sighted desperation. Robbing a bank would only serve my interests if I could guarantee that I can get away with it. Failing that, its nothing more than the act of a desperate person and not an act of ego, as the probabilities of being caught and stripped of all I had hoped to gain from my actions would be for naught. Its simple Machiavellian practicality in proposition, the balancing of immediate rewards (to the ego/self) against the interests others and the probabilities of reaction, to serve the longer term goals.

                              So, when it is offered that my personal perspectives, or those like them, are somehow limiting to my personal and spiritual growth, I have to laugh. Aside from the assumption that my path is wrong, it shows a closed minded limitation that is the defining characteristic of dogma and arrogance, and implies that another (usually specific) path is THE correct one. (A fact I find disturbing in the modern world).

                              My views do not limit me in what I do. I am not prevented from communing with the spirits and interacting with them at will. The fact that I do not see them as divine doesn't seem to offend them at all. In fact, my ability to see past the archaic definitions of "Good" and "Evil" seems to impress them greatly, and inspires hope that the "human animals" may yet have promise. (But that would personal experience and not one I would expect to see everywhere.)

                              As for what any of this has to do with the practical, nitty-gritty of learning to embrace the "darker side", I confess that it started for me when I tossed "conventional wisdom" out the window and accepted that there is no good and bad 'side' of us, only self discipline and practical/rational/ethical perceptions in controlling and restraining the immediate desires of the self.

                              For instance, If my ego wishes me to go out with my friends and party but I already have a commitment to my wife, I must balance my desires with my needs and make a Rational decision, hopefully taking the long term perspective instead of the more immediate gratification option.

                              At this point, you can address your 'darker' feelings of frustration and rage, the pent up and unreconciled feelings and desires of a lifetime that we all collect in one form or another, and learn to incorporate them into your personality, turning the rage and impotence of child abuse into an impassioned campaign for children's rights, or becoming a police officer to protect the innocent, using your sense of moral outrage at bullies in your youth to do your part in making sure that doesn't happen to others, at least in your presence.

                              And while there are those who would see these things as altruistic and self-less, they come from a very self-serving place, a fact which cannot be ignored or it invalidates the very process which gave you the strength and personal power to do so.
                              • Why Be a Good Person?

                                For most people, the question why be good--as distinguished from merely law abiding--is a simple one. Because God commands it, because the Bible requires it, because good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell. The vast majority of people derive their morality from religion.

                                This is not to say that all religious people are moral or of good character--far from it. But it is easy to understand why a person who believes in a God who rewards and punishes would want to try to conform his or her conduct to God’s commandments. A cost-benefit analysis should persuade any believer that the eternal costs of hell outweigh any earthly benefit to be derived by incurring the wrath of an omniscient and omnipotent God.

                                Even the skeptic might be inclined to resolve doubts in favor of obeying religious commands. As Pascal put it more than three hundred years ago: "You must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."

                                I have always considered "Pascal’s Wager" as a questionable bet to place, since any God worth believing in would prefer an honest agnostic to a calculating hypocrite. To profess belief on a cost-benefit analysis is to trivialize religion. Consider, for example, the decision of Thomas More to face earthly execution rather than eternal damnation. When the king commands one action and God commands another, a believer has no choice. This is the way More reportedly put it: "The Act of Parliament is like a sword with two edges, for if a man answer one way, it will confound his soul, and if he answer the other way, it will confound his body."

                                More followed God’s order and give up his life on earth for the promise of eternal salvation. For his martyrdom--for his goodness--More has been accorded the honor of sainthood.

                                I have never quite understood why people who firmly believe they are doing God’s will are regarded as "good," even "heroic." For them the choice is a tactical one that serves their own best interests, a simple consequence of a cost-benefit analysis. Thomas More seemed to understand this far better than those who have lionized him over the centuries.

                                To a person who believes that the soul lives forever and the body is merely temporary, it is a simple matter to choose the edge of the sword that will cut off earthly life but preserve the soul. Heaven and hell are forever, while life on earth, especially for a man of More’s age, lasts only a few years. Therefore, if More truly believed in reward and punishment after life, he was no hero. By choosing death over damnation, he demonstrated nothing more than his abiding belief; giving up a few years on earth for an eternity in heaven was a wise trade-off that should earn him a place of honor in the pantheon of true believers, but not in the pantheon of heroes.

                                The basic question remains. Why is it more noble for a firm believer to do something because God has commanded it than because the king has, if to that person God is more powerful than any king? In general, submission to the will of a powerful person has not been regarded as especially praiseworthy, except, of course, by the powerful person. Would Thomas More have joined the genocidal crusades in the 11th century just because God and the pope commanded it? If he had, would he justly be regarded as a good person?

                                Nor is this question applicable only to Christian believers. I have wondered why Jews praise Abraham for his willingness to murder his son when God commanded it. A true hero who believed in a God who rewards and punishes would have resisted that unjust command and risked God’s wrath, just as a true hero would have refused God’s order to murder "heathen" women and children during the barbaric crusades.

                                The true hero--the truly good person--is the believer who risks an eternity in hell by refusing an unjust demand by God. The great 18th-century rabbi, Levi Isaac of Berdichev, was such a hero. He brought a religious lawsuit against God, and told God that he would refuse to obey any divine commands that endangered the welfare of the Jewish people.

                                By doing so, Levi Isaac may have risked divine punishment, but he acted heroically. He stood up to a God who he believed had the power to punish him but who he also believed was acting unjustly. In challenging God, he was following the tradition of the heroic Abraham, who argued with God over His willingness to sacrifice the innocent along with the guilty of Sodom, rather than the example of the compliant Abraham, who willingly obeyed God’s unjust command to sacrifice the innocent Isaac (or the ultimately compliant Job who apologizes to God for doubting His justice, after God had indeed acted unjustly by killing Job’s children just to prove a point to the devil.)

                                This then is the conundrum of judging goodness in a religious person who believes in divine reward and punishment. Those religious leaders who select martyrs and saints cannot have it both ways. They cannot declare someone to be both a hero and a believer, because the two honors are logically inconsistent. The undoubting believer is less of a hero for choosing death over eternal damnation. The real hero is necessarily less of an undoubting believer. Real heroes are those who face death for a principle--say, to save the lives of others--without any promise of reward.

                                Only if More were in fact a hypocrite, feigning belief in the hereafter but really a secret disbeliever, would he deserve the status of hero, but then of course he would be denied the accolade given for true belief--and for honesty.

                                There is, to be sure, an intermediate position. More could have been someone who tried hard to believe but could not suppress doubt. I suspect many thinking people today are in that position. If that were the case with More, his decision to choose death entailed some degree of risk. Maybe he was giving up a bird in his earthly hand, namely what was left of his life, for two in the heavenly bush, namely a chance at a possible heaven.

                                But this, too, would be a calculation, albeit a more complex and probabilistic one. (I am not suggesting that religious martyrs always think this way consciously, but surely they experience this mix of belief, calculation, and action at some level.)

                                This is not to argue that believing persons cannot be truly moral. They certainly can. Perhaps they would have acted morally without the promise of reward or the threat of punishment. This is to suggest, however, that to the extent conduct is determined by such promises and rewards, it is difficult to measure its inherent moral quality, as distinguished from its tactical component.

                                But what about atheists, agnostics, or other individuals who make moral decisions without regard to any God or any promise or threat of the hereafter? Why should such people be moral? Why should they develop a good character? Why should they not simply do what is best for them?

                                Even the Bible provides a model for such people. The author of Ecclesiastes explicitly tells us that he (or she, since the original Hebrew word for Ecclesiastes is Koheleth, which means "female gatherer") does not believe in any hereafter.

                                I have seen everything during my vain existence, a righteous man being destroyed for all his righteousness and a sinner living long for all his wickedness.
                                [T]he fate of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As the one dies, so does the other, for there is one spirit in both and man’s distinction over the beast is nothing, for everything is vanity. All go to one place, all come from the dust and all return to the dust. Who knows whether the spirit of men rises upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth?

                                Not surprisingly, Ecclesiastes concludes that "there is nothing better for man than to rejoice in his words, for that is his lot, and no one can permit him to see what shall be afterwards." And Ecclesiastes goes onto recommend hedonistic selfishness as a response to the absence of a hereafter: "I know that there is no other good in life but to be happy while one lives. Indeed, every man who eats, drinks and enjoys happiness in his work--that is the gift of God."

                                Ecclesiastes is wrong. Even if there are no heaven and hell, there are good reasons for human beings to do better than merely be happy. The truly moral person is the one who does the right thing without any promise of reward or threat of punishment--without engaging in a cost-benefit analysis.

                                Doing something because God has said to do it does not make a person moral: it merely tells us that person is a prudential believer, akin to the person who obeys the command of an all-powerful secular king. Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac because God told him to does not make Abraham moral; it merely shows that he was obedient.

                                Far too many people abdicate moral responsibility to God; as Abraham did. Accordingly, for purposes of discussing character and morality, I will assume that there is no God who commands, rewards, punishes, or intervenes. Whether or not this is true--whatever true means in the context of faith--it is a useful heuristic device by which to assess character and morality. Just as Pascal argued that the most prudent wager is to put your eternal money on God, so too, it is a useful construct to assume God’s nonexistence when judging whether a human action should be deemed good.

                                There is a wonderful Hasidic story about a rabbi who was asked whether it is ever proper to act as if God did not exist. He responded, "Yes, when you are asked to give to charity, you should give as if there were no God to help the object of the charity."

                                I think the same is true of morality and character: in deciding what course of action is moral, you should act as if there were no God. You should also act as if there were no threat of earthly punishment or reward. You should be a person of good character because it is right to be such a person.

                                I am reminded of the cartoon depicting an older married man marooned on a deserted island with a younger woman. He asks her to have sex, arguing, "no one would ever know." The woman responds, "I would know." The "I would know" test of good character is a useful one.

                                What then is the content of good character in a world without the threat of divine or earthly punishment and without the promise of divine or earthly reward? In such a world every good act would be done simply because it was deemed by the actor to be good. Good character in such a world would involve striking an appropriate balance among often competing interests, such as the interests of oneself and of others, of the present and of the future, of one’s family (tribe, race, gender, religion, nation, and so forth) and of strangers.

                                Since the beginning of time, civilized humans have struggled to achieve that golden mean. The great Rabbi Hillel put it well when he said: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me, but if I am for myself alone, what am I?"

                                Good character consists of recognizing the selfishness that inheres in each of us and trying to balance it against the altruism to which we should all aspire. It is a difficult balance to strike, but no definition of goodness can be complete without it.

                                Lawyers, perhaps more than most others, need a strong moral core because their professional terrain is so ethically ambiguous and because the temptations to take moral short cuts are so pervasive. For some, this moral core will derive from religious belief, for others from a philosophical commitment, and yet for others from the oath we take when we are admitted to the bar. Whatever its source, the moral core should serve as a constant, against which professional judgments are evaluated.

                                From: www.amazon.com/Letters-Yo.../0465016316
                              • Maybe I am being ridiculously optimistic here, but you are both using different definitions of words, and then arguing over the conclusions. I still think that there is more agreement here that first meets the eye.
                                Strmraven, as I understand you, you are saying that there is nothing to transcend, and again, maybe that isn’t the right word but you have explicitly recognised the way that by listening to the subtler ethical parts of our nature we can bring the basic desires for instant gratification ‘under control’ – in way that serves us and the world in a better way . So some things are worth working towards. There are higher principles to aspire to. How does this term ‘transmute’ sit with you?
                                When you’re talking a lot about being rationally objective, and the theories of people like Nash (who admitted that his rational choice theory was the result of his paranoid schizophrenia and were fundamentally dehumanising) it down plays the other side of what your saying. I do not define my self particularly rational, anything can be logical and rational, cold blooded murder is rational, the point is being rational sets the bar very very low, and anyway machines are far better at it than us! I have emotions intuitions and ethics – none of which seem to fit under the category of ‘rational’ or ‘objective’ – and I can see you recognise this – Nash’s game theory does not.
                                I know you’ll both appreciate this excellent documentary called The Trap – it’s all about these issues, starting from Nash leading right into current ‘western democracy’ vs ‘fundamentalism’ thing with superb insight –I would really really enjoy discussing this if anyone is up for it! (maybe not this forum…) check it out here: video.google.co.uk/videoplay
                                Also when you talk about being self serving this can give the impression of simple small minded selfishness. Being Self serving in the broadest sense could potentially take in huge sacrifices and amazing acts of courage on behalf of others – so I don’t think that your proposition about self serving needs to be ‘invalidated’ to accommodate the possibility of altruism or true giving.
                                Anyhow…
                                Kahuna, you said, “ Transmutation is born from understanding which means observing without judgment by emptying the mind and maintaining curiosity.”
                                I agree. The point is if something happens in the outside world or inside me and I instantly label it as evil, then I have already passed judgement, and am unable to observe and has disallowed my self the space for curiosity.
                                My summary looks like this:
                                Seeing all things as being ultimately the same doesn’t work. Seeing things as absolutely divided in two doesn’t work. Some things are higher some things are lower and it seems that in each of our experiences we have realised that moving toward the higher offers beautiful rewards.
                                This must be my longest post ever!
                                Thanks again!
                                j
                                • I have nothing else to say to Strmraven as he is a closed book. I wish him well. This is a response to you, Jake. I used to be angry about a lot of things including the fact that we are all destined to die. I'm not angry anymore about anything that I'm aware of. That happened because I met the stimuli head on and got rid of them. God has helped me to redefine myself in many ways. I wear an instrument of quantum physics around my neck at all times and can heal people whether they believe I can or not. I've healed people in parking lots and at parties with others watching. I was healed by my teacher of a mental problem that I had for several years and had seen medical professionals about without getting any help at all. My teacher healed me in about 1 hour. I do what I do because it works reliably. I live the life of a Kahuna because I have internalized the core teachings of Huna as taught by Max Freedom Long who coined the term. If I turned my back on it, I would die from the grief. I don't see how this could be confused with anything Strmraven has said.

                                  We judge all the time. If we didn't we would not last long as a race. Condemnation is what we need to avoid. The concept of yin and yang is the only way to understand the concept of good versus evil. When we are born we are needy 100%. We do whatever we have to to get what we need. If our parents never teach us what it takes to become a responsible adult, we continue to behave in a needy manner while we grow old. Many elderly people are just old children complaining about this and that. They may have wasted their life having learned very little about how living things serve each other to maintain balance in a world where homeostasis is constantly being challenged.

                                  Everyone is born different and has different capabilities. If Mozart tried to explain how he wrote a concerto, I would probably go into a dissociative state and start to daydream. It doesn't seem to be something I could understand. Huna is definitely not for everyone and no matter how well explained my knowledge cannot belong to someone else. Most of the people I've healed have no interest in how it was done. I'm on the Shamanism tribe as a service to others. I can see that many others are here in order to display confrontational behavior that they would probably refrain from in public. It's easy to be brave on the internet. Feel free to ask whatever you need to as I probably didn't do that with this post. Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku.
                                • Transcend: 1a.) to rise above or go beyond the limits of; 1b.) to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of; 1c.) to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe of material existence); 2a.) to outstrip or outdo in some attribute, quality, or power; 2b.) to rise above or extend notably beyond ordinary limits.

                                  Transmute: 1.) to change or alter in form, appearance, or nature and especially to a higher form; 2.) to subject (as an element) to transmutation; 2b.) to undergo transmutation

                                  I don't like either of the terms. I am not a worm to change into something else and so will not Transmute to something else no matter how much I beat myself up internally to stop some perceived shortcoming. Even if I do manage to miraculously change some perceived fault (not that I really believe that's possible in the first place) have I really risen above myself, or am I still just me? (I don't see a lot people fluttering around with butterfly wings.)

                                  Humanism: 1.) a historical movement associated especially with the Italian Renaissance; 2.) An approach to education that uses literary means or a focus on the humanities to inform students; 3.) A variety of perspectives in philosophy and social science which affirm some "human nature" (by contrast with anti-humanism); 4.) A secular ideology that espouses reason, ethic, and justice whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision making.

                                  Jake -- "...anything can be logical and rational, cold blooded murder is rational..." -- I would argue that murder can be rationalized, but is not immediately rational... a semantic argument of philosophical perspectives to say the least, but no less valid for the point of views.

                                  -- to clarify, murder being the willful and illegal taking of a human life when that act is NOT defensive of one's self or others. Defensive homicide, therefore belongs to another category and is socially commendable (and thus rational). Murder, on the other hand, has long been vilified and represents a morally depraved act of passion (with fully 68%+ world wide being directly attributable to jealousy and another 10%+/- being tangentially attributable to the same), a "heat of the moment" crime that in 98% of cases is only reflected upon after the events. The remaining 2% being the willful acts of repeated signature crimes by people that fall within a completely different category and cannot be said to use the same "rationale" as the rest of us. (Yes, I include the man I personally interviewed serving 25 years for murdering his sister's rapist, and who admitted to me that he would do it again... even knowing what he now knows. By his own admission, he was not in his right mind, blinded by rage and a need for revenge and retaliation... thus precluding a rational act, though through later reflection he was able to rationalize his actions and find them morally just, and so rationally accepting the illegality of his actions and incarceration.)

                                  The rational process of making a decision uses a number of filters. To suppose people are not independently ethical (meaning that ethics and morals only spring from the fountain head of divinity) is something I cannot support. The most anti-social narcissist I've ever known, a serial rapist and murderer awaiting execution, could tell you right from wrong, and do it better than a priest. What separated his perspective from the rest of us, was not that he was unaware of morals and ethics, but that he truly saw the world as the enemy, and so could justify and rationalize all his actions as acts of war. (This is not a unique perspective on Death Row, either, and can be traced back to economically relevant views of "Gang-culture" environments.)

                                  As for Nash calling his theory dehumanizing, I'm hardly surprised. If you want to get down right technical, all social theories are. They are tools, blueprints, maps... to human behavior, not humans. As such they only explain the mechanics of our actions, the justifications behind it, the functionality of statistic as they relate to the human mechanism, that is more mechanical than we care to admit. Hey, recent studies show that you actually make a decision as much as five minutes before your even conscious of the fact you have a decision to make. Think of scientific theory as a marble statue, a very accurate representation, but no where near the warm and sexy body you want to share your bed at night.
                                  • HI kahuna,
                                    Thanks for the reply – the immediate question that comes up for me is - what is an "instrument of quantum physics" and what does having one around your neck do?

                                    Strmraven I worked with a shaman in the amazon who told me about the changes in practise passed down from his great grandfather who was fully tribal to his grandfather who first came into contact with the Spanish and finally to he himself who was raised in a semi-christiansied environment. There’s an element of ‘law of the jungle’ in some animistic and ancient tribal beliefs that means that I as an ‘ethically independent’ person am justified in striking down someone who crosses my path, just as they are justified to strike against me (which s what you’re referencing above). Is it all just completely subjective in your view? Survival of the fittest…and all that...?
                                    J
                                    • Hi Jake. I wear Ki'i Kukui around my neck. They are blessed kukui nuts that have become healing icons. I have a single one that I wear when I go out and one with 40 on it that represents about 13 years of classes and keeping my vows as Malama which means servant (in this case of the Huna Heiau). I've used them to heal others when it isn't feasible to do a full 40 breath charge to create mana for healing though they are better all around whereas mana is really only for acute situations and prayer. They are very handy to use on acupuncture meridians. The effect they have can usually be felt as energy and sometimes it feels as if a cool wind is working inside the body. Every one of the ki'i kukui started out light brown and became black within a month or so of use. According to the Kukui Nut factory in Hawaii that cannot happen; at least not to the extent it happens with us. I've broken two of them over the years and they are black all the way through. About 10 years ago we had a student break her blackened ki'i kukui and Lani had to move the spirit into a new light brown body. It became black overnight and really freaked out the young woman. It was a great thing to be able to discuss as it is "in your face" evidence of the power of energy to effect change. Aloha, Kahuna Lamaku P.S.- Happy Cigbo!
                                    • That's a leading question, so to answer I will ask one of my own...

                                      Knowing that the behavior you describe is the same mentality and characteristic demonstrated and embraced in gang culture to enable them to fight a war against oppression and repression in a system that obviously has no intention of trying to meet their needs, how can we deny the dangerous potential of such a threat to society and OUR OWN place in it? -- Be careful, that's a trick question.

                                      If you suppress the gangs your guilty of oppression, if you support the gangs, you betray the society you profess to serve.

                                      We can argue what looks good on paper, ignoring the reality in favor of a pretty lie, but the truth is no less real for all our denials.

                                      Right now, for everyone supporting a pacifist, anti-gun, harm none lifestyle, the is an estimated five people out there that want you to. It would make their lives easier. From the politicians who want to run your lives to the cops whose lives are at risk, to the criminal whose going to break the law no matter what. There are people out there that will take advantage. Living in a fantasy world where that doesn't happen, is delusional.

                                      You asked me I support the "Might Makes Right", "Take What You Can, Give Nothing Back", "Primal Rights" attitudes of the earliest tribes that fought for resources in a very real struggle for survival. YES... In context.

                                      Now, ask me if I can cite example of it in use today? YES... In context.

                                      The High school clique that we are all too familiar with, the gang of bullies on the school yard. Cops and the thin blue line, soldiers on the battle field, co-workers in the same building or even just on the same floor. We've all seen the way departments fight over resources and budget allocations, the unfair and virtually nepotistic way recidivism works at lay off time. And what about our close knit groups of friends that we go out with on the weekends.

                                      So we don't pick up our spears and go kill them all and steal their women. It's not because we don't want to on some level. Some of us even fantasize about it (in a romantically heroic way... think romance novels and white knights coming to save the day).

                                      The real question isn't whether I support it or not, but whether it has a practical, useful, beneficial place in society as a whole and not just to the individual his small band of ten or twenty friends or co-workers.
                                      • kahuna - sounds very interesting - i had quick check out of the huna website too...i'm sure il drop in on a thread with you again some time.

                                        strmraven - i think i get where you are coming from now. I'm more pantheist than animist - and i think that probably sums up the difference between our views.

                                        not quite sure i understood the trick question... i don't agree that gangsterism is enabling people to fight *against* oppression - i see it more that oppression is *causing* them to fight amongst themselves within their own local communities - the aggression is not directed to the source of the oppression. So in line with your last sentance - i don't see this as useful or beneficial for society. if you had mentioned something like the black panthers...then i could have agreed.

                                        this is not just about groups of people, its about how those groups choose to act. do they seek to get ahead by cutting others down, by just being better at what they do, or through co-operation? the mega mergers between huge companies show how they work things at the top level. they aim to keep us individualised and fighting each other - while they reap the benefits of our dis unity and disorganisation.

                                        i agree its not about what looks good on paper - neither is it a simple either or between ruthless individualism or soppy pacifism. the middle ground is where the possibilities lie - nothing 'pretty' about it!

                                        anyway got to sign off now, and not going to be back for at least a week.

                                        i've enjoyed it. see ya round.
                                        j

                                        • Obviously this is getting us nowhere.

                                          Pantheism: The belief that god is the world (universe), or became the world in the act of creation, thereby limiting its 9god's) ability to interact as it no longer manifests as conscious. It is divided up into three categories: Physical Monism: those believing in only a physical universe (otherwise known as materialism); Spiritual Monism: Believe there is not physical world and all things are spirit (hallmarks of certain Hindu sects), and Dualism, where the world is made up of two substance (i.e. physical matter and mental [panpsychism] or mental matter and life matter [hylozoism]).

                                          Clearly, pantheism deals more with how you see your cosmology than the term animism signifies because most animist would be Dualist Pantheists. Animism, as defined, is a belief in human and other than human spirits, spirits of place, being, archetypal nature, and the ancestors to summarize. Which means, to put a fine point on it, that the two are not mutually exclusive, particularly as one describes a cosmology, and the other defines a tenet of faith.

                                          I fall into a Panentheist Dualism cosmological model, where there is not only a division of spirit from the physical but the universe is divine and in both the fact that nature is creative enough to represent the sacred (not divine), and spirits inhabit a secondary (tangential) realm (also sacred but not divine) with limited interaction across the boundary.

                                          But that is irrelevant to the point of the question of ego. To define that, I'm an Existential Egoist with Humanist tendencies, or an Objectivist (in the Tradition of Rand) with the exception that I believe in the "supernatural" and "metaphysical". At the core of these contemporary ideologies, is rejection of dogmatic "conventional wisdom". The deconstructionist (who challenges preconceived ideas, prejudices, and doctrines by breaking them down and studying them) realizes most 'conventional wisdom' to be little more that bumper sticker platitudes that no longer serve the organized religions that gave them birth, and so only hamper humanities forward progress like a chain around our necks.

                                          Concepts of good and evil are limiting prejudices that promote fear and misunderstanding. They give us convenient excuses not to move beyond our "comfort zones" by providing "safe" areas already mapped by our predecessors. They give us the excuses we need to pre-judge our experiences and our interactions in convenient packages like McDonald's burgers and Fries, so that something we do not like and do not understand is labeled and categorized without any real attempt to understand.

                                          The dog with rabies is not evil, it is sick. That does not mean that it is not a very dangerous threat. But, isn't the dog as much a victim as those it might infect?

                                          We revere animals for their traits. We love our dogs for their empathy, loyalty,, and protective qualities. We love our cats for their aloof arrogance. We admire the hawk and the Eagle and dream of running with wolves. We seek to connect with the archetypal spirits of these natural forces to aid in our works and bring us closer to our arts. And then, when we wake up, we deny those parts that are seen as closest to them as a way distancing ourselves from the food chain. And yet, we can't even be honest with ourselves about that, hiding behind a need to "rise above" things that don't really exist, which is just code for "rising above the food chain", or taking ourselves out of the primal, uncontrolled world of predator and prey so that we are no longer part of the cycle.

                                          It has been proven empirically and statistically, the ego is a whole and not divisible. My ego defines me to me, just as your ego defines you to you. There is no id, and no superego, so no internal contention on that level. The only people without ego are those who are not yet born, and those have passed before. A very wise Shaman once equated the spiritual initiation or re-birth of a shaman as the shattering of the old ego so that it can be built anew, according to a new plan.

                                          Failing to understand the relevance of Ghetto Ideology and Perceptions is part of the problem. And, you cannot simply isolate the behaviors of group internal and external dynamics to support your opinions while ignoring the others somehow. Each of those groups reacts the same way. Where the school bus bully and his friends isolate and intimidate to great effect, the police do the same, with the same tactics only more practiced. One is socially beneficial, and the other is not. Its a perspective issue, not a semantic argument.

                                          Now, your example of the corporate merger (an allusion to robber barons) is quite revealing. If I were the managing conservator for a multi-billion dollar conglomerate with diverse interests in multi-national companies, I would do the same thing. It would be foolish to believe otherwise. A person who gives all their resources away does not end up in a position like that in the first place, so I might donate to reduce my tax liability, but its a calculated loss to gain ratio to maximize profits and minimize overhead. In fact, I would view your statements as a threat to my capital base and any suggestion that I am greedy for protecting what I earned would be seen as theft. Its only those on the other end of the economic spectrum that look up and see the excess and lay designs on other people's money "to do the right thing". But is it really the right thing, or are we simply justifying one crime by couching in a cloak of superior morality. We do tend to ignore the fact that while Robin Hood was giving to the poor he was still a Thief. How is that not an ends justifies the means egoism?
                                          • Pantheism does not mean what you described, pantheism is the belief in the validity of all theories of the divine
                                            • [[[[Pantheism does not mean what you described, pantheism is the belief in the validity of all theories of the divine ]]]]

                                              you're getting confused with pluralism.
                                              • plu·ral·ism Noun /ˈplo͝orəˌlizəm/
                                                Synonyms:
                                                noun: plurality
                                                pluralisms plural
                                                A condition or system in which two or more states, groups, principles, sources of authority, etc., coexist
                                                A form of society in which the members of minority groups maintain their independent cultural traditions
                                                A political theory or system of power-sharing among a number of political parties
                                                A theory or system of devolution and autonomy for individual bodies in preference to monolithic state control
                                                A theory or system that recognizes more than one ultimate principle
                                                The practice of holding more than one office or church benefice at a time

                                                a social organization in which diversity of racial or religious or ethnic or cultural groups is tolerated
                                                wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


                                                pan·the·ism Noun /ˈpanTHēˌizəm/
                                                A doctrine that identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God
                                                Worship that admits or tolerates all gods

                                                Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical, or that the Universe (including Nature on Earth) is the only thing deserving the deepest kind of reverence. The word derives from the (') meaning "All" and ' ('') meaning "God" - literally "All is God. ...
                                                en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

Recent topics in "Shamanism"