> emphasis is placed upon the journey to the
>experience of the 'self', taken in the context
> of
> > the 'transpersonal self', that is inherently
> > other. In this context, the self does not equate
> > with either the ego or the personality, nor anything
> > temporal. Such occult perspectives subsume /
> > transcend;explanations developed from
> > the dualities of 'here and there' or
> > 'inner and outer', and thereby create a
> question
> > mark over perspectives that revolve around the
> activities
> > of parasitic or maleific entities as external agencies
> in
> > general - since the concept of external, or for that
> matter
> > internal, are incompatible with this type of
> approach.>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
I think for discussion the two subjects should be separated, ie what is inner and outer, and what is entity and what is self.
For entity and self, first we have to draw a line in the sand using our own daily experiences that we all have in common, so that way it is clear what everyone means by 'self', and 'entity'.
So for example, when someone breaks into my house and eats out of my fridge,
that is not myself, I am not imagining them, and they are not a
result of any childhood hangup.
When someone steps in front of my car and I swear at them, I am not angry with myself
and I am not imagining that they are there.
If I hit them, then I have harmed something outside of myself and I will probably get sued.
When I am infected with strep throat, I am under colonisation or attack from something that is not me. It lives within me, normally in a peaceful symbiotic
relationship, but it is not me. When I get step I get sick
and I am in pain. it is not my imagination, and it is not
because of any childhood hangup.
When I am working in a visionary context and I work with an
inner contact, that contact is not me. It is not a
projection of me, and it is not formed from a childhood
hangup ( I am sick to death of psychologists blaming
everything on childhood.... is there no such thing as
personal responsibility anymore?? and no, I dont have a childhood hangup!! I just taught teens for 20 years... enough to send anyone nuts).
If I use my imagination to create a 'someone' that I want to project, either consciously or unconsciously then it is solely from me, is a part of me. It is real to me, but
not to others....it cannot be contacted independently, it
cannot be picked up without having some link or connect to me. Some may call it a delusion, some may call it a thought form. Personally I call them ex husbands. Either way, something like that is in the realms of psychology.
So to define an class of being, inner or outer, first the question should be asked: is it independent of the person who perceives it? Can it and has it been perceived by
someone unconnected, who is not aware of the recipient at the moment of contact? is there a source of text that records a similar being that was unavailable to the
'seer' at the time of perception?
That at least gives someone a starting point of investigation that can move towards independent and intelligent investigation.
The question of what is inner and outer is a lot more
complex. Maybe it is related to how the cord was tied
before it was cut..........
josephine
