AuthorTopic: astrology and politics  (Read 2410 times)

Offline Chloe

  • Contrarian
  • Bussing Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 139
    • View Profile
astrology and politics
« on: August 25, 2012, 06:36:17 AM »
‘As above, so below’. 

Every  astrological age reflects the zodiac sign it is in.  Which is then twisted by those in ‘control’.  Who use the worst bits of the sign/twist the best.  They also demonise the sign that went before.

Under Taurus, an Earth sign,  there was probable worship the bull of the seasons, holding the ‘sun’ between his horns.  Worship of the spring; the Earth coming back to life.

This gave way to Aries, and the Roman Empire.  A fire sign.  Sign of aggression.  Twisted to mean: Might is Right. ‘Don’t use this to protect the vulnerable: use it to enslave them.’ 
Fire was worshipped as a sign of the ‘soul’.   All those Roman temples with the flame outside.  While Earth was denigrated, in the ‘mystery’ schools, as the element of those without imagination, etc.

Enter Pisces, a water sign.  Sign of mysticism; a mystical saviour.  Enter Christianity.  And you get saved by water; by baptism.  Fire, on the other hand, was something evil – you’d burn in it forever in hell if you were ‘bad’.

People were burned alive as heretics.  Sometimes people who kept the old mystery ideas alive.  Gnostics.

Burning people alive was probably another mockery of the innocent.  The rising fire of the soul the gnostics/mystery schools spoke about, turned to real fire to burn them alive.
While those behind it may have known, all along ….

And now we’re coming into Aquarius.  An air sign.  Logo:  A figure pouring knowledge from the heavens to the Earth.  (Take another look at New Age ‘channelling’.  Bang on cue ….)
Aquarius is ruled by two planets.  Uranus and – Saturn.  Uranus was a Titan.  (Hence, perhaps, some theories that the old ‘Nephilim’ are coming back. Tricks, again.)

Uranus controls lightning, sudden violent shocks and – well – electricity. 

Saturn is the more patriarchal, traditional planet. Of restriction and sacrifice. Of learning through pain, and having the lessons stick. It's also, by ruling Capricorn (the goat), the sign in which the sun is seen to be at its weakest, just before the renewal.

Hence, perhaps, Icke’s demonisation of Saturn.  And his (more covert) pushing of Uranus.  Now, according to Icke, everything we see is controlled by – the electrical signals of the brain.   And guess what – the sun’s involved in this, too:
“The sun is a plasma ball processing electricity.  Solar flares behave like lightening does.”  Rember who you are, (page 66)

And, in this computer age, these electrical signals will be transferred to that other electrical brain, known as – the computer.  Computer control of life, rather than enhancement.  Mentality used against you. The twisting of Aquarius.

Air is seen as being - mentality.  Thought.  Communication. Computers. Electricity. And we now have instant communication via computers, while being told this whole world is simply an illusion of the mind.  (note Icke’s fascination with the the film The Matrix)*   Richard Bach wrote a book called Illusions, same theme.  Plus real Christianity bashing.

Water - the element of the past sign - is now seen as the bad thing –  ‘The ice caps are melting, and half the globe’s going to be underwater.’                                                                 

These are all temporal changes. Love is beyond space, and beyond time.  The zodiac changes are simply a change of season, of colour, and should be respected and marvelled at.  Instead, they’ve been used as a tool of control.    Used for fear, and for worship.


*  Icke utilises this Aquarian change almost to the letter.  Without mentioning, you know - Aquarius. 
For example: “We can now see that this scene from the first Matrix movie was perfectly accurate -  Morpheus, ‘What is real?  How do you define real?  If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, taste and see, then ‘real’ is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.’ ”   Remember Who  You Are, (page 30)
It is worth remembering that Morpheus is the god of dreams.  What else would you expect a god of dreams to tell you?

Icke writes that: “The observable universe is 99.999 per cent plasma … Cosmic plasma  is ‘life-like’ because it is an expression of Consciousness”   Remember who you are, (page 62)   
(note:  ‘Consciousness’ is the Ickian version of being born again.  Of  being ‘saved’.  By the Truth Vibrations.)

Icke goes on:  “Plasma is a near perfect for electricity and electromagnetic fields … Compare again the similarity between human brain activity and electrical activity in the Universe… we are communicating electrically with the universe and with each other without knowing that we are doing so. ”  (page 62)

Aquarius rules electricity, via Uranus.  Computers run on electricity.  Electrical signals are thus now being seen, by Icke and co,  in this Aquarian age, as both ruling the universe, and – when it comes to the human brain - decoding an 'illusion'.   

Notice the new religion/’science’ being put in place?  “It’s all plasma/electric signals.’  Aquarian mentality, turned and used against you:  “How can you know what you see is real?  When it’s just your brain playing tricks?”    And then:  “Past and future don’t exist, either.  Just stay in the Now.”   
Which genuinely doesn’t exist.  The Now is constantly going from future to past.
Only love is real.  And it can take the form of parents excitedly planning for their children’s future (Icke only shows the negative version of this); and people lovingly and laughingly remembering the past.

In the mystery schools, the astrological sign supposedly 'ruling' wasn't the one 'they' used.  They used the opposite sign.  (In astrology, each sign has an opposite - the sign six months away from yours - eg Pisces has Virgo,  Aries has Libra, Aquarius has Leo, etc.   There's a real connection between them.)   So, in the twisting of astrology, while the ancient Romans used Aries for control/Empire/enslavement, they were also very proud of their court system.  Which utilised Libra, opposite sign, 'ruling' justice and harmony.  In the Piscean age, we had the mystical 'Piscean' saviour - but we also had the nitpicking Virgoan ideas of:  'Say the rosary; genuflect just right; obey all the many rules ..'   

And now, as we move into Aquarius, we also have the opposite sign of Leo.  Aquarius rules brotherhood of man for the 'masses'.  Leo rules individuality.  So 'they're' now selling the idea of 'Oneness' (droneness?), and globalisation, no boundaries, etc -  while possibly utilising the individuality of Leo for themselves.

Astrology, twisted.  You could argue it goes way back.  Gemini, air sign (mentality), sign of the twins, of duality, became demonised when the astrological age moved to Taurus, Earth sign.  Gemini duality then became the 'eating of the forbidden fruit; finding out the difference between good and evil'.   

And so on.  Astrology twisted, used as allegory/symbolism, for the masses to take literally.  And dogmatic Christianity, of course, was used as this.  And now - here we go again.  Christianity being dismantled to bring in the 'new'.  Just as twisted as the dogmatic 'old'.

Hang onto Love; forget fear.



« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 09:10:17 PM by Chloe »

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: astrology and politics
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2012, 04:03:55 PM »
Chloe,
This isn't precisely about astrology but I think it's germane to the overall spirit of the ideal in human behavior. I would like to know your thoughts on this essay I enjoyed. I don't agree with everything he says but I agree with the gist of his message that it is vital (as in, not optional) for ALL humans to respect each other (i.e. love in action) and recognize their proper place in the biosphere if we expect to survive. This is from Robert Riversong's blog.
Quote

Crossing the Threshold

I want to share the insightful perspective of one of today’s most important writers, visionaries and prophets, Charles Eisenstein, author of The Ascent of Humanity: The Age of Separation, the Age of Reunion, and the convergence of crises that is birthing the transition, as well as Sacred Economics.
 
This is a recent essay of his: Across the Threshold
 
As Thich Nhat Hanh put it, “The next Buddha will be a sangha,” a community, a matrix of human beings united in a common story of the people and story of the self. Aligned with these defining stories, this community can hold us in the vision of what we are becoming. “
 
For a few decades now, it seems, humanity has been on the verge of a breakthrough in collective consciousness. Perhaps it was the Hippies in the 60s who saw it first. To them, it was crystal clear that the consciousness revolution would sweep all before it, that within a few years’ time such institutions as government, money, marriage, and school would become obsolete. Forty years later, their vision has not come to pass and, superficially at least, the defining institutions of our civilization are more powerful, more encompassing than ever. Nonetheless, to many of us much of the time, and to most of us at least once in a while, the breakthrough in consciousness the Hippies foretold seems imminent still.
 
Perhaps it seems imminent because, in those peak experiences when we know the true potential of our humanity, the true vastness of our minds, and the love that is the default state of existence, it seems so obvious that we have returned to our birthright and recovered our original estate. It could be a near-death experience that brings us there, a psychedelic experience, a moment in nature, giving birth, making love; it could be a religious experience, or come through a dream, music, or meditation; it can also be awakened through psychological work, a transformational seminar, even a book. Usually, though, the high does not last.
 
I’ve had many such experiences where I think, “Nothing will ever be the same again,” but after a few days or weeks, I notice that I must struggle to maintain the realized state I’d been in. What was once effortless and self-evident becomes the subject of reminders and practices. The “old normal” encroaches, until I am back where I started, and the state that had felt so true and obvious becomes a mere memory. I can try to repeat the experience, but as with a drug, the second high is a little less intense than the first, and the return to baseline more rapid. Eventually I come to doubt: maybe the experience was a drug, an excursion away from reality and not, as I’d believed, something more real than the world I’ve come to accept. For some people, that voice swells in volume until it becomes a deafening tumult of despair. Before the experience, there was at least hope, but having entered paradise and been ejected, what is there now to live for?
 
So it was on a cultural level, that after the enlightenment and exuberant expectations of the sixties, much of the counterculture turned to the hedonism and consumption of the Me Decade. What a sense of betrayal we felt, as the psychedelic revolution gave way to the War on Drugs, as the Clean Air Act gave way to Ronald Reagan and James Watt (“Trees pollute more than people do.”)
 
Happily, whether on a personal or collective level, the despair can never be complete, for the ember of the awakening experience lives on inextinguishable in our hearts. However deep the despair to which we may descend, we carry a first-hand knowledge written into our cells that there is more than Just This. Even if we know not how to return to that more beautiful world, we know it exists. This knowledge lives independently of beliefs, underneath the currents of reason and doubt and impervious to them. We cannot cultivate or practice that knowledge, but it cultivates and practices us. The first thing it does is to prevent us from whole-heartedly participating in the old normal. We can do our best to participate in the program, we can go through the motions, but deep down we know that it isn’t the real thing. The effort to direct life energy at goals unworthy of our knowledge is exhausting. Eventually, our reservoirs of health and luck depleted, we enter a state of crisis. Whether it is health, relationship, money, or work-related, the crisis is a birthing from the old normal. We cannot go back, yet neither do we know how to go forward. This is a special state, the threshold between worlds. Many of us are there right now, individually; the collective human body is approaching it as well.
 
The purpose of this essay is to describe a paradigm of mutual care that can carry us across the threshold between worlds.
 
We did glimpse a more beautiful world in the 1960s, but the old normal wasn’t finished yet. The story had not yet been told to its fullness. Therefore, we could not abide in the new reality; the pull of the old was too strong. To be sure, there were many individual exceptions; to this day there are unregenerate hippies living in the interstices of our realm, as invisible to us as the Taoist immortals of legend, holding the template of the next world until such time as we are ready for it. But for the most part, after the sixties people returned to the world they’d left behind, and followed it indeed to new extremes.
 
Forty years later, that world is falling apart at an accelerating rate. The stories that undergird our civilization are crumbling. Two are primary: the story of the self, and the story of the people. The first is the discrete, separate self, a Cartesian mote of consciousness looking out onto an objective universe of soulless masses and impersonal, deterministic forces. In biology, the separate self manifests as the paradigm of the selfish gene seeking to maximize its reproductive self-interest; in economics, it is homo economicus, who seeks to maximize rational self-interest as measured by money. In psychology, it is the skin-encapsulated ego; in religion, the soul encased in flesh but separate from it.  Such a self is naturally in opposition to all other beings, whose interests are indifferent to or at odds with its own. Spiritual teachings based on this story of self, then, tell us we must try very hard to rise above nature, to conquer our biological and economic drive to maximize self-interest at the expense of other beings.
 
Externalized, this war against the self manifests as the second defining story of civilization, the story of the people that I call “ascent”, that says that humanity’s destiny is to overcome and transcend nature. It perfectly complements the story of self, elevating the mental over the physical, the ideal over the concrete, and spirit over the body.
 
In describing these myths, I use the word “story” in a special sense, as an unconscious narrative that makes meaning of the world, that assigns roles to human beings, that explains the nature of life, the world, and the purpose of human existence, and that coordinates human activity. Stories have a beginning, a middle, and an end. We are approaching the end of ours, of the stories upon which our civilization is built. To the extent those stories are no longer true for you, you do not feel like a full participant in this civilization.
 
They are becoming untrue for more and more of us, as the world built upon them falls apart. How can we believe in the conquest of nature, when because of our actions the ecological basis of civilization is threatened? How can we believe any more that the final triumph over disease is just around the corner, or an age of leisure, or space vacations, or a perfectly just society, if only we extend the realm of control just a bit further? And how can we believe any longer in the paradise of the separate self, independent of all, beholden to no one, financially secure, when we see first hand the alienation, the despair, the starvation for community that makes that paradise a hell? When depression, addiction, suicide, and family breakdown strike even the winners of the war of all against all?
 
Whether on a personal or collective level, we are discovering that the stories of separation are untrue. What we do unto the other, inescapably visits ourselves as well in some form. As that becomes increasingly obvious, a new story of self and story of the people becomes accessible to us. I have written of these in other essays, among them Money and the Turning of the Age, Rituals for Lover Earth, Autoimmunity, Obesity, and the Ecology of Health, and in greater depth in The Ascent of Humanity. The new story of self is the connected self, the self of interbeingness. The new story of the people is one of cocreative partnership with Lover Earth. They ring true in our hearts, we see them on the horizon, but we do not yet live yet in these new stories. It is hard to, when the institutions and habits of the old world still surround us.
 
Poised as we are at the transition between worlds, and traveling, many of us, back and forth between them, we need a way to enter the new one, learn to live in it, and be able to abide there. We need, in other words, a midwife. The birth metaphor is perhaps imperfect, since we are undergoing not a single, final expulsion, but a series of brief experiences of a more radiant world in which we have been unable to stay. How can we stay? How can we fully establish ourselves in a radically different way of thinking, relating, and being? Make no mistake: this revolution goes far beyond the acceptance of an idea. To know and embody as an experiential, lived, enacted reality the truth of interbeingness, to live in the spirit of the gift as appropriate to each relationship, to absolutely trust one’s divinity and that of others, to know in every fiber of one’s being, “I art Thou,” and to navigate this knowledge with appropriate boundaries, constitutes a fundamental revolution in human beingness. Moreover, though we have entered the new territory, we lack models and maps to live in it. We need guidance, we need sacred teachings. But who are to be our teachers, when all is new?
 
To be sure, we have inherited teachings and models for the new world, both from visionaries who saw through the stories of separation centuries ago, and from tribes who avoided civilization long enough to transmit their knowledge to us. Much of this knowledge has been distorted through the lens of separation, but as the new stories come into focus, we can discern their original intent. For example, the usual formulation of the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is a moral injunction that we hear as yet another version of the dictum, born of the separation of spirit and matter: “Try hard to be nice.” It is a standard of behavior, something we must overcome our natural selfishness to attain. From the perspective of the connected self, though, the Golden Rule changes form to become not a rule but a reminder: “As you do unto others, so you are doing unto yourself.” The intent of its original articulator is recovered.
 
Similarly, the Boddhisatva Vow, “I will not enter Nirvana myself until all sentient beings have entered Nirvana,” lands on us as the ultimate self-sacrifice, a heroic and magnanimous vow beyond the reach of ordinary people. For the connected self of “I art Thou,” however, it is merely a distorted articulation of a simple fact that we might call the Boddhisatva Realization: “It is impossible to abide in Nirvana alone. If any sentient being is left out of it, then part of me is left out of it.” Only someone under the delusion that he is a discrete, separate soul would imagine otherwise.
 
Enlightening as these teachings might be, mere information is not enough. As many spiritual traditions recognize, a living teacher, a guru, is necessary to bring the teachings to life in their unique application to each individual. We need something from beyond our old selves, someone to illuminate our blind spots, to humble our conceit, to show us the love we didn’t know we had within us. This presents a problem today, because the age of the guru is manifestly over.
 
No human being can hold the guru energy in post-modern society. This is old news – the age of the guru has been over for at least thirty years. In the 1960s and 70s, any number of masters came to America from the East and, absent the cultural structures that traditionally kept them in an insulated realm, succumbed one after another to scandals involving money, sex, and power. The same thing happened as well to many of the gurus who remained in the East, as even their traditional structures crumbled under the onslaught of Western cultural warfare and the money economy. In the past, to even access a guru you had to make a journey and to some extent leave the old normal behind. Now, gurus were interfacing directly with the old normal. No journey was necessary to receive a mantra; soon all that was necessary was money. This interface was perilous to guru and seeker alike.
 
The gurus that did not fall found ways to maintain their exclusion from a story of the world that would drag them into it. Some, like Neem Karoli Baba (died 1973), took the simple expedient of dying. Others retired or disappeared. After the 1970s, anyone who got into the guru business was quickly corrupted; the wiser ones stayed away, preferring to act as teachers, mentors, spiritual friends. Human consciousness was approaching, on a mass level, the template that had been prepared, in insulated, secret lineages and remote sanctuaries, for thousands of years. Millions were ready for what only a select few were prepared in the past. The gurus through the ages had finally succeeded: they had awoken an energy of a magnitude no single human being could contain.  For those who tried, the uncontainable energy inevitably emerged in subterranean ways as shadow and scandal, and their followers learned not only the lessons of their teachings, but also the lessons of their failures.
 
The difficulty, then, is that we are ready as never before for a guru, yet no single human being is capable of taking on that role. Whence are we to obtain that spiritual midwifery, “someone to illuminate our blind spots, to humble our conceit, to show us the love we didn’t know we had within us”? What can bring to the masses what hidden lineages and gurus once brought to a select few? To answer that question, let us follow the trajectory of spiritual teachings after the 1970s.
 
What followed the demise of the guru was a new age of spiritual independence. Its motto might have been, “All that you need is within you.” People trusted their own inner guru, their guidance. The spiritual teachers of this period were just that, teachers not gurus, not accorded a different category of being, but a kind of spiritual friend, a more experienced colleague. It was a time of self-improvement and doing your own spiritual work. The goal was a kind of self-sufficiency. We sought to eradicate negativity from our minds and take full responsibility for our lives. We worked on forgiveness. We sought to “manifest” health, wealth, and romance through the power of positive thinking. We resonated with teachings like, “Change yourself, change your beliefs, and reality will change along with it. All the power is within you; each person is a self-sufficient creator of his or her own reality.” We sought to liberate ourselves from victim mentality, the belief that our happiness depends on the choices of others. Sure, we wanted to attract good relationships into our lives, but we didn’t need anyone.
 
Though I am writing in the past tense, I don’t mean to denigrate the beliefs I describe, nor even to say they are not true. They were true, and there is truth in them still. They are not the whole truth though, as many people are now starting to realize. For having reached the pinnacle of spiritual independence, they want something more.
 
A participant at one of my retreats put it like this: “I really do have it all. I run my own wellness center, I live in a beautiful house with a view of the mountains, I have manifested financial abundance, I have a fabulous relationship with my wife, who is my partner on the spiritual path. We’ve done the most amazing retreats, the most powerful transformational workshops, had deep experiences of altered consciousness, states of samadhi, experiences of kundalini… But this is no longer enough. There is something else, a next step, and I’m not sure what it is. It’s not that I’m unhappy – I have a lot of peace, joy, and contentment in my life – but I know there is a next step.”
 
Spiritual self-sufficiency ignores the fundamental truth of our interbeingness. Without each other, we cannot make those peak experiences, those glimpses we have all had of a more vivid way of being, into anything more than glimpses. How can we make them into a new baseline for life? How can we enter into the world that they show us, how can we redeem their promise? How can we bring into living reality the knowledge that we have been shown something true and real? Each time, the old world drags us back. The inertia of our habits and beliefs, the expectations of the people surrounding us, the way we are seen, the media, the pressures of the money system all conspire to hold us where we were. Coming off a peak experience, we may try to insulate ourselves from all these things, to live in a bubble of positivity, but eventually we realize that is impossible. The negative influences find a way to creep back in.
 
From the understanding of the connected self, this is entirely to be expected. Because you are not separate from me, you cannot be fully healed until I am fully healed. You cannot be enlightened until I am enlightened. This is the import of the Golden Reminder and the Boddhisatva Realization described above. Each one of us is pioneering a different aspect of the connected self in the age of reunion, and each one of us as well carries vestigial habits of the age of separation that are invisible to us or that, if visible, we are helpless to overcome on our own. Quite practically, to inhabit a more enlightened state we must be held there by a community of new habits, new ways of seeing each other, and new beliefs in action that redefine normal.
 
In other words, in the age of the connected self our guru can be none other than a collective, a community – as Thich Nhat Hanh put it, “The next Buddha will be a sangha.” By a community, I don’t mean an amorphous “we are all one” mass devoid of structure, but rather a matrix of human beings united in a common story of the people and story of the self. Aligned with these defining stories, this community can hold us in the vision of what we are becoming.
 
Until recently, such a community barely existed. Either we were alone, gasping for breath in an ocean of separation, or we nurtured the new ways in isolated and insulated bubbles that, with rare exceptions, quickly popped. Such bubbles cannot last very long alone; like soap bubbles, their substance evaporates unless replenished and sustained. Today it is different, because these bubbles, Ken Carey’s “islands of the future in an ocean of the past,” are appearing faster than they can pop, clumping together, strengthening each other, forming a connected matrix. We are reaching critical mass, a point where we can live so much surrounded by nascent institutions of the new world that we can stay there most of the time. No longer will we need to struggle to remember what those special experiences showed us was true.
 
Health and spiritual well-being are maintained through relationships, not through self-sufficiency. No one is so enlightened that they don’t need help. Rather, they are enlightened because they receive the help they need. Enlightenment is a state of dependency. And to the extent that any other being is sick in any way, so is each of us. Every hurting person out there matches a hurting thing in here. It could be as subtle as a grain of sand in your sock: unnoticeable when major wounds are still hemorrhaging blood, but increasingly intolerable as the big wounds heal. As wholeness increases, these little things come into consciousness and become intolerable. We can no longer comfortably abide in our idyllic house with a view, eating health food, and thinking positive thoughts. Our self-sufficiency is no longer sufficient, when we feel the pain of the world echoing inside our selves.
 
If we try to stay in the bubble of spiritual self-sufficiency, the hurting of the world sneaks in as various of the new diseases, forcing itself upon our consciousness. Consider, for example, two of the most significant of the new diseases, MCS (multiple chemical sensitivities) and electromagnetic sensitivity.  Toxic chemicals and EMFs are the physicalization of our negativity, as well as the byproduct of our mindset of separation that sees nature as an indifferent reservoir for our wastes. For the chemically and electromagnetically sensitive, no amount of retreat is enough. Trying to avoid negativity, we have to retreat further and further, until the repeated intrusion of the world upon our serenity makes us realize we have to cleanse the whole world of toxic chemicals and all they represent, not just avoid them.
 
The yogic teaching, “Don’t try to cover the world with leather, just wear shoes,” served us well in the age of spiritual self-sufficiency, but it serves no longer, especially if taken to mean, “Heal thyself; the world is not your responsibility.” That was true, for a time. It was medicine. It healed us of self-rejection and self-sacrifice. It was a necessary stage toward the next step, when we do seek to heal the world – not as an act of self-sacrifice, not at the cost of our own well-being, but as a necessary step in our own self-healing. Through our relationship to the other we heal ourselves. There is no other way.
 
This realization often manifests as a desire to find one’s true purpose in life, one’s service to the world. Such a purpose is never just about the separate egoic self. It is always about service; it is about one’s gifts and how to give them. Purpose is about gift and relationship. The emerging state of vitality, joy, and love that humanity is entering is not a place where we can abide for long on our own. We need each other.
 
It is not only in spiritual life that this is true; the same shift is manifesting in economic life and our ecological relationships. Indeed, because spiritual well-being can only proceed to the next level through our relationships to other people, other beings, and the planet, the very word “spirituality” as distinct from social, economic, and material life is losing its relevance. Built into the concept of spirituality is the idea that some areas of human life are not spiritual. That divide between spirit and matter, between the life of the soul and the life of the flesh, is crumbling. High time, too: look at the results of treating the planet as not sacred. Look at the results of treating part of our own selves as profane. The war against the self and the conquest of nature, each mirroring the other, are coming to an end in our time as the intuitions of the connected self wax stronger.
 
Interdependency is something of a euphemism for what is really a form of dependency. The latter word is a trigger. Whether it is emotionally, financially, or spiritually, most people seek to avoid dependency. That, I am sorry to say, is a conceit. By our nature as ecological beings, we are helplessly dependent on other beings to survive, to thrive, even to exist. In the heyday of the age of science, we thought it human destiny to become independent of all other beings: we aspired to a wholly artificial world in which even food would be synthesized, the flesh transcended, and death overcome. No longer. We are learning, painfully, our utter dependency on the rest of nature. Interdependency is a sub-category of dependency in that it is mutual and multidirectional, but that doesn’t make us any less dependent. And that is OK! To be dependent is to be alive – it is to be enmeshed in the give and take of the world. And when we allow ourselves to enter it, to release the perceived safety of self-sufficiency, we access and can sustain an intensity of being and of love that we could only glimpse before. That is because we are encompassing more of our true connected being. We are being more fully ourselves.
 
Humanity collectively, and many of us individually, are at a threshold between worlds. The world we are entering is both a new world for us, and a long-forgotten realm. As we step into it, we can be each other’s welcoming committee. We can do for each other what a guru does for a disciple: hold each other in the knowing of who we really are, and teach each other how to live there. Each of us, as we experience our own piece of the age of reunion, becomes a guide to a small part of that vast new territory.
http://riversong.wordpress.com/crossing-the-threshold/
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Ashvin

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 2655
    • View Profile
Re: astrology and politics
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2012, 05:16:58 PM »
Chloe, if you have not yet watched the documentary "Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings", you definitely should. It goes into a lot of the connections you mention between astrology, the mystery religions and the New Age. Part I is called The New Atlantis, referencing Sir Francis Bacon's book by the same title (embedded below).

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/8zYM-unUeNY?feature=player_detailpage" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/8zYM-unUeNY?feature=player_detailpage</a>

People were burned alive as heretics.  Sometimes people who kept the old mystery ideas alive.  Gnostics.

I have no doubt that hateful episodes such as these were inspired by the Enemy, as it fits in perfectly with the [completely erroneous] idea that God of the Bible is a oppressive tyrant that will squash/smite anyone who fails to worship Him. Of course, the brilliant and graceful work of Jesus on the Cross put that silliness to rest once and for all, for anyone who cares to remember the actual history, but many people still fall for those age-old tricks. The only beings that are capable of inspiring people to movements such as Gnosticism and then turning on them in a vicious manner simply to reinforce their theology, are fallen angels (such as Satan) and human beings.

Quote
And now we’re coming into Aquarius.  An air sign.  Logo:  A figure pouring knowledge from the heavens to the Earth.  (Take another look at New Age ‘channelling’.  Bang on cue ….)
Aquarius is ruled by two planets.  Uranus and – Saturn.  Uranus was a Titan.  (Hence, perhaps, some theories that the old ‘Nephilim’ are coming back. Tricks, again.)

I tend to agree that the "return of the nephilim" theory held by many Christians is very speculative. It is based on the following verse:

Quote from: Matthew24
36“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,f but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away.

But this seems to be referencing the casual nature of evil that will be present in End Times, when people are going about their sinful lives with complacent disregard for the coming judgment, rather than pointing specifically to the unique condition of nephilim in the days of Noah. However, I do think it highlights the fact that demonic activity will be peaking in these times, just as they had back then. The entire flood story is a picture of the final judgment in such times, when Christ will serve as the impenetrable ark for the faithful.

Quote
*  Icke utilises this Aquarian change almost to the letter.  Without mentioning, you know - Aquarius. 
For example: “We can now see that this scene from the first Matrix movie was perfectly accurate -  Morpheus, ‘What is real?  How do you define real?  If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, taste and see, then ‘real’ is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.’ ”   Remember Who  You Are, (page 30)
It is worth remembering that Morpheus is the god of dreams.  What else would you expect a god of dreams to tell you?

Ah yes - matter is not real,  we are all the same and we can all achieve divine status and global harmony by "unplugging" from The Matrix. For all of the rhetoric thrown at the New World Order by Icke and company, they fail to see that this New Age non-dualistic pantheism is exactly the mentality that is needed to squash diversity, local sovereignty and traditional institutions/values, coercing people into a homogeneous one world system in which people worship nothing but themselves (and perhaps an enlightened avatar or two).

Quote
(note:  ‘Consciousness’ is the Ickian version of being born again.  Of  being ‘saved’.  By the Truth Vibrations.)

Nice catch there! We gotta hand it to them... the counterfeit spirituality is extremely clever. Which is also a reason why I doubt it is simply the work of greedy human beings. I'm confident that, in at least a few cases, there is some very real communication occurring through this "channeling" of ascended masters and spirit guides.

Quote
And now, as we move into Aquarius, we also have the opposite sign of Leo.  Aquarius rules brotherhood of man for the 'masses'.  Leo rules individuality.  So 'they're' now selling the idea of 'Oneness' (droneness?), and globalisation, no boundaries, etc -  while possibly utilising the individuality of Leo for themselves.

Bingo! And they have really been convinced to believe that is the way it will all work out in the end, for the ultimate benefit of humanity. Even the hardcore Satanists at the top are deluded into thinking they can win this spiritual war with God and take on the "magnificence" of their fallen master...

we must truly pray for them to open their hearts to God and be forgiven.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 05:26:38 PM by Ashvin »

Offline Chloe

  • Contrarian
  • Bussing Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 139
    • View Profile
Re: astrology and politics
« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2012, 02:47:25 PM »
Hi Agelbert - finally got round to commenting on the article you kindly posted. 

I feel it articulates beautifully just what I'm worried about, re astrology and the twisted Age of 'Aquarius'.

For example:   
Quote
Happily, whether on a personal or collective level, the despair can never be complete, for the ember of the awakening experience lives on inextinguishable in our hearts. However deep the despair to which we may descend, we carry a first-hand knowledge written into our cells that there is more than Just This. Even if we know not how to return to that more beautiful world, we know it exists. This knowledge lives independently of beliefs, underneath the currents of reason and doubt and impervious to them. We cannot cultivate or practice that knowledge, but it cultivates and practices us. The first thing it does is to prevent us from whole-heartedly participating in the old normal. We can do our best to participate in the program, we can go through the motions, but deep down we know that it isn’t the real thing. The effort to direct life energy at goals unworthy of our knowledge is exhausting. Eventually, our reservoirs of health and luck depleted, we enter a state of crisis. Whether it is health, relationship, money, or work-related, the crisis is a birthing from the old normal. We cannot go back, yet neither do we know how to go forward. This is a special state, the threshold between worlds. Many of us are there right now, individually; the collective human body is approaching it as well.

'The collective human body is approaching it as well'  That's politics.  And quite the assumption ....  What 'the collective human body' is actually going through right now is the change from Pisces to Aquarius.  This means that 'they' need to adjust the controls, to reflect Aquarius instead of Pisces.  Aquarius 'rules' the brotherhood of man.    So - control could come through the 'community'.  Instead of going to hell; you could be seen as 'holding the group back from Nirvana ...'

Quote
They are becoming untrue for more and more of us, as the world built upon them falls apart. How can we believe in the conquest of nature, when because of our actions the ecological basis of civilization is threatened? How can we believe any more that the final triumph over disease is just around the corner, or an age of leisure, or space vacations, or a perfectly just society, if only we extend the realm of control just a bit further? And how can we believe any longer in the paradise of the separate self, independent of all, beholden to no one, financially secure, when we see first hand the alienation, the despair, the starvation for community that makes that paradise a hell? When depression, addiction, suicide, and family breakdown strike even the winners of the war of all against all?

That's selling, i.m.o.  Advertising - what's gone 'before' is terrible; but here's the new furniture polish ....

Quote
... to this day there are unregenerate hippies living in the interstices of our realm, as invisible to us as the Taoist immortals of legend, holding the template of the next world until such time as we are ready for it

Hah!  "Ssh, children ... When the air is very clear, and very quiet, and you wish upon a falling star, you may hear, very faintly, the sounds of the 'unregenerate hippies'.  A faint crackling of the campfire, the rustling of a doobie, and, if you're very lucky, maybe the faint whisper of  'Faaaaar out man', may come to you upon the breeze ...

Apologies to any hippies I may have offended here.  The point I'm trying to make here is that any counter culture will take the problems of the mainstream culture with it.  Only they'll be written large, as the counter culture is smaller.  (Take a look at the Forum, for a start ...)   And, again, Eisenstein has the same problem as with the 'Gurus' he mentions (see below).  They can't live in this world ...


Quote
Poised as we are at the transition between worlds, and traveling, many of us, back and forth between them, we need a way to enter the new one, learn to live in it, and be able to abide there. We need, in other words, a midwife

And, again - the assumption that we'll agree with his previous point.  Repetition - hypnotic.  We don't necessarily, imo, need a 'new' world - we just need to get the 'old' one working properly.  But that wouldn't work if what you're after is a whole new set of bright, shiny shackles - why actually change the old for the better, when you can villify it and tempt people into the 'new' - like the Childcatcher's van in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang - all decked out in spangles, and offering lollipops. The bars only become apparant once you're in it ....

Now that people are seeing the problems in the 'old' world, they could, perhaps, make some real changes for the better.  Hence the smoke and mirrors of the 'new' ... (i.m.o.)

Quote
Whether on a personal or collective level, we are discovering that the stories of separation are untrue. What we do unto the other, inescapably visits ourselves as well in some form. As that becomes increasingly obvious, a new story of self and story of the people becomes accessible to us. I have written of these in other essays, among them Money and the Turning of the Age, Rituals for Lover Earth, Autoimmunity, Obesity, and the Ecology of Health, and in greater depth in The Ascent of Humanity. The new story of self is the connected self, the self of interbeingness. The new story of the people is one of cocreative partnership with Lover Earth. They ring true in our hearts, we see them on the horizon, but we do not yet live yet in these new stories. It is hard to, when the institutions and habits of the old world still surround us.

See the manipulation/hypnosis here?  And the phraseology isn't unique to Eisenstein - Walsh also uses the word 'story' to apply to the past cultural myths/religions.  Quick example:  "I know what is being said here, that we are all Divine, runs counter to our present Cultural Story, our present understanding."   The Storm Before the Calm, page 56

Leaving aside whether or not the debate how much of past religions is allegory and how much is 'history' - the use of the word 'story' here has, imo, an intentionally demeaning aspect.  Everything people thought before was just a 'story' - ie not real; not to be taken seriously.  And THEN these writers go on:  'But now; here's the reality ...' which, coincidentally, follows very closely to Aquarian ideals.  Which will be twisted, imo, to fit the new chains.

Take Eisenstein's sentence:
Quote
They ring true in our hearts, we see them on the horizon, but we do not yet live yet in these new stories. It is hard to, when the institutions and habits of the old world still surround us. 

And there's the cosh.  Gotta get rid of the old (and just what will that entail?)  or the 'new' can't come about.  Funny - as Love is transcendent anywhere, and above politics.

Eisenstein goes on: 
Quote
Make no mistake: this revolution goes far beyond the acceptance of an idea. To know and embody as an experiential, lived, enacted reality the truth of interbeingness, to live in the spirit of the gift as appropriate to each relationship, to absolutely trust one’s divinity and that of others, to know in every fiber of one’s being, “I art Thou,” and to navigate this knowledge with appropriate boundaries, constitutes a fundamental revolution in human beingness. Moreover, though we have entered the new territory, we lack models and maps to live in it. We need guidance, we need sacred teachings. But who are to be our teachers, when all is new?

Rather sweeping statements?  But hardly 'new' - they're akin to the Gnosticism.  And they're - well - impossible.  (And now I'm seen as one of those who 'impede progress' ...!)    This whole paragraph seems a bit of a nonsense to me - for example, how can there be 'appropriate boundaries' when one is busy knowing - 'in every fiber' - that: 'I am Thou'? 

What happens when 'Thou' reveals itself, yet again, as merely human; and flawed?  Where to turn?   Call the police? - "I see you've been beating yourself up again, Mr Jones ..."

 And note the casual, very 'New Age' dismissal of the old teachers - to the point that you don't always notice how they've been dismissed, on a quick reading:  "But who are to be our teachers, when all is new?"   Nasty.  Very, very nasty.  If the idea of 'Love God, and Love your neighbour as yourself' don't fit into this brave new world - just what kind of brave new world will it be?  (the word 'communist' is longing to escape here ...)

Quote
To be sure, we have inherited teachings and models for the new world, both from visionaries who saw through the stories of separation centuries ago, and from tribes who avoided civilization long enough to transmit their knowledge to us. Much of this knowledge has been distorted through the lens of separation, but as the new stories come into focus, we can discern their original intent. For example, the usual formulation of the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is a moral injunction that we hear as yet another version of the dictum, born of the separation of spirit and matter: “Try hard to be nice.” It is a standard of behavior, something we must overcome our natural selfishness to attain. From the perspective of the connected self, though, the Golden Rule changes form to become not a rule but a reminder: “As you do unto others, so you are doing unto yourself.” The intent of its original articulator is recovered.

Again with the assumptions.  Funny how some of the  'New' Age bends over backwards and perfoms all sorts of verbal contortions to assure us that the 'Golden Rule' actually doesn't mean what we thought it did.  And how this 'new' reading is - better.   I do get what Eisenstein means here, and, in its purest sense, I do actually agree with it.  But I don't like his casual dismissiveness of the Golden Rule as 'Try hard to be nice'.  It's obviously always meant infinitely more than that.  But, again - the name of the game here, imo, isn't to respect past religions - it's to try and bury them.  Politics.  Despite that fact that Love, as evinced in the 'Golden Rule', is beyond space, and beyond time.  And - 'it's original articulator'?  Why not just say 'Jesus'?   And, straight into the next line, we have:
 
Quote
Enlightening as these teachings might be, mere information is not enough. As many spiritual traditions recognize, a living teacher, a guru, is necessary to bring the teachings to life in their unique application to each individual. We need something from beyond our old selves, someone to illuminate our blind spots, to humble our conceit, to show us the love we didn’t know we had within us. This presents a problem today, because the age of the guru is manifestly over.

Again; never a mention of Christ; of the 'old' religions.  Of the fact that, to billions(?) of Christians, Jesus is, not only the 'living teacher', but the living Saviour.  Muslims have Mohammed; Hindus have many deities, including Krishna.  Such a sweeping dismissal of these religions is - well, it's either incredibly naiive, or, again, it's very nastily political.  Just who is Eisenstein writing for?  A very small, select circle - who may go on to form the new fundamentalist religion for 'Aquarius'?

Quote
The gurus that did not fall found ways to maintain their exclusion from a story of the world that would drag them into it. Some, like Neem Karoli Baba (died 1973), took the simple expedient of dying. Others retired or disappeared. After the 1970s, anyone who got into the guru business was quickly corrupted; the wiser ones stayed away, preferring to act as teachers, mentors, spiritual friends. Human consciousness was approaching, on a mass level, the template that had been prepared, in insulated, secret lineages and remote sanctuaries, for thousands of years. Millions were ready for what only a select few were prepared in the past. The gurus through the ages had finally succeeded: they had awoken an energy of a magnitude no single human being could contain.  For those who tried, the uncontainable energy inevitably emerged in subterranean ways as shadow and scandal, and their followers learned not only the lessons of their teachings, but also the lessons of their failures.

Oh please.  So we're supposed to 'respect' the teachings and 'beingness' of a group of people whose 'sacredness' couldn't survive contact with the outside world?  And it's the outside world's fault?  Spiritually, about as much use as a chocolate teapot in a storm ....

The bit that follows is straight out of Alice Bailey:
Quote
Human consciousness was approaching, on a mass level, the template that had been prepared, in insulated, secret lineages and remote sanctuaries, for thousands of years. Millions were ready for what only a select few were prepared in the past. The gurus through the ages had finally succeeded: they had awoken an energy of a magnitude no single human being could contain.  For those who tried, the uncontainable energy inevitably emerged in subterranean ways as shadow and scandal, and their followers learned not only the lessons of their teachings, but also the lessons of their failures
   What is this 'energy' that becomes 'inevitably emerged in subterranean ways as shadow and scandal?'    If it's Kundalini, why so coy about it?  Why so coy about it anyway? 

Christ overcame the world: this lot seem to have fallen at the first hurdle ... 

Quote
The difficulty, then, is that we are ready as never before for a guru, yet no single human being is capable of taking on that role. Whence are we to obtain that spiritual midwifery, “someone to illuminate our blind spots, to humble our conceit, to show us the love we didn’t know we had within us”? What can bring to the masses what hidden lineages and gurus once brought to a select few? To answer that question, let us follow the trajectory of spiritual teachings after the 1970s.
   

Again: never a mention of Christ; Mohammed; Buddha; the Hindu deities ...

Quote
Spiritual self-sufficiency ignores the fundamental truth of our interbeingness. Without each other, we cannot make those peak experiences, those glimpses we have all had of a more vivid way of being, into anything more than glimpses. How can we make them into a new baseline for life? How can we enter into the world that they show us, how can we redeem their promise? How can we bring into living reality the knowledge that we have been shown something true and real? Each time, the old world drags us back. The inertia of our habits and beliefs, the expectations of the people surrounding us, the way we are seen, the media, the pressures of the money system all conspire to hold us where we were. Coming off a peak experience, we may try to insulate ourselves from all these things, to live in a bubble of positivity, but eventually we realize that is impossible. The negative influences find a way to creep back in.  From the understanding of the connected self, this is entirely to be expected. Because you are not separate from me, you cannot be fully healed until I am fully healed. You cannot be enlightened until I am enlightened. This is the import of the Golden Reminder and the Boddhisatva Realization described above. Each one of us is pioneering a different aspect of the connected self in the age of reunion, and each one of us as well carries vestigial habits of the age of separation that are invisible to us or that, if visible, we are helpless to overcome on our own. Quite practically, to inhabit a more enlightened state we must be held there by a community of new habits, new ways of seeing each other, and new beliefs in action that redefine normal.

Worrying.  Here, to me, Eisenstein is, again, articulating the idea that the 'old world', which 'drags us back', is the obstacle to 'Nirvana'.  To lasting peace.  To happiness.  If we could only get rid of the old .... This idea has been vocalised as long as humanity's been around.  It never answers the unanswerable:  how do we dispose of the 'old', when the 'old' is in us all?  The seven deadly sins; humanity's flaws and failings, aren't going to magically disappear in a new, Aquarian 'community'.   And I really am not liking the sentence:  'to inhabit a more enlightened state we must be held there by a community of new habits, new ways of seeing each other, and new beliefs in action that redefine normal'.   

' ...new beliefs in action that redefine normal'.  ' ... held there'.  Take them apples for a political statement/whitewash ...  I'm not saying that's how he meant it; just that it could cover a multitude of totalitarian sins. In other words:  What happens to the 'backsliders'?   They'll be seen as the ones stopping the community reaching 'Nirvana'.  What's to be done with them, for the good of the community and the new spiritual state? 

It's all a bit Animal Farm   meets Newspeak, to me ...

At the end of the article, Eisenstein mentions again that:
Quote
The emerging state of vitality, joy, and love that humanity is entering is not a place where we can abide for long on our own. We need each other.
There is nothing 'new' about this statement.  Of course we need each other.  It's very hard to happy alone.  'Love God, and love your neighbour as yourself'.   The difference here, imo,  is that Eisenstein's making a spiritual (and real) statement into a political one.  With attendent consequences for anyone who chooses NOT to be part of this new Sangha?  The new 'heretics' to the new-old, fundamentalist takeover of the age of Aquarius - those who choose not to be part of this 'spiritual' group?  Because individuals here as seen as the new gurus:
Quote
We can do for each other what a guru does for a disciple: hold each other in the knowing of who we really are, and teach each other how to live there. Each of us, as we experience our own piece of the age of reunion, becomes a guide to a small part of that vast new territory.

WHAT 'vast new territory'?  Unless he really means the change from Pisces to Aquarius, and the change, from Piscean/Neptunian mysticism to Aquarian ideals of brotherhood ... but that's like a change of clothes for humanity; NOT a whole 'vast new territory'.  Unless the 'vast new territory' means - 'vast new means of control to match the changes ...'?

Quote
In other words, in the age of the connected self our guru can be none other than a collective, a community – as Thich Nhat Hanh put it, “The next Buddha will be a sangha.” By a community, I don’t mean an amorphous “we are all one” mass devoid of structure, but rather a matrix of human beings united in a common story of the people and story of the self. Aligned with these defining stories, this community can hold us in the vision of what we are becoming.

And there it is.  The 'Aquarian ideal', in a nutshell.  ' ...a matrix of human beings united in a common story of the people and story of the self'.   A matrix of human beings.   And the word 'story' again - so where's 'Reality' in all this?


Quote
The yogic teaching, “Don’t try to cover the world with leather, just wear shoes,” served us well in the age of spiritual self-sufficiency

There's never been an 'age of spiritual self-sufficiency'.  It's an impossibility.  Again - Eisenstein puts both fantasies, and the spirituality that's beyond space and time, together(!) and  into 'ages'.  All ready for 'their' chains on the new one - Aquarius.

Quote
In the heyday of the age of science, we thought it human destiny to become independent of all other beings: we aspired to a wholly artificial world in which even food would be synthesized, the flesh transcended, and death overcome. No longer. We are learning, painfully, our utter dependency on the rest of nature. Interdependency is a sub-category of dependency in that it is mutual and multidirectional, but that doesn’t make us any less dependent. And that is OK!

Again: who is this guy talking to?   Again with the assumptions; to bring home his 'glorious' summation.  But - WHO thought it was "human destiny to become independent of all other beings: we aspired to a wholly artificial world ..."    I'm pretty sure most people (who weren't mad scientists) thought no such thing.  A lecture more usefully aimed at the environmentally destroying corporations; but it's not.  Biological interdependency, for example, is something we all know about, as soon as we learn trees produce oxygen, and we produce carbon dioxide ...

Quote
Humanity collectively, and many of us individually, are at a threshold between worlds
   Again - what does this mean?!  It sounds very poetic (and very hypnotic); but what does it practically mean?  Nothing at all - unless you take the political view of what's written as a 'spiritual' article.  Very 'New Age'.  The only thing that really makes sense is the very practical, down to Earth (ironically enough) stated view of a 'new world'.  Entailing a communistic (not socialist) view of a group; with the new 'spirituality' trying to hide some very unpalatable (and old) realities ....

I suppose I think what I used to think about David Icke - that there's far too much naiivety about human nature and human frailty here.  That was before I reckoned that Icke and co weren't THAT naiive - they were deliberately pushing all this.


   




 


« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 02:59:54 PM by Chloe »

Offline Chloe

  • Contrarian
  • Bussing Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 139
    • View Profile
Re: astrology and politics
« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2017, 03:26:50 PM »
Hi Agelbert - finally got round to commenting on the article you kindly posted. 

I feel it articulates beautifully just what I'm worried about, re astrology and the twisted Age of 'Aquarius'.

For example:   
Quote
Happily, whether on a personal or collective level, the despair can never be complete, for the ember of the awakening experience lives on inextinguishable in our hearts. However deep the despair to which we may descend, we carry a first-hand knowledge written into our cells that there is more than Just This. Even if we know not how to return to that more beautiful world, we know it exists. This knowledge lives independently of beliefs, underneath the currents of reason and doubt and impervious to them. We cannot cultivate or practice that knowledge, but it cultivates and practices us. The first thing it does is to prevent us from whole-heartedly participating in the old normal. We can do our best to participate in the program, we can go through the motions, but deep down we know that it isn’t the real thing. The effort to direct life energy at goals unworthy of our knowledge is exhausting. Eventually, our reservoirs of health and luck depleted, we enter a state of crisis. Whether it is health, relationship, money, or work-related, the crisis is a birthing from the old normal. We cannot go back, yet neither do we know how to go forward. This is a special state, the threshold between worlds. Many of us are there right now, individually; the collective human body is approaching it as well.

'The collective human body is approaching it as well'  That's politics.  And quite the assumption ....  What 'the collective human body' is actually going through right now is the change from Pisces to Aquarius.  This means that 'they' need to adjust the controls, to reflect Aquarius instead of Pisces.  Aquarius 'rules' the brotherhood of man.    So - control could come through the 'community'.  Instead of going to hell; you could be seen as 'holding the group back from Nirvana ...'

Quote
They are becoming untrue for more and more of us, as the world built upon them falls apart. How can we believe in the conquest of nature, when because of our actions the ecological basis of civilization is threatened? How can we believe any more that the final triumph over disease is just around the corner, or an age of leisure, or space vacations, or a perfectly just society, if only we extend the realm of control just a bit further? And how can we believe any longer in the paradise of the separate self, independent of all, beholden to no one, financially secure, when we see first hand the alienation, the despair, the starvation for community that makes that paradise a hell? When depression, addiction, suicide, and family breakdown strike even the winners of the war of all against all?

That's selling, i.m.o.  Advertising - what's gone 'before' is terrible; but here's the new furniture polish ....

Quote
Poised as we are at the transition between worlds, and traveling, many of us, back and forth between them, we need a way to enter the new one, learn to live in it, and be able to abide there. We need, in other words, a midwife

Again - the assumption that we'll agree with his previous point.  Repetition - hypnotic.  We don't necessarily, imo, need a 'new' world - we just need to get the 'old' one working properly.  But that wouldn't work if what you're after is a whole new set of bright, shiny shackles - why actually change the old for the better, when you can villify it and tempt people into the 'new' - like the Childcatcher's van in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang - all decked out in spangles, and offering lollipops. The bars only become apparant once you're in it ....

Now that people are seeing the problems in the 'old' world, they could, perhaps, make some real changes for the better.  Hence the smoke and mirrors of the 'new' ... (i.m.o.)

Quote
Whether on a personal or collective level, we are discovering that the stories of separation are untrue. What we do unto the other, inescapably visits ourselves as well in some form. As that becomes increasingly obvious, a new story of self and story of the people becomes accessible to us. I have written of these in other essays, among them Money and the Turning of the Age, Rituals for Lover Earth, Autoimmunity, Obesity, and the Ecology of Health, and in greater depth in The Ascent of Humanity. The new story of self is the connected self, the self of interbeingness. The new story of the people is one of cocreative partnership with Lover Earth. They ring true in our hearts, we see them on the horizon, but we do not yet live yet in these new stories. It is hard to, when the institutions and habits of the old world still surround us.

See the manipulation/hypnosis here?  And the phraseology isn't unique to Eisenstein - Walsh also uses the word 'story' to apply to the past cultural myths/religions.  Quick example:  "I know what is being said here, that we are all Divine, runs counter to our present Cultural Story, our present understanding."   The Storm Before the Calm, page 56

Leaving aside whether or not the debate how much of past religions is allegory and how much is 'history' - the use of the word 'story' here has, imo, an intentionally demeaning aspect.  Everything people thought before (before Pisces changed to Aquarius) was just a 'story' - ie not real; not to be taken seriously.  And THEN these writers go on:  'But now; here's the reality ...' which, coincidentally, follows very closely to Aquarian ideals.  Which will be twisted, imo, to fit the new chains.

Take Eisenstein's sentence:
Quote
They ring true in our hearts, we see them on the horizon, but we do not yet live yet in these new stories. It is hard to, when the institutions and habits of the old world still surround us. 

And there's the cosh.  Gotta get rid of the old (and just what will that entail?)  or the 'new' can't come about.  Funny - as Love is transcendent anywhere, and above politics.

Eisenstein goes on: 
Quote
Make no mistake: this revolution goes far beyond the acceptance of an idea. To know and embody as an experiential, lived, enacted reality the truth of interbeingness, to live in the spirit of the gift as appropriate to each relationship, to absolutely trust one’s divinity and that of others, to know in every fiber of one’s being, “I art Thou,” and to navigate this knowledge with appropriate boundaries, constitutes a fundamental revolution in human beingness. Moreover, though we have entered the new territory, we lack models and maps to live in it. We need guidance, we need sacred teachings. But who are to be our teachers, when all is new?

Rather sweeping statements?  But hardly 'new' - they're akin to the Gnosticism.  And they're - well - impossible.  (And now I'm seen as one of those who 'impede progress' ...!)    This whole paragraph seems a bit of a nonsense to me - for example, how can there be 'appropriate boundaries' when one is busy knowing - 'in every fiber' - that: 'I am Thou'? 

What happens when 'Thou' reveals itself, yet again, as merely human; and flawed?  Where to turn?    And note the casual, very 'New Age' dismissal of the old teachers - to the point that you don't always notice how they've been dismissed, on a quick reading:  "But who are to be our teachers, when all is new?"   Nasty.  Very, very nasty.  If the idea of 'Love God, and Love your neighbour as yourself' don't fit into this brave new world - just what kind of brave new world will it be?  (the word 'communism' is longing to escape here ...)


Quote
To be sure, we have inherited teachings and models for the new world, both from visionaries who saw through the stories of separation centuries ago, and from tribes who avoided civilization long enough to transmit their knowledge to us. Much of this knowledge has been distorted through the lens of separation, but as the new stories come into focus, we can discern their original intent. For example, the usual formulation of the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is a moral injunction that we hear as yet another version of the dictum, born of the separation of spirit and matter: “Try hard to be nice.” It is a standard of behavior, something we must overcome our natural selfishness to attain. From the perspective of the connected self, though, the Golden Rule changes form to become not a rule but a reminder: “As you do unto others, so you are doing unto yourself.” The intent of its original articulator is recovered.

Again with the assumptions.  Funny how some of the  'New' Age bends over backwards and perfoms all sorts of verbal contortions to assure us that the 'Golden Rule' actually doesn't mean what we thought it did.  And how this 'new' reading is - better.   I do get what Eisenstein means here, and, in its purest sense, I do actually agree with it.  But I don't like his casual dismissiveness of the Golden Rule as 'Try hard to be nice'.  It's obviously always meant infinitely more than that.  But, again - the name of the game here, imo, isn't to respect that past religions - it's to try and bury them.  Politics.  Despite that fact that Love, as evinced in the 'Golden Rule', is beyond space, and beyond time.  And - 'it's original articulator'?  Why not just say 'Jesus'?   And, straight into the next line, we have:
 
Quote
Enlightening as these teachings might be, mere information is not enough. As many spiritual traditions recognize, a living teacher, a guru, is necessary to bring the teachings to life in their unique application to each individual. We need something from beyond our old selves, someone to illuminate our blind spots, to humble our conceit, to show us the love we didn’t know we had within us. This presents a problem today, because the age of the guru is manifestly over.

Again; never a mention of Christ; of the 'old' religions.  Of the fact that, to billions(?) of Christians, Jesus is, not only the 'living teacher', but the living Saviour.  Muslims have Mohammed; Hindus have many deities, including Krishna.  Such a sweeping dismissal of these religions is - well, it's either incredibly naiive, or, again, it's very nastily political.  Just who is Eisenstein writing for?  A very small, select circle - who may go on to form the new fundamentalist religion for 'Aquarius'?





 



Offline Chloe

  • Contrarian
  • Bussing Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 139
    • View Profile
Re: astrology and politics
« Reply #5 on: April 06, 2017, 03:26:54 PM »
Hi Agelbert - finally got round to commenting on the article you kindly posted. 

I feel it articulates beautifully just what I'm worried about, re astrology and the twisted Age of 'Aquarius'.

For example:   
Quote
Happily, whether on a personal or collective level, the despair can never be complete, for the ember of the awakening experience lives on inextinguishable in our hearts. However deep the despair to which we may descend, we carry a first-hand knowledge written into our cells that there is more than Just This. Even if we know not how to return to that more beautiful world, we know it exists. This knowledge lives independently of beliefs, underneath the currents of reason and doubt and impervious to them. We cannot cultivate or practice that knowledge, but it cultivates and practices us. The first thing it does is to prevent us from whole-heartedly participating in the old normal. We can do our best to participate in the program, we can go through the motions, but deep down we know that it isn’t the real thing. The effort to direct life energy at goals unworthy of our knowledge is exhausting. Eventually, our reservoirs of health and luck depleted, we enter a state of crisis. Whether it is health, relationship, money, or work-related, the crisis is a birthing from the old normal. We cannot go back, yet neither do we know how to go forward. This is a special state, the threshold between worlds. Many of us are there right now, individually; the collective human body is approaching it as well.

'The collective human body is approaching it as well'  That's politics.  And quite the assumption ....  What 'the collective human body' is actually going through right now is the change from Pisces to Aquarius.  This means that 'they' need to adjust the controls, to reflect Aquarius instead of Pisces.  Aquarius 'rules' the brotherhood of man.    So - control could come through the 'community'.  Instead of going to hell; you could be seen as 'holding the group back from Nirvana ...'

Quote
They are becoming untrue for more and more of us, as the world built upon them falls apart. How can we believe in the conquest of nature, when because of our actions the ecological basis of civilization is threatened? How can we believe any more that the final triumph over disease is just around the corner, or an age of leisure, or space vacations, or a perfectly just society, if only we extend the realm of control just a bit further? And how can we believe any longer in the paradise of the separate self, independent of all, beholden to no one, financially secure, when we see first hand the alienation, the despair, the starvation for community that makes that paradise a hell? When depression, addiction, suicide, and family breakdown strike even the winners of the war of all against all?

That's selling, i.m.o.  Advertising - what's gone 'before' is terrible; but here's the new furniture polish ....

Quote
Poised as we are at the transition between worlds, and traveling, many of us, back and forth between them, we need a way to enter the new one, learn to live in it, and be able to abide there. We need, in other words, a midwife

Again - the assumption that we'll agree with his previous point.  Repetition - hypnotic.  We don't necessarily, imo, need a 'new' world - we just need to get the 'old' one working properly.  But that wouldn't work if what you're after is a whole new set of bright, shiny shackles - why actually change the old for the better, when you can villify it and tempt people into the 'new' - like the Childcatcher's van in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang - all decked out in spangles, and offering lollipops. The bars only become apparant once you're in it ....

Now that people are seeing the problems in the 'old' world, they could, perhaps, make some real changes for the better.  Hence the smoke and mirrors of the 'new' ... (i.m.o.)

Quote
Whether on a personal or collective level, we are discovering that the stories of separation are untrue. What we do unto the other, inescapably visits ourselves as well in some form. As that becomes increasingly obvious, a new story of self and story of the people becomes accessible to us. I have written of these in other essays, among them Money and the Turning of the Age, Rituals for Lover Earth, Autoimmunity, Obesity, and the Ecology of Health, and in greater depth in The Ascent of Humanity. The new story of self is the connected self, the self of interbeingness. The new story of the people is one of cocreative partnership with Lover Earth. They ring true in our hearts, we see them on the horizon, but we do not yet live yet in these new stories. It is hard to, when the institutions and habits of the old world still surround us.

See the manipulation/hypnosis here?  And the phraseology isn't unique to Eisenstein - Walsh also uses the word 'story' to apply to the past cultural myths/religions.
"

Offline Chloe

  • Contrarian
  • Bussing Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 139
    • View Profile
Re: astrology and politics
« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2017, 03:31:53 PM »
Thanks v. much, Ashvin, for the link.  I'll try and look at it soon. 
Quote
Ah yes - matter is not real,  we are all the same and we can all achieve divine status and global harmony by "unplugging" from The Matrix. For all of the rhetoric thrown at the New World Order by Icke and company, they fail to see that this New Age non-dualistic pantheism is exactly the mentality that is needed to squash diversity, local sovereignty and traditional institutions/values, coercing people into a homogeneous one world system in which people worship nothing but themselves (and perhaps an enlightened avatar or two).

Hah!  Except I doubt it's 'themselves' they'll be worshipping, really ...

Agelbert - thank you for the essay.   I can't help but wonder:  you are a little trickster, aren't you?  Putting that essay in this thread ...   

(note to anyone reading this:  Agelbert said I could 'fire away' ...) 
Quote
it is vital (as in, not optional) for ALL humans to respect each other (i.e. love in action) and recognize their proper place in the biosphere if we expect to survive
I'd agree with both statements - with a couple of additions.  'Love in action' needs an outside strength - I'd say Christ. (This is actually one of the main points of my argument against the essay)  Re 'proper place in the biosphere' - that depends on what 'proper place in the biosphere' means.  If it means loving/ respecting nature a lot more that people have been doing, fine.  And targetting the real polluters - eg oil/petrol companies, big businesses, etc.  And cutting consumption/throwaway, yes.  Obviously.
Re Crossing the Threshold  - I know you wrote that 'it's not precisely about astrology' - but, to me, it seems to precisely encapsulate a lot of what I'm worried about, re the Age of 'Aquarius'.

Here are a couple of paragraphs which illustrate this:
Quote
In other words, in the age of the connected self our guru can be none other than a collective, a community – as Thich Nhat Hanh put it, “The next Buddha will be a sangha.” By a community, I don’t mean an amorphous “we are all one” mass devoid of structure, but rather a matrix of human beings united in a common story of the people and story of the self. Aligned with these defining stories, this community can hold us in the vision of what we are becoming.[/size]
Quote
How can we fully establish ourselves in a radically different way of thinking, relating, and being? Make no mistake: this revolution goes far beyond the acceptance of an idea. To know and embody as an experiential, lived, enacted reality the truth of interbeingness, to live in the spirit of the gift as appropriate to each relationship, to absolutely trust one’s divinity and that of others, to know in every fiber of one’s being, “I art Thou,” and to navigate this knowledge with appropriate boundaries, constitutes a fundamental revolution in human beingness. Moreover, though we have entered the new territory, we lack models and maps to live in it. We need guidance, we need sacred teachings. But who are to be our teachers, when all is new?

"Who are to be our teachers, when everything is new?"   

Notice the instant 'non-existence' of the old teachers, in that sentence.  See how quickly, how smoothly, it's done?
   We already have 'teachers'.  Every religion under the sun has 'teachers'/Saviours.  Christians have Christ the Saviour.  And besides - LOVE IS BEYOND SPACE, AND BEYOND TIME.

Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever, is another way of putting that.  God is Love.  (and I don't think you'll go to Hell if you don't believe that.  God - is Love. 

The only 'new' thing here is the change from Pisces to Aquarius (does Eisenstein mention astrology in any of his essays?)   Why, then, do we need 'new' teachers?  And who is this 'we', when Christians and Muslims and Hindus, to mention a few billion, already have 'teachers', and Christians have Christ?   

Only if you're trying to build a (suspicious) new society do you need an 'everything is new' comment made about humanity.  Quote from The Secret Teachings: 

I would say: remember that.  If and when this 'New Age' teaching about Global Oneness takes off.  'They' won't be a part of this 'matrix of humanity'.   'They'll' be accessing Leo, sign of the individual. 

Quote
Spiritual self-sufficiency ignores the fundamental truth of our interbeingness. Without each other, we cannot make those peak experiences, those glimpses we have all had of a more vivid way of being, into anything more than glimpses. How can we make them into a new baseline for life? How can we enter into the world that they show us, how can we redeem their promise? How can we bring into living reality the knowledge that we have been shown something true and real? Each time, the old world drags us back. The inertia of our habits and beliefs, the expectations of the people surrounding us, the way we are seen, the media, the pressures of the money system all conspire to hold us where we were. Coming off a peak experience, we may try to insulate ourselves from all these things, to live in a bubble of positivity, but eventually we realize that is impossible. The negative influences find a way to creep back in.

How, oh how, can we see through this attempt at hypnosis through repetition; this smoke and mirrors hypnotic waffle, to cut to the real chase of what Eisenstein is saying?  That it's all the fault of those nasty other people that we can't stay in our bubble.  So, clearly, this has got to change .  He goes on:
 
Quote
From the understanding of the connected self, this is entirely to be expected. Because you are not separate from me, you cannot be fully healed until I am fully healed. You cannot be enlightened until I am enlightened. This is the import of the Golden Reminder and the Boddhisatva Realization described above. Each one of us is pioneering a different aspect of the connected self in the age of reunion, and each one of us as well carries vestigial habits of the age of separation that are invisible to us or that, if visible, we are helpless to overcome on our own. Quite practically, to inhabit a more enlightened state we must be held there by a community of new habits, new ways of seeing each other, and new beliefs in action that redefine normal.

Are you kidding me?   Possible translation: 'We're going to be put into an (Aquarian) new 'religion' of:  Everyone is 'One'.  Although we're all 'One', we are nevertheless separate, in that each one of us is carrying 'vestigial habits' (original sin?) from the 'age of separation' (a time when people dared to think of themselves as individuals, and God as being anything other than themselves), and we need re-education to help us overcome this.  From each other.  As we are 'helpless to overcome this on our own'.  (Clearly, we no longer have God, in this new world.  Or Christ.)  We have each other.  Our new 'gods'. Anyone caught, by the 'community', thinking of themselves as an individual, will be re-educated, as they are bringing down the whole; and we need the 'whole' to stay 'connected' to this new 'human matrix'.  'New beliefs in action that define normal'  kind of speaks for itself. 

It's a whole new, brave new, world, peeps, with new definitions of 'normal'.   A lot of New Age waffle is like political speak: seems fluffy and harmless; but there's a hidden chainsaw in it that's going to devastate your lives.
 
Quote
In other words, in the age of the connected self our guru can be none other than a collective, a community – as Thich Nhat Hanh put it, “The next Buddha will be a sangha.” By a community, I don’t mean an amorphous “we are all one” mass devoid of structure, but rather a matrix of human beings united in a common story of the people and story of the self. Aligned with these defining stories, this community can hold us in the vision of what we are becoming.[/size]

'A matrix of human beings'  may be a pretty perfect way to describe the hideously twisted 'Aquarian' future/religion that may be in pipeline, now gushing out via the New Age, Globalisation, etc.

Plus  - there's no apparant other option: 'our guru' has got to be - the community.

As Orwell wrote:  "The ministry of Love was the really frightening one.  There were no windows in it at all ..."     1984

Quote
Spiritual self-sufficiency ignores the fundamental truth of our interbeingness. Without each other, we cannot make those peak experiences, those glimpses we have all had of a more vivid way of being, into anything more than glimpses.[/size]

There it is again.  No God, no Christ, no religion (apart from the Community) - just 'each other'.   What happens when 'each other' fails to deliver?  "You heretic, you're ruining it for the Collective Bubble.  It's for the Good of the Community that I now have to do this to you ...."

A lot in this article seems to me like the 'hundredth monkey' syndrome.  And - There's never been such a thing as 'spiritual self-sufficiency'.  We exist in God.

A main problem I've got with this article is its premise that Nirvana here on Earth is possible - if only everyone would just agree.  The premise of dogma everywhere.   (What happens to those who don't?  Why, there's a New Age, channelled, Ickian solution:  those who don't agree, get liquified.  In the nicest way possible ... so that's all right, then ....

Ashvin posted something on another thread which is relevant to this:
Quote
The power of love is evident in its original author - the Godhead. There we have three distinct persons sharing a perfectly other-centered (as opposed to self-centered) mentality - a perfectly loving relationship between each other, and a quality that only wants to expand and be shared. I believe it is primarily, if not only, this attribute that ultimately leads to the creation of the entire Universe, as well as life and humanity. This is where we get our capacity to demonstrate an other-centered love as the images (or imagers) of God, imperfect as that capacity may be right now. It is indeed dangerous to sacrifice this conception of love for an artificial one in which we all love one another because we are essentially the same entity. That may provide some short-term benefits in society but it ultimately destroys the very basis for true love - three distinct personalities, with distinct perspectives (subjective and objective), that share the same perfect understanding and essence. How much more powerful is it show love for others despite their uniqueness and differences, rather than because we think the other is exactly the same as ourself? To do the latter is to deny that we must try to be truly centered in the other, just as the persons of the Godhead.[/size]

Eisenstein uses the word 'stories' to describe the past.  This article is very similar to the Conversations with God series, and a lot of Walsch's other books.  Walsch also uses the word 'stories' to describe a lot of humanity's past beliefs.  This is quite a clever way to discredit them.  Quick quote:  "I know that what is being said here, that we are all Divine, runs counter to our present Cultural Story"  Neale Donald Walsch, The Storm Before the Calm (page 56)

There's also the usual New Age techniques - often used together - of both affirming one's own 'divinity', and disparaging the second commandment from Christ:  'Love your neighbour as yourself'.

Richard Bach is a good example of just how these two commandments are being twisted.   See Illusions and JLS (the seagull book; not the boyband ...)

Eisenstein writes:  '...to absolutely trust one's divinity and that of others ...'

Um - no.  We are not 'divine'.  Where do you turn, if your 'divine' human brother acts like a non-divine jackass?  And - if we're all 'one' - where is the dignity of separation?  Where is the peace, when your 'neighbour' (who is also 'you', attacks you?)  if you're all 'One'? 

(Where, too, does this leave the law?   "Ah, Sir, I see you've been attacking yourself again ..." )   

Quote
To be sure, we have inherited teachings and models for the new world, both from visionaries who saw through the stories of separation centuries ago, and from tribes who avoided civilization long enough to transmit their knowledge to us. Much of this knowledge has been distorted through the lens of separation, but as the new stories come into focus, we can discern their original intent. For example, the usual formulation of the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is a moral injunction that we hear as yet another version of the dictum, born of the separation of spirit and matter: “Try hard to be nice.” It is a standard of behavior, something we must overcome our natural selfishness to attain. From the perspective of the connected self, though, the Golden Rule changes form to become not a rule but a reminder: “As you do unto others, so you are doing unto yourself.” The intent of its original articulator is recovered.

That's a very confident statement.  On what is he basing it?  (note, too, the slightly derisive phrasing:  'To be sure, we have inherited teaching and models for the new world ..'   Translation -'Oh, to be sure, we've had little religions before (waves hand dismissively) ... but nothing like this ...'  )  Advertising.  And, again: the Love that is beyond Time and Space suddenly - needs time and space (aka the 'new' ideas ..)

This article is far from a 'unique' view.  It's pretty identical to a lot of New Age writing.  Jesus gave two commandments:  'Love the Lord your God' , and 'Love your neighbour as yourself'.
Astonishing (or not) how the New Age systematically, continually and relentlessly attempts to change this.  'God' becomes 'yourself'.  And 'Love your neighbour as yourself' -  why, isn't it amazing how we've continually 'misunderstood' this ... Now, here's the 'real' explanation ...

Quote from Illusions:, by Richard Bach:

" The Golden Rule doesn't work.  How would you like to meet a masochist who did unto others as he would have them do unto him?  Or a worshipper of the Crocodile God, who craves the honour of being thrown alive into the pit ... Even the Samaritan who started the whole thing - what made him think that the man he found lying at the roadside wanted to have oil pouted into his wounds?  What if the man was using those quiet moments to heal himself spiritually, enjoying the challenge of it ... Even if the Rule was changed to Do unto others as they want to be done to, we can't know how anybody but ourselves wants to be done to.  What the rule means, and how we apply it honestly, is this:  Do unto others as you truly feel like doing unto others ...'

Note the lead-on.  The humour of the 'Crocodile God', followed by the debunking of one of the most important parables for humanity - the Good Samaritan. So that the real impact of what Bach's doing doesn't seem so - important.  The Good Samaritan gets caught up in the tale of the 'Crocodile God'.   Don't think, for a minute, that the people who write this kind of mind control aren't exactly aware of how, and what, they're doing.

Hmm.  There are times I feel like slapping Bach.  Think he'd be OK with that?  It's what I truly, at times, feel like doing unto him ... so it must be right, yeah?
Do unto others as you truly feel like doing unto others ...'  is  a pretty good formula for satanism.  Paedophiles would love it ....

The New Age has got a bit more subtle since then; but the attacks on Christ's commandments go on ...

And - did you notice?  There's nothing whatsoever about Christ (Or Krishna, or Mohammed, or Yahweh) , in this article at all?








Offline Chloe

  • Contrarian
  • Bussing Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 139
    • View Profile
Re: astrology and politics
« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2017, 03:31:57 PM »
Thanks v. much, Ashvin, for the link.  I'll try and look at it soon. 
Quote
Ah yes - matter is not real,  we are all the same and we can all achieve divine status and global harmony by "unplugging" from The Matrix. For all of the rhetoric thrown at the New World Order by Icke and company, they fail to see that this New Age non-dualistic pantheism is exactly the mentality that is needed to squash diversity, local sovereignty and traditional institutions/values, coercing people into a homogeneous one world system in which people worship nothing but themselves (and perhaps an enlightened avatar or two).

Hah!  Except I doubt it's 'themselves' they'll be worshipping, really ...

Agelbert - thank you for the essay.   I can't help but wonder:  you are a little trickster, aren't you?  Putting that essay in this thread ...   

(note to anyone reading this:  Agelbert said I could 'fire away' ...) 
Quote
it is vital (as in, not optional) for ALL humans to respect each other (i.e. love in action) and recognize their proper place in the biosphere if we expect to survive
I'd agree with both statements - with a couple of additions.  'Love in action' needs an outside strength - I'd say Christ. (This is actually one of the main points of my argument against the essay)  Re 'proper place in the biosphere' - that depends on what 'proper place in the biosphere' means.  If it means loving/ respecting nature a lot more that people have been doing, fine.  And targetting the real polluters - eg oil/petrol companies, big businesses, etc.  And cutting consumption/throwaway, yes.  Obviously.
Re Crossing the Threshold  - I know you wrote that 'it's not precisely about astrology' - but, to me, it seems to precisely encapsulate a lot of what I'm worried about, re the Age of 'Aquarius'.

Here are a couple of paragraphs which illustrate this:
Quote
In other words, in the age of the connected self our guru can be none other than a collective, a community – as Thich Nhat Hanh put it, “The next Buddha will be a sangha.” By a community, I don’t mean an amorphous “we are all one” mass devoid of structure, but rather a matrix of human beings united in a common story of the people and story of the self. Aligned with these defining stories, this community can hold us in the vision of what we are becoming.[/size]
Quote
How can we fully establish ourselves in a radically different way of thinking, relating, and being? Make no mistake: this revolution goes far beyond the acceptance of an idea. To know and embody as an experiential, lived, enacted reality the truth of interbeingness, to live in the spirit of the gift as appropriate to each relationship, to absolutely trust one’s divinity and that of others, to know in every fiber of one’s being, “I art Thou,” and to navigate this knowledge with appropriate boundaries, constitutes a fundamental revolution in human beingness. Moreover, though we have entered the new territory, we lack models and maps to live in it. We need guidance, we need sacred teachings. But who are to be our teachers, when all is new?

'Who are to be our teachers, when everything is new?'    This is another main point:  LOVE IS BEYOND SPACE, AND BEYOND TIME.  The only 'new' thing here is the change from Pisces to Aquarius (does Eisenstein mention astrology in any of his essays?)   Why, then, do we need 'new' teachers?  And who is this 'we', when Christians and Muslims and Hindus, to mention a few billion, already have 'teachers', and Christians have Christ?   

Only if you're trying to build a (suspicious) new society do you need an 'everything is new' comment made about humanity.

Quote
Spiritual self-sufficiency ignores the fundamental truth of our interbeingness. Without each other, we cannot make those peak experiences, those glimpses we have all had of a more vivid way of being, into anything more than glimpses. How can we make them into a new baseline for life? How can we enter into the world that they show us, how can we redeem their promise? How can we bring into living reality the knowledge that we have been shown something true and real? Each time, the old world drags us back. The inertia of our habits and beliefs, the expectations of the people surrounding us, the way we are seen, the media, the pressures of the money system all conspire to hold us where we were. Coming off a peak experience, we may try to insulate ourselves from all these things, to live in a bubble of positivity, but eventually we realize that is impossible. The negative influences find a way to creep back in.

How, oh how, can we see through this attempt at hypnosis through repetition; this smoke and mirrors hypnotic waffle, to cut to the real chase of what Eisenstein is saying?  He goes on:
 
Quote
From the understanding of the connected self, this is entirely to be expected. Because you are not separate from me, you cannot be fully healed until I am fully healed. You cannot be enlightened until I am enlightened. This is the import of the Golden Reminder and the Boddhisatva Realization described above. Each one of us is pioneering a different aspect of the connected self in the age of reunion, and each one of us as well carries vestigial habits of the age of separation that are invisible to us or that, if visible, we are helpless to overcome on our own. Quite practically, to inhabit a more enlightened state we must be held there by a community of new habits, new ways of seeing each other, and new beliefs in action that redefine normal.

Are you kidding me?   Possible translation: 'We're going to be put into an (Aquarian) new 'religion' of:  Everyone is 'One'.  Although we're all 'One', we are nevertheless separate, in that each one of us is carrying 'vestigial habits' (original sin?) from the 'age of separation' (a time when people dared to think of themselves as individuals, and God as being anything other than themselves), and we need re-education to help us overcome this.  From each other.  As we are 'helpless to overcome this on our own'.  (Clearly, we no longer have God, in this new world.  Or Christ.)  We have each other.  Our new 'gods'. Anyone caught, by the 'community', thinking of themselves as an individual, will be re-educated, as they are bringing down the whole; and we need the 'whole' to stay 'connected' to this new 'human matrix'.  'New beliefs in action that define normal'  kind of speaks for itself. 

A whole brave new world, peeps, with new definitions of 'normal'. 
 
Quote
In other words, in the age of the connected self our guru can be none other than a collective, a community – as Thich Nhat Hanh put it, “The next Buddha will be a sangha.” By a community, I don’t mean an amorphous “we are all one” mass devoid of structure, but rather a matrix of human beings united in a common story of the people and story of the self. Aligned with these defining stories, this community can hold us in the vision of what we are becoming.[/size]
Quote
Spiritual self-sufficiency ignores the fundamental truth of our interbeingness. Without each other, we cannot make those peak experiences, those glimpses we have all had of a more vivid way of being, into anything more than glimpses.[/size]
What happens when 'each other' fails to deliver?  This seems to me more like the 'hundredth monkey' syndrome.  There's never been such a thing as 'spiritual self-sufficiency'.  We exist in God.

A main problem I've got with this article is its premise that Nirvana here on Earth is possible - if only everyone agrees.  'Nirvana' here is never going to happen. 
Ashvin posted something on another thread which is relevant to this:
Quote
The power of love is evident in its original author - the Godhead. There we have three distinct persons sharing a perfectly other-centered (as opposed to self-centered) mentality - a perfectly loving relationship between each other, and a quality that only wants to expand and be shared. I believe it is primarily, if not only, this attribute that ultimately leads to the creation of the entire Universe, as well as life and humanity. This is where we get our capacity to demonstrate an other-centered love as the images (or imagers) of God, imperfect as that capacity may be right now.

It is indeed dangerous to sacrifice this conception of love for an artificial one in which we all love one another because we are essentially the same entity. That may provide some short-term benefits in society but it ultimately destroys the very basis for true love - three distinct personalities, with distinct perspectives (subjective and objective), that share the same perfect understanding and essence. How much more powerful is it show love for others despite their uniqueness and differences, rather than because we think the other is exactly the same as ourself? To do the latter is to deny that we must try to be truly centered in the other, just as the persons of the Godhead.[/size][/quote]

Eisenstein uses the word 'stories' to describe the past.  This article is very similar to the Conversations with God series, and a lot of Walsch's other books.  Walsch also uses the word 'stories' to describe a lot of humanity's past beliefs.  This is quite a clever way to discredit them.  Quick quote:  "I know that what is being said here, that we are all Divine, runs counter to our present Cultural Story"  Neale Donald Walsch, The Storm Before the Calm (page 56)

(There are a lot of hypnotic techniques used here - see below.)

There's also the usual New Age techniques - often used together - of both affirming one's own 'divinity', and disparaging the second most commandment:  'Love your neighbour as yourself'.
(Richard Bach is a good example, in Illusions and JLS (the seagull book; not the boyband ...)

Eisenstein writes:  '...to absolutely trust one's divinity and that of others ...'

Um - no.  We are not 'divine'.  Where do you turn to, if your 'divine' human brother acts like a non-divine jackass?  And - if we're all 'one' - where is the dignity of separation?  Where is the peace, when your 'neighbour' (who is also 'you', attacks you?)  if you're all 'One'? 

(Where, too, does this leave the law?   "Ah, Sir, I see you've been attacking yourself again ..."

Quote
To be sure, we have inherited teachings and models for the new world, both from visionaries who saw through the stories of separation centuries ago, and from tribes who avoided civilization long enough to transmit their knowledge to us. Much of this knowledge has been distorted through the lens of separation, but as the new stories come into focus, we can discern their original intent. For example, the usual formulation of the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is a moral injunction that we hear as yet another version of the dictum, born of the separation of spirit and matter: “Try hard to be nice.” It is a standard of behavior, something we must overcome our natural selfishness to attain. From the perspective of the connected self, though, the Golden Rule changes form to become not a rule but a reminder: “As you do unto others, so you are doing unto yourself.” The intent of its original articulator is recovered.

That's a very confident statement.  On what is he basing it?  (note, too, the slightly derisive phrasing:  'To be sure, we have inherited teaching and models for the new world ..'   Translation -'Oh, to be sure, we've had little religions before (waves hand dismissively) ... but nothing like this ...'  )  Advertising.  And, again: the Love that is beyond Time and Space suddenly - needs time and space (aka the 'new' ideas ..)

This article is far from a 'unique' view.  It's pretty identical to a lot of New Age writing.  Jesus gave two commandments:  'Love the Lord your God' , and 'Love your neighbour as yourself'.
Astonishing (or not) how the New Age systematically, continually and relentlessly attempts to change this.  'God' becomes 'yourself'.  And 'Love your neighbour as yourself' -  why, isn't it amazing how we've continually 'misunderstood' this ...

Longer quote from Illusions:, by Richard Bach:

" The Golden Rule doesn't work.  How would you like to meet a masochist who did unto others as he would have them do unto him?  Or a worshipper of the Crocodile God, who craqve the honour of being thrown alive into the pit ... Even the Samaritan who started the whole thing - what made him think that the man he found lying at the roadside wanted to have oil pouted into his wounds?  What if the man was using those quiet moments to heal himself spiritually, enjoying the challenge of it ... Even if the Rule was changed to Do unto others as they want to be done to, we can't know how anybody but ourselves wants to be done to.  What the rule means, and how we apply it honestly, is this:  Do unto others as you truly feel like doing unto others ...'

Hmm.  There are times I feel like slapping Bach.  Think he'd be OK with that?  It's what I truly, at times, feel like doing unto him ... so it must be right, yeah?
Do unto others as you truly feel like doing unto others ...'  is  a pretty good formula for satanism.  Paedophiles would love it ....

The New Age has got a bit more subtle since then; but the attacks on Christ's commandments go on ...








Offline Chloe

  • Contrarian
  • Bussing Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 139
    • View Profile
Re: astrology and politics
« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2017, 03:32:01 PM »
Thanks v. much, Ashvin, for the link.  I'll try and look at it soon. 
Quote
Ah yes - matter is not real,  we are all the same and we can all achieve divine status and global harmony by "unplugging" from The Matrix. For all of the rhetoric thrown at the New World Order by Icke and company, they fail to see that this New Age non-dualistic pantheism is exactly the mentality that is needed to squash diversity, local sovereignty and traditional institutions/values, coercing people into a homogeneous one world system in which people worship nothing but themselves (and perhaps an enlightened avatar or two).

Hah!  Except I doubt it's 'themselves' they'll be worshipping, really ...
Agelbert - thank you for the essay.[/size]
Quote
it is vital (as in, not optional) for ALL humans to respect each other (i.e. love in action) and recognize their proper place in the biosphere if we expect to survive
I'd agree with both statements - with a couple of additions.  'Love in action' needs an outside strength - I'd say Christ. (This is actually one of the main points of my argument against the essay)  Re 'proper place in the biosphere' - that depends on what 'proper place in the biosphere' means.  If it means loving/ respecting nature a lot more that people have been doing, fine.  And targetting the real polluters - eg oil/petrol companies, big businesses, etc.  And cutting consumption/throwaway, yes.  Obviously.
Re Crossing the Threshold  - I know you wrote that 'it's not precisely about astrology' - but, to me, it seems to precisely encapsulate a lot of what I'm worried about, re the Age of 'Aquarius'.
Here are a couple of paragraphs which illustrate this:
Quote
In other words, in the age of the connected self our guru can be none other than a collective, a community – as Thich Nhat Hanh put it, “The next Buddha will be a sangha.” By a community, I don’t mean an amorphous “we are all one” mass devoid of structure, but rather a matrix of human beings united in a common story of the people and story of the self. Aligned with these defining stories, this community can hold us in the vision of what we are becoming.[/size]
Quote
How can we fully establish ourselves in a radically different way of thinking, relating, and being? Make no mistake: this revolution goes far beyond the acceptance of an idea. To know and embody as an experiential, lived, enacted reality the truth of interbeingness, to live in the spirit of the gift as appropriate to each relationship, to absolutely trust one’s divinity and that of others, to know in every fiber of one’s being, “I art Thou,” and to navigate this knowledge with appropriate boundaries, constitutes a fundamental revolution in human beingness. Moreover, though we have entered the new territory, we lack models and maps to live in it. We need guidance, we need sacred teachings. But who are to be our teachers, when all is new?

'Who are to be our teachers, when everything is new?'    This is another main point:  LOVE IS BEYOND SPACE, AND BEYOND TIME.  The only 'new' thing here is the change from Pisces to Aquarius (does Eisenstein mention astrology in any of his essays?)   Why, then, do we need 'new' teachers?  And who is this 'we', when Christians and Muslims and Hindus, to mention a few billion, already have 'teachers', and Christians have Christ?   

Only if you're trying to build a (suspicious) new society do you need an 'everything is new' comment made about humanity.

Quote
Spiritual self-sufficiency ignores the fundamental truth of our interbeingness. Without each other, we cannot make those peak experiences, those glimpses we have all had of a more vivid way of being, into anything more than glimpses. How can we make them into a new baseline for life? How can we enter into the world that they show us, how can we redeem their promise? How can we bring into living reality the knowledge that we have been shown something true and real? Each time, the old world drags us back. The inertia of our habits and beliefs, the expectations of the people surrounding us, the way we are seen, the media, the pressures of the money system all conspire to hold us where we were. Coming off a peak experience, we may try to insulate ourselves from all these things, to live in a bubble of positivity, but eventually we realize that is impossible. The negative influences find a way to creep back in.
 
From the understanding of the connected self, this is entirely to be expected. Because you are not separate from me, you cannot be fully healed until I am fully healed. You cannot be enlightened until I am enlightened. This is the import of the Golden Reminder and the Boddhisatva Realization described above. Each one of us is pioneering a different aspect of the connected self in the age of reunion, and each one of us as well carries vestigial habits of the age of separation that are invisible to us or that, if visible, we are helpless to overcome on our own. Quite practically, to inhabit a more enlightened state we must be held there by a community of new habits, new ways of seeing each other, and new beliefs in action that redefine normal.
 
Quote
In other words, in the age of the connected self our guru can be none other than a collective, a community – as Thich Nhat Hanh put it, “The next Buddha will be a sangha.” By a community, I don’t mean an amorphous “we are all one” mass devoid of structure, but rather a matrix of human beings united in a common story of the people and story of the self. Aligned with these defining stories, this community can hold us in the vision of what we are becoming.[/size]
Quote
Spiritual self-sufficiency ignores the fundamental truth of our interbeingness. Without each other, we cannot make those peak experiences, those glimpses we have all had of a more vivid way of being, into anything more than glimpses.[/size]
What happens when 'each other' fails to deliver?  This seems to me more like the 'hundredth monkey' syndrome.  There's never been such a thing as 'spiritual self-sufficiency'.  We exist in God.

A main problem I've got with this article is its premise that Nirvana here on Earth is possible - if only everyone agrees.  'Nirvana' here is never going to happen. 
Ashvin posted something on another thread which is relevant to this:
Quote
The power of love is evident in its original author - the Godhead. There we have three distinct persons sharing a perfectly other-centered (as opposed to self-centered) mentality - a perfectly loving relationship between each other, and a quality that only wants to expand and be shared. I believe it is primarily, if not only, this attribute that ultimately leads to the creation of the entire Universe, as well as life and humanity. This is where we get our capacity to demonstrate an other-centered love as the images (or imagers) of God, imperfect as that capacity may be right now.

It is indeed dangerous to sacrifice this conception of love for an artificial one in which we all love one another because we are essentially the same entity. That may provide some short-term benefits in society but it ultimately destroys the very basis for true love - three distinct personalities, with distinct perspectives (subjective and objective), that share the same perfect understanding and essence. How much more powerful is it show love for others despite their uniqueness and differences, rather than because we think the other is exactly the same as ourself? To do the latter is to deny that we must try to be truly centered in the other, just as the persons of the Godhead.[/size]

Eisenstein uses the word 'stories' to describe the past.  This article is very similar to the Conversations with God series, and a lot of Walsch's other books.  Walsch also uses the word 'stories' to describe a lot of humanity's past beliefs.  This is quite a clever way to discredit them.  Quick quote:  "I know that what is being said here, that we are all Divine, runs counter to our present Cultural Story"  Neale Donald Walsch, The Storm Before the Calm (page 56)

(There are a lot of hypnotic techniques used here - see below.)

There's also the usual New Age techniques - often used together - of both affirming one's own 'divinity', and disparaging the second most commandment:  'Love your neighbour as yourself'.
(Richard Bach is a good example, in Illusions and JLS (the seagull book; not the boyband ...)

Eisenstein writes:  '...to absolutely trust one's divinity and that of others ...'

Um - no.  We are not 'divine'.  Where do you turn to, if your 'divine' human brother acts like a non-divine jackass?  And - if we're all 'one' - where is the dignity of separation?  Where is the peace, when your 'neighbour' (who is also 'you', attacks you?)  if you're all 'One'? 

(Where, too, does this leave the law?   "Ah, Sir, I see you've been attacking yourself again ..."

Quote
To be sure, we have inherited teachings and models for the new world, both from visionaries who saw through the stories of separation centuries ago, and from tribes who avoided civilization long enough to transmit their knowledge to us. Much of this knowledge has been distorted through the lens of separation, but as the new stories come into focus, we can discern their original intent. For example, the usual formulation of the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is a moral injunction that we hear as yet another version of the dictum, born of the separation of spirit and matter: “Try hard to be nice.” It is a standard of behavior, something we must overcome our natural selfishness to attain. From the perspective of the connected self, though, the Golden Rule changes form to become not a rule but a reminder: “As you do unto others, so you are doing unto yourself.” The intent of its original articulator is recovered.[/size]

That's a very confident statement.  On what is he basing it?  (note, too, the slightly derisive phrasing:  'To be sure, we have inherited teaching and models for the new world ..'   (Translation -'Oh, to be sure, we've had little religions before (waves hand dismissively) ... but nothing like this ...'  )  Advertising.  And, again: the Love that is beyond Time and Space suddenly - needs time and space (aka the 'new' ideas ..)

This article is far from a 'unique' view.  It's pretty identical to a lot of New Age writing.  Jesus gave two commandments:  'Love the Lord your God' , and 'Love your neighbour as yourself'.
Astonishing (or not) how the New Age systematically, continually and relentlessly attempts to change this.  'God' becomes 'yourself'.  And 'Love your neighbour as yourself' -  why, isn't it amazing how we've 'misunderstood' this, really ...

Longer quote from Illusions:, by Richard Bach:

" The Golden Rule doesn't work.  How would you like to meet a masochist who did unto others as he would have them do unto him?  Or a worshipper of the Crocodile God






Offline Chloe

  • Contrarian
  • Bussing Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 139
    • View Profile
Re: astrology and politics
« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2017, 03:32:05 PM »
Thanks v. much, Ashvin, for the link.  I'll try and look at it soon. 

Quote
Ah yes - matter is not real,  we are all the same and we can all achieve divine status and global harmony by "unplugging" from The Matrix. For all of the rhetoric thrown at the New World Order by Icke and company, they fail to see that this New Age non-dualistic pantheism is exactly the mentality that is needed to squash diversity, local sovereignty and traditional institutions/values, coercing people into a homogeneous one world system in which people worship nothing but themselves (and perhaps an enlightened avatar or two).
   

Hah!  Except I doubt it's 'themselves' they'll be worshipping ...

Agelbert - thank you for the essay.[/size]

Quote
it is vital (as in, not optional) for ALL humans to respect each other (i.e. love in action) and recognize their proper place in the biosphere if we expect to survive

I'd agree with both statements - depending on what 'proper place in the biosphere' means.  If it means loving/ respecting nature a lot more that people have been doing, fine.  And targetting the real polluters - eg oil/petrol companies, big businesses, etc.  And cutting consumption/throwaway, yes.  Obviously.

Re Crossing the Threshold 


Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 40708
    • View Profile
Ghost in the Diner II
« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2017, 04:15:00 PM »
Well, we got an EVEN BIGGER old post dump from retired Diner Chloe this time!  I hope PY gets online soon and can diagnose this problem.  We may have a full scale meltdown of the SMF in progress here.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Online Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18987
    • View Profile
Re: astrology and politics
« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2017, 04:59:27 PM »
Whoa Nellie!!!
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18133
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Ghost in the Diner II
« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2017, 05:06:04 AM »
Well, we got an EVEN BIGGER old post dump from retired Diner Chloe this time!  I hope PY gets online soon and can diagnose this problem.  We may have a full scale meltdown of the SMF in progress here.

RE

Even a post by Snowleopard. Old Home Week on the forum!
"Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief. Do justly now, love mercy now, walk humbly now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it."

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 40708
    • View Profile
Re: Ghost in the Diner II
« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2017, 08:52:12 AM »
Well, we got an EVEN BIGGER old post dump from retired Diner Chloe this time!  I hope PY gets online soon and can diagnose this problem.  We may have a full scale meltdown of the SMF in progress here.

RE

Even a post by Snowleopard. Old Home Week on the forum!

I don't mind getting any of those single "Blast from the Past" posts like the one from Snowleopard, but those massive dumps of 30-40 like the ones from Chloe and EndIsNigh are a pain.  They push all the recent posts for the day off the Homepage list.

PY doesn't have time right now to diagnose the problem, so I'm just crossing my fingers this was a Burp that won't be persistent.  It's happened before, though not for a long time.

Just have to see how it goes.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 9741
    • View Profile
Re: astrology and politics
« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2017, 10:36:14 AM »
Since RE has traversed the veil, he's acquired the Midas touch in reverse.
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
2759 Views
Last post August 09, 2013, 02:23:40 PM
by WHD
2 Replies
1876 Views
Last post October 05, 2013, 06:12:12 AM
by jdwheeler42
0 Replies
2304 Views
Last post November 04, 2013, 02:09:05 PM
by Guest Blogger