Gnwmythr's Glossary: 2014

Wednesday, 31 December 2014

karma (interim - and do not use to victim blame or for spiritual bypassing!!! It is for YOU to look at YOURSELF ONLY)

PPS - I am finding more and more Westerners using karma as an excuse to victim blame others, or indulge in spiritual bypassing. It is neither: it is a tool for YOU to use to take responsibility for what YOU have done. Anyone who claims otherwise is either amathiac, lying, or incompetent.

As an interim 'definition', please refer to the following posts http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com.au/search/label/karma, particularly:

http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2007/06/workshop-on-past-lives-part-1-working.html;
http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2007/10/judging-others.html;
http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2008/03/know-thyself-be-thyself-and-occlumency.html;
http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com.au/2009/07/film-flatliners-and-personal.html;
http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com.au/2009/12/could-there-be-sort-of-karmic.html;
http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2010/01/judging-others-people-who-experience.html;
http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2010/04/distant-marriages-and-growth.html;
http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com.au/2010/05/no-rest-for.html;
http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/personal-responsibility.html;
http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/random-thoughts.html (which discusses group karma, which some people dispute exists: make up your own mind, Dear Reader - don't believe either me or them); and
http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/post-no-599-language-links-to-concepts.html.

PS - There is some bad information and misconceptions around the topic of karma, incidentally. For instance, this article portrays the "solution" to karma as self acceptance and spiritual love for all, and claims that karma only exists in the physical world.

That is wrong: karma, the Principle of Cause and Effect, or whatever other term you want to use for it, applies in all levels of existence - and applies just as equally to "good" things as to "bad".

It is also a cop out from dealing with our past mistakes - wishful thinking, in a sense, hoping that it will all just go away, rather than BEING AN ADULT, and accepting (spiritual)responsibility for the consequences of our past actions on other people and making genuine and credible efforts to help heal them of what we have done. This weakness of character (cop out / wishful thinking) is effectively a limit on our manifestation of spiritual love - and THAT is probably the worst part of this rubbish article (and others like it).

I don't deny that it is difficult to do all this - I been driven to the limit (and am there right now in some aspects of life) by karmic AND OTHER spiritual lessons / challenges. However, we have other strengths we can call on, and, in the context of karma, one of greatest is our Higher Self.

The Higher Self is also one of the biggest weaknesses of the article I referenced at the start of this note: it is not us but our "better self" that decides when we have learned a karmic lesson.

PPS - for anyone who is interested in the concept of atoning for the wrongs they have done, there is line worth considering from Episode 17 "Underneath" of the TV series "Angel", in Season 5, at about 9:44:

"The thing about atonement is, you never run out of chances. But you got to take them."

In fact, significant chunks of that series cover the concept of trying to atone - not necessarily in ways that I agree with, but it may be worth you, Dear Reader, considering watching the series from that perspective.

For my original writing ONLY on this blog:

Copyright © Kayleen White 2016-2024 NO AI I do not consent to any machine learning aka Artificial Intelligence (AI), generative AI, large language model, machine learning, chatbot, or other automated analysis, generative process, or replication program to reproduce, mimic, remix, summarise, or otherwise replicate any part of this post or other posts on this blog via any means. Typo’s may be inserrted deliberately to demonstrate this is not an AI product. Otherwise, fair and reasonable use is accepted under Creative Commons 4.0 on an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike basis https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Links to others works and excerpts from others works are NOT covered by the hereinbefore, and remain subject to the conditions of the original source.

conciousness (interim)

As an interim 'definition', please refer to http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/post-no-613-levels-of-consciousness.html

(Another useful link is: http://noetic.org/research/transformation_model.

Also, see the examination of the difference between consciousness and awareness at https://medium.com/mind-cafe/consciousness-is-not-the-same-as-awareness-4c1706d152db.

levels of consciousness (interim)

As an interim 'definition', please refer to http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/post-no-613-levels-of-consciousness.html

checking

One of the aspects of psychic work that I consider an absolute, utter BASIC, is that of checking (along with grounding, shielding, flaming, etc). This crops up at such basic levels as . . . checking that you are actually protected when you ask for it . . . checking that you are actually communicating with BPM Guides ... and making sure you are finished.

Making sure one has finished, you ask? (Well, I hope you do - I’ll run with it anyway.) Yes, finished.

A fairly common example of this in my life is when I am checking with my BPM Guides (after checking that they are who they claim to be!) in a protected environment (which I have checked) whether or not I have finished giving someone the healing they are meant to have.

It also crops up in the context of doing things like charging (consecrating) a tetrahedron [1] or doing some clearing exercises or work.

My preference is to do such work with someone independently checking that I have actually done all that I should.

It is fairly easy to do. I ask someone, usually my exercise / work partner, to ask their BPM Guides for an impression of a milk bottle (a glass bottle, for you young ‘uns who don’t know what that is), and to be given an impression of how much of the work to be done has actually been done by showing how full the bottle is :

· if it is half full, I have done half the work;

· if it is three-quarters full, I have done three-quarters of the work;

· if we all agree it is full, then - and only then - we have finished.

This is a technique I learned when learning to do rescue of uncooperatives [2] . If you’re doing that sort of work, it is extremely unwise to allow an entity to outlast (“defeat”) you, as that risks sending out a signal that if an entity shows strength “X” or persistence “Y”, you can be beaten.

Hence, we had some extraordinarily long nights, but we did our work.

These days, I tend to check before I start how much pre-weakening and other measures I can do to shorten the time (I have family and other commitments). “Hey BPM Guide, if I do 4 hours of clearing on Target Z tomorrow, how much will the 2 hours and 30 minutes required the day after to actually rescue Target Z be reduced by? ... 2 hours and 5 minutes? Great!”

Sound militaristic? It is, and it may need to be, when you’re working on dangerous and strong entities who are actively seeking to psychically enslave and torment others. (Although there have been some extraordinarily powerful examples of what can be done with agape - and ALL clearing MUST inherently be done with love [BPM nonphysical energy].)

You, Dear Reader, don’t have to do anything so demanding to get value from checking, however, so, please do actually CHECK to make sure things are actually happening as you wish and/or expect.

There is one other aspect to consider here : yes/no questions. An example from a rune reading was whether or not I should pass on one particular aspect of an interpretation which could be upsetting for my client (I don’t just pass on everything I receive without question : I feel perfectly free to challenge my BPM Guides to clarify / explain things further). So, I asked my client and, in the end, two other people, to get from their BPM Guides (I set up the protection for them) an impression of either a purple giraffe or a blue pumpkin : one symbol meant yes, I should pass that aspect of the interpretation on, the other meant I shouldn’t. By avoiding “yes” or “no”, I avoid the bias that many people have towards “yes” (particularly if people are interested in spirituality, they often have a tendency to want to be “nice”, and that often biases them towards saying “yes” [I also avoid using green and red for people in developed countries, as traffic lights have green for go and red for stop, and the same sort of bias can come through]). Naturally, I didn’t tell any of these people what the question was until they had answered, and I also specified for the two other people, who were in one room together, that, when they had an answer, they stated that they had an answer, but they didn’t say what it was until both had received an answer - which prevents those who get answers faster from influencing those who are slower psychically, possibly owing to less experience or lower confidence (if I want to take an extra measure against influence, I may get them to write their answer down, but I could trust these two enough not to have to do that).

There are some possibly useful flow charts on this at my regression-rescue manual site : see the asking yes/no questions and making decisions charts towards the end of the post at http://regression-rescue.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/general-flow-charts-discussion.html.

Wheel of the Year (interim)

In essence, this is the Pagan calendar, which is based - in the Northern European (or perhaps British/Celtic/Gaulish?) tradition on 8 major festivals, or Sabbats, which mark the progress of the agricultural year.

Pending preparation of a proper definition, I'll post the following chart, which I made as part of my early studies of Wicca. This is, of course, based on the Southern Hemisphere seasons: if you are in the Northern Hemisphere, you will have to shift everything six months.

There is also discussion as to whether or not this should be adapted to the seasons of other lands. Personally, I think that makes sense, and that is behind my attempts to develop a set of rituals based on the seasons identified by the local Kulin people, which is a gatherer-hunter (I use the reversed wording to acknowledge that it was possibly the gathering that was more significant) calendar. My introduction to those rituals in my summary of rituals post is:

NOTE: these are NOT indigenous rituals - I am not indigenous, and have had no training on rituals of the Kulin or any other indigenous peoples - and I know, from my brother, who has worked with indigenous people in NSW most of his life, and one of my sisters, who was married to an indigenous bloke in WA, that there are rich and effective indigenous rituals - but I do NOT know the details, OK? :) . This is my attempt at an adaptation of Wiccan rituals to Australia - specifically, that part around Melbourne which is the Kulin people's lands, based on what little I know of about their system of seasons. If you want to know more about indigenous rituals, find an indigenous person and PROVE yourself worthy of their trust and HOPE you may be then also found worthy of being allowed to know a little - and do not patronise, nor presume you have any right to such knowledge, along the way.

(psychic) protection (interim)

Pending a proper definition, you can get my thoughts on this by perusing the articles at the following links: http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com.au/search/label/protection

Also, I've recorded audios of some of the protective prayers I use here.

PS - the protection is also two way: as I state here (in another postscript): "I often use protection to filter out disharmonious/discordant as well as nonBPM energies; that goes both ways - I filter whatever I send out - with the aid of my BPM Guides - to ensure I remove anything created by unconscious bias, shadow work yet to be done, etc." I then state that the techniques I write about in that article are useful for that purpose.

PPS - see also:

https://gnwmythrsglossary.blogspot.com/2023/08/active-protection-psychic-disarmament.html;

Saturday, 8 November 2014

[Content Warning - racism, sexism, flawed responses] cultural appropriation

One of the reasons I am so vehemently against the approach to solving sexism of removing reference to gender (e.g., no courtesy titles) is that it makes women invisible (or, as I sometimes say "reduces us to ungendered things"), rather than forcing bigots to change. Such measures are a short term sweeping of problems under the carpet, not a solution.

Cultural appropriation also robs what has been appropriated of its value, and contributes to reducing - or trying to reduce - the people that matter was appropriated from to bland, neutered things of no difference to the conquering / dominating / controlling power.

The Wikipedia article on this topic includes the following:

The term "cultural appropriation" or "cultural misappropriation" usually has a negative connotation. Cultural conservatives name an action as "appropriation" when the subject culture is a minority culture or subordinated in social, political, economic, or military status to the appropriating culture; or, when there are other issues involved, such as a history of ethnic or racial conflict or even genocide between the two groups.

Cultural and racial theorist George Lipsitz outlined this concept of cultural appropriation in his seminal term "strategic anti-essentialism." Strategic anti-essentialism is defined as the calculated use of a cultural form, outside of your own, to define yourself or your group. Strategic anti-essentialism can be seen in both minority cultures and majority cultures, and are not confined only to the appropriation of the other. However, as Lipsitz argues, when the majority culture attempts to strategically anti-essentialize themselves by appropriating a minority culture, they must take great care to recognize the specific socio-historical circumstances and significance of these cultural forms so as not to perpetuate the already existing, majority vs. minority, unequal power relations.

Acts of resistance to dominant society, when members of a marginalized group take and alter aspects of dominant culture to assert their agency and resistance, is different from the usual understanding of cultural appropriation, as the power dynamic in this case is reversed. This is exemplified in the novel Crick Crack, Monkey by Merle Hodge when those who are colonized appropriate the culture of the colonizers. Another historical example were the Mods in the UK in the 1960s, working class youth who appropriated and exaggerated the highly tailored clothing of the upper middle class.

There are a couple of other aspects of the Wikipedia article that are worth looking at, in my view (partly so one knows what one is to disagree with, in the case of the second link :) ):

I have come across instances where minor matters that are not of significance to those being discriminate against have been viewed by the overly-cautious as matters not to be used for fear of cultural appropriation. That is not helpful, even if the desire to err on the side of caution is, as it can contribute to the resistance against being properly considerate of cultural appropriation issues.

Now, having covered that, one matter I would like to raise is:

What happens when a member of a minority culture reincarnates in a majority persecuting culture - perhaps with the express intention of remedying those problems?

This is an issue because of a problem I've come across in some runic circles, where great resentment can accrue to anyone who is not of Scandinavian (one jealously possessive cretin insisted only Scandinavians could use the runes - thereby ignored significant swathes of history), Germanic or other northern European descent using the runes. That is utter rubbish - it is racist nonsense, and also amounts to the immaturity of nyah nyah nyah nyah I've got a secret and I'm not telling.

In this life, I can trace my body's heritage to a range of Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Germanic sources (and one Danish ancestor), so I probably qualify according to those bigots, but I know others of different backgrounds who can work successfully with the runes - and others of even more "impeccable" background who cannot. I'm also aware that my personal sequence of incarnations includes many lifetimes in other cultures - in fact, the Patron Deity I have served longest came from a life I had in western Africa, and I've had lives in Asian and other cultures. There was one period where I was a knight in England whilst a parallel of mine was fighting for Chinggis Khan, so the whole issue of who is entitled to use something is, in my view, fraught.

In situations where discrimination is not an issue, I consider the Buddhists - who are not, in the West, in the situations of discrimination that other minorities who are suffering from cultural appropriation are - have a more mature attitude to this matter than some others: teach their beliefs, so that they ensure there is respect and proper understanding.

There is, in fact, an argument that some matters which are of value should be taught more widely, so that they can be of benefit to those who need those matters. The key point here is:

when does benefitting others get outweighed by the harm being done by dilution and degrading the value of something of fundamental significance to a discriminated against minority?

My answer is: every time.

The argument then becomes, how do we determine that the tipping point has been reached?

My answer to that is: by listening to those who are being discriminated against.

For those who have a problem with being told they cannot use or do something because of cultural appropriation (also an issue in some forms of humour), I say: grow up - you're like a small child, who when told that they cannot drive a car, responding with "Well, if I can't drive a car, no-one else can ride my bike".

A further point: there is the case of civilisations where no-one survives (and I cannot actually think of any examples, off the top of my head)? Well, I would not consider the reconstructionist approach to be correct, as my experience of such views is that they fail to take adequate consideration of the dynamism and change that all civilisations and cultures experience (unless they are dying ...), but I consider attempts at respect should still be made.

As a final point to consider: what if one's Higher Self / BPLF Guides / etc directs one to explore a culture that one may have ben a member of in the past, and perhaps use some aspects of that?

Well, I consider that it is theoretically possible to do so as part of a personal practice, without bleating about the matter to others, and definitely without attempting to make any money out of it, in a way that is respectful, and does not reduce the value to the original culture. Possible - but difficult, and not something that I've ever been directed to do, so I would have some wariness of such claims. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that this would happen, though, particularly when looking at the fact that this planet, and everyone and everything on it is meant to evolve - including our forms of spirituality, but I think it more likely that such situations would be a test of one's ethics: are you prepared to go without something of benefit for yourself, in order to stick to your BPLF principles?

Note that latter situation, a test, would not involve incorrect or misleading psychism: your BPLF Guides / Higher Self would genuinely give you that message, but it would still be a test.

As a final point, whilst some matters are clearly meaningless or trivial uses of another culture's devices (e.g., for football team), there is the point that some things work even when they are divorced from their roots, their culture. As an example, perhaps consider the example of dream catchers: have they become widely used because they work?

There is another article on this topic which is worth considering at The Wild Hunt: http://wildhunt.org/2014/11/culture-and-community-appropriation-exchange-and-modern-paganism.html.

Another link:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thezenpagan/2015/09/there-is-no-such-thing-as-cultural-appropriation/?ref_widget=gr_popular&ref_blog=grails&ref_post=pagan;

Monday, 3 November 2014

tonglen

This is a Tibetan Buddhist practice where one takes (through a combination of breathing and visualising) into oneself the pain (suffering) of others, and sends them positive energy, and then, when one finds oneself resisting the exercise of tonglen for others, one then focuses of doing that practice for oneself - take out your weariness, compassion fatigue, etc, and send yourself whatever you need, whether that is appreciation, gratitude, healing, a hug, etc. So ... one also learns to be gentle (compassionate) towards oneself.

For more on this, see here (I particularly like the comment that this breaks down fear of pain) and here.

As of the time this definition was written, I’ve touched on this idea in the following posts:
Post No. 326 - Tonglen

(I have also used tonglen in an attempt to use Australian's pride in sociableness [which probably goes back to originally Irish hospitality, which is a more mature expression of the current party-pooper-if-you're-not-drunk immaturity] to become welcoming of refugees: breathe in and draw in the xenophobia, and send out with the breath pride in, and desire to be hospitable to all.)

[Content Warning] evil

PPS - I have an updated set of links at https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2023/07/post-no-2523-some-thoughts-on-legal.html.

PPPS - concepts that also consider evil are cynicism - especially about politics, as that allows the nonBPM open slather, and gossip - which is an incredibly damaging to its victims manifestation of jealousy and other character flaws.

My starting definition of evil is that it is whatever harms or hinders spiritual growth / evolution / development. There is another factor I will get to shortly, but first, let’s explore that starting point.

Now, we need challenges along the way, and some people have got themselves to the state where they will only learn something "the hard way", but, in general, people tend to learn better from “positive” ways of teaching - by which I mean ways of teaching that are in harmony with that person’s learning [1] and cognitive [2] styles. Also, although sometimes they have to go through experiences as a consequence of having created negative karma (which I think of more as reabsorbing the energy they created and sent out, than of “paying a debt”), in general, people tend to learn more effectively when they are no lacking in the basic needs of life (refer to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs for an idea of what I consider these are).

Something which prevents that learning in a major way, a way that would disrupt the spiritual development of a “normal”, mature person in a ways that is significant to the totality of their life, or to their existence after this incarnation, is a good candidate for what I would consider evil -if it has been enacted through someone’s person. As an example, the actions of the organisation Da’esh at the time that I am writing this definition are an example of what I consider evil - as are ALL forms of control, which covers a disturbing amount of human behaviour that gets passed off as “that's normal”, or “that's just being human”, or “that's only . . . < insert excuse of choice >”. That may be so, but, if it is control or contributing to something like “learned helplessness” [3] (and what would do that needs to be assessed for each individual and situation), it is WRONG, and we are here, on this planet to grow beyond that.

If people are showing hostility or lack of acceptance to people who are different but not doing any harm (for instance, members of other races or religions, or LGBTIQ people, or various forms of consensual sex, or people who vote differently, etc, etc, etc), the hostile / unaccepting people are acting in a way that is evil, and are showing a complete failure to come to grips with the fundamental spiritual reason that physical reality came into existence - which I discuss in my post "The Origin of Evil" (see http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2012/01/origin-of-evil.html).

On the other hand, people can lose their life as a result of a natural catastrophe, perhaps an earthquake for instance, and that is just an example of the power of Nature, not an act of evil. (Such events are why one should never seek to be an instrument of karma: if no-one does that, the Universe will still find a way -and the would be vigilantes will have most probably saved themselves from being subjected to future negative karma of their own.) They may well have enormous suffering and fear to work through in their next lives, but that is part of coming to terms with the fact that we are mortal, and Nature (including comets, black holes, solar storms and stray planets bumping into each other) is more powerful than we are.

Still on that other hand, other people may have their life disrupted by an event such as the ending of a (romantic/intimate) relationship. That is not necessarily evil - in fact, in most cases it isn’t, and the reaction they are experiencing is a flaw in their character, perhaps one of insecurity, or of jealousy or possessiveness, that needs to be fixed to make them better people. The normal ups and downs of life are also matters that I would exclude from the category of evil - with the exception of all attempts at control, as mentioned.

I'm just not sure how I would define all this, which is where matters get complicated :)

There are many views on what is “evil” that I disagree with - such as most of what the neochristians consider to be evil - and others which I consider simplistic, but not totally without merit, such as the views portrayed in the Star Wars [4] series of films, or in Zoroastrianism [5] .

We now get on to the second aspect I wished to cover: harm to the human rights, dignity, or wellbeing of others caused through lack of humanity or lack of empathy, compassion, as was discussed by Hannah Arendt [1] after observing the trial of eichmann [2] , and made apparent also in the famous Nuremberg trials [3] after World War (part) Two.

This gets partly into the legal history of human rights [4] , which have been codified over the last few millennia [5] , but also into the motivation (e.g., see https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/what-do-we-mean-by-evil) and extent of harm caused.

I’m not going to try to create a hard and fast definition of this category of evil here - rather, I will defer to experts in the area, such as the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (see https://www.ohchr.org/EN/pages/home.aspx), organisations such as Human Rights Watch (see https://www.hrw.org/) and Amnesty International (see https://www.amnesty.org/en/), and experts such as Geoffrey Robertson (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geoffrey_Robertson&oldid=1053368763 and https://www.amazon.com/Geoffrey-Robertson/e/B001HOS9DI/ref=dp_byline_cont_pop_ebooks_1).

I will, however, provide some examples of what I consider evil:

[1] See https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hannah-Arendt, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arendt/, & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hannah_Arendt&oldid=1056833280, and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eichmann_in_Jerusalem&oldid=1057256078 & https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/hannah-arendt-adolf-eichmann-banality-of-evil.