Monday, 12 May 2014

[Content Warning] control (negative, psychic etc)

The most terrifying thing that has happened to me in a lifetime of psychic activity, full of experiences of psychic attack and uncooperatives, was when while sitting in a circle in which I was learning (back in the 80s), I thought that someone else should do “X” … and she did. I knew that the person concerned was attracted to me (which was not reciprocated because she was far too young for me), but I hadn’t realised that that had led to  a situation where I had some sort of control over her.
Now, to refer to my good old Pocket Oxford Dictionary of 1966, control is the “power of directing and restraining” (and sundry other definitions). In this book, it is used mostly in a negative sense: it refers to controlling another person, to denying that person their dignity, freedom and human rights, and bending them to your will.
Control is very common, and rarely obvious. It usually occurs as some form of emotional blackmail or coercion between friends, within a family, or at a workplace – often with negative psychic overtones. It is also (in the context of this definition) something I would consider often to be evil, and, at the very least, strongly negative (as in, “incurs lots of negative karma”). Even the example I began this definition with is unacceptable – I spent considerable time working at flaws in myself, clearing links, clearing units around the other young woman, strengthening (or trying to) communication between her and her guides –everything I could think of (with my guides help!) to remove that control – from my end, at least.
Let’s look at some other examples.
If you make a fuss or a scene about a family member or friend who doesn’t want to join in some social gathering (i.e., you may, for instance, ask them to come along without freely accepting a “no” without comment or coercion, which makes your question a lie), then you are attempting to control another human being. If you try to persuade an employee to do more than they agreed to when they took on the job without any increase in pay, you are attempting to control another human being.
I have even had a “friend” tell me that I “had” to accept the psychic attack of a third party on another friend! (“You have to accept that in friends, though”) RUBBISH! No-one has to accept psychic attacks on them – let alone something as evil as control.
Some more examples of warning signs that control my be being used, or attempted:
·         phrasing questions “but don’t you …?;
·         springing expectations or conditions on people (“Of course, you will want to …”, or “Of course, one of the conditions was …”);
·         the use of physical intimidation, emotional put downs, or abusive verbal skills (including “sweet talking”, manipulation and aggression) – all of which can be used by any gender;
·         “minding other people’s business” (in the sense of gossiping about others), or arranging “what is for their own good” – which shows how control can be hidden behind a façade of what some people may consider reasonableness;
·         getting overly emotional (most commonly, angry).
The most widespread way control is exerted, however, is by tailgating other drivers – which is criminal, as well as evil.
Control is best fought by assertiveness (controller's often attempt to play on the developing compassion of beginners on the spiritual path), especially on the physical level, and by blasting (that word is very deliberately chosen) the controller with positive energy on the non-physical level.

Being proficient in, and regularly using, basic skills such as flaming, grounding, shielding / protection, meditation (particularly when it is used to enable contact with one's Higher Self), looking after one's psychic health, looking after one's health on other levels (physical, emotional, mental, spiritual), dealing with issues (such as lifestyle vulnerabilities [see for instance, here, here, here, here, here, and elsewhere on my main blog]), and, above all else, CLEARING, all also help. (If you want another view on this, maybe consider the topic of "occlumency", from the Harry Potter-verse.) 
Remember also: the controller could be YOU.
See also “buttons”, psychic attack and initiation.

As of the time this definition was written, I’ve touched on this idea in the following posts:
     Fear
     Grief
     Control

A few other links: 
   <more may be added>  

chakras

PS - see also https://www.insightstate.com/spirituality/13-chakra-system/, which I am going to study and see how it compares with the system I was guided to, and 

“Chakras - Midday With Rev Don”   https://www.youtube.com/live/1SKPQUOD67U   This has an excellent discussion on history, “allowing different systems to touch” rather than chasing a notion of “purity”, and change     

Chakras are energy centres in the body and aura – places where energy changes from a higher level of existence to this level (in my perspective), and flows out into the various levels of the aura. The energy flowing through these moves in a spiral, causing them to often be seen clairvoyantly as rotating discs (the word ‘chakra’ is itself apparently Sanskrit for ‘wheel’).
In the same way that organs in the physical body have functions (e.g. the heart has the function of pumping blood), so do the chakras (e.g. the ‘stomach’ or ‘solar plexus’ chakra with emotions). If a chakra is clogged with negative energy, overloaded or spinning out of balance, the function of that chakra will be impaired. (Even stress can cause this sort of impairment.)
People tend to talk about seven major chakras, and minor ones in joints and organs, but Katrina Raphaell has identified twelve – and I use a thirteen chakra system, adding one that Shirley Maclaine has also identified. I also consider that we have a nonphysical body associated with most of the major chakras, and agree with Ms Maclaine that chakras can come into existence as a result of evolution.
The concept of chakras is by no means universally accepted, with some disputing their existence, others claiming they are actually something else, yet others associating them with organs but not elsewhere, etc. To further complicate matters, I view the chakras most used as an indication of the level of spiritual maturity that one has attained.
For very brief extracts on each chakra, see:
As of the time this definition was written, I’ve touched on this idea in the following posts:
     Sain bain uu
     Grief
     Working together


For my original writing ONLY on this blog: 

Copyright © Kayleen White 2016-2025     

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. Typos 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. 




Nature of Reality

There is a related topic to this term that I came across in Brendan Myers’ wonderful “Clear and Present Thinking” (available for free here): world view. From Mr. Myers’ book, I understand that the term ‘world view’ was first used by the German philosopher Albert Schweitzer, in a book called “The Decay and Restoration of Civilization”. The term basically means a plan of reality, and includes our view of what constitutes reality, and also how one should live, what one should try to do with one’s life. As an example of world view, someone may not accept the existence of anything non-physical, let alone life after death, and therefore base all their decisions on, perhaps. living for the moment. Other world views may accept the existence of the nonphysical, and have an ethical code based on caring. (Some people who do not accept the existence of the nonphysical may still have a strong belief in caring.)
When I am referring to ‘the Nature of Reality’, I am referring to that aspect of my worldview which covers the purpose and organisation of both physical and nonphysical components of reality, including why we are here, incarnate.
In my metaphysical studies, I found a significant amount of emphasis was given to illustrating that ‘reality’ is not necessarily what our five sense (Mr Myers suggests that thinking makes the brain a sixth sense, which I am inclined to agree with) indicate it is. The best example I can recall of that is the view that atoms not being all solid, being instead rather like a miniscule solar system with a few bits of matter and lots of space. Another oft quoted example is Einstein’s famous equation E = MC2.
These arguments would then typically lead into some sort of justification of the existence of the nonphysical components of Reality.
I’m not interested in getting into that ‘debate’: as far as I am concerned, in the context of this glossary (i.e., an explanation of what I mean when I use various terms on my Musings of Gnwmythr blog), I am going to take the existence of the nonphysical as a given.
Furthermore, humans have done a considerable amount of work to map the nonphysical – e.g., as one increases frequency above the physical, which is the lowest fundamental frequency of energy of existence, one encounters the etheric, astral, and so on.
Metaphysically, each of these levels is viewed as having been created and then sustained by the level above it. Science is focused largely on the physical, in which it is doing largely a good job, but attempting to find nonphysical levels is a bit like trying to use radar to find the existence of visible light. Kirlian photography has stumbled into the etheric a little, and the work of Kilner in London in the early 20th Century started to get into the astral, but that’s largely about it – oh, apart from some of the investigations into ESP. (Lyall Watson writes well about this in the first “Supernature”.)
I will write a definition about these levels of Reality in due course.
Spiritually speaking, Reality exists so we can have experience and thus become richer, more loving, more mature human beings. This is partly why this level of Reality is sometimes described as the world of illusion: physical survival and social stats and other fleeting material things may seem to be important, but it is the things of our Souls that truly matter.
The other reasons this is described as the world of illusion is that we are not as aware of nonphysical levels of Reality as we are of the physical. This is often illustrated, in the last Century or so, by the fact that atoms are largely space, and thus what seems solid to us is not ‘really’. Well, I actually think that is a bit of a misinterpretation – bad science, in a sense. My view is that the view that this world is a world of illusion is best applied to values and our perspectives, not physical reality itself.
I also urge against any tendency to see this physical world as somehow lacking in validity or beauty or things that are noble and good in comparison to other levels: it doesn’t. Our view of the physical world is likely to be warped by the extremely negative times that we live in – the injustice and suffering that is so rife in human society. But there is great beauty in Nature, and our flaws and social mistakes will eventually be overcome, and then people will wonder how anyone could have not wanted to enjoy the experience of living here. It’s just that such isn’t likely to happen in our life time … Change and evolution (growth) are ‘constants’ in all levels of Reality :)
As of the time this definition was written, I’ve touched on this idea in the following posts:
     Holiday Rambles
 
See also: 
   Psychic Soup and World Peace


For my original writing ONLY on this blog: 

Copyright © Kayleen White 2016-2025     

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. Typos 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.