Take some highly charged emotional event. Perhaps something like partial birth abortion. People have strong emotions about the subject. It’s murder, it’s necessary, and so on. When we have such a discussion, the only thing we REALLY have is awareness of the discussion combined with a matrix of emotions and assumptions. We might say such an activity should never be done. However, suppose that a baby is born in immense pain—perhaps with some strange biological disorder. What should be done then? Is it “as criminal” to kill a child like that, or is it merciful?

Most people seek reasons for why a child would be born that way. They tell themselves the story that God is good, and that the baby must be bad, or some other such rationalization. Granted, such a condition could arise from something like karma, but karma does not suggest “God did it.” It actually suggests “the soul of the baby did it to itself”. However, it could be that such a condition came about not because of that at all, but for an entirely other reason—that of experience—or put differently, awareness.

Why Did I Put a Motley Assortment of Vibrators Here? Well, Because God Wanted Me To, Duh. (flawed black and white reasoning alert!)

Think about it. You are a pure spirit floating around in bliss all day long. One day you begin to wonder about mercy and how it works and why it is necessary. You have NEVER needed mercy, because you have always been immersed in endless bliss. It is a puzzle that you do not understand the solution to. So, you decide to jump on the Earth simulator express, and your condition and the choices of your mother unfold such that when you are born you have some tremendously painful affliction. Now you understand why mercy is important in a very memorable way. Before, you were ignorant, now you understand.

Everything is ultimately about evolution. Always. There is no good nor bad in evolution, only what is learned and retained. We limit ourselves in growth and knowledge in a million ways.

Consider another example—the dialog used in what amounts to feminism. The story feminism tends to prefer is that women have been “wronged”. They have been “wronged” because of the “patriarchy”. Men have led to their ruin it seems, and that’s the story for why feminism ought to exist and be used. The solution proposed often is to try to cut men out of the picture in some way. Since they “Want to keep women down” then clearly the only way for women to “stand up” is to reject anything that is identified as “patriarchal”. You know what’s wrong with this view? It’s a story. One more story among many. If women are “disempowered” it can only be because they have allowed themselves to be. The patriarchy can’t be blamed for that. Even in Greece in the play Lysistrata the women figured out how to take back their power when the men would not listen to their perspective on a cessation of war. They stopped putting out. War quickly over. Done and Done.

The same thing goes for slavery. Slavery only really starts when a slave gives up hope of being something other than a slave. When our rights as human beings are impinged upon, and we, out of fear, do not fight back, we are disempowering ourselves. We are not standing up for what is true—that if we are a human being, another person should not “own us” or “lord themselves over us”. If we go along with that idea for even a second, we are just as guilty as those who misused their power.

Am I saying that there are no such things as victims? Yep. That’s pretty much what I’m saying. There is simply power, and how people relate to it. There are those who use their power wrongly. When they do, it is up to others to relate to theirs in such a way as to redress the imbalance. A “story” isn’t needed. The only necessary component to the picture is “action”. When women decided it was time to get the right to vote, they acted on it, and now they have the right to vote. They did something with their power to bring about a result.Most feminism doesn’t accomplish this. Many attitudes minorities hold doesn’t accomplish this. All that happens is a story is perpetuated about how life isn’t fair, and how it is because they are a minority that makes it so. Well, MAYBE it isn’t fair, but maybe what’s needed is less story telling, and more demonstrating. In the United States, we have at this very moment a black president. For African Americans, this should be a signal that “something” has changed, and that “black people” can rise to the highest positions of power now. Likewise, women are more active in politics than ever, and it is probably only a matter of time before a woman is elected president. Sitting around and bitching about the patriarchy doesn’t get anything done. One simply has to BE it—whatever the change is one seeks.When the awareness shifted to doing something in the form of being, the manifestation followed. Our stories serve to stifle, not to empower. We are better off ditching them, man, woman, child, black, white, green or whatever else we happen to be.

Ah yes, could you direct me to which of these pillars is the middle? Thanks. I really appreciate it.

The first, most important thing one can do if they are going to meditate is to be sure that they are sufficiently grounded. The easiest way to do that is to put the focus at the feet, and imagine them being covered up in sod—like a planted tree. Really visualize and feel the sensation. As you do this, breathe. Pay attention to the thoughts that cross your mind, or perhaps pay attention to the thoughts that don’t cross your mind. Simply let your mind rest here for awhile, and be.

The next step is to bring that feeling in the feet up to the root or first chakra. The anatomical point is the perineum. If you don’t know where that is, I’m going to just let you look it up. Imagine that you have a line that runs from your feet into the Earth and then imagine that line extending to the perineum. Let your awareness sit there. What things do you see? If you have memories, pay attention to them. Ask them what they want you to know. Then, ask your mind if there were a color here, what would it be? Ask yourself if you are happy with that color. Ask yourself what you would prefer it to be, and see if you can get it there. If no color presents itself as being “right” then shoot for the color “red”. Once you try that, imagine the planet Saturn. Imagine that you can pluck it from the sky and put it here. See what that does. Pay attention to the difference. Remember to breathe.

The next spot is two inches below the navel. Technically, it has a “front” and “back”. It is conical in shape. Put your attention here and move your roots up from the first area to here. Check the front first, then the back. Repeat the same process you did for the first spot, except this time, if you don’t have a preferred color shoot for orange. When you have gotten as close as you can to that color, imagine being able to pluck the planet Jupiter from the sky, and put it here. Remember to breathe. Do this for both “sides”. Any memories you see here, pay attention to. Do not get caught up in them.

Now, bring your roots up to the third spot, which is approximately where the lungs form a Y, or two inches above your navel. This area is called the solar plexus. Let your attention sit here. Repeat everything the same as before, front and back, except this time go for the color yellow. When you have gotten as close to yellow as you can get, put the planet Mars here. Notice any differences.

Continue on to the fourth point, which is dead center between your chest or “breasts”. Bring up the roots. Repeat the same process as before, except this time, go for the color green, front and back. When you have gotten as close as you can to green, place the planet Venus here.

Next, move to the fifth point. The fifth point is where the little hole sits in the clavicle, or the “bottom” of the throat. (under the Adam’s apple if you are a guy) Bring up the roots, and do as I have instructed you previously. This time, go for the color blue. When you are as close to blue as you can get, you want to put the planet Mercury here.

Go next to the sixth point, which is either between the brows, or in the middle of the forehead. Check the front and back. Bring the roots up. Go for the color indigo. When you have gotten as close as you can to that color, place the sun in the front area, and the moon in the back area. Connect the two together.

Finally, advance to the seventh point. Do everything the same as before. Bring the roots up. See what color is here, what color you would prefer. Aim for a white/purple. Place the planets Neptune and Uranus here. Now, bring down white light from this area, through all the centers we have been through, back to the ground. If you have certain questions, focus here at the top. See what comes to you.

You probably noticed that there is an overlap between this meditation and planets. You might then think, gee, that seems a little like astrology. This form of meditation is where astrology and consciousness overlap. Likely, if you do this meditation right, you’ll feel kinda sleepy when you get done, or more relaxed. Keep doing it systematically, and you’ll be surprised at the changes and information you learn.

Well, it is helpful to think of what a lunar eclipse APPEARS to be. A lunar eclipse LOOKS like the moon has been momentarily blotted out—like it no longer exists. For a little while the entirety of the moon is in shadow—there is no portion of the moon that retains anything “solar”—and this is done not because of the natural “phase” of the moon. If we think of the natural phases of the moon, we can think of it as naturally “feminine” by which we are aware of only via the masculine rays of the sun. The moon doesn’t produce its own light simply because it is “feminine”. Likewise, because it is feminine, it is ever-changing. We might refer to it as “moody” but really it is just more its nature. The moon goes through periods of growth or waxing phases, and periods of recession or waning phases. Eventually it disappears for awhile, only to begin the whole process again.

You might remember me as brighter and life giving. Screw you. It’s my day off.

In astrology that is evolutionarily driven, the moon is considered “what we were or what we are comfortable with”. The sun is considered “what we need to develop and what we are becoming”. What we were waxes and wanes in influence. The moon shows us little mercy in racing through the signs, dragging what we are most comfortable concerning through the roller-coaster ride. The ideal is to take what we were, and combine it what what we are becoming, and gain a synthesis. The moon represents our emotional drives, the sun our mission.

A strongly solar based chart will often have difficulty accessing the lunar aspects. Likewise, a strongly lunar chart may have difficultly accessing the solar aspects. The sun and the moon inside of us as drives do not necessarily play well together. Likewise, the north and south nodes of the moon mark “divisions and dark spots” inside of ourselves. If these two poles are ever united, then the mission of the person in this life is said to be accomplished. The snake, rahu, the head, and ketu, the tail, are rejoined. What happens then? Well, the moon would be “fully lit”—or put otherwise, the moon becomes the sun. So, with all of these considerations in mind, we can understand our moon as being indicative of our instinctual responses that are more emotional in nature, and often as an indicator of where we do not shine as we should—where our light is reflected from the sun instead of emitted as if from the sun. The cycle of the moon renewing is somewhat analogous to our emotional nature changing somewhat randomly seeming.

So why have I gone into this long diversion? Because I want to explain what a lunar eclipse does. I had read a lot of data about eclipses, but I often find it better to simply observe what happens in my own reality. During the lunar eclipse, I embarked on a new journey with Serenity Shoppe, a metaphysical store, the next day. A metaphysical store, by nature, is revealing that which is normally “hidden”. The light of the sun is direct. The light of the moon is not. The lunar eclipse, it appeared to me, simply “ramped up” the general vibration of the moon—allowed it to somehow have a more aggressive octave than usual. Perhaps by having no solar influence to reveal the moon at all, it becomes even MORE lunar?

Fast forward to the solar eclipse. On the solar eclipse, I woke up with a nightmare concerning some events I had experienced that apparently had more “emotional burn in” that I thought they had. You might say they were events that “burdened my soul”. I had not realized the level of the burn in these events represented, but my dream neatly showed me a chain of things that culminated in my nightmare. In my dream, the major theme highlighted was “when to move against the masses and authority and the consequences of that”. I started in a school situation around other children with a teacher suggesting that we should never fight—some zero tolerance policy. However, one of the children was being provocative, and so I reported them to the teacher not wanting to violate the zero-tolerance rule. This teacher did not want to take action, and told me to ignore it even though personally the stakes were becoming high. I chose to fight against the other kid in the dream, and everyone systematically turned against me—and the weight of the school came down on me. I remember thinking in the dream that if the teacher wasn’t willing to take action to make the zero-tolerance rule work, then they might as well not have made the rule at all. The dream sorta skipped around, and then went into the courtroom situation in which I found myself during my divorce. Once again, an authority had made a rule—namely one of no contact—and yet when the rule was violated no one took action to remedy the situation. In each scenario, it felt like I was being held to some standard law that was supposed to be applicable to everyone, but was not practically implemented. When I pointed this out in each case, everyone turned on me insisting how I “knew what the rules were” and so on. The dream had a lot to do with people in authority and how they “cover their ass” and find “scapegoats” as opposed to just being fair and responsible.

Many of these events actually HAD happened to me, or something pretty close happened like them. I had known of them, but didn’t really “connect the dots” as issues that were still applicable to me. The sun represents the soul, and the solar eclipse worked in the opposite manner of the lunar one. In the solar eclipse, one sees the void surrounded by dazzling sunlight. I’ve seen this first hand, actually, when I was in Middle School. We weren’t supposed to look directly at the sun, because apparently that’d make us go blind or something, but I found I couldn’t see crap with the apparatus we had fashioned. So I looked at the thing. I can still see today, but I do remember it feeling eerie as this “colder wind” blew up out of seemingly nowhere. So, the solar eclipse gave me a nightmare, along with several other people I met during the day, and brought something into light that I hadn’t known, whereas the lunar eclipse brought to light something I knew that was “hidden” to most people. Additionally, while at the store, I had more than a few people come in looking to find something that was “a missing piece” of themselves—something their psyche had locked out. This was especially prevalent right around the solar eclipse.

I don’t want to take any extrapolations too far yet, but on the basis of my experience with these events, I am inclined to state the following rule—A lunar eclipse brings into awareness that which other people do not know, and a solar eclipse brings about that which you yourself do not know. If we think about it, the sun is often viewed in the house of Leo which has many ties to ego and the self. The moon has ties to Cancer down in the fourth, which is often a quiet, reclusive house. An eclipse represents the “opposite energy” of each. A lunar eclipse says hey, “Guess what? My influence is as though it were actually in the tenth! Everybody is gonna know. EVERYONE!” Whereas a solar eclipse is like a photo negative of the fifth house—”I know how I want to shine, except that when my light is blocked, I become aware of where I don’t shine—or where my shine is in shadow!”

I think it is important as astrologers that we not continue to simply consult the “standard material” and keep in mind our personal experiences. After all, we are in unique positions to act as interpreters of what we see. If we aren’t keeping careful watch of what happens when and what correlations might hold or do hold, then the field stagnates and stalls out.

Do you as an astrologer have an experience during these days you want to share? A theory? Feel free to comment!

Incoming search terms:

• may 25th lunar eclipse astrology

I have noticed within myself a curious form of amnesia that takes over sometimes. There is a tendency when looking back toward a happy memory to define the context in which it occurred as “over all happy”. For instance, I often think back to when my grandfather was around and I remember it in the context of “Man, those were good times, but now they are long gone.” Yet, when I really put everything in motion AS IT WAS, the times with my grandfather were more of an exception than the rule. When I went back home and had to deal with my abusive Dad, that was categorically a “bad time” and if I think of the context in which those memories occur everything seems “craptastic”.

This Is How My Emotions Work When Thinking of Something Good–notice the lack of storm clouds elsewhere–parse error!

Emotional lenses, it seems to me, tend to be black and white like that. One emotion presents itself, and there simply isn’t room for another contrary one. The focus determines which emotion is predominant. They are both equally real, and they are both equally valid ways of looking at life. Put another way, they are both equally unreal, and both equally not the totality of the situation. The only way a “True synthesis” of the two can be achieved is by slamming the two emotional states together and holding them in mind—which by nature emotional states are not inclined to do. Emotions then, are a good indicator of splits in duality.

The funny thing about the split in emotional duality, though, is that we as human beings do not have issues with happy emotions. We aren’t traumatized by HAPPINESS. Nobody ever looks back and says, “You know what, there was this one time I was happy and it really, really fucked me up!” On the other hand, it seems like it is exceptionally easy and common to have an experience that is “traumatic” that proves very hard for someone to overcome.

What follows as a corollary from this observation? Well, for one thing, happiness is something that is a more “natural state”. Why do we conclude this? Because it doesn’t disturb the psyche. It accepts the joy, and continues on its way without having any backlash. On the other hand, trauma is not a natural state. How do we know this? Because the psyche has serious problems with it—it gets stuck. Being stuck, as I discussed elsewhere on stagnation is “against nature”. What then can we say of nostalgia? It must be happening because we have become unhappy as the word is commonly used. Hence, our current state of “not happiness” if we are in a nostalgic mood must be from an “unnatural state”. We have become stuck in some time period wherein we look back at happiness and find our current life wanting by comparison. Our beliefs and hopes are likely different now than they were looking back, and so we believe that “then” was a privileged point and “now” sucks. Yet, if we really stop to think about it, nothing has really changed between the two points other than our beliefs. Yes, we may have been exposed to some kind of trauma that interferes with our perceptions where our beliefs are concerned, but it is still a matter of beliefs altering how we experience reality. We must somehow integrate the trauma if it be present, mourn it, whatever, and re-adjust our beliefs so that we can tune back into what is the “natural state”—where we can accept happiness and move forward to experience other manifestations of it without feeling dark, hurt, and entangled in a million different unpleasant ways.

I suspect many people look back at childhood nostalgically simply because they had not been as hurt as much during that time period. When one becomes an adult and they get out in the world and hold jobs, they begin to form beliefs and expectations. They become defensive after they get screwed over a few times by other adults who are just as wounded if not more so who are trying to gain happiness for themselves at the expense of others. Such a person looks back at a child and refers to them as “childish” because the “real world” doesn’t work the way the child thinks it does. That’s not quite so. Children have to learn how not to be completely self-centered, which many do not, and so they become self-centered adults who criticize children for being, of all things, self-centered. What saves a child from complete selfish absorption are its ideals—its purity of being. What adults lose contact with are those ideals and purity of being—and they then take the world as a “shitty, hard place”. Then, they think back to their childhoods and become nostalgic because they remember a time when their beliefs were otherwise.

For my part, I can’t say that I remember my childhood as being exceptionally happy. Most of it I look back at and think “Whew, I’m glad that’s over.” There were some bright spots, but they were amid many, many storm clouds. When I have nostalgia, it is for those bright spots which my mind wants to inflate into something they never were. As Billy Joel put it, “The good ole days weren’t always good, and tomorrow ain’t as bad as it seems.” If I’m going to have knowledge, I’d prefer it to be complete, and not the kind that causes me pain. That’s far too polarized, and not consistent with reality. Hence, I’m waving goodbye to anything nostalgic.

If you want to join me in the fire, bring your Ataris and Nintendos. The games weren’t THAT good, we just thought they were.

To some extent, we all carry energetic residuals that are cruddy. This process will end, (if we are lucky) when we die. The problem is one of purity. Most of the time, when we are down here on the Earth plane, we have impurities to start with which are compounded by those we encounter in the environment. Sometimes these impurities act as a sort of contagion—they spread and cling to others. A good indicator that this has happened is when you begin to feel something that is not within your normal emotional range—especially after having recently visited with someone you do not see on a daily basis.

Whatever we are in our essence, the energy of our environment tends to mirror. So, if you are a happy person, your environment probably will feel lighter and more bubbly. If you are serious, then the environment will probably feel more focused. If you are depressed, then it will be depressed and if you are lustful then it will probably have a lustful energy surrounding it. The problem is that if that energy is not cleared, then it becomes a bit like standing water in that it soon becomes stagnant. Once it becomes stagnant, it can cling to a person. Once it clings to a person, it is now a matter of personal spiritual hygiene in addition to an environmental one.

Why is stagnation bad? Precisely because it is energy that is neither moving nor transforming. Instead, it is just “stuck”. The more stuck it gets, the more poisonous the energy becomes. It becomes poisonous precisely because change is not present. If you have ever seen what happens to standing water in nature, you have a pretty good idea of what happens energetically. It smells septic, mosquito larva begin to breed in it, and eventually it becomes indistinguishable from sewage. The things that live IN it are no less repulsive.

This Window Says Use Me, Abuse Me. What does your energy say of you?

The same thing is true if we surround ourselves with excessive clutter. There was once a psychological survey done that indicated that the biggest indicator that a house or car would be broken into would be whether or not one of the windows were broken. Once a window was broken, it was as if the house or car announced to the world that it was in a state of disrepair, and once that is the case, it is free to let in all manner of undesirable activity. Wikipedia summarizes one such study done by Zimbardo of prison experiment fame:

Before the introduction of this theory by Wilson and Kelling, Philip Zimbardo, a Stanford psychologist, arranged an experiment testing the broken-window theory in 1969. Zimbardo arranged for an automobile with no license plates and the hood up to be parked idle in a Bronx neighbourhood and a second automobile in the same condition to be set up in Palo Alto, California. The car in the Bronx was attacked by “vandals” within minutes of its “abandonment”. Zimbardo noted that the first “vandals” to arrive were a family – a father, mother and a young son – who removed the radiator and battery. Within twenty four hours of its abandonment, everything of value had been stripped from the vehicle. After that, the car’s windows were smashed in, parts torn, upholstery ripped, and children were using the car as a playground. At the same time, the vehicle sitting idle in Palo Alto, California sat untouched for more than a week. Then Zimbardo himself went up to the vehicle and deliberately smashed it with a sledgehammer. Soon after, people joined in for the destruction. Zimbardo observed that majority of the adult “vandals” in both cases were primarily well dressed, clean-cut and respectable whites. It is believed that in a neighborhood such as the Bronx where the history of abandoned property and theft are more prevalent, vandalism occurs much more quickly as the community gives off a “no one cares” vibe. Similar events can occur in any civilized community when communal barriers – the sense of mutual regard and obligations of civility – are lowered by actions that suggests “no one cares”.

When we look at this study, it seems intuitive that if a window is broken “no one cares”. It is a “negligent” energy, just as stagnant water is “neglected”. Likewise, if we do not take care of our own spiritual energy, it is as good as hanging a “I don’t care” sign on us. How do we go about redressing stagnation? Here are some tips:

• Get Rid of Any Clutter That You Don’t Use

Whatever it is, if you haven’t used it in two years, you probably aren’t going to be using it anytime soon. Sell it, give it away, or otherwise be done with it.

• Burn Some Incense

Incense stirs up the air and smoke goes “up”. Different fragrances may be more or less effective.

• Learn Some Tai Chi or Meditation

You can get to a point where you feel your energy. It is not the same as a physical body sensation, but rather feels more like the “wrapper” around your physical body. It requires concentration to do this, and sometimes one will find pain. Address it, move it around, hurt some. Don’t let it sit.

• Drink Some Tea—Especially Chai Tea

Chai tea probably got its name because it moves a bunch of energy around at once. If you are in a funk with your meditation or are otherwise “stiff”, drinking some chai can be helpful to get things moving. (extra bonus for tossing in some honey)

• Find Someone Who is Good at Reiki or Some Other Energy Work

Energy workers can usually “see” energy. I am not personally a fan of having them “fix” you so much as having them assist in helping you “fix yourself”. If they can tell you what is stagnant, and you meditate, you can line up your meditation such that you are more inclined to tap in to whatever it is that ails you that you might otherwise ignore.

• Learn About Some Crystals

Crystals can be handy tools to assist one in moving certain energies, or tuning into certain other energies.

• Last but not least, Find a Knowledgeable Metaphysical Store

Metaphysical stores have a knack for attracting people who are good at different modalities. Moreover, store owners tend to know who does what, or have resources to point you in the right direction. If you are in Princeton, Kentucky, stop by Serenity Shoppe which is where you can find me and many of the above mentioned supplies!

Most people see the word “righteous” through a Christian lens, owing to the many sermons where God was introduced as righteous. So righteous is this God in many sermons that people cannot possibly hope to approximate it. The basic idea is that people are so wretched that their only possible hope is to throw themselves on God’s mercy—they aren’t righteous by any stretch of the imagination, and that’s that. It’s also a tremendous cop-out. It’s one of the things that makes religion in the Christian tradition operate at such a disconnect.

The God Siberian Husky. You, on the other hand, are the much fatter black and white version and you suck.

Let’s examine a definition of righteous—particularly as defined in the old testament. Over at this page, Art Katz gives an interesting definition of righteousness from the old testament. He says the following first:

Righteousness as understood in the OT (Old Testament) is a thoroughly Hebraic concept, foreign to the western mind and at variance with the common understanding of the term. The failure to comprehend its meaning is perhaps most responsible for the view of OT religion as “legalistic”…but thanks largely to recent German scholarship, this important motif of biblical faith has been clarified.

So far so interesting. The Western mind set not understanding something more eastern is not necessarily anything new on the radar. Mr. Katz continues:

Righteousness is not a behavior that is in accordance with an ethical, legal, psychological, religious, or spiritual norm; neither is it conduct that is dictated by human or divine nature. It is not an action appropriate to the attainment of a specific goal; neither is it a ministry to one’s fellow man. Rather, righteousness in the OT is the fulfillment of the demands of a relationship, whether that relationship be with men or with God…Each of these relationships brings with it specific demands, the fulfillment of which constitutes righteousness…There is no norm of righteousness outside the relationship itself. When God or man fulfills the conditions imposed upon him by the relationship, he is, in OT terms, righteous.

So in other words, righteous constitutes an agreement between the universe and a person—and a person fulfilling the demands of that agreement.

The definition above would seem to give one a sense of relativism. What if, for instance, the universe told you to go rape a five-year old? This is the much used reason that many atheists site as problematic—often referring to Abraham and the son-killing example. Since I am not necessarily a Biblical scholar, there are portions of the Bible that I do not have a ready comprehension concerning—particularly if they are not ones that I don’t find in other works or other places or traditions. What I do know is that the Bible slips into allegory pretty regularly. It is written such that one gets what they understand spiritually out of it—which is the cause for a lot of less-than-great sermons. My guess is that the son-killing situation is allegorical. If the wording had been adjusted such that the story of Abraham were about letting go of things—including one’s son—I could see where the story would be about making sure attachment is limited, even to one’s child. Ego-destroying or nullifying often takes the form of murder or suicide. I think it is entirely possible that Abraham did not fully appreciate the spiritual meaning of the words conveyed, and decided to take it literally from an ego point of view which required God’s intervention to arrest. Abraham did, after all, desperately want his child, so it stands to reason he was the most attached to it in an ego way that it would have been better if he were not. Why all this digression into abstruse Biblical matters? Because it makes the point—if the universe WERE to ask someone to do something like murder someone else, it automatically should be suspect. Just because a relationship is specific between two things doesn’t mean all the rules go out the door.

Take two people for instance. We’ll call them Person A and Person B. Person A hangs out with person B. Later, person A hangs out with person C. The hanging out had with person C is different than that which was had with person B, but person A still neglects to murder person C. Every relationship is different, but that doesn’t necessarily make the conduct relative—certain things you just don’t do. Person A and B might like to drink beer, whereas A and C like to play board games. It’s different, but it’s not suddenly a free-for-all. A different situation altogether might be a time of war. In that scenario, Team A is trying to kill Team B from the onset, which is already a major violation of the rules. As the old quote goes “War is hell”. Break the rules, all hell breaks loose.

So what then might a righteous man do qualitatively? Mr. Katz continues:

Generally, the righteous man in Israel was the man who preserved the peace and wholeness of the community, because it was he who [preserved] fulfilled the demands of communal living. Like Job, he was a blessing to his contemporaries. He cared for the poor, the fatherless, the widow…even defending their cause in the law court (29:16; 31:21; Prov. 31:9)…He was a good steward of his land and work animals…and his servants were treated humanely…he lived at peace with his neighbors, wishing them only good…When he was in authority the people rejoiced, and he exalted the nation (Prov.14:34). He lived in peace and prosperity because he upheld the peace and prosperity. He upheld the physical and psychical wholeness of his community by fulfilling the demands of the communal covenant relationship (Cf. Ps.15:2–5; Isa.33:15).

So basically, Biblically speaking, a righteous man would try to preserve peace and life—and that has negative connotations today because of what, exactly?

Well, one thing that crosses my mind as the reason why righteousness is so universally crapped upon in part has to do with the perception of someone being self-righteous. Self-righteousness, if you look at the above definitions is completely and UTTERLY opposed to the definition of righteousness because of the addition of that little word “self”. Someone self-righteous is basically making themselves feel good by appearing to do the right thing when in reality they are doing it to make others feel bad about themselves. Naturally, this sucks. However, there is a flip-side to this that is very important that I want to discuss.

The flip-side concerns people who ARE selfish, and who do not THINK of the community at all, and aren’t aiming to impress others with their self-righteousness, but instead despise those who do try to help the community and maintain peace. When these people encounter someone who is righteous by the above definition, which is the sort of person I’m not really sure anyone could object to as a human being, they are reminded of their own lack of righteousness and naturally they begin to despise them. They will accuse someone who is righteous of being self-righteous because all they understand is a conception of the world that is ego-driven. A person surely can’t be selfless and think of more people than themselves, right? The only other alternative is that that person MUST be actually self-righteous because they must be “getting something out of the deal”. Their motivations are JUST as selfish, they just deny it to themselves—and so on and so forth. When this happens, the ability for something righteous in the above definition to thrive is greatly diminished, because the world becomes cynical. It believes that “man is his ego” and nothing more—that there are no more transcendental states to be reached, and no responsibility that reaches higher than the “ego-self”. As this happens, it shuts down righteousness. As righteousness shuts down as defined by the above, so too does light. Suffering increases, and the world becomes a battle field where humans rage against one another like animals as their egos vie for dominance. Mankind spits when it hears the word “righteous” under such circumstances, because it no longer understands the word at all.

From the Biblical standpoint, the covenant was made not to punish man from his sins or some other silliness. Righteousness was promoted as a means to preserve life. It was not that a man could not BE righteous even if he paled in comparison to God. He could be righteous in a more finite way—a way that preserved life—that did good for his fellow-men—that kept the world spinning on its axis and kept babies laughing and lovers loving. The rules were there as a protection—to keep life from becoming mired in a pit of nasty—to keep men from becoming beasts. The same is true in most every other religious tradition. Realizing we are all one and that we must care for each other from a place of less ego is the rule. The fact that the word “righteous” no longer gives us comfort but reason for wincing ought to be a very, very large red flag to us. It’s a good word—a necessary word—and one that makes life possible.

Gentleman Donning Souls

A soul, I suspect, is more subject to time than a spirit. Hence, your raincoat can be very, very old. However, from the point of view of spirit, you are the exact same age as everyone else. What makes spirits unique, though, is that each one has different qualities. Not every spirit is equally good at something like wisdom. Not every spirit is equally good when it comes to nurturing. Not every spirit has a strong connection to analysis. Not all of them are equally good at offering unconditional, fluffy love—and that’s perfectly fine.

Often times when I read an astrology chart, I can reasonably suspect “young soul” if there is a lot of Leo and Cancer contacts—especially if the North Node is in Capricorn. On the other hand, if the South Node is in Capricorn, I can reasonably expect some “old soul” sorts of activities. Barring any of those indicators, if I see six million planets slammed into one house, it is a pretty good bet I’m dealing with what might be termed an old soul. Why do I see these contacts this way?

Because old souls are usually doing some serious housekeeping. A soul that is sufficiently old is likely going to be facing a lot of karmic balancing from lifetimes of living. At a certain point, the karma becomes heavy enough that it cannot be avoided. Younger souls, on the other hand, can often ignore their karma and suffer seemingly no ill effects. It doesn’t “weigh” on them as much, because they haven’t had time for it to. Carrying the luggage over time becomes heavier, not lighter, and there is a lot of resistance to emptying it. It’s just easier to do what we’ve always done because it is comfortable.

An old soul is likely going to be facing some monumental difficulties. In the karma accounting books, it is time to wipe the debt and often one finds old souls doing things that old people tend to do. However, as I said, from another perspective, they are not old at all. They may have acquired wisdom and experience through their many lives, but their spirit exists outside of time. All of their  lives are but an instantaneous moment—like a time- lapsed video of a plant coming into bloom. They were already what they were from the start, but they had to go through a maturation process in a time-based way in order to really appreciate what they were and what they were becoming. The medium of time slows things down because things are not happening at the speed of thought or faster (physically speaking anyway—not typically at least). The Earth is rather like the training wheels version of riding a bike. We are all basically in remedial school, or a nursery. The wisest among us recognize we know nothing.

Likewise, the old realize the futility in trying. It is not out of a sense of despair that they do not try, but rather a knowing that trying is fruitless unless the time is right. There is only an eternity of IS, and in that eternity of IS there are points where doing something is appropriate and plenty where doing nothing is the correct answer.

The young have their own strengths in that they recover quickly, their resilience is remarkable. Like the Fool in the Tarot Deck, they fall off a cliff and bounce right back on their feet. It is almost as if the universe protects them more because they know no better.

As any dichotomy eventually does, however, the old/young distinction breaks down at the level of unity. There are no old souls. There are no young souls. There are just spirits, all utilizing different forms of being—all utilizing different levels of growth—all instantaneous. The level of spirit is the only real truth, whereas the rest are merely conveniences—merely stages thereof. Like water flowing down a hill, it’s moving, changing, altering. Any label affixed to that process is only temporary and falls off—such intellectual handholds are useful momentarily, but must always be discarded. So too must labels like hot/cold must be discarded. At the level of unity, perhaps all that can be said is “Ohm” because that’s all there is.

Incoming search terms:

• south node capricorn old soul
• what is young soul
• young soul old soul
• young souls easy life

Over at this blog, writer Jon Rappoport discusses his views on reality being a psyop. A psyop is a fancy way of saying “government controlled operation designed to produce a specific psychological effect in a given population”. Rappoport discusses a friend of his referred to by the name of “Jack True”. This sounds suspiciously like a pseudonym, but the name is irrelevant. Evidently, Jack was working on hypnotherapy and finally gave it up because he noticed people who came into his office were already in a hypnotic state. He decided instead his job was to wake people up instead.

Jack defines reality in an interview:

A: Reality is a psychological operation. “Here we are, this is the only space and time, and we’re inside it.” Whereas, music, for example, invents its own time and even space, and you can see, from people’s reaction to it, how profound other deeper realities can be.

If we define ourselves as creatures only capable of living inside one space and time, then we adjust our behavior, our prospects, and we adjust the scope of our desires.

The space-time continuum is one reality. And at some level, a human being knows this. That’s the point. He knows this. And he doesn’t want to stay glued to one reality.

So if a person becomes all wound up in this continuum—which of course he does—then he loses sight of what? Desire. Because it seems then that reality defines what can be legitimately desired. Everything is backwards. Desire becomes diluted and blunted. And power drains away.

Imagine it this way. There’s a machine that keeps manufacturing reality. Space, time, reality. And people, however it happens, hook themselves up to it. They’re addicts.

This is precisely one of the problems I have with watching television and listening to the news. Everything is pre-packaged for you. You don’t need to think, or feel. Everything has already been pre-thought for you and pre-felt for you. Even music, at this point, is part of the system. It is difficult to tell one artist apart from another. What defines a “good singer who is profitable” is set in stone. How they have to basically appear physically is a given, along with the sort of show they need to produce. If you are politically uncertain, well, there are plenty of programs to pick from that will analyze everything neatly for you. The trick is, though, in order for any of this to work, YOU have to be in a spot where you are suggestive. You have to “buy in” to what is being sold to you. The internet, once a bastion for free-thought, continues to devolve into some extension of the hive-mind. It seems everyone is looking for someone to tell them what to believe, never daring to set foot on their own path.

WHAT did Chris Matthews Say Again? I GOTTA KNOW! How Will I Come to My Own Conclusions??

The powers that be are not oblivious to the fact that the system is essentially soul-killing. That’s by design. Just today, for instance, this article ran. In it, David Kupelian notes that suicide rates and general angst is high among americans—at an all time high in fact. He asks these pertinent questions:

What on earth is going on? Why isn’t medical science – and for that matter all of our incredible scientific and technological innovations in every area of life – reducing our stress and lightening our load? Why doesn’t the almost-magical availability of the world’s accumulated knowledge, thanks to the Internet, make us more enlightened and happy? Why is it that, instead, more and more of us are so stressed out as to be on a collision course with illness, misery, tragedy and death?

Mr. Kupelian concludes that most of our problem comes from disintegrating morals and a president bent on dismantling capitalism which in this case is Obama.

I have to disagree with Mr. Kupelian. Money woes are problematic, but they are not enough in themselves to tell us why the levels of angst are so high. Lack of morality may be an issue, but it certainly isn’t the case that people are inherently less moral than ever before. What is happening is that the carefully constructed facade that is designed to keep people in some soporific stupor is cracking. The story of continued economic growth indefinitely forever is reaching the natural conclusion. Political infighting designed to line the pockets of politicians and count political coup has become the standard. The representation has lost total sight of the people it represents, on both sides of the aisle.

We needn’t be overlooking this precipice of despair and despondency. What we need, desperately, is to reconnect with our spirits. Instead of looking at people as competition, we need to be able to see them once again as people. Instead of uplifting one person’s needs above all others, we need to be able to try to arrange society in such a way so as to address everyone’s needs. We need to stop being hypnotized long enough by the media and the talking points and pundits to formulate what we believe and stop looking to so-called experts to tell us what we ought to think. We need to be involved in our communities at a local level and to take time to care about one another as humanity has had to do for ages.

We cannot do these things if we are constantly jamming our brains full of stuff that has absolutely no bearing on what our spirits crave. We get lost in the milieu, and wander around as hollow shells wondering what is wrong with us and popping another prozac to try to make it through the day.

It’s entirely possible there is nothing wrong with us, and all the stuff Mr. Kupelian discusses are the symptoms of what is wrong with the system we are forced to participate within. If we had time to stop and consider that, we might realize it. Yet, what the media and government knows is that as long as you are tuned into the cable news channels, they’ve got you by your own free will. They can omit and spin the story, and pretty soon you’ll be agreeing with whatever they say. You’ll blame the poor people. You’ll blame the rich people. You’ll pick your candidate on some issue that has nothing relevant to do with the nation, based on how reality has been crafted and presented to you. You’ll think you made a choice, and you’ll argue with others over the same talking points as to why their candidate is worse than yours. You’ll post up memes on Facebook. You’ll think it is all your idea, and that nobody else could disagree with such obvious truths. But critically, you will ignore your own spirit and the longings it has within it, and you will have participated in imprisoning yourself.

We can do better than that. We deserve better than that. The sum core of every spiritual tradition and mystical technique is the same: We Are All One. Why aren’t we acting like it? Because, it’s just possible, we are hypnotized.

Incoming search terms:

• we are under mass hypnosis

However, that small piece is often enough to let us know that something ain’t right. In the Epistle of Jude in the Christian tradition, we find an interesting moment where Satan and Archangel Michael are evidently in a dispute over the body of Moses. Michael eventually tells Satan either “The Lord reprimand you”, or alternatively, “The Lord rebuke you.”. Why would Michael say something like this?

Well, it seems clear the Michael is aware in this situation that what Satan is doing isn’t ‘right’. However, as opposed to telling Satan to screw off, he phrases it such that what he thinks is known but it is not held to him–he lets his opinion be known while handing the authority of what needs to happen off to God.

Michael, he pities the fool. Literally–but also simultaneously kicks ass.

A judgment then is not the same as an opinion. One can render an opinion without it also being a judgment against a person. For instance, if one is speaking to an alcoholic and says “You know, you should really stop drinking,” that’s not the same as rendering a judgment against them. A judgment would be more akin to “You are a bad human being for drinking.” Even pointing out the consequence of the behavior is not passing judgment. “If you keep drinking and driving, you will have a wreck.” In the back of one’s mind, however, when they make these proclamations, they must be simultaneously aware that this is precisely what this person MIGHT need to be doing, even if it kills them. Even when what a person is doing is absolutely wrong on every level, it is still exactly what they need to do. If it is wrong, and they did it anyway, then they must have something to learn. Judgment rests then with the universe for only it can truly gauge the person–only it has all the pieces. The rest of us only have fragments–however, sometimes those fragments are enough to give us a “Very, very good idea.”

A good example of a polarizing figure with regard to “right and wrong” was the occultist Aleister Crowley. Crowley was deeply involved with metaphysics to the point of founding his own order on the basis of Kabbalah, an ancient Jewish mysticism that underlies all spiritual traditions in one way or another. One typically expects those who study such domains and who have a good grasp of them to come away from the study transformed in a more “enlightened” sort of way. By enlightened, one means essentially “full of light”. Crowley, however, did not do this. He achieved a high level awareness of the mysteries and elected to become “The Beast” wherein he tried every vice imaginable to man–or at the very least proclaimed to. Crowley ascended the ladder to then descend it. In a world of freedom where no judgment exists, many ask whether Crowley helped or hurt humanity.

To me, and keeping in light the above considerations, the distinction is fairly easy to make. By descending and trying every imaginable vice, Crowley was, in essence, no different than an ordinary crack head or anyone else with an addiction. The only thing that made him any different was that he had some very good metaphysical sounding excuses to engage in the activities which he elected to pursue. There are plenty of serial killers in the world and rapists and addicts. No one particularly needs another embodiment of those things–or let society see what taboos it is comfortable with. What has become taboo in society, it seems, is being a decent human being, so why not hit them with THAT taboo if one really wants to “shake things up?” The answer is pretty clear to me–being a decent human being is harder work in that one must learn to come to terms with dark impulses that exist within themselves and hopefully transmute them. Living one’s whole life indulging those impulses and justifying them by declaring what a beast you are is nonsense and a cop out.

Yet, all that being said, I cannot categorically say that Crowley did not do what he needed to do. I can only leave the judgment of his actions to the universe, and say that ultimately I don’t have enough pieces of the puzzle to say that he was a bad human being. Like Michael, I’m in a position wherein I must say of Crowley “May God rebuke you.” Perhaps that is the most fitting response to a man who declared himself to be the embodiment of the beast.

Incoming search terms:

• aleister crowley wrong doings

Hamlet is widely known as one of the best plays ever written. As I re-watched the ending–you know–the part where everyone dies, I was struck by the fact that such an ending would probably NEVER go over well in our modern era. We want perpetual happy endings, perpetual sunshine.

The problem is, that’s not a realistic view of the world. In America, we live in a bubble–a bubble of massive proportions fueled by delusions. This bubble is shaped, in part, by a systematic screwing-over of the rest of the world in more than a few ways. Our sunshine is bought by the blood and resources of others.

Bubbles are pretty to look at, bad to live in.

This has presented us with a problem that has become spiritual in nature. Whereas Islamic extremists or any other crazies might not have been able to make a case that the West was evil, because of our actions and heavy-handedness they can point to real-life evidence to back up their core belief–that the West is evil and needs to be destroyed as an affront to Allah or whatever spiritual notion they seize upon. The problem is, they are right. We are selfish and insular, which by extension, guides us down the corridor of evil.

On the other hand, we do value things like liberty and freedom, at least on the face of it, and from time to time we actually live those ideals. From that perspective, we aren’t so evil after all.

We are living in a time now where the pendulum is shifting in massive ways. American dominance is not what it once was, nor will it be. The material mechanistic backdrop against which civilization has operated for the last roughly 150 years is eroding. The illusion that if we were rational and thoughtful enough we could control the outcomes we face is being shown for what it is.

Every event, now, seems to be cause for more concern, more regulations. It is almost as though people expect life NOT to be tragic–that there is some magical formula that we can use that will suddenly ameliorate the evils of the world, or at least keep us safe. There is no such formula, nor law. There is only one truth–we are all on this rock together. We can choose to bomb the hell out of each other and create division and grief, or we can realize that any solution that does not take into account all of us is no solution at all. There are those who will always be crazy, but we shouldn’t give crazy something to sink its teeth into. As an American citizen, I can safely say that I can see how the rest of the world would view us as essentially flipping it the collective bird. Half the time, I feel like my own government is flipping me the bird.

The tragedy of Boston hits close to home because it is on our turf and it bursts our bubble. Terrorist attacks happen elsewhere, but not here. Sure, there was that whole 9-11 thing, but that was a long time ago! (the last time that happened was also in the year of the snake in the eastern astrological system, something to ponder) We basically have our heads jammed up our collective asses. Our politicians are not practical. Our celebrities are morons. If the world is a family, we are like 13 year old teenagers.

We don’t act like citizens of the world. We act like entitled children.

In the shadow of misfortune, we should be upset. We should sympathize with the victims of the attack. We should feel what it is like to suffer loss, and then we should take a hard look at ourselves as a nation and ask how everyone else perceives us. We should ask how often we feel connected to other places that experience tragedies, and we should ask ourselves how we got here.

The Greeks, who invented tragedy and comedy, did so as a form of catharsis. The concept was that if people could come together and laugh, and also to cry, it would meet a need collectively–give an outlet where people still felt connected. With our endless desire for sunshine, we push tragedy into the realm of the actual. We only band together on rare occasions when we see a five year old with no leg, or an adult who was maimed. We only feel our own pain, and forget to realize the pain of the rest of the world, in part from our own actions perpetrated upon it. We are righteous when we act, and if we think for one moment that alleged terrorists don’t feel just as righteous, we are mistaken.

There is a time for strife and conflict and war. There is also a time for peace. The invitation I invite on the heels of all that is happened is to take the Boston Marathon tragedy and turn it into something healing as opposed to terrifying–or as opposed to enforcing sixty-thousand more laws that won’t get us where we are going. Instead of looking outward and trying to identify evil, perhaps we should turn inward and ask ourselves where in the narrative America has taken the world–not just ourselves. If we are the super power we have claimed to be, we cannot absolve ourselves of responsibility for the outcomes we experience. We didn’t deserve them, but we certainly have contributed to them. If we don’t start asking how, then we doom ourselves to experience them over and over until we do. After all, in Hamlet, the play was about revenge, and in the end, all the major characters wound up dead. I’d rather watch such tragedies badly done and being parodied by Mystery Science Theater. How about you?