ex-l wrote:At the very least, you ought to state, "In my opinion ...".
I did, in the sentence before I said, "let me reiterate my main thesis." Same diff. My position, my opinion.
In response to such a suggestion, I would say that puts you in the position of a 'BK Apologist'
It is you who claims that to explain something is to condone it. I disagree. My aim with this exploration is that hopefully some BK or ex BK may realise that all he/she needs is within, and they can move on from an externalised "God" or "guru".
attempting to make it look all very wonderful and natural by using grand ideas such as the logos and mythos, which most people have no idea what they mean, and traditions such as "alchemy" or Jung.
OK, let's just bore everybody stupid with what they already understand. Maybe you are going to re-edit the Topic "Prometheus and the Wounded healer". You write with exactly the same ideas there, using archetype and myth. You are so inconsistent, ex-l
... it is all very close to one's typical BK service programme; 45 minutes of new agey chit-chat and a few quotes from famous people ... then stop for meditation and toli.
In my BK day, I nearly always found the non-BK speakers at BK programs far more interesting and stimulating. The Dalai Lama et al, and my favourite was the Indian High Commisioner in London in 76-77, who gave a fantastic exposition on the Gita and what meditation
really was.
Whereas many of the so-called contemporary Jungians have, rather embarrassed by it, thrown the baby with the bathwater ... the "baby" being spiritism or spiritualism. Jung himself was experienced and accepting of it. ditto any alchemist worth their salt.
I am not embarrassed, and most modern thinkers aren't either, they acknowledge their history, a point you'd appreciate? Jung was a creature of his time, spiritualism was a 'famous' phenomenon of the late 19th & early 20th centuries. He was also castigated as an anti-semite, and when he realised that he had that within him, worked on it.
A Rabbi (whose name escapes me) praised him for his honesty and effort in realising it. He also said, when asked if his ideas would last, that he hoped that they would not, they should not be dogma, and hoped that newer and deeper understanding would develop. His understanding of spirits changed, but he never "explained away" all phenomena, accepting there was a lot of mystery
Are there any actual alchemists still around?
Jung had his own "familiar spirit" whom he called Philemon. At first he thought it was part of inner self, later he discovered that it was more than that.
Your understanding of Philemon sounds like one I came across in a Christian pamphlet called "Jung's legacy to the church" which, to serve its own purposes, implied Jung thought of it as a "spirit guide". Not quite right. Jung realised that Philemon had a wisdom and communicated things that he had not consciously experienced. Philemon therefore was the figure that clarified for Jung the separate existence of a deeper unconscious, and archetypal energies therein, that they "pre-existed" the ego, and were not responses to it, which was Freud's approach. He felt that to over-analyse Philemon would destroy 'him', like dissecting an animal kills it, so he treated 'him' as a separate entity, but separate to his ego, not to his Self.
It is easy to see how it can be misunderstood or taken as proof of a "spirit guide". But that is his whole point! We are so caught in the mundane consciousness/ego that we do not directly relate to the depth of the self, and we "externalise" the religious experience because it is from outside the (necessary) boundaries of normal consciousness.
As for spirits; Spiritualism is a cult (sub-culture) of Christianity, as is Satanism, as is Creationism. Not equating them in any way except that all have a Judeo/Christian paradigm which evolved from animistic beliefs, as did Shinto and other traditions. Wherever there is a widespread belief in spiritualism. they seem to experience spirits galore, and explain everything that way, and where they do not have a broad culture of spirits, do not. You might say the believers invoke them? let them through the ''gate"? The vicar warned us not to play with ouija boards! There is a direct correlation of belief with experience. Same for alien abductions. In my view, there are neither spirits (nor alien abductions). OK ex-l, I've been saving this cat for when the pigeons were ready - this may be the time, and this may need a new thread ...
There is no such entity as "a soul".
It is an abstraction that has taken on a life of its own, and once it does, "steals" life. But I will not go into it here, where even the ex's are mostly believers. It would need time to argue. But you can really live life to the full when soul is put in its place.
I would suggest you read the short book called "The People of the Lie" by M. Scott Peck... the conclusion he came to towards the end of his career looking back was that spirit influences were very real
M. Scott Peck is an avowed and practicing Christian (and one of you ex-l sometimes sound like a lapsed one). Such things can be reconciled within that framework.
Whether a mugger is 'part of the mythos' or 'part of the logos' when you mugged, it hurts and sometimes it scars the rest of your life.
You mix apples and oranges here, take the trouble to understand what you argue. It's like saying "whether an anvil falls on someone's head in a popular song lyric, or on a person in daily life it, is the same." Both are "real" but a different kind of reality.
Mythos and Logos are Neitzche's terms, not Jung's. Terms that, if understood, reveal a lot, so are valuable and worth sharing. They relate to the society, not the individual, though there are obvious parallels. You might say Western civilisation is built on science , reason and the civil society and monotheistic religions (that is the structure, the form, the Logos) but it's Mythos, its underlying dynamic, it's spirit, is still classical, we are still beholden to the same values, like in architecture, law and politics etc and still in awe of the same ''gods'' - Aphrodite/love, Aries/war, Athena/tempered wisdom, Artemis/ nature, Hades/death.
Logos is the walls of a room. Mythos is the space between the walls
Ditto when you dabble with spirits not have a clue of their game. Its very subtle but if you look closer, it is there.
OK. can agree here - whether you call it spirits or aspects of the unconscious, it is a delicate and fragile area, older traditions took a lot more care, but we live in the age of 'I want it now". The fallout is obvious.
This is why I am upset with the Brahma Kumaris for calling their practise "Raja Yoga". It is not Raja Yoga. They are not the laughably named 'Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University'. They are the 'Brahma Kumaris World Spiritualist University' ... or may more accurately ... 'The Brahma Kumaris World Domination by Spiritualism Conspiracy'.
I respond with reference to my post on 6th january
Terry wrote:Mediumship/spiritualism was never denied in my time, merely explained that this "channelling" was special because this was no mere Zen Cherokee Pharoah spirit. This was ..."GOD!!" Jayanti used to regularly lecture at the spiritualists association in London. The concept of spiritualism was actually used to explain how "god" incarnates and uses Brahma - again this was not denied or kept secret.
Things have changed huh?
john morgan wrote: OK Terry, Taken as a gift from God and deeply understood Gyan is close to "the bees knees." ... the effect of the teachings ... seems more like the devil's work than God's ... My views are those of a shapeshifter that enquires anew each day. Happy?
Thank you John. You think deeply and try different perspectives. I like that. What does your heart feel most comfortable?