spiritual orientation affecting spiritual experience?

I've been mostly offline within the past few days, and doing a lot of reading...at the present time I'm at page 104 of Robert Bruce's Practical Psychic Self-Defense. I haven't read too much so far as to the author's personal angle of attack as regards spiritual things except that, from my limited exposure, he seems to be in the "dark=questionable or bad"/"light=good" camp.

I've...gotten this impression from a number of places in the text, as well as from his identifying "negative" entities (as far as I can recall, he hasn't identified what "negative" means to him) as "Negs", which could also transfer over to the root of "negro", meaning "black". Though...that's just something I've noticed. I'm not sure it was intentional (or, if it was un- or sub-conscious, whether this takes away its coherence with the rest of what he's talking about). This...especially when it includes the otherkin tangent, just kind of parallels old racial discourse, at least in my country...but not reading it isn't going to make it go away.

It has also pinged off something in my mind when he says most "Negs" stay out of direct sunlight, and are more active at night...why? Would they lose their grip on coarser planes and sent to higher ones, if exposed to large amounts of daylight?

While reading this, I've found myself shifting between the perspectives of my core identity (though whether s/he is truly the Core, I've been questioning recently) and of Adrian, who is the one who identifies as (not necessarily meaning "is", but "identifies as or with") demonkin. Thus when Bruce talks about "demons" being high-level, powerful, intelligent darker beings...eh. I kind of am still trying to parse out what his personal definition is of "demon", and if it's widely shared. The reason I'm still reading the book is that even if he doesn't share my point of view, I could probably still learn bits from him that would help. I am glad that he said that most demons won't attack at random. And I admit to being curious about what life is like for non-aggressive, non-"evil" demons. The kind who aren't incarnate, and don't bother things here, I mean.

Reading this book does bring certain ideas to the forefront...such as the one that a demon incarnate has surpassed the level where s/he would be inhibited by running water on the Near Astral...of course, then you're effing mortal too, which comes with its own brand of inconveniences (sleep, food, work, hygeine, etc).

The most significant question that I've thought of, while reading this...besides the one that a "Neg" can be a member of a certain species, not all of which are harmful (as, what is the difference between an "astral snake" and a snake spirit helper; or an "astral spider" and an actual spirit spider that isn't trying to eat your fear, for instance <!-- s:razz: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_razz.gif" alt=":razz:" title="Razz" /><!-- s:razz: -->)...is wondering how Bruce's own perspective shapes what he sees.

For instance, I got the hit that the way he visualizes things is just the way that his mind interprets them... that the "black cords" of "negative" spirit attachments aren't necessarily literally black, but when you're of a "white light" disposition...the visualization of darkness as the antithesis of what you believe (in) can transfer over into astral sight. The same energetic connections that he might see as black cords in myself, I might see as something else. Because there may be a different interpretation and a different ground of reference. Plus...they may just treat me differently; for example, if I'm under the protection of a certain demon (which from past experiences, I believe is a possibility...maybe one to look into -- and right now I should probably STOP thinking about getting a beautiful little Earth pentacle...XD...God, though I want to...it just would not be good if that baby showed to anyone but myself and family -- which means in effect, secrecy; and then why mark yourself if you have to keep it a secret, and if the mark is stigmatizing...).

*sighs* Maybe I can modify one of the pentacles I already have. My work has brought me into contact with a couple of people who likely have pretty strong Neg contamination, though I doubt one of them knows it. The other...is questionable. But I think that they've shown me that it's fairly probable that my demon is not who I'd thought it was, before. And they've also shown me that I truly don't want to get into politics. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->

Anyhow, one of the clues as to Bruce's orientation, is that he speaks about people he's had as friends -- New Agers, Born-Again Christians, and (I believe, Catholic) priests. These are the people whose orientations he's mentioned, so far (who weren't people who had done things like take the Black Eucharist [whatever that is] and were subsequently haunted...whom I suspect to also not have known what they were getting into [most people who take the Black Mass, for example, have the reputation of being thrill-seeking Christians], thus got treated with disrespect by the entities they opened themselves to). These are pretty much really far into the "white light" camp, so far as I know. (He's also referenced the Dion Fortune book which I finished a while ago, Psychic Self-Defense; on my end, we've already established as a working proposition that Fortune was a Christian-variant occultist. In our experience...Christian-variants often deny being Christian-variants. To be blunt.)

However...cross-referencing this book with Belanger's Psychic Energy Codex...it verifies something that I picked up while reading the latter -- that essentially going out with the intent to sense things fresh, as though for the first time (as she recommends as the second set of exercises), is a bit of an unfocused invocation, in my experience. It's exactly the same thing I did when dealing with Bell as a teen, though I did not isolate out my senses one at a time, and at that time I invited him to act through my body (fortunately or not, I trusted him enough to let him do this). Especially if one goes out in graveyards doing this...I mean, sure graveyards can be peaceful, but one runs the (relatively high) risk of invoking one or more lost spirits to vicariously live through one -- it's easy enough for them to manipulate you into giving them permission, in my experience.

And doing that *will* likely cause one or more vampiric energetic attachments...theoretically. If what Bruce says is correct, and spirit beings need to draw on life energy in order to operate near the physical plane for any large amount of time.

This is not even to mention that it isn't necessarily safe to go out and do Belanger's exercise day after day in a public area. Negs aside, what about the (biological) others who frequent those places? It's already quite clear to me, and was, prior to my reading this; how easy it is for a spirit to influence an unthinking and uncontrolled mind. This is largely why I delay my own responses online. It's too easy to write something stupid, whatever its origin, and hit "Send" before you know what was written at you or how what you wrote will be interpreted. I think most people can contain "the crazy"...but some act on it instantaneously, or habitually. I'm just lucky enough to have fairly strong mental boundary measures and patience enough to wait out a good deal of this, surprisingly. (Now that I look back on it, at least.)

Anyhow. When one starts out with a "darker" orientation...does this affect how "darker" spirit entities interact with one? (I certainly believe that when one starts out with a "lighter" orientation and approach, this affects how "darker" entities interact with one...) When I was younger, I had as a ground rule that I would not work with any being who threatened my safety or the safety of anyone I cared about. As a result...I haven't had to deal with that. At least, not directly, and not consciously; though I do have some "core images" (memories of trauma; or traumatic incidences, flat-out), which I can see could have been an inroad for Adrian. Then if we look at Adrian as a demon consciousness...effectively demonkin, this means that my own plurality may be in effect wholly due to my sensitivity and trauma-windows. Hmm. The positive thing is that we aren't internally at war with each other, which would have been a noticeable possibility.

I wonder how the metaphysical theories of Bruce and others view plurality in general?

Chordal Wrote:I've been mostly offline within the past few days, and doing a lot of reading...at the present time I'm at page 104 of Robert Bruce's Practical Psychic Self-Defense. I haven't read too much so far as to the author's personal angle of attack as regards spiritual things except that, from my limited exposure, he seems to be in the "dark=questionable or bad"/"light=good" camp.

I'm a big fan of Bruce, but a lot of his self defence ideas are . . . ehhhh, let's just say I'd rather stick with my own. From personal discussions with him as well, he wasn't exactly open to the idea of non-human entities with non-human energy bodies and non-human chakras inhabiting human physical bodies, let's just put it like that <!-- s;-) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";-)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;-) -->

Two things spring to mind with me as to why this stuff works for him.

1 - He is a verrrrry powerful and skilled energy worker, he really knows his shit. Now, if I was an unpleasant entity, would I fuck with the dude with the bad back and poor eyesight, or would I fuck with the dude who was covered in muscles and armed to the teeth with automatic weaponry? I'd go for the guy with the bad back, probably. As such I'm sure a lot of nasties Bruce runs into leave ASAP, even if he doesn't much understand them.
and
2 - The power of belief can be huge. If someone genuinely believes "Aha! THAT is a Neg and THIS is how to deal with Negs!" then even if the method is flawed, the channelling of belief can of itself act as a weapon.

Simply put, he has a very stereotypical view of what is "good" and what is "bad" energy, and I don't think it's likely to change any time soon. I don't know why. Maybe all the nice darkies avoid him, because they can't be bothered to argue. Maybe his own energy is extremely sensitive to darkies, so being around them is actively damaging to him (as opposed to just uncomfortable, as it is for many people). In this case I don't think it's just that he perceives all baddies as "dark", whether they really are or not - because some of his energy work ideas have been actively damaging to me when I tried them (note: not his self-defence anti-darkie stuff, just some of his this-will-make-you-feel-better stuff).

That said, I still think he's by far the best energy worker who cares to write about it, and he really does know his stuff. I just disagree with him big time in terms of what kinds of critters are out there and in here.

Quote:Anyhow. When one starts out with a "darker" orientation...does this affect how "darker" spirit entities interact with one? (I certainly believe that when one starts out with a "lighter" orientation and approach, this affects how "darker" entities interact with one...) When I was younger, I had as a ground rule that I would not work with any being who threatened my safety or the safety of anyone I cared about.

Threatening someone's safety can mean two things. It can mean saying "I will kill you!!!" or it can mean behaving in such a way as to be dangerous, with or without intent. If I avoided anyone who threatened my loved ones' safety, I would never deal with any other shadows . . . because if a pack of shadows threw a party in the house I'm sure that migraines all round would be the least of my loved ones' worries. I think a lot of the "oh my god it's a SHADOW, RUUUUUN!" that spiritually aware people tend to say is down to that confusion. Being around a shadow-being can be painful, uncomfortable, frightening, even damaging to a lot of (most?) humans. In that sense, shadows and the like do threaten the safety of a lot of people . . . even though they might not mean to.

Hmm, I suppose working with people can be interpreted in many ways too. I can "work with" a being to discuss my memories . . . or I can "work with" a being to stab it in the face with my lovely curvy astral sword until it reconsiders annoying me. Etc etc etc. Heh.

Quote:I wonder how the metaphysical theories of Bruce and others view plurality in general?

I dunno, but Bruce did think my tail was a Neg attachment that needed to be amputated, sooooooo <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->

Archer Wrote:In this case I don't think it's just that he perceives all baddies as "dark", whether they really are or not - because some of his energy work ideas have been actively damaging to me when I tried them (note: not his self-defence anti-darkie stuff, just some of his this-will-make-you-feel-better stuff).

I'd be interested in...ahh, well. I suppose if I tried it and it also damaged me and we compared notes, it would be a better talk than if I asked you right off what hurt you so that I can avoid doing it... <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->

Archer Wrote:

Chordal Wrote:Anyhow. When one starts out with a "darker" orientation...does this affect how "darker" spirit entities interact with one? (I certainly believe that when one starts out with a "lighter" orientation and approach, this affects how "darker" entities interact with one...) When I was younger, I had as a ground rule that I would not work with any being who threatened my safety or the safety of anyone I cared about.

Threatening someone's safety can mean two things. It can mean saying "I will kill you!!!" or it can mean behaving in such a way as to be dangerous, with or without intent. If I avoided anyone who threatened my loved ones' safety, I would never deal with any other shadows . . .

Hmm. Given my current living situation, and the fact that I'm not the only sensitive in the house...I think it's understood on the spirit side, why these boundaries are up. In addition, it helps keep away the sulfur dioxide smell I used to keep running into that no one else can sense <!-- s:? --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_confused.gif" alt=":?" title="Confused" /><!-- s:? --> ...ah, the wonders of unusual brain wiring. On the upside, once I go fully independent, I can do whatever I want, spiritually. For now the strong preference of others in my house is that unpredictable energies not be brought in.

Though the sense of the "threat" that I mentioned was meant to refer to intentional harm, I believe. I think someone in spirit asked me about that a very long time ago (while I was still in high school -- or earlier), and I think I clarified the above.

Archer Wrote:Hmm, I suppose working with people can be interpreted in many ways too. I can "work with" a being to discuss my memories . . . or I can "work with" a being to stab it in the face with my lovely curvy astral sword until it reconsiders annoying me. Etc etc etc. Heh.

Reminds me of Goetia stuff...not that I've read the former, but I do know about the stance of certain people to demons; that they make good slaves but are dangerous and not to be trusted. Hence the attempted entrapment of demons in traditional Goetic workings (and hence, the demonic backlash that many people with this attitude and approach have had when undergoing operations like this, and hence the demonic assumption that anyone contacting them [in my experience] with too little information is more than likely going to be not only ignorant and/or bigoted, but disrespectful and demanding help). That parenthetical is why I haven't read more on Demonolatry...too little control of my own mind at present to arm it with things like enns.

As an aside, I've also run across several people who have worked with Goetic demons on an equal or subservient level (a.k.a. with respect and/or reverence), without the entrapment portion of the summoning, and have not been attacked. But that -- could have been because of their orientation.

Archer Wrote:

Chordal Wrote:I wonder how the metaphysical theories of Bruce and others view plurality in general?

I dunno, but Bruce did think my tail was a Neg attachment that needed to be amputated, sooooooo <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->

The reason behind the question is that I've run across...quite a few people who would veer towards saying that there "really is" only one person in here and the rest are spirit attachments. Let's see...what can I get away with saying without naming any particular school?

There's a disreputable New Age school which I've been tangent to some drama about. It's basically a money sink or scam, in the same way as another organization I know of is basically a front for political activity. Though this New Age school basically just wants money and obedience, and I haven't heard of them being a political front organization (though they definitely have political views). Anyway, the person who founded the "psychic school" which views I'm talking about (that not everything in your mind is you, and you need to pull off every single spirit attachment), was an ex-member of this disreputable New Age school. And...this person carried some of the ideas of the disreputable New Age school into the new (disreputable) psychic school. Including its promise to "fix you" -- for a (monetary) price.

Anyhow. When I was younger I did go to a couple of these "psychic faires" that this school put on. Basically fundraising and recruiting events, as well as "training" for the students (if you can call it that, and not that it was just using the students to bring in free money). They had what they called a "trance medium" reading, which I took. Bogus reading, I found out much later (parts ripped from a fiction book; my "guardian angel's" supposed name was "Angelica"; the reader couldn't find any "Bell"; etc.), but it scared me enough to go and pay $40 for a "trance medium healing" (hey, I was young) in which certain energies were "released" -- their space immediately taken up by fresh energies, apparently.

Avoiding a couple of quips I could make: Essentially...trance mediums, in this sense, are highly sensitive people who are easily overshadowed by other beings or "energies." I'm not disputing that. I'm wondering how much of plurality in general would be attributed to symbiosis with other spirits through highly sensitive people.

I've already read at least a couple of times in this book that (energetically) "sensitive" people tend to be easily hypnotized. The easy hypnotization is also something that's characteristic of people diagnosed with MPD/DID. Though...I'd say that a vocal number of systems -- both "healthy multiple" and those who identify with the MPD/DID paradigms...don't tend to look all that deeply beneath the surface to question why what is happening, is happening. Or they do look, with the "help" of psychiatry, and hypnosis, and they recover false memories...which (by the way) validate the psychiatric paradigm...(regardless of whether they make any sense)

If we look at trauma windows or "core images" (trauma memories, real or implanted) as entry points for "Negs"; and at trauma as the theoretical origin of "splitting", in a trauma-based MPD/DID model, these two things line up. Except that in the first example, the new perspectives in consciousness are referred to as spirits, with origins outside the physical body; in the second, it's viewed that the new perspectives are dissociated fragments of an originally whole identity. (I suppose the good thing is that Bruce's method of destroying energetic attachments to "core images" should work to eliminate hostile attachments, either way...)

Then from the "healthy multiplicity" model, we have the idea of some brains being more inclined to have multiple identities, this being why not everyone who goes through trauma ends up plural. This lines up with the concept of some people being more psychically "sensitive" than others. However, it's not a given that "sensitives" and "people who are more prone to 'splitting'," are actually the same group.

I'm wondering if "Neg" or other spirit attachment could be cohesively said to be the etiology of plurality in general -- or if not for all of it, for much of it. Of note, there's been some backlash against ideas like this in the "healthy multiplicity" community. Something about "flying toasters" or "magic toaster powers" or something. I really haven't followed it all that much, as that line of discourse is fairly abrasive to me.

I do believe that in my own past, I opted for the DID/DD-NOS (a.k.a. psychiatric) model because the idea that different neural networks were being lit up at different times (certainly the case whatever the cause), "felt safer" than the idea that my brain was being used by more than one spirit being. It's possible something similar could be going on, with people just being psychologically unprepared to cope with the idea that *actually*, not everything in their mind is of them (in a relatively concrete way of understanding), or they think that anything in their mind which is not them must therefore be "evil" and "invasive" and a "demon" (as this is the only reference the general public has to anything referring to a spirit which is not oneself, using one's body). Thus they can be categorized as "possessed" (or at the very least, "symbiotic"), and the (possibly fairly evil in themselves, I'd think -- given the publicized deaths) exorcists can be called in -- which is another pressure (besides the terror at acknowledging an existent and influential spirit world, which contains beings who are not all cotton candy and cuddles) to avoid this explanation.

Of note -- apparently this sensitivity to other spirits, if it is sensitivity, can be turned down or off by medication -- meaning that there must be something chemical at work...but that's kind of tangential.

Negativity is in the eye of the beholder. Even in a day-to-day scenario: your promotion in the workplace is good to you, but bad to anyone who was competing against you for the same title.

Also, perception is subjective. I know that simply being human affects how I perceive energy. I can look at a tree in sunlight, see the vibes it's giving off, and they appear "green" to me because I have eyes.

In the dark, when there's no longer sunlight for me to perceive color as well, I can still see the tree-vibes, they're just no longer "green." Even in near-darkness, out in the country during a new moon, for instance, without all the streetlights and urban smog lightening up the atmosphere, I can still "feel" the tree-vibes. They're still there, I'm just perceiving them differently because senses I'd normally have aren't as heightened.

As for spiritual orientation, I get iffy with it. I've never been super spiritual; my "spirituality" extends about as far to cover what I directly believe in: Otherkin, energy working and the like(and even all that is always under a heavy dose of skepticism). I'm not religious in the slightest.

As for "attacking" things, the question comes to mind: what defines attacking? A lion stalking its prey and then chasing after it is definitely "attacking" its prey, but what about a leech in a swamp? You're just wading along and it just comes up and latches on. There's not really any aggression there. Just like there's a difference between someone waving their hand toward you and throwing a punch, there's a difference between attacking and simply feeding.

You can't expect all energy beings with the intent of feeding to actually "attack" you. Some are simply gonna brush by, take what they need if they can get it, and do so in a rather passive manner.

As for walking around with the intent to experience things, I always took it in a skeptical sense along the lines that if you're walking around with the intent to experience things, and do experience things, it could be purely psychosomatic.

Verifiability aside, however, I've found from various experimenting in graveyards(loads of graveyards, mind you, all across the county, state, etc.) that most of the time, anything that "did" happen energetically, metaphysically, usually happened when me or whomever I was with was NOT trying to look for it. We've all had our shares of "Ooh, I felt something there" but they were rather fleeting moments. The "craziest" of all experiences we've had are always when we were just walking around minding our own business, seeing as we don't always graveyard-hop with the intention of getting spooked out, but also go to many for the photography, picnics, and what have you.

We've found that most of the stuff happens at night as well, but that could be because out of my small group who go with me, most of us are generally night people. My energy's up all times of the day, but I've found(going back to the tree-vibe stuff mentioned earlier) that I rely on more innate senses and I feel more comfortable with my energy at night.

As for "the crazy" and containing it: most of what I type isn't even being filtered. I suck at thinking responses out, this is just a torrent of thought and most of the time I can't even tell you what I'm going to type before I type it. Sometimes I see a thread and I just feel like I have something to say on it... I just don't know what. My analytical processes are very self-imposed(and my greatest creation) and they're implemented solely so I don't go do something actually crazy; they also require a lot of upkeep which requires a lot of energy which plays off my natural tendency to latch onto things around me and passively feed. I've never been the "attacking" sort of creature: attacking requires energy spent.

My fiance has Bruce's book, actually, on his shelf within grabbing distance of me, but I've never sat down and taken the time to read it. Maybe I can make this a day project. He(my fiance, not Bruce) bought it because of the way Bruce is very practical about his technique. My fiance's a military man and has always been the knight in armor/martial arts kinda guy, so Bruce's book called out to him in a way, and when I took a gander through it, I was even like, "Hey, you're gonna like this book." I knew it wasn't for me in that same gander, but that's not stopping me from reading it now. XD

While not necessarily being "darker" in orientation, I frequently get clumped in there because a lot of folks equate chaos with darkness. I've never had a problem with anything other than the occasional fear-eating/causing critter, and the easiest way to get rid of them is similar to those thingies in the Harry Potter books: just turn your fear into something hilarious and laugh your ass off. Since I love laughter(and it's frickin delicious) it's easy for me... most of the time.

Any "big baddie" who has come my way before whenever my group and I have right-out asked for them to come in and mess with us(which is stupid, I know, but that's never stopped me from doing stupid things before) has always found my energy abundant but disgusting, similar to mixing every flavor you like into some sort of smoothie and finding that they don't all taste good together. Only the smaller, starving ones have gone past that initial taste, and that's when I figure I can just eat them before they eat me. That's how my energy is, and that's always been a natural self-defense that I never needed to work on.