Finding the 'Child Perspective'
-
[I considered posting this in the April thread about a 'Thelemic political party', but it is probably worthy of its own]
In the former thread on politics and Thelema, Jim compared the idea of the 'Democratic vs. the Republican perspective' to 'Nuit vs. Hadit', 'Chapter I vs. Chapter II', 'Mother vs. Father' etc. He emphasised that neither was desirable in isolation, but rather that the 'Child Perspective' - the marriage (and not the compromise) of the two - was the correct point of view.
I'm interested in the application of this third perspective to politics, but much more so to wider aspects of life.
The trouble is, I can't find it!
It seems that whenever I try to find a good example of this 'Child Perspective' enacted in real life, it always seems to be an 'averaging out' between the two perspectives, and not a true expression of both while diminishing neither. This can be observed on an abstract 'individualism vs. collectivism' level or in a myriad of real life situations. It really does seem that the two perspectives are mutually exclusive, and that any combination is by nature 'impure' - a compromise.From where comes the Child? And how does it unite the Mother and the Father?
I believe the best way to understand this idea would be seeing it applied. Can anyone think of a good example?P.S. Jim, I would really appreciate if you could post some (or part) of your essays/platforms on government policy that were based around the Child perspective. I'm sure a good example of it in practice would help me understand what it actually entails.
-
@PatchworkSerpen said
"I'm interested in the application of this third perspective to politics, but much more so to wider aspects of life.
The trouble is, I can't find it!
"One clue is what was already mentioned in the other thread: The child perspective is one of union of two seemingly opposing points of view that otherwise seem to have a tension or conflict or contradiction in them. One place you should be able to find a lot of examples is the following: Hold simultaneously that (1) we are each unique individuals, and must owe first and primary duty to the enactment of our unique point of view; and (2) we are inseparably part of a greater whole, and must owe first and primary duty to enactions that serve the entirety.
Most people find a tension or opposition between these two, and they pick one or the other. But to recognize both, and simultaneously come from both, is to emerge as the child of both.
"It seems that whenever I try to find a good example of this 'Child Perspective' enacted in real life, it always seems to be an 'averaging out' between the two perspectives, and not a true expression of both while diminishing neither."
That's a step in the right direction, though. (I agree: It's not the right space; but it's a step in the right direction.) I might say it's a lazy version of the right approach
A guess: Possibly you are determining which action serves A vs. B best, and then averaging the actions. However, instead, you need to "come from" both A and B perspectives at the same time and then take the action that serves both. That's not compromise, it's "thinking outside the box."
Because, see, you usually won't find the answer to this by logic. It has to come from outside of logic.
"This can be observed on an abstract 'individualism vs. collectivism' level or in a myriad of real life situations. It really does seem that the two perspectives are mutually exclusive, and that any combination is by nature 'impure' - a compromise."
You're most definitely on the right track and possibly just need to struggle with it a while longer. But, again, you won't get it "in your head" but, rather, in action, in living it.
"I believe the best way to understand this idea would be seeing it applied."
Yes!
"Can anyone think of a good example?"
Not off hand, but I'll watch for one. (This has been so habitual for 20-30 years for me that I don't consciously track it anymore.)
"P.S. Jim, I would really appreciate if you could post some (or part) of your essays/platforms on government policy that were based around the Child perspective. I'm sure a good example of it in practice would help me understand what it actually entails."
Not developed yet in that form - I do have over 400 pages of my next book done, but haven't been writing political essays.
-
I've thought about this too, more in terms of the Hadit vs Nuit fundamentalists, and where my viewpoint on both fits in.
In trying to explain it to another, I came up with the Pit Bull Parable, which I offer below.I knew 2 Pit Bull dogs.
One was raised by a genuinely loving family, a pleasant house with children and laughter and love.
It was a cherished family pet, nay family member, the kids adored it and it spent its time being pampered and playing with the children, being fed and exercised well. It was a happy dog and a delight to be around.
It lived in a Universe of Love and kindness. Reality for this Pit Bull was one of bliss and contentment. Earth was Paradise for this dog, it faced no threats or horrors and spent its days in happiness.The other Pit Bull was raised in a cage. Beaten daily from being a Puppy, mistreated its whole life and even worse once every couple of weeks or so it would be taken from its cage and thrown into a Pit with another dog and forced to fight for its very life by people who would scream and cheer while this dog faced a pure kill or be killed situation.
It knew nothing but pain and horror and isolation. I doubt one day of this dogs life was ever lived happily.
It lived in a Universe of constant threats of death. Reality for this Pit Bull was kill or be killed, cruelty and injustice. Earth was Hell for this dog, in the end when it was finally rescued it had grown to hate people so much its last few days were spent cowering at the back of its cage growling fiercely at anyone coming near it, so it was put down to save it further suffering.Two completely different Pit Bull realities, but which is the "True" Pit Bull reality?
Neither of course. Both were realities for each of those dogs. Each dog lived in its own Universe and knew of nothing else except how the world around it had treated it.
There is no "True" reality. There is no absolute truth in either the Hadit or Nuit perspective, individual or collective. Just choices made (by us, or for us) that are forgotten over time until those choices become a "reality".
The child view as I would see it would be to accept that both are "realities", as valid(/invalid) as each other, and we have the option of choosing one or the other (or perhaps both, or neither), whether we realise that or not because of how the world has treated us. -
My two...
The Child is their union. It is what is. For example, a democracy is one way of manifesting a decision-making process that incorporates the two perspectives. Turn on the news; there is the Child - in terms of the manifestation of space and time in the realm of politics.
The Child of space and time looks to the nature of his own existence to discover principles by which to make decisions. So, on the psychological level, you are the Child, and you must choose between the two directions within yourself in which you are manifested. From this perspective, the holy trinity of father, mother, and child reflects itself downward into the decision-making characters of Power, Love, and Wisdom, respectively.
Power, and one's psychological relationship to it, is expressed symbolically by the Father. Love, and one's psychological relationship to it, is expressed symbolically by the Mother. Wisdom reflects on the laws and effects of their known interactions and seeks more light in the future.
As such, I would have to say that there is no one "Child Perspective," except the reality of the present moment.
-
Mr. Eshelman said
"Hold simultaneously that (1) we are each unique individuals, and must owe first and primary duty to the enactment of our unique point of view; and (2) we are inseparably part of a greater whole, and must owe first and primary duty to enactions that serve the entirety."
Fantastic!
"Can anyone think of a good example?"
I realize you want to apply this to a larger scale, but going the other way for a moment......
The thought that came to mind was a madly inlove married couple, and the ins and outs of thier daily lives. Living in love with each other and having that love guide them, it is not about compromise it is about the dance, and keeping the dance going.
In the mythology of the Goddesses of Love (Freya, Venus, Aphrodite, Astarte, Isis) you may see some of the examples you are looking for.
my favorite poet wrote this which may inspire....
On Marriage
Kahlil GibranYou were born together, and together you shall be forevermore.
You shall be together when the white wings of death scatter your days.
Ay, you shall be together even in the silent memory of God.
But let there be spaces in your togetherness,
And let the winds of the heavens dance between you.Love one another, but make not a bond of love:
Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.
Fill each other's cup but drink not from one cup.
Give one another of your bread but eat not from the same loaf
Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each one of you be alone,
Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music.Give your hearts, but not into each other's keeping.
For only the hand of Life can contain your hearts.
And stand together yet not too near together:
For the pillars of the temple stand apart,
And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other's shadow. -
Thanks to Jim & others who replied to my post.
I'm starting to get a vibe that the Child is 'less pure' (using these terms very loosely) than the Mother and the Father, but in the sense that Tiphereth is 'less pure' than Chokhmah or Binah (by degrees of manifestation).
I'm thinking that although the Child is their median, it is also their motion; it is a kind of average, but 'after another matter', as we say. I'm not sure how just yet. But I get the feeling that its got something to do with the fact that although Tiphereth is lower on the Tree than Chokhmah or Binah, it lies on the Middle Pillar and reflects Kether.
Also, the union of Yod and Heh produces a Son and a Daughter- and the characteristics of both Vav and Héh must be considered together if we are to understand the 'Child'. [Not sure about this bit, how Heru-Ra-Ha maps onto the IHVH formula etc. Pick apart at your leisure!]
Keep the discussion and ideas coming!
-
A political example just came to mind from late in the last century. It was Bill Clinton's position on abortion laws.
The heavily polarized view, of course, was that one side took a stand for women's right to control their own bodies, and the other side took a stance that abortions were immoral.
Clinton took the position that, their disagreements aside, both groups shared common ground: nobody wanted there to be more abortions! He called on both sides to join, therefore, in the goal of reducing unwanted pregnancies.
This isn't a compromise. It isn't an "averaging." It's the fruit of taking the issue more within, rather than dealing with the manifest positions without. He didn't try to rearrange the pieces of the argument out on the table; instead, he took it deeper, backtracking along the perspectives until he found common ground which let each opposing position remain intact yet served both of them pretty well.
Come to think of it, this has always been part of Clinton's genius: The ability to intuit the common ground that lays under division factionalism. (Obviously he didn't always pull it off, but he was better at it than just about anybody.)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Most people find a tension or opposition between these two, and they pick one or the other. But to recognize both, and simultaneously come from both, is to emerge as the child of both.
"This is good but it leaves us without the requested political perspective.
When I read Crowley I see what would obviously be a Libertarian in today's USA political scene. Under a "do what though wilt" rubric the smallest possible government would be the ideal. Individual freedom is maximized and the inevitable communal effort on the part of the more advanced is purely voluntary. I think it would be helpful to stop thinking in terms of a Utopian Society and focus more on an Optimum society.
Optimize what, you ask?
Spiritual Growth, of course!
But given that most Souls lose interest in anything along those lines as soon as they realize it requires effort, we would be left with a multitude of less than optimum scenarios, grouped according to the collective level of consciousness that makes up a community. But for the Ones afforded optimum growth opportunity the reward is priceless... for the individual and the for entire community.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Most people find a tension or opposition between these two, and they pick one or the other. But to recognize both, and simultaneously come from both, is to emerge as the child of both.
"This is good but it leaves us without the requested political perspective."
Or it IS the political perspective. (Think about it: Politics need not be about positions. It can be about method.)
"When I read Crowley I see what would obviously be a Libertarian in today's USA political scene. Under a "do what though wilt" rubric the smallest possible government would be the ideal. Individual freedom is maximized and the inevitable communal effort on the part of the more advanced is purely voluntary. I think it would be helpful to stop thinking in terms of a Utopian Society and focus more on an Optimum society. "
I don't think we should confuse Crowley's personal politics with what a Thelemic political perspective would be. They were his own particular mix as a citizen. For example, he was a rabid British patriot - which is a specific position that nobody (probably) would expect to be a "standard Thelemic position." He was fiercely anti-abortion (because, I believe, of the social conditions of the time: it was, at least partly, his way of attacking the stigma on unwed mothers). And so on.
But these are specific political stances. I don't think those are what we need for our definitions. Real freedom is in process, not particulars. And, in particular, we need much more active (and activist) participation. Real democracy requires somewhere around 93% participation
instead of the, say, 25% participation that has become routine. -
Regarding participation levels in democracy: I notice that it seems to go hand-in-hand with the fact that people seem increasingly dissatisfied with the job American politicians are doing.
When you consider the representative model of America, with its checks and balances, it seems that it has 3 purposes: (1) to slow down radical change (2) to protect the numerical minority from potential oppression by the majority and (3) for practicality reasons, since communication was more difficult at the time, it allowed people to have lower direct participation.
Purpose 3 is no longer relevant. Most of us can follow the minute-by-minute procedures of congress if we're so inclined. And, since as a culture we strive for instant results, Purpose 1 is all the more frustrating. I used to believe that the lack of participation was because people were just dumb and apathetic. I now believe that the sentence has the causation switched. It's because they see little chance at making a difference.
And I think the current model has turned into a spectator sport. We watch the politicians fight, we root for a team, and we know that there is often very slim chance for a meaningful victory for either side, so we scream harder.
The natural inclination seems to be the "big sort": we divide our entire lifestyles, including where we live, along socio-political lines. You move to a liberal place if you're liberal, and live a liberal lifestyle, and the same thing if you're conservative. But that isn't the child perspective, and that ignores that we have problems to solve that are bigger that our communities.
It would be interesting to have a method where we passed legislation that only focused on the goals that the most diametrically opposed viewpoints agreed on.
In general, though, both sides of the political spectrum in the US are very right. We must act collectively to solve our big problems, and we must be careful to protect individuality.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"(Think about it: Politics need not be about positions. It can be about method.)"
While I agree that method is much more important than position in the long run, when entering the voting booth it is mostly about position.
@Jim Eshelman said
"For example, he was a rabid British patriot - which is a specific position that nobody (probably) would expect to be a "standard Thelemic position." He was fiercely anti-abortion (because, I believe, of the social conditions of the time: it was, at least partly, his way of attacking the stigma on unwed mothers)."
He was a patriot because that is the psychologically healthy attitude of a Spiritually advanced being. Ditto the anti-abortion stance.
The guilt-ridden self loathing so common among the Left is a reflection of Spiritual ignorance.
@Jim Eshelman said
"But these are specific political stances. I don't think those are what we need for our definitions. Real freedom is in process, not particulars. "
I think they are exactly what is needed. Particulars can serve as the rungs on the process ladder.
@Jim Eshelman said
"And, in particular, we need much more active (and activist) participation. Real democracy requires somewhere around 93% participation
instead of the, say, 25% participation that has become routine."Not really. It is a good thing that the lazy element in society is too lazy to go to the polls. Our Founding Fathers, in their brilliance saw the inherent weakness in "Democracy" and thus gave us a Republic. What if 51% of the population is a bunch of demon possessed loons? Democracy would be a disaster. The tyranny of the masses was exactly what they were trying to avoid.
I read this quote from a Greek philosopher written shortly after the collapse of Athen's economy (I have seen it attributed recently to a Scotsman);
"Any Democracy is doomed as soon as the citizens discover that they can vote themselves benefits from the public coffers".
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"(Think about it: Politics need not be about positions. It can be about method.)"While I agree that method is much more important than position in the long run, when entering the voting booth it is mostly about position. "
Not always, and not necessarily. The second biggest reason most people voted for Obama at the time was a belief that he would alter the process. (I'm speaking of the motivations people actually say they used on that occasion.) Personally, I routinely include in my equation (the factors I juggle) the bigger question of how they will make decisions, rather than what decisions I think they'll make.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"For example, he was a rabid British patriot - which is a specific position that nobody (probably) would expect to be a "standard Thelemic position." He was fiercely anti-abortion (because, I believe, of the social conditions of the time: it was, at least partly, his way of attacking the stigma on unwed mothers)."He was a patriot because that is the psychologically healthy attitude of a Spiritually advanced being. Ditto the anti-abortion stance."
I decline to try to second guess his thinking; and I think it an error to confuse the execution of our rights as citizens with our positions as initiates.
"The guilt-ridden self loathing so common among the Left is a reflection of Spiritual ignorance."
Not sure where you're getting that. Sounds like propaganda to me. I know very few people actively working on the left who have guilt-ridden self-loathing.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"But these are specific political stances. I don't think those are what we need for our definitions. Real freedom is in process, not particulars. "I think they are exactly what is needed. Particulars can serve as the rungs on the process ladder."
<sigh> Understood. Your pov. (But I'll now be dropping out from discussing this with you because I think that's the entirely wrong path and likely to lead to exactly the kind of problem we see today. Same song, different verse.)
-
93
@PatchworkSerpen said
"Can anyone think of a good example?"
The mathematician John Nash revised Adam Smith (aka the father of modern economics) and arrived at some interesting conclusions that one could refer to as a child like synthesis.
Smith argued that the best results are achieved when everyone in a group pursues their own interests individually. Nash revised the theory by adding the consideration that the common interests of the group in its entirety, combined with the individual pursuit would be the most ideal approach.
Nash was continually proven in practice and recieved the Nobel prize for his discovery.
-
"He was a patriot because that is the psychologically healthy attitude of a Spiritually advanced being. Ditto the anti-abortion stance."
Sheesh, man. At least admit that you really want to be challenged to express your defense of statements like that. Otherwise, you are simply embodying "Because and his kin" (Liber Legis). That's where I continually find myself drawing a line between you and me, and I imagine, though I cannot say for certain, that it stings the nose of more than just my vocal self.
My vision for Thelema's influence on politics though...? Be the most hard-c**ked producer of environmentally safe and friendly technologies and products. That's where the future success lies in more way than one. That's where the cheese has moved. The factories should be housed in-country and the jobs go to citizens. Take all that greedy desire and point it (by law or reward or both) in the direction of the future of humanity itself instead of allowing unprincipled men to parasitically feed off of the wealth and resources of their own nation to its demise. That seems to me to be what Life and Survival would reward.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Not always, and not necessarily. The second biggest reason most people voted for Obama at the time was a belief that he would alter the process. (I'm speaking of the motivations people actually say they used on that occasion.) Personally, I routinely include in my equation (the factors I juggle) the bigger question of how they will make decisions, rather than what decisions I think they'll make. "
Well, of course "Not always, and not necessarily" applies to a lot of things and situations, so I agree there. But when it comes to voting for politicians I look at a pattern of past behavior and decision making processes as well as final decisions and voting commitments for the future. I think voting primarily on process is highly unreliable and very risky. Obama is a good example. The guy came outta nowhere so he could say whatever people wanted to hear and given the pass he got from the major networks, he got away with it.
(re: my comment: He was a patriot because that is the psychologically healthy attitude of a Spiritually advanced being. Ditto the anti-abortion stance.)
@Jim Eshelman said
"I decline to try to second guess his thinking; and I think it an error to confuse the execution of our rights as citizens with our positions as initiates."
The real error is in confusing my comment with "the execution of our rights as citizens with our positions as initiates". I said nothing about the execution of rights. Not even close.
(re: my comment; The guilt-ridden self loathing so common among the Left is a reflection of Spiritual ignorance.)
@Jim Eshelman said
"Not sure where you're getting that. Sounds like propaganda to me. I know very few people actively working on the left who have guilt-ridden self-loathing."
I know lots of 'em. Here's what I am getting at. The following sorts of things have them wallowing in guilt-ridden self-loathing;
- dropping atomic bombs on the legitimate military targets of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and saving the countless lives it did somehow has got many lefties with their panties in a bunch.
- Pouring a little water up the nose of three (count 'em... three, 3) terrorists who were planning to kill thousands of innocent Americans had some Lefties so nauseous they actually vomited and could not sleep.
- The most technologically advanced nation in the world uses more resources. (!? - duh, so what?)
- invading a country and deposing a horrendous despot who openly and undeniably supported terrorism really has them in kanipshin fits.
- Even though the USA was the ONLY industrialized nation in the world to actually reduce its rate of carbon output in recent years they still have to whine about carbon footprints on their cell phones as they drive to work and to McDonalds and their favorite nightclubs.... Its so ridiculously hypocritical.
There's more where that came from but I think that for those sincerely interested in understanding where I am coming from on this, that's plenty.
-
@Frater LA said
"Sheesh, man. At least admit that you really want to be challenged to express your defense of statements like that. Otherwise, you are simply embodying "Because and his kin" (Liber Legis). That's where I continually find myself drawing a line between you and me, and I imagine, though I cannot say for certain, that it stings the nose of more than just my vocal self. "
"Stings the nose"? I will admit this much. It never ceases to amaze me how Liberal the general occult and new age communities are. Especially the more La-La feelgood astrology and Madame Zorba palm reader types.
"He was a patriot because that is the psychologically healthy attitude of a Spiritually advanced being. Ditto the anti-abortion stance".
From what I have read here, it looks like some psychologically challenging periods lay ahead for serious seekers but they emerge stable and healthy on the other side. Ipso facto, a positive self image. Which would naturally extend to one's mother country to a certain extent.
-
Labyrinthus, 93,
You wrote:
"It never ceases to amaze me how Liberal the general occult and new age communities are. "
When people start mud-slinging about liberal or conservative attitudes, I always recall my favorite quote from Leonard Cohen:
"I feel we're in a very shabby moment, and neither the literary nor the musical experience has its finger on the pulse of our crisis. We're in the midst of a Flood; and this Flood is of such enormous and Biblical proportions that I see everyone holding on in their individual way to an orange crate, to a piece of wood, and we're passing each other in this swollen river that has pretty well taken down all the landmarks, and overturned everything. And people insist, under these circumstances, on describing themselves as liberal or conservative. It seems to me completely mad."
Now, I'm less concerned than him about this Flood. Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly with his opinion, which he gave in the late 1990s.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"<sigh> Understood. Your pov. (But I'll now be dropping out from discussing this with you because I think that's the entirely wrong path and likely to lead to exactly the kind of problem we see today. Same song, different verse.)"
I assume you imply he is coming from a Hadit perspective.
"When people start mud-slinging about liberal or conservative attitudes, I always recall my favorite quote from Leonard Cohen:
I feel we're in a very shabby moment, and neither the literary nor the musical experience has its finger on the pulse of our crisis. We're in the midst of a Flood; and this Flood is of such enormous and Biblical proportions that I see everyone holding on in their individual way to an orange crate, to a piece of wood, and we're passing each other in this swollen river that has pretty well taken down all the landmarks, and overturned everything. And people insist, under these circumstances, on describing themselves as liberal or conservative. It seems to me completely mad."This seems to be somewhat the perspective of a victim, someone whom things "happen to" as opposed to someone who 'makes things happen"!! why cant one take control of ones own destiny??
I think the conservative attitude in the context of initiation tends towards "self initiation"
"Ipso facto, a positive self image. Which would naturally extend to one's mother country to a certain extent."
Whereas the liberal attitude tends toward impaction
" Impaction is the phenomenon when the mind and energy of a being with higher spiritual development impacts, and sets off development or capacities, in the mind and energy of a being with lesser spiritual development. It's kinda like a contract high of spiritual force. Consider a tuning fork and its ability to set strings vibrating if they are nearby and tuned to the same note. So what I was saying is that a significant part of the traditional way of training for this is to have someone further along, who has this ability well developed and has opened to higher spiritual frequencies, walk you through it and, my right concentrated attention (usually, in this case, combined with instruction) trigger or ignite you into being able to do it."
in the form of group initiations.The Child perspective could then very well be impaction at a distance; Larger and more diverse virtual groups such as this. which could provide for both a more complete collective and greater individual freedom, its like saying that there is no initiation ultimately but self-intiation but this cant happen without the help of others..ironically I think this pretty much describes my stance at this point. The Liberal viewpoints expressed here predominantly seem to be some type of "victim consciousness" and that being the case I would prefer to err in the way of self-assertion, so I guess that would make me appear somewhat conservative, which I only realized recently. I suppose then it stands to reason that less self assertive people would need more protection and hence preparations so it all does seem to balance out in the end.
"One clue is what was already mentioned in the other thread: The child perspective is one of union of two seemingly opposing points of view that otherwise seem to have a tension or conflict or contradiction in them. One place you should be able to find a lot of examples is the following: Hold simultaneously that (1) we are each unique individuals, and must owe first and primary duty to the enactment of our unique point of view; and (2) we are inseparably part of a greater whole, and must owe first and primary duty to enactions that serve the entirety.
Most people find a tension or opposition between these two, and they pick one or the other. But to recognize both, and simultaneously come from both, is to emerge as the child of both"
. -
Labyrinthus, my post to you had nothing to do with liberals or conservatives.
It does, however, have to do with my own spiritual and occult advancement under Aleister Crowley's system, which instructs as follows:
""You are expected to spend three months at least on the study of some of the classics on the subject. The chief object of this is not to instruct you, but to familiarize you with the ground work, and in particular to prevent you getting the idea that there is any right or wrong in matters of opinion. You pass an examination intended to make sure that your mind is well grounded in this matter, and you become a Probationer." - Aleister Crowley,* Eight Lectures of Yoga*, cap. VIII, as read in Eshelman, J. (2000). The Mystical and Magickal System of the A.'.A.'., p. 46."
As I said. It doesn't have anything to do with liberals or conservatives. It has to do with the degree to which you forsake that particular principle in defense of your own ego-positions and defend it with nothing but indignity that your opinion be challenged by those so apparently inferior to you that they do not agree with you.
I will say it again in the presence of several highly advanced, empirically defined initiates who are free to correct me at any moment - in which case I will be given the gift of allowing myself silence in the face of your Pontification: Out of all these people here present, some of whom I disagree with quite pointedly, you are the only one claiming your opinions are those that are of course natural to a truly spiritually advanced person. And, yes, its stench stings my discerning nose.
May the heart of V.V.V.V.V. and his search for Truth judge between us.
-
"it looks like some psychologically challenging periods lay ahead for serious seekers"
Indeed.