posted June 18, 2007 06:06 PM         

Just as our thoughts, emotions, and desires correspond to certain vibrational frequencies, so do they correspond, in an identical way, to various entities in the spirit world, themselves attuned to an equivalent frequency. Like attracts like, and such spirits as bear a similar stamp and seal upon them are never far from one another. Always, the universe encourages each individual to take part in a larger group, each according to its kind. Like the colors and patterns in your aura, the guides drawn into your atmosphere at any time reflect a kind of spiritual weather report. If your inner world is chaotic, your guides (and gods) will come riding storm clouds and casting thunderbolts. If your inner world is calm, they will ride sunbeams and starlights. If your inner world is limited by rigid thought patterns and belief systems, you will attract similarly limited guides with little wisdom to teach. Conversely, the more you open yourself to the influx of a higher wisdom, the more messages you will receive from the higher guides, who are themselves open to higher widsom. This attitude creates an open channel from the Highest all the way down through the Spiritual Hierarchies to where we dwell in the world of matter. Likewise, whenever we share what we have learned with others, we attract to us guides who have wisdom to share. As we are truthful, we attract guides who tell us the truth; as we are benevolent we attract benevolent guides; and so on.

In whatever we think, feel, or desire, the universe reacts in a corresponding manner to encourage the future manifestation of some physical action or object, the entire pattern for which is contained in the germ of our incipient will. Knowing that our more greedy, selfish, cruel, and superficial thoughts, emotions, and desires will naturally and magnetically attract the company of like-minded (evil) spirits, whose conscious or unconscious intention is to rejoice with us in our lowest impulses, and encourage the continued manifestation of what is lowest and most deplorable in our natures, - knowing this - it becomes self-evident that only our most generous, selfless, kind, and purposeful emotions, thoughts, and desires will have in them the signature resonance to attract such spirits as come bearing goodwill, and who are, by their (good) natures, conducive to the swiftest growth and the greatest happiness of the individuals fortuneate enough to manifest them.

I say "fortuneate", because I believe in the absolute Providence of God the Father, who predetermines all fates. But, as I myself am, and as every sentient being is, a witness of the Father in the world, so I come speaking to you of the individual, and of the conscious will, by means of which an individual may align him or herself with the Father's Will, in order to knowingly and joyfully determine that which the Father has already ordained from the beginning of the world (and, all along, been willing into manifestation through him or her). Whosoever acquaints him or herself with the karmic laws alluded to in the above paragraphs, and makes his or her peace with them, makes peace also with God the Father, and, indeed, becomes an ally in the True Holy Church; - for one cannot make peace with God without becoming an ally unto Him, and an enemy unto the darkness, which is the ignorance of God. But the ability to accomplish such a conversion is a special dispensation from God, who predetermines the time and place in which He will make His grace known. Taking my place in the cosmic play, and reading from the script is all I, or anyone, can do. Fortuneate am I, and fortuneate are you, if the lines we are given to read point a finger in the direction of the One, and disclose the sweetest secrets of His workings in the world, that we may be receivers and agents of His Divine Light. Seeing that God's Will is always and everywhere "done", with or without the awareness and consent of the individual, lucky indeed is the brother or sister who, in conscious communion with the Lord, willingly and jofully goes whither He leads.

Let us not hesitate to remember the Way, and never weary of expressing it. This is the Divine Work. This is the very heart of the highest and most Sacret Art and Science, commonly called "Theurgy". It is the art of bringing into oneself the Light, Life, and Love of God, simply by making a practice of calling it frequently to heart and mind. God our Father is as close as we can imagine Him. So, the wise give proof of their wisdom when they assure us that He is closer than the juggular vein. And when they tell us, "God is closer than can be imagined," they give expression to an even deeper, more unfathomable wisdom, and a longing which overreaches even the limits of imagination, in its delirious ascention towards an ineffable Intimacy with God. Every thought as noble and as pure as this, is a golden coin dropped into the subconscious Well of God. It is a wish that, if not perfectly granted, still works to mitigate the effects of some less conscious wish, and less noble impulse, still working towards manifestation. Every tribute we offer to the Lord of Heaven fills up one side of the Karmic Scale, and every tax we pay to the Caesars of the World fills the other, but, while that which we give to the Lord is returned a thousand fold, that which we give to Caesar is only counted in our debt. Truly, we can store up for ourselves a vast treasure in Heaven, or a vast debt upon the Earth. The choice belongs to the one who becomes conscious of it, by the Grace of Our Lord. Hear these words, themselves the Angels of Grace, and become conscious of the choice.

When you pass from this world, you will return to the homeland of the army for which you did battle in this life. Will you gather to yourself an army of angels, or an army of devils? Will you receive a hero's welcome in Heaven or in Hell? I tell you, if only you have the ears to hear it, then, behold!, the choice is yours! Be not afraid, but believe, and know, there is indeed a war being waged at every minute for the possession of your very soul. Whether or not you choose, you will be forced to do battle. You cannot serve God and the devil. You must choose a side, or be torn assunder. Therefore, choose the side that is destined for ultimate victory. If you would not be left on the threshing room floor, then take refuge in the wheat, and abhor the chaff. All that belongs to God is nourishing and life-giving, but all that is the devil's is dying and dead. The devil lays waste to all that is offered to him. But God keeps His own.

~ Valerian the Just (hsc)

[note: Heaven and Hell are used metaphorically, as extreme examples of the environments which reflect a soul's condition, and into which souls incarnate from lifetime to lifetime. In truth, the Kingdom of Heaven cannot be found here or there. To reach the Holy City, we must build it within ourselves, stone by stone. Rome was not built in a day, nor Heaven in a lifetime.]

posted June 18, 2007 10:13 PM         

I thought you didn't believe in free will? Your whole argument hinges on the notion that we can make a conscious decision to allow certain influences into ourselves.

Under which side does taking what was private and exposing it to the harsh light of day fall? Is betrayal befitting of a man who speaks such wisdom?

I suppose I should take this piece as a stand alone and not bring up your past philosophy, but there is an apparent contradiction isn't there?

posted June 19, 2007 09:16 AM         

Thank you.
You're welcome.

fayte,

I'd site the source if I could. I suspect it is largely a collaborative effort between myself and my guides, although it touches on several ideas which I have acquired through the study of mysticism, magick, and the visions recorded by Emmanuel Swedenborg. Valerian is a nom de plume for yours truly. That's why my initials are in parenthesis beside the name.

Blue Roamer,

quote:

---

I thought you didn't believe in free will?

---

I don't. But very few people here have properly understood what it is I do believe.

quote:

---

Your whole argument hinges on the notion that we can make a conscious decision to allow certain influences into ourselves. I suppose I should take this piece as a stand alone and not bring up your past philosophy, but there is an apparent contradiction isn't there?

---

Indeed, there is, but it is only, as you say, "apparent", and only on the surface. You are privy to a great mystery, if you can begin to understand, as I have begun to understand, how these two principles (volition and necessity) may not be antagonistic, but complimentary, opposites. Anticipating your objection, in the third and fourth paragraphs of the piece above I actually digressed somewhat from the main topic in order to explain a bit about how I see the interconnectedness of human and divine wills. Evidently, I was not heard.

This is just one of those Aquarian principles which is not so simple to grasp one piece at a time - it really needs to be understood all at once, in a revelatory flash. From a subjective point of view, we have a choice to make. From an objective point of view, the choice is already made (but we don't know it yet). Our souls rest upon this pivot. We must understand what it means to be "in the world but not of it". We must encourage ourselves and one another to make conscious choices, despite our awareness that these choices are the fruit of deeper, subconscious processes, set in motion by the hand of God. However clearly we may perceive the law of determinism, God will not allow us to fall into passivity if it is not in our natures and destinies to do so.

"Pray as if everything depended upon God
and work as if everything depended upon man."

- Francis Cardinal Spellman

"A summary of Spinoza’s views is that God 'is not a personal being, existing apart from the universe; but Himself in His own reality, He is expressed in the universe, which is His living garment'. All things exist as He willed them to be; evil is not positive; there is 'an infinite gradation in created things', 'all in their way obedient'.

"Two things in Spinoza have repelled the emotional - his steady, logical, destructive analysis and calm acceptance of its results, and his theory of necessitarianism. The latter has been called fatal to morals, the former to devotion. Yet Spinoza was so far from being incapable of strenuous devotion that he was described by his enemies as 'a God-intoxicated man', and his lofty, serene virtue and calm acquiescence in the law of life as he saw it were in themselves evidences of the fine fibre of his soul."

- Annie Besant
'The Spiritual Life'

quote:

---

Under which side does taking what was private and exposing it to the harsh light of day fall? Is betrayal befitting of a man who speaks such wisdom?

---

Jeez, talk about "hijacking threads". I post something inspirational and wise, and you feel the need to drag in this dead horse. I don't think anyone wishes for us to continue to discuss this matter, so, I suggest we both let it rest, and you may keep your rash accusations to yourself in the future, and I will do the same with my well-considered defense of them. Otherwise, I suggest you email me and we can argue it in private. .

quote:

---

Nonetheless, very well written and resonates a lot of truths!

---

Thank you.

Love to you,
HSC

posted June 19, 2007 12:33 PM         

quote:

---

Some people are of the ridiculous opinion that everything said in an email ought to be automatically considered private, but this makes no sense to me. Email is just another means of communication. Should we consider everything communicated to us outside of LL, or when no one else was around, as "private", and not to be repeated upon fear of being labelled a betrayer?

---

Yes, we should consider anything spoken to us outside of LL as private and we should not bring it up on public forums unless we first get the permission of the parties involved.

Definitely we should not use things privately spoken to us as a weapon to hurt or in an attempt to win an argument. It would only be the honorable thing to do. It would be the honest thing to do. It would be the compassionate and empathetic thing to do. Would you like others whom you have told private things regarding your life to bring them onto the public threads, HSC? I know you will say that you have noting to hide but "hiding" is not the issue. Trust is the issue. Confidance is the issue. Honor is the issue.

posted June 19, 2007 01:09 PM         

quote:

---

Some people are of the ridiculous opinion that everything said in an email ought to be automatically considered private, but this makes no sense to me. Email is just another means of communication. Should we consider everything communicated to us outside of LL, or when no one else was around, as "private", and not to be repeated upon fear of being labelled a betrayer?

---

posted June 19, 2007 01:31 PM         

The above article comes from the philosopy of Theosophy which came into vogue around 1964 and was heavily promoted by the democratic socialists, of which Annie Besant was a member. She wrote many articles for their publications. She heavily promoted the philosophy of Theosophy in her writings.

Basically it only actually takes what religions have always taught, applied new terms and combined socialist philosophy and religion along with science.

There are religious truths contained in Theosophy that are not at all new notions as I stated. The spiritual truths came from religions. In many cases the religious truths are accurate but also in many cases the religious truths are distorted to promote a socialist agenda.

I have nothing against it. It's just another philosophical thought.

I do not believe that God predestined our fate. Predestination only pertains to our world and the universe. Some things are predestined but nothing that applies to our history, our future or our past. Nothing that applies to our lives. We are not "fated" from birth. We are in control of our own destinies and the destiny of events in our world through our own choices.

However, others are also free to believe as they choose.

Curious as to why you refer to Emperor Valerian as the "Just." He is not normally referred to in that way in anything historical that I have read about him. His son, Gallienus, whom he appointed co-emperor with himself, would be considered more just than he was. "Valerian was a persecutor of Christians . I hardly see that as "just."Whereas his son, Gallienus made peace with the Christians and treated them fairly. His own son, Gallienus was indifferent to his father's being turned over to the enemy, used as step stool ( the highest insult one could give an emperor of Rome ) and then skinned. Valerian II, the son of Gallienus, did not live long enough to be considered just either. He was appointed by his father and only held emperor status for 2 years before his death.

posted June 19, 2007 01:47 PM         

quote:

---

Fayte~ Relax, you're gonna pop something. It's not THAT big of a deal. Don't let hatred consume you.

---

quote:

---

Some people are of the ridiculous opinion that everything said in an email ought to be automatically considered private, but this makes no sense to me. Email is just another means of communication. Should we consider everything communicated to us outside of LL, or when no one else was around, as "private", and not to be repeated upon fear of being labelled a betrayer?

---

posted June 19, 2007 03:16 PM         

quote:

---

Basically it only actually takes what religions have always taught, applied new terms and combined socialist philosophy and religion along with science.

There are religious truths contained in Theosophy that are not at all new notions as I stated. The spiritual truths came from religions. In many cases the religious truths are accurate but also in many cases the religious truths are distorted to promote a socialist agenda

---

Nicely said! The post is a mishmash of Faiths and philosophical thoughts and it is missing the spine of all Religions , their Fundamental Law and makes for a weak presentation.

HSC, will you supply the Law to support the various religious allusions? (An excellent place to start is with The Torah). Doing so will avoid the distortions often found in Theosophy.

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted June 19, 2007 03:27 PM         

quote:

---

the philosopy of Theosophy which came into vogue around 1964 and was heavily promoted by the democratic socialists, of which Annie Besant was a member.

---

Annie Besant died in 1933. She was a leading proponent of feminism, a high initiate into the Western Mystery Tradition, and the adoptive mother of the boy who would later become the prolific author of spiritual works, J. Krishnamurti. George Bernard Shaw called her "the greatest orator of her time".

Theosophy was in vogue in the late 1800's, as were a variety of mystery schools, "spiritualism" (i.e. mediumship), and esoteric thought in general. There was a revival of interest in the 1960's which has not waned much since, and is now growing bigger than ever today. New Age thought in general owes an incredible debt to Theosophy and its adherents. Theosophy was a scientific and comprehensive system that evolved out of the need to merge and popularize the sacred teachings and mystery traditions of the East and West, and also to impart channelled information which had been lost over the centuries (mostly due to the religious persecution practiced by so-called Christians, who burned the library at Alexandria, as well as a great many human beings caught reading books not sanctioned by the Pope). Theosophy remains the most ambitious accomplishment of its kind.

posted June 19, 2007 03:32 PM         

quote:

---

Jeez, talk about "hijacking threads". I post something inspirational and wise, and you feel the need to drag in this dead horse. So be it. I have betrayed no one, and exposed nothing that was private, BR. I posted an email from 'Zala that contained nothing of a private or personal nature. On the contrary, it contained evidence of only what is best and most public in her character. Some people are of the ridiculous opinion that everything said in an email ought to be automatically considered private, but this makes no sense to me. Email is just another means of communication. Should we consider everything communicated to us outside of LL, or when no one else was around, as "private", and not to be repeated upon fear of being labelled a betrayer? That strikes me as an arbitrary distinction. In my lifetime, I have almost never repeated anything told to me in secret. I consider a thing private and secret for two reasons: either the person specifically asks me not to repeat it, or, it is a thing which is self-evidently of a private and personal nature. I have disclosed nothing that, in my eyes, falls in either of these two categories, with one notable and (I believe) defensible exception, and I resent the implication that I have. If I did betray a trust, it was only when I told a certain person that her own trust had been betrayed to me by a third party (this is the exception). I considered that "betraying" the third party, by telling this person that her trust had been betrayed by them, was far less of a "betrayal" than the one committed by the third party who told me this person's secret in the first place. Since the person in question was arguing that I am so untrustworthy compared to some, I thought it only fair to inform her of the fact that her own trust had been betrayed by one of those whom she considered trustworthy, and not by me. In retrospect, it might have been better for me to have told this person what I knew in private, than to have alluded to the fact that I knew it in a public forum (bear in mind, I never disclosed what the secret was - only that I had been told it!). But her judgment of me was very public, and, I felt my defense had to be equally so. Since both she and the third party were publicly judging me as being untrustworthy, how could I possibly feel a compunction in making the ironic truth known?In any case, I don't think anyone wishes for us to continue to discuss this matter, so, I suggest we both let it rest, and you may keep your rash accusations to yourself in the future, and I will do the same with my well-considered defense of them. Otherwise, I suggest you email me and we can argue it in private, or, if you have already condemned me, as it appears, you may use the opportunity to inflict whatever retribution you see fit then and there. If you would rather continue to voice things which resemble an attempt to publicly assault, humiliate, and discredit me when I post positive things, I guess I cannot stop you. But I will continue to defend my character, at the expense of those you see as innocents; not because I wish to bring further distress to anyone, but because it is necessary in order to make my defense.

---

posted June 19, 2007 03:55 PM         

I think it is also the actions and the issue of privacy that both BR and Fayte are addressing as well but I can only speak for myself. Since HSC has cast suspicion on Fayte with his words in the eyes of others here at LL I can understand her anger.

Lialei is my daughter and I know what happened prior to that episode at FFA on cancerrg's thread. I know what prompted it. Needless to say, Swerve's perceptions on that thread were very accurate and right on the mark. But you don't see me posting that on the threads of LL do you, HSC? Why? Because it is a private matter. However, we know this was not the first time that HSC violated Lia's trust and betrayed it by revealing private things on the threads she said to him in conversation in order to attempt to hurt her and in that case, me. Again because we disagreed in his philosophy.

No matter how he may justify it, no matter what colorful words and philosophy he may apply in an attempt to flower his actions, it remains a betrayal of trust with the deliberate intention to hurt Lialei, due to the events that transpired prior to that betrayl of trust. Fayte and Zala simply because they disagreed with his newest notion of the day, that women should adopt instead of having their own children and to have their own children is a selfish act on their part.

Flower and color it as he may, it remains an invasion of privacy of members of LL and for that reason it remains a violation of the rules of LL. Which he, especially as a moderator, should be answerable for. That however, is entirely up to Randall who set those rules in place and runs this website and also selects his moderators.

I can also guarantee you this. Lialei never told him those things. She would have remembered it if she did and in what context she told him that. She would also have told Fayte about it. Someone that Fayte trusted in the past with the information may have told HSC that. But I would bet my life it was not Lialei. In fact, I want proof that she told you that HSC. If you are going to publically accuse someone of things like that then you need to send both Fayte and Lialei the evidence that supports that charge. Either that or you owe Fayte, Lialei and Zala a public apology and you owe Lia and Fayte an admittance of the lie.

You sent Fayte an email telling her what you were told. But you did not send her the original email where you were told that. Others here at LL who were once friends of Fayte's email you too.

You have smeared the character of two people on the threads of LL and for that reason you need to back up what you say with proof. To them. Not on public forums. Any other posting of emails on the threads here at LL aught to be reason for banning someone.

posted June 19, 2007 04:08 PM         

Your tone strikes me as rather harsh,
but I will respond to the points you raised anyway.

What I have written here is no more of a mishmash than any of the other spiritual writings and religious systems you may find in the world. "There is nothing new under the sun," only a constant reorganizing, perfecting, and distributing of what has already been said. We all take what we find, filter it through ourselves, leave what doesn't ring true for us, keep what does, and present our own immaculate b@stards to the world. This is what the world calls "originality". To be unoriginal is simply to take what is given from one system, philosophy, or religion, leave all the others out, and not filter anything through yourself! The bulk of Christianity, for instance, may be traced to Judaism, Neo-Platonism and Mithraism, but this does not make it unoriginal. The insights at the heart of all true religions and philosophies remain the same eternal truths. It is how we bring them together, and the light that is cast by the combining of them, that results in something "new". Think of any of your favorite writers on spiritual matters and you will see how little of what they said was original, versus how much of it was merely worthy of repetition and reflection. The religious act of "contemplation" is precisely the action of calling to mind what we already know and reflecting upon it, turning it over, seeing it from all sides, holding it up to the light, and studying it beside other unoriginal (i.e. eternal) truths.

"What makes men of genius, or rather, what they make, is not new ideas, it is that idea - possessing them - that what has been said has still not been said enough."

- Eugene Delacroix

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."

- Albert Einstein

The Law which you are unable to see evidence of in my post is precisely the very subject of the post. It is the karmic law, and I have probably distilled as much wisdom concerning what it is and how it works as you are likely to find in many other pieces of writing, far more verbose and hard to follow than mine. Think kind, loving thoughts and you will be filled with love and kindness. Think mean-spirited, degrading thoughts, and you will be filled with meanness and the desire to degrade others. That is the Law. It may not be particularly novel and original, but it has the virtue of being true yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and, moreover, the virtue of being more important and more worthy of repetition than most anything else I could have posted about on these boards.

posted June 19, 2007 04:16 PM         

quote:

---

Some people are of the ridiculous opinion that everything said in an email ought to be automatically considered private, but this makes no sense to me. Email is just another means of communication. Should we consider everything communicated to us outside of LL, or when no one else was around, as "private", and not to be repeated upon fear of being labeled a betrayer?

---

posted June 19, 2007 04:25 PM         

I appreciate you being civil with me. You set an example for many people when you speak to me this way, and it is a good one. I know it is not easy. I am struggling with this as well.

I'm not disagreeing with you, Mirandee. But we have a different opinion of what constitutes "private". As I said, I am willing to respect others desires, as to what they deem private, the very instant they make their desires known to me. Now that some people here have said they wish nothing to be repeated, however harmless it may appear to me, I will respect their wishes and not repeat their words. There is nothing more to say about that, is there?

Fayte,

Your words are hateful. You can say you don't hate, but the hateful words you speak are more persuasive than your denial. Please, don't spit acid at me and tell me its raining.

Dulce,

I would give Fayte proof if I had it. I did a search and there is no record of it in my emails, so, it must be because it was told to me over the phone. Since it is such a sensitive matter, it seems likely that it was told to me over the phone, rather than by email. This was about two years ago, and it never struck me as worth remembering.

I wrote to fayte and I did tell her what was said to me. If it is untrue, then she has her answer already, and I cannot see why she is still going on about this. If what I said was true, then she need only ask herself where I might have heard it.

posted June 19, 2007 04:33 PM         

I did not even mention her name on this thread, and I, for one, am trying to let it drop. I do not wish her any harm. If what I said is untrue, then, I will sooner conclude that I dreamed it up, than I will believe that she would tell me a lie for any reason. As I said to you in my email, she is probably the best friend you ever had or ever will have, and, if she did betray your trust, you should forgive her. If she did not, then, there is nothing more to discuss. As I told you, there is a very remote possibility that I may have dreamed it, but that seems unlikely, as it does feel like a real memory to me. In any case, I'm smart enough to know that you will deny it, whether or not it is true. Again, it makes no difference to me, and I'm happy to drop it at any time.

posted June 19, 2007 04:39 PM         

Your speculations about my character are unsupported. I tried to explain to you how my actions were not contrary to my ideals. If you wish to debate that, making use of the specific points I gave, you are invited to do so. If you wish to dismiss my explainations and simply repeat your unspecific allegations, so be it.

peace,
hsc

posted June 19, 2007 04:40 PM         

Your speculations about my character are unsupported. I tried to explain to you how my actions were not contrary to my ideals. If you wish to debate that, making use of the specific points I gave, you are invited to do so. If you wish to dismiss my explainations and simply repeat your unspecific allegations, so be it.

peace,
hsc

posted June 19, 2007 04:45 PM         

quote:

---

This was about two years ago, and it never struck me as worth remembering.

---

posted June 19, 2007 04:55 PM         

I dont even know what to make of your posts. I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt, and you keep coming back with things that make no sense to me. Either you are twisting things on purpose, or your anger is twisting things, or you are just a crazy woman. I continue to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe the second option is true, but, it is getting harder, as the things you say are consistently and thoroughly warped.

I dont know what you think you know, or who you have suddenly decided the "culprit" must be now, but there are not many people here I have talked to on the phone. If the key words I searched were not in my email, it means this was told to me over the phone (or I dreamed it, lol). As you know, the alleged secret was not that you are a lesbian.

At least now you are no longer accussing me of lying. I thank you for that, though I'm not sure what settled your mind on that so quickly. Anyway, since you have changed your position on this, would you care to retract the following allegations?

quote:

---

I feel strongly, that yes, you do want to drive a wedge between she and I. Jealousy? Only you know why. Your words about Lia are indeed slanderous, and the curiosity you have aroused in nosy folks and gossips is highly unappreciated, and indeed an invasion of my privacy. There was no need to go at me and her publicly as you did and are still doing. You are resorting to slander and libel here.

---

While you're at it, I would appreciate it if you stop alluding to my private relations with Lia and the existence of any private reasons I might have for being upset with her. Let's not be hippocrites.

hsc