Re: Real vs. imagined communication

["Daniel Gutmanas" <noxerus@...>]

Dear Rawn, Paul and Simon,

First of all, thank you all very much for your opinions. Rawn, I 
believe I understand now - and just to make sure, would I be correct 
if I'd say that it is easier to perceive objectively in passive 
communication than in active communication?
(Another question, just about semantics: would it be correct to call 
passive communication invocation of a lesser degree?)

Paul, I'd very much agree with you, but I am nowhere near grade V 
yet (and won't be for some while, as my "inner voice" is telling me 
for a long time now to delay serious practice until the hormonal 
changes puberty entails completely set in :). I do know that 
achieving the astral equilibrium is the prime prerequisite for 
objective perception, and my whole vacillation was based on the 
knowledge that the same astral equilibrium, when taken *alone*, is 
apparently not enough for objective *active* communication.

Simon, it would be very hard for me to add upon Rawn's words, but I 
must agree that as an Hermetic, one cannot let go of the question of 
objectivity and reality, and just decide it is irrelevant. To do so, 
in my opinion, would simply steep one further in subjectivity, and 
trap him in maya - instead of freeing him so he can experience the 
wider World. Besides, I'm positive that in many cases you most 
definitely can (and must!) verify what you learn in the higher 
spheres right here on Earth; whether you astra-mentally wandered to 
your neighbour and verified your findings later on during a 
conversation with him, or a spirit taught you some "technique" 
(unrelated to something you could have intellectually deduced 
yourself from what you already now) which later on you verified 
through actual practice.

Thank you all,
Daniel

P.S
Good luck with your artwork Rawn! Seems like you're having a good 
vacation :)