Re: [BardonPraxis] Re: What does it mean to become noble concerning passions?

["Rawn Clark" <rawnclark@...>]

Dear Ravi,

One thing I was trying to get across in my last reply to Patrik is that
when we get down with our radical self-honesty to that voice of the
conscience which informs us of how *we* truly feel about something, we
are being informed by our Greater Self, through our Individual Self.
*That* voice is not colored by *personal* concerns even though it is
made relevant *to* our personal concerns as it is filtered by the
Individual Self. In other words, the level of Self that the quality and
depth of introspection we're talking about *here* reveals to our
*conscious awareness*, is not the level of Self at which the trappings
of egotistical self-interest exists or is manifest. Those things are
aspects of the *personality*.

In the end, your question is moot since by definition some one who would
think that such actions and attitudes would be positive has not reached
down within themselves very deeply at all. They have not reached down
deeply enough to reveal their essential self.

>This requires an
> absolute or "radical" honesty with oneself and here is where the
> perennial analogy of the murderer or "black magician" is absurd.
> By
> definition such an individual would be constitutionally incapable of
> this degree of self-honesty.
>> ok i am confused here . why would someone be unable to look into
himself just because he kills (say, a soldier or a spy) or practices
occultism without understanding all the nuances of what he does (this
would be the meaning of "black magic" from abrdonian pov rght?) and
believes that invoking spirits and making pacts with them is the *right
way* ? <<

Sorry, that didn't come out sounding the way I actually meant it. :)
What I was trying to say is that if some one, after supposedly looking
within and analyzing their character, is still okay with their own
psychosis (such as a murderer or "black magician") then they have not
probed deeply at all but have just deluded themselves further and dug
themselves deeper into a hole of their own making. It's not that they
are "unable", per se; it's that they *haven't* and that their present
constitution has prevented it from occurring.

>> yes my concern here is that by this standard if a person always does
what is right acording to your own "feelings" and "thoughts" , he could
still end up doing very destructive things as viewed from the outside .
<<

You are applying or rather, assuming a "normal" standard when we are
discussing an *abnormal* process of Hermetic *initiation*. This can't
be compared to passively thinking that you're "okay".

>> So would "balance" be culturally dependent ? <<

True balance "fits" into the culture into which the Individual has
incarnated, but the Equilibrium itself is not *dependent* upon the
culture.

My best to you,
:) Rawn Clark
21 Jan 2005
rawnclark@...
rawn@...
http://www.ABardonCompanion.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BardonPraxis
http://E.webring.com/hub?ring=arionthebardonwe