To encourage the exchange of thoughts about Deepak Chopra and his work, we will post your comments, inquiries, and opinions. Please feel free to respond to someone else's comments or questions, or simply post your own. Post a Message | Read the Forum | Sign the Guestbook Please Post Your Comments Name: Email Address: Comments:

Peggy

I have only read "A brief History of everything" by Wilber--it was very good...not light reading, for me, but good :-) he has a lot of books out there...the quote you gave, I believe came from the above mentioned book/title...as Polly Berends describes it we start off as "one" but unconscious of this fact as infants...then we develop/learn that we are separate from each other and God...and the goal is oneconsciousness--a conscious realization of our oneness w/God and each other...this simple approach seems to fit well with Wilber etc...and one problem is that people often-times confuse the wonderful but unconscious oneness of infancy as something we "lost" and need return to--like the Garden of Eden...whereas the path of evolution is ever forward...so the "better" path is forward and to conscious realization of oneness...anyway, I am a bit hurried as is often the case and may not be wording this just right...but I find it cool when the same idea comes from many sources--especially when I like the idea ;-)

BTW. Wilber is bald, no beard or mustache, and wears glasses--nice-looking still ;-)

Blessings! Cathy

In the case of Anthony Storr, I happen to have read two of his books, so my opinions are not based on fragmentary and selective internet sites. Some years ago, before I knew anything about Jung I was recommended Storr's book "The Essential Jung". For me this seemed like the easy way to get to know Jung. I had heard about him, read articles, seen references in many Woody Allen films and decided eventually to check him out for myself. But by going through Storr I didn't realise what a disservice I was doing to Jung. At the time I enjoyed the book. It relayed many wonderful ideas and was interspersed with "selective" quotes from Jung. But it was sketchy and left me wanting more.

Storr is a man who has written many books about some of the great minds of history in the realm of Psychology and Mysticism. Perhaps it wasn't his intention but I decided a year or so later to check Jung out for myself. What I came to realise was that Storr barely scraped the surface of Jung's work and further, he barely understood Jung’s writings or was able to relate with any of it. Storr is a wholly inadequate commentator in these matters in my opinion and uses Jung and others largely to peddle his own agenda, and his own interpretations, which are far from accurate. Paradoxically, he remains a sort of fan of Jung without truly knowing what Jung is driving at.

In more recent years I read his book "Feet of Clay - Saints, Sinners and Madmen: A study of Gurus."

Again this was a very disparaging book and amongst his subjects in this book were Jung, Rajneesh, Gurdjieff possibly Deepak and other notable Mystics. I think he even included Jesus and Buddha as the ultimate madmen, deluded by a psychotic episodes. The poor simpleton was quite unable to explain the fact that all these men seemed to have almost identical Psychotic episodes. He just paints them as mad con-men. Which is what JoelSkep would have you believe.

What I would say to the readers out there who are so easily swayed by such agenda riddled garbage as presented by the numb-skulled Dick Skep is, read the original works before you make your judgements. I HAVE.

I have also read Ken Wilbur. It is very dualistic thinking to attempt to compare one to the other (Jung to Wilbur) and put one above the other. Ken Wilbur is the voice of today, Jung of yesterday. Using Wilbur’s own models of "holons" (Which you should be familiar with now, Cathy) one could not exist without the other having preceded it and both are valid. To make comparisons is dualistic and while Wilbur is interesting, few would agree with EVERYTHING he has to say. I find these recent comments by Wilbur rather ironic, being as they are ego motivated, and ignoring as they do his own "holon" theory of inclusiveness.

Anonymous poster who asked about the undercurrent of hostility.: I think that your post and those that followed are perfect examples of what I was saying. There are people here who feel hostile towards me and as I said it doesn't matter what I say, it will always be read with a projection of hostility until they are able to let it go. Even Jung’s post by association is viewed through a clouded vision of hostility, which is the unconscious hostility Jung spoke of. Although, I don’t think it is that unconscious in this case. As to how it affects my Karma, not in the least. It is you who is experiencing and projecting hostility onto me. Not the other way around. It is you who is being nasty and cruel just for the fun of it. Not me. My Karma is fine and I remain unaffected by remarks which have no substance, intelligence or truth. Your anger and hostility will only effect your own Karma and that’s why you are as you are, and I am as I am. In fact, I believe my Karma is about to improve.

As Terry has already pointed out, quoting someone out of context when referring to specific psychological conditions which remain omitted from your Jungian quote is rather pathetic, and what is sad is that some people are not discerning enough to be able to tell the difference, clouded as their perceptions are by these projections. There are plenty of Jung bashers around, but at the end of the day it is Jung who is respected the world over not the author of the Jung Skeptic's site whose name isn't worth recording.

Actually, Peggy, I was taking my lead on the labelling from you and Dave. Not long ago at another site I made some clumsy remarks about the Irish and Dave took particular offence at my remarks and declared that he was part Irish and that I should be more careful about what I say. You also declared that your grandchildren were part Irish at the time. So, my describing Dave as an Irish American was in no way a political or derisory statement. I thought you were proud of your Irish American heritage. That's the impression I was left with anyway. I felt you both felt very passionate about that. Dave, your comments on our heritage or gene line leading us back to the jungle and further to the sea and all these labels being ultimately meaningless, I couldn't agree with you more. Well said.I wish you felt that way three months ago! Your current words largely reflect my view. That said, it is difficult to discount our immediate cultural influences, wouldn't you agree? In this life we are influenced by and do attach ourselves to our cultural influences, our patriotism, etc. For me this is more closely related as Anglo/Iranian, since I actually have the experience of living in both of those countries and I have living relatives there, including my father. I hope that clarifies my remark as not being negative.

Dick, you were'nt 'wrong' - there is only experimentation and feedback. 'Wrong' is an interpretation. :)

Peggy, thanks for sharing your experiences with those of the Bahai faith. My only experiences with organised religion were of the 'fire & brimstone' variety which put me off the whole business for some considerable time. You'd like to think any genuine faith would turn out people who are (in your words) 'absolute jewels -- loving, giving, humble and kind' ... you'd like to think that would be the case with all paths ...

I enjoy reading your posts - if we were all of the 'same' mind this really would be a cult. :) Thankfully it's a LONG way from being that. Thanks for sharing your perspective on Gary Zukav's thoughts about that which 'irritates' us. To me, the words ring true in the sense that the 'flaws' I tend to most notice in others are precisely those aspects of myself I need to work on. :) Quite apart from the fact that while we're focusing on the 'flaws' we're not focusing on seeing ourselves or the 'other' as divine. Another manifestation of 'Seek and ye shall find' - you'll see the flaws if you look for them or you'll see the divinity if you look for it. :)

I'm pleased you manage to find some nuggets in my posts - would you mind telling me where they are? :) As a wise man once said, "Fifty percent of what I say is complete nonsense and you can disregard the other fifty percent". As for my identity, my full name is Anne O'Nymous but what's in a name? As Deepak says, 'some thoughts are experienced more personally - I call them mine'. There are many Zen artists who make a point of NOT signing their work as a reminder of how fleeting and illusory the concept of 'ownership' really is. Deepak is on a similar tram when he advises that nothing should be clung to as 'me' or 'mine', which is kind of tough to do in the hurly-burly of the modern world. :)

Speaking of thoughts, I recently read some stuff by Bruce Moen about the 'afterlife' -

'To expand one's awareness of what's possible, there are places to learn and open one's imagination beyond its old limitations. There's a place that holds everything ever thought of or know by any human being who has ever lived. This Education Centre is open to anyone desiring to study there, and access to this information is limited only by the breadth of one's desire to know and one's willingness to explore'

Sounds like a souped-up version of the Internet! I have often wondered what happens to all of my thoughts after I have stopped thinking them. I wonder how much benefit 99% of my past thoughts would be to anyone else but it's nice to know they are being stored away for 'posterity', I suppose. :)

Bruce has an interesting website called 'Afterlife Knowledge', here's a little sample -

Bruce Moen is a lot like you. He's never had a near-death experience, nor does he claim any special psychic gift or ability. Yet, he's learned to do some special things. He has freed "lost souls" from their isolated, sometimes terrifying post-death existence; helped them regain freewill choice over their own destiny; brought comfort to those left behind when a loved one dies; moved earthbound ghosts to their place in the Afterlife; verifiably explored nonphysical human consciousness and other realities. Afterlife exploration has profoundly changed his life. It's taught him what Love is and shown him the purpose of his life. Through this Web site and his books, Bruce is sharing a continuing journey of discovery that began in 1992 at The Monroe Institute. It was there he first learned to explore the Afterlife during Lifeline, a program developed by noted out-of-body traveler and author, Robert A. Monroe.

After several years of perfecting the perceptual skills required, it's his hope others can use what he's learned to develop them more quickly. "The most important thing I discovered," Bruce says, "is that human beings with curiosity can learn to explore the Afterlife and find the truth for themselves."

'I'm just an ordinary human being whose curiosity about human existence beyond the physical world led to extraordinary experience. Throughout history we've wondered if there's a life after death. Along the way, our religions and philosophies offered beliefs and opinions to answer our question. However, their answers conflict with each other so deeply, it's difficult to know if finding the truth within them is possible.

In 1992 I began a journey of discovery that taught me how to explore beyond our physical world. At first, my beliefs blocked acceptance of my experience as real. Continued exploration brought undeniable proof of the Afterlife's existence. This Web site is dedicated to sharing what I've found hoping it will reduce fear and uncertainty about death and help you increase your Afterlife Knowledge. It's not my intent to change your beliefs about the Afterlife. Only your personal direct experience should do that. Perhaps what I've written will ring true with your experience. Maybe just knowing one other person claims it's possible to know the truth about the Afterlife will encourage you to begin your own journey of discovery.'

Bruce's site is ... www.afterlife-knowledge.com

I've also been exploring the links from Ulisse's 'Syntropy' site - much thought-provoking stuff too. Some of the Forum regulars might be interested in the Reluctant Messenger site, which attempts the (seemingly) impossible task of reconciling all the major religions AND science into a coherent 'whole' through syntropy.
www.reluctant-messenger.com/syntropy.htm

Thanks again, Ulisse, and I'm enjoying reading your book as well. :)

Namaste

Seeing as you are such a fan of Gary Zukav ... I was watching a video of one of his TV appearances last night. He speaks a lot about anger as he used to be a 'very angry young man'. For what it's worth, here's a little of what he said:

"Behind anger can be sadness ... or grief ... or disapointment - it's always disappointment that the world is not the way you want it to be and that is an excruciatingly painful experience and it's easier to be angry than it is to face the intense pain of the world not being the way you want it to be ... " He calls this experience 'rage against the universe' and I know just what he's talking about ...

... {a bit later} "Whenever you are angry, in that moment, stop and become aware of what you are feeling. Remind yourself that the thoughts you are thinking and the feelings you are feeling are coming from a part of yourself that is frightened. Remind yourself of that in that moment."

"What do you mean by frightened?"

"Scared." (audience laughs)

"Yes, I know frightened means scared ... but scared of what?"

"Of being alive ... scared that you don't have a place on the earth that is really yours ... frightened that people won't accept you ... frightened that you can't live up to the expectations of others ... and your own expectations ... frightened that you're not good enough ... frightened that you will never find the love in your life that you're so desperately seeking ... if you stop and become aware of what you're doing ... and before you start to analyse what you're afraid of, ask yourself if you want your decisions to be made by a part of you that is frightened ... The next step is to ak yourself what you would do in this situation if you were a wise and a compassionate person ... that's for you to decide - nobody can make that choice for you ... and it may be that you know what a wise choice would be but you decide not to make that choice and there is no shame in that ... there is learning potential in every decision that you make ... in this way you can experiement with your own life ... " {I could transcribe heaps more but that might be enough for today}

Voice, then wait! Come back! There's no great sin in being wrong! I'm wrong a lot myself. I like your most recent explanation for spirit.

Hi, Carol!

(:-*) (:-*) (Peggy and Carol eating pineapple...)

Dick, I sincerely thank you for the links to the articles on Jung. Previously I had held him in some reverence. But, as you know, "a little learning is a dangerous thing." These articles were eye-openers!

I also welcome comments by anyone who can refute these criticisms of Jung.

Cathy, my jaw dropped when I saw this comment by Ken Wilbur:

"...Jung consistently failed to carefully differentiate the archetypes into their prepersonal, personal, and transpersonal components, and since all three of those are collectively inherited, then there is a constant confusing of collective (and "archetypal") with transpersonal and spiritual and mystical. And so today, Jung stands for a very regressive movement in psychology.Consciousness is simply divided into two great domains: personal and collective.And the tendency is then to take anything collective and call it spiritual, mystical, transpersonal, whereas most of it is simply prepersonal, prerational, preconventional, regressive...So we have some very popular theorists who...recommend a regressive slide into egocentric, vital-impulsive,polymorphous, phantasmic-emotional revival..."

Maybe I will spend some time reading Wilbur!

Please don't think this is a totally nutty question, but is he the man with the nice eyes and the beard?

Spirit encompasses everything. It is everywhere.

I was wrong.

Voice, notice use of the word may in "I may be all of these things. I was not saying, "I am all of these things. In fact, by implication, I may not be all of those things!

I'm not certain, but I think that the post made by "Wisdom???" (not to be confused with "Voice of Wisdom) is trying to point out to you that I was essentially saying the same thing that you are! I am much more (spirit?) than the mundane labels that others put upon me.

As for my own personal view, I think that I am spirit on one level of reality and the sum total of all of the labels (roles) that I have (on another level of reality) and more!

Remember, Deepak didn't write just about the spirit. He also wrote about mind and body.

If you are truly grounded in the teachings of Deepak Chopra, your posts would not have that tinge of hostility that they do.

I know that there is hostility in my posts but then I don't claim to be the Voice of Wisdom.

Go back to your reading. You have not finished yet.

Ha! i thought they were pineapples, Pegs!!! ;)

You need the glasses. Her exact words were "I may be all of these things....". She is in fact, none of those things!

I think you need to read again.

Peggy, as long as you have been posting, you would think you would realize you are none of those things. You are only Spirit!

Seriously, why the labelling, Hadi? I know that you hate bigotry and I think that labelling can so easily promote bigotry. I know that I am guilty of using labels too but I don't think that I go quite to the extreme that you do.

I am not limited in any way by my labels:

Scot-American, Irish-American, English-American, Welsh-American, French-American, American, Southerner, Earthling, Nashvillian, Tennessean, teacher, grandmother, wife, Forum member, activist, daughter, sister, niece, skeptic, believer, student, mental patient, step-mother, wolf-lover, pianist, writer, Romantic, Boomer, and so forth.

I may be all of these things but I am so much more! I am the way that these labels, and others, interrelate. Then, take these interrelationships and put me in different situations, and I react differently. Add to that my mood swings and my tendency to see things in shades of gray -- and you have something that is not as simple as a label.

Namaste'

.........OUT OF CONTEXT........

Irony..........

Dick's 'projections'.

Hey! Who put the succotash in the jar labelled "Green Beans"!?

Dick, that first quotation from Jung about women just made my blood run cold. I will be more cautious now in my openness to his ideas. Maybe if he had lived in these times instead of a couple of generations ago, he would have been more aware of his bias -- or maybe not even have had that bias at all.

BTW, in an earlier post I said, "On the other hand, I freely admit that I dislike in others those traits which I dislike in myself. But I am not always unaware of these traits as Zukav would lead one to think."

In reading more about projection, I realize that most, if not all, psychologists hold that unless the projection is unconscious, then it is not projection at all. I was wrong about being aware of my own projections. By definition, none of us are.

Hi, Hadi!

For Peggy's benefit I read the Jung passage aloud to her after I had read it a second time silently for myself. Except for the last paragraph, which seems unnecessarily obscure and dependent on other terms (I will refrain from labeling them as buzzwords), the article did make better sense on second and third readings.

As for the term "generations" that you mentioned, there's a terrific book with that title that I have yet to finish reading completely but that regards the generations in American (read that USA) history as being roughly 22 years each. Click here for a link to some additional data based on that book. Some leeway is given because of what the authors regard as more serious concerns than just spans of time, such as world events, major wars, economic issues, etc. Elsewhere I have seen numbers as low as 15 and as high as 30 to quantify generations. What's your version?

It's interesting that your choice of Irish/American to label me is one that I can now accept with some degree of confidence. My mother did extensive genealogical research in the 1970's trying to find the origins of the four families that led directly to me. Of course, each previous generation had even more families to consider, with whatever European (or other "Old World") origins applied. My grandfather (paternal) always insisted we were Scots/Irish in his ancestry, but later I was almost convinced the surname had German origins. Recently, at a website dealing with my family name, I saw that it's almost certain that my surname is indeed Irish.

My kids were excited by that finding, since their mother's mother's line is known to be Irish, because their great-grandfather emigrated from County Cork. Now that my side of their heritage includes at least some Irish, they're even more connected to the "old country."

However, I know for a fact that my mother's line traces back to England, and that some other lines go to France, with no doubt connections to other Northern European countries as well. I prefer to think of myself as a mongrel, in the sense that whatever significance those countries might have had in who I am, it's all pretty well mixed into my genes after at least two centuries of inter-marriages and breedings on the North American continent, predominantly in the Southeastern US. So, I depend more on the fact that my ancestors "go all the way back" as logic dictates. So do yours. So do everybody's who are drawing breath today. I still appeal to the ideas in "Thanatopsis" which equate us all to the generations of mankind. That's the group I feel fairly confident I can identify with as "relatives."

And I refer to the wonderful book that Carl Sagan and his wife Anne Druyan co-authored in the early 90's called "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" to suspect I can even refer to chimpanzees and gorillas as part of my "family tree." I almost like that idea.

Bottom line: I accept that others were here before me, and probably had a great deal to do with who I am. I can relate to the two generations before me from actual experience, before that from anecdote, but I consider the generations of my peer group (those alive today) as being the most significant influences on who I am.

This is a fascinating topic, and I enjoy discussing it. So any additional slants on the whole idea are fun for me to hear.

Hadi, if you believe in Karma, where do you suppose this "undercurrent of hostility" originates?

"my own views tend to suffer from the projection of others and are thereby rarely understood" - Hadi

Is this projecting projection?

Either way it sounds like someone not taking responsibility for his poor communication skills.

what's your favorite word now Hadi?

D - E - N - I - A - L

Ooooh! And this juicy bit of info from skepdic.com:

According to psychiatrist and author, Anthony Storr, Jung went through a period of mental illness during which he thought he was a prophet with "special insight." Jung referred to his "creative illness" (between 1913-1917) as a voluntary confrontation with the unconscious. His great "insight" was that he thought all his patients over 35 suffered from "loss of religion" and he had just the thing to fill up their empty, aimless, senseless lives: his own metaphysical system of archetypes and the collective unconscious."

Jung was a goofball! (in addition to being sexist and racist)

Carl Jung

Origins of the Jung Cult

no surprise that some here identify with him (and even consider him a genius!)

"No matter how friendly and obliging a woman's Eros may be, no logic on earth can shake her if she is ridden by the animus.Often the man has the feeling - and he is not altogether wrong - that only seduction or a beating or a rape would have the necessary power of persuasion."
- Carl Jung

"the worst sight...is the woman parading in trousers...I often thought if only they knew how mercilessly ugly they looked"
- Carl Jung

Perfection

You ask me, my brother, when will man reach
perfection? Hear my answer:
Man approaches perfection when he
feels that he is an infinite space and a sea without a shore. A calm wind or a raging tempest, a thundering sky
or a rainy heaven.
A singing brook or a wailing rivulet, a tree abloom
in Spring, or a naked sapling in Autumn.
A rising mountain or a descending valley.
A fertile plain or a desert.

When man feels all these, he has already
reached halfway to perfection. To attain his goal
he must then perceive that he is a child dependent
upon his mother, a father responsible for his family,
A youth lost in love,
An ancient wrestling against his past,
A worshiper in his temple, a criminal in his prison.
A scholar amidst his parchments,
An ignorant soul stumbling between the darkness of his
night and the obscurity of his day,
A nun suffering between the flowers of her faith and
the thistles of her lonliness.
A prostitute caught between the fangs of her
weakness and the claws of her needs,
A poor man trapped between his bitterness and his submission,
A rich man between his greed and his conscience,
A poet between the mist of his twilight and the
and the rays of his dawn.

Who can experience, see, and understand
these things can reach perfection and
become a shadow of God's Shadow.

Hi, Dave. So glad to see you managed to take something from my weekend posts. Really, it is a miracle that I am able to communicate at all. I'm not being derogatory about you. I think it is a miracle when two people communicate at all. That is why our "life partners" are so important. At least in those relationships there can sometimes be a measure of understanding between two individuals. Although, even then, it is not as common as you would expect.

We inhabit such different worlds. Worlds which are formed from our experiences, our conditioning, our culture, our history and the time into which we were born. Essentially you and I are of different generations, different nationalities and from widely different continents. So, that I am able to communicate as an Anglo/Iranian to an Irish/American is quite something in todays world. I am grateful for it happening.

Jung, of course comes from a different generation again. Maybe three generations before you. But then, my definition of a generation probably differs from yours. His world was so different from mine or yours. He was Swiss for one thing, and that means everything we read of his is essentially a translation and interpretation. Still, I think he went to great lengths to be understood correctly, but I would fully agree that one needs to study his work in some depth before one can truely come to understand what he is talking about. So, your "obfuscation" is understandable. I love coming across new words, and that one was new to me. Can't say it rolls off the tongue, though.

I won't try to mess with his interpretation though. I placed it there to save myself the trouble of putting in my own views since I know how much my own views tend to suffer from the projection of others and are thereby rarely understood or read in the light they were intended. So, let's just let it be as it is. Read it a couple of times, maybe it will make more sense. Otherwise, refer back to it at some future time when you think you have a better grasp of "projection". Unlike me, Jung was a Genius and is well worth the effort to become familiar with.

Projection : A defense mechanism, operating unconsciously, in which what is emotionally unacceptable in the self is unconsciously rejected and attributed (projected) to others.

Neurosis: A relatively mild mental disorder, characterized by hysteria, anxiety, depression, or obsessive behaviour.

In an effort to find meanings for some of the terms used here, I found this site which may prove useful among many others. A Yahoo! search on "personality projection" is what led to this site and there are quite a few other hits that may shed even more light on the topic.

For those here who don't get Deepak's "Namaste" email newsletter, the most recent one has a link for an online survey.

According to the letter, "The questionnaire aims to determine your current level of satisfaction with the services provided by The Chopra Center for Well Being, as well as exploring the opportunity for improving existing services and offering new ones."

"The questionnaire will take approximately five minutes to complete and all of your responses are completely confidential and anonymous. Please complete the questionnaire as honestly and accurately as possible by November 7, 2000."

Mr/Ms 1, would you mind translating that Jung passage into street language? Some parts make a certain level of sense, but the terminology gets a bit dense and obfuscating. What's Jung really trying to say?

aum, aum, aum....

" The Shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognising the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge, and it therefore, as a rule, meets with considerable resistance. Indeed, self-knowledge as a psychotherapeutic measure frequently requires much painstaking work extended over a long period.

Closer examination of the dark characteristics - that is, the inferiorities constituting the shadow - reveals that they have an emotional nature, a kind of autonomy, and accordingly an obsessive, or better, possessive quality.
Emotion, incidentally, is not an activity of the individual but something that "happens" to him. Affects occur usually where adaptation is weakest, and at the same time they reveal the reason for its weakness, namely a certain degree of inferiority and the existence of a lower level of personality. On this lower level with its uncontrolled or scarcely controlled emotions one behaves more or less like a primitive, who is not only the passive victim of his affects but also singularly incapable of moral judgement.
Although, with insight and good will, the shadow can to some extent be assimilated into the conscious personality, experience shows that there are certain features which offer the most obstinate resistance to moral control and prove almost impossible to influence. These resistance’s are usually bound up with projections, which are not recognised as such, and their recognition is a moral achievement beyond the ordinary. While some traits peculiar to the shadow can be recognised without too much difficulty as one’s own personal qualities, in this instance both insight and good will are unavailing because the cause of the emotion appears to lie, beyond all possibility of doubt, in the other person. No matter how obvious it may be to the neutral observer that it is a matter of projections, there is little hope that the subject will perceive this himself. He must be convinced that he throws a very long shadow before he is willing to withdraw his emotionally-toned projections from their object.

Let us suppose that a certain individual shows no inclination whatever to recognise his projections. The projection-making factor then has a free hand and can realise its object - if it has one - or bring about some other situation characteristic of its power. As we know, it is not the conscious subject but the unconscious which does the projecting. Hence one meets with projections, one does not make them. The effect of projection is to isolate the subject from his environment, since instead of a real relation to it, there is now only an illusory one.
Projections change the world into the replica of one’s unknown face. In the last analysis, therefore, they lead to an autoerotic or autistic condition in which one dreams a world whose reality remains forever unattainable. The resultant sentiment d’incompletude and the still worse feeling of sterility are in their turn explained by projection as the malevolence of the environment, and by means of this vicious circle the isolation is intensified. The more projections are thrust between the subject and the environment, the harder it is for the ego to see through its illusion.

It is often tragic to see how blatantly a man bungles his own life and the lives of others yet remains totally incapable of seeing how much of the whole tragedy originates in himself, and how he continually feeds it and keeps it going. Not consciously, of course - for consciously he is engaged in bewailing and cursing a faithless world that recedes further and further into the distance. Rather, it is an unconscious factor which spins the illusions that veil his world. And what is being spun is a cocoon, which in the end may completely envelop him.

One might assume that projections like these, which are so very difficult if not impossible to dissolve, would belong to the realm of the shadow - that is, to the negative side of the personality. This assumption becomes untenable after a certain point, because the symbols that then appear no longer refer to the same but to the opposite sex in a man’s case to a woman and vice versa. The source of projections is no longer the shadow - which is always of the same sex as the subject - but a contrasexual figure. Here we meet the animus of a woman and the anima of a man, two corresponding archetypes whose autonomy and unconsciousness explain the stubbornness of their projections. Though the shadow is a motif as well known to mythology as anima and animas, it represents first and foremost the personal unconscious, and its content can therefor be made conscious without too much difficulty. In this it differs from anima and animus, for whereas the shadow can be seen through and recognised quite easily, the anima and animus are much further away from consciousness and in normal circumstances are seldom if ever realised. With a little self criticism one can see through the shadow - so far as its nature is personal. But when it appears as an archetype, one encounters the same difficulties as with anima and animus. In other words, it is quite within the bounds of possibility for a man to recognise the relative evil of his nature, but it is a rare and shattering experience for him to gaze into the face of absolute evil."

~C.G.Jung.

Or, for you skeptics:

Oom pah, pah!

Oom pah, pah!

Oom pah, pah! PHFFFST!

(Tap, tap, tap!) Please, Mr. Rathmunster, a little less tuba...AGAIN!..)

Chris

I "got" your posts just fine :-) And I think that your example of the man that was dragged to death was akin to what Jesus purportedly said while on the cross--

Also, I think a lot of the posting going on here lately relates to the levels of consciousness that we all are coming from--most of the world today is in the rational stage with some mythic guys hanging in there (the fundalmentalists of any religion) :-) And the thing is, I think anyway, that until we are feeling the urges to move "up" to the next level, we honestly cannot see things from a "higher" perspective...though, from my own perspective as a largely rational person, I can certainly entertain how it might be all the way up--I get it intellectually and like what I get :-)...and I give thought to that as I go about my day....I believe that at the highest levels we realize there is indeed no sin, no right and wrong etc...but to the rational mind that seems craziness :-) Just look around we say :-)

I'm finishing up "Putting on the Mind of Christ" by Jim Marion...it's good--though has brought up some questions I'd like to post at some point. Peggy, you as a Christian would like it, I think...or at least appreciate it. It simply reconfirms what others have said --kinda like Ken Wilber--who, btw, Dave and Peggy, I think you might like? Have you ever read his stuff? Very intellectual and logical...but supports all the "bigger" stuff like I mentioned above...anyway, life beckons! Hope this makes some sense!

Cathy

Anne, I attended Bahai meetings and developed friendships with Bahais about twenty years ago. Without exception, they were absolute jewels -- loving, giving, humble and kind.

One thing that touched me at the time was that they would not accept any money from anyone who was not of that faith.

The teachings value science, education, equality of the sexes and equality of the races -- just to name a few things.

One of the first things that I did when I got a computer was to get in touch with the Bahais at Oxford.

By the way, I always find a nugget of gold somewhere in your posts. May I ask if you post here under another name?

Chris, unfortunately we can't conclude that people always go into shock and don't experience excruciating pain. I know that sometimes the mind protects us and that sometimes it doesn't.

You asked, "What if, while being chained up and dragged behind a truck by people who feared you so much that they didn't know what else to do but torture you and kill you, you maintained your inner peace and forgave them?"

I think that would be incredibly wonderful! It would be following the example of the Christ and of other great teachers.

When I was beaten at school by a trespasser, I was in a lot of pain. I was in the emergency room for seven hours and hospitalized for three days. But I asked the judge (through my attorney) not to send the young man to a reformatory. I felt that that would have done irreparable harm to him. And I did not pursue the matter in civil court (against his parents) so I was not compensated for the pain.

Further, my parting words to the man who held a gun on me as he robbed me last June where, "God bless you."

I also voluntarily spent my career teaching in the most dangerous schools in Nashville because I cared about my fellow human beings. Every morning my husband let me out of the car to wait in the darkness for the school building to open. This was in a neighborhood where even newspapers are not delivered.

One of my white students was a member of the KKK. I wore a Star-of-David to school but would not tell him if I was a Jew or not -- just to help him see the irrelevance. I know that he respected me until I wore that Star-of-David. And I am aware that the situation made him stop and think about his prejudice.

All of this is not to tell you how "wonderful" I am. I think that the steps that I took in all of these situations were out of love for my fellow man. I have no doubt that most people here would express their love in similar appropriate ways. There is nothing special about my reactions.

Do I believe that some acts of violence arise out of fear? Absolutely! But I do think that the perpetrators should be held accountable? You bet I do! But then I would go a step further and try to reeducate and rehabilitate the perpetrators.

You said, "What if you could in that moment truly be at peace knowing that this experience wasn't really real and that you can't really be hurt?"

That would take brain damage or a state of total and continuous enlightenment. I was really hurt when I was beaten! (And I think that Gandhi really suffered when he was on the hunger strike.) When the various levels of reality are considered, these day-to-day experiences are one of them! It was in surmounting this very real pain that love and forgiveness had any real meaning.

I hope that you accept my answers in the spirit in which they are offered. I saw the love in your posts too.

Incidentally, one of the trespassers (there were seven) involved in the beating incident later became my student at another school. When he found out who I was, I arranged, at his request, for him to be transferred to another class. He was so puzzled by my lack of animosity that he began to drop by my room in the afternoons after school just to say hello and a pleasant bond developed between us.

Sometimes, things fall into place.

Here's somethin else I found in my travels yesterday, feel free to respond in any way you feel is 'right' for you. :)

"The Universal Spirit, God, Divine Mind, or whatever else you wish to call it, (God doesn't get hung up on words the way humanity often does.) resides within each of us. Within our minds, within our hearts, within our souls, is the only temple where we can communicate and worship that Infinite essence which is our lives. Outer worship and ritual are no more than a symbolic acknowledgement that brings comfort to the conscious mind, but without the inner worship, there is no substance, nor truth, nor wisdom."

"It does not matter what words you use, what remains is that unless you know and embrace, the great inner silence, you cannot hear the voice of that divine essence which is the source of all life. If you do not look within you cannot see the sacred fire that burns within you that is your life. It does not matter what temple or church your worship in, nor what sacred text you study. Without the inner understanding that can only be provided by the spirit of God in you, none of it has any true meaning or value.. "

- from www.library-of-wisdom.org

OM

OM

OM

OM

OM

OM

OM

OM

OM

OM

OM

OM

OM

OM

OM

OM

Thanks, Ulisse. I haven't yet started to read 'Syntropy' but I did follow some of the links at your site until I found myself reading about the Bahai faith. I must confess I knew practically nothing about Bahai until I visited www.obcnhj.org

It sounds like my kind of faith even though I have never been one to subscribe to any specific set of beliefs. Each Bahai is encouraged to investigate the truth for him/herself and not to just blindly follow ancestors or 'authority' figures.

Here's a sample -

"Bahais also believe heaven and hell are not places but conditions. Heaven is an awareness of God; Hell is the absence of that awareness. Heaven is spiritual light; hell is spiritual darkness. These conditions may be created anywhere, in this life as well as in the next.

They do believe in life after death, but as a change of condition, not as a place. Death comes suddenly, but like birth, death is an open door to a new and greater life. To consider that after the death of the body the spirit perishes is like imagining that a bird in a cage will be destroyed if the cage is broken. Our body is like the cage and the spirit like the bird. Though the body dies, the spirit continues to exist in a new condition without the physical limitations of this world."

Thanks again.

Well, thanks Peggy, Cathy, Chris for all the feedback. :)

Just goes to show there are an infinite number of ways of viewing/experiencing 'reality'. Yet, we all tend to think ours is the 'right' way. I suppose that's the benefit of a place like this.

Dick, I realise you may have had your tongue in your cheek when you said you find the mirror analogy irritating (as the post was about 'people who irritate us') I think the key word is 'find'. Actually, most people tend not to say "I find that irritating" - they will generally say "That is irritating" which implies that is the only possible reaction and the only possible way it can be experienced.

You may likewise find the old adage 'Seek and ye shall find' to be similarly irritating. I find it is a true reflection of the human experience. If you go around looking for reasons to be irritated you will surely find them. Likewise, if you go around looking for reasons to be inspired ... or filled with wonder ... or love ... or cynicism ... or gratitude or forgiveness ... or whatever :)

As for the phrase 'beyond speculation', I take that to mean that speculation can only take you so far. Like Hadi said, there is a limit to how far concepts, ideas, intellectualising can take you. The trouble is we have a culture and environment which tends to elevate the intellect above all else. Our education system values those with intellectual dexterity. Not that there is anything inherently 'wrong' with that but I do feel it is possible to be too clever for your own good. :)

There is a vast difference between being clever and beingwise and I know which I'd prefer. With such a focus, we want to wrap our intellect around everything but the mind boggles past a certain point. I mean how can one expect to wrap one's intellect around the infinite. :)

Reading through the archives of this place, one of my favourite quotes is "All you need is a quiet mind". Yet, as Hadi pointed out, this is far from easy to do. Otherwise the world would be full of enlightened beings which it plainly is not. It is however chock full of potential enlightened beings. To me, that is the true message of all 'masters' - not to place them on a pedestal but to realise that you possess equal potential as they do and eventually you will realise it. :)

Nice to acknowledge my existence. Namaste to you all. Geeeeeez

Focus your own arse, luv. Said in peace. :-)

OM

OM

OM

OM

OM

OM

OM

OM

A little earlier Terry asked about peace in the Middle East. It has been my contention for some time that the Israeli position is in strong contrast to the position the Jews had in WWII. Instead of being the victims, this time they're making sure they don't get that role again.

With all their history (not just 20th Century history) how can people of the Jewish faith let go of the hatred and scorn that has come their way since Bible days?

If we were to ask the Jews of the Holocaust which period they would choose, I would expect a large majority to accept the current Israeli situation to that of the concentration camps. To whatever degree that is actually true, I believe it goes directly to the points Chris is dealing with.

Chris, would you agree that the person or persons doing the dragging not only share, but perhaps have the larger responsibility, for changing their behavior? What love are they projecting? Will the other person's love project any change into their hearts? Serious questions!

November belongs to those whose hands love to touch the earth: those who reap their harvest and give thanks for all the blessings they can share. happy November .. Namaste Big hug! debi

Peggy, suppose for a moment that you where that man that was dragged behind that vehicle. I suspect that if I where him, I would feel a great deal of fear and bewilderment. I have a pretty good idea of what it feels like to scrape across pavement at 70 MPH from my motorcycle accident. It happens very fast and at least my experience didn't offer me the opportunity to feel much pain. I went into shock and didn't even know my arm was broken until the paramedics tried to take my jacket off. Anyway, as brutal and scary as that experience must have been for that man, I suspect he died fairly quickly and based on my experience with trauma the mind has amazing powers of protecting itself from feeling too much pain.

What if, while being chained up and dragged behind a truck by people who feared you so much that they didn't know what else to do but torture you and kill you, you maintained your inner peace and forgave them? Instead of internalizing fear and hate within yourself, you saw yourself and your situation from a higher perspective and realized that you can't really die and that you aren't really separate from the men driving the truck. What if you saw into their hearts and realized that they had internalized so much suffering and pain through their lives and instead of processing it and learning from it, they projected that out to a whole group of people whom you happened to be a member of? What if you could in that moment truly be at peace knowing that this experience wasn't really real and that you can't really be hurt? From a perspective like that all one could experience would be Love regardless of what perceptions one was having.

"Group Think".

Hitler is an example of "group think", and you can take off from there when it comes to "masses" of people focused (consciousnesses) on a particular mind-set.

The principle of Ahimsa as taught by Ghandi, which Dr. King employed as well, is an example of combating oppression whether personally, groups, or nations.

Yes..........it takes a long time.

"Seventy times seven".......or something like that.

Thanks for the honest feedback Kate. I'm not really trying to change your mind or convince you here. This is more like an exercise for me to clarify my own thinking and I appreciate bouncing this off of you and others.

Hatred doesn't really exist. It is a misperception that we all make based on many ingrained assumptions about Life the Universe and Everything. If we really are these bodies and these egos then we have a whole lot to hate and fear in this world. It is a dangerous world with lots of suffering, injustice and ultimately we are going to die. I'm suggesting that maybe we really aren't these bodies or these individual egos. The experience of separateness is synonymous with the experience of fear (which hate is a manifestation of). The experience of unity is synonymous with the experience of love (which is Truth). When a group oppresses another group, that is based on fear plain and simple. Hatred is projected by the oppressing group for a million different reasons and felt by the receiving group, which most often turns into hate in return. Where is the peace? If the receiving group is able to maintain their own peace within each individual (and take required action based on this place of peace) the cycle is stopped. I'm not saying this is easy. If you can genuinely be at peace while you take a stance against your perceived injustices then you've got it! If your stance is based on action taken from a place of total inner peace then you've got it! I'm not suggesting that we don't take action, but rather take action in mindfulness and from a place of centeredness, non-attachment and peace. This kind of mind set is what people learn when they are in the martial arts. A master can be totally calm and aware while he is in the heat of battle. She doesn't strike her opponent out of malice or fear but it becomes more like a dance that she happens to be participating in.

Here is to the joining of our thoughts! :-)

Chris, I acknowledge that my perceptions are within me. But I disagree that that is the only reality. I must also acknowledge that the perceptions of others are within them are they are a reality too. When the African-American was dragged behind that vehicle until he was decapitated, his perception must have been horror and excruciating pain. The ability to actually feel part of his pain within ourselves is called empathy. It is a step beyond sympathy.

BTW, I hate it that the expression, "I feel your pain" has become a cliche and lacking in any real substance.

Kate, well said! You beat me to a response and added something that I hadn't thought of before -- the common ground.

Chris, I too really like the last paragraph of your post. And although at this point, I disagree with some of what you had to say, it is easy to see that it was written in a very loving way.

Terry, when I described the experience with Anna Grace to you, I came very close to putting quotations marks around the "it" in "so it begins." :-)

She is, I think, mostly in a very good situation. There is a lot of family support, attention and love for the child. One of her parents spends a lot of time at home with her. On other days she attends a church affiliated pre-school where her mother is a teacher in another class. Coincidentally, Barry's mom only recently resigned her post as head of that school. Wouldn't it be great if all of those kids developed some of Barry's peaceful and centered heart!

Kereyra and Cathy, thanks for the feedback. I think that you are both right on target in all that you said. Gee, when I agree with someone, I hardly know what to say! ;-)

Cathy, the "ouches" that you described are also a dilemia for me. I am also a Christian and forgiveness and love are required of me. (I know that other religions have similar teachings.)

I have sometimes wondered if the Christ came in human form to teach us something about being human. It is my opinion that that part of him wasn't perfect.

The story of the money-changers in the temple used to perplex me. His anger seemed so out of character. Now it has become a sort of redemption for me. Even Jesus could feel anger.

Now there are no money changers here and I still see my anger as one of my biggest stumbling blocks. I do know that as long as I feel the anger, I need to express it in some way. I used to think that I could just "work it off" in other ways. But my long ago experiences of not being allowed to express any negative emotions has exacerbated my mental illness.

I really connected with what you said the other day about how loving our enemies doesn't mean that we have to like them. And I relate to separating the person from the deed in judging. I'm just not quite there yet.

You are a God-send!

Let's do some more exploration: "The hate that we perceive coming from other people is really just a trigger that manifests our own hate. There in is the mirror!" I agree this is possible, but I don't understand that it can be a fixed behavior. In other words, I don't see this as occurring in every situation. For instance, what has caused any group of people to oppress another group? Was it hatred coming from the original group? Or was it fear of the original group that produced the hatred? Do you see what I'm trying to say, Chris? In other words, I am, as usual, uncomfortable making that kind of blanket statement that would apply to every person and every situation.

"That's what I believe people like the Dalai Lama mean when they say that in order for there to be peace on Earth it has to start with your own heart." Yes! And I am at peace in my own heart when I do take a positive stance against things I perceive go against my sense of justice. I have suffered most when I've been silent and gone against what was really in my heart. Again, Chris, does this make any sense to you? I think you and I have thought we see things differently, but in the end, I think we have just not taken the thoughts on to their joining! :-)

I feel that there is a great deal to learn about spirituality and oneself by this so called "mirror analogy". Pretty much all of what we adults actually experience in life is not really occurring. What I mean by this is that everything we think is going on "out there" is really just interpretations of sensory input "in here". In fact, if we are truly honest with ourselves everything we experience is internal and the external world is assumed. The blue sky I see this morning isn't really blue, but rather my physiology and my mind's interpretation of energy. From this perspective it makes sense then that I am "projecting" blueness on the sky. The sky has no intrinsic "blueness" but rather is just a particular wavelength of energy my brain and mind interpret as the sensation of blue. This is true for everything we experience from a beautiful piece of music to dealing with difficult people. A bigoted attitude we experience coming from another person doesn't exist outside of our own perception. We interpret certain patterns and energies as anger, hate etc. It is only by our own recognition of how we behave when we think, feel or act a certain way that we draw conclusions about how someone else is thinking or feeling. It would not be possible for someone to experience hate from another if they didn't know what hate was within themselves. The hate that we perceive coming from other people is really just a trigger that manifests our own hate. There in is the mirror! If we can master our own triggers then our perception of other people would not affect our inner peace and love.

Don't misinterpret what I am saying here. I'm not suggesting that we disregard the pain and suffering of others in the world because we only "see" it as our own discord, but rather that we recognize that the best way to "cure" the pain and suffering in the world is to treat it with our own intrinsic divinity and Love and not more pain and suffering by us manifesting suffering within ourselves. That's what I believe people like the Dalai Lama mean when they say that in order for there to be peace on Earth it has to start with your won heart. Does that make any sense?

Kereya

Your post made sense to me :-) And also brought up a good point--every situation is unique and should therefore be looked at separately or on its own merit--there is likely not a one-size fits all response...so while the mirror thing might apply sometimes and it's then a good thing...sometimes it does not, and is then not truly helpful :-)

Ciao! Cathy

Peggy

Thanks for your post about Zukav! I always appreciate your practical and logical perspective! What you said was why I had trouble with the mirror analogy to begin with (the fact that we don't always have the charateristics that we don't like in another)...however, hough perhaps he used the wrong terminology, I do think that it's still worthwhile to at least look at ourselves to see why something about someone else bothers us--especially if we can't let it go, or if we can't "control" our response--if it's automatic and possibly out of proportion (I'm talking here about smaller issues than child abuse and bigotry :-))

Your thought about looking more closely at what people (teachers) say to determine the validity of it for ourselves is a point well taken. However, I think that some of the larger truths are things we might discount if looked at from a purely rational perspective...a dilemma, eh? :-) For example, I think that unconditional love and non judgement are qualities of God and therefore qualities we can have also--but this means loving the child abusers and bigots too--ouch! How hard is that? Sure we can separate the doer from the action, but say we were just listening to such a person espouse why they hate a certain group or describing what they did to some poor child--I know that I couldn't listen with love at this point :-) I'd be angry!

The other thing that comes to mind is the we are all one idea...now I believe this intellectually...and I think we understand it when we get to a certain level of consciousness...I think of Jesus saying "Whatsoever you do, to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me..."--so I suppose this would apply to "bad" people too...again, ouch! :-)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I understand your logic--and I think it is a good thing to think about what people say more carefully to decide if it has any validity...but then I also think that ultimately we have to go beyond logic (though it served us well) to something beyond...which does not mean we have to stop trying to implement change in the world, or showing compassion for those who suffer...but that we then do so understanding that what we do to/for them we do to/for ourselves...

I am beginning to ramble and I need to go! Thanks for sharing--I appreciate your forthrightness :-)

Blessings! Cathy

I can see that the 'mirror' thing has more than one side to it. There's a lot of truth in being irritated by those who exhibit the same traits we have. There's also truth in the fact that we are offended by perverse behaviours we don't have at all.I don't think one truth is exclusive of the other.

As a teacher, I frequently come face to face with behaviours that I have difficulty with. Luckily, at this point, I recognize the similarity with things I do or have done. For instance, extremely bright, know-it-all kids drive me nuts! : ) LOL! Sorry, I just couldn't resist! Honestly, though, it's difficult for me to deal with kids who are obviously too good for the level they're in. I exhibit the same kind of boredom when I attend meetings where there's nothing worth learning that would top what I could do elsewhere. That may not sound too clear, I hope it does.

In this case, it's not that the speaker is obnoxious or boring as such, rather, it's my own inability to cope with the situation, to deal with my own attitude. On the other hand, there's the case of going to another meeting where the speaker is driving everyone nuts. I may exhibit the same behaviour, but it's not for the same reason.

I will withdraw from the forum for today. I have this gut feeling that my thinking is way ahead of what I'm writing, which means it's probably just not making sense. See y'all later....Oooops! Forgot. Thank you Peggy for the recommendation. Maybe I can find the book this weekend. Thanks. : )

"relect".............reflect

Dave.......thanks for the offer.

I was going to search the archives for all the pertinent info that's been posted about the "journey of awakening" and incorporate it into my book.

(joking)

The knowledge and wisdom that's been expressed here is boundless, at least for the "thinking" aspect of our manifestation.

Even the disgruntled episodes, as it/they relect the interaction of activity on the physical plane.

No sense wondering why the Jews and Arabs can't find peace huh?

Terry, you've gotten me curious. Is there anything specific you're wanting to locate in the archives? Some specific post, period, individual? I could help hunt if you're wanting help. It was fun trying to run down Carol's post the other day, even though I didn't actually find it before she did.

Namaste'

I was thinking it was All Soul's Day and asked that they be at peace, so I guess it applies to "Saints" too (souls).

Thanks Pegasus.

"Yes" as well..............."it" begins.

Now, while the little darling is evolving, try to think of an environment where she can be placed that will insure her innocence.

I've been thinking about that for the time when they start (get public with the info) "cloning" us.

If you're familiar with SNL's Jack Handey, maybe you'll enjoy these efforts by kids to "do Jack Handey."

Happy All Saints' Day!

(I love observing the sacred after having so much fun with the profane.)

TO, you may remember when my granddaughter Anna Grace was born in March of last year. I think some of us were in the middle of a squabble at the forum when she arrived on the scene and gave me a little perspective.

Last night was her first time to go Trick or Treating. As we walked down the street hand in hand, she pointed to the sky and said, "Moon." And so it begins... ;-)

Just thought you would want to know. Knew that you would understand.

Namaste

Sigh. Here I go again...:-)

Zukav said:

"Becoming irritated when you see someone doing something that you do -- but don't know that you are doing -- is a well-known phenomenon. Psychologists call it 'projection.'"

Well, that's not exactly what projection means in psychology. When you project, you attribute to someone else the motives, ideas, attitudes or feelings that you have. It's a defense mechanism which allows you to avoid feelings of anxiety. For example, if you are feeling guilty about something, you may project blame onto someone else. If you do something out of spitefulness, you may jump to the conclusion that another person is doing something out of spite to you. Those are just examples.

Sometimes we may dislike a quality in others that we have ourselves, but that isn't a defense mechanism and it isn't projection.

Further, just because we dislike some quality or characteristic that another person has, that doesn't mean that we automatically have that characteristic ourselves. I dislike child abusers. That doesn't mean that I am a child abuser or that I want to abuse children. If I dislike narrow-mindedness or bigotry in another, that doesn't mean that I am a bigot.

Sometimes it is just a matter of thinking these automatic responses (such as the mirror metaphor) through to see that it doesn't make much sense.

On the other hand, I freely admit that I dislike in others those traits which I dislike in myself. But I am not always unaware of these traits as Zukav would lead one to think.

I have nothing against Zukav in particular. But this does serve as a reminder that not everything these writers/teachers say is true.

Anne

Your post from Zukav was helpful to me...like Dick, I get a bit tired of hearing about the mirroring analogy because it seemed to imply that if you ever had a problem with someone's behavior or words that it was your "fault" and had nothing to do with how they were being--seemed a perfect way to take no responsibility ;-) But, as I read what you posted it made a bit more sense....it wasn't saying that the other person didn't actually have a "negative" behavior, but that for it to irk you so, there was something of yourself in that (not necessarily to the same extent etc...)...THIS I see as a useful thing :-)

Thanks! And your kid post was very cute :-)

Cathy

Halloween Carols

Crown/Harmony Books

Comments by users are not endorsed by Random House. The Deepak Chopra Forum is intended to provide a place for the exchange of information, opinions, and comments. Random House does not necessarily endorse, support, sanction, encourage, verify, or agree with the comments, opinions, or statements posted in the Forum. Any information or material placed online, including advice and opinions, are the views of those who post the statements, and does not necessarily represent the views of Random House. Privacy Policy