Polarity and Star Wars (the Force). Are they the same?

[nin64]

So... this polarity thing, I assume it's the same (or almost the same) as Star Wars analogy of Dark Side and Light Side.

I mean, how much is the "sameness"?

Like, Dark Side bring power and the person wielding in need to constantly increase his/her power to watch out for other people even their own apprentice.
So is it the same as this "Darkworker"? Or is it just some fancy label that people love to attach themselves to?


PS: Yes. You can use Exar Kun, Marka Ragnos, Sadow, Sunrider, Darth Caedious etc. as examples. I'm a Star Wars nerd.

[Andrew Gubb]

I think Star Wars is a very spiritual trilogy. Yes, I think the dark side and light side are analogous to lightworking and darkworking. It's probably even true that people who can move things with their mind and recieve information psychically (and whatever else the force does) can highten their power by polarising. I remember hearing about one telekinecist who needed to put herself into an utter rage to get her abilities to work, so much that she caused damage to herself. Other telekinecists (I knew one personally) meditate to improve their abilities, which would be analogous to the light side.

I remember I got caught up in the "dark side" once myself... seriously. My supernatural abilities were quite impressive then, but I paid such a huge price. It's like Yoda says... the dark side is quicker and more addictive, but it's not more powerful.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

They aren't analogous to real life. The Sith are much too desperate in their pursuit of power and the Jedi lobotomize parts of themselves which make them human (i.e., they are forbidden to love).

To explain further, a darkworker is quite willing to use rage as a source of power but not to the extent that they become desperate. The self-interested must guard against harming themselves. Build>Focus>Release. Being in a constant state of anger dulls the mind, destroys the body, and leads to one's own downfall. Similarly, lightworkers don't abandon the energy of rage altogether; they can't. They might transmute it into something else or move past it as quickly as they can, but without anger they would not see injustice nor would they be motivated to act. Even if they reach a point where they no longer get angry they sometimes need to provoke the anger of others so that they can guide those they wish to serve to higher levels of consciousness. (See: Steve's post about nazi eggs.)

The primary difference between -workers is that darkworkers draw their power from the will (root chakra) whereas lightworkers draw power from a sense of idealism and unity (crown chakra). Neither polarity, assuming one is on a sustainable long-term path, is absent the other end of the pole, but one's chosen alignment determines how both sides are directed and transformed.

[rei]

Originally Posted by YourHumbleNarrator

They aren't analogous to real life. The Sith are much too desperate in their pursuit of power and the Jedi lobotomize parts of themselves which make them human (i.e., they are forbidden to love).

people who join spiritual communities also accept certain rules... no murder, no sex, no drugs, etc. (for buddhist monks and nuns), wear sackcloth, etc. for christian monks and nuns in certain sects.
they are humans living a real life.

many spiritually minded people make a choice to abstain from distractions or experiences that would lower their vibration. they live a real life. i admit, being a ceiling surfer often means pretending you don't live in the world, but i think your point is a generalization YHN.

to the OP, i do think star wars is a reasonable metaphor for light/darkwork. the force can be used in different ways depending on intention, and personal power works the same way.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by rei

many spiritually minded people make a choice to abstain from distractions or experiences that would lower their vibration. they live a real life. i admit, being a ceiling surfer often means pretending you don't live in the world, but i think your point is a generalization YHN.

Which is what it was meant to be (generalizations cannot be true 100% of the time). But there's a big difference between, "you can choose to forsake these things if it will help you grow" and "if you are to walk this path at all those things must be forbidden", which is very much what the Jedi Order taught until Luke took the reins.

Yes, I am a major nerd.

And I realize there are people who teach that you have to give up certain things to move forward, that if you don't listen to them your efforts will never amount to anything, and so on. But my point is that, in reality, you will stunt your growth by following them because they are trying to take your power. Nobody worth listening to denies free will. They might go as far as to say, "well, if you want to achieve your aims we think that you won't be able to if you get romantically involved with someone" but they're lying if they say, "you will never achieve enlightenment if you have sex." So when I mentioned reality, what I meant is that you cannot progress through a system which demands that you lobotomize yourself, I wasn't saying there were no orders which endorsed that. And of course, there's a big difference between abstinence and undergoing a lobotomy, that difference being the presence or lack of denial. Suppression causes stagnation, acceptance allows you to transmute.

[gigij]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I remember I got caught up in the "dark side" once myself... seriously. My supernatural abilities were quite impressive then, but I paid such a huge price. It's like Yoda says... the dark side is quicker and more addictive, but it's not more powerful.

Wow - you have no idea how much I needed to hear this today. I'm struggling with this myself right at the moment.

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by YourHumbleNarrator

They aren't analogous to real life. The Sith are much too desperate in their pursuit of power and the Jedi lobotomize parts of themselves which make them human (i.e., they are forbidden to love).

Is that in the second trilogy (pre-logy)? From what I remember the second trilogy completely departed from the magical spiritual vibes which made the first so great.

To explain further, a darkworker is quite willing to use rage as a source of power but not to the extent that they become desperate. The self-interested must guard against harming themselves. Build>Focus>Release. Being in a constant state of anger dulls the mind, destroys the body, and leads to one's own downfall. Similarly, lightworkers don't abandon the energy of rage altogether; they can't. They might transmute it into something else or move past it as quickly as they can, but without anger they would not see injustice nor would they be motivated to act. Even if they reach a point where they no longer get angry they sometimes need to provoke the anger of others so that they can guide those they wish to serve to higher levels of consciousness. (See: Steve's post about nazi eggs.)

The primary difference between -workers is that darkworkers draw their power from the will (root chakra) whereas lightworkers draw power from a sense of idealism and unity (crown chakra). Neither polarity, assuming one is on a sustainable long-term path, is absent the other end of the pole, but one's chosen alignment determines how both sides are directed and transformed.

Sounds like you really get the polarity thing. I don't know about your last paragraph though. I'm not saying I think it's wrong, it's just that I don't connect with it (yet). Could you explain more?

[rei]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

Is that in the second trilogy (pre-logy)? From what I remember the second trilogy completely departed from the magical spiritual vibes which made the first so great.


Sounds like you really get the polarity thing. I don't know about your last paragraph though. I'm not saying I think it's wrong, it's just that I don't connect with it (yet). Could you explain more?

Andrew, i also found YHN's last paragraph interesting. it seems to me, the darkworker concentrates interactions at the solar plexus (power center) and the lightworker concentrates interactions at the heart chakra. if or when YHN comes to elaborate, i am hoping he(??) will also explain how the understanding of root and crown chakra is more logical than the understanding of 3rd and 4th chakra in expressing the difference between -workers.

[Andrew Gubb]

I remember reading a bit about the will from a book about spiritual alchemy. The nazis were supposed to have had the idea of "the triumph of the will" and had even had a mystical group trying to empower the will. From what I understand the will is the lower drive. Where as the intention is a divine impulse from spirit. Alchemy is about getting the will to come into service of spirit if I understand right. While perhaps darkworking is an out-of-control will futily trying to come out on top, building a house upside-down so to speak.

I have to admit I didn't quite understand all of this, though.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I remember reading a bit about the will from a book about spiritual alchemy. The nazis were supposed to have had the idea of "the triumph of the will" and had even had a mystical group trying to empower the will. From what I understand the will is the lower drive. Where as the intention is a divine impulse from spirit. Alchemy is about getting the will to come into service of spirit if I understand right. While perhaps darkworking is an out-of-control will futily trying to come out on top, building a house upside-down so to speak.

I have to admit I didn't quite understand all of this, though.

Was that book, "On Becoming an Alchemist?" Because that's a major inspiration for me. Really eye-opening, it was. Served as a catalyst for a huge number of breakthroughs.

As I understand it, the negative outcomes of either polarity have to do with "planting the tree upside down." Lightworkers fail when they try to exercise will on the same level as their ideals. Similarly, when you drag ideals down to the level of the will, cynicism results. The darkness destroys, refines, and reshapes-ideals cannot survive it intact. Now, ideals do need to be reshaped in order to work on a practical level and thus descent is a necessary part of the process, but the mechanisms cannot function properly if they're put on the same level.

But then you have to ask: what's actually getting moved around? Because I find it doubtful you can actually drag something from the darkness into the light and vice versa. In my opinion, what's really happening is the ego is trying to stretch in both directions at once while simultaneously trying to progress down a single path. Put simply, every time a darkworker becomes psychotic or a lightworker becomes prone to zealotry it is because the ego has placed itself on the lower or higher vertical, in heaven or hell, instead of staying on the horizontal where it belongs. It doesn't know what to do with the energy it has summoned and the result is destruction. You can look at it as a spectrum within a spectrum: if lightworking and darkworking are spiritual paths, then they contain within them ego and spirit based ideologies and methods. The likelihood of success walking either road is determined by how capable you are of consciously connecting with your higher self, or daemon.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

Is that in the second trilogy (pre-logy)? From what I remember the second trilogy completely departed from the magical spiritual vibes which made the first so great.

It's drawn partly from that, yes. But that's also how they were presented in the Kotor games and in some of the Star Wars literature.

Sounds like you really get the polarity thing. I don't know about your last paragraph though. I'm not saying I think it's wrong, it's just that I don't connect with it (yet). Could you explain more?

I'm assuming the part you're wondering about is where I say that you still possess both sides of the spectrum, yes?

Darkworkers consciously strengthen the will. Their focus is on the lower chakras. This has a residual effect on the upper three chakras. (I.E., it alters their perception of ideals. They aren't prone to being taken in by fanciful notions and their minds automatically break something down until it can be made practical or, if it can't, discarded.) Conversely, lightworkers aren't going to consciously focus on the lower end of the spectrum. Instead, they transform their will by focusing on their ideals. "Ideals" probably isn't the best word, but I'm at a loss for how else to describe it. If you've read, "On Becoming an Alchemist" I doubt that I need to. Their will is transformed when they have to descend.

At least that's my current understanding.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by rei

Andrew, i also found YHN's last paragraph interesting. it seems to me, the darkworker concentrates interactions at the solar plexus (power center) and the lightworker concentrates interactions at the heart chakra. if or when YHN comes to elaborate, i am hoping he(??) will also explain how the understanding of root and crown chakra is more logical than the understanding of 3rd and 4th chakra in expressing the difference between -workers.

The heart chakra is an activity center; it's not something you consciously utilize so much as it's shaped by the path that you choose. If you draw energy through the will it travels up into the heart. If you draw energy from your ideals it will draw energy down to the heart. This is the difference between, "No! We have to save them!" and "Are you mad? You'll get us all killed!" Ideals inspire us to strive for them, and even die for them, and the will keeps us grounded. The former doesn't necessarily make you a bleeding heart hippie and the latter doesn't mean you become unfeeling and cold. It means that lightworkers will go to great lengths in order to manifest an ideal world, even sacrifice themselves, whereas a darkworker prefers measured risks and will focus on cutting their losses as opposed to striving for something beyond reach or saving one life at the cost of their own (that isn't to say that they don't take bold actions, they just always weigh the odds). Both have to make hefty sacrifices at various points in their journey.

Without the will, the solar plexis has no power to channel. The will keeps you grounded, it keeps you centered. It helps you focus. It puts you in command of your faculties. No one can succeed without a strong will. In focusing on it specifically you can supercharge it and in doing so you become a force to be reckoned with. For the darkworker, it is the foundation everything else is built upon.

The same is true of lightworkers and their ideals. The heart feels, but without ideals what does it feel for? The heart has no will, no direction, of its own. Ideals speak to the heart and thus enliven the lightworker. Remember that unity is itself an ideal, and while it seems a belief in oneness isn't absolutely necessary to lightworking (remember that lightworking and darkworking are merely new-age terms for disciplines which are thousands of years old) unity, in some form, is imperative.

And to clarify what I mean by ideals, I mean that lightworkers commit themselves to service of that which all ideals stem from. They bow before heaven and serve as its means of manifesting on earth. Darkworkers, on the other hand, identify themselves as divine and shape the world in their own image. Lightworkers are transformed, darkworkers transform.

[rei]

Originally Posted by YourHumbleNarrator

The heart chakra is an activity center; it's not something you consciously utilize so much as it's shaped by the path that you choose. If you draw energy through the will it travels up into the heart. If you draw energy from your ideals it will draw energy down to the heart.
...
The same is true of lightworkers and their ideals. The heart feels, but without ideals what does it feel for? The heart has no will, no direction, of its own. Ideals speak to the heart and thus enliven the lightworker. Remember that unity is itself an ideal, and while it seems a belief in oneness isn't absolutely necessary to lightworking (remember that lightworking and darkworking are merely new-age terms for disciplines which are thousands of years old) unity, in some form, is imperative.

And to clarify what I mean by ideals, I mean that lightworkers commit themselves to service of that which all ideals stem from. They bow before heaven and serve as its means of manifesting on earth. Darkworkers, on the other hand, identify themselves as divine and shape the world in their own image. Lightworkers are transformed, darkworkers transform.

this is fascinating. i view these things a bit differently. in my understanding, the heart center is the anchor for love energy. a lightworker chooses to share love energy with the environment, and a darkworker may primarily share energy of love with his or herself. one focuses the love outward, the other focuses it inward. in this way it is consciously utilized to further one's goal of STO or STS. (in truth the energy of the heart must go both ways, toward self and toward others, according to the universal/esoteric law 'as above, so below.' what we express in one direction is necessarily mirrored in the other.)

lightworker ideals, to me, seem to be based in love. acting from love to co-create a more loving environment. love is the energy for action and is the core ideal. in my understanding, love came first. the notion of unity followed as a way to create a more...solid or concrete expression for the very nebulous notion of existing from/to love.

not all lightworkers bow down to heaven. many of them recognize their own divinity and draw from that divinity in a conscious way to have the energy needed to share love with others. they do see their personal power but they focus on we instead of me. not all lightworkers are spineless bootlickers. probably not all darkworkers express themselves narcissistically either (shaping the world in an image of themselves as a chief creator... sounds rather narcissistic). again i say this is a fascinating discussion... thanks for the elaboration YHN.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by rei

this is fascinating. i view these things a bit differently. in my understanding, the heart center is the anchor for love energy.

I think you're right in that the heart serves as an anchor. An anchor, not a source. It contains energy but it doesn't change it or direct it. It provides a place for it to go. When there is a conflict, it is the place where one thing separates itself from another and clarity is achieved. It is how the higher and lower can interface with each other.

not all lightworkers bow down to heaven.

Ah, but they do. Remember that I'm using heaven metaphorically. A lightworker's first commitment is service.

many of them recognize their own divinity and draw from that divinity in a conscious way to have the energy needed to share love with others.

You have to recognize your divinity in order to be polarized. You don't have to use the term divinity per se, but you do have to step up as the maker of your own fate.

The difference between lightworkers and darkworkers is not that they acknowledge one and deny the other. It's the order they place it in. "All of you are divine. I am divine." vs. "I am divine. I see my divinity reflected back to me."

Keep in mind that that's not necessarily the order in which they come to understand the truth but rather where they place the emphasis.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by rei

this is fascinating. i view these things a bit differently. in my understanding, the heart center is the anchor for love energy.

One other thing: the heart is not expressly a channel for love. The heart can hate as easily as it can nurture. Its condition informs you of how the rest of you fares. It is where you plant your seeds and where the first buds spring out of the ground. It's a compass and, in alchemical terms, the rock which becomes the philosopher's stone.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by rei

probably not all darkworkers express themselves narcissistically either (shaping the world in an image of themselves as a chief creator... sounds rather narcissistic).

I'm hate to post a third time, but I overlooked this the first time I read through your post. "I am the creator" is a perspective that relies on expanding beyond the ego identity and embracing the true self. It's anti-narcissistic by it's very definition. In fact, a successful darkworker can't be narcissistic even if they retain a mundane, "my body is all I am" perspective. Narcissists have no confidence. They survive by deluding themselves. A darkworker who meets his end, metaphorical or otherwise, can be narcissistic, but not one who attains real power.

If darkworking and lightworking lead to the same place, either darkworkers eventually become lightworkers or both paths wrap around to the same destination. I'm working off the latter hypothesis since its truest to my experience and it accounts for everything I've found in my studies. If "God" is essentially all there is, then it has a reason for both creating and giving. To focus on giving, you must see creation the way that God does. To focus on creating, or rather, "shaping the world in your image," you must understand what drives God to create. The philosopher's stone of lightworking is to possess the eyes of God. The philosopher's stone of darkworking is to have the mind of God. You gain, or regain, your other divine attributes along the way.

Does that mean we really are all one, or that I accept that life as we know it is really an illusion, and so on? (Well, that last part is certain because life here is dependent on perception, and it's temporary. What I am is not. Whatever dies is not me, ergo it is illusion. But what am I? Spirit? What is spirit?) I don't know what all this culminates into. I know that high level lightworkers and darkworkers tell a very similar story. However, I think the truth must be experienced, so whatever theories I may have must fall to the wayside as I seek truth.

[Andrew Gubb]

Narrator,

Yes, that was the book Good one isn't it? It's inspired me a lot though there remains much of it I don't understand or don't know whether to believe. The alchemical processes and the attitude of the alchemist have become an important part of my personal spiritual path, though.

The difference between lightworkers and darkworkers is not that they acknowledge one and deny the other. It's the order they place it in. "All of you are divine. I am divine." vs. "I am divine. I see my divinity reflected back to me."

Well, this is how the two viewpoints of service to others vs. service to self come together into harmony of self with others to the benefit of all. I think the two ideas you've expressed above are basically the same.

Personally I think lightworking and darkworking make more sense as concepts when darkworking is seen as the decision to identify with the ego and the seperate sense of self totally, while lightworking is seen as the decision to recreate your identity as an interdependent part of the greater body of humanity. The ego says, "I want power, control, dominance, etc. I only care about me". If a person REALLY decides that they want to serve themselves, then they need to align with reality and that involves aligning with the fact that they are part of existence and not made to be seperate. Lightworking would be seen as the "sensible" thing... for a person. For an ego, of course, darkworking is what is sensible. A darkworker needs to realise that he is not an ego to ever really reach his goal of self-service, but that is very hard when you decide to channel the ego thinking that it will help you get there.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

Well, this is how the two viewpoints of service to others vs. service to self come together into harmony of self with others to the benefit of all. I think the two ideas you've expressed above are basically the same.

And that's my point: they are basically the same. Light and dark energies exist on a spectrum. What comprises that spectrum? In order for there to be two sides, they have to exist on the same coin.

Where you place the emphasis makes a huge difference in how you walk your path. Placing emphasis on "I" does not intrinsically mean placing emphasis on the small I; after all, both sides can benefit from having a strong ego. You need a strong ego while you're on earth, there's no two ways about it. But there's a big difference between being ego driven and being "I" driven.

You can see that this life is transitory and reach one of two conclusions: 1. It doesn't really matter that much in grander scheme of things so making sacrifices for lasting ideals is the only meaningful way to spend your time. 2. You'd best get working on everything you want to do because time is short and, though this life is transitory, there must be something you've come to do and you've got your reasons for doing it. Those two don't necessarily contradict each other, but again placing the emphasis on a different part gets drastically different results. It's like squeezing a bubble on a piece of bubble wrap and causing another one to inflate.

I don't think it's accurate to say lightworking is spiritual and darkworking is ego based, the reason being that you can have egotistical lightworkers. If you can have egotistical lightworkers and egotistical darkworkers but you can't have spiritual lightworkers and spiritual darkworkers, something is amiss as one lacks a true corollary. Again I would note most teachers say they both lead to the same place (to paraphrase that book, "you run into the divine at the bottom and the top"). That doesn't make any sense if the darkworker's means of attaining enlightenment is to become a lightworker. To play on something you said, it seems quite possible to recreate one's identity to align with the larger part of oneself without placing the primary focus on the body of humanity.

[Andrew Gubb]

I don't know, man. I feel like what you say is quite philosophical but maybe not practical. Are you a lightworker or a darkworker according to your conceptions of the terms?

The way I find the ideas to be useful is when I see them as choosing either to channel the ego and become a servant of the ego, or to channel the light (love, the interconnectedness of all beings) and be a servant of that. Both give you rewards but require you to commit yourself to them totally.

Yes, lightworkers have egoes, but they control them. They might even use them, but they don't GIVE THEMSELVES to them. A darkworker is used by the ego.

I'd also mention that from the way I understand enlightenment, no-one could ever reach it by channelling and serving the ego. At least not intentionally. Darkworking as I see it is very deliberately running in the opposite direction as enlightenment.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I think Star Wars is a very spiritual trilogy.

The old one.

The new one is a cartoon.

Evil is the result of lack of mental health. A happy person who has mental health, does not need to hurt or be negative. Negative feelings and evil are the result of being exposed to unhappiness and embrace it as default state and adopt negativity as a way of life.

[rei]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I don't know, man. I feel like what you say is quite philosophical but maybe not practical. Are you a lightworker or a darkworker according to your conceptions of the terms?

The way I find the ideas to be useful is when I see them as choosing either to channel the ego and become a servant of the ego, or to channel the light (love, the interconnectedness of all beings) and be a servant of that. Both give you rewards but require you to commit yourself to them totally.

Yes, lightworkers have egoes, but they control them. They might even use them, but they don't GIVE THEMSELVES to them. A darkworker is used by the ego.

I'd also mention that from the way I understand enlightenment, no-one could ever reach it by channelling and serving the ego. At least not intentionally. Darkworking as I see it is very deliberately running in the opposite direction as enlightenment.

i agree with Andrew here. making a conscious decision to serve the self over everyone else implies service to the ego. in my understanding, it is the ego self that operates selfishly, and although lightworkers and darkworkers both reach an enlightened state eventually, like Andrew i see darkwork as a path that intentionally runs away from enlightenment.

although about ego control and lightwork, i'd say that is not the best way to describe it in my view. there are some lightworkers who simply control the ego self, yes, and then there are some who have integrated the ego self and work in partnership with their core compassionate self.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

Are you a lightworker or a darkworker according to your conceptions of the terms?

Right now I'm more in alignment with the latter. And as I said, it is based on experience and not mere theories. Perhaps the paradigm will break down if I take it further, but the only way to know is to try, eh?

Yes, lightworkers have egoes, but they control them. They might even use them, but they don't GIVE THEMSELVES to them. A darkworker is used by the ego.

Anyone who is "used" by anything has no power. (Submitting to something higher might make you a tool within its toolset, but its by your own will and you're going to know what you've submitted to. Giving yourself to an ego, especially and unrefined one, is stupid; it is a cruel master bent on destroying the both of you.) A big part of enlightenment is ego mastery. You break it down, let it grow again as something better, then tear it down again.

I'd also mention that from the way I understand enlightenment, no-one could ever reach it by channelling and serving the ego. At least not intentionally. Darkworking as I see it is very deliberately running in the opposite direction as enlightenment.

Because you define it as intrinsically egotistical. Darkworkers, by your definition, are little more than narcissists.

Yet the in-breath of creation is as essential as the out-breath. What stops someone who is aware of their divinity from focusing on the in-breath over the out-breath? What makes serving others intrinsically holy and enlightening? It seems to me that defining one path as inherently spiritual and the other as inherently egotistical is merely another way of shunning the darkness instead of trying to understand its place in the universe.

Of course darkworkers are going to be focused a lot more on the here and now than lightworkers are. If I have given myself the gift of human life, then it is my prerogative to experience as much through that gift as I can.

This way of thinking goes back a long way. There are even branches of Buddhism dedicated to achieving enlightenment by using the lower faculties as a driving force.

The flaw in your thinking, as I see it, is that there can be only one valid conclusion upon realizing that you are the sole creator of your experience, and that everyone should be driven to do the same thing in response (if their goal is enlightenment). It is often said within lightworker circles, "there is only one of us here." A concern many have presented is, "if you're the only one here, why care about anyone else?" I have answered that question with, "because I see my own divinity reflected back to me in the faces of many I interact with, and because there is a large net of cause and effect which nothing can escape." Vengeance is the Lord's therefore vengeance is mine, but so too is the burden of balancing karma. Everything is permitted, yet the burden of responsibility is difficult to bear regardless of what path you walk. That's the cost of freedom.

[Anagogy]

I won't create a long post (though it is certainly tempting ), but the way I see polarities is this:

Positive adepts raise their consciousness through ACCEPTANCE.

Negative adepts raise their consciousness through CONTROL.

Both polarities are seeking to unify, but their methods are completely different. One unifies by harmonizing with everything around them, the other unifies by bringing everything into submission, through manipulation.

And while I believe it is possible to spiritually evolve to a high degree through either, I'm also of the opinion that the negative polarity can't take you completely to oneness, because it's foundation contains this idea that something needs to be corrected or otherwise changed, when in reality, creation is perfect already. It has separation built into it, so it can never achieve true unity.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

And while I believe it is possible to spiritually evolve to a high degree through either, I'm also of the opinion that the negative polarity can't take you completely to oneness, because it's foundation contains this idea that something needs to be corrected or otherwise changed, when in reality, creation is perfect already. It has separation built into it, so it can never achieve true unity.

1. Is true unity the goal of enlightenment? I'm not inquiring to play devil's advocate, I'm simply asking. Do we actually know what enlightenment looks like or feels like? Do we know what it would be like to attain it while alive? We have people we can look to as examples, we have ancient texts that describe it, but it's also noted that the truth is indescribable. I will plainly admit that despite all my theories, I have no idea what it will be like to emerge on the other end of this. My experience is a pittance, and no amount of intellectual rigor will get me there alone.

2. Control doesn't necessarily mean manipulation, in the way you're using the word. Nor does the drive to change things necessarily come from a feeling of wrongness. If everything is permitted, how can anything be wrong? It seems, by this logic, the very act of creation is aberrant since to create means that you have to think something is missing or that something is skewed in the world around you. Wouldn't the ultimate conclusion be that existence itself was an error? How can that be so if God was driven to create and God is perfect?

I have created much as an expression of myself, "in my own image", without feeling like something was wrong. It was just something I wanted to do. When I want to change the world in accordance with my vision, again it's not necessarily because something is wrong, it is merely because I want to express myself.

Do I get angry? Do I feel an urge to right unjust actions? Do I feel a need to assert myself when I've been walked upon? Yes. But I see those are also perceptions. I am choosing that experience. I'm creating it just to see what it's like. Lightworkers also do this, no? The reason they struggle so much with power stems from the fact that their commitment to positivity often blinds them to reality. On a fundamental level, everything is perfect. In the here and now, we're in a world full of ups and downs, ideals and imperfections, and the goal is to overcome these obstacles without being ruled by "fate". (Read: an untrained unconscious) If there is ultimately only one way up the mountain, why are there so many roads? They have one destination, but that does not make them entirely the same, nor must all but one lead to a dead end. (Although I know in spiritual terms there are no dead ends.)

[Andrew Gubb]

Because you define it as intrinsically egotistical. Darkworkers, by your definition, are little more than narcissists.

Hitler thought he was pretty awesome, it's true. But calling him "little more" than a narcissist would be an understatement.

Yet the in-breath of creation is as essential as the out-breath. What stops someone who is aware of their divinity from focusing on the in-breath over the out-breath?

If you're talking about the giving and recieving of value, then it should be said that it's impossible to focus on one to the exclusion of the other. But the light is creative, while the ego is destructive.

What makes serving others intrinsically holy and enlightening?

It's not intrinsically so, indeed service can be egotistical, but someone aligned with the light tends to feel the impulse to serve others. They don't do it to be holy, they do it because it's what they are. They choose to give themselves to the light, which means accepting all the light's gifts but also being shaped by the light.

It seems to me that defining one path as inherently spiritual and the other as inherently egotistical is merely another way of shunning the darkness instead of trying to understand its place in the universe.

No, the ego is dark. I'm not shunning it because of that. It has its place.

[nin64]

Anyway... skipped the posts about chakra. Whatever that is. No, I'm not into this new age ancient secret way of living taken from the ancient land of the east that believe in some gods that have many hands and talking elephant that makes you holier than many people.

So... am I right to assume that a sith/darkworker (I prefer the word "sith" because I'm a big nerd), is controlled by the ego?
Well, then isn't it true that the jedi / lightworker are controlled by their ... codes? Or love?

Anyway, nice discussions.

BTW, someone posted KotOR and I remembered the game.
Basically the more you are into the Dark Side, the easier it is for you to use force storm, or other Dark Side power.
Similarly, if you are into the Light Side, and diving further into it, it will be easier for you to use Light Side power like force heal, etc.

So, am I right to assume that, if the more I'm into ... lightworking, the easier I can use this love based energies.

If everything else fail. We can turn this into a Star Wars thread.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

Hitler thought he was pretty awesome, it's true. But calling him "little more" than a narcissist would be an understatement.

I don't know. Wasn't he fairly short? Regardless it's obvious that he was pathetic.

He's a fascinating figure, though. I think he was a wannabe lightworker gone rogue. He really thought he was building a better world, and did what he did for Germany as opposed to himself. He cared more about its honor than he did about his own. But how did he think of himself? Did he think he was indispensable in fulfilling the vision of the Third Reich? How would he have responded had he been asked to sacrifice himself before the war was lost? That would have made him far easier to understand.

I agree he was a narcissist. Beyond that I can't say for certain.

If you're talking about the giving and recieving of value, then it should be said that it's impossible to focus on one to the exclusion of the other. But the light is creative, while the ego is destructive.

But ego is not darkness. Darkness is merely another aspect of the divine.

They don't do it to be holy, they do it because it's what they are. They choose to give themselves to the light, which means accepting all the light's gifts but also being shaped by the light.

And darkworkers don't hate without purpose, they hate when there is a threat that needs to be destroyed. Sure, what I am underneath all of this can't be harmed, but what I am here is temporal. It is balance; I become the means by which the threat is quelled. If I myself become the threat, then I too will suffer that fate. Power without wisdom breeds destruction. This is why, in my perspective, it is absurd to posit that lightworkers can exist without a true opposite. If there are spiritually service-oriented people and egotistical sevice-oriented people (egos who really think they're acting altruistically when they're not), the same must be true of the opposite polarity otherwise it is a false duality.

No, the ego is dark. I'm not shunning it because of that. It has its place.

But if darkness exists beyond ego, it doesn't make any sense to declare that one must be egotistical to walk a dark path. Of course neither light nor dark exist beyond ego, beyond duality, but duality is the framework within which we advance.

People on the dark road can be very spiritual, very restrained, and even compassionate. Like you said, you can't focus completely on either the in-breath or the out-breath, but you can advance while focusing mainly on one or the other. That's what polarity is. I merely contest that one can focus on the in-breath without being dominated by the ego.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by YourHumbleNarrator

1. Is true unity the goal of enlightenment? I'm not inquiring to play devil's advocate, I'm simply asking. Do we actually know what enlightenment looks like or feels like? Do we know what it would be like to attain it while alive? We have people we can look to as examples, we have ancient texts that describe it, but it's also noted that the truth is indescribable. I will plainly admit that despite all my theories, I have no idea what it will be like to emerge on the other end of this. My experience is a pittance, and no amount of intellectual rigor will get me there alone.

If you want to get down to it, we don't know ANYTHING for sure, because, currently, we aren't EVERYTHING. Well, at least, not consciously in any case.

For example, I KNOW I exist, without a doubt. I can't doubt that because the definition of existence hinges simply on my awareness of my awareness which I'm intrinsically conscious of in this moment. I think, therefore I am. Everything else, though, is kind of a leap of faith, and perception.

Having said that, I (personally) see the world in terms of absolute reality and relative reality. Relativity is grounded in illusion, or mis-perception, and absolute is the base reality -- the reality that remains when illusion is gone.

I believe that absolute reality is unity. I feel it in my being that the heart of existence is a kind of oneness in consciousness. I don't have physical proof for that, just my intuitive hunches.

Furthermore, I want you to know I am not for or against your perspective, really. I'm not saying that oneness is great, and illusion is not. As an example: I like the color white (which the union of all the light spectrum) but I ALSO like it when you pass that same white light through a prism, which separates that unity into different and distinct colors.

One is not better than the other you see, they are merely different states of being.

Originally Posted by YourHumbleNarrator

2. Control doesn't necessarily mean manipulation, in the way you're using the word. Nor does the drive to change things necessarily come from a feeling of wrongness. If everything is permitted, how can anything be wrong? It seems, by this logic, the very act of creation is aberrant since to create means that you have to think something is missing or that something is skewed in the world around you. Wouldn't the ultimate conclusion be that existence itself was an error? How can that be so if God was driven to create and God is perfect?

You asked the question of questions, and I admire your logic.

Nothing is wrong, this is true. Because unity contains ALL, it cannot abhor ANY. It is not wrong to separate oneself -- it is just another experience to be had. Creation is an act of separation. Everything exists from my perspective, but you have to divide and subdivide (or in other words, separate) in order to create DISTINCTIONS. These distinctions, which can also be seen as limitations (not in a negative sense, but simply as guiding factors) are how realities are patternized.

Now, these "realities" only APPEAR to exist. From the absolute frame, they DO NOT exist. When one achieves what I am calling enlightenment, relative worlds no longer appear to exist. They are like the light bent by the prism, they only appear separated while the prism (structure) is there. This structure I am referencing is the psychological structure we call the "ego", which provides a very convincing perception that we have a separate identity unto ourselves.

This ego is not evil as I said before, simply another vantage point in infinity. A dark worker, from my perspective, is not even attempting to get rid of this structure, but rather, to make it larger, and more powerful.

The light worker also has an ego, but they do not glorify it, they try to let the illusion go to become more empathic, more One with others -- to see the reality behind the illusion. And they also often go about it in a completely backwards and unbalanced way, resulting in even more illusion than they had before. From my perspective the pathway to dissolving illusion lies not in the annihilation of self or ego, but rather, the acceptance or integration of all AS self.

This involves harmonizing one's ego with the Absolute self. This is golden rule you find in many religions -- treat others as you, yourself, would like to be treated, because, ultimately, they ARE you.

Mr. Darkworker Pants, on the other hand, is NOT trying to harmonize his ego with existence, but rather trying to get existence to harmonize with his ego. He is trying to make everything conform to his self, rather than looking for any "greater good" as we might call it. Again, there is nothing wrong with this, unless you are seeking the absolute, in which case this would not be an effective means of getting there.

Originally Posted by YourHumbleNarrator

I have created much as an expression of myself, "in my own image", without feeling like something was wrong. It was just something I wanted to do. When I want to change the world in accordance with my vision, again it's not necessarily because something is wrong, it is merely because I want to express myself.

And that's fine. Everything is some kind of expression of something. I wish I could articulate my ideas of oneness more clearly to you. Oneness is HARMONY. When you feel good, that is a vibrational indicator (from my perspective) that you are in alignment with what your desire, whatever that is. Alignment is oneness or harmonizing with the objects of experience.

All creation begins with separation (a big bang if you will), and then from those points of separation creation naturally evolves, and it ALWAYS evolves BACK to unity. It is inevitable. It's the only place to go from separation. Just like the only place to go from unity is separation. But there is no "time". Time is a word we use for "change". If there was no change, you could not measure time.

From my vantage point, when you achieve "enlightenment" you realize this world was simply a probable reality in the infinitude of probable realities, that temporarily appeared to exist as a result of illusory perceptual separation.

Originally Posted by YourHumbleNarrator

Do I get angry? Do I feel an urge to right unjust actions? Do I feel a need to assert myself when I've been walked upon? Yes. But I see those are also perceptions. I am choosing that experience. I'm creating it just to see what it's like. Lightworkers also do this, no? The reason they struggle so much with power stems from the fact that their commitment to positivity often blinds them to reality. On a fundamental level, everything is perfect. In the here and now, we're in a world full of ups and downs, ideals and imperfections, and the goal is to overcome these obstacles without being ruled by "fate". (Read: an untrained unconscious) If there is ultimately only one way up the mountain, why are there so many roads? They have one destination, but that does not make them entirely the same, nor must all but one lead to a dead end. (Although I know in spiritual terms there are no dead ends.)

It's all about where you are trying to go. What do you desire most as a darkworker? Ask yourself that. What is your motivation? What is your end game?

Perhaps you don't desire peace and harmony. Perhaps you enjoy emotions such as revenge. Perhaps you enjoy inflicting pain on others, or being competitive and crushing your opponent and glorifying your self as "elite" and others as beings to be conquered, rather than beings to integrate with for the common good. If that is your path, go in peace, for that is your destiny.

Light workers turn their love upon all, and dark workers turn their love only on themselves. Or that is how I see them, and I must confess my views on light and dark are heavily influenced by the Ra channelings which I have studied deeply. I highly recommend them to you. They explain things far more eloquently than I am able.

Some love light, and some love darkness. Unity is light, and separation is darkness.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

And that's fine. Everything is some kind of expression of something. I wish I could articulate my ideas of oneness more clearly to you.

No need, I'm well versed on it. We disagree, no two ways about it, but I respect the thought you've put behind your views.

Perhaps you don't desire peace and harmony. Perhaps you enjoy emotions such as revenge. Perhaps you enjoy inflicting pain on others, or being competitive and crushing your opponent and glorifying your self as "elite" and others as beings to be conquered, rather than beings to integrate with for the common good. If that is your path, go in peace, for that is your destiny.

The only peace I really care about is inner peace. (My definition: a layer of calm underlying everything I impress upon it. It can be defined by its effects. Say I'm frustrated but in my frustration my mind remains perfectly clear; I am still in control. If I want to let go of that emotion or conjure something different, I can.) It's the only peace that lasts. The world moves in cycles, and I like it that way. A soft world would render me dull.

I like the feeling that accompanies revenge. But revenge is earned; I'm merely giving what is due. I don't take pleasure in pain for pain's sake. That'd be a waste. I'm no stranger to the thrill of victory, but it's part of my code of honor to respect a worthy opponent. I do not hate unless I am given hatred, I am not angered unless something has been taken from me. And I know that I draw myself into circumstances where I can feel those things and see life through those eyes. That's the result of constant refinement. As I see it, the path of an enlightened darkworker is marked by the struggle to assert wisdom over power and thus channel power without being destroyed by it in the process. Whether victory is gained by violence or diplomacy is unimportant; both skills are necessary for someone who strives for excellence above all else.

If someone attempts to understand darkworkers solely by their earthly goals, ignorance is the inevitable result. I cannot speak for all who would put themselves under this umbrella, but often the desire to conquer the world is really a desire to master oneself. This is why I believe defining it as the path of the ego, at least with the connotations "ego" normally has, is inaccurate.

Or that is how I see them, and I must confess my views on light and dark are heavily influenced by the Ra channelings which I have studied deeply. I highly recommend them to you. They explain things far more eloquently than I am able.

And that explains some of our differences. I know of the Ra teachings and I have rejected them. Rather, I don't believe everything spirits relay to us is accurate, regardless of which end of the spectrum they're on. I trust my own experience and intuition far more than anything anyone says, especially channeled entities.

I have no quarrel with lightworkers. They're necessary, and if that's the path which suits them I would not have them walk another road. I am, however, a harsh critic of self-righteousness, which is a common trait amongst them. To be fair, it's common amongst fledgling darkworkers, too. The nice part is they get it beaten out of them fairly early. Arrogance is a poor substitute for authority.