So why can't I be like Gandalf (Darkworking / lightworking)

[FelineNostalgia]

There are so many unstable takes around this area ( Darkworking, Lightworking). But I understand to reach a higher conciousness you must choose one? Its different in certain traditions the ones I skimmed through were more about balance and because of balance manifestation exists, well we will see, still researching. The best way I can personally identify with these ideas, which I feel are really ill defined by most people by the way, Is having a look at the Qabalistic tree of life, in which you choose the pillar of severity or the pillar of mercy, you reach the same outcome, much like darkworking and lightworking ,apparently, Still quite confused.

So instead of it being like star wars, why can't I be like Gandalf? Gandalf the grey obviously embodied balance , the forces of nature and all that carry on but then he was put through tests. He faced his fears and went through trails causing great destruction until he emerged strong, powerful ,Gandalf the white, ready to do the greater good.

I'm trying to get the feelers out for what's best for me. First seek balance and a quiet mind, then descend into myself overcome tests, perhaps certain parts of myself will die but this could maybe led to becoming peacefully closer to my higher self , gather strength emerge to the blissful desired outcome that is ready to connect and help heal the world. Through being strong and at peace with myself I will be able to devote myself fully to healing and connecting with others and from there continue to grow.

There's an old pagan saying '' You must heal yourself first, before you heal the land''

Unfortunately this is all loose information, but I'm confident about exercising the principal of what I just talked about. Does anyone have any sources of more direct, unbiased, information?

What do you think of Gandalf? Isn't he a swell guy?

[OptimistPrime]

Originally Posted by FelineNostalgia

But I understand to reach a higher conciousness you must choose one?

Personally I don't believe in that at all. I think it really limits what we are capable of (with regard to attaining higher consciousness) when we fall into the trap of thinking that we have to follow a set path (or one of two set paths, as in this case) to "advance" as a person, just because a group of other people claim it to be so.

If a person wants to experiment with being a lightworker or a darkworker, and they achieve positive results from doing so, then that's great. I would only do so myself if I was motivated by a sense of opportunity, as opposed to a sense of obligation.

[FelineNostalgia]

This is exactly what I've been thinking, something just doesn't sit with me about it at all. I feel a little dissatisfied when I'm paying attention to my spiritual desires or strong feelings or pulling in the direction to advance and then I read up about choosing a lightworker or darkworker path.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by OptimistPrime

Personally I don't believe in that at all. I think it really limits what we are capable of (with regard to attaining higher consciousness) when we fall into the trap of thinking that we have to follow a set path (or one of two set paths, as in this case) to "advance" as a person, just because a group of other people claim it to be so.

If a person wants to experiment with being a lightworker or a darkworker, and they achieve positive results from doing so, then that's great. I would only do so myself if I was motivated by a sense of opportunity, as opposed to a sense of obligation.

I was just gonna say, do we need to choose a side? Why? Because Steve said so...or some other guy who thinks we do?

I don't think we do need to choose sides to raise our consciousness, and I'm living proof of that. I achieved higher states of consciousness without choosing a side, though I think I have been both at different times in my life without actually calling myself one or the other.

[momo3bur]

I agree with the others here. I think you've really embodied power when you can deal with the dark and light that's at play here. You should never really have to choose a side because the two are really one. We've just kind of personified them as seperate entities. It's kind of like a marriage, you know. Two different types of things but working together with the power of one (well, in a good marriage, anyway). Male and female, black and white, good and evil, push and pull. That balance makes the world go round. If you consult yourself, you can find all those characteristics in yourself as you know them.

Not even speaking on a supernatural level (for lack of a better word). I think this applies to every aspect of life. If one can learn to accept both dark and light of this world, it's much easier to deal with life in general and understand "good and bad" are both necessary (which means not really good or bad in anyway) in our existence and moving the universe in a balanced way. You can get much further in life if you know how to use both sides of what you're dealing with and living through. You will no longer be an employer, in a sense, but instead an executive in working energies around you.

Dude...like the CEO of your life who is, of course, still only a small inkling of a twinkle in the whole of things. I wonder if we're supposed to get paid for that?

[Cado]

My take is that you don't really need to choose one or the other per se but you'll automatically come into alignment with one of them if your focus is strong enough for you to grow more powerful.

The reason people's descriptions are so unreliable is because they're talking about something they don't understand and haven't experimented with, and worse still they're doing it within a new age framework which eschews the most valuable intellectual tools we have for differentiating and defining various phenomena. When everything is "love" or "fear" it's impossible for the conversation not to get muddled because we're working within the confines of pre-formed conclusions.

The left-hand path (darkworking) focuses on individuality, the right hand path (lightworking) focuses on unity. You can't devote equal energy to both and get somewhere. There comes a point where you've devoted enough energy to one that it pours out the other side but trying to consciously focus on the two only leads to contradiction and self-sabotage.

Externally the difference is very subtle and if it's done well it'll look like what you call balance but internally and psychologically the little differences add up and drastically alter your perceptions of self and the world around you.

Do they lead to the same place? I'm calling that assumption into question in my own practice, but certainly the two can work together; they're not inherently enemies, we just live in a world that's turned imbalance into something to be proud of.

It might help to reframe light and dark as male and female. Polarity is actually a very old idea, and while new age websites and literature have (again) stripped it of its historical context and most of its substance you can find allusions to it in every tale of male and female gods mating to create or purify the universe. The reason for people to embody one aspect more strongly than the other is that it's instrumental to the transmutation of our universe as a whole-or so the theory goes.

From a purely practical standpoint, most people will probably lean more strongly one way or the other as they come into their own and live according to their inner guidance. Balance on the large scale doesn't mean each individual needs to be perfectly balanced in themselves, only that they embody what's healthiest for them and most conducive to their growth.

[SatvikBeri]

Originally Posted by Cado

The left-hand path (darkworking) focuses on individuality, the right hand path (lightworking) focuses on unity. You can't devote equal energy to both and get somewhere. There comes a point where you've devoted enough energy to one that it pours out the other side but trying to consciously focus on the two only leads to contradiction and self-sabotage.

I can attest to this. Most people who know me consider me exceptionally powerful, especially for my age, and that's because for a while I was completely committed to my individuality. I wouldn't say I was polarized, but I was substantially closer to the LHP.

Now I've had a massive Unity experience at the Subjective Reality Workshop. It's clear that this path can lead to lots of good things, and perhaps I can achieve the same results either way-but it's also clear that I simply can't focus on both paths at once. When I'm feeling joyful unity my "self" almost melts away, when I'm feeling the rush of individual power it pulls me away from the state of oneness. I'm not sure which I want at this point in life.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by momo3bur

I agree with the others here. I think you've really embodied power when you can deal with the dark and light that's at play here. You should never really have to choose a side because the two are really one. We've just kind of personified them as seperate entities. It's kind of like a marriage, you know. Two different types of things but working together with the power of one (well, in a good marriage, anyway). Male and female, black and white, good and evil, push and pull. That balance makes the world go round. If you consult yourself, you can find all those characteristics in yourself as you know them.

In Hindu religions, aspects of nature or aspects of the psyche are personified or deified as a method for understanding and transcending the ego. I think you can fit polarity into the same basic paradigm. We split things apart and define them because it makes it easier to understand those forces and harness them without becoming overwhelmed or succumbing to narcissism or self-righteousness.

This is a construct which alludes to a real natural and psychological phenomenon and allows us to create systems of advancement which exploit the unique aspects of each. It's easy to underestimate how valuable that is. It's not for everyone but there's definitely a place for it.

[momo3bur]

Originally Posted by Cado

In Hindu religions, aspects of nature or aspects of the psyche are personified or deified as a method for understanding and transcending the ego. I think you can fit polarity into the same basic paradigm. We split things apart and define them because it makes it easier to understand those forces and harness them without becoming overwhelmed or succumbing to narcissism or self-righteousness.

This is a construct which alludes to a real natural and psychological phenomenon and allows us to create systems of advancement which exploit the unique aspects of each. It's easy to underestimate how valuable that is. It's not for everyone but there's definitely a place for it.

Oh yes, I totally understand and agree. I guess I was just trying to put into words my own experience in that they are not as separate as we feel they are. hmmm...or I guess not that they're NOT separate, but they work together and there is no reason to feel you have to pick one over the other because they need each other.

I love the way you explained all of it! I think you thoroughly demonstrated the idea (at least in my opinion) of how the "dark and light" energies work as mates instead of enemies. Thank you!

[Cado]

Originally Posted by FelineNostalgia

What do you think of Gandalf? Isn't he a swell guy?

Actually, what's funny to me is that you use Gandalf as an example of balance, or the mixing of the two poles, when he's a very strong lightworker. He's definitely integrated his darker aspects but he shows a kind of restraint which would be uncharacteristic for a darkworker of the same caliber, at least given his justifications. (IE, showing mercy to those who don't deserve it. If the character could join in on this conversation he'd probably say, "it's not for us to decide who deserves it and who doesn't" which puts him even more firmly in the lightworker camp. A darkworker may not flat out say that someone deserves death but in the circumstances they faced I doubt, say, they'd let Smeagol live without having a damn good reason for it.)

[Cado]

Piggybacking on something I said to someone in private-

"I agree with the notion of being a balanced human being-polarizing is not imbalancing yourself. It's the opposite. What people often don't realize is that balance is not a matter of ensuring you have everything in equal measure, it's arranging things for optimal function. So if I'm a left-hand pather or a darkworker, that doesn't mean I lack empathy or compassion, or that I despise the notion of unity, it means that with my particular balance it's less emphasized and less desirable than other goals."

To continue, my goals are liberation, enlightenment (not in the new age sense; I define it as gaining immense knowledge and total control over the self), personal empowerment, the imprinting of my will on the world around me. If something contradicts those goals, I disregard it. That's a wonderful paradigm for me-it simplifies things so much and gives me a lot of clarity where otherwise I'd be conflicted. It also lends itself to an easy acceptance of the natural processes at work between individuals and in the world at large. I couldn't move closer to the middle without muddling my priorities and reducing my own effectiveness.

I'll do good for humankind, but it's because my aims happen to be good and not because unity and compassion are my sole concerns. In fact I think they're overemphasized to the point that they overshadow things which are equally-or in some cases more-important, like truth.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by FelineNostalgia

There's an old pagan saying '' You must heal yourself first, before you heal the land''

This also strikes me as coming from a lightworker/right-hand path perspective, because of the focus on healing the land. It's not neutral or balanced, it's clearly focused on doing good for the whole, or unity.

To contrast, a darkworker would probably say:

"You must heal yourself before you can achieve."

I think something else most people don't understand is that darkworkers have big ambitions for themselves, solely for themselves, just because it's what enriches and impassions them. That is what necessitates the different focus, and indeed even the different methodology.

"Arch angel, dark angel
Lend me thy light
Through death's veil
Til we have heaven in sight"

That's an LHP mantra to help give you an idea of the psychological processes at work in a darkworker's mind. We are prideful and ambitious to the extent that, like the devil himself, we will charge heaven with the intention of taking God's throne.

Don't take that terminology too literally as it's metaphor intended to convey a deeper truth. This is another reason darkworking isn't fully compatible with unity, and why lightworking can't encourage individuating to the same extent that darkworking does. I think right-hand pathers do themselves a grave disservice when they try to shed their egos and abandon their individual selves but I can see that no matter how much they individuate their identity is still intricately connected to the whole.

[Andrew Gubb]

I think for Tolkien the colour grey held a special meaning. He used it quite a lot - for instance "mithril" (from his mith- meaning grey), The Grey Havens, The Grey Mountains, The Grey Elves, The Grey Wood, The Grey Company, Lake Mithrim, etc. (Just searched The Lord Of The Rings Wiki for all these examples).

I think Tolkien's particular image of grey was formed by the idea of silver as being grey, hence it was a noble colour. I don't think I ever got the idea of grey meaning in between Good and Evil in his works.

Gandalf was "The Grey" because each wizard of his order had a distinct colour. He later became "The White" because that was Saruman's colour (the highest rank) and Saruman, having fallen from grace, was no longer part of the Council.

There could be symbolism here too I suppose. But I never got the image of Gandalf ever having been "in between". If he had been, I suppose that would have been in his youth, but that's not dealt with in "The Hobbit" or "The Lord Of The Rings".

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I think for Tolkien the colour grey held a special meaning. He used it quite a lot - for instance "mithril" (from his mith- meaning grey), The Grey Havens, The Grey Mountains, The Grey Elves, The Grey Wood, The Grey Company, Lake Mithrim, etc. (Just searched The Lord Of The Rings Wiki for all these examples).

I think Tolkien's particular image of grey was formed by the idea of silver as being grey, hence it was a noble colour. I don't think I ever got the idea of grey meaning in between Good and Evil in his works.

Gandalf was "The Grey" because each wizard of his order had a distinct colour. He later became "The White" because that was Saruman's colour (the highest rank) and Saruman, having fallen from grace, was no longer part of the Council.

There could be symbolism here too I suppose. But I never got the image of Gandalf ever having been "in between". If he had been, I suppose that would have been in his youth, but that's not dealt with in "The Hobbit" or "The Lord Of The Rings".

Ha, I was actually thinking of posting something like this.

Something else of note in Tolkien's mythology is that Gandalf and his order were Maiar, which were essentially angels who chose to take on human form in order to guide and guard the creatures of the world. That doesn't mean there was no darkness in them (as Saruman proved) but it's heavily implied that it was against their nature-or at least their purpose-to focus intently on that.

The rest of the cosmology is fairly vague, at least in the films and the main books of the series. I know he got a lot more in-depth in works like the Silmarillion but I had a hard enough time getting through LotR that I can't bring myself to delve into that.

I want to note that Lord of the Rings is a lot like Star Wars in that it appears more deep and mystical than it is or was ever meant to be. In Tolkien's world, there is no gray-there's good and evil without any strong motivations on the evil side. There's also some troubling undercurrents of classism, racism, and sexism, but that doesn't particularly matter if it's taken as a new english myth or a fairy tale.

In his defense, the lack of nuance is common in mythology, as is the lack of well-defined motivations and three-dimensional characters. Myths were stories but not in the sense that we think of narrative today. Like any good myth he does hit on major archetypes and multiple characters clearly progress on the heroes' journey but as far as deeper truth goes there's none to be found there.

And I'm not saying you think there is, FelineNostalgia. You're drawing from multiple sources for inspiration, it's what humans do. I just have a major hard-on for historical knowledge and analytical thinking.