Post No. 838B - the third set of keywords

Owing to Blogger's limits on keywords, when I have a lot I have to post them in batches. This is the third lot of keywords for this post.

Keywords:

abuse of power, anger, animals, artificer, attitudes, authentic presence, awareness, balance, Balanced Positive, Bhakti, blackmail, blood, challenge, change, chaos, children, circle, clairvoyance, concentration, consequences, control, death, Deities, dimensions, discrimination, divination, dowsing, Earth (element), earthbound entities, elements, emotions, energy work, equal and opposite reaction, ethics, evil, faery, faith, family, fear, fight or flight or network and nurture, Fire (element), focus, folk lore, forgiveness, friends, genes / genetics, gifts / giving, grounding, growth orientation, guilt, healing, history, honour, ignorance, informed decisions, insularity, invisibility, invocation, isolation, judging others, justice, knowledge, language, levels, limitations, love, Mӕgan, magic, magickal language, magickal techniques and styles, magickal tools, manifestation, metaphysical mass, metaphysics, moral courage, motivation, mythology, myths, names, neochristianity, nightfall, Paganism, pain, Pentacle, pentagram, personal responsibility, perspective, phenomena, power, prejudice, preparation, prophecy, protection, psychic attack, psychic development, psychism, psychology, racism, reincarnation, rescue, residue, responsibility, revenge, risks, rituals, sacrifice, scepticism, Seelie, self knowledge, sexism, shielding, (the) Sight, society, spells, Spiritual Maturity, spirituality, subconscious, submissiveness, sunrise, survival after death, teaching, telepathy, temperature, tests, thaumaturgy, the Greater Good, train others how to treat us, uncooperative, understanding, undetectability, Unseelie, ward, werewolf, yoga,

Post No. 181 - A coupla quick thoughts: fatigue and Ashramas

Actually, one of those thoughts wasn't very quick at all: I first had it driving in to work this morning, lost it during the day, and only got it back when my partner and I went outside for a cuppa.

That thought was that, in much the same way that people can get "compassion fatigue", when they run in to an inability to keep giving, I suspect people can also run into "mistake fatigue". Ny that I mean people can get tired of being reasonable and owning up to mistakes, and they just desperately want something they can say they got right. I came across this thought while idly speculating about ego and pride, and how some people who seem to be getting by without problems with ego can suddenly have a "bad day" and flip out - I can certainly think of times when I think I may well have run into "mistake fatigue" :)

Maybe there are other types of fatigue as well - for instance ... oh, I dunno ... maybe people can have "negativity fatigue". Quite a few people I knew early in my days of exploring spiritual/personal growth had problems handling things like bad world news: maybe that was partly just "negativity fatigue". [1] My partner, who has one child who has left home and another who is getting near, commented on "parenting fatigue" ... (actually, she helped me explore this idea generally).

The other thought relates to something I have written about in the context of what I call "growth orientation" [2]: compatibility, or the lack thereof, between partners, something I came across while re-reading some of Rampa's books (specifically, "Wisdom of the Ancients", Corgi Books, London, 1968, ISBN 0552072486). There is a word "Ashrama", which means "stages of life". The Wikipedia entry on this includes the following:

An Ashrama (āśrama) in Hinduism is one of four stages in an age-based social system as laid out in the Manu Smrti and later Classical Sanskrit texts. The concept of Ashramas has gone into disuse, and nowadays few Hindus follow it. At present, Hindus live their lifes according to their preference and convenience only.

I can recall a Rudyard Kipling story about someone (an Indian) who did something similar, although the four stages in the Kipling story were: student, warrior, family man, and then reunciate, and each was twenty years long, whereas the Wikipedia entry says that the four stages are 25 years long, and are student (see Brahmacharya), family life (see Grihastha), retired life (see Vanaprastha) and renunciate (see Sannyasa). Perhaps some of the conflicts that can occur between partners do so because people are at different stages of their life?

I have a rule that I will not get involved with anyone who is more than 11 years older or younger than I (when I myself was younger, the number of years was lesser; also, I have ALWAYS had a rule that I never get involved with anyone who is still living with their parents - unless, at the end of life I am at, it is because they are caring for the parents :) ). This age limit is because in most cases such differences are based on age, to some extent, but that is not always so. Perhaps some people are moving into student stage late in life, whereas their partner is moving into the family life stage.

Interesting - and I am glad such differences don't apply in my life (touch wood).

So, now I shall toddle off and enjoy some of that life :)

Love, light, hugs and blessings

Gnwmythr

Notes:

1. I have a tendency towards a hardline view on this, but that may be because I've learned techniques which allow me to work to influence such situations (e.g. see here and here).
2. See also here and here.

This post's photo is yet to be posted.

Tags: love, caring, compassion, growth orientation, relationships, stages of life,

First published: Wednesday 1st December, 2010

Last edited: Wednesday 1st December, 2010

Post No. 168 - A miscellany on leadership, growth orientation, Charmaine Wilson, acne and security theatre ...

I'm being lazy in this post, and combining a few things together in the one post :)

What I am going to cover is:

• a few thoughts on leadership, from watching the film "The Core";
• a few thoughts on the implications of different spiritual growth orientations;
• my response to being an audience member at a Charmaine Wilson proof-of-survival event;
• an interesting post I heard recently on the ABC; and
• a forwarded post about "security theatre".

I recently re-watched the film "The Core", which I watched once before when I wasn’t in the right mood to suspend disbelief. This time, I actually enjoyed the story-telling - and I particularly noted one theme, on leadership. Bruce Greenwood's character tells Hilary Swank's character (I obviously paid a lot of attention and memorised the character's names ... not) that she hasn't been given leadership because she has breezed through everything. She is told she needs to know failure - and she does so later in the film. This is a bit like the saying to the effect "those who have never made a mistake have never tried anything". I will think about this - I might even add in to the Rangers training materials when I get back to that ...

Clearly, being in charge is important to Hilary Swank's character, and she learns the difference between "being in charge" and leadership. That leads me to my next point: what is important to you?

If you are, perhaps, predominantly of a Bhakti Yogic path of spiritual growth orientation (see here for my previous post where I commented on the various forms of growth orientation), what is likely to be important to you is people, relationships, interactions, love. On the other hand, if your spiritual growth orientation is along the lines of the Jnani Yogic path, then perhaps truth is what you consider above all else. On the Raja path: perhaps being all that you can be is most important, and if you are on the Karma path commitment, honour and work would be what you consider most important.

EACH of these preferences is valid - as valid as any other. I find debates on topics such as "what is better: X or Y?" extremely annoying, as the truth is each is equally valid, and which is better depends of the people involved and the circumstances. Of course, that probably doesn’t make for what people consider "good entertainment" ...

Now, being focused on one spiritual growth path does not mean that you are necessarily incompetent in another, as you may have already travelled that path and decided to be a more rounded soul by travelling one or more other paths.

Of course, you may actually also be incompetent on other paths, as you may not yet have travelled them :)

Interacting with people on other spiritual growth paths can be source of disharmony - for instance, a person on the spiritual growth orientation path of Karma - actually, I'll simplify that, for the rest of this post, to "karma path person". So, a karma path person may see respect for privacy as more important than establishing emotional closeness, whereas Bhakti path person may see establishing closeness as a need that overrides all other considerations such as respecting other people's space. Neither is right or wrong: have to work out way to let each do their own thing. Of course, someone who thinks they are the Bahkti path and interprets that as meaning they are seeking to be loved (i.e., only receive, instead of also - equally - give) will annoy everyone on all paths. [1]

Recently I heard a stereotypical situation mentioned (as an example of a stereotype, more or less):a woman's car breaks down; the stereotype-woman wants to vent emotions about it to her (stereotype-male) partner (they’re stereotypically heterosexual, also), while stereotype-man wants to go fix the car.

(As a digression, I was recently involved in a conversation about the conflict between head and heart, and the comment was made that, although it is often best to follow one's heart [provided one has a modicum of spiritual maturity], the conflict between head and heart can be useful, as it shows the areas you may have past hurts to be tended to, or areas where you can learn or grow.)
From the point of view of stereotype-woman, once she has vented, the rest of it is just details to be sorted out; but from the point of view of stereotype-man, the venting is just details and the work of fixing the car still needs to be done. Both are right, and both are wrong: the stereotype-woman is wrong to consider fixing the car a simply details (it can be demanding, hard work - and expensive), and stereotype-man is clearly (well, clearly to me :) ) wrong to consider the emotions caused by the situation as trivial details. (By the way, I've had unreliable cars - and died in my previous incarnation as a result of a plane engine failing: lack of mechanical reliability has been, to me, almost terrifying, before I dealt with some of my past life issues - and it is bad enough just having to think "if I go to do the shopping, will I get stuck and lose all my cold goods?" let alone, as was the case for me when I was working in inland Queensland, "what will happens in the hours before another car could come along?" [I always carried water, blankets, etc for such an eventuality]).

This stereotype situation can be looked at from other points of view as well.

From an energy point of view, both right: after venting, they still have the issue of the car failure and what could have contributed to it to deal with (this is the same problem as getting drunk to forget something, usually pain: when the drunk sobers up, the problem is still there, and they have been weakened by getting drunk, and maybe had the problem exacerbated if they have picked up a lot of negative energy while their aura was blown wide open), but on the other hand, the emotional energy may have led to the problem.

If I may jump ahead to where I have the temerity to offer advice, I would suggest BOTH need equally to look at situation objectively.

From point of view of paths, karma-path-person wants to fix the whole situation, Jnana-path-person wants to know what happened and why (whether this is from a physical or psychic focus depends on the person's worldliness vs. spiritual focus), and so on. Each may not understand why the other is focused on what seems to be not important.

Doing a little more hypothesising on this theme, someone who is focused on solely one growth path may find someone who is focused on a few paths at the same time confusing. The former may be inclined to say to the latter "Whoa! Hold on! Just choose one thing, and look at that." On the other hand, the latter person may "know" that any situation has multiple aspects to it, just as a jewel may have multiple facets, and they all need to be looked at to understand the situation properly (which, it will no doubt surprise you, is my position :) ).

Now a few random thoughts which could possibly be related to my life experience of being on one particular mix of spiritual growth paths, and interacting with others who have a different mix:

• I tend to not need a lot of people contact - just my partner and my friends (including those family members [I count myself as part of four families: adoptive, birth and two through relationships] who are friends, which excludes the few who are red-necks). In fact, I find people who fear being alone a bit ... sad. On the other hand, I NEED solitude and time in the bush (wild bush, not the manicured parks and gardens near where I live) and on water, or I feel that I am psychologically dying. I feel a great sympathy for stereotype-tribal person who withers and fades away when locked away from their land in a prison (for an example of this, see the quirky film "The Gods Must Be Crazy" [2]). I haven't had any worthwhile bush time for long time now ... but I am hoping to do so this weekend :) (On this, I also find people I am trying to teach who easily get bored frustrating: they are less likely to do the simple, repetitive practice that is necessary to develop skills - the sort of thing that people who make things look easy have already done ...)
  
  This, too, could simply be that my need for people contact has been more than adequately met, at the moment, but my need for bush-time has not, and hence that need predominates - so it is a case of having multiple needs, but one tends to be most predominant at one time or another. As an example of that, consider food and drink: we need both, but if we are hungry and thirst, and then drink (or eat), the need that will be most apparent will be our hunger (or thirst). Maybe the same sort of effect applies to those who are working on multiple growth orientation paths: when the more urgent needs of one path have been tended to, another path's needs become more pressing - and so we cycle on, over a period of hours, days, months, years, decades or even lifetimes ...
  
  A similar effect can be observed with karma: many people tend to bounce about between extremes (e.g. primly "good" in one life to compensate for a prior life of "badness") before they - eventually - find a way to maintain a dynamic equilibrium between their various competing needs/behaviours/etc.
• Next, I don't have to justify myself or my views to anyone. I am owed respect inherently - which includes the right to have my privacy respected, and I have the right to be as irrational as I choose to be - provided no-one is being harmed. Of course, I need to be prepared to accept the consequences of that. For instance, if a partner asked me why I am doing or not doing something, and I chose not to answer, I have to be prepared to accept the possibility that such may destroy the trust/closeness that is a basis for that relationship, and hence end the relationship. I am, in this case, more thinking of other situations. For instance, when I left my first job as an engineer, after 7 years (which ,incidentally, was they day they (a) said they thought I was a good engineer, and (b) was the day they told me if I had stayed another two weeks I would have been paid pro-rata long service leave), I was fed up with engineering. At the send off, one of the directors said he hoped I stayed in engineering after I moved interstate, and I did not respond to that. As far as I was concerned, that was my business, and FORMER work colleagues had ZERO right to know anything of my future plans.
  
  Related to this, I have come across people regretting the loss of interaction between neighbours. I've lived in a small community where such interactions were good, but that was in the boating world, when I was living on a boat. If I was living on the banks of a river, interactions might be similar. In the 'burbs, however, I am cursed with having to cope with other people's bigotry: I don't want interactions that comprise other people telling me I should not exist ... This was probably worst in Menzies' Australia in the 50s and 60s, during which time Menzies made a comment about not needing to take some sort of repressive action (I have forgotten the details - sorry, and don't have time to look this up) as nothing could match the controlling behaviour in people's living rooms.

Now, moving away from spiritual paths from the point of view of yogic pathways, I spent some time (along with a few dozen others in the audience - there is NO special or particular connection between myself and this person) with someone recently who was on a related, but slightly different spiritual pathway to me: Charmaine Wilson.

Charmaine is a fantastic medium - and I consider some particularly good points of her session to be:

• the beginning and end talks about depression, how there is no shame is being depressed and the importance of dealing with it;
• that mediumship is not a perfect, exact science (as Charmaine said, she gets an image and may tend to interpret it in a particular way, whereas the significance of the image is something else; the example given was of getting an image of a bridge, which turned out to be because the spirit had been president of the (card-game) bridge club ...), and Charmaine did acknowledge when some connections were not very strong and left some attempted readings pass;
• that it is possible and good to be connected to your own spirit;
• some cautions about ways some people rip others off (e.g. by claiming that the "client" [rip-off victim!] has a ghost haunting them, and that the "client" [rip-off victim] needs to pay the pseudo-psychic [i.e. rip-off merchant] more money).

I have come across such rip-off merchants and "tricks", so it is good that a warning about such was given last night. It is also good that she attempted to defuse the fear of spirit matters, and mentioned that people pass over to the Light easily. I do, however, disagree with her on this somewhat: there are some people who don't pass over, and do need rescue. That is not Charmaine's area of speciality, whereas it is mine, and I consider my experience more relevant in this case (whereas is someone I wants a good "proof-of-survival" reading, I would recommend [strongly!] they go to her, not me :) ). Charmaine is dealing with spirits who have passed over, and are coming back to pass on messages; I deal with the ones who have got stuck - who, I should be clear, are NOT always or even often malevolent. My teacher gave an example of one "haunting" he was asked to work on, where the client said the spirit was doing evil; when asked to give examples of the "evil", she mentioned things like chairs being pulled out when people went to sit in them. What was the source of this "evil"? A young child who had found he was invisible ...

Have a look at some of my past posts on this: http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2010/06/saturday-morning-rescues-blog.html, http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2010/01/film-review-lovely-bones.html, http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2009/12/shades-of-exorcism.html, http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2009/10/service-to-guide-souls-of-dead.html, and http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2008/05/mediumship-part-three-last-part.html.

Also, Charmaine stated that it is not possible to be "possessed by malevolent spirits", and that events of the type shown in the film "The Exorcist" don't happen. Well, I agree that things like spinning heads don't happen, but there are "malevolent" spirits. More commonly (and perhaps less threatening or disturbing to some), there are energies and people which we are not in harmony with. In much the same way as two colours may clash, the auras of two people (possibly both incarnate, or one discarnate and one incarnate, or both discarnate) may clash. It is possible, and desirable, that one protect oneself against such disharmony - a statement made in exactly the same spirit (pun not intended by me, but I won't speak for the guides helping me with this!) as Charmaine's comments that being depressed is not wrong or terrible, but it is important to treat the depression.

Next, I was listening to ABC Radio National's Science Show programme, and heard a segment on acne. This programme hypothesised that the (evolutionary) purpose of acne is to ensure some partners survive the violence of sexual competition. That comment was based on "primitive" tribal lifestyles, where death rates are substantially higher than in "civilised" society (have a look at my post on Neanderthal Predation theory (at here). I have to say, in a milder way that pretty much matches my recollection of being teenager as being a decidedly unpleasant experience. Apart from my personal angst, there were all the "Queen Bees" and "Wannabees" (who I would term alpha females), alpha males and other bullies and bitches to put up with ... I'm glad I am personally finished (a long time ago, now) with that time of life.

Now my final point. I am including the link to this blog post as a matter of public interest. The author has requested that it be spread far and wide, and I will do so. There are major problems with the responses in Western nations to security threats: for some good comments on what is described as "security theatre" (as opposed to real, effective security) in this and other areas, I suggest you consider also checking out Bruce Schneier's website .

So ... the blog post is at: http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html

A few other links relating to Bruce Schneier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Schneier;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_fear;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneier%27s_Law; and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failing_badly.

Update:
There has been another blog post about this: see here.

Love, light, hugs and blessings

Gnwmythr

Notes:

1. Now, with the qualification that I am NOT considering people who have been seriously injured in some way (e.g. been the victim of childhod abuse), and hence genuinely NEED healing, when I make this comment I am thinking here of people who are immature, or insecure, or otherwise needy, and seek an external cure, rather than seeking to cure the flaw within. Subject to my qualification, having a sense of being loved cannot be created from without: you have to at least be open to the possibility that you are loveable.
   
   I am also thinking of one woman who I heard as describing a new lover as "not selfish" because he stayed up all night rather than getting some sleep so he could do his work as he was paid to do the next day. (She hadn't thought about the work issue, by the way, only her personal pleasure.)
2. I was staggered to read, at this link, that there had been four follow up films! The second one wasn't as good as the first, in my opinion, and there were others after that ... Please note the views about the faults of the film: the Wikipedia listing includes, for instance, the following comment: "Richard Lee, an anthropologist who studied the Ju/ʼhoansi, argues that the film's representation of the group was a "cruel caricature of reality" given the decades of highly problematic social changes".

This post's photo is yet to be posted.

Tags: leadership, growth orientation, Charmaine Wilson, rescue, mediumship, proof-of-survival, sexuality, competitiveness, violence, survival, security theatre, selfishness,

First published: Tuesday 16th November, 2010

Last edited: Friday 19th November, 2010

Post No. 160 - Sexism and the quest for "love"

After my recent post about the problems I had encountered in pubs (see here), I came across a post on "The Age" website where a redheaded woman has been publicly asked about the colour of her pubic hair [1]. What an arrogant, insensitive, stupid, presumptuous mongrel that bloke was! How dare ANYONE make such an invasive comment! How dare anyone have such a complete lack of comprehension about personal privacy! And yet ... they do (especially in Aussie pubs! I also note that our judges are, apparently, tired of courts being clogged as a result of drunken violence - see here [4]).

It was sad that the woman felt she had to brush it aside at the time on the grounds that to do otherwise would be "social suicide". Actually, I consider it would have been "social spring-cleaning".

But then, I'm a little bit weird like that: mostly I prefer to spend my social time with people I feel safe with, and like. I'm too old and crotchety to waste any more of my life on bad experiences that I can avoid.

That attitude of mine has probably got something to do with my growth path being "Karma Yoga" rather than "Bhakti Yoga" as well. I would much rather, for instance, that I was allowed to just settle down and get my life tasks done rather than have anyone seek to make me "feel special". [2]

So now, I will go clean out the cat litter :)

Oh - and by the way, I have also encountered women who are as invasive of privacy and presumptuous as the bloke I mentioned ...

Also, the negative karma created by such disrespectfully people does not necessarily mean they will come back in the gender of their victim and experience the same behaviour, but it does mean they will have a breach of what they would like to keep private, and feel affected by that.

As a final point, if you are in such a situation and wish to do something psychic and hold your peace because you don't want to commit "social suicide:, try projecting positive energy (e.g. a bright coloured light - NOT red! [3]) from your solar plexus chakra to theirs. It's something I've taught a few young people to use to in order to cope with bullies (with good results_.

Love, light, hugs and blessings

Gnwmythr

Notes:

1. Seeing red over ranga clangers, by Stephanie Saxton. The Age 21st October 2010 - see here.
2. See here for my past post on this. The other forms of growth orientation were Raja Yoga and Jnana Yoga.
3. The reason for not using red is to not risk adding to any frustration or anger your attacker is experiencing: you want to them to calm down and back off, not to attack you more strongly.
4. See here for more on one aspect of the recent debate on alcohol affected behaviour: sexual assaults ...

This post's photo is yet to be posted.

Tags: growth orientation, karma, yoga, sexism, discrimination, society, socialisation, personal responsibility,

First published: Saturday 23rd October, 2010

Last edited: Sunday 24th October, 2010

Post No. 106 - Distant marriages and "growth orientation"

Once upon a time (hint: fantasy story coming - with profound apologies to Douglas Adams[1] and George Lucas[2]), in this galaxy, but still far, far away, there was a planet. On that planet, the people looked much like us (that is to say, they were carbon based bipedal lifeforms), but they had a few differences.

One ... day - we'll call it that for this story, although they called it something else entirely unpronounceable - a few people from this planet were sitting round having a chin-wag - well, talking, actually, as they couldn't really wag their chins (no that we can either, even though some of us use the phrase). Now on this planet, when people got married, they did something really, really unusual: they based their decision on who they got together with on important things, like which "life orientation" they had.

"Life orientation", for the purpose of this fantasy story, means which broad path of spiritual evolution one is on:

1. the path of devotion, where one develops love for oneself and a small group and then, as one evolves, one has love for a broader group of people until one has "universal love" - which we, on this planet, know as Bhakti Yoga
2. the path of hard work, where one seeks perfection in what one does, until one appreciates the perfection that is the Universe, known on this planet as Karma Yoga
3. the path of developing the mind, where one trains one's mind to greater levels of ability, known on this planet as Raja Yoga (a path many mystics may find themselves upon)
4. the path of knowledge, where one studies and learns more and more until one achieves enlightenment that (a path scientists and some mystics may well find themselves upon), known on this planet as Jnana Yoga

Speaking of this planet, one of this group of people had been here, and ze[3] explained how people on this planet based their decision on who they could or couldn't marry on such irrelevant factors as skin colour ("Really?", asked a brindle coloured member of hir audience) or ethnicity, what religious sect they belonged to (or their parents belonged to), what socio-economic status they had (ze gave up trying to explain what that was), even what sex or gender they were - and they limited the number of people in the marriage to only two!

By now, hir audience just knew ze was pulling their leg appendages (metaphorically, I hasten to add - that wasn't some strange habit they had in their culture), and were rolling round on the ground (literally, not metaphorically), roaring (metaphorically) with laughter (literally).

So they all wiped the tears away from the tear ducts (not located near their eyes, oddly, and agreed that they had just heard a very funny tale, and went on to exist happily for the rest of their ... "days". (Hint: end of fantasy story).

Sigh ... what a pretty story :D OK, so now, moving on to reality.

I am a human rights activist, and have been most of my life (courtesy of my involvement with Buddhism). One of the areas that I have been active in (in part due to self interest, given that I am a polyamorous lesbian) is legal relationship recognition, where I have been seeking to have society remove the relationship discrimination that has been imposed as a result of other religions (mainly, in my society, historical neo-Christianity, although it must be noted that there are Christians who do not discriminate - for example, the Metropolitan Community Church, and individuals and groups in other versions of Christianity/neo-Christianity who choose not to discriminate).

None of this, of course, means that any one individual should not make a choice about who that person wishes to be with: obviously, love should be present for a start, and that in itslef often requires a certain amount of harmony (though not necessarily as much as many people may think - consider the saying "opposites attract"). That is a topic I've done some thinking on, and I consider some thought about which life path people are on could be useful.

We tend to make long term commitments on the basis of love, and that is not always enough (even worse when people commit to a relationship to, in effect, satisfy their sexual needs because their culture won't permit them to have sex before marriage). My explanation of relationships (in the context of a few tens of thousands of years), is that we tend to be with people who are going with us in roughly the same direction in life, and at roughly the same speed. If someone changes their basic direction of life, or changes the speed at which they wish to travel, the relationship may come under strain, no matter how much the people concerned love each other. (My partner has the saying that people come into your life for a reason, a season or a lifetime; if you're not there for a lifetime, when the reason or eason are over, it is going to be most healthy for all concerned to move on.)

Say, for instance, one partner decides they wish to pursue spiritual development, and the other wishes not to make that change (as happened in a previous relationship of mine). There is a great deal of accommodation that can be made (and was made), but it places pressure on the relationship - it's a bit like the arrival of a child: everything changes, and, no matter that both may have wanted the child, there are still changes to the relationship to resolve and adapt to. (That previous relationship, incidentally, ended for other reasons.)

For this post, I've decided to invent a term "growth orientation". In much the same way that we consider sexual orientation (i.e. same sex attracted, opposite sex attracted or bisexual[4]) and relationship orientation (monogamous or polyamorous), I am proposing that we should consider the way that we are inclined to achieve growth. (I haven't called this "spiritual orientation" because people on some paths may not realise that they are actually achieving spiritual growth - I'm thinking particularly of a scientist or atheist who is on the path of Jnana Yoga, for instance.)

As set out in my little fantasy story at the start of this post, I am proposing that this would be on the basis of the four major paths to realisation of the Hindu tradition:

• Bhakti Yoga
• Jnana Yoga
• Raja Yoga
• Karma Yoga

The description (interpretation?) I've given of these is not the standard or conventional Hindu: for that, click on the links (and you should do so - especially before repeating any of this post of mine to others: I'm NOT claiming to be Hindu, or to be using Hindu traditions - what I am doing, is using Hindu traditions as a starting point).

Each of these is clearly a valid life choice - the scientist who is aligned with the Jnana Yoga path is as valid as the philosopher following the Raja Yoga path, or the house-husband (or wife, or other) who is keeping a loving home and nurturing a sane, capable, loved family.

It is probably less clear that the person dedicated to some form of work is also following a valid life path. In my experience (Oh Goddess I hope yours is different!), often that is assumed to be some person who is working long hours at their day job, lots of unpaid overtime, as a way of avoiding relating to family at home. Well, it is not: any person who has ever sought to do something well, whether it is spending time for a charity, perfecting a skill (music, writing, or a paid job) or doing housework/running a home well, is, in that quest, following the path of Karma Yoga.

That brings up the point that we are probably all a mixture of paths, but first I want to have a gripe: there is a rather widespread tendency to assume that personal relationships (family, lovers) is the most important thing in life. Films are made advocating leaving unreasonable work situations for romance (can't remember any the examples I was thinking of when I was planning this post - can be difficult to jot such notes down when sitting in traffic as it unpredictably starts and stops ...). Well, there is merit in setting priorities, and I thank the Goddess for the advocacy now being done on work-life balance, but there is another aspect to this, another line of argument: there are tasks which are so important, of so much value to other people, that is worth one person choosing not to get involved with intimate relationships for a time, perhaps one lifetime, for the sake of that task.

Let me immediately clarify that DINKs (double income, no children) choosing not to have kids so they can have expensive apartments and lifestyles is NOT such a task. However, Ralph Nader, I understand, is single, in part, because of the demands of his dedication to the cause of safety. I know the demands of political life, and consider having a family and being a politician a VERY difficult combination - the 80 hour plus weeks, the periods of ten nights or more away from home, the demands of meeting deadlines (if a story comes out in the media, you need to respond: you can't take time off for a six year old's birthday party, and then expect to get the same exposure in the media a day or so later [except for the howls about whether or not you are dedicated enough to the job ...]).

Of more relevance to this post, though, is the person I read about in Ruth Montgomery's "Strangers Among Us", a walk-in who was busy organising spiritual/New Age seminars to spread urgently needed knowledge, and didn't have the time to fit this into finding a partner and maintaining a relationship. Or ... perhaps you may wish to consider the time Mother Theresa devoted to helping the poor. Or ... perhaps a Japanese master of pottery making pots which last a poor family a lifetime. If any of these people had a demanding family situation, they would possibly not have got that task just mentioned accomplished. (All of this reminds me of the person who posited that same sex attracted people evolved so they could take an independent overview of society's direction, state of being and health, as having children was so all consuming.)

I should also point out that, if you are in a situation where you HAVE family responsibilities, you cannot, in my opinion, walk away from them: they may be demanding or difficult ("challenging"), they may prevent you pursuing a newly developed interest in spiritual or psychic matters, but you took on an obligation - especially to any children, but also your partner, and are honour bound to consider their needs and your commitment. That is not to say that you must stay in a situation you find unpleasant, but if you are supporting others, from a spiritual point of view you need to make fair and reasonable provisions for them, and you should discuss your feelings with your partner before leaving: there may be other solutions. (Exploring the polaymorous aspects of my nature has led to an increased appreciation of, and commitment to, communication.)

Returning to growth orientation, if person A is 90% Bhakti oriented, person B is 80% Jnana oriented and person C (I am considering a potential triad in this example) is 100% Karma path oriented, they will have some conflicts to resolve - e.g., person C may seem at times to be a perfectionist to person A, and person A may seem at times to be unnecessarily emotive to person C, and person B may seem to be vague to both. None of which is incapable of being resolved, but it is better to go into situations with one's eyes open, rather than be naive and say "love will conquer all". Sometimes love needs a dictionary, encyclopaedia and a push to communicate openly and honestly.

Love, light, hugs and blessings

Gnwmythr

Notes
[1] Author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
[2] A key person responsible for Star Wars
[3] There is a third non-gender specific set of pronouns: ze instead of he/she, and hir instead of his/her. These are NOT, as was once claimed to me by a small minded manager, for use with trans people who idetify as a particular gender: they are for situations where either a person has chosen not to identify as male or female, or cannot identify as male or female (e.g. bigendered, and some intersex people)
[4] bisexuality is JUST AS VALID as same sex attraction, or opposite sex attractyion, in my view

As a final note, a digression, my partner, a woman who has helped me recover from a previous abusive relationship, explore the world of polyamory and rediscover the joys of love, put a newly bought CD on while I was finishing this: Echoes of You, by Josh Bennett, who was playing as the support act for Totally Gourdgeous: it is well worth a listen, particularly if you like sitar (he apparently was once asked to play for Ravi Shankir).

This post's photo was taken on a work trip to Moe, in the Gippsland region of Victoria.

Tags: growth orientation, personal responsibility, philosophy, communication, control, emotions, evolution, interpersonal interactions, Bhakti, Jnana, Raja, Karma, Yoga

First published: Sunday 18th April, 2010

Last edited: Sunday 18th April, 2010