saying no

Good concept and statement, Mat.

“No” with resistance is a stressful state, contracting the body-mind and turning off chi flow (and common sense). Since you can’t say Yes to everything, when saying No one can be focussing on what one wants instead so that the answer becomes a redirection of thinking and energies toward what is desired.

I took a workshop last year called Psych K in which a different more specific form of muscle testing was taught. One of the tests you use to make sure you’re in alignment before you start asking questions is to silently say Yes and muscle test to see that the response is strong. Then you say No and see that it is a weak response. “No” compromises the chi flow.

>>when one has a choice one always chooses both things. Whichever one is ‘officially’ not chosen becomes part of the shadow self to be integrated later.<<

that's very profound for me right now! As I've been discovering and integrating polarities in myself this last couple of months, I've noticed that with anything that you 'go towards' or 'like' or 'agree with' or whatever wording you choose – there is a polar opposite that you inveriably have to (uncocniously) accept to be able to 'like'/'go towards'/'agree with' it.

The spcific polarity is very personal – for example I've discovered a polarity in me: 'discipline' and 'freedom'. I can either be disciplined and follow a long-termed goal, or I can be free and be 'in the now' – doing whatever comes up. Integrating the two allows me to see/feel (in my body) that they are the same thing and are only two ends of one spectrum. Integrating this allows me to act conciously (with True Will) rather than automatically and through emotional tension.

Whatever shadow aspect you unconciously accept you have to battle against. This creates tensions in your ego – or adds tension to the already tense circumstance in the ego. It goes the same way when you reject something you dont like.

I've discovered that integrating the polar opposites is the way to go if you want to progress in *any* spiritual system. I would stress that just because 'yes' carries a higher energy than 'no' it doesn't mean it's 'better'. In fact they are two sides of *the same* coin – and once you integrate the whole coin into the Big I – then all the unconciousness that goes with either 'yes' or 'no' disappears – and both of them test strong on a muscle test.

>>How does this duality-resolution apply to goal-setting procedures with you? Is the goal of goallessness important to you?<<

I've been looking into the philosophy of goal setting for about a year, and I've recently formulated a theory I like.

You may remember my favourite buzzword "tension" – this is not the 'feeling tense' type of tension – it's the force that acts between the + and – of a polarity (much like a magnet).

I really appreciate the idea of 'effortless action' which is what you do when you live in the moment and let your deepest core decide what happens. I'm not at that stage yet, and do not know many people that are. So I still use goals.

The average ego is full of these unconcious tensions – they are there to make your life easier but for a spiritual person they are a hindrence. Depending on the life we lead we get specific tensions. Whatever we go towards presupposes we go away from the opposite of that. so a single egoic aspect has two poles and we uncocniously swing between them. you can integrate the poles and it becomes one and then take it to emptiness and it's no longer an aspect of your ego – it's just You.

Goals work similarly. Setting up a goal inveriably sets up a specific tension – on one end of the pole is "me as I am now" on the other end it's "me as I want to be". so on one end it's you on the other end it's you with the achieved goal. So it's basically a controlled fragmentation of your Self. And I think this is fine. Some people make an art of it and setting goals becomes like an exquisite Taichi move.

Setting goals becomes problematic when a)you do it unconciously, b)when you admit 'failure' and c)when the goal is an external manifestation of some internal inbalance – i.e. you try to balance something inside by controlling the outside – this dont work!!

a) usually means that there is some c) in it. it also makes failure more likely. So all our goals should be conscious!.

b) if you 'fail' at your goal you inveriably create another new duality in your ego (because the goal is not fullfilled, the tension is still there, and other stuff starts clinging to that tension, and you get a new neurosis.) An example would be: you really want to talk to an attractive girl – set the goal up, but then psych yourself out and never do it. The goal is still in there, it's just now it's developed something over the top of it – for example 'I'm not confident with girls'. The polarity is "I want girls" (+) and "I'm not able to get girls" (-).

An example of c) would be having this 'I'm not confident with girls' tension and as a result of that building a new goal 'I want a sexy sports car to attract girls'. Getting the car would never really touch the underlying ego tension, so you'd feel unfullfilled – and the tension would still be there.

I think 'goalessness' can only be reached when all the creases in one's ego have been ironed out. There are no tensions. Then you allow your core to lead you, and make concious tensions naturally, spontaneously and with full awareness – always bringing the tension back into emtiness after it's done what it needed to.

Hey ff and mb,

>>man, i had to laugh at that example, ‘cos i see it so much. where i work, all the blokes have hot cars and rev them hard when girls walk past.<<

– that set off the train of thought about how this ego problem ff outlined then gets into the social mindstream. Of all those guys who own such a car, how many actually have this deep insecurity, this problem of 'not being able to get girls'? Vs, how many of them are actually just getting the car because they saw someone else do it and it's… well… gotta be done? In the groupmind it seems to me that one person's ego problem can spiral out to everyone, *especially* where sex rituals are concerned… NN

>>also noticed the Huna attitude to spellcasting which happens to be identical w/ mine. Do you do that at all? To me goals has become spells it is no different any more. I don’t approach this in what I perceive to be the normal western way<<

I dont do spell casting – much. I've done the simple practice of sigilising your intent – but found that there are more important things to be getting on with before I can really use them in an ecological (benefiting everyone) way.

I've discovered that a good way of automatically making spells more ecological is to create *abilities* rather than 'things'. If I want lots of money – rather asking for more money, I ask for the ability to earn lots of money quickly.

I suspect that once the ego is free of uncoscnious tensions – all the energy that has been used to keep the tensions of lifetimes stuck can be freed and used to manifest one's intent – and I suspect it would be far more powerfull and ecological doing it with a clear ego.

I would really like to find out how you cast spells and what you use them for – especially since you say your method's similar to the Huna way. Although I havent looked into the specifics of spells/manifestation, most of the Huna practices are very ecological, so I suspect they'll suit me better than what I've looked into previously.

P.S. about the yes/no – I've written a little poem that might shed some light on it (or most likely not)… My man Gottfried Leibniz was part of the inspiration and a quote from Joyce was the other inspiration: "[i]that upright one and that naughty besighed him zeroine[/i]".

(I just hope the HTML will work)

[center]?
1 | 0
01 11 | 00 10
[/center]

Hey ff.,

>>I would really like to find out how you cast spells and what you use them for – especially since you say your method’s similar to the Huna way<<

Well I didn't exactly say that! What is similar I think is my attitude towards it. On the site you linked me to, it said that the first thing you consider in a casting a spell is that the very desire is already changing things. They talked about spellcasting in a way that made me think they do it with a similar attitude to mine. To me it is all about noticing and creating with what you notice, being aware, as if writing something – it is very instinctive and although I understand it I can't always explain it.

I don't know if I could say how I do it. I never worry about what you are calling the 'ecological' side of things because what I am doing feels right in my soul which is how I know that I should be doing it. – exactly how you would feel writing a poem, that's how I feel when doing it.

What I use it for… it's like artistic shaping of my existence. I have never really done things the same way twice or for the same reason twice. I could give alot of examples, but I don't know… it's very private! Like showing my soul. I think you probably understand this. But it isn't, with me, 'intent'. The many 'things in between life' that I see, the different energies I notice, I shape and guide myself through life with them, seeing the pattern and the story, interacting with life in a different way, beyond the straight process of being and living. It happens… there is no 'lust of result' or anything. It is an objective and quiet thing.

One thing I should say is that I'm slightly embarassed… spellcasting doesn't have a good reputation amongst more meditative practices. But it is very pure and beautiful to me, very poetic, and the inspiration arises exactly how it would for a piece of artwork and shapes itself just the same way.

That probably sounded like a whole load of waffle! Sorry! NN