Michael Sternbach

Mandrake, I opened a new thread on questions pertaining to the therapeutic use of Tarot. http://thedaobums.com/topic/37882-tarot-therapy/

Practically applied philosophy then. Very nice. A view shared by many contemporary Tarot readers regarding predictions is that only probabilities can be seen, not certainties. "Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future." Yoda I am also primarily a "Thothie" although I am familiar with the RW too, and use it for particular purposes (among others). Good questions, however, as this thread is about Tarot in general and not about the peculiarities of particular decks, it would be best if you would open up a new thread if you want to go into this. <Phew!> Yes, absolutely.

The Sola Busca deck is truly fascinating, isn't it? As a predecessor of the Rider-Waite Tarot as well as in its own right. Hmm... And others feel easily provoked by the mention of Crowley. Nothing wrong with relevant on-topic debates (that at least third party readers can profit from) of course, but I suppose that I can trust all my friends here not to sabotage my little Tarot project by marring the threads with rants and mockery? It would be such a pit-y... Thanks, that sounds like an interesting title to add to my library. That's a good astrological observation. Also other metaphysical systems such as Astrology and Alchemy were synthesized from quite distant strands perfectly combining over long periods. While I don't agree with the pure "playing cards as origin" theory, I too think of Tarot as another system gradually emerging due to a Final Cause.

Hi Mandrake, This was possible due to my association with a psychiatrist who was open-minded in regard of alternative therapies. As a certified Bach Flower therapist, I used Dr. Bach's remedies as my principal approach - they lend themselves to the treatment of almost any kind of patient. As I had also been studying and practicing Tarot for awhile, I integrated it into my sessions. Gradually, I added Astrology and visualization exercises. I suggested to my patients to do Tarot sessions only after I had known them for awhile and felt that they were receptive to the idea. I wouldn't suggest Tarot in certain cases of superstitious fear when it conceivably could have aggravated the condition. But this needs to be decided based on the individual case; no hard and fast rules there. Typical queries revolved around self-awareness and relationships, where I found Tarot to be a very powerful tool for insight and transformation. Its pictorial language directly speaks to deeper levels of the psyche. I appreciate your interest. Feel free to ask if you have more questions. I might even start a thread on the topic.

In Chuang Tzu's book, there is robber Chi. He seems to be quite popular on TDB.

The chakras are vortices of subtle energies interconnecting the physical body with the subtle bodies as well as the subtle bodies with one another. There are many such energy centers, and while there are different views on which ones are to be considered the main centers in various systems, there is nonetheless a good consent regarding the location of these centers. For example, in the Chinese system, Conception Vessel 4 (a point on the lower abdomen that directly connects to the Lower Dantien) coincides with the sacral chakra in the Hindu system. Since the chakras are interconnecting the physical level with the non-physical (etheric, emotional, mental, spiritual) levels, it is possible to recognize and heal disturbances affecting one or more of these levels via the chakras. In other words, they are the gateways through which the psyche influences the body, and vice versa.

I like your thought on not putting anything between yourself and what you wish. Sometimes, there are naturally steps between you and the thing you desire, and you need to take them one by one. Nothing that you couldn't achieve then! But very often, we create the steps ourselves, because in truth, we lack confidence and we are afraid to claim what we want. So we procrastinate and make things more complex than need be. Maybe we follow a program telling us stuff like: "In order to write a book, you must study literature first, and have many years of experience" - a belief a friend of mine seems to hold, and it's keeping her from writing a book, even though her writing is excellent and she has a lot to say. (I agreed to her and told her that she had done all the training she needs in her past lives already.)

If you would hate yourself, how could you be relaxed and comfortable with yourself? If you are at peace and contentment, then you actually do accept and love yourself. All the better if you don't have to constantly remind yourself of it in the mirror! So in my view, the exercise Hay is suggesting, and any other such practices, can be helpful if and when you need them. Once you don't need them any longer, it's best you let them go. Keep them in your toolbox though, so you can teach them to those who would need them. And there is nothing to keep you from returning to them temporarily whenever they would benefit you. There is no one answer, no singular truth that fits all at any given time. On my own way, I explored many truths, followed many practices that were important for me at and for a certain time. Ever flowing with my inner guidance that speaks to me through my intuition, my impulses, my feelings of happiness and contentment. That is my lasting truth. "The way that can be shown is not the true way." Says Lao Tzu.

That sounds interesting. Could you give some examples?

There is a very beautiful book on our topic here, called Soulmate Cosmological Action, written by Dr. Henry Monteith and his wife Erika. http://www.amazon.com/SOULMATE-COSMOLOGICAL-ACTION-Culminated-Soulmate/dp/1420827103/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1425570978&sr=8-1&keywords=soul+mate+cosmological+action Henry Monteith is anything but a brain damaged "New Ager", by the way. He is a mathematician known for his research in elliptic quaternionic numbers.

Everywhere around you. It's too bad that they have so little awareness of their divinity, though.

Look at evolution, whether in cosmological or in biological terms. Isn't it starting with the most simple forms and directed towards more and more complex manifestations? That Dao therefore has aims is not the same like saying it's got to be personalized but there IS some logic or mathematics inherent to it. And the evolution of the whole breaks down into our everyday situations and decisions in which we can choose to swim with or against the current. In which case will we endure longer? Of course, I am not talking about the currents of the social world here, but of the evolutionary current of... the Dao.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense to me. Intuition provides a way of knowing things, which is different from but as (if not more) reliable than knowing them with our conscious mind.

I agree that what we actually know is very little in comparison to what there would be to know. But how can we depend on what we don't know? Does Chuang Tzu mean, to know the Dao is to accept it as "the Unknowable"? How can something not be the Dao, or not be one with it? Does this mean, what doesn't follow the spirit of the Dao cannot endure? I look forward to your comments, Master Marblehead.

I found it in a German translation that I don't have access to at the moment. I was trying my best to locate the quote with the help of Google before I posted what you are referring to, but to no avail. If somebody familiar with Chuang Tzu could help me out here, I would really appreciate it. It's in a chapter describing how everything comes to the sage effortlessly, anyway, due to his spontaneous way of life (it also says: "He eats when he is hungry").

I watched The Secret long ago, soon after it was published, but I don't remember it very well. I found it rather basic, anyway. But the OP's references are: Jane Roberts/Seth - in particular, The Nature of Personal Reality. Now, that is an interesting book. Psychologically and philosophically very sophisticated. In fact so sophisticated that, when a patient of mine once tried to read it on my recommendation, it went right over her head. I am convinced that you could make sense out of it, though. If you read it and then still want to debate about it with me, be my guest... Esther Hicks/Abraham. I am not really familiar with them, other than having watched a speech as I mentioned above. That one did have some good thoughts in it, and I remember it better than The Secret, anyway.

Seth's The Nature of Personal Reality (one of the OP's references) emphasizes clearing of the mind from detrimental beliefs and emotions throughout its text and provides several methods to that end. So does also Shakti Gawain's Creative Visualization that I mentioned above. I think what you have encountered so far are rather superficial representatives of LoA (and I have little doubt that there are plenty of them). We may differ in our understanding of what a spiritual way is (and certainly there is more than one). There are lots of people seeking detachment from the material world. My understanding, however, is that I am a manifestation of my soul in physical reality, and I want to manifest it to its (my) full potential; at once materializing spirit and spiritualizing matter, so to speak. Prosperity and other things that you mention can be a natural result of that. Aristotle's ideal sage was wise, wealthy, and healthy. Likewise, Chuang Tzu says that the sage has a lot of money at his disposal and doesn't even know where it comes from.

I see a number of things on this thread that I consider misconceptions regarding what has come to be known as the Law of Attraction. Possibly, we need to differentiate a little regarding which of its teachers we are referring to, for LoA is an umbrella term for the teachings of countless representatives, many of which I am not familiar with. So, Nungali, you may well be right that quite a lot of what is sold as LoA is naïve and shallow. However, I have read and re-read the Seth books for several years, and they represent a major influence in my spiritual biography as well in the OP's. I consider them in agreement with much of Hermetic and Daoist literature, or with the Perennial Philosophy, albeit from an independent perspective. I also read Shakti Gawain's books on visualization and the art of creative living, attended Silva Mind Control courses, watched an inspiring speech by Esther Hicks on DVD, read A Course in Miracles, and found all of that well worth my while. DreamBliss, Seth is not saying that there is no unconscious. In The Nature of Personal Reality, p. xviii he states: But he indeed doesn't agree with the popular idea of there being a subconscious that is a repository of detrimental forces and childhood traumas, unaccessible to the conscious mind other than (at best) by lengthy and costly psycho-analysis, while playing tricks with the conscious mind and having sway over it. In truth, there are no separations in the psyche, and the conscious mind can and should become increasingly aware of its unconscious programming by way of introspection. From the aforsesaid book, p. 22: Nungali, nowhere does Seth deny that miserable circumstances are real, notwithstanding that negative and positive are relative terms as seen from a transcendental perspective. Thus, he recommends identifying and altering the negative beliefs that are causing them - emphasizing the causes, not the symptoms. But he also says that external action and determination are often necessary in order to alter sad circumstances. This holds true on both an individual and a collective level. Where would we be without the commited members of organizations like Greenpeace and Amnesty International? Without individuals like yourself, not afraid to call things as they are and devoting themselves to change them? This is the spirit of the warrior. Kudos to you for that! The motivation for powerfully changing negative situations does presuppose a degree of dualism. I believe that as inhabitants of a dualistic world, we cannot completely avoid dualistic perspectives. Yes, there are circumstances that cannot be altered easily. For example, for an individual born in a third world country, many possibilities available to the inhabitants of the materially priviledged part of the world may seem quite out of reach. In this regard, as much as I appreciate living in one of the wealthiest countries, we should be careful not to declare material prosperity as the measure of all things. Despite cell phones, fast food, and lives so busy that the average married couple speaks with each other something like five minutes a day, a world wide survey showed that the averagely happiest people are actually living in Cambodia! Not that it would be impossible for a materially underpriviledged individual to attain greater prosperity. By application of the principles of manifestation, such an individual could in fact alter their circumstances for the better, at least to a certain degree. And the more individuals would do this, the more the whole place would change. What way other than this kind of empowerment would there be for the inhabitants of poor countries to enhance their material circumstances for good? Furthermore, what else is Magic than the art of effecting change by exercising the power of one's psyche? LoA basically states that everybody is a Magician unconsciously, creating their own life experience based on their thoughts and emotions. To do so consciously, in accordance with one's will, that's the key. Of course, we could debate about the adequacy of the theoretical framework and practical methods of various LoA authors as compared to more traditional authors on Magic, but there is little disagreement in basic terms. Suffice it to say here that to you, as an occultist drawing inspiration from the Golden Dawn system, I would heartily recommend reading Israel Regardie's The Art of True Healing - it talks about the principles of manifestation much along the lines of contemporary authors and was actually one of the sources for Shakti Gawain's Creative Visualization. freeform, I do resonate with parts of your post, but the truth it contains, from my perspective, is not at odds with an intelligent and advanced understanding of LoA. As far as "decreating" and purging allegedly not being included in the latter, I could give you several quotes to the contrary from "manifestation" authors. Not least, once again, Seth in The Nature of Personal Reality, p. 17:

I am afraid that your explanation is still a little ambiguous to me. All I can do is employ free association, but I might end up talking about something quite different from what you are intending to get at. Well, if so, it might at least make you further clarify your perspective. What the above brought to mind, anyway, is a lecture I once attended in the Zen temple Sosenji in Kyoto, Japan. Where the hapless priest was doing his best to explain to me that I didn't really exist. Maybe not literally, but in the sense that my identity was an impermanent and essentially void bunch of relations. What was my problem with that? To phrase it somewhat more elegantly than I could have at that time, I understood that, even though my mind and body are in fact in a constant state of flux, I was the manifestation of a metaphysical entity that was quite beyond this world of change. More of a Hindu perspective than a Buddhist one, I would say... You mean, either the Universe is one creation of many in a Multiverse, the way my body is creating new cells all the time? Or it was created out of the (metaphysical) blue? I think, it could be both at once.

Most of all, it would require an admission of metaphysics into physics.

Yet another set of reasons for elaborating on them, Apeiron.

What do you mean by "traditional natural physics"? Newtonian physics? That is generally close enough an approximation for the macroscopic world which you are aware of. But if you look into the world of molecules, atoms, subatomic particles... That's where Newton runs more and more into trouble. That's where things really go haywire. Or maybe we just aren't able yet to figure out the order that is underlying that microscopic world. Strange things happen there... like a particle being in several places at once. No, it's not several particles! It's the same particle which just happens to be in more than one place at the same time. Why not? This phenomenon can even be shown under a sufficiently strong microscope. Normally, the apparent craziness of the quantum world politely stays out of our world. Except when it doesn't. Like when a person is in two places at once. This phenomenon even has a name: It's called bilocation. But don't worry about if you don't believe in it. It's so rare that my auto correct function doesn't even know its name.

The concept of Dark Matter was introduced because large-scale cosmological structures just don't behave as they were supposed to according to the Newtonian laws of gravity. Therefore a kind of matter is being assumed that has gravity but shows no other interactions with visible matter for all we know. Exactly. Dark Energy acts as a force of anti-gravity. Oh well, we all have our problems (with the possible exception of Marblehead who doesn't seem to have any problems, at least as long as he doesn't talk with us). But I think you have got that well. Einstein referred to such a force of expansion as "the cosmological constant". Later on, he called it "the greatest blunder of my life" instead. It looks like he renounced the concept prematurely, though, in the light of the new cosmological discoveries. Exactly. It seems that right before the Universe could have started collapsing again due to the gravity of its matter (dark or otherwise), that matter was thinned out enough in order for the anti-gravitational force to prevail and keep the expansion going! Well calculated... Nobody knows that for sure. There is an idea that Dark Energy could one day reverse its effect and turn into a gravitational (contracting) force at least out-there in cyber space. So there might still be a chance for the so called "Big Crunch" theory. An alternative to the Big Crunch is a theory that I have already talked about a couple of times on TDB, called CCC (.)). It is the latest brain child of the cosmologist Roger Penrose the guy who founded the original Big Bang theory together with Stephen Hawking. In simple terms, it simply states that once all the matter in the Universe has been converted into light (electromagnetic energy), space and time will no longer definable, therefore become at once infinitely large and infinitely small. (Obviously, we have a Nuit/Hadit thing going here again, in the terminology of Thelema.) There you have a new Singularity! (All puns intended.) As I just said!!! I hope that my "fingernails" and whatever training I have did the job.