Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Aries Archetype Discussion  (Read 12598 times)
Elen
Most Active Member
***
Posts: 879


« Reply #15 on: Mar 21, 2011, 01:22 PM »

Just reading a book called, Finding Our Center: Wisdom from the Stars and Planets in Times of Change, by Heather Ensworth (influenced by JWG).  In it she discusses the Ages, including the Age of Aries.  Monotheistic religions take hold.  The Divine is seen as transcendent instead of imminent.  Abraham is willing to sacrifice his son at the command of his "god".  Very interesting chapter.  To me, this is distorted Aries - Aries that fails to recognize the crucial importance of relationship (HUMAN relationship and also relationship with nature).  Everything about it is separation (Ensworth makes this point) and, it seems to me, not natural at all.  Indeed, to me it strikes me as an act of insanity to be willing to take your son to a mountain top to sacrifice him in obedience to a "god" - the exact opposite of love and caring, which every child needs if she/he is to grow up healthy and secure and caring.  With natural relationship dismissed as irrelevant, Libra becomes expressed as manmade law - and thus, control - as a means of securing at least some kind of order (Ensworth points this out).  Perhaps this historical transition can be seen as the root of this original anxiety of separation as a kind of way of being in this world......

One thought about this: perhaps the anxiety that Aries is inclined to feel can be understood as a signal that it has strayed too far off the path and is in need of returning in some way - or regaining - that original sense of wonder.  Whenever I hear that story of Abraham, I feel such a sense of heaviness, not lightness (I mean, I feel that that is the energy of Abraham proceeding on that course).  There is nothing light or right about it.  Perhaps that is a sign for Aries - a way of discerning which action/direction is in line with Source...
« Last Edit: Mar 23, 2011, 05:40 PM by Ellen » Logged
Elen
Most Active Member
***
Posts: 879


« Reply #16 on: Mar 21, 2011, 03:29 PM »

Thanks Ellen,  I did miss your post about childbirth.

You bring up a great point about separation anxiety as it relates to the patriarchy. To me, there is an inherent connection. Aries does require absolute freedom and autonomy in the same way that a 2 year old needs to have the freedom to be a two year old. However does a 2 year old, by its nature necessarily experience the anxiety of separation? Today, for the most part yes, however innately, the answer is no.

If mother is always experienced to be there, if there is never a sense of leaving the wholeness, if the entire individuation occurs within the context of the wholeness, then there is no anxiety.
There is also no anxiety if its will is understood and facilitated, as opposed to dominated, controlled and broken as is generally the practice today......

Aries then expresses as a focused and directed will who knows that separation is not possible. Like a 2 year old who always understands that mommy is right around the corner.

Ellen, you asked about Mars, if it also corresponds to separating and returning like Pluto. As I understand it, on one level Mars is just the fuel. Through Aries there is the imperative, the mission to be in CONSTANT motion. To where is this motion leading the soul? That's where the impulses is Aries can serve EITHER the separating desires of the soul or the desire to return. Ultimately, within the context of patriarchy, the crisis symbolized by the Scorpio Aries inconjunct symbolizes perpetual, insatiable desire - this generating various crisis as karma is created through these desires. Karma creates limitations (square Capricorn) on Aries' absolute freedom. All of this is constructed as a way for the soul to align it's own independence and freedom with the actual path of return to Source. And so the way it is today, the crisis of separation anxiety can ultimately serve as a catalyst to propel evolution.
am




Logged
Elen
Most Active Member
***
Posts: 879


« Reply #17 on: Mar 21, 2011, 03:42 PM »



Ellen, you asked about Mars, if it also corresponds to separating and returning like Pluto. As I understand it, on one level Mars is just the fuel. Through Aries there is the imperative, the mission to be in CONSTANT motion. To where is this motion leading the soul? That's where the impulses is Aries can serve EITHER the separating desires of the soul or the desire to return. Ultimately, within the context of patriarchy, the crisis symbolized by the Scorpio Aries inconjunct symbolizes perpetual, insatiable desire - this generating various crisis as karma is created through these desires. Karma creates limitations (square Capricorn) on Aries' absolute freedom. All of this is constructed as a way for the soul to align it's own independence and freedom with the actual path of return to Source. And so the way it is today, the crisis of separation anxiety can ultimately serve as a catalyst to propel evolution.
am

Hi Ari,

I am still struggling with the idea that separating desires are somehow intrinsically "wrong" or somehow less desirable from a spiritual perspective than returning desires.  (I think that that is what you are suggesting in the above quote....).  The struggle for me hinges on the whole question of creation.  If creation itself was created by God/Source, and creation is an act of separation, then can it be argued that separating desires are inferior to returning desires?  Thinking along these lines its seems to me that even returning desires can be outside Source - it being a matter of how one is relating to those desires - are they genuine/sincere or willful and aggressive?  So I'm thinking that the trick re: Aries is in fact to be in constant communion with the Divine as it follows its desires (as it must due by its very nature), whether it be riding the wave of creation (separation) or riding the wave of return........So then perhaps the "original anxiety of separation" could be argued to about an adjustment that has to occur with that piscean communion (thinking here of Upasika's post) perhaps somehow lost, at least momentarily, as this shift to constant motion (as you point out) occurs in Aries......HuhHuh??  .




Logged
Linda
Most Active Member
***
Posts: 909



« Reply #18 on: Mar 21, 2011, 05:13 PM »

I am still struggling with the idea that separating desires are somehow intrinsically "wrong" or somehow less desirable from a spiritual perspective than returning desires.  (I think that that is what you are suggesting in the above quote....).  The struggle for me hinges on the whole question of creation.  If creation itself was created by God/Source, and creation is an act of separation, then can it be argued that separating desires are inferior to returning desires?  Thinking along these lines its seems to me that even returning desires can be outside Source - it being a matter of how one is relating to those desires - are they genuine/sincere or willful and aggressive?  So I'm thinking that the trick re: Aries is in fact to be in constant communion with the Divine as it follows its desires (as it must due by its very nature), whether it be riding the wave of creation (separation) or riding the wave of return........So then perhaps the "original anxiety of separation" could be argued to about an adjustment that has to occur with that piscean communion (thinking here of Upasika's post) perhaps somehow lost, at least momentarily, as this shift to constant motion (as you point out) occurs in Aries......HuhHuh??  


Hi Ellen,

Having read all your posts, I feel your underlying questioning could relate to the Aries/Virgo inconjunct.  Virgo is on a mission of self-improvement and service to others, while Aries is on a mission of self-discovery which, evolutionarily speaking, will ALWAYS lead it to consider others, as the Libra polarity is built-in to it.  

Example:  The 1st stage Spiritual evolutionary condition correlates to Virgo:  and I would imagine that here the Aries/Virgo inconjunct could bring crisis such as your questioning, and this would lead to making necessary adjustments.  

All the archetypes are created by God'ess for their specific function.  There is no right or wrong archetype.  I think the judgment here could be man-made ... since God'ess allows us, through free will, to take whatever path we desire.  It is OUR choice to fulfill a separating or returning desire ... leading to face the karmic consequences of that choice (Libra rules choice, while Aries is unplanned action).  ALL desire originates in the Soul for its evolutionary requirements.

All paths lead to God'ess - even this very impulse begins in Aries - since there is a beginning to every intention.  An interesting relationship to note is that between natal Mars and Pluto, and the phase that they are in.  JWG taught that generally each evolutionary intention (Pluto, PPP, Nodes) is played out over 8 lifetimes (or 8 primary phases).  Each life will project an evolutionary progression describing how far along the Soul has come in working through the original intention.  In the last phases, the resistance is going to be less, and the conscious awareness is going to be higher as compared to the initial phases.  

Ellen said: "If creation itself was created by God/Source, and creation is an act of separation, then can it be argued that separating desires are inferior to returning desires?"

Remember that God is an evolving force ... it is not perfect.  I see separating/returning desires as a "process" created by Source that enables evolution.

Well, it's interesting that the transiting Sun, Mercury, Jupiter and Uranus in Aries are now inconjunct Virgo, and Uranus will be for a long time.
Logged
ari moshe
Most Active Member
***
Posts: 1231


« Reply #19 on: Mar 21, 2011, 07:01 PM »

Hi Ellen,

Quote
I am still struggling with the idea that separating desires are somehow intrinsically "wrong" or somehow less desirable from a spiritual perspective than returning desires.  (I think that that is what you are suggesting in the above quote....).  The struggle for me hinges on the whole question of creation.  If creation itself was created by God/Source, and creation is an act of separation, then can it be argued that separating desires are inferior to returning desires?  Thinking along these lines its seems to me that even returning desires can be outside Source - it being a matter of how one is relating to those desires - are they genuine/sincere or willful and aggressive?  So I'm thinking that the trick re: Aries is in fact to be in constant communion with the Divine as it follows its desires (as it must due by its very nature), whether it be riding the wave of creation (separation) or riding the wave of return........So then perhaps the "original anxiety of separation" could be argued to about an adjustment that has to occur with that piscean communion (thinking here of Upasika's post) perhaps somehow lost, at least momentarily, as this shift to constant motion (as you point out) occurs in Aries......??  

It's not a matter of wrong or not wrong it's a matter of what the reality is. Our desires are absolutely unavoidable. The very fact of being here implies desire. In truth (Pisces) there is no separation that has ever occurred. However the reality as we experience it, is that we do have a multitude of desires, all of which originate from an unconscious place. We have to pursue them - so there's no judgement about that at all.

Mars can operate in two ways:
Perusing desires to satiate something that can never be satiated.
To consciously embrace a path of separation that will assist the soul in it's evolutionary journey (which is all about inhabiting in some way, and then exhausting all separating desires).

It's kind of like the identity structure that says "I'm going to get enlightened". That drive does in fact fuel a spiritual path. However the aspiriation itself, while it is a motivation, ULTIMATELY, is just another hindrance. Eventually the will of the soul to achieve something becomes aligned with absolute surrender. This is the anxiety of the individual will - I am doing something, I am on a path to something. The entire sense of personal purpose is, in and of itself, both a motivator and a cause of absolute anxiety as it persistently insists on there being a separate self that is doing the seeking (which is antithetical to "goal" of the seeking, which is union) ! That's the conflict, and within that tension is also the resolution as it does eventually yield an absolute surrender.
« Last Edit: Mar 21, 2011, 07:13 PM by ari moshe » Logged
Elen
Most Active Member
***
Posts: 879


« Reply #20 on: Mar 21, 2011, 07:07 PM »

Hi Linda,

Bless you (!) for reading all my posts and responding.  Didn't realize just HOW many I posted until after the fever was OVER!  Grin

I'm not sure I'm fully understanding the Aries/Virgo inconjunct as it relates to my burning confusion but I trust that you see something there so I will continue to reflect on it.

I think for me THE main thing that is coming out of this is the realization of my reaction to what seems to be the equation:  creation=separating act and separating act=lost one's way.  I find that I can't accept those correlations.  As I am working through this I am beginning to understand that the way that makes sense for me to think of this is to separate out the separating desires from the act of creating such that creation is not intrinsically faulty.  Rather, one's state of mind/being is what is important - is one acting in union with the divine or in separation from the divine.  To me, from this perspective, it is possible for creation to be "in union" with the divine.  I agree that god'ess is imperfect and is it/herself evolving, but to me that does not necessarily imply that there is somehow something intrinsically mistaken about the act of creation.  I see creation (as I think you do) as part of the process of evolution (part of the ONGOING process of evolution).  So to equate creation with mistake is problematic for me and thus where the central issue is for me...

Hope this makes sense!

Wishing you well always, Linda,
Ellen
Logged
Elen
Most Active Member
***
Posts: 879


« Reply #21 on: Mar 21, 2011, 07:12 PM »

Ari,

Thank you.  I think you've hit on it but I will need to read it through a few more times...

Best,
Ellen

Hi Ellen,

Quote
I am still struggling with the idea that separating desires are somehow intrinsically "wrong" or somehow less desirable from a spiritual perspective than returning desires.  (I think that that is what you are suggesting in the above quote....).  The struggle for me hinges on the whole question of creation.  If creation itself was created by God/Source, and creation is an act of separation, then can it be argued that separating desires are inferior to returning desires?  Thinking along these lines its seems to me that even returning desires can be outside Source - it being a matter of how one is relating to those desires - are they genuine/sincere or willful and aggressive?  So I'm thinking that the trick re: Aries is in fact to be in constant communion with the Divine as it follows its desires (as it must due by its very nature), whether it be riding the wave of creation (separation) or riding the wave of return........So then perhaps the "original anxiety of separation" could be argued to about an adjustment that has to occur with that piscean communion (thinking here of Upasika's post) perhaps somehow lost, at least momentarily, as this shift to constant motion (as you point out) occurs in Aries......?? 

It's not a matter of wrong or not wrong it's a matter of what the reality is. Our desires are absolutely unavoidable. The very fact of being here implies desire. In truth (Pisces) there is no separation that has ever occurred. However the reality as we experience it, is that we do have a multitude of desires, all of which originate from an unconscious place. We have to pursue them - so there's no judgement about that at all.

Mars can operate in two ways:
Perusing desires to satiate something that can never be satiated.
To consciously embrace a path of separation that will assist the soul in it's evolutionary journey (which is all about inhabiting in some way, and then exhausting all separating desires).

It's kind of like the identity structure that says "I'm going to get enlightened". That drive does in fact fuel a spiritual path. However the aspiriation itself, while it is a motivation, ULTIMATELY, is just another hindrance. Eventually the will of the soul to achieve something becomes aligned with absolute surrender. This is the anxiety of the individual will - I am doing something, I am on a path to something. The entire sense of personal purpose is, in and of itself, both a motivator and a cause of absolute anxiety as it persistently insists on there being a separate self that is doing the seeking! That's the conflict, and within that tension is also the resolution as it does eventually yield an absolute surrender.

Logged
Elen
Most Active Member
***
Posts: 879


« Reply #22 on: Mar 21, 2011, 09:05 PM »

Hi Ellen,

Quote
I am still struggling with the idea that separating desires are somehow intrinsically "wrong" or somehow less desirable from a spiritual perspective than returning desires.  (I think that that is what you are suggesting in the above quote....).  The struggle for me hinges on the whole question of creation.  If creation itself was created by God/Source, and creation is an act of separation, then can it be argued that separating desires are inferior to returning desires?  Thinking along these lines its seems to me that even returning desires can be outside Source - it being a matter of how one is relating to those desires - are they genuine/sincere or willful and aggressive?  So I'm thinking that the trick re: Aries is in fact to be in constant communion with the Divine as it follows its desires (as it must due by its very nature), whether it be riding the wave of creation (separation) or riding the wave of return........So then perhaps the "original anxiety of separation" could be argued to about an adjustment that has to occur with that piscean communion (thinking here of Upasika's post) perhaps somehow lost, at least momentarily, as this shift to constant motion (as you point out) occurs in Aries......??  

It's not a matter of wrong or not wrong it's a matter of what the reality is. Our desires are absolutely unavoidable. The very fact of being here implies desire. In truth (Pisces) there is no separation that has ever occurred. However the reality as we experience it, is that we do have a multitude of desires, all of which originate from an unconscious place. We have to pursue them - so there's no judgement about that at all.

Mars can operate in two ways:
Perusing desires to satiate something that can never be satiated.
To consciously embrace a path of separation that will assist the soul in it's evolutionary journey (which is all about inhabiting in some way, and then exhausting all separating desires).
DARN!... It STILL feels to me that there is an intrinsic judgement here re: creation.  I am assuming that to exhaust all separating desires is to be finished with incarnation/creation.  Linda pointed out the Aries/Virgo inconjunct and what has arisen for me with that is the whole guilt complex associated with that archetype and the denigration of the body (and creation) associated with it through the Judeo-Christian connection.  If the equation were: inhabiting-->exhausting-->inhabiting again at a new level...... I wouldn't feel that sense of judgement being made.... What I am hearing (and this is where I may be receiving incorrectly, ie, receiving something other than you and others are intending) is that ultimately the answer is exhaustion of all separating desires and remerging with the divine and that is the end of the process.  To me that implies a judgement about creation.  We have these desires but they are JUST for the purpose of getting back to the divine...(not about co-creating, to give an example of another possibility.)  The other question that I think needs to be asked that might help shed some light is: what is the purpose of evolution?  Aries, as being in a continuous state of becoming, is about evolution.  Our desires propel us evolutionarily speaking...

Well, this may just go round and round so I understand if you would prefer to just let this question sit as is...... I am not SETTLED, but I feel that I have a much greater understanding of where the sticking point is for me, and perhaps that's the best that can be accomplished!

Best wishes,
Ellen


It's kind of like the identity structure that says "I'm going to get enlightened". That drive does in fact fuel a spiritual path. However the aspiriation itself, while it is a motivation, ULTIMATELY, is just another hindrance. Eventually the will of the soul to achieve something becomes aligned with absolute surrender. This is the anxiety of the individual will - I am doing something, I am on a path to something. The entire sense of personal purpose is, in and of itself, both a motivator and a cause of absolute anxiety as it persistently insists on there being a separate self that is doing the seeking (which is antithetical to "goal" of the seeking, which is union) ! That's the conflict, and within that tension is also the resolution as it does eventually yield an absolute surrender.

Logged
ari moshe
Most Active Member
***
Posts: 1231


« Reply #23 on: Mar 21, 2011, 09:43 PM »

Hi Ellen,
Quote
DARN!... It STILL feels to me that there is an intrinsic judgement here re: creation.  I am assuming that to exhaust all separating desires is to be finished with incarnation/creation.  Linda pointed out the Aries/Virgo inconjunct and what has arisen for me with that is the whole guilt complex associated with that archetype and the denigration of the body (and creation) associated with it through the Judeo-Christian connection.  If the equation were: inhabiting-->exhausting-->inhabiting again at a new level...... I wouldn't feel that sense of judgement being made.... What I am hearing (and this is where I may be receiving incorrectly, ie, receiving something other than you and others are intending) is that ultimately the answer is exhaustion of all separating desires and remerging with the divine and that is the end of the process.  To me that implies a judgement about creation.  We have these desires but they are JUST for the purpose of getting back to the divine...(not about co-creating, to give an example of another possibility.)  The other question that I think needs to be asked that might help shed some light is: what is the purpose of evolution?  Aries, as being in a continuous state of becoming, is about evolution.  Our desires propel us evolutionarily speaking...

I really like what you are saying. Perhaps the patriarchal conditioning may be found in the way I and others understand and communicate our understanding of evolution.
I see how it sounds like there is a "goal" thus implying that there is something to reach - until which point DESIRES are the only thing that get in the way of that reaching. I can feel the judgement in that and sense that there may be a completely other way of looking at this process, one that does not contradict the above understanding, but rather presents evolution as a process that is nurturing and co-creative.

I've come across this many times when I speak of the ea paradigm. I often get asked "It sounds like life is a goal". I know that in a way it is and an a way it isn't. The answer I give is pretty much all I've shared here in the past threads. However I feel there is a more feminine, nurturing WAY of looking at this stuff that I have not yet uncovered in myself. I really appreciate the opportunity to look into this.

You spoke of co-creation, I'd like to hear more about that. And if your up for it, perhaps you can find a way to describe the process of a soul's evolution that is a reflection of a non patriarchal conditioning. That would be really insightful for me and I'm sure others.
With Love,
am
Logged
Elen
Most Active Member
***
Posts: 879


« Reply #24 on: Mar 21, 2011, 10:22 PM »

Hi Ellen,
Quote
DARN!... It STILL feels to me that there is an intrinsic judgement here re: creation.  I am assuming that to exhaust all separating desires is to be finished with incarnation/creation.  Linda pointed out the Aries/Virgo inconjunct and what has arisen for me with that is the whole guilt complex associated with that archetype and the denigration of the body (and creation) associated with it through the Judeo-Christian connection.  If the equation were: inhabiting-->exhausting-->inhabiting again at a new level...... I wouldn't feel that sense of judgement being made.... What I am hearing (and this is where I may be receiving incorrectly, ie, receiving something other than you and others are intending) is that ultimately the answer is exhaustion of all separating desires and remerging with the divine and that is the end of the process.  To me that implies a judgement about creation.  We have these desires but they are JUST for the purpose of getting back to the divine...(not about co-creating, to give an example of another possibility.)  The other question that I think needs to be asked that might help shed some light is: what is the purpose of evolution?  Aries, as being in a continuous state of becoming, is about evolution.  Our desires propel us evolutionarily speaking...

I really like what you are saying. Perhaps the patriarchal conditioning may be found in the way I and others understand and communicate our understanding of evolution.
I see how it sounds like there is a "goal" thus implying that there is something to reach - until which point DESIRES are the only thing that get in the way of that reaching. I can feel the judgement in that and sense that there may be a completely other way of looking at this process, one that does not contradict the above understanding, but rather presents evolution as a process that is nurturing and co-creative.

I've come across this many times when I speak of the ea paradigm. I often get asked "It sounds like life is a goal". I know that in a way it is and an a way it isn't. The answer I give is pretty much all I've shared here in the past threads. However I feel there is a more feminine, nurturing WAY of looking at this stuff that I have not yet uncovered in myself. I really appreciate the opportunity to look into this.

You spoke of co-creation, I'd like to hear more about that. And if your up for it, perhaps you can find a way to describe the process of a soul's evolution that is a reflection of a non patriarchal conditioning. That would be really insightful for me and I'm sure others.
With Love,
am

Hi Ari,

Thanks so much for your thoughts - and thoughtful feedback - on this.  I will think about your request and see if I can respond in any way tomorrow.  For now - SLEEP!

Wishing you well,
Ellen
Logged
ari moshe
Most Active Member
***
Posts: 1231


« Reply #25 on: Mar 22, 2011, 01:04 AM »

Hi Upasika,

Quote
  It's simple happiness at being able to just be itself is disturbed (usually at a subconscious level) by the contrast presented in the way it intuitively perceives it's life situation - as that of being just a "dot" (self) within the universe ("all that isn't Aries"). The Aries situation is ... being naturally happy due to it's inherently totally simple and uncluttered nature, yet never being able to relax into that happiness because it's obviously incomplete. And Aries immediately senses that that doesn't "add up". And the "pain" of separation arises then and there immediately and directly from this intuitive knowing, and this becomes the underlying shadow of Aries - it's subconscious insecurity and lack of confidence, self doubt, in total - a deep hidden anxiety.

I really appreciate the way you explained that. I was wondering if you would elaborate on this further? I feel this speaks directly to what we have been discussing here.

An easy example that comes to me is just the nature of our own ascendant and the sign on the 12th house cusp. There is an archetypal semi sextile from one house cusp to the next. The sign on the 12th house correlates to the totality of life and how a soul is to surrender to that totality. It thus corresponds to the specific actions or ways of being that become progressively aligned with the transcendent impulse to know God.

Archetypally, the next sign, the sign on the ascendant, symbolizes the essence of being, doing, thinking, and living for oneself. The natural relationship between the two in our own charts may be a point of insightful self reflection. I know Maurice Fernandez wrote a chapter on this relationship at the end of his Neptune book, if I had it with me I'd look into it.
Logged
Elen
Most Active Member
***
Posts: 879


« Reply #26 on: Mar 22, 2011, 05:26 AM »

Hi Ellen,
I really like what you are saying. Perhaps the patriarchal conditioning may be found in the way I and others understand and communicate our understanding of evolution.
I see how it sounds like there is a "goal" thus implying that there is something to reach - until which point DESIRES are the only thing that get in the way of that reaching. I can feel the judgement in that and sense that there may be a completely other way of looking at this process, one that does not contradict the above understanding, but rather presents evolution as a process that is nurturing and co-creative.

I've come across this many times when I speak of the ea paradigm. I often get asked "It sounds like life is a goal". I know that in a way it is and an a way it isn't. The answer I give is pretty much all I've shared here in the past threads. However I feel there is a more feminine, nurturing WAY of looking at this stuff that I have not yet uncovered in myself. I really appreciate the opportunity to look into this.

You spoke of co-creation, I'd like to hear more about that. And if your up for it, perhaps you can find a way to describe the process of a soul's evolution that is a reflection of a non patriarchal conditioning. That would be really insightful for me and I'm sure others.
With Love,

am

Hi Ari,

Co-creation - the phrase and the concept - comes from my reading of and listening to the teachings of Abraham.  Abraham is Source energy channelled by Esther Hicks and these teachings are the original source of all the Law of Attraction teachings.  Until I came across the Abraham material, I was pretty uninterested in and skeptical of Law of Attraction material but as I have become acquainted with the original teachings I am understanding that my skepticism was a reaction to articulations of it that, to me, left out the very core of the teaching, which is essentially the attunement of emotion and desire.  I'll explain it here as best I can as I think this might be the best articulation of a life-affirming orientation to creation that I have come across.  Please note that this is my interpretation of the teachings so may not be an accurate reflection of what they are actually teaching, but I will do my best.  So, this collective entity known as Abraham talks about Source energy as growing and expanding and that this is a joyful thing and that desire is the mechanism that allows this growth to occur.  At this moment in time, human beings are at what they call "the leading edge of creation" (though in the future it may not be humans but a more evolved being...).  The teaching, which I find to be quite profound, is that our emotions are our guides on this leading edge and that the whole work of manifestation is in tuning into one's emotions so that you can become more consciously aware of one's desires.  Whether one is experiencing negative or positive emotion, one is communicating through this mechanism what one is wanting and this thing that is being communicated is what will manifest.  So, if one is experiencing anger about this or that, this thing that one is feeling angry about will manifest.  If one is feeling happy about this or that, this thing that one is feeling happy about will manifest.  Law of Attraction is the law of vibration: whatever we are vibrating, we attract.  By getting in tune with our emotions, we can become more aware of what we are attracting.  And by learning to understand what our emotions are telling us, we can become more skillful re: what we attract.  I find it to be profound work because it's NOT about going all pollyanna.  That in fact doesn't work because in fact the actual vibration - the vibration beneath the surface, is not addressed and so there will be no change in what one is attracting.  It's about recognizing negative emotion for what it is - an indication of a desire - and then working to bring yourself, emotionally-speaking, up to speed with that desire.  So if I'm angry about, I don't know - the fact that I can never afford the education I want, then if I look into that what I see is that what I want is the education I'm wanting.  Then I see that my emotional attunement - anger at not having what I want - has in fact been attracting to me the very thing that I don't want - not being able to get the education because I'm focusing on the lack and law of attraction says that you will get what you focus your attention on.  So my work is to get myself, emotionally-speaking, into alignment with what I ACTUALLY want - which is the education I'm wanting.  That way law of attraction can line up for me what I'm actually wanting rather than what I'm not wanting.  I don't know if I've managed to communicate this in a way that articulates the depth and profundity - and also life-affirmingness - of these teachings, but I've done the best I can I think so I'll leave it at that.  One thing I do take issue with re: the teachings is their insistence that you don't need to go back to the past to change the present and in my own healing work I have found it to be absolutely essential and invaluable to go back to the past as it has been the only way for me to be able to understand the emotions I have had in the present.  But I suspect if I approached them with this question we might be able to find a place of agreement.  One thought I've had about this is that, initially, when one's emotional alignment is SO far off, it might be absolutely essential to look to the past as that might be the best way to begin sorting out one's emotions.  But as one heals, perhaps it becomes less and less necessary to focus on the past as one's emotional responses become more and more about the now as one heals......?

Well, hope this helps.........

Best wishes always,
Ellen
Logged
Upasika
Very Active Member
**
Posts: 347


« Reply #27 on: Mar 22, 2011, 05:47 AM »

Hi Ari,

Well I feel you have identified the point here exactly, the Pisces/Aries or 12th/1st pair of archetypes and it would be good to know what Maurice had to say about it. Anyway, as we know, the vast majority of souls on the planet are still working through their separating desires, only those few who have become fully self realised, merged back into the Source, are exempt. And the zodiac (Aries through to Pisces) describes this journey of separating away from the source and returning. The zodiac describes the Eastern "wheel of life and death", the endless merry-go-round of chasing separating desires until only the one desire, to return, remains.

Each sign encapsulates the human experience and understanding of an aspect of life, of this journey. However once a soul has become fully self realised it has liberated itself from this wheel. So the degree of separation felt by any soul is relative to it's stage of evolution, it's progress in eliminating separating desires. Some souls with a Pisces Sun can be filled with separating desires and have little conscious awareness of the Source, and some souls with an Aries Sun can have relatively few separating desires and a significant amount of conscious awareness of the Source.

When a child is born (Cancer) the separation from the womb occurs. If the environment in which this happens is a relatively harsh uncaring hospital environment then that separation will be experienced strongly. Contrasted to a water birth in a loving softly lit home environment, where the experience of separation from the womb can be minimised. The separation here is from the sense of oneness that the womb provided. It is primarily (though not totally) a direct physical/emotional experience. For a soul with planet(s) in Cancer this experience continues in some shape or form throughout life. But this is different to the sense of separation that Aries feels, which is more of a psychological/spiritual nature.

There is a connection between Aries and Pisces not shared by any other pair of signs, in that they demark the very beginning and ending of the zodiac cycle of signs itself. Pisces is the understanding and experience of the oneness.associated with being merged back into the Source, and Aries is the understanding and experience of the exact opposite of that, of being an individual consciousness separate from everything else it is conscious of. The distance in experience between the two is greater than that of any other pair of signs.

The Aries underlying sense of Pisces is very strong because of this, similar to the way signs opposite sense each other as being relatively unknown yet having what each other lacks. Aries senses Pisces as the "ultimate unknown" and having everything that it lacks. But they are also closer than any other pair as well in a sense, in that it is from the culminating Pisces backdrop that Aries arises in a whole new upward spiralling cycle of development. It senses Pisces as "where I have come from", a feeling that produces a deep urge to begin anew on the journey home. From Aries position, this journey home will entail yet another round of development through all the following signs.

This is where I feel Linda's post tying in Aries, and it's sense of separation, to the other signs comes into play. As Aries proceeds on it's journey it inevitably must encounter the different conscious understandings and psychology of the other signs, and inevitably will be affected/influenced accordingly, either in a supportive, stimulating or challenging way. Every other sign will highlight for Aries something that is incomplete in Aries, more so than any other sign will experience such contrasts.

The cardinal cross is generally a challenge to Aries to face it's separation square on, a kind of either/or situation eg work with society or not (Capricorn), open to nurturing or not (Cancer), connect with others or not (Libra). The trines encourage Aries to use it's natural openness to the new to easily grow from it's position to be more than what it is - being creative within it's freedom (Leo), moving from self interest into understanding nature (Sag). The sextiles provide a platform for Aries, an opportunity, to see itself as part of something more valuable than it could ever achieve by itself on it's own - learning about people and situations (Gemini) and being part of a group with all the richness that can provide (Aquarius). The quincunxes are possibly the hardest for Aries as they require patience (in very short supply in Aries) to deal with them, working diligently with that very sense of separation that Aries carries so anxiously in it's shadow. By slowing down and completing everything it starts, conscientiousness, paying attention to it's body not just the energy it has for it's desires, serving others instead of itself (Virgo), and as Linda noted, sacrificing it's freedom (one of the hardest things for an Aries) for the depth of intimacy that committment can bring ,examining it's desires and their worth (as you described) and ultimately allowing itself to be transformed by something or someone (Scorpio). The semisextile to Taurus kickstarts Aries into "all that isn't Aries", through the way Aries listens to and values itself, which it needs to do as part of the process of operating in the world as it pursues it's desires. But the opposition (Libra), being the polarity point, is the key natural growth point.

The instinctive awareness of self and it's separating desires that defines Aries is absolutely necessary as a basis on which all the other signs grow from - each following sign has this core self already absorbed into it, and is developing the consciousness of that self in ever more involved and sophisticated ways, eventually leading to the relative totality of experience that is Pisces ... then back again to Aries for a new cycle on an elevated level, on and on with the wheel of life and death, perpetuated by separating desires, until they finally are no more.

I also relate to Ellen's issue regarding separating desires are not being "inferior" to returning desires as such, and what you have said about that. Somehow I agree with you both. The way I see it is that arriving home, remerging back into the Source, would have no value, wouldn't be so liberating or blissful, if it wasn't for the immensely long and arduous journey the soul has had to undertake in exhausting all it's separating desires. It's this journey that creates the context and meaning of being human in the first place. I don't feel any separating desire is intrinsically good or bad in itself. Everything we do we do because that's what we need to do, regardless of whether it's moral or immoral, negative or positive, constructive or destructive. Intrinsically in everyone there are positive and negative impulses, but it's a question of growth in consciousness that is the significant factor. When a soul twigs onto the fact that every action gives rise to a reaction then the lightbulb is starting to light up. So it will progressively choose positive actions as these tend to give rise to positive reactions, and that feels better. However as JWG says, it can be a bit hard to track this over lifetimes and so positive actions don't always seem to result in positive reactions. Additionally conscious positive people attract negativity out of less conscious (and also possibly more negative) people, simply because the very presence of a conscious person threatens the security of a less conscious person. As Steve has said, on the micro level at least, this stuff isn't necesarily linear. But the point remains which is each soul has a relationship with life, and through extension of that to the Source, it's just a matter of how conscious they are of it. So if there is a goal to me it would have to be to become more conscious, because otherwise chasing the same separating desires endlessly means no end to suffering.  

From jumping in with a spontaneous post I've gone into this way more than I intended as it's such a good discussion. But I'm snowed under at the moment with other committments so unfortunately not sure whether I can keep up with you all, much as I would like to. But thanks Ari (and Ellen/Linda) for this thread (and Linda for creating them and all the other amazing things you've been doing on here lately), I'll be at least reading along and absorbing the replies and other posts as best I can.

blessings Upasika

PS.    Noticed I have posted this before seeing your last post Ellen, so not sure if some of what I've just said might be irrelevant now given that or not ...
« Last Edit: Mar 22, 2011, 06:21 AM by Upasika » Logged
Tory
Member

Posts: 48


« Reply #28 on: Mar 22, 2011, 06:06 AM »

Upasika both your posts on the Aries archetypes are really profound, thankyou.
Logged
Elen
Most Active Member
***
Posts: 879


« Reply #29 on: Mar 22, 2011, 06:30 AM »

Hi Upasika,

Not irrelevant at all!  Thought-provoking.  Will need to keep re-reading them.  I feel they communicate a great depth of understanding but at the same time I find myself bracing some in the same manner I have with Ari's posts (which I articulated in a prior post).  But I'm not clear if I'm bracing against what is actually there or my own projection (ie, what ISN'T there).  I find that bracing interesting and it is what, ultimately, I have been exploring with my posts.....  I appreciate your insights and I appreciate the opportunity to explore this with you and the others.  One thought I had in thinking about what you said about Pisces being a welcome experience for Aries after its long, arduous journey, was that Pisces is like the hot bath after a long day.  That doesn't mean the day was "in error" and it doesn't mean a new day won't come (beginning at a new level as you described).  While this helps to explain it in a way that "feels" right to me, I'm aware that in framing it this way it may be that I am distorting what you are actually saying.  But actually, for the 1st time I feel myself starting to understand the possibility that indeed a day may come where it would make sense for the cycle to come to rest........ Yet it is important for me to be careful not to use that as a way of minimizing the validity of the cycle itself, of that culmination of rest as somehow suggesting that the cycle itself was in error...... That's the crux of it for me - how to reconcile both.........

Well, all for now.  Hope I've made some sense......

Best wishes always,
Ellen
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Video