checking my understanding of the Evolutionary States/Conditions

[Elen]

Hi Ellen,

I think you are very insightful in reguards to you figuring out in your own way and time... My only addition is, to me it does not matter if the story is true or not, dreams sometimes are more real than life, as you probably know....  And still in reguards to Oprah, it is a deep feeling I get from her that tells me where I think she is living in herself... It does seems to me that even when people live a wanton life you get a feeling from them when you know they have lived a vast life you can see it in their eyes and in they aura.... The Guru question is complicated.... We also live in a Western context where that does not happen as often as it does in other cultures... Ive never had a guru (in this life) who has pulled me out of the world and ointened me, in a way I did it myself, my inner guru..  I understand your struggle, ..

Oprah does something for you so follow it where you need to go, might take you somewhere interesting....

I kinda keep adding to this, as it unfolds, In past lives I have had gurus that I have worked with and my internal guru is from life times of studies...  

I still see some of your question as who decides who is evolved?   And i still think it is all really paradoxical

keep on keepin on...

blessings,

pam

Hi Pam,

Thanks so much for your thoughtful responses.  I truly appreciate the honesty, depth and passion you have brought to this discussion.

Peace,
Ellen

[Elen]

Hi, I wanted to add my input on this very important topic, and also wanted to say this is a great dialogue to have on the board. In terms of determining  the evolutionary state of the Soul mu advice is to ask questions about the person's life (i.e-what is most important to them, and why the reading, etc), and based on the person's answers you can apply the principles of the evolutionary states given in the Ea material. For example, in the individuated state, the person is going to necessarily want to actualize his or her authority within society in a way that is free from the mainstream social conditioning patterns, and reflects the Soul's true individuality. As Steve said, in the 1st stage individuated, there is a lot of fear of breaking out of the box, so to speak, or allowing others to see them as different than those in the majority (the living lie that is described in the Pluto material for this stage of evolution, and the compensation that manifests because of that fear). Yet, the person, at the same time, typically truly desires to be validated and seen for who they really are free from the social conditioning and social mask they wear. The theme in the individuated states, in general, is to break free and liberate from social conditioning patterns, and to actualize their sense of authority in society based on their in herant unique talents and gifts. This need grows increasing more intense as the Soul evolves through this stage. In the spiritual state, the Soul then desires to know itself in a cosmic or holistic context and to merge with the Universal  Source. In other words, the Soul desires to know itself as a reflection of the Creator, no longer in a societal context because the individuated process has been completed at this point in the journey. This requires that the Soul dissolves the prior egocentric identification patterns that are linked with its previous social identity in general terms (as a great scientist or psychologist or musician, etc), as the spiritualization of consciousness occurs in this state (no longer the musician but the channel through which the music flows so to speak). The point within this is that by asking questions, and understanding the current challenges the person is facing,  you can determine the evolutionary state of the individual based on what is given to us in the EA material. Hope this is helpful.
God Bless
Deva     

Hi Deva,

Thanks so much for your input.  It is easy to forget that the answers lie in the connection you establish with the other, and the awarenesses that then arise within you based on that connection. 

Peace,
Ellen

[Elen]

Hi Stacie,

Thanks so much for "righting" my understanding of the consensus state re: separating desires.  What you have written makes beautiful sense.  Also, thank you so much for answering my question re: the de-evolved state.  It is a little scary to think about, but good to know.   

Peace,
Ellen

[Elen]

Hi All,

This quote by Sri Yukteswar per Yogananda in Autobiography of a Yogi struck me as relevant to this topic, so I thought I'd share it and see what others think.  It may not make quite as much sense out of context, but here goes:

"The interpenetration of man's three bodies is expressed in many ways through his threefold nature," my greate guru went on.  "In the wakeful state on earth a human being is conscious more or less of his three vehicles.  When he is sensuously intent on tasting, smelling, touching, listening, or seeing, he is working principally through his physical body.  Visualizing or willing, he is working mainly through his astral body.  His causal being finds expression when man is thinking or diving deep in introspection or meditation; the cosmical thoughts of genius come to the man who habitually contacts his causal body.  In this sense an individual may be classified broadly as 'a material man,' 'an energetic man,' or 'an intellectual man.'"  (This quote can be found on page 415 of Autobiography of a Yogi, 1994 edition.)

The idea here, if I have understood correctly, is that human beings start out as primarily sense-oriented physical beings, then work their way thru the karma generated at the physical level to the astral realm, then work their way thru the karma generated at the astral level to the causal.  So my thinking is:

"material man" = consensus
"astral man" = individuated
"intellectual man" = spiritual

Any thoughts/feedback?

Thanks,
Ellen

[Lucius]

thanks for posting this Ellen - I'll be interested myself to see what feedback/answers you get.

All souls are subject to the particular sense organs of being human - if they've incarnated as human.  I don't see myself how that is particularly relevant to the evolutionary state in and of itself.

It would seem the soul gets itself engrossed in ego experiences - desires it can fulfill in human form. 

Souls incarnate in human form to have that experience of the divine of 'god'.  And souls in 'perfect' god realization still need this form for it's expression due to it's requirements.

"Intellectual" as a definition, to me, seems to be the opposite of realization, intuition and actual experience.  Many of the 'brand name gurus' have 'intellecutal' qualification - but not much experience.

But, with mercury balsamic conjunct to Pluto I get a bit strange with words - 

[adina]

Hi Ellen,

I'm happy to see you keeping this thread going. To me, this component of EA is one of the most important, and possibly one of the least understood (initially) of all the components.

First, since there are many different printings of Autobiography of a Yogi, for those who would like to read this quote in context, it's contained in Ch. 43, The Resurrection of Sri Yukteswar, and is just a few pages from the end of the chapter.

I see where and why you made the connections you did and would generally agree, or as the operative words in the quote indicate, man can be "classified broadly" by these traits of which is "more or less" conscious, and thus "broadly" fit the three stages you indicated. Of course, as you know, as long as we're in a human form, each of us is a MIX of these traits, with the mix determined by or indicative OF the evolutionary state.

I think we can fine tune it further by using the three gunas or attributes of Nature: tamas, rajas, and sattva, or obstruction, activity and expansion. The three gunas, which are at the crux of the caste system in India as it was ORIGINALLY designed and intended, express themselves in humans as ignorance or inertia, activity or struggle, and wisdom. Wisdom is what Yukteswar was referring to with the term intellect. And it's the gunas expressed within the ORIGINAL caste system that the evolutionary stages are based on. Going back, then to the quote and your correlations, you can see where/how the gunas would express themselves in "material man, astral man, and intellectual man." Also, each and every one of us is a mix of these three; it's the preponderance of each that is associated with the stages; for example, a consensus person would have a preponderance of tamas, but also have some rajas and sattva, while a person in the spiritual state would have an ever increasing prepondrance of sattva, but would also have some rajas and tamas. In a person in the individuated state, the preponderance would vary according to where in that state the person is. So it's always a mix of all three.

Lucius, you bring up some good points as well, and I too have difficulty with the term "intellectual" in relation to the spiritual state, but somewhere recently (can't remember where) I read that what as actually meant by the term intellectual was closer to "wisdom," (as I said above), which then makes sense, as wisdom is the result of an expanded and expanding intuitive capacity (right brain), not what we consider an expanded intellect (left brain).

So, this are just my thoughts on it, based on my own learnings and from what JWG taught years ago now. I'm sure others will jump in (or at least I Hope they will) and offer more thoughts / understandings of the stages.

Ellen, somewhere along the way - in our discussion of Oprah - you also asked about the possibility of covering other celebrities, and while no one has said "yes" or "no, " I thought I'd bring one up here and now - one I've been thinking about lately myself because he has what would SEEM to be conflicting aspects to his evolutionary stage, and that is Michael Moore. With the kind of work he does in an effort to expose those who NEED to be exposed for how they treat people, do business, etc., and the fact that while he wants to see change in this country and the world, he is not attached to outcome of his own particular work, just the righting of wrongs, so to speak. He's his own person and sure doesn't fall into lockstep behind ANYbody. And he is definitely INclusive not EXclusive, and looks at all humans as equals.

Then during the presidential election when he was on the interview circuit, someone asked him WHY he does what he does, and his answer was that he's a practicing Roman Catholic, and Jesus said to feed the poor, clothe the naked, etc., and that "as much as you do it for the least of these, you do it to me,"  Michael Moore said simply, "I thought he MEANT it, so that's why I make these documentaries."

Well, both the revelation that he's a Catholic AND then his reasoning absolutely blew me away. Here's a man that many proclaimed Christians absolutely revile, but who's DOING way more "Christian" things than they are.  But the point here is that this man is definitely 3rd stage individuated, and yet he's still part of a man-made religion. There can be many reasons for this, but it is the kind of thing that confuses many EA students - especially at first -  because from what I've observed over the years is that any of us can pick up on one particular aspect of a person and let that one aspect determine the evolutionary stage. Now, if we had known that MM was a Catholic beFORE we knew what he did for a living, or saw him in action, I wonder how many of us would have thought he was consensus. There are many other examples available for souls who are far past consensus and yet for any number of reasons are involved in a man-made religion for all or part of a lifetime.

Until we get the hang of listening for ALL the clues, we sometimes need more than an hour with a client to determine the stage, especially when we're new to EA, and especially in light of all the New Age terminology that has become mainstream. So"¦ I hope all this makes some sense, and again, these are my thoughts, and, whew, didn't mean to get so long winded. I hope we can get more good dialogue going from your original post on this topic, Ellen!  

[Elen]

Hi Lucius,

Thanks a million for your response.  It is forcing me to think through my own reasoning re: my post.  Below are some of my comments - my efforts to better understand what I was thinking when I posted.  I would be interested in your further responses.

All souls are subject to the particular sense organs of being human - if they've incarnated as human.  I don't see myself how that is particularly relevant to the evolutionary state in and of itself.

This is something I hadn't really thought about re: the evolutionary stages.  Of course, you're right.  In human form, senses are a given.  My thinking about this is that in the consensus state, the focus would be PRIMARILY on the senses, without a lot of awareness beyond them.  As the Soul evolves, the senses would still be relevant, ie, part of the experience, but their would be an increasingly expanded understanding of life beyond the senses, or rather, an increasing experiencing of INNER reality - a withdrawing from the senses to the more alive inner state.  Does this make sense?

It would seem the soul gets itself engrossed in ego experiences - desires it can fulfill in human form. 

My thinking here is similar to above.  The more one evolves, the more one's relationship to ego evolves.  JWG makes the point that even Jesus had an ego.  As I've been understanding it, the question with regard to evolutionary states is, how does one relate to one's ego.  In prior posts, people (I can't remember who - maybe Adina and Pam) made the (excellent) point that Oprah, in an interview, stated that she knew she was destined for greatness, or something like that.  The point being that Oprah was identifying with her ego.  It IS hard to imagine Jesus or Yogananda or etc. making such a statement or identifying themselves in that way.  In consensus, I'm thinking, ego=it's about me.  In spiritual, ego=it's about God.  The person in spiritual would, I think, be more AWARE of the ego traps.  The consensus person wouldn't.  At any rate, this is how I'm thinking about it at this time. 

Souls incarnate in human form to have that experience of the divine of 'god'.  And souls in 'perfect' god realization still need this form for it's expression due to it's requirements.

But isn't this a PROCESS - one that evolves THROUGH the evolutionary stages?  Would a person in consensus be AWARE that that was the purpose of life?


"Intellectual" as a definition, to me, seems to be the opposite of realization, intuition and actual experience.  Many of the 'brand name gurus' have 'intellecutal' qualification - but not much experience.

I also didn't like the word, "intellectual".  It seemed not to suit what was meant by the quote.  I think it was meant as a way of communicating something along the lines of (ie, in EA parlance) "free from separating desires..."

But, with mercury balsamic conjunct to Pluto I get a bit strange with words - 

Much peace,
Ellen

[Elen]

Hi Adina,

Thanks so much for your post.  You have clarified and explained further/better much of what I was getting at.  Thank you so much for that.  I'll respond in more detail in the next couple days.  Very interesting re: Michael Moore.

Peace,
Ellen

[Elen]

Here's a link to Michael Moore's bio and chart (astro databank)

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Moore,_Michael_(1954)

Thanks for pursuing the thread, Adina.  It is helping me a ton to have these conversations.  I am really beginning to understand the people in my own life so much better - and with so much more forgiveness now that I am understanding these evolutionary distinctions.

After Moore, I definitely have some more I'd like to throw out there.  For me, I think, the more discussion the better re: improving my understanding and familiarity on this matter.

Peace,
Ellen

[Elen]

One more follow up re: Oprah.  Here's a quote from The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam Explained (Swami Kriyananda, tr. 2008 ed.) that I thought nailed it on the head re: Oprah and once more helped me to really understand where people are coming from re: 3rd stage consensus designation for Oprah.

The Quatrain (#9) is this:

But come with old Khayyam, and leave the Lot
Of Kaikobad and Kaikhosru forgot:
Let Rustim lay about him as he will,
Or Hatim Tai cry Supper - heed them not.

Here's the quote - it explains what is meant by invoking the name, Hatim Tai: "Hatim Tai - The rich, whose very deeds of benevolence feed people's desire for worldly possessions and enjoyments.  Hatim Tai, an ancient king, was noted for his generous acts, which included feeding the poor.  Omar Khayyam was not belittling such acts of kindness.  Rather, he was reminding us, simply, that outer fulfillment is not a permanently satisfying goal."

This really nails it for me in understanding my own attraction/repulsion to Oprah.  And helps me really understand 3rd stage consensus for her.

Thanks everyone - I've learned a ton through this dialogue on Oprah,

Ellen

[Elen]

Hi Ellen,


I think we can fine tune it further by using the three gunas or attributes of Nature: tamas, rajas, and sattva, or obstruction, activity and expansion. The three gunas, which are at the crux of the caste system in India as it was ORIGINALLY designed and intended, express themselves in humans as ignorance or inertia, activity or struggle, and wisdom. Wisdom is what Yukteswar was referring to with the term intellect. And it's the gunas expressed within the ORIGINAL caste system that the evolutionary stages are based on. Going back, then to the quote and your correlations, you can see where/how the gunas would express themselves in "material man, astral man, and intellectual man." Also, each and every one of us is a mix of these three; it's the preponderance of each that is associated with the stages; for example, a consensus person would have a preponderance of tamas, but also have some rajas and sattva, while a person in the spiritual state would have an ever increasing prepondrance of sattva, but would also have some rajas and tamas. In a person in the individuated state, the preponderance would vary according to where in that state the person is. So it's always a mix of all three.

Thanks so much for this Adina.  Thinking about it in terms of the 3 gunas really helps.  Also, the word "preponderance" really helps.  As Lucius was saying, and now you, we are all a mix of all.  That fact in itself probably explains why it can be so hard to really pinpoint where a person is.  It sure helps me to understand my own ongoing confusions about myself!

Peace,
Ellen

[adina]

Ellen, thanks for your kind words and for your additional information. I agree that Kriyananda's explanation of that quatrain in the Rubyiat helps explain Oprah (and others). 

I know what you mean about understanding oneself better in relation to the mix of the gunas. Another thing that was discussed by JWG somewhere along the way that has helped me was the fact that when one has skipped steps to recover, they can APPEAR to be, or SEEM to be, in an earlier evolutionary stage than they actually are unTIL they recover those skipped steps. And boy, do I know THIS one from personal experience!  LOL  That "appearance" would depend on the nature and number of skipped steps, along with any other "extenuating' circumstances.

Yes, let's keep this thread going. It's a crucial art of EA!  Thanks again for your input, Ellen!

[Elen]

Another thing that was discussed by JWG somewhere along the way that has helped me was the fact that when one has skipped steps to recover, they can APPEAR to be, or SEEM to be, in an earlier evolutionary stage than they actually are unTIL they recover those skipped steps. And boy, do I know THIS one from personal experience!  LOL  That "appearance" would depend on the nature and number of skipped steps, along with any other "extenuating' circumstances.

Hey Adina,

Thanks for this.  I, too, have skipped steps and am looking forward to my 2nd Saturn return and hopefully some more clarity!  In the meantime, so much WORK to do!!!

Peace,
Ellen

[Elen]

I was curious if Michael Moore had skipped steps given his early desire to enter the priesthood and Adina having identified him as 3rd stage individuated.  Sure enough, he does x2.  Mercury (in Aries) squares the nodes, applying to the NN (in Capricorn) - speaking his mind to the establishment?.  Neptune (in Libra) also squares the nodes, applying to the SN (in Cancer, conjunct Uranus) - needing to break free of his early conditioning and from his tendencies to try to please others?.  Here's the link to the chart.

http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?wgid=wgeJxdjs0KwjAQhJ9GUBghfwU17KEXxUNPIp5TG2ywSUubEvr2JleZ0-x8uzvJfR0J_fFkuA4dNeM4WzTu3Rs77ATb83OlDvAQEgrFgIuLqtBXCZ91AcN1cCFmtLnj-ahxkklxKBkYw5rjLG26Nhhv6f9u2SoPC9CZaEnIPKqn2RWmILqN25QL-tiTiUn3y0ZHrueF-Ov2AxZINvw

Mercury is in Aries in the 9th and rules his 11th house Jupiter - so the drive to break free of religious conditioning?

I've only seen a couple of his documentaries.  I'm hoping to rent some of his others this weekend and then look at his chart in more detail.  Full disclosure:  I'm not a huge MM fan.  I agree with his perspective, but I'm not always a big fan of his means.  But I have to respect his effort AND his success.  I'm looking forward to a thorough discussion of the 3rd stage individuated with MM as the focus and am grateful to Adina for having brought him forward for this discussion.

I am curious about his having dropped out of college.  Seems as though he needed his energy more for the breaking free.  What's especially curious to me, though, is he's 3rd stage individuated.  Isn't this the stage where one starts to realize that there are socially sanctioned ways of going about things, and so you go ahead and do them even though you know it's just a formality....?  Would skipped steps explain his rejection of traditional means?

Ellen

[Steve]

I am curious about his having dropped out of college.  Seems as though he needed his energy more for the breaking free.  What's especially curious to me, though, is he's 3rd stage individuated.  Isn't this the stage where one starts to realize that there are socially sanctioned ways of going about things, and so you go ahead and do them even though you know it's just a formality....?  Would skipped steps explain his rejection of traditional means?

Hi Ellen

The more individuated one becomes the more one rejects socially sanctioned ways of everything.  This continues growing throughout the spiritual stages.  The reason is that nearly all socially sanctioned ways of doing things are based on the values of consensus, which represents 70% of everything.

I believe you have slightly misinterpreted the words about "you go ahead and do them even though you know it's just a formality".  WHY would an individuating person do that?  Because you are supposed to?  That is exactly what such a person is rejecting, having their reality defined by anything or anyone external.

The only time such a person would "go ahead and do them even though you know it's just a formality" is when that formality is required for something relevant to their intended life purpose and direction.  An example has been given of becoming a licensed psychologist so they could later do it in their own way, yet have the credentials to be considered reputable by society.  That example applies to 3rd stage indiv only when that credential is relevant to their intended path.  For example, what if the person was intended to be an astrologer or shaman, and already had all sorts of inner knowledge.  Does anyone really care if their astrologer or shaman has a college degree?  Sometimes that so-called education is exactly what such a person must toss off before they become really effective with what they are intended to do.

What exactly would a degree have added to what Michael Moore has already done?  To me, the basis of his message has always been heart felt, always standing up for the little people, the forgotten ones.  He grew up modestly and obviously early on made a commitment to not forget who and where he came from.  (From an EA perspective, we can speculate on what type of lives preceded the present one, that would have him be born with that inclination).

Given the nature of the messages he continually delivers, no amount of societally approved accreditation would cause his messages to be accepted by the mainstream, not even if he had a PhD issued by Steven Spielberg.  He clearly did not need to go to film school because he is obviously an accomplished film maker with none of that academic training.

I am making this point somewhat strongly because if you follow it back to its root you will grasp a clearer perspective on the psychology of the individuated stage, especially third stage.  They really don't care what anyone else is doing, or what one is "supposed to do".  That is the whole point of 3rd stage indiv.  They will only do what is necessary for them to most effectively carry forth the mission or purpose.  If that includes getting a degree, they will do so.  Jeffrey said if it requires them to wear a tie and jacket they will do so, but they will see it as a costume, not as some definition of who they are or what they accept about societal "supposed to's".
Steve