Pure Energy Work

[Deoridhe]

Darin Rosewood

Deoridhe

missmagpie

What I tend to use instead if there's lots of nastiness to get rid of is a grounding shield. Whatever's nasty that touches it gets grounded. End of story

Grounded into what? I'm not a big fan of assuming the earth, for example, is our energetic trash can.

It's not. Conventionally, any energy going into the ground is neutralized, which is why people ground to gain energy, since they don't have to worry about sucking up a ton of negative energy.

Ur, what are you basing this on? The only time I've heard of people grounding is to "balance" themselves, usuallyt o get rid of unwanted energy leading to lightheadedness or giddyness. Energy draw is something else. And I've yet to notice all energy going into the ground being "neutralized". Into salt, maybe; into water sometimes, but having run across unpleasant and most definitely not neutral patches of ground, I'm dubious about your understanding of it.  

[CuAnnan]

Deoridhe

Ur, what are you basing this on? The only time I've heard of people grounding is to "balance" themselves, usuallyt o get rid of unwanted energy leading to lightheadedness or giddyness. Energy draw is something else. And I've yet to notice all energy going into the ground being "neutralized". Into salt, maybe; into water sometimes, but having run across unpleasant and most definitely not neutral patches of ground, I'm dubious about your understanding of it.

Grounding... this is a concept I've never had trouble with. Too much Chi? Drop it into the ground.
Negative energy?
I don't like that term.
Are we talking malign here?
Because if we're talking about just dumping malign energy into the earth as-is, we're talking about a gross disrespect for the energetic systems at play here.  

[TeaDidikai]

Kalyani Srijoi

So I have to ask - is there any difference between what people consider 'magic' and stuff they call energy work? It seems that people usually don't refer to this sort of thing as magic. I'm fairly sure it isn't witchcraft, but I'm not sure how the community officially defines magic these days. xd

I actually don't tend to class "Energy Work" as "Magic" without aim.

I "do" "Energy Work" every moment of my life. If nothing else, my brain is sending off spikes of energy that do all sorts of things. ~que people with non-integrated theologies looking at Tea funny~

Moving on- if we want to be picky- Magic is a means to an end, an action taken on part of a corporeal being to cause an effect within their world.

Energy work- which can be an end unto itself, is no more Magic than a tool on an alter.

Also note- I do not consider Reiki to be Magic any more than I consider aspirin to be Magic.  

[TeaDidikai]

Deoridhe

missmagpie

What I tend to use instead if there's lots of nastiness to get rid of is a grounding shield. Whatever's nasty that touches it gets grounded. End of story

Grounded into what? I'm not a big fan of assuming the earth, for example, is our energetic trash can.

Really? Myself- I think it is very apt.

I would find it most distressing if sewage floated around in the air, and the smell of it burning is foul- and I am sure as hell not going to drink it.

In line with what Darin was saying- are you familiar with how radio broadcasts can be "tuned" transmit what a larger station carries?

Larger stations will bleed into the signal transmited by the smaller one. Left unchecked, the larger station will co-opt the broadcast completely.

Patterns within "energy" can rot. I would just as soon they "rot" where they won't bother me.  

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

missmagpie

Elf Lord Chiewn

My UPG tells me that throwing shields up at full intensity and leaving them there for a year is an awesome idea.

My practise and experience with shielding tells me there's plethora of reasons not to use shields all the time.

1. Constant shielding can also keep out positive influences

Argument from potential.
Also, so what?

Quote:

2. Shielding can effect people in your vicinity, not in the least sensitive friends

Good.
Why would anyone want ineffective shields?
If I were looking for feedback, that would be my method of choice:

1. Learn new energy technique.
   
2. Affect others.
   
3. Pay attention when they ask you to lower the shields so that they can hug you.
   
4. ?????
   
5. Profit.

Quote:

3. When going for tarot readings they often need to access your personal energy, which you may keep shielded

(Where did that come from?)
I also don't see why you cannot toss out a bit of personal energy if you like.
I also don't see how such exposure is not a vulnerability.
I also don't see why a reader wouldn't be able to work with what you can give them.
I also don't see why readings are such a critical, essential part of life as to supersede safety considerations.

Quote:

4. It puts up a blind that may end up blinding yourself

What?

Quote:

5. When working with other people you may need to give them access to things you may normally keep shielded.

If and when working with others, you can choose whether or not to allow someone else access to whatever "things" you are referring to.
You can also choose to have selective shielding, you know.

Quote:

It's akin to putting yourself in an armored box and keeping yourself there for over a year. If you want to try it, be my guest.

That's kind of the idea.
I did it for many years.
And now I find that I have better control and access to energy and that I rarely have any cause to shield myself.
I'd call that a success.

Quote:

Quote:

It's also less than conclusive and likely to try everyone's patience.

Would you like to explain how asking for someone else's opinion on something could be less conclusive than basing it entirely on your own mental masturbation?

I said less than conclusive, not less conclusive.
I say likely to try everyone's patience after dealing with people who ask every ******** minute if someone can corroborate what they are doing.
Useful for feedback? Perhaps, taken with salt and infrequently.
However, I find that such practices become crutches easily.
Unless a fundamental purpose of everything you do is to make the things you do appear a certain way to others, I don't see the point in asking on any kind of liberal basis.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

4) Looking at people

I'm not sure I've experienced this. Is it akin to reading someone else's energy signature?

I'm pretty sure she means physically looking at someone and allowing the image to distort according to other sensory feedback.

Honestly, I would prefer to hear her speak for herself.

And I pretended to speak for her when?
I made an educated guess, which was shown to be incorrect, and did not state it as objective fact.
I did not say, "Hey Deo, shut up and I'll talk for you."

Quote:

Quote:

How does adding structure to the documentation of a vaguely-defined activity make it akin to science?

I never once said it was. It was applying a workable structure to it, as opposed to letting the imagination take free reign.

I'm similarly bad when it comes to seeing with my eyes.
They have their moments, though.

Quote:

Quote:

More importantly, why bother limiting the activities in the first place?

If you had understood the process, you would know it isn't a method of limitation. It is a way to understand and keep track of results of workings and thus ways of improvement. There are no limitations involved.

Quote:

How does another's perception truly alter my own UPG?

And how does written lore for a path alter someone's own UPG?

Me: My UPG tells me I belong to Lugh!
Reagun: *SMACK*
Me: Oh no my UPG was just mental masturbation!

wink

Depends.
If my UPG says that Emperor Zod and Ganesha are the same and that the Wiccan god is really derived from the two of them, it's time for Reagun to smack me.
If my UPG says that Yeshua didn't exist, it isn't, so long as I don't run around claiming it to be objectively true.
If my UPG says something that the written lore does not, it's time for me to consider reconciling the two, choose a different path, choose different written lore (not always applicable), or suspend disbelief until I can make heads or tails of the situation.

Quote:

To approach it from another angle, if I set out to make people dance and the majority of them started yodeling, and certain sensitives that I know and value their judgment said that it was a thoughform to make people yodel, perhaps I would take into account the objective evidence, even if my UPG said I was making people dance.

I don't know that I'd call that objective evidence.
Objectively, you set out to make people dance. People began yodeling shortly thereafter. The two may or may not be linked.
If those whose opinions you care about say it's a thoughtform, then take it into account. I just don't see why their opinions should necessarily have bearing on your own. Obviously, in this case, their pronouncements matter to you and should be valued as such.
I consider any personal work to be generally important to myself, and as such, I value my opinion highly. I will solicit the opinions of others if and when I deem it necessary.

Quote:

Quote:

And compelling others to dance is not solely achievable by your means.

Care to point out where I said it was?

You claimed that the example you provided would not work without the components you omitted.

Quote:

Quote:

And honestly, who cares?

Um. May I possibly remind you that Deo asked for help?

She asked for outside perspectives and techniques.
And I was referring to the disclaimer, not the original post.
I generally would not follow an example of how a man and a train might hypothetically occupy the same space at the same time with a "don't try this at home kids, I left out the concepts I haven't published yet."
If this is actually intended for Deo's eyes, then such proclamations would seem to be superfluous.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

4) Looking at people

I'm not sure I've experienced this. Is it akin to reading someone else's energy signature?

I'm pretty sure she means physically looking at someone and allowing the image to distort according to other sensory feedback.

I wish. The closest I've come to that is the seeing auras thing Tea taught me. This was images that would show up in my head; my eyes don't see much.

I'm similarly bad when it comes to seeing with my eyes.
They have their moments, though.

Quote:

Quote:

It's akin to putting yourself in an armored box and keeping yourself there for over a year. If you want to try it, be my guest.

Been there, done that. Approximately six years. They fractured once, when I moved to a different state fo college, and being in a cafeteria was so overwhelming I could barely eat. It could have been psychological, though; on a single subject basis the shield fits as the "solution" to overwhelming grief/anger/pain that didn't seem to be my own.

Ouch. I was relying on the premise that personal shields would not falter in my own work/recommendations.

EDIT: Sorry, Deo. Thought I'd cleaned those up.  

[Deoridhe]

TeaDidikai

Patterns within "energy" can rot. I would just as soon they "rot" where they won't bother me.

Oh, no doubt, but the question is whether they will or won't bother you. I've been in places where the ground didn't want me there and I strongly suspect that if I'd been in the habit of grounding everything negative/hostile/malicious I wouldn't have even gotten the nominal acceptence I received after four years of cleaning up the Temple Area (a small rocky/grassy place by the river where I would pick up trash and move metal things out).

Note: I didn't say any of the previous thread's attributions to me.  

[jaden kendam]

On the subject of blocking/shielding, could I point out that many "expert" mediums have no clue as to what blocking is? They say you have to be open all the time.

Here is why I think this is ignorant.

1. If you are fully open to spirit all the time, you would not get a moments peace. I am not saying that to be open part way most of the time is a bad thing, but some spirits just do not shut up and being fully open is like a box of chocolates. I myself am never fully here, nor ever fully there.

2. There are a lot of people that I do not want to give messages to or about me. Unfortunately, many people see no spirit activity around me, if they see spirit in the first place, and still try to give messages to me or about me. I can not tell you the number of times that someone has tried to say that I am a dark energy manipulator or that I have a habit of cheating on my s/o's.

3. There is a difference between blocking and being blocked. Being blocked is what people do to children, not all people mind you. Being blocked means you do not know how to connect with the energy. Blocking is averting certain people/energys away from you.

4. Who in thier right mind would want a message from Sylvia Brown? Other than to see if she is accurate, which judging by her t.v. appearances, she is not.


As far as grounding goes, I do not really put the energy into any physical thing like the earth or what not. The way I ground myself is the same way I block myself, I shut a spiritual door mentally. As some of you know, I get a lot in a short period of time, and if I do not shut that door, then some of you may have had messages that lasted til my batteries in my phone died, even while on the charger.  

[Pelta]

Elf Lord Chiewn, for the sake of clarity I will not refute your points one by one in a wall of text.

Fistly, your assertations against the examples I posted of what could go wrong with shielding yourself constantly are flawed. You said that it would be a great idea; I posited examples of what could possibly go wrong. In this case, argument from potential is perfectly valid because all of these dangers do have the potential to happen. May I remind you that this is not M&R.

Also unadressed was the point that relying on something constant is dangerous. As Deo pointed out by her experience, when a constant shield cracks it can have devastating effects.

A country does not rely on a single crop to produce income; if that crop fails it's disastrous. The dangers are similar in relying on a single technique to be constant.

Secondly, as for dealing with my example of 'objective' evidence, Deo specifically asked for ways in which to get outside feedback on this topic. I gave two. Now, I was not advocating continuous badgering of people for psychic reassurance. I said that outside feedback can help. Your assertation of relying entirely on UPG for this reassurance is unhelpful if one of Deo's chief worries is that it is entirely in her mind. So in a way, she was asking for non-UPG ways of testing this method.

I would guess it is similar to most testing of UPG. Being rational, thinking beings, we want to look at outside sources to test our UPG. In religion this entails looking at faith texts and correlating them with UPG. With this technique there are no faith texts. There are few ways of testing whether it's "all in your head." One of them is to ask for outside opinions on your workings, keeping in mind that humans can be flawed and make mistakes, but are also capable of rational, helpful insight. Another is to examine objective evidence exterior to the working that is, again, not in your head.

Both of these methods are falsifiable and must be used with discretion. However, they are capable of giving one's UPG a more stable grounding in reality if used correctly. That is all that I wished to demostrate with these examples.

I hope that cleared things up a bit.  

[Deoridhe]

deadmanjake

The way I ground myself is the same way I block myself, I shut a spiritual door mentally.

It sounds less like you're viewing a body as semi-permiable (which would be my image) and more as if there is a single switch somewhere in your mind/body. Is this accurate? Is it located anywhere in particular, and do you think non-mediums simply have the door "closed"?  

[jaden kendam]

Deoridhe

deadmanjake

The way I ground myself is the same way I block myself, I shut a spiritual door mentally.

It sounds less like you're viewing a body as semi-permiable (which would be my image) and more as if there is a single switch somewhere in your mind/body. Is this accurate? Is it located anywhere in particular, and do you think non-mediums simply have the door "closed"?

Actually, non-mediums just do not know how to listen. As kids, you do, and it comes natural, but then something or someone forces you to think it is weird to talk to thin air as they say.

As for the switch, yes, there can be one, mentally anyways. Some people just turn it on/off automatically. You would not believe how hard it is to teach people how to block though. They love being connected, as you would your belief path, but they want to stay continually connected without paying attention to what is going on in the real world.

Does that make sense?  

[Fiddlers Green]

Energy work...
"Pure Energy"
The idea of conceptual energy is interesting to me, but I am more want to call it unspecified energy, than pure. There is plenty of room to grow in the energy types we are already aware of. As far as releashing it into the ground, whether "positive" or "negative" I am generally opposed to that on anythign other than the smallest level.
I'm not confident enough in my geomancy to play arround with the matter, and it is easy enough to damage an ecosystem thru ignorance without energy manipulation.

But then again, I'm a paranoid little prat.

As far as shielding...
I can see it's benefit in the same way I see the benefit to sensory deprivation tanks or breathing filter aparati... They limit what one percieves, experiences, respirates, but also offer protection from certain hazzards... and new insight to what was being screened.  

[CuAnnan]

Fiddlers Green

As far as shielding...
I can see it's benefit in the same way I see the benefit to sensory deprivation tanks or breathing filter aparati... They limit what one percieves, experiences, respirates, but also offer protection from certain hazzards... and new insight to what was being screened.

Does carrying a shield into a sword fight sensory deprive you?
I suppose you could get by in a metaphysical sense using only our offensive abilities to counter, I've done it once or twice with an, at the time, friend.
I have never found shielding to senory depriving though.  

[Fiddlers Green]

reagun ban

Does carrying a shield into a sword fight sensory deprive you?
I suppose you could get by in a metaphysical sense using only our offensive abilities to counter, I've done it once or twice with an, at the time, friend.
I have never found shielding to senory depriving though.

Yes.
Unless the shield is transparent. wink
It also weighs the arm down and tends to slow reactions, it vastly limits attack options and angles.
But is usually worth it.
wink  

[CuAnnan]

Fiddlers Green

reagun ban

Does carrying a shield into a sword fight sensory deprive you?
I suppose you could get by in a metaphysical sense using only our offensive abilities to counter, I've done it once or twice with an, at the time, friend.
I have never found shielding to senory depriving though.

Yes.
Unless the shield is transparent. wink
It also weighs the arm down and tends to slow reactions, it vastly limits attack options and angles.
But is usually worth it.
wink

Ok, so when dueling and the other person is wearing armour, are you going to ignore the option?
It all boils down to what the circumstances are.  

[Deoridhe]

Fiddlers Green

As far as shielding...
I can see it's benefit in the same way I see the benefit to sensory deprivation tanks or breathing filter aparati... They limit what one percieves, experiences, respirates, but also offer protection from certain hazzards... and new insight to what was being screened.

I think those examples are a little extreme... to me, it's more like wearing clothing, albeit clothing which allows free exchange of gasses and is, for all intents and purposes, invisible.

Amusingly, the first year I went to a New Age conference I got one of those "aura" photographs taken; there were two white lines on either side of me. The interpreter said, "You're sheilding kind of heavily for such a small crowd." I considered it a huge crowd, given I couldn't make it down aisles without bumping into people. xd