[Email from Dmitry Kornilov, in Moscow, Russia.
… So I’m reading Rita’s World Part I, and what an amazing material it is!!!… But anyway…The reason I’m writing to you is to find out whether I can propose a question for the discussion with the TGU.
I was wondering if you could ask their opinion on magic – “black” and “white” one? Personally I never bothered about this issue, until last year when the circumstances of my life were such that I happened to work in an environment where few people were practicing witchcraft. And they put spells on me which had very tangible physical effects, so that I had to ask for the help of a specialized master to remove those negative influences. Apparently they were trying to affect my energy system…or, perhaps aura… One of the methods those dark magicians used was NLP – neuro-linguistic programming…
So, such was my practical experience of this. I was fond of tarot cards readings at the time, and was told that all those negative influences were part of my family line karma – I was paying some ancestors’ debt…
Later I found out that the topic was very popular here in Moscow – in a negative sense, because I’ve got an impression that every second person was into magic trying to influence other people or to push forward their own selfish interests. Moreover, I’ve noticed that the contents of esoteric shelves in book stores radically changed from channeled stuff, yoga, Eastern teachings, Buddhism, Eckhart Tolle and so on, to books on runes and magic. Now all the shelves are stuffed with books titled something like “how to become a successful witch”, or “practical guidelines on magic”, and so forth… Terrible!
I don’t know whether these issues were previously raised with the TGU, but I would be really interested to hear their (or, perhaps Rita’s?) standpoint on that matter. If needed, we can modify the question, and shape it in a better way.
Go ahead.
[TGU]: The essential difference between white and black magic is not so much what people usually assume it is – unselfish v. selfish ends, nor even evil v. good. Obviously the subject may be approached from within those polarities, but we think it will be more useful to look at the subject neutrally, as we usually prefer to do.
Magic, ritual magic particularly, may be described as the attempt to alter the world to conform to one’s wishes. In that context, certainly you could see that some people’s intent was relatively unselfish, even altruistic, and that of others was quite bounded within ego. So it becomes easy to fall into judgment as good or evil. Perceiving things as good or bad does not lead to an easy life. So in considering magic, let us stay away from that particular snare, and see what it looks like when we remember that “the world” is not “other,” nor is it material, but is part of self, and is the visible aspect of the shared subjectivity. You could look at the essence of magic – as of any other power or ability or inclination in life – as opportunity. Opportunity to do what?
To live in that present moment, experiencing the interaction between the self we know and the self we don’t know.
Correct. So let us demythologize magic as a subject; let us take it off its pedestal, so to speak. Things cannot be carefully examined until they are off their pedestals.
- Magic works! There is no use denying it for the sake of a pretended ease of mind.
- Like any tool, it may be used to do good or bad, may be used well or badly, wisely or foolishly, idealistically or destructively.
- It is not something divorced from everyday life. It is an often-unnoticed, automatic part of 3D life moment by moment.
- “Luck,” intuitions, “accidents,” “coincidences” etc. may all be seen as manifestations of magic from beyond 3D awareness.
- Ritual magic may be seen as the practice of bringing non-3D energies into conformance with 3D desire.
- But always remember what is going on: It is the 3D conscious self interacting with the aspects of the shared subjectivity to which it has resonance (anything else being, in effect, invisible to it, untouchable).
- Discernment of good or evil is not the same as condemnation (or approval). It is seeing what is. But the addition of a label as good or evil is not so much discernment as it is adjustment to one’s values of what has been perceived.
So now, to your friend Dmitry, we say this directly.
Do not concern yourself worrying about the use or misuse of magic around you in society. It will have unanticipated side-effects, as everything does. Things that appear benign bring undesired consequences. Things that appear evil bring unsuspected blessings. The universe knows what it is doing, and can be trusted. People may enter into the study and practice of magic for all the wrong reasons, but perhaps their larger being is using that to turn their attention to the existence of non-3D forces, and ultimately to the existence of higher potential.
For yourself, protect yourself from such influences to the degree that you feel necessary, and open yourself up to whatever higher energies you can learn to employ in life. We have been sketching the indicated attitudes: openness, trust, intent to know your greater self to the extent you are able at any given moment. All will be well. Thank you for the question.
And I presume he is welcome to submit follow-ups?
Of course.
Clarifications
Wednesday, July 21, 2021
Let’s begin with questions Mr. Kornilov asked after seeing your statements of Monday. His email shows good understanding in general, I think.
[Received 7-20-2021, 6:33 a.m.
- .. I was overwhelmed with emotions when I read the piece, so it took time to settle… I understand that, perhaps, that was my ego’s reaction, which felt kind of glorified by being involved in communication with the TGU. But still, on a deeper level I was moved… We all have that theoretical knowledge that we are all one, but to me this message is an example of how it practically works, and a call to try accessing the Guys on my own.
- And, of course, their explanation and the advice helped me to look at the problem from a completely different angle. The general understanding I got from reading the text is that I should accept magic as an ordinary though often unnoticed part of our everyday life, and treat it like all other things, be it positive or negative. And that is what the TGU meant by “removing it off its pedestal” – it shouldn’t be seen as a bigger trouble compared to other daily troubles.
- However, I struggle a bit with the part where you and they say that this was an experience of an interaction between my 3-D conscious self with the non-3D rejected (?) parts of the self. Does that mean that magic was part of my other 3-D lifetimes and is being brought to my awareness in this current lifetime because it resonates to a certain sector of collective consciousness (or subjectivity)? And is shared subjectivity the same as collective subjectivity, collective consciousness, or am I confusing the terms?
- Once again, thank you for posing my question to the Guys, though I’m a bit curious: it seems that they themselves chose the appropriate moment to elaborate on the topic. Does that mean they had already been aware of the question by the time I e-mailed it to you?
Your response?
We begin with the paragraph you have numbered as four, because simply dealt with. Yes, we chose the moment. But that may not mean quite what he may think it means. We’d put it this way: We became aware of the email when you did; we suggested responding to it when the general discussion and his specific questions formed an easy link. “The times” made it appropriate to segue from one topic to another, you might say. Nothing extraordinary about it, and nothing particularly noteworthy. We do it all the time, and so do each of you. There are reasons why thoughts and associations well up within you: “The times” and your personal consciousness produce moments of convergence.
But there’ no reason to assume that you knew of his question before I did.
That could happen; sometimes does. But it is hardly necessary, in that these conversations are a cooperative effort. We prefer to work with you on things you are consciously aware of; it’s far easier and allows discussion in greater depth.
Paragraph three is a misinterpretation. It is more correct to describe the interaction as between the self one is conscious of, and the parts of self one is not (yet) conscious of. The parts not recognized may have been rejected, but they equally may have been unnoticed, or not yet encountered. In this we are again reminding you that 3D life is not what it seems. It is a continuing interaction of the inner world you identify with and the “external” world (that may seem entirely alien to you) that we are calling the shared subjectivity, to remind you that the “external” world is not “things in space” but is mind-stuff like you, only collective and not merely individual. What you experience of the “external” world is what you connect to via your own known or unknown extensions beyond the familiar individual mental world you live.
Thus, what we said does not predict whether you did or didn’t have connections with magic in other lifetimes. All we know is that the subject is alive to you in this 3D lifetime for some reason, and therefore manifests “external” things that catch your attention. You can probably attain greater clarity on the subject by careful meditation on the question of why and in what way magic affects your present life.
We trust that you now see that shared subjectivity = external 3D and non-3D world. Collective consciousness is closer to a description of the shared mental world rather than the shared mental and physical world, but perhaps this is only adding to confusion to address it.
Your understanding expressed in paragraph two is generally correct. In general, removing something from its pedestal means merely, see it as it is, don’t see it through a mist of awe, nor of detestation nor fear.
And finally, your first paragraph is exactly right. We are pleased that you see that it amounts to our saying, you have access to your own sources, specifically tailored for your use. Use them.
Again, productive questions that should be helpful to many.