The Source

Riley Coules
July 20, 2017

Cultivating the higher not only involves recognizing the negative qualities that inhibit us, but why these qualities perpetually existMost will identify their lower traits as they play out, based on the value system of the society in which they were born and to a lesser extent inhabit in their later years (we are more susceptible to invisible forces in our infancy), the values of significant childhood influences, as well as the values discerned upon entering young adulthood, a time in which developing the identity figures strongly. While awareness of the outermost product of our lower selves– our wrongdoings– provokes the attainment of morality, phantom instigators may remain, prompting seemingly-unrelated behavior that too acts as a detriment to higher pursuits. The question ultimately becomes: are we superficially transforming unfavorable modes of being, or modifying them at their source?

.


 TRANSFORMATION: IN THE HANDS OF THOSE WHO SEEK IT

The innate arises both out of genetics and divinity– i.e. we are the way we are because we are meant to be that way. All that we’ve ever been, all that we’ve ever learned, and all that we’ve already become has determined the baseline qualities we possess at birth in this lifetime; these characteristics necessarily coincide with biological expressions of the self. The driving forces that govern our unique individuality then intermingle with “nurture”, through which our environment– the aura of our home, the aura of our outer world, as well as standards set by society (all of which too intermingle)– exacerbate, pacify, or suppress them. I innately care for animals; my mother is a vegetarian and negates harm to these creatures; it is generally accepted by most in American society (although there is a disconnect between the food we consume and the animals we care for) that inducing harm to living beings is unethical; I grew up loving my pets and feeling guilty about eating others; I then chose to be vegan. You see, one neglected facet of the nature vs. nurture debate concerns the aptitude or desire of each individual to rise above nir negative qualities, whether they stem from inherent traits or those modified by the environment, in effect incarnating a new, wholler persona. The past of one inclined to grow is never apparent, nor is it thoroughly telling of who ne will come to be. Some of us vehemently pursue morality, whether consciously or merely by the grace of a “good heart”; some of us have a quite a bit more wisdom to acquire, perhaps later in this life or throughout existences to come (satisfaction of the lower self then governs most decision-making). While spiritual evolution denotes former successes, self-effected, spontaneous generation– if you will– relies totally on the individual that seeks truth. Thus, we who we are “meant to be” constantly evolves with who we wish to become, for which transformation knows no past and knows no bounds.

While the majority of humans are predisposed to become, some individuals lack the predilection to choose light because no light exists for them to embody. These are the soulless, the unfeeling, those that actively work to defame others in the quest to feel whole– but they will never feel whole, for darkness does not fill. Perhaps it is this interminable emptiness that compels them to continually seek the lower emotions of others, for which our weakened teeter. Some unevolved souls, or those who are especially tormented, may in fact resemble the soulless at certain times in their maturation, as good and evil weigh heavily in their minds; fortunately, this condition prevails transiently, and will cease when the avenue toward whole-fulfillment becomes apparent. We musn’t include lower entities in our inquiries of human nature, for they not only lack light to embody, but a higher self to solidify.

For those who do have souls (perhaps you and me– lucky us!!), two individuals born on the same day, at the same time, with incredibly similar birth charts and perhaps even childhood homes, may be entirely different at age 15, 20, 30, 50, 60. And what’s the reason for this disparity? Well, it’s the same reason two childhood “peas in a pod” grow apart: while they may simply evolve with opposing interests (identical birth charts notwithstanding), it is equally likely that one grows faster, perhaps beyond the other friend’s self-decided aptitude to evolve. This rate of growth entails an inclination to negate destructive qualities in favor of the higher, most effectively through awareness and subsequent transformation.

.


 UNEARTH THE SOURCE: MICRO

We’re given a lot of advice growing up on how to be good people: “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it at all”, “respect your elders”, and “treat people the way you want to be treated” name a few. The problem with these sentiments? All of them are surface-level, and none of them teach us how to reflect on our thoughts and actions so that we may modify our behaviors at their source. Or why we should treat others well, for that matter (because we genuinely care about the welfare of all beings; our feelings do not supersede those of the collective). When we alter the underlying motives of our quirks, we permanently rectify all ill-manifestations of the lower self as opposed to one superficial fruition.

.

I often refer to the amplification of lesser qualities as an unavoidable manifestation of disorder; no one’s better when ailing, when off track, than they are when emotionally whole, the latter a precursor to the whole soul. Even empaths, who suffer profoundly when disordered, without boundaries and susceptible to external sufferings of all kinds (Phosphorus), have been bestowed with an opportunity to learn. No higher quality causes perpetual harm to the individual that holds it (should Phosphorus persons in a state of harmony, still sympathizing heavily, be hurt, they will recuperate quickly), and no lower quality prevails without an urging to grow. In Phosphorus’ case, the lesson is not simply to care less, although the affirmation I cannot help everyone, and they will get there in their own time certainly pacifies nir anxiety for others; rather, the moral members of this constitution must assimilate into their being lies in the restoration and reconstruction of their boundaries, for the source of their woe is a propensity to identify too strongly with those around them, at the expense of their own welfare. This absorption of outward energies can muddle Phosphorus’ own, as this constitution is known for a confusion of identity, a heightened awareness to the impression they give, as well as a lack of grounding, all of which may be rectified by strengthening Phosphorus’ ego identity. Even the solidification of the self– truly, once again, the restoration of the type’s boundaries– may negate their inclination to care what people think; it’s almost as if Phosphorus’ keen ability to pick up on the “vibes” of others engenders a further ability to mind-read! 

Ultimately, learning to be enough for themselves does wonders to release Phosphorus types of their yearn for external sources of love, whilst still being able to provide it to others, a balance they will learn to strike with homeopathy. (The remedy Phosphorus, in providing Phosphorus constitutions with the boundaries they so desperately need, will also subdue their sexuality enough to allow them to see others properly, to think with their hearts and not just their sex organs, which only lowers their standards in the process.)

.

Let’s consider the source in a scenario in which one’s robust ego acts as a detriment to others. Illustrating Arsenicum might do the trick (!). As I have mentioned numerous times throughout this website, we are all comprised of multiple constitutions; interestingly, the qualities associated with each of our essences might utterly oppose one another, creating enough conflicts within the personality to force us to listen. Arsenicum in some ways is the very antithesis of Phosphorus: pessimistic, critical, analytical to a fault, suspicious, driven, and most importantly, pragmatic, the former is far less free-spirited than the latter. Phosphorus’ intense concern for others (prompting an extreme form of tolerance, wherein Phosphorus may ignore a “bad vibe” if it means thinking well of someone rather than ill), impressionable nature, lofty thinking, and idealism to the extreme set the stage  Arsenicum when both constitutions exist within one persona, but because we peel back layers of one’s constitutional make-up like the layers of an onion, one aura will be most apparent at one time. As such, I exemplified an Arsenicum state for quite some time before healing with Phosphorus, and given that I was oh so very off, I had plenty of time to abate the facet of my lower self I reproach the most! 

.

I was very sensitive- to external impressions, confusion, and any provocative emotional undercurrents; as such, I felt constantly perturbed by the outside world. I often struggled to withhold my frustration with anyone who kept asking me questions, or who I knew was trying to manipulate my perceptions of them, even if their intentions were pure. It was the fact that they were trying to control me that I didn’t like, to which stifling my pride did wonders. While I wouldn’t judge myself based off of my lower qualities (I didn’t choose them), I would judge myself based off of my subjugation- or lack thereof- of my lower qualities in favor of morale. Illness provided the perfect opportunity to do so.

, itself a product of unacknowledged strife. Emotional suppression already sets us up for failure; when we don’t feel as much, we’re more apt to go with the flow of negativity- in more ways than one. Negativity enslaves us, as well as all we encounter; add on the exacerbated lower self, perhaps exemplified by a lack of motivation, a propensity toward anger, or a fear of confrontation, and we’re fractions of who we could be. Even as I ruminated over my wrongs, and thus aimed to overcome them, I wasn’t guided by true connectivity, but philosophical morality; I based the fruition of the higher on mere principle, not compassion. My lesser qualities typically materialized through irritation, which I combated by not showing others because I didn’t want to hurt their feelings; common idioms may have gotten me that far, but they did little to ensure I conquered my innate predisposition to criticize (both myself and others) in a state of disorder. Emotion will guide you; intellectualization will get you there.

.

.

The reminder it’s not about you Riley in part instigated my transformation process, through which the source played a vital role: the sole negation of harm may suffice when phantom motives veiled my judgement, but only elevating the core of who I am (was?) allowed me to permanently rectify my negativity. This realization set off a sort-of ripple effect; by conquering my urges, those tendencies that I had previously allowed to control me, I overcame the inclination to satisfy my own needs while ill- out of fear, frustration, and self-preservation- which itself reinforced connectivity at my highest. Modifying habitual undercurrents invalidated my critical nature (my methods are no better than those of my family members; drop the competency complex Riles), my peevishness (no one should have to walk on eggshells around me; you’re the problem here), as well as my grave need to save money, often at the expense of those I love (you can’t let your insecurity thwart your desire for morality).

.

Other sources prompted negativity that only affected me, such as my intense yearn for control (which contorted so many facets of my life; the security crutch took months and months to quell), reactions to emotional undercurrents, as well as triggers to my lack of self-love. For a long time I have not understood my fear of rejection, my anticipatory anxiety, or tendency to put myself down in the eyes of others, for I was not tested to. Disorder amplified these lesser qualities, as it did so many others, offering me the opportunity to truly care for me, as I did prior to the trauma that left me utterly disconnected. As I healed, the realization that I am kind, compassionate, and loving fueled me… I care so much for others, work so hard to ensure I don’t hurt them despite my struggles; why don’t I treat myself the same? The source of self-destruction is always you.

.


LOOK TO THE SOURCE: MACRO

Other facets of the source extend beyond merely modifying lower qualities that affect one’s interpersonal relationships to modifying inadvertent manifestations of lower qualities that contribute to the defunct social morale on a macro level. Judgment rears its ugly head in a large majority of societal issues, for if we saw one another clearly, we would no longer attribute perverse imagery, known as stereotypes, to entire groups of peoples. My favorite misguided appraisal concerns sexuality. We all know by now, or should know by now, that the usage of the world “slut” is incredibly deluded, sexist, and, perhaps the most compelling of all: unkind (yet the term’s capacity to harm doesn’t seem to stop anyone from using it). Before we judge anyone based off of their sexuality, we must first learn to self-reflect, specifically by inquiring: (a) what the “other’s” motivations are, (b) why we care, (c) what the ramifications are of perpetuating hate, and (d) that perhaps we should stop letting widespread social thought determine our moral groundings.

.

A. MOTIVATION

When someone sleeps around a lot, it is highly likely that they like sex. This may be because they just really enjoy it, with the added component that they do not need a deep connection with someone to enjoy sex, or because they use it to fill emptiness in other areas of their life. Either way, none of these premises concern anyone but them and the people involved in their sex life. Still, I love when I question anyone who uses the term “slut” and they respond with, “she cheated on so-and-so with so-and-so!” as a means of justifying their unkind words. This premise is irrelevant and a poor excuse to depict someone as lesser, if only to uplift the failing self-esteem of those who march to the beat of everyone else’s drum.

The amount of intercourse someone engages in is entirely separate from the mode through which they engage in it (i.e. with respect to others); we are looking at sexuality from the wrong angle. If the aforementioned scenario reigns true, we should evaluate a cheater solely on their propensity to disregard their partner’s feelings… in which case we may just have an asshole.

.

B). WHY WE (DON’T) CARE

If someone wants to sleep around and have a good time, no one should care. If someone wants to sleep around and have a good time to fill gaping holes in other areas of their life, we should recognize we all have vices. If someone wants to sleep around (once) and have a good time because a relationship has turned sour, perhaps we should stop evaluating their method of coping and talk about something that actually matters.

Tearing others down based off of the subliminal devices of our own insecurities only fuels misguided social thought; let’s instead aim to elevate others.

.

C. WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS OF SLANDERING OTHERS FOR THEIR SEXUALITY?

The usage of the word slut not only inhibits us sociologically, but spiritually as well. When we reflect on our peers, quite often female, with regards to the mechanisms with which they use their bodies, we reduce them to their bodies. The product? Objectification. The same goes for “man-whore”. We don’t consider the heart and soul, which has nothing to do with the propensity to sleep around; these are two utterly different facets of the being. Yes, ill-intent and sex may intertwine, but then sexual prowess becomes a vice through which one exhibits their lower self, not the lower self. In fact, I find ill-intent (or guised low self-esteem) more present in those who slander others for their sexuality than the people they regard as lowly. Hence, we may only evaluate behavior based on malice- the presence of which may remain elusive even when we think we know the motives behind the actions of another. Hidden information always veils the truth behind a story, especially when confounded by an inability to relate to the person at question. People are as valuable as their positive intentions- and even then, a bit of gray area skews this “worth”. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say people are as valuable as their eventual positive intentions, so long as they don’t allow their lesser qualities to consistently harm others… we will all eventually subjugate the lower self, so as long as a little soul drives the desire to choose morality even after a history of selfish behavior, forgiveness is always within reach.

.


D). THINK FOR YOURSELF

The source is a powerful concept. We need to detach ourselves from conformable thought, the phantom mechanism through which we appraise the world and its inhabitants, in order to accurately evaluate the belief systems purported by society we accept as our own. So many platforms divide us- politics, the media, my concept of you and your concept of me- when most of us just want the same thing: to end suffering. When we defame others for their skin color, their religion, their lack of motivation or inability to follow the status quo, what are we really commenting on? Their heart, their soul, their positive intentions or the reality of their character? No. We are instead focusing on bullshit exemplifications of worth, itself a product of ass-backwards beliefs; good people are then ridiculed for their failure to live up to image-driven, as opposed to soulful, standards.

Even when these evaluations exist on a micro-level, such as when someone, say, owes their friend money but spends everything they earn on going out, the offender is not necessarily immoral, or even selfish. It may be more likely that this person is so compelled to live life to the fullest that they fail to live up to what face-value indicates morality; a good time, then, is their vice, something we all possess and/or have possessed [in order to abate ill-intent, their friend must not be struggling due to the unfulfilled loan]. At this point we have someone with a misguided value likely due an exacerbated lower self, a condition we all suffer from to some degree thanks to Big Pharma; thus, we should not judge. As long as positive intentions dominate the personality and measures are made to overcome the lower self, forgiveness is always within reach.