Drugs in general sever the link between the soul and the body.  What users of hallucinogens and other drugs experience are illusionary feelings and visions.  Pure spirituality consists of pure mind, heart, soul and body.

Peace, PhiConcept.

Agreed.

I have questions about how you came up with your conclusion.

I am about half way point through the book, and I don't get the impression that A influence are necessarily forces thath lead to stagnation or regression and B influences are forces of progressive nature.  Do the books say that later on?

I read all of the books, but, no, my ideas aren't strictly based on anything in the books.  I ran with the idea that 'A' and 'B' influences can be revealed by looking for the Law of 3 at work in your life.  I'm trying to make the information more my own.  Don't feel compelled to agree with me.       

When I began seriously asking myself what 'B' influences are, I broadly concluded that they are somethings that expand your worldview instead of shrink it.  That seems like a really obvious notion, and it's too easy to get pulled into fruitless abstract thinking if you're too literal with it, but it is powerful.  Just as there are technologies that narrow our lives, there are ideas that narrow our lives. 

I also broadly thought that 'B' influences are contexualizing--they put your current views in perspective.

I generally agree with that, that in general they do.  But it was partly drug experiences that helped me to realize that I'm more than a physical body (I was materialistic skeptic for a while), and that helped me feel my spirit for the first time since childhood.  I don't use drugs now, and I never did many...I think it depends upon your approach and your current energy level whether they will help or hurt you.  If you resonate above them, they'll drag you down; if you resonate below them, they'll raise you up--but at the cost of potentially damaging your physical body and your energy body.  I think that's why spiritual seekers have positive experiences early on with hallucinagens, and why they turn negative later on or almost immediately.

As far as illusionary feelings...The most notable feeling I had from positive drug experiences was the feeling that I was more than a physical body.

There are many more ways to interpret it. Like: A-influences are deterministic, B-influences are nondeterministic. Or A-influences are subjective / objective while B-influences are "transjective" (an idea I explored in my article on intuitive thinking).

One interpretation floating around on the net is quite detrimental. It is that A-influences are those of subjectivity, and B-influences those of objectivity. So to accumulate B-influences and thereby build the magnetic center, one has to strive for objectivity and see the truth as it is, rather than as one wishes it to be. Anything that buffers or tranquilizes you to the truth, no matter how harsh the truth, is an A-influence. The reason this is detrimental is that it can lock you within a particular level of objectivity. Any "transjective" truths that originate from a higher transcendent realm (or higher perspective) will contradict your sacredly held "objective truths" and be dismissed as mere subjectivity. And so you end up stagnating, stuck within the reality you occupy. Sure, you have overcome subjectivity, but then you are further imprisoned within your realm of awareness also.

So I would redefine it as saying that B-influences are truths and impulses that lead you out of your current assumptions, limitations, and programming, while A-influences are those that keep you there. False B-influences would be those that lead you out of your current state and into a false one, like what disinformation does.

I have questions about how you came up with your conclusion.

I am about half way point through the book, and I don't get the impression that A influence are necessarily forces thath lead to stagnation or regression and B influences are forces of progressive nature.  Do the books say that later on?

On Page 51, it says A influences are created by within life by life itself.  They are influences based on the law of accident.  B is influence based on our own esoteric center. 

So based on this definition from the book, A influence are things that happen in the mundane world based on ripples of cause and effect.  An example of B influence would be when you hear a wisper in your head about certain great ideas or when you experience a surge of inspiration which led to some creative work.

From my own life experience, influence which awakened me out of sheep life into a seeker are definitely A influence.  Later on, many people have pointed me toward the right directions and away from the wrong directions even though most of them did them "accidentally".  I think those are A influence according to the definition.   I have experienced B influence even though I was "asleep".

I definitely think 'A' and 'B' influences do overlap.  For instance, hallucinagenic drugs can lead to a spiritual awakenings or they can lead to addiction.

Drugs in general sever the link between the soul and the body.  What users of hallucinogens and other drugs experience are illusionary feelings and visions.  Pure spirituality consists of pure mind, heart, soul and body.

Peace, PhiConcept.

this thread is very interesting, but the break down and analysis of A&B are too "Western" for me.  I mean Westerners have an urge to categorize and reduce everything.  Could it be possible that maybe A & B influence overlap somehow?  I am not convinced that the reality always works in the way that enables people to divide and conquer.

I definitely think 'A' and 'B' influences do overlap.  For instance, hallucinagenic drugs can lead to a spiritual awakenings or they can lead to addiction.

And as the initiator of this thread, I'd like to say that I'm not interested in classifying every spiritual or anti-spiritual influence there is--I'm only interested in increasing my awareness.  This is how I usually work: I have an insight, contemplate on it, try to spell it out intellectually, road-test the ideas, see if it worked, and then meditate some more.

As far as dividing and conquering reality.  Ummm, I'm not interested in conquering reality at all--just understanding it better.

'A'hrimanic influence
'B'uddhavistic influence
'C'hristos influence.

That's an insightful and interesting connection.  It's helpful to have a name for these influences; however, recognizing their effects in your life is most important, I think.

In the spirit of your second quote: by the fruit of the influences you will know them.

Mouravieff writes that the Gnostic tradition uses the metaphor of bread to explain the Law of 3: a flour mix (passive force) is combined with water (neutralizing force) and transformed by fire (the active force).  The result is bread (evolution, self-actualization, etc.)

In this metaphor the flour mix is acted upon, and so is called passive; however, without the flour there is no bread.  The passive force reveals possibility.

The fire is the actor, the realizer, and so is called active.

Perhaps another way to remember these influences is ;

'A'hrimanic influence
'B'uddhavistic influence
'C'hristos influence.

Then it hit me: 'A' influences are probably just patterned after (or the inverse of) 'B' influences.  In the Gnostic book, The Second Apocalypse of John, it's pointed out that as the demiurge was creating the Matrix that it inadvertently shaped it after the higher realms because of the influence of the spark inside of it.

So I took my list of 'A' influence types... 

...and reversed them.

**

'B' Influences:

(1) Evolving...Influences that better adapt you to journey from ego to spirit.  Example: critical analysis, intuition, etc.

(2) Dis-illusioning...Influences that strip away illusions.  (It occured to me that the problem inherent in "lateral shifting" is changing falsity for falsity, so the opposite isn't "foward-shifting," but recognizing falsity).  Example: the practice of honesty.

(3) Uplifting...Influences that develop your beingness instead of just giving you an emotional buzz.  Example: the cumulative inner silence developed through meditation.

(4) Doorways...Influence from the higher self; opportunities dropped into your path.

When I wrote "get rid of the dog," I wasn't inferring that the little, metaphoric boy tempt the dog with a bowl of anti-freeze...

Oh, good

I'm aware of that, I was just giving an example.

And I wasn't saying the boy should or could  heal the dog--i said he should enlist the Humane Society for that job. Delegate, delegate...

It's interesting to me that many great books have been penned in prison.  Some great poems, too.  I like this from Richard Lovelace's
"To Althea, From Prison":

Stone walls do not a prison make,   
  Nor iron bars a cage; 
Minds innocent and quiet take 
  That for an hermitage; 
If I have freedom in my love 
  And in my soul am free,   
Angels alone, that soar above, 
  Enjoy such liberty.

I also like the sign that was on the wall of a prison in an old Mighty Mouse cartoon:  "Stone Walls Do Not A Prison Make--But They Sure Help!"

But I do think that when the lesson that prison holds has been learned, it's likely the prisoner will be freed.

Preaching gospel to lions?  What's that got to do with love? I agree, the guy was nuts.

I love these examples you're giving--more, more

Oh, terribly cynical

I didn't suggest we approach them interchangeably, I was just giving one example of how we might deal with the situation constructively.

On some level (we are all multidimensional), each being does. 

It's not about "making" them understand anything, it's about our own understanding that even the most difficult of people and situations contain lessons for us, or we would not have drawn them into our lives.  If we choose not to learn those lessons, life will keep presenting us with them until we do.

What would Love do?

That rabid dog is a sick dog, who is a danger not just to the kid but to
itself and others as well.  That kid ought to call the Humane Society to come and get it, or ask his mom to do so.

So the focus is not just on gettng rid of the mean dog, but on taking care of it, and dealing with what it represents in your life and that of others.

When I wrote "get rid of the dog," I wasn't inferring that the little, metaphoric boy tempt the dog with a bowl of anti-freeze...

Love takes on multiple roles.  Its mask isn't always the mask of the caregiver.  The proverbial boy could respond to the rabid dog in endless ways:

*He could innocently trust it and try to pet it.

*He could distrust it, run away, and abandon his project.

*He could assume the archetype of the Shadow Warrior and wage war on it, claiming that tree as his (a popular, and I think stupid, approach).

*He could lob a roundsteak at it.  Remove the thorn in its paw.

*He could be creative and build the dog a doghouse, attempting to get into its good graces.

*He could hypnotize it...

...Not all of those approaches reflect love, but love is employable by more than a caregiving approach.

I am, by nature and habit, a caregiver.  And, in my short time here, I've tried to heal many "sick dogs."  ...The learning cycle I'm moving through right now has shown me that it isn't my place, and is even prideful, to think that I can heal everything and everyone...

Every "sick dog" that crosses a person's path may not be there ultimately for them to heal, to caregive to.  The "sick dog" may be there to teach you to get in touch with the positive side of your Warrior. 

Warriorship can be conducted with love, but it doesn't LOOK the same as caregiving.  Or, it may be that your role with this or that sick dog is simply to give advice.

Love is the final lesson, I believe.  Yet we are more than feelings.  Actually, I think all we are are feelings, but understanding that intellectually and being able to live it are two different things.

What I mean by that...Mind is deeper than matter, right?  So if a man is in jail, all he needs to do is undo the feeling of imprisonment in his mind, right?  All he needs to do is recognize that slavery and freedom are mental states.  Okay, so he does that.  He frees his mind.  The jail no longer bothers him...but unless he's also taught himself how to walk through walls, he's still behind a concrete wall.  It may not bother him any, because, well, he knows that freedom is mental.  But, what if after attaining "freedom," knowing that freedom is mental, he still wants to walk through the woods at night in a full moon?  ...Except in his imagination, he can't do that until he manages to escape the physical prison...

If you ask me, love is the answer.  Yet I saw a news item a few months back (true story) about a Christian missionary who jumped into a lion's den at a zoo and preached the gospel to them.  I think that man was sincere on some level.  I also think he was a little touched in the head.  The lions, despite this man's love for them, ripped his arm off.
Why?  They're lions, doing what lions do.

Always playing the caregiver or lover comes at a cost.  Some soliders, if you put a flower in their rifle, will smile, melt, and see the insanity of war.  Some soldiers will shoot you.

I don't really mean of this to be cynical.  What I am trying to express is that love and trust, in practice, carry a consequence just as hate and backbiting do.  Through hate you'll never achieve spiritually; hate will always draw in the walls of the ego.  Through love you'll drive nearer to spirit, but it won't always be beneficial for your ego.

...Some may say to that: "Well, great--let the ego sit and spin.  I want it dead." But is that love? 

The Harry Potter storyline, I feel, deftly illustrates the balance needing to be struck in dealing with the "sick dog."  The masses of the wizarding world didn't want to admit that Voldemort was back.  ("That doesn't happen here...That's just a myth...We don't say, 'Evil,' that's politically incorrect...")  The character of Dumbledore (the archetype of the magician) was almost the only one willing to admit there was a sick dog in the woods.  And, he didn't condemn it, or call it evil.  He studied it, believed in the human being beneath the reptilian skin of Voldemort, and even--at one point in the story--tried to appeal to his humanity. Out of love.  But Dumbledore didn't kid himself.  He knew the dog was rabid. 

And, ultimately--sorry for those of you haven't read Year 6, there's a statute of limitations on this stuff--Dumbledore paid with his life for being as trusting and loving as he was. 

His love wasn't stupid or senseless, but it carried a consequence.

In dealing with mean or programmed people, other "sick dogs," you can of course ask yourself what they represent in your life.  That sick dog wouldn't be in your life unless there was an internal mental/emotional dog-sickess inside you that mirrored their sickness in some way.  That inner dog-sickness, probably, can always be approached in the way of the lover or healer or caregiver.

But there is still the other, the exterior sick dog.  If you treat sick dogs interchangably, and respond to them every time by caregiving, you may eventually meet the sick dog that bites your hand off.

Here's my summation: Always advance with the flame of love in your heart, but understand that different situations require different approaches.  Even if love is the core of every being, not every being speaks the language of love.

This relates to "A" and "B" influences because beings who reside primarily in the "A" world, even if their core is love, may not be able made to understand love as you know it in a single day or even in a lifetime.

Since OPs aren't the subject of this thread (and, I know, I brought them up), I won't write a lot on this. 

I agree that belief and proofs can be and are self-created.  I also agree that belief affects reality.  The question of whether belief is more primary than experience, though, is a hard question when you're arguing for transcending labels.  How do you transcend that which is the most primary reality?  If beliefs/labels shape all experience, how do you experience anything without them?

I guess it's about staying flexible, not being tied to any one belief system.  Letting go of preconceptions, being open to surprises, letting ourselves be guided by our hearts. 

As far as labels go, I think we can transcend  them by seeing past appearances to the essence of a person or situation.

Yes, again, by seeing past appearances.

What would Love do?

That rabid dog is a sick dog, who is a danger not just to the kid but to
itself and others as well.  That kid ought to call the Humane Society to come and get it, or ask his mom to do so.

So the focus is not just on gettng rid of the mean dog, but on taking care of it, and dealing with what it represents in your life and that of others.  And similarly, there are constructive ways of dealing with any person or situation we are confronted with, that will work out for all concerned.  But if we are solely focused on the inconvenience and trouble of the dog (or whatever),  those solutions wil not be as apparent to us.

This is where prayer comes in, it raises our consciousness above the level of difficulty, so that we are able to perceive and act on our inner
guidance.  As it says in the Bible:  "I will lift up mine eyes to the hills from whence cometh my help."  The "hills" represent elevated thought--prayer.

Approaching this idea with love, we can perceive that although this is not our truth, it is one that is right for certain people at a certain point on their path. We may even recognize that in our evolution, we may have held similar beliefs in the past.  From a still higher perspective, keeping in mind that we are multidimensional, we may recognize that this "past" aspect of ourselves exists now.  In allowing and accepting this part of ourselves, we help to heal all the other aspects as well.

Of course, we can also choose to approach the idea with fear,  twisting ourselves into pretzels trying to avoid this fate of sinning and thus being hated by God, or conversely, looking down on people who hold such "backward" and "unenlightened" ideas.

Just a couple of examples...

Re the OP's, if you believe in the existence of these beings, you will create an experience that fits that belief.  You have proof of your belief, but you've created the proof as well as the belief!

Since OPs aren't the subject of this thread (and, I know, I brought them up), I won't write a lot on this. 

I agree that belief and proofs can be and are self-created.  I also agree that belief affects reality.  The question of whether belief is more primary than experience, though, is a hard question when you're arguing for transcending labels.  How do you transcend that which is the most primary reality?  If beliefs/labels shape all experience, how do you experience anything without them?   

...Funnily, much of this thread in the last couple of days has been about transcending labels.  Yet, I find myself faced with that big fat question mark now.  Maybe the solution is striking a balance between labels and non-labels...

I like this idea, even though it undermines this thread because the thread is mostly about being able to discern and avoid interference.  The idea appeals to me because it's positive, and saying, focus on the positive.  I like being and feeling positive.  The statement assumes, however, a situation in which somebody is able to be creative at all. 

...Here's a metaphor that makes sense to me out the reason behind spending energy on identifying possible sources of interference: Suppose you're a kid and you're building a treehouse in a giant, neat tree in the woods behind your house.  To do it, you're hauling boards and nails and a hammer to the tree.  But somewhere between your house and the tree is a stray, rabid dog.  Everytime you try to pass he barks at you and tries to bite you.  You have to run from him, shoo him away, or clamber up the tree, work, and then wait for him to leave you alone before hauling more boards.  So why not stop and somehow get rid of the dog?  Why be chased by a mean dog everytime you want to be in your treehouse?

There are those who are so distracted or bullied by "A" influences, that they're unable to create.  It may be true that they're creating it all, even the interference, and probably is, but there is still the matter of disentangling the mind from interferences...Sometimes they bite, or drag you by the leg, or scare you away.     

Maybe ideas are intrinsically of some emotion.  Maybe emotion is deeper than thought.  "God hates sinners" is an idea, a classic Fundamental Protestant belief.  It seems to carry a specific emotion.  Maybe it's more true to say that I produce a specific emotion in reaction to hearing and seeing "hate" based upon my history of associations with that word.  I don't know.  I do know that even if I try to say "God hates sinners" with love that I feel a friction.  The intent of love and the idea "God hates sinners" doesn't seem compatible.