seeking the path
p. 174/1-3 p. 174/10-12 p. 179/17-21 p. 181/fn.1 p. 181/fn.3
p. 184/5-9 p. 184/14-17
that one’s body can be possessed by (part of) oneself. Myers seems to be aware of this, and makes a distinction. To be ‘self-possessed’ is to be reflexively in control of the body: but this is not what is referred to here. [If the Dorr incident was really a case of ‘possession’, it was a case of possession shared between the invading spirit and the spirit of the medium.]: Perfectly possible. [There was no question there of either ‘mind’ being other than a dissociated element of the sensitive’s own personality.]: Are you quite sure? [The vividness of her sensation then was compounded of not only the initial stimulus but of the answering one that sprang from me…]: Resonance. [Hélène Smith] u/l: What a name! [I draw no distinction, so far as process is concerned, between possession by a dissociated self and a possession by an extraneous spirit.] u/l: See note on p. 150. [the Weltgeist, or Absolute Spirit] ‘Absolute’ c/o: World. [May it not be that the attainment of self-consciousness by a finite spirit A requires not only A’s consciousness of B’s reality, but also B’s recognition of A’s reality, and similar with B?]: Curious idea of an attainment! The notion is only partly valid. Recognition by others is, in a manner of speaking, a dimension of our being; but even without this the Cartesian Cogito ergo sum is valid. See Sartre in L’Être et le Néant on the question of other people. The Weltgeist is a mystical notion. [… possession … must certainly include some kind of ascendency or domination of the possessing mind over the possessed.]: Presumably so. [normal mentality in the individual may involve an element of telepathic possession by the primary self of the other psychical units in the group that enter into the constitution of the personality as a whole.]: Once again, telepathy is an inappropriate word to describe a being’s internal relation with himself. Telepathy implies distance—i.e. the separation of one being from another, which is an absolute negative (‘I am not someone else’ and vice versa). There is not such a negative within the being, since, whatever part may be in the ascendant, all parts are equally ‘I’. See p. 256, p. 279 and p. 308.
Published on Jun 26, 2013
Part B includes two early essays (Nibbana and Anatta and Sketch for a Proof of Rebirth) as well as notes from a Commonplace Book and Margina...