… in that case I would be a guru, with all its negative connotations… No, thank you, I would rather not.
Originally ‘guru’ simply means ‘teacher’. Then I think: a good ‘teacher’ is someone who strives to educate his ‘students’ in a way that they become better than himself. In that case there might be an element of truth in it…
|With ‘sect’, I mean a set of people who, as a group, make their borders quite impenetrable in an artificial way, both inwards and outwards. Such a group has a shared learning or teacher who incites to uncritically accepting themselves.|
But all kidding aside. At the moment, AURELIS is no sect.
Will AURELIS ever be a sect? I would fold it for good if I knew that this would be the case. At the same time you should be on your guard, to prevent things would lead in that direction. And I would like to ask this to all parties involved. Sticking one’s head in the sand, makes no sense. AURELIS ingratiates the unconscious. That creates many possibilities and where possibilities are, there is also the opportunity to abuse. So: always remain attentive.
On the other hand, it is also my opinion that AURELIS is a good antidote to the emergence of all kinds of sects, big and small.
If people would be truly supported when they open up to themselves, chances would reduce that things which would otherwise remain hidden, would be appealed to in the wrong way, read: would be abused. I say: ‘sects, big and small’, because that term does not necessarily mean that it would be about a small group that dwells on the fringes of society. For example: Nazism. That is probably clear to everyone. Other examples are: organized religions to the extent that they centralize lifeless borders, dogmas or a dogmatic figure.
The pink elephant.
By talking about it, you may suddenly think: perhaps it might be a bit of a sect though…? That’s OKAY. It’s better to be ‘critical in a somewhat negative way’ (this is: especially from a protective reflex and therefore not entirely open) than to be not critical at all. And yet, it would be even better to be ‘positively critical’, that is to say: critically with an open mind in all directions.
Hopefully AURELIS will become huge and this text will be read by many people.
Let each reader decide for herself/himself what she/he feels within.
What is written here is meaningless unless you yourself might feel that it is right. And even then you have to remain critical. Does it make sense to you personally? ‘Man as a measure for all things’ is not enough. It has to be the total person. And in that totality you come across things that may not be ordinary, but they sure could be and – depending on what you think of it – they are also supposed to be ordinary. Enjoying small things. Enjoying great things. Enjoying things with depth. Enjoying the depth itself. For me, ‘deep enjoyment’ (by myself and by others) is high on the list of reasons why I do what I do.
Individuation = striving for in-dividuum = un-dividedness = wholeness
= no egoism but: I myself decide, in totality, what is good for me. No organization can do that in my place: neither a papal-spiritual one, nor a pharmacological-physical one, nor AURELIS or anything else.