Having complete faith in higher selfs plan vs personal ambition

[zenmaster]

If you think emotions are a perception, or that they are the intuitive faculty, then this would not be what I was saying or meant. I'm using the term "emotions" in a Jungian, psychological context (as with "intuition"). By the way, "lower emotions" can also be due to positive belief structures so gotta balance that one out.

Can you explain what you mean by positive belief structures causing lower emotions (that is to say, negative emotions)? It has been my experience, that positive belief structures do the exact opposite of causing negative emotion. Perhaps an example, so I can better understand?

For example, the expectation of reward, the hope for improvement of conditions, the attraction of eros, charged complexes carrying feeling of numinosity (repressed transcendent function), etc. The things we tend to see featured prominently in advertising messages which are designed to appeal to positive emotions.

Remember, emotions are an unconscious reaction. The more "pure" one is, the more balanced, or less distorted. So things with personal emotive-charge content tend to diminish, becoming more and more subtle as one evolves. This is how it should be, as unconscious reactions would obviously be reduced with more consciousness. What does increase with that "purity", is the capacity for conscious feeling (again in the Jungian sense). http://tap3x.net/ENSEMBLE/mpage3c.html
Feeling, intuition and emotion are often confused, possibly due to their common time/space (interiors / from periphery of wholeness) natures. intuition would actually be that perception you're looking for, while feeling would be the active evaluation of something.

Perhaps that is the cause of our differences in viewpoints here, that you are looking at things through a "Jungian" lens. Since, there is no universally accepted definition for feeling, emotion, and intuition, naturally there will be differences in peoples viewpoints. My lens is definitely not a Jungian one.

I've found Jung's concepts to be congruent with the Ra material, and while not universally accepted, it is the most widely accepted out of the options available.

There are some things I can agree with however.

As one becomes more balanced, more in tune with the macrocosm, one becomes more conscious. Control over ones thoughts, or focus of consciousness, increases. Since emotions are reactions based on thoughts, control of these increase by default.

Yes, generally what is accepted from oneself is at one's conscious ability to be used (rather than unconsciously presented to one's attention as a stimulated reaction).

As a result, there are less contradictions, or distortions, within the balanced being. The emotional state becomes one of complete joy, love, happiness, acceptance, or appreciation. These words all approach, yet fall short, of the permanent state of consciousness we all exist in, but is hidden from our conscious minds by our egoic distortions.

Yes, but here we don't really exist in full appreciation of conscious awareness of that permanent state. Consciousness and awareness are essentially identical as I'm using the term.

The line between intuition, and emotions is very fine. You can't really separate them in my opinion.

Ultimately the conscious and unconscious are blended along with the psychological faculties used to perceive and to determine. That's the dialectical monism dynamic. But practically speaking, here, we choose one frame of reference to make the other distinct to consciousness. With intuition we perceive where something is going and from whence it came - without resorting rational analysis. With emotion we have feedback from our unconscious when it has been somehow impressed and made active outside of our awareness.

From my perspective, intuition is a natural byproduct of the interconnectedness of all things. Since, ultimately, outside the illusion of separation, we are all One, we automatically have access to all things unconsciously.

This is just another way of saying time/space perspective. time/space is from all to part, where the intuiting individual would be 'anchored' in time/space (and applying that perception to space/time). That 'all' is all there is. And since we are only pontentially all there is, the perspective is necessarily related to and drawing from the unconscious (i.e. the deep mind). How that intuited perception finds its way to conscious use (in teach/learning) will be totally dependent on the development of one's rational world view.

We all have access to a sort of omniscience. The reliability of that omniscience is in direct proportion to the clarity of our minds -- a factor of how distorted or imbalanced we are. How distorted we are, is registered, at least partly, by our emotional state. The more distorted you are, less love/light you partake in consciously. Someone at inner peace, feeling love in their hearts, and existing in a state of joy will have a more comprehensive and accurate access to intuition, then someone who lives in a state of emotional disharmony. From my viewpoint, this would be indicative they had eliminated a great deal of the distortions within their consciousness. All distortions are the result of misaligned thought.

Yes, where misaligned can be said to be a misunderstanding which prevents some acknowledgement or acceptance.

Though there are differences in our perspectives, I can appreciate, in my own way, where you are coming from. Oftentimes people use different words to describe the same fundamental mechanism, but even so, one can still see the essential mechanism at work in the exchange of seemingly different descriptions.

Most of the time people use different words when attempting to not be vague about the mechanisms. Obviously, a primary mechanism exists, but it is ineffable. I think we can be descriptive with utility when referring to the mechanisms which are derived from that one source. And I think a lot of that work has already been done by Jung and others who have developed insight from studying themselves and others using a psychological perspective.