Cleansing & cha...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Cleansing & charging a new Lapis Lazuli & silver ring  

Page 7 / 7
  RSS

Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
18/10/2012 6:14 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
"Energy of 418?"

The enumeration of the word Abrahadabra, which expresses 5=6 (5 A's and 6 consonants), the union of the microcosm and macrocosm. The word (and its number) is a glyph for the fact that the True Self is intertwined inseperably with All (and all-possibility, Nuit). If it were not for the Khu producing the illusion of separateness, this True Self would have no way to experience anything. See Liber Aleph for an examination of the word as a metaphor for certain sex magick techniques.

"Silent Self?"

The True Self, the one that an individual can observe by silencing the conscious mind. The True Self doesn't speak (in the sense of producing thoughts), it goes. Hence, it's the silent self.

As noted above, the Silent/True Self is united with Nuit, and hence 418 (Abrahadabra, Aiwass) is a formula for expressing its place in the universe.

Seriously, Kyle, is your intention just to get me to define beginner's terms? Or do you intend to respond to my substantive points, like, say, oh I don't know, my pointing out that you advanced a factual claim and then immediately withdrew it when you were called on it?


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1850
18/10/2012 6:16 am  

Los-your reading of my post makes me think YOU have difficulties with reading comprehension. But we both know this ain't so. Ergo, I can only conclude (based on the evidence) that you would just as soon react to a slanted version of what is presented to you whereby you might (once again) provide the "corrective medicine" you are obsessed with.

In summary, what I was communicating was that I had an experience which went beyond the usual daydreaming and fantasy, manifesting some very unlikely "coincidences." I don't make absolute claims as to this experience. As much as it SEEMED that Aiwass (the disembodied author of AL) was present, I have also considered the psychic faculties of the medium picking up and projecting the contents of my own mind. Along with such a model is another which says "It was a lark-adults playing 'Magick' at the kitchen table." There are more models and possibilities than this. Which one I tend towards will be determined by how I understand and relate to such experiences. Reason plays into this (hence, I regard many models and remain open to new info) but so does Intuition and Imagination. All factors are brought to the surface and, without the need to make an absolute statement (a "claim"), I CAN (and DO) choose angles wherewith to relate to the experience. These angles are a dynamic and constitute a creative process. I think this is one reason we cannot see eye to eye. You want to throw a weight around the neck of my words and constantly haul it all down into the world of "claims" and "evidence." In doing so, you are trying to cut away from the world which is beyond such limits. This world is not concerned with "claims" or justifying them. At the same time, it is not divorced from the perspective you advocate. When you write of the Abyss, please consider that these two perspectives are also factors to be weighed against each other, with preference for neither.

Blake identified the classic "Fairy Funeral" as being "in his head." But he then went on to say this realm was the Eternal Realm and beyond the limits of the Vegetative Body with its sensory input. Lon Milo D expressed it well with his "It's all in your head-you just have no idea how big your head IS."   


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1850
18/10/2012 6:17 am  

you advanced a factual claim and then immediately withdrew it when you were called on it?

Again with the reading comprehension. I did NEITHER. 


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
18/10/2012 6:36 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
you advanced a factual claim and then immediately withdrew it when you were called on it?

Again with the reading comprehension. I did NEITHER. 

"I did NEITHER" is a factual claim as well. Let's scroll back and see how well the evidence of your own words supports your factual claim.

You first wrote:

I need to contact this AIWASS myself! 

And so I did. [...] he DID appear.

So you said that you contacted Aiwass and he appeared.

Then, in your very next post, you said this:

Now, does this [evidence] tell me that Aiwass is "real?" No. But what it DOES tell me is that some weird shit went down

In your very next post, you say that you don't know what actually happened. Hence, Aiwass didn't necessarily appear (since Aiwass isn't necessarily real), and your experience simply demonstrated that "some weird shit went down" (whether that weird shit was Aiwass, or telepathy, or some other explanation, including completely natural explanations).

In other words, you just said "X happened." And then, in your very next post said, "I don't know what happened."

Do you not see how the second extract is a withdrawal of the first claim?


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1850
18/10/2012 7:01 am  

Los, you are swerving into semantics. I can write "You know, your recent post made me think a bit" and THAT is a "claim" which you want "evidence" for!

"X happened" is not necessarily a claim-it is a mode of communication. How I regard "X happening" is where I stand in relation to it. It is my observation that such "stances" are often conglomerates of many factors within the psyche.

When I say "Aiwass appeared," this begs the question: "OK...so WHAT is this 'Aiwass?'" Here is where I express some open-ended thoughts.

I can share this: if we buy into Crowley's story re: the reception of AL, I feel that what I experienced (and subsequent events along these lines) was of the same nature. I also expressed that I remain open to many possibilities here. This is called "Occult Exploration" and is very different from trying to bolster dogma with one read on an experience.

So, yes, weird shit went down. And even weirder shit has gone down since. Some might roll their eyes and reach for the remote. I personally find this a fascinating field of study and work. It's my nature and WILL to thus explore, Los. And I can say that the whole "claim/evidence" thing is insufficient to approach such things. Nor do I think "anything goes" and "my truth is as good as yours." Perhaps more along the lines of Kierkegaard, I feel that "Truth must be truth for ME." As for this "Me," I challenge this daily. Keep going, keep pushing, keep questioning-and through it all, keep steady and move with gratitude and love. How is this working for me? Pretty damn well. I expect to die without knowing all the mysteries of the Cosmos-but I'd sure like to die knowing more than I do at this moment. Not because it will help me reincarnate in some better life or scoot my soul into a Nirvana or Heaven. After growing into my adult life this far, I keep stretching for the Sun. And when we arrive there? Well, there is a SUN BEHIND THE SUN.

"How splendid is the adventure!" quoth the Prophet. MY adventure is different from YOURS. 

The REAL question for me is: how do we sharpen each other along the Way? I LIKE your questions and skepticism. Sometimes it's too dragged out and dull but in general I DO enjoy my dialogues with you. But I don't engage to prove you wrong and "win."

We are two "Magical Universes" communicating. I don't need to conquer any new territory but I AM interested in establishing some worthwhile trade routes. Does this make sense to you? 


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1850
18/10/2012 7:05 am  

Oh and btw-since we've completely derailed this thread (Shiva was the only one who gave a truly substantial commentary on Lapis Lazuli), may I ask: what are your thoughts on Wittgenstein? I often have his approach in mind when engaging with you and dealing with the issues of language as a vehicle of communication. You seem much more of the Aristotle camp but I'm not trying to slight you here. I have recently developed a real appreciation for Aristotle's approach. Never the less, I am more of the Wittgenstein "Spirit" and feel we'd make some mutual progress if our language wasn't aimed like arrows in debate.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
18/10/2012 7:15 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Some might [...] reach for the remote.

When I read this part, the thought, "Yes, and press the OFF button" arose, though not as a response to your entire post, but a rhetorical response to the one sentence.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1850
18/10/2012 7:39 am  

"Yes, and press the OFF button"

What man is at ease in his Inn-?

Get OUT!

😉

"


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4054
18/10/2012 9:56 am  

Los,

A few posts earlier, wellreadwellbred asked what Ra-Hoor-Khuit was, and you replied:

"Los" wrote:
The True Self of each individual.

Now in reply to Kyle you say:

"Los" wrote:
The enumeration of the word Abrahadabra, which expresses 5=6 (5 A's and 6 consonants), the union of the microcosm and macrocosm. The word (and its number) is a glyph for the fact that the True Self is intertwined inseperably with All (and all-possibility, Nuit). If it were not for the Khu producing the illusion of separateness, this True Self would have no way to experience anything.

Surely, seperateness being an illusion, there cannot be a True Self of an individual.

"Los" wrote:
The True Self, the one that an individual can observe by silencing the conscious mind. The True Self doesn't speak (in the sense of producing thoughts), it goes. Hence, it's the silent self.

As noted above, the Silent/True Self is united with Nuit, and hence 418 (Abrahadabra, Aiwass) is a formula for expressing its place in the universe.

It doesn't have "its place in the universe". It IS the universe.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
18/10/2012 10:14 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
The True Self, the one that an individual can observe by silencing the conscious mind. The True Self doesn't speak (in the sense of producing thoughts), it goes. Hence, it's the silent self.

As noted above, the Silent/True Self is united with Nuit, and hence 418 (Abrahadabra, Aiwass) is a formula for expressing its place in the universe.

It doesn't have "its place in the universe". It IS the universe.

Well said, Mick!


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
18/10/2012 1:56 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Surely, seperateness being an illusion, there cannot be a True Self of an individual.

From the perspective of the universe, yes. But when we describe things and communicate, we're necessarily within the illusion of separateness (because, in order to have a description, there has to be the illusion of at least three separate things). And from the perspective of this illusion of separateness, there definitely is a True Self with a place within (and intertwined with) the universe.

If it were not for the illusion of separateness, there would not be a True Self, nor would there be a "universe."


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
18/10/2012 2:56 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Los, you are swerving into semantics.

I wouldn't call it "swerving into semantics" (which has a pejorative connotation here) to want the other guy in a conversation to be clear.

"X happened" is not necessarily a claim-it is a mode of communication.

In this particular case, it is a mode of obfuscation, not communication.

Let's review the situation you wanted to communicate. You had some kind of weird experience, and you don't know what it was exactly. You are tempted to interpret it as an experience similar to ones had by Crowley and, at some times, you are willing to consider it to be contact with Crowley's Aiwass, even though you recognize that the evidence isn't sufficient to support that interpretation.

But rather than just saying that, you turned around and, supposedly trying to communicate the above, said to me, "I contacted Aiwass...he DID appear."

I'm not sure how you see that as "communication" of the situation: it's an obfuscation of the situation. This is probably a far greater source of disagreement between us than anything else: I think it's important, when communicating, to be as clear as humanly possible. You, apparently, think it's fine for communication to involve sudden reversals of positions, blatant contradictions, and a slippage of terminology. In other words, you're saying it's a "mode of communication" for you to say "Aiwass...DID appear" and by that mean something like "Aiwass SEEMED to have appeared." And when I press you further, you reveal that by this you meant something like, "Well, something weird happened. I just don't have any good grounds for saying exactly what it was."

Your original statement ("Aiwass...DID appear") was not communication at all.

The REAL question for me is: how do we sharpen each other along the Way?

If you learned to communicate more clearly from your dealings with me, I would consider you to be considerably "sharpened."

We are two "Magical Universes" communicating. I don't need to conquer any new territory but I AM interested in establishing some worthwhile trade routes. Does this make sense to you?

Of course it makes sense. But you can't do this if you insist on obfuscating.

Just to be clear, I don't think you're deliberately doing this: I think that your thinking on the subject is muddled, and that muddle manifests itself in unclear writing. I'm not trying to insult you or anything, but I am trying to diagnose a problem for you. If you're seriously interested in "sharpening" yourself in a real way, you could work on this. Have you tried taking expository writing classes, as an obvious suggestion that comes to mind?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
18/10/2012 3:03 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Oh and btw-since we've completely derailed this thread

Threads go where the conversation leads. Personally, I think our current discussion is more instructive and useful than a million pages about "charging rings."

Shiva was the only one who gave a truly substantial commentary on Lapis Lazuli

And he's welcome to respond to my observations about Kirlian photography whenever he wants.

may I ask: what are your thoughts on Wittgenstein? [...] You seem much more of the Aristotle camp

I tend not to base my thinking on any particular philosopher. I strive to make as few assumptions as possible, so I try only to make the assumptions that are absolutely necessary for intellectual discourse (i.e. the assumptions that everybody makes in order to enter into discourse). We could talk more about what those assumptions are, but first I want you to answer my post before this one.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
18/10/2012 3:54 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Surely, seperateness being an illusion, there cannot be a True Self of an individual.

From the perspective of the universe, yes. But when we describe things and communicate, we're necessarily within the illusion of separateness (because, in order to have a description, there has to be the illusion of at least three separate things). And from the perspective of this illusion of separateness, there definitely is a True Self with a place within (and intertwined with) the universe.

If it were not for the illusion of separateness, there would not be a True Self, nor would there be a "universe."

You still think there is a "you" that is communicating?

Did you take the red pill or the blue pill? Just wondering.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
18/10/2012 4:56 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
You still think there is a "you" that is communicating?

Since you began your question with "you," it seems that you are under the impression that there is a "you."

Although separateness is an illusion, one must acquiesce to that illusion in order to enter the realms of discourse. As you just demonstrated.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5034
18/10/2012 6:28 pm  

"... in order to have a description, there has to be the illusion of at least three separate things."

"The world, soul and God are imaginations or mental creations in our essential self, like the imaginary silver that we see in a shell. These three [world, soul and God] appear at the same time and disappear at the same time."                                                       
- Ramana Maharshi


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
18/10/2012 7:11 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Although separateness is an illusion

Red pill then?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
18/10/2012 7:14 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"... in order to have a description, there has to be the illusion of at least three separate things."

"The world, soul and God are imaginations or mental creations in our essential self, like the imaginary silver that we see in a shell. These three [world, soul and God] appear at the same time and disappear at the same time."                                                       
- Ramana Maharshi

Instead of the terms "world, soul, and God" - "universe, thinker, thought" perhaps. Do you think they can be transposed so easily?


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1015
18/10/2012 10:23 pm  
"Los" wrote:
I think it's important, when communicating, to be as clear as humanly possible.

Quote:
I can appreciate the clarity of your communication on this site, Los.

The following is written in the thirty fifth verse of the third and last chapter of The Book of the Law:

"The half of the word of Heru-ra-ha, called Hoor-pa-kraat and Ra-Hoor-Khut."

As both 'Heru-ra-ha', and 'Hoor-pa-kraat', are mentioned in relation to the god "Ra Hoor Khuit" of Thelema, within the The Book of the Law, and since "The True Self of each individual", was your reply to me asking you "What certainly real thing, or something certainly existing, does the god "Ra Hoor Khuit" of Thelema represent?", earlier in this thread, I now ask you the following two questions:

Can 'Heru-ra-ha' be read as representing some certainly real thing, or something certainly existing?

And can 'Hoor-pa-kraat' be read as representing some certainly real thing, or something certainly existing?


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
19/10/2012 2:49 pm  

  93

The preachers of restriction have had their day...
and JohnnyScience is building a ring of lapis lazuli & silver.
It will an object of power by virtue of its very existence.

93/93


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
19/10/2012 5:11 pm  
"obscuruspaintus" wrote:
The preachers of restriction have had their day...

It takes a special kind of someone to interpret a call for clear communication and for an honest examination of facts as "restriction."

It is, in fact, "restriction" to just choose to believe in any old thing simply because it strikes the mind as pleasant, invigorating, important, or that fun kind of "disturbing."


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
19/10/2012 5:19 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
I can appreciate the clarity of your communication on this site, Los.

Thanks. And, for what it's worth, your posts have been readable this time around.

Can 'Heru-ra-ha' be read as representing some certainly real thing, or something certainly existing?

And can 'Hoor-pa-kraat' be read as representing some certainly real thing, or something certainly existing?

Yeah, basically "Heru-ra-ha" is a god with two aspects, Ra-Hoor-Khuit and Hoor-pa-kraat. There are a number of symbolic attributions one could make here: One might take HRH as the "True Self" and RHK and HPK as aspects of that True Self (the dynamic aspect [True Will] and the "silent" aspect of observing).

Alternatively, one might read HRH as experience itself (the product of a point-of-view (Hadit) meeting one piece of potential (Nuit). Within this experience, we have the "True Self" or "Silent Self" (HPK) that manifests as dynamic action (RHK).

There are probably lots of other ways to attribute the symbolic attributions, each of which will be slightly different and conflict with other attributions. Which is fine because we're not talking about facts about the world, here, but ways of labeling stuff (which is, to a large extent, arbitrary and dependent upon the labeler).

What's important is to recognize that these "gods" are -- as Crowley says -- for "literary convenience." And like all metaphors, we can find different ways of applying them. We just really shouldn't start thinking that they're real, independent beings in the same way that we are.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5325
19/10/2012 10:06 pm  

Moderator's Note

Does anyone remember when this thread had at least something to do with Cleansing & charging a new Lapis Lazuli & silver ring?

It's going nowhere, to be honest.

Locked.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Page 7 / 7
Share: