How can one practic...
 
Notifications
Clear all

How can one practice magick with out mucking up your life?  

Page 1 / 5
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
08/04/2010 9:13 am  

How is one able to practice magick without it really mucking up your life?

Stay strictly with white magic? But that isnt how Crowley did all of his, so if you read his teachings, is it just all black magick?

If Aleister Crowley was the top wizard of black magick, who was/is the top wizard in white magick?

Is there anyone alive today that is taking Crowley's work further than he did?


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
08/04/2010 9:50 am  

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

May I suggest that in magick, Black and White are traps?

What is Black Magick? What is White?

Why is this distinction not made for prayer, or meditation.

Black and White in these contexts are typically equated to Good and Evil... more traps. All things are both and neither simultaneously, its a matter of perception.

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
08/04/2010 10:22 am  

JS - "How is one able to practice magick without it really mucking up your life?"

How is one able to NOT practise Magick without really mucking up their life?

Change is inevitable. That is your only stability.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
08/04/2010 10:55 am  
"alrah" wrote:
JS - "How is one able to practice magick without it really mucking up your life?"

How is one able to NOT practise Magick without really mucking up their life?

Change is inevitable. That is your only stability.

I guess what is your view on what "mucking" really is...

I've got a big enough bad luck streak & would like to avoid adding to it to make things worse.

I realize this can be a ying & yang effect, but the question is how do you find the right balance?

Surely its easy to put a label such as white/black magick, but how does one really know if they are going to be put in danger, or dangering the loved ones around them by exploring? I'm not interested in conjouring demons, other helpful entities is another story. Where does this fall into place when trying to practice or study magick, especially from someone who leaned toward the "Darker" side of things?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
08/04/2010 12:43 pm  

I think perhaps a good place for you to start would be to usefully discriminate between what dangers there actually are in Magickal practise, and to clearly identify what dangers are merely illusionary and are largely the product of over active imaginations or misperceptions.

For instance - Ego expansion and delusions of grandeur after certain mystical experiences are a danger. It's something to watch out for but is a managable risk. So we can put this in the 'real' mucking up catagory.

There was a guy in California recently who thought he's caused Sundays earthquake by meditation (he twittered it to his friends). Magickal practise and meditation does not cause earthquakes (obviously). That's in the 'silly buggers' catagory.

Try writing a list. On one side write what you think may be 'real' dangers, and on the other side write down what you think is probably an unreal or fantasy danger. And remember - just because we're talking about Magick, doesn't mean we have to suspend our faculty for discrimination and good common sense judgement calls. 😉


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/04/2010 5:22 pm  

Ego inflation is not the only danger. Ego depletion is another one. You could be stuck thinking poorly of yourself for years with the help of a bad chaos sigil. Thats why I don't do chaos magick anymore.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/04/2010 8:02 pm  

Regarding the ego inflation stuff, black and white magic etc. This is why it is very important to gain self knowledge. "Know thyself" 🙂 In many cases magick can (and most of the time do) amplify certain parts in the mind/character, this is why it is important to have knowledge how the mind works and how one can fix (internal and external) issues. My experience is that too many people get involved into all kind of magickal workings (most of the times far too complicated to comprehend by the novice) without a proper knowledge about "oneself" and a firm foundation (=balanced mind). I think Liber XXX says it all 🙂

Magick is = energy/ force and thus neutral. It is up to the magician and his/hers ethics what make it black white etc. My view on this is that when the mind of the magician is under the influence of the higher aspects of the mind (Neshamah, Chiah, Yechidah) one naturally acts "ethical". This because one can oversee the consequences of certain acts and avoid trouble for oneself and others.

Odion


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
12/04/2010 9:08 pm  

You might as well ask "How is a baby to learn to walk without falling down?" or "How am I to make a cake without breaking a few eggs?"

Short answer: You can't. You can't practice Fire-eating without getting burned, can you? Try a reasonable expection. Like 'practicing magick without it really mucking up your life too terribly badly.' M'kay? Maybe you can avoid losing your job and/or changing your career. Maybe you can avoid divorce. Maybe you can maintain a normal relationship with your wife & children, presuming you have them, of course. Some people do manage. Those people were probably already closely aligned with their True Will, as is sometimes the case. Those who are further afield from the nature of their True Will, on the other hand, will sooner or later find some substantial waves of change that they'll either have to surf, or risk getting knocked over and/or washed away by.

As Alrah pointed out, and as I constantly remind my own students, 'Change is the only constant.' Especially in Thelema, where one is ill-advised if one tries to hold back one drop of one's blood from the Graal of Babalon. When Our Lady calls you out on the mat, you can't play "Let's Make A Deal", it's All or it's Nothing. Until she does, the key is Balance. Familiarize yourself with Liber Librae, if you have not done so already. That'll get you to the Veil of Paroketh; how you rend that Veil and achieve Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel I leave to your own devices.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/04/2010 9:28 pm  

Magick, white, black, grey, purple etc. ad nauseam is going to muck up your life. It is inevitable in the processes of initiation. What magick does is help you by providing a coping mechanism and ways to work through the ordeals more efficiently.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
12/04/2010 9:32 pm  

93

Black Magick is really any act of Magick that is not in accordance with, or working towards, your Holy Guardian Angel.

I will quote Crowley from Magick Without Tears:

"the Single Supreme Ritual is the attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. It is the raising of the complete man in a vertical straight line...Any other operation is black magic...If the magician needs to perform any other operation than this, it is only lawful in so far as it is a necessary preliminary to That One Work."

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 525
13/04/2010 3:17 am  

Johnny: You are quoting Colin Wilson with the "mucking up your life" bit, correct?- from the 'Other Beast Of Loch Ness' doc?~~~ Mr. Walterfive & Uranus have done a good job of answering your question, to my mind. Relax, keep up your studies, & keep it simple. If you are afraid of it, then maybe you should take a break first. Anyways, this thread goes against the 'guidelines'.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/04/2010 11:24 am  

hmm. Good advice from a lot of people here.

I guess my only concern is hearing stories of conjuring up demons and having a lot of bad luck (like your family members dying around you or going insane like Crowley)

I've already got enough bad luck as it is (something I would really like to try on focusing on being able to reverse)

Granted I probably would never be able to do 10% of the weird shit he was doing just because he was such a genius and had the means to get really crazy.

I'm looking for smaller subtle changes like to get rid of this terrible bad luck I seem to have floating above my head, understanding life more getting in contact with my HGA and perhaps being more successful in life as far as a human, a father & financially.


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 525
13/04/2010 12:08 pm  

. . Yes, he aspired; & , yes, he was born into money. Yet, he was also faced with disastrous streaks of " bad luck ";- much of which was beyond his control. At the end of the day, he accomplished what he set out to do- & he was never very financially successful with his writing, painting, or priesthood. Once his brewing inheritance was gone, he was forced to make his own way.


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 525
13/04/2010 1:32 pm  

. . It is interesting to compare with the posthumous fares of some of his contemporaries: It is no wonder that his family is angry; he has certainly passed a threshhold of fame, wherein he is far more talked about than Yeats, as an example. He lost a fortune, & has gained it back twenty fold. Undoubtedly, he will be talked about & loved in the centuries to come. He deserves it . . .


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/04/2010 1:34 pm  

"I guess my only concern is hearing stories of conjuring up demons and having a lot of bad luck (like your family members dying around you or going insane like Crowley)"

-eh really? 🙄


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/04/2010 6:24 pm  

I guess my only concern is hearing stories of conjuring up demons and having a lot of bad luck (like your family members dying around you or going insane like Crowley)

These are all just fairy-tales spread by magickians to keep the noobs out, you realise.

It's partly what attracts you though, isn't it?

Be honest...

o


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
13/04/2010 6:31 pm  

93,

It really depends on how you view your actions, and how you react to the changes that occur. You can quite possibly think of it as focused prayer with added mental tuning.

All you are really doing is clearing the waters of a muddy pool. In other words, all of the things that have occurred in your life make up so many grains of dirt and sand in the pool which is a lens through which you view the bottom of the pool that is your reality. With all the events (thoughts, words, and deeds) in your life being the dirt and sand, one can readily see how any view of the bottom of the pool (or reality) may become obscured. Magickal practices simply help you to still the dirt and sand in the pool. It helps you to organize your world and adjust yourself to that organization. One of the goals in doing this is to be able to see the bottom of the pool (reality) clearly and without interference (dirt and sand). It is the Ego which interprets all of the dirt and sand, and at first we work in one way or another to try and sift through all the muck. Really, we just stir the muck around, and when we stir it around fast enough we can begin to get a glimpse of the bottom. People attach themselves to that idea and think themselves to be making so much progress when in reality they are simply stirring up more mud. The aim of it all then, is not to stir all the mud, but to still it, allowing your mind to become a clear and calm pool, so that the radiance within is able to clearly penetrate the pool and manifest itself at the bottom of the pool, your reality.

Yes, there are many dangers for one who doesn't take a simplistic view of this. People generally tend to become swayed by various forces known and unknown, back and forth attempting to conquer each one in turn. Each mini conquest simply reinforces the idea of how good one is doing, or how cool one is. As this occurs, the Ego continually builds on its own self confidence, telling you that you have begun to gain great power over all of the mud. That is perhaps the main danger. There are many people who go through their lives chasing these phantoms and trying to pin them down instead of simply focusing their eyes on the Sun. Many people tend to look at Magick as a way to control one's own life and even others by the use of various mental and physical toolkits. This only continues to stir the mud.

Too few actually allow the Sun to shine through to the bottom of their pools. The wind dies down, the ripples slow to a halt, and as the mud settles the Sun begins to shine through. This is what happens when one "enflames oneself with prayer". And when it does begin to occur this way, one gives thanks to the gods and goddesses that have helped one along the way. Until it does however, one continues having to deal with the mud in the water.

Unfortunately, you have to know your enemies, and you must become familiar with and learn to control your every thought, word, and deed (the mud). Thus, when it is time for it to settle, you will have the proper knowledge and control over those enemies, so that you may adjust your own reality to how those enemies properly fit into your life and are put into the proper use. That way, when the pool does settle, you aren't left with a bunch of things that you abhor or that control you; you are left with tools which you may use to cause change in conformity with the Sun that shines through.

I hope this analogy isn't so far fetched that it is hard to understand.

Best wishes in the Great Work!

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/04/2010 7:09 pm  
"Walterfive" wrote:
You might as well ask "How is a baby to learn to walk without falling down?" or "How am I to make a cake without breaking a few eggs?"

Short answer: You can't. You can't practice Fire-eating without getting burned, can you? Try a reasonable expection. Like 'practicing magick without it really mucking up your life too terribly badly.' M'kay? Maybe you can avoid losing your job and/or changing your career. Maybe you can avoid divorce. Maybe you can maintain a normal relationship with your wife & children, presuming you have them, of course. Some people do manage. Those people were probably already closely aligned with their True Will, as is sometimes the case. Those who are further afield from the nature of their True Will, on the other hand, will sooner or later find some substantial waves of change that they'll either have to surf, or risk getting knocked over and/or washed away by.

As Alrah pointed out, and as I constantly remind my own students, 'Change is the only constant.' Especially in Thelema, where one is ill-advised if one tries to hold back one drop of one's blood from the Graal of Babalon. When Our Lady calls you out on the mat, you can't play "Let's Make A Deal", it's All or it's Nothing. Until she does, the key is Balance. Familiarize yourself with Liber Librae, if you have not done so already. That'll get you to the Veil of Paroketh; how you rend that Veil and achieve Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel I leave to your own devices.

Obviously one can't do anything without make sacrifices *lol* But, as you most likely know, we talking about different planes here. What I mean is that dealing with occult forces is something different then braking some eggs .... and that it explains many mental problems with people who are involved into unbalanced workings. I don't say it is wrong, I say that it can mess up the mind more instead of balance it. Stirring up the astral waters can be dangerous without proper preparations. But indeed I agree some people need to have those strong messages that they are close to serious mental troubles before one realize one need to work on the basics first. As is stated in Liber XXX. So without it (proper balance) one can get farther from the "higher principles" instead of closer. Some need to get really far away before they can get closer...not a very productive way I must say...

Odion


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/04/2010 12:01 am  
"JohnnyScience" wrote:
How is one able to practice magick without it really mucking up your life?

Since I think you're talking about 'magick' with an occult connotation (angels, demons, and all of that stuff), I could only recommend that you take a step back and reassess.

Give serious study to Crowley's writings along with Erwin's works. Learn to really see Thelema for what it is, and I think that your idea of what magick is will radically change.

Please don't get caught up in the mumbo-jumbo: that's a good route to mucking up your life.

All the best.


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 525
14/04/2010 9:36 am  

. . Is this the same "Erwin" who posted one of his essays here, said " Enjoy "; & then proceeded to attack the first person who even hinted of disagreement in the most insulting terms?- Yeah, that was a real turn on;- most recommended . .


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
14/04/2010 2:03 pm  
"mgorsuch" wrote:
Give serious study to Crowley's writings along with Erwin's works. Learn to really see Thelema for what it is, and I think that your idea of what magick is will radically change.

Another of Hessle's vicars on earth, come to spread the good word.

In all probability you won't "learn to see Thelema for what it is", but rather what Erwin thinks it is. You might regard the two as synonymous, but that's a matter of opinion.

🙄

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/04/2010 2:51 pm  
"JohnnyScience" wrote:
How is one able to practice magick without it really mucking up your life?

I'd like to think of myself as pretty successful and I've been studying and practicing magick since I was 15 (I'm now 28 ), so nearly half my life now. I'm married with a son, educated, and financially stable.

Stay strictly with white magic? But that isnt how Crowley did all of his, so if you read his teachings, is it just all black magick?

Define black and white and we can go from there.

Is there anyone alive today that is taking Crowley's work further than he did?

There are definitely people alive who have focused a lot of their time and efforts into the propogation of Thelema and magick but none, IMO, that are doing as much as what Crowley did. He used a substantial amount of his money to public his works for a loss and wrote enormous amounts of material. Jerry Cornelius, James Eshelman, Michael Staley here, Paul (the owner of this webste), and the list goes on (this list was definitely not comprehensive) are all actively propogating the teachings of Crowley and magick.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/04/2010 6:12 pm  

Along with Erwin Hessle, I've generally found the folks that contribute to the "Journal of Thelemic Studies" to be a bit rigid, boring and not very magical. No offense to anybody. I guess in particular I'm reffering to IAO131 and Erwin for the most part.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
14/04/2010 7:20 pm  
"AEternitas" wrote:
Along with Erwin Hessle, I've generally found the folks that contribute to the "Journal of Thelemic Studies" to be a bit rigid, boring and not very magical. No offense to anybody. I guess in particular I'm reffering to IAO131 and Erwin for the most part.

After a long break from these boards, I guess no one has figured out for sure of those two are the same person.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
14/04/2010 7:45 pm  

A good place to start with the subject of this thread is to question its premise: that the practice of magick inevitably involves "mucking up your life." As kuniggety points out, this is not necessarily the case at all, as there are plenty of examples of stable people who practice magick, calling this premise sharply into question.

In fact, one might suppose that it is far more likely the case that magick does not *cause* instability so much as it tends to *attract* people with unstable lives. Such a position has the advantage of being supported by some facts and of making fewer unproven assumptions.

Further, we might reasonably assume that someone who has lived his or her life on the basis of the desires of the mind -- rather than the true will -- might find the process of discovering and following the will disruptive, at least at first, to that person's life. But after a very short time, we would naturally expect that person to be more fully satisfied and successful with his or her new course in life, presuming that it actually *is* in accord with the true will.

There's a phenomenon among some fundamentalist Christians whereby the believer claims bragging rights when their lives get all screwed up -- "the devil must be tryin' to throw obstacles in my way cause I'm such a good servant of Jesus!" They consider having a screwed up, unstable life a badge of honor because it must mean that they're doing something right spiritually.

And while no one here has actually suggested something entirely comparable to this bit of weirdness, it seems to me that the premise "magick will screw up my life" can be both a self-fulfilling prophecy and an attribution of unnecessary importance to the regular "shit happens" of life.

In fact, part of spiritual progress has to do with realizing the way that the mind falsely labels normal circumstances as "problems" that you're supposed to worry about. Believing that there's some magical force creating problems for you is not only going to re-affirm your belief in prolems, it may make a virtue out of them.

"Azidonis" wrote:
After a long break from these boards, I guess no one has figured out for sure of those two are the same person.

Are you joking? The differences in writing style alone are enough to confirm that they are not the same person -- nevermind everything else.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
14/04/2010 7:55 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
After a long break from these boards, I guess no one has figured out for sure of those two are the same person.

Are you joking? The differences in writing style alone are enough to confirm that they are not the same person -- nevermind everything else.

93,

Nah, I always just imagined them as one messed up person with schizophrenia or something. 🙂

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/04/2010 8:02 pm  
"mgorsuch" wrote:
"JohnnyScience" wrote:
How is one able to practice magick without it really mucking up your life?

Since I think you're talking about 'magick' with an occult connotation (angels, demons, and all of that stuff), I could only recommend that you take a step back and reassess.

Give serious study to Crowley's writings along with Erwin's works. Learn to really see Thelema for what it is, and I think that your idea of what magick is will radically change.

Please don't get caught up in the mumbo-jumbo: that's a good route to mucking up your life.

All the best.

In considering what Crowley was "all about" or what he "really meant" you're not undertaking a simple task, not nearly as simple as some would have it. He was anything but a simple man.

Anyone who tells you that Crowley was "all about" just occultism, or just a new religion or just introspective rationalism is either deluded himself or is deluding you.

What Crowley was "all about" included each of these elements plus a number of others, as is case with Thelema itself - and this is no coincidence; Crowley was a uniquely suited vehicle for his Message.

As result, Thelema may be approached in a number of different ways, on a number of different levels, the ones best suited to the individual approaching this Law of his or her own unique nature.

And for Crowley himself, if the goal is to appreciate the man as a whole, the only realistic approach is a holistic one. It is no good to embrace one's favorite facet of him and make war with it against one or more of his other facets.

As for Magick, Crowley's "Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will," the capitalization of the word "Will" denotes true Will, Thelema, and thus excludes doing all else but one's own true Will. One cannot "muck up one's life" by doing one's own true Will, and will inevitably do just that by failing to do one's own true Will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/04/2010 8:24 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Further, we might reasonably assume that someone who has lived his or her life on the basis of the desires of the mind -- rather than the true will -- might find the process of discovering and following the will disruptive, at least at first, to that person's life. But after a very short time, we would naturally expect that person to be more fully satisfied and successful with his or her new course in life, presuming that it actually *is* in accord with the true will.

Yes, if one's life is already "mucked up," as most people's lives are from the start, quite frankly, Thelema and Magick will 'un-muck' it, correct it, and may give the temporary impression of disruption as things are put in natural balance.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
15/04/2010 12:13 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Another of Hessle's vicars on earth, come to spread the good word.

Your jealousy is transparent.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/04/2010 3:46 am  

I doubt it Mika.

Concerning the question raised by the original poster, if you are never faced with hardships or difficulties in your life, then from what will you learn and change?


ReplyQuote
HG
 HG
(@hg)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 96
15/04/2010 9:59 am  
"mgorsuch" wrote:
"JohnnyScience" wrote:
How is one able to practice magick without it really mucking up your life?

Since I think you're talking about 'magick' with an occult connotation (angels, demons, and all of that stuff), I could only recommend that you take a step back and reassess.

Give serious study to Crowley's writings along with Erwin's works. Learn to really see Thelema for what it is, and I think that your idea of what magick is will radically change.

Seconded.

Erwin's writings have been extremely informative and useful for me. I recommend starting from "A Thelemic Primer" and "Fundamentals of Thelemic Practice" for a quick overview of his philosophy and methods.

And as you no doubt have seen, there are people who don't like Erwin's communication style, and who consider him to be too rude and obnoxious.

And that's OK. If you don't like his personality then you don't like his personality. And there's nothing wrong with that. But don't - don't - let that distract you from the very valid points he's making.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
15/04/2010 4:53 pm  
"HG" wrote:
"mgorsuch" wrote:
"JohnnyScience" wrote:
How is one able to practice magick without it really mucking up your life?

Since I think you're talking about 'magick' with an occult connotation (angels, demons, and all of that stuff), I could only recommend that you take a step back and reassess.

Give serious study to Crowley's writings along with Erwin's works. Learn to really see Thelema for what it is, and I think that your idea of what magick is will radically change.

Seconded.

Erwin's writings have been extremely informative and useful for me. I recommend starting from "A Thelemic Primer" and "Fundamentals of Thelemic Practice" for a quick overview of his philosophy and methods.

And as you no doubt have seen, there are people who don't like Erwin's communication style, and who consider him to be too rude and obnoxious.

And that's OK. If you don't like his personality then you don't like his personality. And there's nothing wrong with that. But don't - don't - let that distract you from the very valid points he's making.

93,

HG, I agree with you in that respect. If a person reads book A and finds it useful then by all means, read book A and even recommend it to others.

I'm not trying to make a point for or against Erwin or anyone else with this, I'm merely posting the sign for our original poster. Beware of obsession. Beware of a single "authoritarian" viewpoint. Beware of lies and deceptions, even among those who think they are telling the truth. Beware of what you eat, what you sow, and what you reap.

There is a word to be said about books, organizations, etc. and that is simply, "You are what you eat". And that is the danger with books, organizations, and the like. It is a trap that many people fall into sometimes multiple times over, and it is a gigantic red flag in any magickal or religious endeavor.

In common terms this would mean, "Don't forget to bring the salt." The bottom line is, the only way you truly know that water is made from two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen is to conduct an experiment yourself.

Best wishes in the Great Work.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
15/04/2010 6:03 pm  
"HG" wrote:
Seconded.

Erwin's writings have been extremely informative and useful for me. I recommend starting from "A Thelemic Primer" and "Fundamentals of Thelemic Practice" for a quick overview of his philosophy and methods.

I'm going to third this advice for the reason that Erwin's writings are extremely clear, and clarity is so vital to attainment.

It's all well and good to say that "the only way you truly know that water is made from two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen is to conduct an experiment yourself," but your experiment is going to be absolutely worthless if you don't know what a molecule is or how to observe a molecule.

If spiritual attainment is something real, then the process of achieving it must be something that can be spoken about clearly. A person cannot be expected to be successful in this process without clearly understanding what it is that he's trying to do.

Telling someone who is interested in "summoning his guardian angel" to just do whatever practices he feels like and to see for himself is almost certainly not going to work for him. The way to proceed is to discuss what a "guardian angel" *is* and what the process of K&C *entails*. Without that information, you might as well give him a stick and say, "keep hitting yourself in the head until enlightenment dawns."


ReplyQuote
spike418
(@spike418)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 213
15/04/2010 6:04 pm  
"JohnnyScience" wrote:
How is one able to practice magick without it really mucking up your life?

I think you need to define "really mucking up your life" first. It may be just a subjective perception from a moment in time. When looked at with the wisdom of hindsight 🙄 you may, at some future point, be grateful that you "mucked up" so badly ❓

Surf on 8)

Ignore the fundamentalists, it's your personal journey 😛

Oh and best to avoid "transparent jealousy", not seen it myself on here but apparently it's a very very very bad thing....................


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/04/2010 8:48 pm  
"HG" wrote:
"mgorsuch" wrote:
"JohnnyScience" wrote:
How is one able to practice magick without it really mucking up your life?

Since I think you're talking about 'magick' with an occult connotation (angels, demons, and all of that stuff), I could only recommend that you take a step back and reassess.

Give serious study to Crowley's writings along with Erwin's works. Learn to really see Thelema for what it is, and I think that your idea of what magick is will radically change.

Seconded.

Erwin's writings have been extremely informative and useful for me. I recommend starting from "A Thelemic Primer" and "Fundamentals of Thelemic Practice" for a quick overview of his philosophy and methods.

And as you no doubt have seen, there are people who don't like Erwin's communication style, and who consider him to be too rude and obnoxious.

And that's OK. If you don't like his personality then you don't like his personality. And there's nothing wrong with that. But don't - don't - let that distract you from the very valid points he's making.

Agreed. I've found his stuff both extremely lucid and useful.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
15/04/2010 9:16 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Telling someone who is interested in "summoning his guardian angel" to just do whatever practices he feels like and to see for himself is almost certainly not going to work for him. The way to proceed is to discuss what a "guardian angel" *is* and what the process of K&C *entails*. Without that information, you might as well give him a stick and say, "keep hitting yourself in the head until enlightenment dawns."

From Liber 185, "and furthermore, he shall study the Publications of the A:.A:. in Class B, and apply himself to such practices of Scientific Illuminism as seemeth him good."

Furthermore, the Class B Documents are designed to tell you, in this example, what a molecule is. Learning the chemistry would equate to "such practices [...] as seemeth him good". This is all of course, assuming one's aim is to learn chemistry.

If you want the "fantasy" of the HGA, Liber 242, AHA! takes care of that, along with Konx Om Pax.

Spending days and nights telling someone who has no basic idea of molecular structure in general how all of the atoms interact when they combine does about as much good as "preaching about the HGA" to someone who has no idea of the basic concepts which would allow him to begin discovering it for himself.

On a further level, no two HGA's being the same, telling someone, "what a "guardian angel" *is* and what the process of K&C *entails*" is absolutely worthless information, as such information is unique and specific to each individual.

You can tell someone about the glory of a palace, or you can teach him what traveling is, how to do it, and hand him a map. Consider that even if you take someone to that palace they may have no idea how they arrived, or how to return. The real learning is in the journey.

To sit and try and tell someone about the HGA, especially someone who has only recently become enthused about Magick in general, is going to only conjure pipe dreams. To hand someone a copy of Raja Yoga and perhaps Modern Magick, on the other hand, would most likely be a more fruitful endeavor.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/04/2010 9:34 pm  
"HG" wrote:
And as you no doubt have seen, there are people who don't like Erwin's communication style, and who consider him to be too rude and obnoxious.

And that's OK. If you don't like his personality then you don't like his personality. And there's nothing wrong with that. But don't - don't - let that distract you from the very valid points he's making.

I differ with this opinion. Even if Hessle's overall depiction of the views of Aleister Crowley was accurate and balanced, (it is occasionally accurate but is most certainly is not balanced overall), I find it not only difficult but potentially hazardous to take seriously the conclusions of a person who cannot restrain his sociopathy even for the brief time required to exchange a few posts on the Internet. This raises the proverbial 'red flag' for me.

Success with Thelema and Magick requires a degree of self-discipline far, far greater than this, one that is almost always assured by really putting in the time and really doing the Work, which makes me suspect that this has been replaced by some relatively brief regimen of intellectual exercise alone, in this case.

In truth, the typical 'seriously flawed but otherwise fairly intelligent' individual only rarely avoids self-defeat and obscurity, and in this case only when propped up by the generosity of admirers awed by the apparent self-confidence that is symptomatic of his particular personality disorder.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/04/2010 9:56 pm  

Oh yea gods! Not this again...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/04/2010 10:04 pm  

I think that the word "sociopathy" is a bit strong, particularly when used to describe one of the more lucid members of this particular forum. Yeah, he can be a bit abrasive and irascible but I'll take that over some of the frankly batshit insane stuff that gets posted on this forum.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/04/2010 10:14 pm  
"Maldoror" wrote:
I'll take that over some of the frankly batshit insane stuff that gets posted on this forum.

There is no reason to settle for either example of imbalance, actually.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
15/04/2010 10:30 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Spending days and nights telling someone who has no basic idea of molecular structure in general how all of the atoms interact when they combine does about as much good as "preaching about the HGA" to someone who has no idea of the basic concepts which would allow him to begin discovering it for himself.

You appear to have missed my point, so I'll restate it.

I agree that the only way to accomplish the task is to do it (that is, to "perform the experiment," in the language of your analogy), but I'm saying that it is impossible to "do it" without an understanding of what you're supposed to *do* in the first place.

You can't just put someone in a lab and tell him to "do experiments" without his even knowing what a molecule is, and you similarly can't tell someone to blindly do a bunch of rituals out of a book and expect KC of the HGA to dawn.

On a further level, no two HGA's being the same, telling someone, "what a "guardian angel" *is* and what the process of K&C *entails*" is absolutely worthless information, as such information is unique and specific to each individual.

No two HGA's are the same, and one's HGA cannot be discovered through reason, but what an HGA *is*, in general, can be discussed sensibly.

Similarly, no two heads are the same, but we can talk about what a head *is*, in general, can't we? I don't consider knowing what a head is to be "worthless information."

You can tell someone about the glory of a palace, or you can teach him what traveling is, how to do it, and hand him a map.

But if doesn't know what a palace *is*, how's he supposed to recognize it when he gets there?

Camlion:

Even if Hessle's overall depiction of the views of Aleister Crowley was accurate and balanced, (it is occasionally accurate but is most certainly is not balanced overall)

You don't seem to grasp that much of Erwin's writings are about applied Thelema, not about explaining Aleister Crowley's beliefs on every subject under the sun.

I find it not only difficult but potentially hazardous to take seriously the conclusions of a person who cannot restrain his sociopathy even for the brief time required to exchange a few posts on the Internet.

See, here's a major symptom of imbalance: you accept or reject conclusions on the basis of the attitude of the person making the conclusion, rather than on the basis of the evidence that person presents.

A balanced perspective would evaluate conclusions on the basis of evidence.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
15/04/2010 10:39 pm  

93,

Tell me Los, what would tell someone about the HGA that has no idea what Magick even is? And how is what you would tell them going to further their search immediately, and what benefits would it have for them directly?

No quotes from Erwin, please.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
spike418
(@spike418)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 213
15/04/2010 10:50 pm  
"Maldoror" wrote:
the more lucid members

Lucidity is not a merit badge, nor is it synonymous with being correct, don't be mislead


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
15/04/2010 11:03 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Tell me Los, what would tell someone about the HGA that has no idea what Magick even is? And how is what you would tell them going to further their search immediately, and what benefits would it have for them directly?

For someone who has no idea what magick is and has expressed no interest in magick, I wouldn't even dress it up in the term "Holy Guardian Angel," which Crowley adopted only as a convention.

I would explain it in terms of "true self" (as opposed to "false self"). To put it briefly, I would explain that our conscious thought process, while useful, carries with it the tendency to induce us to misread ourselves and the world and to form false pictures (or expectations) thereof. The resulting product -- the "self-image" and what I'll dub the "world image" -- are the fantasy world that most people live in, interpreting events through a lens that is inaccurate and which grows more inaccurate as it is continually used to interpret events.

This would, of course, not be a problem except for the fact that it leads us to make serious mistakes by causing us to choose things that are not in line with the true self and world, but rather in line with the false picture. These choices cause internal conflict and suffering.

The solution to this problem is to, ahem, invoke the Holy Guardian Angel, to shift the seat of one's consciousness away from the self image / world image and to the true self.

Methods of doing this vary widely. Ceremonial magick and meditation are two paths to doing so -- ceremonial magick seeks to rend the "veils" surrounding the true self, and meditation seeks to calm those veils. There are many, many other methods of doing so, and different methods will be better for different individuals.

Now that's a *very* brief description of the problem and solution, but without understanding and grasping that essential idea, how the hell is someone supposed to achieve that by doing the LBRP every day and sitting in asana for an hour and saying Resh and Will and doing Liber Samekh and scrying a bunch of spirits and keeping a dream journal and performing Liber V and etc. etc.?

If you don't know what it is you're supposed to be doing, how is the repetition of rituals going to help?

Someone interested in "going further" I would tell to employ the methods that he or she is immediately attracted to to this end. For example, the person in question likely won't have an interest in magick, so I sure wouldn't suggest the LBRP. I'd probably suggest a period of quiet meditation and mindfulness -- probably a very long stretch of this so that the individual could get acquainted with the contents of his or her mind and how that mind works at distorting perceptions.

From then on, the path largely depends on the individual. For example, someone whose mind has the tendency to create sentimental fantasies about life would probably find it useful to expose themselves to life situations and even forms of entertainment that create those kinds of feelings, with the express purpose of observing the exact ways in which those feelings cause perceptions to diverge from reality. With practice, the individual will find that these feelings have less and less of a hold upon him, and he will sense a difference between himself and the contents of his mind that he formerly identified with "himself."

That's it in a nutshell, I guess. What would you tell the individual to do?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
15/04/2010 11:04 pm  
"Los" wrote:
. . . and one's HGA cannot be discovered through reason . . .

I was interested to read this in your post, because in the past you always came across to me as someone arguing for the supremacy of reason.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2010 12:09 am  
"Los" wrote:
Camlion:

Even if Hessle's overall depiction of the views of Aleister Crowley was accurate and balanced, (it is occasionally accurate but is most certainly is not balanced overall)

You don't seem to grasp that much of Erwin's writings are about applied Thelema, not about explaining Aleister Crowley's beliefs on every subject under the sun.

Nonsense. Hessle clearly misrepresents Crowley as a whole by way of selective extrapolation and has debated at length in these forums what Crowley was 'all about' and what he 'really meant' on various subjects. I can't speak to "much of Erwin's writings," although I would be more interested in them if he correctly credited himself with the ideas behind them, rather than erroneously implying that they wholly represent the ideas of Aleister Crowley on Thelema or Magick.

I find it not only difficult but potentially hazardous to take seriously the conclusions of a person who cannot restrain his sociopathy even for the brief time required to exchange a few posts on the Internet.

See, here's a major symptom of imbalance: you accept or reject conclusions on the basis of the attitude of the person making the conclusion, rather than on the basis of the evidence that person presents. A balanced perspective would evaluate conclusions on the basis of evidence.

I don't envy you for being the apologist for Hessle's behavior but, really now, when someone is put off (balance or otherwise) by Hessle's presentation of himself and his ideas, you blame the witness to that behavior and not Hessle himself? More nonsense.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/04/2010 12:45 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
. . . and one's HGA cannot be discovered through reason . . .

I was interested to read this in your post, because in the past you always came across to me as someone arguing for the supremacy of reason.

Best wishes,

Michael.

I don't think I've ever expressed the idea that reason is "supreme," nor would I.

Reason is a tool. It's a very powerful tool, but it needs to be kept in its proper domain and not allowed to overstep its boundaries.

For example, it's well within the proper domain of reason for it to be used to decide the truth value of claims about the world. That's been one of its primary functions throughout human history, and it's done an admirable job.

It's outside the proper domain of reason, however, for it to be used as a guide of action -- i.e. to decide what *should* be done on the basis of a moral system or other false ideas about the world.

This is one interpretation of the "curse" on "Because" found in Liber AL. The Book of the Law doesn't condemn reason as a faculty to acquire knowledge (in fact, Crowley's comment on that particular verse says that the Book makes reason the "autocrat of the mind") -- rather, it condemns the use of reason in determining action when it's used *in place of* the will.

For example, a person might decide that he *should* do some task *because* it's a good thing to do, or *because* compassion is a good thing and he is a good person and so therefore he *should* do a compassionate thing. And before you know it, he's reasoned himself into doing a compassionate act when in fact his nature might lead him to do otherwise.

Or a person could decide that he *should* be mean to others *because* he thinks the Book of the Law tells him to be means, and he *should* follow what it says since he's a "Thelemite" and so therefore he *should* be mean to people just for that reason.

Or a person could decide that he *should* reject ideas when they're presented so as to offend his precious sensibilities *because* he thinks that truth and presentation have something to do with one another.

Do you see how reason and rational ideas substitute for will in those cases?

The will isn't a rational thing, and the process of discovering it isn't a rational one. It can be observed, you can watch it happening in the moment, you can help it manifest, but you you can't "figure it out" with your reason.

Camlion:

when someone is put off (balance or otherwise) by Hessle's presentation of himself and his ideas, you blame the witness to that behavior and not Hessle himself? More nonsense.

You're not following my point: a person's attitude and the rhetoric he uses to convey his ideas are unconnected to the truth value of the ideas themselves.

I'm not "blaming" you for being put off by Erwin -- be put off by him if you like. I'm saying that you're making a serious logical error by discounting his conclusions *on the basis of* your dislike of his attitude.

For example, can you cite a specific -- I said *specific*...that means quote, if you can -- conclusion that Erwin has come to that you disagree with, and can you illustrate the evidence that leads you to disagree with that conclusion? My guess is that you can't, but I'd be delighted to see you try.


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 456
16/04/2010 12:55 am  
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Tell me Los, what would tell someone about the HGA that has no idea what Magick even is? And how is what you would tell them going to further their search immediately, and what benefits would it have for them directly?

For someone who has no idea what magick is and has expressed no interest in magick, I wouldn't even dress it up in the term "Holy Guardian Angel," which Crowley adopted only as a convention.

I would explain it in terms of "true self" (as opposed to "false self"). To put it briefly, I would explain that our conscious thought process, while useful, carries with it the tendency to induce us to misread ourselves and the world and to form false pictures (or expectations) thereof. The resulting product -- the "self-image" and what I'll dub the "world image" -- are the fantasy world that most people live in, interpreting events through a lens that is inaccurate and which grows more inaccurate as it is continually used to interpret events.

This would, of course, not be a problem except for the fact that it leads us to make serious mistakes by causing us to choose things that are not in line with the true self and world, but rather in line with the false picture. These choices cause internal conflict and suffering.

The solution to this problem is to, ahem, invoke the Holy Guardian Angel, to shift the seat of one's consciousness away from the self image / world image and to the true self.

Methods of doing this vary widely. Ceremonial magick and meditation are two paths to doing so -- ceremonial magick seeks to rend the "veils" surrounding the true self, and meditation seeks to calm those veils. There are many, many other methods of doing so, and different methods will be better for different individuals.

Now that's a *very* brief description of the problem and solution, but without understanding and grasping that essential idea, how the hell is someone supposed to achieve that by doing the LBRP every day and sitting in asana for an hour and saying Resh and Will and doing Liber Samekh and scrying a bunch of spirits and keeping a dream journal and performing Liber V and etc. etc.?

If you don't know what it is you're supposed to be doing, how is the repetition of rituals going to help?

Someone interested in "going further" I would tell to employ the methods that he or she is immediately attracted to to this end. For example, the person in question likely won't have an interest in magick, so I sure wouldn't suggest the LBRP. I'd probably suggest a period of quiet meditation and mindfulness -- probably a very long stretch of this so that the individual could get acquainted with the contents of his or her mind and how that mind works at distorting perceptions.

From then on, the path largely depends on the individual. For example, someone whose mind has the tendency to create sentimental fantasies about life would probably find it useful to expose themselves to life situations and even forms of entertainment that create those kinds of feelings, with the express purpose of observing the exact ways in which those feelings cause perceptions to diverge from reality. With practice, the individual will find that these feelings have less and less of a hold upon him, and he will sense a difference between himself and the contents of his mind that he formerly identified with "himself."

That's it in a nutshell, I guess. What would you tell the individual to do?

There's a lot of sense in what you say Los, but it's missing some of the "juiciness" of actual Crowley stuff.

Whatever AC might have thought of the objective/subjective status of the magick stuff, he certainly practiced ritual and astral travel, and recommended others to practice these things. His recommended course was one of both mystical practices and magickal practices, and you should major in what you are attracted to, yes, but it's also recommended that you have a broad familiarity with all methods (especially if you're going to be in a position to teach).

Again, whatever he may have thought about the metaphysical status of it, Crowley never denies the seeming reality of magick stuff (spirits, gods, etc.). And he recommends that people engage in some kind of practice that will lead to them seeming to encounter and converse with what seem to be discarnate intelligences.

(In actual fact, as AC says somewhere, the question of the metaphysical status (subjective?/objective?) of these things is neither here nor there, since the experiences of seeming deities and demons (or what have you) is (one must suppose) sufficiently educational and transformative.)


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/04/2010 2:20 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Tell me Los, what would tell someone about the HGA that has no idea what Magick even is? And how is what you would tell them going to further their search immediately, and what benefits would it have for them directly?

93,

"Los" wrote:
For someone who has no idea what magick is and has expressed no interest in magick, I wouldn't even dress it up in the term "Holy Guardian Angel," which Crowley adopted only as a convention.

Which puts my analogy of H2O and your comparison of that analogy to the HGA in which position? I mentioned H2O as very specific example for an introduction to the workings of chemistry. Thus, one would have to learn about Protons, Electrons, Neutrons, molecules in general, their various properties, and then how to make H2O. I would equate that with a very fundamental study of chemistry (which I don't have, so pardon any inaccuracies on that part), and the more advanced molecular structures would come further down the road. In my opinion, a more likely comparison between H2O and Magick might indeed be the LBRP, while the HGA would refer to a much more complex molecular model. I apologize for baiting you in that way, and not clarifying my intentions a bit more in that regard.

Apologies aside, and keeping with the subject of this thread, I will assume we are working with a person who perhaps doesn't know much about Magick or the Occult, and is wanting to learn more and begin practicing Magick in one form or another without it "mucking up" his life. Thus, if I am able, I'll put myself into a position that many of us may have been in maybe decades ago, and try and respond to your post in that manner.

I would explain it in terms of "true self" (as opposed to "false self"). To put it briefly, I would explain that our conscious thought process, while useful, carries with it the tendency to induce us to misread ourselves and the world and to form false pictures (or expectations) thereof. The resulting product -- the "self-image" and what I'll dub the "world image" -- are the fantasy world that most people live in, interpreting events through a lens that is inaccurate and which grows more inaccurate as it is continually used to interpret events.

So the very first thing you are telling me, if I don't know anything about Magick, is that I have spent many years misreading myself and the world, forming false pictures to make some sort of self image, or "world image"... or even worldview. While I personally know what you are saying, hermeneutics included, what is a young man who has no knowledge beyond say, the Bible Belt, going to think? The most positive outcome I can see with this initial statement is that you instantly have the young seeker questioning all of his beliefs and so forth.

This would, of course, not be a problem except for the fact that it leads us to make serious mistakes by causing us to choose things that are not in line with the true self and world, but rather in line with the false picture. These choices cause internal conflict and suffering.

This again is telling the young seeker that his natural view and training has caused him "serious mistakes" and choices that aren't in line with this "true self" that you mention. Again, while I personally understand what you are saying, the youngster (assuming a youngster) may not.

The solution to this problem is to, ahem, invoke the Holy Guardian Angel, to shift the seat of one's consciousness away from the self image / world image and to the true self.

This opens up many questions about the Holy Guardian Angel. I won't cite specific questions as I'm sure we've all seen a plethora of them discussed on these boards. So far, you have told the seeker that his thoughts, words, and deeds have led him completely astray and helped him to create a false sense of reality, even though his view may indeed be normal. Further, the only way out of this is to invoke this Angel.

Methods of doing this vary widely. Ceremonial magick and meditation are two paths to doing so -- ceremonial magick seeks to rend the "veils" surrounding the true self, and meditation seeks to calm those veils. There are many, many other methods of doing so, and different methods will be better for different individuals.

You say that invoking this Angel can be done with Ceremonial Magick -- which "rend 'veils' surrounding the true self" -- and Meditation, which calms the veils. Then you say that there are other methods, which varying depending on the individual.

Now that's a *very* brief description of the problem and solution, but without understanding and grasping that essential idea, how the hell is someone supposed to achieve that by doing the LBRP every day and sitting in asana for an hour and saying Resh and Will and doing Liber Samekh and scrying a bunch of spirits and keeping a dream journal and performing Liber V and etc. etc.?

Ahem, I haven't known any young practitioner who, with even decent guidance, has begun Liber Samekh and Liber V right away. especially not properly. The LBRP I can understand young seekers doing, as I myself did the LBRP daily for about 6 months before I even attempted to go further in my legitimate practices. Scrying (real scrying) and Asana (real Asana) came later. but that's just me.

If you don't know what it is you're supposed to be doing, how is the repetition of rituals going to help?

Quite simply, this is why the first Task in the A:.A:. is that of a Student. While I am under absolutely no assumption that the young seeker we are discussing has any idea about the A:.A:., or desire to know, the Method still applies. Basically, knowledge, especially at the beginner level, is the best way to begin.

Someone interested in "going further" I would tell to employ the methods that he or she is immediately attracted to to this end. For example, the person in question likely won't have an interest in magick, so I sure wouldn't suggest the LBRP. I'd probably suggest a period of quiet meditation and mindfulness -- probably a very long stretch of this so that the individual could get acquainted with the contents of his or her mind and how that mind works at distorting perceptions.

Considering how the subject of this thread is, "How can one practice magick with out mucking up your life?", I'm sure we can safely assume the original poster is just the opposite of "likely won't have an interest in Magick". Even so, reading would most likely be the best way to begin if he does. If the interest was more in Meditation, "quiet meditation" is a misnomer for a young seeker, as the mind is anything but quiet. It might be better to have them learn what silence actually is, and spend some time observing it in nature. Either your ideas or mine are quite fine though.

From then on, the path largely depends on the individual. For example, someone whose mind has the tendency to create sentimental fantasies about life would probably find it useful to expose themselves to life situations and even forms of entertainment that create those kinds of feelings, with the express purpose of observing the exact ways in which those feelings cause perceptions to diverge from reality. With practice, the individual will find that these feelings have less and less of a hold upon him, and he will sense a difference between himself and the contents of his mind that he formerly identified with "himself."

I thought you just said above that the person has used his reality to create a "false world image"? After saying that, how on Earth would sentimental fantasies and further exposure to this "false world image" help in "not mucking up one's life"? I'm curious. Again, not speaking from a personal standpoint, as I do know the benefits of such practices, but how would they benefit the beginner?

That's it in a nutshell, I guess. What would you tell the individual to do?

What would I do? First, I wouldn't fill someone's head with illusions of grandeur or catastrophe. Next, I wouldn't try to tear down their walls of perception unless I was ready to help build them back up. Finally, I would stay away from references to the HGA and limit myself to conversations about "God", as I would be more certain of the type of connotations such a word or idea would entail to a young seeker.

When it comes to practices, I would recommend as much actual study as possible, especially concerning the history of the world's religions and practices, the various methods of Ceremonial Magick and even "Low Magick" (or Paganism, ie. Earth Magick... I'm not sure if anyone uses "High" and "Low" Magick terms anymore), with the main idea being a foundation of knowledge, allowing the young seeker to formulate ideas and possibly even learn a bit of the language which he will use later on. Where Meditation is concerned, I would most definitely urge the seeker to learn what silence is, and to observe it in nature, along with the sounds. The point behind all of the "knowledge gathering", "observation" and what-not is quite simply that you don't walk into said chemistry lab and begin playing with chemicals. You have to observe, learn the language, etc.

Let's also consider that "mucking up one's life" can very realistic imply conflicts with friends or family members, and what-not. The easiest way to go about handling such a situation is not to try and explain to them how people lie to themselves, but to be able to give a clear and concise definition and purpose of what it is he is actually doing, or researching.

Further, I believe that there are very real safeguards that are in place at certain levels of "Attainment". While I agree that one may undoubtedly go past them in one way or another, I don't think that many such dabbles actually become life-threatening, though they may be life-changing.

My own path was a bit different, but whatever. In the end we all have our own ways, and I don't necessarily disagree with anything you are saying, other than introducing the HGA right off the bat. I would personally let the HGA give it own introduction.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2010 3:55 am  
"Los" wrote:
For example, can you cite a specific -- I said *specific*...that means quote, if you can -- conclusion that Erwin has come to that you disagree with, and can you illustrate the evidence that leads you to disagree with that conclusion? My guess is that you can't, but I'd be delighted to see you try.

This is not a question of my disagreeing with Hessle's conclusions, necessarily, I happen not to disagree with some of them. It is a question of whether or not his conclusions merit consideration in the first place.
 
Here is a series of posts from these forums in which both Hessle and I happened to have been involved, Los. It's from the 'Usage of the 777 Correspondences' thread of autumn 2009. Can you explain to me how any conclusion is possible after reading this, other than that Erwin Hessle is some kind of nut (I'll mostly skip the psycho-babble this time, although both Hessle's denial of his real problems and his transference of them to me are obvious) whose actual practical experience in subjects germane to Crowley, Thelema and Magick is in serious doubt?

I would have merely provided a link, but you asked for quotes to support my position:

"Camlion" wrote:
Erwin, out of curiosity, do you have any personal experience with the practice of Bhakta Yoga?
Oh yes, for anyone questioning the relevance of the subject in general to this website, please see Liber CLXXV. Apparently Crowley thought the subject of sufficient value to some individuals to have included it in his teachings. 😉

 

"Erwin" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
Erwin, out of curiosity,

Yes, you do seem to have an recurrent obsessive curiosity about me. That's probably not particularly healthy for you.

"Camlion" wrote:
do you have any personal experience with the practice of Bhakta Yoga?

Define what you believe you mean by "Bhakta Yoga", and I'll answer you.

 

"Camlion" wrote:
"Erwin" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
Erwin, out of curiosity,

Yes, you do seem to have an recurrent obsessive curiosity about me. That's probably not particularly healthy for you.

"Camlion" wrote:
do you have any personal experience with the practice of Bhakta Yoga?

Define what you believe you mean by "Bhakta Yoga", and I'll answer you.

Healthy for me? What a curious little muttering from someone such as yourself. 🙄
Why are you evading my question about your personal experience with the subject matter, Erwin? I gave the reference to Liber CLXXV quite clearly so as to curb the anticipated evasion. For all either us of know, N.O.X was making an inquiry related to the practice of Bhakti Yoga, as one might assume from the nature of the initial question. 
 
I think that this is just another routine example of your playing the bully due to not being able to consistently get around the derangement of your own personality, something that the readership of this site apparently must either contend with or stop reading the site. I have noticed some effort toward improvement in that regard in your recent posts, but I think you are fighting a loosing battle with your own demons.

 

"Erwin" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
Why are you evading my question about your personal experience with the subject matter, Erwin?

Which one of us is evading defining our terms? You can't expect to have an intelligent conversation with me if you can't even explain what it is you're trying to talk about, let alone demonstrate any actual knowledge of what you're trying to talk about. If you want to have a technical discussion with me, then you're first going to have to demonstrate enough technical knowledge to at least be able to describe what you want to discuss, otherwise I'm not going to waste my time pandering to the idle "curiosity" of a rank beginner.
You indicated you wanted to have a conversation about experiences of "Bhakta Yoga". I asked you if you even knew what you meant by that term. As I clearly suspected from the outset, it now turns out that you don't. Which is fine, of course, but don't be under any illusions about who is engaging in "evasion" here, sunshine.

"Camlion" wrote:
I think that this is just another routine example of your playing the bully due to not being able to consistently get around the derangement of your own personality, something that the readership of this site apparently must either contend with or stop reading the site. I have noticed some effort toward improvement in that regard in your recent posts, but I think you are fighting a loosing battle with your own demons.

As I said, these elaborate fantasies about me you constantly indulge yourself with really aren't healthy. You may want to consider seeing a doctor about them. Perhaps you should consider spending less time online if you're prone to becoming obsessed with the personalities you encounter there.

 

"Erwin" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
Now, Erwin, which of us is truly obsessed with those we encounter online?

You. Scroll up, we've just been through this. Pretty much every time I post, you can't control yourself. You attempt to engage me in conversation and use even the simplest request for a definition of terms as a transparent excuse to compulsively publish all these bizarre, homoerotic fantasies you have about me for all to see. This is neither normal nor healthy behaviour, as you've been told already.

"Camlion" wrote:
You attribute your attraction and reply to N.O.X.'s post to what motive of yours, exactly? Yes, yes, I know, its all in the name of your self-appointed crusade against self-deception, heroically undertaken on behalf of those less enlightened than yourself, all for their own good, whether they like or not. They'll thank you in the end, right?

See? There's those elaborate fantasies of yours about me yet again. Now I'm a "crusading hero" in your mind. Seriously, you ought to think about getting yourself checked out for that. There may be people here embarrassed for you.

"Camlion" wrote:
What drivel it all is.

Finally, you get something right.

 

"kidneyhawk" wrote:

use even the simplest request for a definition of terms as a transparent excuse to compulsively publish all these bizarre, homoerotic fantasies you have about me for all to see

LMAO! Are you for real? Did I miss some evidence of Camlion's "homoerotic fantasies about Erwin?"  😯  He simply asked if you had anything to say from a personal standpoint regarding the experience of Bhakti Yoga, which, as Crowley points out in Liber Astarte, asks to the Magician to make some extensive study and use of correspondences. Bhakti and Astarte are quite pertinent to the practical use of 777 and its underlying thought. N.O.X. was interjecting some personal thoughts and experiences relating to this particular pursuit and, as such, he's opened up some interesting avenues for discussing the use of this "Crowley Classic."

"Erwin" wrote:
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Did I miss some evidence of Camlion's "homoerotic fantasies about Erwin?"

Apparently. He's just made two posts filled with them. I know observation isn't your strong point, but a couple presses of the page-up key is all it would have taken.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
He simply asked

Yeah, and Hitler "simply" took his mistress out to dinner one night. If you want evidence of his fantasies, look in the posts where he rattles them out, not in the posts where he doesn't. Honestly, I shouldn't need to explain this to you.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
if you had anything to say from a personal standpoint regarding the experience of Bhakti Yoga,

And he's been told how he can get the information he seeks. The rest, as they say, is up to him. If the tiny iota of effort required is too much for his fragile constitution to cope with, then his "curiosity" can go unsatisfied till the end of time for all I care, it makes no difference to me either way.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
N.O.X. was interjecting some personal thoughts and experiences

Fantasies, not "experiences". There's a big difference between the two which is worth pointing out.

 

"sonofthestar" wrote:
93!
Usually, Bhakti Yoga
should not really strain us by lacking for an easily agreed upon definition, being that it is pretty much understandable to those having given it a fair amount of study, and/or practice!
Usually, the result of the endeavor achieves either of 2 results,
but not necessarily is this "always" the case.
1. Where the object of devotion is experienced in a way that is seemingly "exterior" to the devotee in a way which is just as physically "tangible" to the devotee, as the devotee perceives his/her own tangibility to be.
I am making no mention here, if the devotee considers the object of his/her devotion to already exist in part or in entirety, outside/inside/ or somewhere other than his/her own realm of abidance. Nor am I even considering the idea of "real" or "unreal" in this simple description of what most of those concerning themselves with Bhakti consider Bhakti to be.
There can be more than one level so to say---to these perceptions/experiences.
2. Where the object of devotion ceases to be apprehended as exterior, or interior to the devotee---once union with the object of desire is achieved.
Either experience, is possible---depending upon the medium for expression, which is the very devotee.
Some would perceive #1 as failing to produce the desired result which makes for success; believing that # 2
is the only result that can be said to be "The Goal" or "Aim" of the practice itself.
The answer is not so clear cut, considering, that the "effect upon the devotee", after the experience of such Bhakti, must be considered.
Is he/she---the devotee, better or worse off---or the same, once their Bhakti is completed.  Are they closer to knowing what their True Will is?
Has the practice enhanced their ability to manifest their True Will?

93! 93! 93!

 

"Camlion" wrote:
Yes, as you have amply demonstrated, sonofthestar, (albeit perhaps unintentionally), we could have discussed and debated the definition, meaning, value and significance of Bhakti Yoga for weeks on end, which would have provided the obfuscation that Erwin was after to dodge the question regarding his personal experience with the subject matter.
However, the beauty of so much of Crowley's work is his presentation of things in a manner which transcends the usual attendant need for controversy, a 'do certain things (really do them) and observe the results' kind of approach. Hence my reference to Liber CLXXV without further comment of my own.
My advice to N.O.X., and anyone else seeking advise on any particular topic, is to qualify the respondents by limiting oneself to people with personal experience with the subject matter. Mika, for example, demonstrated (to me) that she has a great deal of this, and Erwin demonstrated that he does not, that his contribution to the discussion was, well, other than constructive.

ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 5
Share: