Joe Schmoe is your ...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Joe Schmoe is your Master

Page 2 / 3

Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

8)


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 

01010100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101100 01101111 01101111 01101011 01110011 00100000 01101011 01101001 01101110 01100100 01100001 00100000 01100110 01110101 01101110 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100110 01100101 01110111 00100000 01101101 01101001 01101110 01110101 01110100 01100101 01110011 00100000 01100010 01110101 01110100 00100000 01100110 01100101 01100101 01101100 00100000 01110011 01110101 01110010 01100101 00100000 01101001 01110100 00100000 01101101 01110101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01100111 01101111 00100000 01100001 01100111 01100001 01101001 01101110 01110011 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01100111 01110101 01101001 01100100 01100101 01101100 01101001 01101110 01100101 01110011

Convert Binary with http://www.ConvertBinary.com (Online Binary Translator)  🙂 8)  🙂


ReplyQuote
Hamal
(@hamal)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 547
 

I suspect you are right!  8)


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"david" wrote:
The OP unfortunately contained a, "binary opposition", which as Derrida pointed [out]

There is a quite funny joke about Derrida, but as I can’t remember the preamble to the punchline accurately I won’t set it down here.  Does Derrida do dada or doesn’t do it, da?  (That wasn’t it, btw)

"david" wrote:
is the inherent flaw in Western thinking (and language)  since Plato i.e.  two theoretical opposites are strictly defined and set off against one another

There is also the implicit suggestion that this fundamental flaw didn’t exist in Western thought or language itself before Plato, and he didn't live so long ago.  But surely he couldn’t have been the first person to come up with this though!?

"david" wrote:
in this case "Joe Schmoe" and "Master of magick".

It forcibly strikes me that there is a conspicuous and highly unpleasant sexist element present in both the ongoing discussion & the title to this thread which hasn’t so far been aired - and I am tremendously dismayed and utterly astonished that the more ‘feminist’ amongst the female Lashtalians, or at least those among us who art ‘girt with a sword’, haven’t yet raised the point - that Jo Schmoe might well be “your [our] Master [Mistress of magick]” too.

- Where does Ms Joan or Joanna Schmoe fit into the equation?

Yours non-gender specifically,
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"david" wrote:
93

Crowley said,"Many people may go through the ordeals and attain the degrees of the A.'. A.'. without ever hearing that such an Order exists. The universe is, in fact, busy with nothing else,"

Maybe this has stunned you.  After all, "ye are against the people o my chosen".  Perhaps you can't believe that AC could say such a thing.  What he is saying is that for all your elitist book collection and specialist training just when you get there, well some "Joe Schmoe" (a deroga-tory name for man in street (presumably streets on wrong part of town, wherever that could be)) was already there. Amazing isn't it?  No robe, no temple, no yoga, no ceremony, no incense, no asana, no saucer on head, no ever heard of cabbalah, no learning medieval rituals but he/she is/was there above you.

How do you feel about that and why?

The whole thing is b.s. anyway.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
]
There is a quite funny joke about Derrida, but as I can’t remember the preamble to the punchline accurately I won’t set it down here.  Does Derrida do dada or doesn’t do it, da?  (That wasn’t it, btw)

hahahaha  I like it 🙂

"jamie barter" wrote:
[- Where does Ms Joan or Joanna Schmoe fit into the equation?

Yours non-gender specifically,
N Joy

"Jo" is short for Joanne or Joseph?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
"david" wrote:
93

Crowley said,"Many people may go through the ordeals and attain the degrees of the A.'. A.'. without ever hearing that such an Order exists. The universe is, in fact, busy with nothing else,"

Maybe this has stunned you.  After all, "ye are against the people o my chosen".  Perhaps you can't believe that AC could say such a thing.  What he is saying is that for all your elitist book collection and specialist training just when you get there, well some "Joe Schmoe" (a deroga-tory name for man in street (presumably streets on wrong part of town, wherever that could be)) was already there. Amazing isn't it?  No robe, no temple, no yoga, no ceremony, no incense, no asana, no saucer on head, no ever heard of cabbalah, no learning medieval rituals but he/she is/was there above you.

How do you feel about that and why?

The whole thing is b.s. anyway.

It isn't  BS if we take Regardie's view that magickal development  is  a process by which Reichean armouring is consciously dissolved.  The point being if someone uninterested in occult-scholasticism or practice is un-armoured then yes they will have no need to ascend through the grade initiations.  However, generally speaking  we live in a world of continual armouring.  Maybe when  AC made that assertion (in the OP) he had in mind those who do alternative therpaies.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"david" wrote:
It isn't  BS if we take Regardie's view that magickal development  is  a process by which Reichean armouring is consciously dissolved.  The point being if someone uninterested in occult-scholasticism or practice is un-armoured then yes they will have no need to ascend through the grade initiations.  However, generally speaking  we live in a world of continual armouring.  Maybe when  AC made that assertion (in the OP) he had in mind those who do alternative therpaies.

What a simplistic way to reduce whole doctrine of Thelema ( and Western Magical tradition itself ) to a mere system of psychoanalysis.

But then again, this is a typical western method of assimilation. Another crude attempt by Freud and some of his contemporaries was to assimilate the methods of the so called "spiritual realization" to therapeutical methods of psychoanalysis.

I would like to point out the difference between the two:
Psychiatry begins with the fact that the patient is somehow 'sick' or to put it more nicely: has some armouring he needs to get rid of.
So far so good, but to equate this 'treatment' with "grade initiations" is one of the most absurd things I have ever read.

The preliminary requirement for any traditional (magical) system (East or West) is that the practicioner must be not sick in any way.
In fact, before the 'work' begins, it is mostly even required that the practicioner must be as perfectly balanced as possible ( Equilibrium is the basis of the Work. If thou thyself. hast not a sure foundation, whereon wilt thou stand to. direct the forces of Nature? )

In fact, most of the traditions of East and West warn those who are somehow 'ill' or 'unbalanced' and take up the practice: the result might end up in either madness or death.

My post is not an attack against psychoanalysis or therapy in general, but one will end up with lots of confusion if one starts to equate these two systems while they have very little, if anything, common.

If one is going through therapy/or psychoanalysis, the last thing he should be doing is 'magick' or 'yoga', I personally would not even advocate anything occult related to such persons, they would surely do more damage to themselves than good.


ReplyQuote
Hamal
(@hamal)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 547
 
"ayino" wrote:
Psychiatry begins with the fact that the patient is somehow 'sick' or to put it more nicely: has some armouring he needs to get rid of.
So far so good, but to equate this 'treatment' with "grade initiations" is one of the most absurd things I have ever read.

Not necessarily! Many schools of magick consider therapy positive for even the most balanced person. Some go so far as to cite it as highly recommended or even essential for practitioners. You don't have to be 'sick' to benefit from psychotherapy. The theories of Jung fit very nicely with western magical practices.

"ayino" wrote:
If one is going through therapy/or psychoanalysis, the last thing he should be doing is 'magick' or 'yoga', I personally would not even advocate anything occult related to such persons, they would surely do more damage to themselves than good.

Nonsense! You wrongly assume they are 'sick'. You could say we are all 'sick' with the human condition!

😮
93
Hamal


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 

I believe Regardie advised psychotherapy - I'm not sure which type - as a preliminary to magical work, not an adjunct or substitute.

I'm not sure I agree, or we'd have to regard all those masters who attained before the early 20th century as accidents. The only other option is that psychotherapy as such is unnecessary, and other methods of attaining equilibrium exist. I'd argue that most people are mostly balanced, enough to begin work. Minor issues will go away naturally or in the course of work, while deep fractures will show themselves quickly and the student put on hiatus. It can be dangerous, but a lot of valuable experiences in life are.

That said, I think Freud was a genius and he really did "discover" the unconscious. It is a real part of everybody. His theories weren't perfect, as no pioneer's are, but what he did provided a firm foundation for further exploration. He banalized what was seen as uncontrollable or even taboo (sorry) before. Psycholanalysis complements neuroscience.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"david" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
"david" wrote:
93

Crowley said,"Many people may go through the ordeals and attain the degrees of the A.'. A.'. without ever hearing that such an Order exists. The universe is, in fact, busy with nothing else,"

Maybe this has stunned you.  After all, "ye are against the people o my chosen".  Perhaps you can't believe that AC could say such a thing.  What he is saying is that for all your elitist book collection and specialist training just when you get there, well some "Joe Schmoe" (a deroga-tory name for man in street (presumably streets on wrong part of town, wherever that could be)) was already there. Amazing isn't it?  No robe, no temple, no yoga, no ceremony, no incense, no asana, no saucer on head, no ever heard of cabbalah, no learning medieval rituals but he/she is/was there above you.

How do you feel about that and why?

The whole thing is b.s. anyway.

It isn't  BS if we take Regardie's view that magickal development  is  a process by which Reichean armouring is consciously dissolved.  The point being if someone uninterested in occult-scholasticism or practice is un-armoured then yes they will have no need to ascend through the grade initiations.  However, generally speaking  we live in a world of continual armouring.  Maybe when  AC made that assertion (in the OP) he had in mind those who do alternative therpaies.

Of course I know what you are saying.

But that is not what I am saying. You are talking about unraveling a spool of yarn that doesn't even exist. But people make-believe it does, and then are afraid of its non-existence. Enter, the protection mechanism (I can't recall which of the forms of RHK acts as a protector?), Ganesha.

On another note, "Joe Schmoe" being 'already there above you'... is one of the best things that can happen to an aspirant. God forbid the newbie puts themselves on a pedestal to assume they are king-snake in a society that forces them to do so. Without the guide and the carrot on a stick, the 'path' is very short.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"ayino" wrote:
[
My post is not an attack against psychoanalysis or therapy in general, but one will end up with lots of confusion if one starts to equate these two systems while they have very little, if anything, common.

If one is going through therapy/or psychoanalysis, the last thing he should be doing is 'magick' or 'yoga', I personally would not even advocate anything occult related to such persons, they would surely do more damage to themselves than good.

The most obvious flaw in your assertion are the glaring psychological defetcs of the magus of the aeon himself.  I suggest you check out Regardie's "Eye In the Triangle" for further information.

There's a wealth of literature out there equating e.g. the path of Buddhism with psychoanalytical progress.  I'm sure if you do some research you could find some relevant, enlightening books. 


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Hamal" wrote:
"ayino" wrote:
Psychiatry begins with the fact that the patient is somehow 'sick' or to put it more nicely: has some armouring he needs to get rid of.
So far so good, but to equate this 'treatment' with "grade initiations" is one of the most absurd things I have ever read.

Not necessarily! Many schools of magick consider therapy positive for even the most balanced person. Some go so far as to cite it as highly recommended or even essential for practitioners. You don't have to be 'sick' to benefit from psychotherapy. The theories of Jung fit very nicely with western magical practices.

"ayino" wrote:
If one is going through therapy/or psychoanalysis, the last thing he should be doing is 'magick' or 'yoga', I personally would not even advocate anything occult related to such persons, they would surely do more damage to themselves than good.

Nonsense! You wrongly assume they are 'sick'. You could say we are all 'sick' with the human condition!

😮
93
Hamal

Yes I agree with Hamal here.  Nothing wrong with therapy.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 6988
 

The theories of Jung fit very nicely with western magical practices.

Yeah! He had a rather strong "alchemical" base, and described his counseling as advice on "the path" (of initiation, or individuation, as he called it)

You could say we are all 'sick' with the human condition!

Not only "could," but probably "should." And that would be a correct, initial diagnosis - as well as a correct, final diagnosis


Earn Your MS or PhD Online in Psychology along with
your 1°=10[sup:2l5k3aj1]□[/sup:2l5k3aj1] and 2°=9[sup:2l5k3aj1]□[/sup:2l5k3aj1].
0°=0[sup:2l5k3aj1]□[/sup:2l5k3aj1] waived for the rich and famous.
[/align:2l5k3aj1]

And furthermore, I have decided to expel the rude upstart Joe Schmoe, 8°=3[sup:2l5k3aj1]□[/sup:2l5k3aj1], from the Order that hath no name amongst him and his like. Anyone who is someone upon the path has been expelled from at least one Ordo somewhere along the way.


I am that I am  :o[/align:2l5k3aj1]


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Shiva,

"Shiva" wrote:
Anyone who is someone upon the path has been expelled from at least one Ordo somewhere along the way.

Well, I guess I'm NEMO then, since I've not been expelled from either of the Orders, of which I am a member!  😉


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 6988
 
"N.O.X" wrote:
... I've not been expelled from either of the Orders, of which I am a member!

Have hope and patience. There's still plenty of time.

Anyone who is someone on The Path has usually rebelled against the status quo. You're not just quietly going along, are you? If so, you'll probably never get expelled, you will not become infamously famous, and you will not get things written about you in the daily internet news.


ReplyQuote
Hamal
(@hamal)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 547
 
"Shiva" wrote:
Have hope and patience. There's still plenty of time.

Does calling the other members a bunch of fluffy bunnies and leaving count?  😀

::)
93
Hamal


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 6988
 
"Hamal" wrote:
Does calling the other members a bunch of fluffy bunnies and leaving count?

Yes.


ReplyQuote
Hamal
(@hamal)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 547
 
"Shiva" wrote:
"Hamal" wrote:
Does calling the other members a bunch of fluffy bunnies and leaving count?

Yes.

That's good! I can only take so much fluffy bunny!

😀
93
Hamal


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 6988
 

It doesn't matter whether you escape or are released. It only matters that, at some point, you get out.

"What man is at ease in his Inn?
Get out.
Wide is the world and cold.
Get out.
Thou hast become an in-itiate.
Get out."
- The Book of Lies, Ch. 23

[/align:c06501qj]


ReplyQuote
Hamal
(@hamal)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 547
 

I always think one the the fundamental flaws of most groups is that they recruit good followers, then if these followers progress seek to appoint them to leadership positions. Trouble is they are still followers, not leaders. And at that point the entire intention and nature of the group becomes subverted. All the chairs are put away tidily and the membership subs are collected, but somehow the purpose becomes lost.

93
Hamal


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 

Well, you have to get in to get out.

There's the rub. Or the itch.

The good thing to keep in mind is that you are always Joe Schmoe to somebody, probably most people, and you'll never know how many people you've been a master to, even without trying. Better if you don't try, actually. Just do what... well, we all know the rest.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

Mastery is a formality. It doesn't actually exist.

Excuse me. I have to go get kicked out of something.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
Mastery is a formality. It doesn't actually exist.

Excuse me. I have to go get kicked out of something.

Before you go, are you saying that any Joe Schmoe can pilot a jet then, since the guy with the title "pilot" is just a meaningless formality?

"Who's flying this plane?"

"Who cares? 'Pilot' doesn't mean anything, this guy just got a paper with some high-falutin' jibber jabber on it. Anybody can do it. Go give it a spin yourself, the passengers will love it."


ReplyQuote
Hamal
(@hamal)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 547
 
"belmurru" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Mastery is a formality. It doesn't actually exist.

Excuse me. I have to go get kicked out of something.

Before you go, are you saying that any Joe Schmoe can pilot a jet then, since the guy with the title "pilot" is just a meaningless formality?

"Who's flying this plane?"

"Who cares? 'Pilot' doesn't mean anything, this guy just got a paper with some high-falutin' jibber jabber on it. Anybody can do it. Go give it a spin yourself, the passengers will love it."

Well said! I've "mastered" a few things that I feel were more than a formality!

😀
93
Hamal


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"belmurru" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Mastery is a formality. It doesn't actually exist.

Excuse me. I have to go get kicked out of something.

Before you go, are you saying that any Joe Schmoe can pilot a jet then, since the guy with the title "pilot" is just a meaningless formality?

"Who's flying this plane?"

"Who cares? 'Pilot' doesn't mean anything, this guy just got a paper with some high-falutin' jibber jabber on it. Anybody can do it. Go give it a spin yourself, the passengers will love it."

I'm saying that the pilot can still perform as well without the title "pilot", therefore making the title unnecessary. The pilot may identify him/herself as a "pilot", but such identification is unnecessary, useful only in the means of acquiring said skill set to perform any action, which is in itself a reaction. Such identification is not necessary in order for the living being to function properly.

If you say that it matters to the pilot, then the pilot has to go back to the rules of attachment and self-identification.

It's all about Renunciation anyway.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 

But I am not addressing the "title" per se - you've changed the subject. I'm addressing your claim that "Mastery... doesn't exist".

So, sure, somebody who knows how to fly a jet, who has the requisite training and experience, but not actually the piece of paper that entitles them in the game of employment as a pilot, could fly it.

That person would be a de facto, if not a de jure, "master" of flying a jet airplane. As uncommon as that doubtlessly is, it is not impossible.

What you said, however, is that mastery itself, the necessary skills to fly the plane, doesn't exist. That is a preposterous claim, and self-evidently untrue. If you know how to perform such a complicated task competently, you are a master of that skill. Your skill does exist, and it was acquired.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 6988
 

I see that the thread has now degenerated into meaningless hairsplitting of terminology. Alas! The OP was about people "going through the process" without ever having heard about the Order (the A.'.A.'.).


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 

It's not meaningless or off topic. People are responsible for what they say.

If Azidonis meant that Joe Schmoe could be a master without having any title of "master of such and such" (i.e. never heard of any Order, just did what the OP quoted Crowley saying, namely that he attained something or other naturally), then he should have said that. It is a banal observation that no one would have disputed.

If he meant that there is nothing for Joe Schmoe to be a master of, then that is something worth disputing.

There are plenty of ways to skin this cat and stay on topic.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"belmurru" wrote:
If he meant that there is nothing for Joe Schmoe to be a master of, then that is something worth disputing.

What could Joe Schmoe be a master of?

He could learn how to stand on his head. Master that. Something tangible.

But to say that this imaginary Joe Schmoe guy is doing anything related to this 'mind' is to compartmentalize this 'mind' into 2 parts: 'mind' and 'not-mind'. This 'mind' is the mind you think from (as opposed to 'to'). It is the personal mind. Other 'minds' are interwoven with 'personal mind'. And 'personal mind' can only view something in relation to itself (Relativity).

And so, this so-called, "Master" is a master of what? What is there that is viewing this 'mind', to affirm or deny this supposed mastery?

Identity? Self?

It seems there. But is it? Where is it? Would you know it if you saw it?

So, 'personal mind' is just a term given to an imaginary idea.

If no one ever had said anything about this thing called a 'self', do you think you would have even questioned (or even been aware of) its existence or non-existence?


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
If he meant that there is nothing for Joe Schmoe to be a master of, then that is something worth disputing.

What could Joe Schmoe be a master of?

He could learn how to stand on his head. Master that. Something tangible.

Right. Hence my "pilot" example. I wanted you to distinguish between your particular use of "mastery" and its more general sense of "expertise in (something)". Your original statement was potentially misleading. It is easily read as "Expertise doesn't exist", which is absurd.

But to say that this imaginary Joe Schmoe guy is doing anything related to this 'mind' is to compartmentalize this 'mind' into 2 parts: 'mind' and 'not-mind'. This 'mind' is the mind you think from (as opposed to 'to'). It is the personal mind. Other 'minds' are interwoven with 'personal mind'. And 'personal mind' can only view something in relation to itself (Relativity).

Fine. Mirror neurons and all that stuff. Basic sociobiology, more or less theorized before the role of mirror neurons was known.

And so, this so-called, "Master" is a master of what?

Hopefully, the illusion of his separateness from everything else. But the illusion, like a puppet, continues because of the body, which is a deeper self. You can stop that too, if you want, but the "master" of the illusion is only master by virtue of continuing, letting his body do its thing, despite knowing that one of its functions, self-consciousness, which lets you know things like "danger (to self), run away" or "self likes that, that is good for self", is a by-product, an illusion, not a self-contained separate thing. Fortunately, or unfortunately, there are easier ways to talk about self, beginning with the word "I".

What is there that is viewing this 'mind', to affirm or deny this supposed mastery?

Identity? Self?

The same "dust devil" that makes you aware of anything else. It constantly chatters in your head, it becomes nativized and goes on by habit, which allows most people to function "asleep", as Gurdjieff characterized it.

Remember Crowley's "eight limbs" -

Sit Still
Stop Thinking
Shut Up
Get Out

"Shut up" comes after "Stop Thinking". The talker keeps talking, even when the observer has ceased to engage with it (thinking).

"Get Out", now, that's the stillness, as thin as the skin of a bubble before it bursts, the tension separating its air from the outside air just barely holding it together. Set and setting, if you care, will prevent bad things happening to the chatterbox back there while the observer is almost "out". But for most people, it is enough to know it is possible, that there is an "out", that the self is an illusion, that there is nothing to fear. Developing some kind of practice to keep oneself reminded of it, in touch with it, is enough to keep living like a normal person, if that is important because others depend on you or what not. "Compassion", you know.

It seems there. But is it? Where is it? Would you know it if you saw it?

It is easy to know what the habit is, once that part of you that decides it wants to know what it is gets to the point of entry, generally characterized as "stillness", and watches it from there. That awareness is still part of self-consciousness, but it is the stillest part you can get to before you go unconscious, unaware of self and other distinctions. But there seems no point in letting yourself get out completely and permanently, since that is just death.

Most "spiritual systems" include some superstitions about an afterlife to try to prevent people from making the logical conclusion. If you want the self-conscious chatterbox to cease existing, just kill yourself. That gets rid of everything at once - the burden of self-consciousness, and the body that makes the mind that imagines itself.

One of Plato's students, suddenly realizing this, is reported to have jumped out of a window to get there quicker. Hence Plato's bad reputation, and the Platonist's re-introduction of the soul into their system.

So, 'personal mind' is just a term given to an imaginary idea.

Even more simply put, since all ideas are imaginary, and all imaginings are ideas, "mind is an idea".

An idea in what mind, though? In the brain. The body is a deeper self than the dust devil self. Two proofs - your dreams, which you don't create consciously or by thinking, but rather are created by the unconscious, deeper self (still a mess, but not one with the illusion of a self); and unconscious behaviours, like not pissing yourself when you are asleep. You learned not to do it consciously, but your unconscious self has taken over the control of this habit. Other animals have it too, and dreams as well - every animal has a self-consciousness and an unconscious. Survival to sexual maturity, the whole point of the machine, is impossible without it.

If no one ever had said anything about this thing called a 'self', do you think you would have even questioned (or even been aware of) its existence or non-existence?

Sure - baby knows self and not-self long before he can speak or has the chatterbox in his head. Self is much deeper than just thoughts; you can't just think it away, you have to get to know it, to observe it.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"belmurru" wrote:

But to say that this imaginary Joe Schmoe guy is doing anything related to this 'mind' is to compartmentalize this 'mind' into 2 parts: 'mind' and 'not-mind'. This 'mind' is the mind you think from (as opposed to 'to'). It is the personal mind. Other 'minds' are interwoven with 'personal mind'. And 'personal mind' can only view something in relation to itself (Relativity).

Fine. Mirror neurons and all that stuff. Basic sociobiology, more or less theorized before the role of mirror neurons was known.

I don't know why you decided to introduce more terms to the conversation, but whatever.

"belmurru" wrote:

And so, this so-called, "Master" is a master of what?

Hopefully, the illusion of his separateness from everything else.

How do you master something that does not exist?

"belmurru" wrote:
But the illusion, like a puppet, continues because of the body, which is a deeper self.

This logic... so body exists, therefore illusion continues? Not so.

"belmurru" wrote:
You can stop that too, if you want, but the "master" of the illusion is only master by virtue of continuing, letting his body do its thing, despite knowing that one of its functions, self-consciousness, which lets you know things like "danger (to self), run away" or "self likes that, that is good for self", is a by-product, an illusion, not a self-contained separate thing. Fortunately, or unfortunately, there are easier ways to talk about self, beginning with the word "I".

"Danger to self, run away"? If it gets to that point, my body usually takes over, reacting quicker than thought ever could. Some people call it the survival instinct. Are we both talking aboutt the same species?

"This is good for self," implies the existence of a self. The self saying something is good for itself is based solely upon the value system that has been embraced by the sense of self in question. Acting like it makes a difference to the body at all is an effort in futility.

"belmurru" wrote:

What is there that is viewing this 'mind', to affirm or deny this supposed mastery?

Identity? Self?

The same "dust devil" that makes you aware of anything else. It constantly chatters in your head, it becomes nativized and goes on by habit, which allows most people to function "asleep", as Gurdjieff characterized it.

Remember Crowley's "eight limbs" -

Sit Still
Stop Thinking
Shut Up
Get Out

"Shut up" comes after "Stop Thinking". The talker keeps talking, even when the observer has ceased to engage with it (thinking).

I'll only point out that what you call dust devil, people have a tendency to personify as a solid object, when it is, in fact, not. The image of a "dust devil" is of one actual object, but we both know that the dust devil is an amalgam of many objects, which form together ever so nicely so as to be counted as one group, giving rise to the image of on 'entity', a dust devil.

"belmurru" wrote:
"Get Out", now, that's the stillness, as thin as the skin of a bubble before it bursts, the tension separating its air from the outside air just barely holding it together. Set and setting, if you care, will prevent bad things happening to the chatterbox back there while the observer is almost "out". But for most people, it is enough to know it is possible, that there is an "out", that the self is an illusion, that there is nothing to fear. Developing some kind of practice to keep oneself reminded of it, in touch with it, is enough to keep living like a normal person, if that is important because others depend on you or what not. "Compassion", you know.

You think there is an out? Have you seen it, or are you just going by what you have been told?

"belmurru" wrote:

It seems there. But is it? Where is it? Would you know it if you saw it?

It is easy to know what the habit is, once that part of you that decides it wants to know what it is gets to the point of entry, generally characterized as "stillness", and watches it from there. That awareness is still part of self-consciousness, but it is the stillest part you can get to before you go unconscious, unaware of self and other distinctions. But there seems no point in letting yourself get out completely and permanently, since that is just death.

I don't know why you think any sort of stillness has any sort of awareness quality to it.

"belmurru" wrote:
Most "spiritual systems" include some superstitions about an afterlife to try to prevent people from making the logical conclusion. If you want the self-conscious chatterbox to cease existing, just kill yourself. That gets rid of everything at once - the burden of self-consciousness, and the body that makes the mind that imagines itself.

One of Plato's students, suddenly realizing this, is reported to have jumped out of a window to get there quicker. Hence Plato's bad reputation, and the Platonist's re-introduction of the soul into their system.

It's just a warning label for the stupid.

"belmurru" wrote:

So, 'personal mind' is just a term given to an imaginary idea.

Even more simply put, since all ideas are imaginary, and all imaginings are ideas, "mind is an idea".

An idea in what mind, though? In the brain.

You say "an idea in what mind", "in the brain". Can you affirm with 99.99% certainty that an actual thing called 'mind' exists, and it can be found in the brain?

"belmurru" wrote:
The body is a deeper self than the dust devil self. Two proofs - your dreams, which you don't create consciously or by thinking, but rather are created by the unconscious, deeper self (still a mess, but not one with the illusion of a self); and unconscious behaviours, like not pissing yourself when you are asleep. You learned not to do it consciously, but your unconscious self has taken over the control of this habit.

Learned behaviors have no bearing on it. That the body can be, in some respects, controlled, is not proof of an existence of a ghost in the shell, nor is it proof that the supposed ghost in the shell has any real power or authority over the body that is given to it freely by the body.

"belmurru" wrote:
Other animals have it too, and dreams as well - every animal has a self-consciousness and an unconscious. Survival to sexual maturity, the whole point of the machine, is impossible without it.

Don't pick it into parts. Take the whole idea of 'mind' at once. We say animals have it because we observe that they too can be trained. The implication is that something is doing training and something is receiving training. Since the training sticks, we assume that the 'trainer' and 'trainee' are actual things.

"belmurru" wrote:

If no one ever had said anything about this thing called a 'self', do you think you would have even questioned (or even been aware of) its existence or non-existence?

Sure - baby knows self and not-self long before he can speak or has the chatterbox in his head. Self is much deeper than just thoughts; you can't just think it away, you have to get to know it, to observe it.

You are saying that a baby knows the words before it can formulate the words... I doubt that. If you are taking natural physical responses to stimuli, and using them as a means to say that "X responses indicate a sense of self", then I simply don't agree with you. The body can instinctively take care of itself.

In case it is not clear, I'm not asserting that there is no sense of self. There is a sense of self. I am only saying that the sense of self is a projection created as a by-product of the functioning of the living organism. So, the sense of self, while it appears to exist and have an influence on actual living reality, only does so as long as the mechanism that gives off said projection is still giving off the projection. I do think that it is possible that a living being can exist in nature and function fully without the use of said projection.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 

Reply #55 by david on: January 19, 2014, at 1216 am:

Quote from: jamie barter on January 17, 2014, 1214 pm

There is a quite funny joke about Derrida, but as I can’t remember the preamble to the punchline accurately I won’t set it down here.  Does Derrida do dada or doesn’t do it, da?  (That wasn’t it, btw)

hahahaha  I like it

Glad you seemed to like it, I didn’t think it was quite that amusing at the time!

Reply #55 by david on: January 19, 2014, at 1216 am:

Quote from: jamie barter on January 17, 2014, 1214 pm
- Where does Ms Joan or Joanna Schmoe fit into the equation?

Yours non-gender specifically,
N Joy

"Jo" is short for Joanne or Joseph?

Maybe not Joseph, but Josepha or Josephine?!  Joleen!??

I am in a broad agreement with yours & Hamal’s (and belmurru’s more or less) perception about the usefulness of psychotherapy as an adjunct – not a replacement or as a substitute – for magickal work and practice.  And as has been noted, and which I think you yourself acknowledged in Reply #56, Regardie was very keen on this aspect and particularly psychotherapeutic work with a Reichian slant.  Re also:

Reply #61 by david on: January 19, 2014, at 0953 pm:
Quote from: ayino on January 19, 2014, 1242 pm
My post is not an attack against psychoanalysis or therapy in general, but one will end up with lots of confusion if one starts to equate these two systems while they have very little, if anything, common.

If one is going through therapy/or psychoanalysis, the last thing he should be doing is 'magick' or 'yoga', I personally would not even advocate anything occult related to such persons, they would surely do more damage to themselves than good.

The most obvious flaw in your assertion are the glaring psychological defetcs of the magus of the aeon himself. […]

I am sure The Beast would have plumbed the same or similar depths of therapy in his deep meditations and own work, etc.: the one clear advantage of therapy remains that, ideally if it goes well, there is someone else outside of yourself who would be able to spot whenever you are trying to ‘hide’ things away from yourself, if you get my meaning…

With fond regards
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"belmurru" wrote:
Even more simply put, since all ideas are imaginary, and all imaginings are ideas, "mind is an idea".

An idea in what mind, though? In the brain. The body is a deeper self than the dust devil self.

Nietzsche perhaps made this point most clearly:

"Nietzsche" wrote:
Behind thy thoughts and feelings, my brother, there is a mighty lord, an unknown sage—it is called Self; it dwelleth in thy body, it is thy body.

There is more sagacity in thy body than in thy best wisdom. And who then knoweth why thy body requireth just thy best wisdom?

Thy Self laugheth at thine ego, and its proud prancings. "What are these prancings and flights of thought unto me?" it saith to itself. "A by-way to my purpose. I am the leading-string of the ego, and the prompter of its notions."

The Self saith unto the ego: "Feel pain!" And thereupon it suffereth, and thinketh how it may put an end thereto—and for that very purpose it is meant to think.

The Self saith unto the ego: "Feel pleasure!" Thereupon it rejoiceth, and thinketh how it may ofttimes rejoice—and for that very purpose it is meant to think.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"Los" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
Even more simply put, since all ideas are imaginary, and all imaginings are ideas, "mind is an idea".

An idea in what mind, though? In the brain. The body is a deeper self than the dust devil self.

Nietzsche perhaps made this point most clearly:

"Nietzsche" wrote:
Behind thy thoughts and feelings, my brother, there is a mighty lord, an unknown sage—it is called Self; it dwelleth in thy body, it is thy body.

There is more sagacity in thy body than in thy best wisdom. And who then knoweth why thy body requireth just thy best wisdom?

Thy Self laugheth at thine ego, and its proud prancings. "What are these prancings and flights of thought unto me?" it saith to itself. "A by-way to my purpose. I am the leading-string of the ego, and the prompter of its notions."

The Self saith unto the ego: "Feel pain!" And thereupon it suffereth, and thinketh how it may put an end thereto—and for that very purpose it is meant to think.

The Self saith unto the ego: "Feel pleasure!" Thereupon it rejoiceth, and thinketh how it may ofttimes rejoice—and for that very purpose it is meant to think.

When self and not-self are dissolved into one another, what is one left with, Los?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Hamal" wrote:
I'm absolutely fine with that David. It is our personal complexity that demands a complex route, the simple man can get there much quicker because he is able to accept with little or no question. And it is often said a simple life is best, but how many of us live simple lives.

I really liked this response. It hit very true for me and my current dilemmas.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"belmurru" wrote:
Remember Crowley's "eight limbs" -

Sit Still
Stop Thinking
Shut Up
Get Out

"Shut up" comes after "Stop Thinking". The talker keeps talking, even when the observer has ceased to engage with it (thinking).

"Get Out", now, that's the stillness, as thin as the skin of a bubble before it bursts, the tension separating its air from the outside air just barely holding it together. Set and setting, if you care, will prevent bad things happening to the chatterbox back there while the observer is almost "out".

I always thought this meant to disengage the senses, or rather disregard the information inputted by means of sensory perception (including extra sensory perception!).  It isn’t necessary to do with talking/ chattering except where the mind may attempt to ‘verbalise’ (=put into words) the sensory phenomena it is receiving.  And hence from here on to the Burroughsian concept of word virus, etc.

"belmurru" wrote:
[...] That awareness is still part of self-consciousness, but it is the stillest part you can get to before you go unconscious, unaware of self and other distinctions. But there seems no point in letting yourself get out completely and permanently, since that is just death.

Or possibly being asleep (the big sleep that is!)

"belmurru" wrote:
Most "spiritual systems" include some superstitions about an afterlife to try to prevent people from making the logical conclusion. If you want the self-conscious chatterbox to cease existing, just kill yourself. That gets rid of everything at once - the burden of self-consciousness, and the body that makes the mind that imagines itself.

One of Plato's students, suddenly realizing this, is reported to have jumped out of a window to get there quicker. Hence Plato's bad reputation, and the Platonist's re-introduction of the soul into their system.

I thought this might have been the beginning of a rather good joke there but, hunt as I might, I couldn’t find the "punchline"!

"Azidonis" wrote:
It's just a warning label for the stupid.

That sounds almost like an REM song title – don’t think it was, though.

"Azidonis" wrote:
Don't pick it into parts. Take the whole idea of 'mind' at once.

And that combination of self-consciousness and unconscious (let’s leave to one side any hair-splitting about the “un” and “sub” conscious!) is - ?!  (In the absence of any more satisfactory alternative, may I suggest the superconscious?)

"Azidonis" wrote:
We say animals have it because we observe that they too can be trained. The implication is that something is doing training and something is receiving training. Since the training sticks, we assume that the 'trainer' and 'trainee' are actual things.

Do you mean that the animal as trainee is trained by the trainer to fetch sticks?

"Azidonis" wrote:
You are saying that a baby knows the words before it can formulate the words... I doubt that. If you are taking natural physical responses to stimuli, and using them as a means to say that "X responses indicate a sense of self", then I simply don't agree with you. The body can instinctively take care of itself

In the Beginning was the Word and that Word was “Self”?

"Azidonis" wrote:
In case it is not clear, I'm not asserting that there is no sense of self. There is a sense of self.

But in your terms it is an illusion (like everything else, which is also an an illusion & therefore cancels itself/ everything out?  Ye olde “the framework of everything is all just a big con” hypothesis again?)

"Azidonis" wrote:
I am only saying that the sense of self is a projection created as a by-product of the functioning of the living organism. So, the sense of self, while it appears to exist and have an influence on actual living reality, only does so as long as the mechanism that gives off said projection is still giving off the projection. I do think that it is possible that a living being can exist in nature and function fully without the use of said projection.

“The sense of self” is presumably the identity of difference in the isolation of separateness.  Is that this vaunted projection, and wo/men that of mere projectors onto the cinemascope of their lives? 

"Azidonis" wrote:
I do think that it is possible that a living being can exist in nature and function fully without the use of said projection.

You mean a living human being, specifically?  (If not, what else?) 
Possibly some individual’s functioning somewhere on the autistic spectrum may come under this category.

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Hamal
(@hamal)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 547
 
"Zac" wrote:
"Hamal" wrote:
I'm absolutely fine with that David. It is our personal complexity that demands a complex route, the simple man can get there much quicker because he is able to accept with little or no question. And it is often said a simple life is best, but how many of us live simple lives.

I really liked this response. It hit very true for me and my current dilemmas.

Thank you Zac, I'm glad you liked it!

🙂
93
Hamal


ReplyQuote
steve_wilson
(@steve_wilson)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 155
 

Without reading all six pages, I would say that many Indian gurus of my acquaintance have attained very refined states of consciousness without ever gaining mastery over their own genitals. The one exception was Rajneesh, who never gained mastery over his closest disciples.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"Zac" wrote:
"Hamal" wrote:
I'm absolutely fine with that David. It is our personal complexity that demands a complex route, the simple man can get there much quicker because he is able to accept with little or no question. And it is often said a simple life is best, but how many of us live simple lives.

I really liked this response. It hit very true for me and my current dilemmas.

I omitted to have mentioned that I liked these few wise words which contained a profound simplicity in themselves very much too.

While I’m here, I might add that I thought I saw Joe Schmoe on the bus from Clapham this morning.  But it was hard to tell as I think he was trying to avoid attention.

♪ ♪ - All aboard!
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 6988
 
"steve_wilson" wrote:
... many Indian gurus of my acquaintance have attained very refined states of consciousness without ever gaining mastery over their own genitals.

Please define the elusive term "refined." After we get that term pinned down, perhaps I'll have something to say about "genitals."


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"Shiva" wrote:
"steve_wilson" wrote:
... many Indian gurus of my acquaintance have attained very refined states of consciousness without ever gaining mastery over their own genitals.

Please define the elusive term "refined." After we get that term pinned down, perhaps I'll have something to say about "genitals."

Next, we will be categorizing every possible measurement of brainwave activity.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 6988
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
Next, we will be categorizing every possible measurement of brainwave activity.

The only one (of the brainwave activities) that really counts is delta (Δ), which is zero to 4 cps (cycles per second). "Every possible measurement" is herewith quoted from Coruscatio - The Magical Cactus Voice (c)2011:

There are four primary divisions:
These demarcations are called beta (β), alpha (α), theta (θ), and delta (Δ).
Their general characteristics are as follows:

Beta (β) 13 - 20 cps Multi-tasking
Alpha (α) 8 - 13 cps Focused and Relaxed
Theta (θ) 4 - 8 cps Hypnagogic Imagery
Delta (Δ) 0 - 4 cps Deep Sleep - no images

Beta (β) is normal, active, everyday, working consciousness. It is the dominant frequency range when a person is awake and doing more than one thing at a time, which is the primary definition of "stress" in some psychological schools of thought. In unusual cases of "overstress," the frequency can rise up to sixty cycles per second.
Any memorization or high-speed learning undertaken in the beta brainwave range, such as "cramming," is automatically relegated to "short-term memory."

Alpha (α) is focused and relaxed. "Focused" implies that only one thing is being done; "relaxed" indicates that other factors are not intruding in the form of distractions, worries, concerns or "breaks.".
This state is comparable to "concentration" (dharana) and it can be induced by one-pointed mental attention, pranayama, hypnosis, and a host of other relaxation techniques, including the use of cannabis or legal cannabinoid-type research chemicals.
Thoughtforms or metal images can be created in this alpha range, and memorization or deliberate learning is routed to "long-term memory." This concept is the basis of Alpha-Learning, a memory-enhancement learning program.

Theta (θ) is attributed to the dream-state and to visions that arise of their own accord in meditative practices; such visions are called hypnagogic imagery. This frequency range, running from four to eight cycles per second, is essentially the psychedelic realm.

^ These are the commonly recognized ranges, they are not universal definitions of the range of brain-waves. Researchers tend to follow these guidelines, but many scholars use their own specific boundaries depending on the range they choose to focus on, and still others will divide the bands into sub-bands.

Theta can also be compared to the concept of the astral plane, as that term is generally understood by magicians. If these visions arise in the sleep state, there is usually no control or stability, and "meaningful content" is sometimes sought in any remaining memory fragments through dream analysis.
If these visions arise in the meditative state, or through the use of a psychotropic drug, there is usually no control or stability in the beginning, but mastery can be developed.
Even in the earliest of psychedelic experiments, the transmission of "meaningful content" is often immediately delivered.
This "mastery" is most easily developed when a libation is combined with practices in Raja Yoga and/or ceremonial magick, by whatever mystical name or method of wizardry they are called, especially when these arts have already been in play for a while as a regular discipline.

Delta (Δ) is the realm of the dead. That is, a person is either "dead asleep" with no corresponding dream activity, or he is in a meditative realm that is so deep, so expanded, that the meditator has transcended visions and words and mental concepts.

A period of approximately forty-five minutes in delta is required each night in order for an individual to "recharge their battery" and to awake with a feeling of refreshment in the morning.
The rest of the sleeping hours are spent in theta, the dream state, but this range does not "regenerate;" it does not give the "rest" of delta.
This [delta] is the realm of samadhi, of cosmic consciousness, but only if the awareness can be maintained, only if the "continuity of consciousness" can remain intact.
In sleep, in meditation, and in psychedelic encounters, as the burning tip of awareness accesses delta, one will pass into the void and become "dead to the world," or their ego will die (their sense of separate existence will disappear), or they will simply "black out" if they are not properly aligned.

Entering into the delta range is like passing through a veil, but there is no backside to the curtain. The ultimate goal, the Primary Clear Light, the primordial consciousness, is only found at the bottom of delta - at zero.

"Nothing is a secret key of this law." - Liber AL

Zero (Ø) is the ultimate sign of clinical death in the hospital. When the breathing stops, the heart may still beat on for a while, but when the brain ceases to exhibit electrical activity via the EEG, the doctor or nurse turns to the clock to note the Time of Death.

Ø
Zero, a perfect, dynamic, living balance, is the number of the key that fits in any lock. It is one of the major keys in magick and likewise serves the mystic in passing the veils.
In the psychedelic state, there is no need to worry about the brain as some have done, because it will keep firing along in all the frequency ranges even though the participant's delta frequencies are "spiking."

Thatabout covers it. Now, which of these is "refined?"  😮


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"Shiva" wrote:
[...] Zero (Ø) is the ultimate sign of clinical death in the hospital. When the breathing stops, the heart may still beat on for a while, but when the brain ceases to exhibit electrical activity via the EEG, the doctor or nurse turns to the clock to note the Time of Death.

Ø
Zero, a perfect, dynamic, living balance, is the number of the key that fits in any lock. It is one of the major keys in magick and likewise serves the mystic in passing the veils.
In the psychedelic state, there is no need to worry about the brain as some have done, because it will keep firing along in all the frequency ranges even though the participant's delta frequencies are "spiking."

...

This [delta] is the realm of samadhi, of cosmic consciousness, but only if the awareness can be maintained, only if the "continuity of consciousness" can remain intact.

You seem to be stating this means that if someone is functioning at what you call the optimum delta frequency, i.e., zero cps, they are in effect “brain dead”... could you just confirm then that this is apparently what we’re all meant to be striving for??  Makes me feel like one of Mony Python's Gumbys!!

(My brain hurts!)
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 6988
 

Apparently, the only available reference(s) to operating at "zero" (i.e., without a mind) have been furnished by U.G. Krishnamurti, and he has gone to great lengths in various interviews and videos of him to explain this state ... which, by the way, correlates with AC's rather short description of the Ipsissimus. Azidonis and myself have made constant reference to him (U.G.), and certain other posters seem to continuously not get the reference(s), the point, or even the concept.

If anyone is scared (frightened, disgusted, avoidance-oriented), then here's a couple little quotes from his (U.G.'s) biography:

"If people come and ask me questions, I answer. If they don't, it makes no difference to me. I have no particular message for mankind, except to say that all holy systems for obtaining enlightenment are nonsense and that all talk of arriving at a psychological mutation through awareness is rubbish. Psychological mutation is impossible. The natural state can happen only through biological mutation."

"Sometimes people come and just sit around U.G., not necessarily participating in any conversation. The general feeling they get is one of peace, security, comfort, intimacy and communion. My friend, one of India's greatest actresses, the late Smita Patil, often spoke to me about this feeling of great ease in U.G.'s presence. Nevertheless, you are never off your guard when you are with him as you feel that you and your being are always under question in his presence."

This sense of peace is the same reported by the folks who used to just sit around Ramana Maharshi. U.G. tells us (er, told us) that he was in constant Samadhi. The same was apparently true about Maharshi.

These are the same pearls that were cast about in the A.'.A.'. is the Black Lodge thread - that was recently discredited as a "waffle," and “merely perpetuating the b.s.," and furthermore "ridiculous." Now, in this thread, the same topics have come up, and the same poster is continuing to complain, possibly because he is so frightened of losing his ego, or sense of self.

What do some people think is at the END of this so-called path?


ReplyQuote
Hamal
(@hamal)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 547
 

😀
93
Hamal


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
You seem to be stating this means that if someone is functioning at what you call the optimum delta frequency, i.e., zero cps, they are in effect “brain dead”... could you just confirm then that this is apparently what we’re all meant to be striving for??  Makes me feel like one of Mony Python's Gumbys!!

(My brain hurts!)
N Joy

This is just drivel.

In case you missed it, so many times ago, as it happens, samadhi (within) is also apparently marked by the ceasing of brainwave functions (without).

It is not braindead. The brain is still fully capable of functioning in its usual way. The waves have simply been "off" for a time (something about bringing everything to a point, then dissolving, ya?). Of course, this process triggers so many responses in the body, many of which can cause 'near-death-like-experiences', or even visions (see kids, you don't need drugs to see stars), both prior to 'entering' and during 'leaving' samadhi.

Also, various brainwave functions match various 'samadhis'. But this might be the umpteenth time I've even said it. Not like the information is hard to find. It's just not in plain sight.

To tie it back into the thread, one won't find this stuff in a "learn magick in 14 hours" book.


ReplyQuote
Hamal
(@hamal)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 547
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
To tie it back into the thread, one won't find this stuff in a "learn magick in 14 hours" book.

Thank you, I'm sure we'll all feel sufficiently patronised now!

Lashtal is excellent for Ego control I find, all I have to do to keep my Ego in check is read a thread or two on here and I'm sure to be put in my place.

::)
93
Hamal


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"Shiva" wrote:
Apparently, the only available reference(s) to operating at "zero" (i.e., without a mind) have been furnished by U.G. Krishnamurti, and he has gone to great lengths in various interviews and videos of him to explain this state ... which, by the way, correlates with AC's rather short description of the Ipsissimus.

Which is?  Are you referring to the short description given in One Star in Sight here, in which case could you please be so good as to state so in order to eliminate any other possibilities?

"Shiva" wrote:
Azidonis and myself have made constant reference to him (U.G.), and certain other posters seem to continuously not get the reference(s), the point, or even the concept.

If (the both of) you are so mustard keen on U.G. and he is your ‘main/ boss man’, perhaps it may be more fitting to eulogise him more fully & fittingly on a U.G. Society website rather than an A.C. one?!

"Shiva" wrote:
If anyone is scared (frightened, disgusted, avoidance-oriented), then here's a couple little quotes from his (U.G.'s) biography:

"If people come and ask me questions, I answer. If they don't, it makes no difference to me. I have no particular message for mankind, except to say that all holy systems for obtaining enlightenment are nonsense and that all talk of arriving at a

Exactly what does the writer mean by ‘nonsense’ here?  That they're not strictly rational?  In which case - I agree, of course!

"Shiva" wrote:
Psychological mutation is impossible. The natural state can happen only through biological mutation."

Isn’t “‘psychological” a subset of “biological” in its larger sense?  And ‘impossible’ seems rather a strong word to use, if the mind (psyche) is a by-product of life (biology) as well…

"Shiva" wrote:
"Sometimes people come and just sit around U.G., not necessarily participating in any conversation. The general feeling they get is one of peace, security, comfort, intimacy and communion. My friend, one of India's greatest actresses, the late Smita Patil, often spoke to me about this feeling of great ease in U.G.'s presence. Nevertheless, you are never off your guard when you are with him as you feel that you and your being are always under question in his presence."

But this last bit doesn’t sound as if it will guarantee much “peace”, “security”, “comfort”, “intimacy” and “communion”… In fact it reads rather more like what an Encounter group such as EST would be!

"Shiva" wrote:
This sense of peace is the same reported by the folks who used to just sit around Ramana Maharshi. U.G. tells us (er, told us) that he was in constant Samadhi. The same was apparently true about Maharshi.

I.e., he (er, they) are without a mind, and/ or brain dead?

"Shiva" wrote:
These are the same pearls that were cast about in the A.'.A.'. is the Black Lodge thread -

Are they really?  Let others be the judge of that, monsieur!

"Shiva" wrote:
that was recently discredited as a "waffle," and “merely perpetuating the b.s.," and furthermore "ridiculous." Now, in this thread, the same topics have come up, and the same poster is continuing to complain,

You seem to be confusing the different elements in those entire threads here for the sake of a generalisation.

"Shiva" wrote:
and the same poster is continuing to complain, possibly because he is so frightened of losing his ego, or sense of self.

Your repeated remarks about my egomania here & elsewhere just before Yuletide rather suggests to me something like transference.  It really is rather a weak line of argument, you know – on a “sucks boo” sort of level, the argument of the loser.  By engaging on a forum here, we are all of us posters indulging our egos to an extent.  I personally am quite comfortable  with that, not being one of those people (are you?!) who think that the ego must be “destroyed”.  Tamed or trained instead, sirrah!  So that it knows its place in the chain of being, yes.  As a veteran, I would ‘assume’ you would have had an inkling of this already…?

(Sigh of resignation) Oh to hell with it, you’ve got me bang to rights, all right, I admit it – I am a Black Brother!  (You’d have liked me to have just said that, wouldn’t you Shiva?!  Then you’d have been able to feel a warm self-righteous glow of justification.  But I’m so sorry I can’t oblige & give you the satisfaction!

"Shiva" wrote:
What do some people think is at the END of this so-called path?

But the REAL question is, is it a path or a cul-de-sac?

"Azidonis" wrote:
This is just drivel. [...]

‘Drivel’ is it now, Azidonis?  (I’m glad your vocabulary has managed to expand beyond ‘hogwash’!)

"Hamal" wrote:

I quite agree here, Hamal!  But your otherwise accurate “map” seems to be missing a roundabout somewhere - as in, going round & around the same old circular arguments…

…whilst trying not to crash the gears,
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4273
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
If (the both of) you are so mustard keen on U.G. and he is your ‘main/ boss man’, perhaps it may be more fitting to eulogise him more fully & fittingly on a U.G. Society website rather than an A.C. one?!

Paul will correct me if I am wrong, but the remit of this site is wider than a narrow focus on the life and work of Aleister Crowley. After all, his work has a context of, amongst others, mystical traditions. Were Shiva and Azidonis posting non-stop about U.G. Krishnamurti, then you might have a point; even then, no-one forces you to read, so you can protect your sensibilities.

Personally I have not the slightest interest in a number of topics that surface from time to time on this website, such as Jimmy Page, Killing joke, etc. Others have, and regard such topics as relevant, which is fine by me. In this particular instance, I always find the U.G. Krishnamurti material posted by Shiva and Azidonis interesting, and a contribution to the richness of this site.


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 3
Share: