You're unlikely to discover who you are by fantasizing about make believe stuff like past lives.

I'm wondering if you know any rituals devoted to this subject?

Take it to heruraha.net

Well, many claims to have experienced these kind of experience by undertaking regressive hypnosis. Why there's no ritual devised for this purpose is a mystery - if one can reach so far down into the subconscious by terapy

Even if you are't interested in this questions, philosophers like Austin Osman Spare was. He used this "who are you?" as an example in Zos speaks! where he illustrated how one could question yourself in word symbols. You can also see my statements above as a critique of Crowley's system if this aspect is abscent in the earlier stages:

"My name means'In rising and making', my name resounds through the corridors of time - echoes back. I came late into existence in Nu: I who have entered and didst dwell in the beautiful underworld, where all the manifold forms of existent praise thee: all the wondrous animal Gods have thought me and avouch me Who then art thou?

Thou, O glorious Soul, didst create thyself and even Nu who kneweth and opened my mouth: I am yesterday, I have left my 'questioning' as an amulet in the underworld. So, let me come forth into today, articulate: I have burnt my shroud, washed away the filth of death and am without sin"(Aos,Zos speaks!, p263)

Liber ThIShARB

Seems this is the new "catch all" answer given to the curious by those who are either too lazy or too ignorant to actually discuss what would otherwise be very simple and elementary concepts.

I suppose that this site is no longer involved with discussing anything pertaining to the Great Work, and is more of a fan/news site operating under the pretense of "scholarly efforts" (what a hoot).

At it's pinnacle, this site was the best on the internet for discussion of the Great Work, and at times even seemed like it's own representation of the Outer College. Such days are long over, though. And the continual attempts for people to "take it to heruraha.net" will not help to return the site to its former glory.

I have looked at heruraha.net a couple of times, and although competent enough I felt that overall matters appear to be done better on Lashtal.

I would be interested to know, from Azidonis or whoever, when its “glory years” are meant to have been…  However I too have noticed a refrain in recent times of “take it to heruraha.net”, as if it is in some way the ultimate arbiter and wonderful cutting-edge of discussion.  The implication is that “Lashtal is not an occult site”, whereas somehow mysteriously heruraha.net is.  But in fact they are both revealed in wide open view on the internet; nothing at all ‘occult’ or ‘oojy’, as Los might say, about either of them.

“Take it to herurahanet”, I mean, the limit,
Norma N. Joy Conquest

I think that 'Take it to heruraha.net' is meant to be derogatory, as Los also refers to it as 'The fruitcake factory'.

Yet he participates there... must be a fruitcake himself.

A person who knew anything at all about the Great Work would know that my comment ("You're unlikely to discover who you are by fantasizing about make believe stuff like past lives") is some of the best advice about the Work. More than half of the battle is figuring out what one is supposed to be doing in the first place, and all this fantasy stuff doesn't help.

No, it's the place for fruitloop discussions, like conversations about tripe like the belief in "past lives."

Bingo.

Hey, Jane Goodall hangs out with chimps....

Delightful though it is to chance across your little gems of wisdom, Azidonis, you'll forgive me, I'm sure, for telling you to at least pretend to stick to the topic..

I agree with Los - the aspirant better be really careful when it comes to "believing" in previous incarnations. And that even if AC did tend to fill some pages and our minds with tendencies to validate the concept.

Los beat me to it. Incidentally, I feel that getting to the bottom of what is even meant by a phrase like "great work", involves casting aside superstitious BS like past lives and magic powers. What could be more elementary than that? I think this site is great, as is.

Sure if you consider imaginary past lives and wizard role playing to be "cutting edge" discussion, heruraha is your place. They always have been, so it's not like it's mysterious or anything. The proprietor there regularly makes all sorts of cooky claims. People are typically discussing all sorts of woo like ghosts in the closet, bogey men with secret messages, or past life fantasies. I don't personally think that an interest in Crowley is synonymous with topics like that... neither is the object of Thelema, which is really quite simple.

I don't know of any rituals to achieve such memory, kharlatan. Like Azidonis earlier in the thread, Crowley's Liber Thisarb is only method that occurs to me.

"It's all bullshit."

Well, Azidonis, I'm an agnostic on the matter. For many years it's been my view that the self - as an enduring individual - does not exist, but that we are transient configurations of consciousness, like waves thrown up from the depths of a body of water. We're all incarnations of consciousness. What we usually think of as self seems to me little more than a fug of conditioned reflexes, impulses and habit patterns steadily accumulated since birth. That's just my perspective now, but looking back over the past few decades I don't doubt that my present understanding is incomplete. I'm happy to have an open mind on this and other matters.

Personally, I'm quite partial to a tasty slice of fruitcake every now and then.

Otherwise, 'Liber ThIShARB' is most worthwhile.

The invitation for the fleas of LAShTAL to jump on this fruitcake:
I have had a lot of personal experience with what I believe are past lives. In my experience they were revealed in deep meditation, and an examination of, where do these (largely historical ) obsessions come from? That is not to say that anyone who has an historical obsession with some time period is necessarily from that time, but if you find yourself using chopsticks  at 3 and speaking korean really well at the age of your teens, and knowing your parents keep telling you 'you always kept asking why you didn't have black hair now, when you were a toddler' , such things are likely cues to past lives.  Or perhaps they are all bullshit from some korean movie i saw when i was 2. But I think otherwise. Then there are always very cognisant dreams that repeat, and other historical obsessions, like world war 2 germany, and the feeling that i died in such and such a place and you delve into them out of time, in the astral and find those personality quirks aren't really yours, they are carryovers from an old imprint in a past life.  So those are the ways I have discovered these things. But as someone like Dr Phil or LOS are probably apt to point out, it's all in my head.

Quoted from (my) Mystic-History.com:

"There is no doubt that many people have inner, historical experiences that they often interpret as a past life. These experiences have several, possible explanations:

1) They are direct memories, stored in the causal body (soul) of the person, and 'remembered' here and now in their present incarnation. Such memories imply unfinished business or karma.

2) They are racial memories, transmitted in the DNA from ancestors (parents, grandparents, etc.) and brought to the surface of consciousness in the here and now. Such memories also imply unfinished (family, tribal, or racial) business or karma.

3) They are universal memories, inscribed upon the etheric fabric of time and space (the so-called Akashik Record.) by historical persons. They are not linked directly to any person, but merely 'picked up' (envisioned or experienced) by a person, just as if one were involved in an attention-grabbing movie. Such memories also imply unfinished (universal) business or karma – because if you can perceive it, then it's part of your consciousness, and (sorry about this) you are responsible for it!

4) They are repressed complexes, (usually) gained during childhood traumas, wherein the issue was never resolved, but just faded away to be stored (repressed) in the subconscious mind. Later in life, the complex arises into the conscious mind, overlaid and mixed with "memories" of historical settings or the personas of figures from myths and fairy tales. Such memories also imply unfinished (psychological) business or karma.

5) They are hallucinations and illusions. People who have these experiences are dangerous and are to be avoided. They are often associated with the Devil and they are distinctly evil. They are to be reported to the authorities, and any means can be used to discredit them. A visit to the psychiatrist is indicated.

^This 'reaction' to the concept of reincarnation implies the presence of a religious
fundamentalist with the mind of a brick; they too have to deal with their own karma.[/align:2qinsm75]

It really doesn't matter which explanation you choose to believe, because the general metaphysical theory is that past lives are recapitulated in succeeding lifetimes. Thus, the karma (cause & effect) of a previous existence (Direct, DNA, or Akashik) gives rise to similar experiences that transfer the effect to the present person, usually in childhood, that unravel over a lifetime. Spiritual or Psychological – take your choice!"

Are you also agnostic as to whether or not a flying bowl of pasta is the creator of the universe? Because I think intellectual honesty demands it. It's equally likely that past lives are real, and that the flying spaghetti monster is our lord, don't you think?

For many years it's been my view that the self - as an enduring individual - does not exist, but that we are transient configurations of consciousness, like waves thrown up from the depths of a body of water. We're all incarnations of consciousness.

Yes, the individual personality is a construct of mental processes which terminate upon death... I understand you when you say this about the individual not existing, but what on earth are you talking about when you say that we are "transient configurations" of consciousness? That we are all "incarnations" of consciousness? I get the feeling that you are using a special understanding of the word "consciousness", not referring to the awareness that arises purely out of mental processing and than terminates when your brain is dead.

What we usually think of as self seems to me little more than a fug of conditioned reflexes, impulses and habit patterns steadily accumulated since birth.

Yes, this is universally true... however I don't understand how making such a generalized statement about something that is so obvious can possibly corroborate your assertion that we are "incarnations" of consciousness... or whatever.

That's just my perspective now, but looking back over the past few decades I don't doubt that my present understanding is incomplete. I'm happy to have an open mind on this and other matters.

Maybe check out some of the latest breakthroughs in Neuroscience.

This is utterly ridiculous. Among other things that have come to people while meditating, is a firm conviction that jesus is lord. They arrive at their conclusions through the same "methods" you use, so why are you right and they're wrong? And I'm sorry, but if your best argument is that you have an obsession bordering on neurosis with another culture, than you have admittedly not given us a very strong argument to think you know what you are talking about. This suggests you have a very low standard of what you are willing to accept as "evidence" and that you are not likely to be convinced by any compelling argument against your obvious bias to believe in yourself.

Or perhaps they are all bullshit... But I think otherwise.

Why on earth do you think otherwise?? Just because of some dreams and such? You still have not given anyone here a good explanation as to why your conclusions are more valid than a person who is more informed about how the brain actually operates. Have you ever explained your ideas to a psychiatrist or neurologist? We've learned a lot over the past 100 years you know... so it might look kind of silly to someone that you are sticking with these primitive animists explanations of the universe.

Then there are always very cognisant dreams that repeat, and other historical obsessions, like world war 2 germany, and the feeling that i died in such and such a place and you delve into them out of time, in the astral and find those personality quirks aren't really yours, they are carryovers from an old imprint in a past life.  So those are the ways I have discovered these things. But as someone like Dr Phil or LOS are probably apt to point out, it's all in my head.

When you say "in the astral", you mean "in the imagination" right? When you say "personality quirks" you mean "neurosis's" right?

I think there is something to this idea that it is in fact all in your head... have you ever thought about it for longer than five seconds?

One thing that recurs both here and on Heruraha.net is that as soon as somebody gets a result from their practice, the nay-sayers come along and deride it, calling it impossible or imagination. And everybody forgets the basic injunction from Liber O:

"It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain
things, certain results will follow; students are earnestly warned
against attributing objective reality or philo-sophical validity to
any of them."

But then, if you've never had a result, either from not trying or not doing it right, it's understandable to doubt, what I object to is the shrill denial that any results are even possible.
Those who can do, and those who can't browbeat them for it.

its as shiva said. you either ascribe to the spiritual, or the psychological viewpoint on the matter. moog synth obviously prescribes to the psychological matter.  we differ. does it really matter?  I just felt like sharing, if it matters to you what I think, to the tune that you get offended , then im sorry. If you are merely curious than i don't know what to add other than this is what my gut feels. I am not trying to convert you.  Someone more materialistically grounded would then say, why post it if you can't back it up?  Because it's interesting, and I'm sure there are other people out there with my experiences that would benefit from reading what I have to say.  Like, no one is truly alone, kind of thing.  I think otherwise mainly based on the anti-stereotype or anti-statistic that my life is.  Perhaps you can say I picked up these cultural and language traits earlier than the average foreigner 'luckily' when it comes to korean and german, and even cultural norms of behaviour, but I choose to say it's due to past lives. 
exactly candide, some people just want to throw shit at people because they either haven't had metaphysical or mystical experiences, or if they have, it's like they are very embarrassed by them so they want to explain them away in a current culturally popular pop-science kind of way so they feel better about the 'guilt' they feel going against the mainstream.

It seems like people that are interested in science, like to conveniently forget that it's constantly evolving.  Just like metaphysics. They seem to think that the current incarnation of science is the Truth and nothing else is.  They forget that science has been wrong time and time again, but is it a slower process.  Just like metaphysics has been wrong, but in a less specific way.  Spirituality is on the vanguard of science. and science is catching up.  It doesn't mean either are wrong. But I hate dogmatists in either camp. 

The astralplane vs. imagination

Astraltravel might include more than mere imagination, although imagination might be the trigger. Take for instance the communication between a priest and an initiate on the astralplane. In J. McCarthy's Magical knowledge book 2, person nr 2 confirms her experiences by describing the meeting and what's happened. So there are 2 persons experiencing the same in the same "space". She describes this phenomena as common in western esoteric traditions.

Yes, a lot of people do forget that Crowley warned students against "attributing objective reality or philosophical validity" to these supernatural things. An example of failing to follow Crowley's warning appeared earlier in this thread when Chris said above that he had "personal experience with what I believe are past lives."

Nobody denies that people have certain experiences and results from doing these practices. The results are actually downright easy to get. What skeptics question, however, are the things that people believe about these experiences. We object to people "attributing objective reality or philosophical validity" to supernatural beliefs simply because they had an experience that felt like it. As MoogPlayer points out, attributing objective reality to those things is functionally no different than declaring that Jesus or Allah is real because one had a vision that felt like an encounter with that being.

It matters to those of us interested in discussing what's actually going on, as opposed to what it feels like is going on.

I just felt like sharing

And others felt like sharing our critical examination of what you shared. That's what happens when you share in public, you know. It has nothing to do with being "offended."

i don't know what to add other than this is what my gut feels.

But don't you see that "what [your] gut feels" is an extremely poor way to judge questions of fact? I mean, I don't doubt that Pat Robertson and Ray Comfort feel in their gut that Jesus is real and that you, Chris, are going to burn in hell for holding your beliefs. You can't all be right...someone's gut is leading them into believing false things. What makes you think your gut is right and their gut is wrong?

Don't forget however, that the opposite is also true, and that in the example you cited Chris also has no reason to reject the possibility that what he experienced was in fact the memory of past lives. It's best to be completely neutral on the matter and say that he had experiences that reported themselves to his senses as past life memories and then decide for himself whether such a classification served any useful purpose.

Pragmatism should always be the first requisite, since we cannot usually verify these things empirically; Does it serve my purpose (for example) to believe that I was Napoleon in a past life? Of what use to me are the memories of that life?

Of course simply holding the belief for my own enjoyment is also valid, as long as I don't expect everyone to treat me different because I was Napoleon 😉

Of course there is no reason to assume outright that Chris isn't doing this with his memories of being Korean. But you tend to start out with the assumption that everyone except you goes around making that mistake simply because they don't always spell it out for you. You never give the benefit of the doubt, and that grates on people, to be assumed stupid until proven otherwise, you ,might want to keep an eye on that.

Experiences don't "report themselves to [one's] senses" as something: one interprets experiences, rationally. In this case, Chris is interpreting his experience incorrectly, since there is insufficient evidence to support that these actually are "memories" of anything.

To put it another way, he's being misled by his (misuse of) reason. See Liber AL for more about the dangers of reason.

Of course simply holding the belief for my own enjoyment is also valid

I guess it depends on what you mean by "valid." Obviously, you're capable of doing that, and as long as you're not hurting anyone or bothering anyone, you'll likely be left alone (except for all the people who will point and laugh if you tell them about your weird beliefs).

But, in a different sense, it's not "valid" at all to accept something as true simply for entertainment. From the perspective of Thelema, in particular, you would be hampering your ability to perceive reality clearly by deliberately hoodwinking yourself.

Out of curiosity, can you name two practical, concrete benefits of believing that you were Napoleon in a previous life?

Calling a belief that you think is silly "neurosis" is a bit over the top.

To be a neurosis, it would have to adversely affect his functioning at everyday life.

For example, if Christibrany had serious problems in his romantic life, because he believed he made an oath of celibacy in a previous life, that would be a neurosis.

I don't think his belief in past lives hinders him in any way during his everyday life. (Unless he wants to be the president of CSICOP or something.)  A harmless belief, no matter how silly we might think it is, is not a neurosis.

[Edited because of technical posting troubles]

Los can you do me the honour of addressing my post re: the evolution of science, and how it is just as subjective as any other form of belief due to it's very evolution and being wrong at times?
thanks.

Sure thing. I'll quote and respond to it below.

It seems like people that are interested in science, like to conveniently forget that it's constantly evolving.  Just like metaphysics.

Well, here's your first error. Science and metaphysics may be "alike" in that they change (everything changes), but they're unlike in that scientific ideas about reality change based on evidence and discoveries, while metaphysical ideas change based on fantasies, bald assertions, daydreams, and the like.

They seem to think that the current incarnation of science is the Truth and nothing else is.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly do think that the scientific method -- and more broadly, evidence-based inquiry -- has demonstrated itself to be the only consistently reliable means of discovering truth about the world around us, as evidenced by things like, say, the computer or device you're reading this message on.

That obviously doesn't meant that everything we currently think about the universe is true, but it also doesn't mean a lot of what we think is radically incorrect, either. Certainly, based on the massive amounts of evidence that we have, there's very little reason to think that we're going to wake up one day and discover the existence of spirits, for example.

The ideas that we have about the universe, gathered through evidence-based inquiry, are the best ideas that we currently have, based on evidence.

Name another consistently reliable way of discovering truth and how you know that it's enabling you to discover truth in a consistently reliable way. 

They forget that science has been wrong time and time again

I don't think anyone forgets that: the primary thing that makes science consistently reliable is the fact that it's self-correcting. When we learn new things, we modify our ideas to fit the discoveries.

"Metaphysics" is utterly unlike this because there is no evidence to speak of in metaphysics. Someone can believe a metaphysical claim and then just go on believing it for the rest of his life, unless he gets bored and decides to pick up a different metaphysical belief to amuse himself with.

Spirituality is on the vanguard of science. and science is catching up.

That's just wrong. Sure, a person can take new scientific discoveries and read them back into vague spiritual mumbo jumbo from centuries ago ("why...the Buddha was really talking about quantum mechanics!"), but even then, such word games are so superficial, surface level, and demonstrate an intense intellectual dishonesty.

Seriously, Chris, I passed over this post because it's the kind of thing I've seen time and again from religious believers (especially from Christians, by the way) and I was trying to be kind to you by not demonstrating how every single sentence of it is poorly-conceived and not clearly thought through.

You think science is "just as subjective as any other form of belief"? There aren't words for how stupid that is. Science -- and more broadly, evidence-based inquiry -- has demonstrated itself, time and again, to be the only consistently reliable method we have of learning things about the world around us. Look at all of the achievements of just the past century, for example: space travel, satellites, computers, smart phones. This is evidence -- strong, strong evidence -- that science and evidence-based inquiry are actually revealing things about the world such that we're capable of better manipulating that world.

Your daydreams about being Korean and all sorts of other metaphysics are completely and utterly unlike this. As a simple illustration of the difference: what could you discover that would demonstrate to you that your metaphysical belief in past lives is wrong? I can certainly tell you the things that would demonstrate to me that, for example, evolution isn't true, and I can certainly tell you things that would demonstrate to me that psychic powers are real. So what would convince you that your beliefs are not correct?

From Los in Reply #7 on July 18, 2013 , 10:04:02pm:
Hey, Jane Goodall hangs out with chimps....

Say, wasn’t that the name of the dame, some sort of primate worker, I believe, who got savaged to death by chimpanzees? No - maybe that was Charla Nash…?  Not quite sure of the relevance though 😉 maybe there’s a moral – do chimps like fruitcake?

from MoogPlayer in Reply #10 on July 18, 2013 at 11:23:27 pm:
Incidentally, I feel that getting to the bottom of what is even meant by a phrase like "great work", involves casting aside superstitious BS like past lives and magic powers.

Eh?  Surely the bulk of A.C.’s writings concern the acquisition, development and use of so-called “magic powers”?  He even wrote what some would call his masterpiece Magic In Theory And Practice (not me – I would nominate The Book Of Lies) on this very subject.

from MoogPlayer in Reply #10 on July 18, 2013 at 11:23:27 pm:
Quote from: jamie barter on July 18, 2013, 02:43:00 pm
I have looked at heruraha.net a couple of times, and although competent enough... I too have noticed a refrain in recent times of “take it to heruraha.net”, as if it is in some way the ultimate arbiter and wonderful cutting-edge of discussion.  The implication is that “Lashtal is not an occult site”, whereas somehow mysteriously heruraha.net is.

Sure if you consider imaginary past lives and wizard role playing to be "cutting edge" discussion, heruraha is your place. They always have been, so it's not like it's mysterious or anything.

No I don’t consider that cutting-edge discussion – that’s rather old hat and a bit blunt, imo.  The suggestion appeared to be that the answers to enquirer’s so-called “occult” questions could for better or worse be found or discussed there rather than here on Lashtal.

from MoogPlayer in Reply #10 on July 18, 2013 at 11:23:27 pm:
The proprietor there regularly makes all sorts of cooky claims.

Really?  I’m not presently aware of any such cooky claims (perhaps he’s a “secret chef” [sic]?)  Presumably he reads this site from time to time too, or someone might tip him the wink… Mr Eshelman, I believe?  Has he got anything to say on the matter?

from MoogPlayer in Reply #10 on July 18, 2013 at 11:23:27 pm:
People are typically discussing all sorts of woo like ghosts in the closet, bogey men with secret messages, or past life fantasies.

Possibly some might describe Aiwass/  Shaitan as this, bearing the arcane mysteries of The Book of the Law.

from MoogPlayer in Reply #10 on July 18, 2013 at 11:23:27 pm:
I don't personally think that an interest in Crowley is synonymous with topics like that... neither is the object of Thelema, which is really quite simple.

Not exclusively, no, but they do overlap, some more than others.  It seems that yourself & Los dismiss any variety of fortean-type phenomena which can’t be explained ultra-rationally when we all know that “reason is a lie”.  Ain’t it the truth?!

from Azidonis in Reply #12 on July 19, 2013 at 01:50:28 pm:
Quote from: Shiva on July 18, 2013, 11:21:16 pm
And that even if AC did tend to [believe in titillating people's] tendencies to [attempt to] validate the concept [of believing anything].

"It's all bullshit."

Sigh!  This isn’t the same as your “the framework’s all a big con because there are two truths” (or something like that) argument all over again, is it?  If so, yes, ’nuff said… it is all bullshit.  What was that you were saying earlier about the golden age of debating of the Great Work?  And what about earlier threads where you seem to have been rather more ambivalent on the subject??

What, exactly, would be defined as a ‘previous’ or ‘future’ incarnation here – scientifically speaking?

Yes.  Well expressed.

Why are they ‘overlaid and mixed’ with fantasy material?  Are not these in themselves archetypes and therefore relate more – or wholly, even – to the universal memories described under section (3)?

This is extremely amusing and hoot-making.  As someone once said of someone else, “Is this guy for real?!”  😉

Oh, well this of course makes everything crystal and Explains Everything, as Uncle Aleister might say!

Presumably as a result of unresolved karma, defined earlier as the business of cause & effect.  But this “succeeding lifetimes” stuff – ain’t that oojiness?

Spiritual fits in with section (3), Psychological with (1), but the choice omits the third option, that of DNA, in section (2).  This would seem to be the default compromise between the transcendentalist and rationalist-materialist positions, and which (at the moment) I would tend to subscribe myself.  This might also explain (to a degree, perhaps not fully) Christibrany’s phenomena of

From christibrany in reply #15 on 19 July, 2013, at 05:47:48 pm:
...if you find yourself using chopsticks at 3 and speaking korean really well at the age of your teens, and knowing your parents keep telling you 'you always kept asking why you didn't have black hair now, when you were a toddler', such things are likely cues from past lives.

Aside from the Dalai Lama, etc, these sort of fortean phenomena turn out to be more commonplace than expected and ongoing DNA transmission would be one method whereby one incarnation in particular can be transcended, especially since the full nature of the mysteries of the double helix have not yet been explored.

I think we all agree on ThIShARB.  There is also a little bit in MITAP and a couple of Chapters in Magic Without Tears (37 and 81) which refer to it – relatively slim pickens!

Incidentally, did you know that apparently the Vatican has just decreed that if you diligently “follow the Pope’s tweets” for World Catholic Youth Day (July 22nd) you can reduce the amount of time your soul spends in purgatory (wherever that is).  Nice to know the papacy is keeping up with the times in some respects, but this otherwise sounds to me like a hi-tech return to the days of the Pardoner!!

Like Satan’s (and Dævid Allen), also keen on the occasional slice of fruitcake with a steaming cup of tea…
N. Joy

You might want to read a little more carefully, paying attention to what's concealed behind the "symbolic technicalities" of ceremonial magick. 

from MoogPlayer in Reply #10 on July 18, 2013 at 11:23:27 pm:
The proprietor there regularly makes all sorts of cooky claims.

Really?  I’m not presently aware of any such cooky claims (perhaps he’s a “secret chef” [sic]?)  Presumably he reads this site from time to time too, or someone might tip him the wink… Mr Eshelman, I believe?  Has he got anything to say on the matter?

Jim's more than welcome to come here and defend the asinine things he routinely claims in public, including the claim that his group's rituals cause human DNA to mutate.

Just depends on what kind of answer your looking for... if you want to discuss these topics like a new age loopy I would definitely suggest that particular forum. Obviously the opinion here is a bit more varied.

Really?  I’m not presently aware of any such cooky claims (perhaps he’s a “secret chef” [sic]?)

You haven't been paying attention I suppose. Among his strange claims are that prayers can heal people of physical and mental illnesses (they have a "healing" list for this on their website). I suppose that's not so cooky if you believe it, but I doubt we'll find any evidence.

A while ago he posted that "spirit-voices" contacted him one day while driving home, and it was they who told him to form the TOT (coincidentally this was after he left the OTO for some reason). I wish I could link you to the thread, but he quickly removed the comments after an ensuing debate with Los and another member who he banned.

I read this and thought it was oddly similar to the story that used car salesman (and former scientologist) Werner Erhard gave, who formed those cultish "EST" seminars back in the 1970's. He too claimed to be driving home one day when he mysteriously received a transcendental intuition to form a self-help group (Erhard was later indicted and accused by many of being a cult leader). Sure enough, Eshelman has said on his forum (in this thread: http://heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4989&hilit=landmark+forum ) that he did these seminars. (He also suggested people to the Landmark Forum, which if you don't know has been called a self-help marketing cult. I wouldn't even suggest them to my worst enemies). I don't know if there is a connection, but many people who have done these seminars eventually go on to form self help programs of their own. Just google EST and Mind Dynamics if you don't know what these groups (sometimes called LGAT groups) do. Especially google for some of the damage some of these groups have done to the participants lives.

As far as I'm aware, the TOT is an order functioning along the same lines as the HOGD and it's various other claimants (albeit under a thelemic guise). Just like all the other branches of GD alive today, I'd assume they think of themselves as being in contact with Mather's make believe "third order". That in itself is a pretty cooky claim, don't you think? We're supposed to believe that a group of transcendental supermen is secretly guiding the oder of world events, and they only pick people like Eshleman to share this all important message with? I'd be laughing if so many poor saps didn't buy it.

It's funny because if you look at the people who originally propagated this idea, like Blavatsky and Mathers, Crowley, Hubbard, they are all fucking insane. Disgraced frauds and con artist. Any thinking person with a brain in their head should be able to connect the dots... so no, I don't buy it. Any group claiming to be a continuation of this BS should be regarded as highly suspect.

The sheer amount of people making the claim, to be the group, should be a big red flag. Not to mention the abundance of books, seminars, CD's, "courses", meditation "techniques", gurus, "prophecies", and alternative cosmological views. This is a huge multi-million dollar industry, and most the people writing on the subject either know they are full of it, are are so full of their own crap that they buy into their own hype. There is a never ending treasure trove of customers, who are disenfranchised and unhappy with life, and this stuff seeks to offer them answers and comfort, and the illusion of power.

For a long time the major world religions had a monopoly on this market, but around the last few hundred years this has become "open season" for characters like Joseph Smith, Blavatsky, Hubbard, and anyone else, to form their own cults and reap the benefits.

We should probably assume that the TOT is more interested in pushing Jim's form of rosicrucian/GD/theosophical religion as their main thing, and only secondarily interested in the Thelemic aspect as a means to this end. It's known that Jim was involved in FLO and other GD like branches before he got this sudden "idea" to start his own rendition. You be the judge though.

Presumably he reads this site from time to time too, or someone might tip him the wink… Mr Eshelman, I believe?  Has he got anything to say on the matter?

I highly doubt that Eshleman will come here himself, because he doesn't like to personally participate in conversations where people challenge these ideas. He sheepishly avoids these challenges on his own forum and has even been known to ban or close topics which veer too far into materialism or psychological-only interpretations. They clearly are a new age woo based forum, and the tone has been set by various threads there over the years. I would sign up, but the conversation doesn't interest me beyond a bit of light entertainment reading. (I must say though, I have enjoyed it much more since Los started posting).

Possibly some might describe Aiwass/  Shaitan as this, bearing the arcane mysteries of The Book of the Law.

Some people sure, but it might not be very accurate... certainly it was just Crowley's opinion that whatever he experienced was the same thing as what people in the past meant when they referenced "shaitan". As far as I'm aware he had many different theories about what he experienced, and that is assuming he wasn't just making crap up as he went along... or that he wasn't himself deluded and crazy. There are many possibilities. I'm pretty sure alien shadow spirit men are not among the most likely.

Not exclusively, no, but they do overlap, some more than others.  It seems that yourself & Los dismiss any variety of fortean-type phenomena which can’t be explained ultra-rationally when we all know that “reason is a lie”.  Ain’t it the truth?!

No, they only overlap because Crowley had a peculiar fetish for this sort of thing. He wrote in Book 4 that Magick was his own philosophy of "causing change to occur in accordance with the will" and that he chose to spell this word with a K to distinguish it from what you guys are seemingly talking about. Crowley's philosophy of "Magick" may, or may not have anything to do with doing stupid rituals, or triply day dreams, or reincarnation. I don't personally think his choice of words was the best, because now people have confused his meaning and achieved exactly what he was trying to avoid. He essentially suggested a series of things which arguably may or may not have worked for him.

Crowley's suggestion of curriculum and rituals was just that, suggestions. Furthermore, they are not even very good suggestions in terms of getting the point of thelema or magicK across. He certainly was not a doctor of any kind. He didn't know much more about what he was talking about than the average joe, and he was greatly "inhibited" by todays standard, considering the knowledge available at the time. I personally don't think that you need to do all the rituals and believe in hooky stuff in order to "get" what Crowley was hinting at though. I think he at least knew what he was trying to say.

Do what thou wilt, success is your proof, etc.

This has veered off topic, but I hoped it addressed what you were asking about my post. I promise I will try to stick to the topic from here on.

We can but hope.

And fervently pray.

Good catch! I missed that one.

Just to bring this back around to the original thread topic, Eshelman has also admitted in public that he remembers few female incarnations, and he thinks that he has rarely incarnated as a woman because he wouldn't have been able to do his "work" in previous incarnations as a woman (because of the anti-feminism of virtually the entirety of history) and that therefore it's part of his True Will to work for women's rights, to secure a suitable female "vehicle" for his spirit to use in some future incarnation. Something like that.

That's a pretty stunning example of what I'm talking about when I say that these fantasies can distract an individual from what his True Will is in the moment.

As far as I'm aware, the TOT is an order functioning along the same lines as the HOGD and it's various other claimants (albeit under a thelemic guise). Just like all the other branches of GD alive today, I'd assume they think of themselves as being in contact with Mather's make believe "third order".

I would be very surprised if the high-ups did not firmly believe this silliness.

We're supposed to believe that a group of transcendental supermen is secretly guiding the oder of world events, and they only pick people like Eshleman to share this all important message with?

The Secret Chiefs work in mysterious ways.... I guess that's what makes them so secret.

Back to the topic, please.

This is a real gem. Well written.

Sorry to be rude, but are you being sarcastic? Michael and Shiva didn't seem to enjoy what I said, so i really don't know if you are trying to be snide or something.

All this new age stuff gives me the impression of a pre-catholic rome. Many conflicting ideas of religious beliefs, and no one authority to call the shots. It looks like the same stirrings are beginning, which led to the conglomeration of ideas, which eventually became christianity at the council of Nicaea. Only the vague handful of dogmas being debated today include things like reincarnation, secret chiefs (or ancient astronauts depending on what camp your in), the importance of OBE and NDE's, etc.

I'm not sure what's going on, but you have all sorts of ass-hat's like Drunvalo Melchizedek and L Ron Hubbard and Deepak Chopra coming out of the wood work. They all write vaguely along the same lines, on the same topics. Involvement in this industry can run the spectrum of buying a few books/ cd's, to all out joining in cult group meetings and whatever else. Some of these guys offer weekend classes, others offer entire life regiments of course work like OTO, scientology, etc.

People think it's all arcane and ancient knowledge, but this stuff can actually be traced promptly back to the Human Potential Movement of the 1960's, the New Thought movement of the early 1900's, and even back further to Blavatsky's Theosophical movement... I don't think I need to remind anyone that these are the kinds of ideas that served as a foundation for the Nazi's strange agenda (this is at least one example of these ideas at their extremes).

Obviously the difference between pre-chrestendom and now, is that we are in a position to know so much of it all is Bullshit. I'm sure that groups like the OTO fantasize about bringing all these various ideas under one roof, and starting some sort of new catholic orthodoxy, but it ain't gonna happen. The new age movement lacks a Constantine like figure, and I feel the world has moved on enough now that we wouldn't put up with this garbage again.

I can only hope that what we are witnessing, is the beginning of the death of religion...

Nope, I agree, in part. I say in part due to a few things:

1) From what I know of Blavatsky, she was definitely a Master. Her expression, well, is one aspect that can be debated, and ultimately, who cares.
2) Crowley, was definitely a Magus. I personally doubt whether he ever achieved Ipssisimus or not, which actually plays a huge role in understanding his later point of view.
3) L Ron, total quack.

All three of these made the mistake of holding to religious symbolism until their deaths. L Ron arguably did it for the money, Blavatsky arguably did it from point of view, and Crowley arguably did it in order to advance his brand (ya know, the '666 brand name'). Neither of the three seem to have taken it 'to the end'.

Okay, fine. Ultimately, doesn't matter.

The other part that I disagree with, is that while you, and Los, and others, have such a large, and perhaps rightful disdain for religion, you do not have the same for science. And what I see is one blind dog barking at the other: religion vs science. So, I can agree with you that all religious thinkers and teachers, gurus, etc. are con artists, but I cannot agree with you if you refuse to put even the greatest scientists (Tesla, Einstein, etc.) into that same category. In short, if you aren't ready to dismiss the entire thing, then I'm not sure I can agree with you. And if you have managed to dismiss the entire thing, I doubt you would be posting on these boards. Same with me.

The shit really doesn't matter.

The one question that any human being needs to ask themselves in regard to occultism, or other practices, of any kind is, "How is this operating in my life?" And, if they only look at it closely, they may be able to see such things as the gimmicks they are.

This is not coming from someone who has always been scientifically inclined, as is well documented on this site. But, it is coming from someone who has long since seen the absurdity of the matter, yet continued for some time to try and find out a certain set of truth or falsity to the apparent situations.

Shiva posted a few different possible views of reincarnation. Okay. What does it mean? Upon examination of those views, one may find that they are some of the most often represented views, and also "higher" views, taken to the furthest point that thought can take anything at all, which is to the Abyss. But, at the very most, and anyone may feel free to argue, they cannot penetrate beyond there. For, the very notion of reincarnation itself is born out of thinking, and so it cannot go "further" than the base thought from which all of its variables have been formulated, which makes it ultimately meaningless, though it may prove useful until its meaninglessness is perceived.

Then, "How is this operating in my life?" Simply, many people think (for one reason or another) that they need assistance where it concerns seeing and understanding the patterns in their lives, especially the short-term, continual recurrences that spring up due to the constant set of chain reactions that we call life. And so, as those patterns persist, and are continually perpetuated, they are also repeated, and manifested. Then, any type of inner working can potentially be used as a sort of method by which one may determine what those cycles are, and how they pertain to the particular viewpoint of the individual. In other terms, one may gain insight into one's karma, and see how one's reactions to given situation may or may not fit in within one's concept of the True Will (which is also bullshit).

But even this is utter nonsense, for each and every situation, no matter how mentally familiar it might be, is definably and distinctly different. And while recognizing the broader patterns may help one to get a handle on the general flow of one's life and perspective, such a practice cannot actually help one to determine a particular course of re-action to any given situation.

So, no matter what the "occultists" or the "scientists" say, the concept of reincarnation actually is of no benefit at all.

It's marketing. They are selling solutions to sorrow. The gurus in the marketplace have determined that a particular type of expression attracts a particular type of individual who is both gullible enough, and wealthy enough, to pursue the brand of relief that the guru offers. And so, they take up arms and banners, and ashrams, and teachings, and lineages, and anything else they can come up with in an effort to "authenticate" their "teachings", and make their own wallets fat by pushing relief from sorrow as though it were a type of psychic pill that will eventually allow one who imbibes (ie. one who believes the shit) it to enjoy the fruits of permanent happiness without one moment of pain...

...and it is bullshit.

More of it can be traced back further than that. What you are pointing to is the most recent "crime wave".

What, eventually, does it trace to? The answer is the initial division in consciousness, wherein human beings first saw themselves as somehow different, and apart from, all of the life in the universe. And once that arose, the fear of losing that differentiation, or distinction, arose, and then it began to perpetuate itself. And this has gone on for thousands of years...

Not, "so much of it", sir. ALL of it. Can you say it? Can you actually go through with it? Can you put it to yourself that every single thought and possibility that arises out of thought, which is all thinking in general, is complete and total bullshit? If you can, then good for you. If you can't, and you want to keep any of it to yourself as "not bullshit", then you have not reached that point.

Let's look at it in terms that may be familiar to the general reader of these forums. Crowley mentioned that the Magister Templi, in order to become Nemo, must pour every last drop of his/her blood into the Cup of Babalon...

...Okay, fine. What the hell does that mean?

It means that you will give all, and keep none for yourself. Think of nature, or the universe, or whatever, as a bill collector. But, the bill collector doesn't want your shoddy money - your pretty religious bail bonds or your scientific pay-outs. It wants everything... all that you know, all that you have, and all that you are. And so, the bargaining begins... out of fear. You want to give all but X, oh and Y, and you would really like to keep Z.

And sometimes, what happens in that either one will refuse to give anything at all, basically admitting to being unprepared for the Ordeal, or one will hold tight to one thing or a collection of things (Black Brother). In the utmost case, one continues to hold onto not the personal identity, but the sense of personal existence (HGA).

If one is lucky enough, one can get through the Ordeal in some shape or form, but consider that No Man emerges from the Ordeal. That is, the Magister Templi has realize the impermanent nature of all things, including the sense of self (or Self, if you want to be "occultish"). Realizing the impermanent nature of all things equates to Crowley's statement that the Magister Templi is a "Master of the Law of Sorrow", or of Change. The impermanence of the sense of self is gleaned, although not fully implemented. The Ego goes, yes, which is the personal disposition, although it likes to creep its ugly head back in every now and again, especially where society is concerned. But, the sense of self is recognized as impermanent, and the Magister Templi learns the Horrible Truth - that there is no Self.

It is horrible in that there is nothing that can attach itself to a self that does not exist. This at once makes all thought, all gesture, all vocabulary, completely useless. It is this step that propels one fully into the City of the Pyramids.

"Fine. Who cares? Speak English!"

When you look inside, or outside, and you cannot any longer see an image of yourself, as yourself, at all, even for a moment, then you are getting somewhere, which is really nowhere at all. The word "maya" means "measurement", and what you are actually doing is ceasing to "measure" anything at all. This is preluded by the injunction of which one is informed at the beginning of the Ordeal, to "make no preference between any one thing and any other thing". What I am speaking of is "Phase 2" of a set of phenomena (for lack of a better term), that lasts for at least 4 phases.

Enough about that.

Whether it happens or not, that is the whole point of the O.T.O.

Do you not think that humans will continue to repeat history? Do you not think that the cycles will continue in that 'sphere of influence'? What do you honestly think H.B and company are working towards?

Religion will not die as long as people are taught. For the moment people are taught, they learn division. The initial division is "self/not-self", and this will not go away any time soon, especially as long as language exists.

And the skeptics will ask, "Well look, asshole. Do you think we should all be like Tarzan?"

And the answer to that is, "What conflicts with nature does Tarzan have?"

The conflicts that we perceive are conflicts within the society, or those brought about by the perception of a society, in comparison and in contrast with our own self images. If neither exist, does any conflict exist? And if no conflict exists, is every 'star' truly free to go about its own orbit?

Of course not! It's all bullshit!

That was an excellent and insightful post, Azi!

Which brings us to the Wordless Aeon of Zain.

The word "truth" has been loosely promulgated here and there throughout these noble forums. Ha  😮
The above quoted statement summarizes the real truth. Aum  😉
But only a few readers will accept it ... because they wanna live forever. Aum Ha Ho Hum  ::)

Strange!

To me it seemed like an aggregation of platitudes paired with uninformed prejudice about "the whole point of the O.T.O." and other religious or quasi-religious systems while oh so casually tossing around technical terms of these systems and assuming the voice of an imagined audience posing questions. All in all I found it frankly astomishing and quite ridiculous.

On the other hand: if the grade of enlightenment and understanding is equivalent to the amount of usage of "shit", "bullshit", "asshole" and so on, what do I know?

Love=Law
Lutz

Oh brother...

This is the type of thing that goes along with the whole business. If you think any sort of "Attainment" whatsoever has to necessarily conform with any vision of society and ethics, you are dead wrong.

So, when you say, "Oh, X is supposed to be attained, why is X not a vegetarian," or any other such nonsense, you are trying to fit that person into the framework that you have created, the vision you have of one who has "Attained".

As for me, I haven't made any claim to any Attainments at all. What I have said in my previous post is open to interpretation, take it or leave it.

However, before you go knocking any of it, how about working to refute it instead of just calling it names because you don't like what it says?

If you don't want to accept that the whole thing is one big con, then that is your dilemma. And you can keep plugging away with your gurus and spiritual sanctuaries until you are blue in the face and dead. But, unless you realize that no Attainment whatsoever can even have a chance to occur while one is operating within the bondage of those structures, you will continue only to be upset when someone calls your favorite brand of 'dukkha relief' out as a scam.

Az, 93!

You really took this serious, didn't you? You really think I am enraged by you "challenging" my "favorite brand of 'dukkha relief'", don't you?

I made a simple observation. After years of constantly changing your mind on most topics (which is okay), you now assume authority to tell me what gurus and spiritual sanctuaries REALLY ARE and what IS bullshit and what not and where I am DEAD WRONG. Together with this assumed authority comes an increased usage of scatology. That's a quite objective observation, I think.

Of course it is totally subjective that I consider your little sermon an amassmant of platitudes. Just wanted to point out my astonishment.

Well, what's left open for interpretation with the following here?

Platitudes... maybe understandable after your kill/fill confusion, but that doesn't make them any more "true".

Take 'em to heruraha.net

Love=law
Lutz

Azidonis' post is -- like pretty much everything he posts -- cobbled together from other sources without any real understanding behind the meaning of those sources. That's exactly why it reads like a collection of platitudes, because it is.

This crop of platitudes that he's rattled off, however, actually has the advantage of being more on the right track than the nonsense he usually posts. The basic tenor of the idea that he's repeating today -- before a different idea catches his interest tomorrow -- is that enlightenment isn't a solution to all of a person's problems: it's the radical acceptance of what is, so-called "problems" and all.

And that, of course, is perfectly true, even if it takes him way too long to say it.

To steer this back to the main topic of the thread, a radical acceptance of what is includes accepting the world as it is, including that reincarnation isn't real, that no one's actually lived "past lives," that there are no spirits, that this life is the only life that any person will ever get to live, and that every person is permanently dead after they die.

Accepting these things as they are is a step on the road to becoming "enlightened," while distracting oneself with the idea that there are astral boogity boos that one will get to join and cavort with on another plane of existence to get incarnated again is one of the many obstacles to enlightenment.

Lutz,

Well, if you read my post again, I quoted the most interesting part (to me) and related it to a Typhonian concept.  As you and everyone else here knows that it the particular Path that I'm "into", so it shouldn't have really been all that "strange".

Not a very “scientific” sounding assumption – where would we all be without suppose, though? Damned for a dog?

My former wife used to do “healing” – present and remote.  Worked for me sometimes, for whatever reason.  And that, I suppose, is the acid test…

The moral here would seem to be (evidentially-based), to avoid these type of phenomena one should give up motoring around…  Unless the A.A. is going to be guaranteed to come out and render assistance to your ka, of course…

If Crowley is such, how come you are contributing here?  Are you “anti” The Beast and his teaching (in which case, maybe you should expect the direful judgements of RHK?)

Thank ’ee, sir, I will… Though as I have remarked before, “Who’s to doom [i.e., make a final decision/ arbitration/ condemnation], when the judge himself is brought before the bar?” (Moby Dick).

Too bad (If he doesn’t like to participate).

Perhaps I will check it out again when I have a bit more time.

A.C.’s opinion…and yours… and mine… who’s right??!? (see Moby Dick above)

It is always a possibility, although a slim one.

OK, what would be the best choice of words?  You’ve got a whole dictionary to chose from…

And -?

No, not an M.D.  But he ran and operated some kind of a clinical practice from Great Portland Street in London in the ’30s (see “Amrita” [Teitan Press] for further details and “case studies”)

And you do, I take it?

But this contradicts your sentence before last, viz. he didn’t know (much) what he was talking about…

"Behold, it is revealed by Aiwass the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat"...

Incidentally, I know that Lashtal is not meant to be “an occult site”, yet there are three whopping great boards to do with the Typhonians and one to do with the whole subject of “Magick”… It strikes me that there seems to be “occult” and there is also “occult”…

(will continue...but I do not want to 'lose' this as has happened B4....)

Didn’t A.C. state somewhere that he wanted to reincarnate as a woman, an avatar of Babalon as it were, perhaps, next time around?  I cannot place the reference myself, maybe someone else can? (I’ve an idea Motta may have referred to it, possibly)

But of course!  “Their wonders to perform” (?) Something like that.

This is the trouble with a website forum prone to the use of irony (I think Satan’s Advocaat also made the point recently)

Reincarnation was “debated” at the Nicean Council.  And rejected.

Or in the case of the latter, several lifetime’s worth: don’t they require members to sign a “billion year contract”, at a certain point? (Suckers par excellence!)

And what exactly are the criteria he didn’t meet – in your opinion, of course?

What, “the end” isn’t ultimate?

Maybe we can use the word “horseshit” – just for the sake of a bit of variety?!  These scatological references are really the “cutting edge” of debate about the Great Work (hur hur)…

X, Y and Z being “particles of dust”, I take it?

No Atman, you mean?

…and the E.G.C., the gnostically catholic church?

To which there can only therefore be “No Comment”!

To return to the topic:

Remember, always that we have no use for piety, for vague chatter, for guesswork; we are as strictly scientific as biologists or chemists.  We ban emotion from the start; we demand perception; and as you will see later on) even perception is not acceptable until we have made sure of its bases by a study of what we call the ‘tendencies’. [Do you like that, Los & Moogplayer?]…
Let me remark, by the way, that to my mind one of the greatest beauties, and most encouraging confirmations of the validity, of our system, is the matchless harmony of its elements.  Always, when we pursue any one path to the end, we find that it has become one with some other path which at the outset appeared utterly irreconcilable with it. …
Magick explores and learns to control those regions of Nature which lie beyond the objects of sense.  Reaching the highest parts of these regions, called the divine, one proceeds by the exaltation (?=intoxication? Yes, of a sublime sort) of the consciousness to identify oneself with those ‘celestial’ Beings. …
In Magick, one passes through the veil of the exterior world (which, as in Yoga, but in another sense, becomes ‘unreal’ by comparison as one passes beyond), one creates a subtle body (instrument is a better term) called the Body of Light; this one develops and controls; it gains new powers as one progresses, usually by means of what is called ‘initiation’; finally, one carries on almost one’s whole life in this Body of Light, and achieves in its own way the mastery of the Universe.
The first step in Yoga is “Keep still.”
The first step in Magick is “Travel beyond the world of the senses.”
There, that is the whole business in a nutshell, and expressed so that anyone, however ignorant on the subject, may grasp the essentials (I hope).

(From Chapter 81, “Method of Training” in Magick Without Tears.)[/align:340mtur6]

…See how logical this is. [Should appeal to you, Los & Moogplayer!]  For how else could one have reasonable “certainty”, as contrary with “faith” (=interior conviction), other than by the acquisition of the “Magical Memory” – the memory of former lives.
…The period of my life which was the climax of my work on this subject is those weeks of Thaumaturgy on the Hudson River – I fear the magical diary The Hermit of Aesopus Island is irretrievably lost…
The plain fact is that I remember nothing at all of any Post Mortem experiences, and I have never known anyone else who does.
…Suppose two or more people claim simultaneously to have been Julius Caesar, or Shakespeare, [or Napoleon], or –oh! Always one very great gun!  Well, fifty opr sixty years ago or more there was a regular vogue for this sort of thing, especially among women…
What do I mean when I say that I think I was Eliphaz Levi?  No more than that I possess some of his essential characteristics, and that some of the incidents in his life are remembered by me as my own.  There doesn’t seem any impossibility about these bundles of Sankhara being shared by two or more persons.  We certainly do not know enough of what actually takes place to speak positively on any such point.  Don’t lose any sleep over it.

(From Chapter 37, “Death – Fear – Magical Memory” in Magick Without Tears.)[/align:340mtur6]

N. Joy