Oscar Eckenstein - ...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Oscar Eckenstein - Ipsissimus?  

Page 1 / 3
  RSS

Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
02/06/2015 12:37 pm  

From posts by Jamie Barter elsewhere:

"Jamie Barter" wrote:
This query is primarily addressed to Jeffrey D Evans, as I gather from your biog Jeffrey that you were involved with the North American ’Typhonian’ O.T.O. and the journal Mezla at around the time in question (please see posts passim).  This matter of Oscar Eckenstein apparently having been regarded by A.C. as the previous ‘Ipsissimus’ has intrigued me ever since I first came across it, and particularly so since there seems to be a shortage of any further information concerning it anywhere else.  The dates do certainly seem to more or less fit, at least.  As you may not have come across this particular query on Lashtal before, I was wondering whether you would be in a position to throw any more light on the matter?
"Jamie Barter" wrote:
I thought there seemed to be too much material to cut and paste from more than just the one thread in order to create a new one from it.  Also, the trail seems to be wearing thin so far as Mick didn’t know anything either, and unless Jeffrey had anything significant to add (which was nonetheless my hope in bringing up the matter) the enquiry would probably end there.  But if Jeffrey (or indeed anyone else) was to come up with something which looks as if it could then be taken further, in that eventuality a new thread could perhaps be put together to do so, but at the moment at least it seems as if it might be a bit of a waste unless there’s something more to get one’s teeth into.

The genesis of this may well have been a suggestion made by Crowley in his diaries at Cafalu in 1921, typescripts of which are in the public domain, forming part of the Gerald Yorke Collection at the Warburg Institute, London. In his entry for 4th June 1921, Crowley records having just heard of the death of Eckenstein:

"Crowley" wrote:
I have just heard that the Veil of Life has fallen from the eyes of OSCAR ECKENSTEIN my comrade in climbing & my teacher in Meditation since Easter, 1898.

Later, in the entry for 14th June:

"Crowley" wrote:
It has occurred to me that Eckenstein may have been 10º = 1  which would account of the event of May 23rd.

The "event of May 23rd" was Crowley taking the Oath of the Ipsissimus a few weeks earlier. That was the day that Eckenstein died.

There may be references elsewhere, but this is all I have come across so far. 


Quote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1021
02/06/2015 1:08 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
The genesis of this may well have been a suggestion made by Crowley in his diaries at Cafalu in 1921, typescripts of which are in the public domain, forming part of the Gerald Yorke Collection at the Warburg Institute, London. In his entry for 4th June 1921, Crowley records having just heard of the death of Eckenstein:

"Crowley" wrote:
I have just heard that the Veil of Life has fallen from the eyes of OSCAR ECKENSTEIN my comrade in climbing & my teacher in Meditation since Easter, 1898.

Later, in the entry for 14th June:

"Crowley" wrote:
It has occurred to me that Eckenstein may have been 10º = 1  which would account of the event of May 23rd.

The "event of May 23rd" was Crowley taking the Oath of the Ipsissimus a few weeks earlier.

Thank you very much for that information, Michael.

I wonder if this implies that Crowley might have somehow believed that O.E. was the invisible (and obviously inscrutable) head of the A.'.A.'., unknown even to the Magus. But what does this imply about the 10=1 imprimatur authority being "93" since the Blue Equinox? To me the 93 clearly means the newly-discovered (1918) spelling of the name Aiwaz - so is Crowley suggesting that Eckenstein was in some sense Aiwaz?

Probably it was just an off-hand thought, and we shouldn't make too much of it.

Just a correction here -

That was the day that Eckenstein died.

Eckenstein actually died on April 8, 1921. So it was about two months before Crowley heard of it, and over six weeks before he took the Ipsissimus oath.

See T. S. Blakeney and D. F. O. Dangar, in David Dean’s article “Oscar Eckenstin, 1859-1921”, Alpine Journal, vol. LXV (1960), pp. 62-79

“Eckenstein died of consumption on April 8, 1921.” (p. 79)

http://www.alpinejournal.org.uk/Contents/Contents_1960_files/AJ%201960%2062-79%20Eckenstein.pdf


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
02/06/2015 3:01 pm  

Thank you for the correction, belmurru, re the date of Eckenstein's death. I should have checked that before putting committing pixels to thread.

I've always thought of Ipsissimus as approximating to the state of jivanmukhta, liberated whilst yet living; to undifferentiated or cosmic consciousness. I don't think it's something amenable to definition, though our minds can't help but try.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
02/06/2015 4:38 pm  

"There is little more that I can say anent this crucial and decisive sixth initiation [10º=1[sup:25glzupl][/sup:25glzupl]]. It embodies the Master's recognition of liberation, and in its processes he demonstrates that liberation by making free decision anent his future state of Being and Purpose."
- Alice Bailey. The Rays and the Initiations


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
02/06/2015 7:55 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
I've always thought of Ipsissimus as approximating to the state of jivanmukhta, liberated whilst yet living; to undifferentiated or cosmic consciousness. I don't think it's something amenable to definition, though our minds can't help but try.
"Shiva" wrote:
"There is little more that I can say anent this crucial and decisive sixth initiation [10º=1[sup:2ni3pznk][/sup:2ni3pznk]]. It embodies the Master's recognition of liberation, and in its processes he demonstrates that liberation by making free decision anent his future state of Being and Purpose."
- Alice Bailey. The Rays and the Initiations

I'd like to hear what you both, and anybody else for that matter, have to say about 'liberation' and/or what exactly one could be liberated from with regards consciousness, initiation and grades on the ToL. That is, of course, if you don't mind sharing.

Personally, for me all mysticism can be torn apart and reconstructed in myriad guises using semantics and philosophical perspective. A personal microcosmic Kether as a final destination through initiation - Ipsissimus (Nominative, Masculine), [my] very own self - seems ridiculous to me. Looking at the bigger picture, as it were, nature exhibits change and becoming.

Liberating one's self of self to find self seems a little absurd to me. To say, I have become IT! begs the question, now what!? which really refutes the whole deal in my eyes.

Always becoming, never THERE.

Then again, strip ourselves of the constructs created for our own philosophical perusal - even of all linguistic constructs and any thoughts based thereon - and we are left with the truth which has been within us from the very start. In fact, scrap that: inclusive of all of the above we are left with the same! Ho hum...

Seems to me like humanity's self-imposed Skinner Box is the only thing from which liberation is possible, and even then ... well ... becoming!


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
02/06/2015 8:53 pm  

Tear apart mysticism as much as you like, Darrell; it's no skin off my nose.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
02/06/2015 9:15 pm  
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
I'd like to hear what you both, and anybody else for that matter, have to say about 'liberation' and/or what exactly one could be liberated from with regards consciousness, initiation and grades on the ToL. That is, of course, if you don't mind sharing.

As someone who's "anybody else," I'll be glad to throw in a few thoughts.

More unhelpful crap has been written about mysticism, attainment, and "liberation" than about a lot of subjects. It's just not useful to anybody to say that liberation has to do with "cosmic consciousness" or "undifferentiated consciousness," because those are incredibly vague terms that don't aid a conversation at all. What does it mean to achieve "undifferentiated consciousness," anyway? Does it mean that the person wanders around in a trance state where he pretends he can't tell the difference between everything? Is it the kind of thing where different people are talking about very different things under that label? Probably, because (again) the label is vague and not very helpful. And it definitely doesn't help to say that we can't define the term or talk about it.

As a result, people don't talk about the subject. They talk a lot of flowery crap that communicates nothing at all. At the end of the day, it would appear that what they mean is some combination of loopy trances, warm and fuzzies, maybe inspiration for a new piece of art, and stories people tell themselves about how neat-o and "spiritual" they are.

I assert that if what we're talking about is anything at all, then it must mean something specific and relatively concrete that can actually be discussed in a sensible way.

The grades attributed to the Tree of Life are ways of talking about different kinds of attainments, which could be spoken of as different kinds of "liberations." 5=6 (KCHGA and full discovery of the True Will) represents liberation from one's false ideas about the self. This is not meant in a general sense, either: the attainment is not some vague sense that "what I call 'I' is, like, an illusion!" The attainment consists in being able to detect specific faulty thoughts about the self and recognize that those specific thoughts do not correspond to the self. One is thus "liberated" from them and is free to act in ways more pleasing to the self.

The other major attainment in the A.'.A.'. system is 8=3, which represents liberation from one's idea of self entirely (including one's "true" self). This is also a potentially flowery nonsense idea, but it actually refers to something quite specific: the attainment involves liberation from preference in thought (which is what creates the idea of a "self" in the first place). Crowley tells us that this attainment involves "emancipation from thought," which is achieved by "putting each idea against its opposite, and refusing to prefer either." I wrote about this more in another thread on here, but the gist of the attainment is that one becomes cognizant of the *process* by which thoughts (and thus the idea of a self) are produced. Thus, the idea of preferring one thought to another simply goes away all by itself, without any effort. Therefore, the idea of a self (which is ultimately just a bundle of preferences) simply vanishes.

Another way to put it is that 5=6 involves identifying the "real you," and the 8=3 involves discovering that there's no "you" at all. Both could be called "liberations" of different sorts. At least one of them can be deliberately achieved with applied effort.

[EDIT: Looking over this, I thought I would add that neither of these are "attainments" in the sense of becoming something that you're not. Each one just strips away stuff to reveal what was already there]

Those are the big ones. The other "attainments" seem to be less attainments proper than stories that people tell themselves about how spiritual they are.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
03/06/2015 12:19 am  
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
I'd like to hear what you ... have to say about 'liberation' and/or what exactly one could be liberated from

Why, one is liberated from that evil machine ... the mind!

U.G. had something to say about it: "Very strange things happened to me, but I never related those things to liberation or freedom or moksha, because by that time the whole thing had gone out of my system. I had arrived at a point where I said to myself, "Buddha deluded himself and deluded others. All those teachers and saviors of mankind were damned fools - they fooled themselves - so I'm not interested in this kind of thing anymore," so it went out of my system completely."

Personally, for me all mysticism can be torn apart and reconstructed in myriad guises using semantics and philosophical perspective.

Fine. Have at it.

Liberating one's self of self to find self seems a little absurd to me.

You're right!  But nobody said anything about finding self. To find nothing is a different manner. "For I am perfect, being Not."

Always becoming, never THERE.

"The Ipsissimus ... has identified Being and not-Being and Becoming."

... we are left with the same! Ho hum...

The same whatHo-hum. Are you bored, depressed, ill at ease. See a doctor.

well ... becoming!

Becoming implies change. "Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other ... There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was."

No changee!  No becomingee!  No nothing.  All is Ipsissimusly perfect being nada-nothing-not.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
03/06/2015 3:50 pm  

For further information and convenience I append a transcript of the original article from which the initial speculation arose:

Concerning the A.’. A.’.[/align:1eteeenp]

If as Frater Achad claimed the System of the A.’. A.’. had fallen apart during his own lifetime while he held the grade of Magister Templi, then surely now after his death & that of Crowley the Catina is no longer complete, though some members may remain in isolated Grades, the A.’. A.’. no longer exists as an initiating Order, for all practical purposes.

According to Frater Achad, who researched the matter rather thoroughly, there was a time when an actual chain existed in the Outer, up to and including the grade of Magus 9[sup:1eteeenp]o[/sup:1eteeenp]=2[sup:1eteeenp]□[/sup:1eteeenp]. The G.’.D.’. was the Outer Court up to 5[sup:1eteeenp]o[/sup:1eteeenp]=6[sup:1eteeenp]□[/sup:1eteeenp] and the Grades were all legitimately filled.  Mathers himself was 7[sup:1eteeenp]o[/sup:1eteeenp]=4[sup:1eteeenp]□[/sup:1eteeenp], Oscar Eckenstein (according to Crowley) was an Ipsissimus 10[sup:1eteeenp]o[/sup:1eteeenp]=1[sup:1eteeenp]□[/sup:1eteeenp] whose death around [sic; should be 'in'] 1921 enabled Crowley to go on to the supreme Ordeals, which he claims to have transcended in 1924 when he became or assumed, the grade of 10[sup:1eteeenp]o[/sup:1eteeenp]=1[sup:1eteeenp]□[/sup:1eteeenp]. These Ordeals, which were truly awful, and which constitute a great chunk of the remaining and unpublished portions of his Magical record, thus made the chain complete in the Outer, for Frater Achad, by virtue of his extreme daring assumed the grade of a Master of the Temple 8[sup:1eteeenp]o[/sup:1eteeenp]=3[sup:1eteeenp]□[/sup:1eteeenp] so that Crowley could make the transition to the Grade of Magus 9[sup:1eteeenp]o[/sup:1eteeenp]=2[sup:1eteeenp]□[/sup:1eteeenp]. All of this is documented.  What may be in doubt, is whether or not Crowley actually attained this Grade 9[sup:1eteeenp]o[/sup:1eteeenp]=2[sup:1eteeenp]□[/sup:1eteeenp].

Supposing, however that he did indeed become a Magus, then, when Eckenstein died, he was free to go on to the ultimate pinnacle or final in the System of the A.’.A.’. and become that Supreme & Silver Star, that Argenteum Astrum, which has been identified with Sothis (Sirius) and which is indeed the vehicle of Aiwass, and the full Concentration of the 93 Current, which is an Ipsissimus 10[sup:1eteeenp]o[/sup:1eteeenp]=1[sup:1eteeenp]□[/sup:1eteeenp] A.’.A.’. (with all that this implies in the sense in which only Wei Wu Wei of all European Adepts, has made unequivocally plain.

Further, Frater Achad claimed that the system of the A.’.A.’. fell apart (in the outer) long before 1924. […]

(By Soror Tanith 789 (Janice R. Ayers] and Frater OTz PTN 690 [Bill Siebert]
from Mezla, “Official Organ of the [Typhonian] Ordo Templi Orientis”, Vol. I No. 11, Spring Equinox Anno LXXIV [1978 ev].
Bold and italics = sic.  Underlinings are mine [j.b.])[/align:1eteeenp]

Norma N Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
03/06/2015 6:23 pm  

Concerning the A.’. A.’.[/align:1ra3eyps]

What may be in doubt, is whether or not Crowley actually attained this Grade 9[sup:1ra3eyps]o[/sup:1ra3eyps]=2[sup:1ra3eyps]□[/sup:1ra3eyps].

Or 8=3, or 10=1. And while we're wondering, is there any doubt about when Achad assumed 10=1 and began issuing orders to Crowley, a mere 9=2?

I cannot think of a time when all the degrees (from 1 to 10) were legitimately filled. Names are given for various numbers. Mathers is named, but he was never part of the Crowley 9=2 lineage. The Imprimatur list shows names at various numbers, but often Crowley (at various levels) is filling more than one slot. What about the dudes who were expelled (Fuller, Achad)? Did they ever legitimately hold a position ... that was later claimed to have been a mistake? A faulty attainment? 😮

I am a great fan of the A.'.A.'. curriculum. But I find the politics and the administration and the personalities involved in its historical presentation is nothing short of a circus.

[/align:1ra3eyps]

It would have been better if every member only knew his immediate superior and any immediate inferiors. That was the original and ideal "rule," but no-o-o-o, everybody ended up knowing everybody else.

Thank you for your attention. The sideshow is just outside to your left ... in the long black tent.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
03/06/2015 7:50 pm  

Thank you for your replies Los and Shiva!

Los,

I agree with you about a lack of concrete definition for terms used, and I also agree that a lot of guff has been spoken about attainments, grades & liberation, etc. There seems (to me, at least) to be a tendency within Thelemic literature to hype up the 'attainments' of 'adepts' and place some sort of importance upon their 'grades' and/or lineage without ever defining even the most simplest of terms being used. Unfortunately a lot of people seem to buy into this hyperbole and sensationalism without ever questioning what is being said. Obviously I only speak for myself here, but it all seems meaningless and completely unimportant to me, and for the life of me I can't see how it has any relevance to anybody else either. As a side note, I've just read the article Jamie posted above (I can see it as I type this) and it too demonstrates exactly what I'm referring to: undefined terms being used to explain undefined experiences whilst simultaneously expecting us to acknowledge and understand the legitimacy of these vague planes of attainment.

Shiva,

I don't accept that one can be liberated from "mind" without being rendered unconscious or in some other way being made catatonic. I do accept that the mind can be trained to a certain degree, and I do accept that consciousness can be altered under certain conditions, but one can not be liberated from "mind" or even "self" and stay a conscious and sentient being. I also think that it's very easy to redefine terms as they're personally understood as well as shift perspectives on such terms when one is indulging in philosophy, mysticism and magick. At the end of the day, however, nobody has really drastically altered their own neurophysiology or literally grown beyond their own biology. Experiences may have changed the way one views their self and their relationship with nature, but they're still the same "I" from a scientific and psychological point of view. It's interesting to also note that those claiming to be Ipsissimus (Crowley, 1921+) have writings riddled with the personal pronoun.

Also, I know very well the quote you've posted by Crowley in which he defines an Ipsissimus, but again (no surprise) I don't agree. He defines an Ipsissimus as one who has identified three other terms (all undefined by Crowley): being, not-being and becoming; all of which have very unique and very different definitions. As far as I'm aware they're not identifiable, but I'll leave it to you to understand the relationship between the purely linguistic uses of the present participles of the verbs 'to be' and 'to become.' However, I will note that those two simple words have been two of the major philosophical points of contention for well over two-thousand years. I'm a fan of Heidegger's usage, myself, but it would also have been nice of Crowley to let us know exactly what he meant too. Even a straightforward definition of "will" would have been appreciated and very, very helpful! Without those key definitions the entire system is entirely subjective and open to speculation, perhaps even meaningless to most. Having said that, I personally appreciate his poetic exploration of such ideas, but they can take on idiosyncratic meanings far too easily and are hence of very little scientific value. Also, I wouldn't at all feel comfortable using the Hermetic Qabalah as the be-all and end-all backbone of such a system, and sadly Crowley's terms seem to depend on and share a heritage therewith. Most of that model has been modified over the years by magicians to suit their own 'boxed' view of nature, in my opinion, and definitions derived therefrom are merely symbolic representations of one limited view of reality. As a side note, for a long time now I've considered Thelema (Crowley's use of the Greek) to be some mutant form of Matthew 6:10 viewed in the light of the Tabula Smaragdina and with a Rabelaisian application, but other than that I don't have a clue what Crowley meant by the term.

I will say that if one applies the ToL as a microcosmic model of being/self, then it's ridiculous IMO to position one's self statically within any single Sephirah via initiation, attainment, liberation, the shedding-away of selfhood, or any other. The system is a whole, the being (as noun) is a whole, and although the balance may not always be perfect (glimpses through imbalance - forced or otherwise -  could be viewed as experiences / attainments) the whole is still the domain.

As far as 'Not' is concerned, the word 'conceptual' comes to mind. 😉

Just some thoughts,

Darrell.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
03/06/2015 8:43 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
Tear apart mysticism as much as you like, Darrell; it's no skin off my nose.

My apologies, Michael. I didn't see your response at first.

I'm glad it's no skin off your nose, and I will continue to tear apart and reconstruct. 

I'm still interested in what you have to say though. Your thoughts on the subject would be of interest to me. You know, always good to get another opinion 'n' all that.


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1088
04/06/2015 5:21 am  

At the end of the day, however, nobody has really drastically altered their own neurophysiology or literally grown beyond their own biology.

Darrell, et al., many thanks for your thoughtful contributions. I would just note, regarding the above, that some studies have indicated that measurable changes in the brain, shorter & longer term, can be observed in meditation practioners. Unfortunately I cannot provide specific links as those I found from a brief search are all locked behind academic journal paywalls (after the revolution we'll fix that!), so it could be that another crop of studies proves the opposite next month … but … you get my drift.  Now, back to the present discussion, whether those changes map onto the unfortunately fuzzy language of 'attainment' is an open question and, even if they do, what that actually 'means' is anyone's guess.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
04/06/2015 10:32 am  
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
[...] As a side note, I've just read the article Jamie posted above (I can see it as I type this) and it too demonstrates exactly what I'm referring to: undefined terms being used to explain undefined experiences whilst simultaneously expecting us to acknowledge and understand the legitimacy of these vague planes of attainment.

Yes, this is one of the reasons why I was looking for further clarification from either the article’s authors or anyone who might have been closely associated with them and therefore likely to have been privy to their point-of-view.

"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
[…] At the end of the day, however, nobody has really drastically altered their own neurophysiology or literally grown beyond their own biology. Experiences may have changed the way one views their self and their relationship with nature, but they're still the same "I" from a scientific and psychological point of view.

‘Not yet’ anyway.  Who is to say what may be possible in the future?  In the far future, there may even be a way (by its nature quite incomprehensible in conception at the present time) to travel backwards in time and communicate with the ‘present’ now without any of the usual time-travel paradoxes we usually have to consider (i.e., altering the past would alter the future, as in e.g. hypothetical grandchildren causing the death of their hypothetical grandfathers etc).  I believe this is one of the contentions of the Maat-ians, those believers in the ‘Double Current’…

"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
It's interesting to also note that those claiming to be Ipsissimus (Crowley, 1921+) have writings riddled with the personal pronoun.

I don’t see there as being a necessarily mutually exclusive position, if anything the reverse.  At this stage there would be no gap between the highest and lowest vehicles of the individual; being ‘very self of very self’, the ‘I’ of the personality would be a direct expression of Hadit – ‘as a god goes, I go’ – without the interference of any veils of complexes.

"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
Also, I know very well the quote you've posted by Crowley in which he defines an Ipsissimus, but again (no surprise) I don't agree. He defines an Ipsissimus as one who has identified three other terms (all undefined by Crowley): being, not-being and becoming; all of which have very unique and very different definitions.

But not definitive definitions though!  And can they ever be ‘defined’ just like that?  Word are just words, after all.  Crowley gets as near to it as is possible in The Book of Lies it would seem.

"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
As far as I'm aware they're not identifiable, but I'll leave it to you to understand the relationship between the purely linguistic uses of the present participles of the verbs 'to be' and 'to become.' However, I will note that those two simple words have been two of the major philosophical points of contention for well over two-thousand years. I'm a fan of Heidegger's usage, myself, but it would also have been nice of Crowley to let us know exactly what he meant too. Even a straightforward definition of "will" would have been appreciated and very, very helpful! Without those key definitions the entire system is entirely subjective and open to speculation, perhaps even meaningless to most.  Having said that, I personally appreciate his poetic exploration of such ideas, but they can take on idiosyncratic meanings far too easily and are hence of very little scientific value.

What is of ultimate scientific value and absolutely provable in the end, though?  How much can the specific be applied to the general, the individual to the universal?

"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
Also, I wouldn't at all feel comfortable using the Hermetic Qabalah as the be-all and end-all backbone of such a system, and sadly Crowley's terms seem to depend on and share a heritage therewith. Most of that model has been modified over the years by magicians to suit their own 'boxed' view of nature, in my opinion, and definitions derived therefrom are merely symbolic representations of one limited view of reality.

The system is capable of evolution and growth however and does not have to remain static (indeed, to remain static would as time goes by prove to be counterproductive and a negative position.)  The evolution of Da’ath as an “eleventh sephiroth” over the last century being a case in point.

"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
As a side note, for a long time now I've considered Thelema (Crowley's use of the Greek) to be some mutant form of Matthew 6:10 viewed in the light of the Tabula Smaragdina and with a Rabelaisian application, but other than that I don't have a clue what Crowley meant by the term.

Do what thou wilt – that was what he meant and that is what you have to do… (simples! ;D).  It seems you may be making a reference obliquely to Mathers’ comment in his Kaballah that Kether is in Malkuth & Malkuth in Kether but after another manner.

"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
I will say that if one applies the ToL as a microcosmic model of being/self, then it's ridiculous IMO to position one's self statically within any single Sephirah via initiation, attainment, liberation, the shedding-away of selfhood, or any other. The system is a whole, the being (as noun) is a whole, and although the balance may not always be perfect (glimpses through imbalance - forced or otherwise -  could be viewed as experiences / attainments) the whole is still the domain.

Perhaps it’s not so much a model of being as becoming, in that the sephiroth represent increasingly dense emanations from the source (Kether or the Ain, depending on your choice.  Or even, Kether being a dense concentration of the Ain.)  This would make it dynamic rather than static, and in this sense at least could maybe reflect individual (microcosmic) gradual progression or “attainment”, only this time in terms of returning to the ‘source’.

"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
As far as 'Not' is concerned, the word 'conceptual' comes to mind. 😉

In the Land of La, La maybe! 😉

"Shiva" wrote:

Concerning the A.’. A.’.[/align:863mban3]
What may be in doubt, is whether or not Crowley actually attained this Grade 9[sup:863mban3]o[/sup:863mban3]=2[sup:863mban3]□[/sup:863mban3].

Or 8=3, or 10=1. And while we're wondering, is there any doubt about when Achad assumed 10=1 and began issuing orders to Crowley, a mere 9=2?
I cannot think of a time when all the degrees (from 1 to 10) were legitimately filled. Names are given for various numbers. Mathers is named, but he was never part of the Crowley 9=2 lineage. The Imprimatur list shows names at various numbers, but often Crowley (at various levels) is filling more than one slot. What about the dudes who were expelled (Fuller, Achad)? Did they ever legitimately hold a position ... that was later claimed to have been a mistake? A faulty attainment? 😮

Yes these are very good points and questions which I doubt will ever be satisfactorily answered. Crowley, as so often, is self-contradictory at different times and One Star In Sight, which was presumably its purpose and meant to do so, does not satisfyingly function throughout in its role as a “FAQ”.  Once again in the absence of an absolute arbiter we are left to fall on or own devices (which after all is maybe just as well, from the point of view of increasing self-reliance on the part of those needing to be spoon fed.) 

"Shiva" wrote:
I am a great fan of the A.'.A.'. curriculum. But I find the politics and the administration and the personalities involved in its historical presentation is nothing short of a circus.
It would have been better if every member only knew his immediate superior and any immediate inferiors. That was the original and ideal "rule," but no-o-o-o, everybody ended up knowing everybody else.

A.C. was certainly very cynical in later life about the value of any magickal groups coming together which involved more than two or three people (presumably including the O.T.O. 😮 !?), but didn’t Crowley and Jones’ original A.’. A.’. (that is, before the former went off to America) involve group activity as well though – for example, collectively putting on the Rites of Eleusis, ritual meetings (photographed for posterity) at 124 Victoria Street, etc?

"Shiva" wrote:
Thank you for your attention. The sideshow is just outside to your left ... in the long black tent.

Yes, roll up, roll up, do step along right this way… All human nature is here! (No bustling, now ;D)

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
04/06/2015 2:36 pm  
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
I don't accept that one can be liberated from "mind" without being rendered unconscious or in some other way being made catatonic.

"Liberated" implies "freed from." It does not mean that the mind is liquified in a blender and then poured down the drain. Everyone, even an Ip, needs a mind to prepare toast and to let the dog out. What one is "freed from" is the useless and illusionary mental drive to "find myself," or to "discover the meaning of life," or to "become one with God," or to "become an important person," etc. One merely needs to engage the mind for purposes of communcation and to look after the basic necessitirs of living, and all that other garbage is of no use ... and if one can really "drop it off," then one is liberated.

By the way, U.G. describes his state when he is alone. It sounds very much like catatonia :D.
He says "I no longer spend time in reverie, worry, conceptualization and the other kinds of thinking that most people do when they're alone. My mind is only engaged when it's needed, for instance when you ask questions, or when I have to fix the tape-recorder or something like that. My memory is in the background and only comes into play when it's needed, automatically. When it's not needed there is no mind here, there is no thought; there is only life."

At the end of the day, however, nobody has really drastically altered their own neurophysiology or literally grown beyond their own biology.

That's right. "Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other ... There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was." Of course, we have Ken Wilber demonstrating how he stops his brainwaves, which is a rather altered neurophysiology ... and nobody's made any claims about "growing beyond their biology." Note: Biology is the study of life. How does one "grow" beyond a study? Perhaps you meant "beyond their own genetic coding," or something like that?

Now then, this thread is about Oscar being an Ip, which personally I doubt, but who am I to even guess one way or another?  Anyway, that's the subject, so why don't you start another forum about how nothing works and nobody changes, so as to not derail this exposition of (supposed) Ketherian analysis.

[/align:3j9ffrrv]


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
04/06/2015 3:24 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
I don't accept that one can be liberated from "mind" without being rendered unconscious or in some other way being made catatonic.

"Liberated" implies "freed from." It does not mean that the mind is liquified in a blender and then poured down the drain. Everyone, even an Ip, needs a mind to prepare toast and to let the dog out. What one is "freed from" is the useless and illusionary mental drive to "find myself," or to "discover the meaning of life," or to "become one with God," or to "become an important person," etc. One merely needs to engage the mind for purposes of communcation and to look after the basic necessitirs of living, and all that other garbage is of no use ... and if one can really "drop it off," then one is liberated.

I'll second this point. When Darrell says, "I don't accept that one can be liberated from "mind" without being rendered unconscious or in some other way being made catatonic," he's absolutely right for one particular definition of "mind."

It all depends on exactly what we mean, which is why precise definitions are so important. To the extent that every experience is essentially the product of brain chemistry, we could describe literally every experience as "mind." If this is the definition we're using, then Darrell is right: it's impossible to be liberated from the mind.

But when we speak of "mind" in the context of Thelema, we're usually referring to some specific subset of all experiences: we're specifically referring to the mind's reasoning and storytelling functions, the stuff that it overlays ontop of what we call bare perception. This is very often how Crowley uses the term when discussing Thelema, for example.

In a similar way, the word "self" has many definitions. Under some definitions of "self," it's impossible to get rid of a self. Under others, it is.

Essentially, what "attainment" boils down to -- to vastly oversimplify it to a ridiculous degree -- is learning to see through your own bullshit (5=6) and figuring out that "you" are nothing more than a temporary collection of disparate elements (8=3).

These are in no way superhuman accomplishments, nor are they remotely supernatural. The vagueness with which "spiritual attainment" is often discussed opens the door to people imagining attainment as some lofty state achievable only by godlike individuals who lead perfect lives of perfect peace afterward. This is just a story. Seeing through it is part of learning to see through your own bullshit.

And yes, it is indeed ridiculous to think that one could be at some static "level" on the Tree of Life -- but that's only if one insists on looking at "grades" in such a myopic way. Attaining a "grade" just means that one has opened up a new perspective or achieved something of personal value, like discovering the extent to which one's thoughts are often mixed up for reality and beginning to separate them (2=9) or seeing through one's own bullshit (5=6). Attaining one of those grades doesn't mean "you" are "in" that particular Sephiroth and that's where you stay until you "graduate" to the next one: it just means that, for the first time, you're consistently able to perceive in a way that we can attribute to that sphere.

The Tree of Life is a tool. It's an imaginary tree that we can use to catalogue things, including spiritual attainments. "Grades" are just a kind of labeling, nothing more. You might imagine grades as the floors to a ten-story building. In this analogy, "attaining" a grade would mean figuring out how to open the door to the next floor: that doesn't mean you have to spend all your time on that new floor, but it does mean that you can now go up there any time you want. And at each level, when you look down to the ground, it's going to look different than it did from a previous level. On the first floor, you can see a lot more of the street than you could when you were outside. By the time you're on the tenth floor, that street looks totally different, and you'll wonder why you were ever concerned by any of those ants crawling around down there.

Look, if you're concerned that there's nothing "scientific" about attainment, then you're right. For all of the "method of science" talk, spirituality in the sense that we discuss it in the context of Thelema is not even close to a science, and "Scientific Illuminism" is even further from being a science. These "areas of study" -- huge quotation marks there -- are populated by droves of lunatics who think that they can control reality with their minds, contact supposed "beings" for which there isn't a shred of evidence, or manipulate (vaguely defined) "energy" to do some healings. But they've convinced themselves that because they get the warm and fuzzies or because their fantasies have personal meaning for them, then their far-flung and wacky beliefs must be true.

But if you put all of that to one side and actually look at the system, it provides tools for conceptualizing and executing a process of personal development that can and does improve one's satisfaction with life. Even this isn't strictly "scientific," but so what? I didn't do "science" to determine that I would enjoy writing a post on the forum just now. And it's not "science" that I use to determine that I'm about to put on a wash and entertain myself with a game of Mario Kart shortly.

Do you think it's possible to learn to see through your own bullshit? Then you think spiritual attainment is possible. I'm telling you that Thelema and the A.'.A.'. system provide interesting and useful tools for helping you do this, provided that you have the right personality type and inclinations to use its particular set of tools and symbols. Of course, you might think Thelema is ridiculously silly but still manage to learn to see through your own bullshit using a different system or no system at all.


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1264
04/06/2015 4:55 pm  

In no way could Oscar Eckenstein ever have been Ipsissimus. He simply wasn't an occultist, much less a Thelemite.

What AC probably meant, was that he had reached a *similar* levels of understanding, in the development of his own personality. I don't think AC meant the comment to be read literally, as some on this thread seem to be doing.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
04/06/2015 8:05 pm  
"michaelclarke18" wrote:
In no way could Oscar Eckenstein ever have been Ipsissimus. He simply wasn't an occultist, much less a Thelemite.

FWIW, the title Ipsissimus isn't exclusive to Thelema, nor does it necessarily require one to be an occultist.

From The True and Invisible Rosicrucian Order, by Paul Foster Case (1989 Red Wheel/Weiser):

Ipsissimus, the title of the Grade, means "He who is most himself" and connects with the Qabalistic attribution of IChIDH, Yekhidah (pronounced ya-kee-dah) to the first Sephirah. Yekhidah means "the Indivisible" and is the Hebrew technical term for "Self," practically equivalent to the Sanskrit Atman. It designates the cosmic Self, the One I AM that is manifested through innumerable personalities, on this earth and elsewhere.

The Grade of Ipsissimus is that of the Head of the Invisible Order. After our cursory review of the stages of attainment, it should be apparent that the self-appointed "Heads" of the various pseudo-Rosicrucian societies are, to say the least, absurd in their pretensions. For the Supreme Head of the Order is none other than the Christos, the universal Logos. Below Him are the Logoi, or spirits of the separate planets. Among incarnate beings on any planet, the post of "Head" is occupied by that one among the Magi who has attained to the most perfect unification with the Primal Will. No man is appointed to this post, nor elected to it. The degree of attainment is the only deciding factor in his selection. And this degree is judged by no man. It simply is.

Perhaps an illustration will help. In any circle of human beings, the dominant center is that person who has the highest degree of self-realization. That person's thought dominates the minds of the other members of the group, even though he may never say a word. Close observation will show you how true this is, even among small companies of people. He who is most truly self-possessed, i.e., "possessed by the Self," is the ruler of the rest; for in his thought there is a strength, a positiveness, and a clarity that impose themselves by induction on the minds of all the others in the company.

pp. 297-8

It is said that there are ten degrees of this Grade in each of the four worlds, that is: Kether of Kether, Kether of Chokmah, Kether of Binah, Kether of Chesed, Kether of Geburah, Kether of Tiphareth, Kether of Netzach, Kether of Hod, Kether of Yesod, and Kether of Malkuth--all in Atziluth; and a like tenfold expression in Briah, Yetzirah, and Assiah.

Thus, we may reckon forty degrees of this one realization that Rosicrucians call Ipsissimus. It is also said that here on the physical plane (in Assiah, that is) there are at any one time just ten human beings in whom this realization of Kether is perfected. One has the perfect realization of Kether in Malkuth, another the realization of Kether in Yesod, and so on, up to Kether in Kether.

These ten human beings are said to be the Secret Chiefs of the ten sections of the True and Invisible Rosicrucian Order on the physicaI plane. Each section of the Order corresponds to a Sephirah, and consists of persons whose basic development corresponds to that Sephirah.

This statement, however, should not be interpreted as meaning that only ten persons now incarnate have attained to the Grade of Ipsissimus in the world of Assiah. What has been said is that there are but ten in whom this realization is perfected. These ten are the Heads of the Outer Hierarchy of the Order.

This information, however, can be of little more than academic interest to readers of these pages. It is mentioned merely to give some idea of the constitution of the occult hierarchy. The terms here used differ superficially from those familiar to readers of Theosophical literature, but there is no real difference in the teaching itself.

p.304

The Ipsissimus ("He who is most himself") is that person in any circle of human society who best realizes the presence of this One Identity, as Absolute First Cause, at the heart of his personality. In any group of persons, the master mind is he who best understands the Self.

p.305

An Ipsissimus has mastered [the Mars] force. He has overcome the false knowledge of separateness, rooted in error and illusion. He is consciously immortal. He has identified the "I" in his own personality with the Universal Self. He no longer acts as a separate being. All that he thinks, all that he says, all that he does is understood by him as being the activity of the Universal Self.

...

An Ipsissimus is a perfectly poised personality. He has transmuted ambition entirely but works as do those who are ambitious. He has transmuted desire of life but respects life as do those who desire it. He has transmuted desire for comfort but is happier than those who live for happiness. His will is one with the Originating Will of the universe, and he shares the mastery of that Will over all things.

...

Subconsciously, he is one with the Law, and whatsoever he does is therefore a perfect expression of that Law.

p.308

From what I understand of Crowley's relationship with Eckenstein, these seem to be accurate descriptions of Eckenstein's position within the Crowley/Jones, A.'.A.'., no? The Master Mind which best understood itself (as judged by no one; it simply was) and which imposed itself by induction (via Crowley) on all the other minds of the Order.


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1264
05/06/2015 7:50 am  

FWIW, the title Ipsissimus isn't exclusive to Thelema, nor does it necessarily require one to be an occultist.

Paul Foster Case (October 3, 1884 – March 2, 1954) was an American occultist of the early 20th century and author of numerous [url= http://books on occult tarot and Qabalah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Foster_Case]books on occult tarot and Qabalah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Foster_Case[/url]

Can you give an example, outside of occultism or occult writing, where the terminology is used?


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
05/06/2015 2:31 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Liberated" implies "freed from." It does not mean that the mind is liquified in a blender and then poured down the drain. Everyone, even an Ip, needs a mind to prepare toast and to let the dog out. What one is "freed from" is the useless and illusionary mental drive to "find myself," or to "discover the meaning of life," or to "become one with God," or to "become an important person," etc. One merely needs to engage the mind for purposes of communcation and to look after the basic necessitirs of living, and all that other garbage is of no use ... and if one can really "drop it off," then one is liberated.

And then?

"Shiva" wrote:
By the way, U.G. describes his state when he is alone. It sounds very much like catatonia :D.

Yes.  (Isn’t that place just outside the state of Liechtenstein? :D)

"Shiva" wrote:
He says "I no longer spend time in reverie, worry, conceptualization and the other kinds of thinking that most people do when they're alone. My mind is only engaged when it's needed, for instance when you ask questions, or when I have to fix the tape-recorder or something like that. My memory is in the background and only comes into play when it's needed, automatically. When it's not needed there is no mind here, there is no thought; there is only life."

And then?  There’s always then.  And now, of course.

"michaelclarke18" wrote:
In no way could Oscar Eckenstein ever have been Ipsissimus. He simply wasn't an occultist, much less a Thelemite.

What AC probably meant, was that he had reached a *similar* levels of understanding, in the development of his own personality. I don't think AC meant the comment to be read literally, as some on this thread seem to be doing.

Literally is one way of reading it, since A.C. put it in terms where it is hard to ignore taking it that way (among other ways).  Naturally that shouldn’t restrict or bind us to it as it’s just one possibility amongst several.  But if he didn’t mean it to be taken more literally than not – say he was being more allegorical as is suggested – it seems odd he should so literally refer to the very matter of Ipsissimus, 10[sup:1nygm3h0]o[/sup:1nygm3h0]=1[sup:1nygm3h0]□[/sup:1nygm3h0].  Instead of arguing that we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be hypnotised by one definition & way of looking at it (which I wasn’t aware anybody had been doing in this discussion), it would prove more profitable to look at why A.C. should have done this, and whether there could be anything in it - whilst keeping our head on our shoulders as it were.

A.C. does seem to have held O.E. in very high esteem.  When he part-dedicated Confessions to him as one who had “trained me to follow the trail” I venture it would not be too extreme an interpretation to equate ‘trail’ with ‘tao’.  Since he virtually acknowledges him to be his “Teacher” in this respect alone, the question is to what extent would he also have viewed O.E. as his superior in A.’. A.’. terms as the suggestion is that he did so, right up until the time of his death in 1921.  If this suggestion turned out to be the case, then this fact on its own would call for the drastic reappraisal of considerations about A.C.’s “massive ego” and his unwillingness to take second place to anyone, particularly in magick.

The reference given in A.C.’s diary entry is different from the Mezla proposition, which more or less states its view that Eckenstein was at the head of an ongoing chain or catina rather than just being “equivalent” in some way to 10[sup:1nygm3h0]o[/sup:1nygm3h0]=1[sup:1nygm3h0]□[/sup:1nygm3h0], in the same way A.C. considered H.P.B. equivalent to an 8[sup:1nygm3h0]o[/sup:1nygm3h0]=3[sup:1nygm3h0]□[/sup:1nygm3h0].

So, what else does A.C. have to say about O.E. which might give extra weight to this stratospherically high regard?  Within Confessions, he wrote that:

The greatness of [Eckenstein's] spirit was not inferior to that of such giants as Rodin; he was an artist no less than if he has actually produced any monument to his mind. Only his constant man-handling by spasmodic asthma prevented him from matching his genius by master-pieces. As it is, there is an immense amount in his life mysterious and extraordinary beyond anything I have known. […]
I felt that my career was already marked out for me. Sir Richard Burton was my hero and Eckenstein his modern representative, so far as my external life was concerned.

From all the available sources Eckenstein seems to have been scornful of A.C.’s magick, although we are never given any specifics.  Perhaps he wasn’t too gone on the Goetia. 

He said, " Give up your Magick, with all its romantic fascinations and deceitful delights. Promise to do this for a time, and I will teach you how to master your mind." He spoke with the absolute authority which comes from profound and perfect knowledge. And, as I sat and listened, I found my faith fixed by the force of facts. I wondered and worshipped ... I agreed at once to his proposals, and he taught me the principles of concentration. […] (Confessions, Vol 2, 22-4).

However despite such reservations, some of the training syllabi of the A.’. A.’. would not have been alien to Eckenstein’s sensibilities at all.

"Tao" wrote:
From The True and Invisible Rosicrucian Order, by Paul Foster Case (1989 Red Wheel/Weiser):

... Among incarnate beings on any planet, the post of "Head" is occupied by that one among the Magi who has attained to the most perfect unification with the Primal Will. ... The Ipsissimus ("He who is most himself") is that person in any circle of human society who best realizes the presence of this One Identity, as Absolute First Cause, at the heart of his personality. In any group of persons, the master mind is he who best understands the Self. ... He has identified the "I" in his own personality with the Universal Self. He no longer acts as a separate being. All that he thinks, all that he says, all that he does is understood by him as being the activity of the Universal Self.

From what I understand of Crowley's relationship with Eckenstein, these seem to be accurate descriptions of Eckenstein's position within the Crowley/Jones, A.'.A.'., no? The Master Mind which best understood itself (as judged by no one; it simply was) and which imposed itself by induction (via Crowley) on all the other minds of the Order.

The idea of O.E. as being some sort of disguised über-Secret Chief controlling things in the background strikes me as being a little fanciful and it would be rather surprising if it turned out to have anything in it.  Although not impossible, of course. 😀

Finally, nowhere is it indicated that A.C. apparently needed to wait until O.E. died before he could advance beyond 9[sup:1nygm3h0]o[/sup:1nygm3h0]=2[sup:1nygm3h0]□[/sup:1nygm3h0].  Everywhere else, and in all of the imprimatur, the indication is it was Aiwass who fulfilled this 10[sup:1nygm3h0]o[/sup:1nygm3h0]=1[sup:1nygm3h0]□[/sup:1nygm3h0] function, even after A.C. became an Ipsissimus himself (since he never acknowledged the fact publicly.)  But neither did A.C. ever mention O.E. as being involved in the A.’. A.’. system at all, so far as is known.  It certainly is all a bit of a curiosity taken from this angle.

N Joy


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
05/06/2015 3:24 pm  

Most descriptions of these states sound very much like Alzheimer's disease or dementia.

"My guru is in a state of pure perception! He does not recognize anything, he does not experience anything because he is beyond the experiencing-structure!"


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
05/06/2015 3:54 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
And then?

Life continues on a daily basis. Just like before ... but without all that annoying garbage.

"Shiva" wrote:
By the way, U.G. describes his state when he is alone. It sounds very much like catatonia :D.
"jamie" wrote:
Yes.  (Isn’t that place just outside the state of Liechtenstein? :D)

No. It's just outside Schizophrenia. Which is just south of Liberatania.

And then?  There’s always then.  And now, of course.

Life continues ... as stated above. One really needs to read U.G.'s interviews (he wrote no books himself). He describes, in detail, over and over, what it's like to function in The Natural State, in which there is a sense of peace, with an awareness of an overshadowing intelligence ... that one can never know.

Yes, there is always "and then?" And then life goes on ... until the zero hour. What else do you want? What else do you think is waiting?

"Tao" wrote:
Paul Foster Case "Among incarnate beings on any planet, the post of "Head" is occupied by that one among the Magi who has attained to the most perfect unification with the Primal Will.

Yeah, yeah. There's always somebody in charge. Always somebody at the top of the line or at the tip of the pyramid. As if there can only be One Ip.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
05/06/2015 4:10 pm  
"ayino" wrote:
Most descriptions of these states sound very much like Alzheimer's disease or demenia.

The Eternal Sunshineof the Spotless Mind
[/align:1qk26nel]

Actually, they are probably all the same state. Except the Ip, the "realized adept," the "one who has finally escaped," has the ability to come out of his/her realm of nothingness to talk to people, to prepare a meal, and to otherwise function in the world.

What else do you want?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
05/06/2015 5:22 pm  

Oh cool, another Ipsissimus thread!

Quick thoughts -

Eckenstein was not an Ipsissimus. Neither was Crowley.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
05/06/2015 5:26 pm  
"michaelclarke18" wrote:
Can you give an example, outside of occultism or occult writing, where the terminology is used?

Ipsissimus is simply the Latin superlative of the adjective ipse meaning "the most himself". The feminine form, ipsissima, is the foundation of the legal term ipsissima verbe meaning "the very words". As such, it has been in common usage in christian theological-critical debates surrounding whether the words of Jesus in the gospels are direct quotes (ipsissima verba) or are simply written in his voice (ipsissima vox).

However, none of that really matters in this context. What you originally put forth as an objection was that OE wasn't an occultist. What PFC's illustration shows is that, at least in the non-Thelemic, Rosicrucian usage of the term (which I might argue is the same as the Thelemic usage of the term, properly understood), it does not require any specific attainments within any specific order to be an Ipsissimus/a. One must simply be most herself. To use PFC's words: "The Ipsissimus ("He who is most himself") is that person in any circle of human society who best realizes the presence of this One Identity, as Absolute First Cause, at the heart of his personality. In any group of persons, the master mind is he who best understands the Self... Subconsciously, he is one with the Law, and whatsoever he does is therefore a perfect expression of that Law."

Given that he's the guy who knocked Crowley off of his attachment to HOGD ceremonial magic and pushed him towards developing his powers of concentration, which are the core of A.'.A.'. work, I stand by my previous. For the outward order known as the Jones/Crowley A.'.A.'., I see no reason not to label Eckenstein as the master mind who best understood the Self, subconsciously at one with the Law, the inspiration that motivated Crowley to develop the skills necessary for the work of the order and consequently the founding of the order, and thereby the first Ipsissimus of the order.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
05/06/2015 6:39 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Oh cool, another Ipsissimus thread!

More of another "grades and Orders" thread.

I'm waiting for the word "lineage" to rear it's head.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
05/06/2015 6:56 pm  
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
Darrell, et al., many thanks for your thoughtful contributions. I would just note, regarding the above, that some studies have indicated that measurable changes in the brain, shorter & longer term, can be observed in meditation practioners. Unfortunately I cannot provide specific links as those I found from a brief search are all locked behind academic journal paywalls (after the revolution we'll fix that!), so it could be that another crop of studies proves the opposite next month … but … you get my drift.  Now, back to the present discussion, whether those changes map onto the unfortunately fuzzy language of 'attainment' is an open question and, even if they do, what that actually 'means' is anyone's guess.

Thanks for your reply, William.

I've also read similar studies in the past, but sadly, like yourself, I don't have anything to share at the moment. I'm no neurophysiologist, mind you (no pun intended), and I'd hate to say that something seems obvious about a science I know very little about, but I'd have to assume that similarly measurable changes in brain activity and neurophysiology would also be produced by such things as trauma, the ingestion of psychoactive substances, any mentally exhausting activity, or even concentrating on a PC screen or TV for excessive periods of time. The overuse or abuse of an organ or function will inevitably lead to some form of change, but whether that's a positive or a negative change will be entirely subjective. As an example, 'memory' today is generally identified as "long- and short-term potentiation," wherein neurons firing across synaptic pathways in certain configurations activate (they actually are) memories. Now, if one keeps on recalling a memory by force, then that particular configuration will become stronger and stronger, and that particular pathway will start to exhibit some higher form of activity from constant use. The memory will endure and become more vivid, but it might be a horrible and traumatic memory that the subject despises and wants rid of! Not a good thing! 

I'm very hopeful and optimistic that the future holds profound advancements in this field.

"jamie barter" wrote:
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
Also, I know very well the quote you've posted by Crowley in which he defines an Ipsissimus, but again (no surprise) I don't agree. He defines an Ipsissimus as one who has identified three other terms (all undefined by Crowley): being, not-being and becoming; all of which have very unique and very different definitions.

But not definitive definitions though!  And can they ever be ‘defined’ just like that?  Word are just words, after all.  Crowley gets as near to it as is possible in The Book of Lies it would seem.

Exactly. They're defined terms, but they're still subject to seemingly endless debate. A couple of the more thoroughly investigated (albeit drastically different) sets of definitions that I admire are those set out in the works of Plato and Heidegger. They both really tackled the subject well and both tried to come to some solid conclusions. Heidegger, to me, is very sterile and precise, but at least I know exactly where I stand with his usage; whereas Plato's Socratic dialogues tend to incorporate rhetoric based largely upon the epic Homeric poems and other classical Greek sources. For me, Plato tries to describe the nature of being, soul, love, enthusiasm, etc., but the definitions, like Crowley's The Book of Lies, are sometimes very subtle and hard to grasp unless one can relate to an experience or poetic idea. As beautiful as that form of writing can be, it's very hard to use as a source we can all agree upon. It's interesting to note that the A.'.A.'. reading list, and those works which are referenced or used as source in the higher degree O.T.O. papers, are all of this latter form of writing. The Upanishads and Plato's Phaedrus are two primary examples.

"jamie barter" wrote:
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
Having said that, I personally appreciate his poetic exploration of such ideas, but they can take on idiosyncratic meanings far too easily and are hence of very little scientific value.

What is of ultimate scientific value and absolutely provable in the end, though?  How much can the specific be applied to the general, the individual to the universal?

Really glad you made a point of putting my text in bold here. 🙂

To give some form of answer to your questions, I'd at least say that to agree with each other we all need to be working from the same page! Scientific rigour can be pushed to the extremes and leave everything soulless, so to speak, but unless we have the same (or at least very similar) ideas then we may all be working to different ends using the same language set. Crowley left us with a system (The Method of Science, The Aim of Religion) that can be interpreted in very different ways, and it's here where I have some issues. It isn't just Crowley, but the G.'.D.'. before him and modern fraternities too. This lack of definition allows people to supplant wild, fantastical and glorified ideas into the reader, completely taking advantage of those 'looking for something.' Now, to those who don't have a better idea, to say that someone dwells in Kether as an Ipsissimus may lead someone to believe that they've become God. I'm positively certain the term gets used in such a hyperbolic and egoisitc manner all of the time in occult literature.

"Shiva" wrote:
"Liberated" implies "freed from." It does not mean that the mind is liquified in a blender and then poured down the drain. Everyone, even an Ip, needs a mind to prepare toast and to let the dog out. What one is "freed from" is the useless and illusionary mental drive to "find myself," or to "discover the meaning of life," or to "become one with God," or to "become an important person," etc. One merely needs to engage the mind for purposes of communcation and to look after the basic necessitirs of living, and all that other garbage is of no use ... and if one can really "drop it off," then one is liberated.

Would you then agree that if one didn't 'have it' in the first place in order to 'drop it' then one would already be an Ipsissimus? I know hundreds of people that have no drive or aspiration towards any of the above

"Shiva" wrote:
Note: Biology is the study of life. How does one "grow" beyond a study? Perhaps you meant "beyond their own genetic coding," or something like that?

No. I meant to say "biology." Granted, I could have elaborated and said 'biological makeup' or something similar, so my apologies for any confusion. My use of the term is simply as a noun descriptive of the same, not as the mass noun descriptive of the field of study. You seem to have got my drift though, so to speak. 

"Shiva" wrote:
Now then, this thread is about Oscar being an Ip, which personally I doubt, but who am I to even guess one way or another?  Anyway, that's the subject, so why don't you start another forum about how nothing works and nobody changes, so as to not derail this exposition of (supposed) Ketherian analysis.

If anything I'm saying that everything seems to exhibit constant change, and that's my main point of contention with so-called 'states of attainment' and such things as 'true will' and the 'true self.' You're right, of course, when you say that this thread is about Oscar Eckenstein being an Ipsissimus. To really understand what that even means we first need to define our terms before we can come to any conclusion, hence my posts addressing the subject as a prerequisite to further discussion.

"Los" wrote:
I'll second this point. When Darrell says, "I don't accept that one can be liberated from "mind" without being rendered unconscious or in some other way being made catatonic," he's absolutely right for one particular definition of "mind."

It all depends on exactly what we mean, which is why precise definitions are so important. To the extent that every experience is essentially the product of brain chemistry, we could describe literally every experience as "mind." If this is the definition we're using, then Darrell is right: it's impossible to be liberated from the mind.

But when we speak of "mind" in the context of Thelema, we're usually referring to some specific subset of all experiences: we're specifically referring to the mind's reasoning and storytelling functions, the stuff that it overlays ontop of what we call bare perception. This is very often how Crowley uses the term when discussing Thelema, for example.

In a similar way, the word "self" has many definitions. Under some definitions of "self," it's impossible to get rid of a self. Under others, it is.

There are myriad ways to describe a single phenomenon. I've tried to make a point throughout my posts on this thread about the philosophical study of ontology primarily because it's such a vast study with so many different conclusions. The word ontology has its etymology in the Greek word On, which should be very familiar to all students of Thelema, and which also says something about the mysteries of O.T.O. and their especial use of Qabalah. The so-called "secret" may well be so humourously dubbed because the base terms being used are so scatalogical that nobody actually knows what's being said.

From studying Crowley myself I've observed a lot of word use which has been out of context, not quite accurate or relevant, or simply misleading. Mind and Self are two good examples, but also when he's talking about the same using Sanskrit and Freudian terms. Sat, Cit, Ananda. Id, Ego, Superego.

Crowley could have been far more precise in this regard, specifically stating the four-fold Antahkarana (Ahamkara, Buddhi, Manas & Chitta) instead of simply Cit or Mind. He could have been far more precise with his use of the psyche as Self, Ego, Tiphareth, etc. Instead he's left a syncretic miasma of ideas vaguely pasted onto the ToL from primarily Hindu, Buddhist and Christian sources. His reading list seems to be there to fill in the gaps and to get the gist of what he's trying to say.

Without going into too much detail (as my mind is also awash with so many disconnected fragments) I view Ipsissimus as theoretically comprising Ain Soph Aur / Kether, Chokmah and Binah, as an indivisible trinity in unity, both masculine and feminine, and the resulting neuter nominative singular should have been Ipsissimum, not Ipsissimus. I could talk about this forever, and I know it's at odds with what everybody else on this forum probably has to say, but that's just me. I'd also say that anybody who truly understands the maxim Deus est Homo or has comprehended or experienced true creativity through inspiration / enthusiasm has had that experience and can call themselves the same. That's the majority of (if not all) people these days, in my opinion. Crowley, Eckenstein, you, me. ... The heights are not so lofty when there's no below or above.

"Los" wrote:
And it's not "science" that I use to determine that I'm about to put on a wash and entertain myself with a game of Mario Kart shortly.

No video games for me anymore, unfortunately, but I used to love them when I was younger. I still like to watch the odd martial arts flick though, and as that comes to mind so does Bruce Lee's Sifu, Ip Man!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
05/06/2015 7:13 pm  
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
Crowley could have been far more precise in this regard, specifically stating the four-fold Antahkarana (Ahamkara, Buddhi, Manas & Chitta) instead of simply Cit or Mind. He could have been far more precise with his use of the psyche as Self, Ego, Tiphareth, etc. Instead he's left a syncretic miasma of ideas vaguely pasted onto the ToL from primarily Hindu, Buddhist and Christian sources. His reading list seems to be there to fill in the gaps and to get the gist of what he's trying to say.

Agree with this observation and for a young student who had just found Crowley the terminology was often more than confusing. Synchronization of western & eastern thought fully might be impossible task, but I personally found the following attributions of immense help in understanding the mixed symbolism Crowley frequently employs. These all might be laid down in '777', I am not sure, but I constructed my own memo very early. For me it has proven satisfactory many times, especially when it comes to Book of Thoth and some concepts therein.

CHIT (THOUGHT) - LEFT PILLAR (HOD) - MEM - WATER - TAMAS - SALT
ANANDA (BLISS)-  RIGHT PILLAR (NETZACH) - SHIN - FIRE - RAJAS - SULFUR
SAT (BEING) - MIDDLE PILLAR (TIPHARETH) - ALEPH - AIR - SATTVA - MERCURY


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
05/06/2015 7:19 pm  
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
Would you then agree that if one didn't 'have it' in the first place in order to 'drop it' then one would already be an Ipsissimus?

No.

But, one never "gets it." It's the unattainable search that they drop.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
05/06/2015 8:57 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
Would you then agree that if one didn't 'have it' in the first place in order to 'drop it' then one would already be an Ipsissimus?

No.

But, one never "gets it." It's the unattainable search that they drop.

Okay. Well, I think I get what you're saying now with regards liberation, and I agree to a certain extent. Although, from my perspective I would also say that a great deal of people (and this number is ever increasing) aren't, and will never be, seekers of IT. They don't seem to need or want liberation from any desire of attainment because that attainment doesn't mean anything to them at all. The amount of people I've heard in recent years talking about art, music, creative writing, etc., who seem to be convinced that the artform is working through them unconsciously, either from a source (God, archetypal or subconscious impulses) or elsewhere, as opposed to them being the conscious architect of their own creations, seems to be growing. In my opinion this implies that they've experienced all of the so-called major attainments of the A.'.A.'. to some degree, albeit even momentarily, in their pursuit of art. As Crowley would have us believe, Aiwaz as MZLA (his definition of Mezla isn't entirely accurate but gets his point across) as HGA descending from Kether as transmitter of Will, is exactly what they're experiencing (although he never said as much!). In those glimpses of inspiration, those enthusiasms (enthusiasmos, lit. "In God"), the link between Arik Anpin and Zaur Anpin is made and "countenance beholds countenance," although I'd imagine that near enough 100% of people would never think of it or even know of it in such terms. At any rate, the regular selfhood and ego-based "I" seems to be transmuted for them as they glow with joy and contentment merrily throwing brushstroke at canvas or plectrum at string, thoughtlessly channeling IT.

Was Eckenstein an Ipsissimus? Was Crowley an Ipsissimus? I'd have to say yes to both, every now and again! I don't think it's such a wild claim, personally, and in a lot of respects I view the 5=6 as something much harder to keep well balanced. Also, I don't think it's possible in a physiological sense for anybody to "be" "there" for much time at all, and neither do I think that "there" is an immutable static "being."

Most of the time I think a lot of occultists use these terms because they're arrogant, egotistical holes of some form or another. 😉

Darrell.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
05/06/2015 9:45 pm  
"david" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Oh cool, another Ipsissimus thread!

More of another "grades and Orders" thread.

The Ipsissimus threads pop up from time to time. Some of them can be quite interesting. Some of the "Ipsissimus material" tends to get scattered in other threads, too, like the post that Shiva made in the last couple of years that dealt decently in-depth with the qualities of the 10=1 Initiation, especially the clinical death factor that is absent from this thread.

One thing that many people seem to miss is that, in the A:.A:. system, the Grade is assumed as the Work in that Grade begins, not as it ends. For example, the Task of the Adeptus Minor is "to attain the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel". The actual attainment of the K&C is the sign of accomplishment of the Grade. 10=1 is no different in that regard.

"david" wrote:
I'm waiting for the word "lineage" to rear it's head.

Those are much less fun. Too may people worried about stepping on toes, and usually the (C)OTO gets bashed around in lineage threads. Tends to be more drama than anything.

As side note, re: Grades and crossing systems - a Master is a Master is a Master. It doesn't make a difference if they are an occultist, an athlete, a farmer, or a billionaire. A Master may be "Recognized" as such, even with no connection to a legitimate A:.A:. lineage. One may indeed be a Master, just not a Master in A:.A:. proper, as all of the paperwork and Grade work would not be present. That cannot take away from the individual attainment, however. On the other hand, said attainment outside of the A:.A:. Grade structure does not necessarily allow for any sort of authority within the A:.A:. Order proper. It is the same with the K&C.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
05/06/2015 10:28 pm  

How about every human being is already an Ipissimus, they just didn't see it yet? 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
05/06/2015 10:36 pm  

We had a thread titled "How can you recognize a Magister Templi," or words to that effect. The question was never answered. Now the new question is, "How much more difficult is it to recognize an Ipsissimus?" Any "recognition" of any of these "higher" grades is a matter of belief. Like "I believe Jesus is my Savior," or "I believe in the Easter Bunny," or "I believe Oscar and/or Aleister was an Ipsissimus." Good Luck and Happy Fantasia."

"David" wrote:
How about every human being is already an Ipissimus, they just didn't see it yet?

Sure. Why not? Of course, most of them will never see it - until maybe a few milliseconds before they die. Also, "Every man and every woman is the Easter Bunny." 😀


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
05/06/2015 11:04 pm  
"david" wrote:
How about every human being is already an Ipissimus, they just didn't see it yet? 

In fact that's why 1=10 isn't it?  The top of the tree equals the bottom i.e. "student/probationer".


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
05/06/2015 11:07 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
We had a thread titled "How can you recognize a Magister Templi," or words to that effect. The question was never answered.

Well, Liber Legis says they strike hard and low.  Striking hard and low upon their own wretchedness and weakness?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
05/06/2015 11:24 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
We had a thread titled "How can you recognize a Magister Templi," or words to that effect. The question was never answered.

Wasn't it answered by the adage, "It takes one to know one?"

"Shiva" wrote:
Now the new question is, "How much more difficult is it to recognize an Ipsissimus?" Any "recognition" of any of these "higher" grades is a matter of belief. Like "I believe Jesus is my Savior," or "I believe in the Easter Bunny," or "I believe Oscar and/or Aleister was an Ipsissimus." Good Luck and Happy Fantasia."

It is my belief that one cannot "attain" to Ipsissimus - it is acausal.

Recognition of an Ipsissimus... I agree that it would be more of a belief, except to the Ipsissimus Himself/Herself. I think that any "evidence" would vary per individual, although there appear to be some key characteristics, such as undergoing a clinical death. It appears that a death is always involved in it. But I would consider the notion that the color of Kether is White, which reflects all Light, while the color of Binah is Black, which absorbs all Light. Thus, I would not be certain if one would See White, or a Rainbow, or Nothing at all, or maybe all three in that order, or in another order. It really only matters to the observer anyway, not to the Ipsissimus, which reflects the entire idea right back onto us as on-lookers, which equals out the action (karma) sequence for that cycle.

"Shiva" wrote:
"David" wrote:
How about every human being is already an Ipissimus, they just didn't see it yet?

Sure. Why not? Of course, most of them will never see it - until maybe a few milliseconds before they die. Also, "Every man and every woman is the Easter Bunny." 😀

Talking about peeling all the insulation off of the wires, being severely electrocuted/burned until the brink of death, to where death itself is a release from the pain of fear [<-not a typo]. Being electrocuted so much that the identification of self is lost amidst the pain, only pain. And then silence. Then a sound, and an echo, from a single sound made in empty space. And then, the echo returns the sound to the source, allowing the the multiplicity (filling of 'space') to begin. And then a breath. And then, no pain. And this happens over and over and over again on its own demand until the body gives out completely, but there is still no pain. The insulation is pain. The insulation is in place to direct the current of life within the confines of the society. The insulation is thick with thousands of years of padding by the Establishment. [This is, of course, an analogy.] The pain is the current attempting to run wild and of its own accord (in its natural state), but not being able to due to the insulation.

The Sanskrit term for the Ipsissimus Proper is sahaja sthiti -  "Once Self-realisation has been attained, there is full and lasting knowledge of the Self. 'sahaja' means 'state' but this stage of samadhi is not a state - it is our true nature. It is permanent (sthiti meaning 'steady' or 'remaining'), unlike the earlier stages of samadhi. See nirvikalpa, samadhi, savikalpa, vikalpa." By Ipsissimus proper, I do not mean the Magus who has just taken on the 10=1 Oath (which doesn't even really matter), but the final (or original) form as we know it, as a species. I mean the state of perpetual samadhi. And we can only measure the actions of such an individual, not the non-actions, thereby making all of our measurements inaccurate, as one cannot reliably penetrate into, measure, and observe another's samadhi.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
05/06/2015 11:47 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Wasn't it answered by the adage, "It takes one to know one?"

Maybe that was it!

[/align:3id9y3sf]


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
06/06/2015 9:08 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
One thing that many people seem to miss is that, in the A:.A:. system, the Grade is assumed as the Work in that Grade begins, not as it ends. For example, the Task of the Adeptus Minor is "to attain the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel". The actual attainment of the K&C is the sign of accomplishment of the Grade. 10=1 is no different in that regard.

You're right, and it's a point I've missed and failed to make during this thread. However, that isn't to say that the A.'.A.'. system is correct in its Qabalistic perspective. They have a particular way of looking at things, and it's quite a distinct point of view as compared to, say, the G.'.D.'. perspective or that of an Hasidic Jew. I'm sure those Christians tackling Trinitarian Theology would also have a unique perspective on the Supernal Sephirot, as would those of the various Tantric schools of thought.

If we're only looking at the A.'.A.'. system, then without doubt we can say with certainty that Oscar Eckenstein wasn't an Ipsissimus. He was never a member, didn't follow the system, hadn't passed through the previous degrees or initiations, and never submitted his Exempt Adept thesis.

Alternatively, if we're looking at Kether, we can then start to have a debate as to its meaning.

"Shiva" wrote:
Now the new question is, "How much more difficult is it to recognize an Ipsissimus?" Any "recognition" of any of these "higher" grades is a matter of belief. Like "I believe Jesus is my Savior," or "I believe in the Easter Bunny," or "I believe Oscar and/or Aleister was an Ipsissimus." Good Luck and Happy Fantasia."

Or, I believe Kether to be real, or the Freudian Ego, or the Ahamkara, or the Atman, Anatta, etc., etc., etc.

It's all a fantasy, really. If one takes Satre's existential aphorism "existence precedes essence," and strips one's self altogether of any qualifiers, then all systems and system specific language sets become fairly silly. They're merely modes of reasoning which are applied to reality with the aim of reflecting some form of truth back to ourselves; they're not reality itself. Qabalah, as well as the other various mystical systems associated with occult studies, are all extremely tenuous in their exposition of reality and nature, largely because they've all been designed to not only reflect nature itself but also to reflect those archaic and sometimes supernatural mythologies prevalent within religious literature and thought. Some of what we're trying to understand as real is anything but, in my opinion.

"Azidonis" wrote:
The Sanskrit term for the Ipsissimus Proper is sahaja sthiti -  "Once Self-realisation has been attained, there is full and lasting knowledge of the Self. 'sahaja' means 'state' but this stage of samadhi is not a state - it is our true nature. It is permanent (sthiti meaning 'steady' or 'remaining'), unlike the earlier stages of samadhi. See nirvikalpa, samadhi, savikalpa, vikalpa." By Ipsissimus proper, I do not mean the Magus who has just taken on the 10=1 Oath (which doesn't even really matter), but the final (or original) form as we know it, as a species. I mean the state of perpetual samadhi. And we can only measure the actions of such an individual, not the non-actions, thereby making all of our measurements inaccurate, as one cannot reliably penetrate into, measure, and observe another's samadhi.

I know some of the above is quoted, but I think a lot of this debate (as well as various other Thelemic debates) stems from the use of such remarks as "true nature." True Nature, True Will, True Self, and by implication those so-called attainments such as Ipsissimus, all imply the existence of some form of false nature, or false will, or false self. I find it not only very hard, but nigh impossible, to accept such remarks.

I think a lot of confusion has arisen over the years with what we're actually dealing with when we delve into subjects like psychology, the ToL, meditation, etc.

The ToL is a process. It's more a verb than a noun, and every facet of it is acting within an individual constantly and perpetually. To say that one has attained Kether and is now an Ipsissimus only really means that they've had an awareness of Kether as source. Hod, Chesed, Malkuth, the path of Teth, Tau, Beth, etc., are all still there during that awareness, and are all still active in their "doing" and "becoming" as the process continues.

It's the same if one's "fight or flight" mechanism becomes active during a confrontation outside of a pub on a Saturday night. Those subconscious impulses have come into play, and the individual may become aware of such during or after the event, but that doesn't mean they've attained "Id" or "Superego." That kind of positioning within the psyche is just silly. It's equally as silly to say something similar when we're looking at and trying to understand the ToL.

It'd also be silly to say that one is more Ahamkara than Buddhi, or more Buddhi than Manas, or more Citta than Ahamkara, as a state of mind which is static and perpetuated throughout their daily life. Sattva is always revealing and activating Rajas or Tamas, and the balance is always at play, but all three are ever present at work. To use these terms as singular and independent aspects of being is erroneous, in my opinion. We may as well go all-out and start saying "I've attained Indryas" or "I've attained foot."

No. Kether, if we're to use the ToL as a system, is ever present, ever working and ever changing. Source is not a static absolute, and in the microcosm it's not as simple as backtracking using genetics and saying, "well, I'm a male with XY chromosomes and a unique DNA coding & genetic makeup." That's true to a certain degree, but I'm more than the sum of my parts and new information is constantly being imprinted; The source is always being modified as it creates.

With regards mystical experiences I can only speak for myself. I know that I'd be a useless human being if I was in a constant state of Samadhi, though. I wouldn't want that at all, and it would be counterproductive to daily life. Some of the weirder states of mind I've "attained" through meditation, sex and the consumption of illicit psychoactives, have been so "out there" - sometimes terrifying, sometimes blissful, sometimes a complete sense of oneness - that again, as a currently functional human being I have to reflect on my experiences and admit that those states of mind are not something anybody could tolerate all of the time.

To quote Chevy Chase in Caddyshack: "And all you have to do is get in touch with it, stop thinking, let things happen, and be the ball."

... except, in life, you're not always playing Golf.

Darrell. 


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1088
06/06/2015 2:20 pm  

On the side track as to the possible causes of consciousness. I came across a short piece on Julian Jaynes, his development of his theory, and their acceptance (or lack thereof) in the professional literature. 

http://m.nautil.us/issue/24/error/consciousness-began-when-the-gods-stopped-speaking

perhaps UG's experience might be interpreted as a sociological phenomenon rather than a psychological one.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
06/06/2015 5:27 pm  
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
perhaps UG's experience might be interpreted as a sociological phenomenon rather than a psychological one.

I do think UG's experience was very much all-encompassing, including sociological and psychological interpretations.

"U.G Krishnamurti Stopped In Our Tracks Part Four" wrote:
Something similar was said to have happened when U.G. was once living in the Tirthagundi Coffee Estate. That town is in the Chikkamagaluru District of Karnataka. Around 1968, U.G. was in its guest house for almost four months.

One day, suddenly a scene presented itself to U.G. It wasn't quite a vision, nor was it a dream. It was as though it actually occurred in front of his eyes. Three sages in the middle of a big lake, with bushy beards, and submerged up to their necks, appeared in the scene. They stretched their arms toward U.G. and cried, "U.G., we are drowning, please rescue us."

"Who are you?" U.G. asked them.

"We are your ancestors. Hurry up and save us," they said. Then U.G. understood that they were his clan sages whose names were Atreyasa, Arjunasya and Syavasya.

"You deserve the punishment. Drown and never rise again," said U.G.to them. Then, helpless, they drowned and the scene disappeared. U.G. said that all the visions that started occurring after his Calamity ended with this.

I would take his word that he was simply finished with all of these; sociological or psychological "duties", in a very all-encompassing manner .


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
07/06/2015 3:48 am  

[flash=225,225:5j7zdcyj] https://www.youtube.com/v/ud1rCFNObUQ[/flash:5j7zdcyj]


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
07/06/2015 4:44 am  
"Shiva" wrote:
We had a thread titled "How can you recognize a Magister Templi," or words to that effect. The question was never answered.

Sure it was answered: no one can recognize that someone else is a Magister Templi.

"Azidonis" wrote:
Wasn't it answered by the adage, "It takes one to know one?"

If it was, that's the wrong answer. What do you think, an 8=3 gains a "Detect Magister Templi" spell-like ability?

"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
To quote Chevy Chase in Caddyshack: "And all you have to do is get in touch with it, stop thinking, let things happen, and be the ball."

... except, in life, you're not always playing Golf.

You sure about that?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
07/06/2015 5:51 am  
"Los" wrote:
If it was, that's the wrong answer. What do you think, an 8=3 gains a "Detect Magister Templi" spell-like ability?

Find out first hand, or just kind of open your eyes a little bit. The light will hurt, as you aren't used to seeing, but I don't even understand how you can miss something like this.

How does one 8=3 recognize another?

Ask Crowley, who recognized plenty of them, both within and without the A:.A:. proper. He's not the only one. This is like, 8=3 101, how to recognize another 8=3. They actually have a class for it on the Astral Plane.

I find that I am always telling you to do your own research and your own work. No wonder why we don't speak that often.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
07/06/2015 9:24 am  
"Los" wrote:
If it was, that's the wrong answer. What do you think, an 8=3 gains a "Detect Magister Templi" spell-like ability?

Well I've read some accounts of people detecting the state of their "aura" and that's how "they" recognize each other (Marcel Motta to be exact).  Auric sight verification, now we're talking objectivity................ not.   


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/06/2015 10:18 am  
"Los" wrote:
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
To quote Chevy Chase in Caddyshack: "And all you have to do is get in touch with it, stop thinking, let things happen, and be the ball."

... except, in life, you're not always playing Golf.

You sure about that?

I'm not sure about anything at all, and glad for it. As it goes, I don't play Golf all of the time; hardly ever, in fact. However, if for some reason you ever find yourself in the hills of West Yorkshire, England, let's play a round. We can be the ball - or not. We can discuss further how in-line or out of line we both are with the co-called cosmic will, our true and false selves, and how ridiculous such statements really are, if, in fact, they are ridiculous at all. 🙂

At any rate, I think I've made clear enough my point of view on this thread. Seems to me that the way things work around here is to just quote an "authority" and leave it at that, in some fallacious logicum a la argumentum ad verecundiam. So mote it be.

We've already had a smattering of Crowley quotes, P.F. Case quotes and notes on U.G. Krishnamurti (personally, I'm more a fan of Jiddu), so I leave this thread with some pertinent quotes from C.S. Jones' unpublished correspondence: 

Aleister Crowley to C.S. Jones, Jun 15th 1921:

I have been chosen as the representative of the A.’.A.’. and my authority depends upon the Book of the Law no more and no less than any other statement in that Book. The Book of the Law is above me, which is not the case with any other book. Liber LXV, for example, is my inspired writing, but it is no more than mine, while the Book of the Law is the word of Aiwass, entirely beyond my criticism. That is the bed rock on which our work is founded. I am moved to re-state this because I notice that you omit to address me as always in recent letters.* [Marginal note in A.C.’s hand – *Your letter of May 16 arrived belated 2 days after those of 25th All right: but you see how critically I care for your meaning!] But if that relationship does not exist, you have no standing. My Grade depends on yours to a certain extent because of your action in claiming the M.T. Grade, which is part of my Magical History. Your grade depends on mine much more inalienably because your claim to sonship identifies you as fulfilling certain promises in the Book of the Law. Besides this, we are all Magically bound by our statements. I must also emphasize that in taking the Grade M.T. you did a very noble but a very terrible thing, whose consequences cannot be evaded. You are in a sense, artificial – none the worse for that of course, but yet very much hampered by your not having had the experiences of the intermediate Grades.

... ... ...

It is for this reason that I have been concentrating more and more on the absolute practical task laid upon me. I want you to do the same. I may be working through another body and mind; in fact, I am, though more than one, as you could see, if you could read my recent Magical Records. But we can’t have a second 9°=2 independent of me in the A.’.A.’. because the essence of the Grade is the proclamation of a Word, and that word is Thelema, and it is a matter of history that I and nobody else proclaimed it. Another man might do infinitely more than I in any other respect, in all other respects, but not in that particular matter, and as the Work to which we are pledged is confined to this Word, we are ourselves confined to the strict letter of the doctrine. To go beyond this can only lead to misunderstanding and confusion. You cannot have two fathers any more than I can have two Holy Guardian Angels. Both on theoretical and practical grounds it would be absolutely fatal to try to better our instructions.

Aleister Crowley to C.S. Jones, Sep 10th 1921:

Frater Progradior is prograding at a great pace. He is a very bright spot in the Abbey. At present he is on a G.M.R., and it is hard to keep pace with his illuminations. These, by the way, are quite genuine, not at all of the Alfred Tillyard or Meredith Starr type. He is a real man, full of common sense, as enthusiastic as possible, but without ever forgetting the practical conditions of life. He has worked for a long time in darkness, and he is getting the results of that work now that he is in touch with the source of light. It would have been no good for me to utter the words of initiation to a person who had not prepared himself for hearing them by a course of honest endeavour. You know it as well as I do. He is a man, first of all, before being a Magician; and the result is going to be that when he reaches Australia at the end of the year, he is going to sweep the continent. He has had too much horse sense to hamper himself in practical ways, as I have done myself by my noble conduct in screaming “All for Jesus!”
He has the same effect on me that Eckenstein always had – to make me feel like a piece of tepid diarrhea. He has worked with his hands since he was nine years old, and therefore possesses all of the elemental power of one who has met nature fairly, knee to knee, and come out on top.

Aleister Crowley to C.S. Jones, Jul 25th 1921:

My aged boned began to dance at your idea as to six Masters of the Temple rewarding our labours. Soror Estai came within an ace of crossing the Abyss during her recent retirement. Brought up as I was in the old tradition, it seemed to me unthinkable that even three persons should reach 8°=3 in a generation. I need not tell you how jealously we must guard the honour of the Third Order and maintain its dignity. It has been my special pride that even a Zelator of the A.’.A.’. was superior all around to the highest-sounding titles in all other systems. I err, if I err, on the right side by being cautious in this matter.

C.S. Jones to Aleister Crowley, Oct 24th 1923:

Allow me to point out that you attempt to overstep your Authority at 9°=2 in making dogmatic statements relative to the conditions of the Grade of 10°=1. All that you state from Liber Legis about a future Aeon may apply to the arising of another Magus 9°=2 who will proclaim another Word and Formula for the further Initiation of Humanity. In the case of 10°=1 it is otherwise. The proof of his Grade consists in the production of a Word the characteristics of Which clearly indicate the Formula of Kether; the transmission of this Word to a Magus; the acceptance of it by a Magus as the Essence and Key to the whole of His Work; and His Proof that He has received such a Key by publicly stating the fact and using it, whether acknowledging the Source from which He received it or Not. As long as such conditions exist and are recognised to exist the Order of the A.’.A.’. retains its integrity. You have asked for Light and you have received it, it is your Task to transmit It.

C.S. Jones to Aleister Crowley, Dec 12th 1923:

I think you are correct in stating “There can only be One 10°=1”, otherwise Thaumiel are formulated. It seems to me that Those in Kether are One in the sense that “There is no difference”. You are admittedly 9°=2. As such you cannot rightly say that 10°=1 is Aiwass. You may claim that Aiwaz is your own Higher Self, and that therefore since you are 9°=2 you suppose Him to be 10°=1, though He may be the Word of 9°=2 in Its Higher sense.

C.S. Jones to Aleister Crowley, Jan 26th 1924:

I think your attitude (as a 9°=2) of being ready to take orders from a 10°=1 is a very proper one, except that I cannot conceive of a 10°=1 giving orders in the ordinary sense of the word. I think the action of a 10°=1, as such, is from within outwards. His work is to instil Order, rather than to give orders. The Word is the means whereby an Idea is conveyed, and its potency depends upon it arousing a corresponding idea in the minds of those who receive it. The idea comes from the Silence, even as the Light shines in the Darkness.


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1088
07/06/2015 1:17 pm  

Seems to me that the way things work around here is to just quote an "authority" and leave it at that, in some fallacious logicum a la argumentum ad verecundiam.

don't forget the thought-to-be-clever gifs, this is the internet after all…


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
07/06/2015 1:38 pm  

Seems to me that the way things work around here is to just quote an "authority" and leave it at that ...

Well, if the many Ipsissimi who are registered members around here would step in and proclaim the truth of the matter, then there'd be no need to quote other folks. But they can't do that, can they? No-o-o, they're bound by an Oath of Silence, and a preoccupation with samadhi ... and besides all that, they don't care. 😮


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
07/06/2015 4:19 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Find out first hand

You assume I haven't, probably because my answers don't match the bizarre ideas you accept.

How does one 8=3 recognize another?

They don't. Nobody can know any body else's "grade" in the sense of actual attainment.

Now, if we're talking about a specific terrestrial order, one can indeed know another person's grade in that order by looking at the relevant paperwork, but grades in this sense often have very little to do with actual attainment.

Ask Crowley, who recognized plenty of them, both within and without the A:.A:. proper.

Well, I agree that the guy who essentially invented the details of the grade gets to tell us about it. He's free to call anyone he wants an 8=3, just like you are. But when he's not talking about the position of someone in an organization, he's just guessing.

I find that I am always telling you to do your own research and your own work.

Yes, you often say that after I point out the flaws in your posts.

No wonder why we don't speak that often.

For a while there, we weren't speaking because you were on some weird kick where your only contributions to the forum were posting ramblings from some guy, as if what he has to say is at all interesting or useful. The unhealthy fascination that a tiny number of forum members have with this "UG" character is downright bizarre.

To be frank, your contributions were never better than when you were posting occasional strings of nonsense and shouting "duality!" over and over. Please return to that style of posting. It was at least amusing.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
07/06/2015 4:25 pm  
"david" wrote:
Well I've read some accounts of people detecting the state of their "aura" and that's how "they" recognize each other (Marcel Motta to be exact).  Auric sight verification, now we're talking objectivity................ not.   

Buddha recognized thousands of other Buddhas, and the sutras are very open about it, as an example. You will find a lot of this in the Lotus Sutra, which discusses various stages of the Second and Third Orders (ie. Tiphareth and beyond). You do have to make sense of the symbolism on your own though, so good luck with that. You can also give a read to Liber 73: The Urn, wherein Crowley goes through what he understood to be the beginnings of the Magus Grade, and he made all sorts of references and comparisons in order to help him through it.

I wouldn't recommend getting stuck on the idea of an aura. The regular sensory perceptions (sight, touch, smell, taste, sound) are much finer the "higher up the Tree" one goes. One could also point to a heightened sense of empathy.

There are other ways. It is much easier to just put up a picture of a donkey saying, "It takes one to know one". Even if you decide you have a set of hard rules for determining a Magister Templi, some silly Magister is bound to come along and break all of them. It just works that way.

"WilliamThirteen" wrote:

Seems to me that the way things work around here is to just quote an "authority" and leave it at that, in some fallacious logicum a la argumentum ad verecundiam.

don't forget the thought-to-be-clever gifs, this is the internet after all…

Would you rather a book link?

Every flower unfolds in its own way. If it comes to you, it will do so in its own way as well. Buddhists and Hindus were colorful in their explanations, giving a very large variety of scenarios and discussions concerning the subject. Remember, we are talking about the Supernal Order.

I know that I've personally discussed K&C events, samadhi events, and Abyss events on these boards numerous times. Readers are welcome to try and decide which (if any) of the discussions include actual events that occurred to me, and which did not. It won't make a difference to me either way.

The people who hung around U.G. were always concerned about the way he lived his life, to try and look for an indicator - something they could grab onto and hold onto that would benefit them in their journey. U.G. always told them very plainly, that whatever he is doing or had done, has no bearing on their own functioning.

"Shiva" wrote:
Well, if the many Ipsissimi who are registered members around here would step in and proclaim the truth of the matter, then there'd be no need to quote other folks. But they can't do that, can they? No-o-o, they're bound by an Oath of Silence, and a preoccupation with samadhi ... and besides all that, they don't care. 😮

It really doesn't matter what bubble one fills in on their "show me your spirit" test on the Tree of Life. 🙂 To reiterate even that, there is a common teaching that, eventually, all the "planes" are one. Surely some will find that interesting.

"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Find out first hand

You assume I haven't, probably because my answers don't match the bizarre ideas you accept.

I assume you haven't because you are a megalomaniac with an agenda that puts yourself and your efforts on a pedestal to the exclusion of everyone else's. If you had really rended that Veil, you would have seen how futile all your arguments over the past decade have been.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
07/06/2015 4:50 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
you are a megalomaniac with an agenda....

Yes, a person explaining why he is correct must be a megalomaniac. Only megalomaniacs think that they are correct about subjects that they like to study, practice, and talk about.

Stop with the fantasies.


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 3
Share: