Oscar Eckenstein - ...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Oscar Eckenstein - Ipsissimus?  

Page 2 / 3
  RSS

Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
07/06/2015 4:54 pm  
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
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. 🙂

Well, as I pointed out earlier, what "attainment" boils down to is learning to see through your own bullshit and then seeing for yourself how "you" are just a transient collection of disunified pieces.

Unless I missed it, you haven't responded to this point. I'm suppoing that you think these "attainments" are possible. Is it that you simply think that the fancy language with which the Thelemic system labels these attainments (for example, "Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel") is not very useful for most people? I'd be inclined to agree with that.

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.

Appealing to an authority isn't always a fallacy. Citing an authority who has expertise in a field is not a fallacy, for example. If we were having a discussion about evolution, and I quoted from a few scientists who study the subject, that would be perfectly valid.

There are two kinds of fallacies that arise when appealing to authority. The first fallacy is in suggesting that something is true *merely* because an authority says it. If one were to think that preternatural intelligences exist merely because Crowley said so, that would be a fallacy of this kind.

In the evolution example above, when I quote scientists, I'm not saying that evolution is true simply because some guy says so: we know that it's true because there is a vast and compelling body of evidence stretching across multiple fields, evidence that has been affirmed not by any single person or isolated group of people but by an entire process of peer-review that is continually self-correcting and that seeks to weed out faulty ideas. Quoting people who have expertise in those fields is just a short cut.

The second kind of fallacious appeal to authority is citing an authority who lack expertise in a given field. There was a document going around a number of years ago where Creationists were compiling a list of scientists who don't accept evolution. The problem was that nearly every scientist on their list was someone who specialized in fields other than biology and therefore did not have expertise in the subject under discussion. Amusingly, someone else compiled a list of every scientist named "Steve" who accepted evolution...and that list dwarfed the list of scientists who did not accept evolution.

I think it would be a fallacy of this kind to develop the argument about preternatural intelligences a bit along these lines: "Crowley spent a lot of time investigating preternatural intelligences, and he concluded that there are preternatural intelligences, so therefore it's likely that there are preternatural intelligences." This argument doesn't say it's true *merely* because Crowley says it, but it does start from the assumption that investigating preternatural intelligences is a proper field of inquiry in the first place. Before we could even start to discuss whether this argument as valid, someone would have to demonstrate that such investigations actually are anything at all, over and beyond make believe.

And even then, if it were a proper avenue of inquiry, the findings of one guy still wouldn't be sufficient to support a claim of that magnitude.

However, if the subject in question is something invented by a guy, then quoting said guy talking about the subject is valid evidence, and that's not a fallacy at all. For example, if we we're discussing Newspeak and trying to figure out what it is, then quoting something that Orwell wrote about it would be evidence. In the same way, if we're talking about Thelema and trying to define it, then quoting something that Crowley wrote about it would be evidence.

All of that is to say that, Crowley is indeed an authority on stuff he made up, like Thelema and the specifics of the 8=3 grade.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/06/2015 7:10 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Well, as I pointed out earlier, what "attainment" boils down to is learning to see through your own bullshit and then seeing for yourself how "you" are just a transient collection of disunified pieces.

Unless I missed it, you haven't responded to this point. I'm suppoing that you think these "attainments" are possible. Is it that you simply think that the fancy language with which the Thelemic system labels these attainments (for example, "Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel") is not very useful for most people? I'd be inclined to agree with that.

And just when I thought I'd escaped this thread unscathed...

I suppose it all depends on one's inclinations, disposition, upbringing, etc., but for me "Thelemic" language is archaic, outmoded, and only useful in today's world insofar as it's relevant to the study of Thelemic literature. The same could be said for the Sanskrit of the Tantras, the Pali of the Suttas, the Hebrew of the OT, the Greek of the NT, Chaldean Oracles, Iamblichus, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I find the languages themselves (and methods such as Gematria & Isopsephy) fascinating from a linguistical, historical and cultural point of view. I find some of the philosophical perspectives and ideas interesting, mentally challenging and sometimes useful. I like and enjoy those things. I also think that some of the terminology is unique, very specific, and explanatory of phenomena in a way which modern psychology would have to explain using a far more long-winded and technical route. The ToL covers more ground and more specifics than that of the Freudian tripartite psyche, as an example. The problem with all of these "occult" language sets is that next to nobody knows what you're speaking about when you use such terms, and evidently even people involved in such circles can't agree on solid definitions either, so they're virtually useless unless you're using a specific system to explain a phenomenon to yourself and yourself only.

There are some good books out there though, and there are some bad books too. I much prefer studies these days as opposed to mystical treatise. As an example, Greek Grammar and the Isopsephy used within historical sources is of far more interest to me than, say, a modern mystical system attempting to use the same to promote or sell some fantastical and supernatural hogwash; Kieren Barry's book is of far more value to me than, say, Crowley's use of Gematria to paint a picture of the IX°. The former is at least real in a historical and linguistic context, the latter is descriptive of a process which needn't have used such language, and in doing so ridiculed itself. I don't find that modern Heremtic or Qabalistic "mysteries" are representative of or descriptive of anything "hidden" in religious sources. Most of what is said in O.T.O. about the so-called Hebrew ON and IAV is pure make-believe, for example; they're modern formulae applied to ancient texts as some form of fantasy occult conspiracy.

As far as attainments are concerned, I'd agree wholeheartedly that the mind can be trained (to concentrate, to visualize, to rid itself of thoughts, etc.) to a certain extent, and I already know from experience that altered states of consciousness are a reality. Like I said in a previous post, sex, drugs, meditation, creative passions and enthusiasms, can all be used to "alter" consciousness, and I also completely agree with you when you say "learning to see through your own bullshit." Although, my point of view is that all language based systems are bullshit. The philosophical systems, and even the base descriptive terms we use to explain reality to ourselves, are the illusion, if in fact there is an illusion at all. They're the primary cause of our own bullshit. That, and the body itself trying to keep itself occupied by scratching its own nuts every ten minutes, for example.

Now, I'm not exactly blowing in the wind completely free of all of this stuff, but neither do I think anybody else is, regardless of how they paint themselves. As an example, Crowley as Ipsissimus/Magus/whatever, couldn't at all control his own sexual urges, his addictions to various narcotics, etc. Are we to believe he'd gained complete control of his mind and achieved a perpetual Samadhi when he couldn't even keep his body in tow? Asana and the control of bodily tendencies is right down there as the 3rd lowest limb of Pantanjali's Ashtanga. And whilst I'm on the point of Crowley, it's also worth noting that the Word of a Magus, Thelema, wasn't Crowley's word to take ownership of or "transmit." (Must have been those naughty secret chiefs on the spooky astral plane telling him to rip off Rabelais and incorporate it into a pseudo-religious philosophy with him at the helm as self-proclaimed prophet.)

At any rate, there are a multitude of mental "states." To call them attainments and place them anywhere on the tree is silly. Nobody gave me a badge after I'd taken McKenna's Heroic Dose for the dozenth time and lost all sense of self completely, and neither would I want one. After imbibing more than the recommended dose of LSD and "attaining" a sense of complete oneness with it all, I still couldn't put my finger on IT. Performing mental exercises such as Liber HHH can be illuminating to a degree, but they don't compare. I'm more interested in the theoretical roots of Crowley's instructions these days and the processes that they describe, but from an analytical point of view, not one of belief in mystical states of cosmic consciousness or true self/will.

"Los" wrote:
All of that is to say that, Crowley is indeed an authority on stuff he made up, like Thelema and the specifics of the 8=3 grade.

🙂 You could kill a lot of debates with this one. I completely agree.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
07/06/2015 8:20 pm  
"Los" wrote:
All of that is to say that, Crowley is indeed an authority on stuff he made up, like Thelema and the specifics of the 8=3 grade.

He decided on a set of criteria, found that the categories are quite simple, and stuck to it, just as one would with any system of measurement. As it so happens, there are a very large number of people who actually fit that criteria throughout history. Not many fit the Magus criteria, and very very few fit the Ipsissimus criteria, but there have been very many Masters, and they all agree/fit the criteria in their own way.

That's all there is to it. If you decide that in order to be called an apple, something would have to fit X description which we commonly know as an apple, then all apples should fit that description, however loosely, to allow for different kinds of apples. So if you decide that the criteria for a Magister Templi is x, then all of them must fit x. Crowley saw a pattern with all of them, and realized that the patterns and similarities (ie. the "Golden Thread"), and their expressions ["ye shall know them by their fruits"], were themselves a part of the criteria.

Such categories are nothing new. Crowley didn't come up with it. He just adjusted the definition and information to fit an English audience. Buddhist monks have always had ranks of one sort or another. All schools of thought have some sort of grade system, as evidenced by the existence of a teacher/student relationship. Even in a one on one setting the student must fulfill certain requirements in order to advance to the next scenario/set of challenges that are a part of the course.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/06/2015 9:43 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
All schools of thought have some sort of grade system, as evidenced by the existence of a teacher/student relationship. Even in a one on one setting the student must fulfill certain requirements in order to advance to the next scenario/set of challenges that are a part of the course.

And then there are those who have no school of thought, are neither teacher nor student, and merely stumble and haphazard across something incredibly profound. There are also those who are the first of their kind in experimenting with new methods, technologies and other cultural phenomena. There are people undergoing transgender operations, others having to accept the reality that they're test-tube babies, those living with recently discovered and incurable diseases that alter and limit their life choices, those who create and experiment with Shulginian compounds that'd make Crowley's sense of euphoria and unity seem like a melancholic multiplicity on a bad day. The criteria have changed. There are people in today's world who are experiencing states of being and mind that are infinitely beyond anything Crowley could have even dreamed of, and next to none of them would have even heard of Molinos' Spiritual Guide or any of those other books on the student syllabus. There are states of being that would be nigh impossible to even map onto the ToL due to a difference in gender bipolarity both mentally and physically. Newer drugs, both illicit and legal, are widespread. They're stronger, have far greater effects for their category, and are prevalent worldwide. I'm not just talking about the uppers, downers or trippers either; I'm talking about Viagra and antidepressants too. People can be blissed out through pharmaceutical chemistry, or have sex that'd make the Ananga Ranga and Kama Sutra look like a kids colouring book. People use their minds in a completely different manner in today's world too. For most it's the communication age of internet, TV, 3D cinema and video games. The ground rules are not even in the same ball park as in Crowley's day.

I'd wager money on Crowley's (or any other old-aeon Ipsissimus') inability to exist in today's society if we could zap him through time and bring him here today. That Kether point may take on a completely new perspective if we could, as it did when Crowley & Jones changed the grades and qualifications from the old G.'.D.'. system.

So, what kind of Ipsissimus are you? A pre- G.'.D.'. Ipsissimus, a G.'.D.'. Ipsissimus, an A.'.A.'. Ipsissimus, or a modern day Ipsissimus, because as time goes on and the species and culture evolves, so does the mind, its domain and its abilities.

Calling all Secret Chiefs on Astral Plane #2! Astral Plane #3 has a message for you!


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
07/06/2015 11:33 pm  

I see lots'a big words being used and wild claims being stated.

The Ipsissimus "has no will in any direction, and no Consciousness of any kind involving duality, for in Him all is accomplished."

That's a fairly final statement. So, if our modern psychonaughties are experiencing anything (wilder than in Crowley's time or bolder than my own time), then they're still on the Path aren't they? They haven't reached the End.

The End was the same in ancient cultures, in Crowley's Sicily, and in modert times. Samadhi was the same in ancient cultures, in Crowley's Sicily, and in modert times. Having no will in any direction is no will in any time or place.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
08/06/2015 5:53 am  
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
And just when I thought I'd escaped this thread unscathed...

I'm partial to that quote from The Godfather, Part Three: "Just when I thought I was out...."

I suppose it all depends on one's inclinations, disposition, upbringing, etc., but for me "Thelemic" language is archaic, outmoded, and only useful in today's world insofar as it's relevant to the study of Thelemic literature.

I agree that it's archaic, outmoded, and mostly not useful, but I would suggest that it actually *is* useful in conceptualizing and talking about certain concepts, provided that the terms are defined clearly (the problem is that plenty of people who identify as "Thelemites" are actively opposed to clearly defining and discussing these issues, apparently on the grounds of verses that they misinterpret and misapply from The Book of the Law among other places).

The problem with all of these "occult" language sets is that next to nobody knows what you're speaking about when you use such terms, and evidently even people involved in such circles can't agree on solid definitions either, so they're virtually useless unless you're using a specific system to explain a phenomenon to yourself and yourself only.

Again, I agree, but I would add that if the terms of a system are properly defined, the system can be taught to other people, who can apply the system to their own path of discovery and self-development. The Great Work is, in the final estimation, always a solitary task. No other person can ever measure your growth or give you much of any help aside from the most general and superficial kind.

I also completely agree with you when you say "learning to see through your own bullshit." Although, my point of view is that all language based systems are bullshit. The philosophical systems, and even the base descriptive terms we use to explain reality to ourselves, are the illusion, if in fact there is an illusion at all. They're the primary cause of our own bullshit.

We have a slight philosophical difference here -- or perhaps just a slight difference in the way that we use terminology.

I agree that language of all kinds (along with all thought) is a falsification of reality. But there are useful falsifications and useless falsifications. The sentence "I went to the store today to try to buy eggs for us, but they were all out" is a falsification of my experience: it leaves out 99.9999% of the richness of the experiences it describes, and it boils down everything into the simplest possible terms, reducing the intricate flux of reality into static "things" that have a fixed relationship to other "things" in a sequence called "time" (all of these categories failing to encompass reality).

But for all that, the sentence "I went to the store today to try to buy eggs for us, but they were all out" is an incredibly useful tool.

By the same token, the idea "If I don't publish a best-selling novel, my life will have been wasted!" is just as much a falsification of reality, but it's incredibly useless and very possibly harmful to someone who accepts it uncritically.

When I say "learn to see through your own bullshit," I'm not talking in some vague and fuzzy terms about learning to see how everything is an "illusion" of some sort. I'm talking about learning to identify and distinguish the useless and harmful illusions from the very, very, very useful ones.

To use some contemporary topics as examples, take a person who is attracted to people of the same gender, or a person who identifies as the gender not associated with his or her biological sex. To an extent, all identity is an illusion. Being "gay" or "transgender" is a falsification of reality, just like "I went to the store" is a falsification. But damned if these illusions aren't super useful. Here's another illusion that some gay people tell themselves: "I'm straight! I'm a macho he-man, and I hate fags!" That's also an illusion, but it's a really useless and downright harmful one.

Thelema -- as I understand it and, I strongly think, as Crowley understood it -- is not a bunch of vague platitudes about how it's all some illusion. It's about very specifically learning the precise ways that your individual mind distorts reality into useless and harmful illusions. The way that your mind does this will be different than the way that my mind does this, which will be different than the way that someone else's mind does this.

In other words, Thelema is actual work that has actual results, not just a bunch of silly trippy trances or funny-sounding hippy talk. [You know the Crowley quote, which I'll closely paraphrase: Thelema is, at a guess, 93% self-discipline]

And yes, a person can learn to see through his or her own bullshit very well without Thelema -- a person could use a different system or no specific system at all. But here we are on the Aleister Crowley society's website, so why not?

At any rate, there are a multitude of mental "states." To call them attainments and place them anywhere on the tree is silly.

I agree that it's super silly to think that experiencing a mental state -- or even experiencing lots of them -- is an "attainment" in the sense that we've been speaking. It's, of course, possible to attribute mental states to the Tree of Life because anything and everything can be attributed to the Tree of Life.

I'm continually bemused by people who think that they have "attained" simply because they've discovered a different way of looking at the world.

"Los" wrote:
All of that is to say that, Crowley is indeed an authority on stuff he made up, like Thelema and the specifics of the 8=3 grade.

🙂 You could kill a lot of debates with this one. I completely agree.

I don't think it kills very much in the way of debate: it defines the parameters in which a debate can occur.

If "Thelema" can mean absolutely anything and everything, then it's a meaningless term.

When I talk about Thelema, I'm talking about the system created by Aleister Crowley, based on his interpretation of the Book of the Law. Since he created it, he gets to tell us what it is, but that doesn't mean that there are no debates to be had. Far from it: first of all, it's not exactly like clarity was Crowley's strongest suit as a writer or thinker, and there's plenty of discussion to be had about what he meant by certain terms, in various passages, and across his career (setting aside those rather laughable folks who think we shouldn't be interpreting Crowley at all, no, no, no: just directly quote the man and never interpret him, never, ever, ever).

But second of all, since Thelema deals with a real subject (investigating the self), it's not a given that Crowley got absolutely every last detail of it correct. This is the difference between an actual field of study and make believe. When we're dealing with make believe, the guy who makes it up decides everything about it absolutely. When George RR Martin tells us about the history of Westeros, he's absolute right on every detail. Why? Because he made the whole thing up: the entire thing deals with a fantasy world. But when Darwin told us about the basic principles of evolution, he might have been wrong on some points (and in fact, he was). Why? Because Darwin's idea isn't about a fantasy world: it's about the real world.

All real subjects of study grow and develop as people learn more about them. Modern understandings of evolution diverge in many ways from Darwin's: people who study it today know a lot more about the subject than Darwin did. But the subject that they study is still recognizably evolution as described by Darwin.

The same is true of Thelema: Crowley gets to tell us what it is, but he isn't necessarily right about every aspect of it. This is where study and discussion, both of the core texts and of what we've learned from practicing the material, comes into play.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
08/06/2015 2:35 pm  

When I remarked earlier

Reply #19 by jamie barter on: June 05, 2015, 02:31:42 pm:

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.

[quote from Confessions Vol 2, 22-4:
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. […] ]

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

I was thinking that not only would they have not been alien to Eckenstein’s sensibilities, one explanation for Crowley’s fulsome praise in his diary might be that having swiped all of O.E.’s ideas in this department but failed to give proper (any) recognition for them in the process of his setting up the A.’. A.’. system and penning various libri to do with concentration of the mind, etc., perhaps this was his way of belatedly giving O.E. some very indirectly attributed credit?  It certainly wouldn’t be the first time this had occurred – there is previous form with respect to both Mathers and Bennett as well as his treatment of various other G.D. materials from around this time.

Reply #23 by Azidonis on: June 05, 2015, 05:22:29 pm:

Oh cool, another Ipsissimus thread!

And I could also add further, maybe: “Oh cool, another Azidonis - Los slugfest !” 😀

My own interest in the matter was primarily historical rather than philosophical in this instance but nothing more has been forthcoming with regard to any possible explanation of the contentions made in the original Mezla article (q.v.).  Meanwhile though the discussion has broadened out - fairly predictably! - into a lot of more general chit-chat & wider repetition of vintage arguments such as: what is ‘really’ meant by the term “Ipsissimus”; whether we would be able to recognize Jo[e] Schmo in the street to be one; whether A.C. is actually a bit ‘out of date’ with regard to his conceptualisation of the A.’. A.’. grades, etc.  Claims are made this way and that; the customary all very entertaining fun and circuses which can go on and on until various posters – including the usual suspects - have had their fill & are content to wait for the next similar thread to entice & excite them into action again...

Et cetera et cetera, - oh, and: et cetera (!),
N Joy


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
10/06/2015 3:13 pm  

While we’re all waiting for maybe Jeffrey or somebody else to provide some further information on the enigmatic Mezla Eckenstein contention etc, in the lull I thought I’d just mention the following observation in connection with the matter of the acquisition of “Grades”, “Degrees” of “Attainment”, etc.:

"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
[...] Crowley as Ipsissimus/Magus/whatever, couldn't at all control his own sexual urges, his addictions to various narcotics, etc. Are we to believe he'd gained complete control of his mind and achieved a perpetual Samadhi when he couldn't even keep his body in tow? Asana and the control of bodily tendencies is right down there as the 3rd lowest limb of Pantanjali's Ashtanga.

I agree with the sentiments Darrell expressed here, although I'm not too sure about the "perpetual" Samadhi bit.  Whenever this aspect has come up for discussion before (and I have raised it myself several other threads, most recently in “Is there a difference between magical initiation and psychotherapy?” on the Magick board), it never really gets dealt with at all beyond a certain point.  Obviously there is a threshold when language will fail to do justice, but even before we reach that point there seems to be little resistance to the suggestion that someone can be a master, or at least an adept, not having addressed their subconscious fears, phobias about spiders and snakes, nervous tics, etc., all of which would affect the magician’s overall consciousness, and I would contest that this would come under the heading of “not holding back one particle of dust” (in the sense of these psychological issues not being dealt with); also that one should be balanced in terms of the 5 elements before being capable of carrying out the KCHGA and presenting oneself as a fit vessel and as “Virgin” to the bridegroom, Adonai.

As mentioned some folk have argued that A.C. never completed the full initiation into Ipsissimus on all the planes, as in: “As a god goes, I go” (let alone the debate about his Magus and Magister Templi).  Others (or even some of the same) have also argued that A.C. certainly still seemed to have work to do resolving negative behavioural aspects in his personality vehicle such as petty jealousy, paranoia, the over- or under-emotional treatment of his (lady) friends, etc., many of which should have been levelled out even at the Adeptus level. 

I was put in mind of Leah Hirsig’s assessment that although the Beast may have been a Magus and the Logus of the Aeon, as a human being his personality was that of the “rottenest” type.  This does not appear to be an endorsement of the ability of magick to “iron out” such little kinks – but really, oughtn’t it to have done?  This sort of thing was what I am querying, that the work in the grades devoted to the Elements of the personality should have properly been addressed and dealt with before anyone gets on to the further loftier spiritual heights of Adeptus and above.  Phobias are fairly commonplace in westernised society for some reason – a lot of people have an adverse reaction when faced by creepy crawlies, rodents, dogs even - but should a Master be similarly subject?  Then there’s stuff like obsessive compulsive disorder and (psycho-)pathological traits in general, all of which come more under the remit of needing some level of psychotherapeutic work done, but nevertheless shouldn’t they have been dealt with as part of the magick in advancing & ascending the Tree (metaphorically speaking)?  Wasn’t this all meant to have been addressed previously in terms of “doing the work”? 

Although it doesn’t specifically spell it out in one of the A.’. A.’. libri for the lower grades (“follow these exercises and avoid being a perfect shit, personalitywise”), the implication is still there in terms of the work done on the elements of the vehicle and throughout the rest of the Work involved in trying to maintain a balance.  In connection with which, I would have thought that for A.C. to be perceived as the rottenest type of person by his closest magickal confidante - not to mention lover and companion for several years - would have implied a certain amount of imbalance in him somewhere, unless one accepts the somewhat farfetched but not impossible notion that this is the impression everyone is somehow meant to receive, with A.C.’s inscrutable real self as a "master mind" affecting everything by osmosis conveniently “hidden” away from everybody else’s perception.

There was something mentioned in reply to this, about “after Samadhi comes the return to the dual world”, but surely there is more to this business than somebody in this position (of Master-ship, Mage-ship, Ipsissimus-ship etc) just having experienced Samadhi, or even super-Samadhi, on at least the one occasion.

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
10/06/2015 3:56 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
... perpetual Samadhi ... ?

... I'm not too sure about the "perpetual" Samadhi bit.

Well, you see, when someone "attains" and is "liberated" and is sometimes called Ipsissimus, their mind is suppsed to stop and then they're left in Samadhi ... all the time.

"I am in samadhi all the time." - U.G.[/align:1x1r6byd]

The thing is ...

"We note that these fellows who have made it to the end of the road seem to display a certain quality. People who come to visit them may be seeking answers, but what they get is a feeling of peace.

"Of Ramana Maharshi, it was said ...
I could only feel His body was not the man; it was the instrument of God, merely a sitting motionless corpse from which God was radiating terrifically.

"Of U.G., it was said ...
Sometimes people come and just sit around U.G., not necessarily participating in any conversation. The general feeling they get is one of peace, security, comfort, intimacy and communion."

- Quote from After You've Gone (Away) ©2015 by ASI

The thing is, nobody ever mentioned being "at peace" in AC's presence.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
10/06/2015 5:46 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
The thing is, nobody ever mentioned being "at peace" in AC's presence.

Which is irrelevant.

You're starting from the assumption that this "U.G." character is some supremely attained guy and that therefore he's a prime example we ought to use to determine what attainment is and what its characteristics are.

I have no idea why you're so impressed by this guy, why you think his ramblings are anything special, or why you think a feeling of "peace" is necessarily the goal of attainment.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
10/06/2015 6:42 pm  

Ah, I get the feeling that normal service has been resumed!  And Los seems to be back to his usual self again.  God’s in his heaven and all’s right with the world (as if - like fuck!).  However…

"Shiva" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
"Darrell Roberts" wrote:
... perpetual Samadhi ... ?

... I'm not too sure about the "perpetual" Samadhi bit.

Well, you see, when someone "attains" and is "liberated" and is sometimes called Ipsissimus, their mind is suppsed to stop and then they're left in Samadhi ... all the time.

Actually, Shiva, the quote I made

"jamie barter" wrote:
There was something mentioned in reply to this, about “after Samadhi comes the return to the dual world”, but surely there is more to this business than somebody in this position (of Master-ship, Mage-ship, Ipsissimus-ship etc) just having experienced Samadhi, or even super-Samadhi, on at least the one occasion.

was from your good self, if you consult the thread previously mentioned (sorry I cannot link there directly):

Reply #85 by Shiva on: February 04, 2015, 12:55:42 am:

"Raise the whole man [the holy man  ]to infinity," but let's be realistic. This "raising" is just a temporary (or "non-temporal") phenomenon. After samadhi comes the return to the dual world. Anyone who is "raised" permanently is gone.
Also, let's remember: "An adept is only a adept when operating in his/her light body." At all other times, he or she is just a human being like all the rest of us who are not (immediately right now) operating in our light body.
It is obvious to many (most?) of us that AC was way up there (let's not quibble about the grades and the titles), and also that he seems to have had an abrasive, rotten personality. This is not uncommon in metaphysical biographies.

(You also ssaid:

Reply #90 by Shiva on: February 05, 2015, 12:05:13 am:

I think one only needs to read his [A.C.’s] "private" letters in order to see what kind of a persona he had. Martin Starr published many of them in The Unknown God, and they finally woke me up after decades of Thelemic work. Woke me up to the persona. I still think he was way up there in consciousness. By "consciousness" I mean the ability to let go of the ego and enter samadhi - that's what measures the "grade," not what the persona is like when not in Samadhi

and this all comes back to the “And what then…?” aspect which I do rather like to re-quote now and again where possible [rather similarly to the hellfire preacher Edward Crowley (senior), in that respect].)

I’m not sure I’m so fond of the terminology here:

"Shiva" wrote:
"Of Ramana Maharshi, it was said ...
I could only feel His body was not the man; it was the instrument of God, merely a sitting motionless corpse from which God was radiating terrifically.

although I think I get the general picture of what he’s trying to say, I think.

"Shiva" wrote:
The thing is, nobody ever mentioned being "at peace" in AC's presence.

Yes, that is true.  He was more of a “stirrer-upper”, I suppose, like Gurdjieff in that respect he liked to poke people awake.

"Los" wrote:
I have no idea why ... you think a feeling of "peace" is necessarily the goal of attainment.

I don’t think Shiva was saying that here.  Or at least, I didn’t read it that way myself.  But isn’t “peace unutterable rest ecstasy” a goal in some way?  If only, to have a little “respite”  ;D

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
10/06/2015 7:53 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
Shiva said: “after Samadhi comes the return to the dual world” ... but surely there is more to this business ...

Yes, that was me saying that. However I phrased it, I now wish to state that a Magister or a Magus will be coming back to Earth. The Ip, having accomplished everything, stays out there.

Anyone who is "raised" permanently is gone.

Yes. Their "I" is gone.

Terms like "out there" and "raised" are misleading. Someone in samadhi has lost their "I," but is "at one" with everything they perceive ... but not with everything in the universe (although it may seem like that). So, they're at one with the birds they see, and the people they're observing (or talking to), but not with the Sun, and Pluto (unless they are stargazing), and they're actually very much down to Earth - there's just no "I."

I’m not sure I’m so fond of the terminology here ... although I think I get the general picture of what he’s trying to say ...

Good, I think. It wasn't my terminology. Some people get a "holy" feeling, some people get a "peaceful" feeling, some people go to sleep ... and then they describe it in their own words.

"Los" wrote:
I have no idea why ... you think a feeling of "peace" is necessarily the goal of attainment.

I don’t think a feeling of peace is the goal. It simply seems to be an effect that is noted (in themselves) by people who are in the presence of someone whose "I" has stopped.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
10/06/2015 8:16 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
I don’t think a feeling of peace is the goal. It simply seems to be an effect that is noted (in themselves) by people who are in the presence of someone whose "I" has stopped.

Is it an effect of stopping the "I"? What makes you think that this UG person has actually "stopped" his "I"?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
10/06/2015 11:47 pm  

.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
10/06/2015 11:51 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"Shiva" wrote:
I don’t think a feeling of peace is the goal. It simply seems to be an effect that is noted (in themselves) by people who are in the presence of someone whose "I" has stopped.

Is it an effect of stopping the "I"? What makes you think that this UG person has actually "stopped" his "I"?

[flash=250,250:2dfrudyb] https://www.youtube.com/v/SpZe4uWrxHk[/flash:2dfrudyb]


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 3110
11/06/2015 12:06 am  

I watched the first 3:04 of this video; what i see is a very cantankerous middle-aged man with an Indian accent telling us he doesn't care, over and over.
What evidence does this provide that "U.G." has "stopped" his "I"? He seems very full of himself- does the egolessness come at the end?
Not at all impressed, and sincerely puzzled why this man is held out as some sort of enlightened being.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/06/2015 2:08 am  
"ignant666" wrote:
I watched the first 3:04 of this video; what i see is a very cantankerous middle-aged man with an Indian accent telling us he doesn't care, over and over.
What evidence does this provide that "U.G." has "stopped" his "I"? He seems very full of himself- does the egolessness come at the end?
Not at all impressed, and sincerely puzzled why this man is held out as some sort of enlightened being.

I guess you were expecting stories of him walking with cobras, befriending panthers, helping the poor and disabled, and so forth?

This guy is full of himself who was homeless himself, but at the end of every year balanced his budget and gave away any money he had?

His only belongings were contained on his body and in one suitcase. He only owned one pair of shoes at a time, because shoes take up too much room in the case.

Meet Julie Thayer. "Julie Thayer traveled extensively with UG from 1989 till his passing in 2007, through many of those years she kept a vigilant Journal giving Insight to the extraordinary state of UG Krishnamurti and the powerful changes affecting those he came in contact with."

Julie Thayer travelled with U.G. and helped him during the later parts of his life after his long time companion, Valentine, died. As she did, she kept a journal. She said that she and U.G. went to the market, and she decided to buy U.G. some new shoes. He had on some shoes that someone had given him, some brand of brown shoe. When she gave him the shoes, he told her that his were fine, but she insisted. He replaced the expensive shoes, and sat them down in public view (on a bench or something), and left them there for someone else to use. He had only worn them around 3 months, and they were still in good shape, he said.

An interviewer once got pissy with him and asked, "Well, then why did you come here?" He very simply and without hesitation replied, "I came because of the ticket."

There are audio tapes and video tapes where they talk openly about the marks that appear on U.G.'s skin, and the process of death that his body underwent throughout the course of every day. U.G. attended quite a few interviews with psychologists, psychiatrists, and other scientists. In his interview with physicist David Bohm, U.G. discussed the physical changes to his body during the calamity. Bohm did not (that I am aware of), deny any of U.G.'s claims, nor did any doctor.

U.G. was not interested in being called an enlightened being, he even said so over and again in the film. It was the people who were around him who saw him in that way. He was always telling them he wanted no part in it, telling them to leave but they rarely would.

He said that what happened to him was a natural thing, both psychological and physiological. The only thing that is close to relating to it is Nirvikalpa Samadhi, "without doubts about one's identity with the one Self. See savikalpa, samadhi, vikalpa; also means 'free from differences or change', not having any alternative." ... from Wikipedia:"The "undiscriminate cognition" knows first the unreality of all objects, then realizes that without them also the knowledge itself falls to the ground, and finally directly intuits the supreme reality. Great efforts are made to maintain the paradoxical nature of this gnosis. Though without concepts, judgements and discrimination, it is nevertheless not just mere thoughtlessness. It is neither a cognition nor a non-cognition; its basis is neither thought nor non-thought.... There is here no duality of subject and object. The cognition is not different from that which is cognized, but completely identical with it."

He said that even he needed to be able to use intelligence "to function sanely and intelligently in this world". In a video with a conversation with a woman he told her that "everything is the same" with the exception of the frames. With him there are no frames unless necessary. It's like a camera with the lens cap off. It only snaps pictures when it's told/needs to.

Anyway, you can see what you want to see. You can see a mean old bastard, and wall up from the jump, or whatever you want to see. He even says that in the video, but if you expect someone like U.G. to exhibit ballroom table manners in his close friends home, then you have some interesting expectations. Also, in Mahesh Bhatt's book "U.G. Krishnamurti: A Life", he describes these "cloudbursts" as very rare incidents, that are very hard to catch on camera or film.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
11/06/2015 5:03 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"ignant666" wrote:
I watched the first 3:04 of this video; what i see is a very cantankerous middle-aged man with an Indian accent telling us he doesn't care, over and over.
What evidence does this provide that "U.G." has "stopped" his "I"? He seems very full of himself- does the egolessness come at the end?
Not at all impressed, and sincerely puzzled why this man is held out as some sort of enlightened being.

I guess you were expecting stories of him walking with cobras, befriending panthers, helping the poor and disabled, and so forth?

No, but it would help to have some idea what you and Shiva see in this dude. The two of you quote him all the time with reverence, and it certainly seems that you two take it as a given that this "U.G." character is some hyper-enlightened being or at least someone to whom we all ought to listen. There was a period, Azidonis, where your activity on this forum consisted primarily in posting videos of this guy rambling and rattling off platitudes. The implication is that you think he's great or has some great message for us all. I see absolutely nothing special about this guy, and I see no reason to think that anything he has to say is remotely useful to a serious student.

You seem impressed by stupid things, like this guy giving money to other people or only owning enough belongings to fit in a suitcase. So what? None of those behaviors has the slightest thing to do with enlightenment or attainment or selflessness.

I strongly suspect that you have a picture in your head of what you think "enlightenment" must look like, and since this weird guy fits your picture, you fawn all over his every word.


ReplyQuote
Candide
(@candide)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 49
11/06/2015 6:12 am  

Watching a few U.G. videos and following this post, I'm reminded of one thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW8fDw8VzKI
It's sad really. Be your own messiah.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
11/06/2015 9:51 am  
"Shiva" wrote:
[...] I now wish to state that a Magister or a Magus will be coming back to Earth. The Ip, having accomplished everything, stays out there.

Stays out where though?  Off “the Earth” … In orbit?  Moving on to Venus?? This all seems a bit vague.  There are no records of Eckenstein and Crowley, two people at least who are claimed to be possible Ipsissimi, each failing to return to the planet following their respective attainments.  And if they are supposed to “stay out there”, where does that leave them in terms of either coming back to do their pleasure amongst the living or with helping out the rest of humanity to find the next step à la the compassionate bodhisattva?

"Shiva" wrote:

Anyone who is "raised" permanently is gone.

Yes. Their "I" is gone.

Terms like "out there" and "raised" are misleading. Someone in samadhi has lost their "I," but is "at one" with everything they perceive ... but not with everything in the universe (although it may seem like that). So, they're at one with the birds they see, and the people they're observing (or talking to), but not with the Sun, and Pluto (unless they are stargazing), and they're actually very much down to Earth - there's just no "I."

If their “I” is gone it would be rather hard to function effectively in the everyday world, hold down a job, buy food from their local grocers, etc etc.  Or do you mean perhaps if their “I” is gone they would be nicely looked after care of the friendly people in white coats down at their local booby hatch?

"Azidonis" wrote:
He said that what happened to him was a natural thing, both psychological and physiological. The only thing that is close to relating to it is Nirvikalpa Samadhi, "without doubts about one's identity with the one Self. See savikalpa, samadhi, vikalpa; also means 'free from differences or change', not having any alternative." ... from Wikipedia:"The "undiscriminate cognition" knows first the unreality of all objects, then realizes that without them also the knowledge itself falls to the ground, and finally directly intuits the supreme reality. [...]

I suppose Nirvikalpa might be another way of saying "super-Samadhi"? (Or would that be Atmadarshana??)  Tsk I don’t know, where all these super Trances begin and end is so confusing...  Likewise I'm puzzled: is this "supreme" reality meant to be the same thing as "un" reality, or just follow on from it? 😀

"Los" wrote:
There was a period, Azidonis, where your activity on this forum consisted primarily in posting videos of this guy rambling and rattling off platitudes.

What is new here then?  This is still a period when this is all happening.

For the record, I too am raising my hand up and joining the ranks of those saying, with respect to UG: “sorry, I just don’t get it”.  Nor am I clear on why there should be any apparent linkage between UG and the subject of this website, Mister Crowley.

И.∫0λ


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 3110
11/06/2015 10:58 am  

I find myself in the startling position of agreeing with everything Los says in post 67 above ("who are you and what have you done to the regular Los?").
Nothing in Azidonis' post explaining the video increases my understanding of why "U.G." is seen by some as "enlightened" or a "Master".
"U.G." seems like a very typical guru/cult leader, of the "crazy wisdom" (aka abusive) type. He reminds me, in both style and content, of notorious huckster "Bubba Free John" (aka a million other contrived guru names). "U.G." seem immensely self-satisfied and very comfortable holding court for his devotees in his guru role (no one else is allowed to get a word in edgewise), in his guru clothes, despite ostensibly denying the validity of that role.
Saying that marks appeared on his skin (as a result of his enlightenment?) or that he went through a "process of death" every day sounds pretty loopy.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
11/06/2015 1:02 pm  
"Los" wrote:
What makes you think that this UG person has actually "stopped" his "I"?

That's a good question.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
11/06/2015 1:15 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
What makes you think that this UG person has actually "stopped" his "I"?

That's a good question.

But - does this mean then that there is no good answer? 😮 

Also, apropos my queries, how is "this Ug person” going to get on down at the grocers (= “I feel hungry”?) or getting his other needs met?!  (Another good question of relevance was – where the heck is the Ip if s/he’s out away from the Earth?)

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
11/06/2015 2:08 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
... does this mean then that there is no good answer?

Not at all. 

... how is "this Ug [U.G.] person” going to get on down at the grocers (= “I feel hungry”?) or getting his other needs met?!

Why, you've not been paying attention. >:(  Quotes have been posted here that explain exactly how this works. For example ...

"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." - U.G.[/align:riaubwo6]

Another good question of relevance was – where the heck is the Ip if s/he’s out away from the Earth?

Why, you've not been paying attention again. >:(  See the above quote and then search this thread for where I said ... "Terms like "out there" and "raised" are misleading. Someone in samadhi has lost their "I," but is "at one" with everything they perceive ... but not with everything in the universe (although it may seem like that). So, they're at one with the birds they see, and the people they're observing (or talking to), but not with the Sun, and Pluto (unless they are stargazing), and they're actually very much down to Earth - there's just no "I."

Now that it's come down to making repetition, I suggest we drop U.G. (since he seems to have never mentioned A.C.) and get back to Oscar, the subject of this thread.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
11/06/2015 2:37 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:

... how is "this Ug [U.G.] person” going to get on down at the grocers (= “I feel hungry”?) or getting his other needs met?!

Why, you've not been paying attention. >:(  Quotes have been posted here that explain exactly how this works. For example ...

"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." - U.G.[/align:3svpaj0q]

Well yes I have been paying attention  8) – it’s just that “I” can’t see how all of this could be done (grocers etc) if there is no “I” to do the dealing – and you also wrote ”there’s just no 'I'” and “their 'I' is gone”.  I think I see what you might be saying – let’s not unduly prolong the agony anyway - obviously they must be functioning on some non-egoic autopilot:  but there was some ambivalence created due to the language used.

"Shiva" wrote:

Another good question of relevance was – where the heck is the Ip if s/he’s out away from the Earth?

Why, you've not been paying attention again. >:(  See the above quote and then search this thread for where I said ... "Terms like "out there" and "raised" are misleading. Someone in samadhi has lost their "I," but is "at one" with everything they perceive ... but not with everything in the universe (although it may seem like that). So, they're at one with the birds they see, and the people they're observing (or talking to), but not with the Sun, and Pluto (unless they are stargazing), and they're actually very much down to Earth - there's just no "I."

Again, you were saying more than one (contradictory) thing here.  One minute the Ip is (way) "out there", not "coming back to Earth" (unlike the Master and the Mage), the next thing s/he's “actually very much down to Earth.” 

You pays yer money and yer takes yer choice!...

"Shiva" wrote:
Now that it's come down to making repetition, I suggest we drop U.G. (since he seems to have never mentioned A.C.) and get back to Oscar, the subject of this thread.

This does sound eminently sensible.

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/06/2015 11:08 pm  
"Los" wrote:
it certainly seems that you two take it as a given

No. I first came across U.G. in 2012. It has been three years since, and I actually have done more to doubt and slander U.G. than anyone else. As for being skeptical, you can say the I have been very skeptical of him, and have given a considerable amount of time trying to understand his point of view, as well as arguing against him.

"Los" wrote:
that this "U.G." character is some hyper-enlightened being or at least someone to whom we all ought to listen.

I don't recall ever saying that U.G. was an enlightened being. U.G. completely abhored such things. As for who you listen to, it really doesn't matter to me.

You want a self-proclaimed enlightened being, try Wayne Wirs.

"Los" wrote:
There was a period, Azidonis, where your activity on this forum consisted primarily in posting videos of this guy rambling and rattling off platitudes. The implication is that you think he's great or has some great message for us all.

The guy that said he has "no message for mankind" actually had no message for mankind. I post videos, and excerpts, for people to view at their leisure and make their own decisions, form their own opinions. I share my own. That's kind of what a discussion board is about.

"Los" wrote:
I see absolutely nothing special about this guy,

It's okay. You don't have to.

"Los" wrote:
and I see no reason to think that anything he has to say is remotely useful to a serious student.

A student would be a fool to even approach the subject, quite honestly.

"Los" wrote:
You seem impressed by stupid things, like this guy giving money to other people or only owning enough belongings to fit in a suitcase. So what? None of those behaviors has the slightest thing to do with enlightenment or attainment or selflessness.

No. I don't care how he lived his life. The point of the spiel was to say that the guy actually lived by what he said. Whatever people decide he was or was not, he was the genuine article of himself.

That's what Ipsissimus means, by the way - his most self. The very best "him" that he could possibly be. And he did not ever hide it, or sugar coat it. He simply was who he was.

"Los" wrote:
I strongly suspect that you have a picture in your head of what you think "enlightenment" must look like, and since this weird guy fits your picture, you fawn all over his every word.

Enlightenment doesn't look like anything, and especially not like U.G. You seem to be missing the point.

People accept Crowley as an Ipsissimus, but we have had numerous debates about what a total shit he was, as an example. Do you think that is what disqualifies him? It's not.

Indeed, what, Los, in your wannabe grand overlord opinion, qualifies someone to be their most self? Also, how do you think you would know they were doing so?

"Candide" wrote:
It's sad really. Be your own messiah.

The only "messiah" is the HGA.

"ignant666" wrote:
I find myself in the startling position of agreeing with everything Los says in post 67 above ("who are you and what have you done to the regular Los?").
Nothing in Azidonis' post explaining the video increases my understanding of why "U.G." is seen by some as "enlightened" or a "Master".

You want him to be more like the Buddhist That Nich Than or something? Or Osho (lol)? Or any number of other so-called "Masters" that would gladly teach you that if you only ignore part of yourself, you can somehow bloom all of yourself?

"ignant666" wrote:
"U.G." seems like a very typical guru/cult leader, of the "crazy wisdom" (aka abusive) type. He reminds me, in both style and content, of notorious huckster "Bubba Free John" (aka a million other contrived guru names).

Too bad he didn't contrive his name then. U.G. traveled, and people would find out where he was, and flock to him. If no one came to see him, or invited him in, he didn't talk to anyone. He didn't rent public venues and speak in grand lectures or anything of that sort after his calamity.

As for "abusive"... I mean, you guys really act like Jesus never went into a place and tore it down because he saw money exchanged for services. You act like Buddha never got pissed off and ex-communicated monks (to barely mention what he thought about women).

The whole point of the path is to be yourself to the utmost, inside and out. If you actually read about U.G.'s daily life, you would know that he didn't hurt people (quite the opposite), and would tell them flat out if they didn't like what they heard to get up and leave. If they stayed to listen to that cantankerous old man who put emphasis and inflection in his voice, that's their problem, but let's all freak out when he drives a point home.

He had no "school", left no followers, had no heirs, had no teaching.

"ignant666" wrote:
"U.G." seem immensely self-satisfied and very comfortable holding court for his devotees in his guru role (no one else is allowed to get a word in edgewise), in his guru clothes, despite ostensibly denying the validity of that role.

Very many of his conversations were actual conversations. As for his clothes... the guy had three sweaters, 2 pair of pants, and 1 pair of shoes. He was a homeless man. How is that "guru clothes"?

Come on man, here is an example of a "guru": [flash=200,200:1djgxwx9] https://www.youtube.com/v/dXAPiksRS_M[/flash:1djgxwx9] Feel free to laugh.

"ignant666" wrote:
Saying that marks appeared on his skin (as a result of his enlightenment?) or that he went through a "process of death" every day sounds pretty loopy.

You can read about it, and what the scientists said about it, and decide for yourself. According to him, it was his body expelling unwanted or unneeded things, and realigning itself.

"jamie barter" wrote:
... how is "this Ug [U.G.] person” going to get on down at the grocers (= “I feel hungry”?) or getting his other needs met?!

ffs

[flash=200,200:1djgxwx9] https://www.youtube.com/v/wR37eYjgu6g[/flash:1djgxwx9]

"Shiva" wrote:
Now that it's come down to making repetition, I suggest we drop U.G. (since he seems to have never mentioned A.C.) and get back to Oscar, the subject of this thread.

You know, he didn't. I have not found one single mention of Crowley by U.G., who grew up in the Theosophical Society. He talked about J. Krishnamurti, Annie Besant, and others, but seems to have never even once mentioned Crowley.

A man named Lewis Brawley had some of the same questions and opinions that many of you have displayed, opinions that I have also displayed, though maybe not on these boards. Anyone is free to watch what he had to say about U.G. here:

[flash=200,200:1djgxwx9] https://www.youtube.com/v/jjO3zoVBPb0[/flash:1djgxwx9]


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/06/2015 11:59 pm  


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 3110
12/06/2015 12:15 am  

Sounds like old "U.G." had a hell of an act as an "anti-guru" guru.
However, as we all seem to agree he has nothing whatever to do with AC or his legacy, and those who find his "non-messages" worthy of study seem to agree that he produced no "fruits" by which we might acknowledge his enlightenment, perhaps we can now return to the OT? Maybe we can link "U.G." and AC under the rubric of people who thought J. Krishnamurti was full of it?
Azidonis: if you were not holding "U.G." (an uncontrived name) out as an example of the phenomenon under discussion, why on earth have you brought him up in this thread? Your claim to the contrary is rather thin.
As to "WWJD?", I used to point out to students that the miracle at Cana occurred when they ran out of wine at a party after drinking for two days. "Does this man act like a Sunday School Jesus?" may not be the most common test of adepthood among Lashtal readers.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
12/06/2015 2:30 am  
"ignant666" wrote:
I find myself in the startling position of agreeing with everything Los says in post 67 above

Gee, I guess that must mean you're my sock puppet or a Turing robot, eh? What other explanation could there possibly be for two people agreeing with each other?

"Azidonis" wrote:
I don't recall ever saying that U.G. was an enlightened being.

Which is why I said that you "seem to take it as given." You keep posting videos of this rambling dipshit, which implies that you think that what he says is important, useful, or somehow relevant to the conversations going on here. It's not.

I post videos, and excerpts, for people to view at their leisure and make their own decisions, form their own opinions. I share my own. That's kind of what a discussion board is about.

I really don't think a "discussion" board is "about" posting irrelevant clips with no comment. You might as well start dropping in on every thread here and posting videos of people explaining how to fix a toilet. It'd be just as relevant to the discussion as your videos of UG are. And at least a toilet-fixing video might actually be useful.

A discussion board is about discussion, not posting up random clips of your new, rambling bff.

Now, if you had something to say about these videos, if you could articulate what you think is so great about what's in these videos and how they relate to the discussions into which you insist on inserting them, then that might actually lead to a productive conversation, which is what a discussion board is about.

The point of the spiel was to say that the guy actually lived by what he said.

So what? What do you want me to do, give him a medal? Whether or not he lived by what he said has no bearing on the value of anything he says.

Indeed, what, Los, in your wannabe grand overlord opinion, qualifies someone to be their most self?

Being their most self, by definition.

Now, what it means to be one's "most self" might be an interesting discussion, and maybe you could participate if your idea of a contribution to discussion wasn't just posting up irrelevant videos and asinine internet memes.

Also, how do you think you would know they were doing so?

No one could ever possibly know another person's level of attainment.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
12/06/2015 2:47 am  
"ignant666" wrote:
Azidonis: if you were not holding "U.G." (an uncontrived name) out as an example of the phenomenon under discussion, why on earth have you brought him up in this thread?

Now that he's being called on it, Azidonis has started to backpedal from the implications of his posts, but his buddy Shiva earlier said that UG was a Ipsissimus:

Well, you see, when someone "attains" and is "liberated" and is sometimes called Ipsissimus, their mind is suppsed to stop and then they're left in Samadhi ... all the time.

"I am in samadhi all the time." - U.G.

Now sure, I guess he didn't technically say the exact words "I think UG was an Ipsissimus," but as far as all the standard rules of human communication go, he expressed that idea.

Then the good frater goes on to post a bunch of quotes from people who felt "peace" around UG, and he ends with this zinger:

The thing is, nobody ever mentioned being "at peace" in AC's presence.

What Shiva means to say here is obvious. UG was an Ipsissimus. People around UG felt peace. Crowley claimed to be an Ipsissimus, but people never felt peace around him. Therefore, Crowley's claim was false.

You could drive a truck through the holes in that argument.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
12/06/2015 2:50 am  

[flash=200,200:2zmu1nj1] https://www.youtube.com/v/YU9cKAKv5Uk[/flash:2zmu1nj1]

Watch this. Then, you (any of you) tell me that the state he describes in this video is not the state of nirvikalpa samadhi. And if you say it isn't, please provide your evidence.

In fact, I challenge all of you... match the state he describes with any states that Crowley ever described, either for him or Eckenstein or anyone else, and go ahead... pick it apart. Eat up.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
12/06/2015 5:03 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Watch this.

Ugh. There's 9 minutes I'll never get back.

Then, you (any of you) tell me that the state he describes in this video is not the state of nirvikalpa samadhi.

What state?

See, here's where discussion would be useful. It would be great if you could explain to us what you think this guy is saying here and what in the holy hell you think it has to do with the subject of this thread.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
12/06/2015 8:26 am  

Yes it has to be said that too many people post video links as their answer to other's points here.  Would you do that in a debating session?  No. 


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
12/06/2015 1:35 pm  

Yes – I agree with the new Los here:

"Los" wrote:
"ignant666" wrote:
Azidonis: if you were not holding "U.G." (an uncontrived name) out as an example of the phenomenon under discussion, why on earth have you brought him up in this thread?

Now that he's being called on it, Azidonis has started to backpedal from the implications of his posts, but his buddy Shiva earlier said that UG was a Ipsissimus: [...]

I also agree with him here:

"Los" wrote:

Then, you (any of you) tell me that the state he describes in this video is not the state of nirvikalpa samadhi.

What state?

See, here's where discussion would be useful. It would be great if you could explain to us what you think this guy is saying here and what in the holy hell you think it has to do with the subject of this thread.

What the hell is it? As I remarked in Reply #69 which Azidonis neglected to address (preferring instead to curate us with his film shows):

"jamie barter" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
He said that what happened to him was a natural thing, both psychological and physiological. The only thing that is close to relating to it is Nirvikalpa Samadhi, "without doubts about one's identity with the one Self. See savikalpa, samadhi, vikalpa; also means 'free from differences or change', not having any alternative." ... from Wikipedia:"The "undiscriminate cognition" knows first the unreality of all objects, then realizes that without them also the knowledge itself falls to the ground, and finally directly intuits the supreme reality. [...]

I suppose Nirvikalpa might be another way of saying "super-Samadhi"? (Or would that be Atmadarshana??)  Tsk I don’t know, where all these super Trances begin and end is so confusing...  Likewise I'm puzzled: is this "supreme" reality meant to be the same thing as "un" reality, or just follow on from it? 😀

And yes, I have to agree with david TOO!  (What CAN be happening here?! ???):

"david" wrote:
Yes it has to be said that too many people post video links as their answer to other's points here.  Would you do that in a debating session?  No.

To further apply the matchless words of Los once more: just what is all this rambling dipshit?

Yours in cozmik debris,
И∫oλ


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
12/06/2015 2:15 pm  
"Los" wrote:
You could drive a truck through the holes in that argument.

1. Just a statement ... not an argument.

2. What make, model, year of truck?

3. This hole ...

[/align:3e235p42]

4. U.G. fills all the requirements of an Ipsi, as defined by One Star in Sight and his own descriptions of his experiences and states. But, since he was not an acolyte of A.'.A.'., he does not qualify for 10=1 status. Also, he died, just like AC and all the other early Thelemites, so he won't be posting here.

5. It's interesting how, as the subject goes on and on and on, how the deficatory words like dipshit and toilet and 😀 hole come into play. If you can't beat 'em, just start slinging dirty words around ... that'll teach 'em!


Hoping for a cleaner lashtal[/align:3e235p42]


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1021
12/06/2015 3:28 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
I suppose Nirvikalpa might be another way of saying "super-Samadhi"? (Or would that be Atmadarshana??) 

For what it's worth, in 777, column XXIV, "Certain of the Hindu and Buddhist Results", Crowley associates "Nerodha-samapatti, Nirvikalpa-samadhi, Shiva-darshana", with 0, the AIN, AIN SOPH, AIN SOPH AUR place, while he gives "Unity with Brahma, Atma-darshana" to number 1, the Kether, Ipsissimus, sephira.

In column XLV, “Magical Powers (Western Mysticism)”, 0 is described as “The Supreme Attainment”, while 1 is attributed to “Union with God”.

So Nirvikalpa-samadhi is beyond Ipsissimus, just as Shiva-darshana is beyond Atma-darshana. It would seem that the grade of Ipsissimus is not the “Supreme Attainment” for Crowley. That lies beyond the graded system.

Crowley considered Allan Bennett to have once attained Shiva-darshana – “When he was about eighteen, Allan had accidentally stumbled into the trance called Shivadarshana, in which the universe, having been perceived in its totality as a single phenomenon, independent of space and time, is then annihilated. This experience had determined the whole course of his life. His one object was to get back into that state.” (Confessions, chapter 28 (pp. 237-238); cf. Kaczynski, Perdurabo, p. 62, for Bennett’s own words).

For Eckenstein, I have not yet found a place where Crowley attributes any such experience, either Shiva-darshana or Atma-darshana, to him. But he considered him a representative of the Great White Brotherhood (the A.’.A.’.) sent expressly to help him, from the experience in Mexico in early 1901 when Eckenstein told him to drop magical practices and learn to control his mind. Here follow some relevant quotes:

“At this time [July, 1898; see Kaczynski, Perdurabo, p. 50] P. was leading a hermit’s life on a Swiss glacier with one whom, though he knew it not at the time, was destined ever and anon to bring him wisdom from the Great White Brotherhood. This one we shall meet again under the initials D.A.”
(Equinox I,2, p. 237, note)

(Aside – does anyone know what, if anything, the initials “D.A.” stand for?)

“Now, the year [1901] being yet young, One D.A. came unto me, and spake.
“And he spake not any more (as had been his wont) in guise of a skeptic and indifferent man: but indeed with the very voice and power of a Great Guru, or of one definitely sent from such a Brother of the Great White Lodge.
“Yea! Though he spake unto me words all of disapproval, did I give thanks and grace to God that he had deemed my folly worthy to attract his wisdom.
“And, after days, did my Guru not leave me in my state of humiliation, and, as I may say, despair: but spake words of comfort saying: ‘Is it no written that if thine Eye be single thy whole body shall be full of Light?’ Adding: ‘In thee is no power of mental concentration and control of thought: and without this thou mayst achieve nothing.’
“Under his direction, therefore, I began  to apply myself unto the practice of Raja-yoga, at the same time avoiding all, even the smallest, consideration of things occult, as also he bade me.”
(Equinox I,4, p. 46)

“It was while we were preparing our expedition to Colima [early March, 1901] that I broke out one evening and told Eckenstein my troubles, as I had done often enough before with no result beyond an insult or a sneer. Balaam could not have been more surprised when his ass began to prophesy than I was when, at the end of my outburst, Eckenstein turned on me and gave me the worst quarter hour of my life.He summed up my magical situation and told me that my troubles were due to my inability to control my thoughts. 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 worhsipped. I thought of Easter ’98, when I wandered in Wastdale in despair and cried to the universe for someone to teach me the truth, when my imagination was impotent to forge the least link with any helper. Yet at that very hour, sitting and smoking by the fire opposite me, or roped to me on a precipice, was the very man I needed, had I but the intuition to divine his presence!”
(Confessions, chapter 25 (pp. 213-214))

It may have been, as Tao has intimated above -  http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=91012#p91012,

- that Crowley always regarded Eckenstein as ahead of him, and as his Guru. As such, in Crowley’s view of the economy of the Order, there must be a man who has the place of Ipsissimus, just as, when C. S. Jones took 8=3, Crowley felt free to take 9=2. No matter that the 10=1 was hidden; he was the Magus’ secret master. Unbeknownst to Crowley, then, in April 1921, the place of 10=1 became vacant, and the Great White Brotherhood compelled him to take it.

Note that the original plan of the G.’.D.’. taught that the Third Order were appointed and administrative grades, but as far as I know, were not correlated to specific magical or mystical accomplishments, let alone equated to Hindu or Buddhist trances. Crowley quotes Westcott’s “History Lecture” in Equinox I,2, pp. 239-240, which shows how the founders conceived it:

“Highest of all are those greats rulers who severally sustain and govern the Third Order, which includes Three Magic Titles of honour and supremacy; in case of a vacancy, the most advanced 7=4 obtains by decree the well-earned reward.”

By decree – not by effort, “Crossing the Abyss”, or other ordeals. This is the “old tradition” that Crowley alludes to in a letter to C.S. Jones kindly provided by Darrell Roberts above:

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

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

“I had lived among the great men of the earth, and the great mountains of the earth. Pollitt had made a poet of me; Eckenstein had made a man of me; Cecil Jones and Allan Bennett had made a God of me.”
(The World’s Tragedy (Falcon Press, 1985), p. xxii)


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
12/06/2015 3:47 pm  

93!

"belmurru" wrote:
“I had lived among the great men of the earth, and the great mountains of the earth. Pollitt had made a poet of me; Eckenstein had made a man of me; Cecil Jones and Allan Bennett had made a God of me.”

Not to forget that - according to Hymenaeus Beta of the OTO - Eckenstein was Crowley's lover.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
12/06/2015 3:54 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
So Nirvikalpa-samadhi is beyond Ipsissimus, just as Shiva-darshana is beyond Atma-darshana. It would seem that the grade of Ipsissimus is not the “Supreme Attainment” for Crowley. That lies beyond the graded system.

Yes. I have made numerous references to the Transhimalayan White Brotherhood grading system, wherein 10=1 is equated with the so-called sixth initiation (Chohan), and the seventh initiation (Mahachohan) is equated with Ain Soph Aur. There are also the eighth initiation (Nirmankaya)(Ain Soph) and the ninth initiation (Planetary Logos or Adi)(Ain). I have also stated in previous threads, where U.G. came up, that he showed the characteristics of Ain Soph Aur, not those of a mere Ipsissimus  ;).

But then I rarely (if ever) get a response to my ventures out into nada land. Perhaps it's because nobody is familiar with such topics; perhaps it's because nobody has any reference point "ot there"; perhaps it's because I am insane and nobody wants to encourage me to further heights ;D

Anyway, thanks for pointing out that there are references to even higher states than Kether.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
12/06/2015 4:03 pm  

93, gentlemen!

What about that posting-videos bashing? Most do it once in a while and it's perfectly normal to add this to a virtual discussion board in my opinion. While the UG guy also does not appeal to me - I think I only watched one of his videos - his claims seem to be comparable to Crowley's. And iirc that UG guy did not write down anything. Nobody has to watch those videos, but if one is interested in Azidonis' views, they are perfectly acceptable to be shared during a debating session (whatever this exactly is). I guess if Crowley would have left us videos, many people would go "Listen what Crowley said here on my iPhone" during "debating sessions." Or are those only valid when sitting in some club smoking a pipe?

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1021
12/06/2015 4:03 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
“I had lived among the great men of the earth, and the great mountains of the earth. Pollitt had made a poet of me; Eckenstein had made a man of me; Cecil Jones and Allan Bennett had made a God of me.”

Not to forget that - according to Hymenaeus Beta of the OTO - Eckenstein was Crowley's lover.

Well, maybe it's likely, but how is it relevant?

I imagine people will prefer to speculate on this aspect, in any case, so can you quote HB on this, Lutz?

Churton (Aleister Crowley: The Biography), p. 56, also notes it: "A unique diary record for 31 March [1900] shows Crowley and Eckenstein as lovers:

'In the afternoon I tried to go to the twll-du for O.E. with poor success. I then began to fix things up for a final. The wand wanted straightening.'

"One of the men had trouble getting an erection. Crowley then felt 'a most violent disinclination to begin the Operation.'"

Is there any more evidence of their relationship? Churton's interpretation seems to hinge on interpreting the twll-du as "Welsh slang for 'black hole', or anus".

But I have to imagine HB provides more.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
12/06/2015 4:30 pm  

93!

"belmurru" wrote:
Well, maybe it's likely, but how is it relevant?

Sorry, not relevant for this thread, but possibly for the "made a man of me" quote.

"belmurru" wrote:
But I have to imagine HB provides more.

Unfortunately not: he writes in his footnote to the short story "The Esacpe" in "The Drug and Other Stories" (2010):

'a man of nearly fifty years of age.' [Oscar Eckenstein (1859-1921), an analytical chemist and rail transport engineer, was Crowley's preceptor in mountaineering and yoga as well as his lover.]

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1021
12/06/2015 5:01 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
93!

"belmurru" wrote:
Well, maybe it's likely, but how is it relevant?

Sorry, not relevant for this thread, but possibly for the "made a man of me" quote.

I suspect that comment was in reference to O.E.'s training Crowley in mental discipline and enduring hardship rather than some passionate and profound sexual relationship, which Dickson (the first) and, far and away, Pollitt helped him discover (by the time he wrote The World's Tragedy, I mean; Neuburg would become his second great male love, I think).

If that diary entry is indeed the only evidence, it's pretty weak, and it doesn't say much for the quality of the sexual relationship.

"belmurru" wrote:
But I have to imagine HB provides more.

Unfortunately not: he writes in his footnote to the short story "The Esacpe" in "The Drug and Other Stories" (2010):

'a man of nearly fifty years of age.' [Oscar Eckenstein (1859-1921), an analytical chemist and rail transport engineer, was Crowley's preceptor in mountaineering and yoga as well as his lover.]

Thanks. That is, unfortunately, less information than Churton.

Paul (of the Feazy) one time alluded to HB's introduction to a limited edition of White Stains that also mentioned Dickson, and perhaps Eckenstein. But my impression is that the "unique diary record" cited by Churton is the basis for the suggestion.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
12/06/2015 10:37 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Ugh. There's 9 minutes I'll never get back.
What state?

See, here's where discussion would be useful. It would be great if you could explain to us what you think this guy is saying here and what in the holy hell you think it has to do with the subject of this thread.

He just spent 9 minutes explaining his state, you idiot. You and I do not function that way in our everyday lives.  Exactly how long have you had your head up your ass?

Do you even have any idea what samadhi really is, what it does to you?


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
12/06/2015 11:00 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Exactly how long have you had your head up your ass?

Exactly nine minutes :-[  Or was it nine years?


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 429
13/06/2015 3:41 am  
"Los" wrote:
No one could ever possibly know another person's level of attainment.

Dwtw

Spoken with succinct authority. Beyond which there isn't much for you to add to the discussion in re: Eckenstein. His Ipsissimusness would be beyond your comprehension. As would U.G.'s or Crowley's.

Litlluw
RLG 9=2


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5322
13/06/2015 10:56 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Exactly how long have you had your head up your ass?

That was a little unnecessary and out-of-keeping with the standards expected on this site.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
13/06/2015 11:02 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
People accept Crowley as an Ipsissimus, but we have had numerous debates about what a total shit he was, as an example. Do you think that is what disqualifies him? It's not.

Indeed, what, Los, in your wannabe grand overlord opinion, qualifies someone to be their most self? Also, how do you think you would know they were doing so?

Crowley "a total shit" you say.  Your idea of what "a total shit" is and does, seems to be at odds with your idea of someone who has attained and/or is enlightened.  This is a recurring issue.  I will assume that we both accept that enlightenment is the absence of fear and we can know when someone is driven by fear.  I don't mean flight or fight fear- responses,  I mean status-pecking order fear which is a person(s) of sorts.  This person(s) is not the "Thou" as expressed in DWTWSBTWOTL is it?  That "Thou" is that which has disentangled itself from the various manifestations of pecking-order status fear.  The Khu can attach to those aspects and becomes entrapped therein, hence "open the ways of the Khu".

I have attained that state many a time.  It's not too difficult and just takes a little bit of attention to particular knowledge and practices.  It's trickier to maintain it in social situations where there are  a lot of status cues.  It returns though, so have I attained?  Yes I have but sometimes I lose it and revert to living in pecking-order status fear.  What about Crowley?  Where does he say that someone attains and "stays there permanently"?


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 3110
13/06/2015 12:47 pm  
"david" wrote:
I will assume that we both accept that enlightenment is the absence of fear and we can know when someone is driven by fear.  I don't mean flight or fight fear- responses,  I mean status-pecking order fear which is a person(s) of sorts [sic].

Quite an assumption there, isn't it? I am sorry you are so beset by such fears and offer my hopes that you will free yourself from them; this is known as "adulthood".
I'm not entirely sure that all here will agree with you that overcoming such social-status anxieties is the sum total of the Great Work, or that overcoming such social anxieties represents the possible apogee of human development.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
13/06/2015 2:43 pm  

Reply #66 by Azidonis on: June 11, 2015, 02:08:54 am:

U.G. was not interested in being called an enlightened being, he even said so over and again in the film. It was the people who were around him who saw him in that way. He was always telling them he wanted no part in it, telling them to leave but they rarely would.

Like you’ve been doing, you mean?

Reply #80 by Azidonis on: Yesterday at 02:50:59 am:

Watch this. Then, you (any of you) tell me that the state he describes in this video is not the state of nirvikalpa samadhi. And if you say it isn't, please provide your evidence.

You’re asking for evidence to back up a negative declaration but isn’t  it up to you to provide evidence for the other way round to prove it is?

Reply #80 by Azidonis on: Yesterday at 02:50:59 am:

In fact, I challenge all of you... match the state he describes with any states that Crowley ever described, either for him or Eckenstein or anyone else, and go ahead... pick it apart. Eat up.

What, as in chow down, you mean?  And if so, what do you mean?

Reply #81 by Los on: Yesterday at 05:03:12 am:

Ugh. There's 9 minutes I'll never get back.

Is this a typo?  Or did you mean “Ug: there’s 9 minutes I’ll never get back” (Ug being a typo itself for UG)? 😀

"belmurru" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
I suppose Nirvikalpa might be another way of saying "super-Samadhi"? (Or would that be Atmadarshana??) 

For what it's worth, in 777, column XXIV, "Certain of the Hindu and Buddhist Results", Crowley associates "Nerodha-samapatti, Nirvikalpa-samadhi, Shiva-darshana", with 0, the AIN, AIN SOPH, AIN SOPH AUR place, while he gives "Unity with Brahma, Atma-darshana" to number 1, the Kether, Ipsissimus, sephira.

In column XLV, “Magical Powers (Western Mysticism)”, 0 is described as “The Supreme Attainment”, while 1 is attributed to “Union with God”.

So Nirvikalpa-samadhi is beyond Ipsissimus, just as Shiva-darshana is beyond Atma-darshana. It would seem that the grade of Ipsissimus is not the “Supreme Attainment” for Crowley. That lies beyond the graded system.

Well done belmurru, for providing once again one of your cogent & thorough answers.  If only Lashtal were populated by more posters of the same calibre as yourself, in this regard!

At first glance, it is hard to imagine an Attainment which can be more Supreme than “Union with God”, as the Creator of the Universe and everything in it, attributed to 1 in the Table of Correspondences.  However it makes more sense if one bear in mind I:21 from The Book of the Law (“… there is no other God than me, and my lord Hadit”).  Union with Hadit implies the absence of any veils or interferences with ‘his’ influence and will in transmission; and thus unified, unites further with Nuit in the final and supreme attainment as mentioned.  (Incidentally, there seems to be quite a lot of talking about God, and anthropomorphising of the same.

"belmurru" wrote:
“At this time [July, 1898; see Kaczynski, Perdurabo, p. 50] P. was leading a hermit’s life on a Swiss glacier with one whom, though he knew it not at the time, was destined ever and anon to bring him wisdom from the Great White Brotherhood. This one we shall meet again under the initials D.A.”
(Equinox I,2, p. 237, note)

(Aside – does anyone know what, if anything, the initials “D.A.” stand for?)

I don’t rightly know, but surmise that it’s unlikely that “D.A.” would stand for the initials of somebody’s actual name, or even magical motto, because nothing is known of anyone’s fitting those letters.  It seems far more likely they would be the abbreviation for a technical term (since A.C. employed these regularly as a sort of shorthand) – my best guess for them, fitting this criterion, would be “Divine Ambassador”, in the sense of emissary.

"belmurru" wrote:
“[...] Under his direction, therefore, I began  to apply myself unto the practice of Raja-yoga, at the same time avoiding all, even the smallest, consideration of things occult, as also he bade me.”
(Equinox I,4, p. 46)

Interesting that A.C. should not regard the practice of Raja Yoga here as comprising “even the smallest consideration of the occult”, considering he covers all aspects of yoga in Book Four Part One and elsewhere in Magick in Theory and Practice.

"belmurru" wrote:
Aleister Crowley to C.S. Jones, Jul 25th 1921
“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.”

C.S. Jones would have been one of them, albeit by the “Oath” method and Jane Wolfe was in the running for another, but who would have made up the third – A.C. himself, or some other person?  The other Jones (Cecil), perhaps?

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
13/06/2015 3:07 pm  
"ignant666" wrote:
Quite an assumption there, isn't it? I am sorry you are so beset by such fears and offer my hopes that you will free yourself from them; this is known as "adulthood".
I'm not entirely sure that all here will agree with you that overcoming such social-status anxieties is the sum total of the Great Work, or that overcoming such social anxieties represents the possible apogee of human development.

Actually I gave the reader the benefit of the doubt that he/she would be aware that this "fear" is a bit more than  a mere "keeping up with the Joneses" and being a bit awkward in new company (although that is very much part of it). 

Alas...seems I was wrong.  Please, if you will, clarify why my definition of enlightenment/attainment is wrong. 


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 3
Share: