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whether we would be able to recognize Jo[e] Schmo in the street to be one; whether A.C. is actually a bit ‘out of date’ with regard to his conceptualisation of the A.’.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

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.:

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

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.

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.

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…

Actually, Shiva, the quote I made

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:

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

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

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

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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? 😀

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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!...

This does sound eminently sensible.

N Joy

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

The only "messiah" is the HGA.

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?

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.

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.

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.

ffs

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

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]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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. 

Yes – I agree with the new Los here:

I also agree with him here:

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):

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

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

Yours in cozmik debris,
И∫oλ

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]

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)

93!

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

Love=Law
Lutz

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.

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

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.

93!

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

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

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.]