Discovering the Tru...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Discovering the True Will...  

Page 2 / 3
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/07/2009 4:18 pm  
"mika" wrote:
The construct in my mind that I label "I" is afraid, naturally, since it is attached to staying alive by its very nature and fears anything that challenges its mortality. However, my essential self, my true self, however you want to call it, is the observer. It experiences all that I experience, but is not attached to any particular outcome, even the avoidance of death. quote]

The HGA will sometimes intervene to prevent it's vessel from dying prematurely, or to assist in the progression of it's vehicle to be fit to it's purpose. I don't pretent to understand the purposes of mine, but as it's taken the trouble to prevent it's vessel from death, created this vessel for it's purposes, loves this vessel in the same way it loves all else, then it must have something - if not a reason - for doing so.

Perhaps one day then our essential selves will be manifest in the flesh from the first day of conception, and the unity of the higher self will be expressed without any ego or false self image, love under will. Perhaps it's just we are all small steps of divine evolution. That's the closest I've come to divining the intent and true purpose of my beloved.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
09/07/2009 4:41 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
Your conception of the true self

What conception of the true self? I certainly don't indulge in such useless fantasies. As I keep telling you, over and over and over again, a "conception of the true self" is a figment of the imagination, thus has no relevance to one's actual true self.

"alrah" wrote:
Hell - you're pretending 'my weeds are nice, my weeds are good, my anger, contempt, etc. is just fine because I'm only 'experiencing' it and it's really not 'me' (false conceptual model of the true self rides again).

That's not a pretense, it's reality. Anger, contempt, joy, excitement, they are all just fine, I do only experience them and they really are not "me". This is not a "false conceptual model of the true self", it's what you become aware of when you are able to detect the difference between fantasy and reality.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/07/2009 4:59 pm  

Your conception of the true self says that it is only concerned with the now. Riiight. Now say your little mind practises being here in the 'now' - and suddenly you imagine that the true self is *only* concerned with the now because that's the only time you've been able to get a glimpse of it? If you were anywhere near 5=6 (or did you miss that stage as you were going for magus? lol) then you would know that there is no division between past, present and future, and what the relative mind associates as 'the now' is a tiny spek of the inifinate and absolute NOW. You betray your ignorance and ego at every turn. Now - go do the work.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
09/07/2009 6:47 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
Your conception of the true self says that it is only concerned with the now.

Yet again, you've got my statements completely wrong. Are you incapable of understanding, or are you intentionally misrepresenting what I say, or what? I never wrote anything that remotely resembles "the true self is only concerned with the now". Again, I challenge you to provide a direct quote to support your claims about me. Which you have never been able to do, by the way - it's always the same pattern of you misrepresenting what I write, me correcting you, then you quickly avoiding the topic at hand and moving on to your next misunderstanding. Throw in a few schoolyard insults and personal attacks, and you've got a typical Alrah response to my posts.

What I have been saying is that in order to discover your will and act accordingly, one must pay attention to the now.

"alrah" wrote:
If you were anywhere near 5=6 (or did you miss that stage as you were going for magus? lol) then you would know that there is no division between past, present and future

Your repeated attempts to put me down merely dig the hole you're in even deeper. No division between past, present and future? Are you for real? If that were true, why are there separate definitions for each of those words? Oh, right, word definitions are irrelevant to you, all that matters is what you believe words *should* mean.

The relevant distinction between past, present and future is this: the past and future can only be represented through mental constructs, the present can be directly experienced. This is a *qualitative* difference that anyone who does an ounce of practical work can understand.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/07/2009 7:09 pm  
"mika" wrote:
What I have been saying is that in order to discover your will and act accordingly, one must pay attention to the now.

Riiight. YOU (the ego/false self image) discover your true self (like you are capable of understanding it) and then YOU act accordingly. No. When you actually discover your true will then YOU relinquish the reins and the higher self acts through you. YOU step aside. If YOU were paying attnetion to anything other than your fantasies and mental conceptions of what the true self is, then YOU would be doing that. Instead you are just chattering and making excuses to interpret your conceptual model of your true will and self as YOU think yourself the master of the host.

"alrah" wrote:
If you were anywhere near 5=6 (or did you miss that stage as you were going for magus? lol) then you would know that there is no division between past, present and future
"mika" wrote:
Your repeated attempts to put me down merely dig the hole you're in even deeper. No division between past, present and future? Are you for real? If that were true, why are there separate definitions for each of those words? Oh, right, word definitions are irrelevant to you, all that matters is what you believe words *should* mean.

Lol. That you believe in the ultimate reality of words and base your trust on a dictionary instead of your own observations of reality in the now, reveals your ego self and reveals that you don't see any distinction between YOU and the true self. That's because you invent a model of the true self based upon your own small limitations. Reveal the wordsmith of reason. Eat your tail little doggie (isn't that what you called me?). Reality bites. 😀

"mika" wrote:
The relevant distinction between past, present and future is this: the past and future can only be represented through mental constructs, the present can be directly experienced. This is a *qualitative* difference that anyone who does an ounce of practical work can understand.

And anyone who does the magical work up to 5=6 level at least understands the difference between a relative conception that you can imagine (YOU), and an absolute reality where YOU dissappear utterly, along with mind, emotions and any sense of a body. And YOU my dear, have absolutely no conception of what that means, and thus mistake the nature of time and space, and are limited magickally, until you do more work.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
09/07/2009 8:53 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
That you believe in the ultimate reality of words

No, I don't "believe in the ultimate reality of words". Another misrepresentation of what I think by you in order to evade addressing what I have been actually saying.

"alrah" wrote:
and base your trust on a dictionary instead of your own observations of reality

Are you seriously claiming your opinion about what a word should mean is a more accurate representation of what that word actually means than the dictionary definition? Yes or no?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/07/2009 11:52 pm  

Mika,

What are words?


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
10/07/2009 12:49 am  
"Sangreal1" wrote:
Mika,
What are words?

A word is "a unit of language... that functions as a principal carrier of meaning." In order to function as a principal carrier of meaning, a word must be defined, where a definition is "the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word". The definition(s) that bestow meaning upon a word such that it can function as a unit of language can be found in a dictionary.

One is of course free to make up words, make up word definitions, or both, but then the word loses any ability to function as a principal carrier of meaning for use in communication with others.

Does that clear things up?


ReplyQuote
arthuremerson
(@arthuremerson)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 157
10/07/2009 3:03 am  

Please forgive the interjection Alrah; might I have a hand in this dance?

Mika that's all well and good isn't it? But words can be used in a variety of ways can't they? Consider for instance metaphors and jokes. Variations of meaning are perhaps better considered contextually, lest one (ahem) miss the punchline.

You display a proclivity for word fetishism, an inability to read between the lines and, ultimately, an utter lack of understanding what Alrah and others have been saying. Communication, it has been said, can only occur between equals. You are nipping at the heels of a relative giant here- Alrah's often beautiful and poignant musings certainly appear to be lost on you anyway.

The real crux of the situation here as I see it and has been stated by Camlion multiple times now is this: There are a few, and I consider you among them, forum members who clearly have little or no direct experience with the subjects at hand in this thread and others. While "lashtal.com is not an occult site" Aleister Crowley certainly was an occultist (what an ugly word, eh?) and as a site devoted to his life and work imagine that a majority, at least as is clear with the more vocal members of this community, have identified with his veracity for uncovering the hidden. There are some really bright people posting here who are clearly very practiced magicians- and it would seem as a result they have considerable intellects. You are quite simply out of your league here as long as you continue project yourself as an authority and continue to communicate dishonestly.

There has been a very nice escalation in content here in Lashtal.com's forums that I as a frequent reader have found quite enjoyable. For that I owe a certain amount of thanks to you for coming here and sharing your ideas. You might consider them more closely, however.

Now...

Between three trees
under the light of the full moon
pray pray pray
for a gift from god
wise little raccoon


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
10/07/2009 4:49 pm  
"arthuremerson" wrote:
Mika that's all well and good isn't it? But words can be used in a variety of ways can't they?

Sure. But that variety of ways does not include making up your own definitions and then expecting your statements to be coherent and meaningful to other people. I'll clarify what's going on here with an example:

Person A: "I ate a chair for lunch"
Person B: "A chair is a piece of furniture, what the hell are you talking about? Your statement doesn't make any sense at all."
Person A: "What? You have no right to tell me what words mean! When I use the word chair I am referring to a small red round fruit! "Chair" can mean whatever I want it to! You are attached to dictionary definitions! You are a 'word fetishist'! If you don't understand what I mean by "chair" it's because you haven't done enough magical work!" etc etc etc

Metaphors and jokes still require that the words used have a consistent and "formal statement of meaning or significance" in order to function as "carriers of meaning". Some poetry and prose use made-up words, but the fact that the words are made-up is part of the art of the writing, they are not supposed to have a commonly known and understood meaning. That's why, for example, the Dune books have a glossary in the back.

If I'm still not being clear, try this example:
Person A: 5 plus 5 equals 0
Person B: No, that's wrong. 5 plus 5 equals 10
Person A: Who are you to tell me I'm wrong! The word "plus" means to subtract one number from the other.
Person B: No, the word "plus" means to add the two. Check the dictionary.
Person A: Dictionary! You are attached to word definitions, you are a "word fetishist", "plus" can mean whatever I want it to mean, etc

Do you understand the issue now?


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1503
10/07/2009 6:08 pm  

dance

oh the sweet allure of the currents that enable potential to shine forth; the tone in the astral substance, that involve the galvanizing and manipulation of energies that stimulates one to dance; thank you all 😆


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
10/07/2009 10:31 pm  
"mika" wrote:
Do you understand the issue now?

I think that we'd be grateful if you weren't so patronising.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
10/07/2009 11:36 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"mika" wrote:
Do you understand the issue now?

I think that we'd be grateful if you weren't so patronising.

If you choose to take offense at my style, you are free to ignore my posts.

It's quite... ironic... that many people participating here, in the Thelema forum at the "Home of the Aleister Crowley Society", are more concerned with how they perceive others to be communicating than with the actual content of what is being said.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
11/07/2009 12:12 am  
"mika" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"mika" wrote:
Do you understand the issue now?

I think that we'd be grateful if you weren't so patronising.

If you choose to take offense at my style, you are free to ignore my posts.

It's quite... ironic... that many people participating here, in the Thelema forum at the "Home of the Aleister Crowley Society", are more concerned with how they perceive others to be communicating than with the actual content of what is being said.

I'm not concerned with how "ironic" you might regard it. In my view the content of your posts is negligible, but that's just my opinion. I'm just sick to death of your arrogant, offensive tone, and suggest that either you moderate it or take your "views" elsewhere.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
11/07/2009 1:40 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I'm just sick to death of your arrogant, offensive tone

Then stop paying attention to me. It's easy - just keep scrolling down until you reach the next post.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
and suggest that either you moderate it or take your "views" elsewhere.

Nah, I think I'll stick around a little while longer.


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 461
11/07/2009 3:34 pm  
"mika" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I'm just sick to death of your arrogant, offensive tone

Then stop paying attention to me. It's easy - just keep scrolling down until you reach the next post.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
and suggest that either you moderate it or take your "views" elsewhere.

Nah, I think I'll stick around a little while longer.

93,

No one listens to the person who sounds arrogant and patronizing. We all can pay attention to you if you want and really, the solution to not-liking someone isnt simply 'dont pay attention to them'. Some of us actually want legitimate conversations where our points are addressed instead of ourselves criticized personally with no relation to the points at hand. Imagine that?

IAO131


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1503
11/07/2009 3:56 pm  

mika is mika a table is a table once you got that you can scroll down.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/07/2009 4:10 pm  
"mika" wrote:
"alrah" wrote:
That you believe in the ultimate reality of words

No, I don't "believe in the ultimate reality of words". Another misrepresentation of what I think by you in order to evade addressing what I have been actually saying.

Well - let's see if that's true, shall we? What you have been saying is that you have no conceptual model of the true self. Do you believe in the reality of your words? The following quotes compiled from your writings indicate that you do indeed have a conceptual model of your true self.

Btw - If you compare 13 with 15 you have a veritable spagetti junction of a model. 🙂

1) "every thought and feeling is, indeed, an illusion."
2) "Your mind is capable of perceiving without describing."
3) That you have been attempting to "illustrate a method for how one goes about discovering one's will."
4) "True Will is inherent to reality"
5) "ones will or essential nature is an intrinsic part of reality"
6) "your will can only be found by paying attention to reality"
7) "one cannot find one's true will by paying attention to fantasies."
8) "I don't believe that one's "true will" is responsible for physically manifesting one's body."
9) "the ability to express your will is independent of the conditions (mental, emotional or otherwise) in which you find yourself"
10) "If you are acting based on what you think you prefer and based on your preferred emotional states, you are not acting according to your will."
11) "The Will does not color our ability to select one thing over another."
12) "The Will informs us which 'one thing over another' is our essential nature to select."
13) "It's up to the idividual to practice ignoring the constructs of the mind and its imagined preferences so that the preferences of the actual Will can become clear."

14) "I don't presume to know what would be beneficial to my Will."
15) "the 'true self' is not a thing that exists independent of the mind, it is a construct created by the mind'."

16) "All we can know about our Will is how it manifests in the present."
17) "how you learn to distinguish between reality and fantasy, [which] is the tool you need for discovering and acting in accordance with your will.
18) "The will is anything you do - even making a sandwhich." (from a conversation with Ludwig on a.m.)

Well Ok - now we have some idea of what your mental model of the true will/self and how you go about discovering it. And I presume that you find this mental model useful? You aren't ignoring it. You spend a great deal of time describing it, recommending it even. It reminds me of what my old Zen master said about Suzuki (chuckling) - that he wrote hundreds of thousands of words all about the meaningless of words.

Now - all that you've said above is classic Buddhist thought, except you've been exchanging the words 'enlightenment' and 'enlightened action' or 'the tao' for 'true/essental self', 'true will', etc. But Buddhism is NOT Thelema. Thelema says that Love under will is the Law. And what is Lawful is only Love under Will, nothing else. Thus - it allows for a mental model of Thelema, (the Khabs in in the Khu), but this mental model is aligned with Love under Will. Love under Will is the actual territory - and also the bare bones of a model that describes what is left when all else in the mental model is chucked out the window. It doesn't say 'Anger under Will'. It doesn't say 'Fear under Will'. No - it says LOVE under Will - and this is Lawful and no other. At no point above does your mental model mention Love. Infact - you describe all feelings as illusions, and when I say that Love is the only emotion that can be felt without attachment, you think this is a 'big fat fantasy'. As we have seen above - it is certainly part of a conceptual model I have.*1 It is something I have observed during my practise. All other emotions are causative - i.e. they are caused by thoughts and are reactions to situations and stimulie. Love just *is* - the Law just *is*. And the Thelemic model is the most accurate model we have to work with to date.

Now - in our practise (according to the BOTL) we don't lust for result, or try and work at experiencing Love. It just arises when emotions that are based on attachment are not present. And in our practise we do not lust for result and try at experiencing our true self, or try and do our true will. The will manifests through it's vehicle when the false self image recognises the consequences of it's usurping it's Sovereign. The 'burning desire' spoken of is simply the recognition of the vehicle to be driven by the true self - an utter abdication of the false self, which does not then cease to exist for it has never existed, but acts as a happy servant and mouthpiece to it's Sovereign.

(*1 And if I may make a note to others reading this - if you wish to experience highest Dhyana then even the barebones of the Thelemic model must be let go off for the purposes of that specific working).


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/07/2009 6:24 pm  

[This post is in reply to that of IAO131 in the thread that is currently under quarantine, so I'm placing it here. It is still certainly within topic either way. When Paul completes his forensic investigation, he might like to move it back, or not.]

Mica wrote:
Sitting around demanding that people answer your question and complaining that they still don't make sense is like demanding that people explain the flavor of food without you having to go through the experience of eating.

IAO131 replied:
Actually, no its not because the flavor of food is a qualitative thing that I would accept I need to eat food for but your ideas are philosophical and practical in tone and intent - you claim and Erwin and such that observing the self is somehow beneficial to the accomplishment of the True Will (is that a fair representation) yet I am asking what oyu mean exactly. Lots of people observe themselves, is that enough? Just because I ask questions doesnt mean I dont have my own answers, by the way, but Im trying to figure out what you (or Los or whomever Im addressing) means by what they say. I can assume they mean exactly what I think or I can ask - I would think the former is a bit naive and the latter is a normal device of understanding each other's positions...

Mika wrote:
It's futile, and also lazy and childish, this desire to talk about magick without doing any of the necessary associated work.

IAO131 replied:
Your cop out is lazy and childish. You cant possibly explain the benefits of it without saying 'Oh gosh! Thats like asking me to tell you what red looks like! You just have to see it!' The same goes for just about every other legitimization strategy of crystals, talismans, stones, and whatever hocus pocus - you just have to experience it for yourself! If you cant put in a sentence or two your thoughts on a subject I would say you are clueless about it or disingenuous - which is it?

IAO131, your point regarding this sort of "cop out" is not always valid, although it often is. For example, and despite the fact that this is not a position that Mica might actually take - she would probably call this contrary to 'reality,' one could make the following statement:

"There are certain very rare 'states of conscious' from which the beholder reissues into normal consciousness with a newly acquired, hitherto unrealized perspective; a newly acquired insight into him or herself."

Now, this statement conveys no real explanation of the experience being referred to, except to those with similar rare experience. Nevertheless, the statement is true, and is understood as such by those with such experience. Nor would further elaboration, even ten thousand pages of it, convey the validity of this method of Working to those without the experience of it. Further, any direct tangible proof of the efficacy of such a method would come only by testing the method in real life applications, in the real life of the beholder of the experience, that is. Even with years of written record of such observations, however, no tangible proof could be provided to those for whom such rare experience is unknown.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/07/2009 9:13 pm  

Camlion - The older I get the more the hope I once had that Thelema could be learned by the uninitiated by simply propogating the verbal message fades and looks increasingly unrealistic. Those who have not yet accessed such rare mental states through meditation or magick seem hopelessly unequipped to understand the Law, and resort to the sort of mental looping and arbitary ego gratification through philosophy that are simply masks. It's ironic that some of them even realise this for a short while, before descending to the preset learned defaults of the slave.

I can only presume now that when Crowley said the Law was for All, that he meant All in an esoteric initiated sense and not all people. And yet... (and here the star shines with new hope) I am reminded that the greatest Zen master who ever lived was a complete illiterate who had no formal schooling in Buddhism, and I am mindful of the fact that I have met many people who were both wise and mindful and capable of understanding Thelema as I instruct it - absent of most of the philosophy and through intense application to the daily challenges of themselves and their interactions with thier environment.

In the Zen school, someone was only given formal instruction after s/he had experienced the first enlightenment. In Thelema with the BOTL we are basically teaching what is known and practised by the 8=3, but to a wider audience that has not progressed by en large past 5=6. In my part of the world we'd call this an 'arse before tit' approach, and that's probably as incomprehensible to a wider audience as my missive is to you. In history this is not the first time this error has happened.

When the Bodhisatva came to China to see how the words of the Buddha were recieved then he was dismayed to see the land all confused about the Buddha's message - thus Zen was born in the wordless flower sermon, and its' adepts came up with new ways to enlighten the uninitiated without recourse to formal teaching, for the lessons are always inherent in the life of every man, woman and child. I think this forum is all well and good for the initiated but we do the uninitiated and ourselves a certain disservice if we don't recognise that the disovery of the true will/ true self cannot only be learned by those with a predisposition for magickal/mystical work and learned discourse, but then reproach them for their lack here. What other outlet is there for them? There may be other methods yet to explore (and the BOTL hints as much) to awaken people across the board to Thelema. Let's not forget teaching by example is one of the best, and not only applicable to our children. Let us not forget that to love a man or woman regardless of thier projected false ego and in acknowledgement of thier divine self, is to *show* them they have always been worthy of love, but then we have to direct them to thier own angel and remain non attached. This is the practise of the women of Babalon. And we have people of our ranks who we have not yet welcomed - for instance, every Buddhist who awakens through highest dyhana cannot help but acknowledge that the perspective of 'life is suffering' is based on the perception of one who only see's through the lens of attachment, and is not the whole truth nor the law. And they do! Those awakened ones that can recognise the law of Love under Will are rightfully our brothers. Let us reach out to them, for they see that Buddhism is falling into a sensual external mockery of itself - the Buddha being received by the common man as a simple nice fat decoration in the ordinary home. Everything has it's time...

We all know the uninitiated - please let us have this conversation and give me your thoughts with delibate exclusion (given it's nature) to the uninitiated now. Thank you.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/07/2009 9:58 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
I can only presume now that when Crowley said the Law was for All, that he meant All in an esoteric initiated sense and not all people.

Alrah, actually, the older I get the more I agree with Liber AL that Law is for all. But Liber AL also indicates that there will be more than one category of Thelemite, self-determined according to the innate nature of each individual in question. This is the failing in the idea that there is one universally applicable and even preferable method for determining and accomplishing true Will.

I think that in the sociopolitical sense, however, the Law being for all is truer now than ever before and that an environment should be established and maintained wherein each person, regardless of individual nature, has the greatest possible opportunity for this degree of self-fulfillment. The methods will vary greatly, as do the individuals benefiting therefrom.

The question of method is not as simple as some would have it, but I do not agree that anyone is excluded from the benefit of the Law of Thelema, unless they voluntary opt out of it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/07/2009 10:13 pm  

Yes Camlion. And let us come togther, like the old Zen maters who invented koans, and a philosophy of archery, and chess, and ouright martial arts in battle, where always the sword became the man and he dissappered. But let us invent anew, with technology, and *use* the daily envornment to awaken those - accoding to our will. Let us invent new monsters unto babalon and bless them unto chaos, let us invest them under hadit only to know them unto Nu. And let us transcend what we think of as the limits as to what we can awaken another with.


ReplyQuote
mal
 mal
(@xon)
⚛️🌌⚕️
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 643
11/07/2009 10:36 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
I do not agree that anyone is excluded from the benefit of the Law of Thelema, unless they voluntary opt out of it.

Yet, could it be, if the Law of Thelema is a spiritual law governing Universal Life, then 'opting out' would only mean opting out of personal awareness of the Law not the influence(or 'benefit' as you say) of the Law?

We hold the Earth fro Hell away. 🌹


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/07/2009 10:47 pm  

Are you asking us to [rovide you with a spiritual excuse mal?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/07/2009 10:50 pm  

There is no opt out from the law.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/07/2009 10:58 pm  
"mal" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
I do not agree that anyone is excluded from the benefit of the Law of Thelema, unless they voluntary opt out of it.

Yet, could it be, if the Law of Thelema is a spiritual law governing Universal Life, then 'opting out' would only mean opting out of personal awareness of the Law not the influence(or 'benefit' as you say) of the Law?

There is no real opt out without consequence. This isn't a 'break the law and you might get off with it and be suning yourself in marbaya' thang. Ok? Instead - it's a 'whatever you do will come back in a form you'll have no defenses towards. Like someone threatening your children. How does that wash with you? That's an ordeal that threatens a role you have, an attachment both mental and emotional, but still an illusion all surrounding your children. How would you feel about that being threatened in the abyss? And the abyss keeps going until you let go.

Whatever you are going through Mal - unless it is the abyss, then you have no recourse here, except to accept your own whinging. And Paul -if that's not polite then it's the most honest and loving reaction I'm capable of giving to this one.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/07/2009 7:48 am  

On reflection - that was a bit harsh of me Mal. I was also a bit pissed. I apologise.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/07/2009 5:50 pm  
"mal" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
I do not agree that anyone is excluded from the benefit of the Law of Thelema, unless they voluntary opt out of it.

Yet, could it be, if the Law of Thelema is a spiritual law governing Universal Life, then 'opting out' would only mean opting out of personal awareness of the Law not the influence(or 'benefit' as you say) of the Law?

To voluntarily opt out of independence and freedom, at any level, is to opt into dependence and slavery, slavery to some external god or government or to the internal equivalents of these things. It is a question of sovereignty versus submission with regard to oneself. Once the opportunity for independence and freedom has been offered to an individual and declined for whatever reason, the unfortunate alternatives may be considered voluntary. "and to each man and woman that thou meetest, were it but to dine or to drink at them, it is the Law to give. Then they shall chance to abide in this bliss or no; it is no odds."


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 456
13/07/2009 2:32 am  
"alrah" wrote:
Camlion - The older I get the more the hope I once had that Thelema could be learned by the uninitiated by simply propogating the verbal message fades and looks increasingly unrealistic. Those who have not yet accessed such rare mental states through meditation or magick seem hopelessly unequipped to understand the Law, and resort to the sort of mental looping and arbitary ego gratification through philosophy that are simply masks. It's ironic that some of them even realise this for a short while, before descending to the preset learned defaults of the slave.

Hey Alrah. I would be inclined to say that the "current" of Thelema works to entrain the people into a Thelemic way of being quite without any of us doing anything about it. And then if we do something about it on top of that, that's good.

If Magick is real, then that's how it's working - the "current" is manifest in everything from movements in modern philosophy to the Beatles to the New Age, it's just not in Thelemic jargon, it's paraphrased by each individual in their own words, in their own homespun wisdom, as they tap into the "current".

People discover things on their own, they learn, and sometimes fail - they evolve. They don't need us, they don't need any Magickal Schools, and all the rest of it. But these things help. Anything and everything helps, I think.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
13/07/2009 2:48 am  
"alrah" wrote:
What you have been saying is that you have no conceptual model of the true self.

No, that's not what I've been saying. Even in all the 18 quotes you attributed to me there is nothing that even resembles the above statement.

"alrah" wrote:
Well Ok - now we have some idea of what your mental model

You have never shown any understanding of the actual meaning of my words. You make up a lot of stories, though. As demonstrated above, yet again.


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 450
13/07/2009 2:59 am  

Wholeheartedly agreed, gurugeorge. As Woody Alan wood say it (apropos his latest film), "Whatever Works!"

A lot of cyber ink has been spilled on Lashtal and elsewhere in arguments whether Thelema is a form of religion or not. And while I personally think that it is, the current is, as you say, much broader and it manifests in politics (various liberation movements), in economics, in art, literature, philosophy, popular culture: everywhere. Now, I think that there is something important contained in the appellations "prince" and "priest" given to the Prophet in the Liber AL. I take it to mean that this is ultimately the ideal: each one of us is or should be Priest/ess and Prince/ss. (One could consider these two as horizontal and vertical dimension.) A possible role of magical Orders is to help provide the structure towards nurturing these two tendencies. In addition, I am reminded of the ancient Indian model of royalty where the consecration of the king implies his symbolical marriage with the priest (purohita). An important verbal clause of this ritual consists of the statement spoken by the Priest: "I am the sky, you [king] are the earth." (See Ananda Coomaraswamy, "Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power in the Indian Theory of Government.") Coomaraswamy analyzes this situation at the cosmic, political, and spiritual level and with the last case, he suggests that the Priest in us should have a higher say than the King in us. For that reason, I think that the religious (i.e. magical) aspect of Thelema is the paramount one and for that reason I consider that the Liber AL and the Prophet are at the epicenter of the current. But it IS everywhere; I would say, it is noticeable even in Christianity. But then that's just me.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/07/2009 3:06 am  

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

Care Alrah,

I hope this helps ya out. "If the sun and the stars should doubt, they'd immediatly go out."-William Blake

Love is the law love under will


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
13/07/2009 3:34 am  
"IAO131" wrote:
Some of us actually want legitimate conversations where our points are addressed instead of ourselves criticized personally with no relation to the points at hand.

The above is what happens when you identify with your thoughts and emotions - you confuse challenges to your statements with personal criticism. I've been clearly addressing people's points, but you and they apparently feel so personally attacked that you've convinced yourselves what I say really has nothing to do with the points at hand, I'm just being mean. Thus you don't have to go through the difficulty of reconsidering whether or not your beliefs still make sense to you.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/07/2009 12:21 pm  

Gurugeorge, Iskandar, and Aeturnus220. Thank you. I'll think have to think about more about what you'd said, but I think that for people to be able to tap into the current they need to know the word as the focus of the current. That benefits to human kind may spread out from those who are tapped into the current, isn't in question. When taking about currents I often bring up the idea of an Imperial Leather Soap current. There's the idea of the soap, the company and it's workers all making the soap, the shoppers who buy the soap and the people who wash thier hands with it. In this case, all these people are part of the Imperial Leather Soap current, except those who just wash thier hands with it and don't notice the brand or plug into the whole 'Imperial Leather' experience, because the labels washed off or their minds are on different things than soap. And also - you can show a man to the bathroom but you can't make him wash his hands aferwards. So - to say Thelemites are not really necessary for the 93 current to work, seems like saying that the company (+company director) and the factory workers aren't necessary to the Imperial Leather Soap current. Or the Pope and the Vatican aren't necessary for the Christian current. If they disappear - pop goes the weasel.


ReplyQuote
mal
 mal
(@xon)
⚛️🌌⚕️
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 643
13/07/2009 9:10 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
To voluntarily opt out of independence and freedom, at any level, is to opt into dependence and slavery, slavery to some external god or government or to the internal equivalents of these things. It is a question of sovereignty versus submission with regard to oneself. Once the opportunity for independence and freedom has been offered to an individual and declined for whatever reason, the unfortunate alternatives may be considered voluntary. "and to each man and woman that thou meetest, were it but to dine or to drink at them, it is the Law to give. Then they shall chance to abide in this bliss or no; it is no odds."

Sure, a person's awareness of the laws of nature in which they exist do bestow a form of sovereignty over the effects of those laws, but that person still remains a slave to those very same laws. Perhaps emancipation comes from aligning with True Will? Regardless of yes or no, the alignment with True Will is something all life can accomplish, with or without reading the text of Liber Legis, if True Will is a cosmic scale phenomena.

We hold the Earth fro Hell away. 🌹


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
13/07/2009 9:23 pm  
"mal" wrote:
Sure, a person's awareness of the laws of nature in which they exist do bestow a form of sovereignty over the effects of those laws, but that person still remains a slave to those very same laws. Perhaps emancipation comes from aligning with True Will?

Alignment with your "True Will" will not emancipate you from the "laws of nature". What it will do is shift your perspective such that how you choose to act is aligned with the "laws of nature", in which case you are no longer a slave to them.

If you swim against the current in a stream, are you a "slave to the laws of physics" because the water is pushing you against the direction you would like to swim? Not at all. You chose to swim against the current, you are also free to choose a different path with less resistance. Acting according to your Will is essentially the same - when your actions are aligned with your Will, you are "emancipated" from the resistance you might face otherwise if your actions were "against the current". Don't blame nature or the universe for the limitation of your own choices. Instead, refine your choices to more accurately align with the natural tendencies and course of the universe (and yourself).


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/07/2009 9:31 pm  
"mal" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
To voluntarily opt out of independence and freedom, at any level, is to opt into dependence and slavery, slavery to some external god or government or to the internal equivalents of these things. It is a question of sovereignty versus submission with regard to oneself. Once the opportunity for independence and freedom has been offered to an individual and declined for whatever reason, the unfortunate alternatives may be considered voluntary. "and to each man and woman that thou meetest, were it but to dine or to drink at them, it is the Law to give. Then they shall chance to abide in this bliss or no; it is no odds."

Sure, a person's awareness of the laws of nature in which they exist do bestow a form of sovereignty over the effects of those laws, but that person still remains a slave to those very same laws. Perhaps emancipation comes from aligning with True Will? Regardless of yes or no, the alignment with True Will is something all life can accomplish, with or without reading the text of Liber Legis, if True Will is a cosmic scale phenomena.

Dear Mal - I insulted you not 2 days ago through my own stupidity and here you are cutting through all the debris of our situation to the very heart of it. Evolution. Some have said about evolution that our society and our social structures must evolve and catch up with our physical evolution now, and when I think of how many species on this planet are extinct every day... and when I think that every 3 seconds on this earth a child dies... it makes our own petty concerns with our own spiritual advancement seem very small indeed.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
13/07/2009 9:52 pm  
"Azoneris" wrote:
Btw. When it comes to Agape. In Greek there are many kinds of loves, and they are described a lot more specificly than for example in Finnish languange. As there was talk about Agape even on the first post, I`ll start this. Maybe I`ll find answers or at least create a good conversation. So, I`ve read about this kind of descriptions from certain sources:

Agape.) Divine love. Love, that is like a all-devouring love. It is received as so powerful force that human usually can`t deliver it all forward, and many times people quit social communication and become hermits after receiving this huge love.
Eros) Furious and erotic love, Passion.
Filos.) Love which keeps couples together after the eros-phase is over, more like friend-type love.

I was reading it from the viewpoint of "agape/thelema=93", so you`ll understand my interest and maybe a small confusion.
Any thoughts? I see agape in thelemic context as a huge love for the union of Nuit and Hadit, not as any solitary life. I still pay a lot of interest if someone here knows more about the Agape as separate from Thelema, and more about its definitions etc.

93,

So then....

Eros = Brand new relationship, many hours of wonderful conversation, tons of enduring and awesome sex...

Filos = Sex is boring. You've discussed everything. You know everything about each other, and you still enjoy each other the same as you did at first (kind of paradoxical, I know).

Agape = All-pervading. It's everywhere. A combination of all types of love whatsoever, from self love to family love, friend love, enemy love, universal love, etc. Love in all of its forms. Love incarnate. Love.... under Will.

Yeah? 🙂

93 93/93,

Az


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/07/2009 11:00 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
93,

So then....

Eros = Brand new relationship, many hours of wonderful conversation, tons of enduring and awesome sex...

Filos = Sex is boring. You've discussed everything. You know everything about each other, and you still enjoy each other the same as you did at first (kind of paradoxical, I know).

Agape = All-pervading. It's everywhere. A combination of all types of love whatsoever, from self love to family love, friend love, enemy love, universal love, etc. Love in all of its forms. Love incarnate. Love.... under Will.

Yeah? 🙂

93 93/93,

Az

93 93/93

Yeah the eros-part I totally agree with. The moving from eros into filos could and especially the beginning might be very though and break the relationship. But if the hard time is crossed filos just might take it to the end in some cases. The depth and nature of the relationship is tested.
But to comment to the way you put agape; yeah, all pervading and being everywhere, but only the ones that able to see, feel and receive it.
Able to combine with all types of loves, even with the ones that are very much polarities compared to each other. Reminds me the love described in Liber AL; No word about sentimentality. Maybe, indeed, love under will, as you put it. Universal will being similar with the true love. "As brothers fight ye !" (3:59)

93


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
13/07/2009 11:59 pm  

93,

If Agape is indeed all-pervading, it is there whether people see, feel, or receive it.

One can develop a knack, if you will, for it. Hrm, perhaps a good example would be Simon Iff in Moonchild. Remember the chapter about the thing in the garden?

93 93/93,

Az


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
14/07/2009 12:01 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Remember the chapter about the thing in the garden?

The scene borrowed by J K Rowling? Allegedly.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/07/2009 12:04 am  

Lol. I have been meaning to investigate the properties of dittany every since. Sometimes my good intentions even get manifest. 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/07/2009 12:08 am  

You remember Paul. Moonchild. When the 'orrible people had departed as they didn't fancy a supper of cold salted fish etc, and then Iff became one with the 'thing in the garden' while sprinkling dittany on it?


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
14/07/2009 12:09 am  

Alrah, I am aware of the scene. Thank you.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/07/2009 12:23 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
93,

If Agape is indeed all-pervading, it is there whether people see, feel, or receive it.

One can develop a knack, if you will, for it. Hrm, perhaps a good example would be Simon Iff in Moonchild. Remember the chapter about the thing in the garden?

93 93/93,

Az

93/93
I havent yet purchased and/or read Moonchild. I ment that its of course able for everyone as it`s everywhere and all-pervading and suitable for everyones potential, not that it would be open only for the few as an starting point. More like as people should find their own subjective ways to reach it. I`ll keep my eye on your example you mentioned when I read it some day together with the whole book.
93


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
14/07/2009 1:29 am  

93,

"Azoneris" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
93,

If Agape is indeed all-pervading, it is there whether people see, feel, or receive it.

One can develop a knack, if you will, for it. Hrm, perhaps a good example would be Simon Iff in Moonchild. Remember the chapter about the thing in the garden?

93 93/93,

Az

93/93
I havent yet purchased and/or read Moonchild. I ment that its of course able for everyone as it`s everywhere and all-pervading and suitable for everyones potential, not that it would be open only for the few as an starting point. More like as people should find their own subjective ways to reach it. I`ll keep my eye on your example you mentioned when I read it some day together with the whole book.
93

When you do read the book, I recall that there was something extremely interesting and note-worthy on Page 52. Perhaps the part in question is what is on Page 52, but it has been years. At this point in time all I remember is something Simon Iff said on Page 52, which was extremely profound and enlightening at the time.

Anyway, there is a Moonchild thread, so...

93 93/93,

Az


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/07/2009 2:31 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
When you do read the book, I recall that there was something extremely interesting and note-worthy on Page 52. Perhaps the part in question is what is on Page 52, but it has been years. At this point in time all I remember is something Simon Iff said on Page 52, which was extremely profound and enlightening at the time.

Anyway, there is a Moonchild thread, so...

93 93/93,

Az

93/93

Okey dokey, I`ll mark that for myself to remember. Tnx.

93


ReplyQuote
Proteus
(@proteus)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 243
26/09/2009 2:01 am  

This quote from Joseph Glanvill is central to Poe's Ligeia. I think it's an interesting take on Will (and will).

"The will therein lieth, which dieth not. Who knoweth the mysteries of the will, with its vigor? For God is but a great will pervading all things by nature of its intentness. Man doth not yield him to the angels, nor unto death utterly, save only through the weakness of his feeble will."

John


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 456
26/09/2009 11:48 pm  

Has anyone mentioned Schopenhauer yet?

Because of all philosophers, S's idea of "Will" seems to be most cognate with the Thelemic idea of Will in both personal and cosmic aspects (more so than Nietzsche's "Will to Power", I'd say, which is more pluralistic). Yet the strange thing is, Crowley hardly ever mentions him or acknowledges him as an influence (whereas he does acknowledge Nietzsche quite frequently).

(Perhaps it's because of S's pessimistic take, which is the one major thing in his philosophy that's not congruent with Thelema.)


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 450
27/09/2009 6:13 pm  

Gurugeorge, I think the reason Crowley did not mention Schopenhauer as an influence was because in fact - as you correctly guess - Sschpenhauer considered Will to be a negative force. As far as I know, S's idea of Will is very close to the Buddhist desire, as in the 2nd Noble Truth: The cause of suffering is desire. In other words, according to this view, life is suffering or illusion and we are bound to it by the Will to live. Something like that.


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 3
Share: