Self and Will in Th...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Self and Will in Thelema

Page 10 / 13

grouchotrout
(@grouchotrout)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 27
 

I suppose I shouldn't be shocked to see that there's so much petty ego stuff flying around on this corner of the interwebs, but it is a bit disheartening. Props to the peeps that have kept their noses clean here, lol. Anywho...

Although I agree with others that you're being (unintentionally, I assume) obtuse, I also agree with a lot of what you're saying here, Xavier, up to a point, but it may be the primary point...

It sounds like you're equating personal preferences (lower-case "w" will) with Will, and that Self implies Not-Self. I think they are all ultimately one. Doing one's Will implies a fundamental understanding that preferences are arbitrary. Preferences are not the Self nor ones Will. I have a feeling this might actually be what you're trying to express, although the nature of your wording and the digressions in the thread make it somewhat difficult for me to grasp.

What we all seem to be unaware of is our awareness of our unawareness, lol. This seems to be re-solved at some point for all. I'll admit, I think Crowley was a closet Taoist and I tend to smear large globs of Tao over every lens I look through. A couple years of hard sparring every day is what started it for me.

Not-self seems to be a reflection of Self. Well, more than a mere reflection. An illusion? Words do seem woefully inadequate when attempting to discuss such things. It's like people look in a mirror and point and say, "This guise an asshole!" and then get mad when the image does the same thing and then blame the image for cutting their hand when they punch the mirror. "Divided for loves sake," etc. Yes, it is my Will to defeat my opponent in combat. Does it help to defer to arbitrary preferences? Of course not. 

My Will and my opponents Will is one and the same. Therefore, we are one. The purest expression of Will then, is to have no preference and strike when the opportunity arrives, because my opponent (Self) is doing exactly what they (Self) Will. And it sounds paradoxical, but in these moments, Self is aware of its non-awareness. How else could it be? To expand awareness and encompass All is to be aware of no-thing and non-awareness as well. Something about unmanifest potential, scintillating light... Choronzon is the absolute WORST when it comes to martial arts. Too busy intellectualizing and running off at the mouth to realize a foot's coming at his goofy face. Ah, the games we play!

All of the above also implies the paradoxical nature of intense mental concentration and focus (work) in order to attain a degree of spontaneous expression of Self (Will) at any/all given moment/s.

Just my 23 cents, since the thread got me thinking through this post-drunken haze I'm drifting out of. I actually signed up to ask about the Esoteric Order of Dagon and figured I'd drop in and spout some nonsense on my way to making my post, lol

Cheers and carry on or whatever, 🙂

 


ReplyQuote
xavier-moreno
(@xavier-moreno)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 197
Topic starter  
Posted by: @michael-staley

We're pretty much in agreement, I think. However, I don't think too much about reconciling the "plane of illusion" with "reality". Referring again from the quote by Crowley above, "all things are real, the soul is the surface". This is 0 = 2. Similarly, I am no longer given over to writing of 'self' as distinguished from 'Self': not because it is an act of naughty dualism, but because there is a flux and flow. We walk in a multitude of dimensions.

Fairly explained. But let me ask you one more thing: wouldn't you say that in your daily life there are certain activities that have more 'ananda qualities' than others? Wouldn't you say that there are certain things, activities, thoughts, etc. that 'reflect' deep sleep more than others?

I bet there are (maybe I'm wrong). And I bet something else: I'm sure those activities with 'ananda qualities' are different in me (not radically different, there's probably a field where we share certain things, like two Venn circles that overlap), but still different. 

This 'ananda' thing is what I call knowing your Will. And doing those activities and things that produce more 'ananda' than others is what I call doing your will. Would you agree with this description?

By the way, in The Naples Arrangement, Crowley matches Netzach with ananda or bliss. 


ReplyQuote
xavier-moreno
(@xavier-moreno)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 197
Topic starter  
Posted by: @ignant666

Enlighten us, o Swami.

Since you have recognized me as a Swami, it is traditional for the disciple to come on bended knee. 


ReplyQuote
Duck
 Duck
(@duck)
Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 718
 
Posted by: @xavier-moreno

One of the two thesis of the thread, since you know Douglas Harding, is that what the finger points when points to the face is the Khabs. Since you're familiar with Thelema, it would be nice to know your opinion about it. 

The whole "mystery" of the Khabs and Khu is still something I'm figuring out, so the topic you have brought up is of interest to me. I'm not as familiar with Thelema as other posters here are, my recent spiritual "development" came more from Advaita/non-duality. I had a more superficial interest in Thelema when I was younger which faded and with the greater understanding I now have from my "development" I am able to appreciate Thelema more.

My preferred posting style is usually with images or esoteric maths, long wordy posts are a bit of a struggle for me but I'll try to contribute to this thread.

 

Posted by: @michael-staley

Douglas Hardings's book

I'll probably give it another read now its come up here. Its not too long and I remember it being fairly easy going. (nb4 that's what she said etc etc)


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1862
 

Don’t noodle around and smile; when she comes for you, and the trumpets sound; stay present to the rapture awaken to the Love don’t tell her your drifting off to reflect in deep slumber.

https://youtu.be/XxHS9lTUN4Y

 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3695
 
Posted by: @xavier-moreno

Since you have recognized me as a Swami, It is traditional for the disciple to come on bended knee. 

Oh, but i am* on bended knee, even as i type, O Great And Wise Not-At-All-Fascist-Why-Would-You-Say-That? Goo-Roo!

I kiss your very handsome lotus feet in obeisance!

We are so grateful that you are willing to spare your valuable time, from the no-doubt onerous task of luvvin' up all those "women who are beyond all [my] earthly possibilities" who can't get enough of that x-m stuff.

* Wait, what? You could not tell? [stifles nascent doubts at Goo-Roo's Powers]


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4204
 
Posted by: @xavier-moreno

wouldn't you say that in your daily life there are certain activities that have more 'ananda qualities' than others?

Yes, there are. For me they are things which trigger deepening insight. These are usually experiences from magical working, writing, reading, contemplating artwork, hearing certain phrases of music, etc. There are also other things, like catching sight of the moon, particularly in the first few days of the waxing when it is still a thin crescent. But really, anything can trigger that sensation of ananda.


ReplyQuote
xavier-moreno
(@xavier-moreno)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 197
Topic starter  
Posted by: @ignant666

I kiss your very handsome lotus feet in obeisance!

That's what we like here: due obedience.


ReplyQuote
xavier-moreno
(@xavier-moreno)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 197
Topic starter  
Posted by: @michael-staley
Posted by: @xavier-moreno

wouldn't you say that in your daily life there are certain activities that have more 'ananda qualities' than others?

Yes, there are. For me they are things which trigger deepening insight. These are usually experiences from magical working, writing, reading, contemplating artwork, hearing certain phrases of music, etc. There are also other things, like catching sight of the moon, particularly in the first few days of the waxing when it is still a thin crescent. But really, anything can trigger that sensation of ananda.

You sound like an old sage tired of all those fingers pointing at the moon. I guess that's the thing about finding out that there is no moon. 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3695
 
Posted by: @xavier-moreno

That's what we like here: due obedience.

With emphasis on the "due".


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6296
 

DEGENERATION ALERT

Megalomaniac on the Loose!

That is all.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6296
 
Posted by: @dom

then I receive xavier's  '' email notification here

Do you "subscribe" to email notifications? Have you, like those younger twits, actually given permission to a Borg agent to have your consciousness "tethered" to threads and the puppet-master posters? If so, I will put your name on the blessing/healing list for regular prayers. It never works with digitophilia, but at least it's a nice gesture.

Posted by: @dom

I just scan over it in a second without having any intention of engaging

This practice is very important. Everyone must eventually become so strong that they can watch a war, or witness the return of the Christ or the Crowley, without writing a word or thinking an ink (ling). Non Commentatum.

There is no need for lengthy justification. Many (all?) of us have gotten our robes (inner) in a Gordian Not over the outrageous babbling-on of some other Star who is going Nova. We follow the woo-way and put the tranny in neutral. But we all continue to scan all the threads ... all the time. Please issue a correction notice if I am mistaken and need to woo-away.

@dom: Now this next bit was worth coming back for;

Posted by XM:

Now you've recognized a tendency that your mind will never admit to be true. Because 'it can't be the case' that a Spaniard is teaching you more about the Will and the Self than you've learned all this time on your own. That can't be true, says the mind. And yet it is so.

Dom, you have correlated the current style with the archetypal Los configuration. The present candidate simply cannot become a leader of a school of thought, because that school has already been thought.

Posted by: @dom

then there's hope for you yet.    

"Compassion is the (ser)vice of kings."

Posted by: @michael-staley

the work of Wei Wu Wei and that made a huge impact on me.

This seems to be becoming a common term hereabouts. The Crowley equivalent would be his recognition of, and work in, Taoism. Liber AL attempts to describe the qualities of wu-wei and Tao in several places.

I knew a Kathy Wu, and a fellow known as Qi-Gong Wu. But the equation was balanced by Dr. Wei. She was older and taught in the acu clinic. A student complained of tiredness.

Dr. Wei said, "You tied. I tired. Everyone is tied. So what?"

 


ReplyQuote
xavier-moreno
(@xavier-moreno)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 197
Topic starter  

@grouchotrout For some reason I haven't read your answer, that's why I haven't responded.

 

What we all seem to be unaware of is our awareness of our unawareness

So, have you ever been aware of not being aware? Are you really understanding what you're saying? Or have you just read it and think you know what you're talking about? 

It sounds like you're equating personal preferences (lower-case "w" will) with Will, and that Self implies Not-Self. I think they are all ultimately one. Doing one's Will implies a fundamental understanding that preferences are arbitrary. Preferences are not the Self nor ones Will. I have a feeling this might actually be what you're trying to express, although the nature of your wording and the digressions in the thread make it somewhat difficult for me to grasp.

I don't make such an identification. The Will is veiled from the mind. The will is expressed in the mind through your preferences. That's my affirmation. Do you agree?

You say the Self is the non-Self. It's not. The self is not the not-self. Self is Self. Period. Problem is, Self is non-objective. Therefore whatever you say about the Self, it's not the Self. Everything you say about the Self is an object that already implies its opposite [+1 +(-1)]. That doesn't mean that "below the Self" is "a" nothing. Self is no-thing, or void (2=0).

So either you treat all the objects you encounter as objects that are super-imposed on the Self until you realize that this super-imposition is impossible because for there to be super-imposition there has to be "some-thing" over which to super-impose the objects, and the Self as Witness collapses, or you begin to deconstruct all the objects as lacking any substance until you deconstruct that very idea of emptiness. 

The problem with the second method is that it is more difficult to do, that's why there are so many Buddhists or lovers of structuralism who think they have understood something when in fact they are still having fun with impermanence and the anatta of objects or the idea of object-as-structure and have not realized that there are no objects in the first place. That's why if you follow Nagarjuna, it is good to keep an eye on what Gaudapada also says, and if you follow Gaudapada, it is good to keep in mind the emptiness teachings. 

The first method is much faster. It catapults you to the gates of the Abyss, but it has the risk of essentialism because the witnessing awareness has been so overloaded that it is then difficult to deconstruct. The second method is safer, and more elegant, but you have the risk of taking longer and getting nowhere, and you can end up with nihilism, which is just another object, exactly like essentialism is. 

But this only works if there's no-thing. If there is some-thing, if there are arisings, then there is that to which these arisings appear to. If you say, "I want to drink a Coke," then you are acknowledging, even if it is ultimately an illusion, that you want an illusory Coke. And if we move on this plane, then there has to be a way of doing and not doing your will. 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3695
 

Is there some point you will eventually get to? Or is this baroque dissection of Nothing, and definition of minutely specified categories of the ineffable, the point?


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1862
 

xavier xavier xavier.
Again, we are not going to take you seriously until you use your mouth and absorb the number two. Don’t give us an abstraction; actualize it and display it for us. Show us the non inherent nature of self and turd; don’t run your mouth on about it, oh grand hamster.


ReplyQuote
xavier-moreno
(@xavier-moreno)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 197
Topic starter  
Posted by: @tiger

xavier xavier xavier.
Again, we are not going to take you seriously until you use your mouth and absorb the number two. Don’t give us an abstraction; actualize it and display it for us. Show us the non inherent nature of self and turd; don’t run your mouth on about it, oh grand hamster.

When you say don't talk about 'abstractions', you obviously haven't understood anything. At this point of the enquiry it should be clear that talking about 'abstractions' does not make any sense. Abstractions versus non-abstractions? What sense does that make if we have already established that the abstract and non-abstract is nothing more than an arising?

Stay in your dream-control fantasy, like the spiritual junkie you are. When you understand that having an experience, no matter how great, is useless because it comes and goes, you may begin to understand what this thread is all about and you'll start to get interested in experience itself. That's only if you're lucky. But you're probably not that lucky. Most likely you will continue to assume that you have a long time to live and that you can have fun with other things while you continue to pursue your spiritual heroin injections. Maybe it's too late for you. 


ReplyQuote
xavier-moreno
(@xavier-moreno)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 197
Topic starter  
Posted by: @ignant666

Is there some point you will eventually get to? Or is this baroque dissection of Nothing, and definition of minutely specified categories of the ineffable, the point?

I asked you a question before that you haven't answered. You're a bad disciple.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3695
 

So perceptive. Any question you may have posed got lost in the logorrhea.

What is the point of this interminable series of very long, very wordy posts?


ReplyQuote
Duck
 Duck
(@duck)
Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 718
 

That was almost like hearing mal/xon's voice again. 😆 


ReplyQuote
xavier-moreno
(@xavier-moreno)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 197
Topic starter  

All these homilies about not using 'abstractions' or not using 'reason' because it is limited are just excuses to justify laziness, or worse, ineptitude.

The reason why reason (not pun intended) is ultimately arbitrary is because if you investigate your experience you find that words and concepts never refer to anything. Words and concepts never have a 'real' reference. This is because you never have the experience of a dog and the concept 'dog' coinciding with each other. There is never a match between the two, because there are not two. What you experience is thought A with the dog content, then thought B with the dog concept and then thought C that 'joins' the two thoughts and presents them as one, but it is only the thought of a relationship that has never existed.

That is why the reason ultimately does not point to anything. And everything you affirm can be equally denied, because there is no reference.

This does not mean that the use of reason is arbitrary. If so, then any way you drive your car and interpret traffic signs should get you home. Or any teaching, or any speech, should be able to send you beyond the Abyss, and this obviously does not happen. As long as you have to go from A to B, reason will have its place and function.


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1862
 

Here we have a hamster churning in a deep absent minded slumber devoid of direct experience; displaying how to modify a marathon to be run with a mouth. Assuming an experience and identifying with its conception of what is human.
circa 8/26/2020


ReplyQuote
xavier-moreno
(@xavier-moreno)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 197
Topic starter  
Posted by: @ignant666

So perceptive. Any question you may have posed got lost in the logorrhea.

What is the point of this interminable series of very long, very wordy posts?

You've already recognized that when the monkey-mind calms down there is that 'presence' that is aware. That's the Khabs. 

Second point: from this presence, desires continue to arise. By inference, these desires cannot even come from your mind, because it has already been calmed down. That which your preferences and desires come from is your Khabs. These desires and preferences are the voice of your Angel.


ReplyQuote
xavier-moreno
(@xavier-moreno)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 197
Topic starter  
Posted by: @tiger

Here we have a hamster churning in a deep absent minded slumber devoid of direct experience; displaying how to modify a marathon to be run with a mouth. Assuming an experience and identifying with its conception of what is human.
circa 8/26/2020

The only thing that is devoid of direct experience is your inability to understand deep sleep, as you have demonstrated before. If you can't even understand that you can't know the unknown, you're screwed. 

 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3695
 
Posted by: @xavier-moreno

Or any teaching, or any speech, should be able to send you beyond the Abyss, and this obviously does not happen.

Aha, finally he states his major premise, in inverse form, and it all makes sense.

That premise is: Only the correct, minutely-specified, intellectual understanding of certain concepts, and the complex relations among these concepts, can lead to Enlightenment/Crossing The Abyss. Thus these endless ponderous wordy, entities-multiplying-on-entities lectures from The Master, to provide us trogs, for the first time, with the necessary tools to do so.

That "obviously" is doing one hell of a lot of work in that formulation. It serves to handwave away the historical record of attainment among persons of very diverse cultures, levels of education, periods of history with different understandings of philosophy/nature/science/the world, etc etc., and would seem to be difficult to reconcile with the claimed attainments of one Aleister Crowley, since his copious writings on his claims don't make use of this particular minutely-specified understanding of these concepts. Which is the only way to attain.

"Obviously".


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3695
 
Posted by: @xavier-moreno

Second point: from this presence, desires continue to arise.

This has not been my experience.

Posted by: @xavier-moreno

By inference, these desires cannot even come from your mind, because it has already been calmed down.

You have now "proven" that "these desires" are not of the "mind", because the talking part of the mind is silent, because you have defined "the mind" as "the talking part". This is known as "begging the question", even setting aside the fact that my experience differs from yours, or what you hypothesize might happen; see above.

How do we know that "that which remains" is not just another, different part of "the mind" again? One, perhaps, that normally is is "unaware of itself" because of that monkey that keeps chattering about itself?

Posted by: @xavier-moreno

That which your preferences and desires come from is your Khabs. These desires and preferences are the voice of your Angel.

So you say. No raw tomatoes for you then.

 


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1862
 

@xavier-moreno
I recommend among other things, that you practice yogic sleep techniques before expounding on the experience and nature of sleep.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3695
 

For I am divided for love’s sake, for the chance of union.[AL I:29]

And, of course, to avoid raw tomatoes.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3695
 

Perhaps this is all some elaborate Zen joke:

Disciple: What is the Buddha nature?

Master: I hates them raw 'maters!


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6296
 
Posted by: @ignant666

What is the point of this interminable series of very long, very wordy posts?

Corona Zone runneth runs on endlessly without end, and no puta punta point can be made, because that would repeal reveal expose the fact that nothing is there.

Posted by: @ignant666

That premise is: Only the correct, minutely-specified, intellectual understanding of certain concepts, and the complex relations among these concepts, can lead to Enlightenment/Crossing The Abyss. Thus these endless ponderous wordy, entities-multiplying-on-entities lectures from The Master, to provide us trogs, for the first time, with the necessary tools to do so.

A nice summary, with all loose ends tucked neatly in place. Your lower, concreted and asphalted brain gets the "point," but your abstract mind, the higher you, is (by definition) "screwed" because you don't sleep properly.

 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3695
 

And now a word from our sponsors:

23 SKIDOO

What man is at ease in his Inn?

Get out.

Wide is the world and cold.

Get out.

Thou hast become an in-itiate.

Get out.

But thou canst not get out by the way thou camest in. The Way out is THE WAY.

Get out.

[...;TBOL]


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3695
 

Can't add this after block quote, so new post:

A magician who is not armed with reason on "the way in" courts madness and obsession. We just saw a fine live-action demonstration of this here recently.

But one who seeks to keep it with them on "the Way out", well, we know what happens to them...


ReplyQuote
xavier-moreno
(@xavier-moreno)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 197
Topic starter  
 
Posted by: @xavier-moreno

Second point: from this presence, desires continue to arise.

This has not been my experience.

And yet, since we've defined Will as what you're already doing when all (or almost all) mental resistance has been removed, you are at least doing one thing: sitting quietly and observing you. 

Of course, that's not a very surprising discovery, is it? But at least you have the experience of 'what is It like to be someone doing something with no monkey-mind interrupting you'. Now you have a way to observe your reactions in each context without that monkey-mind. The task now is to bring this experience into your everyday noisy life. 

Posted by: @xavier-moreno

By inference, these desires cannot even come from your mind, because it has already been calmed down.

You have now "proven" that "these desires" are not of the "mind", because the talking part of the mind is silent, because you have defined "the mind" as "the talking part". This is known as "begging the question", even setting aside the fact that my experience differs from yours, or what you hypothesize might happen; see above.

Of course, our first-person experiences may be different. That's the problem of the first-person experience. And that's why we are in dialogue, to find a consensus in our first-person description. 

How do we know that "that which remains" is not just another, different part of "the mind" again? One, perhaps, that normally is is "unaware of itself" because of that monkey that keeps chattering about itself?

So what we have is simply a semantic problem. If that other part of the mind is never objective, then we will never know it in our direct experience as an object. Of course, you can call that which remains the mind as well. But then you will have to divide that mind into one that can be objectified and one that cannot be objectified. Point is, we can observe the rational or intellectual faculty of us. That's why the scholastics considered the intellect an "accident of the soul", because it arises as an object being witnessed. And that's enough. 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6296
 

You know what he said. "Philosophy is the enemy of Magick."

 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3695
 
,Posted by: @xavier-moreno

since we've defined Will as what you're already doing when all (or almost all) mental resistance has been removed, you are at least doing one thing: sitting quietly and observing you. 

i did not realize that "we" had done this? When?

Posted by: @xavier-moreno

And that's why we are in dialogue, to find a consensus in our first-person description. 

Again, was not aware that was what was going on.

Silly old me thought i was an unusually thick trog receiving an astonishingly condescending, astonishingly boring, and interminable, lecture, embodying Pearls Of Wisdom From A Master With A Keen Intellect.

Had noticed no "dialogue" so far. When was this?

Thank you for your implicit concession that your question-begging claims about what is, and is not, "the mind" are purely arbitrary, and bullshit, and that you are just talking out the side of your neck as you make these Magisterial Pronouncements.


ReplyQuote
xavier-moreno
(@xavier-moreno)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 197
Topic starter  

@ignant666 If there is no dialogue, there is nothing more to say. Good bye ugly face. 


ReplyQuote
xavier-moreno
(@xavier-moreno)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 197
Topic starter  

I give up the thread. If anyone has anything else to share feel free to do it, I'd be happy to read it. 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3695
 
Posted by: @xavier-moreno

Good bye ugly face. 

Good bye, dim-wit with an inflated ego.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6296
 
Posted by: @ignant666

Again, was not aware that was what was going on.

Please refer to your invisible copy of The Hidden Agenda. You will there find several excuses for seeking high office and prominent exposure.

Posted by: @xavier-moreno

Good bye ugly face.

Why do they always leave hurling insults?

Can we get some rest (samadhi deep snooze) now?

 


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1862
 

Oh i forgot to mention reddit as away where he could have a conceptual dialog with the inexperienced about the taste of poop he never tasted; and get the sheep to run in place.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3695
 
Posted by: @tiger

the taste of poop he never tasted;

See here.


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1862
 

@ignant666
Well i guess that beats the mountain retreat.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1825
 
Posted by: @tiger

the taste of poop he never tasted

The difficulty with coprophagistically ingesting doggie-do being not so much that it might have come from A Collie but be E Coli instead, of course...

"Boom-Boom"?

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6296
 
Posted by: @jamiejbarter

E Coli instead

People don't really know much about E. Holy cow, there was a Spinach(!) farm in Caliphornia that tested positive foe E Coli. The food police shut them down.

The phrase, Eat E Coli and die! is not a magical promise, but a medical practice.

 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3695
 

Well, as the old blues song has it "You're a a beautful girl/You know you got to die some day."

Harris Milstead, aka Divine, lived another 16 years after eating those doggie poo-poos off the Baltimore sidewalk in 1972. Of course, they spat most of them out.


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3214
 
Posted by: @jamiejbarter
Posted by: @tiger

the taste of poop he never tasted

The difficulty with coprophagistically ingesting doggie-do being not so much that it might have come from A Collie but be E Coli instead, of course...

"Boom-Boom"?

N Joy

Sorry, when Jamie B. produced this, his latest good pun I had to break my oath and re-enter this centre of pestilence thread.  Nice one Jamie.  

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2939
 

Good bye ugly face. 

Hmmm

That's deep. 

*ponders*

 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6296
 
Posted by: @dom

I had to break my oath and re-enter this centre of pestilence thread. 

It's okay now. The, um, Adepti have left the Temple.

 


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3214
 
Posted by: @christibrany

Good bye ugly face. 

Hmmm

That's deep. 

*ponders*

 

Note that he never had the balls to show his own face in his own avatar yet he tries to insult the person who does have himself in his avatar, says a lot that.  

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2939
 

@dom

 

i am sure he was 'gorge'

Just like Javier Bardem.

That haircut in No Country was hilarious.

Love that film.

No off topic now please gents 😉 

 

New shop: Off Topic

 

 


ReplyQuote
grouchotrout
(@grouchotrout)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 27
 
Posted by: @xavier-moreno

@grouchotrout For some reason I haven't read your answer, that's why I haven't responded.

 

What we all seem to be unaware of is our awareness of our unawareness

So, have you ever been aware of not being aware? Are you really understanding what you're saying? Or have you just read it and think you know what you're talking about?

It sounds like you're equating personal preferences (lower-case "w" will) with Will, and that Self implies Not-Self. I think they are all ultimately one. Doing one's Will implies a fundamental understanding that preferences are arbitrary. Preferences are not the Self nor ones Will. I have a feeling this might actually be what you're trying to express, although the nature of your wording and the digressions in the thread make it somewhat difficult for me to grasp.

I don't make such an identification. The Will is veiled from the mind. The will is expressed in the mind through your preferences. That's my affirmation. Do you agree?

You say the Self is the non-Self. It's not. The self is not the not-self. Self is Self. Period. Problem is, Self is non-objective. Therefore whatever you say about the Self, it's not the Self. Everything you say about the Self is an object that already implies its opposite [+1 +(-1)]. That doesn't mean that "below the Self" is "a" nothing. Self is no-thing, or void (2=0).

So either you treat all the objects you encounter as objects that are super-imposed on the Self until you realize that this super-imposition is impossible because for there to be super-imposition there has to be "some-thing" over which to super-impose the objects, and the Self as Witness collapses, or you begin to deconstruct all the objects as lacking any substance until you deconstruct that very idea of emptiness. 

The problem with the second method is that it is more difficult to do, that's why there are so many Buddhists or lovers of structuralism who think they have understood something when in fact they are still having fun with impermanence and the anatta of objects or the idea of object-as-structure and have not realized that there are no objects in the first place. That's why if you follow Nagarjuna, it is good to keep an eye on what Gaudapada also says, and if you follow Gaudapada, it is good to keep in mind the emptiness teachings. 

The first method is much faster. It catapults you to the gates of the Abyss, but it has the risk of essentialism because the witnessing awareness has been so overloaded that it is then difficult to deconstruct. The second method is safer, and more elegant, but you have the risk of taking longer and getting nowhere, and you can end up with nihilism, which is just another object, exactly like essentialism is. 

But this only works if there's no-thing. If there is some-thing, if there are arisings, then there is that to which these arisings appear to. If you say, "I want to drink a Coke," then you are acknowledging, even if it is ultimately an illusion, that you want an illusory Coke. And if we move on this plane, then there has to be a way of doing and not doing your will. 

Yes, I have been aware of not being aware, as I stated above. I can't really comment on it, as the linguistic expression is obviously paradoxical. But, from my experience, you can't take language "there" and therefore, no language can properly express it "here." It's an objective experience of the subjective, I think, lol. And the more I think about it, the less I wish to speak on it. It is a simultaneous recognition of the self and the object, where both are made apparent, via their mutual obliteration. Again, these primate, throat sounds, border on blaspheming the experience, IMHO. And I think we may be in agreement, although - language. I could show you better in the heat of physical combat, or love-making, or a particular brushstroke on a painting, maybe. Or a joke that prompts a good hearty, belly laugh. IDK, the more we speak about it, the more we obscure it... 

I personally disagree that Will is expressed through mind via preferences. I guess I didn't express that clearly enough in my post. I think Will, in this context, by-passes the mind and personal preferences. Once a body is tune with the Will, it expresses all by itself, seemingly from out of now-here. "It punches all by it-self," to paraphrase the great master, Bruce Lee. I think you may be attempting to put The Box in The Box, itself. Which reminds me of a particular force what loves categorization, and explicating "this" and "that" - a world best suited for "lower" astral/mentation more easily expressed through mutually agreed upon throat barking, rather than an experience that involves all the bodies and worlds rip roarin' up and down and all around inside and out. I've definitely written too much here on this topic, but I blame the rum.


ReplyQuote
Page 10 / 13
Share: