The True Will - a q...
 
Notifications
Clear all

The True Will - a question to Los

Page 3 / 3

Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Hamal" wrote:
I disagree with the laws of gravity, I find them oppressive!

Is your implication that the theology of the OTO religion is a natural law akin to gravity? If so, I'm afraid that you're mistaken.

The Law of Thelema can be considered to be a natural law, but the theology of the Thelema-based religion practiced by the OTO, on the other hand....


ReplyQuote
Hamal
(@hamal)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 547
 
"Los" wrote:
"Hamal" wrote:
I disagree with the laws of gravity, I find them oppressive!

Is your implication that the theology of the OTO religion is a natural law akin to gravity? If so, I'm afraid that you're mistaken.

The Law of Thelema can be considered to be a natural law, but the theology of the Thelema-based religion practiced by the OTO, on the other hand....

Oh get a life, I'm implying no such thing!  😛 It was a joke comment, not intended to be taken seriously Los!

😀
93
Hamal


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Hamal" wrote:
It was a joke comment, not intended to be taken seriously

Careful you don't hurt yourself backpeddling so hard.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1182
 
"Los" wrote:
Someone who is completely physically unable to do these things can still discover and carry out his or her True Will as best as he or she can in that particular circumstance, but without a good working knowledge of the terrain (in this case, the terrain of reality) -- which is gained by education and broad experience -- the individual may find it difficult to navigate that terrain in a satisfactory manner.

Individuals may want to improve their circumstances as best they can. [...] Experience might be a little more tricky to come by, but most clever individuals can find ways to get "out of their comfort zone" no matter what circumstances they face.

You have been posting on this site since November 02, 2008, Los. In your first post you wrote: 

"Los" wrote:
"... I'm a Thelemic Atheist, and I view Atheism as a position that is extremely important to promote at this time in history. Mankind desperately needs to leave behind all beliefs in the supernatural and embrace reality as it actually is."

On this site you write under a pseudonym, do you consider promotion under a pseudonym the to be the most effective way of promoting Thelemic Atheism? And when it comes to the position of Atheism that you describe as "extremely important to promote at this time in history", do you consider promotion under a pseudonym to be the most effective way of promoting Atheism?

Concerning The True Will, is it your position that if one's true will is to stay in one's comfort zone and promote something only under a a pseudonym, then this is the way one shall promote something, even if it is not an effective way of promotion in the terrain of reality?


ReplyQuote
Hamal
(@hamal)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 547
 
"Los" wrote:
"Hamal" wrote:
It was a joke comment, not intended to be taken seriously

Careful you don't hurt yourself backpeddling so hard.

No offence Los, but you really need to chill out and recognise humour when you see it! 😮

🙂
93
Hamal


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"Hamal" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
"Hamal" wrote:
It was a joke comment, not intended to be taken seriously

Careful you don't hurt yourself backpeddling so hard.

No offence Los, but you really need to chill out and recognise humour when you see it! 😮

🙂
93
Hamal


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 2130
Topic starter  
"Los" wrote:
If you don't think there's a qualitative, detectable difference between fantasy and actual reaction, then you're suggesting that it's impossible to discover the True Will and thus impossible to practice Thelema.

But that's not what I am saying. What I am trying to say is that it is irrelevant if - by "new age" mind-stilling methods - you come to the conclusion that "there are intelligences way beyond our grasp who are able to communicate with us" or "everything is consciousness" or "only what current physics have discovered is true" you still are equally able to observe your reactions to the situations you are thrown into. The "fantasy" comes beforehand and it is part of who you are and what you have become. Paying attention on how you actually react is possible always even if the starting points are different. In fact Crowley believed in intelligences currently not known to man and he was still advocating the paying attention to any given moment is helping to discover the True Will, you are obviously not believing in this kind of stuff, but are advocating the same method. The law is for all.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 

Reply #76 by Los on: May 15, 2014, 0608 am:

The goal isn't to stop thought entirely. The goal is to avoid getting *fooled* by thoughts, which represent reality but are not, themselves, reality.

Yes; the tool or instrument is not really up for the job in its present form, it being literally like trying to look at the back of your head without the aid of a strategically placed mirrors.

One “goal” to own is surely that of having a greater degree of control over what one’s own mind is doing: for example, making the conscious more ‘conscious’ of its subconscious & then exercising what could be called superconsciousness, or maybe the quasi-alchemical transcendence of normal states as in the ‘Vitriol’ formula, using the “occult” or “hidden” part of it to stand for the “sub-”. 

The question is also one of quality of thought.  As A.C. remarks in Eight Lectures on Yoga and elsewhere, there is more than one different class of break.  Some are very subtle and hardly on the same wavelength as major disruptions – e.g., where he gives the example of the rather sneaky thought the practitioner may have about how well s/he is doing on managing to concentrate so well and one-pointedly upon their mantra! 

Another thing I have just thought of, is what is it that actually causes the mind to apparently spontaneously generate these ‘thoughts’ and especially if they would appear to against one’s willed intention (whether true or not) at the time?  A.C. describes various experiments to track an idea or thought back to its source (e.g., whilst under the influence of strange ether), and there seem to be certain parallels along these lines with the creative process itself.  Of particular relevance to this whole question are where he goes into the nature of the ‘tendencies’ and Skandhas.

Again though, it is not so much the “thoughts” which fool one (with their one, one, one), as the “words” which lie behind that to describe or name it, hence all of the ideas of Mercury as being the trickster god who is also the god of language, writing & the hermetic arts named in his honour.

In a way the idea of doing mantra meditation is a bit of a con, since it substitutes one thing (or word in this case) as the object of concentration for another, and in so doing it becomes not so much a word as a sound (cf. transmissions through the oral tradition).  So much so, it may perhaps arguably be better to substitute a yantra or mandala for one-pointed concentration instead…

One thing which all of us, magicians, non-magicians, thelemites, non-thelemites, rationalists or supernaturalists have in common is that we all possess a brain.  Each brain of homo sapiens looks and functions in pretty much the same way as another, and has done so for tens of thousands of years, adapting piecemeal to minor changes in environment along the way, nothing too cataclysmic or evolutionary challenging since antediluvian times really.  And although Neanderthal man and other genetic variations have died out along the journey, evolution has been proved not to be a smooth ride but one of bump starts & jumps, and therefore it is quite likely that hom. sap is due for a significant bump fairly soon if not a mutation into another (sub-) species altogether.  Some commentators have said that the “homo superior” (and ‘pretty things’) are already starting to manifest among us which remains to be established, however if this is the case they are bound to end up persecuted and unloved by their ‘unfitter’ cousins (cf. 'Odd John' by Olaf Stapledon, ‘Childhood’s End’ by Arthur C. Clarke among other similar works.)  The point is that at present all of our brains and minds work in more or less the same way, particularly in response to their ‘hardwired’ responses to the environment, instinctual reflexes, defence mechanisms, etc.: the actual differences from individual to individual are fairly minor in view of the shared commonality between us.  And it is this common way that each mind individually deals with things is what A.C. has used the word “tendency” throughout his writings to describe.

The end conclusion of A.C. on this fascinating and centrally important topic is that

22. But even this Fourth Skandha is not final.  With practice, it also appears as an illusion, and one remains with nothing but the bare consciousness of the existence of such a tendency.
I cannot tell you very much about this, because I have not worked it out very thoroughly myself, but I very much doubt whether “consciousness” has any meaning at all, as a translation of the word Vinnanam.  I think that a better translation would be “experience”, used in the sense in which we have been using it hitherto, as the direct reality behind and beyond all remark.
23. I hope you will appreciate how difficult it is to give a reasoned description, however tentative, of these phenomena, still less to classify them properly.  They have a curious trick of running one into the other.  This, I believe, is one of the reasons why it has been impossible to find any really satisfactory literature about Yoga at all.  The more advanced one’s progress, the less one knows, and the more one understands.  The effect is simply additional evidence of what I have been saying all this time: that it is very little use discussing things; what is needed is a continuous devotion to the practice [- in one’s room, if necessary – j.b.]

(Hopefully this has managed to make sense.  As may have been deduced I have been contemplating putting together & constructing a more formalised essay along these lines at some point if I can be energised enough & so quite would appreciate any stimulating input.)

Further responses to Frater Sphinx – I mean Los:

Reply #88 by Los on: May 16, 2014, 0858 pm:

More broadly, paying attention to mental phantoms, illusions created by the mind, is kind of awful practice because the mind is *already* conditioned to pay more attention to its imaginary representations than to reality. It's valuable practice to try to break that conditioning, and you can really only do that by forcing yourself to pay attention to real stuff, by shutting off your mind and steadfastly observing, consistently bringing your attention back to the present moment.

How exactly is this proposed to be done – given that the means of introspection is apparently verboten?

Reply #88 by Los on: May 16, 2014, 0858 pm:

Discovering the True Will is just not the sort of thing you can do by sitting in a room.

This has a sort of ex cathedra announcement type of feel about it: it may be advisable to prefix or suffix it with “in my opinion” (in my opinion…)?

Reply #88 by Los on: May 16, 2014, 0858 pm:

Of course what I'm describing is a kind of introspection, but it's a kind of introspection that's operating on a much broader base of much, much, much better evidence.

Also “In your opinion”.  And is the implication therefore that there is “good”  😀 introspection and “Bad”  >:( instrospection?

Reply #88 by Los on: May 16, 2014, 0858 pm:

Anyone who tries to gain self knowledge is in danger of making mistakes, and of course someone who's actually trying to do a good job of it will try to catch and correct those mistakes wherever possible. But pretending that self knowledge can be equated with fantasies basically guarantees that one will be making mistakes, and accepting half-baked platitudes like "All existence is consciousness," or whatever, is just going to make it harder, if not impossible, to catch and correct those mistakes.

But which is it? (i.e., are platitudes to be regarded as mistakes?)

"Los" wrote:
"lashtal" wrote:
do 'you disagree with that the interplay of Nuit and Hadit gives rise to the Principle of Consciousness which governs existence'? That seems fairly fundamental to me, to be honest!

It depends on exactly what is meant by the "Principle of Consciousness." Wellread posed that question to me in response to my denying the belief that "all is consciousness," so I took it to mean that he thought "Principle of Consciousness" referred to that kind of belief.
I mean, obviously the interplay of Nuit and Hadit give rise to Heru-ra-ha according to the Book of the Law. The question is what exactly that means, or rather what exactly those images are symbols for. If by "Principle of Consciousness" they mean that HRH represents the True Self and that in this aeon the "principle" governing behavior is that the True Self and its inclinations should direct the individual (as opposed to, say, the principle that people should follow some kind of specific ideal of behavior, as in the previous aeon)

As A.C. put it in his New Comment:

We may then take it that this Solar-Phallic Ra Ha is Each Man Himself.  As each indepenjdent cell in our bodies is to us, is each of us to Heru-Ra-Ha.  Each man’s ‘child’-consciousness is a Star in the Cosmos of the Sun, as the Sun is a Star in the Cosmos of Nuith.

"Los" wrote:
...then sure, I agree with that. If, on the other hand, by "Principle of Consciousness" they mean that "all is consciousness," then I disagree with that.

Well, then, what is “All”?  (And please don’t reply “not aught”/ not anything or that which we call “Nothing, because it is beyond Everything attainable by thought, or trance…” (A.C.)  ALL = 61 = nothing.)

"Los" wrote:
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
So you disagree with that the interplay of Nuit and Hadit gives rise to the Principle of Consciousness which governs existence? (Source: http://oto-usa.org/thelema/theology/)

I disagree with a lot of the OTO's "theology."

They must be quaking in their boots.

I see you've got a lot to add to the conversation, as usual.

I don’t know about you, but I’m still waiting (♪) for the evidence outstanding way back from Replies #60 and 61

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
[...] On this site you write under a pseudonym, do you consider promotion under a pseudonym the to be the most effective way of promoting Thelemic Atheism? And when it comes to the position of Atheism that you describe as "extremely important to promote at this time in history", do you consider promotion under a pseudonym to be the most effective way of promoting Atheism?
Concerning The True Will, is it your position that if one's true will is to stay in one's comfort zone and promote something only under a a pseudonym, then this is the way one shall promote something, even if it is not an effective way of promotion in the terrain of reality?

This question has not been answered.  There is an extremely valid point behind it, the expression of which has not perhaps been brought out as fully as it might have been.  Los appears to have been saying that introspection from the ‘comfort and safety’ of one’s own room (say) cannot further the perpetuation of one’s true will, and yet his own “message” would appear to be similarly unfocussed (in his terms) by being delivered from the comparative comfort and safety of a pseudonym.  Can that be said to fully react by “embracing reality as it actually is” and “navigating that terrain in a satisfactory manner” (Short answer - no it can’t.)

"Hamal" wrote:
I disagree with the laws of gravity, I find them oppressive!  😛
😀
93
Hamal

Newton made a fundamental error, you know: Gravity does not exist, the Earth sucks instead (since recognised as a Mr J. Edgar’s “Hoover Hypothesis”).

"Hamal" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
"Hamal" wrote:
It was a joke comment, not intended to be taken seriously

Careful you don't hurt yourself backpeddling so hard.

No offence Los, but you really need to chill out and recognise humour when you see it! 😮

And even when he don’t (;D ) “lol”!

(I may not be able to participate in the conversation much further at the moment as, similar to Lutz, I will still technically be on my ‘break’ for a few more days yet).

Wishing you were here and that I could take you all back home with me…
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
if - by "new age" mind-stilling methods - you come to the conclusion that "there are intelligences way beyond our grasp who are able to communicate with us" or "everything is consciousness" or "only what current physics have discovered is true" you still are equally able to observe your reactions to the situations you are thrown into.

Sure. I'm not claiming that believing those things makes it impossible to observe one's reactions (once one stops having those fantasies and starts paying attention to one's reactions). I'm pointing out that having fantasies about, say, "cosmic consciousness" -- while meditating in one's room -- does not, in and of itself, enable the individual to discover his True Will. I'd argue it barely helps at all...and that it possibly hinders.

After all, individuals given over to that kind of fantasy stuff are probably going to tend to have a harder time focusing on reality, not an easier time.

And, I'm arguing that pretty much the only way to discover the True Will is to pay attention to those reactions in real time.

I'm afraid that you're not actually responding to my arguments at all.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

True Will doesn't exist.

The End.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:

Well, there were a few posts of mine you kind of ignored

Thelemic training consists of getting better at perceiving those distorting influences of the mind, detecting them in real time, and preventing them from getting in the way of perceiving the True Will.

Does it? What you are talking about Los is, essentially thought obversation.  One can put a fancy description on that if one  wills e.g. "Gurdjieffian self-remembering" or maybe, " zazen".

Thelemic practice only gets to this at the  Liber Turris stage. 


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 2130
Topic starter  

93, Los!

"Los" wrote:
I'm afraid that you're not actually responding to my arguments at all.

Well, I wasn't argueing your argument about "paying attention" (maybe later), but wanted to point out that it is your personal opinion - as contrasted to a fact - that "individuals given over to that kind of fantasy stuff are probably going to tend to have a harder time focusing on reality, not an easier time", and nothing more. Maybe you personally believe that they have a harder time or you yourself would have a harder time, and for some people this (of course) might be true, but strictly logically this has nothing to do with the KIND OF fantasies, be they "occult" or "goofy" in your eyes, or "rationalistic" or "mechanical" in some other one's eyes. Given that it seems to be your biggest pet peeve when people mention stuff you regard as "occult" or "goofy" and your urge to "correct" them on those matters (including the Old Goat himself), I thought it worthy to point out that "your Thelemic methods" have nothing to do with that. It's just your focus, whatever reasons you have and there is a possiblity that this focus interferes with your "paying attention" as much as some other people's focus on occult ideas.

The law is for all...

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:
"Shiva" wrote:
If anyone knows of some participant who "attained" permanent, mind-stopping enlightenment

The goal isn't to stop thought entirely. The goal is to avoid getting *fooled* by thoughts, which represent reality but are not, themselves, reality.

The only folk who have stopped thought completely are congregating now in your local mortuary.  They are the ones with the tags on their toes.  What Los is trying to get across has been taught for centuries by various Eastern teachers particularly.  In the modern era Gurdjieff called it, "self-remembering". 

Here's some questions for Los.

1) Do you think that modern therapists have discovered that "people with issues" have difficulty in watching those thoughts pop across, "the gap" (and therefore don't discover their True Will) or do those people have issues because they can't watch those thoughts popping across, "the gap", as it were? 

2)  If thought-observation is the crux of Thelema then, by your logic, practices such as divination, learning Cabbalistic correspondences, banishing rituals, "god-invoking", evocation and in fact the whole gamut of Occult practices and Hindustani yoga that Crowley "synthesised" into his system, is irrelevant isn't it?  It's just, "astral" entertainment or spiritual fun and has nothing to do with manifesting the True Will? 

3) If you answer, "yes" to question 2 then why did Crowley spend years submerging himself in writing , studying and teaching such irrelevant practices?  Was he barking up the wrong tree?  Admitttedly when he talks about "birth strangled babes" i.e.  thought- observation and subsequent destruction of those thoughts then this is what you are describing as the simple essence of Thelema  but   he was talking about this process in the context of sitting in asana, after a long agonizing process of, "mastery of asana and pranayama".  He was not discussing this within the context of just doing it anywhere and any time as you wish.  Again, I guesse he was, by your standards wrong on this matter? 

4) By your standards , do you view Liber Legis as a mere trippy poem , much of it being gobbledygook?  The only functional aspect of which is the phrase, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"?

5) Everything you are proposing, work-wise, is basically the crux of zen.  To me, you are Thelemifying (eliminating the Buddhist lineage malarkey, the moral bondages and Japanese cultural influences of) zen.  Do you agree?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

Los,

I have just seen your piece on Thelema and Zen in your blog.  http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/mailbag-thelema-and-zen.html#more   

It's a great post and answers my question above about the Thelemification of Zen.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6843
 
"david" wrote:
The only folk who have stopped thought completely are congregating now in your local mortuary.

I suspect you are correct. U.G. Krishnamurti tells us that when he is alone, by himself, his mind is stopped; he does not know what he is looking at; but when he must solve a problem, or communicate with someone, then his mind kicks in and works - only to drift away into the background when the "need" has passed. Perhaps this is the best that can happen (on a permanent basis).

For most folks, the best that can be attained is a temporary stopping of the mind (in dhyana and samadhi); but then it always starts up again.

"Sit still. Stop thinking. Shut up. Get out! The first two of these instructions comprise the whole of the technique of Yoga."
- Magick Without Tears

"If Thought then be that which troubles the soul, there is but one way to take. Stop thinking."
- Soul of the Desert

"Stop thinking. Can you stop thinking? [If] you are trying to stop, that means thinking. I am not suggesting that you should not think. Thought is you. If you are not thinking you are not there. Nothing is there. What is there will begin to express itself. Let that express. Then there is no question. Just leave that alone. It will begin to act."
- U.G. Krishnamurti

"Since you can't stop thinking, and thinking is sorrow, you will always suffer. There is no way out, no escape."
- U.G. Krishnamurti

"Some sages say that we must be “nothing” This a faulty choice of words and perhaps bad advice.  We have suggested above that it is just the act of wanting to be “nothing,” – wanting to be different that binds us."
- U.G. Krishnamurti


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

I just bought an album by Sun Ra called "Angels and Demons at Play". The poem included called "The Shadow of Tomorrow" when recited while listening to the music, helps to quiet my own thoughts. Recited silently, while listening to the music and at the same time cleaning a bunch of dishes creates real space for the True Will to appear.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

The thought of quieting one's thoughts, or even of quiet thoughts, is still a thought.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Well, I wasn't argueing your argument about "paying attention" (maybe later), but wanted to point out that it is your personal opinion - as contrasted to a fact - that "individuals given over to that kind of fantasy stuff are probably going to tend to have a harder time focusing on reality, not an easier time", and nothing more. Maybe you personally believe that they have a harder time or you yourself would have a harder time, and for some people this (of course) might be true, but strictly logically this has nothing to do with the KIND OF fantasies, be they "occult" or "goofy" in your eyes, or "rationalistic" or "mechanical" in some other one's eyes.

I've already conceded that fantasies about tentacle monsters and fantasies about "the kind of person I am" are equally obstacles.

If I spend more time criticizing the tentacle monster kinds of fantasies, it's because I'm responding to the fact that there are people who actively go around talking about how tentacle monster fantasies help them to "destroy the ego" and connect to the "universal will" or whatever.

Meanwhile, adopting a philosophy that exalts fantasy ("All is consciousness!") does, by definition, make it harder to discover the True Will because it's exalting the very thing that is the obstacle.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"david" wrote:
Here's some questions for Los.

1) Do you think that modern therapists have discovered that "people with issues" have difficulty in watching those thoughts pop across, "the gap" (and therefore don't discover their True Will) or do those people have issues because they can't watch those thoughts popping across, "the gap", as it were?

I don't know. This question is way too vague for me to answer.

2)  If thought-observation is the crux of Thelema then, by your logic, practices such as divination, learning Cabbalistic correspondences, banishing rituals, "god-invoking", evocation and in fact the whole gamut of Occult practices and Hindustani yoga that Crowley "synthesised" into his system, is irrelevant isn't it?  It's just, "astral" entertainment or spiritual fun and has nothing to do with manifesting the True Will?

Those sorts of practices might be useful -- *might* be useful -- in preparing the mind for the task of observing the Self, but the actual work *is* the observation itself. Everything else is preparation, training wheels, and bells and whistles.

How long have you been reading my posts here and over at the Fruitcake Factory, david? You haven't twigged to the fact that that's my position on the question?

3) If you answer, "yes" to question 2 then why did Crowley spend years submerging himself in writing , studying and teaching such irrelevant practices?

He enjoyed them. That's all the justification he needs.

Some of those practices can be employed in service to Thelema, exactly as I've explained before.

4) By your standards , do you view Liber Legis as a mere trippy poem , much of it being gobbledygook?  The only functional aspect of which is the phrase, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"?

No, the Book of the Law is filled with lots of practical wisdom regarding the Will.

5) Everything you are proposing, work-wise, is basically the crux of zen.  To me, you are Thelemifying (eliminating the Buddhist lineage malarkey, the moral bondages and Japanese cultural influences of) zen.  Do you agree?

The blog post of mine that you found and linked to above adequately answers this question.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:
"david" wrote:
Here's some questions for Los.

1) Do you think that modern therapists have discovered that "people with issues" have difficulty in watching those thoughts pop across, "the gap" (and therefore don't discover their True Will) or do those people have issues because they can't watch those thoughts popping across, "the gap", as it were?

I don't know. This question is way too vague for me to answer.

.

Thankyou Los, I see.  Very good.

My first question you said was vague could be redone as, "do you think that sincere, daily meditation (thought-observation) if practiced by someone suffering from a cognitive disorder, could, in time,  eliminate that disorder or would therapy with a trained counsellor be needed first, to make the meditation successful?"  In laymen's terms ,"if your head is full of dysfunctional crap then spiritual enlightenment is to no avail?."

"Los" wrote:

2)  If thought-observation is the crux of Thelema then, by your logic, practices such as divination, learning Cabbalistic correspondences, banishing rituals, "god-invoking", evocation and in fact the whole gamut of Occult practices and Hindustani yoga that Crowley "synthesised" into his system, is irrelevant isn't it?  It's just, "astral" entertainment or spiritual fun and has nothing to do with manifesting the True Will?

Those sorts of practices might be useful -- *might* be useful -- in preparing the mind for the task of observing the Self, but the actual work *is* the observation itself. Everything else is preparation, training wheels, and bells and whistles.

How long have you been reading my posts here and over at the Fruitcake Factory, david? You haven't twigged to the fact that that's my position on the question?
.

yes I thought I knew your position but as you say they "might" help.  Anyway this much missed point is reiterated by Crowley very clearly in his Berashith essay (written at age 27) as follows

By meditation I do not mean merely "think about" anything, however profoundly, but the
absolute restraint of the mind to the contemplation of a single object, whether gross, fine, or
altogether spiritual.

Now true magical ceremonial   is entirely directed to attain this end, and forms a
magnificent gymnasium for those who are not already finished mental athletes. By act, word, and thought, both in quantity and quality, the one object of the ceremony is being constantly
indicated. Every fumigation, purification, banishing, invocation, evocation, is chiefly a reminder
of the single purpose, until the supreme moment arrives, and every fibre of the body, every force channel
of the mind, is strained out in one overwhelming rush of the Will in the direction
desired. Such is the real purport   of all the apparently fantastic directions of Solomon, Abramelin, and other sages of repute. When a man has evoked and mastered such forces as Taphtatharath,
Belial, Amaimon, and the great powers of the elements, then he may safely be permitted to begin
to try to stop thinking.

Amazing. Here Crowley tells us that magickal ceremony is a mere prop, nothing but a work-out session in the mental gymn for the real work of Zazen/self-remembering, (which, might I add, anyone can try anywhere at any time).  This is the REAL purpose of magickal ceremony, not to become a Harry Potter or a Gandalfy weirdo Dr Strange initiate- fantasist  making spirits go and acquire things for us.

     

"Los" wrote:

3) If you answer, "yes" to question 2 then why did Crowley spend years submerging himself in writing , studying and teaching such irrelevant practices?

He enjoyed them. That's all the justification he needs.
.

That's  good justification

"Los" wrote:

4) By your standards , do you view Liber Legis as a mere trippy poem , much of it being gobbledygook?  The only functional aspect of which is the phrase, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"?

No, the Book of the Law is filled with lots of practical wisdom regarding the Will.

"Filled with". Really?  What, for those with the eyes to see?  Do you mean filled with blatant practical wisdom or is that wisdom a malleable, putty-like kaleidoscopic, Looking Glass mindgame  in which each individual interprets it as he wants to suit himslef?  Do you think that there are entire passages filled with useless gobbledygook therein?

"Los" wrote:

5) Everything you are proposing, work-wise, is basically the crux of zen.  To me, you are Thelemifying (eliminating the Buddhist lineage malarkey, the moral bondages and Japanese cultural influences of) zen.  Do you agree?

The blog post of mine that you found and linked to above adequately answers this question.

It is and I assiduously warn against any Thelemite getting sucked into the inherent Japanification of it all, the belief that the man Buddha definitely existed, the communal moral chanting sessions and the reliance on any sensai-guru therein : Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.      With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the Buddhist, Mongol and Din.


ReplyQuote
Page 3 / 3
Share: