Thelemic Practice
 
Notifications
Clear all

Thelemic Practice  

Page 3 / 17
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/10/2013 3:26 am  
"Los" wrote:
"Deus Ex Machina" wrote:
But the preferences are stories as well, just more deeply rooted

Sigh. You're doing it again. You're starting from the definitions, and you're so busy trying to squeeze what I'm saying into these definitions that you're not really listening to what I'm saying.

* * *

We're running into a real problem in our conversation, which is that I'm basing what I say on direct experience of the stuff that I'm talking about, and you at least seem to be arguing from the perspective of someone who's still deciding which definitions he likes best before he starts trying to squeeze his experience into those boxes (as you say above, "I do not have a working definition of the True Will that I have accepted as the whole truth," implying that you're toying around with some definitions that, you think, might convey at least part of the truth).

I get the sense that you're a bit too hung up on that earlier discussion and perhaps projecting your views on my thoughts from that to the current discussion of True Will. I wouldn't agree that I'm squeezing my experience into any pre-determined boxes. I'm just being careful to use the correct label to describe them.

I think it is important to understand what these preferences you speak of are exactly, so that we can evaluate their worth and make sure we are talking about the same thing.

"Los" wrote:
I mean, you say you have some experience in meditation, so I'm assuming you're familiar that there are preferences that remain when thought is gone. Do you also have experience trying to detect these preferences in the midst of situations in daily life and attempting to adjust your actions to bring them into accord with these preferences (regardless of your conscious judgments about those preferences)?

It does beg the question why change from this one set of stories (conscious) to another (subconscious)? Why is the latter preferable to the former?

Again, I don't think your terminology is useful here: we're talking about the distinction between thought and the preferences that are left over when you set thought aside.

In these terms, preferences are preferable...well, it's in the word, almost by definition. "Preferences" -- the authentic inclinations of the Self that are masked by thought -- are what your Self actually prefers, what actually satisfies your Self. The more you spend your time fulfilling those preferences, rather than chasing after phantasms generated by your mind, the more satisfied you'll feel in life.

That's the whole point of discovering the True Will. If someone were completely and totally satisfied by his life, he wouldn't have any need to seek after his True Will.

Preferences are preferable because we call them preferences. Cute.

What I'm curious about is what makes you believe that what arises in the mind after the surface thoughts are gone are authentic inclinations of the self, instead of simply more deep rooted thought patterns that we usually gloss over because surface thought captures our attention?

Moreover, my own experience suggests this is an intermediate stage in meditation. Why stop there?

Perhaps I am wrong in understanding your process. You make no mention of dealing with deeper rooted thought structures and appeared dismissive of the concept of subconscious or subtle layers of the mind, so I am curious.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
07/10/2013 4:53 am  
"Deus Ex Machina" wrote:
Preferences are preferable because we call them preferences.

No, we call them preferences because they are what the Self prefers (as opposed to what the mind thinks that it prefers or *should* prefer because it's busy judging the preferences).

What I'm curious about is what makes you believe that what arises in the mind after the surface thoughts are gone are authentic inclinations of the self

Well, first of all, they don't "arise in the mind." Preferences of the Self aren't part of the mind, any more than my coffee table is part of my mind. They're *perceived* by my mind, but they don't arise in the mind. They're there already in the Self and are detected by the mind.

What makes me think that they're authentic inclinations of the Self is the fact that following them satisfies the Self.

Take HG's example of discovering that the Self dislikes mushrooms, despite the mind telling you that mushrooms are so healthy and good for you. Or, let's switch the example to something positive to make it easier to grasp: discovering that the Self loves eating red meat, despite the mind telling you that it's "bad" for you. Someone who discovers this can put this discovery into practice -- i.e. ignore those thoughts and indulge in eating red meat when desired -- and observe the results: and these results are that the Self is far more satisfied overall.

Or, more to the point, take the hypothetical example of someone who discovers that his True Will involves homosexuality, which his mind condemns as being unmanly. By ignoring the mind and acting in accord with the will, this person finds he leads a far more satisfying life.

instead of simply more deep rooted thought patterns that we usually gloss over because surface thought captures our attention?

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about, so can you give a concrete example? I mean, are you saying that HG might one day discover, if he meditates hard enough, that his revulsion towards mushrooms is really caused by a subconscious reaction to a repressed childhood trauma in which he was stranded in a mushroom patch or something? If that's the case -- if the individual discovers that his revulsion isn't part of the will but some aspect of the mind -- then when an individual uncovers that, he adjusts accordingly. But until an individual discovers such a thing, if he finds avoiding mushrooms preferable, and consistently finds this to be the case throughout all of his investigations into his behavior over a long period of time and in a lot of circumstances, then he's on pretty safe ground in tentatively assuming that it's part of his will.

Moreover, my own experience suggests this is an intermediate stage in meditation. Why stop there?

The mind throws up all sorts of conscious and unconscious barriers to perceiving the will, but the important part is detecting the mind's distorting influence and adjusting, in the moment, during daily life.

Give me some concrete example of what you're talking about so that we can discuss it. What's an example of something that you prefer, when you shut off your mind, that you later determined is not a preference of your Self?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
07/10/2013 12:04 pm  
"Los" wrote:
No, we call them preferences because they are what the Self prefers (as opposed to what the mind thinks that it prefers or *should* prefer because it's busy judging the preferences).

There is a "Self", and it has preferences?

Where is this "Self"? Can you show it to me? Any image will do - although it will be but an image of an image.

Los, surely you aren't believing in imaginary things!

This thread reads like a bunch of pseudo-physicians discussing symptoms, without attempting to address the cause of the symptoms.

Enjoying Deus' posts though.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
07/10/2013 3:03 pm  

And I thought I might have been getting wordy!

Is it at all possible at this (late) stage, do you reckon, to get back more to basics tightness?

For example, in practice terms Los what do you think is meant by to inflame yourself with prayer?  And to "whom"?  (It is hopefully not just talking faster or breaking into a sweat or concentrating harder - or not just that, anyway...)

...For "I have made a secret chaise-longue into the House of Ra and Tum, of Khephra and of Ahathoor”,
'NJ∞y


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1015
07/10/2013 5:07 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
No, we call them preferences because they are what the Self prefers (as opposed to what the mind thinks that it prefers or *should* prefer because it's busy judging the preferences).

There is a "Self", and it has preferences?

Where is this "Self"? Can you show it to me? Any image will do - although it will be but an image of an image.

Los, surely you aren't believing in imaginary things!

Azidonis, on the first page of your thread A.'.A.'. is the Black Lodge?!?, you write that "a label such as True Will" "does not accept the fact that the actual release from the bondage is the obliteration of the sense of self, and therefore it has created a myriad of images that may seem feasible, but do not lead to the actual release."

On the same page you write that "The actual release is the release of the body from the mind/self-wherein the body is no longer a slave to, or a party to, the perpetuation of a self, and the various images that roll along with it."

And on the same page you also write that "anything that is thought, said, or done in regards to it [the sense of self] only gives fuel to the illusion, working to perpetuate it, and does not in any way touch the living organism in a manner that would actually bring about the freedom from the bondage of the self - where freedom itself is essentially meaningless.

Later on the fourth page of your thread A.'.A.'. is the Black Lodge?!? you define that you by self mean "You as you know yourself... the identity, not the material body."

I have the following two questions for you Azidonis:

1) Following the preferences of "the living organism" or "the material body", is this a practical way to what you above define as "the actual release"?

2) And do I understand you correctly, when I understand you as being of the meaning that the system of Thelema associated with Aleister Crowley does not fulfill the requirements for what you above define as "the actual release"?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4065
07/10/2013 6:12 pm  

Since you are responding to points made by Azidonis on another thread, why don't you do so on that thread?


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5056
07/10/2013 7:24 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
Azidonis, on the first page of your thread A.'.A.'. is the Black Lodge?!?, you write ... Later on the fourth page of your thread A.'.A.'. is the Black Lodge?!?

Actually that wasn't Azidonis' thread ... N.O.X started it. 😮
Also ... what Michael Staley said!  Why are we reading about this stuff here? ::)


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1015
07/10/2013 7:43 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Since you are responding to points made by Azidonis on another thread, why don't you do so on that thread?

My former posting in this thread was a respons to the posting Posted by: Azidonis in this thread « on: Today at 12:04:34 pm ».  And I quoted the "points made by Azidonis on another thread" (started by N.O.X. as just pointed out by Shiva) because I find them relevant to the matter of this thread: Thelemic Practice, and because they function as the basis for my two aforementioned questions to Azidonis, here repeated by me with the intention of bringing this thread back on track:

1) Following the preferences of "the living organism" or "the material body", is this a practical way to what you above define as "the actual release"?

2) And do I understand you correctly, when I understand you as being of the meaning that the system of Thelema associated with Aleister Crowley does not fulfill the requirements for what you above define as "the actual release"?

I ask these questions with an interest in knowing if Azidonis finds any practical validity at all in Thelemic Practice, and in the system of Thelema associated with Aleister Crowley, in respect of and in relation to what Azidonis - as quoted by me - above on the former page of this thread defines as "the actual release".


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/10/2013 9:46 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
No, we call them preferences because they are what the Self prefers (as opposed to what the mind thinks that it prefers or *should* prefer because it's busy judging the preferences).

There is a "Self", and it has preferences?

Where is this "Self"? Can you show it to me? Any image will do - although it will be but an image of an image.

Los, surely you aren't believing in imaginary things!

This thread reads like a bunch of pseudo-physicians discussing symptoms, without attempting to address the cause of the symptoms.

Enjoying Deus' posts though.

I agree with the "image of an image" statement, but the word "real" is just a convention anyway...while the self, including the "True Will," and anything experienced, exists, the knowing of an ultimate purpose or final perfection is impossible, because how can it be verified, except by yourself? It is our conception at any given time which is illusory. At this point certainty and uncertainty become irrelevant...what im saying is, if you found your true will, how could you be certain, just because your happy? Satisfied? Those are just more emotions, which can be manufactured......Eastern schools tend to agree that the mind (including ones "true" preferences) is not on a higher plane than the body, and that the body and its sense mechanisms, reactions to external stimuli, etc, create the personality of the individual, even in its deeper aspects. We are reactions to reactions, reflections of reflections. I would tend to see the "True Will" more as Dharma, purpose, Karma Yoga...by the way the "work without lust of result" talk is lifted right out of the Bagavad Gita, the primary text of karma yoga. Even the Buddhists admit that each sentient being has a purpose, whether one sees that being as being as a truly spiritual entity in a shell of aquired conditioning, or as a collection of illusory impressions. Finding ones purpose requires a degree of work though.

So much of this talk is done over and over again in self help books, books on meditation, yoga, etc. "The You that you think is you isnt the real You" bla bla...even L Ron Hubbard got into it...Osho even admits "Im going to tell you the same things over and over again until it sinks in" ...its almost as if all these books and systems are bludgeoning the human race into changing. Anyway my point is that I feel that whether or not the True Will can be "experienced" one may enter into a more intuitive state where ones actions are fulfilling their purpose. You just may not actually notice that its happening. And whether the self "exists" or not is irrelevant. I feel that Thelemic practices can help one aquire that intuition. I also feel that practices that make one stronger physically and more balanced mentally and emotionally are a good starting point, as later mistakes or failures can be better dealt with. Of couse one can build ones powers and channel them into ego-driven or destructive behavior, but 3000 years of philosophizing hasn't cured the human race of that, and intellectual mind games like "is the color red I see the same as the color red you see" dont really get us anywhere.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
08/10/2013 5:30 am  
"sumerian131" wrote:
if you found your true will, how could you be certain, just because your happy?

It's not about being "certain" -- there's not some moment where a switch gets flipped and you're like, "Ah! There we go, I'm doing my True Will!"

You just get better, over time, at identifying and ameliorating the influence of things that get in the way of your will so that you will manifests more easily and fully.

just because your happy? Satisfied? Those are just more emotions, which can be manufactured

So what's your point? We can sit around and talk about what's "real" and what's "manufactured" till we're blue in the face, but the fact is that are a set of inclinations that are actually satisfying to you and then there's your mind's whirling mass of judgments and ideas that lead to behaviors that aren't quite satisfying.

You can detect the difference with some practice and then you can put your ability to detect the difference to work for you, and the result is a more satisfying, happier life.

all these books and systems are bludgeoning the human race into changing.

But, of course, Thelema is distinct in that it holds that humans ought to be true to their actual natures and therefore should stop trying to change into something different.

Anyway my point is that I feel that whether or not the True Will can be "experienced" one may enter into a more intuitive state where ones actions are fulfilling their purpose.

Uh, maybe, depending on what you mean exactly. I think the more precise way to talk about it is in terms of discovering preferences that are really there, like discovering you dislike mushrooms or discovering that you like a certain kinky fetish or something. Again, we can all yammer until Christmas about what's "real," but at the end of the day, we can't wish away brute facts about our nature. The sooner we discover and accept them, the happier we'll be.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
08/10/2013 7:03 am  

Your talking about sense gratification and being happy. Im talking about survival, work, creation/destruction, and finding ones place in cosmic patterns, ones "orbit." I generalize because whether ones conscious brain - internal dialogue helps or hurts them depends on the individual, just as ones immediate physical desires may help or hurt the individual. Your specific "red meat" example didnt take into account someone who is say on the verge of being morbidly obese. I would say to them: listen to your brain, dont eat the bacon cheesburger because your an undisciplined slob. This is the difficulty of reconciling "the word of sin is restriction" with a Thelema of which "90 percent... is nothing but self discipline."


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
08/10/2013 12:49 pm  

Ever get the feeling you’re being ignored? The conversation appears to have now moved on beyond what I was pointing out with regard to the earlier postings, anyway.

Unable to respond to Liber Resh being concerned with the Adoration of something beyond one’s own mental processes or a chair; unable to respond to the fact that one’s definition of “Khu” is seriously askew and appears to stop at Chesed; unable to respond to the meaning of enflaming oneself with prayer; unable to respond to – well, anything much at all really.  I don’t particularly mind, and will try not to take any offence!  But there seems to be little point in my continuing to scatter my little pearls if Los is unable or at least unwilling to reply; a mite ironic in view of the fact that as OP he specifically made a big deal out of asking for appropriate feedback and a dialogue. 

Allowances can be made, I suppose, but it just goes to prove – well, something or other, anyhoo: I can’t be bothered to make a big thing of it myself apart from stating this - life’s too short! - and let other people draw their own conclusions as they may…

NJOY


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
08/10/2013 5:07 pm  
"sumerian131" wrote:
Your talking about sense gratification and being happy. Im talking about survival, work, creation/destruction, and finding ones place in cosmic patterns, ones "orbit."

When I speak about preferences, I'm not just talking about simple, immediate gratification of urges. Preferences include everything from immediate "animal pleasures" to so-called "higher activities," including intellectual discussion, creative work, or even for some people devoting themselves to a life of asceticism.

I generalize because whether ones conscious brain - internal dialogue helps or hurts them depends on the individual, just as ones immediate physical desires may help or hurt the individual. Your specific "red meat" example didnt take into account someone who is say on the verge of being morbidly obese.

Well obviously there can be many preferences in operation at a given time: my preference to eat red meat might be strong, but my preference not to become a fat fuck who can barely get off the couch might be even stronger. It's all about learning to listen to the preferences of the Self.

This is where a mind comes in handy: in Thelema, the mind shouldn't *tell* you what to do...the mind infers (through observation) the preferences that actually exist in the Self and then sets up the best conditions it can so that the Self can satisfy those preferences in an optimal way. This wouldn't be such a challenge, except for the fact that the mind's ability to perceive clearly is obscured by its own evolved tendencies. The work of Thelema is to improve the observational powers so that the mind becomes as useful a servant of the True Self as possible.

the difficulty of reconciling "the word of sin is restriction" with a Thelema of which "90 percent... is nothing but self discipline."

The "discipline" of Thelema is the discipline of perceiving and ameliorating restriction. Those quotes aren't contradictory; they are complementary.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
08/10/2013 5:30 pm  

"Told you so!" ::)

By the way, are we meant to understand all these "preferences" to mean the same things as the "inclinations" which were also referred to in abundance earlier, both of which terms being identically tantamount to what A.C. "preferred" himself to label  tendencies?

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
16/11/2013 2:07 am  
"Los" wrote:
It occurs to me that in order to begin a discussion on an evaluation of Thelemic practices, I ought to offer my own answers to these questions.

Once more, the questions are:

1) What is the practitioner trying to accomplish?
2) How do the practices work to achieve this goal?
3) How does the practitioner *know* that the practices *do* achieve this goal, and by what *specific criteria* does the practitioner determine that the goal has been reached?

-of-pentagram.html] http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2012/07/on-lesser-banishing-ritual-of-pentagram.html[/url]

In regards to the OP I, for one,  cannot see the use in cluttering the mind with exhaustive sephirothic correspondences.  I hear claims that it is  a very, very slow process that  will, in time,  yield results and will instigate some sort of "sartori" or what have you.  However the lasting effects of such "sartori" i.e. enlightenment  seems to me to be akin to smoking a joint of weed i.e. it's  a transitory high that has a "come down".

Maybe for me it isn't my Will as such but someone else may unveil their Will via such practice.  I am cynical about it and cannot see how sephirothic clutter (no disrespect intended to any cabbalists)  provides us with self-insight insofar as learning to speak a foreign language would.  Maybe that's it ;  studies have shown that dementia is warded off by learning a foreign language.  Well I see more practical benefits from learning Chinese or Spanish than learning masses of correspondences. 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5056
16/11/2013 6:37 pm  
"david" wrote:
I, for one,  cannot see the use in cluttering the mind with exhaustive sephirothic correspondences.

The practice is "to train the mind," and it has no inherent benefit other than to allow a "code" or "symbolic language" for communication with other Qabalists. 

"david" wrote:
I hear claims that it is  a very, very slow process that  will, in time,  yield results and will instigate some sort of "sartori" or what have you.

Oh, BS.  😮  It trains the mind, but I've never experienced, seen, heard, or read of it leading to "Sartori."

Actually the word is spelled "Satori." I, in my ignorance, used to spell/pronounce it "SaRtori as well. Live, read, and learn, eh?

"In the Zen Buddhist tradition, satori refers to the experience of kenshō, "seeing into one's true nature". Ken means "seeing," shō means "nature" or "essence."
- Wikipedia

QBL Correspondences = Satori?  ???  No way!  ::)

"david" wrote:
However the lasting effects of such "sartori" i.e. enlightenment  seems to me to be akin to smoking a joint of weed i.e. it's  a transitory high that has a "come down".

As do ALL OTHER methods for becoming "enlightened."

"david" wrote:
I am cynical about it ...

I am cryllic about it ... or was it skeptical ... or sarcastic?  One of those, anyway.

"david" wrote:
... dementia is warded off by learning a foreign language.  Well I see more practical benefits from learning Chinese or Spanish than learning masses of correspondences.

Thank you for your opinion. I'd rather learn QBL than a foreign lingo ... as a matter of fact that's what I did!  I actually used QBL to memorize medications in medical school ... and a certain amount of Chinese was involved as well because it was a University of Oriental Medicine.  😉


ReplyQuote
steve_wilson
(@steve_wilson)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 155
16/11/2013 11:21 pm  

My understanding is that a Satori is "a glimpse of enlightenment" as opposed to Samadhi - true, permanent enlightenment. One problem in terminology is that Indian sages (except, recently, Osho) didn't recognise this and often confused it with Samadhi.

In QBL terms it could, I suppose, be likened to glimpsing the nature of Binah while in Geburah, or glimpsing the nature of Chokmah while in Chesed, or glimpsing the nature of either of those two plus the nature of Kether while in Tiphareth. This can easily make the practitioner believe they have actually crossed the abyss while in fact they have only "seen" beyond it ("seen" being shorthand for a sort of "entire being sensing") .

IMO a large number of cults are started by people who have had a Satori experience. In Zen, on the other hand, there is a warning against "Satori pride" where a monk counts himself closer to enlightenment the more Satori experiences he or she has, whereas ultimately Satori is a failure.

My own experience of Satori has very much been accompanied by a feeling of failure, as each time I have had one I have panicked and desperately scrambled  to get my ego back, THEN realised, well, to quote Homer:

"Doh"


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
17/11/2013 3:05 am  
"steve_wilson" wrote:
My understanding is that a Satori is "a glimpse of enlightenment" as opposed to Samadhi - true, permanent enlightenment.

For satori, see darshan

So you see the fruit, maybe smell it, but do not get to eat it. Crowley would have probably called it an "AHA" moment.

"steve_wilson" wrote:
Samadhi - true, permanent enlightenment.

First, varying "samadhis" seem to exist, at least communicatively (ie. when we talk about it, which is actually absurd).

Second, any samadhi pales in comparison to nirvana.

Third, there is no such thing as permanence, or nirvana, or samadhi for that matter.

Fourth, the "highest state" has been called many things, such as, "The Natural State".

Fifth, a riddle: Show yourself who you were before you were born. (Hint: This riddle has no real, un-speculative answer, but to 'answer' it is to perhaps learn the meaning of satori.)


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
17/11/2013 4:08 am  
"david" wrote:
In regards to the OP I, for one,  cannot see the use in cluttering the mind with exhaustive sephirothic correspondences.

The theory seems to be that if you "overload" the mind with correspondences, you will be better equipped to see past the mind to the True Self (and this can happen in various kinds of epiphanies or trances or whatever word we want to put on it). 

Does that actually work? Eh. Like you, I'm pretty skeptical. The real benefit to studying the correspondences is that they enable you to better understand Crowley's work and in particular provide a great deal of insight into The Book of Thoth, which is a masterpiece of symbolism. Knowing the correspondences backwards and forwards allows one to better understand the aesthetic value of the tarot as well as to better use it as a divinatory tool (see above for more on the proper use of divination).

I hear claims that it is  a very, very slow process that  will, in time,  yield results and will instigate some sort of "sartori" or what have you.  However the lasting effects of such "sartori" i.e. enlightenment  seems to me to be akin to smoking a joint of weed i.e. it's  a transitory high that has a "come down".

Yeah, the point of studying this stuff isn't to have those enlightenment experiences. Those experiences will almost certainly come, but they're not the point, and a common mistake is to achieve such an experience (or a few such experiences) and then think that one has "attained" and is all done.

At best, though, such enlightenment experiences are like the carrot to keep you doing the practices. The experiences themselves aren't the point: the point is an ever increasingly clear perception of the Self. Everything else (including the practices and the trances) is at best something potentially useful in aiding you in the real work of observing the Self.


ReplyQuote
steve_wilson
(@steve_wilson)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 155
17/11/2013 4:19 am  

I was, I suppose, referring to mahasmadhi. And my understanding of Nirvana is that it is permanent unless compassion draws the Bodhisattva back in order to teach. But anyway, best to beware of confusing Buddhist and Hindu terms.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
17/11/2013 1:31 pm  
"steve_wilson" wrote:
I was, I suppose, referring to mahasmadhi.

It would have been better, yes, for discussion purposes, to be as specific.

"steve_wilson" wrote:
And my understanding of Nirvana is that it is permanent unless compassion draws the Bodhisattva back in order to teach. But anyway, best to beware of confusing Buddhist and Hindu terms.

Beware lest the many sects and teachings only serve to muddle things.

Nirvana, the "blowing out", one might say that there is no return from it. One may then attempt to conclude that nirvana is "permanent". However, does nirvana not arise from perfectly understanding impermanence?

Nirvana does not exist.

Bodhisattvas are in one sense Black Brothers.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5056
17/11/2013 4:43 pm  

We've recently gone 'round and 'round this Nirvana-Enlightenment-Samadhi subject. With all definitions eventually coming down to supra-rational ("above/beyond the mind") states of being, I hereby predict that this discussion, like its predecesors, will end in ... nothing.

The original subject was about scorning sephirothic correspondences. Other systems know nothing about QBL, but they usually have their own method of "training the mind." The original subject was also framed in the context of avoiding dementia. Good luck, there ... and good luck!


ReplyQuote
steve_wilson
(@steve_wilson)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 155
17/11/2013 9:21 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
Other systems know nothing about QBL, but they usually have their own method of "training the mind."

Of course, there are other methods, such as Sufism and some schools of Zen, where the mind is not so much trained as overloaded or distracted to allow enlightenment to take place. I find that it is possible to map these methods onto the Tree of Life - but cannot see that this is a useful exercise.

Above all, regarding enlightenment:
It does not matter how many Zen monks it takes to change a lightbulb, just so long as first there is a lightbulb, then there is no lightbulb, then there is.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
18/11/2013 8:11 pm  
"Los" wrote:
[
The theory seems to be that if you "overload" the mind with correspondences, you will be better equipped to see past the mind to the True Self (and this can happen in various kinds of epiphanies or trances or whatever word we want to put on it). 

Does that actually work? Eh. Like you, I'm pretty skeptical. The real benefit to studying the correspondences is that they enable you to better understand Crowley's work and in particular provide a great deal of insight into The Book of Thoth, which is a masterpiece of symbolism. Knowing the correspondences backwards and forwards allows one to better understand the aesthetic value of the tarot as well as to better use it as a divinatory tool (see above for more on the proper use of divination).

I don't have a problem with learning the planetary,Major Arcana, associated myth, zodiacal and/or elemental attribution for all 32 paths.  I also have no problem with attempting to intuitively grasp how the ten sephiroth manifest in Nature and how they interact (as it were).  Also , vibrating the microcosmic Hebrew god-names and their colours.  All good, but e.g. learning and memorizing all of this  ( http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Tree_of_Life:Perfumes ) is taking it too far, almost like a wrong obsession.  As you say the Art Of Memory exercises would train the mind and produce an expansiveness of Self but there's a difference between functional consciousness expansion and  anal, rote , religious ritual.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5056
18/11/2013 8:15 pm  

It all really depends on how it (any mental discipline) helps one to control themselves in any given moment.

Example #1: Frater Grunt does no practices and has no "structure" to his mind, other than the exhortations and prohibitions that have been imposed/imprinted by his culture (parents, teachers, peers, establishmentarians, religious zealots, etc.). He tries to live in a "natural" state. reacting to life via whatever internal reaction occurs. He is plagued (like everyone else) by a subconscious, existential anxiety. Thus it comes about that he feels uncomfortable and he is unhappy much of the time. Since he has no cultivated emotional/mental discipline, he is liable to resort to "substantial control," that is tobacco, caffeine, alcohol, cannabinoids, powerhouse stimulants, opioids, downers, tranqs and/or psychedelics. (Maybe all of these at the same time?)

This is the ultra-common scenario that has been. and still is, seen in our civilization. Valium, the tranquil muscle-relaxant, was dubbed, "the popcorn of the 1980s," because doctors were prescribing it for anyone who was bothered by anything.

Note: After the virtual addiction of an (almost) entire first-world civilization, modern science and the Establishment discovered that there were lethargic side-effects and that the work-force was being downgraded due to stupor and disinclination to give a s**t; so now (today) one has a much harder time getting a Valium rx, and instead of 30-90 tabs with 3 refills, one is lucky to get 10 tabs, with no refills, for an injured back or sprained ankle. The zombie-drugs of the 90s were SSREs (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors), which are now (today) being prescribed, at a rate that dwarfs the previous Valium craze, for anything that makes one uncomfortable or unhappy. The problem here is that a major side-effect of SSREs is suicide!  😮  When was the last time you heard about any drug whose side-effect was suicide?  ???[/font:255z4ei0][/align:255z4ei0]

Example #2: Soror Grimm is endowed with the universal concept that there is a part of her that is immortal, and so she does (some kind of) practices and has a "structure" to her mind, either a sheep-like religious conviction or a goat-like drive to build a unique, mental compendium. She is still endowed with a considerable amount of "programming" (the exhortations and prohibitions that have been imposed/imprinted by her culture (parents, teachers, etc.). She tries to live in a more "natural" state that is more "holy" (controlled, devotional, detached, religious, moral, etc.). Even supported with this mental armor, she is still plagued (like everyone else) by that insidious, existential anxiety. Thus it comes about that she feels uncomfortable and she is unhappy much of the time. Even though she has these cultivated emotional/mental disciplines, she is liable to resort to "substantial control," that is tobacco, caffeine, alcohol, etc. (Maybe many at the same time?) Priests, priestesses, nuns, philosophers, monks, mayors, and initiates of the third degree are still not "at ease in their inn," and are just as likely to rely on substances as the "common folk."

Example #3: Frater Gilbert has seen through the illusion that there is a part of him that is immortal, and has accepted the fact that he will terminate at some unknown point in the space/time continuum - yet he still does (some kind of) practices and has a "structure" to his mind, usually the goat-like drive to build a unique, mental compendium (of QBL or Language or Trigrams). He is still burdened with a a bunch of "programming" (imprinted by his culture. He is smart enough to NOT to try to live in a more "holy" state (controlled, devotional, detached, religious, moral, etc.), but, supported with his mental armor, he is able to temporarily escape that insidious, existential anxiety. Thus it comes about that he "orders his mind" with QBL correspondences, or by performing a banishing, or by doing pranayama sixty-one times.  Although he feels uncomfortable or is unhappy much of the time, he has these cultivated emotional/mental disciplines, and he is still liable to resort to "substantial control," that is tobacco, caffeine, alcohol, etc.

But ... he is at least able to induce a sense of calm or neutrality, through the exercise of his disciplines. There is no scientific indication that these disciplines will bring him to a permanent state of "enlightenment" or "nirvana" or "any such other thing of that nature," but there is, at least, a temporary "touch and go" plateau available to him. Nothing indicates that he will survive the terminator.

This (the temporary plateau, not to be confused with the Tibetan plateau) is, perhaps, the best than can be achieved ... and, of course, to rely on one's disciplines to engage perpetual continuity (aka immortality) is, probably, to expose one's self to disappointment.

Yet this is exactly what religions promise!  😮  It's called reincarnation or resurrection or some other such continuation. Even Liber AL tells us (well, it told AC): "Think not, o king, upon that lie: That Thou Must Die: verily thou shalt not die, but live. Now let it be understood: If the body of the King dissolve, he shall remain in pure ecstasy for ever." - AL II-21.

All these promises suggest wishful thinking.

Anyway, for the most part, everyone gets to pick and choose their own techniques for dealing with life.  8)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
02/12/2013 6:11 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
Example #3: Frater Gilbert has seen through the illusion that there is a part of him that is immortal, and has accepted the fact that he will terminate at some unknown point in the space/time continuum - yet he still does (some kind of) practices and has a "structure" to his mind, usually the goat-like drive to build a unique, mental compendium (of QBL or Language or Trigrams). He is still burdened with a a bunch of "programming" (imprinted by his culture. He is smart enough to NOT to try to live in a more "holy" state (controlled, devotional, detached, religious, moral, etc.), but, supported with his mental armor, he is able to temporarily escape that insidious, existential anxiety. Thus it comes about that he "orders his mind" with QBL correspondences, or by performing a banishing, or by doing pranayama sixty-one times.  Although he feels uncomfortable or is unhappy much of the time, he has these cultivated emotional/mental disciplines, and he is still liable to resort to "substantial control," that is tobacco, caffeine, alcohol, etc.

But ... he is at least able to induce a sense of calm or neutrality, through the exercise of his disciplines. There is no scientific indication that these disciplines will bring him to a permanent state of "enlightenment" or "nirvana" or "any such other thing of that nature," but there is, at least, a temporary "touch and go" plateau available to him. Nothing indicates that he will survive the terminator.

This (the temporary plateau, not to be confused with the Tibetan plateau) is, perhaps, the best than can be achieved ... and, of course, to rely on one's disciplines to engage perpetual continuity (aka immortality) is, probably, to expose one's self to disappointment.

Yet this is exactly what religions promise!  😮  It's called reincarnation or resurrection or some other such continuation. Even Liber AL tells us (well, it told AC): "Think not, o king, upon that lie: That Thou Must Die: verily thou shalt not die, but live. Now let it be understood: If the body of the King dissolve, he shall remain in pure ecstasy for ever." - AL II-21.

All these promises suggest wishful thinking.

I can sympathize with Frater Gilbert here to a great degree. Fra. Gilbert has clearly done his homework, but we are still cannot be so sure of his motives for why is he still liable to such "substantial control"? Fra. Gilbert doesn't strike to me as a fellow who boozes and gets pissed up for the weekend to temporarily escape that insidious, existential anxiety. He knows better.

Let us now assume that Frater Gilbert has got tired of dryness of certain meditation(s) ( As Crowley uses the term in his 'he Psychology of Hashish' ) Fra. Gilbert also has access to certain preservatives and he knows their effects through and through. He has interest for them not maybe only for their apparent 'numbing' effects, but for their practical and analytical value and use. Maybe even he has done his homework to a degree that he has been able to categorize and make them part of his pantheon of QBL.

"Aleister Crowley" wrote:
The craving for these things is caused by the internal misery which their use reveals to the slave-souls. If you are really free, you can take cocaine as simply as salt-water taffy. There is no better rough test of a soul than its attitude to drugs. If a man is simple, fearless, eager, he is all right; he will not become a slave. If he is afraid, he is already a slave. Let the whole world take opium, hashish, and the rest; those who are liable to abuse them were better dead.

I really cannot stress how much I agree with the above mentioned quote. I personally don't believe there is no better test available to a man living in Kali-Yuga ( The age of Vice ) and who is eager to 'ride the tiger' so to speak.

Let Frater Gilbert take all the strange drugs, but when doing this, he should do it with inmost sincerity

( I truly hope Gilbert has not neglected the study of I Ching on this matter )

"Shiva" wrote:
Anyway, for the most part, everyone gets to pick and choose their own techniques for dealing with life.

And so we agree!

Like the above mentioned hexagram is related to scorpio, and as scorpio is the most mysterious of the signs, and like the Prince of Cups, it it also no more than a symbol for a man and his own (secret) craft


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5056
02/12/2013 7:28 pm  
"Aleister Crowley" wrote:
If you are really free, you can take cocaine as simply as salt-water taffy ... If a man is simple, fearless, eager, he is all right; he will not become a slave.

This (^) was writ by Aleister Crowley? Yes, I remember reading it earlier in my life.

But, really ??? ?  There is little (or absolutely no) evidence that what is written and quoted above reresents anything like the truth of AC's "really freedom" or that he was "simple, fearless & eager." A simple review of his life, with reference to drugs, is self-revealing.

So what is he writing about?  I see it not as a "Thelemic Practice," but as a pie-in-the-sky opinion that tells us it's ok to simply take drugs and that there will be no addiction  😮 ... for the Thelemite who has found his/her Will. This theme was laid out in great detail in Diary of a Drug Fiend ... To bad it was a novel, a work of fiction, and not a medical reality.

"Simple," in the quote above, really means "once or twice," but beware taking any addictive drug three days in a row, lest one become a slave.

This whole subject is tied to my example wherein a person is simply trying to raise him/her self above the embedded existential angst (anxiety).

[/align:3vxob3a5]

"Existential angst", sometimes called dread, anxiety, or anguish, is a term that is common to many existentialist thinkers. It is generally held to be a negative feeling arising from the experience of human freedom and responsibility.
It can also be seen in relation to ... how angst is before nothing, and this is what sets it apart from fear that has an object. While in the case of fear, one can take definitive measures to remove the object of fear, in the case of angst, no such "constructive" measures are possible. The use of the word "nothing" in this context relates both to the inherent insecurity about the consequences of one's actions, and to the fact that, in experiencing one's freedom as angst, one also realizes that one will be fully responsible for these consequences; there is no thing in a person (his or her genes, for instance) that acts in her or his stead, and that he or she can "blame" if something goes wrong. Therefore, not every choice is perceived as having dreadful possible consequences (and, it can be claimed, human lives would be unbearable if every choice facilitated dread).
- Wikipedia

Well ... Thank goodness (god-ness ;)) every choice is not perceived as having dreadful possible consequences.  ::)

[/align:3vxob3a5]


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
02/12/2013 11:29 pm  
"Los" wrote:
. The work of Thelema is to improve the observational powers so that the mind becomes as useful a servant of the True Self as possible.

so you think the LRBP aids in this goal but ceremonies in which we evoke demons or magickally charge a talisman for a purpose, don't?  Is not the LRBP just as bizarre and strange and Gandalfy as the other two practices?  The LRBP involves making strange signs in the four quarters using Hebrew "vibratory words" to "draw down" "angels".  It's odd and irrational yet you accept this practice as useful and practical for self-observation but evocation and practical magickal ceremony are not?  It doesn't seem to add up.  Crowley recommended evocation and all kinds of practices for aspiring magickians.  Maybe these practices that you reject do actually aid others in their own self-observation work and help them in "bringing their activities in line with their true will"
?.     


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
03/12/2013 12:54 am  
"david" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
. The work of Thelema is to improve the observational powers so that the mind becomes as useful a servant of the True Self as possible.

so you think the LRBP aids in this goal but ceremonies in which we evoke demons or magickally charge a talisman for a purpose, don't?  Is not the LRBP just as bizarre and strange and Gandalfy as the other two practices?  The LRBP involves making strange signs in the four quarters using Hebrew "vibratory words" to "draw down" "angels".  It's odd and irrational yet you accept this practice as useful and practical for self-observation but evocation and practical magickal ceremony are not?  It doesn't seem to add up.

Well, the LBRP is certainly "odd" in the sense that very few people on the planet do it, so it sure as shoot is going to look bizarre to virtually anybody who sees you perform it. But, then again, performing in a trapeze act in a circus is also "odd" in that same sense.

Whether the LBRP is "irrational" depends on what you're using it for. If you're using it to ghostbust your living room, then yeah, that's pretty irrational. I've seen people on other Thelemic forums describe using the ritual in just this way, to clear some kind of "presence" that they think has been "attracted" to a room in their house, as if their life was a horror movie or something.

But setting aside that kind of idiocy, let's consider someone who uses the LBRP for the express purpose of impressing certain ideas on his mind. For example, he sees the ritual as symbolizing the Great Work and thinks that regularly reminding himself of the Great Work in this way will keep his mind focused on the task and will eventually form a kind of "background" to his everyday thoughts so that he's reminded more often of the Work (which is how Crowley presents Resh and Will in an early letter in Magick Without Tears).

Using the ritual in that way doesn't sound irrational at all. At the very least, it makes some kind of sense, and that's exactly how I present it earlier in this thread and in much more detail here: http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2012/07/on-lesser-banishing-ritual-of-pentagram.html

Now, does the ritual really do all that much in terms of attainment? Eh. I'm not really convinced that it's giving anybody an advantage over people who don't do the ritual. But I am convinced that people who *like* doing the LBRP and who *like* the feelings it generates should feel free to use it as often as they want. It's certainly not going to hurt, and it may be useful for certain personalities (particularly those drawn to ceremonial magick).

So what about pretending to summon up demons or pretending to "charge" magical talismans? I'm not aware of any way those practices might be helpful in training up someone's mind in order to perform the Great Work. In fact, I see those kinds of rituals as even more likely to be used for silly supernatural ends.

I did, earlier in the thread, speculate as to how invocation might be useful for the Great Work:  http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=72071#p72071 And indeed, in the sense that invocation means identifying oneself with the entity invoked, the "Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel" (identifying with your own True Self) is the ultimate invocation, though not necessarily strictly ceremonial. "Invoke often" really should be "invoke continuously," especially in your daily life.

But pretending you can pump magic glitter energy into talismans in order to bring you riches or something? I dunno. How in the world is that supposed to help you know yourself better? And I say this as someone who has a fair amount of experience -- back in the day -- invoking Enochian angels and charging talismans.

[Maybe these practices that you reject do actually aid others in their own self-observation work and help them in "bringing their activities in line with their true will"
?.     

Maybe, and I'd be open to hearing an argument for how these practices might help with self-observation, but my strong suspicion is that any benefits would involve rethinking entirely the typical purpose for using those kinds of operations.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
03/12/2013 12:37 pm  
"Los" wrote:
[...] But setting aside that kind of idiocy, let's consider someone who uses the LBRP for the express purpose of impressing certain ideas on his mind. For example, he sees the ritual as symbolizing the Great Work and thinks that regularly reminding himself of the Great Work in this way will keep his mind focused on the task and will eventually form a kind of "background" to his everyday thoughts so that he's reminded more often of the Work (which is how Crowley presents Resh and Will in an early letter in Magick Without Tears). ...

As Los has previously stated, this means one could just as well view the purpose of doing Resh, the LBRP, and Will in the same way as focusing upon a chair (or therefore, any other object of attention.)  It rather takes the magic out of magick, and downgrades it to basically a form of concentration exercise. 

"Los" wrote:
... Using the ritual in that way doesn't sound irrational at all. At the very least, it makes some kind of sense, and that's exactly how I present it earlier in this thread and in much more detail here: http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2012/07/on-lesser-banishing-ritual-of-pentagram.html

In which it is stated:

Reply #42 from Los on: September 27, 2012, 06:34:29 pm:
The method is simple: invoke often. As often as possible, strive to exalt your consciousness to ecstasy and beyond. You’re deliberately trying to “shake” the mind out of its normal routines, so impressing this new and powerful state of consciousness upon it is going to loosen things up.

And to which I respond, “And then…?” (as Mr Crowley, Senior, was so fond of quizzing the terrorised members of his congregation concerning eternal damnation).

I would be fascinated to learn why, if a disbelief in any form of supernatural witcheryboogery is manifest, the name of Los as the Blakeian "inwardly" dwelling spirit of the Sun in all his power and might, etc, could possibly have been adopted as an avatar.  Can (shock) irony have been intended??

Taking it in an easy chair
N Joy


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
03/12/2013 4:53 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
As Los has previously stated, this means one could just as well view the purpose of doing Resh, the LBRP, and Will in the same way as focusing upon a chair (or therefore, any other object of attention.)  It rather takes the magic out of magick, and downgrades it to basically a form of concentration exercise. 

Los (and a few others here) tend to often "take the magic out of magick" and downgrade the entirety of the Western Esoteric Tradition, and Thelema in general, into just a form of "psychological exercise", and, personally, I find that really fucking boring.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
03/12/2013 6:58 pm  
"N.O.X" wrote:
Los (and a few others here) tend to often "take the magic out of magick"

You mean like defining magick as every single willed action, including publishing a book and blowing one's nose?

"Aleister Crowley" wrote:
Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.

(Illustration: It is my Will to inform the World of certain facts within my knowledge. I therefore take "magickal weapons", pen, ink, and paper; I write "incantations"---these sentences---in the "magickal language" ie, that which is understood by the people I wish to instruct; I call forth "spirits", such as printers, publishers, booksellers and so forth and constrain them to convey my message to those people. The composition and distribution of this book is thus an act of Magick by which I cause Changes to take place in conformity with my Will.)

In one sense Magick may be defined as the name given to Science by the vulgar.

"Aleister Crowley" wrote:
Let us take a very simple example of a Magical Act: that of a man blowing his nose. What are the conditions of the success of the Operation? Firstly, that the man's Will should be to blow his nose; secondly, that he should have a nose capable of being blown; thirdly, that he should have at command an apparatus capable of expressing his spiritual Will in terms of material force, and applying that force to the object which he desires to affect. His Will may be as strong and concentrated as that of Jupiter, and his nose may be totally incapable of resistance; but unless the link is made by the use of his nerves and muscles in accordance with psychological, physiological, and physical law, the nose will remain unblown through all eternity.

"N.O.X." wrote:
personally, I find that really fucking boring.

Yet you insist on posting in threads where conversations that you supposedly find "boring" are going on. I liked it better when you were showing us those "mighty powers of SILENCE" you bragged about in another thread. It's too bad you're not better at exercising those powers.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
03/12/2013 8:24 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Well, the LBRP is certainly "odd" in the sense that very few people on the planet do it, so it sure as shoot is going to look bizarre to virtually anybody who sees you perform it. But, then again, performing in a trapeze act in a circus is also "odd" in that same sense.

But setting aside that kind of idiocy, let's consider someone who uses the LBRP for the express purpose of impressing certain ideas on his mind. For example, he sees the ritual as symbolizing the Great Work and thinks that regularly reminding himself of the Great Work in this way will keep his mind focused on the task and will eventually form a kind of "background" to his everyday thoughts so that he's reminded more often of the Work (which is how Crowley presents Resh and Will in an early letter in Magick Without Tears).

Using the ritual in that way doesn't sound irrational at all. At the very least, it makes some kind of sense, and that's exactly how I present it earlier in this thread and in much more detail here: http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2012/07/on-lesser-banishing-ritual-of-pentagram.html

so this ritual i..e literally a repetitive form of behaviour or routine, reminds you about “the great work” i.e. Self-Observation.  Well why not just tattoo, “don’t forget to observe your thoughts now ya hear?!” on the back of your hand so every time you write or see your hand you see that message and are thus reminded?  This “rite” you do ,it’s tracing invisible , imaginary blue star shapes all around you.  Why not trace Mickey Mouse shapes or  the Coca Cola trademarks around you?  Again what you say doesn’t make sense.  You have decided that these four stars (“pentagrams”) somehow do a good job of reminding you to keep on doing self-observation.  Surely if you thought there was no mystical magickal force in the universe then you wouldn’t touch any of this with a barge pole?    You would instead keep your head shaved or do something else as a reminder?  Furthermore this ritual involves talking to “Archangels”.  Well, as crowley said, why do we  need to invent these “things” to spy on ourselves?  Again, talking to these “things” it does not aid self-observation.  It is mere occult- religiosity and alternative devotional practice

"Los" wrote:
Now, does the ritual really do all that much in terms of attainment? Eh. I'm not really convinced that it's giving anybody an advantage over people who don't do the ritual. But I am convinced that people who *like* doing the LBRP and who *like* the feelings it generates should feel free to use it as often as they want. It's certainly not going to hurt, and it may be useful for certain personalities (particularly those drawn to ceremonial magick).

Maybe, and I'd be open to hearing an argument for how these practices might help with self-observation, but my strong suspicion is that any benefits would involve rethinking entirely the typical purpose for using those kinds of operations.

ok how about the “Crowleyan exercise” of using a ring on a different finger and assuming a different personality thereby?  To me this is something aspiring actors do.  Maybe we all need to take up amateur dramatics instead? 


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
03/12/2013 9:42 pm  
"david" wrote:
so this ritual i..e literally a repetitive form of behaviour or routine, reminds you about “the great work” i.e. Self-Observation.  Well why not just tattoo, “don’t forget to observe your thoughts now ya hear?!” on the back of your hand so every time you write or see your hand you see that message and are thus reminded?

Sure. As I said above, I'm awfully skeptical that repetitions of the LBRP do all that much to aid in the Great Work anyway, so I of course see a tattoo as likely to have similar effects (that is, very minor if any). If you're into tattoos, knock yourself out. It's all window dressing for the real work.

This “rite” you do ,it’s tracing invisible , imaginary blue star shapes all around you.  Why not trace Mickey Mouse shapes or  the Coca Cola trademarks around you?

Well, probably because those are harder to draw.

To give you a more serious answer to your question, lots of people have created their own banishing rituals that involve all sorts of different shapes, godnames, etc. If Mickey Mouse inspires you, feel free to write "The Banishing Ritual of the Mouse." 

Again what you say doesn’t make sense.  You have decided that these four stars (“pentagrams”) somehow do a good job of reminding you to keep on doing self-observation.  Surely if you thought there was no mystical magickal force in the universe then you wouldn’t touch any of this with a barge pole?    You would instead keep your head shaved or do something else as a reminder?

You keep saying that my words don't "make sense," but you aren't explaining clearly where you think the discrepancy is. You seem to be suggesting that if a person doesn't think there is mystical magical force in the universe, then it's somehow a contradiction for that person to do a ritual for expressly non-mystical, non-magical purposes. You're the one not making sense here.

If your point is that it would make more sense for someone like me to enjoy different rituals or to enjoy different kinds of reminders than ritual altogether, then that still doesn't follow. People enjoy all sorts of things simply because they enjoy them. I have an atheist friend who enjoys religious art on a purely aesthetic level...are you going to suggest that it "doesn't make sense" for him to enjoy works of art just because some people happen to believe that those works have something to do with oogity boogity magic?

Furthermore this ritual involves talking to “Archangels”.

Well, actually, you don't "talk" to them in the sense of "have a conversation." You invoke them. You call on them and imagine them -- as vividly as you can -- standing at the appropriate quarters. After having "banished" each element (and what it represents) you build them back up again in your imagination, exalting your Self as much as possible in the process.

Again, talking to these “things” it does not aid self-observation.  It is mere occult- religiosity and alternative devotional practice

Hey, I'm with you. And the way most Thelemites seem to practice the LBRP -- just mindlessly repeating it as if it's going to somehow do anything on its own, or earnestly believing that they're "lighting up the astral" or becoming "powerful wizards who build things in other worlds with their mind" or driving away imaginary "presences" -- it certainly is occult-religiosity and alternative devotional practice.

If that's how you regard the LBRP, then feel free not to do it. I won't force you to do the ritual, promise.

ok how about the “Crowleyan exercise” of using a ring on a different finger and assuming a different personality thereby?  To me this is something aspiring actors do.  Maybe we all need to take up amateur dramatics instead? 

I've never tried the ring thing specifically, but the idea behind it is an important one for the training: one must train the mind to see the world through as many perspectives as possible, to look as broadly as possible at all issues in an attempt to free oneself, as much as possible, from preference.

Many other practices -- including divination -- aim at generating that kind of broadening of the mind. My personal method of practice is to try to read something -- at least once a day -- that makes an argument for a position that I don't personally agree with.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4065
03/12/2013 9:59 pm  
"Los" wrote:
And the way most Thelemites seem to practice the LBRP -- just mindlessly repeating it as if it's going to somehow do anything on its own, or earnestly believing that they're "lighting up the astral" or becoming "powerful wizards who build things in other worlds with their mind" or driving away imaginary "presences" -- it certainly is occult-religiosity and alternative devotional practice.

Where is the evidence for your statement about the way that "most Thelemites seem to practice the LPRP"? Have you conducted a survey?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
03/12/2013 11:57 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
And the way most Thelemites seem to practice the LBRP -- just mindlessly repeating it as if it's going to somehow do anything on its own, or earnestly believing that they're "lighting up the astral" or becoming "powerful wizards who build things in other worlds with their mind" or driving away imaginary "presences" -- it certainly is occult-religiosity and alternative devotional practice.

Where is the evidence for your statement about the way that "most Thelemites seem to practice the LPRP"? Have you conducted a survey?

I agree with the statement actually.  The evidence is in the myriad of insane threads, statements and discussions found on Thelemic and Occult  discussion forums.  People accepting metaphysical phenomena as real without evidence and spouting nonsense akin to an NPD group- therapy session gone wrong.  You obviously haven't noticed


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4065
04/12/2013 12:26 am  
"david" wrote:
I agree with the statement actually.  The evidence is in the myriad of insane threads, statements and discussions found on Thelemic and Occult  discussion forums.  You obviously haven't noticed

Well, whoopy-do.

Firstly, what evidence is there that the LAShTAL membership - or indeed that of other forums - is a representative cross-section of Thelemites that practice magic and mysticism? There's probably many people that just get on with their work without wanting to be gobs on sticks about it, sounding off to all and sundry.

Secondly, your criteria of what's insane seems to be that which doesn't conform to your present understanding of reality. Personally, I don't give a toss about what you - or even that intellectual colussus Los - judge to be insane and what you consider acceptable. I find your narrow-mindedness surprising but am happy for you to believe what you like.

Just for the record, I have for many decades now been working a diversity of magical rituals, and take a great deal of interest in mysticism, in particular Ch'an Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. When I work a magical ritual, it is not my intention to call forth magical entities to get this, that or the other for me, to fulfil my wishes, find buried treasure, reveal hidden knowledge, attract sexual partners, etc etc et bloody cetera; but to deepen insight, to sharpen awareness. I don't consider my current understanding of reality to be final, but simply a step along the way. However, you'll still want to dismiss me as a supernaturalist, I expect; be my guest, by all means.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
04/12/2013 5:37 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Where is the evidence for your statement about the way that "most Thelemites seem to practice the LPRP"? Have you conducted a survey?

After reading discussions on the LBRP for over a decade, I've observed a trend among people who are vocal about their practice, and I wish to respond to that trend. Whether or not this vocal group is actually representative of the wider Thelemic community is both difficult to determine (perhaps impossible to determine accurately?) and irrelevant in the context in which I'm making my response.

I'm addressing a particular trend that's really there -- and ubiquitous -- in online discussions about the ritual.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
When I work a magical ritual, it is not my intention to call forth magical entities to get this, that or the other for me, to fulfil my wishes, find buried treasure, reveal hidden knowledge, attract sexual partners, etc etc et bloody cetera; but to deepen insight, to sharpen awareness.

Well, one of my critiques is that I don't think that just doing rituals is really going to do much at all to "deepen insight," certainly not to deepen insight into anything resembling what Thelema calls the True Will.

Now, if you'd like to discuss Thelemic practice, I think there's an interesting conversation waiting to be had here: what exactly do you mean by "deepen insight"? What makes you think that magical rituals actually do deepen your insight?

Depending on what you say, we might even find ourselves in agreement on some or even many things.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4065
04/12/2013 10:59 am  
"Los" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Where is the evidence for your statement about the way that "most Thelemites seem to practice the LPRP"? Have you conducted a survey?

After reading discussions on the LBRP for over a decade, I've observed a trend among people who are vocal about their practice, and I wish to respond to that trend. Whether or not this vocal group is actually representative of the wider Thelemic community is both difficult to determine (perhaps impossible to determine accurately?) and irrelevant in the context in which I'm making my response.

I'm addressing a particular trend that's really there -- and ubiquitous -- in online discussions about the ritual.

Yes, I suspected that might be the case. In which case it would have been more accurate to say "a number of thelemites whose accounts I have come across".

"Los" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
When I work a magical ritual, it is not my intention to call forth magical entities to get this, that or the other for me, to fulfil my wishes, find buried treasure, reveal hidden knowledge, attract sexual partners, etc etc et bloody cetera; but to deepen insight, to sharpen awareness.

Well, one of my critiques is that I don't think that just doing rituals is really going to do much at all to "deepen insight," certainly not to deepen insight into anything resembling what Thelema calls the True Will.

Now, if you'd like to discuss Thelemic practice, I think there's an interesting conversation waiting to be had here: what exactly do you mean by "deepen insight"? What makes you think that magical rituals actually do deepen your insight?

Depending on what you say, we might even find ourselves in agreement on some or even many things.

We've had an exchange of views on this several times over the last few years. I pay attention to my intuition; you regard this as invalid. Over the course of decades of mystical and magical practise, combined with study and contemplation, I experience what I regard as my insight deepening, and moving ever closer to True Will. You and I have very different notions of True Will, and I can't say I lose any sleep over that. In terms of Crowley's conception, mine is probably closer to his insight of the last few years of his American period (say, 1916 to 1919), when he related True Will to the Tao.

I don't "think" that magical ritual deepens my insight; I know. Yours seems fundamentally an intellectual outlook, based on reasoning. I'm not decrying that; for the last 25 years of my employment I was a computer programmer and data analyst, and could not have done my job without it. Whilst reason is a necessary tool in day-to-day living, I don't think that it represents a final truth, and nor do I think that it has much to contribute to magical and mystical work. You'll disagree, but I'll continue to work as I see fit.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
04/12/2013 2:39 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I pay attention to my intuition; you regard this as invalid.

Well, what most people call "intuition" is actually a kind of "background reason" that emerges into awareness as hastily-formed rational conclusions that are "felt" as gut responses.

The brain is constantly working at processing "behind the scenes," as it were, such that I can be talking to someone but my brain continues to process all of the stimuli around me without my having to work at it consciously. So if you came up to me and threw a ball at me while I was talking to someone else, I could catch it without thinking about it.

Similarly, the brain is always working on tentative, hastily-formed conclusions and these conclusions sometimes emerge into awareness. I might, for example, see a friend and just "know," intuitively, that he's troubled by something. Of course, I don't "know" it at all -- my brain has produced a snap conclusion, using reason operating on a bunch of things: my brain picked up on little cues in my friend's appearance, compared his appearance to what I know of his behaviors and how he acts when under the sway of different emotions, etc., and my brain speedily and tentatively concludes that he's upset. This is a reasoned conclusion, but it's happening so fast that it doesn't register as reason -- it is felt as some sort of vague feeling ("I just know it, in my gut!"), and it gets called intuition, but it's really just good ol' reason.

Intuition can be useful for navigating reality, but it's not always right, especially since its conclusions are so hasty. We certainly can't determine that an intuition is correct simply by paying attention to the intuition. In the example above, I wouldn't actually "know" that my friend is upset until I confirm it through other means.

I experience what I regard as my insight deepening, and moving ever closer to True Will [...] I don't "think that magical ritual deepens my insight; I know

And how do you know that the experience actually is your insight deepening?

Whilst reason is a necessary tool in day-to-day living, I don't think that it represents a final truth

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "final truth." The word "truth" -- in the sense that a statement can be true or not true -- is a rational construct. So when you say something like, "Magical ritual deepens my insight," that's a factual claim, and evaluating the truth of that claim lands us squarely in the realm of reason, in the same way that the claim "the bus comes at 8:00 every morning" is a factual claim, the evaluation of which also lands us squarely in the realms of reason.

But as I've already pointed out, intuition, too, is a kind of reason -- just a half-consciously, not-fully-thought-out reason.

So I'd be interested in learning how (you think) you know that magical rituals actually do deepen your insight.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
04/12/2013 2:59 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
... This (the temporary plateau, not to be confused with the Tibetan plateau) is, perhaps, the best than can be achieved ... and, of course, to rely on one's disciplines to engage perpetual continuity (aka immortality) is, probably, to expose one's self to disappointment.

Is this Tibetan plateau the best that can be achieved then?  I love the hedging – I couldn’t have done a better job myself!  But isn’t every plateau temporary?  Particularly when “perpetual” here seems to mean the same thing as “permanent”?
Grunt, Grimm and Gilbert seemed a bit like Goldilocks and the Three Bears’ porridge.  Could the Three Gs be related to those infamous Three Gurus of previous legend?

"Shiva" wrote:
All these promises suggest wishful thinking.

“Deem not too eagerly to catch the promises…” (Liber AL III:16)

"Shiva" wrote:
Anyway, for the most part, everyone gets to pick and choose their own techniques for dealing with life.  8)

Yes, everyone can be picky and choosy when it comes to faddies (techniques)

"Shiva" wrote:
"Aleister Crowley" wrote:
If you are really free, you can take cocaine as simply as salt-water taffy ... If a man is simple, fearless, eager, he is all right; he will not become a slave.

This (^) was writ by Aleister Crowley? Yes, I remember reading it earlier in my life.

Yes, it is from the New Comment to Liber AL II.22:

I am the Snake that giveth Knowledge & Delight and bright glory, and stir the hearts of men with drunkenness.  To worship me take wine and strange drugs whereof I will tell my prophet, & be drunk thereof!  They shall not harm ye at all.  It is a lie, this folly against self.  The exposure of innocence is a lie.  Be strong, o man, lust, enjoy all things of sense and rapture – fear not that any God shall deny thee for this

Not The Diary of a Drug Fiend, as some may perhaps have immediately thought.

"Shiva" wrote:
... I see it not as a "Thelemic Practice," but as a pie-in-the-sky opinion that tells us it's ok to simply take drugs and that there will be no addiction  😮 ... for the Thelemite who has found his/her Will. This theme was laid out in great detail in Diary of a Drug Fiend ... To bad it was a novel, a work of fiction, and not a medical reality.

Does this mean that you disagree with II.22 then?

"Shiva" wrote:
"Simple," in the quote above, really means "once or twice," but beware taking any addictive drug three days in a row, lest one become a slave.

Doesn’t “simple” relate to the man being uncomplicated rather than the frequency of a dosage?

"Shiva" wrote:
This whole subject is tied to my example wherein a person is simply trying to raise him/her self above the embedded existential angst (anxiety).

Though existential angst (anguish or anxiety) is not the same as existential joy and is a reality which is false (within a larger reality which is false anyway of course)

"Shiva" wrote:
[...]It can also be seen in relation to ... how angst is before nothing[...],Wikipedia

Well perhaps nothing must be a secret key of this law, then

Did anyone spot that I previously actually meant this quote

"Los" wrote:
I did, earlier in the thread, speculate as to how invocation might be useful for the Great Work:  http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=72071#p72071

instead of this one:

"jamie barter" wrote:
In which it is stated:

Reply #42 from Los on: September 27, 2012, 06:34:29 pm:
The method is simple: invoke often. As often as possible, strive to exalt your consciousness to ecstasy and beyond. You’re deliberately trying to “shake” the mind out of its normal routines, so impressing this new and powerful state of consciousness upon it is going to loosen things up.

Though I wonder if anyone noticed and would have actually ?’ed it in their minds.

"Los" wrote:
And indeed, in the sense that invocation means identifying oneself with the entity invoked, the "Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel" (identifying with your own True Self) is the ultimate invocation, though not necessarily strictly ceremonial.

Would this Holy Guardian Angel be based in Chesed, by any chance?

"Los" wrote:
"Invoke often" really should be "invoke continuously," especially in your daily life.

Like breathing in and out, you mean?

"Los" wrote:
But pretending you can pump magic glitter energy into talismans in order to bring you riches or something? I dunno.

The (2) most honest “words” in the English language

"Los" wrote:
How in the world is that supposed to help you know yourself better?

Thru experience, my lad, for better or worse

"Los" wrote:
And I say this as someone who has a fair amount of experience -- back in the day -- invoking Enochian angels and charging talismans.

I take it there would not have been a very high showing in the positive ‘results’ column?  Ever heard of those wise saws “if you don’t succeed…” and “(Thelemic) Practice makes perfect”?  Perhaps your technique is deficient?

"Los" wrote:

[Maybe these practices that you reject do actually aid others in their own self-observation work and help them in "bringing their activities in line with their true will"
?.     

Maybe, and I'd be open to hearing an argument for how these practices might help with self-observation, but my strong suspicion is that any benefits would involve rethinking entirely the typical purpose for using those kinds of operations.

The single most honest word in the English language (alongside his more bashful sister, of course, Maybe NOT.)

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4065
05/12/2013 2:48 pm  
"Los" wrote:
And how do you know that the experience actually is your insight deepening?

I know, because I experience it; simple, really. I don't analyse it in terms of reason, and am not interested in doing so.

"Los" wrote:
So when you say something like, "Magical ritual deepens my insight," that's a factual claim, and evaluating the truth of that claim lands us squarely in the realm of reason, in the same way that the claim "the bus comes at 8:00 every morning" is a factual claim, the evaluation of which also lands us squarely in the realms of reason.

When someone makes an assertion or a remark, it is not necessarily a "factual claim" for evaluation by you or anybody else; thus if you are anticipating that I agree with this premise and supply data from which you can pass down a judgement, best not to hold your breath. If I were walking in a park, and remarked to someone that the roses smelt good today, and they responded by asking me what data I had to make such a factual claim, I'd likely walk away laughing.

"Los" wrote:
But as I've already pointed out, intuition, too, is a kind of reason -- just a half-consciously, not-fully-thought-out reason.

No, you've pointed out your opinion that intution is "a kind of reason". Your opinion doesn't become fact merely because you pronounce it to be so. I'm not really interested in arguing whether intuition is "a kind of reason" or not; I suspect it derives from sense impressions.

"Los" wrote:
So I'd be interested in learning how (you think) you know that magical rituals actually do deepen your insight.

Actually, you wouldn't; you just want to argue about it. Over the course of decades of magical and mystical work, I have come to recognise certain sensations in awareness, certain crystallisations; in your terms, perhaps, I have developed criteria derived from my past experience, from which I assess the fruits of magical and mystical work. I doubt if that's amenable to "peer review" (whether "blind" or otherwise), and anyway it doesn't interest me.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
05/12/2013 3:36 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
And how do you know that the experience actually is your insight deepening?

I know, because I experience it; simple, really. I don't analyse it in terms of reason, and am not interested in doing so.

[...]

I have come to recognise certain sensations in awareness, certain crystallisations [...] I have developed criteria derived from my past experience, from which I assess the fruits of magical and mystical work.

Well, that's just it. In one breath, you say you "don't analyze" the experience, and then in the next breath, you admit that you "assess" that experience using "criteria derived from [your] past experience." You clearly do analyze the experience, just not in an overly formal way: you have developed categories for different kinds of experience and, upon generating an experience, you use aspects of that experience to determine which category to place it in. And in this case, you categorize it as "experience that deepens insight." That process of labeling is a rational process, in which your reason operates on evidence (your experience) to produce a conclusion.

I was asking you questions about this rational process, and even though your brain performs these operations lightning fast -- such that they don't register as "reason" or "thinking" -- you can revisit the process after the fact to refine your thinking on the subject.

One of my questions was what exactly you mean by "deepening your insight." I mean, if all you're talking about is doing rituals to generate certain trances, then fine. I wouldn't question that any further. But what about these particular experiences "deepens your insight"? Insight into what? How do you tell that it's been "deepened"? What's your basis of comparison for making that contrast?

Obviously, I'm not asking you for "data" that I can poke with a stick. I'm aware that the evidence that your reason is operating on is entirely subjective and only available to you. But you can *tell us* what that subjective experience is like and tell us *what about* that subjective experience leads you to make the conclusions that you do about it.

And again, if all you mean is "Doing magical rituals generates pleasant trance experiences," then I've got no argument with that at all. It's the claim that the rituals are "deepening your insight" that I'm curious about.


ReplyQuote
Hamal
(@hamal)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 547
05/12/2013 3:40 pm  

I enjoyed reading your responses Michael.

Most people evolve systems of belief or parameters, which if they aren't closed minded are open to re-assessment based on new experience. A degree of skepticism is healthy. Los however, has evolved a system of dis-belief, but fails to recognise that his system is as arbitrary and self-deluded as any of those he seeks to criticise, if not more so, because it fails to meet the standards of proof it requires of others and as a result appears not to be subject to re-assessment. This leads to discussions in threads like this being pretty fruitless and one sided, akin to talking to a brick wall.

That is why, I for one, save for this post, no longer engage in them.

93
Hamal


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
05/12/2013 4:37 pm  
"Hamal" wrote:
... This leads to discussions in threads like this being pretty fruitless and one sided, akin to talking to a brick wall.
That is why, I for one, save for this post, no longer engage in them.

A great shame if so, Hamal, as I have appreciated your input.  Or do you perhaps mean that you just no longer wish to engage in circuitous brickwallish-type debates with Los, in which case I sympathise with you greatly & feel you are by no means on your own.  I would not do continue to do so myself except I must get some sort of a sado-masochistic buzz out of it, I suppose!  And it is also amusing to see how far people can go sometimes to avoid giving a direct answer to a direct question… 
However, the universe will always allow you to reconsider your position at a later date of course…

It is also frustrating that Los only selectively answers points put to him in which he may well then repeat himself repeatedly whilst going around the houses, but then proceed to ignore those points which might put him in an awkward position to answer further – for example: most of mine!  Also, from the previous post it appears that in the past Los has done Enochian work and charged talismans, etc.:

Reply #128 by Los on: December 03, 2013, 12:54:15 am:
But pretending you can pump magic glitter energy into talismans in order to bring you riches or something? I dunno. How in the world is that supposed to help you know yourself better? And I say this as someone who has a fair amount of experience -- back in the day -- invoking Enochian angels and charging talismans.

but now feels he somehow has the right to scoff & pour scornful derision upon other people who might feel inclined to carry out similar research into what he would probably presently otherwise describe as hobgoblinery oojypoojery hocus-pocus, or somesuch outlandish terminology.

With best wishes to you,
N Joy...


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5056
05/12/2013 5:12 pm  

It is fairly common that some folks will put their heart and soul (so to speak about concentration) into some sort of practice (including religions :o), only to discover later that it's no longer their cup of tea. Both Krishnamurtis (Jiddu & U.G.) did this. Many priests of the R.C. Church (as well as other denominations - or is it demonizations?) are said to "lose their faith" and become lax or even quit the church.

Often, the reason for this "change of heart" is that one discovers that certain gods, demons, spirits, secret chiefs, angels and powers are not external entities, but are archetypes or aspects within themselves. This changes their entire perspective and then they, who once were the fiercest of advocates, become rabid opponents.

Hey!  It's just a series of examples wherein one conforms to that old adage: "One finds that what was once the most important thing has become  of no import at all."


ReplyQuote
Hamal
(@hamal)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 547
05/12/2013 7:00 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
"Hamal" wrote:
... This leads to discussions in threads like this being pretty fruitless and one sided, akin to talking to a brick wall.
That is why, I for one, save for this post, no longer engage in them.

A great shame if so, Hamal, as I have appreciated your input.  Or do you perhaps mean that you just no longer wish to engage in circuitous brickwallish-type debates with Los, in which case I sympathise with you greatly & feel you are by no means on your own.

I mean the latter, brickwallish-type debates with anyone... they are pointless! literally pointless! If others wish to engage in them that is their choice, I just have better things to do with my time and effort. After all there are so many other great discussions on here to enjoy, I know I do!  🙂

93
Hamal


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
17/02/2014 9:00 pm  

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law
Love is the law, love under will.

18* words. twice number >> 9 << of Luna Supreme: The number of movement, emotions, the subconcious, dreams, imagination, and the sex drive of mammals (like us).

So... Thelemic practice is A) WILL and B) LOVE

If you love yourself you are able to do your will, if you love all of your surroundings you will be in harmony with the rest of the universe again enabling you to do your will.

Your will is easy: everything that doesn't BORE you but is PURE JOY. Again and again. Like sex. In fact both of these words - LOVE and WILL - do have some female-male duality in them, don't they?

WILL is hard and LOVE is fluid it seems to me, so doing BOTH will unite your separate nadis and brain hemispheres, your black and white pillar, your male and your female, sun and moon. There's more to will and love but this is an obvious and valid meaning, methinks.

HOW this practice will look is up to you, it may be whatever gets the most to you, whatever is embedded deeply in your own DNA. You may know it when you practice it AND IT STRENGTHENS YOU instead of draining.

That is my opinion. There will be many different ones. Love is the law, and do what thou wilt. And be happy with it. Always!!

Some truths are fairly simply, I've always found spiritual truths without much words or mumbo jumbu to be the most worthwile ones.

So much for my impressions, what about yours? i.e. does this make sense 2U?

* )  18 = 12(93) + 6 (and it is a human number, you are Number Six (laughs) )...sorry I've got kabbala but it's getting better....turning into Qabbalah soon .... 😉


ReplyQuote
Hamal
(@hamal)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 547
17/02/2014 9:24 pm  
"Asar" wrote:
Your will is easy: everything that doesn't BORE you but is PURE JOY. Again and again. Like sex. In fact both of these words - LOVE and WILL - do have some female-male duality in them, don't they?

No! Your true will is not simply the satisfaction of you base desires or whims. When you discover your true will and act in accordance with it you are like a force of nature, but discovering it can be quite an undertaking.

"Asar" wrote:
So much for my impressions, what about yours? i.e. does this make sense 2U?

I think you need to study the subject more deeply, what you describe is a scant surface level understanding of something that actually is not as simple as it may at first appear.

🙂
93
Hamal


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
17/02/2014 9:31 pm  
"Hamal" wrote:
No! Your true will is not simply the satisfaction of you base desires or whims. When you discover your true will and act in accordance with it you are like a force of nature, but discovering it can be quite an undertaking.

Oooh i know that !!! I got into Crowley in my 20ies and now in my late 40s start to see a glimpse of the truth now and then.

I said NOTHING about base desires although I can't see what's wrong with them ? I mean, we are all here to talk about SPIRITUAL PRACTICES and SEX is a PRACTICE TOO if not for Crowley we wouldn't be here y'know.

But I insist - if I may - that doing your OWN TRUE WILL is always JOYFUL and never boring...it's the fulfillment of the greatest kind. Always. Do you disagree? 😉

"Hamal" wrote:
I think you need to study the subject more deeply, what you describe is a scant surface level understanding of something that actually is not as simple as it may at first appear.

Some things are simple and can be described in very simple terms. Spiritual truth isnt THAT complicated you know. St.Therion EVEN SAID SO. And so do a lot of Hindu yogis, you know 😉


ReplyQuote
Page 3 / 17
Share: