Notifications
Clear all

Will vs. Desire

Page 4 / 4

Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2964
 

93,

AUM418, thanks for the response! As always, a welcome contribution.

"Aum418" wrote:
Its more like, your mind is a droplet of water - usually very chaotic... and Samadhi is making this drop coherent until it drops into a semingly infinite ocean and is absorbed into it... Then afterwards, somehow the drop reforms as apparently separate.

So then, for imagery, it could it be a jagged droplet of water, which becomes smooth afterwards, or even vice versa (depending on the mental type)?

By definition? Really? What aboout by Buddha's definition of the First Noble Truth and that one characteristic of existence is Sorrow (dukkha)?

It seems sensible to think that one must Be before one can be Sorrowful, or at that rate, even Aware of Being before one can be Aware that the Nature of his Being is Sorrow. At any rate, I am not a Buddhist, and must prefer to think the opposite, that "existence is pure joy".

This seems like a whole lot of words to me... being is non-being, being is becoming, becoming is being, non being is becoming, etc. All three of these adjectives can describe the universe but it would be best (and 'most' accurate) to say the universe is all 3 of these things at different points. This is one interpretation of the word LAShTAL (LA = Non-being, AL = Being, ShT = Becoming).

It is a whole lots of words lol Perhaps direct experience would allow me a better use of terms in that regard. Mainly I was attempting to describe the process of getting to Samadhi, the phase of working with Samadhi, and possible concepts beyond it.

Often? I cannot think of one place he said something like this and it makes little sense since Samadhi is destruction of Perceiver and Perceive, Thing-That-Is-Aware and Thing-That-Awareness-Is-Aware-Of. To be aware of Samadhi is to not be in Samadhi. To say "I am in Samadhi" is a contradiction- it would be equally accurate to say "Not-I am in Samadhi" or even better "I and Not-I are in Samadhi" but these are all word games. Samadhi is the destruction of the notion of Perceiver and Perceived, Knower and Known, in an 'orgasm' of the consciousness.

You just said the same thing I did. The idea of Samadhi, at least to my intellect, is that there is no awareness at all. Hence, "all of the lights went out at once". Well, it would be silly to think that you could predict when it was going to occur, and would only want to do your best to cause the correct conditions. However, after it occurred, it seems very likely that will be able to say Samadhi has occurred. Hence, what Crowley DID say is that it is more likely to be aware that Samadhi occurred, post-tense, than to be aware that it was occurring, which most obviously is not Samadhi (due to the duality of the knower and the thing known). Theoretically then, it is only possible to know Samadhi has occurred, not that it will occur or that it is occurring. If I had all of my resources, I would most certainly point you to the passage which is cited.

I wouldnt get this conception from the Tao mixed up wit that of Samadhi. Also, the Tao does not say that really, that would be a mistake. Its more like, you become omnipotent once you stop forcing yourself up against the stream. Or in other words, Thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay.

Or in other words, once the droplet has been purified and reformed, it may enter or exit the larger ocean at will, and is no longer going against the grain, but with the grain, thereby having the "clearance" to access the depths of said ocean?

He is also a master of duality. Magister is a master of Sorrow because he has mastered the duality that gives rise to sorrow.

Good point.

On the subject of Samadhi, I would recommend everyone read Crowley's own very concise exposition of it in Magick Part I, chapter VII. Now there is a clear exposition of Samadhi.

210 & 65,
111-418

93 93/93,
Az


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Well I believe that Will is more of a Godhood "need" for the context that the word Thelema was used in ancient texts was Godly Will. Desire is more of an impulse that completely human but then again desire could actually be the manifestation of a hidden Will? This description is still vague and too technical in areas and not enough in others. This ofcourse is a difficult one to answer.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Will and Desire, perhaps twin brothers? In my business I would say that Will (not the ambitious 'will', but that sheer force which has its roots in primordial existence) is of the higher nature, and can most easily be bastardized by Desire, the two can and may mingle all too often, i.e. 'The road to Hell is paved with good intentions'. Desire is merely a product of will tainted with worldly ambition, the seeking for the base self, the feeling physical phenomenal manifestation, while sheer Will, alone and un-depraved, is that harmonious guide which leads us to universally beneficial action. Does that make sense? It does to me, but...

a.t.


ReplyQuote
Baxian
(@baxian)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 74
 

tesorthena

Desire is merely a product of will tainted with worldly ambition, the seeking for the base self, the feeling physical phenomenal manifestation, while sheer Will, alone and un-depraved, is that harmonious guide which leads us to universally beneficial action.

You seem to be seperating will from desire, in the sense that Will has no connection with worldly ambition? Am I right?

I would agree that a human being who is in touch with there Will, may be uncontroled by worldly ambition. But worldy ambition may indeed be part of a persons will also.

The important point, at least to me, about getting in tune with devine will, seems that by doing this, desire has less hold, the mind is more free, and action can come from somewhere more in tune with deep "nature" and not get dictated by external/internal or otherly forces/energies/spirits etc.
I think of desire as a wanting of something, anything.
Desires can be be both "base"(as in selfish?) or more "universally benificial", none the less, this still seems to me to be in the quadrant of desire.

Fundamental in my opinion, is the question of how free from desire(not to say that desires wont be of interest and indulged in) a person is.
Cheers


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Will vs. Desire
The two are necessary and complimentary. But I'm going to say that WILL is the EGG.

Turn on a light in a dark room. The space between the light source and the walls/objects is left transparent. The walls and objects reflect the light. Some more are lit more than others. A white wall reflects more (PHYSICALLY APPEARS brighter) than a brown vase. I'm talking about the wave/particle theory of light. Not on the construction of vases. But the construction of vases is in direct connection to whether or not they look brighter (or just as bright) as a white wall. Light's invisible spectrum made visible by it's reflection, however bright or dim, in objects.

That's my opinion. Will illuminates desire no matter how dull the reflection. We chose how best to indulge desire. They are directly linked, but Will reveals like a Sun. Some people need prostitutes, some people need porn. Some people need concerts some are happy with a cd player. Some people need drugs, other people can get to Alpha Centauri ("...cuz where the fuck else are ya gonna go when the aliens ask?")with meditation (and don't need to be abducted by aliens in Kathmandu. ha!).

93 -- Adam


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Baphomet111" wrote:
Will vs. Desire
The two are necessary and complimentary. But I'm going to say that WILL is the EGG.

Turn on a light in a dark room. The space between the light source and the walls/objects is left transparent. The walls and objects reflect the light. Some more are lit more than others. A white wall reflects more (PHYSICALLY APPEARS brighter) than a brown vase. I'm talking about the wave/particle theory of light. Not on the construction of vases. But the construction of vases is in direct connection to whether or not they look brighter (or just as bright) as a white wall. Light's invisible spectrum made visible by it's reflection, however bright or dim, in objects.

That's my opinion. Will illuminates desire no matter how dull the reflection. We chose how best to indulge desire. They are directly linked, but Will reveals like a Sun. Some people need prostitutes, some people need porn. Some people need concerts some are happy with a cd player. Some people need drugs, other people can get to Alpha Centauri ("...cuz where the fuck else are ya gonna go when the aliens ask?")with meditation (and don't need to be abducted by aliens in Kathmandu. ha!).

93 -- Adam

I'd have to say that your explaination makes a valid point. However this is a question for many Thelemites, could desire lead one foolishly as of silvery deception?? But Will keep the heart a Golden (Sun 😆 ) Path


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 

I've only skimmed the thread thus far, so my apologies if this has already been mentioned.

In Crowley's "translation" of the Tao Teh Ching, we find the following passage in chapter XXIX:

The wheel of nature revolveth constantly; the last becometh first, and the first last; hot things grow cold, and cold things hot; weakness overcometh strength; things gained are lost anon. Hence the wise man avoideth effort, desire and sloth.

Clearly, desire is to be avoided. But how is desire defined here? Crowley appends a footnote to the verse that reads in part:

Desire is the disturbance of the Satwa-Guna, exciting the lust of Change, in one direction or the other, from the natural.

"Desire," then, is the ego-driven attachment to the results of one's actions. Desire is that part of you that wants the wheel to turn one way or the other, thinking that some results are "better" than others. It wants to hold onto the hot, not understanding that it must become cold; it wants to hold onto the strong, not understanding that it must become weak.

For me, the Will is free of desire, of attachment to any aspect of Change. It embraces those aspects of Nuit that it encounters -- without discrimination, without aim.

Is there not joy ineffable in this aimless winging?


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 856
 

The Will *must* be separate from desire. We must ever be careful of 'lust of result', the Will lies in doing, it is an active force. Result implies completion, whereas the Will is ever-progressing.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Perhaps there is a primordial desire embedded within the universal consciousness that drives the individual to act, perhaps it is desire illuminating will instead. The Will is the source, we perceive it as desire. That desire, need, urge, is the force behind the will, because if you don't desire, what is there to act upon. We can act upon that desire by doing the Great Work, or we can masturbate, which is what everything else is, it feels good, but it isn't going to get you anywhere, spiritual or otherwise. Achieving freedom from the lust of the result is often an end in itself, however that freedom denotes a greater liberation of the consciousness than mere apathy. "Divided for loves sake", is this primordial desire that which insights union?


ReplyQuote
Page 4 / 4
Share: