Home Forums Thelema Thelema A new resident of the City of the Pyramids!: Los

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 181 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #100420

    dom
    Participant

    Barter, when you make some sort of valid point I may reply.

    #100421

    dom
    Participant

    @simoniff who said

    Thanks, wellreadwellbred, the complete question should have read of course “Why would anyone on earth add this title 8=3 to his signature when not playing the A.A. game?” because according to dom Los was never a member of any A.A. and this “the map is not the territory” crap did not really address my question nor was it anything more than as vague as it gets, which is – as we learned – the big problem in Thelema today.

    Love=Law
    Lutz

    You too will find an answer to this in my 100413 post. Sad to see that when you can’t understand something you box it off as being “vague”. Also you appear to fail to understand the concept of the map not being the territory, nothing I can do for you there.

    I’ll try yet again to get past your mental blocks, the A A is the order of things as they stand. You can’t appear to grasp Crowley’s “universe is busy with nothing else” quote. Alas, I tried to help but….

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 1 day ago by  dom.
    #100423

    Jamie J Barter
    Participant

    Barter, when you make some sort of valid point I may reply.

    Why so formal dom, particularly when I can’t return the honour (it’s not ‘Williams’, is it)?! And I made several points — were they perhaps too subtle for you?

    In other words, are you so unperceptive you really need me to have to point them out to you? Very well: for instance, then, how about whether you yourself hold to be a true & valid point Los’s brilliant assertion cited in my last post about his couch & doing Liber Resh?? Or whether you, dom, can scientifically actually assess a number as large as 100 to be empirically much nearer, say, to single figures (such precision & accuracy being an invaluable if not vital ability, if one happens to be a measuring sort of scientist such as a chemist, for example…)

    This is quite a novel experience for me: it’s not often one is privileged enough to be able to engage with a monkey of the monkey of the organ grinder himself (as one must surely call the G.’. H.’. Erwin Hessle, late of this parish, “9=2”)! A veritable Ape of Thoth, one could say!

    Yours amiably,
    И ∫ºλ

    #100425

    dom
    Participant

    @chrtibrany who wrote

    God energy to me is that energy which is inherent in every organism, which has been around prior to life, and prior to the cosmos. It might be said to have created the cosmos.

    Crowley believed that contacting this energy and then eventually Becoming the energy (first you worship, then you attain yoga, then you become as a god) was very important.

    Why else did he perform Liber RESH every day? This is a devotional ritual, worshiping and identifying oneself with various gods. Why else did he strive to teach his pupils to unite with their Holy Guardian Angel (and use that symbol if you will not see at as an external being) in order to eventually become more like God?

    How else do you explain Themela and Crowley’s insistence that one become proficient at divination and skrying? If he did not believe in an external energy that was essentially nonhuman and could be tapped, why would he be adamant that one perform these practises on the road towards adeptship?

    This is why I do not understand why Skeptical Egotism is so atheist, because Crowley was nothing of the sort.

    I paraphrase him when he said of the Abramelin Ritual: ‘it brought me to unity with the godhead, and was a turning point in my life.’

    Yeah it’s just METAPHOR. He was an atheist i.e. a sceptic who was not quick to accept wacko ideas without sufficient evidence. I do not believe that Uri Geller bent spoons with his mind. I don’t believe that Demons and Angels exist, I don’t believe that a man can do some ceremonial rite and metaphysically manipulate the physical world thereby either by “mana” or by commanding “astral” power-beings etc. If I am presented definite evidence otherwise, which I am open o then yeah i’ll change my view..until then, no…now you could say that that makes me an atheist but strictly speaking this atheism springs from my open mind, ny objectivity, my knowledge about human gullibility including when I used to think that yes Angels and Demons etc were real.

    Don’t listen to any clown who tells you that scepticism is egotism. On the contrary, scepticism is in fact the dispassionate scientific transcendental approach as it were.

    You seem confused there Christi, you seem to want to believe in a spiritual entity known as the HGA or a spiritual entity known as God but then you’re using the term “external god energy” to cover yourself. Let’s explore Crowley’s lifelong sceptical approach in detail shall we? Furthermore let’s analyse what he actually meant by HGA and True Will, as a sceptic.

    Crowley spoke to his pupil Bennett in the same form as he wrote his commentary to Liber Samekh and he used this same language when he talked about the HGA throughout his career, consistently.

    For reference, here’s part of Samekh:

    Crowley wrote:
    the Adept will be free to concentrate his deepest self, that part of him which unconsciously orders his true Will, upon the realization of Holy Guardian Angel. The absence of his bodily, mental and astral consciousness is indeed cardinal to success, for it is their usurpation of his attention which has
    made him deaf to his Soul, and his preoccupation with their affairs that has prevented him from perceiving that Soul

    Its very similar in Book 4 Part 1 (1911):

    Crowley wrote:
    The main idea is that the In nite, the Absolute, God, the Over-soul, or whatever you may prefer to call it [including True Self or Real Self] is always present; but veiled or masked by the thoughts of the mind, just as one cannot hear a heart-beat in a noisy city. . . to obtain knowledge of That, it is only necessary to still all thoughts.

    From the New Comment (1920)

    Crowley wrote:
    So also our own Silent Self, helpless and witless, hidden within us, will spring forth, if we have craft to loose him to the Light, spring lustily forward with his cry of Battle, the Word of our True Wills. This is the Task of the Adept, to have the Knowledge and Conversation of His Holy Guardian Angel, to become aware of his nature and his purpose, fulfilling them.

    Crowley wrote:
    Thus he will assimilate the Law, and make it the norm of his conscious being; this by itself will suffice to initiate him, to dissolve his complexes, to unveil himself to himself; and so shall he attain the Knowledge and Conversation of his Holy Guardian Angel. . .
    We have seen that Ra-Hoor-Khuit is in one sense the Silent Self in a man, a Name of his Khabs, not so impersonal as Hadit, but the first and least untrue formulation of the Ego. We are to reverse this self in us, then, not to suppress it and subordinate it. Nor are we to evade it, but to come to it
    .

    Crowley wrote:
    It is curious that this verse [II:65] should be numbered 65, suggesting L.V.X., and Adonai, the Holy Guardian Angel. It seems that He is Hadit. I have never liked the term `Higher Self’; True Self is more the idea. For each Star is the husk of Hadit, unique and conqueror, sublime in His own virtue, independent of Hierarchy.</em>

    <strong>From Little Essays (1938)</strong>

    Crowley wrote:
    <em>Here the great obstacles are these; firstly, the misunderstanding of Self; and secondly, the resistance of the rational mind against its own conclusions. Men must cast off these two restrictions; they must begin to realise that Self is hidden behind, and independent of, the mental and material instrument in which they apprehend their Point-of-View</em>

    Crowley wrote:
    <em>What is my True Will?' ... until we become innocent, we are certain to try to judge our Will by some Canon of what seemsright’ or `wrong’; in other words, we are apt to criticise our Will from the outside, whereas True Will should spring, a fountain of Light, from within

    From Liber Aleph (written 1918, published later):

    Crowley wrote:
    Give Ear, give Ear attentively; the Will is not lost; though it be buried beneath a life-old midden of Repressions, for it persisteth vital within thee (is it not the true Motion of thine inmost Being?)

    From Magick Without Tears (written 1940s, published 1954):

    Crowley wrote:
    As you travel inward, you become able to perceive all the layers which surround the `Self’ from within</em>

    Crowley wrote:
    Initiation, which implies the liberation and development of the genius latent in us all (is not one of the names of the `Holy Guardian Angel’ the Genius?)

    Crowley wrote in Confessions speaking to J.W.N. Sullivan):
    You, being a man, are therefore a star. The soul of a star is what we call genius. You are a genius. This fact is obscured by moral complexes which enmesh it, or lack of adequate machinery to express it in terms of action.

    In Liber LXV he wrote:
    But I have called unto Thee, and I have journeyed unto Thee, and it availed me not. I waited patiently, and Thou wast with me from the beginning.

    Yet all the while Thou was hidden therein, as the Lord of Silence is hidden in the buds of the lotus.

    Many things I beheld mediate and immediate; but, beholding them no more, I beheld Thee.

    Compare the last line with the extract from Samekh that was quoted at the start:

    Crowley wrote:
    The absence of his bodily, mental and astral consciousness is indeed cardinal to success, for it is their usurpation of his attention which has made him deaf to his Soul, and his preoccupation with their affairs that has prevented him from perceiving that Soul

    By “beholding…no more” those kinds of consciousness — which an individual normally does behold — the individual beholds his True Self.

    This is the essence of what Crowley tells us that Thelema is. From Magick in Theory and Practice (1929):

    Crowley wrote:
    [The “sincere student”] must behold his soul in all its awful nakedness, he must not fear to look on that appalling actuality. He must discard the gaudy garments with which his shame has screened him; he must accept the fact that nothing can make him anything but what he is. He may lie to himself, drug himself, hide himself; but he is always there. Magick will teach him that his mind is playing him traitor. It is as if a man were told that tailors’ fashion-plates were the canon of human beauty, so that he tried to make himself formless and featureless like them, and shuddered with horror at the idea of Holbein making a portrait of him. Magick will show him the beauty and majesty of the self which he has tried to suppress and disguise.

    So do you see the underlying bedrock of Crowly’s position — that the HGA is something inside us that initiation sets free by ameliorating the restrictions of the conscious mind — is one expressed consistently across his entire career for people at different levels of understanding as it were. It’s not some isolated answer that he gave to someone in his early so called delusional sceptical phase, no, he provided these answers for many different people all at different levels of understanding (i.e. some clowns also propose that this “sceptical position” is fine for beginners or “the profane” but the real Uri Geller mysterious goblin crap is for the elect few, the chosen ones….wow, check those delusional self-flattering flawed self-schemas right there.

    No, this consistent sceptical answer is the one Crowley presented throughout his writings in which he explains his system to the world. Anyone can read and understand those quotes I provided above draw that same conclusion.

    It’s totally clear that Crowley regarded the term HGA as a symbol for the True Self, whose inclinations (dynamic aspect) comprise the True Will of an individual. Furthermore he chose the term “Holy Guardian Angel” because he considered what the term implied about the universe to be “absurd,” and he was trying to prevent students from getting hung up on the label because — as we see in those extracts above — the HGA is the experience of the True Self.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 1 day ago by  dom.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 1 day ago by  dom.
    #100428

    Tiger
    Participant

    ““You ever have a boring math teacher and an interesting math teacher ? you and Los are boring teachers.”

    If you say so but please explain what makes for an interesting teacher? “

    Maybe this example will shed some light.

    Like when Los, 8=3’s vegetable posts quotes from Crowley and then sticks his mind in it.

    One can compare the two teachers ( Los, 8=3’s vegetable and Crowley ).

    Crowley’s words sing; while Los, 8=3’s vegetable words are boring; Los, 8=3’s uncle’s words when he stuck his mind in it were at least a funnier read.

    #100429

    dom
    Participant

    @tiger

    Maybe this example will shed some light.

    What example? “Vegetable posts”? Am I missing something here? What are you talking about, if you please?

    Like when Los, 8=3’s vegetable posts quotes from Crowley and then sticks his mind in it.

    One can compare the two teachers ( Los, 8=3’s vegetable and Crowley ).

    Crowley’s words sing; while Los, 8=3’s vegetable words are boring; Los, 8=3’s uncle’s words when he stuck his mind in it were at least a funnier read.

    ..so you’ve never bothered to go through Los’s blog posts then? “Boring”? Maybe it’s your own comprehension skills and mental blocks that deny you from picking up the transmission from Los’s words?

    When you wise up, take a read;

    http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-problem-with-platitudes.html#more

    #100430

    Jamie J Barter
    Participant

    @dom : Further to Reply # 100423 above, I know just what is likely to happen next. Despite there maybe having been a small modicum of harmless ‘trash talk’ in order to chivvy things along you will proceed to ignore my points and my posts in toto, irrespective of the incontestable validity of their contents, cherry-picking as you go on your merry way aping & emulating the manner of Los who went before you.  How boring & predictable!  And  how demonstrative that you don’t really have the courage of your convictions to respond by arguing your own case all the way through, and revealing that although quoting extensively, you really have nothing original to say off your own bat.  And you should be aware by now from the “Thelemic Practice” thread if nothing else, that even if you choose to ignore me it is quite useless as I am quite capable of carrying on regardless….

    Maybe things might improve for you at your end if you sent Los an SOS through for assistance?  (Unfortunately though, he also has rather a poor track record of responding to such distress calls from his acolytes, but you never know…) 

    N Joy

    #100432

    the_real_simon_iff
    Participant

    Los, never a member of the A A, uses the symbolism of the A A, just like my physics teacher, never a member of the Royal Society, used Newton’s equations centuries after they were conceived…….as a map……not as the territory.

    Fair enough, but the big difference might be that your physics teacher probably didn’t think of the vast majority of all physics students as getting Newton totally wrong and openly despised them and their ideas, that he has gotten Newton right alone (besides your teacher’s “Erwin” equivalent of course) and Newton overall was nothing but a prankster.

    That’s why I think it weird of Los to claim that title. He says himself on his blog that AC today surely wouldn’t want to have anything to do with the A.A.

    Of course, he could argue that he specifically chose the most nonsense titel as not to confuse his listeners like Crowley did with Holy Guardian Angel. While I think that already Crowley was not very convincing with this explanation, Los is even less convincing. He might do it for the fun alone and for his love of the Thelemic folklore, so to say, but he even seems to be prepared to accept the duties the title has within this system (although how he will f.ex. tend his garden is his business alone). I thought you might have a better explanation, dom, but obviously not. And what you provide about his reasons is vague, sorry.

    Anyway, the really nice thing about Thelema is the “Do what thou wilt” stuff and so – and since A.A. titles unlike O.T.O. titles seem to be not copyrighted – he is free to claim what grade and initiation level he likes, he is even free to run his own Order of Thelemic Skeptics. To me it sounds weird and it puts some of his stuff into another and new light. In my eyes he was great in explaining Thelemic concepts to people of today while his obsession to ridicule and condescend most people on the same path were quite a downer (a trait he even shares with Crowley). And of course his desperate efforts of whitewashing Crowley from his (Crowley’s) supernatural tendencies.

    Anyway, before dom becomes bore-dom and this thread goes down to “Erwinians against Supernaturalists” again, I accept that you have no convincing answer for me why the heck he calls himself Los 8=3 now. The only really new and exciting information so far has been in the OP: Los claims to be a new resident in the City of Pyramids.

    Love=Law
    Lutz

    P.S. Anybody has ever seen dom and Los at the same time in one place? Makes me wonder…

    #100435

    Tiger
    Participant

    i guess i should have put a comma after vegetable .

    #100436

    dom
    Participant

    @simoniff

    Fair enough, but the big difference might be that your physics teacher probably didn’t think of the vast majority of all physics students as getting Newton totally wrong and openly despised them and their ideas, that he has gotten Newton right alone (besides your teacher’s “Erwin” equivalent of course) and Newton overall was nothing but a prankster.

    I actually produced my analogy merely to show that one does not need to be a member of an outmoded elitist society (elitist as the Royal Society was then) in order to use their language to convey an idea to modern ears (and eyes). However, fair enough, I should’ve perhaps developed the analogy to go on to say …and imagine if the students of the physics teacher were generally a bunch of dunderheads who

    a) rebelled against their teacher by insisting that one cannot study or understand physics today if one is not a member of the Royal Society and

    b) they persistently missed the point about the symbols used in Newton’s equations being the actual forces of nature ie “the order of things as they really are” ie they could not grasp the notion of the map not being the territory and

    c) hopefully you can see how this would make our modern physics teacher an exasperated man who frequently banged his head against the wall particularly as the vast majority of his students couldn’t ever pass the final exam thereby.

    That’s why I think it weird of Los to claim that title. He says himself on his blog that AC today surely wouldn’t want to have anything to do with the A.A.

    Yes and i’m sure if Newton was presented with a modern dunce who thought that the letter G used to symbolise gravity was an actual thing out there in reality then he too would want nothing to do with that fool.

    Of course, he could argue that he specifically chose the most nonsense titel as not to confuse his listeners like Crowley did with Holy Guardian Angel. While I think that already Crowley was not very convincing with this explanation, Los is even less convincing.

    see my 100245 post above, if you have the required mental application skills you will see that, yeah it’s 100% totally convincing that Crowley would use a silly assed term to represent the “true self”. Furthermore the term HGA appealed to him particularly as it had an impact on him when as a child a giant suitcase nearly killed him in a train station (if i’m not mistaken) and someone said to the child that his HGA saved him.

    He might do it for the fun alone and for his love of the Thelemic folklore, so to say, but he even seems to be prepared to accept the duties the title has within this system (although how he will f.ex. tend his garden is his business alone). I thought you might have a better explanation, dom, but obviously not. And what you provide about his reasons is vague, sorry.

    ‘scuse me whilst I bang my head against this wall here.

    Anyway, the really nice thing about Thelema is the “Do what thou wilt” stuff and so – and since A.A. titles unlike O.T.O. titles seem to be not copyrighted – he is free to claim what grade and initiation level he likes, he is even free to run his own Order of Thelemic Skeptics.

    You just took your understanding of this issue to a new level….of ignorance. An order of sceptics, wow…once again where’s that wall? I need to bang my head against it.

    Did you ever play Dungeons and Dragons as a kid? You seem to be literally obsessed with this need for orders.

    To me it sounds weird and it puts some of his stuff into another and new light. In my eyes he was great in explaining Thelemic concepts to people of today while his obsession to ridicule and condescend most people on the same path were quite a downer (a trait he even shares with Crowley). And of course his desperate efforts of whitewashing Crowley from his (Crowley’s) supernatural tendencies.

    It’s not a Stalinistic whitewashing at all. We as thinking rational people of today have to weigh up the writings of AC for ourselves. Now I don’t want to complicate matters further for you but getting back to my analogy, Newton like Crowley also had a religionist hobby ie nonsense Bible Code games and alchemy games. Crowley was into Gematria games …as a hobby.. and magical practice such as divination and various spells etc. Now, Newton covered up his nonsense hobnby and never wrote publically about how mystical nonsense secretly got him off…Crowley, on the other hand…. did.

    Anyway, before dom becomes bore-dom

    silly

    and this thread goes down to “Erwinians against Supernaturalists” again, I accept that you have no convincing answer for me why the heck he calls himself Los 8=3 now. The only really new and exciting information so far has been in the OP: Los claims to be a new resident in the City of Pyramids.

    Love=Law
    Lutz

    Ah, yet another exam failure.

    Oh, well.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 1 day ago by  dom.
    • This reply was modified 1 week ago by  dom.
    #100439

    the_real_simon_iff
    Participant

    Oh, those silly hobbies of AC!

    Just keep banging your head.

    Keep weighing up the writings for yourself.

    Keep not answering any question while setting up imaginary exams for us to fail.

    Keep the faith!

    Keep the fun!

    Keep it to yourself.

    Bye.

    Love=Law
    Lutz

    P.S. Your physics teacher obviously wasn’t a very good teacher…

    #100441

    dom
    Participant

    @iff

    Keep not answering any question .

    Did you distort and hallucinate away the fact that I specifically addressed each point you raised?

    Which questions did I not answer, pray tell?

    • This reply was modified 1 week ago by  dom.
    #100443

    the_real_simon_iff
    Participant

    From “@simoniff” downgraded to “@iff”. Should I take it as an insult?

    Your sequel to the physics teacher analogy shows that you simply have not understood my question. For once, Los is not our teacher. He just stepped in the classroom to claim he knows and teaches Newton better. Secondly, nobody rebels against Los or claims that initiation is not possible without being a member of their group. I tried to give an explanation with “Much foe, much honor.”

    Maybe you should take a step a back from your expertise on all things Crowley and simply look at my question from outside: “Why on earth would anyone claim to have obtained a title of a very specific and closed group which he not belongs to and even despises most of its members?”

    Your answers include:

    Posting videos of hilarious unverifiable claims somehow connected to the metaphysical realm.

    It could be an amusing social ecperiment. Which was – to me – your best answer, since “amusing” is different to every person.

    Crowley meant it all as a joke and only very few (mostly Erwinians like Los and yourself) are getting it. Now that’s what I call a fine scientific method.

    Los and Erwin reached the equivalent of that specific grade of initiation alongside some framework Crowley had outlined in his Confessions. Which is kind of funny because a) how would you know? (if you are not Los or Erwin or do you simply believe them?) and b) there is no such framework outlined in the Confessions, just the affirmation that this specific grade due to its nature can and is reached not only inside the closed group.

    Already then you have assumed that people who ask these questions surely must believe in goblins. Which was always the last resort the new Master of the Temple took to, together with the challenge to capture these goblins on film.

    Then you correctly observed that 8=3 is up for grabs for anyone (though usually inside the closed group), but still it doesn’t answer my question. Or do you think “just because I could” is an answer.

    In between your defending your faith that Los IS an actual Master of the Temple (or the equivalent of it) you of course let us know that it is exactly this sort of vagueness that makes Thelema a mere faith based religion. And your abilities in time-travel or re-incarnation or whatever let you claim there is no way Crowley would be siding with us guys on this issue.

    While asking how anyone can verify one way or another how anyone “tends to his garden” you obviously approve the fact that it is a kind of duty or tendency to “tend do his garden” for a person who wears this title. But you can’t say if it will be by a book, his blog, visiting the forum – and how could you?

    Then the foreseeable “Crowley was a prankster” claim comes up and that he would have us “jump in our own maze and not come out.”

    Then came the “map is not the territory” thing, which is all good and right, but it doesn’t explain WHY someone would use a map he thinks is all wrong, it just explains THAT he uses a map.

    Proof of your own authority by having read Confessions more than hundred times.

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

    From then on it’s down to sticking to your fancy picture of your “opponents” in the discussion to hallucinate, to bring ignorance to new levels, to have played board games too much as a kid (is D&D a board game? I don’t know), to be obsessed with orders when pointing out that Los plays the order game, to fail imaginary exams, to have to wise up, to be confused and so on.

    And then of course that Crowley’s obsession with Aiwass and discarnate intelligence for all of his life was simply his “hobby.”

    Follows: bore-dom.

    Probably follows: Un-gentleman-like behaviour on all parts.

    We have been there…

    But no, you have not answered WHY Los claims now to be 8=3. So to me the best guess is still that he is assuming some higher authority, which to me is as un-8=3 as it can be.

    Anybody who has not already experienced the Masters of the Temple on these boards is invited to keep up this conversation to learn. I find nothing new to learn apart from the fact that Los is now claiming to be 8=3.

    Love=Law
    Lutz

    #100444

    Jamie J Barter
    Participant

    An accurate summary of the story so far & some good points made there, Lutz.

    @dom :

    Which questions did I not answer, pray tell?
    Well, for starters it is becoming increasingly apparent you’re very reluctant to answer mine, for some strange reason.  But let’s just stick to the one for the time being: whether you yourself hold the assertion of Los to be a true & valid point that, in terms of doing Liber Resh, worshipping a couch would be quite acceptable as an alternative practice? And then if so, justifying in your own words why that should be.  Not so terribly onerous a task, one would have thought.

    It’s totally clear that Crowley regarded the term HGA as a symbol for the True Self, whose inclinations (dynamic aspect) comprise the True Will of an individual.  
    No, it isn’t anything of the sort.  To begin with, Crowley spoke of the HGA elsewhere as something completely independent from the individual, especially in the years at the end of his accumulated experience of a long magickal life.  So no, not “totally clear” at all.  Let me give you a helpful tip: in terms of language, it’s best to beware of unnecessarily using absolutes but especially in cases such as this, where it’s not even “clear” on its own.

    N Joy

    #100445

    dom
    Participant

    @simoniff (don’t fret about the surname thing, in the finest English public schools, everyone is just a surname…or they used to be anyway)

    Then you correctly observed that 8=3 is up for grabs for anyone (though usually inside the closed group), but still it doesn’t answer my question. Or do you think “just because I could” is an answer.

    Y’see what it hinges on is evidence, the problem is you don’t seem to give a crap about Los’s work or Erwin’s work whereas I do. Moreso Los as i’m a bit rusty on Erwin but i’m slowly back into it. I think it was on thisw forum where Los described what 5=6 is about. He goes into great detail about attainment in a clear cut rational manner in various essays in his blog. Therefore yeah, having said that if he has the confidence to assume “8=3” then i’m prepared to roll with that….unless I see untoward evidence.

    In between your defending your faith that Los IS an actual Master of the Temple (or the equivalent of it) you of course let us know that it is exactly this sort of vagueness that makes Thelema a mere faith based religion. And your abilities in time-travel or re-incarnation or whatever let you claim there is no way Crowley would be siding with us guys on this issue.

    Fair enough that was my opinion but one built on very strong evidence.

    While asking how anyone can verify one way or another how anyone “tends to his garden” you obviously approve the fact that it is a kind of duty or tendency to “tend do his garden” for a person who wears this title.

    No. NO. No I never. I have never asserted that Los MUST now “tend to a garden” as a duty. If you want to bother scrutinizing my argument in this thread, I have only ever discussed garden tendering when OTHERS have assumed that that goes hand in hand with 8=3 (or it’s equivalent)

    But you can’t say if it will be by a book, his blog, visiting the forum – and how could you?

    I doubt it’s gonna be an ashram somehow if it happens…no, my point was one cannot identify what 8=3 (or it’s equivalent) garden tendering is.

    Then the foreseeable “Crowley was a prankster” claim comes up and that he would have us “jump in our own maze and not come out.”

    Crolwey’s religionism? Yes unless he fell back on religionism as a crutch now and again but certainly, lucid Crowley i.e. real Crowley is the sceptic.

    Then came the “map is not the territory” thing, which is all good and right, but it doesn’t explain WHY someone would use a map he thinks is all wrong, it just explains THAT he uses a map.

    Come on I already went to lengths to answer all this in previous posts several times.

    Ungentlemanly? The actual tone of the OP isn’t ungentlemanly, rude and passive aggressive? We can disagree here but that doesn’t mean I have to inherently disrespect you or anyone else. I don’t know you or the others, it’s an internet forum where ideas are bashed out.

    Proof of your own authority by having read Confessions more than hundred times.

    That’s an absol;ute falsification, if you go back you will see I was responding to ignant’s sneaky ad hominem that I hadn’t read any of Crowley’s books.

    And then of course that Crowley’s obsession with Aiwass and discarnate intelligence for all of his life was simply his “hobby.”

    A hobby is a regular activity that is done for enjoyment, typically during one’s leisure time ~ wiki

    Well yeah watching spiritual TV is, well, watching spiritual TV isn’t it?

    • This reply was modified 1 week ago by  dom.
    • This reply was modified 1 week ago by  dom.
    • This reply was modified 1 week ago by  dom.
Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 181 total)
  • You must be logged-in to reply to this topic.