Delivered from dualism (delivered from lust for result.)

Home Forums Thelema Magick Delivered from dualism (delivered from lust for result.)

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 37 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #111374

    dom
    Participant

    Apologies for the double post here.

    I thought that PJC in his Liber Null presented an advanced explanation of what is going on when pure Will is “delivered from lust for result”. I’m still investigating if he did. See what you think i’ve referred to passages from said book.

    PJC’s Liber Null is presented as a course ” an exercise in the disciplines of magical trance, a form of mind control having similarities to yoga, personal metamorphosis, and the basic techniques of magic” At the outset, there’s no explanation of what magic is and why someone should do it but then he goes straight into MIND CONTROL which involves motionlessness and motionlessness when you get a chance, not just in your yoga room the way Crowley taught it.

    Next we get a definition of magic as the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will .and an explanation of the inadequacies of desire due to our dualistic nature ; If an attempt is made to focus on some form of desire, the effect is short circuited by lust of result. Egotistical identification, fear of failure, and the reciprocal desire not to achieve desire, arising from our dual nature, destroy the result.
    Have you ever experienced this conflict of desire due to an inherent fear of failure? Did AC ever describe this problem of dualism and the inherent human will to destroy their own desires before they manifest or is PJC making it up as he goes a along? Maybe he borrowed/stolen it from Freud’s irrational Thanatos concept?

    Regardie covered habit control in his classic on magic in which he borrows AC’s Jugorum technique. PJC calls it “Metamorphosis The transmutation of the mind to magical consciousness” and defines this as the Great Work which has a far-reaching purpose leading eventually to the discovery of the True Will.
    Even a slight ability to change oneself is more valuable than any power over the external universe. Metamorphosis is an exercise in willed restructuring of the mind
    Then he’s off on his dualism trip again as follows ; All attempts to reorganize the mind involve a duality between conditions as they are and the preferred condition. Thus it is impossible to cultivate any virtue like spontaneity, joy, pious pride, grace, or omnipotence without involving oneself in more conventionality, sorrow, guilt, sin, and impotence in the process.
    Religions are founded on the fallacy that one can or ought to have one without the other. High magic recognizes the dualistic condition but does not care whether life is bittersweet or sweet and sour; rather it seeks to achieve any arbitrary perceptual perspective at will

    So he ‘s saying don’t be fooled by self-improvement because you’re more than likely to fuck things up due to your human dualistic tendencies.? Again with the Freudian self conflict obsession?

    So get used to the sweet and sour of it all and you’re closer to your true will (also known as achieving the Great Work) i.e. don’t be a child or a teenager shall be the whole of the law?. Does that mean children and teenagers with their mood swings and emotional protests can’t do the Great Work? I suppose it does.

    . Any state of mind might arbitrarily be chosen as an objective for transmutation, but there is a specific virtue to the ones given. i.e. in order to achieve metamorphoses (habit breaking) as a means to achieving “magical states” which are in turn a means to “find one’s True Will” we need certain states of mind available as follows;
    “By the ones given” (states of mind) I presume he means the following 2 forms of meditation;

    : 1) Laughter/Laughter
    i.e. learn to laugh at everything. EVERYTHING because presumably laughter is the closest thing to Ain Sop Aur and is the nearest thing to transcendental neutrality? As follows;
    Consider laughter: it is the highest emotion, for it can contain any of the others from ecstacy to grief. It has no opposite. Crying is merely an underdeveloped form of it which cleanses the eyes and summons assistance to infants. Laughter is the only tenable attitude in a universe which is a joke played upon itself. The trick is to see that joke played out even in the neutral and ghastly events which surround one. It is not for us to question the universe’s apparent lack of taste. Seek the emotion of laughter at what delights and amuses, seek it in whatever is neutral or meaningless, seek it even in what is horrific and revolting. Though it may be forced at first, one can learn to smile inwardly at all things.
    Is that a “state of mind”?
    and
    2) Non-attachment/Non-disinterest
    Non-attachment/Non-disinterest best describes the magical condition of acting without lust of result. It is very difficult for humans to decide on something and then to do it purely for its own sake. Yet it is precisely this ability which is required to execute magical acts.
    so we desire true will and we must therefore give up all of our attachments to our desires but still maintain those desires. simultaneously ( ah damn! Jeannie won’t go to the prom with me!!”) and so on. Don’t we desire true will? Don’t humans decide on things and then to do it purely for its own sake daily?

    • This topic was modified 1 month ago by  dom.
    • This topic was modified 1 month ago by  dom.
    #111376

    dom
    Participant

    Only single-pointed awareness will do. Attachment is to be understood both in the positive and negative sense, for aversion is its other face.
    Presumably AC touched on this with his formula involving face that which disgusts you until you can control your disgust however his life story smacks of aversion and attachment.

    Presumably an Obama supporter who was a genuine magician would unflinchingly attend Trump rallies? Ha hah
    PJC goes on with ;
    Attachment to any attribute of oneself,
    one’s personality, one’s ambitions, one’s relationships or sensory experiences — or equally, aversion to any of these — will prove limiting. On the other hand, it is fatal to lose interest in these things for they are one’s symbolic system or magical reality. Rather, one is attempting to touch the sensitive parts of one’s reality more lightly in order to deny the spoiling hand of grasping desire and boredom. Thereby one may gain enough freedom to act magically

    So keep your personal ambitions and goals but don’t care about them ever happening but not to the extent where you “lose interest” in them because “losing interest” in your desire is giving up that desire…..isn’t it?

    So boredom and grasping desire are the big no-no,s to be avoided i.e we must have an aversion to them, I guess that that is not contradictory? Avoid attachment to desires and avoid non- attachment to desires but hold an aversion to boredom and grasping desire because that stops you from being non-dualistic?
    So keep your desires but train yourself not to care if they don’t happen because in that neutral state you are more likely to have them happen for you because you will be closer to your “non dualistic” true will and then it won’t matter?
    Apparently there’s a third meditational exercise and he describes it as “active form of metamorphosis,”
    and this involves one’s everyday habits. “however innocuous they might seem” , habits in thought, word, and deed are the anchor of the personality. The magician aims to pull up that anchor and cast himself free on the seas of chaos. To proceed, select any minor habit at random and delete it from your behavior: at the same adopt any new habit at random. The choices should not involve anything of spiritual, egocentric, or emotional significance, nor should you select anything with any possibility of failure. By persisting with such simple beginnings you become capable of virtually anything. All works of metamorphosis should be committed to the magical diary.
    As he described in the outset “Metamorphosis The transmutation of the mind to magical consciousness” i,e, the Great Work,

    Ill spare you the theoryb of Chaos, Esctacy and Gnosis and go straight to the sigils becasu eit’s more relevant to this OP.

    MAGIC Success in this part of the syllabus is dependent on some degree of mastery of the magical trances and metamorphosis. …… Before proceeding with sigils or dreaming,
    Sigils The magician may require something which he is unable to obtain through the normal channels. It is sometimes possible to bring about the required coincidence by the direct intervention of the will provided that this does not put too great a strain on the universe
    strain on the universe eh?
    this imo is the interesting bit because we’re back to ‘desiring something but not really desiring it in order to avoid the inherent desire not to have it’ thing again.

    . The mere act of wanting is rarely effective, as the will becomes involved in a dialogue with the mind. This dilutes magical ability in many ways
    . The desire becomes part of the ego complex; the mind becomes anxious of failure
    Speak for yourself mate?
    . The will not to fulfill desire arises to reduce fear of failure. Soon the original desire is a mass of conflicting ideas.
    Ditto.
    Boy this boy sounds liek he had a neurotic chidlhood. No?

    Often the wished for result arises only when it has been forgotten. This last fact is the key to sigils and most forms of magic spell. Sigils work because they stimulate the will to work subconsciously, bypassing the mind. There are three parts to the operation of a sigil.
    The sigil is constructed,
    the sigil is lost to the mind,
    the sigil is charged.
    In constructing a sigil, the aim is to produce a glyph of desire, stylized so as not to immediately suggest the desire. It is not necessary to use complex symbol systems.

    Constructed. Lost to the mind but then charged when it’s lost to the mind? Presumably he means charging involves mind-loss?

    He goes on;
    To successfully lose the sigil, both the sigil form and the associated desire must be banished from normal waking consciousness. The magician strives against any manifestation of either by a forceful turning of his attention to other matters. Sometimes the sigil may be burnt, buried, or cast into an ocean. It is possible to lose a word spell by constant repetition as this eventually empties the mind of associated desire.

    Admittedly i’d say that 98% of people who do sigils have misread this next bit or just plain ignored it or have never read it. Probably the latter. ;

    The sigil is charged at moments when the mind has achieved quiescence through magical trance, or when high emotionality paralyzes its normal functioning. At these times the sigil is concentrated upon, either as a mental image, or mantra, or as a drawn form.
    This bit;
    or when high emotionality paralyzes its normal functioning. At these times the sigil is concentrated upon, either as a mental image, or mantra, or as a drawn form. Some of the times when sigils may be charged are as follows: during magical trance; at the moment of orgasm or great elation; at times of great fear, anger, or embarrassment; or at times when intense frustration or disappointment arises. Alternatively, when another strong desire arises, this desire is sacrificed (forgotten) and the sigil is concentrated on instead.
    Most folk think that “charging sigils” is all about the sexual climax. As you can see it’s not. Even AC missed this methodology …or did he?

    After holding the sigil in the mind for as long as possible, it is wise to banish it by evoking laughter. A record should be kept of all work with sigils but not in such a way as to cause conscious deliberation over the sigilized desire

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  dom.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  dom.
    #111389

    dom
    Participant

    Here is AC’s interpretation of 1:44;

    AL I,44: “For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect.”

    This verse imo implies instructions on how to approach yoga and not a direct reference to how to manifest desires via spells which it is usually attributed to..

    The Old Comment
    44. Recommends “non-attachment.” Students will understand how in meditation the mind which attaches itself to hope of success is just as bound as if it were to attach itself to some base material idea. It is a bond and the aim is freedom.
    I recommend serious study of the word unassuaged which appears not very intelligible.

    The New Comment

    This verse is best interpreted by defining ‘pure will’ as the true expression of the Nature, the proper or inherent motion of the matter, concerned. It is unnatural to aim at any goal. The student is referred to “Liber LXV”, Cap. II, v. 24,

    (i.e. And I laid my head against the Head of the Swan, and laughed, saying: Is there not joy ineffable in this aimless winging? Is there not weariness and impatience for who would attain to some goal?)

    and to the “Tao Teh King”. This becomes particularly important in high grades. One is not to do Yoga, etc., in order to get Samadhi, like a schoolboy or a shopkeeper; but for its own sake, like an artist.
    “Unassuaged” means “its edge taken off by” or “dulled by”. The pure student does not think of the result of the examination.

    Don’t do yoga etc like a schoolboy or a shopkeeper? Not sure about the grammar there as what if our schoolboy or shopkeeper are getting busy and ‘in the zone’? Maybe schoolboys can’t do their true will, maybe he echoes my earlier point about children’s self-piteous and lazy protests on having to do tasks.

    Anyway I guess it’s a difficult concept to articulate.

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  dom.
    #111393

    Tiger
    Participant

    “But the phrase may also be interpreted as if it read “with purpose unassuaged”—i.e., with tireless energy. The conception is, therefore, of an eternal motion, infinite and unalterable. It is Nirvana, only dynamic instead of static—and this comes to the same thing in the end. “
    https://hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib2

    so i continually recite the mantra –
    I banish the Shells unto their habitations.
    whenever i wake and remember
    i got caught up drifting,
    caught in the tide and wung about; that is .

    That’s my angle for now .

    Possibly, the school boy races the car to win
    the racer just races the car ;
    just do .

    i have heard meditation teachers say don’t worry about samadhi
    just meditate .

    “Strive ever to more! “

    yeah difficult to pin .

    #111405

    dom
    Participant

    Initially AC was not going to use the term Magick in the title as it gave the wrong impression i.e. “base materialists” who “want stuff” would miss the point.,

    #111406

    Jamie J Barter
    Participant

    Apologies for the double post here.
    You mean tripe post, don’t you?

    I thought that PJC in his Liber Null presented an advanced explanation of what is going on when pure Will is “delivered from lust for result”. I’m still investigating if he did.
    No, I don’t think so. Save your time!

    See what you think i’ve referred to passages from said book.
    As usual dom, you do not provide page references for your quoted passages which makes it harder for people to check the context and verity of your sources. Is this just laziness, ignorance of procedure, wilful sadistic obstruction, or what? Professional, competent, obliging and accommodating however – it is not. Doubtless though, you would appreciate it if it was the other way around and somebody who was contesting a point with you helpfully provided a specific source for something which you wanted to check?

    Next we get a definition of magic as the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will .[…] is PJC making it up as he goes a along?
    I don’t know whether PJC made this up as he went a along, but he certainly didn’t with “his” definition of magic, which is presented as if his own conception with no mention at all of Crowley or any accompanying quotation marks. If someone new to “the occult” was reading Liber Null without being particularly acquainted with the writings of AC beforehand they could well assume the axioms as PJC’s own, as no credit to him whatsoever is given (nothing new with PJC though). Never mind Freud, he “borrowed/ stole” this from Crowley’s concept wholesale!

    PJC calls it “Metamorphosis The transmutation of the mind to magical consciousness” and defines this as the Great Work which has a far-reaching purpose leading eventually to the discovery of the True Will.
    Strange therefore that PJC has such antipathy – animosity even – elsewhere towards the concept of the True Will…

    Does that mean children and teenagers with their mood swings and emotional protests can’t do the Great Work? I suppose it does.
    Oh, Yeah – suppose so!

    : 1) Laughter/Laughter
    i.e. learn to laugh at everything. EVERYTHING because presumably laughter is the closest thing to Ain Sop Aur and is the nearest thing to transcendental neutrality?

    WHY is it that you suppose laughter to be the closest thing to “Ain Sop Aur”?

    As follows; Consider laughter: it is the highest emotion, for it can contain any of the others from ecstacy to grief.
    Somewhat redolent of Elron Hubbard’s “Emotional Tone Scale” here?

    It has no opposite.
    An absurd statement, since EVERYTHING below the Supernals has an opposite.

    Laughter is the only tenable attitude in a universe which is a joke played upon itself. The trick is to see that joke played out even in the neutral and ghastly events which surround one. It is not for us to question the universe’s apparent lack of taste.
    But The Book of Lies put it better

    2) Non-attachment/Non-disinterest
    Non-attachment/Non-disinterest best describes the magical condition of acting without lust of result.

    Isn’t just “disinterest” meant here, not “Non-disinterest”? Otherwise it would be “interest” which is shown (a bit like double negatives)…

    I won’t deal with the second post as it’s not very well thought out (even by existing standards) & life’s just too short. Moving swiftly onto the third then…

    This verse imo implies instructions on how to approach yoga and not a direct reference to how to manifest desires via spells which it is usually attributed to..
    It implies and does nothing of the kind; as clearly stated it’s about the perfect nature of pure will.

    Don’t do yoga etc like a schoolboy or a shopkeeper? Not sure about the grammar there
    You mean the same style of grammar as employed by one of the greatest prose writers in the English language?

    Maybe schoolboys can’t do their true will, maybe he echoes my earlier point about children’s self-piteous and lazy protests on having to do tasks.
    Maybe this is pretty much all drivel dom?

    Anyway I guess it’s a difficult concept to articulate.
    You guess right! Similar to: “the Tao which can be put into words cannot be the real Tao”.

    4/10 “Could do better”
    Norma N Joy Conquest

    #111407

    ignant666
    Participant

    [T]ripe post…

    Shurely shome mishtake here? Or not.

    #111408

    Shiva
    Participant

    Quoted from some lost source: Consider laughter: it is the highest emotion, for it can contain any of the others from ecstacy to grief.

    The Ancient Chinese understood this, and it has been passed along in Oriental Medicine. Laughter in a “tone of voice” constitutes the Fire element (phase). The Fire phase does not “contain” the others … it consumes them.

    There’s a place for everything, and it’s certainly nice when everything’s in its place. There is a time and place for laughter. But excessive laughter (that is, as a dingy, loose-screw joker) is the first and most prominent sign of mental instability. If untreated, or otherwise restrained in some manner … usually by prescribing water-phase herbs … the end result is commonly called “insanity.”

    JB: Isn’t just “disinterest” meant here, not “Non-disinterest”?

    Right, and you saw the otherwise” as right. We (the Illuminati) don’t WANT to be interested. But if we have to actively work at being non-attached, then we are showing our attachment to being non-attached, detached, or disconnected from any result.

    Ignant, Please send more electrons. I feel a need for electroshockery coming on.

    It’s really safest to not give a toot about anything, and just do your thing while accepting the apparent nature of all things.

    JB: Maybe this is pretty much all drivel … ?

    Tedious drivel.

    “Is there no hope for the widow’s son?”

    #111419

    dom
    Participant

    @ignant666

    Shurely shome mishtake here? Or no

    I eagerly await your next post; Which brand of tobacco did Crowley smoke?

    @jamiebarter

    References page 1 to 22. Can be found here;
    https://zalbarath666.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/peter-j-carroll-liber-null-psychonaut.pdf

    p13 to p18 is the MIND CONTROL section and p19 to p22 the MAGIC section on sigils and the like. On perusing I have a feeling that the rest of the book is not going to interest me much., “chaos” ,” kia”, “gnosis”,? What? No, the first 22 pages are interesting imo.

    we get a definition of magic as the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will .and an explanation of the inadequacies of desire due to our dualistic nature on p15

    “Metamorphosis The transmutation of the mind to magical consciousnessp16

    Then he’s off on his dualism trip again as follows ; All attempts to reorganize the mind involve a duality between conditions as they are and the preferred condition. also p16

    : 1) Laughter/Laughter

    2) Non-attachment/Non-disinterest p17

    Sigils p20-p22.

    I don’t know whether PJC made this up as he went a along, but he certainly didn’t with “his” definition of magic, which is presented as if his own conception with no mention at all of Crowley or any accompanying quotation marks

    Yeah I agree.

    Strange therefore that PJC has such antipathy – animosity even – elsewhere towards the concept of the True Will…

    Does he? Any evidence?

    WHY is it that you suppose laughter to be the closest thing to “Ain Sop Aur”?

    Because as far as I know laughter, like he said cannot be pinned down or boxed off into strict yin-yang compartments like other human expressions. It is therefore unique and neutral. If we, the Crowns of Creation, microcosms to the Macrocosm have one form of expression which also ironically encompasses the entire spectrum of emotional expression then yes we would be reflecting the omnipotence of the Macrocosm thereby when developing that neutral expression .

    What if some aspirant is laughing at the news channel stories of e.g. tsunami induced destruction and his parents walk in unbeknownst to him? That could be a problem, I guess PJC means by Laughter/Laughter an inward bemusement but kept hidden.

    Somewhat redolent of Elron Hubbard’s “Emotional Tone Scale” here?

    I wouldn’t know…thanks.

    An absurd statement, since EVERYTHING below the Supernals has an opposite

    What’s the opposite of laughter?

    The Book of Lies

    Onion Peelings, amazing so you think PJC is borrowing from this?

    Re 2) Non-attachment/Non-disinterest
    Non-attachment/Non-disinterest best describes the magical condition of acting without lust of result.
    you ask

    Isn’t just “disinterest” meant here, not “Non-disinterest”? Otherwise it would be “interest” which is shown (a bit like double negatives)…

    Yes good point, non-disinterest is a double negative and means ‘interest’ so for clarity’s sake it should instead have been 2) Non-attachment/interest,

    However what isn’t so clear is that forward-slash he uses there (in 2) ). Forward slashes usually represent inclusive ‘or’ or an exclusive ‘or’. I suspect he meant to say non-attachment but stay interested. i.e. he should’ve maybe used a conjunction and not a “/”. Then again maybe an inclusive ‘or’ covers this.

    There are clues as to what it is further along on at p17 and p18 where he says as follows;

    Attachment to any attribute of oneself, one’s personality, one’s ambitions, one’s relationships or sensory experiences — or equally, aversion to any of these — will prove limiting.

    On the other hand, it is fatal to lose interest in these things for they are one’s symbolic system or magical reality

    So (notwithstanding the confusing introduction of the ‘aversion to any of these’ for the moment) he uses the term ‘however on the other hand thereby establishing a negation. So he therefore equivocates ‘attachment to any attribute of ….one’s ambitions etc’ with ~ ~ interest ( i.e. with interest). So it looks like he meant originally ‘attachment or (inclusively) interest’.

    But let’s get back to this further confusing ‘throwing in’ of the third factor ‘aversion’ . ‘Attachment or aversion’ must surely be an exclusive ‘or’? That is, ‘both either attachment to desire or aversion of desire’ and ‘it is not the case that both attachment to desire and aversion of desire’ are equivocated with being ‘interested in desire’ once we clear up PJC’s mire of confused terms.

    That analysis (of mine) appears to make sense because if someone has a desire (averse to it or not) they were, by dint of having that desire, inherently interested in it weren’t they? The ‘aversion’ would appear to be some sort of after- effect maybe a repression or sublimated attempt of running away from it Desires don’t get destroyed do they? .

    So due to the equivaocation i think we can even take his notion of ‘interested’ out of the equation anyway. With that said, instead of 2) Non-attachment/interest he should’ve just simply have said 2) Non-attachment and spared us the confusion.

    I’m assuming that attachment means non disappointment if the desire didn’t manifest and non anguish whilst anticipating the desire. I further assume that it means not being stunned or unbalanced if the desire does manifest. .

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  dom. Reason: possible error verified
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  dom.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  dom. Reason: grammar
    #111424

    Tiger
    Participant

    lusting after trying to figure it out ?

    Freeze .

    kiss the demon .
    Caught up in her clutches
    make a pact .

    Ask her to release you
    back to just an interest;
    but promise to come back
    to the borderland;
    a year hence .

    And you will vow
    to be ready to consummate
    the urge .

    Should you break
    or fail the bond

    you will for ever wander
    hither and tither
    among the hungry ghosts
    in the land of the craving .

    #111425

    dom
    Participant

    Sorry I just noticed an error in this paragraph of mine;

    So (notwithstanding the confusing introduction of the ‘aversion to any of these’ for the moment) he uses the term ‘however on the other hand thereby establishing a negation. So he therefore equivocates ‘attachment to any attribute of ….one’s ambitions etc’ with ~ ~ interest ( i.e. with interest). So it looks like he meant originally ‘attachment or (inclusively) interest’.

    I meant . “So it looks like he meant attachment or (inclusively) interest’ here. He was not discussing 2) Non attachment/non disinterest here in that passage. He switched to talk about ‘attachment’ which is now equivocated with ‘interest’ which basically adds to confusion to what the hell he is talking about per se anywhere,

    Nevertheless my paraphrase later on dealing with ‘on the other hand’ as negation;this was my reasoning;

    As an analogy;’Jimmy is a good person on the other hand he is a weekend football hooligan’.

    The second statement negates the first.

    So simialrly with the PJC passages we had ‘Attachment to any attribute of …. one’s ambitions… or equally, aversion to any of these — will prove limiting.;

    On the other hand, it is fatal to lose interest in these things for they are one’s symbolic system or magical reality.

    If I’m not mitsaken it holds.

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  dom.
    #111427

    kidneyhawk
    Participant

    “To take an attitude of neither indifference nor attachment toward all things-this is what is meant by realising one’s own Essence of Mind for the attainment of Buddhahood.”

    -Hui Neng

    (from The Sutra of Hui Neng, translated by A.F. Price and Wong Mou-Lam and published by Shambhala, 1985 p.29)

    #111428

    dom
    Participant

    Let’s try again.

    It’s looking like 2) Non-attachment/interest (double negative eliminated) i.e. non attached but not so non-attached as to lose interest totally.

    At p17 and p18 he’s on about attachment and interest again when he says as follows;

    Attachment to these things etc— will prove limiting.
    On the other hand, it is fatal to lose interest in these things etc for they are one’s symbolic system or magical reality

    I was on the right track earlier because here he is paraphrasing Non attachment as a better option when he said “attachment will prove limiting” so we still have Non attachment etc etc on the other hand “losing interest”.

    Losing interest is ‘~ interest’ but the OTOH negates it and we are back to the double negative leaving us with ‘interest’. There is therefore a consistency here with the earlier 2) Non-attachment/interest presumably as inclusive ‘or’ in the “/”.

    But let’s get back to this further confusing ‘throwing in’ of the third factor ‘aversion’ .

    In the p17 p18 section he in fact says

    Attachment to these things etc etc — or equally aversion to these things — will prove limiting on the other hand “losing interest” would be fatal. .

    So ‘aversion to these things will prove limiting’ becomes ‘non aversion’ as a better option which is equivalent to ‘interest’. Was there any need to bring ‘aversion will be limiting’ into it? It just became another way of saying ‘non attachment’ as it is in fact just equated to ‘interest’ according to PJC.

    so it’s 2) non attachment/non aversion/interest i.e. just non attachment.

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  dom.
    #111430

    kidneyhawk
    Participant

    What the hell is all of this???

    Hui Neng-who was illiterate-clapped it all out. Fortunately, someone wrote it down.

    At this point, can you say anything about your own personal experience which exemplifies whatever it is you are saying?

    #111436

    dom
    Participant

    What the hell is all of this???

    I’m trying to apply sentential logic to the writings on ‘dualism, attachment and magic’ of a well-respected modern writer of the occult, founder of ‘chaos magic’.

    At this point, can you say anything about your own personal experience which exemplifies whatever it is you are saying?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 37 total)
  • You must be logged-in to reply to this topic.