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

  • This topic contains 36 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  Shiva 8 months ago.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 37 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #111438

    Michael Staley
    Participant

    @dom

    Whatever the merits of Pete Carroll’s presentation of the subject, if you’re interested in non-dualism there is a wealth of material out there. My own introduction to it many years ago was through reading The Way of Zen by Alan Watts. Later I discovered the works of the pseudnonymous Wei Wu We (actually a 20th Century Irish diplomat), which led me to the works of Ramana Maharshi, and such Cha’an Masters as Hui-Neng, Huang-Po, and Hu-Flung-Dung. More recently I’ve been imbibing the books and discources of Sri Atmananda with relish (pickled chilli and broccoli, matured for 17 years – zany or what?). There are several contemprary advaitins writing in the West, such as Tony Parsons and Terence McKenna. All this is a platform for meditation, where it is grist to the mill.

    #111440

    Tiger
    Participant

    ” What the hell is all of this??? ”

    It’s called quickly going over ones tracks
    taking a step to insure
    a step wasn’t missed .

    #111441

    Jamie J Barter
    Participant

    @dom :

    Which brand of tobacco did Crowley smoke?
    I believe “Perique soaked in rum” is the accepted answer. Put that in your bowl and puff it!

    References page 1 to 22. Can be found here;
    I suppose you haver ascertained “©opyright clearance” over this!? A bore and a dreadfully tiresome business, I know. Still, you wouldn’t want to get anybody into any trouble about it, would you?

    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. [… O]nce we clear up PJC’s mire of confused terms. …
    Dom, you never cease to amaze me: unlike as with Confessions, I thought you’d actually READ the book? (=Liber Null). Does this mean you’re no longer banging a drum for PJC & chaos magic anymore? Has he fallen from the ranks of lofty gurudom in yr estimation (cf Leary, Los et al)?

    Any evidence [that PJC has such antipathy – animosity even – towards the concept of the True Will elsewhere] ?
    Plenty! Too much to quote here. Check out Will & The Wisp, should you be fortunate enough to have access to a copy. If not, and your enquiry’s serious, ask again & I may give one or two examples.

    WHY is it that you suppose laughter to be the closest thing to “Ain Sop Aur”?
    Your reply still doesn’t answer the question. It’s like going into a shop and asking to buy a mile of aquamarine. And the fact that it “cannot be pinned down or boxed off into strict yin-yang compartments … it is therefore unique and neutral” could just as well refer to Kether.

    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?
    Then I’d say his parents would probably suggest it was way past his bedtime and time to ascend the wooden stairs all the way to Bedfordshire…

    I guess PJC means by Laughter/Laughter an inward bemusement but kept hidden.
    Why hidden? You mean, that it has a mocking, snidey quality to it ?

    What’s the opposite of laughter?
    The answer is “not-laughter”, just as everything which is not-laughter is laughter. What is the opposite of tomatoes? Of gallantry? Of brickwork? Same rules apply. Or are you sticking to your assertion that there is one thing, one single solitary exception amongst all things below the Abyss, which does not have an opposite? Why on earth would that be, if so?

    The Book of Lies Onion Peelings, amazing so you think PJC is borrowing from this?
    Well don’t you?

    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,
    NO!! For fuck’s sake, it should have been DISinterest!! (Assuming, that is, PJC is intending – as you eloquently phrased it – an “inclusive forward slash”)

    On the other hand, it is fatal to lose interest in these things for they are one’s symbolic system or magical reality
    Hardly “fatal”, is it. “Fatal” means you would drop down dead. “Debilitating”, perhaps.

    That analysis (of mine) appears to make sense
    Says you! We’ll be the judge of that though…

    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?
    By dint, yes. By jingo!

    The ‘aversion’ would appear to be some sort of after- effect maybe a repression or sublimated attempt of running away from it
    It simply means that showing aversion would be taking notice of whatever it is in the same way that attachment or interest would take notice of it as well – in other words, by entering (and complicating) the consciousness it would fail the object of the exercise. It’s a bit like somebody saying “Don’t immediately think about a square”.

    Desires don’t get destroyed do they?
    No – they just hang around for all eternity! Hadn’t you heard?

    With that said, instead of 2) Non-attachment/interest he should’ve just simply have said 2) Non-attachment and spared us the confusion.
    Yeah!

    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. .
    Yeah!!

    [.…] which basically adds to confusion to what the hell he is talking about per se anywhere
    Yeah!!!

    As an analogy;’ Jimmy is a good person on the other hand he is a weekend football hooligan’.
    The second statement negates the first.

    Not necessarily though. What about if Jimmy decides to help little old ladies across the road (for example) on the way back home from his weekend footie match?

    […] Sorry I just noticed an error in this paragraph of mine
    […] If I’m not mitsaken it holds.
    Let’s try again. [etc.]

    From the “OPERATOR’S MANUAL for the Human Brain (20th/21st century edition)”:
    “With web communications, remember to make sure that the mind is in correct gear before engaging (typing) hand, as this will significantly affect the level of (non)sense ensuing. It is recommended not to press ‘Send’ until you have worked things out sufficiently beforehand and similarly it might also be advisable to avoid narcotics or strong alcohol prior to posting. …”

    N Joy

    #111470

    dom
    Participant

    @jamiebarter

    Jamie do you know what a double negative is in sentential logic?

    I just want to clear this double negative issue up before I go any further otherwise entanglement in confusion will abound.

    NO!! For fuck’s sake, it should have been DISinterest!! (Assuming, that is, PJC is intending – as you eloquently phrased it – an “inclusive forward slash”)

    What? He saidl

    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.

    If it’s an inclusive ‘or’ then the two factors both ‘Non-attachment’ and ‘Non-disinterest’ merge ie are similar at least.. Let’s assume it is inclusive. It doesn’t help that he used a forward slash in his laughter/laughter either.

    Anyway his term ‘ non-disinterest’ is the double negative isn’t it in terms of if we are looking at ‘being interested’ . Maybe we can’t deconstruct the word ‘disinterest’. I’ll explain; This is what I thought you meant by ‘double negative’;

    If one is disinterested in something then one is not interested in it. Am I right?

    The first negation then is ‘disinterest’ which is represented as ‘ ~ interest’, right?
    ‘Non disinterest’ therefore is the negation of ‘ ~ interest’ so we are left with a double negation ‘ ~ ~ interest’.

    ‘ ~ ~ interest’ is the negation of ‘~ interest’ so finally, we are left with ‘interest’ as double negatives are always cancelled out.

    If i am not ‘not a cricket fan’ then i am a cricket fan.

    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by  dom.
    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by  dom.
    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by  dom.
    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by  dom. Reason: clarity
    #111477

    christibrany
    Participant

    What, if anything, does anyone want to say to my idea that ‘trying’ to be non-dual always leads to the middle path which is a combination of both sides?

    #111478

    Michael Staley
    Participant

    @dom

    If i am not ‘not a cricket fan’ then i am a cricket fan.

    Why would you want to be not ‘not a cricket fan’? I ask the question out of non-disinterest.

    This is surely the most hilarious thread on LAShTAL for some time. Thank God I wore my corset, etc.

    #111479

    dom
    Participant

    Why would you want to be not ‘not a cricket fan’? I ask the question out of non-disinterest.
    This is surely the most hilarious thread on LAShTAL for some time. Thank God I wore my corset, etc

    Hilarious in what way?

    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by  dom.
    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by  dom.
    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by  dom.
    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by  dom.
    #111484

    Michael Staley
    Participant

    @dom

    Hilarious in what way?

    Hilarious in the sense that it makes me laugh out loud. Non-disinterest, for God’s sake! I suppose it’s good that, in these dark days as we hurtle towards our doom, we have something to laugh about. There may well be “that which remains”; let’s hope so, eh?

    #111485

    dom
    Participant

    Hilarious in the sense that it makes me laugh out loud. Non-disinterest, for God’s sake! I suppose it’s good that, in these dark days as we hurtle towards our doom, we have something to laugh about. There may well be “that which remains”; let’s hope so, eh?

    Have remoaners transcended dualism?

    Bye bye EU gravvy train.

    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by  dom.
    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by  dom.
    #111488

    ignant666
    Participant

    You are, of course, pro-Brexit, david (in a non dualistic way, of course)?

    Looking forward to getting off that gravy-train, are we? At least Trump is a temporary self-inflicted political wound.

    #111489

    Jamie J Barter
    Participant

    @dom :

    Jamie do you know what a double negative is in sentential logic?
    If I say “no I don’t think so” will that mean I do?

    I’ll take it you’re in complete agreement with everything else I wrote, then. (Or cogitating deep in thought: unable to sleep, with your brow furrowed into the night.)

    Hilarious in what way?
    Four words, and there were four modifications in the same post there – how did you manage that? That’s quite funny in itself (not side-splitting, tho)

    Not Not N Joy

    #111490

    dom
    Participant

    Brexit schmexit i’m not interested. I’m disinterested hah.

    @jamiebarter

    If I say “no I don’t think so” will that mean I do?
    I’ll take it you’re in complete agreement with everything else I wrote, then. (Or cogitating deep in thought: unable to sleep, with your brow furrowed into the night.)

    So you’re playing silly buggers as well then?. Tuit tut tut. So we’re leaving the PJC definition of non attachment/non disinterest up in the air then? You don’t know what he means either?

    If you give me a sensible answer then i can move on to your other points yeah.

    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by  dom.
    #111492

    Jamie J Barter
    Participant

    @dom :

    So you’re playing silly buggers as well then?
    What – as well as you, you mean?

    So we’re leaving the PJC definition of non attachment/non disinterest up in the air then?
    I’m sorry, I thought you’d adequately covered it yourself above? Do we really need to go through all this again? (Michael’s corset might not be able to take it…)

    You don’t know what he means either?
    Not really – as you yourself so splendidly said above as well, when commenting on the “… confusion [as] to what the hell he [PJC] is talking about per se anywhere”

    If you give me a sensible answer then i can move on to your other points yeah.
    By “sensible”, do you mean “have to be in agreement” with you?

    Hoping this Is sensible enough for your exacting standards and finding it time for my bedtime cocoa now,
    N Joy

    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by  Jamie J Barter.
    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by  Jamie J Barter. Reason: no ovaltine only cocoa
    #111495

    kidneyhawk
    Participant

    This IS becoming a bit of an odd thread. Although I, personally, am finding it interesting (with my active non-disinterest).
    When I cited Hui Neng, I did so because I felt his words (or at least the english translation of an account of what he said) hit the nail on the head with “sublime simplicity” (although Mr. Neng would be keen to quickly point out that there is no nail…nor anything to hit it with).

    With regards to PJC’s “non attachment/non disinterest,” I don’t see any need to focus on double negatives or such. The second portion of this “formula” seems to be a comment upon the first as “non attachment” may signify “disinterest” for the general reader.

    It does derive from Crowley and his admonition to work without Lust of Result. Of course, Crowley is deriving from earlier sources which are woven into his system.

    There has been a little criticism of PJC’s “stealing” from Crowley. As I recall, his Liber Kaos recommended reading as much Crowley as one can in the Suggested Reading section at the end of the book.

    PJC does seem to switch gears with Psybermagick and attacks some of the key Thelemic idea(l)s. I’m wondering if Dom has read this work?

    My own interest (or non-disinterest) is in the mystical consciousness the quote from Hui Neng points toward. I am also interested in the relationship between the Magical Powers (Siddhis) and their corresponding Illuminated States of Initiation. In Tibetan Buddhism, these things work in tandem and the latter may significantly color how one understands the former.

    #111506

    dom
    Participant

    @jamiebarter

    No seriously don’t be defensive and by that i include silly insulting comments also. You don’t know what a ‘double negative’ is. Right? You thought you were reprimanding me with the “NO!! For fuck’s sake etc” when i explained it to you but I’ll now give you the benefit of the doubt and you can explain to me my error.

    If you;re going to borrow a term from sentential logic trhen i have to be sure that you know what you’re talking about otherwise, well otherwise i’m talking to someone who isn’t on the same page at all.

    @michael and kidneyhawk

    thanks for the references on those writers of zen and dualism however I wouldn’t mind you providing some sort of quote from those guys on the very subject so we can have a proper discussion about it.

    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by  dom.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 37 total)
  • You must be logged-in to reply to this topic.