Home Forums Thelema Astrology Is the Sidereal Zodiac, compatible with ‘Thelemic time’ or ‘Thelemic calendar’?

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 48 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #102475

    Michael Staley
    Participant

    @Jamie

    I may be oversimplifying, but understand this term to mean in a nutshell the primal state of Unity behind everything, which is beyond that of dualism.

    Advaita means simply ‘not divided’. Whether the undivided is seen as one or as nought is a secondary issue in my opinion, though I think some people get quite heated about the matter.

    But is there anywhere within the Trilogies where it is succinctly explained how this Oneness then reduces to the ultimate Zero or none as in Liber AL I: 45,48?

    No, there isn’t. Like all ‘first causes’ it’s something beyond rationality and logic, and hence beyond articulation in language. There is a very good chapter in Outer Gateways, ‘The Madhyamaka & Crowley’, which – again, in my opinion – makes some very interesting points about the 0 = 2 equation.

    #102477

    Shiva
    Participant

    MS: Like all ‘first causes’ it’s something beyond rationality and logic, and hence beyond articulation in language.

    And that’s the answer in a nutshell. First Causes precede the Mind, the mouth, and the pen, um, keyboard.

    We see various mind warriors ignoring this concept all the time, as they attempt to define and/or explain suprarational states.

    #102534

    Jamie J Barter
    Participant

    @ MichaelStaley :

    Advaita means simply ‘not divided’. Whether the undivided is seen as one or as nought is a secondary issue in my opinion

    ‘Not divided’ rather than some sort of an all-encompassing Unity, I like the distinction; there’s some food for thought there.  So let me get this right then — there isn’t division hither homeward & Nuit isn’t divided for love’s sake for the chance of union & the pain of division isn’t as nothing because everything wasn’t divided in the first place…?

    Philosophically-wrestling away yours,
    N Joy

    #102551

    wellreadwellbred
    Participant

    “… There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse. Accursed! Accursed be it to the aeons! Hell (The Book of the Law, Chapter I, verse 41).”

    “For I am divided for love’s sake, for the chance of union (The Book of the Law, Chapter I, verse 29).”

    “… Love is the law, love under will. Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love. There is the dove, and there is the serpent. Choose ye well! (The Book of the Law, Chapter I, verse 57) …”

    The love mentioned in “Love is the law, love under will (BOTL I:57).”, being identical with the love mentioned in “For I am divided for love’s sake, for the chance of union (BOTL I:29).”, and the love mentioned in “There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse (BOTL I:41).”, aligns the said law with advaita understood as meaning simply ‘not divided’.

    #102554

    Jamie J Barter
    Participant

    @wellreadwellbred :

    The love mentioned in “Love is the law, love under will (BOTL I:57).”, being identical with the love mentioned in “For I am divided for love’s sake, for the chance of union (BOTL I:29).”, and the love mentioned in “There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse (BOTL I:41).”, aligns the said law with advaita understood as meaning simply ‘not divided’.

    However this presupposes that, until one reaches that elevated and enlightened state of doing one’s [true] will, no magical (in the sense of changing) “binding” activity occurs; there is no unity taking place resulting from the act of “uniting” and instead there is “division” amongst the divided (whether hither homeward or not).

    Everything (=All) else is a curse — but tell me the answer to this: how can there actually be anything “else”, where everything involved in the creation of things would ‘not [be] divided’ anyway?

    Nor let them mistake divide (& add & multiply),
    N Joy

    #102555

    Michael Staley
    Participant

    It’s Aiwass’s feet you need to be holding to the fire, Jamie, not wellreadwellbred’s.

    #102567

    Jamie J Barter
    Participant

    It’s Aiwass’s feet you need to be holding to the fire, Jamie, not wellreadwellbred’s.

    Like I said though, I quite liked the nuance of “not divided”, and as is the case with many similar discussions on these types of forum there is ultimately no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ interpretation beyond the subjective for anybody to give here, I feel: it’s more a question of the to-and-fro of semantics.  The value is often to be found more in the argument on both sides and in the picking up something of the nature of an epiphany which might, accidentally or even purposefully, be inserted ‘between the lines’ therein: I was therefore more interested in the sort of response wellread might come out with (and seeing how many quotations he jemmies in proportionate to his (lack) of commentary and how often repetition may be engaged in, perhaps.  [Half] Joke there, well!)

    Not actively seeking to be divisive,
    N Joy

    #102574

    wellreadwellbred
    Participant

    Jamie J Barter: “However this presupposes that, until one reaches that elevated and enlightened state of doing one’s [true] will, no magical (in the sense of changing) “binding” activity occurs; there is no unity taking place resulting from the act of “uniting” and instead there is “division” amongst the divided (whether hither homeward or not).

    No, this is not presupposed according to what that was supposedly dictated to AC – from a source presented by AC as being far superior to himself in intelligence and authority – and written down within The Book of the Law. There it is stated that “… the Law is for all.”, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.”, “… with thy all; thou hast no right but to do thy will.”, “… pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect.”, and “Love is the law, love under will.”

    Jamie J Barter: “Everything (=All) else is a curse — but tell me the answer to this: how can there actually be anything “else”, where everything involved in the creation of things would ‘not [be] divided’ anyway?”

    Given that “… the Law is for all.”, it appears to involve everything, not leaving out anything (else).

    The word love used within The Law of Thelema (“Love is the law, love under will.”), aligned with advaita understood as meaning simply ‘not divided’ (as described by me within REPLY #102551 in this thread), is in support of it appearing to involve everything, not leaving out anything (else).

    #102575

    wellreadwellbred
    Participant

    The following statement within The Book of the Law, “There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.” (III:60), does also make this law appear to involve everything, not leaving out anything (else). That is, the said statement makes the law of Thelema appear to be an all-encompassing universal law.

    #102576

    wellreadwellbred
    Participant

    (Sorry for chain posting!)

    You, Jamie J Barter, wrote that “doing one’s [true] will”, presupposes that “… one reaches that elevated and enlightened state of doing one’s [true] will”.

    With respect to doing one’s ‘pure will’, there is mention of a “state of manyhood bound and loathing.”, but there is no mention of an “elevated and enlightened state”, within the following quote from The Book of the Law:

    “Let it be that state of manyhood bound and loathing. So with thy all; thou hast no right but to do thy will (I:42). Do that, and no other shall say nay (I:43). For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect (I:44).”

    #102580

    Jamie J Barter
    Participant

    Any more for any more?

    I’m not sure I should be encouraging you to veer off-topic like this, well.  I happen to be very conscientious that way, you know!

    What is it that your collective points are saying, en masse?  What would you like me to say back to you?

    I’m not disagreeing with the proposition behind advaita that we are all ‘not divided’.  But contrariwise, as indicated by selective quoting from The Book of the Law, nor was I necessarily agreeing either.  I’m simply pointing out that there’s more than one way of looking at things, more than one point-of-view.  More than one way to skin a cat. Would you disagree or take issue with me on that?

    “Everything (=All) else is a curse — but tell me the answer to this: how can there actually be anything “else”, where everything involved in the creation of things would ‘not [be] divided’ anyway?”
    — Given that “… the Law is for all.”, it appears to involve everything, not leaving out anything (else).
    The word love used within The Law of Thelema (“Love is the law, love under will.”), aligned with advaita understood as meaning simply ‘not divided’ (as described by me within REPLY #102551 in this thread), is in support of it appearing to involve everything, not leaving out anything (else).

    Then, by its very nature, the “curse” is divided (that is separate) from all else e.g. Love. Also, there are Love and love – so choose ye well…

    The following statement within The Book of the Law, “There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.” (III:60), does also make this law appear to involve everything, not leaving out anything (else).  That is, the said statement makes the law of Thelema appear to be an all-encompassing universal law.
    This is another, completely different verse.  (They say the devil is allowed to quote holy scripture, did you know that?)  You could have mentioned “Bind nothing, let there be no difference” and “there is no difference” (I:22,4) in there as well.

    Allow me to clarify something further for  you:

    that elevated and enlightened state of doing one’s [true] will
    By this I meant, that it’s elevated and enlightened compared or relative to that of mundane consciousness, not doing one’s will.

    BeAst wishes
    N Joy

    #102582

    dom
    Participant

    Re OP, I advise you to ask Jim Eshelman as he is an astrologer.

    Now, I’ll ley y’all get back to these massive “nightside” forces now erupting in the Earth’s astral ambience.”

    …..Ahem!

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by  dom.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by  dom.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by  dom.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by  dom.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by  dom.
    #102588

    Jamie J Barter
    Participant

    Re OP, I advise you to ask Jim Eshelman as he is an astrologer.
    Is he a participant on this forum, as I can’t find him – does he have a different avatar name?

    I’m sure I can’t be the only person who is wondering what could have required five (count ’em!) edits/ modifications carried out within the space of four – actually more like two – lines, or approx. thirty four words?

    (… Bless you!)
    N Joy

    #102589

    dom
    Participant

    They invented google search and emails. Master Eshelman is out there.

    #102590

    Horemakhet
    Participant

    Master Bator is also ‘out there’.

    …..Ahem!

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by  Horemakhet.
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 48 total)
  • You must be logged-in to reply to this topic.