Home Forums Thelema Thelema Thelema, Aleister Crowley & Kundalini:

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #110663

    wellreadwellbred
    Participant

    [Correction from med in bold:]

    “With respect to the said advise, you can both have Aiwass, the praeterhuman intelligence, and Aiwass as a clever wordplay authored by Aleister Crowley”.

    AC taught that one should “… let every idea go forth as a triangle on the base of two opposites, making an apex transcending their contradiction in a higher harmony (Chapter VIII, Magick in theory and practice, part III of Book 4).”, so no JJB, I am not the one trying to have my cake as well as eat it.

    By the way JJB, Motta provides much on Kundalini is his comment to Crowley’s The Commentaries of AL, published in the so called THE EQUINOX VOLUME V No. 1.

    A few examples:

    “I:18. Burn upon their brows, o splendrous serpent!”
    [Motta:] “In them, Kundalini must have reached the Ajna. Source: http://magicianandexorcist.org/roundtable/220comm.html).”

    “I.21. With the God & the Adorer I am nothing: they do not see me. They are as upon the earth; I am Heaven, and there is no other God than me, and my lord Hadit.”
    [Motta:] “Samadhi with any God is not the Ultimate Trance. The Ultimate Trance is the Union of Nuit and Hadit. That is why over the head of Ra-Hoor-Khuit in the stele, Kundalini has reached the Sahashara, and is radiating into Emptiness. See Liber VII, i, 36-40, Liber HHH, Section SSS, and Liber LXV, iii, 3 1-36 (Source: http://magicianandexorcist.org/roundtable/220comm.html).”

    Do you think JJB, that some of Motta’s former students that are now in the only surviving OTO, have made more of all that Motta provided with respect to Kundalini?

    #110680

    Jamie J Barter
    Participant

    @wrwb :

    [Correction from med in bold:]
    Unnecessary, since I did of course assume you meant “wordplay” rather than “worldplay” there.

    “With respect to the said advise, you can both have Aiwass, the praeterhuman intelligence, and Aiwass as a clever wordplay authored by Aleister Crowley”.
    AC taught that one should “… let every idea go forth as a triangle on the base of two opposites, making an apex transcending their contradiction in a higher harmony (Chapter VIII, Magick in theory and practice, part III of Book 4).”, so no JJB, I am not the one trying to have my cake as well as eat it.

    Okay, it doesn’t look like we’re getting very far going down that particular path. Very well then, well, let’s try a different tack: explain, if you please, what you mean by “you can have Aiwass the praeterhuman intelligence” when you have already dismissed “him” as mere “wordplay” by AC.

    By the way JJB, Motta provides much on Kundalini is his comment to Crowley’s The Commentaries of AL, published in the so called THE EQUINOX VOLUME V No. 1.
    Must be one of his hobby horses.

    Do you think JJB, that some of Motta’s former students that are now in the only surviving OTO, have made more of all that Motta provided with respect to Kundalini?
    What, the ones that knifed him in the back and now suddenly regard him as having been the A.’. A.’. head honcho all along? Errmmm, I’m going to say….No to that one. No, hold on, make that Yes. Wait, back to the first one again… No. I don’t think they would have made more of it, as apart from Gunther they don’t seem to have made much more of anything.
    By the way, Motta’s former students aren’t only in the “OTO”. A few more of them fetched up in the HOOR, or Holy Order Of RaHoorKhuit. Also David Bersson’s own continuation of the SOTO.

    Now then well, it’s your turn to answer my remaining points from the previous post which are apart from my first sentence about having your cake and eating it, if you please don’t go down the dom route of response (or your own particular speciality, tons of quotations).

    N Joy

    #110684

    Shiva
    Participant

    JB: What, the ones that knifed him in the back and now suddenly regard him as having been the A.’. A.’. head honcho all along?

    Oh, goodness and its opposite! I hadn’t heard that MM had been resuscitated in the current spin of Thelemic history.

    I have heard that there was/is an attempt to assassinate the validity of McMurtry. It was pointed out to me that this is a case of counter-reasoning, wherein one puts any idea up against its opposite.

    That is, since McM was responsible for securing the legal status of OTO, how can he be excluded from the historical lineage? His A.’.A.’. WORD as a Magus, 9=2, was “OTO.” Success is your proof!

    Then the legally appointed successor and heir of McM took hold of the legal (c)OTO and after a while decided to start his/their/the A.’.A.’. up again.

    Motta lost in court and his expelled knife-wielding students ended up in charge of the McMurtry OTO, which casually mentions Motta was the A.’.A.’. link?

    There are enough oppositions and countercharges in this tale to allow it to be compared with the U.S. congress, the House of Lords, and the Saudi Family government, with the heathen Chinese Communists looking on.

    I’m going to say….No to that one. No, hold on, make that Yes. Wait, back to the first one again… No. I don’t think they would have made more of it, as apart from Gunther they don’t seem to have made much more of anything.

    I see that you understand the obvious situation and its solution, or resolution, or its direct linkage to the world of ego-insanity. Please allow me to proclaim the Truth of the matter:

    The OTO is a material plane, hard rock of matter (paper), corporate, corporeal corporation that has the same status as, say, IBM, or Microsoft, or Apple, or Joe’s Grocery. It is “non-profit, religious,” in order to handle funding a bit differently than those other “capitalistic” corps.

    But OTO is not a “teaching order,” it is a fraternity. There are no claims made as to being the “invisible order that has no name among men” (because it does have a name). There is a one-person unit at the top of the OTO pyramid. All organizations are a reflection of the effective leader. This is indisputable, and if you want to dispute it, engage a barrister.

    The A.’.A.’. is an etheric reflection of the one, true Spectrum of Consciousness that has the same status as, say, Golden dawn, or Buddhism, or Dzogchen, or Shaivism. It is “non-profit, religious,” but there is no funding to handle differently than those other “capitalistic” religions that collect dues and tithes and donations.

    A.’.A.’. is a “teaching order,” it is not a physical fraternity, the fraternity-sorority is only recognized (by one’s self) on the causal plane (Tiphareth) and above.. There are claims made as to being the “invisible order that has no name among men” (but it does has a name). There is no one-person unit at the top of the A.’.A.’. pyramid/line. At least A.’.A.’. is honest in saying its initials and dots are but an emblematic trademark stamped upon the invisible spectrum. All lineages are a reflection of the effective leader. But with A.’.A.’., you see, the “head” (Kether) is Atma, universal consciousness (omnipresent in fact), and there are different personal units who attain to this state. So we get differing points of view with different lineages.

    The topic these days seems to be comparative personology. This is regrettable, but true. It indicates the assumption of authenticity, and the prevalence of gang mentality. Look closely and you’ll see money involved.

    This is all indisputable, and if you want to dispute it, engage its opposite, because, surely, any given opposite is readily available in this screenplay written by Choronzon.

    #110685

    ignant666
    Participant

    Motta lost [to the (c)OTO] in court and his expelled knife-wielding students ended up in charge of the McMurtry OTO, which casually mentions Motta was the A.’.A.’. link?

    You got it. This is what the current (c)OTO supremos, and “A.’. A.’.” supremo ex-Motta disciple/World Teacher Gunther call “duplexity”.

    Gunther’s A.’. A.’. credentials make our old pal Los’ 8=3 claim positively look credible- at least Los was never a member of any terrestrial A.’. A.’., and so could not get expelled from the Order, unlike Gunther. Then there is the little matter of Motta lacking any A.’. A.’. imprimatur in the first place.

    I wonder how the Secret Chiefs deal with the issue of getting expelled from a non-existent branch of the order? Is ones Pyramid profaned for this incarnation?

    Note that the (c)OTO won that case on spurious grounds, since they owned no Crowley copyrights whatever as of the date of that case. Of course, neither did Motta.

    What a pack of clowns.

    • This reply was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by  ignant666.
    #110687

    wellreadwellbred
    Participant

    Jamie J Barter: “… explain, if you please, what you mean by “you can have Aiwass the praeterhuman intelligence” when you have already dismissed “him” as mere “wordplay” by AC.”

    That it ultimately does not matter how many dualities one are attached to, as the Great Work of each person, is the release of identification with the ego and the consequent identification with that which trancends all dualities ( = “HORUS, THE CROWNED AND CONQUERING CHILD, WHOM THOU KNEWEST NOT!”; “I am light, and I am night, and I am that which is beyond them. […] Yet by none of these can man reach up to me. Yet by each of them must man reach up to me. […] This is the formula of the Aeon, […] Amen.” (Source: The Vision & the Voice, first Aethyr.)).

    #110688

    Tiger
    Participant

    Day and Night both sides of the coin allowed/exist in the cosmos
    emanations of emptiness

    #110695

    Jamie J Barter
    Participant

    @wellreadwellbred :

    That it ultimately does not matter how many dualities one are attached to, as the Great Work of each person, is the release of identification with the ego and the consequent identification with that which trancends all dualities

    I was hoping for a bit more from you in the way of an answer here well. I can’t definitively tell at this stage if you are deliberately choosing to be evasive or maybe are not as quick on the uptake as I thought. You seem to be reasonably intelligent, so I’m assuming you do actually comprehend what I’m getting at. You also seem to be fairly acquainted with the “occult” in which case I presume you would be familiar with the ‘Virtue’ of Malkuth being Discrimination. And yet here you are (and to a lesser extent tiger by association) failing to exercise this insofar as mixing the planes is concerned.

    We’re (I’m) not talking about ‘transcending all dualities’ here — I’m making a specific enquiry in relation to following-up your assertion that although AL was authored by AC, outside of this Aiwass also existed as a ‘praeterhuman intelligence’ and how this could come to be. Are you finding an explanation too difficult to muster, perhaps? Maybe you’d like to retract your words? That’s allowed. Just say so, is all.

    I am also one of the few people here who still humour you and oblige your requests for further information, etc. And yet you don’t seem to want to extend the same courtesy to me so far as an explanation for your statement and belief is concerned. So, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not being disingenuous I’ll ask for clarification and supporting evidence (if any) one more time. Otherwise I kinda get the feeling I might not feel so inclined towards responding to your postings in quite the same way in the future.

    @shiva :

    The topic these days seems to be comparative personology. This is regrettable, but true. It indicates the assumption of authenticity, and the prevalence of gang mentality. Look closely and you’ll see money involved.

    There was also an attempt to “trade mark” the Star of Babalon a while back. And yet I always understood one of the main tenets of the A.’. A.’. was that it was not meant to have any commercial dealings or be involved with lucre at all, especially in terms of charges made for services tendered or received. This is making (one of) their operations and organization sound a little bit more like… the mafia, for example.

    N Joy

    #110701

    Tiger
    Participant

    advise, you can both have Aiwass, the praeterhuman intelligence, and Aiwass as a clever worldplay authored by Aleister Crowley

    well i figure the latter is better for academics and the first is better for magic poetry and climbing ;
    if you want to make use of it on different levels until the doing passes .
    but then again i’m continually projecting structures of conditional arising changing and passing onto the screen of my magical mirror
    so what do i know
    just yaking away here .

    #110702

    Michael Staley
    Participant

    @tiger

    but then again i’m continually projecting structures of conditional arising changing and passing onto the screen of my magical mirror

    Aren’t we all, Tiger? Just that some know it, others not.

    #110704

    Tiger
    Participant

    Thanks Michael !

    grappling with craving
    you know the gaining and doing with the intention of release from not doing so .
    and working on the castaneda double
    at leaste for a chortle

    #110737

    christibrany
    Participant

    Yes from what I have heard and read Motto was a crank and I wouldn’t take any of his ‘attainments’ or writings seriously.
    Actions speak louder than words and all that. Just like I have serious doubts about AC attaining Ipsissimus.

    The structure of the A.:.A.:. and it’s teachings are brilliant though.

    #110799

    wellreadwellbred
    Participant

    JJB: “I can’t definitively tell at this stage if you are deliberately choosing to be evasive or maybe are not as quick on the uptake as I thought. […] We’re (I’m) not talking about ‘transcending all dualities’ here — I’m making a specific enquiry in relation to following-up your assertion that although AL was authored by AC, outside of this Aiwass also existed as a ‘praeterhuman intelligence’ and how this could come to be.”

    Well, I am indeed talking about that the superstructure ‘transcending all dualities’-part of AC’s Thelema, ultimately encompasses, or accounts for, all possible positions with respect to the nature of Aiwass (the one in AC’s The Book of the Law.)

    In my Reply #110635 to this thread, I wrote about “… AC becoming acquainted with the concept of Kundalini (likely during visiting Sri Lanka and India in 1901), as ‘Put on the wings, and arouse the coiled splendour within you: come unto me!’, within Crowley’s The Book of the Law (AL I:61), appears to be a reference to activating the kundalini.”

    “Crowley studied Raja Yoga under Allan Bennett and P. Ramanthan in Ceylon. The latter was Solicitor-General of Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and after his retirement became the Shaivite guru Shri Parananda (http://www.luckymojo.com/thelema/philosophy/9707.acyoga-.tn). In Ceylon, Bennett was the tutor of the sons of P. Ramanathan, who became a Shaivite Hindu (a sect that worships Shiva as the supreme God) (http://www.thelemicstudies.com/past-issues/volume-i-number-1-autumn-2007/thelema-buddhism-parts-1-4-by-iao131/).” (Source: https://www.lashtal.com/forums/reply/100057/)

    The superstructure ‘transcending all dualities’-part of AC’s Thelema, expressed in AC’s book The Vision & the Voice, first Aethyr, resembles the guru Ramana Maharshi’s (1879–1950) teaching that one’s own ‘I’ is that which pervades beyond dvaita (duality), and is that which is beyond duality (dvaitatita). (Source: Michael S. Allen’s Knowledge and Devotion in the Bhagavad-Gītā:A Suggestive Parallel from Chinese Buddhism – – – https://www.academia.edu/17687670/Knowledge_and_Devotion_in_the_Bhagavad-Gita_A_Suggestive_Parallel_from_Chinese_Buddhism, Published online: 29 January 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014.)

    That is, living traditions of Yoga and Tantra proposing that Kundalini can be awakened by a guru (teacher), within Ceylon (= Sri Lanka) and India, visited by AC close to the time he wrote The Book of the Law, and a (guru) teaching at that time in India (within the region of India closest to Sri Lanka that Crowley visited (= Tamil Nadu, where he visited the temple city of Madurai, and the Meenakshi Temple) (Source: Tobias Churton’s book, Aleister Crowley: The Biography – Spiritual Revolutionary, Romantic Explorer, Occult Master and Spy, 2011 edition, page 78)), teaching that one’s own ‘I’ is that which pervades Beyond duality, and is that which is beyond duality, are contemporary teachings that can have influenced the content of the two most important texts of AC’s Thelema.

    #110822

    wellreadwellbred
    Participant

    “Several yogis consider that Kundalini can be awakened by shaktipat (spiritual transmission by a Guru or teacher), or by spiritual practices such as yoga or meditation. There are two broad approaches to Kundalini awakening: active and passive. The active approach involves systematic physical exercises and techniques of concentration, visualization, pranayama (breath practice) and meditation under the guidance of a competent teacher. These techniques come from any of the four main branches of yoga, and some forms of yoga, such as Kriya yoga, Kundalini yoga and Sahaja yoga.

    The passive approach is instead a path of surrender where one lets go of all the impediments to the awakening rather than trying to actively awaken Kundalini. A chief part of the passive approach is shaktipat where one individual’s Kundalini is awakened by another who already has the experience. Shaktipat only raises Kundalini temporarily but gives the student an experience to use as a basis.” (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundalini)

    Both of the above mentioned approaches to invoking Kundalini experiences, were taught within Ceylon (= Sri Lanka) and India, visited by AC close to the time he wrote The Book of the Law, and can have inspired AC in how he developed his Thelema.

    The above mentioned active approach to Kundalini awakening involves systematic physical exercises and techniques of concentration, visualization, pranayama (breath practice) and meditation under the guidance of a competent teacher. And within the system of AC’s A∴ A∴ magical order, a system based on one student under the guidance of one competent teacher, “The general program for developing concentration is borrowed almost completely from the practice of Yoga within the Hindu and Buddhist systems.” (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelemic_mysticism#Mystical_milestones_within_the_A.A._System)

    #110830

    Jamie J Barter
    Participant

    @christibrany :

    [F]rom what I have heard and read Motto was a crank and I wouldn’t take any of his ‘attainments’ or writings seriously.
    I think you’re doing him a slight injustice here chris. He undoubtedly wrote some risible rubbish in his time but his “Commentaries” to AL and Liber 65 at least bear further examination and on occasion contain some very perceptive and insightful passages of rare acumen. Worth a look (both available online).

    @wellreadwellbred :

    JJB: “I can’t definitively tell at this stage if you are deliberately choosing to be evasive or maybe are not as quick on the uptake as I thought.”
    Well well (or, Well well well, well): I’ll take that now as a yes then (the former). Or at least that you’re more likely to be being deliberately (and mulishly) evasive than say borderline moronic :

    Well, I am indeed talking about that the superstructure ‘transcending all dualities’-part of AC’s Thelema, ultimately encompasses, or accounts for, all possible positions with respect to the nature of Aiwass (the one in AC’s The Book of the Law.)
    I think after 3 times of asking it’s best to pass on the “having cake & eat it” question as getting nowhere.

    I did also ask you in #110680 if you’d address the outstanding points from #110648:

    Also, to echo Michael, and maybe myself again, where is your (scientific) evidence to back up your supposition(s) [about A.C. “authoring AL to the exclusion of Aiwass}?

    And where is it that you part company say with RT Cole’s hypothesis expressed in his Liber Bogus?

    Do you agree AL was authored (as in, carefully composed at leisure from his comfortable armchair at Boleskine House) sometime between 1902 (following his first trip to Egypt and after his breach with Mathers) and 1907 (when the first mooted publication of AL appeared as an Appendix to his Collected Works), or can you narrow this timeline down further?

    Also, if A.C. composed the text himself, why do you think he effectively bound his own hands by putting in the stipulation about not being able to change as much as a word of anything in it if he later thought of something better to say during the next 43 years (and for which his later “Tunis” Comment stands in as rather a poor second-rate substitution)?

    (Please note I also requested to if possible manage in future replies to avoid going down the route of responding with tons of quotations, which you’ve now still managed to do [in part].)

    Finally, I’m not clear about the purpose in this thread which you’ve started. You asked 3 questions in the OP, two of which I then answered for you (and the third Shiva did, sort-of). I also helpfully answered your supplemental enquiries about Motta & Kundalini, incidentally. (Just dropping that one in, is all: make of’t ’bout good manners & the common courtesies of reciprocation what thou wilt.) But what is it you’re getting at, the particular (& general) linking principle between Thelema, Aleister Crowley & Kundalini – if any?

    “Nil desperandum”
    N Joy

    #110832

    ignant666
    Participant

    WRWB is making the point he is always (so tediously) making: AC fabricated AL to further his ambitions to be a New Age Prophet, and this is proved by the fact that many themes in AL occur previously in religion/mythology/literature/etc.

    To state this argument outright (something WRWB never ever does) is to make the missing premise (aka hidden assumption) rather obvious: things can only be actual revelations/transmissions/whatevers if and only if they do not contain themes that occur previously in religion/mythology/literature/etc.

    This is silly. Why must this be so? If it isn’t necessarily so, WRWB can stop these endless tedious posts now, right?

    The “having the cake and eating it too” mealy-mouthed approach that Jamie points out is something of a new direction for WRWB, perhaps in response to having been called on his nonsense once again.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)
  • You must be logged-in to reply to this topic.