Ruminations on Self Individuation Part II
separatus
which concentrated on the task of the Exempt Adept and to a lesser
extent on the Dark Night of the Soul. It was very productive, and
judging from the number of posts was apparently a topic people wanted
to discuss.
This new thread wants to take it to the next step, referred to in the
Golden Dawn based traditions as the Master of the Temple. This grade
(or state of mind) is reached after what is referred to as the Abyss
experience. A lot has been written about the Abyss experience and it
is not particularly pertinent here, so let's just stick with the
Master of the Temple or equivalents in other traditions.
A common definition of the Magister Templi is as follows:
"The principal business of this grade is to obtain a perfect
understanding of the Universe. The essential Attainment is the perfect
annihilation of that personality which limits and oppresses his true
self. The Magister Templi is pre-eminently the Master of Mysticism,
that is, his Understanding is entirely free from internal
contradiction or external obscurity; his Word is to comprehend the
existing Universe in accordance with his own Mind."
Let's contrast this with the work of the Exempt Adept who concentrates
on integrating his conscious self with his unconscious and
superconscious aspects to the maximum extent. The Exempt Adept can
consciously encounter and experience his True Self in vision form,
commonly referred to as the Conversation with the Holy Guardian Angel.
This is accomplished by virtue that he has assiduously attempted to
consciously integrate everything he can.
The Magister templi has instead gone beyond this stage. The
description that the Magister has obtained "the perfect annihilation
of that personality which limits and oppresses his true self" has been
somewhat erroneously taken to mean that his conscious personality has
been obliterated. Far from it.
Now that the stage is set, what are your thoughts? How does a Magister
annihilate that personality that limits and oppresses his true self?
What are the consequences of this process?
separatus
emancipation from thought by putting each idea against its opposite,
and refusing to prefer either; and the consecration of himself as a
pure vehicle for the influence of the order to which he aspires”. The
essential Attainment is “the perfect annihilation of that personality
The annhiliation described here is somewhat misleading, and does not
touch on annhiliating the personality. Destruction of the personality
would result in a zombie, perhaps moving unconsciously in response to
natural laws. Rather, the word annhiliated should be understood as
released. By releasing and entering into a nongrasping relationship
with that personality that limits him, he transcends those
limitations. Truly, a Magister is “in the world but not of it”.
This concept is heavily involved with the concept of Sunyata,
conceived of by the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna. Below I submit for
your consideration the three Noble Truths which are pertinent to this
discussion:
The First Noble Truth: there is suffering, the world is impermanent.
In our terms, this truth expresses the mundane truth that all things
are empty of inherent existence, they are conditioned and relative.
Because we cling to them as if they were permanent and substantial,
suffering is the inevitable consequence.
The Second Noble Truth: there is a cause of suffering. The cause of
suffering is clinging to the relative as absolute, the conditioned as
unconditioned, the insubstantial as substantial. The ignorance of the
true emptiness or sunya-nature of things, the confusion of the real
and unreal, is the root error that leads to all suffering.
The Third Noble Truth: there is an end to suffering. Because even
emptiness is empty, because relativity and conditionedness themselves
are not absolute, suffering is not ultimate. While the mundane nature
of the conditioned is conditionedness, yet in its ultimate nature, the
conditioned is itself the undivided, unconditioned reality. While the
ultimate reality is beyond the distinctions that hold in the world of
the determinate, yet the ultimate reality is not wholly separate from
the determinate, but is the real nature of the determinate itself. It
is because we already are identical to the unconditioned reality that
we can recognize this truth and become liberated from the imagination
that we are otherwise, and thereby end our suffering.
Absorbed
> The Exempt Adept can
> consciously encounter and experience his True Self in vision form,
> commonly referred to as the Conversation with the Holy Guardian Angel.
Erwin wrote a good post on his blog debunking this:
http://www.erwinhessle.com/blog/?p=89
separatus
> Erwin wrote a good post on his blog debunking this:http://www.erwinhessle.com/blog/?p=89
He didn't debunk it at all. Rather, he made several intelligent
points. The main thrust was that the whole "internal or external"
argument is irrelevant.
separatus
OK, I see where you are coming from now. I hadn't read the comments
below the actual essay. Frankly, he's right. The HGA experience is
about experiencing your true Self you have forgotten. It is
independent of your intellect, memories, and feelings. It isn't a
personality, it is Awareness.
Tom
>
> A common definition of the Magister Templi is as follows:
> "The principal business of this grade is to obtain a perfect
> understanding of the Universe. The essential Attainment is the perfect
> annihilation of that personality which limits and oppresses his true
> self. The Magister Templi is pre-eminently the Master of Mysticism,
> that is, his Understanding is entirely free from internal
> contradiction or external obscurity; his Word is to comprehend the
> existing Universe in accordance with his own Mind."
This is misleading. The personality is not "annihilated" and a
"perfect understanding of the universe" should in no way be confused
with omniscience.
Freedom from internal contradiction is part of it, but "external
obscurity" is not something that is controlled by the Magister Templi
but is a choice of those observing them.
> Let's contrast this with the work of the Exempt Adept who concentrates
> on integrating his conscious self with his unconscious and
> superconscious aspects to the maximum extent. The Exempt Adept can
> consciously encounter and experience his True Self in vision form,
> commonly referred to as the Conversation with the Holy Guardian Angel.
The vision of the Holy Guardian Angel is the spiritual experience of
the sephirah of Tiphareth, not of Chesed. It is not at all clear that
the vision of the Holy Guardian Angel is the same as the Knowledge and
Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel.
> Now that the stage is set, what are your thoughts? How does a Magister
> annihilate that personality that limits and oppresses his true self?
He doesn't. Instead, he transcends it. The personality becomes
irrelevant, not non-existent.
> What are the consequences of this process?
The personality becomes irrelevant. The Master's actions are not
personal. Consequences are unimportant. The Master's acts are
sufficient unto themselves and have no lust of result. These actions
do not arise from desire but from an understanding of the way things
are.
BBDD
You idiots have no comprehension of this because you imagine the words
of the selfless meaning the same as they do to you jack offs. You
don't even have a clue about what fundamental transcendence is,
gathering from what you post here. More importantly though, the grades
no longer apply. It is a horse and buggy system. We have a new one
now. The old ways are abrogate. Even the old ways say so.
BBDD
None of this you post is correct. It very seldom worked in the old
way, philosophically. It is a very rare individual who attained the
TRUE grades. More often they jacked off with it like you do. The new
way grasps the fundamentals of transcendence first. If one is
reasonably balanced and not totally focused on all this being a circle
jerk, the transcendence is enough to get you there and actually
contains all of the philosophical content in the experience itself.
One transcends NEVER philosophically, but by going past intensified
attention. The more determined the student, the more intensified his
attention, so occasionally by chance in the old way one would make it.
We now know the artist Escher achieved the very same thing simply
through the intensified attention required in the art of etching. Any
discipline that requires that level of intensified attention will
eventually result in REAL transcendence, rather than where what you
pretend to leads.
In your selfishness you get the words wrong. But if you were given the
task of literally cutting the philosophers stone with all its many
facets from a real raw stone, the intensified attention required would
get you past transcendence in the very real results. A NEW WAY COMES.
separatus
> > Let's contrast this with the work of the Exempt Adept who concentrates
> > on integrating his conscious self with his unconscious and
> > superconscious aspects to the maximum extent. The Exempt Adept can
> > consciously encounter and experience his True Self in vision form,
> > commonly referred to as the Conversation with the Holy Guardian Angel.
>
> The vision of the Holy Guardian Angel is the spiritual experience of
> the sephirah of Tiphareth, not of Chesed. It is not at all clear that
> the vision of the Holy Guardian Angel is the same as the Knowledge and
> Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel.
You are right. I should have been more clear. I used the phrase "in
vision form". It would be more accurate to say the more specific
phrase Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. A more
direct description would be the experience of the Awareness that lies
behind the personality construct commonly referred to as "me".
Absorbed
It seems that there are lots of people in the OTO who believe they can
somehow hallucinate an HGA as an external entity that is a
representation of their true self, and I thought you may be one of them.
As a delusion, I don't consider it any different to Christians who
believe God is a voice in their heads or who have visions of Jesus. And
as the number of Christians helps Christians believe their delusions are
credible, I expect that because a group of people believe and put
forward the HGA as an individual theory, many people are convinced.
That's the power popular opinion can have over rational argument, I guess.
BBDD
You are irresponsible phonies or you would move this discussion to a
more appropriate venue. Such things are NOT discussed in open un-
moderated forums other than by deviates that use the OTO sexual
rituals to seduce underage boys online.
Absorbed
You are a silly, sick, miserable old man. You're revealing your true
colours now with these accusations.
Alrah
The knowledge and conversation of the HGA is called so because the
Awareness communicates it's knowledge directly and is very distinctly
different in quality from common visual or auditory hallucinations.
BBDD
>
> - Show quoted text -
You nimrods! The HGA is the same as Overman or Higher I or Observing
Self. It can be manifest in vision and usually is. It just isn't
limited to that. If you would get your heads out of your pants you
could figure that out.
Tom
Not according to you, anyway. But then again, nobody believes
anything you say.
> It is a very rare individual who attained the
> TRUE grades.
This assertion directly contradicts your other assertion that grades
no longer apply.
>The new
> way grasps the fundamentals of transcendence first.
Heh. "The fundamentals of transcendence."
BBDD
>
> - Show quoted text -
Grades do not need to apply for you perverts to misuse a grand old
tradition to approach young boys. As stated in Liber Al vel Legis,
they no longer apply. That does not mean they never did, but even when
they did it was with the understanding that many attempting the grades
would serve the very few that succeeded. They were never intended to
endow perverts. They were tools to those gifted and a trap for fools.
Tom
The problem here is that the phrase "Knowledge and Conversation of the
Holy Guardian Angel" is anything *but* specific. It's extremely
ambiguous. People have written all sorts of things about it and lots
of those writings are contradictory. Some see it as a literal
conversation with an evoked spirit, in Goetic fashion. That's how
it's portrayed in the "Sacred Magic of Abra Melin", for example.
Others have seen it as you depict, as an experience roughly parallel
to a "kensho" experience in Zen. Still others see it as some sort of
shamanic journey, similar to how one would encounter denizens of the
spirit world. From different frames of reference, it's seen in
different ways.
BBDD
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is because you perverts have no grasp of it. It is entirely
specific but you being color blind, the color green is less than
specific.
BBDD
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are countless ways to describe a tree that are meaningful and
obviously reference the same thing to those who can see that mean
nothing specific to the blind.
separatus
> It seems that there are lots of people in the OTO who believe they can
> somehow hallucinate an HGA as an external entity that is a
> representation of their true self, and I thought you may be one of them.
Nope. I understand that particular belief is characteristic of what I
think of as "theistic" Thelemites and people who read a lot about
magick but lack somewhat on the practice end of things. Incidentally,
I am not OTO although I subscribed to their philosophy at one time
before I matured in my understanding.
separatus
> The knowledge and conversation of the HGA is called so because the
> Awareness communicates it's knowledge directly and is very distinctly
> different in quality from common visual or auditory hallucinations.
I would also suggest that the experience of truly encountering the
Self is absolutely communication. Not in words, or even emotions. It's
about recognition as self being distinct from Self. The Self has no
memories or emotions of the self; it is complete in and of itself, and
stands outside and untouched.
separatus
> The problem here is that the phrase "Knowledge and Conversation of the
> Holy Guardian Angel" is anything *but* specific. It's extremely
> ambiguous. People have written all sorts of things about it and lots
> of those writings are contradictory. Some see it as a literal
> conversation with an evoked spirit, in Goetic fashion. That's how
> it's portrayed in the "Sacred Magic of Abra Melin", for example.
> Others have seen it as you depict, as an experience roughly parallel
> to a "kensho" experience in Zen. Still others see it as some sort of
> shamanic journey, similar to how one would encounter denizens of the
> spirit world. From different frames of reference, it's seen in
> different ways.
Yes, the literature varies dramatically on the subject. None can
necessarily be taken at face value. Even two people who have truly had
the experience may describe it in such different terms that on first
glance they are worlds apart. That is the failure of using symbolism
to the extent that the Golden Dawn and other groups fell into, because
without their symbol set their allegories are impenetrable. On the
other hand, there are those who haven't had the experience who attempt
to rephrase the words of those who have and confuse the issue further.
If I may suggest, Sunyata (posted above) may be of use to you in terms
of the path to the Master of the Temple. It is the non-grasping
relationship to yourself and the universe that is the gateway.
Alrah
Yes. I agree with that. I would also suggest that all true
operations of magick are performed by the Self. Most of what the self
considers as work is merely rehersal and the preperation of the
vessel, or it the self forgetting the Self and imagining itself to be
Self.
separatus
> Yes. I agree with that. I would also suggest that all true
> operations of magick are performed by the Self. Most of what the self
> considers as work is merely rehersal and the preperation of the
> vessel, or it the self forgetting the Self and imagining itself to be
> Self.
Well said. The Self is the seat of the will. Most people enact magick
without ever realizing that their conscious self is not doing the
magick, but are indirectly accessing the capabilities of the Self that
stands outside. Even most mages never realize the difference, no
matter how many books they read.
Alrah
I don't think I expressed what I mean by that very well however. I'm
not completely out of the woods with depression and I'm still a bit
stupid trying to explain things.
Monkey Mind
> ... the transcendence is enough to get you there and actually
> contains all of the philosophical content in the experience itself.
I agree with this.
> One transcends NEVER philosophically, but by going past intensified
> attention.
This kind of attention can be paid to philosophy as well, of course.
Not my way of doing it, but should be possible, judging from the
remaining writings of the ancient philosophers (and some more recent
ones, as well).
It strikes me as odd how a few posts ago you were ranting against
meditation, which has the same potential for "intensified attention"
after all.
Cheers,
Florian
--
Every man passes out of life as if he had just been born.
-- Epicurus (Vatican Sayings 60)
Alrah
Thanks for clarifying that. :)
Monkey Mind
> The method of attaining the grade of Magister Templi includes “the
> emancipation from thought by putting each idea against its opposite,
> and refusing to prefer either; and the consecration of himself as a
> pure vehicle for the influence of the order to which he aspires”. The
> essential Attainment is “the perfect annihilation of that personality
> which limits and oppresses his true self”.
>
> The annhiliation described here is somewhat misleading, and does not
> touch on annhiliating the personality. Destruction of the personality
> would result in a zombie, perhaps moving unconsciously in response to
> natural laws. Rather, the word annhiliated should be understood as
> released. By releasing and entering into a nongrasping relationship
> with that personality that limits him, he transcends those
> limitations. Truly, a Magister is “in the world but not of it”.
>
> This concept is heavily involved with the concept of Sunyata,
> conceived of by the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna. Below I submit for
> your consideration the three Noble Truths which are pertinent to this
> discussion:
The concept of sunyata or emptiness can be traced back even a few more
centuries to earlier Buddhist schools. It's present in the Pali Canon,
in the Cula-suññata Sutta (M 121) for example, though in less exalted
terms.
> The First Noble Truth: there is suffering, the world is impermanent.
> In our terms, this truth expresses the mundane truth that all things
> are empty of inherent existence, they are conditioned and relative.
> Because we cling to them as if they were permanent and substantial,
> suffering is the inevitable consequence.
I would't call it a "mundane truth" that all things are empty. The
worldly view is rather the opposite, seeing meaning in even random
occurrences.
> The Second Noble Truth: there is a cause of suffering. The cause of
> suffering is clinging to the relative as absolute, the conditioned as
> unconditioned, the insubstantial as substantial. The ignorance of the
> true emptiness or sunya-nature of things, the confusion of the real
> and unreal, is the root error that leads to all suffering.
Hmm. The Buddhist school I am familiar with - Theravada - puts
"clinging" in the first noble truth, and has "craving" (literally,
"thirst") and "ignorance" (lit. "not seeing") as the cause of
suffering.
> The Third Noble Truth: there is an end to suffering. Because even
> emptiness is empty, because relativity and conditionedness themselves
> are not absolute, suffering is not ultimate. While the mundane nature
> of the conditioned is conditionedness, yet in its ultimate nature, the
> conditioned is itself the undivided, unconditioned reality. While the
> ultimate reality is beyond the distinctions that hold in the world of
> the determinate, yet the ultimate reality is not wholly separate from
> the determinate, but is the real nature of the determinate itself. It
> is because we already are identical to the unconditioned reality that
> we can recognize this truth and become liberated from the imagination
> that we are otherwise, and thereby end our suffering.
Out of curiosity, why is the fourth Noble Truth not pertinent to this
discussion? The Middle Way is even implied in your quote "... by
putting each idea against its opposite, and refusing to prefer
either...".
Ludwig Prinn
> Now that the stage is set, what are your thoughts? How does a Magister
> annihilate that personality that limits and oppresses his true self?
> What are the consequences of this process?
I think where Rowe goes wrong in his essay is his insistence on
interpreting the Abyss experience as literal rather than metaphorical,
paradoxically proceeding to deny the existence of said literal
phenomenon:
"What happened then is another story. But a few things to note:
-- Despite being very unpleasant, there was no destruction of the
individualized self involved; the transcendent being simply "stepped
out" of it, leaving it more or less intact, for the moment. A rather
substantial re-orientation of it took place later, but it was still
undamaged.
-- There was no "jumping into the Abyss"; in fact, no Abyss as such.
-- There was no confrontation with the Demon Choronzon, or any other
supposed "denizen" of the "Abyss". No apparently external horrors of
any sort, not even Chthulhu.
-- No particular invocations were involved in triggering the event. It
took place during an hiatus in my Enochian work, and that work was
directed to other purposes in any case. "
"Crossing the Abyss" is naturally not a literal physical abyss, nor is
it actually "crossing" anything. Crowley discusses prompting an Abyss
experience by positing every phenomenon against its opposite. What he
does *not* say is that this is in preparation for uniting oneself with
one's polar opposite, which Jung describes as the Shadow. The Shadow
is "Choronzon", the Angel of the Abyss.
Crowley's great (and perhaps critical) error in all his work was to
presume that there was a way to "defeat" Choronzon and thereby to
successfully make one's Crossing complete. The exact opposite is what
must be done - Choronzon must be consumed whole and accepted as part
of oneself. The union of all things cannot be done by destroying any
one thing. Only in this manner, that of union, can the mage make his
Crossing successfully.
"The Abyss" is also a very inept description of the experience, as it
evokes the image of a road passing through a desert, interrupted by a
chasm in the earth but continuing on the opposite side. This naturally
leads to the presumption that the Abyss is merely a challenge to be
overcome, and then life continues as before, yet nothing could be
farther from the truth.
The Abyss is more like this: Your road passes through a desert, but at
this point the road proceeds directly up the face of a cliff. You most
definitely have to stop and either stay, go back, or figure out how to
travel this new road. On the flats, you could afford to think in two
dimensional terms, but now you have to learn to think in three
dimensions before you can even begin to proceed. One could accurately
say that it's merely a shift in perspective, much the same as babies
make at the age of four to six months when they develop depth
perception, or when man learned to make flying machines.
One could *say* it's "merely a shift in perspective", but so was the
difference that set apart men like Leonardo DaVinci.
So, how does the Exempt Adept make his Crossing? Begin with the Shadow
of the world. Put every virtue against its vice, every purity against
corruption, every nobility against villainy. Then put the Self against
the Shadow. Only through the union of opposites can this perspective
be achieved. This is only an "ordeal" if any resistance is offered, if
commitment is not total. If there is anything at all the mage attempts
to cling to, it becomes a stumbling block potentially fatal to the
entire effort.
Start there. The rest is momentum.
Ludwig Prinn
> It seems that there are lots of people in the OTO who believe they can
> somehow hallucinate an HGA as an external entity that is a
> representation of their true self, and I thought you may be one of them.
> As a delusion, I don't consider it any different to Christians who
> believe God is a voice in their heads or who have visions of Jesus. And
> as the number of Christians helps Christians believe their delusions are
> credible, I expect that because a group of people believe and put
> forward the HGA as an individual theory, many people are convinced.
> That's the power popular opinion can have over rational argument, I guess.
You seem to be very negative about the magical process of Evocation.
Evocation is an extremely useful magical tool, with a long tradition
of veracity, and one can certainly evoke a vision of one's Holy
Guardian Angel, if that is how the mage wishes to identify his True
Self. Are you saying it's not possible, or are you simply admitting
you can't do it?
Ludwig Prinn
>
> > You are right. I should have been more clear. I used the phrase "in
> > vision form". It would be more accurate to say the more specific
> > phrase Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. A more
> > direct description would be the experience of the Awareness that lies
> > behind the personality construct commonly referred to as "me".
>
> The problem here is that the phrase "Knowledge and Conversation of the
> Holy Guardian Angel" is anything *but* specific. It's extremely
> ambiguous.
Not at all. Back in Abramelin's day, their understanding of the human
psyche was extremely limited. Since you clearly haven't read "The
Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", you
simply don't have the background in psychology to understand this.
Abramelin was doing the best he could with limited understanding -
that does NOT in any way negate the enormity of the experience when a
person encounters the truth of himself as a spiritual being. The idea
was that every person had a Holy Guardian Angel, and through ritual
means could achieve knowledge of, and conversation with, this Angel to
receive truth. It's an extremely simple concept for anyone who's had
even high school psychology.
separatus
> Out of curiosity, why is the fourth Noble Truth not pertinent to this
> discussion? The Middle Way is even implied in your quote "... by
> putting each idea against its opposite, and refusing to prefer
> either...".
I hadn't added it because the substance of the fourth Noble Truth was
that his philosophy was obviously the way to end suffering. I
understand there are several versions of the Noble Truths, and
typically the last one is why so-and-so's path is the one that answers
the secret to enlightenment. We get enough of that in the West without
throwing in entirely different systems.
BBDD
HGA is old school. These perverts are abusing the concept to drop
their pants and show off, not doubt, in a lame attempt to seduce
youngsters. This is why they make it seem more complex and mysterious
than it actually is. The HGA concept is old fashioned. We now use ECS
~ Ever Coming Son.
Works like this:
When we pay strict attention to anything over a prolonged period of
time two possibilities may occur allowing us to master what we pay
attention to. Doesn’t matter what it is. It can be a philosophical
system or it can be as simple as etching. One possibility is that we
become what we pay attention to, like most of the idiots in this
thread. We become one with it. This amounts to crystallization and can
mean we become very good at etching, but further development is not
possible. We are automatic in what we do. Adequate, but not genius.
The other possibility is that we become the attention paid to the
endeavor. We work on the process of working rather than just the
object of focus. We come to observe our self etching rather than just
paying the attention to the etching process. Thus is Escher born
within Escher. Then work on oneself begins. We discover method to
better observe. This leads to the grand epiphany of HGA. Self
observing self leads to the birth of that over-self doing the
observing. Simple enough. We can crystallize there, too, and one will
if they take those in this circle jerk too seriously.
The greater possibility is the grander epiphany of ECS. Just as
observing-self can blossom in the resolution of conflict in self
observed, there are ever grander epiphanies of self reaching to the
limits of all creation and into its smallest part that are possible by
continuing the process. Compare it to astral projection ~ it can in
one sense seem similar to it, but only briefly. These perverts are in
it for the pleasure, so once out of body they stop and look back to
the bed for little boys. Screw that! Once we get that far, those who
are authentic look to the stars, not back to the launch point.
separatus
> "Crossing the Abyss" is naturally not a literal physical abyss, nor is
> it actually "crossing" anything. Crowley discusses prompting an Abyss
> experience by positing every phenomenon against its opposite. What he
> does *not* say is that this is in preparation for uniting oneself with
> one's polar opposite, which Jung describes as the Shadow. The Shadow
> is "Choronzon", the Angel of the Abyss.
Positing every phenomenon against it's opposite is certainly one
classic method to provoke the crisis that generates this experience.
It's refreshing to encounter someone who is familiar with the
psychological aspects of the crossing. In one school of psychology,
the Abyss would be considered the transition from a Fourth Stage to a
Fifth Stage personality. It is a cruel joke that the majority of
people spend their lives fighting against the Shadow inside when the
activity only makes it stronger. If I knew then what I know now, I
would not have spent the effort combating the Shadow and instead
embraced the Beast.
> Crowley's great (and perhaps critical) error in all his work was to
> presume that there was a way to "defeat" Choronzon and thereby to
> successfully make one's Crossing complete. The exact opposite is what
> must be done - Choronzon must be consumed whole and accepted as part
> of oneself. The union of all things cannot be done by destroying any
> one thing. Only in this manner, that of union, can the mage make his
> Crossing successfully.
Unification is the penultimate step to the path of the Magister. The
ultimate step is of course the annhiliation of that personality that
limits you. Looks like the thread is already heading that way, so I'll
just stop here for the moment. I am interested in seeing how the
thread goes forward on that.
> Only through the union of opposites can this perspective
> be achieved. This is only an "ordeal" if any resistance is offered, if
> commitment is not total. If there is anything at all the mage attempts
> to cling to, it becomes a stumbling block potentially fatal to the
> entire effort.
That comes back to the non-grasping relationship mentioned earlier. It
is part of the Unification process as well as the Annhiliation
process.
Ludwig Prinn
> On Dec 20, 12:08 pm, Ludwig Prinn <masterpr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Crowley's great (and perhaps critical) error in all his work was to
> > presume that there was a way to "defeat" Choronzon and thereby to
> > successfully make one's Crossing complete. The exact opposite is what
> > must be done - Choronzon must be consumed whole and accepted as part
> > of oneself. The union of all things cannot be done by destroying any
> > one thing. Only in this manner, that of union, can the mage make his
> > Crossing successfully.
>
> Unification is the penultimate step to the path of the Magister. The
> ultimate step is of course the annhiliation of that personality that
> limits you.
Actually, what the Magister has annihilated isn't the personality,
it's the personality's control. You stop being the bus and start being
the driver....but you don't blow up the bus.
>
> > Only through the union of opposites can this perspective
> > be achieved. This is only an "ordeal" if any resistance is offered, if
> > commitment is not total. If there is anything at all the mage attempts
> > to cling to, it becomes a stumbling block potentially fatal to the
> > entire effort.
>
> That comes back to the non-grasping relationship mentioned earlier. It
> is part of the Unification process as well as the Annhiliation
> process.
^5
Absorbed
> On Dec 20, 1:44 am, Absorbed <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It seems that there are lots of people in the OTO who believe they
>> can somehow hallucinate an HGA as an external entity that is a
>> representation of their true self, and I thought you may be one of
>> them. As a delusion, I don't consider it any different to
>> Christians who believe God is a voice in their heads or who have
>> visions of Jesus. And as the number of Christians helps Christians
>> believe their delusions are credible, I expect that because a group
>> of people believe and put forward the HGA as an individual theory,
>> many people are convinced. That's the power popular opinion can
>> have over rational argument, I guess.
>
> You seem to be very negative about the magical process of Evocation.
I can understand how evocation could be useful for some people, although
it isn't something I use in my own magical practices.
> Evocation is an extremely useful magical tool, with a long tradition
> of veracity, and one can certainly evoke a vision of one's Holy
> Guardian Angel, if that is how the mage wishes to identify his True
> Self. Are you saying it's not possible, or are you simply admitting
> you can't do it?
It depends how you define your HGA and your true self. I think we use
these terms to symbolise different things. For me, KCHGA is the ability
to focus on reality to the exclusion of all else. As I define KCHGA, it
isn't possible to have an actual vision of your HGA with which
you can communicate.
Have you read Erwin's blog post on the HGA as an individual? It's here:
http://www.erwinhessle.com/blog/?p=89
BBDD
I do not rant against meditation. I do against thinking it is any more
effective than Escher coming to transcendence through intensified
attention to his work. This is the NEW WAY COMING: To be whole and
productive and achieve transcendence in intensified attention to life
endeavors ~ whether it be etching or adopting the severely disabled.
Meditating is a substitute for the decadent and non creative. If it
works and that is all the life you have to pay intensified attention
to, go for it. Being productive is naturally superior.
BBDD
You only have opinion about the abyss because you lack experience to
know. None here have indicated they have the vaguest notion of what
the abyss truly is. Leave the little boys alone for a spell and do
something real ~ maybe you will get a glimpse of it some day enough to
get past mere assumptions.
http://niggerwise.com/zlab.html
separatus
Ladies and Gentlemen;
I just installed Greasemonkey and the killfile script. It's wonderful,
and I got it from http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html if you are
interested. All one has to do is simply click on "Ignore User", and
BBDD simply disappears. It's not perfect, because if he is the last
poster you can't see the thread from the main thread list. However, it
is a wonderful way to make him disappear for those who simply aren't
interested in his rants about his daughter, accusations of pedophilia,
or certainty we are all idiots who should kiss his ass since he knows
"REAL MAJIK".
BBDD
> interested. All one has to do is simply click on "Ignore User", and
> BBDD simply disappears. It's not perfect, because if he is the last
> poster you can't see the thread from the main thread list. However, it
> is a wonderful way to make him disappear for those who simply aren't
> interested in his rants about his daughter, accusations of pedophilia,
> or certainty we are all idiots who should kiss his ass since he knows
>
> - Show quoted text -
You pervs are so transparent ~ and stupid. Just because someone sees
through you does not mean they want ass kissed.
It serves me well if you don't read my posts. The purpose is to define
you to those new who happen here. If you don't respond to my posts, it
makes it that much easier to bury yours in mine.
Ludwig Prinn
> Ludwig Prinn wrote:
> > Evocation is an extremely useful magical tool, with a long tradition
> > of veracity, and one can certainly evoke a vision of one's Holy
> > Guardian Angel, if that is how the mage wishes to identify his True
> > Self. Are you saying it's not possible, or are you simply admitting
> > you can't do it?
>
> It depends how you define your HGA and your true self. I think we use
> these terms to symbolise different things. For me, KCHGA is the ability
> to focus on reality to the exclusion of all else.
The HGA is "reality"? That's a mighty vague assessment there, son.
You're making proclamations that *sound* as if they actually have
content and are relevant, yet actually saying nothing. Or are you
talking about the "reality of Self"? That's a whole different concept,
and something I've already posted.
> As I define KCHGA, it
> isn't possible to have an actual vision of your HGA with which
> you can communicate.
-shrugs- People talk to themselves all the time. Even if it's one's
True Self, it's a fairly common psychological phenomenon for people to
have apparent-third-person communications with themselves.
> Have you read Erwin's blog post on the HGA as an individual? It's here:http://www.erwinhessle.com/blog/?p=89
Erwin Hessle is a derivative yet amusing dickhead. His recycled
screels are presumptive, arrogant in tone, and ultimately of no use to
anyone beyond the grade of acolyte. If you can't manage to articulate
your thoughts for yourself, you can at least stop plugging his
ridiculous blogs for my benefit.
So, seriously son - tell me what you believe the HGA actually is.
Ludwig Prinn
> You only have opinion about the abyss because you lack experience to
> know.
Whereas you yourself don't even seem to have an opinion.
> None here have indicated they have the vaguest notion of what
> the abyss truly is.
Actually, you should read over what you quoted from my post.
> Leave the little boys alone for a spell and do
> something real ~ maybe you will get a glimpse of it some day enough to
> get past mere assumptions.
Dude, what is your issue with little boys?
Seriously, that comes up in every single one of your posts - are you a
former choirboy?
Absorbed
> On Dec 20, 2:13 pm, Absorbed <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Ludwig Prinn wrote:
>
>>> Evocation is an extremely useful magical tool, with a long
>>> tradition of veracity, and one can certainly evoke a vision of
>>> one's Holy Guardian Angel, if that is how the mage wishes to
>>> identify his True Self. Are you saying it's not possible, or are
>>> you simply admitting you can't do it?
>> It depends how you define your HGA and your true self. I think we
>> use these terms to symbolise different things. For me, KCHGA is the
>> ability to focus on reality to the exclusion of all else.
>
> The HGA is "reality"?
If you want to analyse the phrase KCHGA, yes.
> That's a mighty vague assessment there, son. You're making
> proclamations that *sound* as if they actually have content and are
> relevant, yet actually saying nothing.
It's not a vague sentence without content to me, but then the meanings I
attribute to the words aren't necessarily the same as you, and perhaps
you lack the insight to understand.
> Or are you talking about the "reality of Self"? That's a whole
> different concept, and something I've already posted.
I'm not talking about the "reality of Self", whatever you consider that
to be.
>> As I define KCHGA, it isn't possible to have an actual vision of
>> your HGA with which you can communicate.
>
> -shrugs- People talk to themselves all the time. Even if it's one's
> True Self, it's a fairly common psychological phenomenon for people
> to have apparent-third-person communications with themselves.
Third-person communication with your HGA, as I define it, is impossible.
Reality doesn't talk; it simply is what it is.
> So, seriously son - tell me what you believe the HGA actually is.
I already have.
Ludwig Prinn
> Ludwig Prinn wrote:
> > The HGA is "reality"?
>
> If you want to analyse the phrase KCHGA, yes.
That doesn't actually *say* anything, though. You claim that "reality"
is your personal HGA. Are you referring to reality itself, every scrap
of matter, every galaxy and ameoba and shiny red button is your
personal god? Or are you simply trying to weasel out of being
specific? Because so far you haven't actually *said* anything that can
be quantified as "an answer".
> > That's a mighty vague assessment there, son. You're making
> > proclamations that *sound* as if they actually have content and are
> > relevant, yet actually saying nothing.
>
> It's not a vague sentence without content to me, but then the meanings I
> attribute to the words aren't necessarily the same as you, and perhaps
> you lack the insight to understand.
If you have a thought in your head, it is the mark of an educated mind
to clearly express it. You cannot blame me for your incoherence, nor
can you obfuscate the issue enough to snow me into thinking you
actually have an answer to my question.
> > Or are you talking about the "reality of Self"? That's a whole
> > different concept, and something I've already posted.
>
> I'm not talking about the "reality of Self", whatever you consider that
> to be.
Okay, so then you're talking about "All of Reality", meaning the
entire universe. Is that what you're saying? That your HGA is the
entire universe? Be specific in your response.
> >> As I define KCHGA, it isn't possible to have an actual vision of
> >> your HGA with which you can communicate.
>
> > -shrugs- People talk to themselves all the time. Even if it's one's
> > True Self, it's a fairly common psychological phenomenon for people
> > to have apparent-third-person communications with themselves.
>
> Third-person communication with your HGA, as I define it, is impossible.
> Reality doesn't talk; it simply is what it is.
Your definition is not my concern. I already demonstrated exactly what
I was talking about, and why I was in fact correct. If you believe
that what I said was INcorrect as a psychological phenomenon, then be
specific in explaining the correct answer.
It's one thing to offer a proper rebuttal, but so far all we've heard
from you is "NUH UH!!!11!!!" and that's just not good enough.
> > So, seriously son - tell me what you believe the HGA actually is.
>
> I already have.
No, in fact you have not.
Tom
>
> "The Abyss" is also a very inept description of the experience, as it
> evokes the image of a road passing through a desert, interrupted by a
> chasm in the earth but continuing on the opposite side. This naturally
> leads to the presumption that the Abyss is merely a challenge to be
> overcome, and then life continues as before, yet nothing could be
> farther from the truth.
>
> The Abyss is more like this: Your road passes through a desert, but at
> this point the road proceeds directly up the face of a cliff. You most
> definitely have to stop and either stay, go back, or figure out how to
> travel this new road. On the flats, you could afford to think in two
> dimensional terms, but now you have to learn to think in three
> dimensions before you can even begin to proceed. One could accurately
> say that it's merely a shift in perspective, much the same as babies
> make at the age of four to six months when they develop depth
> perception, or when man learned to make flying machines.
>
> One could *say* it's "merely a shift in perspective", but so was the
> difference that set apart men like Leonardo DaVinci.
>
> So, how does the Exempt Adept make his Crossing?
Clearly, from all you're saying here, he doesn't "cross" at all.
There's no other side to reach. What is beyond the Abyss is ineffable
to any language. We simply cannot talk about it in anything like a
direct way. The best we can manage is grossly inaccurate metaphors,
which is exactly what we get from any discussion of the states of
consciousness, the "ranks" of Magister Templi, Magus, and Ipsissimus,
represented by the Supernals.
Tom
> On Dec 20, 8:32 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 19, 11:21 pm, separatus <separatus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You are right. I should have been more clear. I used the phrase "in
> > > vision form". It would be more accurate to say the more specific
> > > phrase Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. A more
> > > direct description would be the experience of the Awareness that lies
> > > behind the personality construct commonly referred to as "me".
>
> > The problem here is that the phrase "Knowledge and Conversation of the
> > Holy Guardian Angel" is anything *but* specific. It's extremely
> > ambiguous.
>
> Not at all. Back in Abramelin's day, their understanding of the human
> psyche was extremely limited. Since you clearly haven't read "The
> Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", you
> simply don't have the background in psychology to understand this.
In fact, I have read it, quite a long time ago, when it was all the
rage for a brief time. In fact, it's now old hat and does not
represent much of the way evolutionary psychology is understood
today. You're stuck in the '70's Ludwig.
> Abramelin was doing the best he could with limited understanding -
> that does NOT in any way negate the enormity of the experience when a
> person encounters the truth of himself as a spiritual being. The idea
> was that every person had a Holy Guardian Angel, and through ritual
> means could achieve knowledge of, and conversation with, this Angel to
> receive truth. It's an extremely simple concept for anyone who's had
> even high school psychology.
Just like '60's mind-guru Jean Houston channelling Eleanor Roosevelt.
High school autosuggestion stuff. Ouija boards and Victorian women
with "the vapors" doing automatic writing.
Ludwig Prinn
> On Dec 20, 12:08 pm, Ludwig Prinn <masterpr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "The Abyss" is also a very inept description of the experience, as it
> > evokes the image of a road passing through a desert, interrupted by a
> > chasm in the earth but continuing on the opposite side. This naturally
> > leads to the presumption that the Abyss is merely a challenge to be
> > overcome, and then life continues as before, yet nothing could be
> > farther from the truth.
>
> > The Abyss is more like this: Your road passes through a desert, but at
> > this point the road proceeds directly up the face of a cliff. You most
> > definitely have to stop and either stay, go back, or figure out how to
> > travel this new road. On the flats, you could afford to think in two
> > dimensional terms, but now you have to learn to think in three
> > dimensions before you can even begin to proceed. One could accurately
> > say that it's merely a shift in perspective, much the same as babies
> > make at the age of four to six months when they develop depth
> > perception, or when man learned to make flying machines.
>
> > One could *say* it's "merely a shift in perspective", but so was the
> > difference that set apart men like Leonardo DaVinci.
>
> > So, how does the Exempt Adept make his Crossing?
>
> Clearly, from all you're saying here, he doesn't "cross" at all.
> There's no other side to reach.
Not precisely. It's progress in a new dimension, after a fashion. The
shift in perspective is most definitely an obstacle to be overcome,
but it can only be done through dramatic change in one's
consciousness. It's not an "abyss" as such, but it might as well be.
> What is beyond the Abyss is ineffable
> to any language.
Not so. The Abyss experience and what follows after can in fact be
articulated by any who has made his Crossing, and understood by those
who share his experience, but since the requisite shift in perspective
is so dramatic there is a strong tendency for any such communication
to be misunderstood. It's as if you speak in code, and some can
understand you while others cannot. It can certainly be "dumbed down"
enough for intelligent people to grasp, but if you really want to
understand it, you're going to need to do it.
> We simply cannot talk about it in anything like a
> direct way. The best we can manage is grossly inaccurate metaphors,
> which is exactly what we get from any discussion of the states of
> consciousness, the "ranks" of Magister Templi, Magus, and Ipsissimus,
> represented by the Supernals.
I disagree. There are some very apt metaphors for the experience.
Ludwig Prinn
> On Dec 20, 12:20 pm, Ludwig Prinn <masterpr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > The problem here is that the phrase "Knowledge and Conversation of the
> > > Holy Guardian Angel" is anything *but* specific. It's extremely
> > > ambiguous.
>
> > Not at all. Back in Abramelin's day, their understanding of the human
> > psyche was extremely limited. Since you clearly haven't read "The
> > Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", you
> > simply don't have the background in psychology to understand this.
>
> In fact, I have read it, quite a long time ago, when it was all the
> rage for a brief time. In fact, it's now old hat and does not
> represent much of the way evolutionary psychology is understood
> today. You're stuck in the '70's Ludwig.
Got the dance moves and KCHGA to prove it, too.
The fact of the matter is that, while you may consider the phrase to
be misleading, the texts which USE that phrase are quite specific in
terms of what it means.
> > Abramelin was doing the best he could with limited understanding -
> > that does NOT in any way negate the enormity of the experience when a
> > person encounters the truth of himself as a spiritual being. The idea
> > was that every person had a Holy Guardian Angel, and through ritual
> > means could achieve knowledge of, and conversation with, this Angel to
> > receive truth. It's an extremely simple concept for anyone who's had
> > even high school psychology.
>
> Just like '60's mind-guru Jean Houston channelling Eleanor Roosevelt.
> High school autosuggestion stuff. Ouija boards and Victorian women
> with "the vapors" doing automatic writing.
Yes, it's very much like automatic writing and other "spiritist"
activities - tapping into the deeper levels of mind to access
information unavailable to the conscious mind. After all, some part of
you knows who you are and who you were when you were born. All you
need to do it ask yourself who you are, and yourself will tell you.
Unfortunately, even something so simple gets muddled with tradition,
religion and the speculation of armchair scholars.
Tom
The Abyss is that which is beyond anything we can represent in our
minds. It is a void. If we are conceiving the other side of the
Abyss, it's because the abyss we are envisioning is just a
representation of the Abyss, a concept in our minds that we can
manipulate at will. So no matter what fashion we choose to envision
it, the other side we envision is not the other side of the Abyss.
It's just the otherside of some visualization of the Abyss. That is
exactly the kind of thing I thought you were getting at when you
saidpeople had "the image of a road passing through a desert,
interrupted by a chasm in the earth but continuing on the opposite
side." With that I agree. With your attempt to place another side on
it by "shifting your perspective" is just a way of confusing your
mental image of a chasm in the road with the Abyss.
> > What is beyond the Abyss is ineffable
> > to any language.
>
> Not so. The Abyss experience and what follows after can in fact be
> articulated by any who has made his Crossing, and understood by those
> who share his experience, but since the requisite shift in perspective
> is so dramatic there is a strong tendency for any such communication
> to be misunderstood.
That's where you and I disagree and neither of us has anything but our
say-so to support it. It's simply untestable. Perhaps you like to
flatter yourself that you have attained some wonderful state of
consciousness by having imagined yourself crossing some abyss in your
mind, but that cuts no ice with me any more than my assertion that
what lies within or beyond the Abyss is ineffable cuts any ice with
you. Nor does claiming that those in your mutual admiration society
all like to flatter each other about your lofty spiritual attainments
cut any ice with me either.
Tom
> On Dec 20, 5:32 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> > In fact, I have read it, quite a long time ago, when it was all the
> > rage for a brief time. In fact, it's now old hat and does not
> > represent much of the way evolutionary psychology is understood
> > today. You're stuck in the '70's Ludwig.
>
> Got the dance moves and KCHGA to prove it, too.
I would absolutely love to see your attempt to "prove" that you have
had Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. Start
dancing, Ludwig.
> > > Abramelin was doing the best he could with limited understanding -
> > > that does NOT in any way negate the enormity of the experience when a
> > > person encounters the truth of himself as a spiritual being. The idea
> > > was that every person had a Holy Guardian Angel, and through ritual
> > > means could achieve knowledge of, and conversation with, this Angel to
> > > receive truth. It's an extremely simple concept for anyone who's had
> > > even high school psychology.
>
> > Just like '60's mind-guru Jean Houston channelling Eleanor Roosevelt.
> > High school autosuggestion stuff. Ouija boards and Victorian women
> > with "the vapors" doing automatic writing.
>
> Yes, it's very much like automatic writing and other "spiritist"
> activities - tapping into the deeper levels of mind to access
> information unavailable to the conscious mind.
Equine defecation.
> After all, some part of
> you knows who you are and who you were when you were born.
All of that is mere story-telling. And mostly fiction besides. The
stories change over time. Memory and fantasy conjoin because they
both spring from the same source. The notion of a continuous self is
a neurological confabulation.
separatus
Nor does claiming that those in your mutual admiration society
> all like to flatter each other about your lofty spiritual attainments
> cut any ice with me either.
Did I miss something? Let's chalk this up to a misunderstanding and
move on. Someone has already demonstrated admirably this sort of thing
doesn't go anywhere.
separatus
> I would absolutely love to see your attempt to "prove" that you have
> had Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. Start
> dancing, Ludwig.
believe him, don't. Why turn it into some sort of combat?
> All of that is mere story-telling. And mostly fiction besides. The
> stories change over time. Memory and fantasy conjoin because they
> both spring from the same source. The notion of a continuous self is
> a neurological confabulation.
That's an interesting notion. Are you referring to the notion of a
continuous consciousness that exists unbroken outside of the meat
popsicle we call a body, or are you referring to something else?
Absorbed
> On Dec 20, 4:56 pm, Absorbed <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Ludwig Prinn wrote:
>
>>> The HGA is "reality"?
>> If you want to analyse the phrase KCHGA, yes.
>
> That doesn't actually *say* anything, though. You claim that
> "reality" is your personal HGA. Are you referring to reality itself,
> every scrap of matter, every galaxy and ameoba and shiny red button
> is your personal god? Or are you simply trying to weasel out of
> being specific? Because so far you haven't actually *said* anything
> that can be quantified as "an answer".
If you want to understand what I mean by "reality", ask.
Jabbering like a drama queen just makes you look like an idiot.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
-- Phillip K. Dick
See below for further elaboration.
>>> That's a mighty vague assessment there, son. You're making
>>> proclamations that *sound* as if they actually have content and
>>> are relevant, yet actually saying nothing.
>> It's not a vague sentence without content to me, but then the
>> meanings I attribute to the words aren't necessarily the same as
>> you, and perhaps you lack the insight to understand.
>
> If you have a thought in your head, it is the mark of an educated
> mind to clearly express it. You cannot blame me for your incoherence,
> nor can you obfuscate the issue enough to snow me into thinking you
> actually have an answer to my question.
You didn't consider what my sentence meant; you just
stated, without offering any explanation, that it was vague and without
content. Then, only a post later, you *did* begin to consider what it
meant by asking what I meant by "reality". If you weren't so determined
to posture you would have asked one post sooner.
>>> Or are you talking about the "reality of Self"? That's a whole
>>> different concept, and something I've already posted.
>> I'm not talking about the "reality of Self", whatever you consider
>> that to be.
>
> Okay, so then you're talking about "All of Reality", meaning the
> entire universe. Is that what you're saying? That your HGA is the
> entire universe? Be specific in your response.
Reality only exists in the present moment. That means that reality isn't
all the galaxies that make up the physical universe, but just one's
experience of the physical universe in the present moment.
>>>> As I define KCHGA, it isn't possible to have an actual vision
>>>> of your HGA with which you can communicate.
>>> -shrugs- People talk to themselves all the time. Even if it's
>>> one's True Self, it's a fairly common psychological phenomenon
>>> for people to have apparent-third-person communications with
>>> themselves.
>> Third-person communication with your HGA, as I define it, is
>> impossible. Reality doesn't talk; it simply is what it is.
>
> Your definition is not my concern.
You inquired about my definition both when you asked "The HGA is
"reality"?" and just before you wrote this. If you're not concerned
about my definition, why are you continually inquiring about it?
> I already demonstrated exactly what I was talking about, and why I
> was in fact correct. If you believe that what I said was INcorrect as
> a psychological phenomenon, then be specific in explaining the
> correct answer.
I don't consider what you said to be incorrect as a psychological
phenomenon: I don't doubt that you evoke what you call your HGA and that
you believe it accurately represents what you call your true self.
> It's one thing to offer a proper rebuttal, but so far all we've heard
> from you is "NUH UH!!!11!!!" and that's just not good enough.
After inquiring about my definitions of "HGA" and "reality", you
suddenly decided that they were no longer your concern, and now you
expect me to have offered a refutation of your beliefs. It seems I need
to remind you that we've been discussing my position and definitions,
not yours.
Ludwig Prinn
> > Not precisely. It's progress in a new dimension, after a fashion. The
> > shift in perspective is most definitely an obstacle to be overcome,
> > but it can only be done through dramatic change in one's
> > consciousness. It's not an "abyss" as such, but it might as well be.
>
> The Abyss is that which is beyond anything we can represent in our
> minds.
No it's not.
> It is a void.
Well golly, which is it? Is it beyond description or is it a void?
Because a void is not beyond description.
> If we are conceiving the other side of the
> Abyss, it's because the abyss we are envisioning is just a
> representation of the Abyss, a concept in our minds that we can
> manipulate at will.
No, you have it all wrong. I was quite clear in my explanation. The
"Abyss" itself is not an actual thing to be represented - it's a point
at which we have to shift perspectives in order to continue, no more
and no less. Those who believe they can "manipulate" this idea have
not actually encountered the perspective shift in question. A man who
is used to walking will have to change his modus operandi when he
comes to the ocean - he will either sail or fly because he cannot
proceed in the manner to which he has become accustomed. Thus, when a
mage comes to the grade of Exempt Adept, he cannot proceed without
shifting his perspective dramatically.
> So no matter what fashion we choose to envision
> it, the other side we envision is not the other side of the Abyss.
> It's just the otherside of some visualization of the Abyss. That is
> exactly the kind of thing I thought you were getting at when you
> saidpeople had "the image of a road passing through a desert,
> interrupted by a chasm in the earth but continuing on the opposite
> side." With that I agree.
But that would be wrong, and I clearly stated that. The path of the
Magister does not continue in the same vein as that of the Adept,
chasm or no. There is no progress beyond that point without learning
to move in an entirely new direction.
> With your attempt to place another side on
> it by "shifting your perspective" is just a way of confusing your
> mental image of a chasm in the road with the Abyss.
Read over that again, tom. I think you'll see that I said something
quite different.
> > > What is beyond the Abyss is ineffable
> > > to any language.
>
> > Not so. The Abyss experience and what follows after can in fact be
> > articulated by any who has made his Crossing, and understood by those
> > who share his experience, but since the requisite shift in perspective
> > is so dramatic there is a strong tendency for any such communication
> > to be misunderstood.
>
> That's where you and I disagree and neither of us has anything but our
> say-so to support it.
We've had this go-round several times, tom, and each time it comes to
the same thing. You situate yourself disagreeing with me, while those
of us here who have actually made our individual Crossings all come to
the conclusion that you're an idiot. Please spare us the usual and go
in a different direction this time.
> It's simply untestable. Perhaps you like to
> flatter yourself that you have attained some wonderful state of
> consciousness by having imagined yourself crossing some abyss in your
> mind, but that cuts no ice with me any more than my assertion that
> what lies within or beyond the Abyss is ineffable cuts any ice with
> you.
The difference is that your assertion is a negative, which is
unprovable. Mine is a positive, and has been verified by other Masters
who recognize the tone of my posts and are recognized in turn. If you
haven't done the work, you simply cannot understand.
Yes tom, perhaps to you this is in fact ineffable.
> Nor does claiming that those in your mutual admiration society
> all like to flatter each other about your lofty spiritual attainments
> cut any ice with me either.
-smoochies-
Patrick Schaaf
>separatus <separa...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> The First Noble Truth: there is suffering, the world is impermanent.
>> In our terms, this truth expresses the mundane truth that all things
>> are empty of inherent existence, they are conditioned and relative.
>> Because we cling to them as if they were permanent and substantial,
>> suffering is the inevitable consequence.
>I would't call it a "mundane truth" that all things are empty. The
>worldly view is rather the opposite, seeing meaning in even random
>occurrences.
Yes, but think twice. You use "worldly" (aka "mundane") in the
usual meaning of "what humans usually think". But those are truths
of humans, not truths of the real world at large. There is no chairness
in the physical composition of the chair I sit on. The chairness is in me,
as is the thing called chair. In the real world, the chair's atoms, or
whatever really constitutes it, don't know or care that I sit on them.
The real chair is empty of all the attributes I usually label it with.
best regards
Patrick
BBDD
You the assessment of a common tree by one who is more than just
physically blind. HGA references something actual that manifests in
many ways, therefore will naturally have many different perspectives.
Surely you have heard the story of the three blind men who are
describing an elephant by feel. To one blind man it is a serpent as he
feels the trunk. To another, it is a rope as he feels the tail. The
third blind man knows it is a tree, as he feels the leg. NO! It is not
a damp cave. You fascist pretenders who use this material to feel all
special about yourselves need to yank your heads out of the elephant’s
ass.
Monkey Mind
The details vary significantly, but on a more abstract level, I find
more similarities than differences, even between East and West.
I'm fine with discussing the details of specific systems, if that's
the topic of this thread. That's why I asked.
Monkey Mind
> monke...@hactrn.ch (Monkey Mind) writes:
>
>> I would't call it a "mundane truth" that all things are empty. The
>> worldly view is rather the opposite, seeing meaning in even random
>> occurrences.
>
> Yes, but think twice. You use "worldly" (aka "mundane") in the
> usual meaning of "what humans usually think". But those are truths
> of humans, not truths of the real world at large. There is no chairness
> in the physical composition of the chair I sit on. The chairness is in me,
> as is the thing called chair. In the real world, the chair's atoms, or
> whatever really constitutes it, don't know or care that I sit on them.
> The real chair is empty of all the attributes I usually label it with.
It's a reversal of the meaning I'm accustomed with - "mundane" and
"worldly" as opposed to "supramundane" or "behind the world": in the
human world which we create around ourselves, there are chairs, while
in the microscopic reality "behind" this world, there are only
particles and forces.
BBDD
> BBDD <baudab...@gmail.com> writes:
> > ... the transcendence is enough to get you there and actually
> > contains all of the philosophical content in the experience itself.
>
> I agree with this.
>
> > One transcends NEVER philosophically, but by going past intensified
> > attention.
>
> This kind of attention can be paid to philosophy as well, of course.
> Not my way of doing it, but should be possible, judging from the
> remaining writings of the ancient philosophers (and some more recent
> ones, as well).
>
> It strikes me as odd how a few posts ago you were ranting against
> meditation, which has the same potential for "intensified attention"
> after all.
>
> Florian
>
> --
> Every man passes out of life as if he had just been born.
> -- Epicurus (Vatican Sayings 60)
Two in this thread have broken the law and conspired to extort
compliance through threats. They knowingly placed innocent
individuals, even complete strangers to me, in harms way. This is a
warning. Be very careful what you say in these threads with either
Alrah or Separatus participating. It would be easy to be swept into
being part of a conspiracy that breaks some obscure law. Being online
can veil you from consequences, but conspiracy charges are not one of
them. It is referred to as “misusing a computer” but is in reference
to anything online. It can get you banned from the web as it did
recently with the case of an older woman who prank posted to a young
girl of 14 who committed suicide as a result. That case was in the
news just yesterday because it has spawned many lawsuits, criminal
charges, and new laws being written over similar scenarios with
results less dramatic than suicide.
separatus
> If you want to understand what I mean by "reality", ask.
> Jabbering like a drama queen just makes you look like an idiot.
I'll ask... What are you defining "reality" as?
separatus
> > to any language.
> Not so. The Abyss experience and what follows after can in fact be
> articulated by any who has made his Crossing, and understood by
those
> who share his experience, but since the requisite shift in
perspective
> is so dramatic there is a strong tendency for any such
communication
> to be misunderstood.
Ineffable is a nice way of saying that someone doesn't have the
vocabulary to provide a reasonably approximation. Let me try to couch
the process in somewhat less poetic language for discussion. In the
grade of Exempt Adept, the individual seeks the Knowledge and
Conversation. The K&C is understood to be a recognition, a communion
if you will, of the complete Self as compared to the conscious self.
The Self is independent of the adept's memories, knowledge and
emotions.
The Abyss experience may be understood as the struggle to integrate
the Shadow into the conscious self. These are the remaining
unconscious and superconscious aspects which have been suppressed.
Crowley represented this in his writings as having to fight the
dweller in the Abyss, and his prose was ultimately a disservice to
those who didn't understand the symbols he used and eventually created
an entire body of misleading or incorrect interpretations. The
experience is typically not pleasant but the severity varies with the
accomplishment of the adept as well as the timeframe he consciously or
unconsciously forces the process along. In one psychological system
this transition reflects elements of both Stage Six and Stage Seven
personalities (remember, different standards apply).
The transition to the Master of the Temple is the successful
completion of this integration. Note I did not say combat with or
defeat of the Shadow. The oft-touted annhiliation of that which limits
the true self is not the lobotomizing of the personality. Nor is it
some grand reconfiguration of the personality into a new hierarchy.
Rather, instead of a rigid personality structure (reinforced by the
disciplines undertaken in this process), the personality is more
loosely coupled. Instead of conscious and suppressed desires in dual
hierarchies of need (and only one consciously being worked with), a
single network of personality traits is present. As such, a Magister
is still aware to feel emotions and other aspects recognizable to
others. However, attempting to determine actual motivations of a
Magister when he or she acts will be a difficult or impossible task.
The Magister may destroy what he has built, or may choose to engage in
what may be perceived as irrational adventures. However, if one isn't
a Master of the Temple one really has no business attempting to judge
another Master in any event.
Thoughts?
Absorbed
I posted a Philip K. Dick's quote defining reality and elaborated on it
in the same post that you've quoted above.
separatus
If I missed it I apologize. I'll look it up.
separatus
> > On Dec 20, 11:08 pm, Absorbed <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote:
away."
-- Phillip K. Dick
Fair enough. I always enjoyed his short stories. However, to stop
believing in something means that an element of doubt caused you to
review and re-assess a judgement that you had already made. That is
what the processes described in this thread lead to. By encountering
the complete Self and integrating yourself as a more complete entity,
a necessary by-product or dare I say a precondition for that process
is a systemic re-assessment in light of the new development?
BBDD
No one, like separatus, so coarse and common as to commit crimes of
terrorist extortion is capable of even beginning to comprehend this
subject. He is using the Great Work to seduce children into
worshipping his ego. He is flopping his pathetic member out in
compulsive exhibitionism. No one that pathetic will ever have a clue.
Absorbed
> On Dec 21, 1:07 pm, Absorbed <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 20, 11:08 pm, Absorbed <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go
> away."
> -- Phillip K. Dick
>
> Fair enough. I always enjoyed his short stories. However, to stop
> believing in something means that an element of doubt caused you to
> review and re-assess a judgement that you had already made.
If someone stabbed you in the leg, there is no judgment involved in the
pain experienced. Assuming you're not somehow anesthetized, it doesn't
matter whether you think to yourself "I'm experiencing pain" or "I'm not
experiencing pain", those thoughts are independent of the actual
experience of pain. If you're experiencing pain, you'll experience it
regardless of what you believe.
separatus
> If someone stabbed you in the leg, there is no judgment involved in the
> pain experienced. Assuming you're not somehow anesthetized, it doesn't
> matter whether you think to yourself "I'm experiencing pain" or "I'm not
> experiencing pain", those thoughts are independent of the actual
> experience of pain. If you're experiencing pain, you'll experience it
> regardless of what you believe.
You are correct. I did not frame my response to include a physical
example. It was an oversight but a reasonable one since this isn't a
trauma support thread or a medical thread. My answer was confined to
the general realm of psychology and more specifically self
individuation. Now that I have admitted my oversight, what would you
be willing to contribute to the thoughts I offered?
BBDD
WRONG. Pain is commonly mind managed. You morons don't know enough to
be discussing this and such malarkey can be harmful. It is not what I
would call "belief" but I use mental pain management and the local
hospital has classes in using things like yoga to manage pain. Any
with such problems, please remember these are just perverts trolling
for victims and don't have a clue what they are talking about.
Absorbed
Nothing. :)
Absorbed
> On Dec 21, 4:00 pm, Absorbed <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> If someone stabbed you in the leg, there is no judgment involved in the
>> pain experienced. Assuming you're not somehow anesthetized, it doesn't
>> matter whether you think to yourself "I'm experiencing pain" or "I'm not
>> experiencing pain", those thoughts are independent of the actual
>> experience of pain. If you're experiencing pain, you'll experience it
>> regardless of what you believe.
>
> WRONG. Pain is commonly mind managed.
If you're experiencing pain in the present moment, then you're
experiencing pain, dipshit. "Mind management" doesn't enter into it.
Being an absolute dimwit, it's not surprising that you've failed to
understand.
BBDD
It is not that I don't understand. I do. It is that having a great
deal of direct experience with it and involved in the local hospitals
pain management program I just value the opinion of professionals in
the medical community more than the mere opinion of you perverts
trolling for little boys.
Tom
A discussion of the nature must necessarily include all of what is
real, not just what one feels to be real. Thus to exclude physical
interactions from the discussion is to lose sight of the point.
The "self" as a continuous being, extending from birth to beyond
death, is something that goes away when you don't believe in it. This
"self" is not real.
BBDD
It is common knowledge that pain is relative. I can be shut out or
adjusted to. The pain you experience as a pussy is not the same as
that a man of experience who has endured high levels of pain
experiences. It isn't even magick ~ just common sense ~ pussy.
BBDD
The self is also largely determined by character. These perverts
resort to criminal acts to extort compliance. Add to that they
plagiarize everything they say just to troll for little boys. Self is
more than the deviant ego these idiots take to be self.
Tom
I offer Allan as an example of what's real under Philip Dick's
definition. Allan must be real, because absolutely nobody believes
him and he's still here. He's not what he says he is, but he's real
nonetheless.
separatus
> I offer Allan as an example of what's real under Philip Dick's
> definition. Allan must be real, because absolutely nobody believes
> him and he's still here. He's not what he says he is, but he's real
> nonetheless.
Is he still ranting?
He reminds me of the classic question:
If BBDD is alone in the forest, and falls down, and nobody is present
to observe the event...
does anybody care?
separatus
> A discussion of the nature must necessarily include all of what is
> real, not just what one feels to be real. Thus to exclude physical
> interactions from the discussion is to lose sight of the point.
>
> The "self" as a continuous being, extending from birth to beyond
> death, is something that goes away when you don't believe in it. This
> "self" is not real.
Tom, I must stop here to recognize this as an excellent point on
several levels. I'd like to specifically point that out because there
is an unfortunate tendency to emphasize the negative due to the
somewhat combative events of the last day or two, and I want to hear
your thoughts on this subject. Please expand on the topic you
presented above, as it is extremely pertinent.
Alrah
> On Dec 20, 7:10 am, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The knowledge and conversation of the HGA is called so because the
> > Awareness communicates it's knowledge directly and is very distinctly
> > different in quality from common visual or auditory hallucinations.
>
> I would also suggest that the experience of truly encountering the
> Self is absolutely communication. Not in words, or even emotions. It's
> about recognition as self being distinct from Self. The Self has no
> memories or emotions of the self; it is complete in and of itself, and
> stands outside and untouched.
As I was having my early morning coffee I was thinking about what you
said about "The Self has no memories or emotions of the self", and it
set me off wondering about the Akashic record. Now I know that the
self is completely naked to the Self but I hadn't quite twigged that
everyone's selves are also naked to everyone elses Selves. Well, as I
was tossing my imaginary privacy out of the window (again) it occurred
to me that this probably accounts for the seemingly whimsical at times
actions of an MT. Any thoughts about that? :)
BBDD
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is interesting that I post evidence of self and accomplishment in
photos and a sites while none others here do. That is more solid
evidence of what is real, than any of you getting plagiarizing wrong
while fishing for little boys.
Monkey Mind
> I do not rant against meditation. I do against thinking it is any more
> effective than Escher coming to transcendence through intensified
> attention to his work.
I never expressed the point of view that e.g. Escher's way of honing
his attention and investigation was to be despised. However, I
observe that your comments on meditation, such as those a few
sentences further down in this post to which I'm responding right now,
come across as denigrating.
> This is the NEW WAY COMING: To be whole and productive and achieve
> transcendence in intensified attention to life endeavors ~ whether
> it be etching or adopting the severely disabled.
If your point is that "real life" is an inseparable part of practice,
well, that point was made long ago, and can be found in any real
tradition.
> Meditating is a substitute for the decadent and non creative. If it
> works and that is all the life you have to pay intensified attention
> to, go for it.
Thank you for the kind permission. :)
> Being productive is naturally superior.
Dangling comparatives are interesting to contemplate.
BBDD
Try to understand something. They are meant to be denigrating ~ but as
part of a greater stratagem. I use meditation both in art and to
combat pain. The comments are to get you to THINK IN A NEW WAY. I
speak to centers when I write ~ when I speak, for that matter. If one
speaks across centers (in emotive center as well as cogent center) a
certain inevitable digestion occurs. What incites you now will be food
later. Don’t fret it like the idiots here and you will be fine.
separatus
Actually, I had already made a comment regarding that yesterday
afternoon. I believed I used the term irrational adventures.
Tom
> On Dec 21, 6:53 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > I offer Allan as an example of what's real under Philip Dick's
> > definition. Allan must be real, because absolutely nobody believes
> > him and he's still here. He's not what he says he is, but he's real
> > nonetheless
>
> photos and a sites while none others here do.
You posted a bunch of outlandish and unbelieveable claims in order to
artificially bolster traffic on your incredibly lame website. To the
extent that empty claims are evidence, you have posted "evidence" of a
sort, but nothing that anybody would ever take seriously.
> That is more solid
> evidence of what is real, than any of you getting plagiarizing wrong
> while fishing for little boys.
I wonder why you seem so obsessed with "fishing for little boys". You
keep accusing everyone of it despite the complete lack of any evidence
for its veracity, Some problems from your past, I suspect.
Tom
>
> Try to understand something. They are meant to be denigrating ~ but as
> part of a greater stratagem. I use meditation both in art and to
> combat pain.
Trying to be a pain in the ass to others is no way to "combat" your
own pain. In fact, it serves only to amplify it.
> The comments are to get you to THINK IN A NEW WAY.
Isn't that a coincidence? Everybody else is commenting to *you* for
exactly he same reason. To encourage *you* to think in a new way.
You don't seem up to it, though. It's unlikely that one can encourage
someone who lacks courage in the first place.
separatus
> actions of an MT. Any thoughts about that? :)
Here's a re-post from yesterday where this subject is mentioned.
hmmmmhhhh.... Maybe I should expand on this a bit....
separatus
> The transition to the Master of the Temple is the successful
> completion of this integration. Note I did not say combat with or
> defeat of the Shadow. The oft-touted annhiliation of that which limits
> the true self is not the lobotomizing of the personality. Nor is it
> some grand reconfiguration of the personality into a new hierarchy.
> Rather, instead of a rigid personality structure (reinforced by the
> disciplines undertaken in this process), the personality is more
> loosely coupled. Instead of conscious and suppressed desires in dual
> hierarchies of need (and only one consciously being worked with), a
> single network of personality traits is present. As such, a Magister
> is still aware to feel emotions and other aspects recognizable to
> others. However, attempting to determine actual motivations of a
> Magister when he or she acts will be a difficult or impossible task.
> The Magister may destroy what he has built, or may choose to engage in
> what may be perceived as irrational adventures. However, if one isn't
> a Master of the Temple one really has no business attempting to judge
> another Master in any event.
>
> hmmmmhhhh.... Maybe I should expand on this a bit....
Let's review a bit here. For some, the concept of a Master of the
Temple is that they become some sort of magical Mister Spock, serenely
contemplating the world and gazing at his or her navel. For some, they
become the divine Madman, causing chaos in Dionysian joy (be sure to
review Nietzsche). For some, the MoT changes the ground rules of the
world and for some they destroy paradigms. All are true, but only
partly true and therefore the MoT is all and none of them.
Crowley became one, and his organization splintered into warring
factions split among several lines including theists, LHP and even
some RHP groups. LaVey had some well-public adventures of his own.
Frater Achad and Emperor Norton made sweeping changes to their
philosophies. These caused tremendous upheavals to their respective
organizations (if any). However, they act on different sources of
inspiration and information than others. If the President decides to
send a SWAT team to a house in Texas and grab everyone there, it is
reasonable to understand that the President has access to information
that we as citizens aren't privy to and that he or she had a damn good
reason for sending in troops to bring about his will. We may not
understand the reasons, but we trust that all will become clear when
the dust settles. If someone has spent that amount of time and energy
to bring these changes about in themselves and decides to make a
sweeping change in their philosophies, change the goal of an
organization or even abandon his previous philosophies in pursuit of
another, those who haven't reached a similar level of understanding
must trust that the MoT has a good reason for their actions.
BBDD
This is entirely wrong ~ such would be expected from one so childish
as to attack total strangers thinking they are me. Separatus has no
clue because he can't get his head out of his pants. He apparently has
no idea what the temple is, let alone, master of the temple. He is
misguiding more out of stupidity than his attempt to seduce young boys
in this particular case. We are each the temple. The Work is to become
master over the multiplicity of self. If more than one, we have not
succeeded yet. There is never more than one master within us and that,
very rarely. Certainly not in one as perverted and childish as
separatus, as his imaginary challenge to magical combat with me
demonstrated.
BBDD
>
> - Show quoted text -
LeVay never even pretended to be serious. All he did was a scam for
money. He admitted this. Even then, he was the laughing stock of the
neighborhood. We had group snickers when he would leave the room. MoT
is not external. It deals only with observing self and multiplicity of
self. LHP and RHP groups are illusionary ~ merely one of many pit
traps set for fools who can't get it right.
separatus
I apparently forgot to reactivate the killfile. Are you still going
on?
I would like to courteously remind you I never challenged you to
magical combat. In fact, I was quite specific that I would not counter
in any way, and merely offered myself as as a target for your venom
out of curiosity. I was curious as to whether you would actually
attempt it, and a second motive was because I wondered if you could
actually attempt to focus your will. I personally doubted it, but
since you were so childish as to actually crow about your fantasized
familiar surgically opening the arteries of those who had crossed you
I was sure you might actually attempt something.
Instead, I have discovered to my surprise that I am trolling for
little boys. I am also apparently an accomplished pedophile in
general. And that I am a fascist. And that I have threatened your
family. And your little girl. And I am deliberately misleading others
from the path. Normally I would be dismayed at all of these
relevations, but at least I can rest in good company since everyone
else on the board is apparently guilty of the same things.
Did I miss anything else that I am also? I wouldn't want to be accused
of a faulty memory in addition to the others!
Absorbed
It seems this post has been avoided by BBDD. I suspect that this is one
of his super-clever troll tactics. It's fucking pathetic.
BBDD
>
> - Show quoted text -
WRONG! Not everyone, but those who so blatantly plagiarize content
about the Great Work while obviously not even comprehending the first
thing about it to the detriment of readers who visit here are perverts
trolling. No one sincere takes this supject matter to public boards
not there own. Idiot, you do not comprehend how these boards work.
When they liven up, as they do when I post, more people view them and
post to them. On average only 5% or less hits (views) to any board
post to it. No one cares about you in the circle jerk posting. You are
the patsies. One gets responses from them and gets there blood
pressure up only to stimulate the real discussion and sought for
response of those who happen to view but not post. Success is measured
in email response; some of the best ever.
BBDD
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes you did threaten my family. You even targeted some poor kid,
posting his photograph, thinking it me and implying he would get his
comeuppance because of the name of my site. Are you also going to deny
that you flat out ADMITTED to making prank phone calls tying up an
emergency response system?
separatus
> Yes you did threaten my family. You even targeted some poor kid,
> posting his photograph, thinking it me and implying he would get his
> comeuppance because of the name of my site. Are you also going to deny
> that you flat out ADMITTED to making prank phone calls tying up an
> emergency response system?
Did I? Compulsive paranoia is seldom an indicator of mental health. To
clarify things, I made no admission of prank calling you. I did state
that I called your number. This isn't a prank, this is because some
answering machines have to ring a while. Nobody answered, so I must
conclude you had been sent to bed by your parents. It should be
pointed out a phone call isn't a prank, or even a threat. Sometimes a
phone call is just a phone call.
Thank you for confirming you indeed did receive the phone call.
Incidentally, I'd be happy to show you the "cut" function so you can
in the future be able to only display the pertinent parts of previous
posts and not clutter up new ones unnecessarily.
separatus
> I'm fine with discussing the details of specific systems, if that's
> the topic of this thread. That's why I asked.
Fair enough. The entire text of the article is
http://www.integralscience.org/sacredscience/SS_sunyata.html, but here
is the complete Middle Way version of the Four Noble Truths"
The First Noble Truth: there is suffering, the world is impermanent.
In our terms, this truth expresses the mundane truth that all things
are empty of inherent existence, they are conditioned and relative.
Because we cling to them as if they were permanent and substantial,
suffering is the inevitable consequence.
The Second Noble Truth: there is a cause of suffering. The cause of
suffering is clinging to the relative as absolute, the conditioned as
unconditioned, the insubstantial as substantial. The ignorance of the
true emptiness or sunya-nature of things, the confusion of the real
and unreal, is the root error that leads to all suffering.
The Third Noble Truth: there is an end to suffering. Because even
emptiness is empty, because relativity and conditionedness themselves
are not absolute, suffering is not ultimate. While the mundane nature
of the conditioned is conditionedness, yet in its ultimate nature, the
conditioned is itself the undivided, unconditioned reality. While the
ultimate reality is beyond the distinctions that hold in the world of
the determinate, yet the ultimate reality is not wholly separate from
the determinate, but is the real nature of the determinate itself. It
is because we already are identical to the unconditioned reality that
we can recognize this truth and become liberated from the imagination
that we are otherwise, and thereby end our suffering.
The Fourth Noble Truth: there is a path that leads to the end of
suffering. The Middle Way is the non-exclusive way that destroys the
ignorance of clinging to the relative as absolute. Through the method
of criticism, extreme views are shown to lead to contradictions which
reveal the truth of sunyata with regard to all things. Ultimately,
even sunyata or relativity itself is denied as absolute, revealing the
unutterable unconditioned reality which is the ultimate nature of
ourselves and all things.
Ludwig Prinn
> > > What is beyond the Abyss is ineffable
> > > to any language.
>
> > Not so. The Abyss experience and what follows after can in fact be
> > articulated by any who has made his Crossing, and understood by
> those
> > who share his experience, but since the requisite shift in
> perspective
> > is so dramatic there is a strong tendency for any such
> communication
> > to be misunderstood.
>
> Ineffable is a nice way of saying that someone doesn't have the
> vocabulary to provide a reasonably approximation.
That's a great way of expressing it. I myself make it a point to eff
the ineffable.
And if you don't like it, eff you too.
> Let me try to couch
> the process in somewhat less poetic language for discussion. In the
> grade of Exempt Adept, the individual seeks the Knowledge and
> Conversation.
Actually Sep, that would be the grade of Adeptus Minor.
Splitting hairs, I know, but it's important to be very very specific
in discussions like this.
> The Abyss experience may be understood as the struggle to integrate
> the Shadow into the conscious self. These are the remaining
> unconscious and superconscious aspects which have been suppressed.
> Crowley represented this in his writings as having to fight the
> dweller in the Abyss, and his prose was ultimately a disservice to
> those who didn't understand the symbols he used and eventually created
> an entire body of misleading or incorrect interpretations.
I agree wholeheartedly. Crowley may have been doing the world a favour
at the time, but to continue using his outdated symbolism today is
every bit as foolish as clinging to Old Testament hygiene laws in the
age of modern medicine.
> The
> experience is typically not pleasant but the severity varies with the
> accomplishment of the adept as well as the timeframe he consciously or
> unconsciously forces the process along. In one psychological system
> this transition reflects elements of both Stage Six and Stage Seven
> personalities (remember, different standards apply).
Pretend for a moment I don't know what you're talking about. What
system are you referring to with "Stage Six" and such?
> The transition to the Master of the Temple is the successful
> completion of this integration. Note I did not say combat with or
> defeat of the Shadow. The oft-touted annhiliation of that which limits
> the true self is not the lobotomizing of the personality.
No, it's not! And that's where most book-learners go wrong - they
assume quite wrongly that the Abyss experience would leave the
Magister as some sort of gibbering vegetable, which would make it
counterproductive. Furthermore, how would anyone KNOW about the
experience if everyone going through it couldn't articulate what had
happened to them?
> Nor is it
> some grand reconfiguration of the personality into a new hierarchy.
> Rather, instead of a rigid personality structure (reinforced by the
> disciplines undertaken in this process), the personality is more
> loosely coupled. Instead of conscious and suppressed desires in dual
> hierarchies of need (and only one consciously being worked with), a
> single network of personality traits is present. As such, a Magister
> is still aware to feel emotions and other aspects recognizable to
> others. However, attempting to determine actual motivations of a
> Magister when he or she acts will be a difficult or impossible task.
> The Magister may destroy what he has built, or may choose to engage in
> what may be perceived as irrational adventures. However, if one isn't
> a Master of the Temple one really has no business attempting to judge
> another Master in any event.
>
> Thoughts?
Well, everyone has *their* perspective on anything around them, but
since the transition to Magister requires the dramatic shift in
dimensional perspective that it does, anyone observing a Master and
attempting to put him in perspective of a nonMaster would probably
come to the wrong conclusion.
Ludwig Prinn
> No one, like separatus, so coarse and common as to commit crimes of
> terrorist extortion is capable of even beginning to comprehend this
> subject. He is using the Great Work to seduce children into
> worshipping his ego. He is flopping his pathetic member out in
> compulsive exhibitionism. No one that pathetic will ever have a clue.
This is bordering on (and you'll want to consult a lawyer on this)
"Actionable Libel". You are making criminal accusations to accompany
your previous threats of elimination, and every challenge to your ego
results in you digging the hole deeper.
This is the point where you either need to put up, or shut up. You've
dug your hole deep enough, and you're pretty much out of insults to
hurl at people. You're now beginning to enter territory where you
could find yourself in *actual* trouble.
This is the point where you have a choice to make - are you going to
back up your threats and destroy Separatus, prove yourself by
presenting actual useful information to the group, or go ahead and
file actual charges to back up the criminal accusations you just made?
Your choice, kid. And I'm going to keep bringing you back to this
point.
Ludwig Prinn
> As I was having my early morning coffee I was thinking about what you
> said about "The Self has no memories or emotions of the self", and it
> set me off wondering about the Akashic record. Now I know that the
> self is completely naked to the Self but I hadn't quite twigged that
> everyone's selves are also naked to everyone elses Selves. Well, as I
> was tossing my imaginary privacy out of the window (again) it occurred
> to me that this probably accounts for the seemingly whimsical at times
> actions of an MT. Any thoughts about that? :)
This comes back to something I had said previously, that a Master can
recognize another Master. Usually it's by the way he speaks or the
images he uses, but more often than not it's just a "sense". Masters
recognize their own, due to their perception of Truth.
BBDD
No, answering machines do not wait for twelve rings. They wait at most
for 5 to 6 rings. You are recorded as having made multiple calls. Why
did you call? You have no reason to call any number related to me. It
is at the very least polite to get permission to make such personal
calls. My parents passed many years ago and in spite of you
endangering a total innocent child fresh out of high school, I am
elderly.
BBDD
>
> - Show quoted text -
These freaks a trolling for little boys again. They present no more
than misconstrued plagiarism. It only has enough substance to misguide
~ little boys no doubt. These idiots show off for baby Harry Potters.
None of this should be addressed on a public board because when in
error, as all that they present is, it can ruin for life a seekers
chance at the truth. It is even dangerous to correct them.
But, never think that the grades are external. There is no adeptus
minor, exempt adept, or master of the temple. It is an old broken
philosophical system poorly represented in the first place and totally
bastardized by these idiots. When reading about these things ELSEWHERE
try to understand that it has been a tradition for thousands of years
of presenting internal systems as allegorical external systems.
Discard all these idiots say and try and see, not how so much as what
portions are true within. Not all of it is; not even in the most
authentic accounts. There are other systems as well, that are more on
the mark to begin with and too wholesome for perverts like Ludwig and
separatus to be attracted to.
BBDD
“This comes back to something I had said previously, that a Master can
recognize another Master.”
This is the problem. Such phrasing is to glorify themselves in the
eyes of little boys. There is NO such Harry Potter world. There are,
of course, remarkable men. The whole “master” and adept grades are
allegorical of an internal operation. One who becomes master of self
measures his fellow man like any other ~ by there accomplishments.
Remarkable men achieve remarkable good. Mastering self is personal.
There are NO legitimate secret Harry Potter master brotherhoods. Just
masturbators like Ludwig and separatus is circle jerks.