Perspectives on RHP and LHP Thought
Tehiru
approaches the other day, and it occurred to me that the main
differences center around dualisms.
One basic assumption that forms the foundation of these belief systems
is whether the individual or organization in question subscribes to
the duality of absolute good and absolute evil. Right hand path
philosophies typically have a strong adherence to the belief in the
duality of absolute good and evil. Often this belief is shared by many
monotheistic religions and this certainty of absolute good or evil is
the foundation for rules of conduct and other practices that allow a
rigid standard of determining good and evil within a larger community.
By contrast, the left hand path stresses that good and evil are
relative, a continuum of shades of gray. This moral relativism means
that with exceptions moral judgments are largely personal
interpretations, leading to an acceptance of more flexible
interpretations of good and evil when considering personal acts or the
acts of others.
A second basic duality underlying the essential difference between
these two schools of thought is esoteric or exoteric authority. The
left hand path initiatory school of thought is esoteric, meaning that
it is tacitly or explicitly understood that the path to spiritual
perfection can be found by looking in and perfecting the self,
cultivating self-awareness by a growing understanding of one’s inner
nature and ultimate responsibility for success and failure is the sole
provenance of the practitioner. Others may provide guidelines or one
may choose to use an individual as an example, but it is a purely
personal choice.
By contrast, the right hand path series of thought is primarily
exoteric in nature, deriving validity from an outside source which is
typically a god/goddess or higher principle such as Justice. For
example, the right-hand religion of Christianity derives the validity
of their initiatory path by adherence to the principles exemplified by
Jesus Christ, with followers seeking to become more Christlike and
consequently more in accordance to His will. Although not always, the
mechanism of this relationship is submission to Jesus Christ, to
essentially become an avatar of him on earth. Some right-hand path
schools of thought combine elements of exoteric and esoteric
assumptions, such as various manifestations of Western ceremonial
orders such as the A. A. and others. In organizations of this type,
the same esoteric self-examination and self-perfection is explicitly
part and parcel of the initiatory process, but derives spiritual
authority and validity ultimately through exoteric means.
The third and final major distinction between right hand and left hand
path is the status of the ego in the practice of the respective
traditions. This is perhaps the most difficult to present. Right hand
path philosophies are surprisingly consistent in their identification
of the ego as an obstacle to be overcome. These traditions seek to
overcome the ego, to erode it, to excise it, overpower it or by
various mechanisms allow it to serve the allied higher power or
principle or be obliterated in its entirety, allowing that higher
power or principle to manifest through the now-perfected vessel.
By contrast, the left hand path of initiation has varying views of the
role of the ego at various stages of development. During the period of
development characterized by initial magickal development before the
experience which in the Golden Dawn traditions is typically referred
to as the CHGA, the ego is idealized as the primary, driving force of
magickal power and the road to initiatory experience. This period is
typically characterized by the expansion of the personality by the
systematic process of accessing and assimilating unconscious and
repressed elements of the psyche into a whole united by the ego. By
the use of the ego as the uniting force which assimilates these
emerging elements, it typically hypertrophies with results typically
identified with scorn by right hand path devotees.
So, are there any other major demarcations of beliefs I haven't
considered? Expansions? Corrections?
bassos
"Tehiru" <tehiru...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7dfd5fb9-d62f-433f...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
**
I was doing some thinking about right hand path and left hand path
approaches the other day, and it occurred to me that the main
differences center around dualisms.
And you did not even mention the yellow school of the middle path.
You total and utter noob you.
Tehiru
school of the middle path here in the West. Also, please enlighten us
as to the relative size and/or popularity compared to the two general
divisions I made, since you apparently feel that it is at least
somewhat comparable.
I must believe you have a lot of information to share, since your
first response to a fairly straightforward invitation to share your
thoughts was a redirect.
bassos
> Enlighten me, Bassos! Please deliver us the generalities of the yellow
> school of the middle path here in the West.
Sure.
Theism vs atheism.
Agnostics are the middle way.
Tehiru
as their are agnostic or atheistic RHP traditions. If you posit the
essential divisions as you have presented them, I have a couple of
questions for you.
1. I note you have not explicated the Yellow Path in any literature,
instead throwing out agnosticism.
2. The Golden Dawn traditions definitely follow esoteric leanings
(LHP) with exoteric authority (God). How does that fit into your
scheme?
3. Buddhism has right and left-hand path traditions with in. It's
more a philosophy or mystical tradition, but doesn't claim authority
from theism. How does that fit into your scheme?
Tehiru
the station of the former, as you have already demonstrated you are
the latter.
Alrah
> I was doing some thinking about right hand path and left hand path
> approaches the other day, and it occurred to me that the main
> differences center around dualisms.
>
> One basic assumption that forms the foundation of these belief systems
> is whether the individual or organization in question subscribes to
> the duality of absolute good and absolute evil. Right hand path
> philosophies typically have a strong adherence to the belief in the
> duality of absolute good and evil.
Example of this in magickal societies would be good?
> Often this belief is shared by many
> monotheistic religions and this certainty of absolute good or evil is
> the foundation for rules of conduct and other practices that allow a
> rigid standard of determining good and evil within a larger community.
While monotheistic religions often have good/evil moral absolutes, the
same can be said for religions with a pantheon. Hinduism.
> By contrast, the left hand path stresses that good and evil are
> relative, a continuum of shades of gray. This moral relativism means
> that with exceptions moral judgments are largely personal
> interpretations, leading to an acceptance of more flexible
> interpretations of good and evil when considering personal acts or the
> acts of others.
Actually - I think it is adherents who wish to regard themselves on
the LHP that have the desire to make these distinctions and invent
more of a theology into one side of a coin than the spinning wheel
allows. People who regard themselves as RHP'ers have the same
failing.
> A second basic duality underlying the essential difference between
> these two schools of thought is esoteric or exoteric authority. The
> left hand path initiatory school of thought is esoteric, meaning that
> it is tacitly or explicitly understood that the path to spiritual
> perfection can be found by looking in and perfecting the self,
> cultivating self-awareness by a growing understanding of one’s inner
> nature and ultimate responsibility for success and failure is the sole
> provenance of the practitioner. Others may provide guidelines or one
> may choose to use an individual as an example, but it is a purely
> personal choice.
Only superficially and by reference to RHP monotheistic doctrine.
There is eso/exo thought/feeling on either side - it is a natural
product of the dualism that occurs below the abyss, and it is not a
personal choice but the illusion of it. Ordinary consciousness,
language, stems from form and colour and thier discrimination.
Discrimination requires dualism - seperation - above the abyss - unity
prevails.
> By contrast, the right hand path series of thought is primarily
> exoteric in nature, deriving validity from an outside source which is
> typically a god/goddess or higher principle such as Justice.
Lemme see. Last time I checked Ma'at was a twin goddess. aka Laylah
and LaAL. :-)
> For
> example, the right-hand religion of Christianity derives the validity
> of their initiatory path by adherence to the principles exemplified by
> Jesus Christ, with followers seeking to become more Christlike and
> consequently more in accordance to His will. Although not always, the
> mechanism of this relationship is submission to Jesus Christ, to
> essentially become an avatar of him on earth. Some right-hand path
> schools of thought combine elements of exoteric and esoteric
> assumptions, such as various manifestations of Western ceremonial
> orders such as the A. A. and others. In organizations of this type,
> the same esoteric self-examination and self-perfection is explicitly
> part and parcel of the initiatory process, but derives spiritual
> authority and validity ultimately through exoteric means.
I don't think so mate. I've just told you Ma'at is a twin goddess by
esoteric research, and no validity is needed from the old aeon, nor is
there any.
> The third and final major distinction between right hand and left hand
> path is the status of the ego in the practice of the respective
> traditions. This is perhaps the most difficult to present. Right hand
> path philosophies are surprisingly consistent in their identification
> of the ego as an obstacle to be overcome. These traditions seek to
> overcome the ego, to erode it, to excise it, overpower it or by
> various mechanisms allow it to serve the allied higher power or
> principle or be obliterated in its entirety, allowing that higher
> power or principle to manifest through the now-perfected vessel.
>
> By contrast, the left hand path of initiation has varying views of the
> role of the ego at various stages of development. During the period of
> development characterized by initial magickal development before the
> experience which in the Golden Dawn traditions is typically referred
> to as the CHGA, the ego is idealized as the primary, driving force of
> magickal power and the road to initiatory experience. This period is
> typically characterized by the expansion of the personality by the
> systematic process of accessing and assimilating unconscious and
> repressed elements of the psyche into a whole united by the ego. By
> the use of the ego as the uniting force which assimilates these
> emerging elements, it typically hypertrophies with results typically
> identified with scorn by right hand path devotees.
Scuse me - but when you talk about uniting the ego... let's get into
the nitty gritty here. I know that the verbal part of my ego started
developing when I was 1 years old. I started developing a sense of
'me' as that name which my parents called me. That wasn't a big thing
back then. I was still mostly processing everything (new!) on a pre
or non/verbal ego level. My ego - verbal and non verbal organises all
of the data from my senses. But for all the latter day use the verbal
side of my ego is good for, my non verbal (sight, non language sound,
smell, touch and taste) has also developed.
I think my point is - certain parts of me have never been able to be
supressed by social conditioning. Anyone who can think locally can
see the repulsive lies that keep some of us mute. And it's is
repulsive - like a bad smell in the room. When you lie to each other
and ... pretend.
And one thing is for certain here - you're playing magickians
dominance games - just like the rest of the liars.
You exist on all parts of the tree at once. That's the truth.
There is no LHP/RHP bs there is only the delusion of the dualism.
Tehiru
I said nothing about uniting the ego. I said "By the use of the ego as
the uniting force which assimilates...".
> And one thing is for certain here - you're playing magickians
> dominance games - just like the rest of the liars.
I'll bite. What dominance game am I playing? I thought I was
contrasting my perceptions of the essential differences in the LHP and
RHP approaches. I don't even recall stating an opinion on whether one
was superior to another. Unless there is a dominance game entitled
"So, are there any other major demarcations of beliefs I haven't
considered? Expansions? Corrections?"?
> You exist on all parts of the tree at once. That's the truth.
Now who's playing a dominance game?
> There is no LHP/RHP bs there is only the delusion of the dualism.
And there is no nazism or pacifism, only the delusion of the dualism.
They are a matter of preconceptions that form the bedrock of a
philosophy, and nobody has made a claim to anything but that.
mika
>
>
> Scuse me - but when you talk about uniting the ego... let's get into
> the nitty gritty here.
It's impossible for you to discuss the nitty-gritty details of
"uniting the ego", or any other aspect of ego consciousness, as you
are both unwilling and (apparently) incapable of quieting your mind
and observing your thoughts and feelings, which is a necessary first
step for attaining even a basic level of objective ego awareness. You
have even claimed that silencing mental chatter will lead to physical
death! It's absolutely ridiculous that you continue to pretend you
have any practical understanding of this subject. There is no nitty
gritty for you to share since everything you think you understand
about the ego is based on what your ego would like to believe, and you
are unwilling to challenge those beliefs with even the most basic,
beginner's exercises.
GrandMagisterBlackwood
There is only dualism in those unable to be devoted to one path,
laughable concept I think you perhaps have read too much Harry Potter!
Thanks for the DIS-ENLIGHTENMENT sound like you are probably a
rejected Wiccan
Laughable
Pure Humor!
GMB
Tehiru
> There is only dualism in those unable to be devoted to one path,
> laughable concept I think you perhaps have read too much Harry Potter!
> Thanks for the DIS-ENLIGHTENMENT sound like you are probably a
> rejected Wiccan
>
> Laughable
> Pure Humor!
> GMB
Wow! I never thought about it that way. So there is only dualism in
those who are unable to be devoted to one path... That is simply
amazing. On the other hand, I agree with the second part of your post.
Laughable!
Pure Humor!
Tell me, it is said that the worshipper, the worshipped and the act of
worship are one. Why is that so?
Tehiru
> There is only dualism in those unable to be devoted to one path,
> laughable concept I think you perhaps have read too much Harry Potter!
> Thanks for the DIS-ENLIGHTENMENT sound like you are probably a
> rejected Wiccan
Wow, I never thought that thought before! So, there is only dualism
in those unable to be devoted to one path! I can feel Illumination
reaching me now!
On the other hand, I agree with the second part of your post:
Laughable!
Pure Humor!
mika
> I was doing some thinking about right hand path and left hand path
> approaches the other day, and it occurred to me that the main
> differences center around dualisms.
Well, naturally the difference between RHP and LHP is centered on
dualism, just as the difference between yes and no, right and wrong,
this and that, or any other dualism is centered on dualism. Yes, the
obvious can be profound when you become aware of it while in a
particular contemplative state of mind, but really what you're saying
is like 'wow, binary code is based on dualism!'. RHP and LHP are not
objective categories of which there happens to be two, they are
inherently dualistic because that is their purpose in the first place
- to separate different approaches into two categories. I don't mean
to blow off your personal realization, just saying, it's not a
coincidence, it's by design.
As far as I know, your descriptions sound pretty accurate for the most
part. I might have worded some of it a bit differently but at this
point there's no need to nit pick the details. I think your third
distinction is the fuzziest. The first and second are more clear-
cut. I just personally don't have the academic background to critique
your post from a theory pov. That is, I can't say "yes that conforms
to so-and-so's definitions of RHP and LHP". My comments are purely
from the practical, qabalistic pov.
A significant issue you did not touch on is that both LHP and RHP lead
to the same place. That means, one is not "better" or "worse" or more
or less effective than the other, it's simply a matter of what suits a
person best.
For example, regardless of whether you take the RHP or LHP approach to
the purposes and use of the ego, at a certain point on your magical
path you will either achieve a state of awareness where you can
distinguish between your ego and your essential nature, or you will
run in fear of that awareness and delude and distract yourself off the
path entirely. Even RHP people can identify with their ego while
simultaneously convincing themselves that they've "overcome" it, so
full blown ego "hypertrophy" isn't limited to LHP-ers.
Another example - the LHP also sees the ego as an "obstacle to be
overcome", because even as it is used as a "driving force" to
"assimilate the personality" etc, the key here is that it is used,
it's not the user, so to speak. The ego is a necessary tool, and the
goal of the LHP just like the RHP is to learn to distinguish between
your ego and your essential nature so you can use it properly and not
let it blindly use you.
Alrah
> On Nov 3, 12:50 pm, Alrah wrote:
>
>
>
> > Scuse me - but when you talk about uniting the ego... let's get into
> > the nitty gritty here.
>
> It's impossible for you to discuss the nitty-gritty details of
> "uniting the ego", or any other aspect of ego consciousness, as you
> are both unwilling and (apparently) incapable of quieting your mind
> and observing your thoughts and feelings, which is a necessary first
> step for attaining even a basic level of objective ego awareness. You
> have even claimed that silencing mental chatter will lead to physical
> death!
Completely? Yes. I stand by that and I think the DL and many other
spiritual leaders including Crowley would stand by that assertion.
The ordinary conciousness is built to interact with the world in
Malkuth. We can attain to other levels of consciousness and
perception, but our ground state is ordinarily in Malkuth while we
live. Not so when we die.
> It's absolutely ridiculous that you continue to pretend you
> have any practical understanding of this subject. There is no nitty
> gritty for you to share since everything you think you understand
> about the ego is based on what your ego would like to believe, and you
> are unwilling to challenge those beliefs with even the most basic,
> beginner's exercises.
Run away again. Run away from Kali Ma - but you are still her
daughter. She will never forget you.
Alrah
> And there is.... only the delusion of the dualism.
> They are a matter of preconceptions that form the bedrock of a
> philosophy, and nobody has made a claim to anything but that.
I can accept this. :-)
np
Tehiru
(smooch!)
Alrah
*slap with nails out*
What the fuck?
Didn't anyone tell you I was an apie?
Back off - I don't know you that well, even in letters, and ...
just try that out on a female feral cat at first and see how she
responds.
*bares teeth*
I mean it!
Tehiru
> On Nov 3, 9:48 am, Tehiru wrote:
> Well, naturally the difference between RHP and LHP is centered on
> dualism, just as the difference between yes and no, right and wrong,
> this and that, or any other dualism is centered on dualism.
Naturally? That is a bold statement. I feel that either you
misunderstood or I failed to present my thought properly. Would you
agree with the notion that the essential underlying assumptions that
lead to the RHP and LHP approaches seem to be centered on the
acceptance or non-acceptance of various dualisms?
> A significant issue you did not touch on is that both LHP and RHP lead
> to the same place. That means, one is not "better" or "worse" or more
> or less effective than the other, it's simply a matter of what suits a
> person best.
You are correct. I did not address that issue because that point is
debatable. A more intriguing question might be whether the manifested
consciousness of an LHP and an RHP practicioner after crossing the
Abyss and having that first taste of Unity before the plateau and
final stages would differ? At this point both have moved past the
exclusive identification with the ego, but their initial underlying
preconceptions which governed their choice of RHP or LHP would in all
likelihood manifest as differences in perception of this state. What
are your thoughts?
> For example, regardless of whether you take the RHP or LHP approach to
> the purposes and use of the ego, at a certain point on your magical
> path you will either achieve a state of awareness where you can
> distinguish between your ego and your essential nature, or you will
> run in fear of that awareness and delude and distract yourself off the
> path entirely. Even RHP people can identify with their ego while
> simultaneously convincing themselves that they've "overcome" it, so
> full blown ego "hypertrophy" isn't limited to LHP-ers.
True. However, we were discussing the general approach and assumptions
and not failures.
> Another example - the LHP also sees the ego as an "obstacle to be
> overcome", because even as it is used as a "driving force" to
> "assimilate the personality" etc, the key here is that it is used,
> it's not the user, so to speak. The ego is a necessary tool, and the
> goal of the LHP just like the RHP is to learn to distinguish between
> your ego and your essential nature so you can use it properly and not
> let it blindly use you.
Below Tiphareth I would agree. Between Tiphareth and Daath I would
agree in only a limited fashion.
Tehiru
> I mean it!
Bit extreme, don't you think? I can attempt to "suppress my social
conditioning" if you can attempt to suppress yours. Fair enough?
Tom
> I was doing some thinking about right hand path and left hand path
> approaches the other day, and it occurred to me that the main
> differences center around dualisms.
Given that right hand path / left hand path are themselves dualistic
concepts, that seems obvious.
> One basic assumption that forms the foundation of these belief systems
> is whether the individual or organization in question subscribes to
> the duality of absolute good and absolute evil. Right hand path
> philosophies typically have a strong adherence to the belief in the
> duality of absolute good and evil. Often this belief is shared by many
> monotheistic religions and this certainty of absolute good or evil is
> the foundation for rules of conduct and other practices that allow a
> rigid standard of determining good and evil within a larger community.
> By contrast, the left hand path stresses that good and evil are
> relative, a continuum of shades of gray. This moral relativism means
> that with exceptions moral judgments are largely personal
> interpretations, leading to an acceptance of more flexible
> interpretations of good and evil when considering personal acts or the
> acts of others.
I don't agree that the "left hand path" advocates necessarily see good
and evil as any more relative than the "right hand path" advocates.
LHP and RHP both have absolutist and relativist aspects.
Since RHP adherents acknowledge self-perfection as do LHP aherents,
then this really isn't a difference between RHP and LHP at all. The
crux of the difference goes deeper than that. Would it be, perhaps,
that RHP adherents see self as something that can be transcended
whereas the LHP does not?
> The third and final major distinction between right hand and left hand
> path is the status of the ego in the practice of the respective
> traditions. This is perhaps the most difficult to present. Right hand
> path philosophies are surprisingly consistent in their identification
> of the ego as an obstacle to be overcome.
I'd say that was a common misperception. It's a limit, not an
obstacle. Ego defines a boundary between what we call "self" and what
we call "other". Consider it as sort of a property line. Things
exist within it and are therefore ours and things exist outside of it
and therefore are not ours. However, just like in the real world,
property lines are just concepts, not real things. So real things can
move from outside to inside and from inside to outside. The only
"obstacle" is our obsession with keeping those things from moving
across our arbitrary property line. The more obsessed we are with our
boundary, the more we want to keep what is inside it and acquire more.
We also fear losing something to what's outside.
The "selfish" are those who are strongly obsessed with the acquisition
and preservation of things, even spiritual things, all of which are to
be brought within the property line of self and kept there as long as
possible.
The "selfless" are those who do not obsess about acquisition and
preservation, who flow with change without regard to whether any
particular thing is inside or outside the boundary of self.
Tom
<flagshipproducti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There is only dualism in those unable to be devoted to one path,
"There are only two kinds of thinking, dualistic and not dualistic."
You dualistic buffoon.
Tehiru
> Given that right hand path / left hand path are themselves dualistic
> concepts, that seems obvious.
I do not agree with this. Perhaps I misunderstood. Can you provide
more detail? Particularly in light of your following statement below?
Tehiru
mika
> On Nov 3, 2:25 pm, mika wrote:
> > Well, naturally the difference between RHP and LHP is centered on
> > dualism, just as the difference between yes and no, right and wrong,
> > this and that, or any other dualism is centered on dualism.
>
> Naturally? That is a bold statement. I feel that either you
> misunderstood or I failed to present my thought properly.
I was referring to the bigger picture, in the sense that the
underlying assumptions used to create two distinct categories are
inherently dualistic. If they weren't inherently dualistic, you'd end
up with more than two categories.
> Would you
> agree with the notion that the essential underlying assumptions that
> lead to the RHP and LHP approaches seem to be centered on the
> acceptance or non-acceptance of various dualisms?
Well... first of all I'm not all that clear on what, exactly, defines
the difference between the two paths. The subject only seems to come
up when someone, or a group of people, wants to declare what they're
not. As in, for example, a RHP-er claiming that LHP-ers frequently
succomb to overblown egos where supposedly the RHP is immune to that
danger. Or a LHP-er saying that RHP people are uptight religious
nutjobs. It's just so much peeing in the sand.
Second, I think those dualisms are intellectual tools that quickly
lose their meaning once a person gets fully into the practical work,
so acceptance or non-acceptance becomes irrelevant. For example, the
entire subject of whether one is appealing to an external or an
internal divinity only seems important to people who theorize about
magick and magical paths and 'the Work'. People who practice magick
and don't just talk about it quickly learn that the distinction makes
no practical difference to their results - or if it does make a
difference, they understand that it's purely a mental game, and if
it's a mental game it's not a reflection of some kind of objective
truth. Which then brings us back to acceptance or non-acceptance
becoming irrelevant.
> A more intriguing question might be whether the manifested
> consciousness of an LHP and an RHP practicioner after crossing the
> Abyss and having that first taste of Unity before the plateau and
> final stages would differ?
I don't know what you mean by "that first taste of Unity before the
plateau and final stages", but no - why would any of this make a
difference beyond the abyss? Everything must be left behind,
including preconceptions. Where it might make a difference is whether
or not one is prepared and willing to give up all the attachments as
required in order to experience consciousness beyond the abyss, but
again, the effectiveness of the path is a result of the individual,
not of the path itself.
> At this point both have moved past the
> exclusive identification with the ego, but their initial underlying
> preconceptions which governed their choice of RHP or LHP would in all
> likelihood manifest as differences in perception of this state. What
> are your thoughts?
I don't agree that the initial underlying preconceptions would
manifest as differences in perception at the state of conscousness
experienced beyond the abyss, based on the definition of what is
experienced beyond the abyss and what is necessary in order to achieve
that experience.
mika
>
> Ego defines a boundary between what we call "self" and what
> we call "other". Consider it as sort of a property line. Things
> exist within it and are therefore ours and things exist outside of it
> and therefore are not ours. However, just like in the real world,
> property lines are just concepts, not real things. So real things can
> move from outside to inside and from inside to outside. The only
> "obstacle" is our obsession with keeping those things from moving
> across our arbitrary property line. The more obsessed we are with our
> boundary, the more we want to keep what is inside it and acquire more.
> We also fear losing something to what's outside.
>
> The "selfish" are those who are strongly obsessed with the acquisition
> and preservation of things, even spiritual things, all of which are to
> be brought within the property line of self and kept there as long as
> possible.
>
> The "selfless" are those who do not obsess about acquisition and
> preservation, who flow with change without regard to whether any
> particular thing is inside or outside the boundary of self.
Wow. What an excellent description. Thanks.
Tehiru
> I don't know what you mean by "that first taste of Unity before the
> plateau and final stages", but no - why would any of this make a
> difference beyond the abyss? Everything must be left behind,
> including preconceptions. Where it might make a difference is whether
> or not one is prepared and willing to give up all the attachments as
> required in order to experience consciousness beyond the abyss, but
> again, the effectiveness of the path is a result of the individual,
> not of the path itself.
I am curious, what makes you think that you must leave everything
behind? I am presuming you are referring to your ego, preconceptions
and so forth. Crossing the abyss doesn't strip you of your humanity,
because annihilating that which limits and oppresses your true will is
not your humanity, but the identifications, the boundaries you have
made for yourself. You still have an ego but your ego is not you. Same
for your desires, emotions and thoughts. Moving past exclusive
identification with the ego and other components of the mind and the
release of other boundaries that you have created (consciously or not)
doesn't mean that these components are gone. If we assume that someone
crosses the abyss he still has an ego, he still has wants and desires,
but he doesn't exclusively identify with them.
Do you feel Crowley overcame his ego, and his tendency to spew vitriol
at people who irritated him? Of course not. Those elements of
personality are still there, because the process of growth is that the
current whole of your mentality becomes part of a larger mentality as
you disidentify with the current mode of thought and move to a new
mode with fewer boundaries.
Perhaps we are discussing differing states of mind?
Alrah
Oh probably T. but I'd fallen asleep by then.
I have a small problem in paradise here. It's the lumbering alcoholic
jerk sleeping on my living room floor who insists on bringing drink
into the house, even though this woman is all hands up about her own
drinking problem. Anyways... my problem, not yours. Spank me if
it'll make you feel better...:P
Tehiru
> Oh probably T. but I'd fallen asleep by then.
>
> I have a small problem in paradise here. It's the lumbering alcoholic
> jerk sleeping on my living room floor who insists on bringing drink
> into the house, even though this woman is all hands up about her own
> drinking problem. Anyways... my problem, not yours. Spank me if
> it'll make you feel better...:P
Don't go getting all reasonable on me Alrah!
Tom
> On Nov 3, 4:51 pm, mika <mika...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't know what you mean by "that first taste of Unity before the
> > plateau and final stages", but no - why would any of this make a
> > difference beyond the abyss? Everything must be left behind,
> > including preconceptions. Where it might make a difference is whether
> > or not one is prepared and willing to give up all the attachments as
> > required in order to experience consciousness beyond the abyss, but
> > again, the effectiveness of the path is a result of the individual,
> > not of the path itself.
>
> I am curious, what makes you think that you must leave everything
> behind?
Because you can't take it with you if you're not going anywhere.
"Crossing the Abyss" is not a journey but a description of a
condition. A boat crosses a river in a different way than a bridge
crosses a river.
"You" don't cross the Abyss. That which crosses the Abyss is not
"you".
To proclaim "I have crossed the Abyss" is oxymoronic. Now, this is
not to say that you cannot imagine crossing an abyss. There are all
sorts of abysses that one may cross, and they may seem like pretty big
and impressive adventures to you, too. However, where the "Abyss"
refers to the limit of selfness, the border between self and other,
one cannot carry the self beyond it. You cannot get to a place where
you are not, because wherever you go, there you are.
> I am presuming you are referring to your ego, preconceptions
> and so forth.
The brain produces a number of ensemble operations in which awareness
of self is not a feature. In those operations there is no ego. It's
not a matter of taking anything anywhere or leaving anything behind.
There is only discovery of what's already there.
Tom
The concepts of good and evil are slippery on both sides. "Good" is
upholding what's truly important, while "evil" is the abandonment of
what's truly important for something only seemingly important.
"What's truly important" is an absolute. Some particular action in
one context may be seen as good because it ultimately upholds what's
truly important but evil in some other context because it does not
uphold it. So the goodness or evilness of one's actions is evaluated
relatively. So some aspects of both LHP and RHP are relativistic and
some are absolutist.
The distinction between a LHP and a RHP is not a difference in the
nature of good and evil but a difference between what's more important
than what. It is this choice of seeing something as different than
something else which is at the heart of dualism.
If you see a difference between right and left, that's dualism. If
nothing is more or less important than anything else, then there is no
need to make any distinction between a RHP and a LHP at all.
Tehiru
> "You" don't cross the Abyss. That which crosses the Abyss is not
> "you".
The crossing is a transitional state. If you believe that "you" don't
cross the abyss, what does? And please clarify "you".
> To proclaim "I have crossed the Abyss" is oxymoronic. Now, this is
> not to say that you cannot imagine crossing an abyss. There are all
> sorts of abysses that one may cross, and they may seem like pretty big
> and impressive adventures to you, too. However, where the "Abyss"
> refers to the limit of selfness, the border between self and other,
> one cannot carry the self beyond it. You cannot get to a place where
> you are not, because wherever you go, there you are.
You have defined the Abyss as the "limit of selfness, the border
between self and other". The definition provided is so vague as to be
unusable and I would like to invite you to expand your definition. Try
this one on for size:
The Abyss experience is a transitional state involving the quite
understandable apprehension of the ego and its resistance to a process
of the overcoming of self-created dualisms, boundaries in the mind.
Always the seat of identity until this point, the ego is based on the
twin concepts of self/not-self. As this and other dualisms are
steadily undermined, and the practicioner is beginning to overcome the
exclusive identification of the ego with the self, the ego exhibits
fear. The process is more or less complete upon the first complete
experience of awareness where subject and object are
indistinguishable. Some might call this the basic enlightened state.
Note that I didn't say stage. This is a peak experience. Over time
with continued work it is a plateau experience, becoming more and more
part of normal consciousness. When the process is complete and this
state is the normal waking state, one has no will in any direction.
Indeed, all is accomplished.
Tehiru
> The concepts of good and evil are slippery on both sides. "Good" is
> upholding what's truly important, while "evil" is the abandonment of
> what's truly important for something only seemingly important.
> "What's truly important" is an absolute. Some particular action in
> one context may be seen as good because it ultimately upholds what's
> truly important but evil in some other context because it does not
> uphold it. So the goodness or evilness of one's actions is evaluated
> relatively. So some aspects of both LHP and RHP are relativistic and
> some are absolutist.
This doesn't support your statement directly. I must also suggest your
definition of good and evil is novel and not necessarily shared by all
or even a reasonable sample of people.
> If you see a difference between right and left, that's dualism. If
> nothing is more or less important than anything else, then there is no
> need to make any distinction between a RHP and a LHP at all.
No. If you see right and left as opposites that is dualism.
Ludwig Prinn
>
> > On Nov 3, 4:51 pm, mika <mika...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't know what you mean by "that first taste of Unity before the
> > > plateau and final stages", but no - why would any of this make a
> > > difference beyond the abyss? Everything must be left behind,
> > > including preconceptions. Where it might make a difference is whether
> > > or not one is prepared and willing to give up all the attachments as
> > > required in order to experience consciousness beyond the abyss, but
> > > again, the effectiveness of the path is a result of the individual,
> > > not of the path itself.
>
> > I am curious, what makes you think that you must leave everything
> > behind?
>
> Because you can't take it with you if you're not going anywhere.
> "Crossing the Abyss" is not a journey but a description of a
> condition. A boat crosses a river in a different way than a bridge
> crosses a river.
"You almost went an entire day without making a fool of yourself, but
then you woke up."
Tom, your statement presumes that the Abyss is an actual thing, some
sort of obstacle to be circumvented. This, even more than your own
inability and unwillingness to evolve, is what prevents you from
sharing the experience....and, you know, knowing what the hell you're
talking about.
> "You" don't cross the Abyss. That which crosses the Abyss is not
> "you".
Of course it is. It's more "You" than anything you've ever called by
that label.
> To proclaim "I have crossed the Abyss" is oxymoronic.
For you, certainly. Without the "oxy". You know.
Ludwig Prinn
> You have defined the Abyss as the "limit of selfness, the border
> between self and other". The definition provided is so vague as to be
> unusable and I would like to invite you to expand your definition. Try
> this one on for size:
>
> The Abyss experience is a transitional state involving the quite
> understandable apprehension of the ego and its resistance to a process
> of the overcoming of self-created dualisms, boundaries in the mind.
> Always the seat of identity until this point, the ego is based on the
> twin concepts of self/not-self. As this and other dualisms are
> steadily undermined, and the practicioner is beginning to overcome the
> exclusive identification of the ego with the self, the ego exhibits
> fear. The process is more or less complete upon the first complete
> experience of awareness where subject and object are
> indistinguishable. Some might call this the basic enlightened state.
>
> Note that I didn't say stage. This is a peak experience. Over time
> with continued work it is a plateau experience, becoming more and more
> part of normal consciousness. When the process is complete and this
> state is the normal waking state, one has no will in any direction.
> Indeed, all is accomplished.
Nothing to add.
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Ludwig Prinn wrote:
> On Nov 4, 9:42ÔøΩam, Tom wrote:
>
>>On Nov 3, 5:27ÔøΩpm, Tehiru wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Nov 3, 4:51ÔøΩpm, mika wrote:
>>
>>>>I don't know what you mean by "that first taste of Unity before the
>>>>plateau and final stages", but no - why would any of this make a
>>>>difference beyond the abyss? ÔøΩEverything must be left behind,
>>>>including preconceptions.
How would you or anyone else know unless they have done so?
And even then, having done something does not of itself imply a
complete, exhaustive and technical understanding of the process or
mechanism.
Some writers on the subject, notably Crowley maintain that ego "SHOULD"
be left behind or in some other way overcome before one "crosses the
abyss" lest one empower personal ego bias with the result of 'crossing
the abyss."
Where it might make a difference is whether
>>>>or not one is prepared and willing to give up all the attachments as
>>>>required in order to experience consciousness beyond the abyss, but
>>>>again, the effectiveness of the path is a result of the individual,
>>>>not of the path itself.
>>>
>>>I am curious, what makes you think that you must leave everything
>>>behind?
>>
>>Because you can't take it with you if you're not going anywhere.
>>"Crossing the Abyss" is not a journey but a description of a
>>condition. ÔøΩA boat crosses a river in a different way than a bridge
>>crosses a river.
But if the goal is to 'cross the river' does it really matter how that
is accomplished? Unless there is a prejudice against getting ones feet wet:)
>
> Tom, your statement presumes that the Abyss is an actual thing, some
> sort of obstacle to be circumvented. This, even more than your own
> inability and unwillingness to evolve, is what prevents you from
> sharing the experience....and, you know, knowing what the hell you're
> talking about.
>
>
>>"You" don't cross the Abyss. ÔøΩThat which crosses the Abyss is not
>>"you".
>
>
> Of course it is. It's more "You" than anything you've ever called by
> that label.
>
Some argue that achieving any sort of enlightenment is not so much
getting something new as removing blocks that keep one from experiencing
that which one already is.
>
>>To proclaim "I have crossed the Abyss" is oxymoronic.
To proclaim undemonstrable assertions and expect them to be taken
seriously is more often fraud than delusion, though self delusion seems
to be a motivating factor for many people dealing with the subject.
--
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Domine, dirige nos.
Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky/files/sf_anthem.mp3
Tehiru
> complete, exhaustive and technical understanding of the process or
> mechanism.
Absolutely.
> Some writers on the subject, notably Crowley maintain that ego "SHOULD"
> be left behind or in some other way overcome before one "crosses the
> abyss" lest one empower personal ego bias with the result of 'crossing
> the abyss."
I would not present Crowley as a person who left his ego behind for
well-documented reasons. However, the idea of leaving behind or
overcoming the ego before crossing the abyss is simply not correct.
Giving up exclusive identification with the ego is part of crossing
the abyss, as the fear reactions of the ego as it loses that exclusive
identification is part of the "fun" associated with the process.
> Where it might make a difference is whether
>
> >>>>or not one is prepared and willing to give up all the attachments as
> >>>>required in order to experience consciousness beyond the abyss, but
> >>>>again, the effectiveness of the path is a result of the individual,
> >>>>not of the path itself.
> But if the goal is to 'cross the river' does it really matter how that
> is accomplished? Unless there is a prejudice against getting ones feet wet:)
Of course not. The East has their own traditions as well. It seems
obvious that differing cultures evolve different mechanisms to achieve
the same ends.
> Some argue that achieving any sort of enlightenment is not so much
> getting something new as removing blocks that keep one from experiencing
> that which one already is.
It's not an argument. It is a statement that is completely true. The
mechanisms we use to remove those blocks are personal or are a result
of the preferred path of your system of initiation.
> To proclaim undemonstrable assertions and expect them to be taken
> seriously is more often fraud than delusion, though self delusion seems
> to be a motivating factor for many people dealing with the subject.
Fair enough Joseph. Now, a number of people here (including yours
truly) have made assertions here, and I expect everyone expects them
to be taken seriously or at least with a grain of salt. Now that we
have heard everyone else's thoughts on the subject, why don't you
share your thoughts? If you feel that Ludwig, Tom, myself or anyone
else who has posted is wrong, or by poverty of language has missed
something, or if you feel something needs expansion, please let us
know. Isn't that why we are here?
mika
> On Nov 4, 9:42 am, Tom wrote:
>
> > "You" don't cross the Abyss. That which crosses the Abyss is not
> > "you".
>
> The crossing is a transitional state. If you believe that "you" don't
> cross the abyss, what does?
Consciousness.
Probably not the most accurate word, but it works.
> You have defined the Abyss as the "limit of selfness, the border
> between self and other". The definition provided is so vague as to be
> unusable
It's not vague at all. It's actually quite specific. It may seem
unusable to you right now, but that will change as you develop a
greater understanding of the relevant concepts.
mika
>
> > I don't know what you mean by "that first taste of Unity before the
> > plateau and final stages", but no - why would any of this make a
> > difference beyond the abyss? Everything must be left behind,
> > including preconceptions. Where it might make a difference is whether
> > or not one is prepared and willing to give up all the attachments as
> > required in order to experience consciousness beyond the abyss, but
> > again, the effectiveness of the path is a result of the individual,
> > not of the path itself.
>
> I am curious, what makes you think that you must leave everything
> behind?
I'll use your own words to explain. As you said, "The process is more
or less complete upon the first complete
experience of awareness where subject and object are
indistinguishable." So - if subject and object become
indistinguishable, what makes you think you can take anything with
you?
> You still have an ego but your ego is not you.
There is no "you" to have an ego or anything else. "Subject and
object become indistinguishable". Do you think that's possible while
maintaining a sense of "you"?
> Same
> for your desires, emotions and thoughts. Moving past exclusive
> identification with the ego and other components of the mind and the
> release of other boundaries that you have created (consciously or not)
> doesn't mean that these components are gone.
What you are describing is a state of awareness just below the abyss.
> Do you feel Crowley overcame his ego, and his tendency to spew vitriol
> at people who irritated him? Of course not. Those elements of
> personality are still there, because the process of growth is that the
> current whole of your mentality becomes part of a larger mentality as
> you disidentify with the current mode of thought and move to a new
> mode with fewer boundaries.
You seem to be confusing experiencing consciousness beyond the abyss
with having had the experience of consciousness beyond the abyss.
Look- you don't cross the abyss and stay there, it's not a sustainable
state. The state of awareness certainly would affect you and inform
you after the fact, but there is no "you" while experiencing that
state. Your consciousness returns, and *then* you have that process
of growth, back on this side of the supernals, where there is a you
and a personality and ego to work with and all that stuff.
> Perhaps we are discussing differing states of mind?
Yes, seems so. You probably had some profound realizations that were
simply misplaced on 'the tree'. Much of what you said relates to
states of awareness after crossing the 'veil' at Tipareth - becoming
aware of the distinctions between the ego, the self, and your
essential nature.
Evergreen
> I was doing some thinking about right hand path and left hand path
> approaches the other day, and it occurred to me that the main
> differences center around dualisms.
>
> is whether the individual or organization in question subscribes to
> the duality of absolute good and absolute evil. Right hand path
> philosophies typically have a strong adherence to the belief in the
> duality of absolute good and evil. Often this belief is shared by many
> monotheistic religions and this certainty of absolute good or evil is
> the foundation for rules of conduct and other practices that allow a
> rigid standard of determining good and evil within a larger community.
> By contrast, the left hand path stresses that good and evil are
> relative, a continuum of shades of gray. This moral relativism means
> that with exceptions moral judgments are largely personal
> interpretations, leading to an acceptance of more flexible
> interpretations of good and evil when considering personal acts or the
> acts of others.
>
> these two schools of thought is esoteric or exoteric authority. The
> left hand path initiatory school of thought is esoteric, meaning that
> it is tacitly or explicitly understood that the path to spiritual
> perfection can be found by looking in and perfecting the self,
> nature and ultimate responsibility for success and failure is the sole
> provenance of the practitioner. Others may provide guidelines or one
> may choose to use an individual as an example, but it is a purely
> personal choice.
>
> By contrast, the right hand path series of thought is primarily
> exoteric in nature, deriving validity from an outside source which is
> typically a god/goddess or higher principle such as Justice. For
> example, the right-hand religion of Christianity derives the validity
> of their initiatory path by adherence to the principles exemplified by
> Jesus Christ, with followers seeking to become more Christlike and
> consequently more in accordance to His will. Although not always, the
> mechanism of this relationship is submission to Jesus Christ, to
> essentially become an avatar of him on earth. Some right-hand path
> schools of thought combine elements of exoteric and esoteric
> assumptions, such as various manifestations of Western ceremonial
> orders such as the A. A. and others. In organizations of this type,
> the same esoteric self-examination and self-perfection is explicitly
> part and parcel of the initiatory process, but derives spiritual
> authority and validity ultimately through exoteric means.
>
> path is the status of the ego in the practice of the respective
> traditions. This is perhaps the most difficult to present. Right hand
> path philosophies are surprisingly consistent in their identification
> overcome the ego, to erode it, to excise it, overpower it or by
> various mechanisms allow it to serve the allied higher power or
> principle or be obliterated in its entirety, allowing that higher
> power or principle to manifest through the now-perfected vessel.
>
> By contrast, the left hand path of initiation has varying views of the
> role of the ego at various stages of development. During the period of
> development characterized by initial magickal development before the
> experience which in the Golden Dawn traditions is typically referred
> to as the CHGA, the ego is idealized as the primary, driving force of
> magickal power and the road to initiatory experience. This period is
> typically characterized by the expansion of the personality by the
> systematic process of accessing and assimilating unconscious and
> repressed elements of the psyche into a whole united by the ego. By
> the use of the ego as the uniting force which assimilates these
> emerging elements, it typically hypertrophies with results typically
> identified with scorn by right hand path devotees.
>
> So, are there any other major demarcations of beliefs I haven't
> considered? Expansions? Corrections?
I want to see any of the above-mentioned practicioners demonstrate
their magickal skills before I'll consider taking any of their
ideas and practices seriously.
The magickal community is infested with supposed magicians who
are all show and no go. All talk and no walk.
I wouldn't take piano lessons from someone who couldn't demonstrate
their ability to play the piano, no matter how impressively they
could talk about it. (unless they were formerly an accomplished
performer and had lost their arms, or something like that...)
Esoteric-sounding bullshit and magick are not the same thing.
Sid
--
Sidney Lambe
Wiccan Priest and Apprentice Magician
http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
usenet4444 (at) gmail (dot) com
Tehiru
> Consciousness.
>
> Probably not the most accurate word, but it works.
A whole word for an answer? Don't be frugal here Mika, expand.
> > You have defined the Abyss as the "limit of selfness, the border
> > between self and other". The definition provided is so vague as to be
> > unusable
>
> It's not vague at all. It's actually quite specific. It may seem
> unusable to you right now, but that will change as you develop a
> greater understanding of the relevant concepts.
No Mika. Why don't you explain, since you appear to feel qualified.
Illustrate the self, the other, and the border between. I am all ears.
I am pleased to hear from someone who appears to have direct knowledge
of the subject, and I am more than happy to hear your thoughts.
Tehiru
> I'll use your own words to explain. As you said, "The process is more
> or less complete upon the first complete
> experience of awareness where subject and object are
> indistinguishable." So - if subject and object become
> indistinguishable, what makes you think you can take anything with
> you?
Perhaps you should have read more of my words. I went on to
specifically point out that this experience is a state and not a
stage. States are temporary, eventually crossing into plateaus and
finally settling down into a stage. Now that I have refreshed your
memory about my following comments, I am happy to hear your specific
thoughts on the subject. Your thoughts, not a rehash or a rejoinder of
someone else's thoughts.
> > You still have an ego but your ego is not you.
>
> There is no "you" to have an ego or anything else. "Subject and
> object become indistinguishable". Do you think that's possible while
> maintaining a sense of "you"?
See above. I would also like to hear your thoughts about the
differences between ego, identity and self.
> > Same
> > for your desires, emotions and thoughts. Moving past exclusive
> > identification with the ego and other components of the mind and the
> > release of other boundaries that you have created (consciously or not)
> > doesn't mean that these components are gone.
>
> What you are describing is a state of awareness just below the abyss.
No Mika. This is the process of removing enough of the self-created
dualisms and other boundaries that allow you to reach the state
described above. It is characterized by a fear reaction and confusion
from the ego as one loses exclusive identification with it. Now, I
have taken the time to describe my thoughts, using whole sentences and
even paragraphs so as to be sure people have a reasonable chance of
understanding me. If you have differing thoughts, I invite you to
share them in more than a single word or sentence.
> Look- you don't cross the abyss and stay there, it's not a sustainable
> state.
Of course. In fact, I explicitly identified it as a transitional
state, if you recall.
> The state of awareness certainly would affect you and inform
> you after the fact, but there is no "you" while experiencing that
> state. Your consciousness returns, and *then* you have that process
> of growth, back on this side of the supernals, where there is a you
> and a personality and ego to work with and all that stuff.
Yes, that silent witness experience is certainly a perception-changing
experience. And when that peak experience has passed and apparently-
normal consciousness resumes there is a period of adjustment. However,
the experience is a consequence of growth. The adjustment period
afterward is a necessary consequence.
> Yes, seems so. You probably had some profound realizations that were
> simply misplaced on 'the tree'. Much of what you said relates to
> states of awareness after crossing the 'veil' at Tipareth - becoming
> aware of the distinctions between the ego, the self, and your
> essential nature.
Awareness of distinctions is important of course. However, being aware
of those distinctions is hardly moving past exclusive identification
with them. It is of course a necessary precondition, but you are
confusing having sex with giving birth.
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Tehiru wrote:
>>And even then, having done something does not of itself imply a
>>complete, exhaustive and technical understanding of the process or
>>mechanism.
>
>
> Absolutely.
>
>
>>Some writers on the subject, notably Crowley maintain that ego "SHOULD"
>>be left behind or in some other way overcome before one "crosses the
>>abyss" lest one empower personal ego bias with the result of 'crossing
>>the abyss."
>
>
> I would not present Crowley as a person who left his ego behind for
> well-documented reasons.
Me either, but that's not what i was suggesting, only that Crowley's
comments on the subject indicates that he thought the "ego" was not so
much an obstacle to this "crossing" as much as an aspect better off
shed. He also argued that to not do so would be to empower that ego
orientation and elevate personal bias and prejudice in a possibly
unhealthy way.
> However, the idea of leaving behind or
> overcoming the ego before crossing the abyss is simply not correct.
> Giving up exclusive identification with the ego is part of crossing
> the abyss, as the fear reactions of the ego as it loses that exclusive
> identification is part of the "fun" associated with the process.
You are claiming then, to be in the process of crossing the abyss?
As a metaphor of life, the crossing being the passage from birth to
death, we all are. Are you claiming something more than that?
>
>
>>Where it might make a difference is whether
>>
>>
>>>>>>or not one is prepared and willing to give up all the attachments as
>>>>>>required in order to experience consciousness beyond the abyss, but
>>>>>>again, the effectiveness of the path is a result of the individual,
>>>>>>not of the path itself.
>>>>>
And according to Crowley this "giving up" is not so much a "requirement"
as much as what he advises one to do lest one empower ones own selfish
desires.
>
>>But if the goal is to 'cross the river' does it really matter how that
>>is accomplished? Unless there is a prejudice against getting ones feet wet:)
>
>
> Of course not. The East has their own traditions as well. It seems
> obvious that differing cultures evolve different mechanisms to achieve
> the same ends.
>
>
>>Some argue that achieving any sort of enlightenment is not so much
>>getting something new as removing blocks that keep one from experiencing
>>that which one already is.
>
>
> It's not an argument. It is a statement that is completely true. The
> mechanisms we use to remove those blocks are personal or are a result
> of the preferred path of your system of initiation.
>
>
>>To proclaim undemonstrable assertions and expect them to be taken
>>seriously is more often fraud than delusion, though self delusion seems
>>to be a motivating factor for many people dealing with the subject.
>
>
> Fair enough Joseph. Now, a number of people here (including yours
> truly) have made assertions here, and I expect everyone expects them
> to be taken seriously or at least with a grain of salt. Now that we
> have heard everyone else's thoughts on the subject, why don't you
> share your thoughts? If you feel that Ludwig, Tom, myself or anyone
> else who has posted is wrong, or by poverty of language has missed
> something, or if you feel something needs expansion, please let us
> know. Isn't that why we are here?
I can only comment on what i have read about the concept of "crossing
the abyss" i don't claim to have done so or be in the process of doing so.
It has occurred to me, from what i have read about it, that perhaps it
can be used as a metaphor, but beyond that.....
Tehiru
wrote:
> Me either, but that's not what i was suggesting, only that Crowley's
> comments on the subject indicates that he thought the "ego" was not so
> much an obstacle to this "crossing" as much as an aspect better off
> shed. He also argued that to not do so would be to empower that ego
> orientation and elevate personal bias and prejudice in a possibly
> unhealthy way.
I am passingly familiar with his writings on the subject. However, I
must point out that he did not shed his. Nor did Frater Achad, Mr.
Spare and others.
> You are claiming then, to be in the process of crossing the abyss?
If someone did make that claim and another person had not had the
experience him/herself, how would they be able to establish the
veracity of that statement? Tarot cards? The ever-popular "I feel it
in my bones" method?
> As a metaphor of life, the crossing being the passage from birth to
> death, we all are. Are you claiming something more than that?
That is probably the best question I have had all week. Crossing the
abyss IS a death experience, or more specifically a symbolic death to
the ego for reasons discussed previously. It is well described as a
manifestation of a process culminating in a temporary experience.
> >>Where it might make a difference is whether
> >>>>>>or not one is prepared and willing to give up all the attachments as
> >>>>>>required in order to experience consciousness beyond the abyss, but
> >>>>>>again, the effectiveness of the path is a result of the individual,
> >>>>>>not of the path itself.
Two concepts there. It's about giving up (not obliterating) that which
limits and oppresses your true will. That is ego and consequently
boundaries. The effectiveness of the path, any path, may be "better"
than others if they suit the initial mindset (and underlying
assumptions) of the person taking that path. With determination, one
can make their own path or take a path that is not the "best fit" and
still have success. But obviously some methods work better for others,
but that "better path" is judged by how well that glove fits on the
hand.
> And according to Crowley this "giving up" is not so much a "requirement"
> as much as what he advises one to do lest one empower ones own selfish
> desires.
I have read that.
> It has occurred to me, from what i have read about it, that perhaps it
> can be used as a metaphor, but beyond that.....
The poverty of language. I can discuss a variety of technical topics
with great precision, because the language to connote those ideas
exists. Some ideas are too big to hold in your hand, and can only be
held in your mind.
Tom
> On Nov 4, 9:42 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > "You" don't cross the Abyss. That which crosses the Abyss is not
> > "you".
>
> The crossing is a transitional state.
Every state is a transitional state. There is no "crossing". There
is only an awareness of a gulf between self and other. "You" cannot
cross that because "you" are nothing more than one side of the gulf.
What "crosses the Abyss" is not "you".
> If you believe that "you" don't
> cross the abyss, what does? And please clarify "you".
The Abyss is the limit of self. The self cannot and does not cross the
limit of self. There is no you beyond you.
> You have defined the Abyss as the "limit of selfness, the border
> between self and other". The definition provided is so vague as to be
> unusable
It is precisely defined. Do you think there is nothing but self and
therefore nothing beyond it? Do you think you are not you after all?
Who, then, do you think you are?
As for its utility, it points out that you're not the only thing in
the universe. Of course, if you don't want to believe that anything
exists beyond yourself, you can always do like Sid and try to fold
yourself into monomaniac catatonia.
> The Abyss experience is a transitional state involving the quite
> understandable apprehension of the ego and its resistance to a process
> of the overcoming of self-created dualisms, boundaries in the mind.
> Always the seat of identity until this point, the ego is based on the
> twin concepts of self/not-self. As this and other dualisms are
> steadily undermined, and the practicioner is beginning to overcome the
> exclusive identification of the ego with the self, the ego exhibits
> fear. The process is more or less complete upon the first complete
> experience of awareness where subject and object are
> indistinguishable. Some might call this the basic enlightened state.
Speaking of something so vague as to be useless, there you have it.
What the hell are you talking about?
You talk as if there is some sort of difference between ego and self.
So now it's your turn to do some precise defining of those two terms.
And make sure it's not "so vague as to be unusable".
> Note that I didn't say stage. This is a peak experience. Over time
> with continued work it is a plateau experience, becoming more and more
> part of normal consciousness.
Or less and less as you try over and over to possess it as if it were
something you could own.
Tom
> On Nov 4, 10:05 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > The concepts of good and evil are slippery on both sides. "Good" is
> > upholding what's truly important, while "evil" is the abandonment of
> > what's truly important for something only seemingly important.
> > "What's truly important" is an absolute. Some particular action in
> > one context may be seen as good because it ultimately upholds what's
> > truly important but evil in some other context because it does not
> > uphold it. So the goodness or evilness of one's actions is evaluated
> > relatively. So some aspects of both LHP and RHP are relativistic and
> > some are absolutist.
>
> This doesn't support your statement directly.
Yes it does.
> I must also suggest your
> definition of good and evil is novel and not necessarily shared by all
> or even a reasonable sample of people.
You didn't ask for others' definitions. You asked for mine. Now that
you have it, you want to change your mind and start arguing someone
else's definition.
> > If you see a difference between right and left, that's dualism. If
> > nothing is more or less important than anything else, then there is no
> > need to make any distinction between a RHP and a LHP at all.
>
> No. If you see right and left as opposites that is dualism.
No? No??? So you think you're right and I'm wrong. That's dualism,
too.
Tom
>
> Tom, your statement presumes that the Abyss is an actual thing,
Wheras you think it's an imaginary thing.
Tom
>
>
> Nothing to add.
Except that, of course. DeLudeWig can never leave well enough alone.
He has to try to steal the credit for everything by pretending that
his approval is somehow essential to it.
Tom
>
> I want to see any of the above-mentioned practicioners demonstrate
> their magickal skills before I'll consider taking any of their
> ideas and practices seriously.
But of course, Sid also says that physical evidence is irrelevant
because it's not Sid's interior experience, so no matter what evidence
anyone gives him, he'll simply discount it. On the other hand, Sid
also refuses to offer any checkable evidence to support any of his own
claims, so by his own standards, no one should believe them either.
Tehiru
You posited that recognizing right and wrong as not being identical as
dualism. I recognize that Lay's potato chips and an engine block are
not identical, so by that logic they must fit your model of a dualism.
I corrected you (politely) by clarifying to you that dualism is about
opposites. Take it gracefully.
Tehiru
> > > "You" don't cross the Abyss. That which crosses the Abyss is not
> > > "you".
>
> > The crossing is a transitional state.
>
> Every state is a transitional state. There is no "crossing". There
> is only an awareness of a gulf between self and other. "You" cannot
> cross that because "you" are nothing more than one side of the gulf.
> What "crosses the Abyss" is not "you".
> limit of self. There is no you beyond you.
So crossing the abyss is a metaphor? But "you" cannot cross. Let's
start there. In a previous post you made the point that "Ego defines a
boundary between what we call "self" and what we call "other".
Consider it as sort of a property line.". I will accept that answer as
far as it goes, since the issue of ego-less identity is not addressed.
So, I now understand that you define the crossing of the abyss as
crossing the line from self to not-self. I understand where you are
coming from now. It's not your reasoning that is flawed, but your
reasoning flows from a flawed perception.
You are correct that crossing the abyss is a metaphor (of a symbol).
You are correct about the boundary between self and not-self. Although
not mentioned there is also the recognition of the universe as objects
in consciousness. However you are incorrect in your implicit
assumption that it is a one-way trip, a transition from the self to
some state of perpetual objectless awareness and bliss, that the sense
of self is dead and buried. That is a characteristic of a later
development, the permanent and final stage of development of another
grade.
> > The Abyss experience is a transitional state involving the quite
> > understandable apprehension of the ego and its resistance to a process
> > of the overcoming of self-created dualisms, boundaries in the mind.
> > Always the seat of identity until this point, the ego is based on the
> > twin concepts of self/not-self. As this and other dualisms are
> > steadily undermined, and the practicioner is beginning to overcome the
> > exclusive identification of the ego with the self, the ego exhibits
> > fear. The process is more or less complete upon the first complete
> > experience of awareness where subject and object are
> > indistinguishable. Some might call this the basic enlightened state.
>
> Speaking of something so vague as to be useless, there you have it.
> What the hell are you talking about?
I am astonished you consider me vague, as I have been dramatically
more specific than yourself.
> You talk as if there is some sort of difference between ego and self.
> So now it's your turn to do some precise defining of those two terms.
> And make sure it's not "so vague as to be unusable".
Of course, Tom. Let's consider the average Joe in the world. He lives
in his head, is vaguely dissatisfied with "his" body (not "I") and has
the normal assortment of repressed emotions and memories. In other
words, a regular guy. Now one day he gets into meditation, and learns
to really pay attention to his body over a reasonable span of months.
Great! His sense of "I" has expanded, but by disidentifying his sense
of identity with the ego but by disidentifying his sense of identity
EXCLUSIVELY with the ego. As time moves on he moves into
Transcendental Meditation, and as his practice matures over the months
and years he relieves the repressed aspects of his psyche, allowing
them to rise in consciousness. He encounters his shadow, and now the
sense of self expands to include the shadow as well. The process of
development is one of growth, where the "I" of today becomes part of
the larger "I" of tomorrow, growing like an inverted pyramid. Later,
other boundaries are undermined, and the process continues.
> > Note that I didn't say stage. This is a peak experience. Over time
> > with continued work it is a plateau experience, becoming more and more
> > part of normal consciousness.
>
> Or less and less as you try over and over to possess it as if it were
> something you could own.
What a strange idea. How could one seek possession (which is of course
boiling down to "mine") of what is fundamentally you (not "yours",
"you")?
Absorbed
> On Nov 4, 9:51 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> "You" don't cross the Abyss. That which crosses the Abyss is not
>>>> "you".
>>> The crossing is a transitional state.
>> Every state is a transitional state. There is no "crossing". There
>> is only an awareness of a gulf between self and other. "You" cannot
>> cross that because "you" are nothing more than one side of the gulf.
>> What "crosses the Abyss" is not "you".
>> The Abyss is the limit of self. The self cannot and does not cross the
>> limit of self. There is no you beyond you.
>
> So crossing the abyss is a metaphor? But "you" cannot cross. Let's
> start there. In a previous post you made the point that "Ego defines a
> boundary between what we call "self" and what we call "other".
> Consider it as sort of a property line.". I will accept that answer as
> far as it goes, since the issue of ego-less identity is not addressed.
> So, I now understand that you define the crossing of the abyss as
> crossing the line from self to not-self. I understand where you are
> coming from now.
I don't think you do. Tom just said "There is no 'crossing'", and yet
here you understand Tom to mean that "crossing the abyss" is "crossing
the line from self to not-self".
As I understand Tom's position -- correct me if I'm wrong -- "crossing
the abyss" is a discovery, a revelation of the illusion of self. You
don't become something different beyond this new understanding of self.
That said, that discovery is supposedly incredibly empowering. I believe
the Bible makes this point, with Solomon asking for wisdom, not riches,
and for that reason God gave him riches.
I believe that "crossing the abyss" and KCHGA aren't about improving or
"changing" yourself or your circumstances; they're about self discovery.
I think you're getting too caught up in trying to analyse the words
"crossing the abyss". I consider both "crossing the abyss" and KCHGA
just to be labels. You shouldn't try to read any particular meaning into
the words themselves. Crowley himself stated this:
"He therefore said: "Let me declare this Work under this title: 'The
obtaining of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian
Angel'", because the theory implied in these words is so patently absurd
that only simpletons would waste much time in analysing it."
I believe the same holds true for "crossing the abyss".
Tehiru
Congratulations, that was well put. However, since the main thrust was
your interpretation of Tom's thoughts as the basis for yours, we'll
have to wait for Tom.
Tom
> On Nov 4, 9:51 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "You" don't cross the Abyss. That which crosses the Abyss is not
> > > > "you".
>
> > > The crossing is a transitional state.
>
> > Every state is a transitional state. There is no "crossing". There
> > is only an awareness of a gulf between self and other. "You" cannot
> > cross that because "you" are nothing more than one side of the gulf.
> > What "crosses the Abyss" is not "you".
> > The Abyss is the limit of self. The self cannot and does not cross the
> > limit of self. There is no you beyond you.
>
> So crossing the abyss is a metaphor?
Of course it's a metaphor! Did you think it was a big hole you could
jump over?
> You are correct that crossing the abyss is a metaphor (of a symbol).
> You are correct about the boundary between self and not-self. Although
> not mentioned there is also the recognition of the universe as objects
> in consciousness.
We represent experiences as objects in our consciousness. The
representations are not the experiences. They merely serve as
reference points on a map of reality that we continually build and
modify. The city of Chigago is not a little circle on a piece of
paper, but that's how it often appears on our map.
> However you are incorrect in your implicit
> assumption that it is a one-way trip, a transition from the self to
> some state of perpetual objectless awareness and bliss, that the sense
> of self is dead and buried.
It's not a trip at all. I said quite explicitly that it is *not* a
journey. It is not even a transition. It's something that is always
right there, part of your consciousness, no matter what else is going
on. All you are doing is discovering it. You don't cross anything.
There is no transition. All that happens is that you experience a
momentary glimpse of some very subtle neurological activity that we
usually don;t become aware of because we are attending to other stuff.
The experience labelled "Crossing the Abyss" is not the death of ego,
but an understanding of its limitation. Ego exists within the bounds
it creates, lifting itself by its own bootstraps as it were. Beyond
the boundaries of ego, there is still feeling, or awareness, but that
feeling or awareness does not include a sense of self. You do not
travel to that state or transition to that state. It's just something
that's happening all the time and once in while, when conditions are
just right, the self-talk that obscures it ceases and we can feel it.
The confusion about this is a function of spiritual materialism. In
our meditations, we experience something that strongly moves us. It
becomes something valuable, a spiritual experience that we want to
catch and hold. It becomes an object, something outside of us that
must be brought in. But because we have objectified it, we are
separating ourselves from it.
The Abyss becomes something separate because of our objectification of
our feelings, and that's what makes it an Abyss in the first place.
It's become an object and, being separate from it, we think we must
"cross" it. That something must die or be destroyed to be replaced by
this new spiritual consciousness.
All of this is the operation of the ego. It is the ego that creates
the Abyss and separates itself from experience. Then, since it is
composed of experience, it must find some way to compensate for having
divorced itself from what comprises it. So instead of being one with
experience, ego seeks to own it. That always palls, however. You
cannot keep experience in a box. The memories fade and distort over
time. What is possessed decomposes.
The sacrifice of "crossing the Abyss" is the surrender of separation,
the acceptance that experience cannot be possessed forever. It is
only when one can let go of all possession, even the possession of a
sense of self, that those subtle aspects of our consciousness are
discovered.
> > You talk as if there is some sort of difference between ego and self.
> > So now it's your turn to do some precise defining of those two terms.
> > And make sure it's not "so vague as to be unusable".
>
> Of course, Tom. Let's consider the average Joe in the world. He lives
> in his head, is vaguely dissatisfied with "his" body (not "I") and has
> the normal assortment of repressed emotions and memories. In other
> words, a regular guy. Now one day he gets into meditation, and learns
> to really pay attention to his body over a reasonable span of months.
> Great! His sense of "I" has expanded, but by disidentifying his sense
> of identity with the ego but by disidentifying his sense of identity
> EXCLUSIVELY with the ego. As time moves on he moves into
> Transcendental Meditation, and as his practice matures over the months
> and years he relieves the repressed aspects of his psyche, allowing
> them to rise in consciousness. He encounters his shadow, and now the
> sense of self expands to include the shadow as well. The process of
> development is one of growth, where the "I" of today becomes part of
> the larger "I" of tomorrow, growing like an inverted pyramid. Later,
> other boundaries are undermined, and the process continues.
You have made no distinction at all between ego and self, which is
what I asked you to do. All you did was describe a pathetic case of
spiritual materialism where some poor schmuck thinks he can own the
universe by collecting "spiritual experiences" and keeping them in
some sort of museum in his imagination where they can be "his" forever
after.
> > > Note that I didn't say stage. This is a peak experience. Over time
> > > with continued work it is a plateau experience, becoming more and more
> > > part of normal consciousness.
>
> > Or less and less as you try over and over to possess it as if it were
> > something you could own.
>
> What a strange idea. How could one seek possession (which is of course
> boiling down to "mine") of what is fundamentally you (not "yours",
> "you")?
You can't, but that's exactly what you're describing as your
aspiration.
Robert Scott Martin
Tom <dant...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Every state is a transitional state.
Heck, every "object" is a transitional object.
Kind of a funny thread. Interesting how its structures of cathexis
precipitated so quickly back to the primal scene. When it started, I
thought it was going to be about whether sober sufis can drink beer. Or at
least about the yellow hats and other ironists.
Rick, ABD
7dfd5fb9-d62f-433f...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, "Tehiru"
<tehiru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, are there any other major demarcations of beliefs I haven't
> considered? Expansions? Corrections?
As "paths," they primarily refer to differences in approach. In the original
context the goal is the same in either case, escape from The Wheel. The
differences in approach can be simplified into two words, denial and
immersion.
On the right, asceticism, presumably leading to a complete loss of interest
over time in anything that might keep one locked in the cycle.
On the left, utter indulgence, again presumably leading to a complete loss
of interest over time in anything that might keep one locked in the cycle.
The fundamental concepts of these different approaches are often grossly
misinterpreted in modern Western contexts. Take literal Satanism as the
prime example. Many assume it's a LHP endeavor because it promotes a
generally amoral attitude, which is incorrect. It is a LHP in a way though,
it's about deep immersion into Judeo-Christian imagery, using intentional
blasphemy as the primary tool, presumably as a means of desensitizing
oneself to deep psychospiritual conditioning resulting from being reared in
such a deeply Judeo-Christian society. The general concept is to burn
oneself out on it, ultimately resulting in complete freedom from it.
Whether the approach is warranted or useful in that (Satanism/Christianity)
specific context is debatable, but hopefully the example illustrates the
nature of the LHP (in a manner that is more faithful to the origins of the
term) and how "it" might be applied to just about anything.
Good examples of the RHP in a strictly Western context are rare. I can't
think of a good one off hand.
Tehiru
Well put. I would submit that what you have presented is one
difference but certainly not the only difference, but you presented
yourself well.
mika
> On Nov 4, 5:47 pm, mika wrote:
>
> > I'll use your own words to explain. As you said, "The process is more
> > or less complete upon the first complete
> > experience of awareness where subject and object are
> > indistinguishable." So - if subject and object become
> > indistinguishable, what makes you think you can take anything with
> > you?
>
> Perhaps you should have read more of my words. I went on to
> specifically point out that this experience is a state and not a
> stage. States are temporary, eventually crossing into plateaus and
> finally settling down into a stage. Now that I have refreshed your
> memory about my following comments, I am happy to hear your specific
> thoughts on the subject. Your thoughts, not a rehash or a rejoinder of
> someone else's thoughts.
You didn't answer my question above, which applies regardless of
whether you call the experience a "stage" or a "state". Here, I'll
rephrase it for you:
If subject and object become indistinguishable during this *state*,
how would it be possible to simultaneously, during this state,
maintain a sense of "you"?
If there is no subject and object, there is no you and not-you. Thus
your sense of self and identity must be 'left behind' - by definition
of the experience. If there is consciousness of a "you", then you're
have a different kind of experience.
> I would also like to hear your thoughts about the
> differences between ego, identity and self.
There is no practical difference between any of the above. They are
all imaginary constructs created by the mind.
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Tehiru wrote:
> On Nov 5, 3:06ÔøΩam, Absorbed wrote:
>
>>I think you're getting too caught up in trying to analyse the words
>>"crossing the abyss". I consider both "crossing the abyss" and KCHGA
>>just to be labels. You shouldn't try to read any particular meaning into
>>the words themselves. Crowley himself stated this:
>>
>>"He therefore said: "Let me declare this Work under this title: 'The
>>obtaining of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian
>>Angel'", because the theory implied in these words is so patently absurd
>>that only simpletons would waste much time in analysing it."
>>
>>I believe the same holds true for "crossing the abyss".
>
>
> Congratulations, that was well put. However, since the main thrust was
> your interpretation of Tom's thoughts as the basis for yours, we'll
> have to wait for Tom.
Meanwhile we can petition for the closure of alt.magick as fit only for
simpletons wasting time.
Of course, as many before have pointed out, Crowley is inconsistent,
perhaps, justifiably so, but nevertheless, contradictory in many of his
published statements.
mika
> On Nov 4, 5:32 pm, mikawrote:
>
> > Consciousness.
>
> A whole word for an answer? Don't be frugal here Mika, expand.
Expand on what?
You asked: "If you believe that "you" don't cross the abyss, what
does?"
I responded that consciousness does. That is a complete answer to
your question. You asked what does, I told you what does. I can't
imagine what more needs to be said since the response makes perfect
sense to me, so, if you don't understand, feel free to ask further
questions.
> Illustrate the self, the other, and the border between.
The self is what you imagine to be you, the other, by default, is
everything that is not you, and the border between doesn't actually
exist, it's just an imaginary construct in your mind.
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Tehiru wrote:
> On Nov 4, 9:14ÔøΩpm, "Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq."
> wrote:
>>You are claiming then, to be in the process of crossing the abyss?
>
>
> If someone did make that claim
Is that a no?
> and another person had not had the
> experience him/herself, how would they be able to establish the
> veracity of that statement?
As i wrote previously, "How would you or anyone else know unless they
have done so?"
> Tarot cards? The ever-popular "I feel it
> in my bones" method?
I suppose its at least possible that the person least likely to know is
the one who has done so.
"Before enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water, after
enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water."
When i look around for an abyss to cross all i see is the universe.
This inclines me to the idea that the ultimate crossing is inevitable.
Whether we end up as dust on the pyramid in the victorious city or
something else yet to be discovered, remains to be seen.
In the meantime, while we Waite ...... :)
Midnight torte
-----------------
1 pound high quality semi sweet baking chocolate
1 pound unsalted butter
6 large eggs
In the top of a double boiler over medium high heat, melt the chocolate
and butter together. Place the mixture into a medium mixing bowl. Wash
the top of the double boiler.
In the double boiler over medium high heat, whisk the eggs until warmed
through. Remove the eggs from the heat, and, using an electric mixer
set on high, beat for 6 minutes or until thickened.
By hand, fold the thickened eggs into the chocolate, one quarter at a
time, until completely blended.
Preheat the oven to 425 F
Pour the batter into a 16 inch spring form pan. Wrap the bottom and
sides of the pan in a double layer of aluminum foil and place the pan
in a large roasting pan and add enough water to come to within 1 inch of
the top of the spring form pan. Bake for 15 minutes.
Remove the torte from the oven & the water and cool for 1 hour at room
temperature. Refrigerate 24 hours before removing from pan and slice
with a hot knife. Serve with a mix of pureed and fresh raspberry's and
whipped cream.
bassos
"Rick, ABD" <ri...@dontbother.com> wrote in message
news:C718438A.B8F7%ri...@dontbother.com...
> On 11/3/09 10:48 AM, in article
> 7dfd5fb9-d62f-433f...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com,
> "Tehiru"
> <tehiru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So, are there any other major demarcations of beliefs I haven't
>> considered? Expansions? Corrections?
>
> As "paths," they primarily refer to differences in approach. In the
> original
> context the goal is the same in either case, escape from The Wheel. The
> differences in approach can be simplified into two words, denial and
> immersion.
>
> On the right, asceticism, presumably leading to a complete loss of
> interest
> over time in anything that might keep one locked in the cycle.
Thus theism; only god is real.
> On the left, utter indulgence, again presumably leading to a complete loss
> of interest over time in anything that might keep one locked in the cycle.
Thus atheism, only i is real.
(a bit stretched to fit the square peg)
What's in the middle ?
Agnosticism.
Real ? wherever did you get that weird idea ?
(btw, you do not exist and certainly do not get idea's, you perhaps
experience some parts of idea's that moved through you)
In the end they all meet as :
Theism: i am god, god is everything, i am everything, if i am everything, i
is nonsensical.
Atheism: There is only I, so I must be everything, but if i am everything, I
is nonsensical.
Agnosticism: Just like before; experience appears to occur. No biggie.
> The fundamental concepts of these different approaches are often grossly
> misinterpreted in modern Western contexts. Take literal Satanism as the
> prime example. Many assume it's a LHP endeavor because it promotes a
> generally amoral attitude, which is incorrect. It is a LHP in a way
> though,
> it's about deep immersion into Judeo-Christian imagery, using intentional
> blasphemy as the primary tool, presumably as a means of desensitizing
> oneself to deep psychospiritual conditioning resulting from being reared
> in
> such a deeply Judeo-Christian society. The general concept is to burn
> oneself out on it, ultimately resulting in complete freedom from it.
And they call themselves a religion and simply worship a different image.
(satan)
Those hindu's have a much more refined system.
So much more refined i think it would be neccesary to read it in the
original language.
So from them i only take general messages.
(like the srimad bhagavatam and the bhagavad gita)
Left with QBLH.
Not so convoluted/refined as the hindu's.
Still a foreign language, but the concept behind hebrew is much more
familiar to me than hindi or whatever the veda's are written in.
(besides, them hindu's love just naming stuff, perhaps just to be sure there
actually are ten thousand things in them works.)
A nice 10 dimensional framework, easily capable of describing creation.
The abyss is not a place, nor a thing, nor anything.
It is choice.
Stop choosing sides.
Choose what seems beautiful.
(perhaps elegant is a better term, but i like the sledgehammer too much to
claim elegance)
> Good examples of the RHP in a strictly Western context are rare. I can't
> think of a good one off hand.
Theism.
(think rightwing nutjob christian fundies, or muslim peeps of similar
tastes)
Think crusades.
Think religion.
Submission to god.
BTW: loads of what i posted above is not in any way directed at you, but
more of a comment on the thread in general and an explanation of a previous
assertion aswell.
PS:
In case you are ZE Rick; /wave.
bassos
"mika" <mik...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fda8946c-e7e7-4723...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 4, 6:58 pm, Tehiru wrote:
> On Nov 4, 5:32 pm, mikawrote:
>
> > Consciousness.
>
> A whole word for an answer? Don't be frugal here Mika, expand.
**
Expand on what?
You asked: "If you believe that "you" don't cross the abyss, what
does?"
I responded that consciousness does.
**
I kinda agree with you, so here on purpose and to avoid misconception
publicly stated, i take a tilted viewpoint.
How bout consciouss accrues an i when IT crosses the abyss ?
(top down lightning flash before bottom up selfaware matter)
Alrah
the most obvious consequence that flows from the abyss experience.
Love. Simply put - the ability to love in a far more profound and
enduring way than before the experience.
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
And you know this how?
Alrah
wrote:
I feel it. It doesn't get washed away or eclipsed by arguments or
squables or ego stuff. It's good.
Tehiru
> > You are correct about the boundary between self and not-self. Although
> > not mentioned there is also the recognition of the universe as objects
> > in consciousness.
>
> We represent experiences as objects in our consciousness. The
> representations are not the experiences. They merely serve as
> reference points on a map of reality that we continually build and
> modify. The city of Chigago is not a little circle on a piece of
> paper, but that's how it often appears on our map.
So you agree.
> It's not a trip at all. I said quite explicitly that it is *not* a
> journey. It is not even a transition. It's something that is always
> right there, part of your consciousness, no matter what else is going
> on. All you are doing is discovering it. You don't cross anything.
> There is no transition. All that happens is that you experience a
> momentary glimpse of some very subtle neurological activity that we
> usually don;t become aware of because we are attending to other stuff.
So crossing the abyss is a discovery. And it is always right there. It
is not a transition, but a momentary glimpse of some very subtle
neurological activity. Ok, a discovery (or momentary glimpse) of what
kind of activity?
> The experience labelled "Crossing the Abyss" is not the death of ego,
> but an understanding of its limitation.
I didn't say it was the death of the ego, Tom. I said it was the
process of moving past the exclusive identification of the self with
the ego. I went on further to comment that the ego expresses fear and
confusion (hallmarks of the abyss) because it is interpreted in
psychological terms as a symbolic death.
> Ego exists within the bounds
> it creates, lifting itself by its own bootstraps as it were. Beyond
> the boundaries of ego, there is still feeling, or awareness, but that
> feeling or awareness does not include a sense of self. You do not
> travel to that state or transition to that state. It's just something
> that's happening all the time and once in while, when conditions are
> just right, the self-talk that obscures it ceases and we can feel it.
Ego is a reflection of the boundary of self and not-self. Crossing the
abyss in the characteristic experience of egoless awareness does not
imply a lack of identity. The identity is fundamentally different of
course, expanded as all become objects in consciousness as self and
not-self become one. This experience has been described by writers
such as assagioli and wilber in a fair amount of detail, and I cannot
help but notice some fundamental differences in what you describe and
what they describe. I would suggest that the state you are suggesting
is another state.
> The Abyss becomes something separate because of our objectification of
> our feelings, and that's what makes it an Abyss in the first place.
> It's become an object and, being separate from it, we think we must
> "cross" it. That something must die or be destroyed to be replaced by
> this new spiritual consciousness.
No Tom, it is a manifestation of a process.
> All of this is the operation of the ego. It is the ego that creates
> the Abyss and separates itself from experience.
Yes, the ego is the root of the abyss experience.
> The sacrifice of "crossing the Abyss" is the surrender of separation,
> the acceptance that experience cannot be possessed forever. It is
> only when one can let go of all possession, even the possession of a
> sense of self, that those subtle aspects of our consciousness are
> discovered.
And only by having a child can one experience sex
> > > You talk as if there is some sort of difference between ego and self.
> > > So now it's your turn to do some precise defining of those two terms.
> > > And make sure it's not "so vague as to be unusable".
Tom, I have been very specific. For most people, the ego is the self
at the mature ego state. However, when you move forward and integrate
the shadow, you are now no longer identifying exclusively the self
with the ego. Read the snippet below.
> > Of course, Tom. Let's consider the average Joe in the world. He lives
> > in his head, is vaguely dissatisfied with "his" body (not "I") and has
> > the normal assortment of repressed emotions and memories. In other
> > words, a regular guy. Now one day he gets into meditation, and learns
> > to really pay attention to his body over a reasonable span of months.
> > Great! His sense of "I" has expanded, but by disidentifying his sense
> > of identity with the ego but by disidentifying his sense of identity
> > EXCLUSIVELY with the ego. As time moves on he moves into
> > Transcendental Meditation, and as his practice matures over the months
> > and years he relieves the repressed aspects of his psyche, allowing
> > them to rise in consciousness. He encounters his shadow, and now the
> > sense of self expands to include the shadow as well. The process of
> > development is one of growth, where the "I" of today becomes part of
> > the larger "I" of tomorrow, growing like an inverted pyramid. Later,
> > other boundaries are undermined, and the process continues.
Well what do you know? Am I to understand you don't read an entire
post before replying?
> You have made no distinction at all between ego and self, which is
> what I asked you to do. All you did was describe a pathetic case of
> spiritual materialism where some poor schmuck thinks he can own the
> universe by collecting "spiritual experiences" and keeping them in
> some sort of museum in his imagination where they can be "his" forever
> after.
You draw the most amazing conclusion!
bassos
"Alrah" <alrah-...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:51b58083-2d3c-4664...@h26g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
Mutters something about choosing what is beautiful.
Love is an activity.
Just like every other emotion.
(loving kindness meditation; start your love activity by focussing it on
someone/thing you already love, then work on expanding it to include
everything, iesch nice)
Choose wisely :)
(gotta taste hell too, feet in the dirt, head in the sky business and all)
Tehiru
> On Nov 4, 7:13 pm, Tehiru wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 4, 5:47 pm, mika wrote:
>
> > > I'll use your own words to explain. As you said, "The process is more
> > > or less complete upon the first complete
> > > experience of awareness where subject and object are
> > > indistinguishable." So - if subject and object become
> > > indistinguishable, what makes you think you can take anything with
> > > you?
>
> > Perhaps you should have read more of my words. I went on to
> > specifically point out that this experience is a state and not a
> > stage. States are temporary, eventually crossing into plateaus and
> > finally settling down into a stage. Now that I have refreshed your
> > memory about my following comments, I am happy to hear your specific
> > thoughts on the subject. Your thoughts, not a rehash or a rejoinder of
> > someone else's thoughts.
>
> You didn't answer my question above, which applies regardless of
> whether you call the experience a "stage" or a "state". Here, I'll
> rephrase it for you:
>
> If subject and object become indistinguishable during this *state*,
> how would it be possible to simultaneously, during this state,
> maintain a sense of "you"?
Excellent question. Non-egoic awareness does not reply a lack of
identity. I did discuss this and posted it last night. Heck, the
response I just made to Tom lays it out directly.
> If there is no subject and object, there is no you and not-you. Thus
> your sense of self and identity must be 'left behind' - by definition
> of the experience. If there is consciousness of a "you", then you're
> have a different kind of experience.
Expand, I would like to hear your thoughts.
> > I would also like to hear your thoughts about the
> > differences between ego, identity and self.
>
> There is no practical difference between any of the above. They are
> all imaginary constructs created by the mind.
Then that is why you do not understand. This has been covered already,
and has already been addressed in this response (above).
Tehiru
wrote:
> Is that a no?
I make no claim to be crossing the abyss.
> I suppose its at least possible that the person least likely to know is
> the one who has done so.
You missed it:
Let's say I crossed the abyss and said so. Lets also say that you have
not crossed the abyss. Now, how would you evaluate my claim?
Now let's say I didn't cross the abyss but made the claim. Let's say
this time you had crossed the abyss. Do you feel it reasonable that
having crossed the abyss, you would be able to evaluate my claim?
Now lets say that neither of us, and both of us were claiming we had.
We certainly couldn't evaluate our respective claims, but if our
conceptions differed I am sure we would debate our respective
thoughts.
Alrah
> "Alrah" <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:51b58083-2d3c-4664...@h26g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>
> > What I find strange about this thread, is that no-one has mentioned
> > the most obvious consequence that flows from the abyss experience.
>
> > Love. Simply put - the ability to love in a far more profound and
> > enduring way than before the experience.
>
> Mutters something about choosing what is beautiful.
I was a good looking child from the word go, and my grandma made sure
I knew that beauty comes from inside - not what you see on the
surface. Loving people are the most beautiful on earth. Everything
else is just... symmetry.
> Love is an activity.
> Just like every other emotion.
With every other emotion ego is involved - except perhaps joy, as love
is joy and acceptance. Breathing is an activity too - love is just as
much a fundemental to us as the breath, and is the manifestation of
enlightenment through the vehicle. Every other emotion can be
overcome and transformed with love, but it has to come from within us
first. The ego is not the enemy - when it gives up itself in perfect
trust, expecting naught but death then love and life are the
completely unexpected gifts - innexhaustable. Without love - or
rather, when we refuse divine love we are dead emotional cripples.
> (loving kindness meditation; start your love activity by focussing it on
> someone/thing you already love, then work on expanding it to include
> everything, iesch nice)
>
> Choose wisely :)
> (gotta taste hell too, feet in the dirt, head in the sky business and all)
:-)
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Tehiru wrote:
> On Nov 5, 10:14ÔøΩam, "Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq."
> wrote:
>
>>Is that a no?
>
> I make no claim to be crossing the abyss.
Ok, i just wanted to make sure. There are a number of people posting
here who make various outrageous claims routinely, some even use what i
consider hubristic sig files.
>
>
>>I suppose its at least possible that the person least likely to know is
>>the one who has done so.
>
>
> You missed it:
> Let's say I crossed the abyss and said so.
Then i would ask you for some explanation of how you know this.
To describe the experience. How it differs from a pre any pre abyss state.
From those things i have read by people claiming some sort of
'enlightenment' there is often a theme of heightened ordinariness.
Wherein the ordinary takes on aspects of the extraordinary but this is
due only to a shift in perception not a change in the object but rather
the subjective experience of it, or so i have read.
> Lets also say that you have
> not crossed the abyss. Now, how would you evaluate my claim?
Generally along the lines of the abyss that can be named is not the
eternal abyss, or some other equally Taoist aphorism.
> Now let's say I didn't cross the abyss but made the claim. Let's say
> this time you had crossed the abyss. Do you feel it reasonable that
> having crossed the abyss, you would be able to evaluate my claim?
Not necessarily. As i do not know what crossing the abyss results in.
Perhaps there is a greater perceptual acuity as a result of this
crossing that would allow for such an analysis.
> Now lets say that neither of us, and both of us were claiming we had.
?
> We certainly couldn't evaluate our respective claims, but if our
> conceptions differed I am sure we would debate our respective
> thoughts.
One can debate anything.
Thus returning to my leitmotif of 'style' how one says something i often
more important than what is said.
bassos
> From: "Alrah" <alrah-...@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.magick
> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 10:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Perspectives on RHP and LHP Thought
>
>
> On 5 Nov, 20:53, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> "Alrah" <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:51b58083-2d3c-4664...@h26g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > What I find strange about this thread, is that no-one has mentioned
>> > the most obvious consequence that flows from the abyss experience.
>>
>> > Love. Simply put - the ability to love in a far more profound and
>> > enduring way than before the experience.
>>
>> Mutters something about choosing what is beautiful.
>
> I was a good looking child from the word go, and my grandma made sure
> I knew that beauty comes from inside - not what you see on the
> surface. Loving people are the most beautiful on earth. Everything
> else is just... symmetry.
I referred to my comment in the other response, but ok.
Love is the feeling of union.
<insert; for i am divided for ...>
Beauty is not just symmetry.
We like symmetry, we love the golden ratio.
(PHI)
>> Love is an activity.
>> Just like every other emotion.
>
> With every other emotion ego is involved
I use emotion as : E-Motion.
External Motion.
(loads of people use it quite differently)
Something akin to a conclusion based on feelings.
If a conclusion gets made based on feeling, that seems to me to always be
from ego.
Stop choosing.
We are here for the ride.
Enjoy.
(Fasten your seatbelts :P)
> - except perhaps joy, as love is joy and acceptance.
Just dance.
Dance the dance of joy.
Dance the pointy dance.
Slowdance.
Rave.
Let the music of the spheres move to always dance the dance of life.
Tehiru
wrote:
> Ok, i just wanted to make sure. There are a number of people posting
> here who make various outrageous claims routinely, some even use what i
> consider hubristic sig files.
>
If it makes you feel more comfortable, I am crossing the abyss. While
finishing my bestselling novel. Camped out on the north face of Mt.
Everest at 28,000 feet. Waiting for the Dalai Lama to voicemail me for
his next lessons on meditation. (chuckle)
I'll look at the rest later. Got phone calls to make.
Tom
> On Nov 5, 8:39 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > You are correct about the boundary between self and not-self. Although
> > > not mentioned there is also the recognition of the universe as objects
> > > in consciousness.
>
> > We represent experiences as objects in our consciousness. The
> > representations are not the experiences. They merely serve as
> > reference points on a map of reality that we continually build and
> > modify. The city of Chigago is not a little circle on a piece of
> > paper, but that's how it often appears on our map.
>
> So you agree.
I do not agree that the universe is composed of "objects in
consciousness". The universe is represented by objects in
consciousness, as a city is represented by a little circle on a map.
There is considerable difference between the universe as it is and the
universe as we represent it.
> > It's not a trip at all. I said quite explicitly that it is *not* a
> > journey. It is not even a transition. It's something that is always
> > right there, part of your consciousness, no matter what else is going
> > on. All you are doing is discovering it. You don't cross anything.
> > There is no transition. All that happens is that you experience a
> > momentary glimpse of some very subtle neurological activity that we
> > usually don;t become aware of because we are attending to other stuff.
>
> So crossing the abyss is a discovery. And it is always right there. It
> is not a transition, but a momentary glimpse of some very subtle
> neurological activity. Ok, a discovery (or momentary glimpse) of what
> kind of activity?
I just told you and you just repeated it. Neurological activity. Did
those two words fail to register with you at all despite your own use
of them immediately before you asked your question?
> > The experience labelled "Crossing the Abyss" is not the death of ego,
> > but an understanding of its limitation.
>
> I didn't say it was the death of the ego, Tom.
You are again failing to comprehend what you're reading. You were
suggesting that *I* believed that it was the death of ego and that you
were therefore correcting me. So I told you that you are wrong to
suggest that, since it isn't the case. Organize your thoughts better.
> I said it was the
> process of moving past the exclusive identification of the self with
> the ego.
I asked you to define "ego" and "self" and to contrast them, but you
were unable to do so. Would you like to try again?
> I went on further to comment that the ego expresses fear and
> confusion (hallmarks of the abyss) because it is interpreted in
> psychological terms as a symbolic death.
And so it seems from the ego's point of reference.
> Ego is a reflection of the boundary of self and not-self.
Ego is a representation of multiple simultaneous body states as a
single ongoing entity. It's a convenient fiction, a useful mental
construct.
> Crossing the
> abyss in the characteristic experience of egoless awareness does not
> imply a lack of identity.
Where there is no self, there is no identity. It's quite simple. I
don't see what you are having a hard time with here.
> The identity is fundamentally different of
> course, expanded as all become objects in consciousness as self and
> not-self become one.
What you seem to be expressing is the expansion of ego to encompass
everything, which is exactly the opposite of the conditions beyond the
limit of ego. Rather than face the Abyss, you are trying to push it
away. Instead of transcending ego consciousness, you are striving to
get your ego to transcend everything else and then trying to tell
yourself that it's the same thing. It's not the same thing, though.
Not at all.
The ego objectifies everything, is separate from everything. Thus, no
matter how much you study and how many "spiritual experiences" you
have, they will always be encapsulated as memories, and slowly degrade
over time. The ego has nothing to do with the immediacy of experience,
with reality, but always with representations of reality, memories,
stories. To appreciate reality on this level, one must not try to
duplicate it, or preserve it, but simply attend to it.
> > The Abyss becomes something separate because of our objectification of
> > our feelings, and that's what makes it an Abyss in the first place.
> > It's become an object and, being separate from it, we think we must
> > "cross" it. That something must die or be destroyed to be replaced by
> > this new spiritual consciousness.
>
> No Tom, it is a manifestation of a process.
Oh, don't be supercilious. That response suggests to me that you
don't even know what I'm talking about here.
> > The sacrifice of "crossing the Abyss" is the surrender of separation,
> > the acceptance that experience cannot be possessed forever. It is
> > only when one can let go of all possession, even the possession of a
> > sense of self, that those subtle aspects of our consciousness are
> > discovered.
>
> And only by having a child can one experience sex
Again, it looks more and more like you have no idea what I'm talking
about.
> > > > You talk as if there is some sort of difference between ego and self.
> > > > So now it's your turn to do some precise defining of those two terms.
> > > > And make sure it's not "so vague as to be unusable".
>
> Tom, I have been very specific.
Let's see.
> For most people, the ego is the self
> at the mature ego state.
I didn't ask you what "most people" think. I asked you to define your
terms. Instead you hand me this dreck.
> However, when you move forward and integrate
> the shadow,
And now it's Jungian folderol.
> you are now no longer identifying exclusively the self
> with the ego. Read the snippet below.
>
> > > Of course, Tom. Let's consider the average Joe in the world. He lives
> > > in his head, is vaguely dissatisfied with "his" body (not "I") and has
> > > the normal assortment of repressed emotions and memories. In other
> > > words, a regular guy. Now one day he gets into meditation, and learns
> > > to really pay attention to his body over a reasonable span of months.
> > > Great! His sense of "I" has expanded, but by disidentifying his sense
> > > of identity with the ego but by disidentifying his sense of identity
> > > EXCLUSIVELY with the ego. As time moves on he moves into
> > > Transcendental Meditation, and as his practice matures over the months
> > > and years he relieves the repressed aspects of his psyche, allowing
> > > them to rise in consciousness. He encounters his shadow, and now the
> > > sense of self expands to include the shadow as well. The process of
> > > development is one of growth, where the "I" of today becomes part of
> > > the larger "I" of tomorrow, growing like an inverted pyramid. Later,
> > > other boundaries are undermined, and the process continues.
>
> Well what do you know? Am I to understand you don't read an entire
> post before replying?
Where is the definition of the term "ego" and "self" in this rambling
little fable? It's not there. I could read this all day and still
have not the faintest clue how you define your terms.
> > You have made no distinction at all between ego and self, which is
> > what I asked you to do. All you did was describe a pathetic case of
> > spiritual materialism where some poor schmuck thinks he can own the
> > universe by collecting "spiritual experiences" and keeping them in
> > some sort of museum in his imagination where they can be "his" forever
> > after.
>
> You draw the most amazing conclusion!
You have to actually put real money in the pot if you want to play
poker with me. You cannot just throw any old thing in and expect to
be taken seriously.
Alrah
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Alrah" <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com>
> > Newsgroups: alt.magick
> > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 10:11 PM
> > Subject: Re: Perspectives on RHP and LHP Thought
>
> > On 5 Nov, 20:53, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
> >> "Alrah" <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:51b58083-2d3c-4664...@h26g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > What I find strange about this thread, is that no-one has mentioned
> >> > the most obvious consequence that flows from the abyss experience.
>
> >> > Love. Simply put - the ability to love in a far more profound and
> >> > enduring way than before the experience.
>
> >> Mutters something about choosing what is beautiful.
>
> > I was a good looking child from the word go, and my grandma made sure
> > I knew that beauty comes from inside - not what you see on the
> > surface. Loving people are the most beautiful on earth. Everything
> > else is just... symmetry.
>
> I referred to my comment in the other response, but ok.
> Love is the feeling of union.
> <insert; for i am divided for ...>
>
> Beauty is not just symmetry.
> We like symmetry, we love the golden ratio.
> (PHI)
Spirals. Fibonacci sequence. The tree doesn't live unless it spins.
One for al and al for one. ;D
> >> Love is an activity.
> >> Just like every other emotion.
>
> > With every other emotion ego is involved
>
> I use emotion as : E-Motion.
> External Motion.
> (loads of people use it quite differently)
> Something akin to a conclusion based on feelings.
>
> If a conclusion gets made based on feeling, that seems to me to always be
> from ego.
>
> Stop choosing.
>
> We are here for the ride.
Kairos! :-)
> Enjoy.
>
> (Fasten your seatbelts :P)
>
> > - except perhaps joy, as love is joy and acceptance.
>
> Just dance.
> Dance the dance of joy.
> Dance the pointy dance.
> Slowdance.
> Rave.
>
> Let the music of the spheres move to always dance the dance of life.
Light continues to shine when time stops, but it's somehow more,
elegant, more beautiful... better this way. Life.
Tehiru
> I do not agree that the universe is composed of "objects in
> consciousness". The universe is represented by objects in
> consciousness, as a city is represented by a little circle on a map.
> There is considerable difference between the universe as it is and the
> universe as we represent it.
Represent, as in a symbol? Intriguing. Tell me more!
> I just told you and you just repeated it. Neurological activity. Did
> those two words fail to register with you at all despite your own use
> of them immediately before you asked your question?
The impulse to fart is neurological activity also, Tom. I was hoping
for a bit more there.
> You are again failing to comprehend what you're reading. You were
> suggesting that *I* believed that it was the death of ego and that you
> were therefore correcting me. So I told you that you are wrong to
> suggest that, since it isn't the case. Organize your thoughts better.
Tom, I am not responsible if you fail to communicate adequately. If
your position now is that the above statement is what you meant, I
shall assume that is so.
> > I said it was the
> > process of moving past the exclusive identification of the self with
> > the ego.
>
> I asked you to define "ego" and "self" and to contrast them, but you
> were unable to do so. Would you like to try again?
And I gave a representative example. Which you demonstrated you did
not read before replying in the first place.
> > I went on further to comment that the ego expresses fear and
> > confusion (hallmarks of the abyss) because it is interpreted in
> > psychological terms as a symbolic death.
>
> And so it seems from the ego's point of reference.
Yes, in fact I explicitly made that point.
> Ego is a representation of multiple simultaneous body states as a
> single ongoing entity. It's a convenient fiction, a useful mental
> construct.
A symbol? Again, intriguing and I invite you to expand. However,
positing this doesn't argue your case more strongly than mine. But I
would like you to expand.
> > Crossing the
> > abyss in the characteristic experience of egoless awareness does not
> > imply a lack of identity.
>
> Where there is no self, there is no identity. It's quite simple. I
> don't see what you are having a hard time with here.
Then maybe you are not fully qualified to comment. I would be happy to
provide some references in the technical literature you are so fond of
that you might find suggestive and instructive.
> > The identity is fundamentally different of
> > course, expanded as all become objects in consciousness as self and
> > not-self become one.
>
> What you seem to be expressing is the expansion of ego to encompass
> everything, which is exactly the opposite of the conditions beyond the
> limit of ego. Rather than face the Abyss, you are trying to push it
> away. Instead of transcending ego consciousness, you are striving to
> get your ego to transcend everything else and then trying to tell
> yourself that it's the same thing. It's not the same thing, though.
> Not at all.
No, Tom. See above.
> The ego objectifies everything, is separate from everything. Thus, no
> matter how much you study and how many "spiritual experiences" you
> have, they will always be encapsulated as memories, and slowly degrade
> over time. The ego has nothing to do with the immediacy of experience,
> with reality, but always with representations of reality, memories,
> stories. To appreciate reality on this level, one must not try to
> duplicate it, or preserve it, but simply attend to it.
Agreed.
> > > The Abyss becomes something separate because of our objectification of
> > > our feelings, and that's what makes it an Abyss in the first place.
> > > It's become an object and, being separate from it, we think we must
> > > "cross" it. That something must die or be destroyed to be replaced by
> > > this new spiritual consciousness.
>
> > No Tom, it is a manifestation of a process.
>
> Oh, don't be supercilious. That response suggests to me that you
> don't even know what I'm talking about here.
No, Tom. My response suggests that I am trying to help you know what
you are talking about here.
> Again, it looks more and more like you have no idea what I'm talking
> about.
Correct again. I was replying to the nature of the abyss experience.
You are talking about your justifications for quickie answers.
[snip]
Tom, let's get to it. Do you believe that the ego is the sole
determinant of identity? Your responses so far are an unequivocal
"yes". However, that is only the case at one stage of development.
Presumably yours.
> You have to actually put real money in the pot if you want to play
> poker with me. You cannot just throw any old thing in and expect to
> be taken seriously.
I couldn't say it any better myself.
Tehiru
> > Ego is a representation of multiple simultaneous body states as a
> > single ongoing entity. It's a convenient fiction, a useful mental
> > construct.
>
> > matter how much you study and how many "spiritual experiences" you
> > have, they will always be encapsulated as memories, and slowly degrade
> > over time. The ego has nothing to do with the immediacy of experience,
> > with reality, but always with representations of reality, memories,
> > stories. To appreciate reality on this level, one must not try to
> > duplicate it, or preserve it, but simply attend to it.
I missed this Tom. So the ego is representation of multiple
simultaneous body states as a single entity. But is separate from
everything. So... a sigil of interconnected states that is completely
unconnected.
?
Alrah
> On Nov 5, 2:09 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > I went on further to comment that the ego expresses fear and
> > > confusion (hallmarks of the abyss) because it is interpreted in
> > > psychological terms as a symbolic death.
>
> > And so it seems from the ego's point of reference.
>
> Yes, in fact I explicitly made that point.
The stripping away of all attachments during the abyss is painful to
the ego because it is also a stripping away of all the means that the
ego uses to go forward, make decisions, find a worth for it's
existence, until finally - being stripped to the very core it may wish
for death. At the last gasp it exists immobile, completely impotent,
locked in and squeezed into a tiny little black box watching the last
of the oxygen disappear, expecting death, not caring or fearing death,
even longing for the release that only death seems to promise. And
the abyss can go a little further than you seem to think - the test of
an event that could lead to actual physical death can be part of it,
especially during the end.
Tehiru
> even longing for the release that only death seems to promise. And
> the abyss can go a little further than you seem to think - the test of
> an event that could lead to actual physical death can be part of it,
> especially during the end.
Possibly, I suppose. I think that various neurosis might be more
likely. Probably disassociative states or schizephrenia if I had to
surmise.
Alrah
That's the spirit! Hey - why not chalk the abyss all up to 'a run of
really bad luck' as well. ;P
Tehiru
> > Possibly, I suppose. I think that various neurosis might be more
> > likely. Probably disassociative states or schizephrenia if I had to
> > surmise.
>
> That's the spirit! Hey - why not chalk the abyss all up to 'a run of
> really bad luck' as well. ;P
I missed that one Alrah.
Tehiru
> > likely. Probably disassociative states or schizephrenia if I had to
> > surmise.
>
> That's the spirit! Hey - why not chalk the abyss all up to 'a run of
> really bad luck' as well. ;P
I missed that one, Alrah.
?
mika
> On Nov 5, 9:40 am, mika wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 7:13 pm, Tehiru wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 5:47 pm, mika wrote:
>
> > > > I'll use your own words to explain. As you said, "The process is more
> > > > or less complete upon the first complete
> > > > experience of awareness where subject and object are
> > > > indistinguishable." So - if subject and object become
> > > > indistinguishable, what makes you think you can take anything with
> > > > you?
>
> > > Perhaps you should have read more of my words. I went on to
> > > specifically point out that this experience is a state and not a
> > > stage. States are temporary, eventually crossing into plateaus and
> > > finally settling down into a stage. Now that I have refreshed your
> > > memory about my following comments, I am happy to hear your specific
> > > thoughts on the subject. Your thoughts, not a rehash or a rejoinder of
> > > someone else's thoughts.
>
> > You didn't answer my question above, which applies regardless of
> > whether you call the experience a "stage" or a "state". Here, I'll
> > rephrase it for you:
>
> > If subject and object become indistinguishable during this *state*,
> > how would it be possible to simultaneously, during this state,
> > maintain a sense of "you"?
>
> Excellent question. Non-egoic awareness does not reply a lack of
> identity.
You didn't answer the question, yet again. Maybe you are
misunderstanding. Here, I'll rephrase it for you another time:
If subject and object become indistinguishable during this state of
consciousness, how would it be possible to simultaneously, during this
state, maintain a sense of identity?
See, whether you call it "egoic awareness", "identity", "self", or
"you", all of these words refer to a distinction that is imagined in
the mind, that separates the universe into this and that, subject and
object, you and everything that is not you. You can't have it both
ways - either subject and object become indistinguishable and you lose
your identity, or you maintain your identity and thus the distinction
between subject and object also are retained.
> > If there is no subject and object, there is no you and not-you. Thus
> > your sense of self and identity must be 'left behind' - by definition
> > of the experience. If there is consciousness of a "you", then you're
> > have a different kind of experience.
>
> Expand, I would like to hear your thoughts.
See above.
Once a drop of water enters the ocean, it is indistinguishable from
the ocean. The boundaries that defined the drop of water no longer
exist. It is impossible to simultaneously exist both as a bounded
drop of water and as the ocean. The 'other side of the abyss' refers
to a state of consciousness in which the boundaries between self and
other dissolve. Like the drop of water, it is impossible to
experience both awareness of self-identity and unbounded consciousness
simultaneously.
> > > I would also like to hear your thoughts about the
> > > differences between ego, identity and self.
>
> > There is no practical difference between any of the above. They are
> > all imaginary constructs created by the mind.
>
> Then that is why you do not understand.
Actually, I do understand, quite clearly. You, on the other hand,
seem to be a bit confused. Are you claiming here that ego, identity
and/or self are not imaginary constructs? Which one(s) of them do you
think have an objective existence outside of the mind?
Alrah
> Like the drop of water, it is impossible to
> experience both awareness of self-identity and unbounded consciousness
> simultaneously.
No, it isn't.
mika
> On 6 Nov, 00:30, mika wrote:
>
> > Like the drop of water, it is impossible to
> > experience both awareness of self-identity and unbounded consciousness
> > simultaneously.
>
> No, it isn't.
Yes, it is. If you have awareness of self-identity, your
consciousness is bounded. That is what a sense of identity is - it is
a defined boundary between self and other. You can't simultaneously
define a boundary and dissolve that very same boundary.
But then, you believe that quieting the chatter in your mind will lead
to physical death, so naturally it's impossible for you to understand
any of this due to your inability to perform even the most basic
meditation exercises.
Tehiru
> If subject and object become indistinguishable during this state of
> consciousness, how would it be possible to simultaneously, during this
> state, maintain a sense of identity?
I see. Let me rephrase myself again as you were kind enough to do for
me. Merriam Webster defines identity as the sameness of essential
character in different instances. Essential character, not ego. Ego is
predicated on the division between self and not-self. I am glad I
could clear this up for you.
> See, whether you call it "egoic awareness", "identity", "self", or
> "you", all of these words refer to a distinction that is imagined in
> the mind, that separates the universe into this and that, subject and
> object, you and everything that is not you.
Correct, as far as you go. Please provide more detail, I value your
thoughts.
> You can't have it both
> ways - either subject and object become indistinguishable and you lose
> your identity, or you maintain your identity and thus the distinction
> between subject and object also are retained.
No Mika. You are confusing awareness and identity with ego.
> > > If there is no subject and object, there is no you and not-you. Thus
> > > your sense of self and identity must be 'left behind' - by definition
> > > of the experience. If there is consciousness of a "you", then you're
> > > have a different kind of experience.
See above.
> Once a drop of water enters the ocean, it is indistinguishable from
> the ocean. The boundaries that defined the drop of water no longer
> exist. It is impossible to simultaneously exist both as a bounded
> drop of water and as the ocean. The 'other side of the abyss' refers
> to a state of consciousness in which the boundaries between self and
> other dissolve. Like the drop of water, it is impossible to
> experience both awareness of self-identity and unbounded consciousness
> simultaneously.
Does it? Setting aside your insistence that ego is identity?
> > > > I would also like to hear your thoughts about the
> > > > differences between ego, identity and self.
>
> > > There is no practical difference between any of the above. They are
> > > all imaginary constructs created by the mind.
>
> > Then that is why you do not understand.
Still with the ego and identity.
> Actually, I do understand, quite clearly. You, on the other hand,
> seem to be a bit confused. Are you claiming here that ego, identity
> and/or self are not imaginary constructs? Which one(s) of them do you
> think have an objective existence outside of the mind?
If you want to change to a new topic I am happy to, Mika. But don't
kid yourself into thinking you aren't changing course.
Tehiru
There seems to be misconception of awareness or identity with ego
here. That's fair enough in the mature ego phase, but maybe I should
dig up some transpersonal psychology texts for her.
Alrah
> On Nov 5, 4:35 pm, Alrah wrote:
>
> > On 6 Nov, 00:30, mika wrote:
>
> > > Like the drop of water, it is impossible to
> > > experience both awareness of self-identity and unbounded consciousness
> > > simultaneously.
>
> > No, it isn't.
>
> Yes, it is. If you have awareness of self-identity, your
> consciousness is bounded. That is what a sense of identity is - it is
> a defined boundary between self and other. You can't simultaneously
> define a boundary and dissolve that very same boundary.
It's a logical fallacy. It's like saying you aren't capable of seeing
and hearing at the same time because they're on different frequencies.
> But then, you believe that quieting the chatter in your mind will lead
> to physical death, so naturally it's impossible for you to understand
> any of this due to your inability to perform even the most basic
> meditation exercises.
And you believe that parading your own misunderstanding of what I said
topped off with a dose of condescension doesn't make you look like an
asshole.
Alrah
Ego as the organising principle (non verbal as well as verbal aspects)
seems to be a much misunderstood subject, but I'm off to bed. I'll
drop in to see the fun tomorrow. Enjoy yourself. ;-)
mika
> On 6 Nov, 00:42, mika wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 4:35 pm, Alrah wrote:
> > > On 6 Nov, 00:30, mika wrote:
>
> > > > Like the drop of water, it is impossible to
> > > > experience both awareness of self-identity and unbounded consciousness
> > > > simultaneously.
>
> > > No, it isn't.
>
> > Yes, it is. If you have awareness of self-identity, your
> > consciousness is bounded. That is what a sense of identity is - it is
> > a defined boundary between self and other. You can't simultaneously
> > define a boundary and dissolve that very same boundary.
>
> It's a logical fallacy. It's like saying you aren't capable of seeing
> and hearing at the same time because they're on different frequencies.
No, it's like saying you aren't capable of seeing and not seeing at
the same time.
mika
> On Nov 5, 4:30 pm, mika wrote:
>
> > If subject and object become indistinguishable during this state of
> > consciousness, how would it be possible to simultaneously, during this
> > state, maintain a sense of identity?
>
> I see. Let me rephrase myself again as you were kind enough to do for
> me. Merriam Webster defines identity as the sameness of essential
> character in different instances. Essential character, not ego.
You just misunderstood the very definition you provided. It didn't
merely say "essential character", it said "the sameness of essential
character in different instances". Thus a sense of identity requires
maintaining the boundaries ("the sameness") of that essential
character.
Essential character is not the same as identity. Essential character
is what remains when you remove all the arbitrary definitions you
create in your mind, the imaginary constructs like "identity", "self",
and "ego". You seem to get the ego part, but you seem to believe that
identity and self somehow have some kind of objective existence. They
don't. They're as unreal as ego.
> > Once a drop of water enters the ocean, it is indistinguishable from
> > the ocean. The boundaries that defined the drop of water no longer
> > exist. It is impossible to simultaneously exist both as a bounded
> > drop of water and as the ocean. The 'other side of the abyss' refers
> > to a state of consciousness in which the boundaries between self and
> > other dissolve. Like the drop of water, it is impossible to
> > experience both awareness of self-identity and unbounded consciousness
> > simultaneously.
>
> Does it?
Does what?
> > Are you claiming here that ego, identity
> > and/or self are not imaginary constructs? Which one(s) of them do you
> > think have an objective existence outside of the mind?
>
> If you want to change to a new topic I am happy to, Mika. But don't
> kid yourself into thinking you aren't changing course.
It's not at all a new topic. If you believe that ego, identity and/or
self are not imaginary concepts, that directly affects the intended
meaning and interpretation of everything you've written about those
subjects in this thread. So, which one(s), if any, do you think have
Meltdarok
You can recommend some transpersonal psychology texts?
List them anyhow.
--
meltdarok
The careless mind makes problems where
there actually aren't any.
Then it struggles to change the world,
and not the mind itself.
Tehiru
[Snip]
You and your ego fixation Mika. I can see you are unfamiliar with
transpersonal psychology. I would suggest Ken Wilber as a good
starting point, particularly the Atman Project 2.0 if you are visiting
a bookstore this weekend. Let me point you to a short, one page
introduction to the subject. If you find it appealing, I can supply
you (offline) with a variety of material you find stimulating.
http://www.schuelers.com/psychology/Question1.htm
I
Tehiru
> > There seems to be misconception of awareness or identity with ego
> > here. That's fair enough in the mature ego phase, but maybe I should
> > dig up some transpersonal psychology texts for her.
>
> You can recommend some transpersonal psychology texts?
> List them anyhow.
Ken Wilber is good.
The Atman project 2.0
No boundary
one taste
I like his style because it doesn't read like a technical manual. Very
engaging actually. If you like these, I'll get you into Maslow and
maybe Assaglioli (might be misspelling that one).
Tehiru
>
> Then i would ask you for some explanation of how you know this.
I remember having all sorts of experiences, from the smell of baked
bread, tying my shoes and various realizations I have stumbled across.
Do you feel that a significant event like the crossing might never
enter awareness, or that the experience lobotomizes the memory? Of
course not.
But you missed my point:
If I had made my crossing (and claimed to have done so), and you had
not, how would you be able to evaluate that claim? Probably not with
any degree of certainty.
Now if I had not made my crossing but claimed it, but you had made
your crossing, I feel that you would have a reasonable probability of
being able to assess the veracity of my claim by comparing the symbols
I presented.
My only point was it doesn't matter what one claims here. All we are
are characters on the screen to each other. I can claim to be Jesus
Christ, the bastard son of Magog and it doesn't mean a thing. You
could live on another continent like Alrah or right next door to me,
and how would I know? It's amazing what you can hear on the boards,
as people try to impress characters on a screen.
bassos
> "Alrah" <alrah-...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6e05b87b-799c-4ba7...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On 5 Nov, 21:41, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> Stop choosing.
>
>> We are here for the ride.
> Kairos! :-)
Nice word, thanks.
bassos
"bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:4af3ca27$0$13920$e4fe...@dreader18.news.xs4all.nl...
Payback time :
(thou shalt not post fucking poems, amennn. besides, hardly any fucking in
this poem :P)
Sing it out loud to the tune of Oh my darling clementine ;
(tried singing it in 'mericain, but it turns silly quite fast, so try latin
:P (yeah yeah, you brits too))
O Fortuna
velut luna
statu variabilis,
semper crescis
aut decrescis;
vita detestabilis
nunc obdurat
et tunc curat
ludo mentis aciem,
egestatem,
potestatem
dissolvit ut glaciem.
Sors immanis
et inanis,
rota tu volubilis,
status malus,
vana salus
semper dissolubilis,
obumbrata
et velata
mihi quoque niteris;
nunc per ludum
dorsum nudum
fero tui sceleris.
Sors salutis
et virtutis
michi nunc contraria,
est affectus
et defectus
semper in angaria.
Hac in hora
sine mora
corde pulsum tangite;
quod per sortem
sternit fortem,
mecum omnes plangite!
Absorbed
> On Nov 5, 2:09 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> You are again failing to comprehend what you're reading. You were
>> suggesting that *I* believed that it was the death of ego and that you
>> were therefore correcting me. So I told you that you are wrong to
>> suggest that, since it isn't the case. Organize your thoughts better.
>
> Tom, I am not responsible if you fail to communicate adequately. If
> your position now is that the above statement is what you meant, I
> shall assume that is so.
You're failing to follow the conversation here, and you're refusing to
accept it.
Tehiru: However you are incorrect in your implicit
assumption that it is a one-way trip, a transition from the self to
some state of perpetual objectless awareness and bliss, that the sense
of self is dead and buried.
Tom: The experience labelled "Crossing the Abyss" is not the death of
ego, but an understanding of its limitation.
Tehiru: I didn't say it was the death of the ego
Tom: You were suggesting that *I* believed that it was the death of ego
and that you were therefore correcting me. So I told you that you are
wrong to suggest that, since it isn't the case.
Tehiru: I am not responsible if you fail to communicate adequately.
That's how the conversation went. You're going to make an ass of
yourself if you don't start paying attention to what was said.
Meltdarok
I'll start with Robert M.Fisher, "A guide to Wilberland: some common
misunderstandings of the critics of Ken Wilber and
his work on transpersonal theory prior to 1995." The Journal of
Humanistic Psychology 37.4 (1997): 30+.
Expanded Academic ASAP. Web. 6 Nov. 2009.
Tehiru
> I'll start with Robert M.Fisher, "A guide to Wilberland: some common
> misunderstandings of the critics of Ken Wilber and
> his work on transpersonal theory prior to 1995." The Journal of
> Humanistic Psychology 37.4 (1997): 30+.
> Expanded Academic ASAP. Web. 6 Nov. 2009.
Is a copy of the web somewhere?