Possible to Obtain magic powers>?
Scott A. Steinbrink
successfully perform them without any aid... and actually do it?
If so, hhow? :)
- Scott
--
NetCom: Der...@netcom.com
CompuServe: 76106...@CompuServe.Com
America Online: Derich
Paranoid schizophrenics outnumber their enemies at least two to one.
Jason Pascucci
In article <d4-m8w#.der...@netcom.com>, der...@netcom.com (Scott A. Steinbrink) writes:
> Out of curiousity, is it possible to learn wizard/magic spells and
> successfully perform them without any aid... and actually do it?
>
> If so, hhow? :)
>
> - Scott
>
Of course it is. But, then, if I told you, that would be aiding you,
and it wouldn't count. Funny how that works...
In the face of actually making that question not as ignorant
as it appears, I will comment that there have been cases of
people attaining highly magickal powers without any formal
training. The implication is that they are either practicing
'natural' magick, using nature as a guide for magickal workings,
or they are fairly 'evolved' 'souls' such that they 'know',
intrinsically, how to produce an effect.
Of course, this use of the term Magick above is the one I tend
to think in: effects, in accordance with the will of an individual
or group, that don't have an explanation outside of an 'occult'
idiom. Taking Crowley's, the poster did a very powerful magickal
act...but one might think this falls in the realm of...black magick.
;)
--
Jason R. Pascucci
jas...@primerd.prime.com
John D. Specht
In a previous article, jas...@tiger1.prime.com (Jason Pascucci) says:
>In article <d4-m8w#.der...@netcom.com>, der...@netcom.com (Scott A. Steinbrink) writes:
>> successfully perform them without any aid... and actually do it?
>and it wouldn't count. Funny how that works...
>
>In the face of actually making that question not as ignorant
>as it appears, I will comment that there have been cases of
>people attaining highly magickal powers without any formal
>training. The implication is that they are either practicing
>'natural' magick, using nature as a guide for magickal workings,
>or they are fairly 'evolved' 'souls' such that they 'know',
>intrinsically, how to produce an effect.
>
Scott, I would agree that it is possible to learn spells from others,
and that you could probably get them to work. But Magic is a very
exact science (traditionally, I know there are other ways) and even
the slight differences between you and your teacher would throw the
spells off slightly. You must learn magic so that you can (not necessarily
counsciously) learn how to compensate for these differences. Thus, many
find it easier, to study on their own. This is the course I recommend to all
of my students. I teach them the basics: How to conc1;2centrate, perceive,
and visualize, and then I tell them how to use these, and other tools. I never
have, and never will, teach a single spell.
(But I will spout theory all day and night :)
By will alone I set my mind in motion,
Paul
--
jds2 John D. Specht (Heads I win; Tails you lose.) Virtual reality is life!
ae358 Paul Bort (It ain't pretty being easy) Spring: Forces, Coiled again!
If you want to save an endangered species, hug a romantic.
Love is the triumph and pleasure and joy and light that makes life bearable.
B.A. Davis-Howe
>Out of curiousity, is it possible to learn wizard/magic spells and
>successfully perform them without any aid... and actually do it?
>If so, hhow? :)
This is not a flame. I am not attacking you.
You are asking the wrong questions. This is real life, not D&D. "Spells" in
real magic are usually just shorthand for what you are already able to do. I
could tell you a spell, and you couldn't use it, because the power of the
spell is not in the verbal/material/somatic components, but in the human psyche.
The following is the most powerful spell in the cosmos. With it, you can cause
incredible change. It is just three words, spoken with real intent, and with
personal power behind them. "I love you."
I have just taught you the most powerful magic spell in the universe. However,
I have not given you the inner keys to make it powerful. You have to find
those on your own. When you have experienced the inner Mystery which those
words point at, then you will be able to use that spell. There is no magic
more powerful than that one. There is no magic simpler than that one. In
general, the most powerful magics are the simplest.
Magic is found within our hearts, and in the cycles of Nature. Books are only
props. (Useful props, and quite fun, but still just props.) Until you can
do it from within, no amount of handwaving will enable you to do magic from
without. Of course, every human being who has ever existed has the ability
to do magic from within. It is our birthright.
Magic is a very long and frequently difficult path to choose--but it is worth
the effort! Enjoy your quest!
Merry meet, merry part, merry meet again,
Br'anArthur
Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)
Tony Garton
real Magick is not what you think. It takes practice, work,
practice, study, practice, and lots of patience. Once you have put
forth the required effort, your outlook on magick itself will have
changed to the point where you no longer seek powers alone. These
'powers' are a far cry from stories of wizards and D&D and such. What
is possible is actually much more interesting.
Tagi Mordred Nagashiva
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The word of Sin is Restriction.
Tony Garton writes:
real Magick is not what you think.
Response:
I think that this is false. I think that this is true.
Tony:
It takes practice, work,
practice, study, practice, and lots of patience.
Response:
Poppycock!
Magick is the Lazy Way. Those who tell us that magick is about hard
work and 'practice' are out to sell us the 'cure-all' for our ailments.
Don't beleive 'em. The only patience required is that before we reach
our goal.
Tony:
Once you have put
forth the required effort, your outlook on magick itself will have
changed to the point where you no longer seek powers alone.
Response:
'Alone'? Some do not start off seeking power.
Tony:
These
'powers' are a far cry from stories of wizards and D&D and such. What
is possible is actually much more interesting.
Response:
There is nothing which is impossible. Those who believe that there is are
in for a wild ride.
Role-playing games are often more honest than daily life. The only real
difference between the two is that the 'ego' is abstracted in the former,
while the latter is more painful.
Invoke me under my stasrs. Love is the law, love under will.
Yours in brazen trollephood,
Fr. Nigris
Eshin-Fun
>>successfully perform them without any aid... and actually do it?
>>:
>>: If so, hhow? :)
>>:
>>: - Scott
What is now commonly called by Crowlites, and "witchy-poos" as wizardry,
magic and spells is originally the arts of an ancient shaman or priest.
The problem is that today many an aspiring magician is extremely self
centered, egotistical and ecclectic. They seldom have any sense of
"humility" and for the most part terribly confused with equally confusing
verbal diarrhea that covers up for the tremendous vaccum of their alledged
knowledge.
It is easy to rationalize, but to actually do that's another matter.
The ancient egyptian priests were reknowned magicians, yet it took almost
forty years for one to become proficient. The dedication, devotion, study is
phenomenal, let alone being accepted as a postulant which now days is almost
prodigious feat.
If you are truly serious, then your greater task is to find a genuine
source, and few abound and those that are do not accept readily.
There's an old saying about studying magic. When a student, on a clear day,
without clouds can of his own will conjure a thunderstorm and know that he
and only he was responsible, but tell no one about it and keep that
secret..then and only then has he really begun that road of a real magician.
Power trips are very common. If you read any extant grimoirs you'll find
that in the pontifical tradition, an alliance to a religious format is
necessary.
Now, is this possible? Yes. Can it be done? Yes. But it demands many things
of the individual particularly that which most people find it impossible to
do these days. Give of yourself!
Eshin-Fun
:
Ed Carp
: Magic is found within our hearts, and in the cycles of Nature. Books are only
: props. (Useful props, and quite fun, but still just props.) Until you can
: do it from within, no amount of handwaving will enable you to do magic from
: without. Of course, every human being who has ever existed has the ability
: to do magic from within. It is our birthright.
Every esoteric religion, especially the religions of the East, have taught
that anything you want to find, any answers, any insight, can be found within
yourself if you look long and hard enough. There is no "Book Of Enlightenment",
no guru, no shaman, no "expert", no witch, no roshi that can tell you any more
than you can tell yourself. All of those things can help point the way, but
you have to walk the path yourself. Anyone who tells you any different is
trying to sell you something.
--
Ed Carp, N7EKG e...@apple.com <-- preferred email address!
"In wildness is the preservation of the world." - Henry David Thoreau
** Member, Linux port team - uucp division ** :) 801/269-8125
Tagi Mordred Nagashiva
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The word of Sin is Restriction.
Eshin-Fun writes:
What is now commonly called by Crowlites, and "witchy-poos" as wizardry,
magic and spells is originally the arts of an ancient shaman or priest.
Response:
Derision displays immaturity.
Fun:
The problem is that today many an aspiring magician is extremely self
centered, egotistical and ecclectic. They seldom have any sense of
"humility" and for the most part terribly confused with equally confusing
verbal diarrhea that covers up for the tremendous vaccum of their alledged
knowledge.
Response:
This is a prime example of such 'verbal diarrhea'. Those who complain
about self-centeredness, egotism, and eclecticism are often lost in
their own worlds without a central Mast to which they may attach their
Sail. Egotism is healthy. It is only the oppressed egotist who
engages violence. Confusion is often a very transformative state of
mind. While we may add to it by writing our words, perhaps we will find
that belittlement and put-downs only display our pain for all the world
to see.
Fun:
It is easy to rationalize, but to actually do that's another matter.
The ancient egyptian priests were reknowned magicians, yet it took almost
forty years for one to become proficient. The dedication, devotion, study is
phenomenal, let alone being accepted as a postulant which now days is almost
prodigious feat.
Response:
The Dream of the Golden Age when our forefathers performed feats of
'great endurance' is quite common. I urge you to doubt it with all
your heart. It only represents another of Mother's Web-trinkets,
which we may imagine to be a vast Wall of Impenetrability. Sitting
before this Wall, we stagnate in despair.
Fun:
If you are truly serious, then your greater task is to find a genuine
source, and few abound and those that are do not accept readily.
Response:
All genuine sources accept us immediately. Any which do not are either
wisely cautious or foolishly imperial.
Fun:
There's an old saying about studying magic. When a student, on a clear day,
without clouds can of his own will conjure a thunderstorm and know that he
and only he was responsible, but tell no one about it and keep that
secret..then and only then has he really begun that road of a real magician.
Response:
How lovely. Let's control Nature and see if we can love Her too! Get off
it! I've had enough of these misogynist ploys for the exhibition of
power! We'll try, we'll fail. That is the Way of Tao. Try to pull
a radish into tastiness and you shall pull up seeds. She does not
wear a leash and collar. When we attempt to apply these She bites quite
viciously. The iron is hot! Stand back!
Fun:
Power trips are very common. If you read any extant grimoirs you'll find
that in the pontifical tradition, an alliance to a religious format is
necessary.
Response:
This is true. What is and is not a 'power trip' is not always easy to
see, however (until it's too late).
Fun:
Now, is this possible? Yes. Can it be done? Yes. But it demands many things
of the individual particularly that which most people find it impossible to
do these days. Give of yourself!
Response:
Power cannot be obtained except by force. Power-over is seized through
violence to others. Power-in is earned by leverage with demons.
Those who give of themselves in response to such words will more often
than not find themselves spent and their energies used by unscrupulous
individuals. Give NOT of yourself to obtain power but power itself!
Those who give away their power will have it returned to them three-fold
in term of individual integrity, self-esteem, and a pure conscience.
Invoke me under my stars. Love is the law, love under will.
Yours in rebuke,
Fr. Nigris
John D. Specht
In a previous article, Ta...@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva) says:
[Stuff I didn't want to comment on deleted in various places,
whole lines only.]
>Response:
>
>This is a prime example of such 'verbal diarrhea'. Those who complain
>about self-centeredness, egotism, and eclecticism are often lost in
>their own worlds without a central Mast to which they may attach their
>Sail. Egotism is healthy. It is only the oppressed egotist who
>engages violence. Confusion is often a very transformative state of
>mind. While we may add to it by writing our words, perhaps we will find
>that belittlement and put-downs only display our pain for all the world
>to see.
>
A little ego, a little confusion, a little beginning. That's what I
always felt. I would argue that reading one book is meaningless to study,
and reading hundreds is a beginning. Once you try to explain a phenomenon
to yourself in many ways at the same time, you begin to find useful
confusion.
>
>Fun:
>
>If you are truly serious, then your greater task is to find a genuine
>source, and few abound and those that are do not accept readily.
>
>
>Response:
>
>All genuine sources accept us immediately. Any which do not are either
>wisely cautious or foolishly imperial.
>
There is one very easy to find source which will provide all of the tools
you need, and all of the lessons you shall learn: your own mind.
>
>Fun:
>
>There's an old saying about studying magic. When a student, on a clear day,
>without clouds can of his own will conjure a thunderstorm and know that he
>and only he was responsible, but tell no one about it and keep that
>secret..then and only then has he really begun that road of a real magician.
>
>
>Response:
>
>How lovely. Let's control Nature and see if we can love Her too! Get off
>it! I've had enough of these misogynist ploys for the exhibition of
>power! We'll try, we'll fail. That is the Way of Tao. Try to pull
>a radish into tastiness and you shall pull up seeds. She does not
>wear a leash and collar. When we attempt to apply these She bites quite
>viciously. The iron is hot! Stand back!
>
I would add that there is a fine line of difference between _control_ and
_influence_ and I rely entirely on the latter. I would not create a storm, I
would ask it to consider another course which would benifit it, and myself.
That is what I have learned from Zen.
>
>Fun:
>
>Power trips are very common. If you read any extant grimoirs you'll find
>that in the pontifical tradition, an alliance to a religious format is
>necessary.
>
>
>Response:
>
>This is true. What is and is not a 'power trip' is not always easy to
>see, however (until it's too late).
>
I would ask for a clearer definition of 'power trip'...Is this the feeling
one gets from using power? Or is it more the false impression of using power?
>
>Fun:
>
>Now, is this possible? Yes. Can it be done? Yes. But it demands many things
>of the individual particularly that which most people find it impossible to
>do these days. Give of yourself!
>
>
>Response:
>
>Power cannot be obtained except by force. Power-over is seized through
>violence to others. Power-in is earned by leverage with demons.
>
>Those who give of themselves in response to such words will more often
>than not find themselves spent and their energies used by unscrupulous
>individuals. Give NOT of yourself to obtain power but power itself!
>Those who give away their power will have it returned to them three-fold
>in term of individual integrity, self-esteem, and a pure conscience.
I would not strive for more power, I still have not found the bounds of
what I have. I give of mine freely, and never run short. My power is only
limited by my limitations, and if I were to believe I would run out, surely
I would do so.
The greatest gift is self.
Yours in re-rebuke,
Paul (lacking a mystical name of significance)
P.S. Thank you for the interesting and thought provoking discussion.
Eshin-Fun
: >
: A little ego, a little confusion, a little beginning. That's what I
: always felt. I would argue that reading one book is meaningless to study,
: and reading hundreds is a beginning. Once you try to explain a phenomenon
: to yourself in many ways at the same time, you begin to find useful
: confusion.<<
Ego is like an animal which we all posses. The "challenge" is to domesticate
it so we can "ride" it not so "it" rides us. A little ego is like a
household pet. Which we think is our possession, but in keeping it we find
ourselves bound as its slave. If this gives you a little confusion, good!
Then you have begun a little begining.
>>: There is one very easy to find source which will provide all of the tools
: you need, and all of the lessons you shall learn: your own mind.<<
That is where a "teacher" is important. One's own mind can be more deceptive
than another person could deceive. For in another person it is easier to
expose them and know they have deceived you. In one's own mind, one can
remain ever deceived as the one cannot see one's self except by reflection
which is one of the function of a teacher. That is to be, like a looking
glass.
>>: I would add that there is a fine line of difference between _control_ and
: _influence_ and I rely entirely on the latter. I would not create a storm, I
: would ask it to consider another course which would benifit it, and myself.
: That is what I have learned from Zen.<<
True. But how much more difficult is it to distinguish between the subtle
and the gross? Is not influence as manipulative as control? In the face of a
storm it is better to bend with its wind, but a storm does not listen to
reason, because it has only one purpose. To spend itself.
>>: I would ask for a clearer definition of 'power trip'...Is this the feeling
: one gets from using power? Or is it more the false impression of using power?<<
Nigris gave a good example in the quote you gave. It is a false presumption
that one has in pretense of being omnipotent. Many people quote "Do as thou
wilt" but few know what to really do to begin with.
>>: I would not strive for more power, I still have not found the bounds of
: what I have. I give of mine freely, and never run short. My power is only
: limited by my limitations, and if I were to believe I would run out, surely
: I would do so.
:
:
: The greatest gift is self.<<
Unfortunately, though this is very beautiful, and selfless, it is also
urealistic. Each person comes into this world to learn something. Some
however, need to pass through difficulties that no one can, no matter what
power you freely transfer, assist them. The nature of humanity is to be
ungrateful. We learn appreciation only through philosophical codes or
integrety, which again is a learning process.
There's the crux of the problem. An individual cannot learn unless they are
capable to "see" for themselves.
If you will to help, the only thing you can do is to inspire them to
recognize or become aware of that which they seek but you cannot make them
"see" what they would not want to see. to quote: You can take a horse to the
water, but you cannot make them drink"
Greater is the gift of knowledge. For through it we manifest wisdom for that
is the only thing we can take with us when we die. And perhaps, that is the
only reason we have incarnated to begin with.
For what is it, that is the only thing one can keep when by death we pass
to the land of silence?
:
>>: P.S. Thank you for the interesting and thought provoking discussion<<
You're Welcome.
Eshin-Fun
Colin Low
>There is already several RPG that have such a system. GURPS has a system
>where each spell is learned seperitly with seperit skill levels for each
>spell. Shadowrun has something simular. They both do not had the spell-
>caster froget the spell after they cast it, more realistic IMHO. However
>they both have a limiting facter on the spellcasters so one doesn't cast
>fireballs all day.
>
>Personaly I am glad that some of these fantisy spells do not execst. Can
>you imagen a squad of spellcasters at the beck and call of a goverment?
>Not a nice imige.
>
>The Stranger
>
Sometimes I find it possible to believe that there are people who think
a spell-checker is an RPG playing aid for advanced wizards :-(
Colin
Peggy Brown
>>>der...@netcom.com (Scott A. Steinbrink) writes:
>>>: Out of curiousity, is it possible to learn wizard/magic spells and
> >>successfully perform them without any aid... and actually do it?
>>>:
>>>: If so, hhow? :)
>>>:
>>>: - Scott
>
>
>What is now commonly called by Crowlites, and "witchy-poos" as wizardry,
>magic and spells is originally the arts of an ancient shaman or priest.
>
>The problem is that today many an aspiring magician is extremely self
>centered, egotistical and ecclectic. They seldom have any sense of
>"humility" and for the most part terribly confused with equally confusing
>verbal diarrhea that covers up for the tremendous vaccum of their alledged
>knowledge.
>
You said it!
>
>If you are truly serious, then your greater task is to find a genuine
>source, and few abound and those that are do not accept readily.
>
The most important source is within yourself.
>
>Eshin-Fun
>:
- Peggy -
The Stranger
So I a hard time spelling because of my dyslexsea, so sue me.
Your coment was in bad taste.
The Stranger
John D. Specht
In a previous article, es...@ddsw1.mcs.com (Eshin-Fun) says:
[My quote removed for brevity.]
>Ego is like an animal which we all posses. The "challenge" is to domesticate
>it so we can "ride" it not so "it" rides us. A little ego is like a
>household pet. Which we think is our possession, but in keeping it we find
>ourselves bound as its slave. If this gives you a little confusion, good!
>Then you have begun a little begining.
I have a household pet, a black cat named snowball, who is certainly not my
master. We have a simple relationship: I provide some of his food, and he
gets information for me. Our relationship exists so long as it serves us
both. I would argue that the Ego is not "like an animal", but is an integral
part of one's self. You cannot make a tree work without bark, and a man
without ego is in similar straits: Unable to use his own talents to their
greatest effect. I had wished to imply in my previous prose, that a little
confusion is a little beginning, and additional confusion provides additional
opportunity for growth.
>
>>>: There is one very easy to find source which will provide all of the tools
>: you need, and all of the lessons you shall learn: your own mind.<<
>
>That is where a "teacher" is important. One's own mind can be more deceptive
If you wish to be deceived by your own mind, you most assuredly will be.
>than another person could deceive. For in another person it is easier to
>expose them and know they have deceived you. In one's own mind, one can
this may be true if you can read minds. A great actor can never expose his
true self on stage, and takes great pain to do so.
>remain ever deceived as the one cannot see one's self except by reflection
>which is one of the function of a teacher. That is to be, like a looking
>glass.
If I wish to reflect upon myself (which I do frequently) I can simply
remember my actions, and the thoughts which caused those actions, and the
logic (or illogic) leading to those thoughts. If I wish to contemplate my
behaviour in a situation I have not experienced, I can simulate that
situation within my own mind, and record my reactions for later study.
This is very similar to the REM dream state, and deep theraputic hypnosis.
(Any fans of Eriksonian Hypnotherapy out there? :)
>
>>>: I would add that there is a fine line of difference between _control_ and
>: _influence_ and I rely entirely on the latter. I would not create a storm, I
>: would ask it to consider another course which would benifit it, and myself.
>: That is what I have learned from Zen.<<
>
>True. But how much more difficult is it to distinguish between the subtle
>and the gross? Is not influence as manipulative as control? In the face of a
Yes, it can be as manipulative, the difference is entirely in intent. I
consider it impolite to control something, but my influence can certainly
be resisted, and I try to be more in keeping with the initial condition,
i.e. what existed before my tamperings.
>storm it is better to bend with its wind, but a storm does not listen to
>reason, because it has only one purpose. To spend itself.
Sounds like L.Ron Hubbard's "The sole drive of the individual human is to
reproduce." I didn't agree with him, either. I will not counter the storm's
effort to spend itself, only the direction and timing.
>
>
>>>: I would ask for a clearer definition of 'power trip'...Is this the feeling
>: one gets from using power? Or is it more the false impression of using power?<<
>
>Nigris gave a good example in the quote you gave. It is a false presumption
>that one has in pretense of being omnipotent. Many people quote "Do as thou
>wilt" but few know what to really do to begin with.
I think I would find being all-powerful INTENSLEY boring. That's probably one
of the few reasons I'm not. The only limitation of the individual are the ones
he/she chooses. (Richard Bach, _Illusions_) As for the part about "what
to really do to begin with" um, I would leave that decision to the individual,
as you cannot force your choices into another's skull without something on
the order of a crowbar or baseball bat.
>
>
>>>: I would not strive for more power, I still have not found the bounds of
>: what I have. I give of mine freely, and never run short. My power is only
>: limited by my limitations, and if I were to believe I would run out, surely
>: I would do so.
>:
>:
>: The greatest gift is self.<<
>
>Unfortunately, though this is very beautiful, and selfless, it is also
Thanks.
>urealistic. Each person comes into this world to learn something. Some
When did you discover this information? If you found it in yourself, it is
true for you. If your teacher told you, and you chose to believe, it is
true for both of you.
>however, need to pass through difficulties that no one can, no matter what
I agree that you cannot assist; however, you can help them prepare, by
giving them an opportunity to learn what they do not already know about
themselves.
>power you freely transfer, assist them. The nature of humanity is to be
>ungrateful. We learn appreciation only through philosophical codes or
I would agree more with "the nature of humanity is selfish" and I would extend
this to the theory that the individual learns gratitude by experiencing a
loss from lack of exchange of whatever medium gratitude is traded in. It
exists because it is a perpetuated means of interaction between individuals.
>integrety, which again is a learning process.
I have no integrity in the social sense of the term. I would as easily kill
a lady as kiss her, depending on the necessary behavior. (What _I_ decide is
necessary.) And I have no appreciation for that which does not benefit me
(I do enjoy and appreciate a good art show, it benefits me by inspiring me,
or helping me feel better.)
>There's the crux of the problem. An individual cannot learn unless they are
>capable to "see" for themselves.
Everyone must receive sensory information from the "outside" world somehow.
The association of this information with internal perceptions (conclusions)
is learning.
>If you will to help, the only thing you can do is to inspire them to
>recognize or become aware of that which they seek but you cannot make them
>"see" what they would not want to see. to quote: You can take a horse to the
>water, but you cannot make them drink"
I will offer information, I cannot guarantee how it will be interpreted, or
used. Every individual's perceptions are tainted by every previous
perception, and making the individual aware of this is a great first step
in enlightenment.
>
>Greater is the gift of knowledge. For through it we manifest wisdom for that
>is the only thing we can take with us when we die. And perhaps, that is the
>only reason we have incarnated to begin with.
I was (I thought) incarnated to help others, enjoy life, and occaisionaly
consume excessive quantities of alcohol.
>
>For what is it, that is the only thing one can keep when by death we pass
>to the land of silence?
I can't guess, having never been there.
>
Excuse me if I'm getting a little silly, I was trying to lighten this
dreary mess up a bit.
Paul (not John, but similar)
William Tucker
>>: I would not strive for more power, I still have not found the bounds of
: what I have. I give of mine freely, and never run short. My power is only
: limited by my limitations, and if I were to believe I would run out, surely
: I would do so.
:
:
: The greatest gift is self.<<
Unfortunately, though this is very beautiful, and selfless, it is also
urealistic. Each person comes into this world to learn something. Some
however, need to pass through difficulties that no one can, no matter what
power you freely transfer, assist them. The nature of humanity is to be
ungrateful. We learn appreciation only through philosophical codes or
integrety, which again is a learning process.
There's the crux of the problem. An individual cannot learn unless they are
capable to "see" for themselves.
If you will to help, the only thing you can do is to inspire them to
recognize or become aware of that which they seek but you cannot make them
"see" what they would not want to see. to quote: You can take a horse to the
water, but you cannot make them drink"
I (William Tucker) think:
You mistake a bit the thought of the writer. Not to sound too eastern here but
when the cup realizes that it lives in the ocean then there is no paucity of
water. Everything is power, and we depend on each other for existence. You are
given a self to take care of to learn that lesson. You are given others to
interact with to learn that lesson. That can not be given which can not be
recieved. Knowledge may come also by providing the right environment, not words.
We all gain when the world is a better place.....when I feel your pain, would I
cause you more? If the world is alive would not a storm or that behind a storm
have a reason? Is power not in truth understanding, for what is force without
application, but a display? Or f = m*a while P = f*d/t, sorry little physics
humor there I was getting carried away. True power lies in being open and aware
of the flow through and around you, and sometimes using it. Very good discussion
guys! Thanks.
Wm T.
.standard disclaimer
Eshin-Fun
: I have a household pet, a black cat named snowball, who is certainly not my
: master. We have a simple relationship: I provide some of his food, and he
: gets information for me.
Then why post? Ask your cat.
: >: That is what I have learned from Zen.<<
: Sounds like L.Ron Hubbard's "The sole drive of the individual human is to
: reproduce." I didn't agree with him, either. I will not counter the storm's
: effort to spend itself, only the direction and timing.
Then either go back to (since you speak in past tense) or stay with Zen.
Remember, that before one can write on a blackboard covered with chalk
marking, one has to erase what is on its surface first.
: I think I would find being all-powerful INTENSLEY boring. That's probably one
: of the few reasons I'm not. The only limitation of the individual are the ones
: he/she chooses. (Richard Bach, _Illusions_) As for the part about "what
: to really do to begin with" um, I would leave that decision to the individual,
: as you cannot force your choices into another's skull without something on
: the order of a crowbar or baseball bat.
You flatter yourself! What makes you presume that you are so capable to make
that choice?
: > My power is only limited by my limitations,.........
: >:
: >:
: >: The greatest gift is self.<<
Narcissus though so too. But he got lost in the imagery of "his" own
reflection, whilst Echo helplessly stood by.
Perhaps I may bore you with these metaphors. Fine, but though it is in
"self" that may be the answer; CONCEIT is its downfall.
: >
: I have no integrity in the social sense of the term. I would as easily kill
: a lady as kiss her, depending on the necessary behavior. (What _I_ decide is
: necessary.) And I have no appreciation for that which does not benefit me
Did you learn this from Zen too?
: I will offer information, I cannot guarantee how it will be interpreted, or
: used. Every individual's perceptions are tainted by every previous
: perception, and making the individual aware of this is a great first step
: in enlightenment.
Ahh! we are back to the blackboard full of scribble.
: I was (I thought) incarnated to help others, enjoy life, and occaisionaly
: consume excessive quantities of alcohol.
Ahh! we are back to Ron Hubbard!
: I can't guess, having never been there.
: >
: Excuse me if I'm getting a little silly, I was trying to lighten this
: dreary mess up a bit.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why ask a question when you already have foregone its conclusion?
Stay with your cat. He has better questions...
Eshin-Fun
:
Ed Carp
: I think I would find being all-powerful INTENSLEY boring. That's probably one
: of the few reasons I'm not. The only limitation of the individual are the ones
: he/she chooses. (Richard Bach, _Illusions_) As for the part about "what
But you are. All of us are all-powerful. We have accepted the limitations of
flesh so that we can experience those limits, and learn from them.
: >urealistic. Each person comes into this world to learn something. Some
: When did you discover this information? If you found it in yourself, it is
: true for you. If your teacher told you, and you chose to believe, it is
: true for both of you.
Are you saying that it is not true for you? There are basic rules by which
the universe operates, and that is one of them.
: >integrety, which again is a learning process.
: I have no integrity in the social sense of the term. I would as easily kill
: a lady as kiss her, depending on the necessary behavior. (What _I_ decide is
: necessary.) And I have no appreciation for that which does not benefit me
Then what do you base your decisions on? Are you not ruled by your own karma?
Killing will generate a large amount of disharmonious karma. Kissing her, in
some circumstances, may also generate disharmonious karma.
: used. Every individual's perceptions are tainted by every previous
: perception, and making the individual aware of this is a great first step
: in enlightenment.
Only for children is this a "great step". Every student of Zen, every monk
in a monastary, learns this as a necessary first step.
John D. Specht
In a previous article, es...@ddsw1.mcs.com (Eshin-Fun) says:
>>>jd...@po.CWRU.Edu (John D. Specht) writes:
>
>: I have a household pet, a black cat named snowball, who is certainly not my
>: master. We have a simple relationship: I provide some of his food, and he
>: gets information for me.
>
>
>Then why post? Ask your cat.
I don't expect the cat to have all the answers, and he does not expect me to
have all of the food. You read too much into this, I'm afraid.
>
>
>: >: That is what I have learned from Zen.<<
>
>: Sounds like L.Ron Hubbard's "The sole drive of the individual human is to
>: reproduce." I didn't agree with him, either. I will not counter the storm's
>: effort to spend itself, only the direction and timing.
>
>
>Then either go back to (since you speak in past tense) or stay with Zen.
>
Sorry, I should have used the more complete (formal) form of that sentence:
That is what I have learned from Zen *so far*.
>
>Remember, that before one can write on a blackboard covered with chalk
>marking, one has to erase what is on its surface first.
>
I have many colors of chalk, as you have many different senses.
>
>: I think I would find being all-powerful INTENSLEY boring. That's probably one
>: of the few reasons I'm not. The only limitation of the individual are the ones
>: he/she chooses. (Richard Bach, _Illusions_) As for the part about "what
>: to really do to begin with" um, I would leave that decision to the individual,
>: as you cannot force your choices into another's skull without something on
>: the order of a crowbar or baseball bat.
>
>
>You flatter yourself! What makes you presume that you are so capable to make
>that choice?
>
I have not yet found a limitation to my power which was outside of my control.
I assume that you do not believe you have this choice, and in so not believing,
you do not have (that choice.)
>
>
>: > My power is only limited by my limitations,.........
>: >:
>: >:
>: >: The greatest gift is self.<<
>
>
>Narcissus though so too. But he got lost in the imagery of "his" own
>reflection, whilst Echo helplessly stood by.
>
This is a story I am not familiar with, I will have to go read Bullfinch's
_Mythology_ again, I believe it was mentioned there. I cannot comment
further in ignorance.
>Perhaps I may bore you with these metaphors. Fine, but though it is in
>"self" that may be the answer; CONCEIT is its downfall.
Conceit is a very neat little word in English whose definition varies (in
my observation) from individual to individual. I would define it something
like "an excessive sense of self-worth" Which I also (to me) do not posess.
I am concerned that you may be falling into this trap, as your arguments
repeatedly include assumptions and axioms which you cannot prove are true
for anyone but yourself.
>
>: >
>: I have no integrity in the social sense of the term. I would as easily kill
>: a lady as kiss her, depending on the necessary behavior. (What _I_ decide is
>: necessary.) And I have no appreciation for that which does not benefit me
>
>
>Did you learn this from Zen too?
>
I chose this path in rationality. I have no "moral compunction" to avoid
killing a human simply because it is human. If the need is there, then the
deed shall be done. By the EXACT SAME TOKEN, if I must kill a herd-beast of
some sort to get food, I will. (Before you scream: 1) people are not herd-
beasts, and 2) I'm not a cannibal. It's an example.)
Simply put, I have made careful effort to avoid prejudging any situation
based on my emotions, and try to avoid automatic reations to situations.
(One can spend many years in the habit of dodging birds who stand on a
roadway, but the first time you do this "out of habit" near a steep cliff it
can be fatal. What a waste.)
>
>
>: I will offer information, I cannot guarantee how it will be interpreted, or
>: used. Every individual's perceptions are tainted by every previous
>: perception, and making the individual aware of this is a great first step
>: in enlightenment.
>
>Ahh! we are back to the blackboard full of scribble.
>
Again, you can you another color of chalk.
>
>: I was (I thought) incarnated to help others, enjoy life, and occaisionaly
>: consume excessive quantities of alcohol.
>
>
>Ahh! we are back to Ron Hubbard!
How? I was offering a contrast to your theory to provide our audience
with a better background on each of us for comparison.
>
>
>: I can't guess, having never been there.
>: >
>: Excuse me if I'm getting a little silly, I was trying to lighten this
>: dreary mess up a bit.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Why ask a question when you already have foregone its conclusion?
>
Which question had I forgone the conclusion of? You seem to have removed it.
>
>Stay with your cat. He has better questions...
>
How do you know this? Have you spoken to him? Did he answer? I would almost
believe you were trying to insult me. If you tire of this discussion, I will
cease.
>
>Eshin-Fun
>
>:
>
Paul
Solipsism: Arguing yourself out of existence?
John D. Specht
(They're ganging up on me! Fr. Negris, comments?)
In a previous article, e...@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) says:
>jd...@po.CWRU.Edu (John D. Specht) writes:
>
>: I think I would find being all-powerful INTENSLEY boring. That's probably one
>: of the few reasons I'm not. The only limitation of the individual are the ones
>: he/she chooses. (Richard Bach, _Illusions_) As for the part about "what
>
>But you are. All of us are all-powerful. We have accepted the limitations of
>flesh so that we can experience those limits, and learn from them.
Um, that's an interesting way to look at the situation, and I can't argue it
except I don't have any memory of "accepting the limitation of the flesh" at
any time, so I'm wondering if maybe I was drunk at the time.
>: >urealistic. Each person comes into this world to learn something. Some
>: When did you discover this information? If you found it in yourself, it is
>: true for you. If your teacher told you, and you chose to believe, it is
>: true for both of you.
>
>Are you saying that it is not true for you? There are basic rules by which
>the universe operates, and that is one of them.
How did you discover these rules? Again I would argue that what you have found
to be your truth may be not so true for those not sharing all of your
previous experiences.
>: >integrety, which again is a learning process.
>: I have no integrity in the social sense of the term. I would as easily kill
>: a lady as kiss her, depending on the necessary behavior. (What _I_ decide is
>: necessary.) And I have no appreciation for that which does not benefit me
>
>Then what do you base your decisions on? Are you not ruled by your own karma?
>Killing will generate a large amount of disharmonious karma. Kissing her, in
>some circumstances, may also generate disharmonious karma.
If a man has roamed the country, doing much bodily harm for some time, and
I have an opportunity to end this destruction, I will. I consider the 'karma'
(if you want to call it that) of the world, rather than my own, and in fact,
I would benefit from that act, having made the world a better place.
>: used. Every individual's perceptions are tainted by every previous
>: perception, and making the individual aware of this is a great first step
>: in enlightenment.
>
>Only for children is this a "great step". Every student of Zen, every monk
>in a monastary, learns this as a necessary first step.
I consider this a first step for the begining 'mage' or any normal person
who has come to me for magical or mundane help. I have read almost as
much applied psychology as applied magick (maybe more) and find some
interesting similarites. This step is first in many magickal study methods,
and in the most successful method of applied psychology I know about.
Paul
Live and Learn? How about Live TO Learn?
Ed Carp
: (They're ganging up on me! Fr. Negris, comments?)
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you! :)
: Um, that's an interesting way to look at the situation, and I can't argue it
: except I don't have any memory of "accepting the limitation of the flesh" at
: any time, so I'm wondering if maybe I was drunk at the time.
I realize that this a circular argument, but just because you don't remember
doesn't mean it didn't happen. There *are* ways of bringing this information
out.
: How did you discover these rules? Again I would argue that what you have found
: to be your truth may be not so true for those not sharing all of your
: previous experiences.
It is one of several common themes running through (1) NDEs, (2) regressive
hypnosis sessions, and (3) most ancient religious texts.
: >Killing will generate a large amount of disharmonious karma. Kissing her, in
: >some circumstances, may also generate disharmonious karma.
:
: If a man has roamed the country, doing much bodily harm for some time, and
: I have an opportunity to end this destruction, I will. I consider the 'karma'
: (if you want to call it that) of the world, rather than my own, and in fact,
: I would benefit from that act, having made the world a better place.
I don't want to get into a long-winded discussion of karma, since this
more properly belongs on talk.religion.newage. Tibetans believe that
*any* killing, justified or not, beings undesirable karma on the perpetrator,
while Buddhism (and several other religious) do not.
John D. Specht
In a previous article, e...@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) says:
>: any time, so I'm wondering if maybe I was drunk at the time.
>
>doesn't mean it didn't happen. There *are* ways of bringing this information
>out.
I can't reason based on what I don't know, or don't believe in, so I don't
try to. Most of the 'ways' I have seen for getting at 'past life' or
'higher consciousness' are about 10% inspiration, 90% imagination. I know
there are some serious practitioners out there, but they're not the ones
getting press and TV.
>: How did you discover these rules? Again I would argue that what you have found
>: to be your truth may be not so true for those not sharing all of your
>: previous experiences.
>
>It is one of several common themes running through (1) NDEs, (2) regressive
>hypnosis sessions, and (3) most ancient religious texts.
1) What's an NDE? 2) Regressive hypnosis, see 10%/90% comment above. 3) Ancient
religious texts: so If I write a book that's good enough to be around in 2k
years, and it happens to be religious fiction (*quickflame*: Ain't it all?),
then would that be an 'ancient religious text' which could be accepted as
fact?
>: >Killing will generate a large amount of disharmonious karma. Kissing her, in
>: >some circumstances, may also generate disharmonious karma.
>:
>: If a man has roamed the country, doing much bodily harm for some time, and
>: I have an opportunity to end this destruction, I will. I consider the 'karma'
>: (if you want to call it that) of the world, rather than my own, and in fact,
>: I would benefit from that act, having made the world a better place.
>
>I don't want to get into a long-winded discussion of karma, since this
>more properly belongs on talk.religion.newage. Tibetans believe that
>*any* killing, justified or not, beings undesirable karma on the perpetrator,
>while Buddhism (and several other religious) do not.
I guess I took _Lords_of_Light_ too seriously. :)
Paul
And I thought this thread was a goner!
Ed Carp
: I can't reason based on what I don't know, or don't believe in, so I don't
: try to. Most of the 'ways' I have seen for getting at 'past life' or
: 'higher consciousness' are about 10% inspiration, 90% imagination. I know
: there are some serious practitioners out there, but they're not the ones
: getting press and TV.
There are several pracitioners around that have done impressive things. In
my experience, reasoning doesn't always lead to belief, or vice versa.
If there is just one valid experience, would that be enough?
: >: How did you discover these rules? Again I would argue that what you have found
: >: to be your truth may be not so true for those not sharing all of your
: >: previous experiences.
: >
: >It is one of several common themes running through (1) NDEs, (2) regressive
: >hypnosis sessions, and (3) most ancient religious texts.
:
: 1) What's an NDE? 2) Regressive hypnosis, see 10%/90% comment above. 3) Ancient
NDE = Near Death Experience.
: religious texts: so If I write a book that's good enough to be around in 2k
: years, and it happens to be religious fiction (*quickflame*: Ain't it all?),
: then would that be an 'ancient religious text' which could be accepted as
: fact?
There are many religious texts around the world that can be verified with a
high degree of accuracy, and which tally well with our own experiences today.
(The christian bible seems to not be one of those, however).
: >: >Killing will generate a large amount of disharmonious karma. Kissing her, in
: >: >some circumstances, may also generate disharmonious karma.
: >:
: >: If a man has roamed the country, doing much bodily harm for some time, and
: >: I have an opportunity to end this destruction, I will. I consider the 'karma'
: >: (if you want to call it that) of the world, rather than my own, and in fact,
: >: I would benefit from that act, having made the world a better place.
: >
: >I don't want to get into a long-winded discussion of karma, since this
: >more properly belongs on talk.religion.newage. Tibetans believe that
: >*any* killing, justified or not, beings undesirable karma on the perpetrator,
: >while Buddhism (and several other religious) do not.
: I guess I took _Lords_of_Light_ too seriously. :)
Uh, whatever *that* is...
--
Ed Carp, N7EKG e...@apple.com <-- preferred email address!
801/ "This is the final task I will ever give you, and it goes
269- on forever. Act happy, feel happy, be happy, without a
bill nelson
:
: : religious texts: so If I write a book that's good enough to be around in 2k
: : then would that be an 'ancient religious text' which could be accepted as
: : fact?
:
: There are many religious texts around the world that can be verified with a
: high degree of accuracy, and which tally well with our own experiences today.
: (The christian bible seems to not be one of those, however).
They can? In what way? Certainly, they may show that such and such city
existed at some time before the text was written. They may even talk about
some of the rulers. So what? This is just history, which may or may not be
recorded accurately - depending on the personal prejudices of the author.
Other than verifying that a place or ruler existed - I don't know how you can
verify the accuracy of any such text.
Bill
John D. Specht
In a previous article, e...@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) says:
>
>Uh, whatever *that* is...
_Lords_of_Light_ is a book by Roger Zelazny about a planet run by the Buddist
or Hindu Pantheon (I don't know which term is more correct). Definitely
worth a read IMO.
Paul
James Meritt
}
}In a previous article, e...@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) says:
}>: I guess I took _Lords_of_Light_ too seriously. :)
}>
}>Uh, whatever *that* is...
}
}_Lords_of_Light_ is a book by Roger Zelazny about a planet run by the Buddist
}or Hindu Pantheon (I don't know which term is more correct). Definitely
}worth a read IMO.
Not exactly. It is about a group of interstellar travellers who settled
on a planet who then split into two groups: the gods (ship's company who
used technological means to mimic the capabilities of Hindi gods) and the
peons (passengers/cargo's descendents).