Virtues and Vices of the Sephiroth: Chokmah
Tom
potential; it has no purpose, no direction, and no manifestation. It simply
IS. The word "chokmah" itself means "wisdom" and is paired with the word
"binah", meaning "understanding". Wisdom is not passive, but active.
Wisdom arises from right action whereas understanding arises from clear
perception.
The feeling that one might best associate with Chokmah is the male orgasm, a
mindless paroxysm rushing forth in all directions, filled with creative
potential but having no form in which to manifest that creativity. Until
shaped and directed by the formative receptivity of Binah, the divine power
of Chokmah can do nothing,
The virtue of Chokmah is described variously as devotion, good, or
completion of the Great Work. Its vice is evil, when one admits of any vice
to this sephiroth at all. Chokmah represents all possibilities, including
all those possibilities for good as well as all possibilities for evil. We
may argue that "good" and "evil" are irrelevant value judgments in
non-dualistic consciousness, but as is inevitable when discussing
consciousness in the Supernals, the words we use fall far short as adequate
descriptors. That which is "good" in Chokmah is that which encounters form
and proceeds into manifestation. That which is "evil" is that which fails
to encounter form and dissipates itself uselessly. The Qlippoth associated
with Chokmah are the Hinderers and have the primary quality of
arbitrariness. This expresses the disorganization and the ultimate futility
of undirected energy.
The lesson we can come away with in the contemplation of the virtue and vice
of Chokmah is that our efforts cannot be purely arbitrary. There must be an
unswerving plan, direction, and goal for work to be accomplished. The
physical definition of "work" is "force acting upon an object to cause
displacement." There are three operative words in this definition, which
correspond to the Supernals themselves. "Cause" relates to Kether. It is
the Prime Cause, the FIAT LUX. "Force" relates to Chokmah, which is the
energy that proceeds from the Cause. "Displacement" relates to Binah, which
directs the energy of Chokmah into specific movement.
Crowley comments on the nature of magical consciousness in Chokmah in
"Confessions"
"In The Vision and the Voice, the attainment of the grade of Master of the
Temple was symbolized by the adept pouring every drop of his blood, that is
his whole individual life, into the Cup of the Scarlet Woman, who represents
Universal Impersonal Life. There remains therefore (to pursue the imagery)
of the adept "nothing but a little pile of dust". In a subsequent vision the
Grade of Magus is foreshadowed; and the figure is that this dust is burnt
into "a white ash", which ash is preserved in an Urn. It is difficult to
convey the appropriateness of this symbolism, but the general idea is that
the earthly or receptive part of the Master is destroyed. That which remains
has passed through fire; and is therefore, in a sense, of the nature of
fire. The Urn is engraved with a word or symbol expressive of the nature of
the being whose ash is therein. The Magus is thus, of course, not a person
in any ordinary sense; he represents a certain nature or idea. To put it
otherwise, we may say, the Magus is a word."
Rufus Opus
More comments below.
On Sep 11, 12:43 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
> The virtue of Chokmah is described variously as devotion, good, or
> completion of the Great Work. Its vice is evil, when one admits of any vice
> to this sephiroth at all. Chokmah represents all possibilities, including
> all those possibilities for good as well as all possibilities for evil. We
> may argue that "good" and "evil" are irrelevant value judgments in
> non-dualistic consciousness, but as is inevitable when discussing
> consciousness in the Supernals, the words we use fall far short as adequate
> descriptors. That which is "good" in Chokmah is that which encounters form
> and proceeds into manifestation. That which is "evil" is that which fails
> to encounter form and dissipates itself uselessly. The Qlippoth associated
> with Chokmah are the Hinderers and have the primary quality of
> arbitrariness. This expresses the disorganization and the ultimate futility
> of undirected energy.
Why don't you apply your interpretation of Good and Evil (what I like
vs. what I don't like respectively) in your microcosm to that which is
above? Why wouldn't the Virutes and Vices be what the Creative Force
of Divinity likes vs. what it doesn't like?
> Crowley comments on the nature of magical consciousness in Chokmah in
> "Confessions"
>
> "In The Vision and the Voice, the attainment of the grade of Master of the
> Temple was symbolized by the adept pouring every drop of his blood, that is
> his whole individual life, into the Cup of the Scarlet Woman, who represents
> Universal Impersonal Life. There remains therefore (to pursue the imagery)
> of the adept "nothing but a little pile of dust". In a subsequent vision the
> Grade of Magus is foreshadowed; and the figure is that this dust is burnt
> into "a white ash", which ash is preserved in an Urn. It is difficult to
> convey the appropriateness of this symbolism, but the general idea is that
> the earthly or receptive part of the Master is destroyed. That which remains
> has passed through fire; and is therefore, in a sense, of the nature of
> fire. The Urn is engraved with a word or symbol expressive of the nature of
> the being whose ash is therein. The Magus is thus, of course, not a person
> in any ordinary sense; he represents a certain nature or idea. To put it
> otherwise, we may say, the Magus is a word."
Crowley does always manage to sum it up well, eh?
-R.O.
Tom
"Rufus Opus" <FrRedac...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189531435.9...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
You can certainly see it that way if you prefer. Of course, then you're
making two assumptions: 1. that there is a sentient "Creative Force" and 2.
that it has likes and dislikes. The evidence in support of either
assumption is pretty weak.
And, just to clarify it, I don't interpret good and evil as what *I* in
particular like or dislike. I'm saying that this is exactly how the terms
"good" and "evil" are put into practice by everyone using the term.
With summations that are always open to various interpretations, though.
Erwin Hessle
A valiant attempt, to be sure.
> Chokmah is associated with the Will itself. Of itself it is purely
> potential; it has no purpose, no direction,
I don't know about this. No "purpose", I can go along with, but no
direction? If there is no direction, there is no will. The "right
action" you describe below implies a particular direction. Indeed, if
Chokmah is associated with motion, then you can argue that direction
is all motion, and therefore Will, is.
> and no manifestation. It simply
> IS.
How so, if it is "purely potential" and without manifestation?
> The word "chokmah" itself means "wisdom" and is paired with the word
> "binah", meaning "understanding". Wisdom is not passive, but active.
> Wisdom arises from right action whereas understanding arises from clear
> perception.
Equally arguable that wisdom arises from clear perception, and right
action arises from understanding, further illustrating the pairing. I
don't like the term "right action", but I know what you mean.
> The feeling that one might best associate with Chokmah is the male orgasm, a
> mindless paroxysm rushing forth in all directions,
"All directions"? Hopefully not including backwards, and further
illustrating that will must have direction. Without direction, it
wouldn't "rush forth" anywhere.
> filled with creative
> potential but having no form in which to manifest that creativity. Until
> shaped and directed by the formative receptivity of Binah, the divine power
> of Chokmah can do nothing,
I'd go further and say that without the "formative receptivity of
Binah" it is in fact nothing at all, other than a vague idea in our
minds. Even with the formative receptivity of Binah, for that matter.
> The virtue of Chokmah is described variously as devotion, good, or
> completion of the Great Work. Its vice is evil, when one admits of any vice
> to this sephiroth at all. Chokmah represents all possibilities, including
> all those possibilities for good as well as all possibilities for evil. We
> may argue that "good" and "evil" are irrelevant value judgments in
> non-dualistic consciousness, but as is inevitable when discussing
> consciousness in the Supernals, the words we use fall far short as adequate
> descriptors. That which is "good" in Chokmah is that which encounters form
> and proceeds into manifestation. That which is "evil" is that which fails
> to encounter form and dissipates itself uselessly.
I prefer the simpler explanation of the vice, that Crowley wrote
somewhere I can't currently bring to mind, that the vice of Chokmah is
evil simply because two is no longer one. Unity has been broken, and
what we call "evil" is only possible once we have diversity. This
interpretation turns your explanation on its head, since it is "that
which encounters form and proceeds into manifestation" which allows
for the existence of evil.
> The Qlippoth associated
> with Chokmah are the Hinderers and have the primary quality of
> arbitrariness. This expresses the disorganization and the ultimate futility
> of undirected energy.
"Hindrance" is also "an impeding, stopping, preventing", something
that resists the application of force, just as concealment is
something that distorts the form of Binah, breaking is the degradation
of the actual form of Chesed, and burning is the excessive force of
Geburah. And so on.
> The lesson we can come away with in the contemplation of the virtue and vice
> of Chokmah is that our efforts cannot be purely arbitrary. There must be an
> unswerving plan, direction, and goal for work to be accomplished.
"For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of
result, is every way perfect."
Direction requires neither a plan nor a goal, only a nature, "nature"
of course being that which governs the interaction of a thing with its
environment, giving it direction.
> The
> physical definition of "work" is "force acting upon an object to cause
> displacement." There are three operative words in this definition, which
> correspond to the Supernals themselves. "Cause" relates to Kether. It is
> the Prime Cause, the FIAT LUX. "Force" relates to Chokmah, which is the
> energy that proceeds from the Cause. "Displacement" relates to Binah, which
> directs the energy of Chokmah into specific movement.
Precisely. A source, the possibility of motion (change), and the
possibility of form (stability), give the three ingredients necessary
for actual real things, which is what we begin to find on the other
side of the Abyss to the Supernals. All three must be present before
we can advance into manifestation, into actual real "stuff".
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Tom
"Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
news:1189559332.8...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 11, 12:43 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> A valiant attempt, to be sure.
Yet, inadequate to the job. You just can't say anything about this shit
that isn't somehow wrong.
>
>> Chokmah is associated with the Will itself. Of itself it is purely
>> potential; it has no purpose, no direction,
>
> I don't know about this. No "purpose", I can go along with, but no
> direction?
Or all directions.
> If there is no direction, there is no will.
It is undirected, but it goes everywhere. It gains direction from the
interplay with Binah.
> The "right
> action" you describe below implies a particular direction. Indeed, if
> Chokmah is associated with motion, then you can argue that direction
> is all motion, and therefore Will, is.
It does imply a particular direction and that implication is grossly
inaccurate. It's hard to avoid making false implications when using words
to describe a process that is far too abstract for words to describe.
>> and no manifestation. It simply
>> IS.
>
> How so, if it is "purely potential" and without manifestation?
I don't know, man. I didn't do it.
>> The feeling that one might best associate with Chokmah is the male
>> orgasm, a
>> mindless paroxysm rushing forth in all directions,
>
> "All directions"? Hopefully not including backwards,
Yes, including backwards. You're not up on some of that tantra stuff.
> and further
> illustrating that will must have direction. Without direction, it
> wouldn't "rush forth" anywhere.
Without direction, it won't do anything else but rush forth in all
directions. Sort of like the energy of a bomb is undirected but that of a
firehose is.
>> filled with creative
>> potential but having no form in which to manifest that creativity. Until
>> shaped and directed by the formative receptivity of Binah, the divine
>> power
>> of Chokmah can do nothing,
>
> I'd go further and say that without the "formative receptivity of
> Binah" it is in fact nothing at all, other than a vague idea in our
> minds. Even with the formative receptivity of Binah, for that matter.
I agree. It is nothing at all. But it has potential.
>> The virtue of Chokmah is described variously as devotion, good, or
>> completion of the Great Work. Its vice is evil, when one admits of any
>> vice
>> to this sephiroth at all. Chokmah represents all possibilities,
>> including
>> all those possibilities for good as well as all possibilities for evil.
>> We
>> may argue that "good" and "evil" are irrelevant value judgments in
>> non-dualistic consciousness, but as is inevitable when discussing
>> consciousness in the Supernals, the words we use fall far short as
>> adequate
>> descriptors. That which is "good" in Chokmah is that which encounters
>> form
>> and proceeds into manifestation. That which is "evil" is that which
>> fails
>> to encounter form and dissipates itself uselessly.
>
> I prefer the simpler explanation of the vice, that Crowley wrote
> somewhere I can't currently bring to mind, that the vice of Chokmah is
> evil simply because two is no longer one. Unity has been broken, and
> what we call "evil" is only possible once we have diversity. This
> interpretation turns your explanation on its head, since it is "that
> which encounters form and proceeds into manifestation" which allows
> for the existence of evil.
Yup. You can turn the picture on its head and you're still looking at the
same picture.
>> The Qlippoth associated
>> with Chokmah are the Hinderers and have the primary quality of
>> arbitrariness. This expresses the disorganization and the ultimate
>> futility
>> of undirected energy.
>
> "Hindrance" is also "an impeding, stopping, preventing", something
> that resists the application of force, just as concealment is
> something that distorts the form of Binah, breaking is the degradation
> of the actual form of Chesed, and burning is the excessive force of
> Geburah. And so on.
What is hindered is the progression of divine influence from Kether to the
lower sephiroth. It is hindered by dissipation into nothingness. Without
the focus of Binah, the energy of Chokmah is, as you say, nothing at all.
>> The lesson we can come away with in the contemplation of the virtue and
>> vice
>> of Chokmah is that our efforts cannot be purely arbitrary. There must be
>> an
>> unswerving plan, direction, and goal for work to be accomplished.
>
> "For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of
> result, is every way perfect."
And gets no work done.
>> The
>> physical definition of "work" is "force acting upon an object to cause
>> displacement." There are three operative words in this definition, which
>> correspond to the Supernals themselves. "Cause" relates to Kether. It
>> is
>> the Prime Cause, the FIAT LUX. "Force" relates to Chokmah, which is the
>> energy that proceeds from the Cause. "Displacement" relates to Binah,
>> which
>> directs the energy of Chokmah into specific movement.
>
> Precisely. A source, the possibility of motion (change), and the
> possibility of form (stability), give the three ingredients necessary
> for actual real things, which is what we begin to find on the other
> side of the Abyss to the Supernals. All three must be present before
> we can advance into manifestation, into actual real "stuff".
So it seems.
Rufus Opus
> you're
> making two assumptions: 1. that there is a sentient "Creative Force" and 2.
> that it has likes and dislikes. The evidence in support of either
> assumption is pretty weak.
Are you saying there was no Will before the manifestation of Chokmah?
Do you view the emanation of the Three Supernals as the birth of
"God," laying the foundation for sentience?
I'm of the opinion that within the divine darkness of the Ain, God
existed in sentience. Before anything else, there was Ain, so my
reference point for creation is that which lies within the Ain, which
is "no thing", but not necessarily no consciousness, or no sentience.
How is consciousness demonstrated, or measured? What can be used to
determine the presence of sentience?
After Ain, there's the manifestation of Ain Soph. The Ain Soph phase
seems to be a denial of limit, yet limit isn't manifest until Binah.
The concept, or idea of limit had to exist within the ain for "ain
soph" to have any meaning. If there was already the concept of
limitation before the existence of Binah, it seems to imply that the
ideas that manifest as the sephirot as the emanations progress down
the Tree are already present within the Ain Soph Aur.
This would put the world of Atziluth above the supernals, I suppose,
and that would play hell with a lot of interpretations of the Kircher
tree.
If you're willing to accept that the spheres are implicitly existent
within the Ain Soph Aur, then you've already recognized that the
ingredients for sentience had to exist before the manifestation of
Kether.
-R.O.
mika
On Sep 11, 10:01 pm, "Tom" wrote:
> "Erwin Hessle" wrote in message
>
...
> > If there is no direction, there is no will.
>
> It is undirected, but it goes everywhere. It gains direction from the
> interplay with Binah.
...
>
> >> and no manifestation. It simply
> >> IS.
>
> > How so, if it is "purely potential" and without manifestation?
>
> I don't know, man. I didn't do it.
...
>
> >> filled with creative
> >> potential but having no form in which to manifest that creativity. Until
> >> shaped and directed by the formative receptivity of Binah, the divine
> >> power
> >> of Chokmah can do nothing,
>
> > I'd go further and say that without the "formative receptivity of
> > Binah" it is in fact nothing at all, other than a vague idea in our
> > minds. Even with the formative receptivity of Binah, for that matter.
>
> I agree. It is nothing at all. But it has potential.
My understanding of this system is that Chokmah and Binah came into
being simultaneously, despite the fact that Chokmah precedes Binah on
the tree (for good reasons, some of which you discuss, but not related
to my point). In some ways, like trying to discuss will without
direction, or how something can "exist" as pure potential without
manifestation, it makes no sense to try to discuss them separately as
if one came before the other; when one arrives, the other arrives. My
only question is if that applies to working up the tree as well :)
mika
>
> The feeling that one might best associate with Chokmah is the male orgasm, a
> mindless paroxysm rushing forth in all directions, filled with creative
> potential but having no form in which to manifest that creativity.
With what would you associate the female orgasm?
(You knew this question was coming, didn't you?)
Tom
> On Sep 11, 3:59 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> you're
>> making two assumptions: 1. that there is a sentient "Creative Force" and
>> 2.
>> that it has likes and dislikes. The evidence in support of either
>> assumption is pretty weak.
>
> Are you saying there was no Will before the manifestation of Chokmah?
That's correct. Except that Chokmah itself doesn't manifest until it
interacts with Binah.
> Do you view the emanation of the Three Supernals as the birth of
> "God," laying the foundation for sentience?
In some senses, yes, but there are lots of other ways to understand it, too.
> I'm of the opinion that within the divine darkness of the Ain, God
> existed in sentience.
I don't think that's necessarily so. Since Ain is unmanifested, i.e.
non-existent, you're saying that something existed before anything existed.
Now, unless you're using two different senses of the word "exist", that
doesn't make sense.
> Before anything else, there was Ain,
Ain means "nothingness". You're making it into a something for the purpose
of conceiving it, but that concept is necessarily flawed because something
is not nothing. Nothing "exists in the divine darkness of Ain" because Ain
is nothing.
There are three Veils. Ain. Ain Soph. Ain Soph Aur. These three
(although you can't count them as three since they don't exist to be
counted) precede creation, they are the inconceivable, unknowable origin,
what happened before the Big Bang. The great "I DON'T KNOW".
> so my
> reference point for creation is that which lies within the Ain, which
> is "no thing", but not necessarily no consciousness, or no sentience.
Those are things. Ain is no thing.
> How is consciousness demonstrated, or measured? What can be used to
> determine the presence of sentience?
The Turing Test.
> If you're willing to accept that the spheres are implicitly existent
> within the Ain Soph Aur, then you've already recognized that the
> ingredients for sentience had to exist before the manifestation of
> Kether.
It cannot exist if it doesn't exist. It does no good to talk about this and
even less good to use such talk as a premise. Everything is contradictable
and nothing can be established as either true or false.
Rufus Opus
> My understanding of this system is that Chokmah and Binah came into
> being simultaneously, despite the fact that Chokmah precedes Binah on
> the tree (for good reasons, some of which you discuss, but not related
> to my point). In some ways, like trying to discuss will without
> direction, or how something can "exist" as pure potential without
> manifestation, it makes no sense to try to discuss them separately as
> if one came before the other; when one arrives, the other arrives. My
> only question is if that applies to working up the tree as well :)
All ten spheres came into being at the same time, from what I can tell
in the Sefer Yetzirah. Before they are associated with any numbers,
they are described collectively as having "boundless origin and end."
The numbers assigned to them seem to be a mystical assignment, and not
necessarily an indication of linear development. When you're "working
up the tree," you're experiencing ten manifestations of God that
happen to have numbers related to them. If you do it using meditation,
vision questing, or pathworking, for example, you'll be conjuring up
the idea the sephiroth represents and immersing your consciousness in
it to gain an understanding of that idea as it exists within
creation.
Because they were created simultaneously, you're right, they can't be
experienced separately from the other nine spheres. At the least,
you'll see how the one you're working with interacts with the others.
I understood the Tree better, I think, after I learned that the
standard Tree of Life drawing we see was drawn by Athanasius Kircher
in the seventeenth century. Earlier graphical representations are much
different and have different implications, revealing aspects of the
sephiroth that are missed in a strict geometric interpretation of the
glyph. I personally believe that the sephiroth are better understood
as concentric spheres occupying the same space. The assignment of the
numbers to the spheres gives an insight into the mystical
interpretation of the numbers one through ten, but interpreting the
spheres solely as a linear development can lead to error.
For your enjoyment, here's Chapter 1 of the Sefer Yetzirah (Westcott
translation):
1. In two and thirty most occult and wonderful paths of wisdom did JAH
the Lord of Hosts engrave his name: God of the armies of Israel, ever-
living God, merciful and gracious, sublime, dwelling on high, who
inhabiteth eternity. He created this universe by the three Sepharim,
Number, Writing, and Speech.
2. Ten are the numbers, as are the Sephiroth, and twenty-two the
letters, these are the Foundation of all things. Of these letters,
three are mothers, seven are double, and twelve are simple.
3. The ten numbers formed from nothing are the Decad: these are seen
in the fingers of the hands, five on one, five on the other, and over
them is the Covenant by voice spiritual, and the rite of Circumcision,
corporeal (as of Abraham).
4. Ten are the numbers of the ineffable Sephiroth, ten and not nine,
ten and not eleven. Learn this wisdom, and be wise in the
understanding of it, investigate these numbers, and draw knowledge
from them, fix the design in its purity, and pass from it to its
Creator seated on his throne.
5. These Ten Numbers, beyond the Infinite one, have the boundless
realms, boundless origin and end, an abyss of good and one of evil,
boundless height and depth, East and West, North and South, and the
one only God and king, faithful forever seated on his throne, shall
rule over all, forever and ever.
6. These ten Sephiroth which are ineffable, whose appearance is like
scintillating flames, have no end but are infinite. The word of God is
in them as they burst forth, and as they return; they obey the divine
command, rushing along as a whirlwind, returning to prostrate
themselves at his throne.
7. These ten Sephiroth which are, moreover, ineffable, have their end
even as their beginning, conjoined, even as is a flame to a burning
coal: for our God is superlative in his unity, and does not permit any
second one. And who canst thou place before the only one?
8. And as to this Decad of the Sephiroth, restrain thy lips from
comment, and thy mind from thought of them, and if thy heart fail thee
return to thy place; therefore is it written, "The living creatures
ran and returned," and on this wise was the covenant made with us.
9. These are the ten emanations of number. One is the Spirit of the
Living God, blessed and more than blessed be the name of the Living
God of Ages. The Holy Spirit is his Voice, his Spirit, and his Word.
10. Second, from the Spirit he made Air and formed for speech twenty-
two letters, three of which are mothers, A, M, SH, seven are double,
B, G, D, K, P, R, T, and twelve are single, E, V, Z, CH, H, I, L, N,
S, O, Tz, Q, but the spirit is first among these. Third, Primitive
Water. He also formed and designed from his Spirit, and from the void
and formless made earth, even as a rampart, or standing wall, and
varied its surface even as the crossing of beams. Fourth, from the
Water, He designed Fire, and from it formed for himself a throne of
honor, with Auphanim, Seraphim, Holy Animals, and ministering Angels,
and with these he formed his dwelling, as is written in the text "Who
maketh his angels spirits and his ministers a flaming fire." (Psalm
civ. 4.)
11. He selected three letters from the simple ones, and sealed them as
forming his great Name, I H V and he sealed the universe in six
directions.
Five.- He looked above, and sealed the height, with I H V.
Six.- He looked below, and sealed the deep, with I V H.
Seven.- He looked forward, and sealed the East, with H I V.
Eight.-He looked backward, and sealed the West, with V H I.
Nine.- He looked to the right, and sealed the South, with V I H.
Ten.-He looked to the left, and sealed the North, with H V 1.
12. These are the ten ineffable existences, the spirit of the living
God, Air, Water, Fire, Height and Depth, East and West, North and
South.
mika
Rufus Opus wrote:
> Because they were created simultaneously, you're right, they can't be
> experienced separately from the other nine spheres. At the least,
> you'll see how the one you're working with interacts with the others.
Actually, I was specifically referring to the Chokmah and Binah, not
the whole tree. Chokmah and Binah come into being simultaneously,
relative to the creation of the sephirot that follow. Thus the
'lower' seven can be investigated and discussed individually, as Tom
so eloquently demonstrated, while Chokmah and Binah only make sense
when treated as a pair. Try re-reading my post.
Meltdarok
Let's start with the Pentateuch:
Genesis 1:1-5 (KJV) 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of
the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from
the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he
called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
Rufus Opus
>
> Genesis 1:1-5 (KJV) 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the
> earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
> upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of
> the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4
> And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from
> the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he
> called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Ok, so when was "in the beginning" in relation to the Tree of Life? If
there's no light, then it's before the Ain Soph Aur, right? But then
in the SY, we see that the Spirit of God is the first emanation,
Kether, so if there's no spirit of God yet, then what's hovering over
the waters?
Meh.
-R.O.
Erwin Hessle
> "Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1189559332.8...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Sep 11, 12:43 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > A valiant attempt, to be sure.
>
> Yet, inadequate to the job. You just can't say anything about this shit
> that isn't somehow wrong.
Yeah, well that's never been any reason not to do it.
> > If there is no direction, there is no will.
>
> It is undirected, but it goes everywhere. It gains direction from the
> interplay with Binah.
Remember this bit.
> > The "right
> > action" you describe below implies a particular direction. Indeed, if
> > Chokmah is associated with motion, then you can argue that direction
> > is all motion, and therefore Will, is.
>
> It does imply a particular direction and that implication is grossly
> inaccurate
And this bit.
> It's hard to avoid making false implications when using words
> to describe a process that is far too abstract for words to describe.
>
> >> and no manifestation. It simply
> >> IS.
>
> > How so, if it is "purely potential" and without manifestation?
>
> I don't know, man. I didn't do it.
Heh. Fair one.
> >> The feeling that one might best associate with Chokmah is the male
> >> orgasm, a
> >> mindless paroxysm rushing forth in all directions,
>
> > "All directions"? Hopefully not including backwards,
>
> Yes, including backwards. You're not up on some of that tantra stuff.
Not fucking likely to ever be, either.
> > and further
> > illustrating that will must have direction. Without direction, it
> > wouldn't "rush forth" anywhere.
>
> Without direction, it won't do anything else but rush forth in all
> directions. Sort of like the energy of a bomb is undirected but that of a
> firehose is.
OK then, let's recall those other two bits now.
I see what you're trying to say, here. Let's turn your bomb into a
fragmentation grenade. Unless you swallow it, when you get hurt by a
fragmentation grenade, it's not the explosion that kills you, it's the
little bits of shrapnel that the explosion flings at you. It might be
flying out all over the place, but critically, each single piece of
frag has a single and defined direction. Same with your bomb. "The
energy" is not undirected, there's just lots of bits of energy flying
about in an assortment of different well-defined directions. Even if
we call it a continuum, it's still the same thing, since everything's
got to be something. And for the avoidance of doubt, I know you said
"sort of like", but I don't care.
"It gains direction from the interplay with Binah" you say, and you're
perfectly correct. What you've been trying to do is to separate the
two, not surprisingly, since you're writing an article purely on
Chokmah. But you take motion, without the "interplay with Binah", and
you're calling it "Will". Here's where I disagree with you.Direction
has no meaning without form, it's true, but if you have no form, and
no direction, then I say that whatever you've got there, isn't will.
You're trying to separate them, and consider one in isolation from the
other, but I think you're fighting a lost battle; I don't think you
can sensibly do this, even on such an abstract level.
So when you say "It does imply a particular direction and that
implication is grossly inaccurate", it's true only to the extent that
you're trying to isolate it, and when you do that, what you've got
doesn't exist. So while in that context your statement may be true,
then the "grossly inaccurate" applies to all the rest of it, too,
since you're talking about something that just ain't.
Motion cannot exist without form, since without at least three points,
there is no frame of reference against which to measure motion, and if
you can't measure motion, you can't say anything is moving. Similarly,
form cannot exist without motion, since how can form be "fixed" if
there is nothing which moves in relation to it? And of course, you
can't have either without a source, yet again a source has no meaning
without the things that came from it.
And that right there is why the Supernals are archetypal, and above
the Abyss. They ain't things, and talking about them in isolation as
if they were is just going to lead to silliness. Similar to your other
discussion about the veils; three different kinds of nothing are still
nothing.
> > "Hindrance" is also "an impeding, stopping, preventing", something
> > that resists the application of force, just as concealment is
> > something that distorts the form of Binah, breaking is the degradation
> > of the actual form of Chesed, and burning is the excessive force of
> > Geburah. And so on.
>
> What is hindered is the progression of divine influence from Kether to the
> lower sephiroth. It is hindered by dissipation into nothingness. Without
> the focus of Binah, the energy of Chokmah is, as you say, nothing at all.
Piffle. Chokmah *is* the "divine influence". Kether is just the
divine. It has no "influence" until Chokmah starts things rolling.
Wherever it goes, it remains divine. But it ain't one anymore, and
"thereby cometh hurt". There is no impurity in Chokmah; it's just a
fact that the "divine influence" which results in creation also
results in the creation of "evil", another word for duality. The folks
who whine about the problem of evil have it precisely backwards.
> >> The lesson we can come away with in the contemplation of the virtue and
> >> vice
> >> of Chokmah is that our efforts cannot be purely arbitrary. There must be
> >> an
> >> unswerving plan, direction, and goal for work to be accomplished.
>
> > "For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of
> > result, is every way perfect."
>
> And gets no work done.
Great. Makes for an easy life, then, doesn't it? Isn't that,
paradoxically, the goal?
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Erwin Hessle
> With what would you associate the female orgasm?
Not having to cook my own dinner.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Erwin Hessle
See, the problem the twat you're talking to has is that he thinks the
Bible is a literal account of creation. The problem the twat *he* is
talking to has is that he thinks the Qabalah is.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Erwin Hessle
> On Sep 11, 3:59 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > you're
> > making two assumptions: 1. that there is a sentient "Creative Force" and 2.
> > that it has likes and dislikes. The evidence in support of either
> > assumption is pretty weak.
<snip>
> If you're willing to accept that the spheres are implicitly existent
> within the Ain Soph Aur,
Which nobody but an idiot would. "Implicitly existent"? What the fuck
is that supposed to mean? It's either existent, or it isn't. You may
be thinking of "potentially existent", which is a different thing
entirely, and in the context of the veils is exactly equivalent to
"non-existent".
> then you've already recognized that the
> ingredients for sentience had to exist before the manifestation of
> Kether.
Firstly, no you haven't. Your daft creationist argument just goes back
in time forever, like all of them do. Tom's explained this to you:
"The great 'I DON'T KNOW'." If you try to go back before that, you're
missing the point, and not understanding your subject. The Qabalah
simply does not address the question of how something came from
nothing, it stops before it gets to that point; that's why they are
called "veils".
Secondly, the "ingredients for sentience" are a completely different
thing from "sentience" itself, so your statement, even if it was
right, is certainly no grounds for supposing that "there is a sentient
creative force" which was the point you were arguing against. The
entire world contains the ingredients for rhubarb trifle, but that
doesn't mean we live on a dessert.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
mika
> On Sep 12, 12:14 pm, mika wrote:
>
> > With what would you associate the female orgasm?
>
> Not having to cook my own dinner.
Ha!
Thanks, that was great.
Douglas
It sounds like more than the question is cumming in this
portion of the thread.
-Douglas
Tom
"mika" <mik...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189613651.8...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I should by now.
My most thoughtful answer is that I don't know, having never had one.
Tom
I've become a fan of the "House" TV program. This sort of humor is the big
draw.
Dr. Wilson: Beauty often seduces us on the road to truth.
House: And triteness kicks us in the nads.
Dr. Chase: I'd give her two months.
House: On the bright side, it still means I was right.
Dr. Chase: How'd you like it if I interfered in your personal life?
House: I'd hate it. That's why, cleverly, I have no personal life.
Dr. Foreman: You assaulted that man!
House: Fine. I'll never do it again.
Dr. Foreman: Yes you will.
House: All the more reason this debate is pointless.
Jill: My joints have been feeling all loose, and lately I've been feeling
sick a lot. Maybe I'm overtraining; I'm doin' the marathon, like, ten miles
a day,
[House looks tired]
Jill: but I can't seem to lose any weight.
House: Lift up your arms.
[she does so]
House: You have a parasite.
Jill: Like a tapeworm or something?
House: Lie back and lift up your sweater.
[she lies back, and still has her hands up]
House: You can put your arms down.
Jill: Can you do anything about it?
House: Only for about a month or so. After that it becomes illegal to
remove, except in a couple of states.
[he starts to ultrasound her abdomen]
Jill: Illegal?
House: Don't worry. Many women learn to embrace this parasite. They name it,
dress it up in tiny clothes, arrange playdates with other parasites...
Jill: Playdates?
House: [shows her the ultrasound] It has your eyes.
[it's a baby]
House: Dying people lie too. Wish they'd worked less, been nicer, opened
orphanages for kittens. If you really want to do something, you do it. You
don't save it for a sound bite.
Tom
> On Sep 12, 1:01 am, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1189559332.8...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Sep 11, 12:43 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > A valiant attempt, to be sure.
>>
>> Yet, inadequate to the job. You just can't say anything about this shit
>> that isn't somehow wrong.
>
> Yeah, well that's never been any reason not to do it.
QED
>> It is undirected, but it goes everywhere. It gains direction from the
>> interplay with Binah.
>
> Remember this bit.
>
>> > The "right
>> > action" you describe below implies a particular direction. Indeed, if
>> > Chokmah is associated with motion, then you can argue that direction
>> > is all motion, and therefore Will, is.
>>
>> It does imply a particular direction and that implication is grossly
>> inaccurate
>
> And this bit.
> OK then, let's recall those other two bits now.
>
> I see what you're trying to say, here. Let's turn your bomb into a
> fragmentation grenade. Unless you swallow it, when you get hurt by a
> fragmentation grenade, it's not the explosion that kills you, it's the
> little bits of shrapnel that the explosion flings at you. It might be
> flying out all over the place, but critically, each single piece of
> frag has a single and defined direction.
I prefer to use a nuke in my hypothetical bomb explosion, It's not the
shrapnel we're concerned with but the radiation of energy, which happens in
all directions simultaneously. From the perspective of any person caught in
the blast, it's only a small percentage of the whole blast that is important
to them, thus they concentrate on that little bit, disregarding the rest.
However, the rest is still there.
> Same with your bomb. "The
> energy" is not undirected, there's just lots of bits of energy flying
> about in an assortment of different well-defined directions.
In all directions, not just some.
> "It gains direction from the interplay with Binah" you say, and you're
> perfectly correct. What you've been trying to do is to separate the
> two, not surprisingly, since you're writing an article purely on
> Chokmah. But you take motion, without the "interplay with Binah", and
> you're calling it "Will". Here's where I disagree with you.Direction
> has no meaning without form, it's true, but if you have no form, and
> no direction, then I say that whatever you've got there, isn't will.
I see your point. It certainly isn't any sort of Will that we can encompass
in our minds. It's far too abstracted for that. It is the root of Will, as
yet undifferentiated. Once paired with Binah, a direction is established
and Chesed appears.
> You're trying to separate them, and consider one in isolation from the
> other, but I think you're fighting a lost battle; I don't think you
> can sensibly do this, even on such an abstract level.
I've said so myself, but, as you say, there's no reason not to do it anyway.
> So when you say "It does imply a particular direction and that
> implication is grossly inaccurate", it's true only to the extent that
> you're trying to isolate it, and when you do that, what you've got
> doesn't exist.So while in that context your statement may be true,
> then the "grossly inaccurate" applies to all the rest of it, too,
> since you're talking about something that just ain't.
Exactly.
> And that right there is why the Supernals are archetypal, and above
> the Abyss. They ain't things, and talking about them in isolation as
> if they were is just going to lead to silliness. Similar to your other
> discussion about the veils; three different kinds of nothing are still
> nothing.
Which is why I initially stopped my discussion at Chesed. However, there
were requests that I deal with the Supernals and we can all see the results
of that.
>> What is hindered is the progression of divine influence from Kether to
>> the
>> lower sephiroth. It is hindered by dissipation into nothingness.
>> Without
>> the focus of Binah, the energy of Chokmah is, as you say, nothing at all.
>
> Piffle.
Oh yeah?
> Chokmah *is* the "divine influence". Kether is just the
> divine. It has no "influence" until Chokmah starts things rolling.
> Wherever it goes, it remains divine. But it ain't one anymore, and
> "thereby cometh hurt". There is no impurity in Chokmah; it's just a
> fact that the "divine influence" which results in creation also
> results in the creation of "evil", another word for duality. The folks
> who whine about the problem of evil have it precisely backwards.
Neither here nor there. We treat this like a circuit diagram, but it isn't.
The Tree is a set of relationships, not an organism. None of it exists
without the rest. I've been talking in this series about a particular
progression of attention and its concurrent effects on the consciousness of
a magician, but I'm not trying to explain creation. As I said, I don't know
about that because I didn't do it.
>> > "For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of
>> > result, is every way perfect."
>>
>> And gets no work done.
>
> Great. Makes for an easy life, then, doesn't it? Isn't that,
> paradoxically, the goal?
Works for me. Magick is a leisure time activity.
Meltdarok
You can't see the Tree of Life as a direct metaphor of the Big Bang yet?
> Meh.
>
> -R.O.
>
>
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
Meltdarok
The problem is that the ginger twit typing this response has a large
object stuck up his arse. Oh. It's his head. Sorry, I know it belongs
there.
> The problem the twat *he* is
> talking to has is that he thinks the Qabalah is.
>
> Erwin Hessle, 8=3
>
--
meltdarok, 6.02*10^23=1
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
-=M=-
VAMPIRA / -=M=- SAYS:
Chokhmah
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
· Find out more about navigating Wikipedia and finding information
·Jump to: navigation, search
Contents [hide]
1 People
2 In Kabbalah
3 See also
4 External links
Chokhmah, also sometimes transliterated chochma or hokhmah ( ) is
the Hebrew word for "wisdom". The word "chokhmah" and others derived
from it may connote one of several things:
[edit] People
A "wise man" is a chakham (feminine: chakhama). For example, a rabbi
or person who is very learned in Torah and Talmud is called a Talmid
Chacham, denoting a very "learned person" or, literally, a "wise
student [of Torah knowledge]." The Talmud (Shabbat 31a) describes
knowledge of the Talmudic order of Kodshim as a high level of
chokhmah.
Certain Sefardic Jews refer to their rabbis as a Hakham ("wise man")
and the Chief rabbi of the Ottoman Empire was called a Hakham Bashi.
There are passages in Matthew and Gospel of Luke where Yeshua (Jesus)
compares himself to Chokmah, referring to Proverbs as the one who
speaks out in the market place and so on. A few Christians have
incorporated this into their apologetics, claiming this as synoptic
evidence for Christ's divinity.
[edit] In Kabbalah
Main article: Chokhmah (Kabbalah)
In the Kabbalah of Judaism, chokhmah is the name of one of the
Sefirot.
The name Chabad ( ), of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidim, is an acronym,
and the first letter ( - "Ch") is taken from chokhmah: (Chokhmah)
for "wisdom" - (Binah) for "understanding" - (Da'at) for
"knowledge." [1]
[edit] See also
Chokhmah (Kabbalah)
Nena, singer with an album "Chokmah"
[edit] External links
Torah Wisdom, A story from the Talmud of the great Aba Chilkiya
This Judaism-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by
expanding it.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chokhmah"
Categories: Judaism stubs | Hebrew words and phrases
mika
> "mika" wrote
> > On Sep 11, 9:43 am, "Tom" wrote:
>
> >> The feeling that one might best associate with Chokmah is the male
> >> orgasm, a
> >> mindless paroxysm rushing forth in all directions, filled with creative
> >> potential but having no form in which to manifest that creativity.
>
> > With what would you associate the female orgasm?
>
Seems equivalent enough to your description above for the purpose of
this discussion.
I think the primary difference would be what one feels afterwards,
either 'spent' or 'energized'. If I was feeling more eloquent I might
be able to relate the post-orgasmic energy rush to the receptivity of
Binah.
Tom
> On Sep 12, 9:54 pm, "Tom" wrote:
>> "mika" wrote
>> > On Sep 11, 9:43 am, "Tom" wrote:
>>
>> >> The feeling that one might best associate with Chokmah is the male
>> >> orgasm, a
>> >> mindless paroxysm rushing forth in all directions, filled with
>> >> creative
>> >> potential but having no form in which to manifest that creativity.
>>
>> > With what would you associate the female orgasm?
>>
>> My most thoughtful answer is that I don't know, having never had one.
>
> Seems equivalent enough to your description above for the purpose of
> this discussion.
At least as far as the effect orgasm has on consciousness. Of course,
effects on consciousness is what we're actually talking about, so any
symbolic differences are mere bagatelle.
Rufus Opus
And your problem is you think you know everything about everyone. As
usual, dipshit, you're completely wrong.
I don't believe in the QBL, or the literal interpretation of the
Bible. They're maps and metaphors, boy-o. If I believe in anything
it's the emanation model, and I adopt the forms of the early
Christian, Hermetic, and proto-qblistic forms of it, although very
much less the qbl. It's not sufficient to explain things because like
you, people think they know what they're looking at after seeing the
line drawings and circles.
People really believe the Kircher Tree *is* THE Tree of Life. How many
representations of the ToL have you seen and studied, Erwin? Which is
your favorite? Which did you find most closely resembled your
experience on the Tree? How's Peh working in between Netz and Hod?
Have you got anything original to say, or are you a Kaplan parrot?
-R.O.
Rufus Opus
> On Sep 12, 11:27 am, Rufus Opus <FrRedactumO...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 11, 3:59 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > you're
> > > making two assumptions: 1. that there is a sentient "Creative Force" and 2.
> > > that it has likes and dislikes. The evidence in support of either
> > > assumption is pretty weak.
>
> <snip>
>
> > If you're willing to accept that the spheres are implicitly existent
> > within the Ain Soph Aur,
>
> Which nobody but an idiot would. "Implicitly existent"? What the fuck
> is that supposed to mean?
Alright, kindergarten dropout, I'll use small words, words that even
someone who thinks that 8 is equal to 3 might understand:
"Implied" means hinted at. There's a hint of "form" in the Ain Soph.
Ain translates as "not". Ain Soph translates as "not limit." For a
lack of limit to be there in the Ain soph, the concept of limit had to
be there too.
Are you keeping up? I'm trying to use no more than two syll-, er,
sounds per word for you.
> It's either existent, or it isn't. You may
> be thinking of "potentially existent", which is a different thing
> entirely, and in the context of the veils is exactly equivalent to
> "non-existent".
No, stupid. I meant implied. "Potential" means what can come out in
the future from what is already there. If "not limit" is to have
meaning in the second veil, the idea of "limit" had to exist. See? The
words "Ain Soph" imply the existence of "Soph."
>
> > then you've already recognized that the
> > ingredients for sentience had to exist before the manifestation of
> > Kether.
>
> Firstly, no you haven't. Your daft creationist argument just goes back
> in time forever, like all of them do. Tom's explained this to you:
> "The great 'I DON'T KNOW'." If you try to go back before that, you're
> missing the point, and not understanding your subject. The Qabalah
> simply does not address the question of how something came from
> nothing, it stops before it gets to that point; that's why they are
> called "veils".
Ok, Erwin. You go ahead and believe that if you want to. Just because
you don't get the veils does not mean that no one else can get them.
But that's ok.
> Secondly, the "ingredients for sentience" are a completely different
> thing from "sentience" itself, so your statement, even if it was
> right, is certainly no grounds for supposing that "there is a sentient
> creative force" which was the point you were arguing against.
Do you need help with "for" and "against" too?
> The
> entire world contains the ingredients for rhubarb trifle, but that
> doesn't mean we live on a dessert.
Captain obvious speaks words of wisdom.
Thanks for gracing us with your bovinus excretorum. More examples like
this will continue to help people grasp the ludicrosity of 8=3.
-R.O.
Rufus Opus
Oh, the Bible and the Sefer Yetzirah comparison melted your point, eh?
So you're bringing in the Big Bang theory that demands the existence
of the mysterious and omni-present, yet strangely and frustratingly
never observed dark matter?
When they find Dark matter, bring your point back, but until then, the
Big Bang is just another metaphor with a lot of explanatory force.
About as much as "Don't blame me, God did it."
-R.O.
Meltdarok
> On Sep 13, 2:01 am, Meltdarok <meltda...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Rufus Opus wrote, On 9/12/2007 3:39 PM:
>>
>>> On Sep 12, 1:56 pm, Meltdarok <meltda...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> Genesis 1:1-5 (KJV) 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the
>>>> earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
>>>> upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of
>>>> the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4
>>>> And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from
>>>> the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he
>>>> called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
>>> Ok, so when was "in the beginning" in relation to the Tree of Life? If
>>> there's no light, then it's before the Ain Soph Aur, right? But then
>>> in the SY, we see that the Spirit of God is the first emanation,
>>> Kether, so if there's no spirit of God yet, then what's hovering over
>>> the waters?
>> You can't see the Tree of Life as a direct metaphor of the Big Bang yet?
>
>
> Oh, the Bible and the Sefer Yetzirah comparison melted your point, eh?
> So you're bringing in the Big Bang theory that demands the existence
> of the mysterious and omni-present, yet strangely and frustratingly
> never observed dark matter?
No. I am a mystic.
As I see it, this universe we live in (which is our total True body),
is just a small part of all of creation. So while you still want to
sit back and smugly type of our small little section of existence,
I've moved on.
>
> When they find Dark matter, bring your point back, but until then, the
> Big Bang is just another metaphor with a lot of explanatory force.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6657271.stm
> About as much as "Don't blame me, God did it."
God told me that She doesn't mind being called Prime Infinity.
Erwin Hessle
> On Sep 12, 8:18 pm, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 12, 3:39 pm, Rufus Opus <FrRedactumO...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 12, 1:56 pm, Meltdarok <meltda...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Genesis 1:1-5 (KJV) 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the
> > > > earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
> > > > upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of
> > > > the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4
> > > > And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from
> > > > the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he
> > > > called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
>
> > > Ok, so when was "in the beginning" in relation to the Tree of Life? If
> > > there's no light, then it's before the Ain Soph Aur, right? But then
> > > in the SY, we see that the Spirit of God is the first emanation,
> > > Kether, so if there's no spirit of God yet, then what's hovering over
> > > the waters?
>
> > > Meh.
>
> > See, the problem the twat you're talking to has is that he thinks the
> > Bible is a literal account of creation. The problem the twat *he* is
> > talking to has is that he thinks the Qabalah is.
>
> Bible. They're maps and metaphors, boy-o.
Glad to see you backtracking and agreeing with me. See, you can't help
learning from me, no matter how much your ego objects to it, or how
much your embarrassed ranting protests about it. Don't worry, though,
it's all in a day's work.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Rufus Opus
> > I don't believe in the QBL, or the literal interpretation of the
> > Bible. They're maps and metaphors, boy-o.
>
> Glad to see you backtracking and agreeing with me. See, you can't help
> learning from me, no matter how much your ego objects to it, or how
> much your embarrassed ranting protests about it. Don't worry, though,
> it's all in a day's work.
>
> Erwin Hessle, 8=3
<snort>
Twist it into whatever makes you feel better about yourself, Erwin.
Good god, I just saw the universe through your eyes!
You're just another guy in the world having a good time. Just like
Tom, and Mika (except for the guy part). Not particularly evil, and no
more prideful than the rest of us. LOL.
Weird world, man.
Erwin Hessle
> On Sep 12, 8:25 pm, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 12, 11:27 am, Rufus Opus <FrRedactumO...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 11, 3:59 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > you're
> > > > making two assumptions: 1. that there is a sentient "Creative Force" and 2.
> > > > that it has likes and dislikes. The evidence in support of either
> > > > assumption is pretty weak.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > If you're willing to accept that the spheres are implicitly existent
> > > within the Ain Soph Aur,
>
> > Which nobody but an idiot would. "Implicitly existent"? What the fuck
> > is that supposed to mean?
>
> Alright, kindergarten dropout, I'll use small words, words that even
> someone who thinks that 8 is equal to 3 might understand:
>
> "Implied" means hinted at. There's a hint of "form" in the Ain Soph.
> Ain translates as "not". Ain Soph translates as "not limit." For a
> lack of limit to be there in the Ain soph, the concept of limit had to
> be there too.
Really? And which mind would this "concept of limit" be existing in,
then? Are you postulating the existence of sentient beings in Ain
Soph? Or do you think concepts exist objectively, in a state before
the manifestation of objective existence?
Do you have any fucking clue at all what you're saying, cockfag?
> Are you keeping up?
Far better than you are, apparently.
> > It's either existent, or it isn't. You may
> > be thinking of "potentially existent", which is a different thing
> > entirely, and in the context of the veils is exactly equivalent to
> > "non-existent".
>
> No, stupid. I meant implied.
So you agree you're an idiot, then?
> "Potential" means what can come out in
> the future from what is already there. If "not limit" is to have
> meaning in the second veil, the idea of "limit" had to exist. See? The
> words "Ain Soph" imply the existence of "Soph."
There you go again, thinking that ideas can exist outside of minds.
Perhaps if your own mind worked a little better, you'd be able to
perceive the total fuckheadedness of your insane jabbering.
> > > then you've already recognized that the
> > > ingredients for sentience had to exist before the manifestation of
> > > Kether.
>
> > Firstly, no you haven't. Your daft creationist argument just goes back
> > in time forever, like all of them do. Tom's explained this to you:
> > "The great 'I DON'T KNOW'." If you try to go back before that, you're
> > missing the point, and not understanding your subject. The Qabalah
> > simply does not address the question of how something came from
> > nothing, it stops before it gets to that point; that's why they are
> > called "veils".
>
> Ok, Erwin. You go ahead and believe that if you want to. Just because
> you don't get the veils does not mean that no one else can get them.
> But that's ok.
Ah, the old "takes one to know one" defence. You're starting to crack.
> > Secondly, the "ingredients for sentience" are a completely different
> > thing from "sentience" itself, so your statement, even if it was
> > right, is certainly no grounds for supposing that "there is a sentient
> > creative force" which was the point you were arguing against.
>
> Do you need help with "for" and "against" too?
No, but apparently, you do. Your argument was that the presence of the
"ingredients for sentience" were "grounds for supposing that 'there is
a sentient creative force'", just like I just told you. Or are you
changing your mind again, and now agreeing with Tom?
Don't worry, everybody starts getting confused and falling over their
own words when they argue against me, you're a long way from being
uniquely retarded and dim, here.
> > The
> > entire world contains the ingredients for rhubarb trifle, but that
> > doesn't mean we live on a dessert.
>
> Captain obvious speaks words of wisdom.
Indeed, and your recognition of me as your obvious captain is well
noted.
Say, while you're at it, why don't you tell us some more about your
little pot'o'gold? Made your $7,142,857.14 yet? I guess burning purple
candles doesn't help you win the lottery much after all, does it?
Bwaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahah!
You unbelievable fucking dipshit. You're going to have to try a lot of
harder than that if you you want to come here and seriously try to
convince people that you know anything. You ought to get together with
Archie - he's a gullible, clueless, puffed-up little twit, too.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Erwin Hessle
> On Sep 15, 12:34 pm, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't believe in the QBL, or the literal interpretation of the
> > > Bible. They're maps and metaphors, boy-o.
>
> > Glad to see you backtracking and agreeing with me. See, you can't help
> > learning from me, no matter how much your ego objects to it, or how
> > much your embarrassed ranting protests about it. Don't worry, though,
> > it's all in a day's work.
>
> > Erwin Hessle, 8=3
>
> <snort>
Yup, surprising when you finally get it, isn't it?
Don't worry, I do this for free, you won't get a bill.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Rufus Opus
> > "Implied" means hinted at. There's a hint of "form" in the Ain Soph.
> > Ain translates as "not". Ain Soph translates as "not limit." For a
> > lack of limit to be there in the Ain soph, the concept of limit had to
> > be there too.
>
> Really? And which mind would this "concept of limit" be existing in,
> then?
God's. See, I said at the beginning that I believe God resided in the
Divine Darkness in the Ain. Can't remember that far back?
> Are you postulating the existence of sentient beings in Ain
> Soph?
Just one, as I have been all along.
> Or do you think concepts exist objectively, in a state before
> the manifestation of objective existence?
>
> Do you have any fucking clue at all what you're saying, cockfag?
Didn't they teach reading comprehension in your elementary school? Or
did you quit to go to work at the carnival before you got that far?
> > > It's either existent, or it isn't. You may
> > > be thinking of "potentially existent", which is a different thing
> > > entirely, and in the context of the veils is exactly equivalent to
> > > "non-existent".
>
> > No, stupid. I meant implied.
>
> So you agree you're an idiot, then?
Please. You're *wrong.* Can't you see that?
> > "Potential" means what can come out in
> > the future from what is already there. If "not limit" is to have
> > meaning in the second veil, the idea of "limit" had to exist. See? The
> > words "Ain Soph" imply the existence of "Soph."
>
> There you go again, thinking that ideas can exist outside of minds.
> Perhaps if your own mind worked a little better, you'd be able to
> perceive the total fuckheadedness of your insane jabbering.
If you were able to keep up, I've been saying the whole time that God
existed in the Divine Darkness. Dionysius explains it all
marvelously.
The Areopagite.
So you can google it and pretend you've heard of someone that formed
the foundation of your beliefs.
> Ah, the old "takes one to know one" defence. You're starting to crack.
You haven't said anything, Erwin. You've thrown lame insults, but
posted nothing of substance. You'll have to make an argument that
pertains to the discussion at hand if you want to see me crack. Oh,
and you'll have to be right, too.
> > > Secondly, the "ingredients for sentience" are a completely different
> > > thing from "sentience" itself, so your statement, even if it was
> > > right, is certainly no grounds for supposing that "there is a sentient
> > > creative force" which was the point you were arguing against.
>
> > Do you need help with "for" and "against" too?
>
> No, but apparently, you do. Your argument was that the presence of the
> "ingredients for sentience" were "grounds for supposing that 'there is
> a sentient creative force'", just like I just told you. Or are you
> changing your mind again, and now agreeing with Tom?
Erwin...
God, I don't feel right making such a fool of you publicly. I mean,
you're pathetic little ego is so bruised and battered already...
Don't take this personally, I'm beginning to feel sorry for you after
all, but if my argument was that "ingredients for sentience is grounds
for supposing there is a sentient creative force" then why would you
think I was arguing *against* that point? I would be arguing *for* it,
you see. Not *against.*
"For" means I support the argument in this context. "Against" would
mean that I didn't support it. .
> Don't worry, everybody starts getting confused and falling over their
> own words when they argue against me, you're a long way from being
> uniquely retarded and dim, here.
I think you may be hallucinating, dear boy. Take a nap, and come back
after a cup of coffee or two.
> Say, while you're at it, why don't you tell us some more about your
> little pot'o'gold? Made your $7,142,857.14 yet? I guess burning purple
> candles doesn't help you win the lottery much after all, does it?
> Bwaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahah!
lol, you're one of the 80,000 people that view my blog and website
weekly, eh? Joined the Rufus Opus fan club, have you?
Don't forget to click the "Donate" button on my blog site. Every penny
counts.
Say, you'd benefit from a Solar Attunement too, you know. Low rates on
the Products and Services page.
> You unbelievable fucking dipshit. You're going to have to try a lot of
> harder than that if you you want to come here and seriously try to
> convince people that you know anything. You ought to get together with
> Archie - he's a gullible, clueless, puffed-up little twit, too.
You're showing your reading comprehension skills again, Erwin. Go back
and reread the blog posts, or the website. You haven't said anything
that I didn't state very clearly in the blog.
Gee, where's your public record of magickal work, hessle old boy?
Don't have one? Don't have one to make public, I'm sure.
Look, when you're tired of yourself and your ignorance, do a little
magick instead of arguing about philosophical interpretations
demonstrating your ignorance. It really gives a lot more credence to
your claims.
-R.O.
P.S. Which of the dipshits is Archie?
Erwin Hessle
> On Sep 15, 12:55 pm, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Implied" means hinted at. There's a hint of "form" in the Ain Soph.
> > > Ain translates as "not". Ain Soph translates as "not limit." For a
> > > lack of limit to be there in the Ain soph, the concept of limit had to
> > > be there too.
>
> > Really? And which mind would this "concept of limit" be existing in,
> > then?
>
> God's. See, I said at the beginning that I believe God resided in the
> Divine Darkness in the Ain.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha! "God"!
That's your problem, cockfag. You *believe*, but you appear to
consider it completely superfluous to find out whether or not you're
actually *right*. Just like your little friend, you prefer your living
in your imagination to living in the real world. I'll give you a
little hint - that ain't magick.
> > > > Secondly, the "ingredients for sentience" are a completely different
> > > > thing from "sentience" itself, so your statement, even if it was
> > > > right, is certainly no grounds for supposing that "there is a sentient
> > > > creative force" which was the point you were arguing against.
>
> > > Do you need help with "for" and "against" too?
>
> > No, but apparently, you do. Your argument was that the presence of the
> > "ingredients for sentience" were "grounds for supposing that 'there is
> > a sentient creative force'", just like I just told you. Or are you
> > changing your mind again, and now agreeing with Tom?
>
> Erwin...
>
> God, I don't feel right making such a fool of you publicly. I mean,
> you're pathetic little ego is so bruised and battered already...
>
> Don't take this personally, I'm beginning to feel sorry for you after
> all, but if my argument was that "ingredients for sentience is grounds
> for supposing there is a sentient creative force" then why would you
> think I was arguing *against* that point? I would be arguing *for* it,
> you see. Not *against.*
>
> "For" means I support the argument in this context. "Against" would
> mean that I didn't support it. .
Jesus, you're a daft twat.
Go back again to the original wording, try real hard, and see if you
can figure out what "certainly no grounds for supposing" means, with a
particular emphasis on the word "no".
> Gee, where's your public record of magickal work, hessle old boy?
> Don't have one? Don't have one to make public, I'm sure.
OK, since you've brought it up, let's have a look at your "public
record of 'magickal work'", shall we?
Seriously, you guys ought to check this shit out. It's a fucking hoot.
For instance, here's an excerpt from "2007-03-17 - General Update" on
our fuckwitted frend's "spirit pot" operations:
http://www.rufusopus.com/Spirit_Pot_Operations/General_Update.htm
"When I first put the pot together, I was looking to get rich quick.
He was the best-looking prospect of the Goetic entities, because his
description says "he giveth riches to a man," and I wanted $7MUSD and
change. Things didn't quite turn out that way."
You don't say? And there was the rest of us thinking that sitting back
and wishing for seven million dollars was a cunning plan of
unprecented genius that quite simply *could not fail*.
And before you start with your claims to experience again, let's not
forget that it was as late as June 2006 when you first put into
practice your dubious little scheme.
"Instead, after working with Bune for a long time now, I've learned
how he manifests riches...When the MegaMillions hit $270 Million, I
burned a veritable BONFIRE of purple candles after buying the lotto
tickets. I still lost, but last week, after burning the candles, I had
26 hours of overtime..."
Wow. That's some mighty powerful magicks you've got there, Merlin. You
pray to Bune for seven million dollars, and hey presto! You work an
additional 26 six hours and get paid an additional 26 hours worth of
pay. Astounding. Truly do I bow in awe before you and your crock of
shit. Erm, I mean "spirit pot".
"I'm doing what I've been doing for the last seven years, and I'm
making $20 more an hour than I did seven years ago."
Wow. Your pay is higher than it was seven years ago. Incontrovertible
proof of the influence of Bune, if ever there was any. Ask Bune if he
knows anything about "supply and demand" next time you speak to him.
"Everyone at work loves me."
Awwww, that's sweet.
"So I mentioned her to Bune one day, as his properties include putting
spirits in their places. This bitch needed to be put in her place."
Bwaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha!
"So Wednesday she came out of a meeting nearly in tears....I was so
happy."
Wow. I guess Bune fucking well put her in her place, didn't he? Gee,
coming out of a meeting *nearly* in tears. I won't be pissing off Bune
anytime soon, that's for sure!
And finally, let's look, after all your experience with him, at your
new and improved description of Bune:
"little green froggy-looking guy, about three feet tall, and he sits
in the corner of the astral temple most of the time"
Hmmmm. This "little green froggy-looking guy, about three feet
tall"...does he by any chance have buckles on his shoes? Or maybe a
pronounced tendency to talk in rhyme? I'd get getting rather
suspicious of that pot of yours, if I were you.
So, *this* is your "public record of 'magickal work'", is it? You
utter, utter twat. What you are suffering from, sunshine, is a
terminal case of wishful thinking. The fact that you think this is
"magickal work" is hilarious enough by itself, even if it weren't for
the content.
There's a bunch more laughs where that came from, folks, you don't
need to take my word for it.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Jay D. Scott
> The virtue of Chokmah is described variously as devotion, good, or
> completion of the Great Work.
My frequenting here wasn't a complete waste of time, after all.
Crowley's teaching had more to do with rectifying the misapprehension
of the role of an idiot God having anything at all to do with
experience or indeed the act of creating, than it did with Hindu and
Christian nutters mistaking prakriti with Brahman or soul with God;
it's the former that is often over-looked by they who'll until their
last breath attempt to distort every experiential philosophy to fit
their bias.
Kether is nirodha-samapatti, extinction.
Suffice it to say, what you wrote above can be interpreted as speaking
directly to one's own Theistic bias.
I would have written that Chokmah is akin to nirvikalpa samadhi. At
least that way the tendency to have Chokmah mistaken for asamprajnata
samadhi [7=4] below the abyss is lessened and can be argued against -
and in such a way that clarifies the idiocy of a Monotheist's spin on
Theism.
No matter.
Rufus Opus
>
> Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha! "God"!
>
> That's your problem, cockfag. You *believe*, but you appear to
> consider it completely superfluous to find out whether or not you're
> actually *right*. Just like your little friend, you prefer your living
> in your imagination to living in the real world. I'll give you a
> little hint - that ain't magick.
Bad news, Erwin, that's what magick is. Belief. You think you don't
believe what you believe? You're dumber than I thought.
> > > > > Secondly, the "ingredients for sentience" are a completely different
> > > > > thing from "sentience" itself, so your statement, even if it was
> > > > > right, is certainly no grounds for supposing that "there is a sentient
> > > > > creative force" which was the point you were arguing against.
> Jesus, you're a daft twat.
>
> Go back again to the original wording, try real hard, and see if you
> can figure out what "certainly no grounds for supposing" means, with a
> particular emphasis on the word "no".
Considering the absolutely incredible dearth of reading comprehension
you've displayed so far, I'm shockingly not surprised at all to see
this is how you attempt to make yourself not appear the complete idiot
that you are.
I've snipped the stuff in between for you to see what you wrote again.
What you have in quotes is what the "against" is referring to. This is
your basic sentence structure, and would be readily identifiable by
anyone who made it as far as diagramming sentences in the American
public school system.
But that was in grade three. And by then you'd already left home to
make your living in the freak show, I suppose.
> > Gee, where's your public record of magickal work, hessle old boy?
> > Don't have one? Don't have one to make public, I'm sure.
>
> OK, since you've brought it up, let's have a look at your "public
> record of 'magickal work'", shall we?
No, you brought up my public record of magickal work, dipshit. And
what I brought up was *your* public record. See the text above? I
asked where *your* record was. It's fairly simple, Erwin. "Where's
your public record..." Can you see that?
And you didn't answer the question, you cowardly piece of filth. Where
is your record of magickal practice?
Are you going to try to avoid it again, chickenshit? Or will you man
up for once and admit what we can all see staring us in the face: You
haven't got a magickal record to make public.
You're far more at ease posting banal idiocies than stepping into the
ring and performing a ritual. You've got lots of commentary to post,
lots of names to call pepole, but when it comes to providing any
evidence that you've done any magickal work, what do you do? Oh, you
take my posts and publish them here with your own commentary thrown
in.
> Seriously, you guys ought to check this shit out. It's a fucking hoot.
They should. www.rufusopus.com, or http://www.headforred.blogspot.com/
I notice you left that out.
> For instance, here's an excerpt from "2007-03-17 - General Update" on
> our fuckwitted frend's "spirit pot" operations:
>
> http://www.rufusopus.com/Spirit_Pot_Operations/General_Update.htm
>
> "When I first put the pot together, I was looking to get rich quick.
> He was the best-looking prospect of the Goetic entities, because his
> description says "he giveth riches to a man," and I wanted $7MUSD and
> change. Things didn't quite turn out that way."
>
> You don't say? And there was the rest of us thinking that sitting back
> and wishing for seven million dollars was a cunning plan of
> unprecented genius that quite simply *could not fail*.
Think big, Pinky.
> And before you start with your claims to experience again, let's not
> forget that it was as late as June 2006 when you first put into
> practice your dubious little scheme.
>
> "Instead, after working with Bune for a long time now, I've learned
> how he manifests riches...When the MegaMillions hit $270 Million, I
> burned a veritable BONFIRE of purple candles after buying the lotto
> tickets. I still lost, but last week, after burning the candles, I had
> 26 hours of overtime..."
>
> Wow. That's some mighty powerful magicks you've got there, Merlin. You
> pray to Bune for seven million dollars, and hey presto! You work an
> additional 26 six hours and get paid an additional 26 hours worth of
> pay. Astounding. Truly do I bow in awe before you and your crock of
> shit. Erm, I mean "spirit pot".
It's not praying to Bune, shit for brains. But I wouldn't expect you
to understand that. This would be magick, which is obviously beyond
your comprehension.
> "I'm doing what I've been doing for the last seven years, and I'm
> making $20 more an hour than I did seven years ago."
>
> Wow. Your pay is higher than it was seven years ago. Incontrovertible
> proof of the influence of Bune, if ever there was any. Ask Bune if he
> knows anything about "supply and demand" next time you speak to him.
Let's see, if you're right, then the average salary for my position
should have gone up the same amount for everyone doing my job. But
wonder of wonders, it didn't. It went up a whopping $0.50 an hour.
What's different? Hmmm.
> "Everyone at work loves me."
>
> Awwww, that's sweet.
Also a manifestation of a Jupiterian trait, but that's just wishful
thinking and coincidence, right? Of course it is.
> "So I mentioned her to Bune one day, as his properties include putting
> spirits in their places. This bitch needed to be put in her place."
>
> Bwaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha!
>
> "So Wednesday she came out of a meeting nearly in tears....I was so
> happy."
>
> Wow. I guess Bune fucking well put her in her place, didn't he? Gee,
> coming out of a meeting *nearly* in tears. I won't be pissing off Bune
> anytime soon, that's for sure!
If you knew her, you'd appreciate it more. Zeno had nothing on this
bitch for stoicism.
But for the record, she loves me now too.
> And finally, let's look, after all your experience with him, at your
> new and improved description of Bune:
>
> "little green froggy-looking guy, about three feet tall, and he sits
> in the corner of the astral temple most of the time"
>
> Hmmmm. This "little green froggy-looking guy, about three feet
> tall"...does he by any chance have buckles on his shoes? Or maybe a
> pronounced tendency to talk in rhyme? I'd get getting rather
> suspicious of that pot of yours, if I were you.
>
> So, *this* is your "public record of 'magickal work'", is it? You
> utter, utter twat. What you are suffering from, sunshine, is a
> terminal case of wishful thinking. The fact that you think this is
> "magickal work" is hilarious enough by itself, even if it weren't for
> the content.
As risible as you find it, hessle, I've got more balls than you. Not
only have I done some practical magick, I've put it up for everyone to
see and draw their own conclusions about. Have you got that kind of
confidence in your work? Do you even have any? Or is this another
opportunity for you to sidestep, divert attention, and offer nothing
of substance yet again?
> There's a bunch more laughs where that came from, folks, you don't
> need to take my word for it.
Indeed, there's quite a bit more available at www.rufusopus.com and
http://www.headforred.blogspot.com/. Everyone is welcome to read and
comment. This is real magick at work in a real magician's life, not
just mental masturbation and self aggrandizement. You'll find no posts
about the secret meanings of the degree system, or arguments about
what inner order documentation is valid, or lineage discussions on my
blog or my website. Just one magician's practice and experience.
And lots of useful techniques.
Hessle, for all his bombastic loquaciousness, has spent the afternoon
reading my site and trying to find ways to not look as stupid and
inexperienced as he really is. I'm sure that eventually, in this
lifetime or the next, the rube will benefit from his experience,
whether he likes it or not.
And Erwin, I'll mention it again, what have you got to offer that
demonstrates your experience? Where's your record? All I've seen out
of you is woeful ignorance coupled with less reading comprehension
than a fifth grader in special ed. No matter how many times you use
the word twat or cockfag in a post, you're still not a magician.
-R.O.
Erwin Hessle
> On Sep 15, 3:15 pm, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote:
> Bad news, Erwin, that's what magick is. Belief.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha!
You really don't know the first thing about magick, do you?
> > > > > > Secondly, the "ingredients for sentience" are a completely different
> > > > > > thing from "sentience" itself, so your statement, even if it was
> > > > > > right, is certainly no grounds for supposing that "there is a sentient
> > > > > > creative force" which was the point you were arguing against.
> > Jesus, you're a daft twat.
>
> > Go back again to the original wording, try real hard, and see if you
> > can figure out what "certainly no grounds for supposing" means, with a
> > particular emphasis on the word "no".
>
> Considering the absolutely incredible dearth of reading comprehension
> you've displayed so far, I'm shockingly not surprised at all to see
> this is how you attempt to make yourself not appear the complete idiot
> that you are.
>
> I've snipped the stuff in between for you to see what you wrote again.
> What you have in quotes is what the "against" is referring to.
For the last time, you shit-for-brained, weaselling little
cocksmoker:
"your statement, even if it was right, is certainly no grounds for
supposing that 'there is a sentient creative force' which was the
point you were arguing against."
The "point you were arguing against" is the point that "your
statement...is certainly no grounds for supposing that 'there is a
sentient creative force'", which you stated you believed it was. This
is not complicated. It shouldn't be this difficult for you to figure
it out, but then again, you are a complete tomfool, as you persist in
demonstrating.
You can try to run away and hide as much as you like, there's no
escaping it. You may as well admit it before you look even more
stupid, if such a thing is even possible.
> This is
> your basic sentence structure, and would be readily identifiable by
> anyone who made it as far as diagramming sentences in the American
> public school system.
Bwaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha! "American public school system"! No
wonder you're such a dumbass!
> > OK, since you've brought it up, let's have a look at your "public
> > record of 'magickal work'", shall we?
>
> No, you brought up my public record of magickal work, dipshit.
No, I didn't, you ignorant little twat. What I brought up was your
hysterical litany of public bullshit. I specifically told you that it
wasn't a "public record of magickal work", in addition to putting the
term in quotes. A "magickal record", even when spelt correctly,
contains details of operations performed and details of results which
can be at least tentatively traced back to the operations in question.
*Your* "record", on the other hand, contains a few vague and laughable
snippets about anointing pots and lighting candles around it,
gathering dirt, collecting "orgone generators", and reading some bits
out of the Goetia, followed by some irrelevant snippets about not
winning the lottery, working overtime, and some chick at work nearly
crying, together with some wild and nonsensical speculation that one
caused the other, and a few blatent lies about "conversations with
Bune".
If you think this constitutes a "magical record", that it constitutes
"real magick at work in a real magician's life", then you are indeed a
bigger cunt than even I thought. Where is your discussion of
alternative explanations? Where are your times, dates and conditions?
Where are your hypotheses? Where is the skepticism? Where are the
controls? And only nine brief entries in a year?
This is not a "magickal record", cockfag, it's the record of a
schoolboy's daydream, wishful thinking and the usual "I'm a badass
black magickian 'cos Bune will kick your ass!" type fantasies. What
you have there makes a mockery of the whole concept of magical
records, pure speculative and risible bullshit written for the express
purpose of fulfilling your own risible delusions. I'm sure you
"believe" it's a real "magickal record" though, right?
You claim to be a "real magician", but time and time again you
demonstrate that you don't have the first fucking clue what a magician
is. What you are, sunshine, is a pretender. And you can't even pretend
right. Your mind is far too woolly to even convincingly fake a magical
record, let alone to produce a real one. You just aren't cut out for
this lark.
> And
> what I brought up was *your* public record. See the text above? I
> asked where *your* record was. It's fairly simple, Erwin. "Where's
> your public record..." Can you see that?
As per above, if you want to discuss records, then you produce a
genuine one first, or continue to demonstrate yourself to be a coward
and a fake-blowhard.
> And you didn't answer the question, you cowardly piece of filth. Where
> is your record of magickal practice?
Bwaaaahahahahahaha! Not at home to Mr Tetch, are we?
I've posted more records of magical practice on this very group that
you ever will manage, sonny, including your laughable crock'o'shit
blog, which I've already explained to you is not a "record of magickal
practice" at all. You're too much of a newbie to remember that,
though, which is one reason you keep making such a total twat of
yourself, as you get told so often.
> > Seriously, you guys ought to check this shit out. It's a fucking hoot.
>
> They should.www.rufusopus.com, orhttp://www.headforred.blogspot.com/
>
> I notice you left that out.
You notice incorrectly, then, since I gave the address two lines
later. Look, you quoted it yourself, dumbass.
> > For instance, here's an excerpt from "2007-03-17 - General Update" on
> > our fuckwitted frend's "spirit pot" operations:
>
> >http://www.rufusopus.com/Spirit_Pot_Operations/General_Update.htm
See? Blind as well as stupid, eh?
> > "When I first put the pot together, I was looking to get rich quick.
> > He was the best-looking prospect of the Goetic entities, because his
> > description says "he giveth riches to a man," and I wanted $7MUSD and
> > change. Things didn't quite turn out that way."
>
> > You don't say? And there was the rest of us thinking that sitting back
> > and wishing for seven million dollars was a cunning plan of
> > unprecented genius that quite simply *could not fail*.
>
> Think big, Pinky.
Think sane, you gullible dumbass.
> > And before you start with your claims to experience again, let's not
> > forget that it was as late as June 2006 when you first put into
> > practice your dubious little scheme.
>
> > "Instead, after working with Bune for a long time now, I've learned
> > how he manifests riches...When the MegaMillions hit $270 Million, I
> > burned a veritable BONFIRE of purple candles after buying the lotto
> > tickets. I still lost, but last week, after burning the candles, I had
> > 26 hours of overtime..."
>
> > Wow. That's some mighty powerful magicks you've got there, Merlin. You
> > pray to Bune for seven million dollars, and hey presto! You work an
> > additional 26 six hours and get paid an additional 26 hours worth of
> > pay. Astounding. Truly do I bow in awe before you and your crock of
> > shit. Erm, I mean "spirit pot".
>
> It's not praying to Bune, shit for brains. But I wouldn't expect you
> to understand that. This would be magick, which is obviously beyond
> your comprehension.
But, according to you, "magick is just belief", so you just "believe"
that, right?
> > "I'm doing what I've been doing for the last seven years, and I'm
> > making $20 more an hour than I did seven years ago."
>
> > Wow. Your pay is higher than it was seven years ago. Incontrovertible
> > proof of the influence of Bune, if ever there was any. Ask Bune if he
> > knows anything about "supply and demand" next time you speak to him.
>
> Let's see, if you're right, then the average salary for my position
> should have gone up the same amount for everyone doing my job. But
> wonder of wonders, it didn't. It went up a whopping $0.50 an hour.
> What's different? Hmmm.
You never studied economics, did you?
> > So, *this* is your "public record of 'magickal work'", is it? You
> > utter, utter twat. What you are suffering from, sunshine, is a
> > terminal case of wishful thinking. The fact that you think this is
> > "magickal work" is hilarious enough by itself, even if it weren't for
> > the content.
>
> As risible as you find it, hessle, I've got more balls than you.
So you "believe", but continue to fail to demonstrate.
> Not
> only have I done some practical magick, I've put it up for everyone to
> see and draw their own conclusions about.
Where? I hope you don't mean that spirit pot shit, because that isn't
"practical magick". Quite the contrary, it's thoroughly *impractical*,
and certainly not magick, since it quite obviously doesn't work, and
you don't even try to demonstrate that it does.
> Have you got that kind of
> confidence in your work? Do you even have any? Or is this another
> opportunity for you to sidestep, divert attention, and offer nothing
> of substance yet again?
You wouldn't know "substance" if it smacked you in the face, quite
apart from the fact that what you "offered" certainly doesn't contain
any. You'd never present anything of substance, because if you did,
even you would be forced to admit that this web of fantasy you've
built for yourself is a complete pile of horseshit. It's only your
lack of substance that keeps your house of cards together, as I've
told you time and time again.
> This is real magick at work in a real magician's life, not
> just mental masturbation and self aggrandizement.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Oh, the fucking irony.
> And lots of useful techniques.
Really? Then name one from your site, and tell us its demonstrable
uses.
I bet a pound you can't.
> No matter how many times you use
> the word twat or cockfag in a post, you're still not a magician.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha!
You're too funny. "Magician". Good one.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Tom
"Jay D. Scott" <jay.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189886196.9...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 11, 9:43 am, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The virtue of Chokmah is described variously as devotion, good, or
>> completion of the Great Work.
>
> My frequenting here wasn't a complete waste of time, after all.
I appreciate your support.
> Crowley's teaching had more to do with rectifying the misapprehension
> of the role of an idiot God having anything at all to do with
> experience or indeed the act of creating, than it did with Hindu and
> Christian nutters mistaking prakriti with Brahman or soul with God;
> it's the former that is often over-looked by they who'll until their
> last breath attempt to distort every experiential philosophy to fit
> their bias.
>
> Kether is nirodha-samapatti, extinction.
From one direction. From another, it's creation. I'm currently putting
some thoughts togther on Kether along the same theme I've been developing.
Maybe they'll amuse you.
> Suffice it to say, what you wrote above can be interpreted as speaking
> directly to one's own Theistic bias.
It could, if one were a theist, or if one assumed I was.
> I would have written that Chokmah is akin to nirvikalpa samadhi. At
> least that way the tendency to have Chokmah mistaken for asamprajnata
> samadhi [7=4] below the abyss is lessened and can be argued against -
> and in such a way that clarifies the idiocy of a Monotheist's spin on
> Theism.
I don't know for sure what a Monotheist's spin on Theism is. It seems to me
that there would be as many different spins as there were monotheistic
beliefs.
And my goodness but there are a lot of different forms of samadhi, aren't
there? It's hard to keep them all straight. The difference in feel between
nirvikalpa and asamprajnata samadhi seems utterly unobtainable to someone
who hasn't experienced them, whereas such differences are irrelevant to any
who has. So what do we gain from the distinction, in your opinion?
It's hard to say anything about this stuff that makes any sense.
Jay D. Scott
> On Sep 12, 1:01 am, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> The feeling that one might best associate with Chokmah is the male
> > >> orgasm, a mindless paroxysm rushing forth in all directions,
>
> > > "All directions"? Hopefully not including backwards,
>
> > Yes, including backwards. You're not up on some of that tantra stuff.
>
> Not fucking likely to ever be, either.
That exchange was funny.
Hopefully Tom wasn't being serious, lest he risk contradicting himself
when claiming that Chokmah is the summum bonum of the Great Work.
I have to ask, Erwin: aside from your dualist humor as it pertains to
Chokmah, do you have anything else against Tantra?
Eyes open all's well; if closed add to, &c? I'd hate to see you not to
totally negate samskaras in the abyss; or maybe I would. I'll get back
to you on that.
Jay D. Scott
>So what do we gain from the distinction, in your opinion?
Exposure to the entirety of a Vedic model, particularly the Sankhya,
from which these terms derive.
Asamprajnata samadhi [7=4] occurs when all emotional afflictions
[klesha-vrtti], mental afflictions [citta-vrtti] and memory
impressions [smrti-vrtti] from all incarnations cease and no longer
obstruct omnipresent union with the territory of the universe [matter]
linearly.
Nirvikalpa samadhi [9=2] occurs when the remnants of matter is
extracted in dharma megha samadhi [8=3] from consciousness. Through
the void from asamprajnata samadhi to dharma megha samadhi [hopefully]
the totality of the attachment to physiological organism is
annihilated. Matter, however, isn't. What remains in nirvikalpa
samadhi is a non-dual, non-linear and omnipresent union with the
source of consciousness and quintessential strata that created matter.
Unlike asamprajnata samadhi nirvikalpa samadhi evidences genuine
omniscience, as it is consciousness as it existed in the past, exists
presently and exists in the future simultaneously. Further, unless or
until one willingly transcends asamprajnata samadhi into at least
dharma megha samadhi, at the death of one's present incarnation, a
seer, magician or mystic incarnates again, to create more emotional
afflictions, mental afflictions, and memory impressions that obstruct
union of matter and consciousness.
The distinction is that realizing nirvikalpa samadhi is eternal and
conscious continuity of existence, the grail of immortality. Without
learned discernment asamprajnata samadhi can easily be mistaken for
the grail.
Tom
That's the trouble with most transcendental experiences. They all seem like
they are the biggest deal in the whole world. Then the next one comes along
and *that's* the biggest one in the whole world. Or, even worse, there is
no next one.
Jay D. Scott
> "Jay D. Scott" <jay.d.sc...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1189917337.2...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
True enough. Insofar as I know, Tom, no one ever came back to tell the
tale to their fellow brethren of experiences from nirvikalpa samadhi
to nirodha-samapatti.
Also, as a side note, and to further your continuation of Crowley
attributing Will as an element to Chokmah and nirvikalpa samadhi: the
quintessential strata that created matter, as a result of our union
with the state, is ours to create in magicks how we will. It's really
wizardry in the strictest sense, but being humble, Crowley dubbed it
"magick".
And it pisses me off that it took nearly a god damn decade to showcase
this fact. Fucking know-it-all babblers.
Erwin Hessle
> I have to ask, Erwin: aside from your dualist humor as it pertains to
> Chokmah, do you have anything else against Tantra?
I don't have anything "against Tantra". Where did you get that odd
idea from?
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Tom
> On Sep 15, 9:55 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Jay D. Scott" <jay.d.sc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:1189917337.2...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > conscious continuity of existence, the grail of immortality. Without
>> > learned discernment asamprajnata samadhi can easily be mistaken for
>> > the grail.
>>
>> That's the trouble with most transcendental experiences. They all seem
>> like
>> they are the biggest deal in the whole world. Then the next one comes
>> along
>> and *that's* the biggest one in the whole world. Or, even worse, there
>> is
>> no next one.
>
> True enough. Insofar as I know, Tom, no one ever came back to tell the
> tale to their fellow brethren of experiences from nirvikalpa samadhi
> to nirodha-samapatti.
This is one of those "what is life after death like?" questions. Nobody has
come back to tell us, so we're free to speculate as we please.
> Also, as a side note, and to further your continuation of Crowley
> attributing Will as an element to Chokmah and nirvikalpa samadhi: the
> quintessential strata that created matter, as a result of our union
> with the state, is ours to create in magicks how we will. It's really
> wizardry in the strictest sense, but being humble, Crowley dubbed it
> "magick".
>
> And it pisses me off that it took nearly a god damn decade to showcase
> this fact. Fucking know-it-all babblers.
No need to get impatient. If you want something said and nobody else is
saying it, just say it yourself. That's a Chokmah thing, too.
Tom
"Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
news:1189954842....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
There is a great deal of disagreement over whether any state of samadhi is
necessary or whether any means of obtaining transcendence compulsory or
forbidden. The curriculum of the spiritual college is composed entirely of
elective courses.
Rufus Opus
moronic displays of ignorance and impotence:
> On Sep 15, 4:03 pm, Rufus Opus <FrRedactumO...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 15, 3:15 pm, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote:
> > Bad news, Erwin, that's what magick is. Belief.
>
> Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha!
>
> You really don't know the first thing about magick, do you?
If what you know about is magick, Erwin, then I'm proud to say I don't
know much about that.
But you've demonstrated repeatedly for years on this usenet group that
you haven't got a fucking clue about magick.
> For the last time, you shit-for-brained, weaselling little
> cocksmoker:
>
> "your statement, even if it was right, is certainly no grounds for
> supposing that 'there is a sentient creative force' which was the
> point you were arguing against."
>
> The "point you were arguing against" is the point that "your
> statement...is certainly no grounds for supposing that 'there is a
> sentient creative force'", which you stated you believed it was. This
> is not complicated. It shouldn't be this difficult for you to figure
> it out, but then again, you are a complete tomfool, as you persist in
> demonstrating.
Erwin, if that's what you meant to say, I'd suggest going back to your
local community college and taking some remedial English classes.
On second thought, they teach things at a higher level than you'd get.
Try finding an English as a second language course where they start
with simple sentence structure.
> You can try to run away and hide as much as you like, there's no
> escaping it. You may as well admit it before you look even more
> stupid, if such a thing is even possible.
Erwin, you've demonstrated your understanding of basic communication
concepts is almost equivalent to your understanding of practical
magick. Carry on, nincompoop.
> Bwaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha! "American public school system"! No
> wonder you're such a dumbass!
Did I say I attended one, oh wise and observant one? No, genius, I
didn't. But even if I had, I'd still have learned in the third grade
how clauses work.
> > > OK, since you've brought it up, let's have a look at your "public
> > > record of 'magickal work'", shall we?
>
> > No, you brought up my public record of magickal work, dipshit.
>
> No, I didn't, you ignorant little twat. What I brought up was your
> hysterical litany of public bullshit. I specifically told you that it
> wasn't a "public record of magickal work", in addition to putting the
> term in quotes. A "magickal record", even when spelt correctly,
> contains details of operations performed and details of results which
> can be at least tentatively traced back to the operations in question.
So you have one, then? Funny, I asked about that and you still haven't
given an example.
> *Your* "record", on the other hand, contains a few vague and laughable
> snippets about anointing pots and lighting candles around it,
> gathering dirt, collecting "orgone generators", and reading some bits
> out of the Goetia, followed by some irrelevant snippets about not
> winning the lottery, working overtime, and some chick at work nearly
> crying, together with some wild and nonsensical speculation that one
> caused the other, and a few blatent lies about "conversations with
> Bune".
<snort>
Erwin, you've got to realize that some people on this list really do
magick. We aren't all like you, posting and reading crowley with a
bottle of baby oil in one hand and our cocks in the other.
And the funny thing is, you really think you're making points here.
You honestly believe you're right. Fucking incredible.
I get correspondence from around the world from my site, Erwin. The
experiences of real life magicians, from Africa, Thailand, South
America, and Israel are consistent with my results. Arabs in Gaza get
the same kinds of conversations with djinn that I have with the goetic
spirits. Israelis in Jerusalem have the same experiences with the
angels of the Shemhamephorash as I get with the Planetary
Intelligences. Palos in Florida and Las Angeles get the same results
as I do.
You, on the other hand, can read what I wrote and see only imagination
and "blatant lies." One shithead on a list makes a public ass of
himself mocking my work, while globally people have noted that my
experiences match up with their own from various traditions.
Hmmm.
Who's the one who's doing Magick, Erwin? Obviously it must be you,
right? Everyone else must be living in a nice little delusional world
where they get what they want to have happen through Working with the
spirits of their culture, and you think they're lying.
I'd love it if you would do some magick, Erwin.
> If you think this constitutes a "magical record", that it constitutes
> "real magick at work in a real magician's life", then you are indeed a
> bigger cunt than even I thought. Where is your discussion of
> alternative explanations? Where are your times, dates and conditions?
> Where are your hypotheses? Where is the skepticism? Where are the
> controls?
Erwin, what are you talking about? A fucking Lab book? This is magick,
it's not High School biology. You've been reading too many Llewellyn
and Weiser books. The "magickal diary" they describe is for people who
can't trust themselves, a tool to convince yourself that magick is
real. It's a crutch for the inexperienced. You don't find any notion
of this shit in advanced works, only in the beginner books that seem
to have formed the entirety of your knowledge. You do know that the
Golden Dawn was the kindergarten of the occult, don't you? You are
aware it was not the advanced work they were teaching, right? It's a
college prep course. The RR et AC were the college, and here's a hint,
they didn't publish their Works.
Dumbass.
Seriously, Erwin, do you think Crowley's magickal record had all that
shit in it? Did any of his disciples? No, as a matter of fact, they
didn't. Read the records, quit talking out your ass. Here's a sample
of a magickal record of one of Crowley's discipuli:
http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib97.txt
Gee, are any of the things you mentioned to be found in here? Your
complete lack of any knowledge of actual magick is showing itself yet
again. Walk away from the publications of the 1990s, Erwin, and enter
the world of real life magick.
here's a clue: It's not all in your head.
> And only nine brief entries in a year?
Yes, the Work worked, and I haven't had much time to do much more with
it. I've gotten everything I wanted so far.
> This is not a "magickal record", cockfag, it's the record of a
> schoolboy's daydream, wishful thinking and the usual "I'm a badass
> black magickian 'cos Bune will kick your ass!" type fantasies. What
> you have there makes a mockery of the whole concept of magical
> records, pure speculative and risible bullshit written for the express
> purpose of fulfilling your own risible delusions. I'm sure you
> "believe" it's a real "magickal record" though, right?
See above, moron.
> You claim to be a "real magician", but time and time again you
> demonstrate that you don't have the first fucking clue what a magician
> is. What you are, sunshine, is a pretender. And you can't even pretend
> right. Your mind is far too woolly to even convincingly fake a magical
> record, let alone to produce a real one. You just aren't cut out for
> this lark.
And what you are is an armchair magician. Hell, you're not even that.
You've got your set of standard posts, your set of terms, and the
ability to recognize a few magickal terms. That's it, Erwin. You've
got nothing, nothing at all to show for yourself or your work other
than "8=3" at the end of your posts. You're worse than pathetic.
> As per above, if you want to discuss records, then you produce a
> genuine one first, or continue to demonstrate yourself to be a coward
> and a fake-blowhard.
Chickenshit.
> > And you didn't answer the question, you cowardly piece of filth. Where
> > is your record of magickal practice?
>
> Bwaaaahahahahahaha! Not at home to Mr Tetch, are we?
>
> I've posted more records of magical practice on this very group that
> you ever will manage, sonny, including your laughable crock'o'shit
> blog, which I've already explained to you is not a "record of magickal
> practice" at all. You're too much of a newbie to remember that,
> though, which is one reason you keep making such a total twat of
> yourself, as you get told so often.
You can convince yourself of that if you like, dear boy, but I tell
you, the traffic you've generated in the last twenty-four hours and
the proceeds (I've made $300 this weekend off your bad press) has made
putting up with your shit worth it.
And Erwin, I've searched the record of this group, and in the last two
years, I can't see any magickal record you've posted. Provide a link,
asswipe. Just one. If you've got so many, finding a single example to
point to shouldn't be too difficult for you.
All I saw was you braying like a donkey and being made to look like an
idiot by people who do magick. Repeatedly.
> You notice incorrectly, then, since I gave the address two lines
> later. Look, you quoted it yourself, dumbass.
>
> > > For instance, here's an excerpt from "2007-03-17 - General Update" on
> > > our fuckwitted frend's "spirit pot" operations:
>
> > >http://www.rufusopus.com/Spirit_Pot_Operations/General_Update.htm
>
> See? Blind as well as stupid, eh?
Meh, I don't claim infallibility, but I'd rather be wrong about that
kind of thing than be as utterly unable to hold a conversation on
magickal practice as you are.
> > It's not praying to Bune, shit for brains. But I wouldn't expect you
> > to understand that. This would be magick, which is obviously beyond
> > your comprehension.
>
> But, according to you, "magick is just belief", so you just "believe"
> that, right?
There you go again, demonstrating your ability to read. Please,
provide any evidence that I've said "Magick is just belief."
But I guess revisionist memory is the only way you can feel good about
your pathetic excuse for a life, eh?
> > Let's see, if you're right, then the average salary for my position
> > should have gone up the same amount for everyone doing my job. But
> > wonder of wonders, it didn't. It went up a whopping $0.50 an hour.
> > What's different? Hmmm.
>
> You never studied economics, did you?
I guess studying economics would explain why I'm making more than
everyone else doing my job.
> > Not
> > only have I done some practical magick, I've put it up for everyone to
> > see and draw their own conclusions about.
>
> Where? I hope you don't mean that spirit pot shit, because that isn't
> "practical magick". Quite the contrary, it's thoroughly *impractical*,
> and certainly not magick, since it quite obviously doesn't work, and
> you don't even try to demonstrate that it does.
Considering the extensive amount of evidence you've provided that you
understand and have performed magick, I must now bow to your
authority.
Not.
You wouldn't know magick if a lead talisman of the Throni fell on your
head.
> You wouldn't know "substance" if it smacked you in the face, quite
> apart from the fact that what you "offered" certainly doesn't contain
> any. You'd never present anything of substance, because if you did,
> even you would be forced to admit that this web of fantasy you've
> built for yourself is a complete pile of horseshit. It's only your
> lack of substance that keeps your house of cards together, as I've
> told you time and time again.
Blah blah blah, wordsworth. You've got nothing to show for yourself,
so you make fun of people that do. You're sad and worthless. Nothing
but words, years of posts to a usenet to make you feel good about
yourself, but no practical experience of the subject you pride
yourself on knowing so much about.
> Really? Then name one from your site, and tell us its demonstrable
> uses.
>
> I bet a pound you can't.
Well, you've already read it and missed one method that worked so well
it got mentioned in Hermetic Virtues, Erwin, so that's enough proof
for me that you wouldn't get any additional use out of my sites. So
don't worry your befuddled little head over it, baby. You stick with
the kindergarteners. Play your little games on the school yard. I'll
keep doing magick, making money off people who are interested in doing
magick, and getting rich, living large, and enjoying my life. Doing
magick.
While you sit around and feel good about yourself because you read
liber null AND magick in theory and practice, once. Let's see, you've
probably read something by Tyson, too, but not the Three Books of
Occult Philosophy, of course. Maybe the Magician's Workbook?
Laughable.
We can continue this conversation when you've done some Work, Igor.
-R.O.
Tom
"Rufus Opus" <FrRedac...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189963177.3...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 15, 4:59 pm, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote:
>
>> If you think this constitutes a "magical record", that it constitutes
>> "real magick at work in a real magician's life", then you are indeed a
>> bigger cunt than even I thought. Where is your discussion of
>> alternative explanations? Where are your times, dates and conditions?
>> Where are your hypotheses? Where is the skepticism? Where are the
>> controls?
>
> Erwin, what are you talking about? A fucking Lab book?
Yes, actually, that *is* what he's talking about. It's a meticulous record
of one's magical activities and a full and thoughtful description of the
events associated with those activities. It should be as thorough and as
carefully analyzed as possible. This makes it read a lot more like a lab
book than an adventure story. It's not read for the entertainment and
edification of others, but for oneself, although not the self one identifies
with at the moment.
> You've been reading too many Llewellyn
> and Weiser books. The "magickal diary" they describe is for people who
> can't trust themselves, a tool to convince yourself that magick is
> real. It's a crutch for the inexperienced.
You've completely missed the point of the magical record, Rufus. This is
one of the most common errors made by beginners at magick and even a lot of
old hands utterly fail to catch on. I would have gotten a lot further a lot
faster if I'd have had sense enough to keep this kind of meticulous record
earlier in my life. So would you.
Erwin Hessle
> On Sep 15, 4:59 pm, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> continued his
> moronic displays of ignorance and impotence:
>
> > On Sep 15, 4:03 pm, Rufus Opus <FrRedactumO...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 15, 3:15 pm, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote:
> > > Bad news, Erwin, that's what magick is. Belief.
>
> > Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha!
>
> > You really don't know the first thing about magick, do you?
>
> If what you know about is magick, Erwin, then I'm proud to say I don't
> know much about that.
OK then, admission noted. Now we're getting somewhere.
> Erwin, if that's what you meant to say, I'd suggest going back to your
> local community college and taking some remedial English classes.
That's what I *did* say, dumbass. You quoted it yourself, enough
times. If anyone here needs 'remedial English classes', it'll be the
one who couldn't comprehend it.
> > Bwaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha! "American public school system"! No
> > wonder you're such a dumbass!
>
> Did I say I attended one, oh wise and observant one? No, genius, I
> didn't.
So you didn't go to school? OK, well that explains a few things.
> So you have one, then? Funny, I asked about that and you still haven't
> given an example.
And as I told you, you haven't either. Until you do, all your gabbling
is just bluster.
> I get correspondence from around the world from my site, Erwin. The
> experiences of real life magicians, from Africa, Thailand, South
> America, and Israel are consistent with my results.
Yes, dreamers all over the world all suffer from delusions of varying
degrees of similarity. One of their characterstic hallmarks is a great
tendency to congratulate each other on their mutual delusions, so they
can feel a lot better about lying to themselves.
> Who's the one who's doing Magick, Erwin? Obviously it must be you,
> right?
Right. See, you're improving already!
> > If you think this constitutes a "magical record", that it constitutes
> > "real magick at work in a real magician's life", then you are indeed a
> > bigger cunt than even I thought. Where is your discussion of
> > alternative explanations? Where are your times, dates and conditions?
> > Where are your hypotheses? Where is the skepticism? Where are the
> > controls?
>
> Erwin, what are you talking about? A fucking Lab book?
Yup.
> The "magickal diary" they describe is for people who
> can't trust themselves
For people who don't want to delude themselves. That's why you revolt
so strongly against the idea, because your whole imaginary world would
fall to pieces around you if you stopped doing this.
> Seriously, Erwin, do you think Crowley's magickal record had all that
> shit in it? Did any of his disciples? No, as a matter of fact, they
> didn't.
What the fuck do I care? So Crowley has to do something first before
you will? So much for you being a badass magician - you can't even
design your own magical record without his permission!
> here's a clue: It's not all in your head.
Not in *my* head, no; in *yours*.
> > And only nine brief entries in a year?
>
> Yes, the Work worked, and I haven't had much time to do much more with
> it. I've gotten everything I wanted so far.
Didn't get your $7,142, 857.14, did you? You set yourself on a
ridiculous quest to have several million dollars handed to you on a
plate, got 26 hours of overtime instead, and conviced yourself that
"the Work worked", because you're such a deluded fucktard.
This kind of idiotic and hamfisted conclusion is precisely why you are
such a transparently incompetent fuckwit, and precisely why you need
the kind of record that you are emotionally incapable of keeping.
> > As per above, if you want to discuss records, then you produce a
> > genuine one first, or continue to demonstrate yourself to be a coward
> > and a fake-blowhard.
>
> Chickenshit.
Your cowardly failure to produce a genuine record is again noted.
> And Erwin, I've searched the record of this group, and in the last two
> years, I can't see any magickal record you've posted.
Go back ten, then.
You're a pretender, junior, no matter how loudly or indignently you
squawk against it. It's no coincidence that I'm not the only person
here telling you this over and over again.
The fact of the matter is you are a sad, weaselly little loser,
struggling to earn a wage, with delusions of being a badass magician,
praying to Bune, lighting candles and strategically deploying "orgone
generators" in an attempt to help you win the lottery because you
can't adequately support yourself. And failing miserably. That's it.
Your "record", pitifully poor as it is, reads as nothing other than a
catalogue of utter failure. Pretty much everything you ask for, you
don't get, yet you still delude yourself into believing that "the Work
worked" because you got some overtime last week, or because some woman
you know almost cried, and that you're a powerful "real life magician"
because of it. You're a total duffer, Rufus, a blatheringly
incompetent buffoon. You're a child playing with your big sister's
dolls, nothing more. And that's the way it's going to stay until you
start opening your eyes.
You said in March this year that you were "not very enlightened", and
that's about the only sensible thing I've ever heard you say. You're
making a public laughing stock out of yourself now, but if that's the
way you like it, don't let me stop you. As I said, I do this for free.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Rufus Opus
> "Rufus Opus" <FrRedactumO...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I'm not a material reductionist, Tom. I'm not afraid to believe in
things I can't see. I don't need reams of scientific data to justify
doing what needs to be done. I don't think "faith" is a dirty word.
Crowley was wrong, magick is not an "Art and Science... Sometimes it's
an art that resembles science. Sometimes.
Magick is like a woman. There are so many variables going on that you
can never be sure of the reaction you'll get. Some days a joke and a
smile make her happy, other days they make her pissed. A diamond might
make her cry or smile, but you may never really understand why she's
crying or smiling. And reams of lab books won't help either, except to
get rid of the really obvious stuff (you come home late from work,
she's crying, the computer monitor is in shards on the floor, and
bloody footprints lead from the kitchen to the bathroom: Don't ask if
she's been gaining weight lately).
The reason magick will always be able to be ridiculed and mocked by
the scientific community and skeptics in general is because it's just
not a hard science. Pretending it is, adopting the mannerisms and
techniques of hard science may make you feel better about doing
something scientists consider delusional, but it won't convince them
you're for real, and it won't do much for you either, deep down
inside.
If you feel more comfortable with a lab book, go for it. But real
magicians didn't do that. They never have. Traditional magicians are
after relationship, not methodology. It's all there in black and
white.
Read Soror Acitha's account of the Amalantrah working:
http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib729.html
Read Crowley's Method from the Vision and the Voice:
http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/l418/intro418.html
Read the Second Book of the Sacred Magick, where Abraham tells you
what you need to do to get K&CHGA (Nothing about Lab books, bro.):
http://www.sacred-texts.com/grim/abr/index.htm
Read what Trithemius taught Agrippa to write down in the magick book:
http://www.esotericarchives.com/tritheim/trchryst.htm
Read John Dee's "Detailed records of his mystical exercises" here:
http://www.esotericarchives.com/dee/chm.htm
What you'll find in all of these examples, Tom, is that the historical
magicians don't agree with you at all. Their records don't read like
lab books, do they. No, they read like diaries. And yes, like
adventure stories that entertain and edify the readers.
So if you want to tsk-tsk, and tut-tut over whether or not my
methodology meets your expectations of a magickal lab book, go ahead.
I'm in good enough company for my expectations.
-R.O.
mika
>
>
> Magick is like a woman.
Ah, so, your understanding of women is equally as poor as your
understanding of magick.
> There are so many variables going on that you
> can never be sure of the reaction you'll get.
Yet many people can prompt the desired reaction with a high rate of
probability. Apparently, you can't. I wonder why. Perhaps it's your
refusal to objectively compare your expectations with the actual
results you achieve.
> Some days a joke and a
> smile make her happy, other days they make her pissed. A diamond might
> make her cry or smile, but you may never really understand why she's
> crying or smiling. And reams of lab books won't help either,
How do you know? You've obviously never tried keeping detailed
records of conditions, operations and results, about magical practice
or your interactions with women. You should start, your wife would
appreciate it.
A woman is easy to understand once you get hooked into her particular
cycle. One can't treat a woman the exact same way one day as two
weeks later and expect the same results. Certain types of humor or
affection or conversation may work at one part of the cycle but not
the next. All one needs to do is figure out the pattern of the woman
in question and adjust your interactions accordingly. And if the
woman is at all self aware, she can tell you exactly what's going on
when, so half the work is already done. It's very simple. At least,
it's simple for anyone willing to pay attention.
Rufus Opus
> A woman is easy to understand once you get hooked into her particular
> cycle. One can't treat a woman the exact same way one day as two
> weeks later and expect the same results. Certain types of humor or
> affection or conversation may work at one part of the cycle but not
> the next. All one needs to do is figure out the pattern of the woman
> in question and adjust your interactions accordingly. And if the
> woman is at all self aware, she can tell you exactly what's going on
> when, so half the work is already done. It's very simple. At least,
> it's simple for anyone willing to pay attention.
Of course it is, Mika. :)
-R.O.
Erwin Hessle
> What you'll find in all of these examples, Tom, is that the historical
> magicians don't agree with you at all. Their records don't read like
> lab books, do they.
What you'll find in all these examples, dipshit, (except for Crowley,
who would have laughed you and your gullible ilk right out of town) is
records of people writing before the advent of the scientific method.
And you can bet your life that if these people had access to modern
scientific knowledge and methods they'd have used them, insteading of
deliberately deciding to delude themselves. All these people you name
were in search of knowledge, not in search of new inanities to delude
themselves into believing. They certainly wouldn't have shared your
admiration of historical ignorance, so if we can be sure of anything
we can be sure that your approach to magick is absolutely nothing like
the approach "historical magicians" would have taken; they'd have all
mocked you like the ridiculous schoolgirl you are.
> I'm in good enough company for my expectations.
So, Twinkletoes, next time you visit your doctor, will you insist he
treats you with leeches and other forms of blood-letting? After all,
he'll be "in good company" if he does, right? I'm sure he'd be
horrified if the "historical doctors" didn't agree with him, wouldn't
he? For that matter, why stop there? Why not go back to the *real*
historical folks, and leave the sick outside the cave to die, or even
better, eat them?
As I told you, you're a total fucking retard. What you have utterly
failed to comprehend is the existence of a process by which people can
*learn* from the past, both their own pasts, and the pasts of others.
Your failure in this regard probably goes a long way towards
explaining why you have to pray to Bune to help you win the lottery in
order to support yourself and your family.
Twat.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Absorbed
> What you'll find in all of these examples, Tom, is that the historical
> magicians don't agree with you at all. Their records don't read like
> lab books, do they. No, they read like diaries. And yes, like
> adventure stories that entertain and edify the readers.
>
> So if you want to tsk-tsk, and tut-tut over whether or not my
> methodology meets your expectations of a magickal lab book, go ahead.
> I'm in good enough company for my expectations.
I think you're complicating the matter. You simply need to ask yourself
whether or not you wish to seek truth. If your answer is yes, then you
need to devise a method that will provide reliable answers and retest
all your beliefs. Simple, eh? Your beliefs are as reliable as the method
you used to validate them.
Many people follow a particular religion due to their geographical
location or hold opinions inherited from their parents or culture. If
you wish for truth, then you need to thoroughly investigate how your
method will stop your beliefs being tainted by such things.
I think that you'll agree with the above, but where we probably disagree
is about the degree of reliability that one's method needs to provide.
In my opinion, anyone with any real desire for truth will want a method
that is as reliable as they can possibly make it.
Accepting something as true because it's claimed by a source you believe
authoritative is a very unreliable method, because it always depends
upon what you judge as authoritative. That's not say that it's totally
useless -- I often judge news based on it's source, as it's more
expedient than a huge investigation. But on the question of my nature,
for example, there are more authoritative sources to use. My own
experiences are more authoritative to me than any book.
Tom
Nether are "materialist reductionists". However, they do require some
evidence beyond how thrilled you are to believe something. Of course you're
not afraid to believe in your ability to do magick. However, I think you're
quite desperately afraid not to do so. You won't even consider the
possibility. Hence your eagerness to interpret your inability to win a
lottery worth about seven million dollars, by substituting a little overtime
at work, worth about a thousand dollars, as a fulfillment of your wish.
Only someone desperate for some sort of validation would accept that as
"success". Here now these magick words: "Post hoc ergo propter hoc".
> I don't need reams of scientific data to justify
> doing what needs to be done. I don't think "faith" is a dirty word.
But "scientific data" seems to be, at least when it flies in the face of
your need to feel powerful.
> Crowley was wrong, magick is not an "Art and Science... Sometimes it's
> an art that resembles science. Sometimes.
Not as you conceive it, but then again, your conception is extremely naive.
> Magick is like a woman. There are so many variables going on that you
> can never be sure of the reaction you'll get.
Do you think that is a quality unique to women? It's a quality of reality,
Rufus. No matter what facet of reality you study, you're going to encounter
the same thing. The whole point of a magical record is not to brag about
your successes but to help you understand what the hell you're doing.
> The reason magick will always be able to be ridiculed and mocked by
> the scientific community and skeptics in general is because it's just
> not a hard science.
Nobody is mocking magick, Rufus. However, your beliefs are certainly open
to a little mockery now and then. You apparently feel that your theories
about magick are the only ones there are. This is obviously incorrect.
Erwin Hessle
> My own
> experiences are more authoritative to me than any book.
True, and ultimately our own experiences are all we ever have to go on
- even when reading books, any meaning we extract from them can only
be obtained in the context of our own experiences, and reading a book
is an experience in itself. It's the interpretation of our own
experiences that's the problem. For instance, one person may pray to
Bune for seven million dollars, and then get 26 hours overtime eight
months later, and interpret that experience as incontrovertible proof
of the objective personal existence of Bune and his interest in one's
own financial wellbeing. Another person may have an identical
experience, but reflect that only a whacked-out, gullible, fuckwitted
crack-whore could come to such an outrageous conclusion.
It all comes down to reliability. To take a trite example, the vast
majority of the times I flick my light switch, the light either comes
on, or it goes off. The vast majority of the times this fails to
happen, changing the light bulb restores normal operation. All of the
times within my experience that neither of these things transpire, a
visit from the electrician invariably fixes it. I simply do not care
whether the two things are causally connected, or whether my switch is
simply a signal to Bune to work his strange magicks and happen light
to appear in my presence; the relationship has proved itself to be so
unambiguously reliable that I consider myself justified in assuming a
causal relationship, and accepting the traditional explanation that
underlies it.
If, however, 90% of the time I flicked my light switch, a flashlight
was delivered to my house eight months later, or I found an old candle
under a hedge down the end of my street, or was plagued by fireflies,
or, more likely, if nothing happened at all, then whilst it would be
true that the traditional explanation *might* still be true, I would
consider my own experience in the matter to be sufficiently unreliable
as to justify suspending any inclination to decide either way, and
this would be the proper response. Naturally, if flicking my light
switch had *never* produced the desired effect, then I would consider
myself to have sufficient grounds for trashing the traditional case
entirely, unless other experience (for instance of similar
contraptions in other buildings) was grounds for suspecting that my
electrical system was, in fact, fucked.
This is the total converse of what our fuckwitted and gullible friend
is doing. He really desparately wants to believe in Bune, because he
thinks "historical magicians" believed in Bune and that "historical
magicians" are just too damn cool to have been wrong about it, so he
deliberately distorts every experience he has into supporting his
belief, and refrains from skepticism in that regard because he simply
doesn't want to live in a world where Bune doesn't objectively exist,
and would rather pretend than discover that he's wrong.
Yet, he's still basing this "conclusion" on the authoritativeness of
his own experiences, just like the rest of us are. The difference
between the likes of you and I, and this gibbering fucktard, is that
the likes of you and I are inclined to continually question and test
our experiences, in the hope of at least coming closer to reality,
whereas he appears to have his heart set on getting further away from
it.
He's the kind of person who will protest, "Of course the earth is
flat! Look at it! You can see it is! It's obvious! Historical
magicians said so, so I know I'm right!" and leave it at that. In
other words, an utter cunt.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Meltdarok
> On Sep 17, 3:39 pm, Absorbed <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> My own
>> experiences are more authoritative to me than any book.
>
> True, and ultimately our own experiences are all we ever have to go on
> - even when reading books, any meaning we extract from them can only
> be obtained in the context of our own experiences, and reading a book
> is an experience in itself. It's the interpretation of our own
> experiences that's the problem.
> Yet, he's still basing this "conclusion" on the authoritativeness of
> his own experiences, just like the rest of us are. The difference
> between the likes of you and I, and this gibbering fucktard, is that
> the likes of you and I are inclined to continually question and test
> our experiences, in the hope of at least coming closer to reality,
> whereas he appears to have his heart set on getting further away from
> it.
>
> He's the kind of person who will protest, "Of course the earth is
> flat! Look at it! You can see it is! It's obvious! Historical
> magicians said so, so I know I'm right!" and leave it at that. In
> other words, an utter cunt.
Erwin, I may not always agree with what you type, but I would still
like to treat you to a couple of pints one day.
>
> Erwin Hessle, 8=3
>
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
mika
>
> Nobody is mocking magick, Rufus. However, your beliefs are certainly open
> to a little mockery now and then. You apparently feel that your theories
> about magick are the only ones there are. This is obviously incorrect.
Actually, he has accepted that there are other theories, he just feels
that his own is the only one that is valid. (Clarifying your
statement to avoid giving him an easy opportunity to divert the
conversation.)
Erwin Hessle
> Erwin, I may not always agree with what you type, but I would still
> like to treat you to a couple of pints one day.
I, for one, would be content with just being able to get a decent pint
in this country. Everything I drink that doesn't come out of a bottle
seems to have a pronounced tendency to taste like ass.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Absorbed
> Yet, he's still basing this "conclusion" on the authoritativeness of
> his own experiences, just like the rest of us are. The difference
> between the likes of you and I, and this gibbering fucktard, is that
> the likes of you and I are inclined to continually question and test
> our experiences, in the hope of at least coming closer to reality,
> whereas he appears to have his heart set on getting further away from
> it.
I think it can also be viewed as a distinction between our approach to
truth. I think the reason reality isn't seen clearly by many is because
they simply don't wish to see it, because they fear it. A flimsy
distinction can be made between those who acknowledge it and attempt to
confront it, and those who deny it's very existence or are unconscious
of it.
But I think it's better stated as a matter of degree; the more truth or
spiritual attainment you "want", the more you get. Someone might avoid
the Abyss in a similar fashion to one who unconsciously avoids
mindfulness, the difference being that the former person meanders around
the truth more deftly and elegantly, but they avoid it nonetheless.
That makes pretty much everyone on here an utter cunt, I'd say.
Tom
In Great Britain almost everything tastes like ass. Then again, in Great
Britain, quite a few people *like* the taste of ass. This may be one of
those "chicken-egg" conundrums.
Absorbed
I bet that the US has more coprophagous people than the Great Britain
per 100,000, let's say.
"Anyone who builds a city on something called the San Andreas Fault
really has it coming. The fact is that it's not San Andreas's fault, but
your fault for putting it there in the first place. Classic American
behaviour: trying to palm off the blame onto some poor Mexican."
Erwin Hessle
> Erwin Hessle wrote:
> > Yet, he's still basing this "conclusion" on the authoritativeness of
> > his own experiences, just like the rest of us are. The difference
> > between the likes of you and I, and this gibbering fucktard, is that
> > the likes of you and I are inclined to continually question and test
> > our experiences, in the hope of at least coming closer to reality,
> > whereas he appears to have his heart set on getting further away from
> > it.
>
> I think it can also be viewed as a distinction between our approach to
> truth. I think the reason reality isn't seen clearly by many is because
> they simply don't wish to see it, because they fear it.
Yeah. I think that's basically what I said.
> But I think it's better stated as a matter of degree; the more truth or
> spiritual attainment you "want", the more you get.
Well, you're talking about two completely different things here. If I
want to make some toast, I can do it whilst being completely
unconcerned about the "truth" involved in the act. Obviously I
implicitly have some inner theory that bread + toaster = toast, but I
don't need to inquire any further than that, and I don't need to
inquire consciously at all. Similarly, to enjoy the fruits of
meditation, for instance, any truth in the matter simply doesn't enter
into it - on the contrary, it can become a fatal distraction.
The main distinction here is that when we meditate, we do not do so in
order to achieve a concrete end - we do it for the sake of doing it
(if we are doing it right, at least). Looking for "truth" in it is
like looking for the truth into why we like toast, but not cabbage -
completely useless even if we can find a sensible answer. Speculating
about the mechanics involved can be an enjoyable way to pass some
leisure time, but it's a wholly separate side issue, and as I said can
become a definite obstacle if you mistake its purpose. "Spiritual
attainment" is categorically not a search for "truth" - if anything,
it involves finding a way to completely bypass the question of truth,
or any other question, for that matter.
However, once we start going down the road of "I'm going to pray to
Bune because I want and fully expect to be handed seven million
dollars" then the question of "truth" becomes a little more important,
because our ignorance is going to utterly frustrate any such attempts
to enrich ourselves. But, of course, this has absolutely nothing to do
with "spiritual attainment" - it's just a hamfisted and utterly
delusional theory about how the world works. It's "magic as a mistake"
in the sense that Frazer used the idea, and as you say, the primary
cause in this day and age (where sheer ignorance is no longer a
reasonable excuse) is a desire to believe that the universe works in
the way you want it to, instead of in the way that it actually does.
It's working backwards logically from a desired outcome instead of
projecting conclusions based on observations, and it's the same basic
schoolboy error that leads people into believing in a personal god
because they simply cannot imagine a universe devoid of "natural
justice."
> That makes pretty much everyone on here an utter cunt, I'd say.
Well, I didn't want to be the one to mention it, but since you bring
it up...
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Erwin Hessle
> "Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1190062954.9...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Sep 17, 4:47 pm, Meltdarok <meltda...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Erwin, I may not always agree with what you type, but I would still
> >> like to treat you to a couple of pints one day.
>
> > I, for one, would be content with just being able to get a decent pint
> > in this country. Everything I drink that doesn't come out of a bottle
> > seems to have a pronounced tendency to taste like ass.
>
> In Great Britain almost everything tastes like ass.
Let's not forget who gave us pop-tarts, shall we?
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Absorbed
> On Sep 17, 5:57 pm, Absorbed <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> But I think it's better stated as a matter of degree; the more truth or
>> spiritual attainment you "want", the more you get.
>
> Well, you're talking about two completely different things here. If I
> want to make some toast, I can do it whilst being completely
> unconcerned about the "truth" involved in the act. Obviously I
> implicitly have some inner theory that bread + toaster = toast, but I
> don't need to inquire any further than that, and I don't need to
> inquire consciously at all. Similarly, to enjoy the fruits of
> meditation, for instance, any truth in the matter simply doesn't enter
> into it - on the contrary, it can become a fatal distraction.
My wording above was a bit stupid. The truth of meditation is found by
avoiding finding it. But you've still got to "want" to meditate properly.
I was thinking about a recent thought I've had about whether I truly
"want" to meditate or not. That I don't meditate unconsciously shows
that I avoid it for some reason, so in a sense I don't want it. But I
also try to do as much sitting meditation as possible, so in that way I
want it. The desire that leads to meditation seems quite separate from
any sort of Hodical/Netzachian/Yesodian desire, or at least it's origin
isn't there, and I was wondering what it was. I guess it's no different
than other base desires: it's just a compulsion.
I saw a film called Stalker recently, that made me think the above. I'm
not sure if I recommend it or not, but I am going to reveal the plot, if
anyone is bothered. Anyway, the story is that three people break into
"The Zone", for in The Zone is a room, which if you enter this room
one's secret hopes comes true. But once they get to The Zone they don't
proceed directly to the room, but go around it, slowly getting closer,
until they finally arrive at the entrance. And then they just sit
outside it for ages, and finally decide not to enter at all.
> "Spiritual
> attainment" is categorically not a search for "truth" - if anything,
> it involves finding a way to completely bypass the question of truth,
> or any other question, for that matter.
I consider a search for spiritual attainment a search for truth, for
what is real, but not a Hodical truth like 2 + 2 = 4. Maybe my
definition of truth needs changing.
Erwin Hessle
> Erwin Hessle wrote:
> > On Sep 17, 5:57 pm, Absorbed <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> But I think it's better stated as a matter of degree; the more truth or
> >> spiritual attainment you "want", the more you get.
>
> > Well, you're talking about two completely different things here. If I
> > want to make some toast, I can do it whilst being completely
> > unconcerned about the "truth" involved in the act. Obviously I
> > implicitly have some inner theory that bread + toaster = toast, but I
> > don't need to inquire any further than that, and I don't need to
> > inquire consciously at all. Similarly, to enjoy the fruits of
> > meditation, for instance, any truth in the matter simply doesn't enter
> > into it - on the contrary, it can become a fatal distraction.
>
> My wording above was a bit stupid. The truth of meditation is found by
> avoiding finding it. But you've still got to "want" to meditate properly.
>
> I was thinking about a recent thought I've had about whether I truly
> "want" to meditate or not. That I don't meditate unconsciously shows
> that I avoid it for some reason, so in a sense I don't want it. But I
> also try to do as much sitting meditation as possible, so in that way I
> want it.
The problem is this view of meditation as "work", and this view that
there is some kind of merit in doing such "work". As long as people
hold this attitude, meditation will always be a chore. The proper way
to view it is not as work, but as an expression of being. Throughout
all the aeons of time, across the vastness of space, here you are,
right now, at this point in time, choosing to sit quietly and pay
attention. No hassles from work, or screaming children, or bills, or
the phone ringing, or the incessant chattering in your head; just you
and the universe, being yourself in its entirety, simply being,
quietly embracing existence, fully being the point in space and time
that is currently you. Meditation is not a means to an end; it *is* an
end. In a sense, it's both the beginning and the end of attainment.
Look at it like this, and you'll start enjoying it, and start looking
forward to it.
> The desire that leads to meditation seems quite separate from
> any sort of Hodical/Netzachian/Yesodian desire, or at least it's origin
> isn't there, and I was wondering what it was.
It's the thing that's really you, calling to you through all that
"Hodical/Netzachian/Yesodian" crap that you usually mistake for
yourself.
> > "Spiritual
> > attainment" is categorically not a search for "truth" - if anything,
> > it involves finding a way to completely bypass the question of truth,
> > or any other question, for that matter.
>
> I consider a search for spiritual attainment a search for truth, for
> what is real, but not a Hodical truth like 2 + 2 = 4. Maybe my
> definition of truth needs changing.
Changing or not, you have to accept a pretty weird definition of truth
for this view to make any sense. Truth is an idea; reality is real.
You accept an idea if you consider it to be true, and you reject it if
you consider it to be false. What you are looking for in "attainment"
is something wholly outside considerations such as these. It's neither
true nor false; it just *is*.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Tom
Well, at least pop-tarts don't taste like ass.
Pop-tarts taste like chemically treated cardboard. Which, come to think of
it, is exactly what they are.
Erwin Hessle
> "Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1190069150.9...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 17, 6:10 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> "Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1190062954.9...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Sep 17, 4:47 pm, Meltdarok <meltda...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> Erwin, I may not always agree with what you type, but I would still
> >> >> like to treat you to a couple of pints one day.
>
> >> > I, for one, would be content with just being able to get a decent pint
> >> > in this country. Everything I drink that doesn't come out of a bottle
> >> > seems to have a pronounced tendency to taste like ass.
>
> >> In Great Britain almost everything tastes like ass.
>
> > Let's not forget who gave us pop-tarts, shall we?
>
> Well, at least pop-tarts don't taste like ass.
You seem to know an awful lot about the taste of ass. Is it an
American thing?
> Pop-tarts taste like chemically treated cardboard. Which, come to think of
> it, is exactly what they are.- Hide quoted text -
Toilet paper is basically chemically treated cardboard. That tastes
like ass, too.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Tom
> On Sep 17, 5:57 pm, Absorbed <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think it can also be viewed as a distinction between our approach to
>> truth. I think the reason reality isn't seen clearly by many is because
>> they simply don't wish to see it, because they fear it.
>
> Yeah. I think that's basically what I said.
>
>> But I think it's better stated as a matter of degree; the more truth or
>> spiritual attainment you "want", the more you get.
>
> Well, you're talking about two completely different things here. If I
> want to make some toast, I can do it whilst being completely
> unconcerned about the "truth" involved in the act. Obviously I
> implicitly have some inner theory that bread + toaster = toast, but I
> don't need to inquire any further than that, and I don't need to
> inquire consciously at all.
Unless, of course, it doesn't produce the toast. Then it gets a lot of
attention.
When things are going smoothly, all is quiet. It's the rough spots that
produce the noise.
> Similarly, to enjoy the fruits of
> meditation, for instance, any truth in the matter simply doesn't enter
> into it - on the contrary, it can become a fatal distraction.
If it's noisy, it seems like work. All bumpy and fatiguing. If it's quiet,
it seems like nothing at all. People get so used to living bumpily and
noisily, they think that the only quiet is death. So when they meditate and
things get quiet, they get scared and start bumping around again, just to
reassure themselves that they aren't dead.
> However, once we start going down the road of "I'm going to pray to
> Bune because I want and fully expect to be handed seven million
> dollars" then the question of "truth" becomes a little more important,
> because our ignorance is going to utterly frustrate any such attempts
> to enrich ourselves.
If you desire to believe that fish + toaster = toast, you're going to have
to explain why burnt fish is actually toast. Or why $7M is equivalent to 26
hours of overtime.
Erwin Hessle
> If you desire to believe that fish + toaster = toast, you're going to have
> to explain why burnt fish is actually toast. Or why $7M is equivalent to 26
Not to mention the fact that if I asked Bune for money, and then I
ended up having to work for it after all, I'd be having some pretty
fucking stern words with the lazy twat the next time I saw him.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Douglas
Erwin Hessle wrote:
> On Sep 17, 8:32 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
>>
>>news:1190069150.9...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Sep 17, 6:10 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>news:1190062954.9...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>>On Sep 17, 4:47 pm, Meltdarok <meltda...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Erwin, I may not always agree with what you type, but I would still
>>>>>>like to treat you to a couple of pints one day.
>>>>>
>>>>>I, for one, would be content with just being able to get a decent pint
>>>>>in this country. Everything I drink that doesn't come out of a bottle
>>>>>seems to have a pronounced tendency to taste like ass.
>>>>
>>>>In Great Britain almost everything tastes like ass.
>>>
>>>Let's not forget who gave us pop-tarts, shall we?
>>
>>Well, at least pop-tarts don't taste like ass.
>
>
> You seem to know an awful lot about the taste of ass. Is it an
> American thing?
>
Heh, have you ever had your "Salad Tossed" Erwin?
>
>>Pop-tarts taste like chemically treated cardboard. Which, come to think of
>>it, is exactly what they are.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> Toilet paper is basically chemically treated cardboard. That tastes
> like ass, too.
>
> Erwin Hessle, 8=3
>
Heh, after it has been used I imagine since I don't figure they
are prescenting the toilet paper with ass taste.
-Douglas
Erwin Hessle
Bah. Details.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Douglas
'Le bon Dieu est dans le detail' -Gustave Flaubert
-Douglas
Tom
> On Sep 17, 8:32 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1190069150.9...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Sep 17, 6:10 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> "Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1190062954.9...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > pint
>> >> > in this country. Everything I drink that doesn't come out of a
>> >> > bottle
>> >> > seems to have a pronounced tendency to taste like ass.
>>
>> >> In Great Britain almost everything tastes like ass.
>>
>> > Let's not forget who gave us pop-tarts, shall we?
>>
>> Well, at least pop-tarts don't taste like ass.
>
> You seem to know an awful lot about the taste of ass. Is it an
> American thing?
No matter where anything comes from originally, once it's in America, it's
an American thing. Of course, it probably originated with the French.
Those freres eat everything that'll hold still long enough. It couldn't
have been the English. They don't originate anything. They didn't even
invent their own language. They just stole bits and pieces from other
peoples' languages and mixed it them together into an irrational polyglot
and then added a faggy accent.
>> Pop-tarts taste like chemically treated cardboard. Which, come to think
>> of
>> it, is exactly what they are.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Toilet paper is basically chemically treated cardboard. That tastes
> like ass, too.
Apparently I'm not the only one who knows an awful lot about the taste of
ass.
Tom
"Douglas" <missm...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:46EF3D78...@cox.net...
>
>
> Heh, have you ever had your "Salad Tossed" Erwin?
Good God! Don't get him started.
> Heh, after it has been used I imagine since I don't figure they
> are prescenting the toilet paper with ass taste.
Like that old English nanny used to say, "A spoonful of sugar helps the
medicine go down."
Jay D. Scott
"Tom" <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:S76dnW0jd4xqyHLb...@comcast.com...
Jesus fucking Christ. I walk in the door, pet my cat so she doesn't piss all
over my bed for being gone ten hours at work, pour myself 2 Boiler Makers
(rough day), and I find this!
Enough about ass, already. But if you must, eat a woman's; it's a whole hell
of a lot more clean than the ass you and Erwin seem to be on about.
Poor English women.
Tom
"Jay D. Scott" <jay.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e2KHi.130457$xx1....@newsfe09.phx...
>
> Jesus fucking Christ. I walk in the door, pet my cat so she doesn't piss
> all over my bed for being gone ten hours at work, pour myself 2 Boiler
> Makers (rough day), and I find this!
It's the change of pace that does it. How many people actually listen to
the third movement of Beethoven's 9th? It's really very beautiful in its
own right, but stuck there between the powerful second movement and that
totally mind-blowing fourth movement, it just bores the shit out of people.
> Enough about ass, already. But if you must, eat a woman's; it's a whole
> hell of a lot more clean than the ass you and Erwin seem to be on about.
>
> Poor English women.
Let banter be banter. There is no hidden meaning.
Jay D. Scott
> The main distinction here is that when we meditate, we do not do so in
> order to achieve a concrete end - we do it for the sake of doing it
> (if we are doing it right, at least).
I dare say the right way to do Raja Yoga meditation is radically
different than, say, Jnana Yoga meditation. Are both right? All
according to the aim, I'd say. If you're looking for a meditative
technique than incorporates a more integrated approach to advanced
meditations, Jnana isn't what you're after. And truth be told, if you
speak of Zen meditation as closest to the right technique, you'ld be
wrong.
So in saying, authoritative ancient texts and/or figures of times long
passed are to be regarded as true, lest one for the sake of it wants
to reinvent the wheel. Pretty much all of the six orthodox Hindu
philosophies were gathered by means of a specific siddhi.
Anyway.
Jay D. Scott
> Let banter be banter. There is no hidden meaning.
Just joshn'. I know you're married.
How's the little one, anyway? Kindergarten this year isn't he?
Erwin Hessle
> On Sep 17, 3:40 pm, Erwin Hessle wrote:
>
> > The main distinction here is that when we meditate, we do not do so in
> > order to achieve a concrete end - we do it for the sake of doing it
> > (if we are doing it right, at least).
>
> I dare say the right way to do Raja Yoga meditation is radically
> different than, say, Jnana Yoga meditation. Are both right? All
> according to the aim, I'd say. If you're looking for a meditative
> technique than incorporates a more integrated approach to advanced
> meditations, Jnana isn't what you're after. And truth be told, if you
> speak of Zen meditation as closest to the right technique, you'ld be
> wrong.
You use far too many vague and fluffy terms for your communications to
contain much sensible meaning. Start being more precise if you wish to
engage in constructive dialogue.
When I say "meditation" I employ it in the "sitting still and being
quiet" sense. All this other crap you're talking about is something
else, and serves primarily to generate noise.
> So in saying, authoritative ancient texts and/or figures of times long
> passed are to be regarded as true, lest one for the sake of it wants
> to reinvent the wheel.
This is an exceptionally stupid thing to say. If you want to brush
your teeth with a wagon wheel, then be my guest.
> Pretty much all of the six orthodox Hindu
> philosophies were gathered by means of a specific siddhi.
Well, good for them.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Satyr
think that's saying something.
The time I spend on my cushion is the most well-spent of my entire
day. I look forward more to getting up in the morning to sit than I do
going to bed at night to sleep. There are difficulties, but working
through them is an end in itself.
Right now, I think one of my greatest difficulties is respecting those
who refuse to meditate - including myself, for all those years when I
refused to do it, believing I had better things to do. If a fucked-up
bastard like me can sit and stare into nothing, content in my own skin
without needing anything to distract myself from myself, anyone can.
Rufus Opus
> On Sep 17, 1:07 pm, "Tom" wrote:
>
>
>
> > Nobody is mocking magick, Rufus. However, your beliefs are certainly open
> > to a little mockery now and then. You apparently feel that your theories
> > about magick are the only ones there are. This is obviously incorrect.
>
> Actually, he has accepted that there are other theories, he just feels
> that his own is the only one that is valid. (Clarifying your
> statement to avoid giving him an easy opportunity to divert the
> conversation.)
Let me correct you, puppy. My theories are the only ones that are
valid to me.
And anyone else interested in the power and authority that comes with
doing real magick based on the Western Mystery Tradition instead of
commenting on the work of others.
My theories work. I haven't seen any other theories offered that
work. :shrug:
Offer some theories, let's see how they work?
-R.O.
Rufus Opus
> If you desire to believe that fish + toaster = toast, you're going to have
> to explain why burnt fish is actually toast. Or why $7M is equivalent to 26
> hours of overtime.
Have you read the conclusions I reached from this experiment, Tom?
-R.O.
Absorbed
> On Sep 17, 7:43 pm, Absorbed <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I was thinking about a recent thought I've had about whether I truly
>> "want" to meditate or not. That I don't meditate unconsciously shows
>> that I avoid it for some reason, so in a sense I don't want it. But I
>> also try to do as much sitting meditation as possible, so in that way I
>> want it.
>
> The problem is this view of meditation as "work", and this view that
> there is some kind of merit in doing such "work". As long as people
> hold this attitude, meditation will always be a chore. The proper way
> to view it is not as work, but as an expression of being. Throughout
> all the aeons of time, across the vastness of space, here you are,
> right now, at this point in time, choosing to sit quietly and pay
> attention. No hassles from work, or screaming children, or bills, or
> the phone ringing, or the incessant chattering in your head; just you
> and the universe, being yourself in its entirety, simply being,
> quietly embracing existence, fully being the point in space and time
> that is currently you. Meditation is not a means to an end; it *is* an
> end. In a sense, it's both the beginning and the end of attainment.
>
> Look at it like this, and you'll start enjoying it, and start looking
> forward to it.
I normally enjoy meditation when I start, but it isn't always plain
sailing. I like Tom's explanation of how bumps in meditation can turn it
into work. If I feel that I must think about my breathing immediately or
I will suffocate, I don't enjoy such an experience and I do feel the
need to "work" through it. If I didn't, I'd probably avoid it and stay
in my cocoon.
I think that such a view is beneficial to me at present. Sometimes
meditation in itself is worth it, but sometimes I'd rather avoid it.
Erwin Hessle
No need. You told us yourself, remember? Let me refresh your memory:
"Rufus Opus" <FrRedactumO...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189963177.3...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> And only nine brief entries in a year?
>
> Yes, the Work worked, and I haven't had much time to do much
> more with it. I've gotten everything I wanted so far.
There's your conclusion, right there. You've "gotten everything [you]
wanted so far". Including your $7,142,857.14, so it would seem.
Or was that just another transparent and ridiculous lie?
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Tom
> On Sep 17, 11:42 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Let banter be banter. There is no hidden meaning.
>
> Just joshn'. I know you're married.
But not to Erwin.
> How's the little one, anyway? Kindergarten this year isn't he?
Nope, second grade. Sort of. He's doing his reading with the fourth
graders already and now he's demanding harder math problems, too. I don't
think the regular class-by-age hierarchy is going to work very well for him.
Tom
>
> Well, at least you're admitting that you know an awful lot about the
> taste of ass, now, which is a start.
I thought that was a given.
> Now if you'd just inform your
> compatriots what a "sausage" is,
The British barbarians call it a "banger". We know why.
> that beef is supposed to have
> flavour, and that beer and fruit are not meant to be consumed
> simultaneously, then we might get somewhere.
You'll have to argue that last part with the Belgians. They've been putting
fruit in their beers for some time now. But then again, they're almost
French.
Now, as for odd things to consume with beer, here's a concoction I dare you
to try. Take a nice pint of Russian Imperial stout, put in one scoop of
vanilla ice cream and crumble a brownie (the chocolate dessert, not the
proto-girl-scout, supernatural woodland creature, or scatological euphemism)
over it. Then you drink it. The weirdest part is that it actually tastes a
lot better than ass (unless you mistakenly used the scatological euphemism).
Erwin Hessle
> "Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
> > flavour, and that beer and fruit are not meant to be consumed
> > simultaneously, then we might get somewhere.
>
> You'll have to argue that last part with the Belgians.
Well that won't be difficult.
> They've been putting
> fruit in their beers for some time now.
Well of course they have - they're *Belgians*.
> But then again, they're almost
> French.
Q.E.D.
> Now, as for odd things to consume with beer, here's a concoction I dare you
> to try. Take a nice pint of Russian Imperial stout, put in one scoop of
> vanilla ice cream and crumble a brownie (the chocolate dessert, not the
> proto-girl-scout, supernatural woodland creature, or scatological euphemism)
> over it. Then you drink it. The weirdest part is that it actually tastes a
> lot better than ass (unless you mistakenly used the scatological
> euphemism).
Now see, that's exactly what I'm talking about, right there. Why in
the name of Francis Figgety Fuck do you Americans insist in putting
things in beer to make it taste like something other than beer? What
the fuck is wrong with the taste of beer? If I wanted an ice-cream
fucking sundae, I'd go and buy one. Bloody puritans.
You'll be telling me you put Coke in your scotch, next.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
mika
> On Sep 18, 11:39 am, "Tom" wrote:
>
> > Now, as for odd things to consume with beer, here's a concoction I dare you
> > to try. Take a nice pint of Russian Imperial stout, put in one scoop of
> > vanilla ice cream and crumble a brownie (the chocolate dessert, not the
> > proto-girl-scout, supernatural woodland creature, or scatological euphemism)
> > over it. Then you drink it. The weirdest part is that it actually tastes a
> > lot better than ass (unless you mistakenly used the scatological
> > euphemism).
>
> Now see, that's exactly what I'm talking about, right there. Why in
> the name of Francis Figgety Fuck do you Americans insist in putting
> things in beer to make it taste like something other than beer? What
> the fuck is wrong with the taste of beer? If I wanted an ice-cream
> fucking sundae, I'd go and buy one. Bloody puritans.
It's not about adulterating the beer, it's about tarting up the
sundae. Yeesh! You purist!
Now I need to go dig up that recipe for Chocolate Bacon Stout cake.
mmmmm mmm good.
So do I get any points for avoiding the whole 'tastes like ass'
discussion? Cause Lord knows I've got a lot to say about *that*
number.
Tom
"Rufus Opus" <FrRedac...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190122684.3...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 17, 4:07 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Hence your eagerness to interpret your inability to win a
>> lottery worth about seven million dollars, by substituting a little
>> overtime
>> at work, worth about a thousand dollars, as a fulfillment of your wish.
>> Only someone desperate for some sort of validation would accept that as
>> "success". Here now these magick words: "Post hoc ergo propter hoc".
>
> Ah, I see how you think I did things. It's true, the manifestation of
> the $7MUSD didn't come about. However, if you look back at the history
> of the posts, you'll see that the way I came up with the number was to
> make a list of all the things I wanted, specifically, to have. Then I
> figured out the dollar amount necessary to get those things all at
> once. Since performing the ritual, I've gotten almost everything on
> the list, without winning the lump sum dollar amount.
Yeas, it's always best with this sort of working to keep the expected
outcome as vague as possible, so that anything that happens subsequently can
serve as validation. Another good policy is to set as one's goal something
that would have happened anyway.
> I was also advised on a number of occasions by spirits in the flesh
> and not in the flesh that the lottery thing wouldn't work.
> Nevertheless, I thought I'd give it a try. The worst thing that could
> happen was I wouldn't get the money the way I wanted.
Have you goven any thought as to *why* the lottery thing doesn't work?
>> > Crowley was wrong, magick is not an "Art and Science... Sometimes it's
>> > an art that resembles science. Sometimes.
>>
>> Not as you conceive it, but then again, your conception is extremely
>> naive.
>
> Tom, I started out 17 years ago thinking the way you and Hessle seem
> to, based on your critiques.
See, the difference is that we evolved our skepticism from our work with
magick, rather than abandoning it in order to take up the practice. I can;t
speak for Erwin, of course, but I started out studying magick more than
thirty years ago.
> After all that time, I learned that there
> is no scientific method to Magick.
Not as you conceive it, anyway.
> Trying to convince yourself that
> there is just leaves you constantly wondering whether you're deluding
> yourself or not.
Which is an eminently sensible thing to do. If there was ever a practice
conducive to self-delusion, it would be the practice of magick.
> There are other methods to record your magical work than using a
> magickal reckord. The magickal diary is not necessary to keep yourself
> from falling into delusion.
Nothing can prevent one from falling into delusion but a magical record of
the sort suggested by Erwin and me helps to identify those delusions so you
can pierce them more easily.
BTW, you have a superfluity of k's. The adjectival form of "magick" is
"magical". Always has been.
> There are constant admonitions to test the
> spirits in the old grimoires, and the lab book is one way to do that.
> I still think it's for beginners who haven't figured out better ways.
How would you know? You've never even tried it.
>> > Magick is like a woman. There are so many variables going on that you
>> > can never be sure of the reaction you'll get.
>>
>> Do you think that is a quality unique to women? It's a quality of
>> reality,
>> Rufus. No matter what facet of reality you study, you're going to
>> encounter
>> the same thing. The whole point of a magical record is not to brag about
>> your successes but to help you understand what the hell you're doing.
>
> It's also to brag about what you're doing. :)
As you've been using it, yes, it is.
> Ok, in truth, it's not about me at all. It's about people who read
> what I write, and the impact it has on their lives. Audience and
> purpose, Tom, the two most important things to remember when you write
> anything.
So if I want to get 26 hours of overtime, I should make a spirit pot like
you did? Is that the wisdom you wish to share with your audience?
>> > The reason magick will always be able to be ridiculed and mocked by
>> > the scientific community and skeptics in general is because it's just
>> > not a hard science.
>>
>> Nobody is mocking magick, Rufus. However, your beliefs are certainly
>> open
>> to a little mockery now and then. You apparently feel that your theories
>> about magick are the only ones there are. This is obviously incorrect.
>
> Nobody is mocking magick, anywhere in the world? Skeptics don't mock
> magick?
Oh don't go all hyperbolic on me. I am a skeptic and I am not mocking
magick, nor is Erwin. I am criticizing what I feel to be a very naive and
delusion-inducting approach to it.
> I wasn't saying anyone in this conversation was mocking magick, I was
> saying magick will always be mocked and ridiculed by those who require
> hard science to justify their beliefs.
This is not about "justifying beliefs", Rufus. It's about checking them for
accuracy. As soon as you start "justifying", you stop questioning and start
finding excuses instead.
> How do you support the conclusion that I feel that my theories about
> magick are the only ones there are?
By pointing out that you strongly implied that my criticism of your beliefs
about magick were a mockery of magick.
Erwin Hessle
> On Sep 18, 8:49 am, Erwin Hessle wrote:
>
> > On Sep 18, 11:39 am, "Tom" wrote:
>
> > > Now, as for odd things to consume with beer, here's a concoction I dare you
> > > to try. Take a nice pint of Russian Imperial stout, put in one scoop of
> > > vanilla ice cream and crumble a brownie (the chocolate dessert, not the
> > > proto-girl-scout, supernatural woodland creature, or scatological euphemism)
> > > over it. Then you drink it. The weirdest part is that it actually tastes a
> > > lot better than ass (unless you mistakenly used the scatological
> > > euphemism).
>
> > Now see, that's exactly what I'm talking about, right there. Why in
> > the name of Francis Figgety Fuck do you Americans insist in putting
> > things in beer to make it taste like something other than beer? What
> > the fuck is wrong with the taste of beer? If I wanted an ice-cream
> > fucking sundae, I'd go and buy one. Bloody puritans.
>
> It's not about adulterating the beer, it's about tarting up the
> sundae. Yeesh! You purist!
You can't have one without the other! Tarting up sundaes with beer is
still adulterating beer, so you need to figure out your priorities.
> Now I need to go dig up that recipe for Chocolate Bacon Stout cake.
> mmmmm mmm good.
>
> So do I get any points for avoiding the whole 'tastes like ass'
> discussion? Cause Lord knows I've got a lot to say about *that*
> number.
No, the whole beer thing cancelled those points out, and this new
chocolate bacon abomination clinches it.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
mika
> "Rufus Opus" wrote
>
> > Trying to convince yourself that
> > there is just leaves you constantly wondering whether you're deluding
> > yourself or not.
>
> Which is an eminently sensible thing to do. If there was ever a practice
> conducive to self-delusion, it would be the practice of magick.
I don't understand what's wrong with "constantly wondering whether
you're deluding yourself or not". That is, as long as one can suspend
disbelief during an actual ritual working, when the difference between
delusion and reality isn't all that relevant and it's more important
to fully believe in the process. But the rest of the time, what's the
problem with uncertainty? Particularly if one is achieving results?
Erwin Hessle
> On Sep 18, 9:16 am, "Tom" wrote:
>
> > "Rufus Opus" wrote
>
> > > Trying to convince yourself that
> > > there is just leaves you constantly wondering whether you're deluding
> > > yourself or not.
>
> > Which is an eminently sensible thing to do. If there was ever a practice
> > conducive to self-delusion, it would be the practice of magick.
>
> I don't understand what's wrong with "constantly wondering whether
> you're deluding yourself or not".
That's because you're not a total arsehead, like this guy. He makes
his motivations clear when he talks about "those who require hard
science to justify their beliefs." He's clearly not the slightest bit
interested in reality, and seeks in magick only a means to prop up his
comforting belief that he's some kind of powerful badass wizard, since
I suspect he doesn't achieve much success in the rest of his life,
either, since he's always on about cursing.
Do you remember those alt.magick.virtual-adepts clowns from way back
when? That's right, the "majik is kinda like a really strong wish"
crowd. Rufus reminds me a lot of them. It's possible that this is all
a colossal misunderstanding, and that he thinks magick is just an
elaborate role-playing game, and that this group is a part of it. It
would go a long way towards explaining his nonsensical jabbering.
Come to think of it, though, those dipshits were always harping on
about "soulmates" too. Maybe he really is one of them, now reaping the
fruits of his attachment to fantasy.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
mika
> On Sep 18, 11:58 am, mika wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 8:49 am, Erwin Hessle wrote:
> > > On Sep 18, 11:39 am, "Tom" wrote:
>
> > > > Now, as for odd things to consume with beer, here's a concoction I dare you
> > > > to try. Take a nice pint of Russian Imperial stout, put in one scoop of
> > > > vanilla ice cream and crumble a brownie (the chocolate dessert, not the
> > > > proto-girl-scout, supernatural woodland creature, or scatological euphemism)
> > > > over it. Then you drink it. The weirdest part is that it actually tastes a
> > > > lot better than ass (unless you mistakenly used the scatological
> > > > euphemism).
>
> > > Now see, that's exactly what I'm talking about, right there. Why in
> > > the name of Francis Figgety Fuck do you Americans insist in putting
> > > things in beer to make it taste like something other than beer? What
> > > the fuck is wrong with the taste of beer? If I wanted an ice-cream
> > > fucking sundae, I'd go and buy one. Bloody puritans.
>
> > It's not about adulterating the beer, it's about tarting up the
> > sundae. Yeesh! You purist!
>
> You can't have one without the other! Tarting up sundaes with beer is
> still adulterating beer, so you need to figure out your priorities.
My priorities? New, interesting, sensual experiences. Bring em on!
I do agree with one thing - fruit and beer don't mix. But I'd still
try a crazy-ass apricot hefeweizen or whatnot, just for the novelty of
the taste sensation. I'll try anything once... like those bacon-
wrapped dates I had last weekend. They were wrong, just wrong, but I
never tasted anything like it ever. May even have them again
sometime, just to be reminded of the weirdness.
> > Now I need to go dig up that recipe for Chocolate Bacon Stout cake.
> > mmmmm mmm good.
>
> > So do I get any points for avoiding the whole 'tastes like ass'
> > discussion? Cause Lord knows I've got a lot to say about *that*
> > number.
>
> No, the whole beer thing cancelled those points out, and this new
> chocolate bacon abomination clinches it.
What can I say? I'm under the spell of the Mother of Abominations,
there's no going back now.
Jay D. Scott
> On Sep 18, 2:44 am, "Jay D. Scott" <jay.d.sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 17, 3:40 pm, Erwin Hessle wrote:
>
> > > The main distinction here is that when we meditate, we do not do so in
> > > order to achieve a concrete end - we do it for the sake of doing it
> > > (if we are doing it right, at least).
>
> > I dare say the right way to do Raja Yoga meditation is radically
> > different than, say, Jnana Yoga meditation. Are both right? All
> > according to the aim, I'd say. If you're looking for a meditative
> > technique than incorporates a more integrated approach to advanced
> > meditations, Jnana isn't what you're after. And truth be told, if you
> > speak of Zen meditation as closest to the right technique, you'ld be
> > wrong.
>
> You use far too many vague and fluffy terms for your communications to
> contain much sensible meaning. Start being more precise if you wish to
> engage in constructive dialogue.
I speak in generalities to those who I suspect may understand the
subject at hand. Those who protest while hoist by their own petard
that my usage of language is too vague, either don't understand the
material being discussed, or do and wish above all else not to be
contradicted. Rarely, and I do mean that, are requests for
"constructive dialogue" admitted to be a plea for understanding. See,
Erwin, you're not unique.
>When I say "meditation" I employ it in the "sitting still and being
>quiet" sense. All this other crap you're talking about is something
>else, and serves primarily to generate noise.
On the contrary: There are distinctions and classifications of
"sitting still and being quiet". Jnana Yoga, as defined by the
Sankhya, is a restful calm generated by the five senses acting in
unison. It's an emotional affliction, no matter if it's a neutral one
or not. If employed the technique will, in time, evidence samprajnata
samadhi; but it will not if recreated once samprajnata samadhi is
realized evidence furthering unveiling of the states of consciousness.
Raja Yoga is an addition to the Sankhya philosophy, the aim of which
is union with purusha (that which created matter) by means of the mind
only. Unlike Jnana Yoga Raja Yoga does address the issue of unveiling
the layers of consciousness from the onset by a technique called
samyama. Samyama is adhering to concentrating [dharana] on the
constant act of withdrawing the five senses [pratyahara] by use of the
technique of samadhi [absorbing omnipresence] in dhyana [meditation].
Samyama literally means "contemplation".
And staring into the void is a Zen Buddhist conceptualization of Jnana
Yoga, minus the five senses. It also is of the mind-only school; but
zazen doesn't address the unveiling of all states of consciousness in
its principle meditative technique. Kensho is taught later. Zen
Buddhism therefore isn't one hundred percent non-dual. Nor is Raja
Yoga. Buddhists acknowledge annihilating their existence so as to not
contribute even in the least to suffering by engaging in illusion. A
Raja Yogi wouldn't think of it.
So when you say, "The main distinction here is that when we meditate,
we do not do so in order to achieve a concrete end - we do it for the
sake of doing it (if we are doing it right, at least)." I see the
importance of your ideation of non-attachment and its relation to
unconsciously willing manifestations; but insofar as it relates to a
specific aim, in terms of "liberation", you're mistaken.
What you meant by all of this before going off on a tangent how any of
this has anything at all to do with keeping a magical record is
anyone's guess. hell I don't even think you know. So I'll state it for
you: Read up on and find the consensus of which meditative techniques
evidence what if used and dispassionately record experiences or the
lack thereof to validate of debunk them. I'd opt to put faith in one's
practice over and above doubt. Doubt will never make Will or
discipline for its own sake any easier. But do what you will.
mika
>
>
> I'd opt to put faith in one's
> practice over and above doubt.
"I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on
awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt,
and found her a virgin in the morning."
> Doubt will never make Will or
> discipline for its own sake any easier.
What's wrong, are you afraid of doing a little work?
Why in the world would you *want* to make discipline easier, even if
it were possible? Avoiding difficulty doesn't provide much substance
to ones practice.