The Lesser Vision
Tehiru
"Let us then occupy ourselves with the lower form of this Vision (so
called); it is not technically a
Vision at all) which pertains to Tiphareth, and is thus the natural
grace of the Minor Adept. It
may be said at once that those who have attained to higher grades,
especially those above the
Abyss, can hardly return to this Vision. For it implies a certain
innocence, a certain defect of
Understanding which is not possible to a Master of the Temple. Again,
the Grades of Exempt
and Major Adept are too energetic to admit of the balanced quietude of
this state."
What do you feel he was writing about?
Alrah
Excellent question Tehiru! :-)
bassos
"Tehiru" <tehiru...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:06d8b030-8835-4a66...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Peace in unity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AratTMGrHaQ&feature=related
(jeff buckley, halleluja)
Tehiru
> Peace in unity.
Unity? In the psyche? Integration of various pyschological elements
into a unified whole?
bassos
**
Unity?
**
No, perceived unity.
That is why the peace.
**
In the psyche?
**
No, experience.
It is just being.
**
Integration of various pyschological elements
into a unified whole?
**
No.
In tiphareth there is unity, but not of all various elements.
It remains a reflection.
Binah would be all those various elements all at once.
(but not so much unity)
So where is your ben-dover happening of admitting i am right and you are
wrong ?
Evergreen
Crowley was an egomaniacal charlatan. His supposed "magick" couldn't
even cure a disease that forced him to be a junkie. It couldn't
even kill pain.
Who cares what a fraud like Crowley thought about anything?
Sid
--
Sidney Lambe
Wiccan Priest and Apprentice Magician
http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
usenet4444 (at) gmail (dot) com
Tehiru
> Crowley was an egomaniacal charlatan. His supposed "magick" couldn't
> even cure a disease that forced him to be a junkie. It couldn't
> even kill pain.
>
> Who cares what a fraud like Crowley thought about anything?
Allow me to attempt to educate you. Heroin, cocaine and other spiffy
drugs were over the counter in those days. He wasn't sticking needles
in his arms, he was taking what at the time passed for Robitussin.
As for what he thought, you have a strange position to be making that
statement. With the OTO and it's creation eventually of Wicca more or
less as a project, if his thought is worthless than wouldn't the
position of a Wiccan priest be equally worthless?
Alrah
> On Nov 9, 1:28 pm, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Crowley was an egomaniacal charlatan. His supposed "magick" couldn't
> > even cure a disease that forced him to be a junkie. It couldn't
> > even kill pain.
>
> > Who cares what a fraud like Crowley thought about anything?
>
> Allow me to attempt to educate you. Heroin, cocaine and other spiffy
> drugs were over the counter in those days. He wasn't sticking needles
> in his arms, he was taking what at the time passed for Robitussin.
And ... - Crowley only sought to supress his asthma with Heroin when
Cannabis was made illegal.
mika
Once you recognize your ego and your sense of self-identity for what
they are: illusions, fantasies, constructs of the mind, smoke and
mirrors, it is impossible to then revert back to the blissfully
ignorant innocent belief that you are your ego, that you are the image
of yourself that you hold in your mind.
Tehiru
> Once you recognize your ego and your sense of self-identity for what
> they are: illusions, fantasies, constructs of the mind, smoke and
> mirrors, it is impossible to then revert back to the blissfully
> ignorant innocent belief that you are your ego, that you are the image
> of yourself that you hold in your mind.
As a temporary state in meditation or other practice, or as a
permanent stage of consciousness?
mika
As a permanent stage of consciousness. Just like, say, in "The Wizard
of Oz" when Toto pulls back the curtain and everyone sees the "Great
and Mighty Wizard" for what he really is, a man spinning the controls
of some spooky special effects. They wouldn't simply forget about him
if he hid back behind the curtain and suddenly become afraid of the
"Great and Mighty Wizard" all over again. The beans have been
spilled, cat's out of the bag, they crossed the veil of ignorance and
learned the truth about reality. That is the nature of any kind of
initiatory experience - once you learn about the actual nature of
reality, your only choices are acceptance or repression/denial -
blissful ignorance is no longer an option.
Tehiru
As a permanent state I would characterize this at 10=1. As a plateau
state, 9=2. As the first flash of Binah consciousness, 8=3.
Thoughts?
Alrah
>
> - Show quoted text -
*raises eyebrow*
*shakes head*
:-)
Tehiru
Work with me Alrah. I am trying to move along here in stages and not
the Wizard of Oz paradigm.
Alrah
>
> - Show quoted text -
lol. Ok. I think I see where you're going, but there more than Mika
on this newsgroup. ;-)
Alrah
> Work with me Alrah. I am trying to move along here in stages and not
> the Wizard of Oz paradigm.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The dance floor is all yours Master. :-)
Tehiru
> The dance floor is all yours Master. :-)
Why does this remind me of another thread? I can understand that a
common presumption of various states of consciousness is that when you
have them it is a permanent thing. The experience is that timeless
moment, but afterwards we all have to make certain adjustments to our
preconceptions. I understand that a few people like Maharishi were
believed to have undergone the initial experience as a permanent state
of mind, but the extant literature seems to reflect that the much more
common occurrence is that momentary glimpse (a single taste?), which
people have to accept, deal with, integrate and dip from the well
again and again until the change is permanent. I am unaware of anyone
in the West alive today who is believed to have this as permanent
stage, but I can think of a fair number who have had it as a state and
who are presumably doing the work to make it eventually a permanent
state. I am aware I could be ignorant of people in the West (and
probably am) who have this as a permanent stage. However, there are
believed to be in the east a number of people at this permanent stage,
probably because the culture fosters this pursuit.
mika
You're confusing the realization and understanding that ego, sense of
self and self-identity are constructs of the mind (what I discussed
above), with the dissolution of the self entirely (associated with the
supernals). What I referred to above is experienced on the lower part
of the tree, some consider it equivalent to a 5=6 state of
consciousness. You can have a profound understanding that your ego,
or even your entire self-identity, is an illusion, while still
retaining that sense of self. This is one of the skills you learn
while practicing basic meditation exercises - the ability to
objectively observe the workings of your own mind while still being
aware of the construct you call your "self". It's not like the moment
you discover that you are not your ego, suddenly your sense of self
disappears and you become one with the universe.
Alrah
The babe of the abyss has not been mentioned so far in our
discussions. I believe that it refers to this adjustment and
integration period.
I can remember being knocked off axis during this time but bounced
back like an elastic band. It was more like a permanent state with
occaisional relapses, but it also was a period where glimpses of the
magus functioning were available perhaps precisely because I had not
integrated and adjusted. That's when I understood my word was Kairos
and what it meant to function Kairos, although I am not a Magus.
The babe - was timeless with ordinary consciousness supressed. I
haven't looked at the literature for comparisons. After that, there
was just this dual consciousness, and the ordinary consciousness can
receed or be prominant like a plaything really.
Tehiru
> You're confusing the realization and understanding that ego, sense of
> self and self-identity are constructs of the mind (what I discussed
> above), with the dissolution of the self entirely (associated with the
> supernals). What I referred to above is experienced on the lower part
> of the tree, some consider it equivalent to a 5=6 state of
> consciousness. You can have a profound understanding that your ego,
> or even your entire self-identity, is an illusion, while still
> retaining that sense of self. This is one of the skills you learn
> while practicing basic meditation exercises - the ability to
> objectively observe the workings of your own mind while still being
> aware of the construct you call your "self". It's not like the moment
> you discover that you are not your ego, suddenly your sense of self
> disappears and you become one with the universe.
If I were someone else, I would ask you to define the ego, sense of
self and identity. And then argue with them.
Before I go any further, just to clarify I would like to ask if you
are making a distinction between sense of self and self-identity.
Barring that, as I understand your statement above you are positing
that the state of mind corresponding to the 5=6 is the awareness that
ego and so forth are constructs of the mind (I use the term objects in
consciousness). I agree. I would suggest that almost eventually as one
acquires more life experiences (but typically at later stages in life)
people will often develop this understanding even without necessarily
engaging in those practices like meditation and so forth.
However, I disagree with your latter comment which I think is the main
thrust of our discussion on another thread. You refer to that moment
"when you discover you are not your ego" (and so forth) which you have
previously given the name Binah consciousness. I feel that you are
implying (or stating) that when this consciousness level is reached
that there is no going back, and that I must disagree with. I submit
that the timeless moment passes (and one becomes 8=3), but it does
pass. Consciousness does return, including ego and so forth. However,
this consciousness is different because the ego and so forth are no
longer identified exclusively with as it pertains to self identity.
The newborn Master still has to work through assimilating this
experience to be sure and is certainly changed by the experience, but
it passes. When the Magister continues the work, has the experience
more and more often and finds it intruding into their everyday life on
a regular basis, even unbidden, they move into the Magus phase. When
the experience becomes a permanent part of consciousness, the newborn
Ipsissimus withdraws because "All is Accomplished".
Alrah
>
> - Show quoted text -
While saying all of the above Tehiru - my ordinary consciousness was
never 'normal' to begin with, so my experience is probably divergent
from the norm too.
mika
> On Nov 9, 4:56 pm, mika <mika...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You're confusing the realization and understanding that ego, sense of
> > self and self-identity are constructs of the mind (what I discussed
> > above), with the dissolution of the self entirely (associated with the
> > supernals). What I referred to above is experienced on the lower part
> > of the tree, some consider it equivalent to a 5=6 state of
> > consciousness. You can have a profound understanding that your ego,
> > or even your entire self-identity, is an illusion, while still
> > retaining that sense of self. This is one of the skills you learn
> > while practicing basic meditation exercises - the ability to
> > objectively observe the workings of your own mind while still being
> > aware of the construct you call your "self". It's not like the moment
> > you discover that you are not your ego, suddenly your sense of self
> > disappears and you become one with the universe.
>
> If I were someone else, I would ask you to define the ego, sense of
> self and identity.
You already did, and I already told you that as far as I'm concerned
there is *no practical difference* between those words as they relate
to magical practice. Ego, sense of self and identity are all
constructs of the mind, figments of imagination, fantasies, unreal.
You still haven't defined what you mean by those words, by the way.
Your persistent avoidance of that question is obvious and significant.
> Before I go any further, just to clarify I would like to ask if you
> are making a distinction between sense of self and self-identity.
No.
> However, I disagree with your latter comment which I think is the main
> thrust of our discussion on another thread. You refer to that moment
> "when you discover you are not your ego" (and so forth) which you have
> previously given the name Binah consciousness.
The realization "when you discover you are not your ego" is most
certainly not what I named "binah consciousness". Being conscious of
the fact that you are not your ego is entirely different from
experiencing ego-less consciousness. Like I already explained to you
above, "You're confusing the realization and understanding that ego,
sense of self and self-identity are constructs of the mind, with the
dissolution of the self entirely." Reread my posts on this matter,
as you seem to be confused about what I've actually stated as well as
confused about these distinctions.
Alrah
> While saying all of the above Tehiru - my ordinary consciousness was
> never 'normal' to begin with, so my experience is probably divergent
> from the norm too.
Oh bother! I owe Mika an apology now. Sorry Mika. I'm expecting
that you should be able to function like an aspie. I forget that
there are certain things that normal folks can't do. Apologies.
I'd love to try and train one of you normal folks up and see if you
could though. I'm sure it's possible...
mika
>
> Oh bother! I owe Mika an apology now. Sorry Mika. I'm expecting
> that you should be able to function like an aspie. I forget that
> there are certain things that normal folks can't do.
Yeah, most normal folks can't give up their own children to the care
of other people and then bum around Europe convincing themselves it
was a noble act that was a necessary part of their spiritual practice.
Alrah
Not how it was but I've never felt inclined to share the ins and outs
of that 7 year ordeal here. I'm fairly open about it with people I
meet, and they all tend to end up deploring English Law. I've had
psychiatrists weep and get angry about it all, but not with me. I've
had social workers shame facedly apologise to me. But only on
alt.magick when I was putting it all in perspective and realising that
it all happened for a purpose, do I recieve this kind of cowardly
shit.
Most 'normal women' have kids so that rules you out of the equation,
doesn't it?
Are you past the menopause yet?
I'm suprised it hasn't turned black in you.
Alrah
When I gave my children up - this meant I stopped fighting an
unwinnable war in court, because the authorities had conveniently for
them 'lost' the evidence that woulld have proved my case, and enabled
my children to come home. The reason they 'lost' the evidence is
because it would have cost them one hell of a lot of money if I'd
won. So they played dirty. When I 'chose' to accept my mothers care
of my children long term they had already been taken from me. I'd had
a nervous breakdown, and my mother and step father could provide for
them much better than I could. My baby was taken from my arms when
she was less than 24 hours old by a policeman and a social worker that
turned up at the hospital and the next day I was in court. The trauma
and effect that them taking my children from me, especially my baby,
reduced me to little more than an animal, tore my soul in two, and all
I wanted to do was to die so that at least I could be with my baby in
spirit. So if you think your stupid little insults are anything more
than mere cowardly spite compared to that, then think again. You have
no idea what suffering is.
Alrah
Tehiru
> > On Nov 9, 4:56 pm, mika <mika...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You already did, and I already told you that as far as I'm concerned
> there is *no practical difference* between those words as they relate
> to magical practice.
Gotcha. Just making sure.
> You still haven't defined what you mean by those words, by the way.
> Your persistent avoidance of that question is obvious and significant.
I answered this on another thread when Tom asked. Let me summarize:
Ego is the organizing principle of the many states of mind we
participate in.
Identity is distinguishing characteristics that by and large and
fairly stable over time which differentiate me from you or anyone
else.
Self is more elusive, but is the totality of the psyche including
unconscious, repressed and other elements.
> "You're confusing the realization and understanding that ego,
> sense of self and self-identity are constructs of the mind, with the
> dissolution of the self entirely." Reread my posts on this matter,
> as you seem to be confused about what I've actually stated as well as
> confused about these distinctions.
If I got scrambled I apologize.
Tehiru
> Oh bother! I owe Mika an apology now. Sorry Mika. I'm expecting
> that you should be able to function like an aspie. I forget that
> there are certain things that normal folks can't do. Apologies.
>
> I'd love to try and train one of you normal folks up and see if you
> could though. I'm sure it's possible...
Aspie?
Alrah
Aspergers syndrome. Part of the autism spectrum. Means we have the
option of local as well as global processing when it comes to
perception apparently due to savants being the underlying mechanism.
Tehiru
> > Aspie?
>
> Aspergers syndrome. Part of the autism spectrum. Means we have the
> option of local as well as global processing when it comes to
> perception apparently due to savants being the underlying mechanism.
Interesting. Looked it up briefly. There seems to be a debate
centering on whether it is a "disorder" or simply a "difference". It's
an infinite universe.
Alrah
It's a disorder if you place value on a social first model. It's a
useful difference in the diversity of the species if you don't.
Tehiru
> self and self-identity are constructs of the mind (what I discussed
> above), with the dissolution of the self entirely (associated with the
> supernals).
Just to be sure here, if we agree that when one expresses Binah
consciousness as the timeless moment of no ego, the silent observer
that is acutely aware, experiencing all in that timeless moment we
become a MT. Do we agree? Yes I know I made a qabalistic reference,
but just go with it.
Based on the assumption that you agree with the statement above, am I
correct that you posit that this experience is a permanent change as
compared to a temporary state of consciousness with the consequent
permanent abolition of the self and indeed all other boundaries? Or
are you positing that it is a temporary state of consciousness that
causes permanent changes (over time, with more work) that eventually
leads to a permanent stage?
Alrah
> On Nov 9, 4:56 pm, mika <mika...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You're confusing the realization and understanding that ego, sense of
> > self and self-identity are constructs of the mind (what I discussed
> > above), with the dissolution of the self entirely (associated with the
> > supernals).
>
> Just to be sure here, if we agree that when one expresses Binah
> consciousness as the timeless moment of no ego, the silent observer
> that is acutely aware, experiencing all in that timeless moment we
> become a MT. Do we agree? Yes I know I made a qabalistic reference,
> but just go with it.
Do you think that perhaps too much emphasis is being placed upon
timelessness in this discussion about Binah consciousness?
Tiphareth (golden all, light in expansion, no self, union with the
universe) is also timeless.
Tehiru
> The babe of the abyss has not been mentioned so far in our
> discussions. I believe that it refers to this adjustment and
> integration period.
Or the babe of the abyss is the person removing the boundaries, which
is the often somewhat unpleasant period which allows for that
experience. That's an interesting topic to go over.
mika
> On Nov 9, 4:56 pm, mika wrote:
>
> > You're confusing the realization and understanding that ego, sense of
> > self and self-identity are constructs of the mind (what I discussed
> > above), with the dissolution of the self entirely (associated with the
> > supernals).
>
> Just to be sure here, if we agree that when one expresses Binah
> consciousness as the timeless moment of no ego, the silent observer
> that is acutely aware, experiencing all in that timeless moment we
> become a MT. Do we agree?
You are making the same mistake here that Tom has been pointing out.
When experiencing binah consciousness there is no "you", there is no
"I", there is no "we". Also, there is nothing to "become", there is
only a realization of what already is. So, no, I don't agree, given
the language you used above. Even the expression "the silent
observer" leaves room for misinterpretation, as it creates a
distinction between the observer and that which is observed, which
easily leads to slipping into self-definition, eg "I am the silent
observer" or "my self is the silent observer", neither of which
accurately describe the experience.
Instead of your above paragraph, I would say: binah consciousness can
be described as a timeless moment of no ego; where the consciousness,
or type of awareness, that is experienced is in some systems
associated with that of a MT.
> Based on the assumption that you agree with the statement above, am I
> correct that you posit that this experience is a permanent change as
> compared to a temporary state of consciousness with the consequent
> permanent abolition of the self and indeed all other boundaries? Or
> are you positing that it is a temporary state of consciousness that
> causes permanent changes (over time, with more work) that eventually
> leads to a permanent stage?
Neither. It is a temporary state of consciousness that may or may not
lead to changes in a person's life, and may or may not be experienced
again. Perhaps a person might somehow train their minds and arrange
their lives to enable continuously experiencing binah consciousness,
but it still cannot be considered a "permanent stage". Permanency
relates to distinctions in time, and as you already agreed, binah
consciousness is timeless. There is no concern for or attachment to a
projected future state of being. Tom has been addressing this issue
as well, in relation to "spiritual materialism".
Tehiru
> > Based on the assumption that you agree with the statement above, am I
> > correct that you posit that this experience is a permanent change as
> > compared to a temporary state of consciousness with the consequent
> > permanent abolition of the self and indeed all other boundaries? Or
> > are you positing that it is a temporary state of consciousness that
> > causes permanent changes (over time, with more work) that eventually
> > leads to a permanent stage?
>
> Neither. It is a temporary state of consciousness that may or may not
> lead to changes in a person's life, and may or may not be experienced
> again. Perhaps a person might somehow train their minds and arrange
> their lives to enable continuously experiencing binah consciousness,
> but it still cannot be considered a "permanent stage". Permanency
> relates to distinctions in time, and as you already agreed, binah
> consciousness is timeless. There is no concern for or attachment to a
> projected future state of being. Tom has been addressing this issue
> as well, in relation to "spiritual materialism".
OK. Just wanted to make sure I understood your position.
Alrah
Isn't that rather a long gestation though? :-)
HG
So now we have a new story you're telling. In the old story, you realized
you could not take care of your children properly, and gave them away.
In this new story, they were taken from you by force, against your will.
Did you realize that this new version of your story makes you look much, much
worse?
Taking away someone's children against their will is not something our
Western societies do lightly or on a whim. It's like amputation - the
results of a succesful operation are horrible, so it's only done as a last
resort - when the results of *not* doing the operation would be *even more*
horrible.
So, in this new story you're telling, what did you do that was so abhorrent,
so evil, that required society to take your children away from you?
In the old story you came across as someone who at least had the best
interests of her children in her mind. In this version of events, you come
across as a monster who has mistreated her children so horribly the state has
to intervene to save them, even if it means they'll certainly be traumatized.
HG
HG
> And btw - I spent two and a half million in court fees.
"I wish to buy moral superiority. Will two and a half million be enough?"
HG
Alrah
> Taking away someone's children against their will is not something our
> Western societies do lightly or on a whim.
I can see why people shut thier eyes and just assume that is the
case. It's like the belief that everyone who goes to jail must be
guily of a crime. People can sleep better in thier beds at night if
they believe it.
What you actually have is a bunch of poorly trained and over worked
women trying to get promotion through fulfilling government quota's
for how many children the state say they should remove so that thier
bosses can get some gold stars for more money. My daughters aspergers
syndrome as well as my own went unrecognised for years. My mother
eventually had her assessed when she was 14 and she was formely
diagnosed. Prior to that her behaviour at school was thought to be
the outcome of neglect. I didn't *do* anything but have an autistic
child HG, and didn't recognise it either leaving me with no way of
accounting for the way she behaved differently to other children, and
without a leg to stand on. When she was diagnosed there was a
collective gasp of 'oh shit we really dropped the ball there' and then
the apologies came, but by then it was far far too late.
Tehiru
> > Or the babe of the abyss is the person removing the boundaries, which
> > is the often somewhat unpleasant period which allows for that
> > experience. That's an interesting topic to go over.
>
> Isn't that rather a long gestation though? :-)
It would necessarily vary from person to person. Emperor Norton (of
enochian fame) had a long period of what he described as "dryness",
but his account of the adjustment period was brief. He wrote on essay
on the experience. I imagine that depending on the person that
experience would run from seconds to months, but average duration
would be unknown.