Asana
-
The only positions I really like are the half-lotus with the cosmic cushion or sitting straight up on the edge of my bed with my hands on my thighs. I highly recommend these as I have never had a problem with pain distractions in these positions.
-
Zen and the approaches presented by Crowley take very different approaches to asana. If you want to do it Crowley's way, Fezz, then whether or not you like the posture should have no relevance. I don't think they were designed for initial comfort. You, instead, learn to work yourself into them as a supremely comfortable and undistracting posture through committed practice. Not that I have yet succeeded in this.
-
The purpose of asana, it seems to me based on Liber E, cap. III v9, is to be "perfectly steady and easy". I don't know what the Zen approach to asana is; but insofar as a particular posture goes, I don't see why it matters if the chosen posture is one of the four listed in Liber E, or some other posture such as the lotus or the mantaray or the bear or any other.
Clearly, the four asanas listed in Liber E are not designed for initial comfort. On the other hand, I don't believe any asana is! One might think that the first position listed, The God, is an easy one, but go and try to do it for an hour and see how easy it is. Even laying on your back for an hour is uncomfortable at first, if you insist (as you should if practicing asana, I think) on not moving a muscle.
-
First of all, thanks so much for your help, people!
Well, I'll try my best to be more precise, Jim.
The version of the book is the second revised edition and "the bear" is on page 608. I believe I saw the same picture in some other book - perhaps it was my other version of book 4, part I - and iirc it was called "the cosmic egg" or something in there, so maybe that's the reason you don't recall?
The question about the position was mainly how the hands should be held, because they keep slipping if I relax. And I have to relax if I am to forget about the body, right?
The other questions I think were answered by zeph. -
@Malaclypse said
"The version of the book is the second revised edition and "the bear" is on page 608."
Sorry if I'm being dense, but... which Part? Book 4 Parts I & II wer initially published separately in 1913, then soon after published together in a single volume - is that the one you mean? Or is this something I've missed in Magick in Theory & Practice (i.e., Book 4, Part III - I think probably the only Part that could have 600+ pages in some edition, though I think all of the copies I have are much smaller)?
-
Ah, let's see. check
Now I understand. It's in the appendices section, VII. And it was called Liber E I see now. I'm starting to realize just how the versions of the big books can differ...
But yes anyway, I have the thick book with all in one. -
@Malaclypse said
"Now I understand. It's in the appendices section, VII. And it was called Liber E I see now. I'm starting to realize just how the versions of the big books can differ...
But yes anyway, I have the thick book with all in one."Ahhhhhhh. Dohhhhhh! Never occurred to me. Sorry. I never think of that one - I personally always consult the individual volumes Crowley put out, rather than the revisionist volumes.
I'll have to look. Apparently they've added something not in the original.
Yes, Magick in Theory & Practice is Book IV, Part 3, and it's the one that has Liber E and that has appendices.
I'll try to remember to dig out that book tonight and see what you're talking about.
-
Ah, missed this comment and still have a question. Is it any more information in the single volumes than the revised one of importance? If I remember correct the single Part I book was thicker than the version in mine, but it was a long time since I saw it, though.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I personally always consult the individual volumes Crowley put out, rather than the revisionist volumes."
It's off topic, but would you care to elaborate on that last remark Jim? I'm intrigued. Why do you consider the latest one volume version of MAGICK to be revisionist?
-
Well, I mean it in the most literal sense: there were thousands of changes (revisions) from the original versions of the books.
-
Oh right. I thought you might have been implying that there was some kind of agenda behind the "revisions" in the current edition.
I own one of the slightly older Symonds and Grant versions of MAGICK, but have never compared it with the current edition for differences. In fact the only difference I have noticed (besides Grant's footnotes of course) is the different spelling of Daimonos/Daimones in Liber XXV.
-
I prefer the Castle Books version for Part III.