Reincarnation
-
@zeph said
"Reincarnation is a dualistic notion. I'm a monist, so if you say to me, "I was Colin, a chimbley sweep, back in the 19th Century", then I'm going to say, "Big fracking deal, so was I." If there's some Qabalistic or Thelemic theory that runs contrary to this, then I've missed it."
Stepping away from experience to address this philosophically: I don't agree with the above per se, but only its applicability. As long as there is human incarnation, there is dualism (actually, pluralism). Once you get outside the framework of incarnation (in fact, once one withdraws only to Atziluth), I agree with you completely. But the nature of Assiah and Yeztirah is divisive (and Briah in a far different sense). So long as one is measuring experience across the phenomenon of time, it is going to be inherently pluralistic/multiplistic.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"As long as there is human incarnation, there is dualism (actually, pluralism)."
I don't dispute the illusion of pluralism. Which aspect of a center of expression's Qabalistic constitution survives physical disincarnation?
-
@zeph said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"As long as there is human incarnation, there is dualism (actually, pluralism)."I don't dispute the illusion of pluralism. Which aspect of a center of expression's Qabalistic constitution survives physical disincarnation?"
That which "passes" from incarnation to incarnation is the Briatic level - that's what has persistence. (Assiah part doesn't survive. Much Yetziratic content survives, but it seems this has to be incorporated into the Briatic part to have persistence, since all the Yetziraitc "matter" is dissolved, in most cases, within days following the physical death.)
So, in other words, it is the Star - the "house of Hadit" - that "survives" in the specific sense of occupying a multitude of discrete Assiah-Yetzirah manifestations across the field of time and space. ("Survive" only makes sense within the framework of time, which is why I hedged the words a bit.)
-
To approach this from another angle:
Zeph (for example), I'm not sure we differ at all on the matter of principles. It's only when we then start "doing things" with thoughts and words that we appear to diverge.
To say it differently: There are certain phenomena that I know you and I view petty much the same, and then we adopt different theoretical models to talk about them.
For example, I have no confidence in memory! In 14 years practicing law, I was in a profession that relies on the veracity of memory as a basic element, but I know fully well that memory can be invented, and often is distorted by the normal course of things. At the same time I have this view of memory, on the issue of "personal experience vs. theory" I usually have to come down on the side of personal experience - either widely or narrowly defined - otherwise, we're just looping in some theory maze. Personal experience (and one's recollection of it) usually has to be placed, eventually, in a larger framework, but, up until that point, I'd usually rather rely on someone's report of experience rather than their ratiocination.
We must also remember that all Hierophants lie at all times, especially when they're working hardest to tell the truth. The truth that matters isn't expressible in language. Hierophants could handle this by being silent, but this doesn't usually fulfill the purposes of one whose job is to be "revealer of the mysteries." The best solution (and the one most widely adopted over time and space) is to be sure to pick the best lie, that one most likely to eventuate in the aspirant's discovering the truth despite it.
That being said...
I have direct experiences which confirm, well beyond any reasonable doubt, the certainty of a stream of prior existences. Nor am I unique nor even particularly unusual in this regard. Against this, one can argue that memory is unreliable in one life let alone across dozens, and that, in any case, the memories could originate from something not to be confused with "me." (For example, the memories themselves could survive - and we assert that they do! - whether they were mine or not.)
Two different theories could explain the same phenomena.
In this case, why choose one more than the other?
My answer is two-fold.
First, placing primary reliance on the trace of personal experience is not only the simplest and most direct avenue to information, but a specific approach to things that we want to teach.
Second, of the two primary, seemingly opposing explanations, the one I've picked is the best one for the world. To put it in grossly simple terms: The single biggest problem in the world today is the small number of people who (1) give a shit about the shape of the world and (2) have an investment in its future. As someone who has taken overall responsibility for the condition of the world, what expression of the truth is most likely to increase the degree to which the greatest number of people are going to give a shit about the shape of the world and have an investment in its future?
Conventional Christian thought isn't going to do it (despite the minority of Christian activists who have taken the "caretaker" roll seriously). The predominant Christian view today (especially among Evangelicals) is that the Rapture is coming, Christ is returning in our lifetime, and there won't be many more generations (and, if anything, we should accelerate the process to make the ultimate goal and purpose of the religion come true sooner).
A conventional secular view isn't going to attain the goal: People are feel they are going to live only once are more likely, in the aggregate, not to worry about the future either.'
Nor does it meet the goal to propose a view that we are individual expressions of a single life-power. This requires a relatively mature spiritual perspective, not to mention some actual spiritual experience - and the typical person in the world isn't going to go there.
Ah, but the one thing that stands some reasonable chance of transforming mass thought and behavior on the matter is selling the idea of reincarnation. If the view i, "I personally, am going to be here on this planet, and keep being here on this planet over and over again for centuries to come!" prevails, normal self-serving narrowness will repair and carry forward what no amount of high-mindedness will ever accomplish.
Besides, it's the truth. It may not be the only "truth" that explains all observation and understanding available to us, but it is certainly one such view (and a readily accessible one for most people - they may agree or disagree, but at least they can understand it!). Following the basic law of hierophanting, since all these theories and models are lies due to the limitation of language and Yetziratic thought processes, it is up to me to pick the lie the that is most serviceable.
-
"My teacher, Soror Meral, took the position that one can't be a Thelemite without including reincarnation in one's belief system."
Why?
-
@Wilder said
"
"My teacher, Soror Meral, took the position that one can't be a Thelemite without including reincarnation in one's belief system."Why?"
I don't remember. Wait until she comes back in her next life and ask her
Actually, I do remember but it's a loonnnggg answer explained across many articles. I suppose the main part of it is the actuality of the Star persisting across time.
I suspect her most concise summary would have been that Liber L.'s doctrine necessitates it to make sense, and Crowley's commentary and other writings take it as a baseline. (This is all aside from her own detailed memories.)
-
"I suspect her most concise summary would have been that Liber L.'s doctrine necessitates it to make sense, and Crowley's commentary and other writings take it as a baseline."
If I may, could I pry deeper into this, as I am one that your former mentor would label a Thelemic heretic (this has spawned another topic that has been on my mind for some time)? I personally don't take Crowley's words and beliefs to be universaly sacrosanct to Thelema, so I'm more interested in how reincarnation would be neccessary to support Liber L.
-
@Wilder said
"If I may, could I pry deeper into this, as I am one that your former mentor would label a Thelemic heretic (this has spawned another topic that has been on my mind for some time)? I personally don't take Crowley's words and beliefs to be universaly sacrosanct to Thelema,"
I don't either.
That is, I don't regard him as the sole witness - but I do regard him as the most important witness.
My general thinking is probably best explained by comparing him to the sole witness of a conversation, at which a real-time full transcript was taken, and who spent the rest of his life reviewing and examng the transcript. - It isn't necessarily true that he would always have the most correct view (and, in fact, the Book itself says there are things he won't understand); but he's still way more likely to actually know what the conversation was about than anyone else. He gets to start with a very serious "benefit of the doubt."
PS - I can't offhand recall Phyllis ever using the term "Thelemic heretic." However, she was extremely fond of the term "occult crazy."
-
Choice of labels aside, based in Liber L, what was her reasoning for demanding a belief in reincarnation?
-
@Wilder said
"Choice of labels aside, based in Liber L, what was her reasoning for demanding a belief in reincarnation?"
Already answered.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Wilder said
"Choice of labels aside, based in Liber L, what was her reasoning for demanding a belief in reincarnation?"Already answered."
The closest thing to an answer that I can find in your posts:
"I suspect her most concise summary would have been that Liber L.'s doctrine necessitates it to make sense"
As this doesn't really say much of anything, I asked for a more depthful answer. You responded to my Crowley comment, but not the neccessity of believing in reincarnation for Liber L to make sense.
-
The answer was:
"I don't remember. Wait until she comes back in her next life and ask her
"I really don't want to argue her position for her.
-
Don't woory about it guys...China has it covered! From today's news:
Tibet’s living Buddhas have been banned from reincarnation without permission from China’s atheist leaders. The ban is included in new rules intended to assert Beijing’s authority over Tibet’s restive and deeply Buddhist people.
“The so-called reincarnated living Buddha without government approval is illegal and invalid,”
-
"Actually, I do remember but it's a loonnnggg answer explained across many articles. I suppose the main part of it is the actuality of the Star persisting across time. "
I remember talking to Phyllis about this matter and her explanation was succinct insofar as she made me aware that our stellar nature is a continguous thread of experience -- the continuity of consciousness. It tied in nicely to my own vision and experiences, so I appreciated her perspective.
That said, I would expect everyone to adhere to their own personal mythos, philosophy and edict regarding their own Star.
-
"Therefore by claiming to not ascribe to this you are not acting in the best interest of the Order; and by that very definition you WILL fail when being tested in devotion to Order; and you will be expelled. "
Okay. Obviously you are not reading what I wrote...as your comment is, to use the vernacular, coming out of left field.
Needless to say, a blessed and Happy Autumnal Equinox to us All.
-
Nirbiraja, 93,
Rey has already addressed his own issue, but I was also caught by your comments:
"Without realizing the eternal continuity of consciousness and its divergent fusion of time and space in all omniscient, omnipresent dimensions, Order doesn't happen; initiates aren't raised, guided and helped in any long-lasting way to sustain a Rosicrucian legacy. Therefore by claiming to not ascribe to this you are not acting in the best interest of the Order; and by that very definition you WILL fail when being tested in devotion to Order; and you will be expelled.
Jim's way too kind. I'd weed the roots, if I were he."
"I saw Jim get run over in this thread. Not a god damn one of you knows what you're on about."
The suggestion about weeding roots is fascistic, not Thelemic . One of the things Crowley warns us about is getting over-excited by our own results. While the results we get may be abolutely valid for ourselves, they are not for others. You're presenting a kind of yogic fundamentalism here, and don't seem to recognize that.
Also, despite your scorn for the season, Equinox IS a time when energies good and not-so-good are magnified, and our egoic issues can distort our judgement more than usual. This is why self-initation of the type you are practicing is risky: you don't know what you don't know, because there's no-one there to tap you on the shoulder.
93 93/93
EM -
@nirbiraja said
"Without realizing the eternal continuity of consciousness and its divergent fusion of time and space in all omniscient, omnipresent dimensions, Order doesn't happen; initiates aren't raised, guided and helped in any long-lasting way to sustain a Rosicrucian legacy. Therefore by claiming to not ascribe to this you are not acting in the best interest of the Order"
Which is the better interest for the Order: to have its ends proven, or its premises?
-
@nirbiraja said
"While it's true some among us have with the utmost virtuous aims and sincerity have crossed the abyss unsuccessfully as a result of not being duly informed in the entirety of these sacred arts, it is by no way appropriate, insofar it concerns initiatory bodies, to contribute to more unnecessary travesties. And truth be told, those who attend to this unrefined philosophy I mention are more motivated by an unrelenting attachment to materialism to the point of not in the least acknowledging or caring about those who they make suffer, fatally, as a result. To them, it's not about cleansing the perceived weak and imperfect for a pristine union of Eden and Heaven; it's about their undying devotion and faith in soul being God and free will in terrestrial affinities."
One could just as easily state that belief in reincarnation is motivated by unrelenting attachment to existence, or perhaps even unrelenting fear of death. To some "cleansing the imperfect union" is beyond concepts like past and present, order and chaos, good and evil, material, spiritual; I will say it has to be beyond those concepts, otherwise it will ever be imperfect.
I give unimaginable joys on earth: certainty,
not faith, while in life, upon death; peace
unutterable, rest, ecstasy; nor do I demand
aught in sacrifice. - The Book of the Law -
Dear N,
What good is your knowledge and being right, if you show no love or acceptance of others? Especially when they are on the same path as you. After all, how many people are on the Thelemic path, that you can even talk to?
A quote from a qabalist called Paul, here. Please don't assume I am either a Christian or a lovey-dovey person. I am not. To love well is to love tough. It is easier to be prickly, like you, and be safe than to love and be a fool. A divine fool that knows it is stepping off a cliff, and understanding it will hurt.
In L.V.X.,
chrys333"1 Corinthians 13
Love
1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,** but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."
-
Nirbiraja, 93,
"Do I want to be your friend? Sure. Should I let my guard down at this point? Hell no! Depending on how attached a Christian is to dying in Kether, and having others do the same; or dying in the abyss unsuccessfully, and having others do the same; or calling that in which causes the myriad manifestations of a human identity "god", and having others do the same; my body and being are are at risk.
My love is the way I write.
My love is wanting to one day know you as an eternal god.
My love, is for creation, and all within it.
Love under Will, to survive."
Okay, I'm curious. My understanding has always been that dissolution of dividual selfhood was the aim - <i>not</i> any kind of personal survival, whether we're talking about Thelema, Buddhism or mystical Hinduism and its various forms of yoga. If I understand your phrasing, you seem to be implying that dissolving is undesirable or threatening. This idea of being 'at risk' is hardly the same thing as "finding ecstasy in every phenomenon."
Clarify, please?
93 93/93,
EM