Reincarnation
-
"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
-
Nirbiraja, 93,
"If you delve into Thelema as it was given in the Book of the Law deep enough, and consider the tradition showcased as the sole means to experience Thelema, Raja Yoga, you'll find that Hrumachis (Chockmah) trumps Kether (Ra-Hoor-Khuit). "
I don't accept that Raja Yoga is the sole means of realizing True Will, nor of 'experiencing' (not sure what that means) Thelema. I'm not disparaging yoga's immense usefulness, but it is nowhere stated to be the 'sole means'. Each aspirant finds his or her sole (or multiple) means, which may or may nor include Raja Yoga, or other yogic practices.
I'm also having trouble with your term ' trumps'. Hrumachis, the double-wanded one, follows Horus as the next Grand Hierophant of the mysteries (Liber L, III, 34) . This is an orderly succession predicted by Ra-Hoor-Khuit, not the defeat implied in the word 'trumps'.
But my main concern, which is the reason I asked you about dissolution, is your emphasis on some manner of dividual selfhood. Union with capital-S Self inevitably results in dissolution. Yes, after the ecstasy and a resumption of 'normal' consciousness there is still a Hadit in relation to Nuit, but it is a changed one. Altering the key formula of "Love under will" to "Love under will, to survive" strikes me as being the complete <i>opposite</i> of all Crowley wrote and talked about.
In my view, a person with such a creed is forever at the mercy of his own fear of being diminished or harmed. And thus is paralyzed in fully enacting his True Will, however far his mystical practices may have taken him.
93 93/93,
EM
-
"Argue to your heart's content. Our minds are made up.
Part ways."
I don't actually find any contentment in argument, which seems to be the diametrical opposite of your own stance.
EM
-
@nirbiraja said
"
@Edward Mason said
"
@nirbiraja said
"Argue to your heart's content."
I don't actually find any contentment in argument, which seems to be the diametrical opposite of your own stance."
You asked for my clarification only to argue. Don't lie to yourself - least of all to me or the other readers."Just because someone doesn't find contentment in argument, doesn't mean they won't pursue argument for other reasons. Perhaps you know EM better than the average reader here, but calling him a liar seems a bit myopic to me.
-
As a matter of fact, I simply went to bed early. But it did occur to me before sleep that, as Some People Quickly Realize, trying to feed a narcissist's need for attention is a full-time job, and never a fulfilling one.
EM
-
Nirbiraja, 93,
"Oh, you're a psychotherapist"
No, an observer. One of the first things taught in a proper mystery school is careful observation of the donkey we ride in on. And that teaches us in turn to observe others. You offer some rich and shining ideas, some contentious ideas and some clunkers like the thing about Hrumachis 'trumping' Ra-Hoor-Khuit. I don't think it matters to you what response you generate, nor how offensive - just so long as you're noticed and <i>get</i> responses. (So I must be making you happy
"and a Monotheist."
I find the vocabulary of monotheism a useful shorthand to play with. And I respect the concept in others if that's how they present their belief systems.
Why is this of such concern to you? I'm following my own path, but to you my core perspective needs a correction I've not asked you to provide. On what basis do you invite yourself into this position?
I'm suspicious. Your anti-monotheism seems just the same as monotheism, except in reverse: an obsession with a false idea that haunts you, while it intrigues but doesn't obsess me.
"Very well. I'm a school teacher."
Says who? I don't recall inviting you to teach me! Of course you will incidentally, but most of what you say seems morose. Actually, much of what you say is incomprehensible (like your recent answer to Ash on the Three Curses), and the <b>tone</b> is morose. If you're suggesting people emulate you, I would point out that it won't be in the positive sense - just that of avoiding the example you present.
Seriously - I don't get it. Why must you be equated with Jim Eshelman or anyone else? Why must you be acknowledged as a teacher, as someone who can steer us across the Abyss? If you can, you will. If you protest you can, then you probably can't. Why such an urgent need for recognition?
I end up back at seeing narcissism. That, I suggest, is the most entrapping kind of monotheism possible, since atheism is hardly an option in relation to ourselves.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@nirbiraja said
"The topic has long since ceased being about reincarnation. You've established you don't believe in it; you've established by way of a Freudian slip that you have interpreted Thelema in such a way so as to contradict it's more arcane and metaphysical aspects; and I honestly don't see a need in engaging you in a sort of bantering without a cause other than pushing your own unique metaphysic. If you want to create a thread specifically denoted to your pseudo-psychotherapy and/or projections to hide the fact that more than anything, you just can't fathom Thelema to be interpreted in a way other than your own, I'll happily engage you. But as it stands, I've you pegged; it's not the other way around. Do well to confront that, and we'll get along just fine."
And this, children, is a classic example of what we call Projection, or seeing in others what we cannot see in ourselves.
Here endeth the lesson.
Dan