Incarnating from outside the human stream
-
@Lapis said
"I seem to remember reading something of a Gnostic idea stating that by eating animals we are absorbing & thus raising their sparks of Light to a higher plane to reincarnate on...hmmm"
Wouldn't the angels then benefit from doing the same to us?
Kind of casts the whole Lovecraftian thing in a new light, doesn't it...?
Cthulhu fhtagn!
-
@Steven Cranmer said
"Wouldn't the angels then benefit from doing the same to us?
Kind of casts the whole Lovecraftian thing in a new light, doesn't it...?
Cthulhu fhtagn!"
That is absolutely terrifying! -
@Steven Cranmer said
"
@Lapis said
"I seem to remember reading something of a Gnostic idea stating that by eating animals we are absorbing & thus raising their sparks of Light to a higher plane to reincarnate on...hmmm"Wouldn't the angels then benefit from doing the same to us?
Kind of casts the whole Lovecraftian thing in a new light, doesn't it...?
Cthulhu fhtagn!"
Yeah, I don't know if the judge will accept my claim that I'm an angel as a defense for cannibalism.
-
Reminds me of Gurdjieff's declaration that humans are 'food for the moon'...
-
@KRVB MMShCh said
"Reminds me of Gurdjieff's declaration that humans are 'food for the moon'..."
Zealators eating Probationers is absolutely uncalled for!
-
93,
Okay, so we have some support for the idea of elementals - and possibly Zen-minded cats - moving into human incarnation. But nobody accepts or supports the notion of the shards-of-universal-consciousness we call angels doing the same thing.Or are there simply a few shy angels lurking in the background, unwilling to declare themselves?
93 93/93,
EM
-
@Edward Mason said
"93,
Okay, so we have some support for the idea of elementals - and possibly Zen-minded cats - moving into human incarnation. But nobody accepts or supports the notion of the shards-of-universal-consciousness we call angels doing the same thing.Or are there simply a few shy angels lurking in the background, unwilling to declare themselves?
93 93/93,
EM"
"I behold a small dark orb, wheeling in an abyss of infinite space. It is minute among a myriad vast ones, dark amid a myriad bright ones.
I who comprehend in myself all the vast and the minute, all the bright and the dark, have mitigated the brilliance of mine unutterable splendour, sending forth V.V.V.V.V. as a ray of my light, as a messenger unto that small dark orb.
Then V.V.V.V.V. taketh up the word, and sayeth:
Men and women of the Earth, to you am I come from the Ages beyond the Ages, from the Space beyond your vision; and I bring to you these words." - Liber Porta Lucis:1-4 -
What would an angel get by going into a lower form? It would be like us trying to become an elemental. Only reason would be to somehow help us lower beings but they could do that without actually incarnating into matter.
-
David, 93,
Traditional western teaching is that angels, while potent on their own planes, are without the power to evolve. There are various legends about certain angels being jealous of Adam because he was intended to rise high in the cosmic scheme. <i>Paradise Lost</i> centers around this notion.
Humans have choice, or a broader range of choice than angels do, though opting to incarnate is a choice, obviously. So, while angels may be splendid critters, they have limited "career possibilities." There's an implication in several traditions that essentially they are luminous bureaucrats. We, in the ultimate scheme of things, have far more potential.
Hence the temptation to drop the wings and put on flesh.
93 93/93,
EM
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I've known several people that I've been sure were in their first human incarnation"
On the basis of what?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Edward Mason said
"My question is, to what extent may such entry into the stream of human incarnation still be happening? Do angels still hop into corporeal existence at times? "I've known several people that I've been sure were in their first human incarnation - the prior one having been some variety of Elemental. (In a few cases, the particular form was likely an animal rather than the immaterial kind.)"
No offense, but bullshit. How could you ever possibly know this without huge amounts of doubt?
There are innumerable arguments against reincarnation (like the billions ofh umans that exist now compared to thousands & millions in past millenia). Aside from this, if you destroy the brain, all functions ofy our thinkign are destroyed, so basically anything you think of 'you' CANT exist beyond the material body. Thelemic holy books say nothing about reincarnation and in fact say that we dissolve into the infinite in death. Crowley mentions reincarnation a lot but even in Liber Aleph he makes the warning of something like "of this, I do not say 'this is Truth'."
Its not possible to prove or disprove this comprehensively. What do you gain in believing this? What reasons do you have for thinking that any quality is NOT tied ot the brain and not demolished in, say, a stroke or brain lesion or physical death?
IAO131
-
@Edward Mason said
"Okay, so we have some support for the idea of elementals - and possibly Zen-minded cats - moving into human incarnation. But nobody accepts or supports the notion of the shards-of-universal-consciousness we call angels doing the same thing. "
There are Qabalistic traditions making the angels quite distinct from the evolutionary pattern of humans. The teaching is that humans, at present evolution, are less than the angels, but are destined to evolve beyond them; and that angels (other than occasional weekend frolics and the like) will never incarnate as humans.
I don't know if all of that is literally true, but it's the traditional teaching and worth consideration.
-
@gmugmble said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"I've known several people that I've been sure were in their first human incarnation"On the basis of what?"
Fair question... Direct perception disclosed symptoms, and intuition-supported reason drew the conclusion.
Please note the literal meaning of "I've been sure." It's possible I'm wrong. That is a separate matter from my certainty.
-
@Aum418 said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Edward Mason said
"My question is, to what extent may such entry into the stream of human incarnation still be happening? Do angels still hop into corporeal existence at times? "I've known several people that I've been sure were in their first human incarnation - the prior one having been some variety of Elemental. (In a few cases, the particular form was likely an animal rather than the immaterial kind.)"
No offense, but bullshit. How could you ever possibly know this without huge amounts of doubt?"
How could you possibly ever know anything without huge amounts of doubt. The fact that a person doesn't have a sense of, say, sight shouldn't make them doubt that someone else can see.
"There are innumerable arguments against reincarnation"
Which I'm not going to rehash or enter into. My experience confirms to me, with certainty matching or exceeding that of any other certainty in the whole range of my experience, that reincarnation is a simple fact. Take it or leave it, I'm not going to get dragged into that discussion.
PS - "Bullshit" and "no offense" are mutually exclusive. You intended offense. At least own it.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Aum418 said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Edward Mason said
"My question is, to what extent may such entry into the stream of human incarnation still be happening? Do angels still hop into corporeal existence at times? "I've known several people that I've been sure were in their first human incarnation - the prior one having been some variety of Elemental. (In a few cases, the particular form was likely an animal rather than the immaterial kind.)"
No offense, but bullshit. How could you ever possibly know this without huge amounts of doubt?"
How could you possibly ever know anything without huge amounts of doubt. The fact that a person doesn't have a sense of, say, sight shouldn't make them doubt that someone else can see.
"There are innumerable arguments against reincarnation"
Which I'm not going to rehash or enter into. My experience confirms to me, with certainty matching or exceeding that of any other certainty in the whole range of my experience, that reincarnation is a simple fact. Take it or leave it, I'm not going to get dragged into that discussion.
PS - "Bullshit" and "no offense" are mutually exclusive. You intended offense. At least own it."
Bullshit is a word for delineating where you think people are full of hot air. The point is: no offense to your faith in afterlife/reincarnation, but I think your claims are bullshit. You can take personal offense all you like.
IAO131
-
"AUM418 Wrote: Its not possible to prove or disprove this comprehensively. What do you gain in believing this? What reasons do you have for thinking that any quality is NOT tied ot the brain and not demolished in, say, a stroke or brain lesion or physical death? "
It's called the soul. Your previous post makes it sound like you're an atheist. That may not be true, but if it is, why are you on this forum? What would YOU gain from being here? More importantly, what perception/intuition of your own - not from what you've read - makes you think Jim's claims are "bullshit?" Enlighten me. Maybe then it won't seem like your remark about "bullshit" is just your reaction to something you can't accept.
-
@Nudor said
"Your previous post makes it sound like you're an atheist. That may not be true, but if it is, why are you on this forum?"
I'm an atheist every now and then. It is, in fact, during my atheistic periods when I am most likely to see the the Face of God peek through the veil of illusion. For this reason, I hardily recommend the practice of atheism to all Thelemites. Conversely, I think a Thelemite forum like this one is the healthiest place for an atheist to hang out.
-
93,
I've tried to be an atheist for years, but like rather like gmugmble, I've not found it's working out the way I wanted. All I've done is end up stretching my concept of What it might be that I don't want to believe in.
To hold to any specific position on metaphysical matters often seems to me to be creating a bulwark for the ego. Ideas are produced by the mind solely for subsequent revision as a result of further input via the Neshamah.
Crowley, speaking of his own past lives (<i>Confessions</i>, Cap. 86) makes some awkwardly contradictory observations. But while insisting he won't make a dogmatic statement, he does state in a footnote:
""...my Ape reminded me of how much of these past lives was spent in Sicily and North Africa; and that, when my present lfie came to an end (of a sort; all the forces which had till then acted upon me having been worked out) I drifted quite aimlessly to that part of the world, as if my unconsciousness, its labours accomplished, had automatically turned its face towards home!""
And he states in the main text that "There are also some fairly strong arguments for the actuality such memories." He clearly found the utility of believing in reincarnation to be greater than the utility of doctrinaire skepticism.
I've never been able to reach an <i>intellectually</i> satisfying conclusion about reincarnation. But I find that following the As-If principle is much more productive in terms of creative ideas and accessing psychic energy than wasting brainpower on trying to settle the pros and cons of the mathematics of global demographics. So, I end up with 25 per cent of me unsure on the whole idea, 15 per cent convinced it's nonsense, and the remaining 60 percent secretly convinced it contains some profound truths about not just how I became the way I am, but about how the continuity of all existence expresses itself through time and space.
The question about angels came from a discussion with a friend who is convinced of angelic incarnation; though I suspect he and I might have different conceptions about the nature and role of angels. Regardless, I found the notion triggered some complex and interesting reactions within me as well as some heat and steam on this forum. Exploring it was more productive than rejecting the notion out of hand.
The question, it seems to me, boils down to an enquiry into our own root nature. We can form definitive conclusions about that, but as noted above, such apple-carts are regularly uprooted for us by greater wisdom than our intellects appear to possess.
93 93/93,
EM
-
@Nudor said
"Your previous post makes it sound like you're an atheist. That may not be true, but if it is, why are you on this forum?"
There's a lot of worship in Thelema. Belief, I'd say, not so much...
Also: What's the ultimate aim of an A.'.A.'. Exempt Adept? After you've identified your full Self as completely as possible with the highest divinity that you're capable of conceiving... you've got to annihilate that divine Self! At that point, atheism isn't so much a personal choice. It's direct experience!
Steve
-
Steven 93,
Steven Cranmer wrote:
"After you've identified your full Self as completely as possible with the highest divinity that you're capable of conceiving... you've got to annihilate that divine Self! At that point, atheism isn't so much a personal choice. It's direct experience! "
I'm still working on annhilating the divine Self. In most quarters, I actually find more belief than worship in Thelema, though I agree it would be better (more practical?) if the opposite were true.
"Allah's the atheist: he owns no Allah." But there is <i>still</i> 'Allah' in the sense of omnipresent sacredness, at least as I read that line. I've always felt Crowley used the word 'atheist' more to clear people's heads of the idea of Big Daddy than to dismiss the concept of sacred awe entirely.
There would still be change and recurrence happening, which I'd assume encompassed the completion and conditional returning to be of specific phenomena within the infinite. (Jeez, that's a lotta syllables in one sentence). Reincarnation would be one manifestation of that process.
93 93/93,
EM