God doesn't exist
-
@Frater Pantha said
"
@Frater Pantha said
"
@Froclown said
"Crowley's method is to fully merge with life, be it pleasure or pain, hedonistic or ascetic, the key is in doing what you repulses or intrigues you, until it no longer does either. The ultimate goal is the same as the Buddhist, release from ego attachments. Perfect control over the repulsions and inclinations of the body and mind, by transcending them via burnout, rather than use it or lose it methods of Buddhism."What Crowley book(s) most focus on this method? What Bhakti Yoga books are suggested that focus on the like method?"
I thought there would actually be a lot of quick responses to this one... I guess I was wrong!"
Liber Astarte? Liber Cheth?
IAO131
-
@Aum418 said
"
@Frater Pantha said
"
@Frater Pantha said
"
@Froclown said
"Crowley's method is to fully merge with life, be it pleasure or pain, hedonistic or ascetic, the key is in doing what you repulses or intrigues you, until it no longer does either. The ultimate goal is the same as the Buddhist, release from ego attachments. Perfect control over the repulsions and inclinations of the body and mind, by transcending them via burnout, rather than use it or lose it methods of Buddhism."What Crowley book(s) most focus on this method? What Bhakti Yoga books are suggested that focus on the like method?"
I thought there would actually be a lot of quick responses to this one... I guess I was wrong!"
Liber Astarte? Liber Cheth?
IAO131"
Any classic Bhakti Yoga texts that could be suggested? Are there any good translations of the texts that you would recommend?
-
@Frater Pantha said
"
@Aum418 said
"
@Frater Pantha said
"
@Frater Pantha said
"
@Froclown said
"Crowley's method is to fully merge with life, be it pleasure or pain, hedonistic or ascetic, the key is in doing what you repulses or intrigues you, until it no longer does either. The ultimate goal is the same as the Buddhist, release from ego attachments. Perfect control over the repulsions and inclinations of the body and mind, by transcending them via burnout, rather than use it or lose it methods of Buddhism."What Crowley book(s) most focus on this method? What Bhakti Yoga books are suggested that focus on the like method?"
I thought there would actually be a lot of quick responses to this one... I guess I was wrong!"
Liber Astarte? Liber Cheth?
IAO131"
Any classic Bhakti Yoga texts that could be suggested? Are there any good translations of the texts that you would recommend?"
Bhagavad Gita has some good parts on Bhakti. Ramakrishna talks about Bhakti all the time. Rumi is pretty much Bhakti but from the point of Sufism/Arab world. Even Song of Solomon could be considered Bhakti...
IAO131
-
@Aum418 said
"
@Frater Pantha said
"
@Aum418 said
"
@Frater Pantha said
"
@Frater Pantha said
"
@Froclown said
"Crowley's method is to fully merge with life, be it pleasure or pain, hedonistic or ascetic, the key is in doing what you repulses or intrigues you, until it no longer does either. The ultimate goal is the same as the Buddhist, release from ego attachments. Perfect control over the repulsions and inclinations of the body and mind, by transcending them via burnout, rather than use it or lose it methods of Buddhism."What Crowley book(s) most focus on this method? What Bhakti Yoga books are suggested that focus on the like method?"
I thought there would actually be a lot of quick responses to this one... I guess I was wrong!"
Liber Astarte? Liber Cheth?
IAO131"
Any classic Bhakti Yoga texts that could be suggested? Are there any good translations of the texts that you would recommend?"
Bhagavad Gita has some good parts on Bhakti. Ramakrishna talks about Bhakti all the time. Rumi is pretty much Bhakti but from the point of Sufism/Arab world. Even Song of Solomon could be considered Bhakti...
IAO131"
Swami Vivekananda wrote a book called "Bhakti Yoga". I haven't read that one, but I've read his books "Raja Yoga" and "Karma Yoga" and found them to be quite good.
-
@bryan said
"
@Aum418 said
"
@Frater Pantha said
"
@Aum418 said
"
@Frater Pantha said
"
@Frater Pantha said
"
@Froclown said
"Crowley's method is to fully merge with life, be it pleasure or pain, hedonistic or ascetic, the key is in doing what you repulses or intrigues you, until it no longer does either. The ultimate goal is the same as the Buddhist, release from ego attachments. Perfect control over the repulsions and inclinations of the body and mind, by transcending them via burnout, rather than use it or lose it methods of Buddhism."What Crowley book(s) most focus on this method? What Bhakti Yoga books are suggested that focus on the like method?"
I thought there would actually be a lot of quick responses to this one... I guess I was wrong!"
Liber Astarte? Liber Cheth?
IAO131"
Any classic Bhakti Yoga texts that could be suggested? Are there any good translations of the texts that you would recommend?"
Bhagavad Gita has some good parts on Bhakti. Ramakrishna talks about Bhakti all the time. Rumi is pretty much Bhakti but from the point of Sufism/Arab world. Even Song of Solomon could be considered Bhakti...
IAO131"
Swami Vivekananda wrote a book called "Bhakti Yoga". I haven't read that one, but I've read his books "Raja Yoga" and "Karma Yoga" and found them to be quite good."
Raja Yoga is his best work by far in my opinion.
IAO131
-
@Aum418 said
"
@bryan said
"
@Aum418 said
"
@Frater Pantha said
"
@Aum418 said
"
@Frater Pantha said
"
@Frater Pantha said
"
@Froclown said
"Crowley's method is to fully merge with life, be it pleasure or pain, hedonistic or ascetic, the key is in doing what you repulses or intrigues you, until it no longer does either. The ultimate goal is the same as the Buddhist, release from ego attachments. Perfect control over the repulsions and inclinations of the body and mind, by transcending them via burnout, rather than use it or lose it methods of Buddhism."What Crowley book(s) most focus on this method? What Bhakti Yoga books are suggested that focus on the like method?"
I thought there would actually be a lot of quick responses to this one... I guess I was wrong!"
Liber Astarte? Liber Cheth?
IAO131"
Any classic Bhakti Yoga texts that could be suggested? Are there any good translations of the texts that you would recommend?"
Bhagavad Gita has some good parts on Bhakti. Ramakrishna talks about Bhakti all the time. Rumi is pretty much Bhakti but from the point of Sufism/Arab world. Even Song of Solomon could be considered Bhakti...
IAO131"
Swami Vivekananda wrote a book called "Bhakti Yoga". I haven't read that one, but I've read his books "Raja Yoga" and "Karma Yoga" and found them to be quite good."
Raja Yoga is his best work by far in my opinion.
IAO131"
Oh yeah? Interesting.
I'm just replying because this quote box thing we've got going on is getting pretty awesome. -
@bryan said
"
@Aum418 said
"
@bryan said
"
@Aum418 said
"
@Frater Pantha said
"
@Aum418 said
"
@Frater Pantha said
"
@Frater Pantha said
"
@Froclown said
"Crowley's method is to fully merge with life, be it pleasure or pain, hedonistic or ascetic, the key is in doing what you repulses or intrigues you, until it no longer does either. The ultimate goal is the same as the Buddhist, release from ego attachments. Perfect control over the repulsions and inclinations of the body and mind, by transcending them via burnout, rather than use it or lose it methods of Buddhism."What Crowley book(s) most focus on this method? What Bhakti Yoga books are suggested that focus on the like method?"
I thought there would actually be a lot of quick responses to this one... I guess I was wrong!"
Liber Astarte? Liber Cheth?
IAO131"
Any classic Bhakti Yoga texts that could be suggested? Are there any good translations of the texts that you would recommend?"
Bhagavad Gita has some good parts on Bhakti. Ramakrishna talks about Bhakti all the time. Rumi is pretty much Bhakti but from the point of Sufism/Arab world. Even Song of Solomon could be considered Bhakti...
IAO131"
Swami Vivekananda wrote a book called "Bhakti Yoga". I haven't read that one, but I've read his books "Raja Yoga" and "Karma Yoga" and found them to be quite good."
Raja Yoga is his best work by far in my opinion.
IAO131"
Oh yeah? Interesting.
I'm just replying because this quote box thing we've got going on is getting pretty awesome.""Thank God I'm an Atheist!"
-
@Metzareph said
"Basically, God cannot exist, because God is essentially nothing. It does not exist, and by not existing it can be anything and be anywhere."
An absorbing discussion.
At the present state of my evolution I have the perspective of a pantheist; I see “God” as identical with the totality of the universe; the essence of existence of all beings that are. It therefore makes no sense to me to say “God does not exist”. I exist*, so even if everything else exists only in my mind then something exists, therefore God exists.
*Cogitat ergo est. To avoid presuming the ego to begin with, Crowley suggested “cogitatur” (it is thunk); which, he pointed out, compels the question “by whom is it thunk?” To avoid that difficulty, I prefer “cogitat” it is thinking” (in the kind of impersonal sense that “it is raining”). Thought is clearly going on; ergo "est" - or “sunt” (something is/are, and it seems to be at least me). Being is going on; ergo God is.
Doesn’t Crowley say somewhere (I thought I bookmarked it...) that you first find the essence of the divine in yourself (which for me is my own existence) and then apply the law of “as below, so above”? Knowledge of the microcosm leads on to knowledge of the macrocosm.
Do you fully know your microcosm – that of God in you, as the Quakers put it? (I like the Quakers; they spend a lot of time being quiet; to be highly recommended).
But again, that’s the way I read it at my stage of evolution – which may well be less advanced than yours.
I like Jim’s perspective of reality emerging out of difference. One of the places where post-modern philosophers seem to have much in common with a Thelemic point of view; things are only “real” because they differ from other things (differance, Jacques Derrida called it, making the point that writing can express a difference that does not emerge in speech). And why does A differ from B? Because A differs from C in a different way from that in which B differs from C [Barthes, I think]. And the sequence runs down to some ultimate “ground” of total emptiness which is nonetheless real and the basis (matrix/ mother?) for everything else.
X= make-empty-string();
Y = append(a,X)Computer people are well used to empty things which are nonetheless real and are brought into existence by a pure verb (Fiat!) Then we pile stuff on top of the no-thing – and it works.
Or you can link the sense of limited reality up in the opposite direction to total fullness – but fullness of an infinitesimal size. Which is, paradoxically, described as a Black Hole.
Then there is the increasing consciousness, in modern physics, that the observer is necessary to reality.
Existence is established by relationships. Reality is a network. [Star-sponge vision?] (What is a net? runs an old joke. It’s a lot of holes knotted together.) Tie a [k]not in a [w]hole and see whether you can make something of it.
If we start from nothing, every knot is reflected by a knot that’s tied the opposite way and we can unknot them all (without letting go of the ends). It was therefore, overall, not a knot at all, but just a tangle. So what’s happened to all the anti-matter? It’s around here somewhere.
Metzareph makes the valid point that you can never totally define God because it would require you to define everything. I agree. This is the temporal aspect of “differance”, called “deferance”; the ultimate definition of the reality of anything is endlessly deferred. So it is with defining God.
Western Christianity, it seems to me, approaches fullness of definition through devices such as litanies “O Holy God;. O Holy strong one; O Holy immortal one; Lord of Hosts; Almighty, Omniscient….” And in the East they go the other way, toward emptiness “God is not this, not that…” Not even the latter process can conclude that God Is Not; because the process never terminates.
Best we can do, with God as with everything, is to arrive at the best approximation; the idea of reality that “works” for practical purposes. For me, that has to include some idea of the “ground of all being”. You may differ. Differance is good.
OP
-
The tone of the last post struck me as synchronous, as last night in meditation I had continual experiencial knowing that I was nothing. Even reflection and attention upon the ongoing event didn't break the spell. I pretty much knew this before, but certain facets of reality get elevated sometimes, or certain trances are gone deeply into.
I got into this state by continually denying the truth of everything that would rise up: the "neti, neti" formula of "not this, not that", snuffing out small or divided self, is basically a guaranteed winner. I do this by imagining a golden phoenix wand in my left hand and actually attacking any point of perceived opposition, as well as quickly exhaling through my nostrils with willed intent. Just as Horus, I eventually subdue all Setian opposition, and become WITH the universe. I do this both during ritual and while seated in meditation.
One is either With or Against the universe, and the spell of RHK may be correlated to the degree that oneself and the environment is with the universe (as Nuit). When one is against it, one is like the quantum flux, rising up out of nothing trying to assert one's false universality, such as trying to posit one is the all as opposed to all others. This consciousness seems to be akin to Crowley's "Black Brother" concept (for example "I AM" as opposed to "WE ARE" or "EYE AM"), and it is more a danger of the uninitiated below Binah logically: before the self has permanently expired its separateness into Nuit (who is synonymous with the daoistic universe).
When one is With the universe, one is nothing.
Once in the past while only 20, after music jamming for about 4 hours straight, I orgiastically propelled myself into a huge Samadhi (psychedelics helped to propel it). It was basically a perfect non-sexual orgasm. My keyboard playing was all over the place, as I was intuitively trying to exhaust every permuation with its opposite. This is basically the same as saying "neti, neti." By exhausting all permutation, one is left with the fact that only 0 is true, that "Nothing is True, Everything is False." Or, that this riff sounds good, but it's not really "it."
It wasn't pre-planned and was the effortless result of the "love under will" energy accumulation. Anyway, I simply disappeared or lost consciousness for about 10 seconds as I was in Samadhi upon 0, my first recollection is my soul or consciousness descending a black shaft of space. The spell broke by wanting to laugh at what was happening, as this invoked individuality. This experience was shared with another guy playing music, as I saw him laughing afterwards too and I guess the music stopped.
Anyway, as a result of the energy accumulation I then saw what I thought were two etheric "angelic" entities facing me: the white one on the right was high and full of wisdom, while the one on my left was dark and negative, and each was known as each other's opposite. I asked my friend if he saw them, and he said yeah, but later said he only saw the black one so I don't know if it was really a shared vision or not.
I interpret this experience as a genuine peak Samadhi upon 0, and when I came down the two opposite entities of White and Black I find interestingly go toward proving the 0 = 2 equation, and symbolize Yang and Yin. The wake of the experience left me "super-conducted" for a few days, but I eventually came back down fully, i.e. I didn't go from like a Philosophus to an Ipsissimus lol, I don't think that jump in stabilization of attainment is possible myself, but I think it may have been my CAVDA PAVONIS crossing from 7 to 6.
This state of nothingness does seem the highest to me still, as it is absolutely beyond any conception or quality, so I would agree in this sense that "God doesn't exist". However, each may get boring at some point, which is why we both experience Life and Death!
-
@Wizardiaoan said
"The tone of the last post struck me as synchronous, as last night in meditation I had continual experiencial knowing that I was nothing. Even reflection and attention upon the ongoing event didn't break the spell. I pretty much knew this before, but certain facets of reality get elevated sometimes, or certain trances are gone deeply into.
I got into this state by continually denying the truth of everything that would rise up: the "neti, neti" formula of "not this, not that", snuffing out small or divided self, is basically a guaranteed winner. I do this by imagining a golden phoenix wand in my left hand and actually attacking any point of perceived opposition, as well as quickly exhaling through my nostrils with willed intent. Just as Horus, I eventually subdue all Setian opposition, and become WITH the universe. I do this both during ritual and while seated in meditation.
One is either With or Against the universe, and the spell of RHK may be correlated to the degree that oneself and the environment is with the universe (as Nuit). When one is against it, one is like the quantum flux, rising up out of nothing trying to assert one's false universality, such as trying to posit one is the all as opposed to all others. This consciousness seems to be akin to Crowley's "Black Brother" concept (for example "I AM" as opposed to "WE ARE" or "EYE AM"), and it is more a danger of the uninitiated below Binah logically: before the self has permanently expired its separateness into Nuit (who is synonymous with the daoistic universe).
When one is With the universe, one is nothing.
Once in the past while only 20, after music jamming for about 4 hours straight, I orgiastically propelled myself into a huge Samadhi (psychedelics helped to propel it). It was basically a perfect non-sexual orgasm. My keyboard playing was all over the place, as I was intuitively trying to exhaust every permuation with its opposite. This is basically the same as saying "neti, neti." By exhausting all permutation, one is left with the fact that only 0 is true, that "Nothing is True, Everything is False." Or, that this riff sounds good, but it's not really "it."
It wasn't pre-planned and was the effortless result of the "love under will" energy accumulation. Anyway, I simply disappeared or lost consciousness for about 10 seconds as I was in Samadhi upon 0, my first recollection is my soul or consciousness descending a black shaft of space. The spell broke by wanting to laugh at what was happening, as this invoked individuality. This experience was shared with another guy playing music, as I saw him laughing afterwards too and I guess the music stopped.
Anyway, as a result of the energy accumulation I then saw what I thought were two etheric "angelic" entities facing me: the white one on the right was high and full of wisdom, while the one on my left was dark and negative, and each was known as each other's opposite. I asked my friend if he saw them, and he said yeah, but later said he only saw the black one so I don't know if it was really a shared vision or not.
I interpret this experience as a genuine peak Samadhi upon 0, and when I came down the two opposite entities of White and Black I find interestingly go toward proving the 0 = 2 equation, and symbolize Yang and Yin. The wake of the experience left me "super-conducted" for a few days, but I eventually came back down fully, i.e. I didn't go from like a Philosophus to an Ipsissimus lol, I don't think that jump in stabilization of attainment is possible myself, but I think it may have been my CAVDA PAVONIS crossing from 7 to 6.
This state of nothingness does seem the highest to me still, as it is absolutely beyond any conception or quality, so I would agree in this sense that "God doesn't exist". However, each may get boring at some point, which is why we both experience Life and Death!"
How can one ever be 'against' the Universe when one is necessarily part of it? Isnt duality a (necessary) device of the universe for self-awareness?
Who is it that is saying 'neti neti'? Isnt the negation of propositions still a thought? still a part of awarenes? Do we mean 'God is nothing' or that 'nothing can be said about God' ('A God defined is a God confined')?
IAO131
-
93 all.
Great discussion. I am just wondering, isn't this more of a philosophical view point in as where it is all about perception?
God (If you want to call IT that:-) Is everything, and Nothing simultaneously.
When one reaches K&C with the H.G.A. (Adonai, etc.) one is actually communing with God, the Higher self, or whatever definition one would like to call it.
True, there only exist this very moment...The here and now. One cannot say that god is not withing you. God is within not only yourself, but every living as well as inanimate object. It is pure energy. This same energy can provide electricity for a Brothel or a Church assembly. It doesn't discriminate. It is all Vibratory levels at higher or lower rates. Quantum Physics:-)
I struggled with this concept for quite sometime in early years, but now have a Knowing that this energy, Divine spark, is within us all.
I could go on and on, but just wanted to share my thoughts on the thread.
There is the Personal, and then there is the Impersonal.Imagine, or Image-In. BE STILL AND KNOW THAT I AM GOD.
93 93/93.'.
James
-
Just as there is no "god" there is no "me"
It's hard to try to grasp a matter wich in the end can not be expressed with words. I guess you know, feel it in you're heart. Just be. Very Zen
-
"The Master, to illustrate this Destruction of the Ego, describes the Visions of Dhyana.
He further describes the defense of the Soul against assailing Thoughts, and shows that the duality of Consciousness is a blasphemy against the Unity of God; so that even the thought called God is a denial of God-as-He-is-in-Himself. "
("Aha!", The Argumentation)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"On your math, the only thing I'd disagree with is that there really isn't a 1. That number doesn't really exist philosophically. Only 2 and 0. (Makes for a bizarre binary system.)"
Wow Jim i have to say I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion between you and Aum418, having just read it now. This is a topic I have deliberated on extensively within and outside the metaphor of Thelema; especially trying to develop a cosmology from first principles, I think the concept of dimensions may present a different angle to the relationship between 0 and 1 which is surprisingly simple; ** X^0 = 1**;where X is representative of a line, X^2 may be representative of a square, and X^3 a cube etc as such each power of X maybe paralleled to a dimension. hence X^0 is not really a dimension at all, since X is the first dimension. Further X^0 represents the function of division as opposed to multiplication, yet on deeper analysis all multiplication is a form of division from the primordial duality, and hence X^0 is definitive of duality itself, like you point out, which in my mind equates X^0 to "Self-Referential Consciousness" therefore I coined the expression X^0 = I(Am)*. Further, division is an action and hence motion, (Hadit?). X^0 in the metaphor of dimensions may equated to a point, which ultimately is undefinable except as a reference or "Singularity" again equatable to Hadit ("Yet She shall be known, but I never") while Nuit being "Universal Consiousness" ; I see 1 sort of as an inside-out 0, in other words the whole of "Infinitely Expanding Space" may be contained in "Infinitely Contracting Singularity". I sincerely hope some of what I have said may be slightly coherent to some, I understand this is a very unorthodox progression of ideas.
- I as opposed to 1
Such that 2 = 1+0, 1+0 = 0, therefore 2=0 and 1=0. and where X=1 all the foregoing can equally replace 0 in the equation X^0=1
-
I like that RifRaf, this is directly related to something I wrote a while back;