Difference?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"One important workaday application of the quoted principle, though, is in recognizing the inherent equality of all choices in that each choice might be valid for someone. A significant improvement in society could be brought about if everyone had more of a sense that other people's choices are valid, even if one would never make them oneself. (Take broccoli, for example.)"
Thanks, this gives me a better grasp of the concept. I will now on refer to this teaching as the Brocolli Factor.
-
@DavidH said
""Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt."
What exactly does this mean?"
This thread comes as an interesting book-end to the prior "Definition of a Thelemite" (heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?t=1089) thread, wherein Jim's innitial reaction to Froclown was that it looked like he was applying only Chapter 2 of Liber Legis to his definitions, but not Chapter 1.
Here, we have the conundrum of what happens when one (not necessarily you, DavidH) may try to apply Chapter 1 in a primary role and downplay the "individual" nature of personality and choice.
"So how can the above passage be applied practically to everyday life?"
Somewhere in the first volume of In The Continuum, Soror Meral makes a pointed warning about not basing too much of one's life on just a subset of the Law (i.e., one chapter versus another). If you hold too tightly to one chapter or verse, you'll have trouble because there's likely to be some other verse that contradicts it! Such is life, I guess, when these words can be interpreted both above and below the Abyss...
Steve
-
@Steven Cranmer said
"
Here, we have the conundrum of what happens when one (not necessarily you, DavidH) may try to apply Chapter 1 in a primary role and downplay the "individual" nature of personality and choice.
"93 Steve,
I resemble that remark!
Good advice.
-
Nu is your refuge as Hadit your light; and I am the strength, force, vigour, of your arms. From ch 3
Here we see that Nuit and Hadit are something like polar extremes of something similar to what psychologists call "locus of control".
Nuit is pure external and Hadit the pure internal. You could say it's solipsism vs realism in the sense of Hadit concerns the inner world of perception and from the Hadit perspective all phenomena one encounters are projected expressions of the mind, and with Hadit as the source and center of it all.
Where as from the Nuit perspective there is no particular center all phenomena exist on their own accord not by virtue of any particular mind, yet Nuit is expansive and contains all hadits and each hadit contains a mind which is it's own solipsist universe of perception.
Thus, when we withdraw into ourselves this is Hadit perspective, where we expand to transcend the individual self this is nuit perspective.
Each has it's use in maintaining a balanced Psychology.
Heru-Ra-Ha contains both of these perspectives but not in their extreme and abstract, rather in their practical sense as aspects of WILLed accomplisments. Hoor-paar-kraat is the passive egoless WILL truned inward to still oneself (Nuit) and Ra-Hoor-Kuit is the active force of WILL upon the world driven by the goals of ego (Hadit).
Combined as heru-ra-ha, this is a WILL that both works inernally to constrain the ego to a point and external to accomplish that ends in the world.
Thus, each chapter has it's purpose, in times of stress nuits brings relief and escape from one's goals and obligations, in times of listlissness and confusion, hadit brings individual perspectives goals to achieve a light to guide one.
And once achieved Horus consciousness brings a two edged sword that superior to the previous stages, as it encompasses both at once.
-
This brings up another question I was thinking about. Each one of us "stars" are not NUIT because we do not contain all experience. We are travelling along Nuit. So, does that mean that HADIT is each and every star? So I am Hadit, and you Hadit, etc.? And as HADIT, we are all in the center of our own universe since all points are center in infinite space?
-
@DavidH said
"This brings up another question I was thinking about. Each one of us "stars" are not NUIT because we do not contain all experience. We are travelling along Nuit. So, does that mean that HADIT is each and every star? So I am Hadit, and you Hadit, etc.? And as HADIT, we are all in the center of our own universe since all points are center in infinite space?"
Hadit says that Khabs (= "star") is the name of His house.
It is most common, historically, to think of Hadit and the Star part of us as more or less the same thing - but I disagree. Hadit, as the infinitessimal point, is our best symbol for the Kether-Yechidah-Atma aspect - thus also the best Atziluth symbol. The Star aspect has always seemed to me to be the Briatic - consistent with all sorts of things.
We are Nuit when and to the extent that we let go of the perception of separate existence of a kind that denies common existence.
-
As individuals we are not Nuit,
We are each human beings, but all of our bodies are made up of atoms.
Which is to say there is no sense of individual identity which encompasses the perspective of chemistry, of substance without particular form.
You and I are the same in that we are made of the same pool of atoms, however we are different in that your atoms and mine are not the very same atoms and your atoms are arranged differently.
Thus, your atoms arrange themselves around your Hadit point and mine around my Hadit point, however infinite space contains all Hadit points and all the atoms which surround them.
Thus to become "nuit" means to give up association to your particular body and being, to be without a center or perspective anchor. Which is to say to die.
In death the body rots away and becomes part of the loose elements of the cosmos, it's center and organizing principle leave it, Hadit is snuffed out and NUIT remains.
Thus in Nuit there is no difference between life and death, self and other, it's all just atoms, and if they happen to be organized as a rock, a fish, a star or a man at any point in time is arbitrary.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Those who most serve by this method ("serve" being the most exact synonym for "avail" in the next verse) shall be "the chief of all.""
I like this a lot! I've seen it definitely pan out in practice. For instance, People in my life who divorce themselves from personal moral connotations while listening to others, always end up giving out the best advice. It leaves the other with the feeling that their inherent power of making choices is valid. Additionally, it makes them feel completely responsible for those choices!
" I'd like to think that there will be an overall heightened spiritual orientation across the species as Thelema takes active, visible hold, but I don't know that I'll get my wish on that one. "
I think it IS happening, my friend, but I don't think anyone but Thelemites and Grad students of religious studies (a couple hundred years from now) are ever going to say it openly! I see the species definitely progressing internally on the whole. I meet quite a lot of people these days that seem to have basic thelemic ideals pretty rooted in them! Of course They call it "common sense"... but it wasn't that common even in the relatively near past!
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"... But all illusions are equal. ...
I am very taken with [Crowley's] statement: “To ‘make no difference’ as ordained is to regard the whole of the non-Ego or universe apparently external to the Self as a single phenomenon.”"
Mmm I would very much like some help for an understanding of this...
The universe is a harmonious oneness - everything is in perfect relation to every other thing and therefore necessary. So it is clear that we should not divide it into categories - friend and foe, good and bad, beautiful and ugly, etc. But how does the Self/point-of-view/perceiver relate to this "apparently external" phenomenon of the universe? Do we aim to see the observable universe as part of our Self? Or does the Ego/point-of-view dissolve into the observed phenomenon, i.e. I am part of this harmonious phenomenon? These two points of view bring up different "images" to my mind (It's all part of "I" or I am part of IT - the latter does more for me - then is all this just "whatever works"? Two ways of saying the same thing?). Or do we say "I am not this" "I am not this" to all external phenomenon, i.e the perceived cannot be the eternal perceiver? Or then is there ultimately no Self and no perceived universe? They are united and thus One - or None? Is this what 0=2 means? Thanks for any help anyone could offer (I sure could use it!).
-
@DavidH said
"Certainly, as humans, we must compare things and make choices, saying one is less than the other and deciding based on judgement calls. Otherwise, no one would stand up for anything and we'd be stuck in the quicksand of indecision.
So how can the above passage be applied practically to everyday life?"
"*All boots are illusions.
All hats are illusions.
Therefore (though it is not a syllogism), all boots and hats are illusions.
I add:
To the man in Kether no illusions matter.
Therefore: to the man in Kether neither boots nor hats matter.In fact, the man in Kether is out of all relation to these boots and hats.
You, they say, claim to be a man in Kether (I don’t). Why then, do you not wear
boots on your head and hats on your feet?
I can only answer that I the man in Kether(’tis but an argument) am out of all
relation as much with feet and heads as with boots and hats. But why should I (from
my exalted pinnacle) stoop down and worry the headed and footed gentleman in
Malkuth, who after all doesn’t exist for me, by these drastic alterations in his toilet?
There is no distinction whatever; I might easily put the boots on his shoulders, with
his head on one foot and his hat on the other.
In short, why not be a clean-living Irish gentleman, even if you do have insane ideas
about the universe?*"- The Soldier and the Hunchback
-
@DavidH said
""Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt."
What exactly does this mean? I always took it as meaning that all things/experiences are equal in that Nuit is comprised of them all. But if this is the case, Crowley does not follow the advice, strongly attacking certain politcal systems, religions, beliefs, etc. as inferior to others. Certainly, as humans, we must compare things and make choices, saying one is less than the other and deciding based on judgement calls. Otherwise, no one would stand up for anything and we'd be stuck in the quicksand of indecision.
So how can the above passage be applied practically to everyday life?"
-
I was watching these as on with the death of Kwai Chang Caine I have been re-examining the words of Wisdom from Kung-Fu, which was my earliest introduction to mysticism as a child of 6 and these words and stories always struck deep with me.
This one seems to deal with the nature of Duality. And what I mentioned in a post before, that even rape, murder and torture is not a true conflict between WILLs, but merely a conflict on the physical plane of duality. "between the serpent and the clasp of the eagles talons is only harmony, their is no conflict in nature"
-
@Never Roll 2 said
"Mmm I would very much like some help for an understanding of this...
The universe is a harmonious oneness - everything is in perfect relation to every other thing and therefore necessary. So it is clear that we should not divide it into categories - friend and foe, good and bad, beautiful and ugly, etc. But how does the Self/point-of-view/perceiver relate to this "apparently external" phenomenon of the universe? Do we aim to see the observable universe as part of our Self? Or does the Ego/point-of-view dissolve into the observed phenomenon, i.e. I am part of this harmonious phenomenon? These two points of view bring up different "images" to my mind (It's all part of "I" or I am part of IT - the latter does more for me - then is all this just "whatever works"? Two ways of saying the same thing?). Or do we say "I am not this" "I am not this" to all external phenomenon, i.e the perceived cannot be the eternal perceiver? Or then is there ultimately no Self and no perceived universe? They are united and thus One - or None? Is this what 0=2 means? Thanks for any help anyone could offer (I sure could use it!)."
Welcome to the forum.
Well I'm not sure I understand this beyond a theoretical or logical description of Universal processes. I've always seen 0 = 2 to be the formula of "creation". From the perspective of experience I imagine it would reflect a "Nihilisitc" experience (Samadhi) becoming a dualistic experience (day to day conscious experience) - that is if you could call a Nihilisitc experience an "experience"!There's a cute little philosophical trick in that if one could experience complete Unity there would be no perceiver or perceived because a Unity cannot perceive itself externally so there would really be "No thing" to percieve. Hence Unity veils No-thing or Nothing.
This is merely logic though, even physcicists claim the nett energy of the Universe is nil, so by mathematics we would arrive at a similar conclusion that Everything is Nothing.
I'm not sure we can really understand this adequately without actual experience (or is that non-experience?) for we may as well describe the taste of a good steak by reference to the chemical reaction on our tongue. How far removed is that description from the experience?
-
@DavidH said
"So how can the above passage be applied practically to everyday life?"
"Such individuals grow in a very special manner when they learn to welcome divergent points of view and contrary experiences, and seek to assimilate them, as understanding that this is the best possible way to acquire at a single stroke an immensity of new experiences instead of having to go through them in any detail."
(A. Crowley, "On Thelema")"[...]while will is of absolute logical and ethical validity, it can only be executed by the process of assimilation of all foreign elements; that is, by love. To refuse to unite yourself with any phenomenon soever is to deprive oneself of its value--even of life itself[...] This refusal is only enacted when one is convinced that the new phenomenon is hostile to the set of experiences already acquired and made part of oneself. But it is a serious mark of imperfection, of grave failure to realize the facts in the matter, to take this attitude. Even supposing, for one brief moment and for argument's sake alone, that the new idea under consideration is so incompatible with experiences already acquired and assimilated that their destruction is necessitated if it is to be accepted, then one fact stands out vividly, showing clearly that the old set of experiences is so imperfect as to be actually unfitted to continue its erstwhile existence; its destruction would be an advantage to that being, enabling a reconstruction along totally different lines--a reconstruction which would lend itself more readily to the acquisition of new experiences and apparently contradictory ideas."
(ibid.)"A careless person,
Quoting much of the scriptual text
but not living it,
Cannot share the abundance of the holy life,
Just as the cowherd, counting other people's
cattle
Cannot taste the milk or ghee."
(Ananda Maitreya trans., The Dhammapada) -
Letting go is all much as giving or taking. There is no difference.