Why did Crowley reject Buddhism and Bennett reject Thelema?
-
Sorry, Edward, if my intentions are not clear. I'm just trying to figure out if I'm right about this or not. None of these ideas are simple and easy for me. Otherwise, I would've just "picked one" already, as you say.
These are currently-developing thoughts. I suppose at some point I will have a major breakthrough, if I'm lucky, and I will no longer seek "feedback." When that happens, I'll probably get a whole lot quieter and a more mysterious like most people who seem to have made this sort of progress.
So, if my chirping gets tedious, please try to remember I'm just a freshly-hatched birdie with a hunger for wisdom. To shut up a baby bird, all a momma bird has to do is regurgitate something she already ate into his mouth! Otherwise, she can just fly far away where she doesn't have to hear it and he can just chirp himself to death.
-
... I also recently came up with this idea that to learn the Truth, maybe one has to be willing to honestly consider ALL the ideas out there! That seems to be how Crowley made such great progress!
Each piece seems like a piece of a puzzle. It would make sense that being open-minded and willing to let go of cherished beliefs would be the way to learn ultimate Truth.
-
93 Redd,
No need for an apology - I wasn't looking for that! I just meant that I couldn't quite see where the intensity of your question was centered.
My own take on the quest for a path is that you should try several groups/teachers. Over time, maybe several will seem appealing at various stages. But I don't believe you can make the final (or at least, long-term) decision based on an intellectual decision. That's only going to satisfy one part or level of yourself.
I didn't choose Thelema at all on a conscious level, I tried to avoid it. I 'knew' Crowley was screwed up, and his way was a dark road to addiction, madness and (all too often) really bad tattoos. But I kept getting drawn back to the Tree of Life, precisely because I <i>couldn't</i> figure it out, and at one point started more or less play-acting being a Rosicrucian (as I imagined it). That kicked up some interesting dust, but I needed a teacher, so I went to the one group I knew to be open to new members. They said okay maybe next year, and also gave me another contact. That contact led, a few months later, to a TOT public ritual. I went to that because I figured there'd be enough people there that I sorta knew to bail me out when the dark forces crept out of the shadows and tried to draw me towards the dark path (with its cheap tattoo parlors).
Once that ritual started, I recognized the energies as something I knew from way, way back. I was also struck by the people in it, who seemed to have a clearer idea than people in other groups, why they were into a Thelemic path as opposed to something else. A few months later, I overcame my continuing doubts and repugnance, and asked to join, thinking I'd try it for a year or two. But at no point did I really make a conscious decision until the 'logic' of doing so had already overwhelmed me on a subconscious level. I would never have got there had I proceeded by itellectual steps.
I suspect your confusion here is not because you "can't decide," but because you already <i>have</i> (on whatever it is you need to do - Thelema, Buddhism, or Gnostic Christianity), yet haven't been able to reconcile the answer you get with your conscious attitudes. And maybe that's why you get frustrated...? You need to trust the decision of the non-rational side?
93 93/93,
Edward
-
What a bunch of pearls this thread consists of to me! Thanks all!
I was thinking mostly of Jim's excerpts from Liber AL and RF's buddhist quotations. I've thought a lot about the connection between macro/micro lately and am now reading Sheldrake's book about the seventh sense. This is interesting in connection to what you discuss about the definitions of will, in that the connection between the two levels has to be scientifically explained if Sheldrake's theory will hold. To do that he must study the effects of the willpower on the external universe.
It seems the connection shows a good image of what the Will is to me. It is about being aware of every action's contents to bring about the result one wants. The "seventh sense" has been tested to be very imprecise in perception (one example experiment gave 23 out of 71 attempts), and that I thought, could perhaps be explained by the fact that the individual isn't on the accurate path according to its true Will and thusly misinterprets the stimuli because of hook-ups on certain ideas, such as NLP interruption methods like ----!!!!!!"#¤THIS¤#!"!!!!!----- will cure.
I was also thinking that perhaps wovels stand in connection to energy and consonants to particles in language, just as ripples on a water surface do to kinetic energy. One is a charge for the other and the other a charge for the first one, intertwined like chains in a zipper. Sheldrake said the same thing: that what we perceive has to be contained in a sense inside our heads, or in our minds, so either we are eternally big or the universe is eternally small. We may be coming to an end of the mystery circle after all. Ouroboros un-tailed, perhaps.
I mean, if there is a direct link between micro & macro, there is still no argument for there to be no free Will in the micro compartment even if it isn't a compartment outside any other of its parts. All parts coexist harmonically with each others' awareness. When stupid people f**k things up, intelligent people are aware enough to be the last to blame them for it. -
Edward, it's funny (in that coincidental sort of way) that you should choose these exact words in your response! First, your experience more or less sums up my own regarding my prolonged reservations about Crowley. Secondly, you mention how you kept getting drawn back to the Tree of Life. Same with me! Thirdly, you mention I can't decide because I already have. This last point I take perhaps in a slightly different way than you meant it: I have read a lot recently about the fact that we already have what we need; we simply have to let go of what we don't need. This really "rang a bell" with regards to the ideas of self-annihilation. I've been reading a lot of Vedanta and Buddhism along with my Qabalah studies and it seems clear they are all talking about the same thing: one who does not live, does not die; the One immortal Self exists not in life or death, but both and none. The past and the future exist in the unmanifest; the manifest is ever-decaying and ever becoming. When a tree dies, the life force has simply left the husk; just as the material tree continues to exist, though bereft of its life force, the life force also continues to exist. It does not die because there is no death. One can not point to death, one can only point to the act of dying.
What I find in common with all these teachings, is something which must be unavoidable and therefore already part of me, whether I can realize it or not. To quote from an Amazon list:
"They all say the world we perceive is an illusion, everything is “empty” but that there is a Ground of Being or Mind Itself or Nature of Mind that is both luminous and cognizant—the Source of emptiness, The Supreme Source: The Fundamental Tantra of the Dzogchen Semde. This parallels the Kabbalistic view of the emanations of the Sephiroth and is also consistent with the general Vajrayana practice of viewing the world as a Buddha field and people as deities."
This goes along with the Crowly's concept of treating every interaction as a direct communication with God. I know I'm not supposed to do this until I'm a Master of The Temple or something, but I've been doing it anyway.
Finally, I just want to express one last thing, which may not be obvious from the things I have said in the past or the manner in which I continue to post. I no longer have any real reservations about Thelema or Crowley that I can think of! I constantly turn to AC's work for inspiration and clarification. But, the fact is, his work is groundbreaking yet in a mostly derivative way; he is commenting on other religious traditions he assumes the reader to already be familiar with. And so, I do not study other religions because I don't trust Crowley, but so that I can understand him! It is funny, but he is often totally incomprehensible to me until I have gone and read several other books which are much more thorough, methodical and elaborate in their explanations. Then, I will come back to something of Crowley's and say, "OH, THAT'S WHAT HE MEANT!" You know, it may be a 4 line poem from the Book of Lies or something, that made absolutely no sense the first time I read it, but suddenly those 4 lines condense a whole lot of book larnin' into one simple thought that is easy to meditate on.
-
@Draco Magnus said
"93, RF,
The point I am seeing is that Thelema supercedes all these laws, rules, principles and precepts. It is all encompassing, and the simplest. That is what I appreciate."
I guess this really is the heart of it. Knowing his incredible brainpower and desire to cut through b.s. to reduce Reality to its simplest Truth, I guess this is all his disagreement boils down to. So, he did away with what he saw as unnecessary, while a guy like Bennett saw the usefulness of the precepts and other Buddhist trappings.
... A thought just occured to me: if from now on, I do only what feels right to me (rather than following some commandments or precepts), what my conscience tells me is "right," would my life become easier? There is a "little voice" in everyone (except maybe sociopaths) that is quite easy to ignore... I've never made the experiment of always doing what "feels right" to me, otherwise I probably would never be employed anywhere for longer than a few weeks.
-
93,
ReddFezz said:
"This goes along with the Crowly's concept of treating every interaction as a direct communication with God. I know I'm not supposed to do this until I'm a Master of The Temple or something, but I've been doing it anyway. "
I'm sure none of us is capable of doing that until we're 8=3 (or at least in a high Adept grade), simply because we aren't consciously aware enough of all that's going on. There's too much mental reactivity going on for us to be that observant.
But I think anyone with any level of serious aspiration would be taking note of obviously significant things, and recognizing certain patterns or rhythms. That's a key part of any spiritual work. So I wouldn't think anyone is "not supposed to be doing this."
93 93/93,
Edward
-
93,
"I don't like the idea of leaving a part of me behind. I understand, at least very simply, the idea of transcending the ego when crossing the Abyss. But it strikes me that if one were to cross the Abyss and surrender, that all those elements of you that are below, would be left without Life. They truly would be shells."
Honestly, at least in my own experience, it is nowhere near that "cerebral." I mean this is armchair theory to talk about it. But up close the level of decision isn't 'surface' stuff, it's pretty profoundly deep.
On the bright side, I don't think most people run into this until it's possible for them anyway. I think if a person went into that experience and couldn't continue they would be left insane in varying degrees; too far in without completion I think they'd die. That was my overwhelming feeling upon reflection after it, in any case (I am certainly no expert on these topics).
Anyway my point is I don't think there is any need to worry about it, because I don't think there is any kind of conscious decision or intellectualization you could come up with now, in planning, that can begin to touch the deeper parts of you at that point.
93 93/93,
RC -
@Redd Fezz said
"This goes along with the Crowly's concept of treating every interaction as a direct communication with God. I know I'm not supposed to do this until I'm a Master of The Temple or something, but I've been doing it anyway."
Just a small aside: I think it's a common misconception that "treating every interaction as a direct communication with God" is identical with taking the Oath of the Abyss. Crowley's Oath of the Abyss had 10 points, of which this is one. But this practice comes from the Golden Dawn, and has been recommended to ordinary aspirants by people ranging from Ann Davies to Louis Culling. -
@gmugmble said
"Just a small aside: I think it's a common misconception that "treating every interaction as a direct communication with God" is identical with taking the Oath of the Abyss. Crowley's Oath of the Abyss had 10 points, of which this is one. But this practice comes from the Golden Dawn, and has been recommended to ordinary aspirants by people ranging from Ann Davies to Louis Culling."
Excellent point. I'd like to fine-tune it.
That wasn't Crowley's Oath of the Abyss. That was his Oath of the 8=3 Grade of Master of the Temple. Different things.
And yes, that particular clause - Clause 10, referring to Malkuth - describes a process that is extremely active earlier. It's common as a central feature of 5=6. (I'm tempted to say it's nearly universal, but we're cautious discussing anyone else's 5=6 process.) It's a natural p.o.v. in 1=10, in fact.
I remember early on in my A.'.A.'. work that I felt an internal pressure to commit to interpreting each phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with my soul. The pressure was strong, and was matched by a fear of prematurely hurling myself into the Abyss. Soror Meral praised my good sense but made clear that the fear had served its purpose as an alarm mechanism and I didn't need it any longer. "Don't take an oath," she chuckled. "Just do the practice."
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Don't take an oath," she chuckled. "Just do the practice.""
Oh, yes. That too Actually, at one point I turned Crowley's whole 8 = 3 oath into a sort of 10 commandments. It didn't seem dangerous since I wasn't taking an oath, just encouraging myself to adopt certain attitudes.Since I've derailed this thread (I didn't mean too -- the preceding discussion was quite interesting and valuable to me), let me bring something else up. Ann Davies says somewhere (probably her book on the tarot) that when you "treat every phenomenon as a dealing of God with your soul", the soul in question is nephesh. I suppose is could be nephesh, ruach, or even neshamah at different stages of the game.
-
The word "soul" in that phrase does mean Nephesh - even in the 8=3 oath.
-
@JPF said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
" The pressure was strong, and was matched by a fear of prematurely hurling myself into the Abyss. "Is it possible to do such a thing?"
Yes. One can, for example, start dismantling the ego (or one's linkages to it) before it is fully developed and matured. It's possible to go the Nietzsche route of hurling oneself into the void without having an unequivocal link to the Supernal - something that is corrected when the K&C of the HGA is full and secure before the approach.
-
JAE, 93,
"hurling oneself into the void without having an equivocal link to the Supernal "
Did you mean to use 'equivocal' here? If so, could you expand on why you used that adjective?
93 93/93,
Edward
-
I absolutely meant to type 'equivocal.' Of course, I also meant to put un- in front of it. I suppose I'll go back and do that right now.
(I do write most of this stuff while doing three other things at once, and get interrupted a lot. I've already stopped and handled two micro-crises between these two paragraphs. So it's usually "fingers on blurt mode.")
-
JAE 93,
You've just never mastered constructive goofing off.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@JPF said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
" The pressure was strong, and was matched by a fear of prematurely hurling myself into the Abyss. "Is it possible to do such a thing?"
Yes. One can, for example, start dismantling the ego (or one's linkages to it) before it is fully developed and matured. It's possible to go the Nietzsche route of hurling oneself into the void without having an unequivocal link to the Supernal - something that is corrected when the K&C of the HGA is full and secure before the approach."
Did you mean "Nietzsche"?
I like this post a lot Mr. Eshelman, it warns against the spiritual equivalent of a drug-induced dementia/addiction due to inadequate preparation and understanding. It is most important to "know thyself" BEFORE undertaking any great spiritual measures; Liber E, etc..