creation and the great work
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"There is no such "god," in the sense you are describing, in Liber Legis. The closest equivalent is Nuit, who is All, and therefore necessarily includes everything, but is not characterized by the rest of the theological characteristics you list."
Thank you very much for the clarification. Now I know where the 'Holy Trinity' stand, I just need to figure out the others, but that's an entirely different topic.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Whether that's a workable model or not, I'd be interested in seeing your documentation that this was "Crowley's perspective." I might be able to argue that it was if I applied myself, but it's much easier to argue that it was not."
Um. I was trying to find the quote upon which I based that statement. But I couldn't anymore. It was something about the ultimate expression of love being the annihilation of the self within the beloved. Do you recall this? That was the sentiment, anyway.
-
veritas_in_nox wrote:
"With all of this in mind, why are there people if their True Wills are, as I understand Crowley's perspective, to simply rejoin w/God again? It seems a bit self defeating."
Jim Eshelman wrote:
"Whether that's a workable model or not, I'd be interested in seeing your documentation that this was "Crowley's perspective." I might ber able to argue that it was if I applied myself, but it's much easier to argue that it was not."
I think veritas_in_nox may be referring to "there is a single main definition of the object of all magical ritual. It is the uniting of Microcosm with the Macrocosm. The Supreme and Complete Ritual is therefore the Invocation of the Holy Guardian Angel; or in the language of Mysticism, the Union with God."
This was taken from Magick in Theory and practice. p.144
-
Thanks. And this differs enormously from what he first stated.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"The closest equivalent is not so much in Thelema as in Crowleyanity, though the model can be applied to Thelemic cosmology. It is the formula of 0=2. That is, "In the beginning there was nothing," which is a consequence of undifferentiated Everything. Once anything ("A") is defined within that Nothing, then Everything is automatically divided into "A" and "Not-A.""
I'm confused, are you saying the above formula is merely the closest equivalent to veritas_in_nox's ideas in his original post or is it** also** that this formula represents what a Thelemite means by "God?" In this formula would "Nothing" be likened to Hadit and "Everything" be likened to Nuit?
I always thought if there were a Thelemic interpretation of the word "God" it would be the Thelemic Trinity (Nuit,Hadit, Ra-Hoor_Kuit).
-
Blythe, that's funny you mention Hawking because I was just thinking about that! Could the pre "Big-Bang" theory of negative singularity be likened to Hadit, "which is a consequence of undifferentiated Everything" (Nuit)? The resulting manifestation (Ra-Hoor-Kuit), sounds similar to descriptions I've heard of the Big Bang theory. Could that be right?
Guys, lil help here!
-
@veritas_in_nox said
"Here is a nicely theological question for you people, which I have been pondering for the past few days.
Unless I am very much mistaken, the theology of Thelema assumes a God on the Qabalistic/Kabbalistic model (big surprise) which is a vast and ineffable everything that created the universe out of itself, which makes the universe sort of like diluted God, and the aim of the Great Work to increase the concentration of God within oneself (he said, simplifying heavily).
With all of this in mind, why are there people if their True Wills are, as I understand Crowley's perspective, to simply rejoin w/God again? It seems a bit self defeating."Your understanding of Qabalah model may be based on wrong assumptions you are making in regards to defining "heavy" terms like "God". I'm not saying that it is.
It sounds to me like you are confusing the "God" of the Q with the Demiurge of the Gnostics. The most sublime "God" of the Q is similar to the Plato's concept of the Good and the "real" God of the Gnostics, which exists outside and apart from its creation.
The "God" of the Q that many of us are attempting to unite with is not the "evil" creator God of the Old Testament. It seems like you use the term "God", you mean the Demiurge, who happens to be a little mad. In the Qabalah, the "Good" God is conceived of as Ain Soph. I think.
I don't think any Thelemite or any magickians (to my knowledge) are seeking that type of union. And yes, that would be self-defeating. The union sought is union with your true self.
I am curious as to what sources and thoughts led you to your current ideas concerning the Qabalah. I'm new to the Q myself, and previously had a perspective resembling yours on this matter.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Qabalah through your own work and experience before arriving at any conclusions as to what the "end goal" of its application is.Namaste,
CrAzY Larry
-
I didn't mean the Demiurge, actually. I was just wondering why 0 should be 2 just so it can be 0 again. But thank you for explaining, Mahanta.
@Jim Eshelman said
"This differs enormously from what he first stated."
I'm not making myself entirely clear here; I apologise. What I want to know is this: does the 'union with God' spoken of in Magick in Theory and Practice a literal dissolution of one's soul into God (or Nuit), never to be reincarnated again? If this is so, why? If I'm an idiot and it's not, what is it actually?
-
@veritas_in_nox said
" What I want to know is this: does the 'union with God' spoken of in Magick in Theory and Practice a literal dissolution of one's soul into God (or Nuit), never to be reincarnated again? If this is so, why? If I'm an idiot and it's not, what is it actually?"
No. See your own quote: "The Supreme and Complete Ritual is therefore the Invocation of the Holy Guardian Angel; or in the language of Mysticism, the Union with God." K&CHGA is synonymous with "Union with God" in the source quotation.
Adepts reincarnate.
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"
@veritas_in_nox said
" What I want to know is this: does the 'union with God' spoken of in Magick in Theory and Practice a literal dissolution of one's soul into God (or Nuit), never to be reincarnated again? If this is so, why? If I'm an idiot and it's not, what is it actually?"No. See your own quote: "The Supreme and Complete Ritual is therefore the Invocation of the Holy Guardian Angel; or in the language of Mysticism, the Union with God." K&CHGA is synonymous with "Union with God" in the source quotation.
Adepts reincarnate."
Now, I'm a confused.
As far as I understand the theory, Samadhi, or union with God, or the K&C of the HGA is a repeatable experience. The more you do it, the more you are actually absorbed into the godhead, or what ever you want to call it. As such, there are grades of Samadhi. These are defined in terms of varying degrees of completeness, or how little is left over. The most perfect union is where nothing is left and there is no residual tendency to cause you to re-enter the world, life, reality... That is liberation, and generally considered the goal. As far as I can discern, Crowley totally understood this doctrine. Whether he ultimately thought this was what you should do, or if he considered this to be in line with Thelemic philosophy is unclear to me.
Without any sound reason for thinking so, it has always been my assumption that Thelema had a similar doctrine of renunciation to that of Mahayana Buddhism, albeit with a different underlying philosophy concerning the nature of existence: the supreme master of Samadhi, on the brink of entering oblivion/nirvana, chooses instead to reject, or at least postpone, the ultimate reward in order to help the rest of creation achieve liberation—compassion in Buddhism being that last and greatest attachment that decides the matter for the potential Buddha. And so, they reincarnate. Otherwise, they would in fact be permanently absorbed into the absolute, which we tend to define with negative terms like Ain, or Nirvana.
Am I missing something here?
love and will
-
"Am I missing something here? "
Yes, I think you are confusing an Adept and a Master, or over-complicating things unnecessarily.
But that's just my intellectual understanding, from hearing others speak of the subject. Here's a short thread on the bodhisattva vow.
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"
"Am I missing something here? "Yes, I think you are confusing an Adept and a Master, or over-complicating things unnecessarily.
But that's just my intellectual understanding, from hearing others speak of the subject. Here's a short thread on the bodhisattva vow.
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5959">viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5959</a><!-- l -->"
I am not confused on this point. I'm not contrasting adepts and masters. I'm only concerned with the fate of the master:
@veritas_in_nox said"
With all of this in mind, why are there people if their True Wills are, as I understand Crowley's perspective, to simply rejoin w/God again? It seems a bit self defeating."I'm thinking back to what I understand to be the original question. Buddhism is just another complete system that I can use, by way of comparison to Thelema, to re-ask the question. Buddhism has a sort of consistency on what is considered the end-point and how that point figures into its overall conception of the nature of existence—three noble truths, existence is bad, nirvana is good, etc. So while it is perhaps many lives beyond most peoples experience, meditating on the end of the path still has value because it can throw light on attitudes prevalent in the lower grades, that's if the system in question is consistent.
In Magick Without Tears there is an extended essay on the three schools: white, yellow and black.This essay makes the point that each of these three schools has its own consistency. For this reason, we might expect a similar consistency in Thelema to what one can find in Buddhism, though founded on a radically different attitude.
Getting back to the rationale for the original question. The attitude of the Ipsissimus towards reality, as it is imagined, would be useful for those of us still scrapping about the base of the Tree, if for no other reason than that it would clarify and deepen our appreciation of the general philosophical position of the entire system. This is what I thought veritas_in_nox was originally asking about.
I'm rereading One Star in Sight as I type. I can easily appreciate the fact that the grade of Ipsissimus is beyond my understanding. Similarly, its description reminds me of the end of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras when he talks about the Jivanmukti. Nevertheless, as diluted as it would be, one might expect something a bit more descriptive of the highest grade for the benefit of those of us below. There may be something, I just don't remember it and I don't have anything like that in my library. Something like a series of stained glass windows describing a story for the benefit of us illiterate peasants.
The best I can conceive of the 'end state' is that one is free to choose. But if one is still inclined to choose anything, then one is not free, not a Jivanmukti, not quite an Ipsissimus. This notion kind of messes with the idea that you are free. So the default, if one is truly free, or not free
, is the choice of non-manifestation, or Nirvana(?).A simple explanation, that we would could agree on at the outset as woefully inadequate, would be appreciated.
love and will
-
@RobertAllen said
"
I am not confused on this point. I'm not contrasting adepts and masters. I'm only concerned with the fate of the master:
@veritas_in_nox said
"
With all of this in mind, why are there people if their True Wills are, as I understand Crowley's perspective, to simply rejoin w/God again? It seems a bit self defeating."
"Yes, but the quote that the OPs question came from is here:
www.sacred-texts.com/oto/aba/chap1.htm
The "Union of God" in the quote is about adepts, not masters.
You answered a different question, quoted me, said you were confused and asked if you were missing something. I gave my opinion.
I'm not saying that the content of your thoughts about masters is confused; just that I think you're confusing the questions that you and I were each answering.
-
@veritas_in_nox said
"I didn't mean the Demiurge, actually. I was just wondering why 0 should be 2 just so it can be 0 again. But thank you for explaining, Mahanta.
@Jim Eshelman said
"This differs enormously from what he first stated."
I'm not making myself entirely clear here; I apologise. What I want to know is this: does the 'union with God' spoken of in Magick in Theory and Practice a literal dissolution of one's soul into God (or Nuit), never to be reincarnated again? If this is so, why? If I'm an idiot and it's not, what is it actually?"
Again, I think your concepts of "God" and "union with God" are key here. You are defining this as the destruction of the soul, a suicide of the self if you will.
Ah, of course, that would be horrible. No thinking person would do this.
But no one on this path is killing themselves and becoming one of the undead.
That is not the "end point" of Thelema.What I suggest you do is look at the lives of those who have been and are Thelemites.
Look at their lives and ask yourself if that person has really "dissolved" themselves (in the manner you see it) or not.When examining a religious or philosophical movement, look at the lives of those who are "graduates" of the path.
Doing so cuts through any misinformation picked up along the way.
Not to pick on Jim, but take a look at Jim. Jim is a "graduate" of Thelemic initiation and he goes around writing books, practicing his profession, and living his life. The same is the case with other Thelemites, which you can look up on various websites.
My point is that he and other Thelemites are not mindless corpses (or hermit hippies) but productive people, living their lives as they see fit.
So either all Thelemites are deluding themselves OR their use of terms such as "God" and "union with God" are being used in a manner completely different from how you are using them. My bet is on the latter possibility.
So I ask again, what are your sources (books, authors, former religion, academic courses) for your current interpretation of Thelema?
If you would be kind as to reveal your sources, I'm sure others would be better able to provide you with the answers you may be looking for.Namaste,
Larry (hippie in recovery)
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"
I'm not saying that the content of your thoughts about masters is confused; just that I think you're confusing the questions that you and I were each answering."I apologize, you are right, you were not addressing my concern, just clarifying a reference. But I was still confused after reading your note because I don't think there is much difference between Crowley's implication in the link you provided, and veritas_in_nox's clarification of what he was asking. I'm connecting a couple of things here, you were just my bridge.
If we can put the confusion behind us, maybe there is still a valid question. I understand, I think, the original question, and the subsequent confusion. The statement about the supreme ritual being the K&C of the HGA is clear enough. But given that, it is only the first experience of its kind. Doesn't it imply a further end?
"As far as I understand the theory, Samadhi, or union with God, or the K&C of the HGA is a repeatable experience. The more you do it, the more you are actually absorbed into the godhead, or what ever you want to call it. As such, there are grades of Samadhi. These are defined in terms of varying degrees of completeness, or how little is left over. The most perfect union is where nothing is left and there is no residual tendency to cause you to re-enter the world, life, reality... That is liberation, and generally considered the goal. As far as I can discern, Crowley totally understood this doctrine. Whether he ultimately thought this was what you should do, or if he considered this to be in line with Thelemic philosophy is unclear to me."
Is there a teleology here? Union with God—and Enoch walked with the Lord in the Garden, and Enoch was not because the Lord took him, or something along those lines. How does the final destination of the soul jive with Thelemic philosophy, summed as "existence is pure joy"?
EDIT: ding, 93 posts!
love and will
-
I personally am still not satisfied by just the most basic question (I have) which is what does a Thelemite mean by "God"? Bringing it back to Crowley's quote from Magick in Theory and Practice, it looks to me like by "God" he meant one's own Holy Guardian Angel.
"There is a single main definition of the object of all magical ritual. It is the uniting of Microcosm with the Macrocosm. The Supreme and Complete Ritual is therefore the Invocation of the Holy Guardian Angel; or in the language of Mysticism, the Union with** God**."
Beyond that, it looks like there is a Thelemic cosmological model of "the formula of 0=2," which seems to be somewhat comparable to the Buddhist "Dharma" or the Taoist "Tao."
Can we all argue on that?
-
@Coniuncti said
"I personally am still not satisfied by just the most basic question (I have) which is what does a Thelemite mean by "God"? Bringing it back to Crowley's quote from Magick in Theory and Practice, it looks to me like by "God" he meant one's own Holy Guardian Angel.
"There is a single main definition of the object of all magical ritual. It is the uniting of Microcosm with the Macrocosm. The Supreme and Complete Ritual is therefore the Invocation of the Holy Guardian Angel; or in the language of Mysticism, the Union with** God**."
Beyond that, it looks like there is a Thelemic cosmological model of "the formula of 0=2," which seems to be somewhat comparable to the Buddhist "Dharma" or the Taoist "Tao."
Can we all argue on that?"
93,
I think perhaps an issue is trying to even assign meaning to the word. I'll try to help, based on what I muse.
When I say "God," I generally mean nothing with any substance. I would say the word, in the Thelemic/Occult context means too much to be anything beyond a convenient word to toss around, but the big terms that can be used are panentheism [Notice it is not pantheism], and agnosticism [In the real meaning of the term, not someone who doesn't know which religion they want]. That is, at it's core, 'God' is inscrutable.
To that end, when I say that word, I'm really referring to everything [Hence, no substance]. The HGA, as far as I can tell is at times called "God," as it is a 'personal god.' I wouldn't say it is the panentheistic deity [Which I guess you could call Nuit and Hadit, but I don't- those seem too individuated], but I wouldn't say it isn't [Following it down the ladder would leave me to beleive that it IS the above, but in the practical sense, I see no value in associating those things yet]. Of course, this is just me musing, so if you plan on publishing it, don't
To bring it down deeper, I would liken the more individuated deities to the 'appendages' of the above, but with a non-personal emphasis [As in, it isn't just yours. Meta-HGA is too loose for me to use, as it is definitely not what I want to say] on doing whatever it is they need to be doing. I guess a good comparison is to compare it to the idea of Bodhisattvas in Tibetan Buddhism, but without the Buddhist and Bon baggage.
Though, your mileage may vary.
Edit- It should be noted that I find the concept of 'God' to only be useful in certain contexts, beyond that, I see it as a distraction- I don't care if the HGA is god, or if God wants me to talk to it anymore than I care if you are really a talking gerbil, or if you want me to go eat dinner.
93 93/93
-
@Coniuncti said
"I personally am still not satisfied by just the most basic question (I have) which is what does a Thelemite mean by "God"? Bringing it back to Crowley's quote from Magick in Theory and Practice, it looks to me like by "God" he meant one's own Holy Guardian Angel.
"There is a single main definition of the object of all magical ritual. It is the uniting of Microcosm with the Macrocosm. The Supreme and Complete Ritual is therefore the Invocation of the Holy Guardian Angel; or in the language of Mysticism, the Union with** God**."
Beyond that, it looks like there is a Thelemic cosmological model of "the formula of 0=2," which seems to be somewhat comparable to the Buddhist "Dharma" or the Taoist "Tao."
Can we all argue on that?"
I'm just back home and have had quite a number of drinks and am pouring myself another one. I should wait till tomorrow to respond but what the hell!
Regarding 0=2, that does not mean 1 and 2 cease to exist relatively. Buddhism is misunderstood by most Westerners.
Just because a Buddhist does not believe that the soul really exists does not mean that they believe it does not relatively exist.
The Thelemic God is ultimately that spark of the divine that looks out from behind your eyes, the True you. -
@Coniuncti said
"I personally am still not satisfied by just the most basic question (I have) which is what does a Thelemite mean by "God"? Bringing it back to Crowley's quote from Magick in Theory and Practice, it looks to me like by "God" he meant one's own Holy Guardian Angel.
"There is a single main definition of the object of all magical ritual. It is the uniting of Microcosm with the Macrocosm. The Supreme and Complete Ritual is therefore the Invocation of the Holy Guardian Angel; or in the language of Mysticism, the Union with** God**."
Beyond that, it looks like there is a Thelemic cosmological model of "the formula of 0=2," which seems to be somewhat comparable to the Buddhist "Dharma" or the Taoist "Tao."
Can we all argue on that?"
@malnarcissis said
"
I think perhaps an issue is trying to even assign meaning to the word. "God is just a word, a cipher.
It is a symbol for what mystics experience when they have mystical experiences; same with terms like the Holy Guardian Angel; as well as the Absolute. By all accounts Buddhists have mystical experiences and they are atheists, so they call it something else, or they call it nothing. It works regardless of how you conceive it. What it actually is, what it actually entails, is something I hope to experience for myself someday with all my heart.
Regardless, figuring out what we mean by that word, even in a limited sense for the sake of this discussion, is probably impossible, and unnecessary imho. This is because we are not talking about truth, we are talking about dogma, specifically, Thelemic dogma.
The comparison with Buddhism is generally helpful, but only if the limitation in the comparison is clearly appreciated. This is because Thelema is not Buddhism. The difference is a difference of dogma. They look at the universe, and we look at the universe, but we see different things because of differences in our belief systems. There may also be an experiential component to our differing points of view, but personal experience is a very difficult form of proof and generally doesn’t play well in a group discussion. It works for individual conviction, but it rarely contributes to any kind of meaningful consensus.
From my perspective, the question is fairly straight forward because it is dogmatic:
What do Thelemites believe, and how does that belief play out in terms of the stories they tell themselves concerning the ultimate fate of the individual soul?
This is where the comparison with Buddhism makes sense, because it is possible to looks at those people and make a few simple observations:
- They believe existence is a piece of (****).
- They tell stories about the adepts in their systems who have become masters
- These stories involve a choice between getting out or staying around to help others get out
- There are only these two options, and both are consistent with their initial assertion that life sucks.
Now we look at ourselves:
- We believe that existence is pure joy—*The Book of the Law *tell us so.
- We have some indication of where our adepts are headed; once a person makes that breakthrough to Briahtic consciousness, they are on a one way trip to the Abyss; and beyond that to the crown—which may take many life times, but the assumption is that everyone will get there, eventually.
It does not make sense that we would act the same way at the end of this journey as a Buddhist if we really believed that existence was pure joy—why would we choose to leave it if it was such a great place? So what is the deal, how does our belief in the essential nature of existence as joyous play out for the end game?
Admittedly, this is all very academic. As such I can understand anyone wishing to ignore this discussion as ultimately pointless. And maybe it is for reasons having to do with the utter beyondness of the ‘frame of mind’ in question. Nevertheless, at this point in my thinking I am inclined to argue that it is a valid question, especially for those of us below Tiphareth. This is because any answer at all, even one that cannot possibly be true from the point of view of an actual master who has access to these exalted states, would still be a source of insight, just like all the other illusions we make use of and meditate on that help us get there from here.
I read One Star in Sight, and frankly it is too exalted for me to make much of it when it describes the grades above the Abyss. There are logical traps I cannot get my head around. So I was hoping for an answer that was a little closer to the earth, something with a bit more utility, albeit one I would expect to outgrow.
love and will
-
@Frater Aster Lux said
"As I understand it, at the point of union the mundane personality is completely blotted out, and all that is left is "god". What happens to that "true you" after crossing the abyss? or after liberation or whatever? and what was the whole point in the first place?"
What you're describing in your first sentence sounds more like the abyss crossing then K&C.
The adept has opened up a solid connection with the supra-rational world of consciousness, but is still very much a human. As the adept goes through the next couple pre-abyss stages, she perfects this connection, and works her will, and is still definable as human.
It's crossing abyss that results in something that is no longer 'human'.
The Mystical Magical System of the A.'. A.'. is the clearest explanation I've ever read of the journey. And, while it doesn't cover the grades beyond Adeptus Exemptus (7=4), it does discuss the order beyond satisfyingly enough for most...
-
@Frater Aster Lux said
"Robert, does history show any record of any one doing this recently?
A while ago there was a thread here about the ancient magi from history, and Crowley was the most recent. You can take or leave the accounts of each."
I confess being inspired by these stories as well. In fact they have been my greatest motivations outside a deeply felt desire to explore these possibilities for myself.
@Frater Aster Lux said
"Existence and joy to me are bound up in ecstatic experience... the kind that generally transcends this plane. This life doesn't suck, but what if it gets better? Creation and rapture happen on all levels... The same book you pull that quote from about joy, also states something about the knowledge of the continuity of existence. Refining rapture. Being strong, and bearing even more joy!"
Yes. You list many of the things I resonate with as well. And maybe the answers are in these things, but you will pardon my reticence in drawing conclusions about the later grades I have no authority to make.
@Frater Aster Lux said
"Being a thelemite is supposed to offer a level of certainty, in leu of faith as well... so it is as you say, a matter of experience... not that I have much..."
I'm workin on it!
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"
The Mystical Magical System of the A.'. A.'. is the clearest explanation I've ever read of the journey. And, while it doesn't cover the grades beyond Adeptus Exemptus (7=4), it does discuss the order beyond satisfyingly enough for most..."
I have it. I've read it. I look at it from time to time to help clarify things. But surely you are not suggesting we should simply be content with what we already have?
love and will