Crowley's stupendous 9=2 initiation.
-
I can tell you exactly what it was, I think.
The "tolerance" to LSD comes from something you may call "one-mindedness", further into "nothingness", but let's focus on the one-mindedness.
When it comes down to anything, the highest form or pattern of it is Circular, no matter what. (I will not here, go into how it relates to things of three right afterward.)
LSD brings you, idealistically, and the entire time subconsciously, to the point in the beginning of the "Clear Light", I'd call it "circular" even though it is way more than that. "Of everything that is round and perfect" would be a better way to put it.
When you've stared at it all night, again ideally, it takes you double the dose the next night for the same effect. (Strange that things with Powerful Things and Acid, and psychedelics in general, and the illusion of Darkness, come in Doubles. "Double, sinister and deadly.) The one-mindedness you experienced that held the acid at "bay" was your own smaller version of the "clear light" in the form of very important work you were doing. Now your work isn't as "powerful as" the clear light of reality, so it didn't totally dismiss the LSD, only prolonged the time of onset.
(ON-Set. Another word/word set to look at qabalistically. Major relation to psychedelics seeing as psychs are the drug MOST paid attention to in regards to Onset.)
Congratulations, you have successfully made something in your own life/mind temporarily as important to you as the Clear Light of Reality. This is rare. You have the ability to dose or meditate and hold the clear light for hours on end, I know this for a fact.
Some, it takes only the time to eat a meal, some the time to blink an eye, (then, years and then YEARS later, they complain of "flashbacks" of a "flashlight-like" circular light at the center of their vision every once in awhile -- again, very strange.)
Peace and Power to You and Yours
-
@Dar es Alrah said
"Isn't Yesod the 'Treasure house of images?'
Take the energy up and away from Malkuth and Yesod and the images disappear. All there is left below is the black and empty matter of the material body receding away."
Better stated, I think, in terms of the World of Yetzirah rather than Yesod - but your point is made well either way
(Yesod is the repository either way.)"Of course, the Buddha's say everything is unsatisfactory also. And I wouldn't say that exactly."
Me either. Or, rather, it depends on what you mean by "everything." The key syllable is thing.
So, again, it's a matter of the four Worlds, not the sephiroth. In my early days of digging and exploring, I thought the basics of Buddha's philosophy applied much farther upstream. At some untraceable point along the way, I came to realize that this isn't so - that one laughs much sooner than I once thought.
It wasn't until I was writing Visions & Voices and compelling myself to describe some technical terms for the glossary that I got clear what I really thought about some of these matters. (Compelling yourself to written definitions can have that effect!) I ended up defining each of the "three characteristics" in ways that applied only to Assiah and Yetzirah (paraphrased as "physical and psychological"). FWIW, here they are:DUKKHA. n. Buddhism. One of three characteristics that all things have. Often translated “sorrow” or “suffering,” a more nuanced translation would be “dissatisfaction.” The principle is that all things physical and psychological are ultimately insufficient or unsatisfying.
ANIKKA. n. Buddhism. One of three characteristics that all things have. It means “impermanence,” i.e., that all things physical and psychological are continually changing.
ANATTA. n. Buddhism. One of three characteristics that all things have. It means “not-self” (no atman, “self”). At one level of understanding, it means that nothing physical or psychological that one can witness is oneself.
-
@Dar es Alrah said
"And I consider Nuit - the consciousness of spacetime - to be identical to the Atman.
"Hmmm... agreeing more than disagreeing (it's another definitions thing).Speifically:
I don't consider Nuit as "consciousness of spacetime." I consider Nuit to be spacetime. I then agree that the Atman (Kether) is the point of innocent consciousness of Her (the Zero).
So, in that sense, I think we agree except in word usage.
"That sounds like I'm disagreeing doesn't it? lol. I'm not. I agree there is no self/persona really. Yet consciousness is a pervasive quality of spacetime/yesod nevertheless - and I call this Atman.
"Oh, well, now I disagree that we agree.
I hold that there IS a self - just not one that's unchanging, or that has psychological or physical characteristics that are ultimately satisfying. -
Jim's explanation of "DUKKHA" reminds me of what Crowley defines clearly as "Welchmertz", where everything in the universe is partly responsible for everything else's sorrow.
The other definition he gave was,
"Eternity grown and travaileth until now."I guess by "now", he means until the point of explanation. I guess there's a hidden subliminal meaning by that last definition to make humans temporarily unaware of welchmertz, or try to move away from the experience of it.
The ceasing of sorrow is very healing, though. I guess, in our universe, two of the operative incarnations of evolutionary catalysts seem to be fire and water. In buddhism, I believe, Fire corresponds to the noble eight fold path, a way to move away from the sorrow of eternity.
Water corresponds to the ceasing of sorrow. Is something higher trying to tell us that we are being looked after, almost spoiled by the universal makeup of bringing beings to their higher selves --
or is it telling us that to live and evolve is ecstasy and to take a lesson from Ra Hoor Khuit and leave sorrow behind, taking the high road. -
Dar, I'm not sexist at ALL by any means, but I was going to ask you if you place Nuit/Atman in Yesod because of your female role in active creation?
-
@Dar es Alrah said
"Jim Eshelman wrote:
Dar es Alrah wrote:
And I consider Nuit - the consciousness of spacetime - to be identical to the Atman.
Hmmm... agreeing more than disagreeing (it's another definitions thing).Speifically:I don't consider Nuit as "consciousness of spacetime." I consider Nuit to be spacetime.
Definitely a definition thing. Nuit is both. Perhaps 'consciousness 'in' spacetime would have been a better way to put it."I don't mean to jump in, but it is challenging to think of a definition that is Not. I think Nuit is definitely not a consciousness though. It is where the aspiration goes, but is never found. Boundless. Ever beyond. Otherwise, would there be room to grow? A definition implies a limit to that defintion. Any +1 implies the -1, in particle physics and beyond.
Infinite space is impossible to comprehend. Can it be called "not-consciousness"?
*Then the priest answered & said unto the Queen of Space, kissing her lovely brows, and the dew of her light bathing his whole body in a sweet-smelling perfume of sweat: O Nuit, continuous one of Heaven, let it be ever thus; that men speak not of Thee as One but as None; and let them speak not of thee at all, since thou art continuous! *
It reminds me of Kant trying to describe space. As soon as you try to describe a container of "black nothing", you still need words -- absence of something presupposes a thing -- only a ________ that has no observer can be Not. But yet there is the potential of something to manifest.
And the manifest creates the opposite -- the non-manifest -- by virtue of the thought.
Anyway, good Venus day conversation.
-
Also:
@Jim Eshelman said
"I ended up defining each of the "three characteristics" in ways that applied only to Assiah and Yetzirah (paraphrased as "physical and psychological"). FWIW, here they are:
DUKKHA. n. Buddhism. One of three characteristics that all things have. Often translated “sorrow” or “suffering,” a more nuanced translation would be “dissatisfaction.” The principle is that all things physical and psychological are ultimately insufficient or unsatisfying.
ANIKKA. n. Buddhism. One of three characteristics that all things have. It means “impermanence,” i.e., that all things physical and psychological are continually changing.
ANATTA. n. Buddhism. One of three characteristics that all things have. It means “not-self” (no atman, “self”). At one level of understanding, it means that nothing physical or psychological that one can witness is oneself."
BRILLIANT.
-
@Frater 639 said
" only a ________ that has no observer can be Not. But yet there is the potential of something to manifest.
And the manifest creates the opposite -- the non-manifest -- by virtue of the thought.
Anyway, good Venus day conversation.
"This sounds like trying to put the idea of Samadhi into words, but the human intelligence keeps skipping to solidarity and reason again.
"The Destruction of the God and the Magician."
No observer, no "experiencer".
-
Dar, may I ask you a serious question:
I'm guessing that "God" told the ancient Israelites to eat unlevened bread because there is active consciousness in yeast.
I am a vegan. I am totally unrelying and unaddicted to the proteins and enzymes not many people know about that keep humans addicted to flesh-and-blood food. If yeast has consciousness, then would it not be "wrong" of me to eat it? It being a piece of bread made by cooking animals to death to make flour rise?
Thanks.
-
Oh, and your "yo-yo" metaphor agrees with me completely. The Clear Light is that yo-yo, trying to go higher up with every "Yod" or even "Resh" of INRI, right before it falls back down to its original state. I think time keeps resetting itself for the purpose of evolution.
I mean, time does not go "away". After a certain point, we will all be our HGAs looking back into the past to help our "lower" selves.
So yes, an upside down yo-yo. I guess the string would be all the already-evolved Hadits that came before our Universe's Hadit?
-
@Dar es Alrah said
"Not really no. Just because you, the birds, and a batch of yeast (that also has consciousness btw) doesn't know how that consciousness works or what the extent of consciousness is (it's in every amoeba on the planet!), doesn't mean it doesn't work for you! I mean - when you get down to the planck scale - spacetime is pretty darned huge. Boundless amounts of qualia and energy running through it's entire holographic structure... Nuit is possessed of all consciousness- everything that has consciousness has to have it via Nuit/spacetime. "
Hmm. Well, that would suppose that spacetime is equated with Nuit. But, to me, "spacetime", as you call it, is more matter and motion, when it is interfacing with my intellect, and put into words. I think the Naples Arrangement is pretty cool. Equating Nuit with "spacetime" is rather limiting, IMHO. But, it's all just semantics anyway.
And the ideas of consciousness and non-consiousness are all Yetziratic in nature. They are ideas. You must conceptualize it to explain it, and it ends up all being Reason in the end. But where is the value? I understand trying to explain Nuit, but I don't have the words...
That's It!
But how can It be That?
It can't be That.
Because That ceases to be It.*But Thou art Eternity and Space; Thou art Matter and Motion; and Thou art the negation of all these things.
For there is no Symbol of Thee. *@ThelemicMage said
"This sounds like trying to put the idea of Samadhi into words, but the human intelligence keeps skipping to solidarity and reason again.
"The Destruction of the God and the Magician."
No observer, no "experiencer"."
Of which we know, but do not speak. To me it sounds like "I" trying to attach importance to words, which are only important the more I am locked into a particular POV. POV's are tools, nothing more...to interpret the illusion. Does it have value?
*Behold! the Abyss of the Great Deep. Therein is a mighty dolphin, lashing his sides with the force of the waves.
There is also an harper of gold, playing infinite tunes.
Then the dolphin delighted therein, and put off his body, and became a bird.
The harper also laid aside his harp, and played infinite tunes upon the Pan-pipe.
Then the bird desired exceedingly this bliss, and laying down its wings became a faun of the forest.
The harper also laid down his Pan-pipe, and with the human voice sang his infinite tunes.
Then the faun was enraptured, and followed far; at last the harper was silent, and the faun became Pan in the midst of the primal forest of Eternity.
Thou canst not charm the dolphin with silence, O my prophet! * -
@ThelemicMage said
"
I'm guessing that "God" told the ancient Israelites to eat unlevened bread because there is active consciousness in yeast.
"I know this was for Dar, but the unleavened bread bit is just for Passover. This was because on Passover they were in a hurry to leave Egypt, and had no time to let dough rise. Nothing to do with yeast (which makes the wine that one drinks on Passover).
-
Thanks Binyamin. I've read about unleavened bread but couldn't remember the details in the old testament.
You know, I've made wine, but never known the name of the living microscopic beings that make the alcohol out of sugar. Yeast will do this, but I forget the name of the animals that do this.
I do not know if yeast is used to make wine traditionally. However, all that is needed is smashed grapes, sugar, and water.. along with a container and two smaller containers to make sure air can't get in, only out.
That means that yeast performs the same function as these little creatures already in the grapes, and I guess, air. Does this mean that all fruits and vegetables already have a form of yeast in them?
-
Yup. Yeast is present on the grape skins. Using a wine culture is just to ensure predictable results.
Back to the topic--the glimpses I've had of what I assume is Briatic intelligence remind me of the instinct of Nephesh, but an "octave above". There's certainty without verbal abstraction, but a certainty that encompasses both the blind instinct of Nephesh and the dry logic of Yetzirah.
Similarly, I'd like to imagine that Atziluth is like the reason of Yetzirah, but an "octave above". A world of insight distilled into a potent drop of communication.
Bah... words...
-
@Dar es Alrah said
"You're reacting just like a mathematician would if someone tried to define zero"
Not at all - I am behaving like someone who is trying to understand your PERSPECTIVE of the Book of the Law.
Math is an arbitrary set of conventions, completely made up to intrepret phenomena. Nuit IS 0, accroding to 777 and Crowley...So, we're talking about energy -- is this the same energy in E=MC squared? Or is this beyond relativism? If so, what is your definition? I just don't want to get into an *obscurum per osbcurius *kind of argument - trying to explain the obscure with something more obscure. Please tell me what you mean by energy.
I think you said it has something to do with consciousness, or maybe activity? Could it be movement? Can movement exist without percievable matter? How about time for the movement to take place in? Does energy exist without matter and motion?
Ah, but the real meat and potatoes (I'm vegetarian)...
@Dar es Alrah said
"Now as was before, the message is - get out there and experience this Formless and Boundless Reality for yourself! "
"Yet she shall be known - & I never." - Hadit.
Yes. And it truly is boundless when I don't attach myself to a particular POV - Hadit. Sometimes, talking about my ego's ideas (or any individual's particular persepctive) of how the Universe behaves, and what it is, hampers my flexiblity. To me, in my life, it's called obsession and fascination. And I try to guard against Onanism, because it has no value.
So, I'm glad you mentioned the purpose of all these theories -- the value -- to enjoy ALL of the many forms in ONE perfect happiness. This usually involves perspective shifts quite often to be in right relation with "outside" phenomena. In all of the Forms that we perceive, and the Forces behind it - it is all part of Her, and yet, None of those things is Her as well. It is ALL ONE beauty -- but our POV remains flexible to enjoy all perspectives of Her. After the semantics, I think we're on the same page.
-
Dar..
It sounds like you have tapped into the Akashic/World/Universe's view of "getting off of the 'softness'". Without getting off of the softness, planets eventually become unlivable and the ones not off the "softness" of the planet, their mother's womb, and their own fatness of skin, will be killed and left behind.
Now of course this applies to our work, most notably.
Yesod is the first sephira that starts to get "off the ground/softness" of Malkuth. Even when we are in our meditative positions, Yesod is not that far above the ground in our bodies, but is definitely not touching Malkuth/the ground.
Even when Crowley/OTO teaches LBRP, he states to use the word "Malkuth" when touching Yesod, as if to say "get off the softness and into the vertical ascension that is Yesod."
Let me know what you think of this.
(I reference the Grateful Dead/Warlocks in the old Acid Tests. "Maybe, can we get maybe nine small soft girls from the audience, just so we can rest our heads and our bodies. Just something to lay on? But you know what? We've got to get OFF of the SOFTNESS. Those chicks are beautiful but they need to get off the softness too. We've ALL got to get OFF of the SOFTNESS..."
-
@Dar es Alrah said
"The model of quantum consciousness I refer to is the Penrose/Hameroff Orch Or model. It has quite a lot of evidence behind it now and remains viable after 20 years of scientific scrutiny. That's usually a good sign.
I really like it because I didn't feel satisfied with my previous level of understanding until I learned about this theory that was capable of describing how consciousness operates in the universe."
I am very familiar with this model of quantum consciousness. I find it to be very useful when it comes to my subjectivity interfacing with the concept of ontology -- I agree that it fits, in many aspects, in regard to the perception of phenomenology, from particular POVs...
In many regards, this particular quantum model does reconcile SOME problems of relativism. However, we are still FAR from a Unified Theory. Why is that? It has something to do with multiple subjectivities, and that one truth is still as valuable as another truth. Perhaps, it is even more important to understand HOW WE CHOOSE TO OBSERVE. Do we dictate the reality of the phenomena, or does it dictate to us? Or both? Is the Khabs in the Khu?
It takes belief to make it reality -- much stronger with multiple subjectivities in agreement (meme or egregore?) -- which is infinitely flexible with infinite variables, in regard to consciousness. Every man and every woman is a star.
It will be interesting to see other advancements in the quantum field, as we move into the future, as we OBSERVE more phenomena. Observation does seem to change the quality of these phenomena in appearance, as you have discussed in the point/waveform duality. I think we're both on the same page.
However, this model may or may not help me to access the rose. The synthesis as opposed to the analysis. The trance associated with the rose, as opposed to the intellectual apprehension of the rose, is different for everyone. The observation is THAT; but there is still the aspect of difference -- inherent in all observation. There is also IT, which, to me, is best explained as "no difference". Blah, blah, blah...
Models, to me, are still in the realm of Yetzirah...which does collapse into the "field" of Yesod, or a "point", when being observed. To me, belief in a model can be considered an aspect of Yesod.
@Dar es Alrah said
"To translate that into something you're probably more familiar with - when we use the hermetic qabalah we say that all the sephiroth are contained in each sephirah."
Absolutely, there are trees inside of trees inside of trees. Also a very useful model.
Happy Saturn day!
-
You know, I do despise relating or blaming enlightenment on "drugs" or other catalysts of reality, but:
There's this herb, called Salvia Divinorum, or "The Diviner's Sage", that produces an experience almost the exact opposite of LSD and other serotonin-receptor psychedelics.
Salvia is an Opioid, believe it or not, that does not produce the typical Drowsy, dopey effects of opiates. Rather than putting you more "out there" like LSD or psilocybin , Salvinorin(active chemical), will make you feel like an immense wheel of universally-intense gravity hits you with its edges like an ocean wave, and ends up pulling you out to it's "outside" in the "higher space."
Meaning, if you are psychically open and can tell what plants or other beings are saying to you, you would do it and say, "A huge wave of gravity hit me, then pulled me out into the stars of deep space. All the while I was on the outside of a gigantic wheel suspended in the center of the universe, revolving different aspects and levels/dimensions of reality."
It's very interesting.. one keeps looking for the original point before one went "out there". Seems directly connected with a chemical the brain uses for memory. Every once in awhile, one sees the room and people whirl by as one aspect of reality. Then the wheel comes back to that one place more often, then just drops you off all of a sudden to the room you were in and the people you were with.
Very different from the "watery freedom" of mushrooms or DMT, also very different from the "Winds" of LSD. More like a giant circular pattern of psychedelic gravity.
It's still legal in most states. I learned all I could from it and I still have leaf left that is unused.
-
@Dar es Alrah said
"LOL Frater! To the Prince of Swords, one way is always as good as the next, and every position is viable. 'Truth' is relative to his intellectual perception of it, revolving and receding in his consciousness around a 'point'."
The Prince of Swords is pulled in many directions, never settling on something. Prey to all sorts of obsessions...non-coordination...
LOL Dar es Alrah!
I agree with everything you stated about the intellect! What can I say? Why does intellectual conversation ensue? Does it have value?
I don't think you understood what I was saying about observation? I guarantee it isn't as grandiose as figuring out the fabric of an objective universe while reading studies that agree with personal bias. What I was trying to say is actually very simple. MOST people walk around thinking the intellectual illusion to be reality (especially "SCIENCE BACKED" ILLUSION). Many people can't decide for themselves and give the authority to others. MOST people haven't trained their intellect to contradict itself yet - even I am (hopefully) still learning to do this. The mind is a wonderful slave but a terrible master. Glad you brought up the Prince of Swords.
Most people believe any POV that pops in their head to be truth and reality, and let it pull them everywhere. That is AN ASPECT of the Prince of Swords - UNSTABLE OF PURPOSE. It is coordination of these "truths" or POVs to build their life, by learning how to will, in one way or another, according to the Will. That is an aspect of HOW WE CHOOSE TO OBSERVE. When I say multiple subjectivities, I am talking about multiple humans and their POVs (mostly inflexible in direct proportion with their ego), with their own sets of what they believe as truth. If anything, that makes up a collective. Amazing what they can do when their "truths" are coordinated! Personally as well as collectively. Are we on the same page here?
That was the "point" I was trying to make. I think we've proved mental masturbation and its insignificance - well, it could have significance from 'an harper playing infinite tunes' POV maybe. With the calvary of the mind put in a specific direction, it becomes powerful and useful to the Will. We're saying the same thing?
-
@Dar es Alrah said
"Yes. I understand this. You're speaking of 'mixing the planes' are you not? "
YES. That is definitely an aspect of what I'm trying to say. Darned semantics.
The material as separate from the model. The model as a tool of the mind, which is hopefully a flexible vehicle to create, under the coordination of Will. Which, in turn, gives birth back upon the material.
When they are all mixed together, all confusion breaks loose.
Great analogy with the hub and the wheel, btw. Love it.