Function of Gratitude in Magick
-
@Takamba said
"
@Selene said
"Deepak Chopra, I believe, talks about gratitude, and how it attracts more."That's one way to put it. Another way to put it is that a person with an attitude of gratitude and an optimistic outlook is more likely to see opportunity and "go for it" (and not be so hard on themselves when something doesn't work out as planned) whereas a pessimist and someone without gratitude is less likely to observe opportunities and "go for it" (and likely to surrender to the first sign of failure). Psychological research has demonstrated this. Nothing "supernatural" about it.
But I guess that's just another way of putting it."
I think that's very well put, Takamba.
I think that having an open minded and optimistic outlook can also help you create opportunities. It seems to link into the creative, expressive, loving and playful side of our natures, especially when it's unhindered by any 'lust of result'.
True gratitude is much akin to delight and appreciation - given freely without wanting or expecting anything in return.
Yesterday on FB I saw a post saying "If I've liked your page and you haven't liked mine then I'm going to unfriend you!" The poster had 'given' and he felt owed something back, and it's very like when you hear people sulking and grumbling about how 'some people have no gratitude'. What they don't realize is that it's hard (perhaps impossible) to have gratitude for someone who helps you out with the expectation that this will put you in their debt, because then they aren't really doing something for you, they've only done it for themselves.
I think some folks confuse being opportunistic with being optimistic - and they miss out a lot from not being able to truly give from the heart. The "what's in it for me" types are pretty empty people.
It's a real shame when you see it, cause you know they are missing out on the very opportunities they seek so desperately (wanting, wanting, wanting). They miss out on true fellowship, and the joys and satisfactions of altruism (which is it's own reward).
They get mean and angry and they say "where's mine!" and try and compel others to appreciate them, but at most that will only elicit a simulacrum of gratitude from others. If gratitude attracts gratitude, then selfishness also attracts selfishness. A person who has never learned that yet is still a child - no matter how old they are.
By contrast we have people like Jim who put's up with us lot (
), and like our lovely Veronica who gives her love and appreciation freely - when and where she will, and without looking for anything in return. When you meet someone who's naturally warm and genuine like that - of course she get's appreciated. She's a good momma. 
The heart opens naturally to give up it's gifts. It obeys it's own rules and it can't be compelled.Children can learn altruism. Some children don't learn it. Some people have to learn it later on during what tends to be a hard and disappointing life for them. But - everything and everyone changes, and there's always a chance for people to grow up if they've missed out on going through crucial stages of development in childhood. It's no coincidence that being confidently optimistic about the chances of someone evolving and growing can be instrumental to their personal development.
-
-
@kasper81 said
If gratitude attracts gratitude, then selfishness also attracts selfishness. "
"selfishness actually doesn't attract selfishness. If we get all haughty when someone is having a strop (rare or not) then we are actually no better. We are reacting mechanically and are therefore not authentic. It's also judgmental and therefore unloving. True love is tolerance and understanding hence when we for-give we are then, giving"
You messed up the quotes again. I said no such thing. It should look like this.
@Alrah said
"
If gratitude attracts gratitude, then selfishness also attracts selfishness. " -
@kasper81 said
If gratitude attracts gratitude, then selfishness also attracts selfishness. "
"selfishness actually doesn't attract selfishness. If we get all haughty when someone is having a strop (rare or not) then we are actually no better. We are reacting mechanically and are therefore not authentic. It's also judgmental and therefore unloving. True love is tolerance and understanding hence when we for-give we are then, giving"
You are making a moral judgement, and thereby wishing to be treat as you would ideally do to others. This is a Christian ethic. However the law of Thelema is a realistic one and does not constrain anyone to suffer fools gladly, and in actual fact - at times the best thing you can do for a person is to leave them alone. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. That may be the most loving course of action while appearing to be haughty, aloof or unloving to the one left to their own devices. Love is the law, but it is as much for the self as about giving it to others, and one may love others and forgive them their foibles unequivocally while not seeking their companionship or company or to embroil themselves in aiding them evolve past whatever excess energy they may wish to give in altruistic pursuits - especially when that energy is wasted.
Thus, the lover may freely depart from the abusive individual without there being any expectation that they will stand by them until such a time that individual is ready to let go of abusive and selfish patterns of behavior. And likewise, the lover may depart given no cause on the part of the opposite but simply because their concordance now proves displeasing to them.
Like attracts like. Birds of a feather flock together. Misery loves it own company and the joyous seek joyous companions. That is the reality.
Don't confuse the reality that you can observe with your own powers with what you would like and prefer to be the case. Your preference when it comes to the actions of others is not relevant to the law. The law of Thelema entitles you to:
to live by your own law—
to live in the way that you will to do:
to work as you will:
to play as you will:
to rest as you will:
to die when and how you will.
to eat what you will:
to drink what you will:
to dwell where you will:
to move as you will on the face of the earth.
to think what you will:
to speak what you will:
to write what you will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as you will:
to dress as you will.
to love as you will:—
to take your fill and will of love as you will, when, where, and with whom ye will.
to kill those who would thwart these rights.it does not entitle you :
to forgiveness from others,
to gratitude from others,
to love from others,
to sex from others,
to fair or pleasing to you speech from others,
to any return of mental, emotional or physical energy you may choose to give to others,
to fair judgement from others,
or for others to comply with the laws you choose to live by.Compassion is the deputy (vice) of the King but how that is expressed by the King is according to no external rule or law but only according to your own law - each King for themselves.
Capish?
-
@kasper81 said
"Yes, well said Alrah, although Takamba had already pointed out my error and I agreed with him. I thought my emoticon response was adequate enough to show that.
"That is very interesting for you to say, because you are saying that the only argument you were holding was that you thought I had said it. Whereas what Alrah wrote after, in response to your disagreement about her statement, was a very well stated piece on the Law of Will and law of love. So, since the only thing that I pointed out to you was that you were responding not to me but to Alrah's statement, and you believe your emoticon showed your agreement to that error, and that that was the only argument you have - you are taking/making things personal, aren't you? Was it about the statement that "selfishness attracts selfishness" which you were in disagreement with (hence, Alrah's statements are to clarify to you what she meant and she did so very excellently) or was it that you thought I was the source that you were in disagreement with (hence, your emoticon demonstrated your acceptance of your error and that is supposed to be enough)?
-
@kasper81 said
"No, Takamba. You seemed to point out the error that I made. The error of leaving out gratitude out of the equation in this discussion, and merely focussing on selfishness breeding selfishness i.e. people who have gratitude are beyond concerns about selfishness
Either way, whatever: the gist is everyone is a star in love under will and yes, alignment with the law of Thelema banishes all our tendencies for self-flattery, I agree
"Apologies accepted (for whatever this truly was about, as now I am confused, and the Bardon thread thing).
-
@Takamba said
"Well said, Alrah."
Thanks Takamba. I glad you enjoyed my response.
It also struck me this morning that Thelema is automatically resistant to manipulation from the 'dark triad' of personality traits, whereas the former Christian ethic was often manipulated by these personality types. (I'd been reading up on Machiavelli.)
93's!
-
@Alrah said
"
@kasper81 said
"
selfishness actually doesn't attract selfishness. If we get all haughty when someone is having a strop (rare or not) then we are actually no better. We are reacting mechanically and are therefore not authentic. It's also judgmental and therefore unloving. True love is tolerance and understanding hence when we for-give we are then, giving"You are making a moral judgement, and thereby wishing to be treated as you would ideally do to others. This is a Christian ethic. "
Actually, it's not a Christian ethic. However, you are correct that this is the usual expectation of immature Christians.
The Christian injunction is to "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." It is not dependent on the expectation of returned favor. It is most properly understood as an injunction to act as if the other person is yourself, in spite of the fact that no return of favor may ever be offered. But it does place its hope in a world ultimately transformed by such proactive acts of compassion. Christianity, when properly understood, is also a religion of The Beloved.
But how long will I defend the true Way of Christ to love The Beloved from the proper tearing at the abuses of "Christianity" (which is different, being long stripped of its gnosis)?
It becomes more rare, reserved for those who may understand it.
-
@Legis said
"The Christian injunction is to "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." It is not dependent on the expectation of returned favor. It is most properly understood as an injunction to act as if the other person is yourself, in spite of the fact that no return of favor may ever be offered. But it does place its hope in a world ultimately transformed by such proactive acts of compassion. Christianity, when properly understood, is also a religion of The Beloved."
The so-called "Golden rule" is an awful piece of advice, presuming as it does that others would want the same things that you would want or that you should even care what others would want in the first place.
You are not other people, and other people are not you. Teachers who tell you "we are all one" usually just want to use your wallet as if it were their wallet.
As Crowley puts it:
@Aleister Crowley said
"All this talk about 'suffering humanity' is principally drivel based on the error of transferring one's own psychology to one's neighbour. The Golden Rule is silly. If Lord Alfred Douglas (for example) did to others what he would like them to do to him, many would resent his action."
Another great example of Crowley's humor, by the way.
"But how long will I defend the true Way of Christ"
I don't know. How long until you wish to pursue wisdom and put aside these childish things?
-
@Alrah said
"
@Takamba said
"Well said, Alrah."Thanks Takamba. I glad you enjoyed my response.
It also struck me this morning that Thelema is automatically resistant to manipulation from the 'dark triad' of personality traits, whereas the former Christian ethic was often manipulated by these personality types. (I'd been reading up on Machiavelli.)
93's!
"Fascinating.
My mother and I had a very detailed conversation yesterday about these three constructs, and the type of person who embraces them. We also wondered why we were different and not afflicted when so many in our circles were. It reminded us of an idea we had read about back in 93, in a book called Ishmael. The author Quinn presents the idea that the world is populated with two types of people, the Takers and the Leavers. I can see a deep correlation between the tenants of Thelema and the Leavers. I also can see a deeper correlation with the tenants of Abrahamic Salvationist traditions ( as practiced and ingrained in non Thelemic people) and the Takers.This Dark Triad construct that seems to be growing in prevalence and acceptance (IMO) is a core ( if not the core) dis-ease of the Human condition, a symptom (IMO again) of humanities denial and fear of nature itself. In that I mean specifically how it would appear that our not so ancient ancestors deliberately denied and aggressively persecuted ways of life that were in accordance with both the feminine and the masculine nature. It is well known how some civilizations violently oppressed the feminine and exalted the masculine and I believe that this schism in the nature balance of life and death, feast and famine, active and passive has instigated these psychological constructs, giving rise to what many could call a global mental health epidemic.
What I believe is the remedy for this, and what is more then just resistant to this Dark Triad is the core understanding of nature, which is the core of Thelema, which is the core of what Quinn called The Leavers. Thelema from my personal experience is not only resistant to this construct, (a barrier, like a coat of oil) but is also a repellant, acting like the opposite end of a magnet, acting with a force ( fueled by love under will) to drive away any and all who are not of a like kind.
That was the gist of what mom and I discussed, and part of our conclusion as to why others are so forcefully repelled by us, and it also explaines (as Quinn tells) of their initial overpowering desire to attempt to control, manipulate and forcefully change (assimilate) us and our natures. Because they have chosen a consumption pattern which is unsustainable with out recruits ( conquest) they have no other choice, much like non Thelemic people have no apparent choice because they deny the only real choice which is DWTW.
-
@Los said
"
@Legis said
"The Christian injunction is to "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." It is not dependent on the expectation of returned favor. It is most properly understood as an injunction to act as if the other person is yourself, in spite of the fact that no return of favor may ever be offered. But it does place its hope in a world ultimately transformed by such proactive acts of compassion. Christianity, when properly understood, is also a religion of The Beloved."The so-called "Golden rule" is an awful piece of advice, presuming as it does that others would want the same things that you would want or that you should even care what others would want in the first place."
Yes, it may make that mistake. But if it comes down to me treating a drug-addicted beggar as I would want to be treated myself or merely as he or she would want to be treated in the moment of their addicted desperation, I will opt for treating them as I would wish to be treated myself, for I have no greater standard of love than that which I have for myself, regardless of how he or she would wish to be treated.
If I interpret "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as suggesting that I should leave the beggar in their poverty to become more desperate in hopes that this will force them to correct the error of their ways (because that is how I would wish to be treated if I were in such a state), then the ethic still stands, regardless of whether or not it fits with the bleeding-hearted preachings of the inappropriately compassionate.
"You are not other people, and other people are not you."
Revealing. You, of course, are free to believe so if you wish though I believe you are interpreting the statement in physically distinctive rather than in spiritually inclusive terms.
"Teachers who tell you "we are all one" usually just want to use your wallet as if it were their wallet."
To the extent that this reflects your own actual experience rather than a simplistic skeptical pessimism, I respect your belief. But I have experienced otherwise, and so I believe otherwise.
@Aleister Crowley said
"The Golden Rule is silly. If Lord Alfred Douglas (for example) did to others what he would like them to do to him, many would resent his action."
I believe the esoteric Christ would say, yes, do exactly that if that is your greatest understanding of love. The fact that homosexual love was rejected by the theologian Paul and, therefore, by most Christians has no bearing on how I interpret the ethics of the esoteric Christ, which I see as a beginner's guide to the Way of Loving the Beloved.
@Los said
"
@Legis said
"But how long will I defend the true Way of Christ"I don't know. How long until you wish to pursue wisdom and put aside these childish things?"
Teach more more of this wisdom of making differences between things. Whoso availeth in this achieves what?
-
@Legis said
"But if it comes down to me treating a drug-addicted beggar as I would want to be treated myself or merely as he or she would want to be treated in the moment of their addicted desperation, I will opt for treating them as I would wish to be treated myself, for I have no greater standard of love than that which I have for myself, regardless of how he or she would wish to be treated."
I would opt for treating them as I Will.
You're talking about acting according to certain "standards," which are mental categories and constructs. Acting according to one's Will, in contrast, is about learning to identify these mental constructs as such and preventing them from influencing the natural manifestation of one's Will.
"Teach more more of this wisdom of making differences between things."
AL I:22 (which contains the line "Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing") does not mean "everything is identical," nor does it mean "you are other people."
It means that one is not to make a "difference" between two things by arbitrarily declaring that one thing (or one way of action) is "better" than another.
Obviously, sausages aren't "better" than rugs -- they're each something unique, with different functions, that will be appropriate in different situations. Everyone can see that, but people tend to have trouble seeing that acting with compassion is similarly not "better" than acting like a jerk. In different contexts -- in the contexts of different Wills -- any action might be appropriate.
As long as you're being guided by some mental model of "standards," you're making a difference by presuming that some standard is better than others.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Love is the law, love under will.
@Los said
"I would opt for treating them as I Will."
I make no necessary distinction between Will and Love unless lesser desires are mislabelled Love and therefore need to be placed under Will. Of course, I could also mislabel these lesser desires as Will instead.
But ultimately Agape = Thelema = 93. However, where "love" is not Agape and is merely Eros or Phileos, then it is appropriately placed under Thelema. This is the essence of Thelema as I see it.
"You're talking about acting according to certain "standards," which are mental categories and constructs. Acting according to one's Will, in contrast, is about learning to identify these mental constructs as such and preventing them from influencing the natural manifestation of one's Will.
"Perhaps that's a decent argument, but I will refer to my explanation above. And I will also point to what I said previously: "...the ethics of the esoteric Christ, which I see as a *beginner's guide *to the Way of Loving the Beloved."
I have no problem with accepting that Thelema is more than a beginner's guide, especially when compared to Christianity stripped of its gnosis.
-
@Legis said
"I make no necessary distinction between Will and Love unless lesser desires are mislabelled Love and therefore need to be placed under Will."
Well, "Love," in Thelema, is not about a standard for action or even an emotion. It refers, specifically, to the expansion of the individual into Nuit (that is, growth through experience of possibility).
When the Book says that love should be "under will," it doesn't mean, "Be nice to people because that's your Will cause everybody's one big family." Rather, it's saying that one's experience (that is, one's acts of Love) should be placed under the direction of that individual's Will (the natural inclinations).
In other words, while any course of action is equally an act of Love -- an act of experiencing possibility -- at any given time, only one action (or maybe set of actions) will fulfill the nature of the individual (that is, place those acts of love "under will").
This remains true regardless of the specific acts under discussion. It pertains to everything from interacting with others to making toast.
In all things, Thelema is about removing mental "standards" from action. When you do that, you'll naturally act according to your nature (that is, you will put your acts of love under will). Now, how this "love under will" manifests will vary from individual to individual. Some will do nice things for people, while others may act like (what some people consider) jerks. There's no sure way to tell because there are no standards.
In other words, if you're trying to live up to some ideal of "love," then you're by definition not acting in accordance with your True Will.
"the ethics of the esoteric Christ, which I see as a *beginner's guide *to the Way of Loving the Beloved."
Well, I think you're wrong, here. The best "guide" I can give to beginners is to encourage them to stop looking for guides, stop trying to model themselves in any particular way.
The Old Aeon idea is that one has to change the self into something different. One has to be "saved," one has to model one's behavior after certain specific figures (WWJD, and all that).
But the New Aeon has an entirely different notion of attainment: "The Khabs is in the Khu," we are told. The goal is inside what we usually call the self, veiled by our thoughts about how we should be different. In the New Aeon, attainment is actually a kind of "de-attainment": we're not trying to become something we're not. We're trying to clear away the distractions -- the standards of behavior --so that we can become more who we already are.
The sooner you wean yourself off this idea that "love of the Beloved" is supposed to look like anything in particular, the sooner you'll attain. Because all attainment requires is that you drop all of these mental distractions, all of these cherished beliefs, hopes, fears, concerns, and all other mental constructs, which are nothing more than illusory productions of the mind that are veiling the glory of your Self from yourself.
-
"In other words, if you're trying to live up to some ideal of "love," then you're by definition not acting in accordance with your True Will."
I understand the phantom you are attempting to debate, but it is not me.
I have sought to explain one Lover's advice for Loving the Beloved that I believe was misinterpreted. I have not suggested that anyone follow any particular standard.
-
@Legis said
"I have not suggested that anyone follow any particular standard."
You've suggested that you yourself follow the standard of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.
From a Thelemic perspective, the problem with standards is not that someone is going to impose them onto somebody else. The problem is that standards mislead the person who privately holds these standards by leading him astray from his True Will. A person who follows a standard -- even his own personal standard that he's dreamed up -- is following a creation of the mind instead of attending to his inclinations in the moment.
-
Your "conception" of Thelema is just a mental construct, like every one else's.
Oh, the irony.
-
@Los said
"
@Legis said
"I have not suggested that anyone follow any particular standard."You've suggested that you yourself follow the standard of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Perhaps. But what is that to you? - unless you are attempting to convert me not only to follow your own standard, but also to think of your standard as you would have me think of it, and to speak of your standard as you would have me speak of it?
@Los said
"From a Thelemic perspective, the problem with standards is not that someone is going to impose them onto somebody else. The problem is that standards mislead the person who privately holds these standards by leading him astray from his True Will. A person who follows a standard -- even his own personal standard that he's dreamed up -- is following a creation of the mind instead of attending to his inclinations in the moment."
I reject your standard. I reject that your standard is the essence of Thelema. I reject your interpretation of True Will. I reject your selective use of quotes for Crowley used to intellectually impose your standard of True Will on others.
My true will has specifically to do with dreams, and symbols, and magic, and everything you call vain and useless to the Will.
By my Sun in Libra and Moon in Pisces I reject your attempts at enslaving my mind by your words.
Am I not free to do so even by your own standard? And if by following your standard I reject your standard, then what have you left to say that does not simply attempt to bind more of me to your standards for thinking, and interpreting, and speaking, and acting for myself?
Be gone from here, slaver. I am a free man.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Your "conception" of Thelema is just a mental construct, like every one else's."
Obviously. When we have a discussion, we must discuss concepts, of necessity.
But my conception of Thelema doesn't guide my actions -- my Will does that.