Buddhism and Thelema
-
@Frater Horus said
"
So the more variables the better.
"Is it easier to see the bottom of the pond when the particles within it are busy, or calm?
And when it is calm, the particles are still there. They have not been forced out, or forced to change from their nature. They have simply fallen into their place, whatever place it may be.
-
@Takamba said
"In answer to the above question given to the "General Reader," here is my answer.
The consciousness of humans has changed. You can use words like "enlightenment" if you wish, but I find most people misunderstand that word. It really means having one's load (spiritual & psychological issues) "lightened." Not "knowledge," but certainly wisdom. You can use language concerning "super-consciousness" if you like. I avoid both those words. Let's just stick with examining how consciousness has advanced as it is."
Metastasized might be a fitting word for it.
@Takamba said
"
As Jim pointed out, and I won't overstate, the basic levels of consciousness have changed since caveman times. Consciousness then was focused mostly on survival and other base concerns. In fact, a "tribe" probably existed in such isolation at the dawn of humanity that to even IMAGINE another tribe would have seemed impossible. Over time, as Nostradamus would write it, "the world would grow smaller." The world today has grown incredibly small. A European is reading these very words written by a prairie lovin' Midwesterner (possibly in the blink of an eye)."I continue to maintain that consciousness itself has not significantly changed, for the mechanism itself has not significantly changed (the body). What has changed are the many ways in which we perceive the universe.
Gravity exists whether or not Einstein developed his theory. But since he did, we are able to explore many new avenues in relation to his theory, and in relation to gravity. It does not mean that gravity itself has somehow changed.
@Takamba said
"
This is more than just "acquired knowledge," this is new experience (experience being the formula of going, being the formula of Hadit). Do you know that roughly 200 years ago humanity change it's sleep pattern? We didn't always sleep straight through the night, we slept... woke up for a bit (enough to write a letter and eat a small snack or collect some timber for the fire) and then went to sleep again. Almost twelve hours of sleep in all. There was a thing called first sleep, followed later by second sleep. It was the routine. It's a very natural method too and I know this because before I learned of it, I actually practiced it (quite by accident, as I was wandering and travelling America's wildernesses in a solitary pilgrimage I found it natural to just go to sleep in the dark whence I had nothing more for myself to do, wake up when the body did, hang about, nibble, and then go back to sleep). If you don't believe such a cultural explosion as the light bulb can change how a society thinks (not just what it thinks, but HOW it thinks), you aren't thinking as deeply as you could about humans/society/consciousness building."How it thinks? It functions in the same way as it has functioned for thousands of years. The brain itself has not changed that drastically.
@Takamba said
"
Today we know the Universe (Thoth Tarot so predicted the shrinking of the World that now it is called Universe) to be vast and filled with star systems, other planets, when once those were just pin holes God had placed in the sky and the Earth was the center of everything. Yes, that is WHAT people thought - but not only that, it developed HOW they thought about other things as well (consciousness building). Not only do we have more and newer and hopefully more accurate WHATS to think about, but it's these very WHATS that inform our minds HOW to think."The universe - vast and filled with star systems - did not come into being because we thought of it... it was already here. We only began to recognize, and name, and categorize, etc.
@Takamba said
"
That's what advancing consciousness is about."It's about recognition, naming, and organization.
@Takamba said
"
The only people in this thread that I see acting judgmental about this or about people are those using the words "enlightenment." You seem to project that if someone advances the idea that a "further level of consciousness" is available that they must also be saying "nah nah nah I'm better than you." I don't see it, but you seem to believe it's there. Think on that before responding because that is not of the nature of what I'm talking about when I describe above my ideas about humanity's changing consciousness."I could care less about "enlightenment", to be honest. It doesn't actually exist anyway.
My only point in this thread these past couple days has been to say that Thelema is not the only path, the A:.A:. is not the only way, and Crowley writing Liber AL is not responsible for the birth, life, and death of say, Ramana Maharshi, D.T. Suzuki, or Nagarjuna, as examples.
-
It's impossible to know with certainty without a physical record.
**What is possible.
vs
What is recorded.Unknown: The reason for the limitation in the record.**
The problem is that all our records are of what such people publicly taught others. Do you teach the public about your every attainment, or do you limit yourself for some reason?
The unfolding of this problem results in us having a record only of what such people found it beneficial to try to teach large groups of other people publicly. The public record results basically in instruction in one overt, coherent philosophy of living.
However, the highest stages of development tend to result in the negation of that very philosophy by which one has already attained - the opposite must also be incorporated. How does one teach such a thing to the masses who are still grappling with the original teaching - the original philosophy of living by which they are currently attaining? If "Stage II" is your primary goal for humanity, then you don't usually confuse that with a lot of talk about how "Stage III" involves embracing the truth of the contradictory point of view.
"Liber B vel Magi
-
Now the grade of a Magister teacheth the Mystery of Sorrow, and the grade of a Magus the Mystery of Change, and the grade of Ipsissimus the Mystery of Selflessness, which is called also the Mystery of Pan.
-
Let the Magus then contemplate each in turn, raising it to the ultimate power of Infinity. Wherein Sorrow is Joy, and Change is Stability, and Selflessness is Self. For the interplay of the parts hath no action upon the whole. And this contemplation shall be performed not by simple meditationâ how much less then by reason? but by the method which shall have been given unto Him in His Initiation to the Grade."
Can you imagine the effects of Buddha teaching, "Okay, guys, remember when I said that life is 'suffering'? That was all just a perspective that served to get you to this point. It wasn't actually a fundamental 'Truth' like I may have led on. Actually, suffering is joy, and life is joy!"
I don't know if he personally went there or not. I'm not aware of it in his teachings. I think I would have heard about it already. I might get corrected. I don't know.
But I think the discussion is at odds with itself. Some things are possible, yes. But these are things we don't have records of. What we do have a record of seems to be what people were ready and able to be taught at a particular time and place in history. That's where this discussion diverges with itself, and some argue absolute possibility while others argue from the record of what people were ready to learn.
My two.
-
-
@Azidonis said
"How it thinks? It functions in the same way as it has functioned for thousands of years. The brain itself has not changed that drastically."
I don't think "drastic" change is required. Anyone who has taken LSD or some other psychotropic drug knows that it don't take much! Science studying our DNA and those of other species find that there are only a percentage point or two that separates our composition. No claims being made here, just observation.
@Azidonis said
"My only point in this thread these past couple days has been to say that Thelema is not the only path, the A:.A:. is not the only way, and Crowley writing Liber AL is not responsible for the birth, life, and death of say, Ramana Maharshi, D.T. Suzuki, or Nagarjuna, as examples."
I don't think I've heard anybody say that or I haven't interpreted anything in this thread saying that. I agree that Thelema isn't the only path etc. as above. There are many different paths and ways. In fact, there are probably as many different paths as there are people that exist as each is a Star in their own right. I think Thelema is a system (or whatever label we'd like to give it) that points that out pretty strongly.
-
Nice pilgrimage you did Takamba... Maybe it could be useful if you will to share a bit more. Or maybe have you written elsewhere already?
@GabrielO said
"I don't think "drastic" change is required. Anyone who has taken LSD or some other psychotropic drug knows that it don't take much! Science studying our DNA and those of other species find that there are only a percentage point or two that separates our composition. No claims being made here, just observation."
Yes, it takes micrograms...!
DNA says a lot too indeed.@GabrielO said
"there are probably as many different paths as there are people that exist as each is a Star in their own right. I think Thelema is a system (or whatever label we'd like to give it) that points that out pretty strongly."
Yes indeed. I think it is a fascinating part of the great all.
In Bardon system, although it was delivered as a 3 books one, it is pointed out each one of them can be used separetely as a whole complete system... though he advises to follow the order. He says also the other 19 ones he was then not "allowed" to write(they are all based on a tarot arcana)are also complete systems by their own right. Any point of vue could succeed ! -
I think it's a mistake, though, to read him as "there is no self." Rather, in the physical and psychological realms, nothing that one encounters is self, nothing is unchanging, nothing is persistently satisfying. (Another way to say this is that, within Assiah and Yetzirah, there is no self, no impermeability, no persisting sufficiency.)
There is no unchanging self - that's an important distinction. Thelema says the same thing: Hadit is always going.
-
@Azidonis said
"I continue to maintain that consciousness itself has not significantly changed, for the mechanism itself has not significantly changed (the body). What has changed are the many ways in which we perceive the universe.
Gravity exists whether or not Einstein developed his theory. But since he did, we are able to explore many new avenues in relation to his theory, and in relation to gravity. It does not mean that gravity itself has somehow changed.
...
How it thinks? It functions in the same way as it has functioned for thousands of years. The brain itself has not changed that drastically."
I'm sorry, this reads to me as an ostrich with its head in the sand. The gravity analogy is not apt to questions of consciousness and mind function. Neural pathways actually, functionally change, both in individual cases and as a function of societal evolution. Language, as a programmer, is just as influential as cell-level communication and language has changed pretty drastically over the past several thousand years.
We are not just our hardware. The software that we run is equally important. In this century alone we have seen a quantum shift of language from a mostly linear progression to a fractured and diffuse net. The dissemination of motion pictures, interactive communication technologies, and, lets not forget, general literacy has had a profound effect on language, communication, and thus the programming we are running.
Whether or not our brains have changed (the jury hasn't even been selected on that one, much less come to the generalized conclusion you're willing to put in their mouths) our minds work differently than minds of even a hundred years ago.
@Azidonis said
"My only point in this thread these past couple days has been to say that Thelema is not the only path, the A:.A:. is not the only way, and Crowley writing Liber AL is not responsible for the birth, life, and death of say, Ramana Maharshi, D.T. Suzuki, or Nagarjuna, as examples."
I have yet to see anyone (except, as Frater Horus pointed out, you) argue this point. Liber Legis heralds a new Aeon, it doesn't create it. That Aeon, if you want to distill out all of the mythos and symbolism, could be stated simply as the first time in history when more humans are food secure and literate than not. This allows each and every one of us a greater freedom to upgrade our software at a species-wide scale, not just the wealthy elite.
This system-wide upgrade, in all of its messy chaos, is the history of the 20th century. A primitive species who, on average, had never traveled more than 20 miles from the place of its birth, who had only heard of other lands through the tales of wandering minstrels, suddenly confronted with an entire planet of other primates who looked weird, spoke weird, and might just want to take my stuff. A God of War and Vengeance indeed.
The A.'.A.'. is a system designed to attain higher states utilizing the language and programming of the early years of the last century. Its certainly not the only way but, IMHO, it's a really good way. It was initially developed before Crowley had embraced Liber Legis and has no necessary dependence on it. At its core, Thelema is fundamentally an appreciation of the fact that, as we become a global culture and more people become self-aware, they will begin to realize their own independent worth and not require the paternal guiding hand of the previous Aeon.
@Azidonis said
"I don't disagree with that. But it's definitely not 8, or however many Crowley pointed out in Heart of the Master. So, in relation to Crowley's small mention, there have been many others."
I recommend going back and reading that particular text. Nowhere does he suggest that in the whole history of mankind, only these 8 made it. Merely that these particular 8 affected the system-wide development of mankind because of their subsequent application of their "enlightenment". (As a side note, I'm pretty sure he acknowledges also that some of them may not even have existed so any suggestion that he believed these to be the only "enlightened beings" of history stretches credulity pretty thin.)
-
Takamba: Awesome post.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Kasper, you understand (don't you?) that Buddhism is an early Osias Aeon religion. There were ideas not yet discovered, others not articulated as distinctly as they are today, and whole faculties of consciousness not yet developed in 99% of all people. The best Buddhism (as voiced by Buddha) could hope to achieve is the stabilization of Yetziratic consciousness and liberation from it to Briah; in other words, what the G.D. would have called the threshold of the Abyss and A.'.A.'. marks as Dominus Liminis. It's damn fine D.L. work.
"Hmm.
Interesting position, Jim.I wonder, however, why does the Liber B put the pure Buddhist attainment of nirodha samapatti way above not only D.L. but Abyss as well.
18.
And this is the Opening of the Grade of Ipsissimus,
and by the Buddhists it is called the trance Nerodha-Samapatti.Liber B vel Magi, source:
hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib1.html -
@Frater INRI said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Kasper, you understand (don't you?) that Buddhism is an early Osias Aeon religion. There were ideas not yet discovered, others not articulated as distinctly as they are today, and whole faculties of consciousness not yet developed in 99% of all people. The best Buddhism (as voiced by Buddha) could hope to achieve is the stabilization of Yetziratic consciousness and liberation from it to Briah; in other words, what the G.D. would have called the threshold of the Abyss and A.'.A.'. marks as Dominus Liminis. It's damn fine D.L. work."Hmm. Interesting position, Jim.
I wonder, however, why does the Liber B put the pure Buddhist attainment of nirodha samapatti way above not only D.L. but Abyss as well."
I'm taking this as an opinion question, since it's in the form of, "Hey, Mr. E., why does Mr. F. seem to think that Mr. G. meant thus-and-so?"
Here is my opinion:The journey inward is layered. We "resolve" certain things at one level, and they reliably loop back on the next round. In this case, it is the idea of self ('the illusion of self') that has deeper layers as we move inward. One gets that the "I am my body" is an illusion; and, next, that "I am my current behavior" is an illusion; and, next, that, "I am the person that people, over the last 10-20 years, have thought me to be" is a big fiction (as is, "I am this person that I have an idea that I am"). Eventually, based on what capacity one has, how deep one can go, etc., one gets to the "final" placed of having one's "last, deepest" (at the moment) idea about oneself exploded, realizing, "Wow, I'm not that at all, I was just 'wearing' that, mistaking myself for that," etc. Every idea about oneself goes kablooey, and there is a perception of extinction.
There are, of course, even deeper ideas about oneself that one hasn't yet mined. What seems to be a perception - perception! - of extinction at one point ("Wow, I'm really not that thing / idea / creation at all!!!") leaves room for (and is usually replaced by), "There is some deeper thing, more persistent, that I am," i.e., "There is a Self behind that self." Buddhism, of course, seems to deny that this is so, or at least to make way for the progressive discovery of the inexistence, changeability, and insufficiency of each layer that we discover; I'm not sure that some final opinion on whether there is a "final" self really matters to the present question, which addresses more the perception of extinction.
In short, nirodha-samapatti isn't a final attainment. (Finality of anything implies existence, permanence, and staying satisfied with the answer. Buddhism doesn't really support the idea of a thing's existence, its unchanging existence, or unchanging satisfaction with its existence.)
I think Liber I is simply hitting a different (higher, deeper) level. At one point in time, the species (like an individual) had one seemingly deepest level to go to "pop" the illusion of a particular kind of satisfactory unchanging persistence of self. In time, the species (like an individual) has found (or constructed) other ideas of selfhood behind that, deeper than that, more persistent than that; so, today, when we talk about the beginning of the perception of extinction, that has a different (deeper) meaning.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"In short, nirodha-samapatti isn't a final attainment."
But that wasn't the point. You had said that since Buddhism is "Old Aeon," "The best Buddhism (as voiced by Buddha) could hope to achieve is [...] [what] A.'.A.'. marks as Dominus Liminis."
Yet Liber B identifies one of the Buddhist trances as a state far above this level. It doesn't resolve the contradiction to point out that there are many layers to attainment and to our understanding of the self.
" I'm not sure that some final opinion on whether there is a "final" self really matters to the present question, which addresses more the perception of extinction."
Whether or not it matters to the present question, there actually is no final self. After all, what you call "you" is ultimately just a bunch of atoms buzzing around. The perception of thought -- even the thought we might call "extinction" -- is itself a thought. Thought/experience and its perception rise up together out of nothing: this is another application of the 0=2 formula.
The bottom line is that "you" aren't anything at all. Certainly, any trippy fantasies you might have about some "higher self" isn't anything -- we might even say that those fantasies are less than nothing.
-
@Los said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"In short, nirodha-samapatti isn't a final attainment."But that wasn't the point. You had said that since Buddhism is "Old Aeon," "The best Buddhism (as voiced by Buddha) could hope to achieve is [...] [what] A.'.A.'. marks as Dominus Liminis."
Yet Liber B identifies one of the Buddhist trances as a state far above this level. It doesn't resolve the contradiction to point out that there are many layers to attainment and to our understanding of the self."
Yes. When the idea is "perception of extinction," the threshold changes as perception changes.
And yes, the above is exactly the point. I'm not quite sure "contradiction" you mean. Both perception and the idea of (and experience) of existence has changed over time. Buddhism as defined by Buddha - as people sitting around on the grass in 5th C. BCE India could have understood and practiced it - is different from what people can perceive etc. today.
"The bottom line is that "you" aren't anything at all."
That would be a Buddhist perspective, yes; and (maybe framed differently at most), I wouldn't disagree. (It's a linguistic thing.) It just wasn't the question of the moment.
"Certainly, any trippy fantasies you might have about some "higher self" isn't anything -- we might even say that those fantasies are less than nothing."
I'm not going to bother shooting at a moving target.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I'm taking this as an opinion question, since it's in the form of, "Hey, Mr. E., why does Mr. F. seem to think that Mr. G. meant thus-and-so?"
Here is my opinion:"OK
I was not aiming at that kind of exchange, though.
Anyway...@Jim Eshelman said
"The journey inward is layered. We "resolve" certain things at one level, and they reliably loop back on the next round. In this case, it is the idea of self ('the illusion of self') that has deeper layers as we move inward. One gets that the "I am my body" is an illusion; and, next, that "I am my current behavior" is an illusion; and, next, that, "I am the person that people, over the last 10-20 years, have thought me to be" is a big fiction (as is, "I am this person that I have an idea that I am"). Eventually, based on what capacity one has, how deep one can go, etc., one gets to the "final" placed of having one's "last, deepest" (at the moment) idea about oneself exploded, realizing, "Wow, I'm not that at all, I was just 'wearing' that, mistaking myself for that," etc. Every idea about oneself goes kablooey, and there is a perception of extinction.
There are, of course, even deeper ideas about oneself that one hasn't yet mined. What seems to be a perception - perception! - of extinction at one point ("Wow, I'm really not that thing / idea / creation at all!!!") leaves room for (and is usually replaced by), "There is some deeper thing, more persistent, that I am," i.e., "There is a Self behind that self." Buddhism, of course, seems to deny that this is so, or at least to make way for the progressive discovery of the inexistence, changeability, and insufficiency of each layer that we discover; I'm not sure that some final opinion on whether there is a "final" self really matters to the present question, which addresses more the perception of extinction."
It is a bit more to niroda samapathi that that, in my estimation.
As far as one bases him/herself or even HGA on "something" (LVX, consciousness, ego, Self, Truth, Hadit, Nuit etc...), well thats ok.
Niroda samapatti ought to change all that.It takes empirical knowledge, it seems.
@Jim Eshelman said
"
In short, nirodha-samapatti isn't a final attainment. (Finality of anything implies existence, permanence, and staying satisfied with the answer. Buddhism doesn't really support the idea of a thing's existence, its unchanging existence, or unchanging satisfaction with its existence.) "Agreed.
It is clearly stated in the scriptures that this is only "... the temporary suspension of all consciousness and mental activity..."
www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/nirodha_samaapatti.htm@Jim Eshelman said
"I think Liber I is simply hitting a different (higher, deeper) level. At one point in time, the species (like an individual) had one seemingly deepest level to go to "pop" the illusion of a particular kind of satisfactory unchanging persistence of self. In time, the species (like an individual) has found (or constructed) other ideas of selfhood behind that, deeper than that, more persistent than that; so, today, when we talk about the beginning of the perception of extinction, that has a different (deeper) meaning."
OK.
-
@Los said
"But that wasn't the point. You had said that since Buddhism is "Old Aeon," "The best Buddhism (as voiced by Buddha) could hope to achieve is [...] [what] A.'.A.'. marks as Dominus Liminis."
Yet Liber B identifies one of the Buddhist trances as a state far above this level. It doesn't resolve the contradiction to point out that there are many layers to attainment and to our understanding of the self."
Yes.
@Los said
"Whether or not it matters to the present question, there actually is no final self. After all, what you call "you" is ultimately just a bunch of atoms buzzing around. The perception of thought -- even the thought we might call "extinction" -- is itself a thought. Thought/experience and its perception rise up together out of nothing: this is another application of the 0=2 formula.
The bottom line is that "you" aren't anything at all. Certainly, any trippy fantasies you might have about some "higher self" isn't anything -- we might even say that those fantasies are less than nothing."
This resonates well with me.
It is pure illusion, to me, to believe there is some final Truth out there, some objective center or someone really guiding this whole thing we call Great work.
K&C of HGA may cut away the relative bullshit (personality related etc...) and attainment like niroda samapatti might cut off **everything **else.
Freedom.Or not.
LOL
-
@Jim Eshelman said
" I'm not quite sure "contradiction" you mean. Both perception and the idea of (and experience) of existence has changed over time. Buddhism as defined by Buddha - as people sitting around on the grass in 5th C. BCE India could have understood and practiced it - is different from what people can perceive etc. today."
Uh huh. It's like I said earlier on this thread: as long as you start from the assumption that there's no contradiction -- and as long as you get to make sh!t up, like this bald declaration that we today perceive differently than the first Buddhists -- then voila! No contradiction.
It's like talking to Christians who start with the assumption that there can be no contradictions in the Bible. If that's the first assumption, then there's always a way to spin evidence to match the assumption (especially if we get to just make sh!t up).
The problem is, that's not a pathway to truth of any kind. It's just a way to reinforce the assumption without critically examining it.
-
@Frater INRI said
"Freedom.
Or not.
LOL
"The idea that there is no self is, of course, just one way of looking at things. From another way of looking at things, of course there is a self.
Each way of looking at things is possible at once, and that's another application of the 0=2 formula.
Realizing this -- that is, not just intellectually, but coming to see it for yourself and understand it -- is the ultimate freedom, but it can simultaneously be viewed as the "strictest possible bond" to the illusion-show that's constantly emerging out of the zero.
@Aleister Crowley said
"
Thus, he [the Devil, the O at the end of IAO] is Man made God, exalted, eager; he has come consciously to his full stature, and so is ready to set out on his journey to redeem the world. But he may not appear in this true form; the Vision of Pan would drive men mad with fear. He must conceal Himself in his original guise.He therefore becomes apparently the man that he was at the beginning; he lives the life of a man; indeed, he is wholly man. But his initiation has made him master of the Event by giving him the understanding that whatever happens to him is the execution of his true will."
A study of Pan (i.e. "All") -- particularly in the context of the Star Ruby ritual -- is most illuminating on these matters.
-
@Los said
"
The idea that there is no self is, of course, just one way of looking at things. From another way of looking at things, of course there is a self.
"Indeed.
@Los said
"
Each way of looking at things is possible at once, and that's another application of the 0=2 formula.Realizing this -- that is, not just intellectually, but coming to see it for yourself and understand it -- is the ultimate freedom, but it can simultaneously be viewed as the "strictest possible bond" to the illusion-show that's constantly emerging out of the zero.
"Yes.
@Aleister Crowley said
"
Thus, he [the Devil, the O at the end of IAO] is Man made God, exalted, eager; he has come consciously to his full stature, and so is ready to set out on his journey to redeem the world. But he may not appear in this true form; the Vision of Pan would drive men mad with fear. He must conceal Himself in his original guise.He therefore becomes apparently the man that he was at the beginning; he lives the life of a man; indeed, he is wholly man. But his initiation has made him master of the Event by giving him the understanding that whatever happens to him is the execution of his true will."
@Los said
"
A study of Pan (i.e. "All") -- particularly in the context of the Star Ruby ritual -- is most illuminating on these matters."Yes.
Also the Star Sapphire is excellent.*Omnia in Duos: Duo in Unum: Unus in Nihil: Haec **nec **Quatuor **nec **Omnia **nec **Duo **nec **Unus **nec *Nihil Sunt.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
There are, of course, even deeper ideas about oneself that one hasn't yet mined. What seems to be a perception - perception! - of extinction at one point ("Wow, I'm really not that thing / idea / creation at all!!!") leaves room for (and is usually replaced by), "There is some deeper thing, more persistent, that I am," i.e., "There is a Self behind that self." Buddhism, of course, seems to deny that this is so, or at least to make way for the progressive discovery of the inexistence, changeability, and insufficiency of each layer that we discover; I'm not sure that some final opinion on whether there is a "final" self really matters to the present question, which addresses more the perception of extinction.In short, nirodha-samapatti isn't a final attainment. (Finality of anything implies existence, permanence, and staying satisfied with the answer. Buddhism doesn't really support the idea of a thing's existence, its unchanging existence, or unchanging satisfaction with its existence.)
I think Liber I is simply hitting a different (higher, deeper) level. At one point in time, the species (like an individual) had one seemingly deepest level to go to "pop" the illusion of a particular kind of satisfactory unchanging persistence of self. In time, the species (like an individual) has found (or constructed) other ideas of selfhood behind that, deeper than that, more persistent than that; so, today, when we talk about the beginning of the perception of extinction, that has a different (deeper) meaning."
I would venture to say that what you have described is not nirodha-samapatti (ie. the Initiating Trance of Ipsissimus).
I would also say that 'attainment' of nirodha-samapatti is not expressly possible within the bounds of any specific system. Its very definition, 'attainment of extinction' necessarily implies that the "chain of systems" has previously fallen away.
Of course, individual mileage may vary. The Beauty of Chaos...
-
@Azidonis said
"I would also say that 'attainment' of nirodha-samapatti is not expressly possible within the bounds of any specific system. Its very definition, 'attainment of extinction' necessarily implies that the "chain of systems" has previously fallen away."
Well put.
Why else would AC put it right at the end of the Work.
Sent from Samsung S Duos using Tapatalk
-
Too bad there's not a drug that would do the same thing to the brain. That way, everybody could have the same experience and be Ipsissimi.
Or... Is there more to it than that? If so, then it might matter what one has previously attained.
Maybe this discussion would be better served by considering all that one has achieved before such an extinguishing of it into the irrelevance of nothingness.
After all, we do come back down to then consider what this means for all we have come to know ourselves to be and to be able to do.
If that is little, then the achievement would seem little, the consequence little, and the message inconsequential.
The greater the attainment, the greater the attainment.