Mysticism + Neurosis : What is the connection?
-
Guys,
If you don't mind me saying so, the last three posts were much more constructive.
Here I am realizing that I had posted yesterday while on painkillers (love'em/hate'em) 'cuz I threw my back out really hard. Why? Past injuries and neurotic stress no less. lololololol
Self knowledge is not a tasty ingredient for a banana split, let me tell ya!
Well it's gettin' towards noon and the bell tower is really tall...
Y.S.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
Having known Francis personally for many years, I would give him the benefit of the doubt on the matter, pending clear information to the contrary.
"Did he ever mention why he never embraced Thelema, OTO, etc even after being so close to Crowley as his secretary? Did Regardie ever get initiated into A.'.A.'.?
-
@DavidH said
"Did he ever mention why he never embraced Thelema, OTO, etc even after being so close to Crowley as his secretary? Did Regardie ever get initiated into A.'.A.'.?"
I thought he did embrace it. He writes a great introduction to the old edition of The Law is for All. He also makes positive references to Thelema and uses quotes from Liber L in The Middle Pillar that you wouldn't pick up on unless you already knew something about Thelema.
-
Well, I could be wrong, I just read a bio of him on the internet and that's what it said.
Here is what I read:
"Despite his association with, and admiration for, Aleister Crowley, Regardie never considered himself a Thelemite. It is telling that he joined an offshoot of the Golden Dawn in 1933, over thirty years after Crowley himself terminated his association with the G.D. In fact, Crowley was actively involved with the Ordo Templi Orientis during the 1920s and later, yet it appears that Regardie either had no interest, or Crowley did not invite him to participate therein."Because I don't trust all sources on the internet I wanted to ask the question to Jim since he knew the man personally.
-
@DavidH said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"
Having known Francis personally for many years, I would give him the benefit of the doubt on the matter, pending clear information to the contrary."Did he ever mention why he never embraced Thelema, OTO, etc even after being so close to Crowley as his secretary? Did Regardie ever get initiated into A.'.A.'.?"
Regardie was formally admitted as a Probationer in A.'.A.'. but never took 1=10 initiation. He did, however, work all of the individual steps from there to 5=6 on his own.
The reason he continued to give for why he wasn't a Thelemite is that, to be a Thelemite, he would have to accept Liber Legis as having been dictated by an independent "third party" entity named Aiwass. Instead, he believed Aiwass to be Crowley's HGA (as AC stated) and therefore an aspect (the Kether aspect) of AC, not an independent "third party" entity.
With that discrepancy, he felt he could not rightly call himself a Thelemite.
He had no interest in O.T.O. at all, rejected several off-the-record suggestions that he be admitted as an actual or honorary Ninth Degree, etc. On the other hand, he was very helpful to Grady and Phyllis in restarting O.T.O., and was the person who directly put me in touch with O.T.O.
-
"Second, no, one doesn't become a Black Brother if one crosses the Abyss. One is unveiled as a Black Brother"
by other Masters of course? Can you name any folk who have followed such a path? Austin Spare perhaps?
"for failure to cross the Abyss. The ego is held more tightly and more valued than the surrender."
Jim how is this best to be avoided?
"Third, the neuroses don't continue past the Abyss any more than any other personality component, though they generally will continue to have automomous existence in the Q'lippah the Master leaves behind.
What I think you meant to say (or, at least, what would have been technically accurate) is that a neurotic Adept whose neuroses prevent him or her (at the appropriate, ripened time) from releasing the ego constraints that permit crossing the Abyss, will be disclosed as a Black Brother, who is a self-agrandizing crank. (Or something like that.)"
Jim did not the Master Therion display cranky self aggrandizing behaviour after his Mastership attainment? Isn't it all subjective?
-
"Third, the neuroses don't continue past the Abyss any more than any other personality component, though they generally will continue to have automomous existence in the Q'lippah the Master leaves behind. "
I don't like the idea of leaving a part of me behind. I understand, at least very simply, the idea of transcending the ego when crossing the Abyss. But it strikes me that if one were to cross the Abyss and surrender, that all those elements of you that are below, would be left without Life. They truly would be shells.
Is there any way known (and I do not mean the path of a Black Brother), to assimilate those parts. Bottom line, is there any way to avoid that?
93, 93/93
-
@gerry456 said
"
"Second, no, one doesn't become a Black Brother if one crosses the Abyss. One is unveiled as a Black Brother"by other Masters of course? Can you name any folk who have followed such a path? Austin Spare perhaps?"
No one in modern times that I'd care to name. There is, of course, Frater Achad as the sterling example during Crowley's life.
OK, I'll venture to name another, understanding it is only IMHO: Manly Palmer Hall. This man was unquestionably 7=4! But everything I ever saw him display was so rigidly bounded by the limits of the Ruach. But, since he didn't work under me and I never had a chance to review his diaries or discuss the matter with him, this is definitely in the IMHO category!
No, I wouldn't put Spare there. I have no evidence that Spare was anywhere near 5=6, let alone 7=4. You can't be a Black Brother if you aren't a 7=4.
"
"for failure to cross the Abyss. The ego is held more tightly and more valued than the surrender."Jim how is this best to be avoided?"
Big question! (And pretty close to the right question! But watch that word "avoid.")
The answer wouldn't be the same for everyone, except that I think the source of the answer is the same for everyone: The point is moot unless one has attained to the K&C of the HGA, after which point the continued and growing intimacy with the Angel will provide the most minute detail of instruction that the particular Adept needs.
In other words, it's a matter of the Work. Going step-by-step - not skipping (or trying to skip) a single stepping stone! - through the preliminary stages and to 5=6 and, thereafter, through 6=5 and 7=4, the exact requirements of the grades (and, after 5=6, the sure hand and guidance of the Angel) will answer the question.
PS - I came back to read it and think about whether this is a cop-out answer. It isn't. I believe it's a complete and exactly on-target answer!
"
"Third, the neuroses don't continue past the Abyss any more than any other personality component, though they generally will continue to have automomous existence in the Q'lippah the Master leaves behind.What I think you meant to say (or, at least, what would have been technically accurate) is that a neurotic Adept whose neuroses prevent him or her (at the appropriate, ripened time) from releasing the ego constraints that permit crossing the Abyss, will be disclosed as a Black Brother, who is a self-agrandizing crank. (Or something like that.)"
Jim did not the Master Therion display cranky self aggrandizing behaviour after his Mastership attainment? Isn't it all subjective?"
No, he didn't. Aleister Crowley did, but not V.V.V.V.V or The Master Therion.
-
Hi Everyone,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
"Jim did not the Master Therion display cranky self aggrandizing behaviour after his Mastership attainment? Isn't it all subjective?"
I'd like to volunteer some information is that's all right:
from Magic Without Tears:
CHAPTER XXXII
HOW CAN A YOGI EVER BE WORRIED?(...)
Here (you put it in your more elegant prose) we have a Yogi, nay more, a Paramahamsa, a Bodhisattva of the best: yea, further, we have a Master of the Temple ---and is not his Motto "Vi veri vniversom vivus vici?" and yet we find him fussing like an old hen over the most trivial of troubles;...
First, however, let me explain the point of view of the Master of the Temple, as it is so similar. You should remember from your reading what happens in this Grade. The new Master is "cast out" into the sphere
appropriate to the nature of his own particular Great Work. And it is proper
for him to act in true accordance with the nature of the man as he was
when he passed through that Sphere (or Grade) on his upward journey. Thus, if he be cast out into 3ø = 8þ, it is no part of his work to aim at
the virtues of a 4ø = 7þ; all that has been done long before. It is no
business of his to be bothering his head about anything at all but
his Work; so he must react to events as they occur in the way natural to
him without trying to "improve himself." (This, of course, applies not
only to worry, but to all his funny little ways.)...Etc, etc...
Of course, that's simply in his own words. Take it as you will.
Regards,
Fr. Z. T.
-
@Draco Magnus said
"
"Third, the neuroses don't continue past the Abyss any more than any other personality component, though they generally will continue to have automomous existence in the Q'lippah the Master leaves behind. "I don't like the idea of leaving a part of me behind."
Oh, come now, you've been doing it all of your life! Traits and wants and quirks and limitations that you had as a child have been left behind. Points of view have been left behind. All sorts of things have been left behind and discarded and outgrown.
That's all this is - outgrowing it! (Even down to the value of hand-me-downs for things you aren't wearing anymore but which can be of real use to someone just growing to the point where they can fit into them.) What you used to think of as yourself is shed as a husk - a q'lippah - something outgrown. The things we're talking about are just as substantial (and insubstantial) as old opinions about things.
"I understand, at least very simply, the idea of transcending the ego when crossing the Abyss. But it strikes me that if one were to cross the Abyss and surrender, that all those elements of you that are below, would be left without Life. They truly would be shells."
Understood. And, for a time, it's that way, until the cables are all connected and the integration is brought forward a bit. The "old you" shell is still quite useful. The difference is, you no longer confuse it with who YOU are, anymore than you confuse an old sweater or an old opinion or an old relationship with who you are.
"Is there any way known (and I do not mean the path of a Black Brother), to assimilate those parts. Bottom line, is there any way to avoid that?"
I started to answer in the affirmative, but then realized that there is a bigger question here. It's: Why would you want to do that? (Risky question, I know. I've just spelled the Trigrammaton backwards!) What possible reason (argh, there's that other word) would you have for choosing to hold onto immaturities that you simply have outgrown?
This is the second post in a row that used that word "avoid." When you mix "avoid" or "resist" or "withhold" with this exact threshold - the beach of the Abyss - you are, at least for the moment, on the Path of the Black Brother.
-
The shadow is the learned-self based upon conditioning. The gross elements of self, being those aspects of personality which rebel against unity with absolute conscience, are the only properties of self left behind. The essential you, which is one as none, is what remains. Moreover, the abyss is not passable without redemption and complete surrender to the will of God.
-
Virgil, 93,
I find your posts can be hard to understand, because you seem to have a private vocabulary. I have no idea what to rebel "against unity with absolute conscience" means.
What I do feel should be questioned here is your notion of the shadow. Magicians typically use Jung's conception of the shadow. He stresses (in <i>The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious</i>, pg. 284 ff) that the shadow is "the sum of all personal and collective psychic elements which, because of their incompatibility with the chosen conscious attitude, are denied expression in life."
He also says (in <i>Aion</i> pg 266) that the shadow "does not consist only of morally reprehensible tendencies, but also displays a number of good qualities, such as normal (sic) instincts, appropriate reactions, realistic insights, creative impulses, etc.".
I don't see any of this as being either learned or conditioned.
'Splain?
93 93/93,
Edward
-
"
"I don't like the idea of leaving a part of me behind."Oh, come now, you've been doing it all of your life! Traits and wants and quirks and limitations that you had as a child have been left behind. Points of view have been left behind. All sorts of things have been left behind and discarded and outgrown.
That's all this is - outgrowing it! (Even down to the value of hand-me-downs for things you aren't wearing anymore but which can be of real use to someone just growing to the point where they can fit into them.) What you used to think of as yourself is shed as a husk - a q'lippah - something outgrown. The things we're talking about are just as substantial (and insubstantial) as old opinions about things."
I think where my question arises from, is my continuing belief in the possibility of immortality. I'm willing to let go of ideas (which in some way contradicts what I'm saying), but I was essentially concerned with leaving behind my physical body (yes I know how it sounds), and my emotional body. Do Qabalists make a distinction between emotional body and a mental body, or no?
If all existence is simply energy vibrating at different rates of speed (light-->sound---->matter), can we "speed up" the vibration of our complete being and take it all with us?
"until the cables are all connected and the integration is brought forward a bit."
A higher grade?
"I started to answer in the affirmative, but then realized that there is a bigger question here. It's: Why would you want to do that? (Risky question, I know. I've just spelled the Trigrammaton backwards!) What possible reason (argh, there's that other word) would you have for choosing to hold onto immaturities that you simply have outgrown?"
Fascinating... I never noticed that before about "why." Thanks for the revelation.
Hmmm, how can we reconcile: "the exposure of innocence is a lie" with what an old master said, that we "enter the kindgom of heaven as children"? Or perhaps there is no need for reconciliation?93, 93/93
-
That's fine. Mind you I don't mind questions, I just don't feel obliged to dispel one's skepticism. It's true that Carl Jung embraced the theory of the collective unconscious, and possessed specific definitions to the many archetypes. I've never found any reason to disagree with those definitions. They are very much a part of his vocabulary, and being a vocabulary that at present I'm not interested enough to learn and build upon. None the less, what you have stated is not conflictual with the properties of the shadow as I have simplistically defined it, and other than the reference to instincts, which is where I would likely break from Jung's definition. I don't consider instincts to be a part of consciousness itself short of the presence of the nervous system; although I admit, I haven't spent much time in meditation on that particular issue. However, the nebulous presence of incompatible psychic elements pertains well to my definition short of the reference to the 'entirety' of collective experience. That is to say, Jung is using this term as means of classifying everything he has yet to reveal as a component or a principle of mind, whereas I'm using the term to describe a very specific characteristic of consciousness - that which is the result of conditioning. Although necessary, if it is inappropriately delivered, conditioning leads to imbalances in perception, for example: the independence of self; meaningless dreams; psychosis of visions; the anti-continuum of action; consciousness based upon physicality; an impersonal God; and countless personality conflicts and psychological illnesses.
-
Virgil, 93,
"However, the nebulous presence of incompatible psychic elements pertains well to my definition short of the reference to the 'entirety' of collective experience."
Isn't that the nub of this thread, though? Incompatible psychic elements are not at all nebulous. Their very real power over us is where we enter into the whole troublesome area of mysticism versus neurosis (or worse).
This is the lesson of the Devil card - the Devil is the Redeemer. And we discover that through mirth, through laughing at ourselves. How can we really do that until we have allowed in those 'incompatible' psychic elements?
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Draco Magnus said
"I think where my question arises from, is my continuing belief in the possibility of immortality. I'm willing to let go of ideas (which in some way contradicts what I'm saying), but I was essentially concerned with leaving behind my physical body (yes I know how it sounds), and my emotional body. Do Qabalists make a distinction between emotional body and a mental body, or no?"
Yes, they do.
But all of those are simply "clothes." They aren't you.
I can confirm immortality as a reality - with absolute confidence! But it isn't physical immortality. The body, in fact, changes daily, hourly. Like a pair of jeans, when it wears out you just get a new one.
"If all existence is simply energy vibrating at different rates of speed (light-->sound---->matter), can we "speed up" the vibration of our complete being and take it all with us?"
If you speed up the vibratory rate of matter, it is no longer matter. It converts to energy. And so forth. It then exists in a realm that responds to different laws of nature, different realities.
I suggest (gently) that your point of view arises from a fear of death. I can't imagine why you would want to take all of that with you. I don't find it necessarily useful to keep what I thought yesterday. In some ways it's no different than what happens to what I had for lunch yesterday - as waste material, it gets recycled!
The key (as for so many things) is the Knowledge & Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. You have to have experience of yourself as an immortal, and the firm certainty that it grants. Then these very transient things will look different to you.
In the meantime, of course, I understand that you have to go with your best assessment based on the experience you already have.
"
"until the cables are all connected and the integration is brought forward a bit."A higher grade?"
No, not necessarily. A much later stage of the same grade.
"Hmmm, how can we reconcile: "the exposure of innocence is a lie" with what an old master said, that we "enter the kindgom of heaven as children"? Or perhaps there is no need for reconciliation?"
I'm afraid that I miss the contradiction you are seeing between them. I always thought they said more or less the same thing.
-
Definitions are relative to the norm and vantage point of the pen's dictator. As all of sin is restriction of will, both neurosis and psychosis are a matter of degree of restriction. Simply because I babble on about the sky while you are talking about the fence doesn't make me neurotic, and even though I'm indirectly and willfully reasserting myself. If however, I myself or you yourself experience internal pangs of fear or resentment as a result, then in terms of spirit, that would be neurotic; and even though in terms of social mores it would be normal. If I see angels, am I psychotic? According to the APA I am; therefore all saints and prophets are fruit bats. Adherence to a disparity of reality and perceived reality assumes that there is a difference between perception and reality; but balanced perception is synonymous with reality, and in those instances where perception transcends the laws of the physical universe, perception is reality itself. So, in order to make definition of the terms sensible, classifications of neurosis and psychosis are constructs via mores and conventional paradigms; ergo, they are potential virtues. On the other hand if a person is a murderer/rapist/cannibal etc. you can safely say that person is both psychotic and sinful. Hence, the true definitions of the terms should be degrees to which behaviour violates both spirit and social norms. If it only violates social norms, then it is neither neurotic nor psychotic, for how can conditioning of itself ever be sane? Conversely, if behaviour only violates spirit, then it is sin, and for all practical purposes it is either neurotic or psychotic depending upon the degree of violation. Spirit truly is the mooring post of humanity - not science.
On another note, Fra. Al, when reading Crowley one is called to judgment of his sanity, and perhaps moreso than any other author in history. As with poignant quotations such as yours, the true clarity and sensibility of the man shines through.
P.S. Fr. Al - are you an Asian Buddhist? No need to answer, I'm just interested in knowing a born and raised Buddhist perspective on Copticism.