Thelema and "God"
-
@sasha said
"Something "utterly transcendent and superior to your own personality" could refer simply to one's HGA rather than "God""
I stopped attempting to differentiate those terms functionally a long time ago. In the Knowledge & Conversation of the HGA, the Angel is, to the Adept, as his or her God (even if the person who is the Adept may use the word "God" differently at different times).
ADDENDUM: (I think the best "standard religion" equivalent is in Hinduism. Ishvara, generally understood as one's "personal God," is God in all respects except one - viz., that there is an impersonal God "above" Ishvara. But in going along with life and worship, Ishvara is treated as one generally thinks of God. (This is the mystical truth behind the position that "Jesus is God," I think.)
One can, of course, speak of one infinity that is greater than another infinity, but that is mostly an artistic (rather than mathematical) use of language. Once submerged into infinity, one is less interested in roping off the real estate (or, at least, I am) - That pastime is generally saved for keeping the intellect busy after the rest of us comes back to file a report.
-
Marc, that answers everything, thanks!
ok, now I have another question/comment, somewhat on the same topic. I was reading D. Fortune the other night and she says that the western understanding of the eastern idea of annihilation of the self into God is incorrect. From her writing it seems to indicate that we are not annihilated when "absorbed" into God. This also reminded me of a doctrine of Martinez de Pasquales. The basic idea is that each soul is a "cell" of Adam Kadmon. It is our goal to "reintegrate" back into the original one being, the collective. While being the one Adam we still retain our individual being, the "cell." Another analogy is a pearl necklace. The necklace was shattered into many pearls (souls), but we will once again be made into the one necklace, while still being a unique and individual pearl (or individual star!). Our soul is never destroyed but gets brought into a larger collective.
Any comments on how this may connect to Thelemic ideas of "after death." It seems to fit with Every man and every woman is a star.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
""We all have AIDS - if any one of us has AIDS." That's literally true if the species is understood to be a single organism."
Then, presumably, it is also literally true that "We are all free from AIDS - if any one of us is free from AIDS."
-
@zeph said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
""We all have AIDS - if any one of us has AIDS." That's literally true if the species is understood to be a single organism."Then, presumably, it is also literally true that "We are all free from AIDS - if any one of us is free from AIDS.""
I think that may be true on the intellectual-rhetorical plane - but not on the physical one.
If you think of the human species as one single organism, then the presence of HIV in any part of that organism means that the organism has HIV. (Come to think of it, the ad is probably slightly off - would be accurate if it said HIV, not necessarily dead-on if it says AIDS, which is a syndrome with particular characteristics that is one of the consequences of having the HI virus.)
-
How does the idea of every person being one collective "organism" fit in with "every man and woman is a star?" One seems to show unity into one being, and the other seems to imply individual souls as "islands," perhaps all in the same ocean, but with thier own separate borders and paths.
-
@DJHOHL said
"How does the idea of every person being one collective "organism" fit in with "every man and woman is a star?" One seems to show unity into one being, and the other seems to imply individual souls as "islands," perhaps all in the same ocean, but with thier own separate borders and paths."
It fits because both are true at once.
Nuit-consciousness says we are all one, inseparable, united.
Hadit-consciousness says we are each separate, individual, unique.
Ra-Hoor-Khuit consciousness, which characterizes the experience of incarnation, is aware of both of these coexisting.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
It fits because both are true at once.Nuit-consciousness says we are all one, inseparable, united.
Hadit-consciousness says we are each separate, individual, unique.
Ra-Hoor-Khuit consciousness, which characterizes the experience of incarnation, is aware of both of these coexisting."
Thanks Jim, that is what I was looking for.
Marc, I'll try to keep my topics to those you like. Please send me a list of all those that are acceptable.
http://www.viewonline.com/viewpoint/images/grinch.jpg -
@DJHOHL said
"How does the idea of every person being one collective "organism" fit in with "every man and woman is a star?" One seems to show unity into one being, and the other seems to imply individual souls as "islands," perhaps all in the same ocean, but with thier own separate borders and paths."
Perhaps another way of looking at it...
Each star has its own orbit. But one cannot have an orbit, except in relation to other bodies, in fact, in relation to ALL other bodies. The orbit of any individual represents the interrelationship between that individual and all others. Perhaps I take the orbit analogy too far, but if an orbit represents an individual's true will, then that true will manifests as a result of existing in relation to the whole.
-
93 Marc!
I always enjoy your posts and witty images. I put a there to let you know I was not serious. And I do have my own personal beliefs of things but I never get upset if someone contradicts them. As long as someone explains their view and discusses it openly, I have no problem. Heck, I may even change my mind. I have before. I'm "hangin' out" here because I find the members have a much greater knowledge of the subject than most other places.
"Rock On" back to ya!
-
@DavidH said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
" (Crowley's brief New Comment on this {verse in The Book of the Law}...."
...can you direct me to this "New Comment?" ..."
the Scribe made two main passes of reflective expression on his scripture (ignoring for the moment text such as "The Djeridensis Working" and derivative works such as "Equinox of the Gods"), to my knowledge.these he called "The Old Comment" and "The New Comment", this latter taking into account the content of the earlier pass. whether these in some measure relate to "The Comment" from Ankh-n-f-khonsu is a matter mainly of faith.
subsequent editors beyond the Beast published versions of these two, including Israel Regardie ("The Law is for All"), and Kenneth Grant along with John Symonds ("Magical & Philosophical Commentaries on The Book of the Law"). Marcelo Motta also issued such an edition, and both Fr. Bill Heidrick (WEH) and Fr. Hymenaeus Beta have provided notes on the whole (the former in electronic files to be found in versions online, the latter in a recently published edition of "The Law is for All", incorporating material from Louis Wilkinson).
through time more of this material has become available online for the dedicated student, including photographic reproductions of the original manuscript and exegetical analysis detailing how it moved from its original state to published form.
-
@DavidH said
"Several Crowley texts, including Liber Oz, states that "There is no god but man." Is this to be taken literally? Does this mean that there is no intelligent designer beyond man? Why do all mystery schools (Golden Dawn, Masons, Martinists, etc. etc.) all have as a primary prerequisite a belief in a supreme being "God?"
Crowley obviously believed in other intelligences that were outside and not dependent on man, did he not believe in one supreme source of everything 'God?"
Any insights or is it a literal statement. And if it is, how does it fit with Kabbahlistic teachings, buddhist teachings, Jewish teachings, etc. For example, Adam Kadmon is said to be comprised on the tree as the 6 center sipheroth (D. Fortune) with Tiphareth as the center, the six above malkuth and below the supernals. So this achtypical man still has the supernals and veils above him.
Any ideas?"
What this means is that there is a God, but that God is in you, as much as it's in me and in everybody. God is *not absent *from where you are, directly, as you are.
One of my favourite AC bits is in Magick Without Tears where he likens it to "something ourselves that makes for righteousness". This is a take on a saying by Matthew Arnold: "something not ourselves that makes for righteousness". AC says he erases "Arnold's guilty and imbecile "not"".
That tells you a lot right there about where the shift is.
So yes, there's an almight Creator God, but He is "in" You, he is at the deepest and profoundest level, You, just as much as He is anything else. The Charioteer is a nice symbol for me in relation to this: you the minded animal, are the bearer of a vessel containing God's very substance, and it is your heart's blood.
Or again, your body and mind are a living temple for that God.
The main idea is to make that switch from being "at effect" to being "at cause" (an *est *phrase).
Now the thing about Angels and the like is that they have THE SAME SORT OF LINK TO THE SOURCE. They are as much the same as God, and different from God, as you are. (Consider Plato's circle, with us being segments but united at the centre, also expounded to great effect by Ida Craddock.)
Everyone *has *that connection, but some don't *believe *they have it, hence they are "beggars", in fact most of our fellow sentient beings are "kings dressed as beggars".