Evolution of Thelema
-
@Fra.'. SPQR said
No matter how many translations of The Yoga Sutras I read I still come up with those refusing to enter the Abyss will after physical death fall from grace, as it were, and reincarnate unwillingly (perhaps even willingly with some spin to the Bodhisattva Vow) without the realizations, gifts or stature of previous attainments.
No reason to stop there! Anyone who reincarnates - of any grade in a prior incarnation - starts with a physical body that has to go through the same levels of progress. Neither entering nor crossing the Abyss exempts one from this.
What prior attainment provides is more rapid recapitulation.
Against this, history does at least appear to have a few examples of souls who seem to contradict this and emerge into life retaining enlightenment, or at least very primed for it. I have to conclude that they have had a very special dharma which required it.
I posit this because incarnational memories and emotional attachments to those memories, while known and alleviated in Adeptus Exemptus, we're told, are left to exist totally within the microcosm without having been introduced to even the most gross aspect of the macrocosm.
That's neither my experience nor the usual doctrine I see presented. The more common observation is that those who have progressed well into adepthood have a generally easier time recovering past-life memories because the frequent submergence of the personality elements into the higher aspects of consciousness results in their being more intimately integrated into that aspect of the Star which goes forward. ("Forward" is a term of convenience here, since simultaneity is a better description of the relationship of seemingly sequential lives.)
It's the physiological identity which the memories belong.
I think that's mostly true in practice, unless they have been deeply integrated into the L.V.X./Khabs.
I wont argue that being exempt from Karma, or incarnational memories, in Adeptus Exemptus isn't possible.
Duality persists at least to Chokmah - Magus, 9=2 - though 'above' the Abyss it has different characteristics than 'below.' Karma is inherent in action - see Liber Magi. "Reaching Zero" is not the same as never thereafter moving off the Zero.
The vantage is convention among both Western and Eastern occultists. I would like to point out however that at the precise moment the viewing of the memories ends, one begins to amass more memories and therefore is not free of Karma.
Ah, I think you're saying the same thing I just wrote.
It should go without stating if one isn't free of Karma, one isn't immortal.
You can't conceive of Gods who exist within the framework wherein action and consequence are understood to be continuous with and inseparable from each other? It seems to me that this denies any movement in any dimension.
However free the Adeptus Exemptus appears to be, he or she is still operating from within, as a result is still ruled by, the physiological construct; and thus is subject to its laws.
So, to a great extent, is the Master of the Temple who is still incarnate.
-
@Fra.'. SPQR said
"The Star (9=2) is the totally integrated tripartite identity: physiological, all-inclusive physiological and præter-human. The latter of which to the letter of the doctrine cannot be experienced unless or until the prior two are annihilated in the Abyss. "
That's your definition (to which, of course, you're entitled). By no means is it either a standard definition or standard usage.
Most simply, Liber L. tells us that "Khabs" (meaning "star") is the name of Hadit's house. "Star" therefore refers to a level exterior to Yechidah (the Yod aspect of being). In other words, it is the Heh or Briatic part of us - the deepest knowable aspect.
"Keeping to doctrine, Karma is only relevant to action insofar as it concerns smriti, memories of the physiological and all-inclusive physiological identities. All actions made from above the Abyss are free of Karma. Therefore only those above the Abyss consciously are immortal."
I'm sure there are definitions of Karma for which this is true.
My only point here is that the basic doctrine of karma is that the word means both the action and its consequence - in Sanskrit, these are understood as being the same thing, not separate action-then-consequence as in Western thought. Consequential action has consequences, and they are one thing. - Now, if (for example) you are using "karma" only in its more casual sense pertaining to reincarnation, then I'm very close to agreeing with you - but in the deeper sense, the essence of the Magus is action and its manifestation is inherently dualistic - again, ref. Liber I - therefore, inherent in the fulfillment of the Grade is karma.
-
Dear Fra.'. SPQR,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
With due respect using Budge as argument is a little outdated. Namely:
*Why are there no books by Budge here?
Sir E A Wallis Budge (1857-1934) published prolifically during his lifetime. The standard biographical study of Egyptologists summarises his achievements as follows:
'in his text editions, Budge was too prolific for careful work, and many of them are inaccurate by modern standards; he persisted in the use of an old system of transcription, and did not utilise many of the grammatical discoveries of the Berlin School; nevertheless without his phenomenal energy and devotion, many hieratic, Coptic, and other texts would not have become known and been made available until a much later date' (Who was who in Egyptology, 1995, p. 72).
The usefulness of books by Sir Wallis Budge has been controversial. Budge ignored major developments made in the fields of transcription, grammar and lexicography, and was neglectful in matters of archaeology and provenance. Although he was an active collector, his publications fell behind contemporaneous scholarly standards and are now extremely outdated. Today, University students are strongly advised not to use them, because of their basic errors of fact and methodology.
For this same reason the Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan does not include any of Budge's books on its recommended reading list. Budge's works are still in print, but this is because they are out of copyright, and so the text can be cheaply reprinted. While they are well illustrated, full of information and extremely cheap, they are at best unreliable, and usually misleading.*
source: www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/aes/faqs/budge.html
Just my two cents.
Love is the law, love under will.
B.
-
@Fra.'. SPQR said
"An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, Vol. 1, page 530 by William Budge lists khabs to mean starry sky: Nuit."
An interesting subject of discussion might be whether Liber Legis should be understood in terms of what the words actually mean, or in terms of the meanings understood by Crowley at the time it came through him. I submit that the latter makes more sense.
In 776 1/2, in the notes at the end, I gave the analysis from the point of view of the reference most likely best known to Crowley at the time - Egyptian Magic by his former Praemonstrator, Florence Farr.
Nonetheless, it's, to me, an interesting question which cuts somewhat deep into the roots of the emergence of Liber L. into the world.
I agree with the quotes you gave from AC, except I think the choice of "inmost" is misleading. I followed it for years until I realized that Hadit - the clear representation of the Inmost - abides within a "house" called Khabs.
-
Fra.'. SPQR wrote: So you see, mine is the standard definition; yours is an uneducated usage.
Wait a sec --
"Come! all ye, and learn the secret that hath not yet been revealed. I, Hadit, am the complement of Nu, my bride. I am not extended, and Khabs is the name of my House."
Jim wrote: Most simply, Liber L. tells us that "Khabs" (meaning "star") is the name of Hadit's house.
"Hadit is the 'core of every star,' verse 6. He is thus the Impersonal Identity within the Individuality of 'every man and every woman.'"
Jim wrote: "Star" therefore refers to a level exterior to Yechidah (the Yod aspect of being).
"Khabs -- 'a star' -- is an unit of Nuit, and therefore Nuit Herself. This doctrine is enormously difficult of apprehension, even after these many years of study."
Jim wrote: In other words, it is the Heh or Briatic part of us - the deepest knowable aspect.
Admittedly, I'm new to all this stuff, but it sounds like Jim was saying the same thing.
-
@Fra.'. SPQR said
"If you're really attempting to pass off the Star being attributed to Briah (exclusively)"
Yes, quite explicitly. (The Tarot card called The Star is even attributed to Heh, to add another point I hadn't mentioned before.)
-
@Fra.'. SPQR said
"This whole dynamic began when on about Jim's claiming the recalling past life memories without being in 7=4 in subsequent incarnations after refusing to cross the Abyss."
There you go misquoting me again. (Or, at least, this sentence doesn't seem to me to be saying anything like what I said before.)
PS - As for much of the rest above, you seem to be back to your old tricks of just being an ass for sake of being an ass, and being ungracious to boot. That isn't welcome here and won't be tolerated. If you're going to play here, play nice. First official administrative warning is herewith issued.
-
Challenges are fine - and encouraged. But not persistently contentious behavior.
Warning level escalated to highest pre-removal level.
-
Hey, I got sparked!
Here's what it looks like --
It seems to me that the previous arguments have some bearing on "but Tzaddi is not the Star." The Emperor (old Tarot) probably refused to credit the Old Girl and preferred to keep "house" for himself in some isolated and idealized image of Chokmah. It took the Hierophant to step in and make the switch, thus granting the Emperor, should he wish it, true Tzaddi (which descends from Nuit -- as it did). Meanwhile, now that she has her Window back, she, the Star, finally gets to take a breather (all that ruling through the subconscious was hard work!).