Detailed questions on the Klippot
-
@AEternitas1 said
"This nonsense about left hand path and right hand path and all that is a bit immature in my opinion. The magician rises straight up, straying neither right nor left. He stands with his feet in the deepest abyss and his head in the highest Heavens."
Well, certainly not all magicians do. There are those which when they feel the hellfire under their feet try to banish it. The reason why I talk about the Left Hand Path (which is a classic concept of tantra) is that it points to the possibility of not only working with the Right hand. Grant makes it quite clear that Crowley worked with the Left Hand Path, even though he seldom wrote about the dark mysteries. Liber 333 and 231 are quite qliphothic though!
@TheSilent1 said
"
I don't see how what I do is either right or left, it is merely a method. My point was simply that there is no evidence to support the spirits of the goetia as being qliphotic, and I also gave a formula by which to deal with them.
The simple fact that I have given something a purpose does not mean that I have subdued it, you are implying that:- the spirit has a will of it's own [which may or may not be true/if true then it's will would certainly be in line with god of it's sphere]
- that I have somehow through force or what not I have made it go against it's will which is NOT THELEMA! [which tells me you don't even see the elegance of the system that I have outlined]
If you feel the need to color techniques as black or white or right or left, well that is your limited paradigm. Honestly, I can't see how you can possibly see the light from the muck of the sewers, but to each their own.
"This seems to become a discussion of vocabularly. Something I quite uninterested in. Yes, through mine and alot of my friends research in goetic magic I think it is quite clear that these entities (as I mainly prefer to call them) have will and some of them are interested in aiding the adept in the initiatory work. I can only make a very simple evaluation of what you describe and notice they they seem to be quite close to what I see from people that work with the goetic entities in a way that could be more beneficial from an initiatory perspective: where the central theme is the building up of alliances with them so that they can guide the adept into the Qliphothic mysteries.
I see nothing "wrong" in approaching the spirits of the goetia from the perspective that they can help with mundane things.
I also see nothing "wrong" in the concept of shutting out and banishing the darkness. I just note that there is a possibility of doing something else. This is generally called the Left Hand Path. There is no moral or idea of higher/better, lower/not good in this. Just like I would call a chair a chair and a table a table or talk about a "thai" or "mexican" kind of food. This makes discussions easier generally. Of course there are nuances. We live in a global world after all filled of individuals. Some people like to label what they do as "Thelema", for different reasons. I mainly agree with Crowleys relation to words that he describes in Liber 333. -
Atlantis wrote:
"Well, certainly not all magicians do. There are those which when they feel the hellfire under their feet try to banish it. The reason why I talk about the Left Hand Path (which is a classic concept of tantra) is that it points to the possibility of not only working with the Right hand. Grant makes it quite clear that Crowley worked with the Left Hand Path, even though he seldom wrote about the dark mysteries. Liber 333 and 231 are quite qliphothic though! "
The point is that all magical working is essentially involves klipot until the ego is completely transecended. The irony is that many would-be magicians seek initiation into the very sphere they already operate in and it is unikely that very few make it out of that domain.
The LHP is to be found in tantra, but is represents a very small part of the vast corpus of tantric material in classical Indian philosophy. -
@Atzil said
"The point is that all magical working is essentially involves klipot until the ego is completely transecended."
That's ridiculous. (Also, simply not true.)
I'm curious: At what grade (or other way of characterizing level) are you suggesting that "complete transcendance" of the ego occurs?
-
Jim said
"That's ridiculous. (Also, simply not true.)"
I don't think you have really thought this through. It's a question of which viewpoint you take. Look through your previous posts on the Sitra Achra. Before you can say something is ridiculous, you need to qualify.
I don't think, with all due respect, that you are in a position to unconditionally state what is true or not true, except for yourself, which may be true or not true
I'm not interested in kintergarden philosophy on forums. I am interested in serious discussion however. I am interested in why you think it is 'ridiculous' according to your point-of-view.
-
@Atzil said
"Jim said
"That's ridiculous. (Also, simply not true.)"I don't think you have really thought this through. It's a question of which viewpoint you take. Look through your previous posts on the Sitra Achra. Before you can say something is ridiculous, you need to qualify.
I don't think, with all due respect, that you are in a position to unconditionally state what is true or not true, except for yourself, which may be true or not true "The original statement, to which I responded, used the word "all." It allowed no room for exceptions or variances.
I did, nonetheless, try to further the conversation by asking for the definition or clarification of a critical phrase in the statement. Until that appears, there's no way to evaluate further.
"I'm not interested in kintergarden philosophy on forums. I am interested in serious discussion however. I am interested in why you think it is 'ridiculous' according to your point-of-view."
Roughly the same reason that I would think it ridiculous if somebody wrote "all automobiles run on Coca Cola." (1) It simply isn't true, (2) it's observably not true, and (3) even if we were to make allowances for some exceptions, then the word "all" removes that option.
-
"The point is that all magical working is essentially involves klipot until the ego is completely transecended. The irony is that many would-be magicians seek initiation into the very sphere they already operate in and it is unikely that very few make it out of that domain."
Sure, the Qliphoth is great in breaking down the Sephirothic ego-complex. That is one of the main results of using the first levels of the Qliphoth. After the ego is done with one proceeds with other mysteries, such as those related to the infinite life, kaivalya and so on.
I agree with that many magicians get stuck in their initiation. That is why it is good to work with a real *initiatory *Order that knows how to handle the alchemical process."The LHP is to be found in tantra, but is represents a very small part of the vast corpus of tantric material in classical Indian philosophy."
Tantra is not limited to "classical Indian philosophy" whatever that might mean. I am not so knowledgeable about indian tantra. My focus has been different buddhist variants of left hand path tantra.
But as far as I have understood, the vamachara tantras are quite many (whatever that has to do with anything).
Today the word Left Hand Path in the west is used as a meta-tradition, where tantra is one part. Sadly, the word has a problematic history of misconceptions surrounding it. Blavatsky, LaVey, Crowley and some others have added their share of misconceptions. But others, such as Grant and Karlsson have pointed the word back to its real current. -
Jim wrote:
"The original statement, to which I responded, used the word "all." It allowed no room for exceptions or variances."
True. Im not sure any other quantifier, such as 'some', 'most of' etc would help either. I generally define magic as operating within the sphere of development towards complete transcendence of the ego, after which I wouldnt call it magic personally. I was not suggesting that all forces that are available during this process are egoistical, but rather that as long as the ego is intact to some degree, the klipot still operate, though their hold is more subtle and
weakened.
As with the concept of Adeptship and many other abstract concepts, including grades, I do not define thresholds. Some would say the grade of 8=3, AA Bailey says the 4th Initiation etc. In my experience, which includes initiations in GD related bodies and outside, the external grade rarely reflects the inner attainment.
Ultimately, only our personal experience teaches us according to my experience. I do think that if you are going to use kabbalistic concepts such as klipot, sitra achra etc, one needs to understand the origin of these terms. The GD and those that followed were in the habit of taking, translating(often inaccurately, due to limited knowledge and availability of first-hand materials) from Jewish texts and usually putting their own interpretation on them. And this is where, rightly or wrongly, I believe the danger lies. Kaplan once suggested that the comparison and evaluation of traditional Kabbalah and the hermetic/christian kabbalah might prove a useful area of research. I am inclined to agree, given the lack of insight into this subject displayed by so many initiates, particularly in the
GD derived bodies, many of whom I know personally across all 'grades'.
I am interested to know where you put the grade or threshold and whether you think that is subject to revision?I am interested in constructive and intelligent dialogue, not merely dismissive statements. We are all students after all
-
@Atzil said
"I generally define magic as operating within the sphere of development towards complete transcendence of the ego, after which I wouldnt call it magic personally."
Just to (hopefully) further the discussion somewhat, I'd define things differently. What you have described is one path (perhaps the primary eventual path) of what I would call mysticism. On the other hand, the ego is one of the most important agencies in magick. (Even when one has become mostly abstracted from the reactive personality patterns, magick still requires selectivity, the isolation of one in contrast to the the dissolution of the multiple.)
"I was not suggesting that all forces that are available during this process are egoistical, but rather that as long as the ego is intact to some degree, the klipot still operate, though their hold is more subtle and weakened."
That's a much more moderate statement than the previous one, and - depending on exactly which definition of Q'lippoth you are using at the moment - I might not be able to disagree with this one. For example, if you are including any reactive components of an individual's personality, I would tend to agree.
In that case, though, I would take it further: I would say that these are present as long as has a physical body. In fact, the body is the inescapable gauge in there being some Q'lippothic action. The one idea at the root of q'lippoth is "husk, something shed"; and, as long as you have a body shedding skin cells, creating waste matter, etc., you have this. (In a healthy body, though, this is a natural process that requires negligible attention.)
"As with the concept of Adeptship and many other abstract concepts, including grades, I do not define thresholds. Some would say the grade of 8=3, AA Bailey says the 4th Initiation etc. In my experience, which includes initiations in GD related bodies and outside, the external grade rarely reflects the inner attainment."
In the A.'.A.'. it does by definition. That is, one doesn't actually have the grade unless one has the attainment. The tests aren't "formal," but actual. (This is separate from the fact that people sometimes claim grades they haven't attained.)
"I am interested in constructive and intelligent dialogue, not merely dismissive statements. We are all students after all
"I reserve the right to be completely dismissive of idiocy. My religion requires me to despise all fools. OTOH in this case the statement had the better effect of drawing attention back to the actual language and discovering that even the author of the original statement meant something different.
-
"...My religion requires me to despise all fools..."
Utterly?
completely?Are there levels or grades of fools?
I am sincerly interested in this statement, I was recently led to believe that the Tarot, and the Book should be read backwards, so that we end up at the Fool.
for me, to despise means that I am feeling a very negative emotion, and that I have focused this feeling upon a specific perception, (ie a judgement about an individuals choices).
it is a very strong and forceful emotion,
how would that be properly used?
For what end...
I cant seem to see how motivation would be it primary function.maybe I am not supposed to understand that....yet
-
Capital-F Fools are different from run-of-the-mill fools <vbg>.
Despite the intriguing Qabalistic temptations, I've never been convinced that any of the lower-f fools in Liber Legis really mean capital-F fools. (It appears, in singular or plural, 9 times on Liber Legis, plus a "foolish" for good measure.)
But I take as rather simple and straightforward: "Despise also all cowards; professional soldiers who dare not fight, but play; all fools despise!" (In contrast to the next verse: "But the keen and the proud, the royal and the lofty; ye are brothers!")
-
Didn't it also say not to discuss the book of the law?
-
@Jastiv said
"Didn't it also say not to discuss the book of the law?"
No, it didn't. That was a note Crowley appended later, not part of the Book itself.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Capital-F Fools are different from run-of-the-mill fools <vbg>.
Despite the intriguing Qabalistic temptations, I've never been convinced that any of the lower-f fools in Liber Legis really mean capital-F fools. (It appears, in singular or plural, 9 times on Liber Legis, plus a "foolish" for good measure.)
But I take as rather simple and straightforward: "Despise also all cowards; professional soldiers who dare not fight, but play; all fools despise!" (In contrast to the next verse: "But the keen and the proud, the royal and the lofty; ye are brothers!")"
I forgot about those capitals.
and I do succumb to temptations...
I hope that someday I can have a glimmer of your clarity Mr.Eshelman...
-
Well if someone does not want do dig down into the shitty parts of themselves and reality that is fine.
Some have the Will to do so: there is gnosis to be found in that which is terrifying, those truths that disgusts us or shatters our world completely - that which we don´t want to see, that which breaks down the ego. Actually, in a sense it could be described as a journey where one seeks truth - not truth in any philosophical sense - whatever it would mean. It is the abandoning and giving up of everything. The egos perceptions on what one supposed to find, those shiny light pictures that the sephirothic ego builds up about what gnosis is will be shattered.
Indeed, this is where *meaning *(which is a kind of ego-masturbation within the mind) has to be overcome.This undercurrent within both western and eastern esoterisism is not new, it is old.
To each his own.. -
atlantis, I agree with most of what you said, but not about the meaning as "a kind of ego-masturbation within the mind" --- it is essentially all that we have at the 'rational' level. the meaning among the concepts is like the Sun among the planets. it centers the Ruach 'part' of our being, thus - in perfectly balanced manner - connecting the One and the Many.
-
Hi!
With meaning I try to indicate something in an "existential" sense of the word.
Just to clarify. -
Jim said:
"I reserve the right to be completely dismissive of idiocy. My religion requires me to despise all fools. "
To the first part I would say, of course that is your choice.
To the second I would, personally, be cautious. Even 'fools' are not what they may appear to be and despising them
serves no useful purpose. In this, Crowley, was foolish imo -
Atzilut, 93,
"Even 'fools' are not what they may appear to be and despising them
serves no useful purpose. In this, Crowley, was foolish imo"It wasn't Crowley who said this, though.
93 93/93,
Edward -
Yes, but it is a moot point. Personally, I have never found that philosophy endearing
although I understand it in a reactive and human way. Personally, those members I know
in Crowley's Orders who seem most vocal on this issue are often those
who are finding their way in Thelema and use it to vent their frustration.
Those who have been around for some time
and are not struggling with low self-esteem, seem to display far more tolerance for
'fools' than one would expect given their 'commitment' to the Order etc. But that's just
my opinion. -
Atzilut, 93,
The Book of the Law comprises many Qabalistic riddles, mystical puns, subtle aphorisms and so forth. It isn't something we can critique easily, like a philosophy text, one of St. Paul's discourses, or a Buddhist sutra. It was delivered as it was, and is meant to be studied as-is. It's always problematic in that way: a paradox that appeals to a higher (intuitive) reason, not to the rational mind, yet insists on going beyond reason. It needs to be approached in a fundamentalist spirit, so that it can up-end all our fundamentalisms. If it hasn't driven us crazy at some point, then we're not trying hard enough.
So, if we start looking on it as a set of opinions, then we're not reading it as it was meant to be read. It remains opaque if we do that, because we haven't risen to the task it sets us. Crowley spent years learning that himself.
I agree that plenty of people use passages from the Book as a series of excuses for being coarse, or affecting some irritating macho stance, or other forms of ego defense. That doesn't disqualify the text itself from careful meditation and application.
93 93/93,
Edward