Liber Tzaddi and "shadow" assimilation?
-
@modernP said
"
We have various instructions and methods for attaining K&C of the HGA but my question is could this uniting with the "Blind Creature of Slime" as instructed by RHK be equated to assimilating the Shadow in the Jungian sense? Or is the Jungian Shadow simply a pale reflection of this idea? "They may be discussing similar ideas, but I think that it might be oversimplifying it a bit to try to map them perfectly. And I think it's a mistake to try to ask whether one lie is intrinsically better than another.
But the underlying principle of Liber Tzaddi and much of Jung's writing is equilibrium.
Which sets of ideas resonate with a person's inner truths, and how they unfold, is going to be pretty individual.
"41. But since one is naturally attracted to the Angel, another to the Demon, let the first strengthen the lower link, the last attach more firmly to the higher."
-
Not to totally reject the psychic nature of all experience, but this 'darkly splendid world' is perhaps nothing more or less than the world...
In other words, be worldly! I seem to recall some of Crowley's advice to Regardie along these lines; i.e. that he give up all magical and mystical endeavors and spend a few years acquainting himself with every conceivable vice.
The world is beautiful, heart-breakingly so, don't reject her...
Love and Will
-
@Dar said
"
@Takamba said
"There was no "Hell" in the quote that ModernP gave us. It is "below the hells." With so many hells, who needs to define one for the rest of us? I'm sure there are plenty you can go to once you find the time."As above, so below.
Correct - The quote says above the Heavens and below the Hells and that's what I'm discussing. Where is the balance - the unity - and the destruction? The gunas revolve.
Don't be pissy with me Takamba. Or at least tell me what got your goat today?"
Now my only interest is in why you place your projections on me? I wasn't pissy. I stated plainly that "hells" (not "Hell" and not "Hells") was the word. There are infinite hells as there are infinite heavens, so the theory goes.
I see then in a later post you are bringing up topics and issues not at all alluded to or implied by anyone above your posts. Curiouser and curiouser.
-
@Dar said
"Hehehe... I posted the above with my music on random through thousands of tracks... and
'Amos Moses' by Alabama 3 came on.
"Is this a game of divisions? What other "you" could possibly exist for "me?" What's wrong with a pronoun? You are the reader.
-
-
@Dar said
"In that case Takamba - you can go to hell too... And in the old fashioned sense you recognise and approve of instead of the new fangled interpretation presented from my own experience.. I'm not in the mood for people playing pissy games and pretending their (****) is whiter than white and smells lemon fresh to boot.
Or argue a bit more... here (opens the bull gate).
"Dar, I know exacly what you're on about. It struck me entirely in the same tone. More than one person today. But they can't see it.
I was impressed at how you first tried not to take it that way. I could tell that took reflection and effort. You get stars from me, anyway.
We're no good here today. Today is a day for other strengths, other meanings.
[Brushing it all off. Taking off the lab jacket. Deconcerning.]
Let's go outside and play instead.
too.... dry... inside... [sound of one hand parching]
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Takamba said
"Honestly I have no idea what you're on about."With all affection to all involved, I must admit (my projections, I'm sure) that I expected you to say
@Takamba said
"Honestly I have no idea what you're on"
I was startled by the last word
"I found that terribly funny. Although you delivered it so gently, I feel I'm supposed to assume it has a hint of insult towards me in it but of course - like whatever brought it up in the first place - I'm not entirely seeing it. At second glance, I can see where my words looked like I was saying "go to hell," and so it was before I hit "Submit." I am one who believes a good joke stands on its own, and the entire concept that it became personalized was something that told me more about "hells" than any advice anyone could have plainly written. Dar's reaction took me for a loop because then she (Dar is a she, right?) supposed to know so much about me and what I label "hells." This is where I don't know what she's on about. What old fangled and new fashioned whot? Where did I dare define what a heaven and a hell is to any individual? And I think this is the meat of the original writing quoted in the original post, that the heavens and hells should in no way be assumed to be understood by anyone else. And that's all I was saying.
Again, your expectation of what the words would be (not seeing the last word until the end) is incredibly funny, but I won't suppose to know Dar enough to even assume she takes her prescribed meds (let alone any other drugs).
(that was a joke possibly in poor taste, but take it as a joke and if it has any truth or not - laugh at yourself Dar, and the world will laugh with you).
-
modernP you said things very well but from my understanding there are only a few misconceptions that may be dangerous to hold. A belief that it is just a psychological species of a game using different tools of the trade. (By using the word game, I imply hunt, not frivolity).
The Goetia, for instance, are not to be integrated into you. Trust me, they'd love nothing more than for you to believe that they are only pieces of you and you need to put yourself back together. They are indeed related to you, I might say, but only like a mirror shattered into 78 pieces is related to you. Your command of them, so to speak, is ultimately your command of yourself (this is true and you might have a hint of understanding that already) but only in as much as you realize that they are not you.
The Jungian concept of Individuation is nothing I would scoff at, but it is only one of many valuable psychological theories and honestly is more psychology-lite compared to some of the travels a magician makes. These "heavens and hells" we speak of, these states of mind (on one level) and states of existence (pure and rarefied but not just imaginations), they will require Herculean Will and Love to pass through far more so than any event an analyst and a couch could create.
In short - in my opinion - I think you are mixing the planes just a bit. There isn't too much danger in that, but if can be used to support an argument that the beasties are only mere aspects of yourself and you need to collect them into yourself and do their bidding, there is danger in that. They need to be bottled, in a brass vessel, not in your brain.
As far as the zen koan expression of who's will is it, the flute or the musicians: excellent. Meditate further on that and you will meet yourself, that companion you speak of. You will be "one with the flute." But you are not the flute.
I haven't had my coffee yet, so I hope I've been coherent.