Too much, too soon?
-
@nameless said
"
@Vlad said
"
@Frater Sardonyx said
"Yes, but I'm ...I'm turning a blind eye to that one right now.But I'm not sure how that theory explains the origin of this methodology in the first place.
It didn't come from someone already trained.
Chicken, egg, angel?"
For example, if you have just got out of depression, then that doesn't condition to make you capable of getting anyone else out of depression. It's as if you had gotten out of the sea, and completely exhausted, without getting a rope or something, you go back to the sea to get the others out.
It's the same with everything. Just because you have done something, for example, you're a good cook, doesn't make you a teacher."
What about the idea that you don't actually have to know something yourself to teach people. Like for instance, someone who never got out of his or her depression teaching others how to get out of theirs? Or do you think that whole idea lacks usefulness."
People in similar conditions may support eachother, but I think we need something else too. You do have to know something: if you're in that condition, you already know something.
-
@Marlowe said
"Teaching by instinct is possible but fuzzy in it's efficiency. In nature, the primary means of function is instinct and its often debatable whether adult animals 'teach' juveniles as opposed to show them: that the adults act in accordance with their nature and their offspring follow and copy them. Animals are far more at home with their unconscious drives and have less of a need for civilized life. They have a sense of family and herding that preserves the species and within that will be a pack defense against predators who hunt in packs. Otherwise, adult life and death is one's own responsibility. Primates and certain highly developed species are exceptional, usually because they have a structured language."
I feel teaching is often the result of needing to escape a sense of isolation and self-obsession. If you've had any serious encounter with a personal problem of any kind you can either regard yourself as unique and singularly put upon by fate, or see the problem as extending beyond yourself, including possibly a whole class of people. This makes teaching—defined as the ability to share experience and knowledge—both a political gesture and attempt at self-therapy.
As such, teaching is one side of a toggle. This toggle pits the feeling of personal unfairness, or self-pity, against the perception that your problem is also the same problem many others are subject to, and which needs to be addressed as such. Hence, people who have undergone terrible divorces become divorce counselors; people born into crippling poverty become advocates for the poor. In this sense teaching is a way to heal oneself and escape the stigma of being all alone with ones problems—a cry baby, selfish and only interested in one's own prospects.
In this regard, if you have not been a victim you cannot teach people how to overcome their victim-hood. It's a general truism among people struggling with alcoholism that non-alcoholics cannot really help you.
I can see this model easily extended to include and explain magickal practice and instruction. Or by simply considering the possible answers to this question: why did Crowley teach?
Love and Will
-
"During today's meditation, I was rather taken aback to find myself touched by each of the angels with their various instruments, particularly that Michael pierced me - albeit painlessly - with his sword."
Sorry to revive this thread (I don't think the rigor mortis has set in entirely yet), but Marlowe's post touches a particular point of my experience, and I'd like to ask him/others about it.
You say that Michael pierced you with his sword. Does this happen spontaneously? Often? If so, is it just Michael or all four Angels? What do think the meaning of this is, if any? At what time during the ritual does this happen--at the end of the "Before me, Raphael..." section, I would assume?
I ask because quite often, say every dozenth time or so, I have a vision of all four Angels turning and piercing me with their swords. I haven't yet drawn a conclusion about this phenomenon, but I do know that at certain times I am subconsciously reluctant to be pierced by their swords. I'm not certain if this is a confirmation of the ritual or what, but it seems to happen more often when I "let go."
-
"
I've only recently begun practising magick, after several years of Tarot & I-Ching readings and a lifetime of reading mythology, spirituality and psychological literature. I've spent a few weeks performing the LBRP as a morning / evening routine and have had some interesting results already. However, I see from reading both literature and forums that results usually take a while to come and I wanted to check that I'm not mistaken or getting ahead of myself.I began performing the LBRP as taught by Israel Regardie, but have moved to adding the Thelemic names to both the LBRP and the QC. I've always had the knack of visualising, so the pentagrams aren't a problem and have become more apparent over time. The appearance of my Archangels has come on so quickly however, that thought it best to ask for opinions.
"93
Well the good thing is that you feel you are getting somewhere, and who knows, perhaps you are getting closer. But the natural question a person on this forum will quite rightly ask is, are you keeping a magickal diary?
The system developed by Crowley is one of scientific exploration. Not science handed-down-as-authority, but with yourself as the explorer (and keeping a daily record!) Many of the practices appear basic, but that is so as not to influence your results. Do them, they work.
The same cannot be said to any great extent for the practices handed down by Mr Regardie and his fans and followers (which probably include many on here).
Regardie was a prodigious purloiner of other people’s work. He pirated OTO material for his own financial ends, even while Mrs Germer was dying of starvation not that far from where he lived.
Mr Karl Johannes Germer, Crowley’s legitimate successor, wrote to a pupil about Regardie in the following words:
“He is a clever and intelligent Jew. Came to A.C.’s books in 1928. A.C. wrote to me in New York. I saw Regardie in Washington where his father lived. He was eager and hard-working. We agreed to hire him, sent him to Paris as secretary to A.C. He lived there for three years, and later in London. 666 put him through some severe tests, and he fell down. He separated from the Great Work, went back to California and lives there a shameful life. All that he knows was from Crowley. Yet the books he has written it is as if it was Regardie who was the big I Am! He speaks condescendingly of his Master, who initiated him only into lower things. So Regardie is spiritually dead, rotting on the spot where 666 permitted him to go. If you read Zanoni, he represents Glyndon, I think the name is. This and possibly further incarnations are doomed for him.”Cicero's Essential Golden Dawn is a version even further watered down to make it more commercial to the present market. Apart from recycled stuff (Regardie’s viewpoint is essentially of the old age of Osiris), he adds material that is so generic that it can be found in a plethora of cults these days with slightly changed names.
A good book that might interest you is Cults in Our Midst by Margaret Singer (a psychologist, though one with a rather better moral compass than Mr Regardie). Helpful both for recognising occult manipulation but also gives examples of well-meaning psychology and psychotherapy –based groups/cults started by well-meaning, trained professionals who get carried away with some occult or mystical visions that are a bit ‘off centre.’
I’m saying this not to have a go at Israel Regardie – he’s dead, after all. But people can wallow in the sort of half-truths purported by his type for many years. They contain enough apparently useful material to be convincing but that ultimately leads astray. You can, of course, try to ‘introduce’ the current of the new aeon at the same time, but it is hard enough without clinging to stuff that is past its bury–by date.
The entities you encountered were probably not actual Angels. They may well have been messengers of some sort at best, or projections of your subconscious. They seem to have served their purpose. What you do next is not only up to you, it may be crucial to the rest of your magickal career – in this life and thereafter . . .However, I do not wish to give you too much encouragement. That, after all was a mistake not only of Regardie but of people like Kenneth Grant, Helen Parsons Smith and many others. If you need to be ‘helped’ too much, then you are unfit and it is better not to get you in too deep. It is better that you make your decision to adopt the real methods of 666, to stand on your own feet, and preferably decide without dillydallying, within a few hours of reading this - or else forever go your own way. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
93 93/93
C.
-
@Mephis said
"You say that Michael pierced you with his sword. Does this happen spontaneously? Often? If so, is it just Michael or all four Angels? What do think the meaning of this is, if any? At what time during the ritual does this happen--at the end of the "Before me, Raphael..." section, I would assume?"
Yes, just before returning to the Pentagrams. It only happened to me once and I suspect now, it was to confirm my early belief that Michael carries a wand and thus to correct my visualization at the time. I have since, however had other spontaneous actions from all of the Angels and I take this as a need to pay attention to the element they represent. There's never been a huge revelation afterwards, but I have found material tokens in acknowledgment of this.
@annhauser said
"the natural question a person on this forum will quite rightly ask is, are you keeping a magical diary?"
Most certainly. I have a scholarly background and a disciplined mind, though neither is particularly orthodox. My diary is due for its monthly review today, as it happens.
Thankyou for your opinions and the literature you mention. I've put together a modest library now and I have my previous books on divination. It's helpful for me to track the historical development of ideas and approaches in order to understand what I myself am trying to do. I prefer to practice before I criticize and at present am still working with what one might traditionally call Regardie's material. What I'll be doing is adding to my practice as I understand it and see in which direction that takes me. I haven't posted on the forum since I was last on this thread because I don't have anything useful to add to what I've read here recently, but I'm sure I will in time. I don't, for instance, know who my Angels are, but I am developing a sense of their essential nature. I may reach a conclusion on their identity in time and I doubt it'll be wholly original. In the meantime, their benevolence is enough to grow on.
Cicero's Golden Dawn, is I agree, a generic work, but its also helpful for me to know what is commonly available, identified and understood, so as to appreciate why others diversify their endeavours. In short, what strikes me as innovative, what strikes me as derivative and what satisfies common curiosity. I'm a fan of Michel Foucault and Jiddu Krishnamurti's approaches to understanding knowledge, among others.
I'm not a Thelemite, though I do have Book 4 and a few smaller items, but my efforts may lead me there in time - quite some time if the size of Book 4 is any indication. I've read bootlegs of Kenneth Grant's stuff but only as entertainment. I haven't the knowledge to measure his legitimacy, but the visions are interesting.
I'm happy with my development so far and that's encouragement enough. I'm patient, but I don't dillydally. I'm starting off in middle-age and while this may have limitations, it certainly has advantages. As a young man, I would have been apprehensive of some of Mephisto's experiences. These days, I welcome such things, though I'm humble enough not to anticipate them.
@Dar said
"
If you do consider yourself some type of authority (as is suggested by the tone and verbosity of your post) then it's a little lacking in good manners for you to not present your credentials in the forum where Introductions are made, so that Jim Eshelman - a man that most definitely is an authority on the occult, may see who's knocking at the door of his School...?"I'm no authority and this wasn't meant for me but I do appear to have forgotten my manners. I will address this shortly.
(edited for a slipped pronoun)
-
@annhauser said
"Regardie was a prodigious purloiner of other people’s work. He pirated OTO material for his own financial ends, even while Mrs Germer was dying of starvation not that far from where he lived."
That sounds like one of the libels that fills Motta's malicious writings. I'm not aware of any evidence at all that Regardie "pirated OTO material" of any sort (while Mrs. Germer was alive or any other time).
Yes, Karl inherited a poor view of Regardie. (I'm not quite sure what the "shameful life" was.) That's particularly sad, since the two men had a major goal in common, viz., seeing that Crowley's works were available in print. Germer did important work in that regard, but it was Regardie who especially succeeded in it. Most of us never would have encountered Crowley's work but for Regardie's decades of labor.
The farther I read in your letter, the more Motta's venemous lies show. Your attack list is almost perfectly listed from his recurring essays.
-
Yikes!
Who is right?
Who is wrong?
Who had the attainment?
Who had the truth?
Who could verify the attainment?
Who has the documents?
Who can talk shit the fastest?Hmm...
An Order is only as good as its Adepts are.
The true A.'.A.'. is a matrix extending from the S.S.
Screw everything else.
Ϝι
DE FRATRIBUS NIGRIS*O my Son, know this concerning the Black Brothers, that cry: I am I. This is Falsity and Delusion, for the Law endureth not Exception. So then these Brethren are not apart, as they vainly think being wrought by Error; but are peculiar Combinations of Nature in Her Variety. Rejoice then even in the Contemplation of these, for they are proper to Perfection, and Adornments of Beauty, like a Mole upon the Cheek of a Woman. Shall I then say that were it of thine own Nature, even thine, to compose so sinister a Complex, thou shouldst not strive therewith, destroying it by Love, but continue in that Way? I deny not this hastily, nor affirm; nay, shall I even utter a Hint of that which I may foresee? For it is in mine own Nature to think that in this Matter the Sum of Wisdom is Silence. But this I say, and that boldly, that thou shalt not look upon this Horror with Fear, or with Hate, but accept all this as thou dost all else, as a Phenomenon of Change, that is, of Love. For in a swift Stream thou mayst behold a Twig held steady for a while by the Play of the Water, and by this Analogue thou mayst understand the Nature of this Mystery of the Path of Perfection. *
-
"Yikes!"
Nah. "Wednesday."
"Who is right?
Who is wrong?
Who had the attainment?
Who had the truth?
Who could verify the attainment?
Who has the documents?
Who can talk (****) the fastest?"The last two questions are the only empirically verifiable ones.
"Hmm..."
Ehhhhhh.....
"An Order is only as good as its Adepts are."
I'm good with that principle.
"The true A.'.A.'. is a matrix extending from the S.S."
I'm not sure about all the names and abbreviations. If by "S.S." you mean basically a community (truly the only community) of not-usually-embodied, highly-evolved brothers and sisters from this solar system's past and beyond, then I'm in general agreement. But only because of highly unverifiable claims on the part of others that have been somewhat reflected in my own experiences. Well... That's self-protecting understatement. The truth is that I cannot conceive how I would return to invest belief in anything else again. But what is that to anyone else? What else but "too far"?
"Screw everything else.
"Amen.
-
@Dar said
"It's all a bag of onions. "
And how fun it is! Love it, Dar.
Reminded me of this!
*14
ΚΕΦΑΛΗ ΙΔ
ONION-PEELINGSThe Universe is the Practical Joke of the General at the Expense of the Particular, quoth FRATER PERDURABO, and laughed.
But those disciples nearest to him wept, seeing the Universal Sorrow.
Those next to them laughed, seeing the Universal Joke.
Below these certain disciples wept.
Then certain laughed.
Others next wept.
Others next laughed.
Next others wept.
Next others laughed.
Last came those that wept because they could not see the Joke, and those that laughed lest they should be thought not to see the Joke, and thought it safe to act like FRATER PERDURABO.
But though FRATER PERDURABO laughed openly, He also at the same time wept secretly; and in Himself He neither laughed nor wept.
Nor did He mean what He said.COMMENTARY (ΙΔ)
The title, "Onion Peelings", refers to the well-known incident in "Peer Gynt".
The chapter resembles strongly Dupin's account of how he was able to win at the game of guessing odd or even. (See Poe's tale of "The Purloined Letter".) But this is a more serious piece of psychology. In one's advance towards a comprehension of the universe, one changes radically one's point of view; nearly always it amounts to a reversal.
This is the cause of most religious controversies. Paragraph 1, however is Frater Perdurabo's formulation of his perception of the Universal Joke, also described in Chapter 34. All individual existence is tragic. Perception of this fact is the essence of comedy. "Household Gods" is an attempt to write pure comedy. "The Bacchae" of Euripides is another.
At the end of the chapter it is, however, seen that to the Master of the Temple the opposite perception occurs simultaneously, and that he himself is beyond both of these.
And in the last paragraph it is shown that he realises the truth as beyond any statement of it.*My bold -- this was covered by Jim's essay yesterday!!!
-
ps. I hate the taste of onions.
I haven't assimilated the opposite yet.
