Buddhism and Thelema
-
Well, there's zazen and zazen.
Out of interest, there's a rather excellent book on Zazen, one of the few actually worthwhile books on the subject, IMHO, called Zen Training, by Katsuki Sekida. It's totally congruent with the way AC describes meditation.
The problem is this: "insight" in itself is fairly easy to get - one can have flashes of satori or non-dual realization in all sorts of situations. And for most people that's enough, just to have that flash of insight, it helps put life in perspective.
But it's pretty fugitive, and useless in terms of giving you something solid in life, or in terms of enabling you to teach others (and the A:.A:. is all about teaching), without a parallel training in "calming" meditation. (The equivalent in Theravada would be that you *have *to pursue the Jhanas to a certain extent in order to be able to meditate on the Four Noble Truths properly.) The insight has to be "fixed" by a good grounding in (initially) rather boring calming meditation and the occasional deep bath in nescience.
Now the real gem in Sekida's book is that he points out there's a certain stage before which you haven't really gotten your foot in the door of that kind of meditation yet, and that stage is absolutely parallel to what Crowley calls "Asana" - no signals from the body. And there's no getting around it - it's quite difficult and painful to get to that stage.
It's the same with Asian martial arts - understandably, Easterners have been on the whole quite chary of giving away their "secrets" to Westerners, and usually cynically fob Westerners off with things that are easy to do and that they can be charged for. But Sekida gives it all open-handedly. Well worth purusal by any Thelemite.
-
"Well, there's zazen and zazen.
Out of interest, there's a rather excellent book on Zazen, one of the few actually worthwhile books on the subject, IMHO, called Zen Training, by Katsuki Sekida. It's totally congruent with the way AC describes meditation."
I think there are probably many good books about Zen or zazen. But one of the things I like about my zazen is that it doesn't require many books, just the simple techniques such as counting breath, following breath and shikantaza. It has many of the same things that Crowley described in Mysticism and other places. For instance, new practitioners of zazen start by sitting still cross-legged and counting breath in a relaxed and focused manner, keeping the mind in lower belly. Maybe it's just a preference, but I found it useful not to think 'now I'm mastering asana and now I'm mastering holding a cup of water on my head, now I'm mastering dharana, now I'm mastering dhyana', etc. I've been practicing just following my breath for years now. Other thing I didn't so much learn from Crowley is the emphasis of kind of a slightly passive yet focused and relaxed state of mind and body. For instance, Crowley maybe suggested things such as focusing on a mantra so strongly that other thoughts will be splintered away. I found the approach of kind of passively letting the thoughts come, observe them and let them go away instead of forcing it more beneficial for me. One more thing I personally found useful is to simply consider even fancy seeming experiences just makyos and continuing with the practice, such as following the breath.
"The problem is this: "insight" in itself is fairly easy to get - one can have flashes of satori or non-dual realization in all sorts of situations. And for most people that's enough, just to have that flash of insight, it helps put life in perspective.
But it's pretty fugitive, and useless in terms of giving you something solid in life, or in terms of enabling you to teach others (and the A:.A:. is all about teaching), without a parallel training in "calming" meditation. (The equivalent in Theravada would be that you have to pursue the Jhanas to a certain extent in order to be able to meditate on the Four Noble Truths properly.) The insight has to be "fixed" by a good grounding in (initially) rather boring calming meditation and the occasional deep bath in nescience.
Now the real gem in Sekida's book is that he points out there's a certain stage before which you haven't really gotten your foot in the door of that kind of meditation yet, and that stage is absolutely parallel to what Crowley calls "Asana" - no signals from the body. And there's no getting around it - it's quite difficult and painful to get to that stage.
"One of the reasons I like zazen is that it at least somewhat de-empathizes different stages, attainments, etc. Currently I value the benefits of zazen in being more relaxed, focused, etc, in everyday life and I'm not trying to reach dhyana and satori, etc. In a sense, I now view even zazen an advanced kind of practice. For many people, it would be much more efficient to first get their body and nutrition in condition, maybe exercise, hiking, martial arts, chi kung, whatever, and only then start with more rigorous and advanced meditation practices.
In any case, thanks for the Sekida reference, I'll put it on my books to read list.
-
It's all horses for courses, what I'm flagging up is that the interpretation of zazen as "just precisely sitting" is one among several, and that there are others that are more in line with what Crowley taught (where the aim is to definitely get into a deep trance state, rather than rest in non-dual awareness per. se.) In fact, you are quite right that Shikantaza is an *advanced *practice.
I know I was baffled for ages by this *apparent *difference between what Old Crow had said and what some of the influx of teaching from the East (Japan first) since him have said, but the resolution is that Shikantaza is an idiosyncratic non-dual interpretation of "just sitting" as a practice sufficient unto itself, introduced by Dogen. The majority interpretation in Chinese Can is more in line with the traditional Buddhist idea of calming meditation (shamatha), first leading to sufficient calm to analyze the teachings, then as a means to introduce the practitioner to non-dual awareness as a *break *from the calm state - as Crowley says, Dhyana is actually a *break *in what you've been "trying" to do with meditation. Only after that point does zazen become "just sitting", just as walking is "just walking", etc., etc.
To put it another way, Can/Zen has always had an internal tug of war between what's been called a "sudden" and "gradual" approach. Some people think that the "sudden" approach is definitive of Zen, because that's what some of the first Zen people like DT Suzuki introduced the West to, but actually Zen has always had "gradualist" schools too, and the "gradualist" teachings are not very far at all from what Crowley taught (which is unsurprising, considering we're dealing with human universals here).
-
@kasper81 said
"93
If the HGA is akin to Atman then would you say that Buddha would dismiss the Western magical tradition and Thelema? He would have encouraged aspirants to take off the ten fetters, including a sense of a spiritual Self, and aim for Nirvana?"
HGA is closer to "Buddha Nature". The HGA is just as essential to Buddhism as to any others, with the difference being on where the emphasis is placed within the respective system.
-
@kasper81 said
"
@Azidonis said
"
@kasper81 said
"93If the HGA is akin to Atman then would you say that Buddha would dismiss the Western magical tradition and Thelema? He would have encouraged aspirants to take off the ten fetters, including a sense of a spiritual Self, and aim for Nirvana?"
HGA is closer to "Buddha Nature". The HGA is just as essential to Buddhism as to any others, with the difference being on where the emphasis is placed within the respective system."
HGA isn't a Buddhist concept at all is it?"
Neither is Atman, if you want to get technical. The closest thing you will find to the HGA in Buddhism is the Mahayana concept of Buddha Nature, and even then only in certain schools.
Madhyamika, for example, is a Mahayana school that would most likely care less.
Even so, taking the HGA as Atman is placing the sense of the 'core' in a decent enough location on the Tree. But then we get into little rhetorical things like - if the Light in Yesod is a reflection of the Light of Tiphareth, as the Atman, then what is there to say about the Anatman in Kether?
-
Kasper, you understand (don't you?) that Buddhism is an early Osiris Aeon religion. There were ideas not yet discovered, others not articulated as distinctly as they are today, and whole faculties of consciousness not yet developed in 99% of all people. The best Buddhism (as voiced by Buddha) could hope to achieve is the stabilization of Yetziratic consciousness and liberation from it to Briah; in other words, what the G.D. would have called the threshold of the Abyss and A.'.A.'. marks as Dominus Liminis. It's damn fine D.L. work.
Today, we can take the same principles and see some other things to do with them. I wonder, though, if those nouveau applications are rightly called "Buddhism."
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"The best Buddhism (as voiced by Buddha) could hope to achieve is the stabilization of Yetziratic consciousness and liberation from it to Briah; in other words, what the G.D. would have called the threshold of the Abyss and A.'.A.'. marks as Dominus Liminis. It's damn fine D.L. work.
Today, we can take the same principles and see some other things to do with them. I wonder, though, if those nouveau applications are rightly called "Buddhism.""
Nagarjuna is said by some to have been the "Second Buddha".
I have yet to see such works as the Mulamadhyamakakarika come from any other "Thelemite" than Crowley.
Are we still saying that Buddhism wasn't/isn't capable of producing legitimate Masters, or that the "Thelemites" just aren't up on their game?
-
@Azidonis said
"Are we still saying that Buddhism wasn't/isn't capable of producing legitimate Masters, or that the "Thelemites" just aren't up on their game?"
I'm saying neither. I did say that "Master," as currently understood in A.'.A.'., represents a state of conscious that wasn't active in more than a trace of human consciousness in the 6th C. BCE and, therefore, Buddhism defined as "what Buddha taught didn't address it. However, as little as a century and a quarter or so ago, the term "Master" had a much lower threshold - what A.'.A.'. would call Adeptus Minor - and Buddhism as Buddha appears to have taught it can take one to (and across) that particular threshold.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Azidonis said
"Are we still saying that Buddhism wasn't/isn't capable of producing legitimate Masters, or that the "Thelemites" just aren't up on their game?"I'm saying neither. I did say that "Master," as currently understood in A.'.A.'., represents a state of conscious that wasn't active in more than a trace of human consciousness in the 6th C. BCE and, therefore, Buddhism defined as "what Buddha taught didn't address it. However, as little as a century and a quarter or so ago, the term "Master" had a much lower threshold - what A.'.A.'. would call Adeptus Minor - and Buddhism as Buddha appears to have taught it can take one to (and across) that particular threshold."
Do you not agree that the Four Noble Truths, and the system founded thereon, are capable of producing "Masters" as such?
I'm not seeing a correlation between the ratio of "Master vs non-Master" as having anything to do with what Aeon it is. I just don't by into such artificial restrictions as "old Aeon", I suppose.
-
@Azidonis said
"Do you not agree that the Four Noble Truths, and the system founded thereon, are capable of producing "Masters" as such? "
Again, what definition are we using for "Master"? Osiris Aeon or Horus Aeon? What the Golden Dawn would have called an 8=3 (Master) a century-plus ago is literally what A.'.A.'. calls 5=6 (Adept) today. We have crossed a line from a vast period of time when the fundamental developmental step of the human species as a whole was the awakening and maturing of Ruach to a time when the fundamental step (resting atop a stability awakened and matured Ruach) is to open N'shamah. The technical term master does not mean the same thing now that it did, say, a century and a half ago, let alone two and a half millennia ago.
Since you asked for my opinion: In today's terms, the Four Noble Truths can at least take one to the threshold of adepthood. "Master," as I use the term, is far, far, far outside their purview.
"I'm not seeing a correlation between the ratio of "Master vs non-Master" as having anything to do with what Aeon it is. I just don't by into such artificial restrictions as "old Aeon", I suppose."
It's not a restriction, it's a functional definition of where the species sits.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Azidonis said
"Do you not agree that the Four Noble Truths, and the system founded thereon, are capable of producing "Masters" as such? "Again, what definition are we using for "Master"? Osiris Aeon or Horus Aeon? What the Golden Dawn would have called an 8=3 (Master) a century-plus ago is literally what A.'.A.'. calls 5=6 (Adept) today. We have crossed a line from a vast period of time when the fundamental developmental step of the human species as a whole was the awakening and maturing of Ruach to a time when the fundamental step (resting atop a stability awakened and matured Ruach) is to open N'shamah. The technical term master does not mean the same thing now that it did, say, a century and a half ago, let alone two and a half millennia ago.
Since you asked for my opinion: In today's terms, the Four Noble Truths can at least take one to the threshold of adepthood. "Master," as I use the term, is far, far, far outside their purview.
"I'm not seeing a correlation between the ratio of "Master vs non-Master" as having anything to do with what Aeon it is. I just don't by into such artificial restrictions as "old Aeon", I suppose."
It's not a restriction, it's a functional definition of where the species sits."
This is going nowhere.
I know what Crowley's writings say, re: new Aeon and the "new mastery". It's crap.
Even if we discount the "Magi" that Crowley listed in Heart of the Master, there are still plenty of actual Masters (on the A:.A:. level) throughout history.
I have seen zero data proving that more people have achieved this Mastery since 1904 than before.
-
@Azidonis said
"I know what Crowley's writings say, re: new Aeon and the "new mastery". It's crap."
OK. Then we're done here. There's no use talking further if you refuse to define the pivotal word in the conversation.
It seems, perhaps, that your hunger to attach the word "master" to a particular process is an identifiable seed of your dukka.
"Even if we discount the "Magi" that Crowley listed in Heart of the Master, there are still plenty of actual Masters (on the A:.A:. level) throughout history."
"Plenty" is surely an exaggeration.
"I have seen zero data proving that more people have achieved this Mastery since 1904 than before."
OK.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I did say that "Master," as currently understood in A.'.A.'., represents a state of conscious that wasn't active in more than a trace of human consciousness in the 6th C. BCE"
And you said this based on what, exactly?
That's a sweeping statement, and I'm curious to know the evidence that leads you to think it's true.
-
@Los said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"I did say that "Master," as currently understood in A.'.A.'., represents a state of conscious that wasn't active in more than a trace of human consciousness in the 6th C. BCE"And you said this based on what, exactly?
That's a sweeping statement, and I'm curious to know the evidence that leads you to think it's true."
The history of evolution of consciousness across the centuries is pretty well documented - from the epic work by Julian Jaynes and coworkers through the more limited tracings by Bucke. (And, for that matter, anything at all, anthropological and otherwise, on the subject of humans previously being herd animals gradually developing additional cognitive faculties.) Self-consciousness as we know it was not exist as recently as a few thousand years ago, and the maturation of its faculties can be watched from as recently as 1st millennium BCE.
It would take at least a large book to answer your question beyond a summary remark. This one is pretty basic, though.
-
Jim, i think i understand what you explained concerning the systems according to the aeons. Though, could you precise what was the level of Bouddha himself(not his system, his personal attainement)in terms of new aeon/AA map? Would he still be a master or an adept today? What about Lao Tse?
I thought they were masters in the new aeon/AA sense although their systems focused on attainement of adepthood(in the new aeon/AA sense)but now i'm not sure anymore...
-
@kasper81 said
"On your point about Buddha only reaching 5=6, I'm not trying to catch you out but didn't you contradict yourself, therefore, in the Nirvana thread when you said that the Eight High Trances (of Buddhism) are the work of 8=3?"
Haha Kasper, you understood Jim implied that like me? I'm not sure though he meant that thus i just asked him above....
As for "contradiction" let him answer but i dont see it that way necesarly. Because "as above so below", you see, similar things exist on all planes, they just get different levels of mastery and meanings each time.
-
@Frater Horus said
"Jim, i think i understand what you explained concerning the systems according to the aeons. Though, could you precise what was the level of Bouddha himself(not his system, his personal attainement)in terms of new aeon/AA map? Would he still be a master or an adept today?"
That would be guessing. Informed guessing maybe, but still guessing.
It's especially speculative because we don't actually have anything Buddha wrote. We have things that are claimed to be his words taken down. It seems unquestionable (from the ideas of the system) that he broke through into Briah - that's kind of the whole point of it - which would make him at least what we today call and Adept. Whether he went further is difficult to say with the relatively little information we have - in a system that primarily addresses the Yetziratic aspect of people (and, only in beginning ways, the meta-levels of those awake to Briah).
"What about Lao Tse?"
Even more complicated. Who was he, and what did he really think (let alone write)? He lived 6th to 5th Century BCE, but Tao Teh Ching likely wasn't written until the 2nd Century. Were these his ideas, or those that had grown out of three centuries of his ideas taking root? There is a sublime philosophy in TTC, though it's basically just a nature-themed rebalancing of the hyper-rational, hyper-urban Confucius philosophy that had taken root in his generation.
Context is important. We don't have nearly as much to go on for these guys as we'd like. The writings may or may not have been theirs. They seem at least the words of an Adept in many places.
"I thought they were masters in the new aeon/AA sense although their systems focused on attainement of adepthood (in the new aeon/AA sense) but now i'm not sure anymore...
"The growing tip of humanity will be at a different level as the baseline of humanity shifts. What would you think of the leading edge of consciousness when humans were barely more than chimps? Plato today would be an interesting college professor, not a leading edge of human thought.
-
The "New Aeon, broader horizons" thing is an implication that somehow human consciousness has gained or otherwise unlocked something which would somehow make such "lofty above-the-Abyss" states possible, where it were not possible in the past...
...and this is demonstrably false, as evidenced by the many people who have attained to the very 'lofty states' that Crowley said were previously only for an elect few. And they had done it before Crowley was even a thought-form.
To say that only the A:.A:. can bring one to enlightenment, or whatever, is more of a sales pitch than a reality.
-
@Azidonis said
"The "New Aeon, broader horizons" thing is an implication that somehow human consciousness has gained or otherwise unlocked something which would somehow make such "lofty above-the-Abyss" states possible, where it were not possible in the past...
...and this is demonstrably false, as evidenced by the many people who have attained to the very 'lofty states' that Crowley said were previously only for an elect few. And they had done it before Crowley was even a thought-form."
Look, things have changed since cavemen, right?
Also, pure mystical achievement is different than magick, mystical and philosophical ones combined.
@Azidonis said
"To say that only the A:.A:. can bring one to enlightenment, or whatever, is more of a sales pitch than a reality."
Only you said such a thing at least in this topic !
-
@Azidonis said
"The "New Aeon, broader horizons" thing is an implication that somehow human consciousness has gained or otherwise unlocked something which would somehow make such "lofty above-the-Abyss" states possible, where it were not possible in the past...
...and this is demonstrably false, as evidenced by the many people who have attained to the very 'lofty states' that Crowley said were previously only for an elect few. And they had done it before Crowley was even a thought-form."
I haven't a clue where you are getting the idea that "many people" have done this in the past. I think it unlikely that in the entire history of the human race more than a few hundred ever ever done this. Until the last century or two, even that which A.'.A.'. calls K&C of the HGA was a rare, rare thing, evident in (crudely estimating) a thousandth of 1% of 1% of the population.
Yes, the premise is indeed that a fundamental shift in human consciousness has occurred. Brain functions have been tracked that neurologists think were not present in there human species (except for a miniscule percentage of outliers) a century ago. Life conditions have altered in a way to free up new layers of consciousness opening - only a little over a century ago was the first time in the history of the world that more than half of all people went to bed nightly not knowing they would eat the next day. This frees up huge psychological resources to address something other than primitive survival.
There have been changes... and it is interesting that they center around a time roughly a century ago.
The fundamental growth task of human consciousness changed accordingly. For many thousands of years, the essential task was first to forge, and then to develop, self-conscious mind and all the faculties Qabbalists group under the name Ruach. That task is essentially complete: We've passed our class omen Ego. We got an A. Time for a next step.
The next step is birthing, occupying, and maturing N'shamah, Superconsciousness. Were will be spending the next few centuries-to-millennia working on this, most likely.