College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

Thanks for the response, Jim.

-Sean

Jim,

How would you respond to those who say the choice of the individual is an illusion and that you are not actually in control of your life. And that trying to control and choose strengthens the ego. I'm not advocating this stance, I'm just curious as to how these two seemingly opposite points of view could be resolved. I remember you wrote that (I'm paraphrasing) doing your True Will and surrendering to God are the same idea, except that the symbols convey something different to the reader. Doing my True Will seems much more active, and well, exciting, and that is why I'm more drawn to that phrase than to surrender. But the difference I see is that you recommend that people see life as a continuous series of choices, and advocates of surrender simply say to drop resistance to what-is.

-Sean

@Alias55A said

"Just about any alternative religion you run to is goin to tell you to take responsibility for yourself and your life, no excuses."

That hasn't been my experience. A lot of teachers emphasize the importance of surrendering to God/Tao/the Will of the Totality, floating down the river, etc. Some suggest that choosing, doing, and trying to control your own universe perpetuates and strengthens the ego. Some say the idea that "you" are running the show, making choices etc is all an illusion.

I don't really "like" these ideas... that is, while they may be true, I don't like seeing the world that way. When I went through a phase of having that outlook, I was basically just lazy.. I had no direction and all actions seemed equally valid. Since I've taken to the idea of sailing my own ship, my life has improved - I try to do things that are "good for me".

Still, I feel there must be some harmony between these two seemingly opposing outlooks, namely "you are in control of your life, do your thing and do it well" and "every action is a manifestation of the will of the Totality, the idea that an individual has any will is an illusion of the ego". Also I worry that believing that I'm in control and acting accordingly might strengthen the ego. I have seen this from experience... some people who try to control everything just end up in this big fight with the universe... I don't want to fight, I want to float.

The better part of me is saying "who cares about all this theory, just live!" I would be interested in others (especially Jim's) outlooks on this subject. Thanks!

-Sean

@Jim Eshelman said

"I'm guessing you're making the most common mistake with that posture: You're trying to sit flat on the floor.

You need (by experimentation) to find a cushion the right hight for you. Your butt needs to be several inches higher than where your legs rest."

Ah, wow, I've been having the same exact problem... thank you.

General Principles of Astrology

Cool, thanks for the advice. Incidentally, this seems to me a nice summary of the method, with regards to the combination of male energy and female passivity. From "The Psychology of Hashish":

"As a matter of practical politics, I think that a judicious mixture of the methods of East and West is likely to give the best results.

Let the young Adept, for example, master thoroughly the groundwork of the Hindu system.

Let him master Asana, posture, so that he can sit motionless for hours without any message from his body reaching and so disturbing his brain. Let him include in his accomplishments Paranayama, control of the breath and of the vital nervous currents which react in sympathy with it.

Let him then exalt to the utmost his soul by the appropriate ritual of ceremonial magic; and when by this means he has most thoroughly identified himself with the Supreme, let him, as that Supreme One, continue to meditate with intense force upon Himself, until his sphere is entirely filled with the single Thought.

Lastly, if this, the male energy, suffice not, let him transform it into a pure and perfect emptiness and passivity, as of one waiting for the Beloved One, with intense longing rendered passionless by the certainty that He will come.

Then, it may be, the Eye will open upon him, and the tomb of his Pyramid be unsealed."

From my experience there are two fundamentally different ways to meditate - 1) keeping my attention on one point, e.g. the breath or a mantra, and 2) "just sitting", "wu wei", "letting the grass grow". I've always preferred the latter, as it is more peaceful to me and lacks the effort and struggle of concentration. So I've always been inclined to say "Success is thy proof", "Do what thou wilt", etc. and say my particular path involves the more passive "just sitting" rather than the active concentration. However, Crowley suggests that concentration is the way to go, and as a practice it is useful in Magick, which I've been thinking about delving into recently.

So, any input on this subject would be helpful. Does anyone else here prefer "just sitting" to concentration? Is the continual practice of concentration necessary in the system of the A.'. A.'.?

Thanks!

@Jim Eshelman said

"... But all illusions are equal. ...

I am very taken with [Crowley's] statement: “To ‘make no difference’ as ordained is to regard the whole of the non-Ego or universe apparently external to the Self as a single phenomenon.”"

Mmm I would very much like some help for an understanding of this...

The universe is a harmonious oneness - everything is in perfect relation to every other thing and therefore necessary. So it is clear that we should not divide it into categories - friend and foe, good and bad, beautiful and ugly, etc. But how does the Self/point-of-view/perceiver relate to this "apparently external" phenomenon of the universe? Do we aim to see the observable universe as part of our Self? Or does the Ego/point-of-view dissolve into the observed phenomenon, i.e. I am part of this harmonious phenomenon? These two points of view bring up different "images" to my mind (It's all part of "I" or I am part of IT - the latter does more for me - then is all this just "whatever works"? Two ways of saying the same thing?). Or do we say "I am not this" "I am not this" to all external phenomenon, i.e the perceived cannot be the eternal perceiver? Or then is there ultimately no Self and no perceived universe? They are united and thus One - or None? Is this what 0=2 means? Thanks for any help anyone could offer (I sure could use it!).