College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

@OP: I am currently directing a friend of mine (a progammer) to build just such an application. Essentially, I wanted an application that allowed quick reference (to check against tests with the tattvas during ceremony), as opposed to a chart - ie: you enter the sunrise time, current time, and you get the information for that "slot" of the chart. Nevertheless, I'd like to see a printable chart format as an option, along with measuring the current breath. All in good time. When it is done, I'll make sure to post it here for everyone.

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

...The keyword here Alrah is "could"; I'm most certainly not arguing the case that you "should". Jim's point is - indeed - quite significant. Rather, I was arguing "could" in relation to the symbolism. Hopefully that clarifies things.

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

Hmm...

Perhaps I might be able to - somewhat - defend Alrah's position, given the summation of a series of discussions I had with Auriel a while back concerning the symbolism of the Pantacle of the Earth. ...Not that the color gold was specifically mentioned or anything, but a very real (and decent) connection was made betwixt the microcosm/macrocosm via a discussion of said symbolism - one which might support Alrah's position some. Now: do you want the long or short of it? The short is thus: the symbolism of the Pantacle of the Earth was - essentially - dissected before my mind's eye into three specific parts. 1. The circle squared (representing Malkuth/microcosm) 2. The hexagram (representing Tipphareth [and others]/the macrocosm) and 3. the "unseen/unknown" observer of the ToL (representing the godhead at Kether/the magi, appropriately). The first was - indeed - directly connected to the second, as it was made clear...and I think the visualization of this is most appropriate, here and now:

The first could be shown as a standing elemental pentagram, representing not only the unification of the four elements in relation to spirit, but also the four lower sephiroth (Netzach, Hod, Yesod, and Malkuth) all united under/in Tipphareth. The second then was related to the first (visually) by having the hexagram tilted 90 degrees, and whirling about the Wheel of Spirit; the microcosm/macrocosm where shown to be one. Thus the relationship is manifold, is it not? The Spirit of the elemental pentagram (microcosm) has a direct relationship with both Sol and Tipphareth (macrocosm). Thus: why not gold? Lol.

...Not saying I disagree with you, Jim - I expect your answers are far more likely than I could ever provide. Just thought I'd share what little I had to add to the conversation.

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

Indeed, I most certainly was not kidding Alrah - nor am I kidding about Djwhal Khul being on facebook, twitter, and youtube (supposedly); discrimination is a necessity.

...However, I cannot agree that it is weird - it makes perfect sense why there are so many (supposed) "channels" of D.K.. Consider a few examples:

1. Done well, it's a "gravy train" (...I won't name names here, as that would be libellous)
2. There are alot of deluded peoples out there...'nough said, I think
3. The astral plane is full of such "replicas" - as many as there are thoughts about them

...And that'll likely cover a good 90% of the (supposed) "channels", if not more so.

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

First and foremost, let me just say this: thanks for the heads-up, Alrah; I had looked around for a title, "The Aura" only to find nothing. I especially appreciate the link to the book on amazon - that was absolutely necessary, infact.

Now...what can I say about that? Firstly (and perchance most importantly), the book mentioned is not - technically - part of the D.K. via A.A.B. corpus - as I already mentioned, lucis trust owns their copyrights which can be viewed on site. Thus, it is already dubious in nature - yet another "channeller" of D.K.? Red flags are going up.

...Admittedly, I must reserve judgement here for I am not familiar with that work and/or it's "channel" - I'd need to read some if it to know for certain. As such, I wonder: if you have it, could you send me a snippet...a chapter, say? That should be sufficient.

...On a further note, I suppose I could ask my contacts at the Arcane School whether or not the book is considered legit, ...for what it's worth (which wouldn't be much, mind you).

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

A review of "The Aura" by Djwhal Khul? ...As far as I know Alrah, that isn't one of the books/papers written by D.K. via A.A.B. - I checked; lucis trust owns the copyrights to all the others, afterall. Nice try though. In short, it seems you're reviewing the work of a new-age flakie; congrats! ...While you're at it, you might want to look Djwhal Khul up on facebook, twitter, and youtube - now "that" is some serious B.S., Alrah!

Indeed - people shouldn't believe everything they read; the door swings both ways, Alrah! Think on that.

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

An opinion indeed, Aum418! ...However, I cannot help but wonder: is it an "informed" opinion; an opinion worth listening to? I cannot help but wonder: just how familiar are you with these works; just how familiar you are with the system (ie: explanatory model) at their core?

Yeah, yeah - it's easy to "knock" on A.A.B., D.K., and/or the new-age flakies out there, ...but towards what end Aum418; what does that prove about the works? As I said above to Jim: what justice is that? Reason now, Aum418.

The ball is in your court.

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

...My my, how it seems that thoughts are contagious! Though I was not thinking upon that one thing "specifically" (ie: Thelemites coming together), for the past while, I have been ruminating upon the notions of unity and/or brotherhood...especially in relation to the all-to-prevalent sectarianism of many occult/esoteric organizations. I wonder - as you, to some degree: will they ever see eye-to-eye; how long will it take for them to discriminate between essentials/unessentials, ...between the minor - and often trifling - differences and the major similairities?

Just as much as there are many races, there is only one mankind - as much as each race is simply a variation on a theme, I wonder: what of the occult/esoteric? Is it not the same? Is not the goal One?

I wonder: how long will we fight each other, squabbling over our differing perspectives whilst the fact of the matter remains thus:

The vision is the same.

...It just seems to be the case that we should be learning how to work "together" as occultists/esotericians (of all walks, mind you); that our goals might best be realized by group efforts as opposed to all this bickering about who's system is better.

Thus, I suppose we could say that I agree with you - your dream of a united front. I hardly think it's a "silly" dream, however - rather it seems a necessity.

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

@Filius:

...And yet, let us recall just how many initiated masons are still - technically - no better than cowans for it!

P.S. - This is not my opinion, but rather the opinion of a number of masons I have conversed with on esoteric matters.

Thus: what of these posers; might some handful of them be further along the Path than some handful of technical initiates (decorated cowans, essentially)? Thus, I suppose it begs the questions - as you know: who's the true Thelemite or Freemason; what makes the true Thelemite or Freemason? ...Can we even ascertain this is/is not so in any particular case?

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

First and foremost, let me just say this: Sorry if I do not make sense at the moment, Fnord - I'm still "coming to" from a particularily revealing meditation. ...You know the kind, I'm sure - where you're left going "Ahh, so that's what I was missing". Anyways...

Concerning DMT trips: I wouldn't know, Fnord - I avoid using drugs of any sort because of the lack of control they represent; you are at their mercy, to a degree and this most certainly is not what I'm looking for in meditation. Infact, one might wonder: is this even "anathema" to meditation?

...Nevertheless the law is: "do as thou wilt", correct?

As per the flashing lights: What I describe in this isn't just one type/kind of flashing light, but rather a whole host of phenomenon understand; tiny balls of light (sparks?), shifting patterns, colored explosions akin to fireworks, ...and what appears to be, slow-growing spheres of light which can even cover the whole field of perception in a dazzling light. This often happens while concentrating upon some object (form), often beginning with the object (form) glowing until it becomes a dazzling light and the form is lost...but not the concentration? Honestly, I hardly pay attention to all the visual phenonmenon - most of it can be chalked up to shitty concentration, after all. Rather it's the other 10% of the phenomenon that gets one thinking "what the hell was that"?! The only real connection here is that all of this seems to happen in the location of the ajna chakram (lower down the head), as opposed to the sahasrara (as in the case with the Light described above).

That said: No, I do not get the sensation of electric shocks, during any phenomenon, although there are certain sensations I've grown accustomed to such as the feeling - of what I might describe - water pouring on the crown of the head and/or certain experiences I suppose we could call "mental orgasms" - the intense sensations of an orgasm which are the providence of the head alone. I find, through my own experiments, that these sorts of sensations can be reproduced via a manipulation of the emotions; ie: these sensations are (theoretically) manifestations of activity within/of the astral body.

...Have I answered your questions, Fnord? Hopefully!

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

Indeed - the Light in the head (as I call it) however is only one phenomenon out of many that I often experience. ...Perchance you have had some similiar experiences? Consider:

1. The Light in the head
2. A deep, loud roaring sound as if you were standing in a wind tunnel or standing at the mouth of a cavern
3. The sound of chimes or bells high above your head
4. Flashing lights behind the eyes, akin to lightning bolts peeling across a darkened sky
5. The capability to see - what appears to be - a wavy surface akin to water pouring towards a centralized location in the field of vision
6. An extreme sensitivity to sound, so much so that one could detect a cat stalking in the next room...in a sense, the whole body recieves the stimulation
7. ...Stuff to difficult to describe.

So; do any of these experiences ring a bell?

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

"I have not... yet. But I am curious what type of meditation method you are practicing. Care to share?"

Indeed I shall, Escarabjo - infact, I would have last night but I was working on my hand-held again which severly limits my capacities where message boards are concerned. ...Let's just say it's a royal pain to write responses because of the way the device handles certain aspects of the reply forms.

That said, times a wastin':

Last night, I realized (some time after initiating this thread) that it might have been a wiser idea to have included as much detail as possible concerning the event(s) such that any discussion therewith might be more fruitful. Thus, I am hoping to remedy this now - which will reveal a bit more to you, Escarabjo.

Generally speaking - at the moment - I am working the system of Raja Yoga as delineated by Patanjali (and interpreted by others), however I have tried out various other systems of Yoga (and otherwise) prior including: Mantram Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, and - to a degree, even - Pranava Yoga. I've also tried my hand at CM a la GD but to no real avail - not that I didn't get any results (I did), but rather I do not take to it in nearly the same way as I take to the Yogas. As I mentioned above: I find that meditation is my magick.

Now, I'm not sure just how early this sort of experience has happened as I hadn't always kept records - understand: I began meditating (sporadically) as early as eleven years of age, after seeing an Indian Saddhu doing it - something "clicked", I suppose we could say.

The earliest "recorded" (and thus remembered) experiences of the Light in the head phenomenon would have been during this past summer when I was practicing a particularily rigorous routine of CM and Raja, Mantram, and Pranava Yoga. I would head out each and every morning to a spot near the river, on a piece of land - just big enough to be seated on - that jutted out of the steep river's edge. It took some skill to get at the spot, but it was always worth it; it was akin to a perch over-looking the river and the forest below. Anyways, I often started by seating myself in some one asana (often Siddhasana at that point) and placed my hands in passive Jnana mudra (index fingers and thumbs touching as opposed to thumbs pressing upon the index fingers [active Jnana mudra]). ...I'm going to skip ahead here...

Generally speaking, the Light didn't show up until I began practicing Pranava Yoga - sounding (vibrating) AUM, or - at times - MUAUM, whilst concentrating upon the meanings of the word. Ie: this practice wasn't just a new-agey chanting session meant to "clear the mind" or some such. As I would do this, the Light in the head would often show up, just as it had last night while I was meditating. However, there is a difference:

I haven't been practicing Pranava Yoga of late...largely because of my surroundings - I am practicing Raja Yoga. Thus, I am - somewhat - surprised to have that Light in the head re-appear; I had connected it with the Pranava Yoga exercises but do not usually see it while meditating in this fashion. The lo-down is thus:

I entered into my meditation period sometime after 7:00 PM last night - all was good; I seated myself in half-lotus upon my chair facing East (as I usually do - something I've adopted from CM I suppose) with my hands neatly folded in Dhyana mudra. After a minute or so of just relaxing into the position, I closed my eyes and focused upon the object of my meditation: the point in the circle (a symbol). As I focused upon the "image" I began to deliberately think upon the symbol, essentially "running the well dry" as I call it - running through all the information I have on the symbol, leading me into a state which is akin to a "tense waiting". This can take a - surprisingly - long time; most of the time meditating is spent running the well dry, with the flashes of insight occuring near the end of the meditation period.

...However, I switched gears about half way through the meditation period the other day. The above is exemplar of how I usually do things, ...but not always. Instead, I played with the point in the circle symbol in lieu of a personal analogy; in short, I identified "myself" with the point and my "instruments of perception" with the periphery. I was practicing discrimination at the time, in other words, by using the symbol. In reflecting upon this analogy, I began to notice the Light in the head - I found that the more I identified with the point - realized the "difference" - the Light would grow, in a sense. So...for a time, I kept pushing that identification process. BUT, alas, my meditation was disturbed at this point - it had to stop.

...Sorry, Escarabjo: I suppose I have hardly answered your question. I suppose that, if you really wanted to know my system of working you really wouldn't have to look much farther than that which is laid out by Patanjali in his sutras.

ASIDE: I should probably mention that I have been meditating upon this symbol for about a week straight now, at least once a day. ...Not sure that this matters much, but it might in the end.

Hopefully this is more informative?

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

Generally speaking, meditation is my magick. I just came out of meditation a few minutes ago and decided that I might pose a question to the members here. Oft times during meditation, I experience a brilliant white light slightly above the crown...as if the sun were just resting there, within reach. The light can become so intense that I do not see darkness behind the eyes, but rather a brilliant whiteness - the exact opposite. Other times, I would, shall we say "come to" after the meditation only to find that my eyes needed time to adjust to the darkness of the world around me. Has anyone had similiar experiences, I wonder?

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

...Luckily enough, I've gotten hold of a computer temporarily - should make writing the following response a little easier. That said, times a wastin':

"Anyways, don't know where I read this metaphor, but it isn't mine.
The question where in the brain consciousness is, which neural pathway is responsible, is akin to asking which transistor in a computer is responsible for synchronising audio and video in a film that is playing. And then using that as an argument for the external existence of audio/video synchronism"

@Andrey:

...However there is a subtle difference between the two metaphors, Andrey - a difference which makes it seem as if we are comparing apples and elephants here. Consider: in my case, I am talking about the problem of consciousness; the veritable "abyss" (lack of explanation) betwixt objective/subjective experiences and even causality. You, however, are talking in terms solely of objective experiences; things we could simply measure. Thus, in your case Andrey, it would - indeed - be ridiculous to conclude the external existence of audio/visual synchronism; there is a science behind it that is "completely" causal because you are talking about objects. In my case, however, we are experiencing a very real problem in that: we cannot see any true causal chain of events because of the difference in aspects; matter and consciousness; object and subject. ...Yet people go on making the mistake that: if A brain is damaged, and they seem different therefore, that B consciousness must necessarily have been damaged - which is flawed causal thinking; it "bridges the abyss" without an explanation; in short: it jumps to a conclusion based on objects alone. Does that make more sense now, Andrey?

"Considering how drugs, brain surgery, brain trauma and disease, affect consciousness itself, it is very difficult for me to think that anything we consider ourselves to be "I" can possibly survive death"

...And that would be a perfect example of flawed causal thinking, Andrey; concluding that, seeing as it "seems" like A, B, and/or C events affect consciousness, it must - necessarily - be so. No, no, no, no, no. The DSM-IV calls that "magickal thinking" (rather, it is one of the many interpretations of the notion); connecting events on a 1:1 basis because they "seem" connected and not because they actually are. Funnily enough, Andrey: most people hold to just such a notion, do they not?!

"Again, as regards incarnation, none of us can really prove that it either exists or doesn't exist"

@JPF:

Indeed, you are quite right JPF - no argument there! ...However - surely you can see, JPF - that we can still (at the least) test the logical tenability of some notion without coming to actual proofs; that there is more than one way to "skin a cat", as the saying goes? Yes, I am well aware of the fact that nothing shall ever beat the solid physical evidence(s) (1:1) but - to be perfectly fair - if that's all you considered...you'd be the poorer man, I'd think! Consider: what progress would science ever have achieved without any amount of speculation and/or theorizing, such as we are doing here and now?

Nevertheless, I very much do appreciate your comments JPF - it helps keep us "on the ground", in a sense.

"Don't take it personally... (She has a Moon in Ares.)"

...And the comic relief; thanks again, JPF.

"Profane comment: Some very respected ideas of the current theories on Quantum Mechanics dismiss the concept of causality and locality. Dismissing the implications and applications of Quantum Mechanics is somewhat difficult as those concepts are what power our modern technology"

@Shiva:

A classic move - the "quantum mechanics card" is played! ...Sorry if I'm coming off as a bit of an asshole here (I don't mean to), but it just seems to be that nearly every couple arguments in the field of occult/esoteric things someone plays the same card, as if it was going to elicit a different response this time around; as if it were going to be more of an argument this time aroud.

1. Quantum mechanics "proper" is hardly understood, Shiva; it is particularily "esoteric" (ie: expert knowledge), concerned less with actual physical tests and more so with theoretical abstract mathematics (and how things seem to go ape-shit at a certain point). Thus, it can hardly be used as an significant argument without a thurough grounding in that side of it. ...At that, we might consider just how the (all-too-common) misunderstandings of quantum mechanics prevalent today have given us such great works as: "What the bleep" and "My unicorn CAN fly".

I say, with full confidence Shiva: I know not of it; I profess my ignorance. ...We can't all be experts of everything, after all.

2. What you have mentioned above are only one or two "theoretial interpretations" of some phenomena, x (if that!), Shiva. Thus, I wonder: what do the other theories postulate; did you look at them as well and judge therewith, or did you simply choose those which seemed most pleasant to you? Understand: this is how alot of misunderstanding begin; the inability to view - fairly - all sides of a case; all the facets of a diamond. ...Not that you and I could even do that where quantum mechanics is concerned, mind you.

On that point: I could care less who agrees with those particular theoretical interpretations - I do not make decisions based "who supports what"; upon "authority".

3. The correct (causal) interpretation would be "some quantum theories 'seem' to disprove causality and locality" not that they, necessarily, do Shiva; to know for sure, you'd need to know both the Alpha and the Omega; you'd need omniscience, in other words. ...And with quantum mechanics, it's very easy to make mistakes concerning just that (ie: causality *), correct?

...Non-locality...isn't that - essentially - one of the basic understandings of the occult/esoteric; that everything is inherently connected from the get-go?

"Esoteric comment: Any two opposing qualities shall be evenly matched on a cosmic level if you take the Thelemic concept of 2=0 for the sum of everything must be nothing."

No argument, Shiva. ...However, let us think for a moment: what, then, is Nothing but Everything and Everything, Nothing? Essentially, to call things Everything or Nothing then is moot - it simply Is. This, in no way, detracts from the system being proposed above, as the points AGREE.

"The All is One, and the One is None"

...Mysticism.

"I believe there is no Soul per se"

...And I concur, Shiva; as it's generally understood (by the hoi polloi), there is no Soul - what is often postulated is simply ridiculous. Nevertheless, that doesn't - necessarily - mean there isn't (much) more to us, which only seems too likely given our lack of knowledge; it only seems too likely that we have (much) more to know about ourselves. As I mentioned above, we still need to succeed in the Oracle's dictum:

Know Thyself!

...Those who think they've figured it all out yet have failed miserably, as I see it.

Thanks Shiva; I appreciate the thoughts.

@Alrah:

"Well, you can work it from the general to the specific or the specific to the general and both at the same time for best results, but if your apriori is a wronger then everything that proceeds from it is going to be flawed except if chance throws you a ringer (stolen truth that doesn't belong there)."

No, it cannot Alrah; that's not how systems thinking works, ...how this sort of reasoning works. Consider: the fact that, say, x = 1 only ever tells you x = 1.

...As per expanding upon the notions of non-causality (and/or acausality) and/or self-causality as being - somewhat - ridiculous, no, I shall not expand on this Alrah; if you'd been reading along "carefully", you'd grasp what I meant by this comment.

"Previous to this I'd been having a transporting discussion on the virtues of vanilla. Ice cream often comes about in a seemingly sudden non causal fashion also. Why mourn a lack of monkey sauce?"

...Uh-huh.

@FraterLR:

Hopefully, I can get up the next response up some time today, if not tomorrow.

@Alias:

I saved responding to you for the last because it seems to be that you get what I am arguing, in a manner (your manner); thus all I have to say is kudos.

@All:

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

...Sighs That's how systems thinking works, Alrah; you proceed from general universal postulates and work your way "down-ward" (ie: to specifics). I am well aware that it is, essentially, a theory - but thanks for pointing that out again, Alrah, as if it changes anything whatsoever.

EDIT: Please note, Alrah that when I speak of systems thinking above I am not meaning systems theory.

On the point of non-causality and/or self-causality: I find these notions somewhat difficult to take seriously "given" what we do know about reality via actual experiments, ...while we're talking about proofs and all. Just saying.

...And your last comment just seems down-right ignorant; it adds nothing to the conversation, whatsoever - is a lame way of implicating: "Take that!, as if I really cared.

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

EDIT: Mind the sp's...I'm writing this on a hand-held device.

The first question I'd like to entertain is: just "what" reincarnates? First and foremost, I'd like to commend you for grasping the notion that all is on motion; all is in the process of growing, changing, and/or transforming from/of one state to another - it is obvious that you understand this dilemma given your question, Frater. Indeed, "what" reincarnates when all is change? ...Does this not remind you of certain oriental lines of thought conerning "permanence/impermanence"? What does not change; what remains ever the same, in the whole of the cosmos? The answer is simple enough, when you think about it: the ground; the essence. This "matter" cannot change precisely because it is the Child of two absolute, interposing qualities: absolute density (ie: the aspect of matter, the Mother) and absolute elasticity (ie: the aspect of motion [Will], the Father). Thus is born the " atom" proper; the Monad (material); the True Self (consciousness). Thus, the Monad (True Self) is what does not change - in a sense; is what incarnates - which is how it changes. To pre-emptively rebutt: admittedly, there is a paradox in two interposing absolute qualities - I am well aware of that, ...however what is most important here is that we need to keep in mind that if either quality was to overtake the other, the cosmos as we understand it could not exist; if Spirit and Matter (the Father and the Mother; Motion [Will] and Matter) were not evenly matched, there would be a "winner" and the game would be over.

Of course, I'm hardly done explaining - that is far too simplistic an answer. ...Shall we follow the white rabbit a bit further?

Thus, if we can accept - even temorarily; hypothetically - the notion of a Monad built out by the interplay of these opposites and a cosmos built of them (Monads), we can effectively "see" our unchanging ground; the essence. Thus, we have:

1. The individual that does not change.
2. The ground that does not change.

Now, the problem: all the matter that makes who we are is constantly changing. Perchance the simplest way to tackle this problem would be to speak on the notion of "discrimination"; coming to know the difference(s) between the:

1. Perciever
2. Perception and/or the instrument of perception
3. The object percieved and/or the field of perception

The problem is, as I see it is that people are identifying with Perception and not with the perciever; are identified with the periphery of the incarnated self and not the center (the center being the perciever whom has - seemingly for a time - no form).

Understand: the Monads participate in/of the cosmos via involving into denser matters; denser material forms through a series of processes called involvation/evolvation/involution/evolution/expansion. This, in short, is the creation of aggregate envelopes or bodies and - following upon that - the taking of some aggregate envelopes or bodies for experience (the growth of consciousness in the Monad - the growth of the True Self). ...Interestingly enough, it seems that now might be as good a time as any to offer a "visual"; to offer some results of my meditations upon the "point in the circle". Think: the center is what incarnates, is what makes use of the periphery (the cirle); the Monad representing the sun has a solar system as it's envelope(s), the nucleus a cell, the planet it's inhabitants, ...that inner self a man. The planets will come and go, the cells organs will come and go, the life on a planet will come and go, as will the man but the center remains; the center is the crux of these lesser periods, these lesser rhythms. So long as we identify ourselves with these peripheries, so long it will be true that we have failed the Oracle's dictum:

Tetum Nosce; Know thyself!

The human being then has a triad of bodies or instruments of perception at it's disopsal; a physical body, a emotional body (astral body), and a mental body. Ontop of that is a higher mental body or causal body (refering to the notions of cause/effect relationships betwixt matter in these worlds) and a higher physical body or physical-etheric body which contains one set of the oft-mentioned chakras. Of all these bodies, only one of them remains after the death process is complete...and that is the higher mental or causal body which is the "temporary" seat of the True Self (the Monad). Thus, incarnation is little more than a telescoping process in which the Monad, in it's causal envelope, builds out a series of bodies and then "identifies" with the conscious aspect of some grade of matter within/of the bodies. Thus is the "personality" born; what many here call the ego.

...Unfortunately, my battery is dying so I'll have to cut this response short. Please try to refrain from "killing me" with questions as there is alot more to go, even now. Understand: I've hardly scratched the surface of this theory; I am trying to do it as much justice as I can in explaining it, but it is difficult.

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

FraterLR: first and foremost, let me just say that I am sorry - I don't like making people have to wait for their answers more than is - perchance - necessary. ...That said, I do have a few things to say prior to responding to your questions.

Understand Frater: I initially came into this thread for the sole purpose of "defending" the notion of reincarnation, for what it's worth. In short, I never really intended to write theoretically upon the matter...which is the direction things are going now, correct? Thus, understand: I am not against this, seeing as you have asked my thoughts in these regards but please note that I will only share them "if" you can remember that I am speaking theoretically; what I offer is a theory not facts, nor do I want you to merely believe.

That said, I'll begin writing an answer to your questions.

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

Indeed, Persephone - quite clever! Surely, Alrah must be a genius for having, essentially, paraphrased definitions from an encyclopedia! ...Surely!

I, however, prefer sincerity - geniuses aside.

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

P.S. - Persephone, I really don't get the point of your need to assert "reincarnation = the transmigration of the souls", in much the same way one might assert "x = y" or "1 = 1"; what does it add to the conversation, exactly?

...I shall most certainly try to clarify myself, as requested.

Thus, first and foremost let me answer your first question: of the two possibilities mentioned, I find myself leaning more towards B) - that consciousness is already realized (to varying degrees)...meaning that it is, indeed, "evolving" as you mentioned.

Now, as per what I meant about consciousness not being an emergent property of matter is that consciousness (universally speaking) is not merely a property of matter in the same sense as, say, spin or rotation. ...That, and I am not presently concerned with the "quality of consciousness" (which then is a quality of the form) but rather the constantly subjective Self; the "I"; the Monad, materially. In short, what I mean is that matter and consciousness are aspects of one reality; they are (universally speaking) the simplest possible notions and do not derive their being from each other. Consider: a diamond which has many facets - one of them consciousness and the other matter; one of them subjective and the other objective - identification/liberation. ...Of course, there is a third aspect just as much as there needs to be a Mother and Father for the Child. By the "play of opposites", the Child (which was always a potential to begin with) is born; consciousness is realized in/of the cosmos precisely because there is now "something" to experience (ie: difference the self/not-self). Admittedly this is all a little simplistic, but hopefully the point is made. I'd rather not have to attempt explaining the whole process - the last time I did this...well, let's just say I'm still explaining it.

...And no then: by consciousness I do not mean "just" learning or memory.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure we're just not on the same page. Hopefully then this response helps some, ...or at least proves itself an "interesting" read.

EDIT: Perhaps this thought will help some - in essence, the aspects are one - all matter is one; all consciousness is one; all will is one. These aspects interact, but are not the same - they are like differing PoV's concerning one object: reality.

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.

...On the contrary, Persephone, it is quite obvious that you do not understand me.

Consider: my last question (a rhetorical one, even) concerned not the difference between A) and B) possibilities but the difference between postulates 1., 2., and A) or B) possibilities. Your answer then made no sense, Persephone, ...which is why I shall not entertain it further.

Secondly, by some definitions, you are most certainly "taking pity" on me ...and in a rather condescending manner at that. Now: if you want to pretend to be "greater than", be my guest Persephone - it matters not to me what your perception is. ...That, or you could be brave enough to stand up and explain:

Just what is it us "poor miserable" (spiritual) materialists aren't getting? By God, enlighten us already!

Thanks for your time,

P.S. - I hardly think you know my system from a handful of posts - perhaps you should reserve your judgement?

QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.