College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

@gerry456 said

"Frater 639, your last post was good, I have no problem with your points there and I don't want to go around in a loop. By the way, the This is Who We Are statement on this forum, do you agree with it?

Here's a quote from it "The boundary is this: On a forum devoted foremost to spiritual, magical, mystical things, it is off-topic to the entire forum to come from a place opposed to or dismissive of spiritual, magical, or mystical things. Makes sense, right?"

I guess your statements are not dismissive as such but they're pretty close, I don't know."

Thank you.

I think the boundary is a good marker for the context desired and suits the aims of the forum. I'm not affiliated in any way with the Temple of Thelema other than occasionally contributing to this forum. The info, culture, open discussion, etc. on here is a valuable resource for many and I try to give back when I can.

Jim's vast knowledge, attainments, experience, etc. are testament to the efficacy of the System of the A.'.A.'.

My statements are inclusive of many things spiritual, magical, or mystical. In my opinion, there are many models used to explain phenomena (spiritual, energetic, psychological, neurobiological, etc.) and they can function simultaneously without necessarily excluding each other. It isn't zero sum. For me personally, they are different tools and each one has its strengths/weaknesses when explaining certain phenomena.

I know we are OT but I wanted to ask:

How about you? How do you feel about the "Who We Are" statement? From the tone of your posts, you seem to have more skeptical leanings, which I think is invaluable, as long as it is not at the expense of being open-minded to data that goes beyond what mundane science is willing to accept. Sometimes, your posts seem like trolling but I really sense a desire to cut through bullshit, which I respect when it is done respectfully.

@gerry456 said

"I see, so one tiny little quote from one single document seals the deal on the issue?"

I teased apart the ideas of ceremonial magic and Thelema. Although, they are intertwined a great deal - it doesn't necessarily presuppose that you need to believe in gods to be an adherent of Thelema. Again - I repeat - that's ridiculous.

@gerry456 said

"Like I was saying if you want to start a 27 page thread on 'Crowley: metaphysician or sceptic?' then be my guest. For every metaphysical statement he made about himself having no doubt about the reality of praeter-human intelligences (presumably that includes "gods") you could play tennis and e.g. throw in the quote about the importance of not attributing "philosophical validity" from Liber O or from anywhere else e.g "there is no god but man.""

Crowley was both. Don't create a false dilemma where there is none. Again, his ability to be both goes back to being able to turn on and off beliefs. This is a common Ordeal in the Neophyte Tasks (and sometimes beyond), where the Aspirant will reduce phenomena to a false binary of strict objective/subjective. Dissolution of ego can make switching points of view very fluid. AC's writings fluctuate between perspectives easily - as anyone who has "invoked gods" can do if they are adept.

We don't need to go further on this idea, as it is way OT - but just to be clear, in ritual you suspend disbelief (the metaphysician) then you write the record (the scientist). And this is assessed and conclusions are drawn skeptically. That being said, any imbalance in favor of one or the other will create an issue with efficacy. Generally, this imbalance will manifest as delusion on one hand, lack of result on the other. Both of those pitfalls are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It CAN be a lot like tennis.

@gerry456 said

"Sure, if one is going to try to make a science out of spiritual practice and spiritual /"astral" affairs then one is going to disregard and ridicule any statement about outright religionist belief in spirits etc and that is what AC tried to do in an attempt to bring respectability to Theosophical matters. However, you cannot deny that he was schizophrenic in his writings with regards to this matter throughout his entire life. He played the haughty scientist card when he wanted to but anyone familiar with his work knows that it is impossible to conclude that this was his final say on the subject."

Again, I'll repeat myself one more time because I think you missed my original point - the spirit model can be a helpful model for convenience. It doesn't mean the magician believes in gods per se. Again, the belief mechanism is fluid in that way. I'll leave a couple quotes that illustrate this regarding the astral plane:

"We may consider all beings as parts of ourselves, but it is more convenient to regard them as independent. Maximum Convenience is our cannon of “Truth”"

"It is more convenient to assume the objective existence of an “Angel” who gives us new knowledge than to allege that our invocation has awakened a supernormal power in ourselves."

I read the article. Seems to be some loose patterns there. From a data collection standpoint, the conclusions drawn from the premise are weak. Cool article and seems persuasive. Interesting to see someone talking about chaos magic with an apparent dislike of SJWs. I'm not exposed to that viewpoint often.

I would generally say that one political standpoint (right, left, etc.) from a magical practitioner is interesting to say the least. I would wonder what made their personal stance/perspective the correct one, especially if it fits so nicely into someone else's fabricated box.

Do memes work? Hell yes they do. A symbol in the consciousness and concentration on it by one entity (or even better, more than one entity) is attention. Attention is energy. This gives the symbol a life of its own. The trick is to be able to control the entity once "life" is given to it obviously - this gets even more difficult in a "group working." Anyway, this applies to symbols/sigils or anything else that brings consciousness into concentrated energy - it is stronger with numbers (e.g. flags, gods, etc.). It's not a new theory - egregores are a very old idea. Even history is a perfect example of how a talisman (written idea) can completely reshape reality, which is arguably a type of meme.

As far as KEK, haha I'm not convinced from this article. There is a thing called false pattern recognition. Never mind how insignificant a president is to an overall, more powerful agenda. As if a middle manager's ideas matter in relation to what the CEOs want to do.

As far as belief in particular gods as being an intrinsic part of Thelema - that's ridiculous. The first words of Liber OZ will clear that up.

In ceremonial magic, it is part and parcel to believe in gods - or at least to "believe." The Instructions of concentration exercises, energy manifestation, etc. are aimed at teaching one how to empower the consciousness of the practitioner with tools. This requires belief (or at least suspension of disbelief). Belief is a tool. Doubt makes magick less effective or ineffective.

I would say a VERY large aspect is to control the belief mechanism (as well as the emotional mechanism - look at the Tower (House of God) between Hod/Netzach for further symbolism) and the practices are pretty revealing of that. So, it isn't so much about belief in gods per se, it is more about being able to turn belief on/off and learning to master the "I" in "I believe _________." Liber III shows a good example of this. Or even better, Liber XVI.

Easy to see why the ego (untrained belief in identity from skewed self-narrative, etc.) is a problem when it comes to success in magick.

@gerry456 said

"Actually perhaps if there is an unbalance of that element's quality within oneself then the element will feel averse when invoked?"

Not exactly sure what you mean by averse (I think you mean unbalanced qualities).

When people open themselves to magical practices, all imbalances seem to present themselves more. Many reasons for this. From a more psychological standpoint, a major factor is increased awareness.

@gerry456 said

"
@Frater 639 said
"
]

I could answer why AC would write that, but it would be speculation. My answer would be this: in magick, there are symbolic technicalities - we are dealing with concepts that require metaphor and symbols. These are used as a filing cabinet to do various workings. For example, I never knew what Saturn represented at all when I first started out. But now that I know, and I desire to perform a Saturnian operation, I know what symbols I need to call to get the desired result. I had to get past the symbolic technicalities to perform successful operations. To go even further, the more the ego and the rational mechanism is involved, the more that certain magical interference is created. Which is why I keep pressing the point. And, to me, it is why AC always harps on knowing what you actually are (True Will) and what you imagine yourself to be (ego).

."

The G.'.D.'. Tasks of the A.'.A.'. aim toward ego-dissolution. Your questions about "who and what you are" become answered by each Aspirant individually. I can't answer these questions for anyone personally, the Aspirant needs to do the Work themselves. But, since you're asking...in my opinion, you're asking the wrong questions.

"

Ok I read all of your points there and you basically perceive the "behind the symbolic technicalities" phrase, as being a reference to some sort of induction of experiential knowledge beyond metaphor and language.

Thanks for that input."

That's a great way to put it.

No problem!

@gerry456 said

"
Because that passage you quoted is a flowery way of describing about knowing one's place and capacities in relation to what you think you want to achieve.
"

That would be one perspective based on a rationalist point of view. AC is referring to a lot more than that. Following out the magical practices allow a person to "get" more than one point of view. Meaning, many perspectives could be assimilated and not just one that preserves the fantasies of the ego.

@gerry456 said

"
"Frater 639 wrote:
To cherry pick certain phrases out of context and use them as evidence is a rhetorical device and doesn't really point to anything substantial. "

Cherry picking? I didn't have an agenda in choosing that passage about symbolic technicalities. He uses that, at the outset, to make a major all encompassing point about the contents of MITAP...doesn't he?
"

You seem to be asking questions based on your interpretation of symbolic technicalities and using it to defend a position that one doesn't need to practice to "get it." The real question is how could one stretch that interpretation to defend that position, despite overwhelming evidence that AC didn't think all of the practices were merely symbolic technicalities . Defending that position would be an example of using an interpretation to preserve a fantasy.

If one submits a claim, one needs to back it up with more evidence, instead of just providing a stretched interpretation of what AC was actually saying. That's why it is considered cherry picking. Then you have called one example that doesn't support your previous claim "flowery language" while seemingly dismissing it as literary license, even though AC regularly worked that "class" of magick and believed that the operation was a viable method (a claim that I make based on evidence).

I think the question and conclusion you present is based in fantasy based on lack of knowledge. They don't seem to be rooted in reality when reviewing all of the evidence honestly.

@gerry456 said

"
Well I'm merely discussing what he said. I didn't say it. Behind the symbolic technicalities of this book, why would one write that?"

I could answer why AC would write that, but it would be speculation. My answer would be this: in magick, there are symbolic technicalities - we are dealing with concepts that require metaphor and symbols. These are used as a filing cabinet to do various workings. For example, I never knew what Saturn represented at all when I first started out. But now that I know, and I desire to perform a Saturnian operation, I know what symbols I need to call to get the desired result. I had to get past the symbolic technicalities to perform successful operations. To go even further, the more the ego and the rational mechanism is involved, the more that certain magickal interference is created. Which is why I keep pressing the point. And, to me, it is why AC always harps on knowing what you actually are (True Will) and what you imagine yourself to be (ego).

@gerry456 said

"He blatantly states that the techniques in MITAP allow one to become a magician I.e. to discriminate between what one imagines oneself to be and what one actually is. How does gathering 777 correspondences in a circle and invoking a god allow me to do that? For that matter, all of the other MITAP exercises, how do they aid me in eliminating fantasies I have about who or what I am?"

True, you didn't say it, but you interpreted what he meant by it, correct? Anyone that has seriously followed out the magical practices of invoking gods does not need to have that question answered by others. They "get it."

The G.'.D.'. Tasks of the A.'.A.'. aim toward ego-dissolution. Your questions about "who and what you are" become answered by each Aspirant individually. I can't answer these questions for anyone personally, the Aspirant needs to do the Work themselves. But, since you're asking...in my opinion, you're asking the wrong questions.

The questions I would ask:

How does my interpretation of Crowley preserve my ego?
How does my ego defend my rationalistic point of view?
Do my fantasies about magick confirm any previous biases that I may have?
How do these fantasies and biases affect myself and the outside world?
Would following out the practices help me to eliminate my fantasies and biases?
Do I know the above information based on practice or just thinking that I understand the theory behind it?
If I were to find evidence that magick goes beyond my rational explanation, would I believe it? Why or why not?

@gerry456 said

"It depends on what you mean by "magical practice"? "

Depends what you mean by "get it" also.

Can you pass through the System of the A.'.A.'. formally without going through the Tasks of each Grade? No. These involve following out the practices and passing strict tests.

Can you be a "magician" by blowing your nose? Sure. Can you "get" the act of blowing your nose? Sure. Does blowing your nose make you an Adept of yoga and ceremonial magic? Absolutely not. Does reading about yoga and ceremonial magic make you an Adept? Absolutely not. It takes magical practice to "get it."

I agree with your point that calling every act "magical" doesn't say much. And it sometimes causes these silly semantic arguments.

Crowley made his examples simple so he could show how blowing the nose COULD BE LIKE ceremonial magic in the way that we could enact our will through various methods. MTP Part III Chap. XIV shows the different degrees in which this could happen. He doesn't rule out ways that aren't based on strict "materialism" (in the sense of the philosophical term)...

"The Third Class is characterized by the absence of any existing link between the Will of the Magician and that controlling the object to be affected. (The Second Class may approximate to the Third when there is no possibility of approaching the second mind by normal means, as sometimes happens).

This class of operations demands not only immense knowledge of the technique of Magick combined with tremendous vigour and skill, but a degree of Mystical attainment which is exceedingly rare, and when found is usually marked by an absolute apathy on the subject of any attempt to achieve any Magick at all. Suppose that I wish to produce a thunderstorm. This event is beyond my control or that of any other man; it is as useless to work on their minds as my own. Nature is independent of, and indifferent to, man's affairs. A storm is caused by atmospheric conditions on a scale so enormous that the united efforts of all us Earth-vermin could scarcely disperse one cloud, even if we could get at it. How then can any Magician, he who is above all things a knower of Nature, be so absurd as to attempt to throw the Hammer of Thor? Unless he be simply insane, he must be initiated in a Truth which transcends the apparent facts. He must be aware that all nature is a continuum, so that his mind and body are consubstantial with the storm, are equally expressions of One Existence, all alike of the self-same order of artifices whereby the Absolute appreciates itself. He must also have assimilated the fact that the Quantity is just as much a form as Quality; that as all things are modes of One Substance, so their measures are modes of their relation. Not only are gold and lead mere letters, meaningless in themselves yet appointed to spell the One Name; but the difference between the bulk of a mountain and that of a mouse is no more than one method of differentiating them, just as the letter "m" is not bigger than the letter "i" in any real sense of the word."

Do you think that these are just symbolic technicalities? What would lead you to believe that?

To cherry pick certain phrases out of context and use them as evidence is a rhetorical device and doesn't really point to anything substantial. He didn't devise this system to embed an agenda of strict materialism and rationalism in a riddle. Do you think he did?

Crowley thought that magick was much more than psychology, but oftentimes would use psychology as a platform to discuss results. Do you agree with that?

@gerry456 said

"
@Gnosomai Emauton said
" The question this begs, then, is: How do you know when you are truly discerning what you actually are? How do you know what you think you've discovered is not just another layer of what you fondly imagine yourself to be?"

My answer is that you're not capable of self-honesty then you would need advice from a therapist. What AC is referencing here is the pathological defence mechanisms known as fantasy. There is an overlap with various other defence mechanisms involving retreat into fantasy, retreat from the reality of some situation."

He's referencing more than defense mechanisms. Reality testing/REBT/CBT techniques that you are referring to are only the tip of the iceberg.

Crowley is more so referencing the ego-identity and its constructs as a whole. This is all encompassing when it comes to the ideas of self. As you mentioned, there are many layers to that self-awareness. I'm sure you agree that this awareness doesn't happen all at once.

I think GE is saying that one's data about self will generally be tainted with confirmation bias while gaining this awareness. And he's right - there is no getting around this.

Need advice from a therapist if one has self-honesty issues? Maybe in some cases. But in many cases, therapists get paid to substantiate the patient's egos and subsequent fantasies about self. Hopefully, a good therapist can help someone get through the training of a positive feedback loop and help to eliminate some delusions. In the end, it is the PRACTICE of the patient that helps one to "get it" though.

So to bring it completely back to the OP - one DOES have to do "magical practice" to "get it." Also, they may only have intellectual apprehension of something and think they "get it." And some may have a magical practice and they still don't "get it."

@gerry456 said

"
@Frater 639 said
"
To call someone adept at magic because they've conceptualized what magick is all about is like saying a person is a master musician because he understands music theory.
""

Is it? Magick is all in the mind. Musical proficiency is all in the fingers generally....or the larynx. You can pass an exam in musical proficiency. Someone else could test you for bodily tremors and steadiness in asana and it is possible for someone to test how you do in the first two Jugorum practices but mastery of magic?"

Are you saying the knowledge and ability to play resides in the fingers? How do the fingers learn this knowledge?

@gerry456 said

"What do you think? If I have the wherewithal to appreciate what magicians and yogis are trying to achieve I can be an adept without doing any of those exercises? So long as I am able to discriminate between what I actually am and what I fondly imagine myself to be then it's on. This is psychotherapy whereby my defence mechanism against reality, in this cases fantasism, is challenged, brought to light and integrated."

I think that Crowley's definition of magick is a tautology - it is true in every possible interpretation. Blowing your nose is magick.

Not a very useful definition at all, but being adept at blowing one's nose is cool.

@Gnosomai Emauton said

"The question this begs, then, is: How do you know when you are truly discerning what you actually are? How do you know what you think you've discovered is not just another layer of what you fondly imagine yourself to be?"

Yep. Haha.
What someone is and what they imagine themselves to be is unfalsafiable if a person is making their own assessment of themselves.

To answer the question, I think:

The subjective idea of identity beyond what one imagines themselves to be is something that defies reason.
The True Will is an assertion of identity, while at the same time, it is a desertion of identity.
Self vs. Other identifications constantly are in flux on the plane where the True Will resides.

I think that the practices work toward this. To call someone adept at magic because they've conceptualized what magick is all about is like saying a person is a master musician because he understands music theory.

Not to say that there is anything wrong with conceptualization, but sometimes it can hinder the practice.

This is also not to say that there aren't many paths - in the end, no path is correct. A binary perspective of correct v. incorrect does not apply to evolution...

All that being said, do what thou wilt!

"Is there not joy ineffable in this aimless winging? Is there not weariness and impatience for who would attain to some goal?"

@Gnosomai Emauton said

"It's interesting, thoughts along these lines have been plaguing me recently. Like, there are these instructions that, in drawing the pentagrams, they should be seen drawn in light so powerful that, were someone with sufficient vision nearby, they would be able to see them. So that gives me a very clear expectation of what I should be "seeing". Yet I wonder if, by trying to "see" that every time I perform this, am I putting too much active work into something that needs me to refrain from active work? Am I perhaps adding strain where I should be letting go? Something to work with, certainly."

It sounds like you think that the intellect is causing the issue here. I agree with you. A few suggestions:

1. Where the intellect is overbearing in ritual, getting excited about the ritual is more important than the ritual itself. This is a really important aspect when it comes to suspension of disbelief. One's own means of gaining energized enthusiasm is more powerful than any one else's uninspired ritual.
2. Seeing pentagrams don't involve "seeing" with physical eye exactly. Don't worry about that. Regardless of your sight on the physical plane, allow yourself to feel that it is being inherently created and recreated in the astral.
3. The LBRP is not the goal here. Beyond practice, it is a preliminary to the working that comes after. Keep it in context and just get through it - the idea of working on it for years and years, just to get it right, sounds to me like you need to allow the perfectionist aspects of your personality to take a backseat. In fact, in ritual, the whole intellect needs to take a backseat. So what if it is messy? The best connection is the messiest sometimes.

Crowley one time recited some weird folk tune to get the desired energetic enthusiasm levels. By any means necessary.

EDIT: I had to look it up - it wasn't a weird folk tune, it was an old Christian hymn. Here is a particularly riveting version:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sLEgQfsRMY

I had to add the tune to illustrate how even something completely ridiculous can be effective. Also the video broke the smh meter for me

@Gnosomai Emauton said

"This is certainly a data point that I've been noticing pop up with some frequency in reports of success. It's things like these that make me wish more practicing occultists took seriously the idea that we are acting as scientists, gathering data on ourselves, but in ways that inform the Work generally. If enough magical records were correlated, would it show that some sort of early-childhood religious imprinting was a precondition for these sorts of "unambiguous results"? My small data pool points in that direction, but I don't have nearly enough data to trust that there is correlation."

I have theories as to why this is. Generally religious backgrounds involve worship which is basically coitus with an egregore in an energetic way. Depending on the frequency and duration of the relationship, there can be varying degrees of "fireworks" when the egregore is no longer being fed from the energy being afforded to it.

note: I'm switching between spirit models and energetic models intentionally, making a point to stay away from intellectual/psychological models.

@Gnosomai Emauton said

"
Fair, but not as good as they need to be. Working on this is the core of my daily practice at the moment.
"

It is a constant evolution for sure...for everyone.

"How is your asana practice?

@Gnosomai Emauton said

"
Solid. I've got conscious control over my physical body but transitioning from that into a sense of "body-off" to let go of the physical only happens occasionally and without much control.
"

"

Before moving on to Liber "O", I'd like to talk about this first if that's ok. I have my ideas of what could be hindrances (I suspect that Dharana hasn't been worked with in your Asana practice), but I'd like to ask about your data first.

What do you mean by "body-off?"
How long is your Asana practice?
How many breaks and what kind of breaks from the list below?

"Firstly, physical sensations; these should have been overcome by Asana.
Secondly, breaks that seem to be indicated by events immediately preceding the meditation: their activity becomes tremendous. Only by this practice does one understand how much is really observed by the senses without the mind becoming conscious of it.
Thirdly, there is a class of break partaking of the nature of reverie or 'day-dreaming.' These are very insidious-one may go on for a long time without realising that one has wandered at all.
Fourthly, we get a very high class of break, which is a sort of abberation of the control itself. You think, 'How well I am doing it!' or perhaps that it would be rather a good idea if you were on a desert island, or if you were in a sound-proof house, or if you were sitting by a waterfall. But these are only trifling variations from the vigilance itself.
A fifth class of break seems to have no discoverable source in the mind-such might even take the form of actual hallucination, usually auditory. Of course, such hallucinations are infrequent, and are recognised for what they are. Otherwise the student had better see a doctor. The usual kind consists of odd sentences, or fragments of sentences, which are quite distinctly heard in a recognisable human voice, not the student's own voice, or that of anyone he knows. A similar phenomenon is observed by wireless operators, who call such messages 'atmospherics.'
There is a further kind of break, which is the desired result itself."

Nice to hear from you as well.

@Gnosomai Emauton said

"A question: Were you practicing the LBRP or anything like it prior to your Probationer Oath? If so, were there "results" that you could attribute to the ritual prior to officially joining the A.'.A.'.? "

Nothing before. Just to be clear, I exclusively used XXV, not the LBRP. IMO there is an important distinction.

@Gnosomai Emauton said

"
i.e. When I started practicing the LBRP on my own, years ago, it provided a structure on which I was able to build a real discipline of Work, but nothing more "magical" than, say, signing up for a tri-weekly gym class would have provided the structure on which to build body-work discipline.
Proceeding, at a later date, to perform the LBRP under the guidance of formal training by an experienced mentor didn't really alter that. No astral entities or new kid on the block experiences at any point during these first two phases. [This, of course, begs the question: Was the formal training and/or mentor legitimately connected with the current? And/or were they the right mentor/training for me personally?]
After taking the 0=0 Oath, my life was thoroughly reorganized in a way that was unmistakably abrupt and unbalancing, but still no seeming connection to the LBRP. There just doesn't seem to be a different quality to my Work whether I perform one or not.

I realize that, in treating spiritual matters scientifically, any data is good data... but damn, it's frustrating to hear that a particular experiment gives unambiguous results to others and not be able to replicate those results in ones own lab."

I could see how this would be frustrating. I can't comment as to the effectiveness of someone else's mentor - I can say that a good mentor utilizes many other means of working with the student that is not necessarily perceived by the student. My mentor is well-versed in many magical techniques - egregores and watchers are part of the skills. There is more out there than meets the eye from what I've directly experienced.

Also, for me, I needed a mentor that was very aggressive (and played the petty tyrant at times) with my intellectual death grip and other "control issues" that I had, causing me to learn how to suspend disbelief in a more efficient way.

I have to mention: expecting results, wanting to "see" certain things happen, making a "pre-fab" cabalistic storyline, etc. were all issues that stemmed from over-intellectualization, which hindered my "vision" terribly. Letting go of this is part and parcel to touching other consciousnesses that are out there.

A lineage is only as good as its Adepts, man. That's all I can say. There are those that want to make magick an extremely intellectual/psychological pursuit. That's cool. Do what thou wilt.

But there is MORE to see and learn. Just throwing that comment out there for the rationalists.

I don't consider my initial experiences to be something "controlled." They couldn't quite be classified as dreaming or a true astral vision. But they felt real AF. In any event, since they weren't willed, they were undesirable; but I think necessary for me at the time. I see the good and the bad in them. That being said, I wouldn't wish them on anybody. Also, I came from a pretty religious upbringing - I feel that I had many fear-complexes (demons) that needed to be sorted...that was also a factor. So hard to look at all the variables that produce the specific results in one person or another, since everybody's experiences are vastly different. All we can do is keep experimenting. As one gets further along, the markers and milestones all lead to the same place...and that's all that really matters.

Quick questions: how are your concentration levels? How is your asana practice? How about your Liber "O" training?

@Gnosomai Emauton said

"What is this "unambiguous sense that there is such a thing as magick"? What might one look out for to tick that box? Does anybody have any specific experiences that they can point to in this context that has given them the sense of entering the Twilight Zone?"

93,

Haha. Definitely unambiguous.

One interesting "unambiguous" phenomenon that I experienced was repeated lucid dreams that seemed to last hours. Honestly, when I first took my Oath, it was like a bomb went off. My way of being incredibly analytic and skeptical took a big hit with the first astral journey.

It was unwilled (or, perhaps, unconsciously willed) and downright scary. These episodes went on pretty aggressively for the first 6 months of Probation, slowly becoming less aggressive as issues were dealt with. From what I experienced, we have an energetic body that begins to shed malignant entities as the aura is cleansed and it isn't that easy sometimes. I would sometimes see "substances in the air" as things were released in relation to that. Quite clearly in fact. It's not just the "new kid on the block" - it is the older entities not being able to feed and influence a particular energetic body as easily anymore. They don't like competition when it comes to your will.

I suppose the particular box that was ticked was signing the formal Oath under a Neophyte, choosing a magickal Name, and the Star Ruby for about three days, before I started to experience the Twilight Zoney stuff. Had to back off of the Star Ruby for a few weeks in the very beginning until I regained my composure, just isolating my use to the beginning of the ritual...maybe I'll repost some of the original letters during that freak out time.

Correspondence from another's training can sometimes hinder another's growth, though. In the way that it can "suggest" to others what they should be experiencing, and they will look for it, which is just a mess when it comes to students experiencing the genuine article. Which is kind of what I think Jim was alluding to when he said something like "just figuring it out as you go is part of it" when training with the Pentagram rituals. Solve ambulando.

Twilight Zoney in the way that I would also wake up in the Sign of Harpocrates often after one of these episodes. I know it all sounds a little kooky, but it made a believer out of me.

It was also helpful to have a mentor, but that is also part of the reason the experiences are so powerful. Once you come in contact with the current in a legit way, it is unmistakable.

Agree with Jim 100%

93 93/93,
639

@Jim Eshelman said

"
@Frater 639 said
"Hi! How does one sign up for the meetups?"

Here's the link to the particular ongoing meetup:
www.meetup.com/venice-thelema-study-grou

Go ahead and register, and you'll get notifications of what is happening."

Done. Thanks Jim!

Hi! How does one sign up for the meetups?

93,

Thanks for your clarifications in red.

@Luce said

"You are making far too many assumptions about me. I don't feel like going through each and every tattered assumption. When our conversation started, I thought that there was some comprehension difficulties, as it took multiple back-and-forth posts to get you to understand what I was talking about... Now I'm starting to think you were being intentionally difficult, presumably with some bizarre pedagogical approach in mind. Regardless, you would come to a more accurate reading of my posts if you took out the myriad of assumptions. I don't claim to be an expert -- I never did. But I'm decently well-read and I've spent a long time lurking on magical forums in order to see what the general consensus is about various areas. So no, I didn't magically (pun intended) gain a ton of experience since my first post -- rather, I'm just low on experience but not necessarily low on the intellectual side of things. This creates the effect of me seeming to claim I know nothing, and then claiming to know something. I know enough to know that the majority of practitioners claim to be able to move and channel some sort of etheric substance throughout their bodies. Do I have personal experience with this? No. But I know enough to know when something I'm being told isn't quite above board."

Perhaps I was, thank you for elucidating further.

"You knew from the get-go I was talking about the very energetic model you claim to employ."

I wasn't intentionally being obtuse. I was trying to tease apart the feelings in your nerve endings and the energy employed through focused attention/intention. There is a difference - and I get that you don't want to be coerced by self-deception, which is a very large pitfall that affects many practitioners. So, that's good to keep that healthy skeptic in mind!

"But let's put that aspect of things behind us. You know what I'm referring to now, so we can go from there."

Ok. Sounds good.

I agree with your synopsis of trying to look the multiple traditions throughout the span of human history and trying to apply the gold, and separating the dross. Sounds very reasonable.

Now, if you're looking for techniques to augment this concentration, and you are sincere about using the System of the A.'.A.'. to do so, I can tell you it is effective. If you're using tacile imagination to augment, great!

So, the core of your question is this, and please clarify if I'm missing something:

How do I know if I'm doing it right? Am I fooling myself with these sensations, or is it really energy?

And you think I'm being pedantic, but I've tried to explain that energy can mean many different things. If you're just looking for "how do I know if I'm doing it right?" I will definitely try to help.

How long can you stay in your asana without 5 breaks?

Breaks are classed as follows:

*Firstly, physical sensations; these should have been overcome by Asana.
Secondly, breaks that seem to be indicated by events immediately preceding the meditation: their activity becomes tremendous. Only by this practice does one understand how much is really observed by the senses without the mind becoming conscious of it.
Thirdly, there is a class of break partaking of the nature of reverie or 'day-dreaming.' These are very insidious-one may go on for a long time without realising that one has wandered at all.
Fourthly, we get a very high class of break, which is a sort of abberation of the control itself. You think, 'How well I am doing it!' or perhaps that it would be rather a good idea if you were on a desert island, or if you were in a sound-proof house, or if you were sitting by a waterfall. But these are only trifling variations from the vigilance itself.
A fifth class of break seems to have no discoverable source in the mind-such might even take the form of actual hallucination, usually auditory. Of course, such hallucinations are infrequent, and are recognised for what they are. Otherwise the student had better see a doctor. The usual kind consists of odd sentences, or fragments of sentences, which are quite distinctly heard in a recognisable human voice, not the student's own voice, or that of anyone he knows. A similar phenomenon is observed by wireless operators, who call such messages 'atmospherics.'
There is a further kind of break, which is the desired result itself. * - Eight Lectures on Yoga

An intermediate mastery of this process should be about 15 minutes with less than 5 breaks. The reason why I'm saying this, is because energy work, as you surmised, can be filled with self-deception. An intermediate mastery of Dharana practice helped me to understand what is truly effective energy work, and what is not. I had the benefit of refining this skill before getting into Liber O on the recommendation of my Teacher. It has proved invaluable.

I understand that you're intelligent and that you're very well read on the subject, which is why have been stressing the practices and the basics before worrying about advanced energy work. I'm sorry if you felt that was pedagogic. In many cases, students end up spinning their wheels in the beginning, and the intellect has a very...*intellectual *way of explaining things (tautology? ). I've already recommended NOT THINKING about "am I doing it right?" - suspension of disbelief during the actual practice - the psychological censor can stop real results. Again, no breaks in concentration practices mean that the "am I doing it right?" distraction will no longer inhibit you.

I can guarantee if the practices of the A.'.A.'. are followed out, you won't have these issues once the basics are out of the way. Also, I might add that the A.'.A.'. is very strict about passing certain milestones before progressing to the next Grade, and are laid out in an order that is very helpful to facilitate success when attempting the subsequent Tasks of each Grade that follows.

I really have confidence that by applying the above concentration methods during daily practice, you'll get to the point that your intention, coupled with energized enthusiasm, will have the focus requisite to not fool yourself and you'll be getting to some effective energy work. The tingling sensations can be a byproduct of pranayama, intention, ritual aspects, etc. but are not a guarantee that the energy work that you're intending to do will be effective, and it can be a distraction as well. Sometimes, it can just be an increased heart rate or something easily explained by physiological changes. I think you understand what I mean by that, so I'll shut up about it now.

All in all, this should not discourage you from experimenting yourself and working with your ideas of energy as you see fit. However, you wanted to know recommendations from more advanced practitioners, and I wanted to pass the above along to you.

I must add, while it is admirable to try to work the System of the A.'.A.'. without in an Instructor, it is VERY difficult. As you may have noticed, there are a lot of questions, self-deceptions, etc. that come up. It is not impossible, but it is VERY DIFFICULT, even with an Instructor.

I hope it is helpful! Good luck!

93 93/93,
639

@Luce said

"Another quote from Jim I found:

"n Temple of Thelema, there is a progressive training of the physical and subtle bodies over the course of the First Order, one intention of which is to get them able to easily handle increasingly strong flows of energy. (It isn't terribly evident that this is what's going on until about 2°, but the 0° and 1° stages are specific setups and leadins for it. In 2° the channels are purified and direct energy flow work commences. From 3° through Portal there is a very specific set of work that daily permits the channels of the subtle body to conduct such energy as they are capable and systematically increase this.) Another set of practices programs subconsciousness to invite the natural, easy, non-strenuous maturation of the chakras over time by indirect means that do not require direct concentration upon them.

I mentioned that actual harm can result. This is the other main point to make about kundalini work: Kundalini is a REAL force that has REAL physical, emotional, and other psychological impact. "

This should help to clarify my question. Jim again speaks of channeling energy, conducting energy, etc. The term I haven't been using is "subtle body." That's what I mean in my question. Is it possible to manipulate energy throughout my subtle body with tactile imaging."

Please give an example of what you mean. If you mean, can I imagine moving energy around my imagined subtle body? I would say yes.

Do you see benefits to doing that? Why?

93,

@Luce said

"Clearly I've annoyed you, probably because I questioned your understanding of my original post. I'm really not trying to be recalcitrant here.
"

No, you haven't annoyed me. Forgive my directness, but I've answered your questions as clearly as I can. You are seemingly not accepting of them. For certain reasons:

1. You think that all Thelemites believe in some sort of subtle energy, which makes it real.
2. You feel that Crowley has merged Western magick and Eastern yoga, so you have the expertise do this as well, even though you have not demonstrated success with basic practices.
3. You want to believe that imagining a paintbrush can be just as effective as core visualization practices, so you'd like to substitute them, admitting you are weak when it comes to visualizing.

Please let me know if I've oversimplified.

Without picking your post apart point by point, I will say a few things.

1. Other people don't dictate my view of subtle energy - my view is gained through practice and experience.
2. An intellectual apprehension of what "energy" seems to be to you will not help you attain what REAL practice can.
3. You need to practice your weaknesses - an intermediate mastery of asana helps when visualizing.
4. It was more of cherry picking instead of a strawman argument. But it's all the same energy, right?

You seem to want an expert to rely on. You ask questions. Then, you want to twist those questions to fuel the decision that you've made regarding a workaround to visualization practices.

I agree with Jim - his quotes make perfect sense to me. From a certain point of view, Kundalini "so-called" is a REAL force, although I think the term "Kundalini" is a bit of a misnomer. That being said, I like to explain it more from a western model.

The 3=8 work will take care of itself - Jim's writing on the subject is from the point of view of an adept and beyond, not from a student's point of view. Obviously, higher grades can only be understood theoretically before the experience makes them Understood. I know speaking of practices in higher grades can really cause issues with some students and it can hinder progress - the intellectual mechanism gets in the way and students will try workarounds instead of sticking to the practices. You're not the first one who thinks themselves smart enough to make a short cut when it comes to some form of training. Or, maybe you don't. But it sure sounds like you do.

As far as energetic channels, Jim's point of view is very straightforward and comes from an understanding of the microcosmic orbit of the Taoists, the eight extraordinary vessels, etc.

Prana/chi are not measurable quantitatively with much accuracy yet. This makes the term much more subjective, which is why you may think, based on my answers, that I don't believe in it. Suffice to say, I'm skeptical of my own results and others, but that doesn't mean I do not use the energetic model to explain things when useful. After all, nothing is "real" by itself, only in relation to other things can we measure phenomena. But, my tangents seem to be hard for you to relate to, which is ok - I don't expect you to follow every tangent without the requisite experience. Sometimes, I answer for other people reading who may understand what I'm saying.

I've answered your question of why I think tactile practices may be useful, but it is NOT a substitution for visualization. The five elements have their correlations in the five senses, but again, that may be too tangental to use the balancing of the elements metaphor. In any event, realizing that mastery in one of the senses is not mastery in another sense is important.

"
Unless I'm completely misreading your post and you actually DO believe energy can be manipulated, but that it must be done visually instead of tactilly. If that's the case, I'm curious as to why you think that's true.

Instead of fireballs, can I ask you about something like Reiki? The entirety of Reiki seems to rest on the postulate that energy can be harnessed and directed. Do you think it's hogwash?"

I'm not saying it can't be manipulated tactilely. You asked if it could be substituted for visualization. I said no.

My opinion of Reiki is that it can be a useful model, except for all the Christian bullshit. I don't think it is ALL hogwash, although I think the idea of energy being "harnessed and directed" can be very confusing. I've already stated that each paradigm should be dealt with according to its own model. That being said, I've conducted my own experiments with "energy that is harnessed and controlled" from that particular model as you say, and I've acheived success. Again, the success had more to do with concentration and less to do with body sensations of "feeling the energy" - which is what you opened up your post about.

Remember the feelings of confusion you had as to what energy is and feels like? Now, it seems you've gained a great deal of expertise since then, but no real experience of being able to prove anything, other than some tingling feeling. I feel you are being a bit disingenuous with your intentions here.

Also, I think your example is rather weak about Java. I never said that people don't use an energetic model, nor have I said that I don't use it myself. The difference is that Java is quantitatively measurable accurately and readily, while your idea of energy is not. Am I right in saying that?

Now, may I ask you a few questions?

Where is your data that the "energy" phenomenon exists?
Have you experienced it yourself?
If so, how much experience do you have moving "energy" around?
Do you believe that this energy exists if you've never visualized it?
If so, is it because so many other people have told you it exists?
You've spoken of using tactile energy to send astral stuff out, could you please give an example?

Thanks, Luce. Please don't mistake my directness for annoyance. I'm enjoying the exchange.

93 93/93,
639

93,

"No, I didn't ask that. I'm wondering if the feelings I get from tactile energy practice are indicative of really channeling energy. I'm also wondering if tactile energy manipulation can be used to boost energy-related actions, like making an etheric double."

I've answered that. I've said no, other that basic concentration exercises. Did you prefer another answer?

"I'm not at all sure what you're talking about here. Or, I guess I don't really understand why you're talking about it. You said this in response to a question I asked about whether or not bringing energy down during the Middle Pillar and circulating it is similar to creating an etheric double out of energy."

No. It is not. I brought up how you're mixing the planes. Which is relevant here, because you're asking the question which explicitly shows that you're mixing up Middle Pillar exercises with Liber O practices. I am being very clear. They are not the same.

"This strikes me as odd. You are saying not to mix prana with magical ritual, yet we're discussing a syncretistic paradigm whose calling card is harmonizing eastern yoga with the western esoteric tradition. Crowley was all about mixing these paradigms! He uses raja yoga to increase his magical abilities, after all."

This is a strawman argument - bringing up Crowley - which you are using to try to defend your theories, theories that you are asking questions about? Yet, you seem to be an expert. Which begs the question, why are you asking questions if you already know the answers? Raja yoga is used for concentration, and ultimately, Silence. Imagining being painted with a brush is not the same thing as manifesting prana.

"
So you're saying that you think controlling energy via visualization is the sole way to create an etheric double? Why couldn't one use tactile imagining to create the double?"

I have no idea what you mean by this. It seems you have no idea what it means to create an etheric double. Work on the basics first. You admittedly have difficulty with visualization. Imagining yourself getting painted with a brush will not help you create an etheric double, except in the most basic concentration sense. Do you disagree? What experience from your practices prove this?

"I'm kind of getting the vibe that you're saying that energy (in the way I'm using the word) doesn't really exist or at least that it doesn't play a role in these practices. Do you think the etheric body is made of astral energy?"

Please define what you mean by energy. Or, describe what you mean by astral energy. I've worked with astrals, but I've never used that term. There seems to be confusion. I cannot formulate a response based on your communicated ideas of energy, in relation to the questions you are asking.

"Surely, we are having two completely different discussions here (each to which the other person is not privy)! Again, I'm talking about energy, what the Hindus call prana. I'm talking about the energy you can bring up your spine, the power of reiki that can be channeled through the hands, or the energy you can bring to your palms to cast a fire ball or flipendo or fus-ro-dah. By talking around me like this are you trying to indicate that you don't think such an energy exists? "

Casting a fireball? Wow. This shows some sort of Street Fighter method of magic that I've never witnessed before. Surely, you can show me some sort of scientific proof for this to discuss, instead of some fairy tale you've read in a book. I don't think "fireball energy" exists, at least, an energy like that which originates from your palms. You're absolutely right that I don't believe that.

Now, if you want to discuss energy that you can channel through your hands, what experience have you had with this that makes you believe in this theory? And if you had such experience, why are you asking about it?

"
Okay, we're definitely not on the same page. I'm not talking about what my practices are supposed to accomplish, and I'm not talking about belief or disbelief in the slightest. I'm asking if tactile techniques, like the one described in the first post, is a valid substitution or augmentation for visually guiding energy."

And I've answered this already, BUT I will repeat myself again, even though it doesn't jive with your pet theories that you're seemingly championing. Painting yourself with a paintbrush may help with concentration, but that's about it.

"I truly believe that there is some intense misunderstanding here. If you're willing, take a look at my original post again and my clarifying post. I think that you might be thinking I'm talking about something else altogether."

I've read your post. There is a misunderstanding here. You want to believe that your theory of painting yourself with a brush will help you with ritual, and I say yes, it will. But only insofar as you're learning to pay attention. It WILL NOT facilitate "calling down energy," it WILL NOT enable you to cast fireballs, it WILL NOT manifest energy from the universe, etc. which is what you were originally asking.

But, I don't think you were asking, so much as you were trying to prove your theories, which seem to be harmonious with something that some "expert" has written down something in a book.

Devise your own experiments. Collect your own data. That is where the real energy lies. The more you rely on your own methods, the better your results will be.

Do you disagree?

93 93/93,
639

93,

@Luce said

"Thank you for your response. I'll try to be a bit more specific just to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

When I say energy, I mean the same energy the magician tries to draw down during the Middle Pillar, and then circulates through his body of light. I'm also talking about the energy one uses when creating an etheric double when one is attempting a projection: he makes the new vehicle out of energy and then attempts to place his consciousness into it. I'm also talking about the energy one would use in ritual work, say, the energy one draws down to his feet before unleashing force through a pentagram (which I assume is made of astral energy) via the Sign of the Enterer in the LBRP."

Ok. I'm glad you clarified.

You're wondering if energy can be felt in the body from practices? Yes.

"Now, I'm making an assumption that all of these examples involve energy, and that this energy is directed in the same way. If the process of moving energy to the etheric double is different than the process of drawing energy down in the general invocation, e.g., Middle Pillar, this is something I'd like to know."

Is it directed in the same way? No. Because the intention is different. I tried to explain that certain sensations in the body can be the same during ritual (e.g. adrenal triggers), but there is no scientific proof/evidence that these energies are linked, simply because there is no widely accepted proof/evidence that an etheric double exists, or "drawing energy down" in the general invocation. However, there is proof/evidence that skin sensations will change in conjunction with limbic system changes.

"
I'm also assuming this is what makes up the body of light. I'm assuming it's what stirs the Kundalini. It is prana. It is qi. If these are not the same thing, please correct me."

It really helps to not mix the paradigms/planes of bycoming here. If we are using an energy paradigm, we can say that prana and chi are linked without too much of an issue. If we are using a magical ritual point of view, then the Body of Light would go more into the astral paradigm, which has sigils, symbols, watchers, egregores, etc. associated with it. If we are talking about a physiological sensation, we should use that paradigm to speak about it. There is no known evidence or proof that any of these are causally linked, and it matters not if they are "real" to be successful with any of them, whether they exist in material reality (disks) or in imagination (swords) is what we have to remember.

We, as skeptical magicians, can have correlations found through experimentation and experience. I have found that there are correlations, but I've found that the concentration aspect being controlled is the most important variable, not the body sensations. The body sensations are more of a byproduct of workings, but they don't need to be present, and they can sometimes be a distraction. Controlled intention and energized enthusiasm are the key ingredients, and you'll need to have a system of symbols established to "make it all work."

"
So, with that assumption in mind, my question is if Bruce's tactile energy technique (described above) can be used to direct and manipulate energy in the ways described above. Are those energy sensations indications that I am moving energy throughout my body? Can I use this technique to bring down energy via the Middle Pillar? Can I use it to create an etheric double?"

I would say no. The Middle Pillar is its own exercise. Liber O is all you need to create an etheric double, provided you have concentration levels sufficient to proceed to Part V.

"Now, I don't really know if the energy itself is the same: I'm unsure if there are different varieties."

Absolutely. As explained above, there are many different varieties. Not just in different planes of bycoming, or in different reality sets. Material examples (pain, fear, happiness, despair, soft, hard, etc.) and also the deeper in magick we go, there are different varieties. If I want to do a Saturnian working, that is a completely different energy than that of Venus. It is up to the magician to learn what these energies mean before invoking makes a difference. All else is practice of gaining aspects of concentration and energized enthusiasm methods until then.

"If I visualize energy descending from Kether to Da'ath in the Middle Pillar, I feel nothing. But if I concentrate on the feeling of a giant paint brush stroking me from the top of my head to my throat, I get buzzing and tingling and whatnot. Is the latter better than the former for me seeing as it produces those results? Is that an indication that I am drawing energy down? Or am I merely stimulating nerve endings and not truly bringing energy down at all?"

Now, I'm really trying to answer you honestly here, because every person that has practiced magick runs into this question.

The latter and the former doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, just as long as you have concentration (e.g. better control of the "intellect" for lack of a more inclusive term) and energetic control (e.g. better control of the "emotions" for lack of a more inclusive term), in the paradigm of magick and mysticism. Remember to always keep the Great Work in mind! All of these practices should be geared toward that attainment.

No. It is not an indication that you're "drawing energy down."

Also, on an unrelated note, try to look at the perspective as the energy is coming from you, not that the universe is giving something to you. The macrocosm has no more importance than the microcosm. That may clear some things up?

@Luce said

"Or am I merely stimulating nerve endings and not truly bringing energy down at all?"

Again, I think nerve endings can be stimulated when working with invocations. They seem to be related, which can be an indication, but not a condition. Meaning, you could feel things or not, which doesn't necessarily mean that your practice is more effective or not. It may sound like I'm repeating myself, but I'm just trying to be as clear as possible.

On the whole, I think you're overthinking what practices should be accomplishing; projecting into the practices with a lust of result, so to speak. My largest piece of advice is to suspend disbelief and try to stop figuring out what is happening. Just LOSE YOURSELF in the rituals. This code-switching of disbelief/belief, without the intellect getting in the way, is one of the most important parts of these methods of training.

I hope this helps, and didn't make it more confusing.

93 93/93,
639