College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

@he atlas itch said

"Acting without lust for result does not mean acting without lust - or whatever strong emotion necessary. As Jim noted, if you are not moved, chances are, nothing else will be moved. In my experience strong emotional investment generates powerful results."

There's a personal thing I've noticed concerning this. In my case the "enflame thyself" is not properly the agent evoking it is the mean to come to that point. It comes a point when emotion is - how I can explain it... maybe: "absorbed"? - and the result is a ruthless, cold state and that's the agent evoking, not the emotion(s) to come to that point.

Naturally this can change depending on the type of force you "connect" with; since I'm not much interested in evocation I've not tried different "channels".

The only evocation I performed was when I was very young using the Goetia and the link to the "power" was done via The Bornless One and the Goetia scripts. The first time I had no manifestation at all (while using a lot of emotion), in the second attempt, however, what I explained before happened (i.e. the emotion was "absorbed" in that cold, ruthless state) and then I had a very strong manifestation (in fact I almost pissed in my pants and I never tried it no more for the fear; now that fear has naturally passed but I am not interested in it no more - but I'm digressing )

I noticed this also when I perform art, in some cases. When I approach the canvas, in painting, the first "manifestation" is tied to emotion but then it comes a plateau that's beyond emotion and that's what creates art for me. If I cannot get to that plateau the result will be all another thing (and it's strictly linked to how strong that "link" is, also from a strictly technical aspect). At that point there's a flow, a sort of "communication", fuel is no more needed (and on the contrary it is counterproductive). At that point it's sort of like what Crowley describes in Samekh, e.g. your mental, astral and physical consciousness are somewhat absent so it's not more a state of emotion in the literal sense.

This is what I noticed in myself. I think that the key to do these things must be discovered and for anyone it can be different, I don't know. As I said, then, it can also depends on which type of force you connect to, to evoke.

@ldfriend56 said

"I've been more skeptical about the validity of that then anybody - and I accept there is no one who could confirm it.

but I do disagree - I do think that those who have had this experience can recognize when another has as well."

What I said was not meant as a way to invalidate or either challenge your experience, at all. They were just my ramblings on what Avshalom wrote, with some other little ramblings on the "Oath of the Abyss".

Also because I'm not in position to invalidate nor yours nor anybody's else experience on this because I never had it and it will be long before I will have to do with it (well, the longer the better - stay away frome me! ).

@Avshalom Binyamin said

"
My main criticism is the use of the term "crossing the abyss". Crossing the abyss isn't the same as "going to a different realm in our minds" or "having a crazy experience". Crossing the abyss is something way beyond that, with a very specific meaning and context."

I will add then that "Crossing the Abyss" to be really such must be done on all planes. For example I think anybody that is serious on comprehending philosophy to the core, understanding all points of view in there etc. for real (in a "Stanislavskij" way, so to speak) will "Cross the Abyss" intellectually, but that will not mean that s/he will have "Crossed the Abyss" as such.

The same is true for every other grade, etc. and Crowley was very attentive on trying to make this point across. For this, for example, I don't think that the "oath of the Abyss" means as such until you are not ready to accept it fully.

I think, for example, that also the word "interpreting" in that same oath is a sort of "misnomer" (or maybe a trap, can be? Or maybe, more simply just a misunderstanding of the meaning made from a too literal approach coming from the reader), since if you are really there then there's nothing to interpret because everything is already a dealing of God with your soul (at that point and probably always, but when you are there you understand it for real, instead of just, for example, intellectually); if you "interpret" (in the literal sense of the word) then you are just providing a filter in there. I can be mistaken, naturally, but that's my view of it at this point.

@ldfriend56 said

"
Okay, so there is my honest share. It's an experience, not a claim (other than a claim about an experience . But it is very valuable and meaningful to me, and is also very practical in real world affairs just as much as it is in inner world affairs.
"

In Liber HAD it is written:
"7.Let the Aspirant apply himself to comprehend Hadit as the perfect, that is Not, and solve the mystery of the numbers of Hadit and his components by his right Ingenium." [ED: emphasis mine].

So, whetever what you discovered is "true" in the absolute sense and if it's really the solution of it or not, it doesn't really matter for what it concerns your individuality. What it matter is that the "solution" means something for you and have had an impact on you (naturally this doesn't mean that all "solutions" will really matter as such, the point of the matter is always in the well known motto: "success is your proof").

In substance, while it can matter in the objective sense a "real" solution (in the absolute sense) of the verse, it matters more for what it concerns the "here and now" of the individual his/her own personal solution and if that has really had an impact in his/her growth or not and for his/her own Will. At last this in the view of the comprehension of Hadit as in Liber HAD (as an example of this).

As for the "absolute solution" I personally think that it will pass some time before someone will be able to solve it in that way, and maybe it will coincide with something concrete also of an "external" nature. These are naturally suppositions, nothing more, but I don't think it will be something coming in the very near future.

@Priory Soul said

"
Yoga is not the means to an end, not causing the result, but understanding the Art of Breathing and Posture is critical when it comes time pass through the fire, or the veil set to obscure the communion and discourse.
"

If it is for this, there is NO method by which one obtains It just by doing it and that's it. No Yoga, not Samekh, not Abramelin, not anything else. All these things are simple means to arise love, a love that is gentle and sustained. (Yoga is in fact a full process, not just the single practice of meditation).

There's the love of the ape's kitten and there's the love of the cat's kitten.

The kitten of the ape grabs the mother by the back with all his/her force. This kitten brings himself near to the mother with the power of force.
The kitten of the cat, however, doesn't have enough force to grab the mother. He cries and cries in desperation, knowing no other way around. The mother, hearing the cry, will not leave the kitten alone for long.

The first can be summarized by an aspirant that does Yoga, or whatever other discipline to "grab" the thing by the power of practice. The second is just an yearning, an hidden cry born from the agony of separatedness. Both are one and the same, and both are born of love. If the child of the ape instead of being absorbed on grabbing the mother will wander away she will not find him no more.

Mechanically doing any discipline serves nothing, IMO. They serves only as a mean to arise that love and to understand what type of love it is better for your nature, among other things.

@Sphynx said

"
7th circuit: Chokmah
"Some humans receive an "imprint" of the spiritual consciousness upon activating a proper trigger, which may include many years of advanced Raja Yoga, the use of sacred power plants, and/or the practice of Magick. The Spiritual, or Atmic, plane is called by metaphysicians and parapsychologists the "Metaprogramming Circuit" or "Magical Consciousness." Specifically, the spiritual imprint confers the ability to "construct a new reality tunnel." Accessing this level of consciousness is the only means to reprogram the imprints of the personality, which otherwise will remain unchanged throughout a lifetime (and perhaps beyond!). The atmic imprint is something we have in common with about three percent of humanity.
For the person who succeeds in gaining access to this level, and is able to operate (even a little) herein, there lies the danger of degeneration into megalomania. The metaprogramming circuit is too real, and too powerful a concept, to project it directly outward to normal humanity without wrapping it extensively in a genuine sense of humor."

8th circuit: Kether
"Some humans receive an "imprint" of the monadic consciousness upon activating a proper trigger, which may include clinical death (dying on an operating table and then being revived) or 100% out of the body projections (see Astral Projection). The Monadic plane is called by metaphysicians and parapsychologists the "Quantum Circuit." Specifically, the monadic imprint confers the ability to "access all the information of the Universe." Accessing this level of consciousness often results in reports of extra-terrestrial contact, communication with a "galactic overmind," or conversations with angels. Monadic consciousness exists without a biological container. The monadic imprint is something we have in common with only one to two percent of humanity.
On the Tree of Life, the Monadic plane is the uppermost sphere (number One). It has little to do with the events taking place in the three-dimensional world, and is said to cause an obliteration of the perception of time and space. You may have heard mystics, or marbleheads, discoursing on being "beyond time and/or space;" this is the realm to which they referred."

"

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Sincerely these two are, IMO, completely out of order, at last practically speaking. It seems to me, in fact, that certain individuals nowadays value what they call "Astral Projection" as to become always the end of and everything. The see it completely out of proportion. Instead of a mean they look at it as an end, and this is completely false.

It happened in the recent past also with Mead (and anyway all the Theosophists), for example, where he said, in the specific, that the actual "last" step of the rising of Kundalini was Astral Projection, a thing obviously Avalon - as the most evident example it comes to my mind - was not very happy to hear, and on the contrary bashed this point of view utterly. It would be like saying, in fact, that the end of having the K&C of the HGA is being able to enter an altered state of consciousness. It is quickly becoming the predominant attitude nowadays in a certain field and with certain groups of people (that usually care only for a part of the whole).

I understand the "some" written there, but still, having the capability of doing an Astral Projection has almost nothing to do with the 8th (much differently, for example, on the 7th and Raja Yoga - that should be, along Magick, Mysticism in general, etc. the last). In my experience 99% of people that can have an AP usually just ends up in Assiah based worlds, or, at very best, Yetzirathic ones. I never heard almost nobody ever entering a Briatic world if they weren't doing something specific outside AP alone (and even then, relying on the word of the user, that says little in the end). Naturally this doesn't meant that it's impossible (on the contrary, probably it's a powerful mean, used correctly), only that it's not automatic as many people seem to think, and, on the contrary, it is usually more (maybe much more) difficult to do so because people (for the power of the experience) lose themselves on things that have absolutely no meaning whatsoever apart the "wow" factor.

For example: they get all astonished and whatnot for the "beauty" of the scenario they see, but the 99% of the people able to do AP I've talked with, don't mind at all what the scenario is, nor how did they got there, nor how to reproduce the same, nor if they did "enter" in it at will or if they can control the experience. It is just that this typical mean has this little trap of being so alluring as to make people think they are doing the most greatest things while in reality they are doing almost nothing of concrete in the majority of cases.

I have a little of experience both in Raja Yoga/Magick and APs and I will never say a thing as the one said above (and in fact it usually comes from people using drugs, because they think "leaving the body" the end of all, maybe coming from shamanism a little fraintended). While Raja Yoga/Magick are still mental disciplines (at their core) both the background (meaning that the "setting" in there usually has a large focus on controlling the experience in any case) and the structure of the practices (meaning in this case that they are usually always meant for a concrete goal in mind, instead of being left to the case) make them much more effective (also if BoL work is still a part of Magick, but there it is used a little differently and it is much more controlled) to reach higher planes, usually.

Love is the law, love under will.

@Escarabaj said

"I'm curious who I'm really praying to...

On one hand, when I pray to God, I'm thinking of a Nuit-like concept. Praying to whatever force there might be out there, the Lord of the Universe type deal.

On the other hand, I recognize that any conception of God is limited by my mind, and still might implicitly be describing my HGA - even though I am aiming to signify something greater - because, to me, the HGA seems more personal than "God.""

IMVHO nobody can say what's the right or wrong way (for you or anybody else) to look at the thing, just because there's no right or wrong way to discern the thing intellectually.

Every image, every concept, is fine, until you know it's just a concept and you are not dogmatic about it, until you use the concept as a mean and not conceive it as the absolute (dogmatic, right in itself, read Bhakti Yoga by Vivekananda to understand what I mean here) truth or end.

I think that at beginning everyone need an image (or better, everybody uses it, consciouly or unconscioulsy), something to strive for, and this "image" is usually discerned with intellect (but it can also be an unconscious understanding, without possibility of putting it consciously into words, or without neither comprehending it consciously, in full) and so no image is wrong or right. Just take something that rings "true" for you and stick with it, only, again, not allowing it to become dogma (and starting to preach your view as the only right one), since every concept of God you can have is just your personal concept anyway, until there's no personal knowledge of it, and this personal knowledge in any case it's personal.

If the concept of looking at the "Lord of the Universe" who make you acquainted with a "Personal God" (HGA) seems good to you then go with it, and pray accordingly, constructing your invocations around this concept.

IMO, it's impossible to discern the thing intellectually anyway, and it's even more impossible for someone to do it for yourself, so why try beyond the simple mean to achieve the end? Stick with something that resonates with yourself and go with it. Elsewhere you go around in circles trying to understand something with intellect that cannot be understood with intellect alone, and you end up just debating about what you should pray to instead of praying.

To use words of Crowley, in The Temple of Solomon the King:
"...And it matters no whit to what we pray, whether it be to Buddha or to Christ, or the top-hat and gin-bottle of a West African ju-ju, so long as we pray with our whole heart; and eventually, as the Vision informs, belief, faith, prayer, worship and supplication vanish, the burning-glass of our Will has set on fire the white sheet of paper that had been our ideal; it crumples, turns brown, blackens, and bursts into flame. The gates of the mind swing apart, and the realm into which we rush is as different from the realm which we had contemplated as our ideal as the burning fire is to the cool white paper we had looked upon."

So, why spend an incredible amount of time trying to intellectually discern the "ideal" to aspire to if anyway it will crumble down?

@Escarabaj said

"
So I'm curious if it's really one-and-the-same thing or not. "

It is? It is not? Does it really matter?

I (again, IMVHO) think it does not.

I understand fully the problem you have, because I was similar to you in this point (and many others of similar nature) of trying to understand what the HGA was and what I should pray to.

I have (or had) to ascertain everything intellectually before starting the "work". Then, one day, I simply began to lose more and more the grip with words and intellect (especially on this point). My so dear "intellectual knowledge" I took years to erect and that I meticolously put piece for piece in place, it started to crumble down, so to speak, and I fully understood the meaning of "every idea possess a contradiction", and I did found myself totally lost for three days. It took me years to erect the tower, it crumbled in two nights.

The problem here is: you can erect whatever image of this, it will never be "real" when you reach it (albeit either for a simple glimpse).

@Escarabaj said

"
With Thelemic terms, I guess I'm asking when you are addressing Adonai vs. Nuit, and if you can even really get to the true Nuit without knowing Adonai first."

The last sentence someone more experienced than me can answer better.

As for HGA vs. The Lord of the Universe your view is perfectly fine (as anybody else). It is, in fact, very similar to the original Abramelin one, where you pray on God to send you His Holy Angel.

Praying for the Lord of the Universe to give you His Holy Angel, praying your Silent Self to arise, praying for a Praeterhuman Adept to listen you and start a fraternal bond with yourself, praying Khrisna/Ishvara/Vishnu etc., praying to an objective individual vs. a subjective one, all will bring to the same end if you don't mistake the image for what's beyond it. Every image being false, it is, at the same time perfectly true in itself.

Naturally this is my point of view. If Jim (or somebody experienced) says that I'm telling you idiocies then you would do better to listen to them and nevermind what I said.

@RobertAllen said

"
Crowley wrote an instruction that is 'based' on Bhakti yoga, and many other devotional practices the world over—Islamic, Christian, etc... The same is true for many other practices he authored that can be likened to gnana, karma, and other yogas—my assumption is that it was not specifically his attempt to recreate a bhakti or gnana practice, which would have been redundant (why not just practice yoga?). He synthesized the essence of many traditions. It is only easy for us to be reductive about this now, especially if we are principally interested in punching holes in another argument."

The principal argument was not this, however. This remark was just a side point. As for Bhakti, many practices on it were not widely known at the time of Crowley. The most predominant view at the time was the one of the Bhagavad Gita, that, while concerned with love it was more of an "austhere" and/or "noble" type (probably because originating and meant from an higher "class" of individuals) and less passionate as later examples of Bhakti. Liber Astarte is an example of such later Bhakti and it is interesting to note that Crowley reached the same conclusions in what you call "recreating" to those made by the disciples of Chaitanya (including Ramakhrisna), both in the approach to the experience and both in the type of result therein.

They even reached the same conclusions about the two different approaches (one of longing and one of searching) and alternating between the two.

@RobertAllen said

"
To say that the Abramelin operation is Bhakti yoga is the type of thing I am talking about. The statement is only true in a provisional sense—as if to say that it is Bhakti-like. It is patently false in a factual sense because it is derived from a document that cannot show direct influence from Indian traditions of yoga."

I never implied it was Bhakti in the strict sense, the remark (that was a little fuorviating, I admit) was made appositedly for the result on the way Crowley describes it and the way he approached the operation (i.e. marriage, intimacy, for this my remark after of the difference between bhava and prema). I don't know if Abramelin meant it exactly that way (it can possibly be, however).

@RobertAllen said

"
As for your general exceptions to my points, which, btw, are cherry picked, I can only counter that, regardless of what either you or I think yoga should be, there is actual usage and tradition that has to be reckoned with. Vivekenanda couldn't change this fact by expressing an opinion, and neither can you or I. He still referenced the Hatha Yogi as a yogi."

And in fact I said that an yogi is still an yogi, no matter if he uses Yoga for liberation or not, the same as a magician is still a magician no matter the way he uses magic.

This, however, doesn't change the fact that Hatha-Yoga is a discipline for liberation and not for physical health, so those that use it for the latter use it for a different scope than for what it was created. For this my statement on manierism vs. art.

And, btw, it is not "cherry picking" because the Hatha-Yoga done in studios miss completely the major point of Hatha-Yoga: Pranayama. That would be like pretending that in such and such a place they are teaching you to drive in a rally while they make you practice with a car with all assists on.

@RobertAllen said

"
Hatha yoga is yoga! That's what is taught in most yoga studios outside of India. It's yoga, it's primary objective is health, not liberation. "

Hatha yoga should comprehend Pranayama (it should be the most important point there, in fact), a thing in the studios you talk about it's never used, or if it is only very superficially. So no, it's not the same thing, at all.

@RobertAllen said

"
See Vivekenanda's assertion that the hatha yogi is only interested in living forever, not liberation. They can have other objectives as well, but the practice of hatha yoga is primarily concerned with achieving a certain kind of physical perfection."

And in fact Vivekananda calls them "yogi" in a sort of dispregiative sense. Hatha Yoga primary concern is NOT "physical perfection" but still liberation, see the Hatha Yoga pradipika etc. If there are certain people that use some of the practices therein for physical health that's not dissimilar from using magical powers to fulfill the ego desires.

In short terms, a magician is still a magician no matter what he sought and does, as an yogi is still an yogi no matter what and an artist is still an artist no matter what. Still, at the same time, true art is completely different from manierism.

@RobertAllen said

"
My previous comments were meant to be helpful. Obviously, your friend is interested in presenting the 'philosophy' (wrong word because it's more of a method, but it was the word you used originally) of Raja Yoga. Crowley wrote about Raja yoga! If you are interested I may still be able to make a focused suggestion."

Crowley didn't talk only about Raja. Liber Astarte (as all the Abramelin operation etc.) are good examples of Bhakti Yoga (and the difference therein in bhava/prema). Raja-Yoga comprehends in its structure (as every form of Yoga, btw, but in this case more prominent) many other branches, from Karma, Jnana, Mantra and Hatha.

Double post, sorry.

I think, Jim, that the motive why the TC takes a lot for the symptoms of the "lock" to appear is that he uses another way to approach the experience.

In fact, he even says so when he mentions that he learned to use the "corpse" for OBEs. When you practice those authors say to you to relax all the muscles in progression, and this is probably what he is doing.

That's one way to do it. It will come a point when the "lock" will happen also there, but it takes much more, about 40-60 minutes (if not mixed with any sort of pranayama) in confront to when you tense the muscles (where it happens fast - especially when you are good at it - but you have to endure pain before). Strangely enough, while doing the typical "tense" routine as prescribed by Crowley the "lock" works much faster in straight positions, it doesn't work (at last for me) at all while in corpse, and the other way around (i.e. relaxing doesn't trigger the "lock" in a straight position, or very difficulty so, if not aided by anything else).

As for the pain etc. again I think the TC is mistaking what he experiences for something else. While related (because they are anyway still Kundalini phenomena for what I can understand) the type of experience he described is more similar to the first avenues of an OBE in certain specific cases (as they can arise on his own, read for example the Pineal Door method by Oliver Fox) than what it happens in a typical Asana. Still the pain should not be there after, if not for a brief period, so maybe he is tensing hard the jaw in the process (it happens almost always the first times this process kickstart, because you think the experience is physical so you automatically tense the jaw and the neck strongly as a reflex, and this in turns also stops the process).

This coming from my experience in both things. I can be wrong, naturally, but just giving my two cents on the issue.

Thank you for the reply Jim.

However I didn't put to much emphasis in a method in confront to another, it was just a curiosity arising from the fact that J. St. J. had a different achievement than prior operations, so I wanted to understand if that was tied in part to the primary "method" used or not (ED: isn't this sentence a contradiction? OMG). Which you duly summarized in:

**"There is no technical difference here. Really. None. Or, rather, the difference is about the same as the difference between doing a pentagram ritual with a wand or your index finger." **

(Which, anyway, was the same answer I "received" in the night while pondering about this, and I then thought that I was an idiot - the same that was implied in your post ; **teaching: **I should wait a bit - long perhaps - before posting, really, and not trouble myself too much with particulars, also because I find in this period that whatever I try to explain in words, it's never quite the full thing or never accurate - and for this the repeating of the same question over and over - it's really a pain for myself that I have always been so tied to words).

Thank you again for clarifing it for me.

93,

@TOHPA said

"93
I don't think there is a specific result that "guarantees" the K&C process."

I never implied the contrary. What I want to understand is if the two different methods used by Crowley have a different result in their applications (all in all he used two different ways to do it, and he both obtained different results therein; now it must be seen if the different result was caused by the different approach or other factors, and this is what I'm trying to ascertain).

In very little words: does using a more "yogic" method differs in results from using a more "magical" one? ("Yogic" method being the one used in John St. John, "magical" method being the one used in Samekh, Liber VIII, Abramelin etc.)

My question goes a little beyond the "everyone must find his/her own method". It is more a question of a technical nature (in this case referred to a same individual - Crowley - using two different ways and having different attainments therein).

93 93/93,
Lavir-

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

In these last days I’m studying material concerning the HGA. In my research I’ve come across (or at last I think so) a difference in the method used by Crowley, so I’m trying to understand if there’s really a difference or they are two different methods with the same results.

Abramelin, Liber VIII and Liber Samekh all have as the primary part of the ceremony a prayer or invocation. In John St. John, however, Crowley seems to use another method as the principal way to approach the experience. Mixed in with Asana, Pranayama, Mantras etc. (that form a similar pattern as found in Liber Astarte) the principal aspect of the ceremony is this:

…my eyes were turned back, in, up to the Third Eye; my tongue was rolled back in my mouth; and my thoughts, radiating from that Third Eye, I strove to shut in unto an ever narrowing sphere by concentrating my will upon the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel.

…I should like to explain the difficulty. It would be easy enough to form a magical Image of Adonai: and He would doubtless inform it. But it would only be an Image. This may be the meaning of the commandment "Thou shalt not make any graven image," etc., just as "Thou shalt not have any other Gods but me" implies single-minded devotion (Ekagrata) to Adonai. So any mental or magical Image must necessarily fall short of the Truth. Consequently one has to will that which is formless; and this is very difficult. To concentrate the mind upon a definite thing is hard enough; yet at least there is something to grasp, and some means of checking one's result. But in this case, the moment one's will takes a magical shape -- and the will simply revels in creating shapes -- at the moment one knows that one has gone off the track. {72} This is of course (nearly enough) another way of expressing the Hindu Meditation whose method is to kill all thoughts as they arise in the mind. The difference is that I am aiming at a target, while they are preventing arrows from striking one. In my aspiration to know Adonai, I resemble their Yogis who concentrate on their "personal Lord"; but at the same time it must be remembered that I am not going to be content with what would content them. In other words, I am going to "define" "the Knowledge and Conversation of my Holy Guardian Angel" as equal to Neroda-Samapatti, the trance of Nibbana.

For what I can understand from it Crowley used, as the principal method to approach the experience, a closing-off of all thoughts, with only the will directed towards Adonai. It seems to me that the method is a little different than a prayer or invocation, since in this latter there’s a flow of thoughts directed toward the “object” while in the former thoughts were not used at all, but only Will was (and this was naturally “build-up” from invocations etc., but the main aspect of the ceremony was different), with an “awaiting” instead of a “search”.

So my question is: do these two different methods bring the same result or not? Namely, it’s this the difference in the nature of the experience in John St. John in respect to, for example, the Abramelin operation he performed earlier, or it is just a different approach with no consequences therein?

I understand that “everyone approaches the Angel as s/he likes” and all that, but here there’s a “technical” difference on how the ceremony is approached? I wondered if there was really a technical reason or it was just preference.

From my experience it comes a point in an invocation when all the thoughts, properly directed towards the object of the meditation, seems to flow in that patter, so as to literally “shut-off” or give a “short-circuit” to them. However, again in my experience, the result is somewhat different that starting from a full “closing of all thoughts” with only Will directing versus the object. The former is, as I said before, more about "finding, searching", the latter more about "waiting, surrendering".

What are your thoughts/experiences on the matter?

Love is the law, love under will.

Lavir.

@Solitarius said

"An hour four times a day?

You Sir, are quite mad.

And where do you find the time? I'm far too busy trying to get by to devote that much time to practice. And what asana are you using?

"

I don't work now so I have all the time I want. Anyway I have a lot of time to spare to do many other things (I'm working on Liber O part V primarily atm) the same.

6.00 AM - 7.00 AM, 12.00 AM - 01.00 PM, 18.00 PM - 19.00 PM, 23.00 PM - 24.00 PM.

Usually I don't do this much, but I wanted to see if I could conquer Asana soon (before I had to return to work), so as to benefit also the practice of Liber O (no needed, but it can help).

I use the God posture.

And yes, it is boring, a lot, but just for this it is an useful practice. All yoga I think it's extremely bothersome (apart maybe Pranayama) but that's one of the points.

I think that the most important part on learning how to do it at first is to go with what you are better at in the beginning, and then by and by start working on adding all the senses.

Since I'm good at visual stimuli I did put the major emphasis on it. So seeing the physical and the room, etc., but others people can be different than me, naturally.

So you can accustom the technique at first to what you are better and then work on other points. For example if you are good at keeping a spatial perspective around (or having kinesthetic sensations from the "body") then, instead of immediately trying to "look", after the transfer (and when you are somewhat stable in that other perspective), you could for example do the LBRP in that body (I've tried it once and it worked very good also for me that I'm not so strong in it as I'm visualizing, so I imagine that it would work perfectly for someone good there). That is very good an excercize because you have to do gestures, utter words (so either "hearing" your voice in there) travel around etc.

When you feel somewhat "stable" then try to look (the tracing of the Tau, pentagrams/archangels etc. should already have started the process, btw, and you can either already receive impressions of the circle you have created) or try to touch things or any similar thing.

Every sense you bring in the "body" further makes you tied with it. So, in this case, starting from kinesthetic/spatial, then you can follow with trying to incorporate touching in there, then hearing, then visualizing and so on, depending on what you are better and what makes you "merge" with that body by and by. The LBRP, in the above example, already does all of this for you, adding spatial, hearing, touch and visual stimuli by and by, so I think it's a very good way to start with if you aren't so good at visualizing from beginning.

Btw, if I remember correctly (and correct me if I'm wrong), this is the same advice (of doing the LBRP in there if you have problems with it) Regardie gave in "The Tree of Life".

@Solitarius said

"
As for numbness, I don't think I've ever had total loss of sensation, there is always some discomfort, but to my mind its just your body letting you know that its still there; although very recently I've gotten to the point where I am sort of detached from it for short periods during the latter part of the practice, the discomfort is still there, but as if it were in the next room as it were, and not particularly irritating.
"

IME the time it takes for your body to become anesthetized becomes less and less as time goes on. I've come to the point that I lose almost all sensation of the body after 4-5 minutes (the moment the pain starts) and it seems like I'm "floating".

When I started I could not reach that point at all, then it started happening at the end of the practice, then it took less and less time and became more tied to the pain starting, till reaching the point I'm now that they come togheter and last for the whole practice (the pain comes in waves - sometimes it stops, then resume, sometimes it is always present but in lower/stronger waves - and sometimes a wave can be almost unbearable; I must add that the pain, at last for me, it is not always pain in the full literal sense, it can be a sort of "electric/emotional" discomfort as inside your bones - I have not proper words to describe it - but this type of pain it's MUCH more difficult to endure).

I think that when you conquer the Asana the pain stops altogheter and the anesthesia comes somewhat immediately (or so what Crowley wrote seems to indicate that happening). So I'm doubling my effort on it (I do keep the Asana four times a day for an hour - I have not to work in this period so I can work at it much more - and it is a literal fight with myself to keep it that much, sometimes at 50 or so minutes it is like all the universe tells you "it's enough", but I grind my teeths till the end).

@Solitarius said

"
It would be daft to try to sit in your asana for an hour from the start of your probation to its conclusion; that would be like trying to begin pushing weights by using the maximum load from day one, your enthusiasm would soon burn out once you realised the impossibility of the act."

But at the same time if you never dare to, never try to go "too much" you don't know what "too much" is. IME trying to discerning intellectually how much is "too much" or "appropriate" makes the practice much less useful and much much slower.

If you find a good teacher in martial arts and you practice cardio with him, for example he doesn't let you behave on what you think it's "fine" for you. He push farther and farther and either makes you think you will die (and you don't), especially at beginning. Naturally doing this by yourself it's more difficult, but with a little of will it is possible (and I think it's either one of the points).

@Solitarius said

"
I have not "mastered" asana, and when i first began practicing meditation five or six years ago i could barely sit still for ten minutes at a time, I was a lazy practitioner, (I still am sometimes) but now, on a good day i will sit for half an hour, I find it better to get your body accustomed to longer periods as time goes on, rather than force it on blindly, because I guarantee you that if you sit in the dragon for half an hour your legs will go to sleep, I have yet to push past 35 minutes, but i can tell you that at the moment that involves several minutes of acute agony upon quitting the asana."

Here, however, there's a discern to be made. Also in the God position your body gets "numb". It depends what numbness you talk about. If it is numbness caused by lack of circulation, then it's bad (really bad), if it is numbness caused by the body going to sleep (as it does) then it is what it will do (keeping the body still will force the brain to discard the input from it). But the comment in Liber IV is right, because if numbness is not caused by circulation you will have pain along it (either coming in waves). IMO you are relaxing your physical too much on your heels and for what I can discern in the technique (and the way I do it), the body should not be "resting" or "totally relaxing" (Liber IV part I explains it better than I can do).

For example, also if you use the God position you can either feel no pain at all if your arms relax totally and you have them resting on your thigs. So, to assure you don't do it, it's better to keep the hands on the knees, so that you have to keep that position with tension.

There are two ways, in fact, to receive no more impressions from the body. The first is to relax it fully, in steps (for example laying in a bed, progressing from the feet to the head and completely relaxing the parts of the body in full), the second to keep it still, with tension. In the first case there's no pain, but (for what I could see) you will have to do the process anew all the time, in the second the body comes to a point where when the position is took then it "shuts off" immediately, but it is a literal "fight" to conquer.

@Kingsolomon said

"Im sorry Jim, "Scrying in the spirit vision"."

I can tell you how I approach it. Keep it naturally as only a point of view, it can work or not work for you too. Anyway:

I follow the first step in Liber O (ED: forgot to add that's much, much easier to do all of this in a darkened roomn for various motives), creating an astral robed figure in front of me (and looking at me, also if a little above, because standing while I'm sitting). When I can reach a somewhat vivid 3D look of it and it becomes "solid" then I just feel myself there (switching the spatial perspective around, twisting my normal p.o.v, this usually makes me feel already in another place). When I'm a little accustomed there (sometimes I jump back and forth for a while, sometimes it happens immediately, sometimes I cannot do it at all, it depends) then I start looking.

Here "looking" it is a little tricky. The thing that can happen is that you try to use the physical eyes to look at the blackness behind the eyelids and this could prevent you from seeing anything (it depends, if you are relaxed after a while the physical eyes "shut" by themselves anyway and/or if the "transfer" is done well it happens by itself, automatically). The advice I can give you is to start pretending that your physical eyes receives impression no more (maybe by going a little forward with the focus or "releasing" them up - as you do when you go to sleep) and pretend you should look the room (if nothing comes then try to imagine it a bit, but don't focus on having all details, let the impressions come by themselves mostly). It works much better if you can have your mind blank while you do this, all it is much easier (if you cannot do it then you can try with a mantra or similar to not have your conscious mind and your doubts/expectations block the process; I usually do a little of "clearing thoughts" before starting).

One thing I discovered is important at this point (and that really makes you feel you are there) is that there should be a sort of spatial perspective in what you perceive. For example: if you look at the room there should be a sense of the distance in it, it should not be "all in your face" and flat as it can be a TV screen (you can work also in that way, naturally, but it will not have the same impact).

When you can have a somewhat clear impression of the room behind your physical from that p.o.w (for me the impressions are somewhat "transparent" and 3D like, as I said, and they have a sort of white/light at the point I'm now) then try to look at your physical body. The first times you will try it you will immediately think of your physical body and either jump in there immediately, so, if this last happens, begin everything from the start. When you can succesfully have impressions of your physical without thinking of it and checking it then you are ready to try to look around and receive impression from all the room. (Naturally you can do all of this in steps - i.e. one time practice the "transfer", when you are somewhat good at it practice the "looking" etc. - in fact I've done it this way, and not all in the same practice because it took a while for me to accustom to every single point).

From there you can do what you want to do, as creating a door with a symbol in it or either impress it in the door in your room, pass it, use the appropriate names to call the vision etc. I still have a little problems on feeling that "body" fully, but I don't mind it.

If the impressions you receive at beginning are vague don't worry, they were for me also at first and they are becoming better as I keep at it. The same don't worry too much if you seem to receive impressions that are not in perfect prospective at first (as things looking farther or closer etc) or they are exactly as your room is (I either found out that sometimes I received an impression of a thing that was in a place the day before, for example) they are not the details that are important (or at last for me) but the "general" impression.

This is for what it concerns having a "body" in there. If you just want to receive impressions as in a screen, everything it's even easier, but you usually need a symbol or an invocation (or similar) to start with (or at last I know no other way) and then, when you feel you are "linked", simply start receiving impressions (they will be flat and maybe a little above or not centered, but it depends). The symbol can be used as a "window" (on where the impression starts) or it can vanish totally to become something else (or many other things).

And this is how I do it (I usually practice only the "traveling" now, but when I was younger I did only the "skrying", and used a medium usually, because knew no other way). I also think that skrying can lead to traveling in the long run, because before I took a break from it I started receiving impressions similar to what I receive now when I practice the above, so you can try to start with it if you cannot have a full perspective in there.

As I said it can work for you or not. It can even be that it can (in fact) hinder you. However maybe, since I'm a beginner, something will be similar since we are in the same boat.

EDIT: You can either check "A short course in skrying" by Benjamin Rowe that gives similar steps with a different flavor (he begins by imagining a scene "flat" then, when good at it, putting a "body" in there), or "Crystal Vision through Cristal Gazing" by Achad for skryng with a medium.

@Mephis said

"My experience:

I've had problems on the other end of the spectrum, interestingly enough: for a period of about three months I couldn't help but project my " Body of Light," which is a vastly different experience from what I see described here."

You are talking about so-called OBEs here.

@Mephis said

"
I'm sorry to say that 98% of human beings are incapable of entering the Astral realm on their own volition, and many that claim to travel in the "Astral" really have no idea what they are talking about. I think Mr. Allen is perhaps the only one besides Mr. Eshelman who has surefire experience in this realm. "

Apart that I don't think Jim neither care about OBEs (surely he has had many of them, but that's another thing) because they are completely unconsciously directed, you think they are the "real deal" there, when I think it's not. To begin with because (also if you seem to think the contrary) and OBE is much easier to do than a full astral journey (for as I see it now) as someone as Crowley could do. And also because:

• It is very difficult to have them at will (i.e. being perfectly sure you will succeed or doing them when YOU - consciously - want to), so you will never be able to "slip" from a state to another fast and reliably (as a full link to the conscious/subconscious can enable you to do) or being "here and there" at the same time.
• When you are "out" the subconscious takes completely the lead. You seems to be conscious of what you do in there, but you are NOT. Later you discover, in fact, that all your "choices" were not choices at all in a controlled sense. Example: you are in your room, while there you think "I'm going through the roof to try this and that", but later, when you are conscious, you mind why you did want to go from the roof at all and instead not doing something completely different (and maybe much more important), and so on.
• How can you have a "direction" estabilished before? The only way is to probably think intensely of what you care to before the experiment, but given that A) there's a lapse in consciousness in any case (so it can be that all your intent is erased), and B) anyway you cannot control it later, as explained above), what's the point?
• They are very short (usually) and done in "laps" (namely, you exit, re-enter, exit again and so on).

Then, it is not difficult at all to have an OBE, on the contrary it is almost too easy after a while (much more than having a full conscious/subconscious communication from an awake state of mind). You just have to do them from an "asleep-awake-back to bed" frame of mind at first (or, even faster, using the hypnopompic one, i.e. willed awake-not move-exit) , to understand what you must do later.

But still, there's no real communication between the conscious and subconscious in that case. Amusing and interesting experiences, sure (I've had many of them, in fact), but after having that Enochian experience I was talking about, I assure you that they come neither close to it. It can be less "spectacular" from a semi-physical experience (if you care about it) and probably (naturally it depends) seem less "real" at beginning (this comes from the society frame of mind that "imagination" is not real and a silly thing, a concept you have no problem to discard when your subconscious takes the lead), but the emotional link and content (and so probably the use you can do of them for the Great Work and the impact on your psyche) it's much much stronger, even for someone like me that's only at the beginning in it (so I imagine for someone like Jim).

Btw, I think that when that link (conscious/subconscous) is fully estabilished, the "reality" of what you experience (either from a pure external categorization, as you do, as if it was the important thing, when it's not) is the same as you get in an OBE (if not more). But this someone other better experienced at it than me at can say it better. I can only say that for me there are not differences at all in images I get in an OBEs and images I get when I watch a movie in my mind (it changes for the moment if I try to have a first person view in there) apart the conscious effort I do (explained better in my thread).

@Mephis said

"
That being said, the secret is this: there is a door between your dream-world and your waking-world. You have to find this door, and learn to control it at Will. In most people, this door swings between consciousness and REM sleep as natural, unconscious mechanism. To enter the astral one must become expert at picking the lock. Be one with the door, young grasshopper. "

Nothing new on this, and, in any case, the only way ALL people can experience an OBE (nobody can do it from a conscious state). You seem to think you are one of the "elected people" capable of doing something only the elite can do, but you are not, at all and OBEs are EASIER (much) to obtain than a full conscious/subconsious communication (for example I'm very good at the former, and learned them easily, while I'm only at the beginning in the latter, and it will take me a lot of time learn how to do it).

Btw, If you read my thread, you will know that I mixed Astral Travel with OBEs myself too.