College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

As it´s usually said, technology is nothing per se, but how we use it and so on. Apart that, I usually find that people tends to polarizate about one or the other aspect of technology/internet use, the good or the not so good, which makes me think in a line on Cosmopolis movie/book, that makes the question a question of faith on technology or something:

""Technology is crucial to civilization why? Because it helps us make our fate. We don't need God or miracles or the flight of the bumble bee. But it is also crouched and undecidable. It can go either way.” "

As a functional model, yes that's how we conceive observation... with our minds...

You might find the link below interesting...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_materialism

If you want to be a real empiricist, like the scientists, then you have to accept that you empiricism requires never making an absolute statement. It's about probabilities and the simplest solution, for the time being.

From an empirical point of view, you wouldn't say that there is, for an absolute certainty, a physical world. If you said that, from an empirical point of view, an objective physical world that we subjectively observe is the simplest explanation, and the most likely - given what we know, then anyone arguing with you would be silly.

JAE 93,

Thanks for the highly qualified Yes. 😉 Yes, I meant the Beatific Vision, which can be easy to slip into, however briefly, when it's a sunny day in late summer and there's nothing particularly pressing on your mind. The beauty of the day on the physical level opens, at least momentarily, into a sense of beauty on deeper levels than Assiah.

I wanted to see if you saw a specific objection to the notion I suggested, rather than if you agreed. That is, that a delusory idea might be forming up, beyond the usual obstacle of concluding "I" have perceived (or even attained) something über-cool.

93 93/93,

EM

I don't belong to any of the above listed organizations but I believe the only requirement is residency so that you can receive initiation/instruction. How you get there, I can't say I see how that would be relevant at all.

@PatchworkSerpen said

"93

Something I happened upon whilst meditating on Liber AL I:8-9.

The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs. Worship then the Khabs, and behold my light shed over you!

It is of the utmost certainty in my mind that the formula of attainment has changed following the Equinox of the Gods, but this verse seems to change not only the method (the 'how'), but also the object of attainment: The 'what' if you will. (or less appropriately, the 'why' - Be he damned for a dog! 👿)
For as the Khabs is now defined as residing within the Khu, man is seen as being perfect in and of himself from the very beginning. Hence, the Great Work consists of a 'simplification', a making transparent of the veils that hide the innermost of the light of the 'dark star'; the initiate.
Or in fewer words, knowing and doing one's True Will in the highest harmony and perfection."

Indeed.

"How, then do older conceptions of 'Union with God', 'attaining Kether', 'Enlightenment' and 'Non-Dualism' fit into this system of attainment?

For if as one rises in degree of initiation one is only becoming more and more oneself, making the Khu and its derivatives a more effective vehicle for the light of the Khabs, where does 'becoming One with the All' and so on become relevant?"

It is the attaining of Khabs. It is the revealing of Oneself to oneself. " Initiation means the Journey Inwards: nothing is changed or can be changed; but all is trulier understood with every step." (Little Essays Toward Truth)

"It seems now (especially following a chance reference to this subject I discovered in The Book of Lies, Ch. 55) that these Trances appear (like samadhi) to be but siddhis, and thus distractions from the ultimate path of doing of one's Will that we, like Artemis, must ultimately reject in favour of PAN."

They ARE the realization of Pan. It is the realization of the 'All-One'; of oneself as Pan. "A man must think of himself as a LOGOS, as going, not as a fixed idea. "Do what thou wilt" is thus necessarily his formula. He only becomes Himself when he attains the loss of Egoity, of the sense of separateness. He becomes All, PAN, when he becomes Zero." (The Antecedents of Thelema)

"So has Union with God been displaced from the crown of the Summum Bonum, or merely redefined?

93, 93/93"

Redefined. I think one important point is that Thelema doesnt focus on Solve to the exclusion of Coagula (like many Hindu and Buddhist systems which seek to 'escape' or 'be liberated' from the Wheel of Rebirth). We attain to 0, but then we express that 0 as 2 with joy.

IAO131

With this line of discussion i think we are approaching the need for a definition of "Time" itself(i do have one) and if not a definition, then a description of it's nature. This would naturally also include the idea of "Alternate time lines" and/or Universes. Generally however I am at present partial to "Novelty Theory" by Terence Mckenna. That is to a certain extent the Beginning and End are fixed, but what happens in -between is somewhat flexible.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtnV25LWFQ8

www.sculptors.com/~salsbury/Articles/singularity.html