[kj] Crowley/Coleman/Gurdjieff

[Djehuti111]

Good Afternoon Si,

--- god botherer <acroastic at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi again Aleph!
> 
> I'll be brief, because it's evident to me now that
> there isn't actually much 
> that separates us.

 I agree.
 I think that we use a lot of the same "tools" (ie:
Qaballah, meditation, psychology etc.) but are simply
building different structures with them.
 
> Words, as I'm sure you'll agree. are inadequate 
> for this sort of thing, and misconceptions are 
> easy to come by.

 It's always tricky when using the "rational mind" to
describe ecstatic experience.

 Sometimes it seems as fruitless as trying to describe
the color Blue to someone who is blind.
 
> So when you say that these entities are internal
> rather than external, I agree. Ultimately, there is 
> no distinction between internal and external, as 
> meditation will confirm.

 I agree, but attempting to discuss a topic like this
with someone who's never bothered to delve into the
realms of the "inner" via meditation or prayer seems
to alienate people more often than not.
 
 I've had conversations on the
Crowley/Mysticism/Paganism topic here more than a few
times, often with folks who weren't open to learning
something new or that couldn't be bothered to listen
due to the fact that their minds were already made up
from some article that they'd read years ago etc.

 My personal theory tends to lean a little more
towards "Bend, lest ye break."

 I think the reason that our discussion seems to be
flowing a little easier (and that we're not calling
each other names) is that it seems that we both seem
to have some experience in actually DOING the work
involved instead of just reading a book or hearing a
story and forming an opinion without bothering to find
out the truth for one's self.

 You can read about what a certain beach in Thailand
looks like, but until you've travelled there and stood
on it and seen it with your own eyes, you can't
possibly have the experience of being there.

> But we still need to use
> figures of speech.

 Especially when we only know each other via an 
electronic discussion forum. ;)
 
> The three negative veils to which you refer, and
> Kether for that matter, are 
> beyond duality, yes.

 Not only beyond duality, but beyond comprehension by
the "rational" mind (Ruach) below the Abyss.

>  Here, perhaps, is where Adam
> and Eve dwelt before 
> eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
> (please don't think I'm 
> being literal). We, however, operate in the world of
> action (a term I used 
> before, and I was using it in a Kabbalistic sense)
> in which every thought or 
> act is significant. 

  While it's true that the world of action (Assiah) is
where our physical bodies reside, most of what takes
place inside them (thought, contemplation, meditation,
dreaming (day or night etc.)) takes place in the
Yetziratic realm.

 We spend roughly 90% of our lives on the Yetziratic
or "Astral Plane" which resides in the sphere of
Yesod, the first sephirah of the Ruach (Which
translates roughly into "Breath" the same as do the
terms Prana, Chi, Spirit, etc.)

 Let me demonstrate....
 Close your eyes (not now or you won't be able to read
what comes next! ;) and imagine an orange.
 That visualization took place on the Astral.

 I've wandered a bit here..
My initial point was supposed to be that we operate on
all planes simultaneously, not just in the world of
Assiah.

> Of cousre balance is essential.
> That is at the heart of 
> Kabbalah.

 I'm a Qaballist too, so I know in what sense you're
using these terms.

 Don't worry, we're "speaking the same language". 
 Except that you spell Qaballah differently. ;)

> I fully agree that to ignore one's shadow
> side is folly. 

 I'm going to bring this phrase up again a little
further down in the email.

>Remember, 
> I am a Killing Joke fan. Why do I love this music so
> much? Because it is the 
> only music I know which so powerfully expresses
> light and darkness 
> simultaneously - well that's today's reason anyway.
> 
> Any serious attempt at self observation reveals one
> dark side. It is 
> dishonest to be blind to it, and leads to all sorts
> of conditions. We are 
> agreed on this I think.

 Absolutely, achieving balance is the basis of not
only Religion (at least it should be IMHO), but of
Psychology and of the laws of Nature as well.

> Where we seem to differ is in our understanding of
> this good and evil 
> business. Good and evil is not just another set of
> opposites. 

 They are literally two opposing sides of the same
moralistic "coin".
 This means that they are opposites by definition, and
should be treated the same ie: brought into balance.

>You say that a 
> swing to either extreme is dangerous. How can it >
be dangerous to try to resist one's evil 
> inclinations and lean more and more towards 
> the good, the real and the true? 

 "Resist" is the key word is your sentence here.

  What I'm saying is that to deny what is an integral
part of one's nature (the shadow), to deny that what
you call one's "evil" side, is to ignore to a part of
what makes you whole.

 The Shadow side (as well as the Light) needs to be
acknowledged, accepted and even embraced and then
intergrated into the whole.

 If you try to ignore a part of your nature because
you find it distasteful or uncouth or evil, it will
eventually strike back or flare up with a vengeance.
 Again, this is basic psychology.

 This is what "Love is the law, Love under Will"
means.

 Love is the Law, but it must be balanced by it's
opposite, the strength of Will, in order to achieve
balance.


 In Qaballah, the Tree of Life is composed of three
pillars, The Pillar of Severity the Pillar of Mercy
and the Pillar of Equilibrium.

 Is it any surprise that both Tiphareth and Kether are
both on that Middle Pillar?

 Every single sphere on the tree has a Light and
Shadow side.
 To ignore either side is disasterous, and goes
against the laws of Nature.

 Winter, when crops die and the days are long and dark
is not an "Evil" season, nor is Spring "Good".

 Both are necessary and must be acknowledged for
balanced, healthy growth.

 Back to the Adam and Eve reference for a second.
After they'd both eaten the forbidden fruit, didn't
God proclaim "Behold, the man has become as one of us
(Which strangely enough seems to imply that there is
more than just One God here) to know good and evil"?

 This is the duality that comes from Unity.

 It seems to me to be a call to recognise that both
are inherent within us, equillibrate them, and be like
Gods.

 Heh, you don't REALLY think that an all seeing, all
knowing, perfect "being" such as the God of the King
James version of the Bible would let a mistake like
that happen do you? ;)

 To know both sides of your nature (duality) and
combine them into a single balanced whole (Unity) is
to achieve Divinity.

 That's just my take on it though.

>I do not believe that this
> implies imbalance. Far from 
> it. Evil is where there are imbalances, illusions,
> distortions, lies - the 
> unreal. You seem to see good and evil as equally
> desirable 

 Yes, equally desirable in so far that they are both
necessary for creating a Unity.

> - I woud suggest 
> that the symbolic language or pictures you are
> working with are misleading.

 I would suggest that you and I haven't had the
experiences, and (not to "pull rank" here) that
perhaps I might know a little bit more about Crowley's
system and how it works. 

 I am an Initiate in two different Thelemic Orders, 
one of which happens to uses a "Tree of Life" schema
as a map for Initiation.

 I am literally walking, living, eating and breathing
that Tree. 

 The Macrocosm of the Tree is inherant in the
Microcosm that is the human.

 As above, so below.

 It seems that specific morals, and the concept of
Good and Evil are important to you and I don't wish to
change your mind on the topic.

 I'd just like to suggest again that it's my belief
that I know more about the system that I'm working
than you do and it doesn't make me feel Evil to
acknowledge that I have a shadow and to work with it
in order to become a whole, healthy and sane person.

> I have sinned and sinned well. And perhaps that >
will retrospectively be seen as an important 
> stage on my road to illumination or
> enlightenment. 

 It's worked that way for me.

 As it says in the Book of the Law;
"The word of sin is restriction."
 and as it says in some musty auld book of Crowley's
poetry;
 "That is sin, to hold thy Holy Spirit in."

 I firmly believe that there are no "bad" lessons in
my life.
 I try to learn something from every experience that I
have.

> I can 
> only hope so. (Blake's Songs of Innocence and
> Experience come to mind.) But 
> it's not a very clever way to get there. 

 Through experiencing your own joys and despairs,
making your own mistakes and learning from them and
really LIVING your life you mean?
 IS there another way to learn?

 We all need to skin our own knees to fully experience
the physical and emotional qualities that are inherent
within that experience.

> I know how
> my sin has led me away 
> from reality. My conclusion is that good is the only
> real. Evil leads 
> ultimately to extinction.

 Actually, both are real and must be recognized.

 Unbalanced Mercy is weakness, unbalanced Severity is
but oppression, Equilibrium the basis of the great
Work. 
 
> Back now to Crowley. You would exonerate him of any
> charge of using people, 
> because everyone is responsible for their own
> actions,

 As I mentioned in my last letter, I don't understand
how you think Crowley "used" people.

 But, yes, I do think that we are all responsible for
our own actions.

> but I know that there 
> are some people not blessed with great 
> intelligence around whom I could  weave a spell; > I
could heavily influence their
> actions. 

 Well, you COULD do that, so could I, but black Magick
has never been my bag.

> How responsible can 
> they be if their intelligence does not permit them
> to see what I am doing to 
> them? 

 One of the things that I know about anybody working
in a Thelemic Order is they have taken certain Oaths
to discover who they really are.

  Intelligent or not, this is by NO means done against
their Will.

>The ultimate case would be those with learning
> difficulties, or the 
> mentallty handicapped, to use the now non-PC term.
> People in these 
> categories are often exploited, but perhaps we all
> sit somewhere on a 
> sliding scale. We have a duty of care towards those
> less fortunate than 
> ourselves. I don't think Crowley recognised such a
> duty of care.

 I beg to differ and offer up again that you can't
possibly know what how it feels to be an Initiate
without going through Initiation.

 Here's some crucial reading on the topic if you are
so inclined.
 http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/lib150.htm

> Will his 
> philosophy cause you not to recognise it either.

 As mentioned before, I'm not blindly following in
Crowley's footsteps, nor do I desire to.

 I hope that you're not implying that I'm unable to
think for myself?

 I don't think that if one were for example, a
Buddhist, that this implication would be made as
quickly.

 Be aware that you are projecting your fears and
passing judgement on me simply because of what you
think you know about Aleister Crowley. 
 
 I am not he, nor do I desire to be.

 Please stop worrying that I may be spiralling
downwards blindly and will start eating babies and
crucifying cats or making pacts with the devil soon.

 I'm an adult and make my own decisions and am
ultimately responsible for ALL of my own actions.

 I've made mistakes and will probably make more
throughout my life, but I'm hoping that I learn who I
really am from them in the end.
 
> Finally, how do you square your claim that 
> Crowley reached illumination with 
> the very squalid last years that he played out? 
> Did Frater Perdurabo really endure?

 Interesting line of thought here, (can you PROVE that
Crowley attained?) and I'll tie it in with the same
thought started in my last answer.

 Would you see this any differently if he'd spent his
life begging for food as the Buddha (and many of his
followers) did?

 Is this the same type of "using" people that you
think Crowley did?

 How about the Christ?
 Was he "using" his followers by taking them through
treks through the desert where they starved for days
on end just to be near him because they truly believed
in what he had to say?


 Do you think that in order to be "Illuminated" one
must live in a palace surrounded by wealth?

 It's my opinion that both the Palace and the wealth
come from within.
 
> Before closing let me say that you are absolutely
> right. People should be continually exposing 
> themselves to new thoughts and ideas in order 
> to keep expanding their knowledge, their 
> understanding, and thier outlook on life.

 Running water never stagnates. ;)

> Thank you for helping me to do that.

 I thank you back! 
 
> All GOOD wishes!

 Heh, how about I wish you all the best?
 
> Si
> 
> P.S. For what it's worth, everything I've read
> suggests that, yes, Gardner 
> got it all off Crowley. Not sure that extends to "Do
> what thou wilt and it 
> harm none." That's pretty genuinely ancient, isn't
> it

 Uh, it really depends getting the quote right and on
who's story you believe. ;)

 Since Crowley wrote most of Gardner's Rituals, it's
likely that "An it harm none, do what you will." came
from "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the
Law".

 I'd also like to point out that "...do what you will"
is very different that "Do what thout WILT".

 If you read Liber 150 (From the URL that I posted
earlier) there's a line of two that explains this in
detail.

 ~Aleph

=====
"The scene was wild and somewhat sinister. The
darkness, the palms, the mountainous background, the
silent lake below, the impenetrable canopy of space,
studded with secretive and significant stars, formed a
stupendous setting for the savage noise and blaze of
the ceremony."


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/