From: Tony Iannotti Area: Thelema To: Michael Aquino 25 Nov 94 09:21:04 Subject: Re: Crowley on CDROM? UpdReq MA> No, I haven't seen any _AL_ parodies, but I'm sure MA> they're inevitable ... and I think you'd find it entertaining. Have you seen the '40-s parodies, The Mongolian Master and his Disciple, or The C onference of the Golden Spawn? (Price one shilling and sixpence, including astral duplicate.) 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: The Cegorach Area: Thelema To: Rose Dawn 25 Nov 94 09:16:04 Subject: Re: HIYA! UpdReq -=> Rose Dawn said to The Cegorach (23 Nov 94 08:32:30) <=- Re: Re: HIYA! RD> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. RD> RD> I really am glad to see ya back, even if it'll have to be minus your RD> former manic enthusiasm for everything under the Sun. ;> I lucked Don't worry, it's bubbling up again, absolutely irrepressible, as always.... :) I figure there's no particular reason why I should let mere employment interfere with the burning desire to *know*.... RD> out--after some intense Jupiter stuff--and came into a bit of money; RD> not a fortune, but enough for me and Tam to live on for several months RD> without needing to sweat the rent and bills, or me having to do a RD> single lick of mundane work if I didn't wanna! :> Gave me time to RD> devote exclusively to magical practices, yoga, and doing the Mom RD> Thang. Wonderful. :> Cool beans. RD> Hey--it is beyond my degree. I haven't been awarded the Dreaded Tech RD> Weenie Beanie yet! Nope, like Kayla, I'm also a Mac person. I can RD> *read* High ASCI, but not produce it. ;> Bummer. :) > By the way, the notion to use alt-249 occurred to me just after > finishing Harding's _Kali: Black Goddess of Dakshineswar_. After > immersing myself in Kali for a few days, it just sorta popped into my > head. Coincidence? :) :) RD> Did you like that book? It drove me crazy while I was reading it...I Yes, I did. Yes, it had a sorta "White Middle Class Lady in the Midst of the Primitive Savages--My Gosh, Aren't They Clever?" tone to it, but it's still better than nothing. Don't forget, this is North Carolina, and I live within quick driving distance of Jesse Helms. It's not my "ideal" Kali book, but it's a good start. :) > Basically just Resh and the beginner's layout of Asana's from Swami > Vishnu-Devananda's Complete Book of Yoga. I've been pretty slack > about pent and hex rits, though I've managed a few LBRPs, and several > Rubies.... RD> RD> Uhm, the Ruby *is* a pent ritual! Tried the Star Sapphire yet, in any I *know* that. So is the LBRP. Re-read, Grasshopper. Perhaps I was unclear. Take #2: I've managed a few LBRPs and several Rubies, but compared to previous standards (i.e., at least once daily), I've been pretty slack about both pent and hex rits. Yes, done the Sapphire. I used to alternate "normal" and "Thelemic" rits. That is, one day, I'd do the LBRP, LBRH, and SIRP; the next, it'd be Ruby, Sapphire, and Reguli.... RD> ::snicker:: and get back into LBRP/LRH for a while. Now that I've got RD> the 'Ruby basics' down, though, I've been really interested in getting RD> deeper into it..I'm sure you know what I mean, I remember your wanting RD> to ditch LBRPs altogether in favor of SRs way back when. How's Swami V Yeah. I still 'honor' the LBRP, and consider it quite valuable, don't get me wrong. Personal preference, though, is quite undoubtedly the Ruby. :) RD> treating you? Oh! Forgot to tell you, I'm on my way to certification RD> as a hatha yoga instructor...LOL. I got my start with Cool beans. :) RD> Vishnu-devananda, and that's still the style I tend to prefer above RD> all others, but *not* the style I'm presently training in...life's RD> strange sometimes, eh? ;> Don't neglect yer pranayama ::nag nag RD> nag:: -- seriously, if I do nothing *but* pranayama on any given day, Yes, Mom. ;> RD> I consider it a day well spent. Great stuff. :> Also lately been RD> incorporating Suryanamaskar into Resh, rather than immediately RD> after...specifically, going thru the Adorations part while doing the RD> Surya asana series. Seems to be working ace. :> Hm. Interesting. Will ponder. RD> You should be able to order Frater U'D' direct from Llewellyn , RD> no? Or did you mean in *german*? Don't read the Goetia before bedtime! };> The prices for Equinoxes made me realize that, at this point, online text RD> editions are good enuff for me. ;> I'm going to order U.'. D.'. via The Abyss, a mail-order house I've had good dealings with previously. Same with the Goetia. Maybe even the Equinox, though I might end up going with the 93 Publishing edition. RD> Further catching-up: Tami and I both recently attended our first EGC RD> Mass, and it was BITCHIN!! Is there anywhere remotely close to Cary RD> where they celebrate the Gnostic Mass? I highly recommend it. :> I Atlanta, GA is the closest site. Unless they've started doing them at Blake. :( Larry ... equal opportunity heretic. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: The Cegorach Area: Thelema To: To Meta Therion 25 Nov 94 09:49:46 Subject: OTO UpdReq -=> To Meta Therion said to Paul Hume (23 Nov 94 15:56:32) <=- Re: OTO TMT> 7th and the degrees that are that high are the only degrees that can TMT> not be accessed directly by published material. It is the secret of TMT> the 9th degree that I would be interested in above all, and unless I TMT> am mistaken, there are none that hold that degree at this time. Re: the ninth. You should be able to figure out the 'secret' of the ninth degree from publically available material. Re: holders of the IXth...well, there must be at least *one*. Hymenaeus Beta holds the Xth, which rather presupposes the IXth, does it not? Bill Heidrick is also a IXth, is he not? Again, publically available info.... Larry ... It's Psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw. - Calvin 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Zepher 26 Nov 94 12:53:02 Subject: book of coming forth 1/ UpdReq Hi Zepher. Many of your comments have already been answered several times in the course of this thread; I don't see any point in answering them again. The thread's been going on since July, and I admit I'm getting a bit bored with it. I've also chopped out most of the sneers and condecension. Z> Like you, I see benefit in the sharing (but only to those who prove Z> themselves worthy) Who judges who is "worthy"? You? And what qualifies you -- or anyone -- to be such a judge? Z> Your reasoning for Z> sharing is what most would consider as noble, however practitioners Z> of the LHP realize that your "giving away the knowledge, power, and Z> understanding from initiation unconditionally and without Z> expectation of any return" is evidence of self-delusion. Such Z> delusion is common place in RHP ideas and practices, which lead to Z> other corruptions within their teachings. In my opinion, this one Z> fact more or less invalidates much of what ensues, but does not at Z> all mean that nothing of value can be found. No, it's a deliberately cultivated _magickal_attitude_, akin to the injunction in medieval grimoires to buy your materials without haggling. This is something different from a mere delusion, in that it is done deliberately and with intent. Every effective piece of magick works by the magician's creating in himself a state in which his entire will is focused on the immediate actions and symbols of the ceremony. This simply extends the principle beyond the confines of the formal ceremony. If you are counting what it costs you to perform magick, or you are thinking about the possible outcomes it might have, or worrying about how others might react to it if they learn about it, then your attention and will are divided, and therefor weakened. Obsession with posessing and protecting secrets divides the will as much as anything else. And the proof, as with anything else, is that it works as I described. Z> Yes, but we are speaking of magic. We are speaking of Z> supernatural, superational, super-un-natural, or whatever else you Z> wish to call it. It's simple, yet if you consciously apply it it's Z> a highly complicated and integral study and practice. Z> I would not Z> share my "secret" (as I defined previously) knowledge and Z> understanding in regards to magic and its theories and practices to Z> my children let alone a stranger simply because they voice a Z> wanting or interest. Much of it is for them to find out and Z> struggle with for themselves. Although my children are teenagers Z> (young adults) they, in my opinion, display more competence than Z> many adults do. Even so, they are not yet in my opinion educated Z> and competent enough to wield a "loaded gun". Why then would I Z> share such a thing with those I know little of? Forgive me, but that's all bullshit. Given that every individual is unique -- something that the ToS also asserts -- then whatever you reveal in the way of "secrets" will necessarily have to be adapted to that person's nature and circumstances before it can be put into practice. If he is incapable of adapting it, then he can't be harmed by it; for him, it will remain nothing more than an intellectual curiousity. You are showing here the arrogance common to many ToSers. You see yourselves as somehow qualified to judge other people, and to judge what's good for them, better than they can do so themselves. So what if someone might take what you give and hurt himself with it? It's his life, his responsibility, and his choice to do so. He might equally _benefit_ from it in ways that you, having a different nature, can't possibly conceive. He can even find things in it that might be useful to you; the world is full of examples of this happening. JN> This in turn enables individuals working ahead of the general JN> run of humanity to go farther than they would otherwise be JN> able. Z> Is this to say that there exists an elite group of humans? No, because for every talent a person has in a particular direction, there are ten thousand other things for which he has no talent at all. People who are "on the cutting edge" in one of humanity's many pursuits are usually utterly common, or even incompetent, in most others. This means that _nobody_ has any justification for considering themselves to be part of an "elite". Even within a particular field, individuals approach things in different ways, ways which can heterodyne off each other and produce things that neither could have produced working in isolation. The point is that this can't happen unless the information available to each is made part of the pool of knowledge available to humanity at large. The more restrictions are placed on information, the less benefit derives from it. The narrower the pool of minds working on it, the more limited its applications will be. JN> 2. Your conception of what it means to be "enlightened" in the JN> traditional sense has little or nothing to do with the facts [ Continued In Next Message... ] ___ X SPEED 1.30 [NR] X 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Zepher 26 Nov 94 12:53:04 Subject: book of coming forth 2/ UpdReq [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] JN> of the case. Z> You gotta start somewhere. It seems to me that your own basic Z> conceptions are somewhat ill equipped for a discussion that Z> involves LHP thought. I was under the impression that you wanted Z> an *attempt* to provide clear, unambiguous (as if it were possible) Z> descriptions of initiations? Z> Okay, apparently I'm lost here. What exactly is the case? Simply that I don't find an explanation to be clear where it is primarily made up of contrasts to an erroneous conception of somebody else's view. Instead, something along the lines of Crowley's "One Star in Sight" would be good for starters. Z> If I understand the essence of Self (as you term - the "identified" Z> awareness) to be a virtual wellspring of endless possibilities Z> towards evolution on an infinite scale, why then would I wish for Z> any loss of identification with that particular identified Z> awareness? It endures no limits. It would behove me to become Z> _more_ aware of this "identity", not less. Obviously, a lack of limitations would be impossible to prove in any absolute sense. I suppose we could enumerate limitations I perceive to exist on individuals and you could demonstrate their invalidity by overcoming them. Not sure it's worth it at this point in the discussion. I _did_ try that in a previous discussion, but didn't get any real counter-examples, just variations on "I don't believe it." If you believe that, clearly there's no point in looking at a different way until experience proves you wrong. As I said elsewhere in the previous message, the movement away from identification with the individualized self is a consequence of _naturally_ occuring developmental processes. If you haven't yet perceived the limitations, then you don't yet need to do so. Z> There are other factors involved. Some are those which you seem to Z> refuse to explore or are not yet capable of doing so due to your Z> perception, lack of, or limits you place on your own Initiation. Enumerate these "other" factors, please. ___ X SPEED 1.30 [NR] X 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Zepher 25 Nov 94 17:31:06 Subject: book of coming forth UpdReq Z> I feel (and apparently others do as well) that Michael Aquino has Z> and continues to supply sound and ample means for people to judge Z> for themselves. In my affiliation with Michael Aquino and the ToS Z> in general I have little or no problems in the acquisition of Z> whatever information I request. I've been over these points several times already in this discussion. And for the moment, I'm getting tired of it. One more time, then enough for now: The plain fact is that you and other ToSers are not reliable witnesses to the "reality" of such things, simply because your own status is dependent upon his; you have a strong personal motivation for affirming that he has achieved something worthwhile. As long as the information is generally held within the ToS, the situation is not going to change appreciably. An equally strong affirmation by several un-self-interested observers with different approaches would be much more convincing. Z> I believe that likewise Michael Aquino has gifted everything he Z> feels useful to those who are not of the LHP and/or willing to make Z> a commitment. We seem to have different standards here. What I define as "useful" is anything possibly of broader applicability than solely to my personal situation. Beyond that I don't make any restrictions. Z> Apparently. Okay, "incomplete", but still not a lie - just Z> unfinished, still acquiring the pieces of a puzzle and putting them Z> in the proper place. Except that -- per Korzybski -- any description must forever fall short of completeness. Korzybski's work goes a long way towards demolishing "idealisms", Hegelian or otherwise, as well, though he doesn't specifically deal with them. Worth reading. ___ X SPEED 1.30 [NR] X 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Zepher 26 Nov 94 12:49:08 Subject: book of coming forth 1/ UpdReq Z> [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] Z> Hello, for the third time! Hi again. JN> The "temple" of which the MoT is "master" is the Ruach, that JN> part of being that makes up the individualized self. He is JN> master of it because his awareness is no longer controlled by JN> it. Z> Please define what you consider as "temple", "Mot", and "Ruach" or, Z> if you will, point me to some references so that I can have a Z> clearer understanding of what you are speaking. Thank's. "MoT" is my abbreviation for "Master of the Temple", the Binah grade, cabalistically speaking. It has the advantage of brevity and reduced pomposity. "Ruach" is a term from the Hebrew; depending on context, it can mean "mind" in a broad sense, "mind" in the narrow sense of intellect, "air", or "spirit". In the Euro-American versions of the cabala, it is generally used in the first of these senses. It covers those aspects of the person that relate to the ninth through fourth sephiroth on the Tree of Life, and these major divisions of his subjective being: Sense data, memory, intellect and language-using ability, the self-image or desire- body and the imagination, the individualized awareness, the individual will, and the individual root-pattern, sort of an archetype of his expressed being. These are all connected in that the individualized consciousness can identify with any of them without changing its basic nature. There are also corresponding aspects of the "external" world that can be accessed once a particular level has been consciously achieved and integrated. But these are not part of the Ruach as such. For clarity, four other terms also have to be considered: "Below" the Ruach is something called the Nephesh, usually translated as the "animal soul". I equate this with the pre-conscious support and maintenance functions of the body and nervous system, the results of whose activity reach our consciousness as generalized "feelings" of one sort or another. "Above" the Ruach are three non-individualized parts of the being: The Neshamah: Generally vaguely translated as "spiritual consciousness" or "intuition". That part of the being that encloses and maintains the activity of the Ruach, without being part of it. Attributed to Binah and the divine feminine principle. The Chiah: The source of creativity in the being. Connected with Chokmah. The divine masculine principle. The Yechidah: Pure being, oneness, the Source, etc., etc. What's left over when you eliminate absolutely everything else. JN> He is not a "Master of the Universe" -- that's a comic book JN> character. Z> Com'on Josh, give me a break! I think you've taken this Z> slightly out of context. Although, a lot of RHP material does Z> indeed seem somewhat comical to me. The feeling is mutual, I assure you. JN> -- First you have to become an individual, divorcing yourself JN> from the conditioning placed on you by childhood training and JN> social pressure, and freeing yourself from identification with JN> your means of relationship to the world, i.e., the senses, JN> emotions, intellect, and self-image. Z> That is to assume your childhood training/pressure is not Z> desirable. Freeing yourself from your senses? Hmmm, Suicde would Z> seem to take care of that. I would add and emphasize the Z> confrontation of those "monsters" that may haunt you. Training: It is not desireable if it controls your actions in ways you are not aware of. If you find it useful after you've gotten rid of the unconscious control, you are free to re-adopt it. I agree with the "monsters" part, and should have added that. Senses: freeing yourself from them is simply becoming aware that what you see is not necessarily what is happening, and -- more important -- freeing yourself from dependence on sense-experience as a source of self-affirmation. JN> -- Next you have to understand the nature of your specific JN> individuality in detail, and apply that nature to the world in JN> the most effective and spiritually "positive" way possible. Z> You were doing well till you came to this "positive" thing. [ Continued In Next Message... ] ___ X SPEED 1.30 [NR] X 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Zepher 26 Nov 94 12:49:10 Subject: book of coming forth 2/ UpdReq [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] I put it in quotes because I knew it wasnt entirely appropriate, but was too tired to go into detail by that time. Any particular aspect of the individuality can manifest in many ways. Some of them are self-destructive, reduce the person's ability to act effectively in the worlds, or are simply null activities that satisfy the aspect's need to express without producing any effect of consequence. (This last isn't necessarily bad, if the aspect is inherently self-destructive in nature.) By "positive" I meant eliminating as many of the self-destructive and effectiveness-reducing manifestations as possible, and replacing them with others less destructive. Ideally, the understanding of your individuality should lead to the discovery of the root pattern of your individuality, and after that to your "true will"; once that is done one should find a means to apply _every_ aspect to the accomplishment of that will. In practice, there's always a few aspects whose presence doesn't contribute much; they should just be kept from interfering, and fed as often as necessary to keep them healthy. ___ X SPEED 1.30 [NR] X 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Tony Iannotti Area: Thelema To: Doug Plexico 27 Nov 94 09:28:44 Subject: Crowley on CDROM? UpdReq DP> I went to COMDEX this month and talked to the folks who do this. I am DP> awaiting futher info in the mail from them concernign DP> this. I will post the info when I get it. Actually, I was just asking with whom you were speaking. Lots of people do CD duplication, or are these anonymous people doing it cheaper than others? I was just curious as to which bunch you were talking about. Thanks! 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Tony Iannotti Area: Thelema To: Fir 27 Nov 94 09:30:24 Subject: Clarification UpdReq F> Looks like you've fixed the line noise as well as destroyed the F> black email hole. Never saw the msg and since it's no longer F> on BaphoNet I guess I won't be seeing it either . Shoot! Well, I keep some months of archives online too, file area #4, for Magicknet, thelema, enochian, magplants, public_key, and some others. F> What's your speculation on the unnumbered issue? Well, without pulling the archives, I mostly remember that there was a book announced, one of the Typhonian Trilogie s, which gave it a terminus post quem of the '80s, making it somewhat older than the first series. I'll gat back to you after coffee. Thanks again! 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Joseph Max Area: Thelema To: Bruce Kroeze 24 Nov 94 14:34:00 Subject: Chaos Magick Practices UpdReq BK > JM> And even Pope Pete devoted an entire chapter in _Psychonaut_ to BK > initiation - BK > > titled, strangely enough, "Initiation". His thoughts on the subject BK > closely BK > > parallel my own: BK > JM> "Initiation can never be performed according to some set formula. BK > No two BK > > people will have the same requirements, abilites, or BK > shortcomings... BK > > Existence itself can be seen as a continuous initiation BK > punctuated by BK > > periodic death and rebirth, which itself has the greatest BK > initiatory BK > > potential. Beyond a certain level, the magician must seek his own BK > > initiatory experiences deliberately, or may feel that something BK > inside BK > > of himself is pushing him into these experiences. There is no BK > fixed BK > > route which one can traverse and become an adept or master by BK > rote. BK > > There are too many variables in existence to make a simple BK > equation BK > > possible." BK > cop out. Would you care to elaborate on that remark? Such a simple epithet is, in itself, a "cop-out". At the very least, elaborate on exactly what in the above statement by Carroll does not hold up to logical scrutiny. - J:.M:.555 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718