Mskied

why don't you simply state that using you as a person reveals their wisdom is not admitting to themselves that it is only wise to them and not the individual they are advising and leave it at that? Why do you need to make a big parade of people that make mistakes rather than simply instruct how not to make them, and share the information that you possess about the subject?

The teachers you admire do not all teach in the manner you require me to reveal my ideas, that is how you decide to reveal what you learned from them, but you are not proving to be good students because you do not even understand how to reveal what they know to those that do not know, all you can really do is point to their system and leave a person in confusion, needing to go study. You do not paraphrase or inspire, or even reveal much of anything about these masters, you simply come here to present yourselves as knowers, rattling cages of those that do the same. All people have knowledge and all people have wisdom, and I would like to think that this is the greatest message of the wisest of us, and you are not them.

Some say I come here to be praised for my knowledge, others say I come here to teach, and others say I come to converse. I say that I am doing all of these, and none of them. Should I be here to teach, you don't like my methods and want me to change them. Why should I change how I teach for you, when you don't even seem to want to learn what I am teaching and how I do it? You obviously do not want to be my student, you want me to be yours, and I don't have to bend to your want, as you do not need to bend to mine. I appreciate a challenge to learn from others points of view, but none of this is necessary unless I want to teach in the way you think is best, but from how I observe you advising and demeaning others, Id say that you are shitty teachers, and so I will choose not to learn from you, as you choose not to learn from me. I do not need to adjust anything I do or say, and I do not need to answer anything that I do not want to answer. If you learn the way you learn, that is how you learn, and it isn't the only way to learn, and it isn't the only way to teach. So I will continue to post my thoughts in the format I choose, and those that like the way I present my ideas will gather from them what they can and Ill leave it at that. I am not going to get into squabbles about how I present my ideas, nor am I going to reveal things that I feel are meant to be learned by the student.

I apologize for using the you, it does sound very lecturelike I used to say one instead of you but Ive gotten lazy. anyway, inaccurate perceptions are only inaccurate according to an established norm but if one finds that the norm is not to ones liking then the path to enlightenment is not held within their walls, and so one would say that ones choices led one to what one would consider to be enlightenment, but even still that might not fall in line with what a truly liberated mind might find to be strength, and so one would want to destroy not only the self that was formed by choice, but the choices that are offered by the norm, and align ones self with the strength that one seeks in a land of free choice, without the restraints of the norm

I believe True Will comes in a multiplicity of forms. There is the Will that you have developed today, based on your potentially inaccurate reactions to the choices presented; inaccurate only because the "acceptable" norm was resisted, but you chose to react in accordance to the limitations of your own perception. This is indeed True Will, because it is the valid response according to what you believed at the time. This is where I say that everyone is already enlightened. However, were you to conform to some other "normal" then you might find that the Will you developed is not True, and so you might care to adjust it. It seems to me, with the method that Crowley puts forth, that you are not only meant to break out of the Will that has fallen upon you, but to break out of the Will that the "normal" put upon you, and declare your own method of Truth in accordance to your own Laws.

Some people cannot accept the answers they are given. Nungali, I recall, after exchanging opinions about the 7 pointed star that I asked you to explain what you knew of it and all you said was to go find a book about it.

And I suppose mocking me with heads of lettuce helps me to understand

I could answer it, or maybe I think hed benefit by answering it himself. I don't have to hand deliver every piece of everything, do you?

Show, don't tell

Everyones born and taught by a book the child says "This I will learn, by hook or by crook" But when the conversation comes and its time for sharing most men fail to like the daring So sit in your poverty and wait for praise or go out in a fiery blaze, burning and consuming a man on parade Life is about desire, lets end this charade!

Its not supposed to, and neither are you

The fundamentals I am revealing are not particularly of a religious nature, unless you are in the act of creating a religion.

Then maybe you would like my piece that I wrote on the Sisyphean task that I too am on, which I posted here.

Im not being defensive. Would you stop being such a critic and comment on the actual content of this thread rather than point at old arguments which, as I said, I have already clarified my place in misunderstanding? A broken record doesn't play the hits, it gets thrown in the trash.

Why don't you

Its hard to misrepresent a school that studies nearly everything. No, I am not citing a page of a book, but what I speak of is written in books, Magick in Theory and Practice especially. I am not here to teach from this book, though I could. I am here to talk about my own naturally occurring process in an effort to design my own system, and aid people in designing their own method. The set of fundamental processes is likely the same for any, and that is all I am revealing. I am not commenting on Wisdom of any tradition at this stage, nor am I relating the fact that all of these systems have similar origins. I am simply revealing this base, and was planning on illustrating how it is used.

Why are you so pleasant to him and all you want to do to me is beat me into the ground over presentation and what you assume is a lack of revelation and conversation

I don't have a problem with how he presents his knowledge. Why don't you try to present his knowledge in the manner you recommend so he has an example, while at the same time letting us witness your genius so that we have cause to respect you in these matters

Maybe you are capable of understanding what I am doing

I don't represent those religions. I study Magick

It sounds like you too are simply filling in the blanks you want. Monism belongs to all thinkers, not just the great ones. Islam and Christianity is essentially Judaism, and that is why I lump them together.

Its monism, and that belongs to all great thinkers, not just Judaism.

If you hadn't noticed, Im actually not referencing any translation of this Law

Does it matter? Which one is real?

I will answer this with a question: Why does God allow Chaos?