Radix

Greetings, I've been thinking a lot recently about how various Mahayana deities, boddhisattvas, Buddhas, etc might "fit," from a comparative perspective, on the Tree of Life. I don't take a rigid approach to these matters, since ultimately every Sephiroth contains every other, and different aspects of deities might fit in more than one place. I like to think of it from a universalist perspective, i.e. taking for granted that the Tree of Life can serve as an adequate, nondenominational "map" of human and superhuman consciousness. I have to say, though, this seems quite difficult in the case of Buddhism. Aleister Crowley has made some attempts in 777, but from what I remember his attributions did not include the deities, but only the various meditations. My tentative suggestions are below--you'll notice these are quite arbitrary and not really consistent with each other. I doubt if any rigid system is even possible here; probably several different sets of attribution might work, however unsatisfactorily: 000 ? 00 ? 0 ? I Samantabhadra II Vairocana/ Amitabha III Prajnaparamita (goddess) IV ? V Manjusri VI Avalokitesvara VII Tara ? VIII Medicine Buddha ? IX Cundi? X Shakyamuni? Perhaps AC was correct in approaching this from the perspective of meditation stages rather than deities. Any suggestions?

Following on from the above, I would also like to suggest that, mutatis mutandis, the Buddhist teachings on cosmology only discuss three of the macrocosmic realms posited in the Qabbalah, that is, Assiah (the material world, Malkuth), Yetzirah (the subtle realms, Yesod through Chesed), and Atziluth (the "Divine" realm, Kether). The "heavenly realms of the gods" in Buddhism are really the upper regions of Yetzirah, since they are still characterized by time and individual consciousness. This must even hold for the "formless" regions of the highest Buddhist heavens, for as long as there is a discrete consciousness to reincarnate, there is still a "form," however subtle. Individuality, as such, ends at Chesed. Now, on what is known as the "archangelic" or archetypal realm (Briah) in Qabbalah, Buddhism is silent, or only "hints" in very oblique ways (the "apparition" of Vairocana, who "represents" the Dharmakaya but never incarnates). Of course this will sound heretical to a Buddhist perspective, but my intention is certainly not to disparage Buddhism or its cosmology. Whatever silences are apparent in Buddhist doctrines are in keeping with the fundamental intentions of its existence, since to be effusive on the subject of the archetypal realm, a cosmological world that is technically "outside" of samsara, could only serve to complicate the Buddhist upaya at the risk of its salvific efficacy. Still, from a more global perspective, and keeping in mind that all statements about reality are provisional, it strikes me that the Briatic archetypal realm serves a useful explanatory function, i.e. it serves as a vital link between the pure potentiality of Dharmakaya and the "facts" of samsara. Again, this is not a "slight" of Buddhism, since in order to present its saving truths it must conceal certain things (think of the Burning House parable in the Lotus Sutra). These are just my speculations, which I offer in the spirit of friendly prompts to further discussion, rather than dogmatic contentions.

Good points, Steve. I think you're right: in the "gradual path" systems it "seems" like a progression, whereas in the "direct path," ie Zen, Dzogchen, there not and cannot be any concept of progression. Still, I think that even in a gradual path in Buddhism, it is still recognized, at least implicitly, that the notion of "gradual enlightenment" is purely provisional, since in the ultimate view, time is illusory. One of the things that annoys me about modern occultist Qabbalah is that it seems too rigidly schematic and linear, i.e. start at Malkuth and "travel" step by step to Kether. Still, it seems to be useful for many people. Even in this system it is usually clearly understood that none of the Sephiroth exist without the others, ie Tiphereth (the "Holy Guardian Angel") and Kether (unconditioned consciousness) are always "there," which is why one can be guided by the Angel in the first place. Categories of time and space, in fact, cease to apply above Chesed (the highest point of Yetzirah, before the "Abyss"). I'm not an expert at all, but the Jewish sources don't seem to view the Tree of Life as a microcosmic/ macrocosmic "map" as the occultists do, and the different levels of consciousness seem much less linear in terms of how their accessibility is presented. There is also the well-known story of Enoch from Genesis, who "walked with God: and he was no more; for God took him." Make of that what ye will!

Excuse me...what?

PS. I don't mind opening this thread up to Taoist and even Confucian conceptions also. I would like to learn more about how the Taoist deities might fit on the Tree. The way I see it, the problem that we in the West are dealing with now is similar to that faced by Chinese thinkers over the previous two millennia, i.e. the problem of the "Three Teachings" which ultimately were synthesized into what is commonly known as "Chinese religion." There have been countless variations of this synthesis, as many variations as there were practitioners, from complete mutual exclusivity to nearly complete syncretism--and everything in between. The difference now is that the conceptual playing field has opened up, and now we have Christianity, Judaism, and all the other "isms" thrown into the mix. The easy, safe and still popular answers are to insist on mutual exclusivity, or else not to think about the matter at all. But those of us who are familiar with more than one of these systems will often have a hard time taking refuge in the "easy way." I'm coming at this problem less as a "champion for ecumenism" than as a (feeble) aspirant to the Great Work. Part of my "original chaos" is a somewhat uneasy mix of all these things bouncing around in my soul/mind. In the modern world, fewer and fewer of us can rest completely isolated within a single "symbolic universe." In an effort to transcend, part of my own alchemical work is to reconcile for myself the different universes that have been important to me, and working with the Tree of Life in this way is one way of doing this, though it is not without its limitations. I'm certainly not an unconditional apologist for Crowley, but I see in his life and work a great modern expression of that crucial alchemical insight (sometimes crudely expressed, to be sure) which is increasingly unavoidable in our increasingly pluralistic world: the imperative need to reconcile all (apparent) opposites.

Great points, Emerald Head! Provisionally, then, we can perhaps view the various Samboghakayas as "angels" in the sense that they are, as it were, direct emanations from the Dharmakaya. One's own experience of Tifereth could be one's own experience of one's Samboghakaya, which is the "Son" of the "Father" Dharmakaya in Kether. The ultimate indissolubility of Malkuth and Kether ("Kether is in Malkuth and Malkuth is in Kether") might be seen as analogous to the ultimate union of Nirvana and Samsara--hence the phenomenon of the Nirmanakaya. In an absolute sense, however, there is only Ain Soph, as there is only the Dharmakaya. All else are the illusory manifestations of mind. I would also submit that one might view Vairocana as analogous to YHVH when viewed as the Name unifying all four Cabalistic worlds, i.e. Adam Kadmon. As Taigen Dan Laighton says, Vairicana is "the Reality Body Buddha (dharmakaya in Sanskrit) whose body is the equivalent of the entire phenomenal universe, which is known in Buddhism as the dharmadhatu."

I could be wrong here; I need to do more research on the relationship between the Kayas. According to Wikipedia: Sambhogakaya also refers to the luminous form of clear light the Buddhist practitioner attains upon the reaching the highest dimensions of practice. According to tradition, those skilled in meditation, such as advanced Tibetan lamas and yogis, as well as other highly realized Buddhists, may gain access to the Sambhogakaya and receive direct transmission of doctrine.

Thanks for your response, ZYD. The analogy with "Tooter Turtle" is pretty inspired! Mr. Wizard could be a manifestation of Chenrezig or Medicine Buddha The "Map of Liberation" is a good idea. I think this is is basically how Crowley approached the Tree, and why the use of the meditations makes sense. I also imagine (I could be wrong) that his knowledge of Mahayana was probably far inferior to his knowledge of Theravada, hence his lack of application of the more "mythological" aspects of the Mahayana sutras and tantras in 777. I come from a more Mahayana angle, and the figures of various Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and devas/assures can, I think, be useful, since they basically manifest or personify the different aspects of consciousness to which the meditations lead. The difficulty is that, with Buddhism we are really dealing with a variety of different systems, aspects and symbols arranged at different levels and interacting in different ways. One might attempt to make attributions, but these will mostly be most useful to the one who finds it it necessary to undergo the exercise. Hence Crowley's maxim that everyone must make their own QBL rings true for me here. What I would like to do (and what I invite others to use this thread to do) is to come up with a Tree, or several Trees, which map out various concepts of Buddhism in ways that are consistent and personally meaningful. I think the exercise is valuable in forcing one to really contemplate these concepts and there relationships deeply. As such the exercise itself is possibly worth more than any particular results, though these might also have their value. I need to think more about this, speaking for myself. I want to review the 10 Bhumis of the Boddhisattva path and see if there is some way in which they might map onto the Sephiroth. For now I will humbly submit my suggested attributions for the Three Kayas (Buddha Bodies): Kether: Dharmakaya Tiphareth: Samboghakaya (Guardian Angel?) Malkuth: Nirmanakayas This hopefully makes sense; I don't think Buddhism sees the acquisition of these bodies as a "progression," but rather that they are all there simultaneously, at different levels.

This is an important part of Tibetan Buddhism (though they wouldn't explain it in precisely this manner). I'm not a Tibetan Buddhist myself, but the principles of the system strike me as very sound, high magic. I suppose this is at least partly where the Golden Dawn/Crowleyan practice of "assumption of godforms" comes from. You may be interested in looking into one or both of these traditions, if this interests you. In general I would say that "contact with deities in the astral realm" occurs all the time in religious contexts, such as Catholic/Orthodox churches in the presence of devotional artwork and paintings. A devotional interaction with such images definitely occurs "astrally." Some people also project into Tarot cards, etc. In shamanic/neo-Shamanic contexts such visionary interactions are cultivated actively. The advantage of the Tibetan system is that such interactions are strictly regulated/monitored, hence the risk of egotistical delusion is hopefully somewhat offset. Kabbalist pathworking could potentially be used to explore such interactions in a systematic sense.

Wow, what an epic thread! I'm interested in the "mythological" or symbolic aspects of Cundi. What does she, as a "figure," really represent in metaphysical terms? I have read everything I could find about Cundi in English (which isn't much) and, while there is quite a lot about the practice (as in this thread) I have found very little about who/what Cundi is supposed to be, though it's not difficult to speculate. The Sutra doesn't mention her at all, just the dharani. The dharani mentions her name but the "namah" is directed to "saptanam samyaksambodhi kotinam tadyatha" (the millions of Buddhas). Bill Bodri seems pretty consistently to refer to Cundi as "him" and even says somewhere that Cundi is actually "male." The Tibetans seem to consider Cundi to be a mother of a certain Buddha family (Lotus?) Some masters, and even many folks on a popular level, have considered Cundi an emanation of Kannon/Avalokitesvara (as in Japan). As I said, I'm interested in the deep symbolism here. Master Nan Huai Chin mentions that she is "a Boddhisattva, the Great Buddha Mother, source or origin of the Dharmas (this is in "Grass Mountain," in the glossary under "Chung-T'i.") Is there a sense in which Cundi can be considered analogous to Shakti, the "power" of Shiva?--or better, from a Buddhist iconographical perspective, a form of Prajnaparamita (hence Emptiness/Wisdom itself--perhaps somewhat analogous to Sophia in the Gnostic tradition?) I'd be very interested to hear from anyone who has more knowledge than me about this fascinating aspect of Cundi 🙏

Thanks, Shagrath! I have actually been listening to James Low the past few days on YouTube, and I like his presentation very much! 🙏

Hi friends, a question, with some preface: I started to develop an interest in Dzogchen a little more than a year ago. I'd been doing silent, objectless meditation for some time, and being without any teacher I was starting to worry if I was falling into what Chan masters sometimes refer to as a "cavern with ghosts," i.e. oblivion without illumination. I realized that Dzogchen offered more of a structure than I was able to find in books of Zen, Taoist medication (Golden Flower) or even apophatic prayer (Plotinus, Dionysus, Eckart, etc). Now I don't want to get into a long debate about whether/ to what degree Dzogchen leads to the same thing as the other traditions (I've seen enough of that on DW). Suffice it to say that I'm reasonably confident that it leads to where I want to go, being, according to its own view, not only the essence of Buddhadharma but also the essence of all religion/spiritual traditions. I had and have no interest in going through ngondro or otherwise getting involved in the structures and hierarchies of Tibetan Buddhism. I really just want a "nondual" contemplative practice that is detailed enough to provide decent guidelines for practice, but free from religious dogma. This is why I was happy to find out about ChNNR, who gave webcasts of the Direct Introduction, but didn't require formal "conversion" to Buddhism or samathas other than to maintain the View. And he was reportedly accessible without expecting or desiring "worshippers." Unfortunately, I was not aware of him until after his very last webcasts and before he passed away (sometime in July or August 2018). I'm not aware that the Dzogchen Community has appointed anyone to take on his role, and in any case my feelings towards that organization are somewhat ambivalent. With ChNNR gone, I'm uninclined to get involved with it. So the question is, are there any other Dzogchen (or Mahamudra) teachers who follow a similar perspective to ChNNR in offering DI via webcast and enabling practitioners to just follow the teachings without formal conversion/memberships/vows? Does anyone have recommendations? At this point I'm almost inclined to just get started and throw myself on the mercy of Heaven (as it were) as I feel this is rather holding me back. I would also be interested in hearing about alternative pathways via other traditions that I may have missed (in Taoism, for interest), i.e. accessible nondual meditative traditions or teachers that are not dependent upon taking a confessional perspective, cumbrous rules or arbitrary obedience, but which aim to lead the student to the essence of all traditions. Many thanks I'm advance!

@ZYD: I PM'd you 🙏

@CT: Many thanks for your kind suggestions and best wishes. I am slightly familiar with Dr. Wallace, though not Dr. Neale. However, I looked through his ngondro commentary and the open-minded way that he explains things resonates with me for sure. 🙏

but you seem to have some self doubt in terms of practice - it is perfectly possible to 'get somewhere' without formal teachings or transmission. Yes, I'm worried about the well-known phenomena of "polishing a brick," especially as I get older. Still, I am capable of going out on limbs, especially when there are no other options. If you are in a place where you cannot get transmission or instruction then maybe take it as a sign that the universe has confidence in you 🙏😊

Hi Zongyongdaoist! What a coincidence! I was actually, as it happens, reading some of your posts last night (from way back in 2011, I think) regarding traditional magical theory vs. modern occultist "neomagick." So glad you're still here! Let me tell you that it was so refreshing to come across your perspective: I reached a similar p.o.v. last year after realizing that Agrippa, Dee, Fludd, Plotinus, Iamblichus, etc were infinitely more profound than anything that has appeared since the "occult revival." I'm a HUGE Agrippa enthusiast. As one friend said to me, "There are cities within cities in Agrippa...." But alas, as with Taoism, so much of this really hardcore Western esoteric tradion is hidden, lost. I'm sure that the monasteries would have been rife with many profound adepts in the past, but any secret tradition of initiation and instruction has seemingly been lost, fodder for the speculations of academics and neo-occultists who have (as you mentioned in one of your posts) given up on the entire cosmology of pre-Cartesian science. I do believe that there are instances where people are instructed by "hidden adepts" (Boehme and various alchemists via "Elias Artista") or angelic beings (Dee/Kelley), but these must surely be few and far between. Perhaps most of those who have been fortunate in this regard have wisely kept silence. "Taoist medication": lol I meant "meditation." I am familiar with the Luk book, "Alchemy and Immortality." It's quite fascinating and it seems straightforward in some ways--but, like the Golden Flower, in other ways perplexing, and I'm still too diffident about my ability to figure out the correct techniques on my own. I'd be interested in hearing what you've been able to make of that text, if you ever feel inclined to share (I will also take a look at the thread you linked, with interest!) _/\_

Apech: Where do you live that Skype is banned - can't you use a VPN? or Tor? Dubai. I've never tried either of those, but I'm reluctant to for various reasons.... I go in Dharmawheel a little bit - I find it very conformist and conventional. That's been my experience as well. There definitely is a lot of benefit and knowledge there, and I've learned a ton of things which I probably could never have learned elsewhere; but some of the conversations there, specifically in the Vajrayana forum, are hardly more elevating than you'd find in a stereotypical Literalist/Fundamentalist Church.

OK, well, after going in mental circles about this for a few days, I've come to the conclusion that CT and Apech just may be onto something regarding the Ngondro. What I mean is that, when I posted my initial query, I'd been having a sense of being "blocked" for some time--both at the level of meditation and also in my etheric/subtle body. I wanted to find a way into more advanced meditation teaching: this was difficult because, a.) I live in a country (for work) where teachers are apparently unavailable; b.) I live in a country where Skype, the great technological blessing of isolated spiritual seekers, is blocked (!) The Mahamudra and Dzogchen teachings are accessible and available in written form (plenty of ebooks, YouTube videos, etc), but intimately bound up with the whole structure of Tibetan Buddhism, with its hierarchies, institutions, procedures, etc, which due to past involvement in another large traditional system makes me more than a bit nervous. Still, I decided to give a shout out here to see if I could get some suggestions. Now, CT and Apech advocated ngondro as a way of suitably "preparing the vessel" to receive and embody the higher teachings. At first, my instinct was to "run away! run away!" (as in Monty Python and the Holy Grail) but over the past few days their words have stuck with me. Maybe I'm overthinking this? After going back and reading through a few ngondro texts as a refresher, what I realized is that what is included in the ngondro is a powerful--nay, a mighty--program or inner purification and transformation. It's also high spiritual theurgy/magic! I mentioned that I was worried about my subtle body--well, the ngondro is a medicine for this, as is clear as day to see for anyone who has studied yoga (Patanjali) or alchemy. Also the guru yoga, as I know from previous experience with Naqshbandi sufism (which has an almost identical practice), is powerful and real. Last but not least, the practice of ngondro would enable me to actively cultivate bodhicitta every day, and this is extremely important to me. I'm more comfortable with Western symbolism, but I'm a universalist at heart and as long as I wasn't required to actually "reject" anything that is important to me, I think this is something that may in fact be quite beneficial for me, worthwhile in itself and apart from any question of Dzogchen. Maybe if I just focus on the practice, work on myself and stay far away from any and all contentious debates on DW or elsewhere on the interwebs, things might just work out.... I still feel that probably any lama I approach with this would turn me away due to my lack of absolute devotion to Buddhism in itself as the sole possible route, but my better judgement told me that I should at least try--then I would know at least know, right? So I think what I will do now is to write to a lama and ask for his blessing to begin a ngondro text, and to be as completely open and transparent about my reservations, qualms, hangups, and motivations as possible, so as to give him every opportunity to turn me away if necessary. Then I will know where I stand. Anyway, I figure I will start with TWR and perhaps Ringu Tulku, of whom I am fond. It would have been nice to be able to receive the Dzogchen ngondro from ChNNR, but alas. If anyone has other suggestions, please let me know. (CT and Apech, which traditions do you guys follow?)

Hi forestofemptiness, thanks for your very helpful and insightful post 🙏 I can't really argue with you in terms of what's best, in a general sense at least. No doubt receiving any teachings live is the ideal. The question of reconciling traditions doesn't really bother me, shocking as that may sound. I just see different upayas, some more, some less direct, each dealing with different needs and conditions. Conceptually, at least, while I am sensible of differences on a discursive level (i.e. the question of atman/anatman), I'm can't say I believe that ultimately Taoism, KS, Advaita and the Mahayana/Dzogchen don't all point to the same (no)thing. I can relate to them all in different ways. Perhaps KS is the most sublime in my understanding (I've studied it a bit, but find the teachings mostly out or reach besides a few primary texts). Possibly the "view" of Neoplatonism is somewhat lower than the above mentioned traditions. Of course, all this is only my personal opinion, based on intuition and my own reasonably well-informed meditation on the teachings. Debates on these issues will never be definitive or satisfactory to all parties (there are HUGE debate threads about these issues, for instance, on Dharmawheel, going on for page after page and utterly exhausting). I'm really only interested in practice at this point, to get beyond a certain "blockage" in my path. It's a question of praxis for me, not really metaphysics. I do like Advaita (that's what started me on the whole metaphysical bent years ago) though I feel closer to East Asian Buddhism due to the Bodhisattva ideal and the general tone of universal compassion and almost limitless "ways in" for all types of people. In any case, I appreciate the feedback!

CT, I really like how you describe this. Very refreshing and wise. One of the things that I like about Ch'an/Zen is that the outward practices are often described in a similarly esoteric manner--as in the Platform Sutra where Huineng talks about the refuge vows. I don't get this impression much in the Tibetan context, curiously, which I suppose makes sense when dealing with more "Sutra level" or gradual practices. The problem with Zen is, unless you're training in a school or under a master, the nature of the "path" can seem highly paradoxical and difficult to understand at all, although the view is certainly sublime.

Wow, that's extremely interesting! I had the same question and Apech beat me to it. Curiously enough, I had actually considered something similar to this long ago--i.e. I had considered taking Avalokitesvara or Amitabha as the guru (for both of whom I also have great affinity). But I gave it up as impossible in the sense that it would be entirely "unofficial," hence unacknowledged. I don't really care one way or another about official acknowledgement, yet something held me back, as it seemed so out of the ordinary and I questioned whether or not following the impulse would just be capricious. Is this something that can actually be done, then? NB: I'm not doubting you or challenging you--the ins and outs of TB can be overwhelming and hard to grasp in their intricacies, conditions, absolutes and exceptions. So I'd genuinely be interested in hearing more about how you go about this, ie what your practice looks like, and how you plan to take it forward. (Of course I'd understand if this is something you'd prefer to keep private.)

Apech, thanks for your reply. I hope I didn't come across as implying that anyone here was acting as a "gatekeeper." To the contrary, you and everyone elseon this thread has been extremely courteous to me, and helpful, unlike some of the responses I have come across in various "Dzogchen wars" on other forums.

Hi Apech, Thanks for your post. I certainly see your point and I appreciate your perspective--and nothing that I say here should be read as a refutation or belittlement of that perspective. I just feel I've been "ruined" in that regard. Ten years ago, had such an opportunity arisen, and had I been informed enough then to recognize Buddhism as a path leading "up the mountain," I would probably have plunged onto the path of Ngondro with zeal, as offering a clear and systematic method. However, over the years I've become so jaded and disillusioned with spiritual institutions of all sorts (both through negative personal experience and a whole lot of observation and reflection) that I simply don't think I'd be capable of committing to a Ngondro practice, to say nothing of a specific lineage, tradition, religion or guru. I know all this might sound like stereotypical Western anti-authoritarianism, but really I feel nothing but rejoicing for those who can find their way in these things. I know there is also a lot of good in the traditional institutions and really wonderful people within them. I don't discredit them in any absolute sense, especially for those they benefit, and I realize that every soul is coming from a different place, with different needs, biases, experiences and points of view; but in my case, I know myself well enough to realize it would be pointless to follow that really normative traditional way. I suppose I'm grasping to my biases, and that's a fair enough point. But I also feel I've "earned" my biases. I've been involved in 2 or 3 different spiritual traditions during my life (Buddhist and non-Buddhist). There was a time when I gleefully immersed myself in outward practices (prostrations, litanies, chanting, devotion to the teacher, etc). I eventually found these things, in my own case, to be another form of grasping, or else an attempt to "polish a brick." Over time the outward practices have dropped away little by little, but the thing that remains constant is the silent meditation practice. I have approached this from different angles of view, but as much as I can tell it really transcends any particular tradition in itself. I still utilize various outward things from time to time, but merely as "supports for meditation," or out or habit, no longer as a main part of the path. In a way, it leaves a void, since ritual, liturgy and spiritual forms have a refreshing beauty of their own, but increasingly I feel that I must simply be silent and listen--as well as purify the subtle body (hence the newfound Qigong interest). These are the two main things for me now, maybe adding the contemplation of symbolism and scriptures. Anything else I may bring in is secondary or even tertiary. I do believe that, as I have heard, in reality all of Buddhadharma arises from Dzogchen, not the other way around. This is a profound statement, and has nothing to do with any kind of historicism. I would (personally) universalize this to say that all spiritual traditions arise from that of which Dzogchen is a direct ray: the primordial Wisdom without a name. What I love about Dzogchen (and Zen, and "contemplative" Taoism) is that--at least theoretically--it can itself serve as this pure vehicle of contemplation, while providing complete freedom to utilize the "skillful means" as one deems expedient for the sake of the liberation of suffering beings. In practice, however, I have found Dzogchen, Mahamudra, and Ch'an/Zen to be surrounded by formidable structures of institutionalization and traditional gatekeepers. And politics, pedantry, formalism, and narrow vision. None of this is new anywhere, of course. I certainly appreciate the argument that it is the very institutions which insure these traditions against being lost or desecrated. I'm not advocating a generalized revolution by any means! And samsara after all is samsara. Still, in individual cases a transcending of all this may be more expedient than otherwise. Put it this way: I think that if I were, through destiny or karma, to meet a guru whom I just really felt understood me on a deep level and who I believed didn't want to "own" me--whether for himself or on behalf of whatever tradition s/he was representing--then I might be more open to Ngondro or whatever specifics they required for the sake of training. It's just that I've been burned in the past. On paper, such preliminaries, in whatever tradition, look perfect. But so many times, it seems, these preliminaries are just levied automatically as a sort of "one-size-fits-all" spiritual path where individual needs and "issues" are not taken into sufficient account. Sometimes they bear fruit, sometimes they do not. And so the only one I can say that I really "trust" anymore is that "still small voice" inside. Usually, it's very still, and very small, but I've nevertheless become increasingly able to trust this voice when I do hear it, especially in its cautions, whereas 15 years ago I would have said, "According to everyone important in the tradition, this or that practice is the one way to go if you want to achieve this." Anyway, I apologise for these long essays I seem to have been writing. I do appreciate having the opportunity to reflect on this with real living people, which is largely why I wanted to join thedaobums! Thanks to everyone who has shared so far. I have truly found all of your insights helpful 🙏

Oh yes, I'm definitely interested in this! I'm presuming that by "German mysticism," what is meant is the Rhineland Mystics, Eckhart, Tauler, et al? I will see if I can get ahold of this at my university....

Mskied, That is very interesting! When you say, "I was initiated on a spiritual level into Thelema," do you mean that you were initiated into the OTO? For what it's worth, I think "Crowleyanity" should be separated from the Law of Thelema, which is simply, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the Law, love under will." In my opinion this is simply a latter-day formulation of the esoteric core of every religion, and so I never found it necessary to "convert to Thelema" and adopt AC as the last--or even secondaryor tertiary--word on anything. Still, I do find some real value in AC's writings, taken with a grain of salt. I find much of his stuff quite an enjoyable way to spend a spare hour here and there--the "Autohagiography," for instance. Of course, I didn't actually read Crowley until I was 40, and I think that, coming to his work after having lived a little, rather than as a naive young man (as many do), I have been able to read with a critical eye and discern the good from the useless.