Padma Norbu

The Dao Bums
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    7

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Padma Norbu

  1. Posted

    I've not read much of Paul Foster Case's (founder of B.O.T.A.) writings, but from what I understand they're pretty good. Although when it comes to Kabbalah, Masonry, Rosicrucianism and such, I prefer more the writings of Eliphas Levi, H.P. Blavatsky, Dion Fortune, Manly P. Hall, and Samael Aun Weor.

     

    Haven't read much of William Quan Judge's (Bryan Kinnavan) work either, but it seems pretty good too. I didn't know he was an author on "New Thought" (much less a "self-help" writer). I thought rather that William Quan Judge was more of a classical Theosophist (one of the Theosophical Society's very first members in fact?).

     

    I'm going to have to say probably not on William Quan Judge being a New Thought and/or 'self-help' writer.

     

    Theosophy may have influenced "New Thought" and "Christian Science", but I don't see how the latter two could be directly linked to any real Theosophists such as H.P. Blavatsky, H.S. Olcott, Rudolf Steiner, Franz Hartmann, or William Quan Judge.

     

    I was into some 'self-help' books, 'success' books, NLP books, etc. for a brief period. Not anymore though:

     

     

     

     

     

    Sarva Mangalam

     

    Ah, you're right, I had books by both William Quan Judge and Theron Q.Dumont and at the time of my last post, I was thinking of Dumont's books about Personal Magnetism, the Solar Plexus, etc. Must be the Q middle initial that did it. It's also been quite a while since I read this stuff, but I am even less fond of Theosophy than the New Thought stuff these days.

  3. Posted

    FYI most of those PDF's of Samael Aun Weor's writings contain tons of mistakes. They are often bad translations, are missing entire paragraphs, add things that aren't in the original, etc.

     

    I really couldn't care less.

     

    As for the rest of your post...

     

    Been there, done that. No need to try to educate me about Kabballah. :) I have a few drawers full of B.O.T.A. lessons and a closet full of books I'm slowly selling on E-bay. 37 now and studied it since I was about 17. And not just from books (obviously, you can't get B.O.T.A. lessons unless you join B.O.T.A.).

     

    William Q. Judge = waste of time, too, imo. Never met anyone who accomplished anything with New Thought movement material. Psycho-Cybernetics is a much more useful self-help book than just about anything from that movement, btw, so you should snatch up a used copy for about $2 on Amazon.

  4. Posted · Edited by Padma Norbu

    At one point, I had 70 or so Samael Weor pdfs. You know what I've never seen in any Vajrayana texts? Discussion about Samael Weor. Or Satan. Or 666. Or Samael, the archangel. Or Abraxas. Or anything remotely Christian.

     

    You can continue to try to cross-reference all the religions out there, following the "golden thread," as Joseph Campbell called it (or Golden Bough, as Sir James George Frazer called it) but I'd like to suggest to you that it is a counter-productive waste of time if you are trying to read from one tradition and then read from another tradition to find an explanation that you might understand better.

     

    Of course, I don't expect you to believe me. Most followers of the "golden thread" refuse to accept this notion until they figure it out for themselves. But, if you just think about it logically, it doesn't make much sense: are you an expert in either Weor Gnosticism or Tantra or Dzogchen? If not, then why try to compare them? If you feel you are expert in one, then why would that qualify you to examine another tradition from that perspective? This is really common among people involved in Western Mystery Traditions, but how in the hell would anyone know if the "enlightenment" of one tradition is even remotely like the "enlightenment" of another?

     

    I am not criticizing you because that would be hypocritical of me, since I spent a long time doing the same thing.

  6. Posted · Edited by Padma Norbu

    Why are you talking about Samael Aun Weor? He doesn't have anything to do with Dzogchen or thogyal practice.

     

    Keith Dowman acknowledges that in the Completion Stages, to reach orgasm incurs the karma of slaying a Buddha, but then he goes on to imply that it's okay for a Dzogchen practitioner to expel semen

     

    This would seem to indicate the difference between Vajrayana and Dzogchen, don't you think (conceptual framework vs. beyond concepts)?

     

    Can you provide the full quote? My guess is that this idea that orgasm "incurs the karma of slaying a Buddha" is probably figurative and a reference to inner work in tantra towards your own Buddhahood that is sabotaged by orgasm. Whatever Dzogchen practices he is referring to (if any) are probably different.

     

    EDIT: nevermind, I found it on page 248 of Sky Dancer by Keith Dowman:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=ACPL_mjx-xUC&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq=keith+dowman+orgasm&source=bl&ots=BPVEj3xClK&sig=UCOA5D5lNMIKUen7a2TcmqohMOE&hl=en&ei=E4GdTqu9KuXV0QH9x8i3CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

     

    They are different outlooks for different practices. And Sam Weor has nothing to do with either.

    • Like 1