Fuck karma

[RongzomFan]

yes ... for a tantric approach

 

I also have a 'void' temple for the 'austere' approach.

 

A magical altar and a temple must be set up the right way ... it just isn't a hodge podge of things we like ... as so many of them are ... and my 'casual ones' are.

 

If I want to invoke Venus (or Krishna or .... ) my mind and awareness needs to focus on that. But I know it will wander ... that's fine ... the vision wanders; there is the statue of Venus, the colours of Venus ... my 'un /sub conscious' wanders , there is the magick square of Venus, the colours of Venus ... mind distracted by smell? Flood the temple with the incense of Venus ... body restless ? Throw in 7 circumambulations of Venus ... feel like a chat ? poems prayers to Venus .

 

This is the path of devotion or Bhakti and just one of the methods of magick - Liber Astarte ... 'tis the most dangerous path for the Magician though ... ever noticed how Hare Khrishna's seem obsessed

with Krishna ?

 

Obsession is not a magical path! it is an aberration off the path of magick in that sector relating to 'Acts of Worship' (Bhakti Yoga) - Union by Love ... if this path is polluted by 'fear of surrender' then one moves into obsession and then ignorance

 

http://hermetic.com/crowley/equinox/i/ii/eqi02016.html

If you are talking about evocation of deities, I just posted a video of ganapati homam in the Vedanta section with instructions.

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

 

Christ has a dreadful time of it.

 

That Ted Neeley was so angsty.

 

"Take this cup away from me, for I don't want to taste it's poison!"

 

1. Suffering can be interpreted in different ways. The obvious one is the stuff we all know but it would be disingenuous to claim that all life is this kind of suffering. As Marblehead points out, there's bikinis and short skirts etc.

 

Well you see, that's the suffering.

 

Isn't it?

 

Oh, ignore me.

 

...

[Nungali]

If you are talking about evocation of deities, I just posted a video of ganapati homam in the Vedanta section with instructions.

 

Hmmm ... I am talking about invocation of 'God-forms' . Thanks for the info ... I also have my own, quiet well working, instructions

[BaguaKicksAss]

If you are talking about evocation of deities, I just posted a video of ganapati homam in the Vedanta section with instructions.

 

Heartfelt prayers, an invitation, food offerings, a fire, then a good-bye, that all looks familiar, but in a very different way .

 

Though personally I use quite a bit of alcohol as well.

[Nungali]

Bacchus like alcohol ... Venus likes flowers .... hmmmm

 

 

care to work on a poem about this

[Nungali]

One day .... masses of us may realise it is technique that matters and all beliefs and obsessions with gods teachers and gurus are relevant metaphors for individuals and hold no existential reality ... THEN we will all be able to go places!

 

And that applies to MY religion too of course

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

 

You lot an' your flippin' invocations!

 

Don't you know they work?

 

I think you are bloody irresponsible.

 

I really wonder quite what you get up to.

 

...

[Brian]

yes ... for a tantric approach

I also have a 'void' temple for the 'austere' approach.

A magical altar and a temple must be set up the right way ... it just isn't a hodge podge of things we like ... as so many of them are ... and my 'casual ones' are.

If I want to invoke Venus (or Krishna or .... ) my mind and awareness needs to focus on that. But I know it will wander ... that's fine ... the vision wanders; there is the statue of Venus, the colours of Venus ... my 'un /sub conscious' wanders , there is the magick square of Venus, the colours of Venus ... mind distracted by smell? Flood the temple with the incense of Venus ... body restless ? Throw in 7 circumambulations of Venus ... feel like a chat ? poems prayers to Venus .

This is the path of devotion or Bhakti and just one of the methods of magick - Liber Astarte ... 'tis the most dangerous path for the Magician though ... ever noticed how Hare Khrishna's seem obssesed about Krishna ?

Obsession is not a magical path! it is an aberration off the path of magick in that sector relating to 'Acts of Worship' (Bhakti Yoga) - Union by Love ... if this path is polluted by 'fear of surrender '' then one moves into obsession and then ignorancehttp://hermetic.com/crowley/equinox/i/ii/eqi02016.html

 

Those Hare Krishna folks still around? Been years since I last saw them singing and dancing in an airport. Figured they'd gone the way of the Moonies.

[BaguaKicksAss]

...

 

You lot an' your flippin' invocations!

 

Don't you know they work?

 

I think you are bloody irresponsible.

 

I really wonder quite what you get up to.

 

...

 

Of course it works, that is why we do it silly .

 

I would say that there are many paths/traditions which would disagree with you on the irresponsible bit.

 

Though perhaps practicing such things without proper teachings could be.

 

Yeah anyways, I'm not going to stop my few decades of practice cause some completely stranger who hasn't even done 20 invocations (I'm guessing by your comment) is suggesting it's irresponsible .

 

Now Nungali, he makes me look like a noob! He's less likely to scrap his I figure.

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

 

I wasn't seriously seeking to offer you advice, you know.

 

On the contrary, I am coming to you for advice.

 

...

[Marblehead]

Oh, ignore me.

Okay.

[BaguaKicksAss]

...

 

I wasn't seriously seeking to offer you advice, you know.

 

On the contrary, I am coming to you for advice.

 

...

 

Don't do invocation, it's irresponsible .

 

Seriously though, magicians tend to wait until after about 3-5 years before even thinking of such things. It looks like you've already had that much though (read your blog, heh).

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

 

I don't really do anything.

 

It just happens.

 

Well, sometimes I do things after things have happened.

 

Invoke reverse causation.

 

But I don't really understand anything.

 

But doesn't everyone seek redemption?

 

I do.

 

...

Edited December 15, 2013 by Captain Mar-Vell

[Nungali]

Redemption from what ?

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

 

You tryin' ta trick me mr nungali?

 

Redeemed from the Fall, of course.

 

That's a general answer.

 

To seek to make up for the mistakes of the past.

 

Well in my case it might be more like awaiting redemption.

 

Or the enlivening of my redemption.

 

We shall see.

 

But I'm not happy mr nungali.

 

I'm not really happy.

 

...

Edited December 16, 2013 by Captain Mar-Vell

[Nungali]

Well, I am not surprised you are if you believe in the necessity for redemption.

 

Sorry but; 'There is no grace', but not sorry that ; ' there is no guilt'

 

and happy that ; "Love is the Law, Do What Thou Wilt.'

 

Fall? Did you did fall down ? Or did someone trip you up?

 

You didn't let 'someone' get into your head did you ?

 

Try another version:

 

 

 

“ For I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union.

This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all.”

 

“Invoke me under my stars! Love is the law, love under will. Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love. There is the dove, and there is the serpent. Choose ye well! He, my prophet, hath chosen, knowing the law of the fortress, and the great mystery of the House of God.”

 

“Behold! the rituals of the old time are black. Let the evil ones be cast away.”

 

“Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains.”

 

“A feast for fire and a feast for water; a feast for life and a greater feast for death!

 

A feast every day in your hearts in the joy of my rapture!

 

A feast every night unto Nu, and the pleasure of uttermost delight!

 

Aye! feast! rejoice! there is no dread hereafter. There is the dissolution, and eternal ecstasy in the kisses of Nu.”

 

“Lift up thyself! for there is none like unto thee among men or among Gods! Lift up thyself, o my prophet, thy stature shall surpass the stars.”

 

“The light is mine; its rays consume Me … “

Edited December 16, 2013 by Nungali

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

 

Don't get me wrong.

 

I like to believe I've got a lot to look forward to.

 

Besides, your advice sounds great.

 

...

Edited December 16, 2013 by Captain Mar-Vell

[dawei]

...

 

You tryin' ta trick me mr nungali?

 

Redeemed from the Fall, of course.

 

That's a general answer.

 

To seek to make up for the mistakes of the past.

 

Well in my case it might be more like awaiting redemption.

 

Or the enlivening of my redemption.

 

We shall see.

 

But I'm not happy mr nungali.

 

I'm not really happy.

 

...

 

It would seem your concept of happy is a pre-condition of something else... that makes happiness a kind of dependent origination but it seems it misses the point when seeking and desiring an outcome (happiness) is inserted into it all. This is an external, mind condition more than an internal, spirit. JMO.

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

 

To seek redemption is to find it.

 

Always seeking some Thing!

 

Sometimes desperately!

 

Happiness and sadness are alternating states.

 

When I am sad, I know there will be happiness along shortly.

 

...

Edited December 16, 2013 by Captain Mar-Vell

[Marblehead]

Yeah, inner happiness is difficult to attain and maintain in a constant state. But I would like to suggest that if we find inner happiness most externals will take care of themselves, naturally. (But still, sometimes we have to do the work.)

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

 

My grumbling stomach tells me I need to find food even though I have inner happiness.

 

So I'm off to buy some vegetarian pastries.

 

...

[yabyum24]

This is a good summary of Buddhism.

 

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 21.12. states:

"An existent does not arise from an existent;

neither does an existent arise from a non-existent.

A non-existent does not arise from a non-existent;

neither does a non-existent arise from an existent."

 

Here are some quotations from 2 top books, Nagarjuna's Reason Sixty and Center of the Sunlit Sky:

 

"Nagarjuna taught , "bereft of beginning, middle, and end," meaning that the world is free from creation, duration, and destruction."

-Candrakirti

 

"Once one asserts things, one will succumb to the view of seeing such by imagining their beginning, middle and end; hence that grasping at things is the cause of all views."

-Candrakirti

 

"the perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, "What is dependently created is uncreated."

-Candrakirti

 

"Likewise, here as well, the Lord Buddha’s pronouncement that "What is dependently created is objectively uncreated," is to counteract insistence on the objectivity of things."

-Candrakirti

 

"Since relativity is not objectively created, those who, through this reasoning, accept dependent things as resembling the moon in water and reflections in a mirror, understand them as neither objectively true nor false. Therefore, those who think thus regarding dependent things realize that what is dependently arisen cannot be substantially existent, since what is like a reflection is not real. If it were real, that would entail the absurdity that its transformation would be impossible. Yet neither is it unreal, since it manifests as real within the world."

-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna said "If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since

I have no position, I am not at fault at all."

 

Aryadeva said "Against someone who has no thesis of “existence,

nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,” it is not possible to

level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time."

 

"I do not say that entities do not exist, because I say that they originate in dependence. “So are you a realist then?” I am not, because I am just a proponent of dependent origination. “What sort of nature is it then that you [propound]?” I propound dependent origination. “What is the meaning of dependent origination?” It has the meaning of the lack of a nature and the meaning of nonarising through a nature [of its own]. It has the meaning of the origination of results with a nature similar to that of illusions, mirages, reflections, cities of scent-eaters, magical creations, and dreams. It has the meaning of emptiness and identitylessness."

-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1. states:

"Not from themselves, not from something other,

Not from both, and not without a cause-

At any place and any time,

All entities lack arising."

 

Buddhapālita comments (using consequentalist arguments which ultimately snowballs into Tibetan prasangika vs. svatantrika):

"Entities do not arise from their own intrinsic nature, because their arising would be pointless and because they would arise endlessly. For entities that [already] exist as their own intrinsic nature, there is no need to arise again. If they were to arise despite existing [already], there would be no time when they do not arise; [but] that is also not asserted [by the Enumerators].

 

Candrakīrti, in ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' VI.14., comments:

"If something were to originate in dependence on something other than it,

Well, then utter darkness could spring from flames

And everything could arise from everything,

Because everything that does not produce [a specific result] is the same in being other [than it]."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

"Entities also do not arise from something other, because there is nothing other."

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 1.3cd. states:

"If an entity in itself does not exist,

An entity other [than it] does not exist either."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

"Nor do entities arise from both [themselves and others], because this would entail [all] the flaws that were stated for both of these theses and because none of these [disproved possibilities] have the capacity to produce [entities]."

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.17., states:

"If some nonarisen entity

Existed somewhere,

It might arise.

However, since such does not exist, what would arise?"

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.19cd., states:

"If something that lacks arising could arise,

Just about anything could arise in this way."

 

Candrakīrti, in ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' VI.151., comments:

"It is not asserted that a chariot is something other than its parts.

It is not something that is not other, nor does it possess them.

It does not exist in the parts, nor do the parts exist in it.

It is neither their mere collection nor the shape—thus is the analogy."

There's something I don't understand RongzomFan. You continuously quote from the above people, whilst practicing something entirely different yourself. I'm no expert on Dzogchen but what material I have read on that topic does not concern itself too much with any of the above and if I have understood it correctly, you are a Dzogchenpa?

 

I may have misconstrued this, due to your veneration for Malcolm, so please forgive me if I've jumped to a false conclusion.

 

Also, the above is merely scholarly tenets and contains no practical application. It's certainly not a good summary of Buddhism. You also claim to have no interest in the teachings of Buddha, so why don't you post the teachings that you do have interest in and have found personally helpful?

 

It would be very interesting to see.

[RongzomFan]

Yeah, but that stuff is secret.

[yabyum24]

Yeah, but that stuff is secret.

Oh well, I guess we'll never know.

[RongzomFan]

I actually do have a thread on it:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32153-mystical-buddhist-readings/