Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I mean, demons.... they are usually sly, evil and want to fuck you up.

 

But as long as you're not into their bad side or they actually have reasons to befriend you (being gentle and polite with them is always a good reason for most of them), they'll even become nice friends who will help you with what you want.

 

Then, worst case scenario, they will toss you into whatever hell they know of.

 

Angels?

 

Those guys will actually TEST you. One of the Seraphim actually injected Pride onto my soul in hopes for me to become prideful enough to go against it (yes, a mortal going against a Seraphim... that's the kind of pride it was injecting me with), which would them allow it to destroy me completly.

 

I was lucky to only have contacted this being while being protected by others. Otherwise I would have been royaly screwd.

 

And they won't stop, and they won't listen. Unless you speak with "the voice of the Lord", they won't even look at what you want. They will just do whatever they have been commanded and/or want to do.

 

I mean, demons... if you know a few Names of God and how to correctly pronunce them, they will obey. But angels? They will get pissed at you for using the lord's name in vain, lol.

 

Really nice people. Really powerful. Powerhouses, even.

 

But buttfuck, they can pack a punch in your guts.

 

Hell would be light torment if you get on an Angel's bad side. They can do WAY worse than keep you in eternal damnation - and that's not to say that unless you become able to speak with the "Voice of the Lord" while staying into whatever pit of misfortune they throw you in, it will indeed be "Eternal" as in "until this whole universe ceases existing".

Edited by Desmonddf
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Desmonddf said:

I mean, demons.... they are usually sly, evil and want to fuck you up.

 

But as long as you're not into their bad side or they actually have reasons to befriend you (being gentle and polite with them is always a good reason for most of them), they'll even become nice friends who will help you with what you want.

 

Then, worst case scenario, they will toss you into whatever hell they know of.

 

Angels?

 

Those guys will actually TEST you. One of the Seraphim actually injected Pride onto my soul in hopes for me to become prideful enough to go against it (yes, a mortal going against a Seraphim... that's the kind of pride it was injecting me with), which would them allow it to destroy me completly.

 

I was lucky to only have contacted this being while being protected by others. Otherwise I would have been royaly screwd.

 

And they won't stop, and they won't listen. Unless you speak with "the voice of the Lord", they won't even look at what you want. They will just do whatever they have been commanded and/or want to do.

 

I mean, demons... if you know a few Names of God and how to correctly pronunce them, they will obey. But angels? They will get pissed at you for using the lord's name in vain, lol.

 

Really nice people. Really powerful. Powerhouses, even.

 

But buttfuck, they can pack a punch in your guts.

 

Hell would be light torment if you get on an Angel's bad side. They can do WAY worse than keep you in eternal damnation - and that's not to say that unless you become able to speak with the "Voice of the Lord" while staying into whatever pit of misfortune they throw you in, it will indeed be "Eternal" as in "until this whole universe ceases existing".

 

Personally I have never had that problem .

 

Because the Magician's  voice IS the 'voice of the Lord '.  (in a 'way' ) .

 

And you cant be a Lord (or a King )  unless you can  wear the Crown and wield the Sword properly.  And you cant do that until you have mastered the other 'weapons' .

 

And the crown (kether)  comes after  traversing all the other paths ( a weapon for each path )

 

 Also -IME -  most people that have trouble in this area do not realise  or use 'The Contract' correctly .   Awareness of that (and its terms) seems essential for happy, good and healthy relationships .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, idiot_stimpy said:

Just curious, does communing with Angels and demons required for enlightenment?

 

Do you mean 'is it required for enlightenment ' ?

I would say not, but that depends on one's definition of 'enlightenment ' .

 

In the western tradition, 'illumination' seems the better term .  (and it isnt requred for that either ....  but it does make a good map for understanding and working with one's psyche .

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Personally I have never had that problem .

 

Because the Magician's  voice IS the 'voice of the Lord '.  (in a 'way' ) .

 

And you cant be a Lord (or a King )  unless you can  wear the Crown and wield the Sword properly.  And you cant do that until you have mastered the other 'weapons' .

 

And the crown (kether)  comes after  traversing all the other paths ( a weapon for each path )

 

 Also -IME -  most people that have trouble in this area do not realise  or use 'The Contract' correctly .   Awareness of that (and its terms) seems essential for happy, good and healthy relationships .

 

More like the magician knows how to beg for the Lord inside of it to order the angels around.

 

No one who isn't omniscient,potent and etc is capable of being like "the lord". We just have sparks of divinity inside of us, and a magician learns of their existence and how to reach them.

 

The Tree of Life's symbolism is interesting, but it's still a symbolism. The whole idea is still something of the mental plane. Getting to be like "the lord" requires for one to go beyond that, and at a very basal level indeed.

 

For instance, I've been crowned by the Angels on my latest Theurgic experience. They've shown me how to "speak with the voice of the Lord" and how to "Speak the Language of Angels".


What did I found out?

 

That "I" (ego) can't do jack shit. There's "something" inside me (small pieces of what I call "myself" but DEFINETELY aren't under my control, lol) that have indeed become divine and have the power to do that kind of stuff. I can even feel when they do it.

 

But "I" ? This little ego here?

 

I can at most beg the pieces of divinity inside of me to do it. It's simply impossible to "speak the language of angels" or "command with the voice of the Lord" without BEING "the Lord", and that means "being like god" in a macroscopic sense. 

 

So, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. No abstractly. Literaly.

Edited by Desmonddf
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, idiot_stimpy said:

How does one go about learning more about this? Or performing this operation? 

 

About what  ?  .... Performing what operation ?

 

This is a subject that needs specifics .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Desmonddf said:

 

More like the magician knows how to beg for the Lord inside of it to order the angels around.

 

No one who isn't omniscient,potent and etc is capable of being like "the lord". We just have sparks of divinity inside of us, and a magician learns of their existence and how to reach them.

 

The Tree of Life's symbolism is interesting, but it's still a symbolism. The whole idea is still something of the mental plane. Getting to be like "the lord" requires for one to go beyond that, and at a very basal level indeed.

 

For instance, I've been crowned by the Angels on my latest Theurgic experience. They've shown me how to "speak with the voice of the Lord" and how to "Speak the Language of Angels".


What did I found out?

 

That "I" (ego) can't do jack shit. There's "something" inside me (small pieces of what I call "myself" but DEFINETELY aren't under my control, lol) that have indeed become divine and have the power to do that kind of stuff. I can even feel when they do it.

 

But "I" ? This little ego here?

 

I can at most beg the pieces of divinity inside of me to do it. It's simply impossible to "speak the language of angels" or "command with the voice of the Lord" without BEING "the Lord", and that means "being like god" in a macroscopic sense. 

 

So, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. No abstractly. Literaly.

 

There we differ . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

There we differ . 

 

Careful with the tricks of pride. People want to be gods without knowing what that means, only for the feeling of grandeur. "I can be god of myself!" is mostly delusion. There's no difference between oneself and the whole, so how can you be god of yourself without being of the whole? How can you be master of your own destiny without being master of destiny itself? Be master of your relationships without being master of relationships?

 

Unfortunately, that's how it is - or at least as much as I've discovered. One cannot be god of themselves without being god itself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Desmonddf said:

 

Careful with the tricks of pride.

 

I got over that one looooong ago .   The last time I felt pride was when I spent a little time to make a nice fire ( good wood stacked right so it burns  bright and doesnt smoke )  for a very elderly Aboriginal man  that I had invited into my home on a cold night .

 

He said ; "You made a good fire. "      And I  felt proud . 

 

" ... be sure that thy soul is firm and steadfast; for it is by flattering thy weaknesses that the Weak Ones will gain power over thee. "

 

.. and we know what pride 'goeth before'  .

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Desmonddf said:

 

People want to be gods without knowing what that means, only for the feeling of grandeur. "I can be god of myself!" is mostly delusion.

 

Being God, is one thing . being 'God of myself' is entirely another and relates more to 'being Lord ' - over a domain or King, hence wearing the crown. 

 

I should have been clearer I suppose.   One can use the term God, but that is difficult as it is loaded with the concepts of a strange God, Some religious views of God are pretty strange IMO ; vengeful , 'fear the Lord',  etc   and that is NOT the type of relationship to have with your angels spirits and demons .

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Desmonddf said:

 

 

There's no difference between oneself and the whole, so how can you be god of yourself without being of the whole?

 

And if there is no difference between oneself   and the whole ... then oneself must be God .

 

- you cant have it only one way ;)

 

Maybe we have VERY different ideas about God .  I think 'God made Man'   but also 'Man made God'  .  The concept of 'God'  is a man made invention  and Man has developed according to his belief in his invention and  the concept of God, in turn, has been developed and refined by man .

 

'religion' can be a VERY DANGEROUS thing for a magician or would be magician to play with !    Even   operations of devotion  - the 'Bhakti' path of Magick - are known to be the MOST dangerous of operations .

 

Note point 43 ;      https://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/lib175.htm

 

8 hours ago, Desmonddf said:

 

How can you be master of your own destiny without being master of destiny itself? Be master of your relationships without being master of relationships?

 

By dealing with 'what is right under your nose' .   I deal with my own destiny 'on the first order' because it is MY destiny. If there was no subtle difference (within this 'sameness' ) everything you just wrote makes no sense ; there is no 'your own destiny' and 'destiny itself'. By using those terms and acknowleding the division, you admit there is some type of division ... and that is the division of the real  material world that we live in ...  we do not 'live in' the ideal world of concepts and  philosophy , these are the 'ideal energies' ( above the 'abyss' )  behind the manifest energies .

 

As above so below   ...  we need the two things, a dualism so they can be united ... otherwise we just get 'axioms like '

 

' As so ' .

 

And as far as being a 'master of relationships    .....  well. there is really only one way to put this ;

 

I am not  the one having the bad relationship.  A few people seem to be having difficulty, hard trials, torments,  bits inside you that you dont have control over  etc . etc .     I am having  great relationships and I am very happy with the experience, and they are too; I look after them and they look after me .

 

It might really help to actually READ some of the links I make, instead of glossing over them ... but , whatever .

 

8 hours ago, Desmonddf said:

 

Unfortunately, that's how it is - or at least as much as I've discovered. One cannot be god of themselves without being god itself.

 

A magician is supposed to be Lord (or king ) of their domain .  Forget trying to be God, or follow God, or appease God  ... its too loaded with conditionings .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Words are quite interesting pieces of technology.  Especially certain words which carry a certain type of electric charge to them - a certain catalytic element which carries across divides that are unforeseen.  Metaphorically it can cause "short circuits" in the energetic patterning reinforced by the layers of social engineering imposed on a person, which is sometimes referred to as "conditioning".

 

However at the most basic level, the technology of language provides even more unforeseen consequences in relation to their effects upon the untrained and unexamined mind.  In particular there is a also a certain built-in feedback loop which keeps these unexamined effects in the dark, so to speak.  A person will "naturally" (perhaps more akin to "second nature", but I digress) avoid any type of investigation regarding such effects due to the obvious domination they have over their own perspectives and motivations - but most importantly, their actions themselves.  In other words, the control they have over a persons life is the same force which causes a person to avoid realizing it... due to various psychological factors which are also intimately related to the process itself.

 

Knowing how these kinds of effects are produced and how their interplay with these kinds of "charged" words works in a particular kind of continuum of the mind which is derived from language - it is quite possible to induce very strong influences on people in general, and to further produce various effects resulting from such manipulations.  In fact most people are already involved with these kinds of activities in a subconscious way already - albeit only within the inherently limited scope of their subconscious mind - which is more or less animalistic and/or infantile in the extreme.  Above and beyond this... many, many, many things are possible.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Nungali said:

The concept of 'God'  is a man made invention  and Man has developed according to his belief in his invention and  the concept of God, in turn, has been developed and refined by man .

 

I see. We indeed have very different views on the subject. I do not think man has created anything, much less Concepts. Indeed, as far as I've reached in my operations, concepts are older and more eternal than flesh-and-bones humans.

 

17 hours ago, Nungali said:

and that is NOT the type of relationship to have with your angels spirits and demons .

 

Yep. Very different. I'm not dealing with "my" angels, demons and spirits. I'm dealing with demons, angels and spirits as beings outside of my own.


Not images on my psyche, not figures of language. Real and literal things. Capable of generating physical changes in matter, including.  I suppose you're on that "magic is psychology" thing.

Edited by Desmonddf
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 The words and notions of conversational language become dead and empty, conveying nothing to him who does not carry such knowledge within himself. In the same way as the sensation off tooth-ache cannot be imparted to one who has not experienced it, and just as the difference of colors cannot be conveyed to one blind from birth, and the wealth of auditory sensation cannot be communicated to the deaf, similarly you cannot tell or relate in words the depth of knowledge which has become part of a man's being. The words and notions of different epochs change according to conditions of place and time; unity is eternal and immutable. 

 

The laws, acting in us, and producing the plurality assumed by us, are everywhere the same. From the most, ancient times humanity has understood this, and by utilizing the language of symbols and formulas, more perfect than our contemporary language, has gone on handing its knowledge down to the succeeding generations. And everybody approaching the symbol and possessing a complete understanding of it, possesses a perfect synthesis of it. Speaking figuratively, he has this symbol within himself. 

 

A symbol, by expressing the knowledge of the laws of unity, has at the same time expressed the path to it. Side by aide with the basic symbols, as if they absorbed into themselves wider spheres, there started up and sprang into existence in subjection to them other symbols and formulae. Everything in the world is one and is governed by uniform laws, and for that reason the "Emerald Tables" of Hermes Trismegistus put it; "As above, so below". 

 

What I have just said shows how difficult it is to convert the language of symbols into our own language, how little purpose there is in interpreting the symbol to a man who has not attained to an understanding of it. And however strange it may be, the fact remains that the sense of the symbol, the discovery of its nature, can only be given to, and received by, him who previously knew already, and for him the symbol will be the synthesis of his knowledge, the same formula for the expression of knowledge as it was to him who constructed it. 

 

Will a man unacquainted with this system of symbols understand a great deal if he is told that the knowledge of unity by the means of self-knowledge and self-perfection for man is the neutralization of the binary by the ternary and its transmutation into the quaternary in order to close the pentagram and realize the "Seal of Solomon"?

 

Symbols, transposed into the words of our language, and handed down in those words, harden into a filament, they tarnish and may give rise to fatal errors in people who do not understand the symbols or understand them literally. Truth gets encased in a shall of error, and to enable the approacher to get near to it a great effort is required on his part. What monstrous errors have arisen from the symbols of alchemy, particularly of magic, in those people who, literally and one-sidedly, without possessing the all comprehensive knowledge of unity, adopted its symbols! 

 

The symbol is a barricade against words, it delves into the thing, taken by itself, and taken in its own reality. A knowledge of the symbol leaves no room for dispute, it deepens the understanding which does not remain merely theoretical, but presses on to the real result of being able to do, to the result of knowing and being, to the realization of great doing. Pure knowledge is not transferable, and by being expressed in words, is veiled by them, but whoever wishes and is able to see this veil, will find it transparent. 

 

And in this sense it is possible to speak of the symbolism of speech, but it is not everyone who can understand even merely this symbolism. To understand the spoken inner meaning of the thought and its spirit is possible only at a certain stage of development and with an effort on the part of the hearer. In those cases where a person is simply disputing in the ordinary sense of the words, by merely contending for his own opinion, he wastes his time in vain without acquiring anything new

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Desmonddf said:

 

I see. We indeed have very different views on the subject. I do not think man has created anything, much less Concepts. Indeed, as far as I've reached in my operations, concepts are older and more eternal than flesh-and-bones humans.

 

Man has not created any concepts ? 

 

:huh:

 

 

 

Quote

 

Yep. Very different. I'm not dealing with "my" angels, demons and spirits. I'm dealing with demons, angels and spirits as beings outside of my own.

 

Its both .

 

It would get VERY technical and lengthy to go onto the difference and sameness of the concepts here , the briefest way to explain is by looking at something like a 'banishing' Vs a 'balancing' ritual  ; in the first a sphere is considered condensed around one and energy is pushed out or projected , it is a sphere of protection. As the magician advances (or actually, as the practitioner becomes a magician ) the sphere is expanded ( to include the 'outside' with the 'inside' ) and 'opposing' forces are bought together and balanced. 

 

Quote


Not images on my psyche, not figures of language. Real and literal things. Capable of generating physical changes in matter, including.  I suppose you're on that "magic is psychology" thing.

 

I think if anyone ignores the 'magic is psychology thing' nowadays  the are in for Trouble !   But that is NOT the only side of things , Where I live - when I came here there where 'forces;, very powerful 'outside of' my psyche . Now they have been integrated ... some of them.

 

Another example is  with an indigenous group I have been associated with , they have 3 or 4 main 'spirits' that seem gnarly, spooky, dangerous, demonic, MOST of the people are worried about them and avoid certain places and behaviours becasue of them .  But the 'clever men'  ( 'magicians')  in that group see these see beings as their  guardians, protectors and sources of power and knowledge  and the 'spirits' where around long before they where born .

 

I think it is rather hard to work magic when one is removed from the 'earth connection' , you have to rely on genetics, traditions or  study, inherited religious conditions, etc  and if you take out 'connection to country' ..... it isnt 'earthed' properly .

 

https://www.commonground.org.au/learn/connection-to-country

Edited by Nungali
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe psychology is magic?

 

Quote

Cupid and Psyche is a story that concerns the overcoming of obstacles to the love between Psyche (Greek: Ψυχή, "Soul" or "Breath of Life") and Cupid (Latin Cupido, "Desire") or Amor ("Love", Greek Eros ’′Ερως), and their ultimate union in a sacred marriage.

 

And therefore perhaps a human without "psyche" may indeed be possible in the subtle sense which is inquired about in the topic of this thread... especially in the lack of "natural wonder" which renders the spectrum of mystery far too narrow to encompass the breadth of endlessness from which it springs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes a person can 'loose' their soul.

 

Observe a person that has been in a long term  job, relationship or situation that they do not want to be, where their individuality and creative output is stifled and you will see the results of 'soul loss'  .  Soul development and satisfaction is intimately linked with creative output

Edited by Nungali
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I love the clash of perception that is going on in this thread between @Nungali and @Desmonddf

 

Personally I find myself at a different level than both of them, and I can recognize aspects from both that are relatable.

Different good or different bad, becomes of course a moral problem that is not easily solved.

As we are speaking of things that are not easily pulled apart by such cheap dualistic notions.

 

Quote

The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one

can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become

conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present

and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge, and it

therefore, as a rule, meets with considerable resistance.

Carl Jung - Aion

 

When one encounters demons and angels one will of course be deep in the work already.

Yet the shadow cannot be dispelled just by effort alone, because to turn towards the shadow does not remove it.

And when the sun itself move, the shadow isn't countered, it is merely moved to another location.

 

Of course, the main problem I see here is one of talking past each other.

Being so merged in ones own manifestation of will that everyone else's is taken as false and useless.

Pointing to the flagrant shadows of the others, while completely denying ones own.

 

I don't care how long anyone has practiced, if they have no shadow, then they are indeed dead.

And would very much qualify as representatives of the phenomena of this thread,

as beings without a soul.

 

22 hours ago, Nungali said:

Yes a person can 'loose' their soul.

 

Observe a person that has been in a long term  job, relationship or situation that they do not want to be, where their individuality and creative output is stifled and you will see the results of 'soul loss'  .  Soul development and satisfaction is intimately linked with creative output

 

I agree that the soul shrinks in such a position, but it is not entirely lost.

If is more like in hibernation, a vague dream of something more.

I agree on creative output, yet there is more than one level of creative output,

it is only when one can unify all 4 elements in oneself that one is truly creative.

That is the point when one starts to knock on the gates of Kether,

and when one gets in all sorts of trouble because one is not ready for divinity.

As even the cooperation of the 4 elements is not enough to represent the totality of the self.

 

This is when the collective unconscious come into the picture, as we find that in the mass of humanity,

we are still nothing, and our contribution often are like grains of sand.

Though someone who manages to gather the elements have a good chance of becoming a notable player.

But even becoming an icon of history is not the same as touching divinity, though it is a lot closer than most get.

Because even icons of history will fade away long before the archetypes and other primal forces fade.

 

Which is why pride can be such a dangerous vice, (though it is hardly the only vice)

because it tempts one with things that although noble in a way,

still don't really help one on ones spiritual journey.

If it did, both Napoleon and Caesar would have been paragons of spirituality,

because of the mark they made on history and hence peoples ability to remember them long after.

Sure they made their will known, and hence was on a path of individuation in that sense,

but so is most people in some way or another, even though they might be trapped in bad circumstance.

They still bang their head against the wall every day,

because they know they should try to make something important happen.

 

So yeah, just me processing this from my own frame, which in some ways I know will conflict with others.

It is just an inevitable fact, and I have to accept that what I have to say will not be understood,

at least not in the sense I wanted it to be understood, because people will adapt it to their frame,

and hence give critique and praise based on that, and not based on what I set out to convey in essence.

Though now and then one gets pretty close, but even then it is just a superficial chemistry,

that on closer inspection will break down.

Edited by Integrated
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Integrated said:

I love the clash of perception that is going on in this thread between @Nungali and @Desmonddf

 

Personally I find myself at a different level than both of them, and I can recognize aspects from both that are relatable.

Different good or different bad, becomes of course a moral problem that is not easily solved.

As we are speaking of things that are not easily pulled apart by such cheap dualistic notions.

 

 

When one encounters demons and angels one will of course be deep in the work already.

Yet the shadow cannot be dispelled just by effort alone, because to turn towards the shadow does not remove it.

And when the sun itself move, the shadow isn't countered, it is merely moved to another location.

 

I assume you are talking 'Jungian   'shadow  and that definition that includes the whole unconscious.  In that case, I find the suggestion of   dispelling it, or wanting to dispel it or even talking about dispelling it rather odd .   Perhaps what is meant is making a better working connection with it ?   That is why in my 'psychological astrological tree' the  Sun is linked to the Moon (surrounded by the three main drives and the 3 inner personal planets ) through Mercury  and why a central motif of hermetics is the Sun and Moon conjoined , in some way . 

 

So there are two aspects here ( and also they are in psychology )  ; the whole content of the unconscious or  the main drives in the unconscious  . And within either or both of those, another two aspects , the general (or whole ) unconscious and those 'animal tendencies and programmes  from early evolution ... that generally constitute the 'Id' ... the 'lower programmes'    ( a study of exp-psychology helps here ) .  Here, with training and understanding, any drive (or force) can be  balanced  and harnessed to the work at hand .

 

I suppose what is meant by the above quote and Jung's writing relating to it is that many do not want to admit the power over us of these unregulated and unbalanced drives. Most of us play civilised ... until the button is pushed or the thin veneer is stripped back, then, as has often been said , Man behaves worse than any animal !

 

This ( across the field ... ie. of time and locations) is the essence of initiation ;  An animal (human ) with all its drives and conditionings is born and the preliminary initiation is an 'adoption' into a tribe or group. Then they must be made into a 'social animal', learn to regulate their primitive drives and conditions and go through individuation - learning about their individual identity and their collective social identity, the trade offs and advantages of this  ( what you must give up , eg 'selfishness' and what  you will gain  eg. ' support and sharing ) Thats the first level of initiation/s - the 'animal child ' has learnt to be a  human 'culturally and socially'.  The next level, they are initiated  into 'magicians' , they have learnt to integrate  their unconscious , individual and collective .

 

Now, imagine what happens when people start doing the 2nd without the first  !     A big mess.

 

One of the things that changed the occult outlook greatly (and was sorely needed) was psychology  and developments in evolutionary sciences .... before that some systems had lost the earth connection, Man was seen as a spiritual being and very much denying these shadow or Id forces.   He was ( and mostly still is) a self righteous 'spiritual' being prancing around declaring how advanced he is, but at the same time leaving a trail of devastation behind his lumbering shadow form .  At least today it is acknowledged that as well as being a 'spiritual being' we are a naked ape , a primate, a hominid , with drives and desires that need to be acknowledged    but also balanced and utilised .

 

Quote

 

Of course, the main problem I see here is one of talking past each other.

Being so merged in ones own manifestation of will that everyone else's is taken as false and useless.

 

Thats a curious observation since I was pointing out that  I integrate BOTH sides of the  polarities that Desmond was separating .IE;

" You cant only have it one way"  .  ( See below  for further on this re 'Diamonic Reality ' )

 

Quote

Pointing to the flagrant shadows of the others, while completely denying ones own.

 

Sometimes it seems   opposing points of view are just that .... it all depends on one's level of knowledge  and application.

 

For example  two people might argue if a venus fly trap is a plant or an animal . One observer might think and observe as you did above . But the botanist will see the 'argument' as something different . 

 

Yes, I do realise this is not a popular view in today's world .  Many seem to think that the right to be heard and express one's view  is the same as  '  I have the right to be right '

 

<  shrug >

 

Quote

 

I don't care how long anyone has practiced, if they have no shadow, then they are indeed dead.

And would very much qualify as representatives of the phenomena of this thread,

as beings without a soul.

 

You cant NOT have a shadow. That is if you are talking about what Jung or even Freud was , in any of its aspects .  So I dont get how 'long practice' comment comes into it. And actually, why all the talk about someone practising long time and 'shadow removal' ?  :huh:

 

Maybe you mean 'denial of' the shadow  and not 'having no shadow'  ?

 

It seems like you are now equating 'unconscious'  with 'soul' . Their functions are intertwined, but certainly not the same thing .

 

But then again, as I have said a few times, most  do not seem to understand soul; they have a vague idea that intersects with 'spirit' ,  'a spirit' , a type of 'astral double', some immortal aspect or something else. And few realise the process of degeneration its definition and understanding has undergone the last few centuries , in the western context. A three part concept of body soul and spirit gradually got overtaken by dualism, with spirit and soul being squashed together and made an opposite of body ... or 'the material world' ... the 'real'  and the 'ideal' - tangible  / intangible . 

 

If all that sounds like gobbledegook , try  ; 'Daimonic Reality' by Patrick Harpur

 

"  'With Jung, Harpur argues that these are phenomena of the psyche, but that psyche is of the world, not just of us as individuals.  Indeed, our much cherished individual selves and psyches may be no more than embodiments of that world-soul (rediscovered in our age as the goddess Gaia).  The phenomena in which the book rejoices may be appearances to us of its ancient inhabitants.  They appear in different forms to match changing cultural expectations and concerns.  An appearance of the Goddess becomes an appearance of the Blessed Virgin Mary, becomes a woman with golden hair emerging from her spacecraft.  The mistake, he suggests, is to deny and repress these manifestations, since the repressed returns, pathologically and dangerously, if separated from a context of meaning and belief.  Harpur suggests that a function of these daimonic forces may now be to undermine a deadening and narrow scientific orthodoxy and world-view - the 'single vision' which Blake so deplored.  This sounds very radical but Harpur is the first to point out that it is not very new.  By drawing on a philosophical tradition that flows down the centuries from the Neoplatonists, through the Romantics, and crucially in Bake, Yeats and Jung, he shows that there is an ancient history of understanding of this daimonic, Otherworld reality.  Indeed, he goes back further still by embracing the folklore and tales of the Otherworld from across the Western tradition, and acknowledges that every culture, except perhaps our own, has seen its world as interpenetrated with another, shadowy, yet powerful reality, full of wonder, beauty and terror.  The key to being alert to it lies in what Blake called the Imagination, and in not allowing the rational mind to shut out what it cannot readily comprehend or control. "

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

I agree that the soul shrinks in such a position, but it is not entirely lost.

If is more like in hibernation, a vague dream of something more.

I agree on creative output, yet there is more than one level of creative output,

 

And it isnt JUST creative output, that is part of the whole 'soul dynamic' and process .

 

Quote

it is only when one can unify all 4 elements in oneself that one is truly creative.

That is the point when one starts to knock on the gates of Kether,

and when one gets in all sorts of trouble because one is not ready for divinity.

As even the cooperation of the 4 elements is not enough to represent the totality of the self.

 

This is when the collective unconscious come into the picture, as we find that in the mass of humanity,

we are still nothing, and our contribution often are like grains of sand.

Though someone who manages to gather the elements have a good chance of becoming a notable player.

But even becoming an icon of history is not the same as touching divinity, though it is a lot closer than most get.

Because even icons of history will fade away long before the archetypes and other primal forces fade.

 

Which is why pride can be such a dangerous vice, (though it is hardly the only vice)

because it tempts one with things that although noble in a way,

still don't really help one on ones spiritual journey.

If it did, both Napoleon and Caesar would have been paragons of spirituality,

because of the mark they made on history and hence peoples ability to remember them long after.

Sure they made their will known, and hence was on a path of individuation in that sense,

but so is most people in some way or another, even though they might be trapped in bad circumstance.

They still bang their head against the wall every day,

because they know they should try to make something important happen.

 

So yeah, just me processing this from my own frame, which in some ways I know will conflict with others.

It is just an inevitable fact, and I have to accept that what I have to say will not be understood,

at least not in the sense I wanted it to be understood, because people will adapt it to their frame,

and hence give critique and praise based on that, and not based on what I set out to convey in essence.

 

I think i was Robert Anton Wilson that made up (or borrowed from reality) the story of the  'Occult lecture' given to the public and at the end the lecturer said something like 'And now I will open the floor to questions, where you may quizz me on all the things you thought I said, which I didnt . " 

 

 

 

Quote

Though now and then one gets pretty close, but even then it is just a superficial chemistry,

that on closer inspection will break down.

 

It tends to break down more when one is communicating via  ' just me processing this from my own frame'  and rambling.

 

Which we all do from time to time    :) 

 

.

Edited by Nungali
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Nungali

Okay you really followed me into a lot of rabbit holes here.

 

Quote

I assume you are talking 'Jungian   'shadow  and that definition that includes the whole unconscious.  In that case, I find the suggestion of   dispelling it, or wanting to dispel it or even talking about dispelling it rather odd .   Perhaps what is meant is making a better working connection with it ?   That is why in my 'psychological astrological tree' the  Sun is linked to the Moon (surrounded by the three main drives and the 3 inner personal planets ) through Mercury  and why a central motif of hermetics is the Sun and Moon conjoined , in some way . 

 

Yes I usually adopt a Jungian frame on things, mainly because I had a long period under his spell, so to speak.

So that perspective is more evolved in me.

 

I assume that you are referring to Tiferet - Sun -> Yesod - Moon -> Hod -> Mercury?

If so, I can get aboard that understanding of it, the moon being a form of shadow.

From a Jungian point of view I guess we could say that it is the opposite attitude of the same function.

Though that is more or less me equating that shadow to be say an Introverted feeler taking on an Extraverted feeler mask.

If you get where I'm going with it,

a sort of direct compensation of the main attitude function to cover up the main flaw of the personality.

In the case of the example used, extraverting feeling, rather than face the repressed thinking.

This is of course me trying to fit such a system in with Jung, and has certain intuitive leaps without empirical backing.

Though from watching myself and others, it seems to fit pretty well.

 

Quote

So there are two aspects here ( and also they are in psychology )  ; the whole content of the unconscious or  the main drives in the unconscious  . And within either or both of those, another two aspects , the general (or whole ) unconscious and those 'animal tendencies and programmes  from early evolution ... that generally constitute the 'Id' ... the 'lower programmes'    ( a study of exp-psychology helps here ) .  Here, with training and understanding, any drive (or force) can be  balanced  and harnessed to the work at hand .

 

I suppose what is meant by the above quote and Jung's writing relating to it is that many do not want to admit the power over us of these unregulated and unbalanced drives. Most of us play civilised ... until the button is pushed or the thin veneer is stripped back, then, as has often been said , Man behaves worse than any animal !

 

This ( across the field ... ie. of time and locations) is the essence of initiation ;  An animal (human ) with all its drives and conditionings is born and the preliminary initiation is an 'adoption' into a tribe or group. Then they must be made into a 'social animal', learn to regulate their primitive drives and conditions and go through individuation - learning about their individual identity and their collective social identity, the trade offs and advantages of this  ( what you must give up , eg 'selfishness' and what  you will gain  eg. ' support and sharing ) Thats the first level of initiation/s - the 'animal child ' has learnt to be a  human 'culturally and socially'.  The next level, they are initiated  into 'magicians' , they have learnt to integrate  their unconscious , individual and collective .

 

Now, imagine what happens when people start doing the 2nd without the first  !     A big mess.

 

Hmm well sure, the Freudian Id issues is certainly baked into this issue,

though I think it is psychologically slightly more complex.

As I think Freud was projecting his own psychology into his theories,

in other words assuming that everyone had the same complex constellations as himself.

 

Which in some ways are the issue I'm trying to point at here.

Because at the end of the day, we have built up different complexes in our encounters with the world.

And these in combination with how the "planets/archangels" (whatever you want to call them)

influence us, shapes our perception and reaction to the world,

in such a way that one cannot just think in terms of one psychology.

Hence any traditional rule set, is just a projected result of a certain mode of being,

and only those that fall into the same complex range, will relate to that mode of being.

While others, like @Desmonddf or even the OP of this thread, will naturally have a lot of disdain for it.

 

Quote

Yes, I do realise this is not a popular view in today's world .  Many seem to think that the right to be heard and express one's view  is the same as  '  I have the right to be right '

 

And that is the crux of the issue isn't it, everyone flows from a different sun.

A different will manifesting in Tifereth, and from that will, they demand the right to be right.

Of course if they confront Geburah and face down Binah and Chokhmah.

Then of course there comes a difficult choice at the gates of Kether.

Because to make the realizations of those levels into a permanent feature, means abandoning the sun of Tifereth.

Which is a huge sacrifice that would cast the whole lower level of the tree in shadow.

Hence why people float around in the abyss in torment forever,

as their fragile ego is not strong enough to cut the chains to Tifereth.

And really why would one do so?

Jung brings up examples of people who have switched everything around and embraced the opposite.

Origen with his self-mutilation, Tertulian with his denouncement of reason.

And finally Paul who have the vision of Jesus in the desert that turn him into the thing he chases, namely a heretic.

 

All three are bitten by an almost fanatical urge towards their new orientation, because the sacrifice of their previous sun,

means that they have so much to prove to themselves, to make sure that the sacrifice was really worth it.

I'm not sure then if fanaticism could have it's root in being thrown into one's repressed opposite then.

Which would in some ways have more in common with the anima/animus concept rather than the shadow.

 

Now having said all that, I'm fully aware that my stance of this bears a quite clear mark of subjectivity.

A subjectivity that to you will seem unfounded and hence just plain wrong.

But that is my own connection to Netzach -> Venus, and which is most easily reached via the Moon in Yesod.

Via the path that is represented by the Tarot suit the star, or the path from Malkhuth

which ironically is represented by the Tarot suit the moon.

 

On can cross from Hod, I guess with the Tarot card of the tower, exposing illusion to reality,

and reality to illusion, and creating a constant self-correcting loop of inner and outer.

Which is healthy, but really hard to keep up, especially if one is in a bad place mentally.

 

But to move towards wholeness, one needs to balance one's illusions with reality.

Else we cannot live a full and happy life, which sadly means fighting others over figments of our imaginations,

in the name of inner psychic stability.

 

So it is no wonder then that there is a marked indifference by many to embrace the parts of reality that we ourselves accept.

As those cherry picked areas, are just our own grounding in the real world.

 

Quote

It tends to break down more when one is communicating via  ' just me processing this from my own frame'  and rambling.

 

Which we all do from time to time    :) 

 

This is more or less the same thing I said shorter and more dismissive.

As if it is an issue of no importance, that we can never really get along.

And in one sense it isn't since as Jung pointed out, there is no bridge and can't be any bridge.

Except perhaps everyone becoming wholesome enlightened saints in the true spirit of the word,

which of course is ridiculous.

 

Quote

Both standpoints mutually deny each other their chief value. The more resolutely the representatives of either standpoint identify themself with their own point of view, the more do they mutually strive, with the best intentions perhaps, to obtrude their own standpoint and thereby violate the other's chief value.

Carl Jung - Psychological types

 

Quote

psyche is of the world, not just of us as individuals

 

This comment from Patrick Harpur is correct, but not very useful as pointing at the mind having elements of the world,

the  psyche will again have only cherry picked elements of it, because it isn't possible to contain the whole world in our mind.

"The map is not the territory" as Alfred Korzybski said.

And our inner representation of the world is just a map, and only a map.

Our outer representation of the world in systems and alike, is only just maps also,

projected maps from someone's internal representation.

 

So we then find ourselves in this peculiar situation that we have no idea what is really going on in the territory.

As the mounting problems of quantum physics are driving home more and more clearly.

Cause right now, all it boils down to are models and statistical approximations with ranges of standard variations,

that makes more and more far fetched guesses on the state of particles/waves/energies around us.

Science has more or less hit a brick wall, and hence we cannot really look to it to help us deal with our demons and angels.

Though I don't doubt that there is much utility still to be gotten from physics.

 

Quote

And it isnt JUST creative output, that is part of the whole 'soul dynamic' and process .

 

Yeah it is complex as fuck, which is why it is easy for you to just superficially jump from one variable to another.

Always pointing out that it isn't JUST when you get bored with the implications of one.

To me although that is certainly part of the real world representation of it.

It becomes a shallow way to touch on the problem.

I guess in the end we can't have both deep and wide, as the resulting model would take forever to compute.

A big reason why complex weather models and such who really try to be accurate,

need crazy big supercomputers that can crunch massive amounts of data.

And still they are not accurate, because the real world is just too much to represent perfectly.

 

Quote

I think i was Robert Anton Wilson that made up (or borrowed from reality) the story of the  'Occult lecture' given to the public and at the end the lecturer said something like 'And now I will open the floor to questions, where you may quizz me on all the things you thought I said, which I didnt . "

 

Do remember that you are not the only person being addressed here. ;)

That post was meant to address a triangle of issues including Desmonddf and me.

As a bridge though it is very sadly useless,

which is underlined by the Jungian quote above about chief values.

 

Quote

I don't care how long anyone has practiced, if they have no shadow, then they are indeed dead.

And would very much qualify as representatives of the phenomena of this thread,

as beings without a soul.

 

To me, when people claim to have all pieces to the puzzle,

I think of them as claiming to stand at both sides of the sun.

And claiming that this cancels out their shadow.

I know I'm straining the metaphor right here.

 

Quote

Thats a curious observation since I was pointing out that  I integrate BOTH sides of the  polarities that Desmond was separating .IE;

" You cant only have it one way" 

 

When people point out that they are integrated, there is a problem of subjectivity.

As I don't doubt for a second that in terms of your own yard lines, there has been an integration.

Trust me, I know how that works, having chosen the name I did.

For me, every time I go through a process of integration, I get some aspects handled.

But rest assured, if I do that same process again, there will be a new level of integration on that same thing.

Even if I do the same process a thousand times, there will be new levels of integration.

 

So when people claim that they have integrated end of story, I assume it is shallow.

A one time fix, compared to someone else's "something else".

As it is really hard to understand the state of being someone else is in, from the words they use.

They might be more integrated in real terms, but they conceptualize so differently about the phenomena,

that they don't even bother to make such a claim.

Or they could be completely deluded, which is always a possibility. ;)

 

But when someone has words of wisdom mixed in, and seem to fall into Jungian lines of cognitive divide.

I find it much more correct to assume that the Jungian divide is the problem, rather than them just being misguided.

Edited by Integrated
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 04/10/2019 at 5:02 PM, Nungali said:

Man has not created any concepts ? 

 

Indeed. Concepts predate humans. We have a form of accessing them (the mind), but the mind is unable of creation - only immitation.

 

If you go beyond phylosophy and enter neurology, it is quite simple - thoughts are in essence sequences of neurological bioactivations. Humans have not invented those - we just go through some of them that create this illusion of creation.

 

On 04/10/2019 at 5:02 PM, Nungali said:

As the magician advances (or actually, as the practitioner becomes a magician ) the sphere is expanded ( to include the 'outside' with the 'inside' ) and 'opposing' forces are bought together and balanced. 

 

Yeeeeah.... that collapses once we near the end of the Mind. There is no banishing or summoning, there is no duality, indeed.

 

However, non-duality doesn't mean that everything is "the same" and "one". "One" and being "the same" ARE also duality. There is no "same" without "different".

At the point of non-duality, there is no "magician is god". There is no difference, but there is also no similarity between man and god. It isn't dual. There is no 'is' but there is no 'it's not'.

 

 

 

On 04/10/2019 at 5:02 PM, Nungali said:

I think if anyone ignores the 'magic is psychology thing' nowadays  the are in for Trouble ! 

 

I would rather ignore the "magic is psychology" and go for the "magic includes working with your mind" than giving any credit to psychology in this regard.

 

So, go on and notice the existence of the microcosm. That's indeed VERY important. As well as all of the "let's not go psychotic here" processess.

 

I like buddhism in order to dwelve into these sands, but I do have some instruction on the theme of psychology and I do admit it has been usefull here and there.

 

But don't try to limit or explain magic through psychology. That doesn't work and even cuts off a VERY important part of magic, which is the hability to create physical change in the world around us - be with incantations, rituals or other things. And I'm not talking about syncronicity.

I'm talking first about "parlot tricks" like liting a candle with your thoughts and then bigger stuff, like creating matter from the void.

 

I'll call myself a magician once I'm able to "cast fireball". Before that I'm not even an apprentice (and some spirits I've known, as well as my theurgic works, have more than once shown me that "casting fireball" is WAY bellow the paygrade for what could be called a true magician).

 

1800's' inspiring mages convinced themselves that the "spirit is more important than power!". They were able to do some of the "parlort tricks" above. 

 

And then the New Age groups convinced themselves that "the mind is the true place of magic! It is all a metaphor!". And they can barely sit on full lotus.

 

Why?

 

Well, because that's self-delusion.

 

"Oh, but the spirit, the spiritual development is the true goal! We should not seek physical effects!"

 

Bullshit. We should avoid seeking ANYTHING. And that INCLUDES spiritual enlightment and development. If you're looking for spiritual development, that means you're cutting short your own chances of spiritualy developing, since you need to stop "doing" things and "seeking" things in order to enter non-action, and only through non-action can you truly develop your spirit past the level of consciousness associated with the Ego.

 

And once you do that with a certain level of mastery, physical effects WILL start happening around you.

 

Magic cannot ignore reality, be it the shared mental reality or the physical plane. It becomes flawed, mutilated and incapable of growing past its most embryonic states.

 

"You'll become a god" but then you're unable to make a pen levitate.... man, you're not a god. You're someone who has been deluding yourself with the idea of being a god but only in your own mind - unable to exist outside of yourself. That's closing up your own personality inside of yourself and avoiding the world.


A personality disorder, not spiritual development! Even because this will make it so you'll become increasingly delusional and self-destructive due to this delusional state worsening...

 

On 04/10/2019 at 5:02 PM, Nungali said:

Now they have been integrated ... some of them.

 

Well, there's always this possibility, that those beings are but a part of yourself.

 

That's why we test them.

 

One of the things me and my friends do, we being mediuns, is to ask the spirits to relay messages to one another and later on see if they were correctly given.

 

We also listen to the spirit talking to one of us and, without the person telling us what the spirit told her, tell her what the spirit said and she will either confirm or deny. Then it will be my turn (meaning the spirit will say something to me and the others must tell me what it said to me).

 

And so on.

 

That gives me some insurance on their objective existence. That and all the shared dreams with other people, astral projections, "coincidences", etc, etc.

 

Everyday I get closer to the point where even the most persisting of my rationalizations will be unable to explain what happens to me and tries to convince me that they are but a part of my mind.

 

Then I'll let myself rest and take a good breather. Until then, I'm always looking at one side and then the other - is this part of my mind? Or am I trying to delude myself in order to avoid the "terrible truth" of there existing something beyond the physical?

Edited by Desmonddf
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Integrated said:

While others, like @Desmonddf or even the OP of this thread, will naturally have a lot of disdain for it.

 

The truth is that I disdain the idea of angels, demons, kabbalah and the whole esoteric knowledge being a "metaphor" for "self-improvement".

 

For instance, the idea that Angels aren't "beings made by god which create the universe", but "ideas which relate to the supraconscious".

 

Just wait until I can "cast fireball". Then I'll get some of you guys and take you to see a real angel, not a metaphor. If you want, of course. Then maybe I'll feel less triggered by it.

 

Goddamit people, stop reducing the world to shadowork and psychophylosophy!

 

"Humans without soul" doesn't mean "humans without the will to live" or "humans with an ego/mind this or that way", means "humans without LITERAL souls"!

 

At least if you're talking Blavatsky or Crowley, which are the sources of this!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Integrated said:

@Nungali

Okay you really followed me into a lot of rabbit holes here.

 

 

Yes I usually adopt a Jungian frame on things, mainly because I had a long period under his spell, so to speak.

So that perspective is more evolved in me.

 

I assume that you are referring to Tiferet - Sun -> Yesod - Moon -> Hod -> Mercury?

 

I am referring to the schema I outlined in my post on page 2  You must have read it as you 'thanked' it .

 

 

Quote

If so, I can get aboard that understanding of it, the moon being a form of shadow.

From a Jungian point of view I guess we could say that it is the opposite attitude of the same function.

Though that is more or less me equating that shadow to be say an Introverted feeler taking on an Extraverted feeler mask.

If you get where I'm going with it,

a sort of direct compensation of the main attitude function to cover up the main flaw of the personality.

In the case of the example used, extraverting feeling, rather than face the repressed thinking.

This is of course me trying to fit such a system in with Jung, and has certain intuitive leaps without empirical backing.

Though from watching myself and others, it seems to fit pretty well.

 

Okay.   I think that function , lets call it 'the cover up'   can be conscious in some, semi in others and a full blown unconscious reaction in others . 

 

I also know that to casually reveal one's 'shadow' and strip of the ' mask of niceness'  is very socially confronting and perhaps ' socially inept'   :)  .... as I do that sometimes .  Which opens up another whole cans of worms  .....  why DO  that  ... when most do not .

 

 

Quote

 

 

Hmm well sure, the Freudian Id issues is certainly baked into this issue,

though I think it is psychologically slightly more complex.

As I think Freud was projecting his own psychology into his theories,

in other words assuming that everyone had the same complex constellations as himself.

 

Yes, it seems that way.   That would be 'projection' wouldnt it   ?    ;) 

 

 

Quote

 

Which in some ways are the issue I'm trying to point at here.

Because at the end of the day, we have built up different complexes in our encounters with the world.

And these in combination with how the "planets/archangels" (whatever you want to call them)

influence us, shapes our perception and reaction to the world,

 

Yes, individually and collectively  ( also in a short and long time frame * )   .  Hence Harpur's view on the changing metaphor of the experience; Goddess, Fairy Queen, Virgin Mary ,  Space Alien Woman .  He cites an experience related by 'people'  and then told to other groups, they all are certain what is described fulfils their definitions for   either the Goddess, fairy Queen, etc  .  Then the explanation is given from the people that told the story; they where certain they had been visited by 'their ancestors'.

 

And on an individual level also as we develop and change these interactions might take on different meanings and   'constructed .forms' of  'interaction'.   Jung himself had some pretty fantastic ones ! 

 

Quote

in such a way that one cannot just think in terms of one psychology.

Hence any traditional rule set, is just a projected result of a certain mode of being,

and only those that fall into the same complex range, will relate to that mode of being.

While others, like @Desmonddf or even the OP of this thread, will naturally have a lot of disdain for it.

 

I read a great book once who  title eludes me .   The 'complex range' here was history and  how these  above 'interactions' have changed over time ( from ancestors  to Gods , to demons and angels through to good and bad aliens ... 'blues and grays' or whatever the division is )  according to developments in human technologies  and culture of the times .

 

So the rule set should not be formed from the projection, but by similarities throughout the projections  .

 

 

Quote

 

And that is the crux of the issue isn't it, everyone flows from a different sun.

 

In a way .

 

Quote

A different will manifesting in Tifereth, and from that will, they demand the right to be right.

Of course if they confront Geburah and face down Binah and Chokhmah.

Then of course there comes a difficult choice at the gates of Kether.

Because to make the realizations of those levels into a permanent feature, means abandoning the sun of Tifereth.

Which is a huge sacrifice that would cast the whole lower level of the tree in shadow.

Hence why people float around in the abyss in torment forever,

as their fragile ego is not strong enough to cut the chains to Tifereth.

And really why would one do so?

 

Good question !  It just seems the propensity of some to enjoy that and for others to fear it.   Where does THAT come from? . I am tempted to answer ; 'because it feels so good afterwards '  :D    but that doesnt explain the impetus.  One of the higher imitations is 'Annihilation' (P.I.) ,  it comes after the degree that allows entry into the Lodge, so in the Lodge are 'the unannihilated'  and the 'annihilated'  and those 'beyond'.  The  P.I. are stripped of their rank, insignia, motto,  weapons tools, whatever. They have  a concealed (or no) identity. Their robe is all plain black and covers the face. They are , or try to emulate 'Mr Nobody' .   I felt very comfortable in that position, as did one of my 'brothers' .  Yet some fear ot so much they dont go near that and stop at the 'glorified' level before it. Even stranger, some go on through it and afterwards STILL maintain their magical ego identity ...   evidence that ritual and ceremony alone is  just a adjunct too change .

 

I also experienced the same dynamic when I was involved in practices of 'annihilation'  in Tibetan Buddhism  ( Kargu Karma  and their Chod meditations ) .  Perhaps one made the other more 'comfortable' ?   But no, as I go back I see a pattern .  I even remember my mother being very worried about me  and relaying a dream she had about me as a child ;  the family is out at a picnic or something, the shy darkens, a storm approaches, thunder rumbles , lighening all around, earthquakes, the earth heaves up and splits open revealing a huge chasm into the bowels of the earth. Mom and Dad usher the children to safety, running away to a sfer place but I break off from them, run towards the hole in the earth, turn, smile, turn back and jump in. ... Mother awakes from her 'nightmare' , very concerned about ' me ' - the type of person I am .  Now this mother was very straight, didnt even understand what the word psychology meant, VERY simple intellectually and a devout and practising catholic .  So, where did THAT dream come from ?

 

Can I have a propensity to 'annihilation'   ?  Or do I think my ego is so strong it will survive it ?    :D   

 

Maybe not, as I do not have a strong belief in 'life after death'.

 

 

 

Quote

Jung brings up examples of people who have switched everything around and embraced the opposite.

Origen with his self-mutilation, Tertulian with his denouncement of reason.

And finally Paul who have the vision of Jesus in the desert that turn him into the thing he chases, namely a heretic.

 

All three are bitten by an almost fanatical urge towards their new orientation, because the sacrifice of their previous sun,

means that they have so much to prove to themselves, to make sure that the sacrifice was really worth it.

I'm not sure then if fanaticism could have it's root in being thrown into one's repressed opposite then.

Which would in some ways have more in common with the anima/animus concept rather than the shadow.

 

Thats an interesting observation .  Fanatacism seems mostly an unbalanced outcome of the path of Bhakti Yoga, devotional practices, rituals of worship.

 

Quote

 

Now having said all that, I'm fully aware that my stance of this bears a quite clear mark of subjectivity.

A subjectivity that to you will seem unfounded and hence just plain wrong.

 

Nope .

 

Quote

But that is my own connection to Netzach -> Venus, and which is most easily reached via the Moon in Yesod.

Via the path that is represented by the Tarot suit the star, or the path from Malkhuth

which ironically is represented by the Tarot suit the moon.

 

That would be VERY ironic  !   :D    ... I think that is a 'typo'  .

 

Quote

 

On can cross from Hod, I guess with the Tarot card of the tower, exposing illusion to reality,

and reality to illusion, and creating a constant self-correcting loop of inner and outer.

Which is healthy, but really hard to keep up, especially if one is in a bad place mentally.

 

Well, the Tower seems to encapsulate what you are inferring  to , if I read you right .

 

Quote

 

But to move towards wholeness, one needs to balance one's illusions with reality.

Else we cannot live a full and happy life, which sadly means fighting others over figments of our imaginations,

in the name of inner psychic stability.

 

So it is no wonder then that there is a marked indifference by many to embrace the parts of reality that we ourselves accept.

As those cherry picked areas, are just our own grounding in the real world.

 

 

This is more or less the same thing I said shorter and more dismissive.

As if it is an issue of no importance, that we can never really get along.

And in one sense it isn't since as Jung pointed out, there is no bridge and can't be any bridge.

Except perhaps everyone becoming wholesome enlightened saints in the true spirit of the word,

which of course is ridiculous.

 

 

 

This comment from Patrick Harpur is correct, but not very useful as pointing at the mind having elements of the world,

the  psyche will again have only cherry picked elements of it, because it isn't possible to contain the whole world in our mind.

 

Depends on where you draw the 'mind's' boundary ... and definition of mind [ see level / circuit 8 of exo-psychology where 'consciousness is non-local' .  But generally, of course,  and in normal consciousness , no, it is not possible.

 

 

 

Quote

"The map is not the territory" as Alfred Korzybski said.

And our inner representation of the world is just a map, and only a map.

Our outer representation of the world in systems and alike, is only just maps also,

projected maps from someone's internal representation.

 

So we then find ourselves in this peculiar situation that we have no idea what is really going on in the territory.

As the mounting problems of quantum physics are driving home more and more clearly.

Cause right now, all it boils down to are models and statistical approximations with ranges of standard variations,

that makes more and more far fetched guesses on the state of particles/waves/energies around us.

Science has more or less hit a brick wall, and hence we cannot really look to it to help us deal with our demons and angels.

Though I don't doubt that there is much utility still to be gotten from physics.

 

 

Yeah it is complex as fuck, which is why it is easy for you to just superficially jump from one variable to another.

Always pointing out that it isn't JUST when you get bored with the implications of one.

To me although that is certainly part of the real world representation of it.

It becomes a shallow way to touch on the problem.

I guess in the end we can't have both deep and wide, as the resulting model would take forever to compute.

A big reason why complex weather models and such who really try to be accurate,

need crazy big supercomputers that can crunch massive amounts of data.

And still they are not accurate, because the real world is just too much to represent perfectly.

 

 

Do remember that you are not the only person being addressed here. ;)

That post was meant to address a triangle of issues including Desmonddf and me.

As a bridge though it is very sadly useless,

which is underlined by the Jungian quote above about chief values.

 

I dont think it WAS  useless .

 

 

Quote

 

 

To me, when people claim to have all pieces to the puzzle,

I think of them as claiming to stand at both sides of the sun.

And claiming that this cancels out their shadow.

I know I'm straining the metaphor right here.

 

I think I would get bored if I had all the pieces of the puzzle .

 

 

Quote

 

 

When people point out that they are integrated, there is a problem of subjectivity.

As I don't doubt for a second that in terms of your own yard lines, there has been an integration.

Trust me, I know how that works, having chosen the name I did.

For me, every time I go through a process of integration, I get some aspects handled.

But rest assured, if I do that same process again, there will be a new level of integration on that same thing.

Even if I do the same process a thousand times, there will be new levels of integration.

 

Yes. I see personal evolution (when it is working) as an ever rising widening spiral. We can get back to where we where before, but we should be changed by the 'revolution' .

 

 

Quote

 

So when people claim that they have integrated end of story, I assume it is shallow.

A one time fix, compared to someone else's "something else".

As it is really hard to understand the state of being someone else is in, from the words they use.

They might be more integrated in real terms, but they conceptualize so differently about the phenomena,

that they don't even bother to make such a claim.

Or they could be completely deluded, which is always a possibility. ;)

 

But when someone has words of wisdom mixed in, and seem to fall into Jungian lines of cognitive divide.

I find it much more correct to assume that the Jungian divide is the problem, rather than them just being misguided.

 

 

Yes, interesting .  Time has run away with me though ... gotta split to make a meeting .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(and since I dont have time for a read though and correction ... heaven knows what on earth I wrote up there  :D  )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Desmonddf said:

 

The truth is that I disdain the idea of angels, demons, kabbalah and the whole esoteric knowledge being a "metaphor" for "self-improvement".

 

Then, if you disdain that, why on earth do you  converse with 'angels' ?   :huh:

 

And why would they 'test' you ,  as you claimed,  if self improvement is not on the cards ?

 

 

Quote

 

For instance, the idea that Angels aren't "beings made by god which create the universe", but "ideas which relate to the supraconscious".

 

They do not relate to the supraconscious ?   

 

They DO relate to the ' conscious, rational, or logical '  ? In  communicating with them there is no ' state or fact of transcending normal human consciousness'  ?  

 

Quote

 

Just wait until I can "cast fireball". Then I'll get some of you guys and take you to see a real angel, not a metaphor. If you want, of course. Then maybe I'll feel less triggered by it.

 

Cast a fireball ?     Okay then , we will wait until then  .

 

Not sure how an ancient Roman siege weapon is going to help you though

 

 

slide_6.jpg

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Goddamit people, stop reducing the world to shadowork and psychophylosophy!

 

  I have already outline how  I think there is more to 'it'  than shadowork and psychophylosophy.

 

So, must be Integrated  ;

 

jesus-morning-star-photoshop-2.jpg

 

... just give him a little nudge over the edge and  ...

 

300px-Paradise_Lost_12.jpg

 

Ware, nor of good nor ill, what aim hath act?
Without its climax, death, what savour hath
Life? an impeccable machine, exact
He paces an inane and pointless path
To glut brute appetites, his sole content
How tedious were he fit to comprehend
Himself! More, this our noble element
Of fire in nature, love in spirit, unkenned
Life hath no spring, no axle, and no end.

His body a bloody-ruby radiant
With noble passion, sun-souled Lucifer Integrated
Swept through the dawn colossal, swift aslant
On Eden's imbecile perimeter.
He blessed nonentity with every curse
And spiced with sorrow the dull soul of sense,
Breathed life into the sterile universe,
With Love and Knowledge drove out innocence
The Key of Joy is disobedience.

 

:)

.

Quote

 

"Humans without soul" doesn't mean "humans without the will to live" or "humans with an ego/mind this or that way", means "humans without LITERAL souls"!

 

Loss of soul can be explained  literally   now ?  

 

Please explain your idea of the soul then .... in a  literal  ('the  usual or most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration' )  way .

 

Do you think ideas about things (especially like soul and angels )  can change over time according to the collective consciousness of that time  ? Or do you think the original idea of an angel (as in Zoroastrianism, where we inherited the idea from) was wrong,  Judaism was wrong about it ,  Christianity got it right  somehow , Islam wrong and Bahai wrong,  Jung wrong ? .  Or any variation depending on which religion you like, where born into or live in a culture still dominated by it . .

 

 

Quote

 

At least if you're talking Blavatsky or Crowley, which are the sources of this!

 

The sources of what ?   They are not certainly the sources of what Jung is talking about .  They are not the sources for concepts of soul or angels.  Psychological understandings have their source in psychology origins, not Blavatsky or Crowley. And you cant blame them for concepts of Higher Consciousness or 'Supreconsciousness' which is a psychological term.  being flexible with what that term actually means - a 'higher consciousness'  the roots are in the Vedas, particularly the Bhagavad  Gita, Upanishads... all the way through to the Greeks  ...  in modern times it was developed by German idealism  and others ( see Fichte - which came from Advaita anyway), Schopenhauer  ( who got it from Fichte ) .

 

It was the 19th C  that it arose again as 'Theosophy '  and Blavatsky got it from Fichte  and those same  sources ;

 

" Theosophy [...] prompted such men as Hegel, Fichte and Spinoza to take up the labours of the old Grecian philosophers and speculate upon the One Substance - the Deity, the Divine All proceeding from the Divine Wisdom - incomprehensible, unknown and unnamed ."

 

- Blavatsky in 'What is Theosophy' .

 

And these people where basically 'table rappers' and spiritualists ..... mediums and seances .   And in that regard Blavatsky was well 'exposed'

 

Crowley never had anything to  do with that and spat upon it  - he lauded Blavatsky , until it all changed into theosophy and  table wrapping , his spirit communications where based on the hermetic and   Neo-platonic traditions .  he did incorporate  modern (then ) psychology into his writings and theories to an extent but certainly did NOT ignore the other view, as he incorporated all modern  and ancient knowledge into his system , not just holding a 'psychological view of magic' . 

 

So I dont know what  'all this' you are claiming is  that Blavatsky AND Crowley where both  the sources of  ?

 

:huh:

 

 

 

.....   But I DO get that you are pissed off about something .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Desmonddf said:

 

Indeed. Concepts predate humans. We have a form of accessing them (the mind), but the mind is unable of creation - only immitation.

 

If you go beyond phylosophy and enter neurology, it is quite simple - thoughts are in essence sequences of neurological bioactivations. Humans have not invented those - we just go through some of them that create this illusion of creation.

 

 

Yeeeeah.... that collapses once we near the end of the Mind. There is no banishing or summoning, there is no duality, indeed.

 

However, non-duality doesn't mean that everything is "the same" and "one". "One" and being "the same" ARE also duality. There is no "same" without "different".

At the point of non-duality, there is no "magician is god". There is no difference, but there is also no similarity between man and god. It isn't dual. There is no 'is' but there is no 'it's not'.

 

 

 

 

I would rather ignore the "magic is psychology" and go for the "magic includes working with your mind" than giving any credit to psychology in this regard.

 

So, go on and notice the existence of the microcosm. That's indeed VERY important. As well as all of the "let's not go psychotic here" processess.

 

I like buddhism in order to dwelve into these sands, but I do have some instruction on the theme of psychology and I do admit it has been usefull here and there.

 

But don't try to limit or explain magic through psychology.

 

 

I didnt .  that is ONE aspect of it .   

 

 

Quote

 

That doesn't work and even cuts off a VERY important part of magic, which is the hability to create physical change in the world around us - be with incantations, rituals or other things. And I'm not talking about syncronicity.

I'm talking first about "parlot tricks" like liting a candle with your thoughts and then bigger stuff, like creating matter from the void.

 

Ahhh ... Siddhis  !  The most dangerous temptation to lead one OFF the path of self development  in Yoga and Magic  !

 

Although this forum and this world is full of people seeking the same ,  there are some in this world and on this forum ( Buddhist Daoist and Hindu ) that will warn you against seeking these things, for the very reason I just stated .

 

But if you want that, at the expense of self development  ... thats your call .   

 

What DO you do for self development, by the way ?

 

 

Quote

 

I'll call myself a magician once I'm able to "cast fireball". Before that I'm not even an apprentice (and some spirits I've known, as well as my theurgic works, have more than once shown me that "casting fireball" is WAY bellow the paygrade for what could be called a true magician).

 

1800's' inspiring mages convinced themselves that the "spirit is more important than power!". They were able to do some of the "parlort tricks" above. 

 

They could  ?    Like these ?

 

spirit-photo--664x1024.jpg

 

170px-Ektoplasma.gif    

haunted-lane.jpg

 

 

 

Quote

 

And then the New Age groups convinced themselves that "the mind is the true place of magic! It is all a metaphor!". And they can barely sit on full lotus.

 

Oh, I agree the New Age is crap ... they dont understand anything and just repeat it , with some times obvious hilarious mistakes .

 

Like squashing an innocent flower    

 

:D 

 

 

Sitting on a HALF of a lotus is even harder

 

But, yeah , a full one .... if its Victoria amazonica  ( and has one of those thin metal plate inserts  ;) ) ...

 

 

598bbd33b5134.jpg

 

 

Quote

 

Why?

 

Well, because that's self-delusion.

 

"Oh, but the spirit, the spiritual development is the true goal! We should not seek physical effects!"

 

Now you are 'blaming' this on New Age people ?  As I pointed out above  ......  errrm , THAT criticism is just as old as the other stuff you claimed was originated in Blavatsky and Crowley .  It is an age old warning, the one against seeking siddhis .

 

Quote

 

Bullshit. We should avoid seeking ANYTHING. And that INCLUDES spiritual enlightment and development. If you're looking for spiritual development, that means you're cutting short your own chances of spiritualy developing, since you need to stop "doing" things and "seeking" things in order to enter non-action, and only through non-action can you truly develop your spirit past the level of consciousness associated with the Ego.

 

Okay how about  'doing development' then ?

 

Also how does NON action come into it BEFORE   one's consciousness is disassociated with ego ?

 

Unless, here we are communicating with a consciousness that already has  in you ?  If that is your claim, well, errrmmmm   really ?

 

If not then you better start seeking development and develop, or you will never get to the place you would need to to do without it ... in the first place .

 

So what are you really saying here ?

 

 

 

Quote

 

And once you do that with a certain level of mastery, physical effects WILL start happening around you.

 

Errrrmmmm .... dude .... they already DO !

 

Quote

 

Magic cannot ignore reality, be it the shared mental reality or the physical plane. It becomes flawed, mutilated and incapable of growing past its most embryonic states.

 

Its NOT ignoring reality it is using reality and is embedded in reality .     Maybe read Crowley's intro to the subject  of Magick in Book 4 ... you might get a surprise .   Many comment on all this yet have not even read this simple introduction to what he was on about .

 

Do you what he considered a bona-fide evocation ?  It wasnt some psychological gobbledegook at all !

 

Quote

 

"You'll become a god" but then you're unable to make a pen levitate.... man, you're not a god. You're someone who has been deluding yourself with the idea of being a god but only in your own mind - unable to exist outside of yourself. That's closing up your own personality inside of yourself and avoiding the world.

 

Like I said before , which you seem to have missed ... consider it more like a King .... of   your domain , with subjects resident, visiting, rebellious, migrating, passing through, invading, whatever . 

 

And by the way ... I have yet to see ONE SINGLE GOD levitate  a pen .  Why on earth would I want to anyway , I just pick it up .

 

Its nearly time for a Sufi Story  :)

 

 

 

Quote


A personality disorder, not spiritual development! Even because this will make it so you'll become increasingly delusional and self-destructive due to this delusional state worsening...

 

and not like those non delusional people that see angels,  talk to them LITERALY   levitate pens and believe in GOD  ... no personality disorders there .

 

:rolleyes: 

 

 

Quote

 

 

Well, there's always this possibility, that those beings are but a part of yourself.

 

That's why we test them.

 

One of the things me and my friends do, we being mediuns, is to ask the spirits to relay messages to one another and later on see if they were correctly given.

 

We did that as youth .  ..  means nothing unless you can prove what the results are though   ;)

 

If this isnt  for development , why do it at all ?  

 

To 'prove the supernatural'  ? Okay ... and then what ?   To get advice ? Isnt that related to improving things  and development .  Or do you just want the 'magical power' .other if one  didnt want to use all this for self development  ... unless its the old 'pre psychological' reasons ; power over others,   ensuring a place in heaven ?  Love ( ie sex) ? Finding lost treasure ?  perhaps 'seeing a naked maiden ?

 

These are all the end results of the   medieval Christian magicians , after a time of purification,  prayer, fasting,  mastery in the name of God, commanding spirits in Gods name .......     to see a naked maiden .

 

Yeah ... I think magic needed a good dose of psychology and some self development injection  there  !

 

 

Quote

 

We also listen to the spirit talking to one of us and, without the person telling us what the spirit told her, tell her what the spirit said and she will either confirm or deny. Then it will be my turn (meaning the spirit will say something to me and the others must tell me what it said to me).

 

And so on.

 

That gives me some insurance on their objective existence. That and all the shared dreams with other people, astral projections, "coincidences", etc, etc.

 

Everyday I get closer to the point where even the most persisting of my rationalizations will be unable to explain what happens to me and tries to convince me that they are but a part of my mind.

 

Well, that is exactly why I accept  'the other'  . .. as you might imagine I am highly critical and sceptical, rational and logical , but after so much personal evidence  of being 'unable to explain what happens to me and tries to convince me that they are but a part of my mind', I no way of convincing others  would be selling out my  critical and rational side and  being obviously, even to myself, hypocritical.

 

The thing is, these things JUST convince ME.... I have no way of convincing others . If you have a way, go for it ... you will be first in history to do it since the scientific revolution !

 

Come on ... show us the proof !       I cant ... that is why I think there is more going on than in your explanation and why I graduate more towards Harpur's . 

 

 

Quote

 

Then I'll let myself rest and take a good breather. Until then, I'm always looking at one side and then the other - is this part of my mind? Or am I trying to delude myself in order to avoid the "terrible truth" of there existing something beyond the physical?

 

 

Dude !  Of course there are things beyond the physical  !    

 

There is the 'real' and the 'ideal'  ... even modern science agrees with that .    

 

I am talking about something beyond THIS duality of normal perception... and it isnt a 'unity ' of perception as that is impossible for us.  It is a three part , 'tripartite' view ....  'three in one'  is as close to 'unity' as we are going to get .

Edited by Nungali
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites