Acting on your true will

[Lairg]

15 minutes ago, old3bob said:

the greater will of Spirit which is known in Christianity as,   “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing..."

 

 

 

No free will on that path?

[Michael Sternbach]

20 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

I could try and guess what you mean , or you could explain exactly what you mean .

 

My guess is you took some sort of offence at my directness or that I am not as 'nice' and graceful as  Sterny  or  I was too direct . 

 

Awesome, I am graceful!  Thanks, mate.

 

Just for the record, I did not intend this topic to be another discussion about uncle Al. In fact, I wouldn't have had to mention him at all, but I couldn't help it - his phrases are just SO catchy!

 

How about chewing over my Matrix Resurrections reference for a change? Has anyone in lockdown land actually been able to watch the movie - or, for that matter, to make sense of it? The question of one's true will is central to it in my view.

 

And it does cause the heroic protagonists to wreak havoc on their adversaries (who may be AI's alright, but regardless...) - which illustrates that the add-on 'harm none' is indeed a tricky one.

 

But the aspect that actually interests me most is how following your true will has the power to lead you out of your preconceived limitations and into a greater world.

 

At the end of the day, isn't that what 'cultivation' is all about? The realization of your and your world's full potential?

 

 

[helpfuldemon]

I feel sad for Nungali, he seems to take certain points and removes them from the greater good to promote his bias.  He also seems to be convinced that he understands Thelema in a way that doesn't actually fit into its context.  If there was such a thing as "True WIll", then we would all be following it and there would be perfect order.  That isn't even on the menu for Crowley.  He wants people to do what they will so they can get what they want, and it isn't about some sort of altruistic advancement of our species.  He thought that if we all did our own will and didn't repress our desires, that it would all even out and we would have order.  He isn't about doing good works or being benevolent.  I think that Crowley failed at his mission and I agree with Old Bob;  Crowley co-opted many enlightened ideas and twisted them for his own purposes.  Crowley didn't like Christianity and felt it was repressive.  He wanted men to live like kings, doing what they will, and the ones that cannot, will be their slaves.  I really don't understand where Nungali gets his interpretation, though I have heard some of it before.  

[old3bob]

besides Solomons existential breakdown and yet also stark insight and realization of a condition  he experienced  and described as, "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity" we then hear him tell of coming out the other-side of that conundrum in the latter part of the book of Ecclesiastics.... which could also be said to be along the  lines of this later saying in the NT,  "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a ringing gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing" 

Edited April 13, 2022 by old3bob

[Lairg]

14 minutes ago, old3bob said:

but have not love, I am nothing" 

 

And yet there are many spiritual practices that hardly mention love 

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, Lairg said:

 

And yet there are many spiritual practices that hardly mention love 

 

I'd say that some things, some methods and some forms can be nailed down, grasped or held, whereas love in the context of the NT quote can not be nailed down, grasped or held in that way for one's self.  Thus one can not have said "love" in a controlling sense or that is not of spiritual freedom.  (or spirit unto spirit)

[Giles]

15 hours ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

Want to know what the original context of "Do what you will" was?

 

Here you go:

Quote

This quote has been attributed to St. Augustine, referring to what he said in a sermon on 1 John 4:4-12:

See what we are insisting upon; that the deeds of men are only discerned by the root of charity. For many things may be done that have a good appearance, and yet proceed not from the root of charity. For thorns also have flowers: some actions truly seem rough, seem savage; howbeit they are done for discipline at the bidding of charity. Once for all, then, a short precept is given you: Love, and do what you will: whether you hold your peace, through love hold your peace; whether you cry out, through love cry out; whether you correct, through love correct; whether you spare, through love do you spare: let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good.

 

Check it out at:

 

Christianity

 

So much for Aiwass and other nonsense.

 

ZYD

 

 

 

It's mistaken to conflate

 

Quote

 

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

 

Crowley. The Book of the Law: Liber AL vel Legis.  (1976). ch.1, v. 40.

 

 

with

 

Quote

Love, and do what you will: whether you hold your peace, through love hold your peace; whether you cry out, through love cry out; whether you correct, through love correct; whether you spare, through love do you spare: let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good.

 

Augustine. In epistulam Ioannis ad Parthos, Tractatus VII, 8. 15th Century.

 

 

because, in marked contrast to Augustine, Crowley stated that love is secondary to will.

 

Quote

Love is the law, love under will.

 

Crowley (1976), ch. 1, v. 57.

 

 

[old3bob]

thanks for explaining crowely's inverted error and willfully driven ignorance.

 

(for will can be used for or directed by either good or evil, while love in its true context can only be used for or direct for goodness)

Edited April 13, 2022 by old3bob

[Zhongyongdaoist]

2 hours ago, Giles said:

It's mistaken to conflate (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

Quote

 

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

 

Crowley. The Book of the Law: Liber AL vel Legis.  (1976). ch.1, v. 40.

 

 

with

 

Quote

Love, and do what you will: whether you hold your peace, through love hold your peace; whether you cry out, through love cry out; whether you correct, through love correct; whether you spare, through love do you spare: let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good.

 

Augustine. In epistulam Ioannis ad Parthos, Tractatus VII, 8. 15th Century.

 

 

because, in marked contrast to Augustine, Crowley stated that love is secondary to will.

 

Quote

Love is the law, love under will.

 

Crowley (1976), ch. 1, v. 57.

 

 

 

It's not my mistake to conflate them, it is your mistake to think that I intended to do so.  All I did was provide the originating context, about which Crowley, being raised in the fundamentalist Christian sect, the Plymouth Brethren, probably knew nothing, however, he was quite familiar with Rabelais from whom he, oh sorry, I forgot, Aiwass,  "borrowed" quite a bit, including the very term thelema.  I am quite familiar with Crowley and his writings, as I made clear nine years ago here:

 

On 7/22/2013 at 11:26 PM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

The reason for the first is because of I am of that old school that believes that discretion in these matters is important and as such I limit myself to long, boring, but informative, well least to the patient, posts on history and theory. Well at least I hope that they are informative, to the patient, at least.

How old of an old school it is can be gleaned from the fact that this summer marks the fiftieth anniversary of my making the acquaintance of “that guy Dantalian” aforementioned. Yes, fifty years ago as a lad of twelve I bought A. E. Waite's The Book of Ceremonial Magic.

Nowadays that might not seem unusual, but in those old pre Harry Potter days it definitely marked one out as rather odd. In those ancient pre internet times you also actually had to go to a bookstore! Yes, a real brick and mortar bookstore, preferably large ones with bookshelves that went high over the head of adults much less kids, such as myself, the heights of which could only be scaled by ladders which could be repositioned along the shelves.

Books like Waite's and Crowley's Magick in Theory and Practice, which I bought the next week, always had prices of $10.00 printed on the dust jacket, but in practice were always marked down to $4.95. This seems modest today, but correcting for inflation since 1963, it's more like fifty or more of today's dollars.

So, that's how old school I am.

 

When and at what age did you buy your copy of Magick in Theory and Practice, oh all wise one?  I have read, about, studied and practiced magic for decades, and I don't care to waste further time with you, so as far as I am concerned we are done here.  As far as Crowley goes, there is not much reason, except possibly historical, to pay attention to him.  I have posted about him and my reasons for thinking so in various places on Dao Bums over the years and anyone who wishes can find them with a search or two.  It should be noted that part of my criticism of Crowley is also a criticism of what I call neo-magic, magic as practiced based on the Nineteenth Century revival of magic.  My posts in Eliphas Levi, whom Crowley loved to consider his previous incarnation, dealt with the magical revival and my criticism of it to a certain extent.  As a final note just in case someone makes the mistake of thinking that because I emphasis Magick in Theory and Practice above, that it is is all that I read of Crosley's work, which it was not, however, during the early Sixties it was practically all that was readily available.  I did read a great deal more of Crowley as it appeared through the later Sixties and early Seventies.  Humorously, among other things, I was probably the only thirteen year old in the U.S. to get a copy of The Equinox of the Gods for Christmas in 1963, but that is another story, and I don't have time for that now.

 

ZYD

 

[old3bob]

"Carefull not to bind yourself with the shackles of Reason. Magick is beyond it."  by Desmonddf

 

So are demons, Angels, Master Saints, ancient Elder souls  and the "magic" so to speak of Peace and Grace that is beyond normal understanding.
 

[Nungali]

23 hours ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

Want to know what the original context of "Do what you will" was?

 

Here you go:

 

 

Check it out at:

 

Christianity

 

So much for Aiwass and other nonsense.

 

ZYD

 

 

 

Well, its a long tradition  that winds its way through many manifestations  and NOT original to Crowley .  But going back to the topic at hand ,  ie, the concept   ( forgetting  Crowley for a moment  .... if that is possible for a moment ) what do you think about my comparisons to the concept of Khvarenah  ?

[Nungali]

23 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

ok here a qualifier for those who may be interested... part of the intuited meaning should include that the intent is not to harm  in pre-meditated or hostile ways which in no way rules out self defense, which btw is something Gandhi was not shy about if it came down to it.

 

I agree .  

 

I think the non harming in hostile ways  also  means that we are not to interfere with other people's True Wills .  I have never thought that expressing and living my True Will should in any way oppress others , especially in their development , finding or expressing of their True Will .

 

Its a sign of intelligence , and here I am  going with Carlo's definition ;  Intelligent people find ways of expressing themselves and needs and wants that ALSO assist others . Stupid people come up with solutions that harm others AND them selves , and dont  even achieve  their own objectives .

 

However , this does not eliminate the possibility that two True Wills may be in conflict .

[Nungali]

22 hours ago, old3bob said:

I don't buy any spooky or magic sounding stuff about will which can become some form of self spun sorcery,  regardless of any co-opted or occult sounding jargon trying to call it otherwise and that in some circles (like crowleys) may include sayings like, "true will".  I've been very fortunate to come across the indomitable will of the Golden Being and that will carries through with wise intent,  the will of the Source (and other aspects) of Spirit which is known in Christianity as,   “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing..."

 

(I'd also bring up as a tangential example that at a certain point Solomon  acquired various forms of "occult" power, achievement and will but later said upon stark personal insight of himself (and of others on similar courses),  "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity", thankfully and in the end he went further than that with a far greater saying found in Ecclesiastes. 

 

 

 

Why are you here ?   Why did you incarnate ..... at this time, in that body,  under these circumstances ?  What is your purpose and mission in life ? What is it that your individual point-of-view / consciousness experience  ( which is totally unique and like no other ) has to offer others , in their quests ? What do you love doing and find the most joy and real abiding satisfaction from ?  What do you hope to achieve ?

 

And why would any of this be  spooky magic or self spun sorcery ?

 

I would like to add , what some others have hinted at ;    some just 'do it ' , the doing and expression of their True Will flows naturally from them , I have even seen it in children  ( those special, aware ones ) .

 

Yet some lament as even in latter adult life , their life is little more than some  type of automaton / worker , for the system .. They even talk about 'loosing their soul' and having no purpose .

 

I find it mystifying, that when separating this idea abuot one of the components that make up our spiritual being from one of the authors that tried to explain the concept  is met with such hostility .  I mean sure ... shoot the messenger if you have to  .... but ripping up the message before its read and examined  ..... ?

 

 

 

 

[Nungali]

21 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Awesome, I am graceful!  Thanks, mate.

 

Just for the record, I did not intend this topic to be another discussion about uncle Al. In fact, I wouldn't have had to mention him at all, but I couldn't help it - his phrases are just SO catchy!

 

How about chewing over my Matrix Resurrections reference for a change? Has anyone in lockdown land actually been able to watch the movie - or, for that matter, to make sense of it? The question of one's true will is central to it in my view.

 

And it does cause the heroic protagonists to wreak havoc on their adversaries (who may be AI's alright, but regardless...) - which illustrates that the add-on 'harm none' is indeed a tricky one.

 

But the aspect that actually interests me most is how following your true will has the power to lead you out of your preconceived limitations and into a greater world.

 

At the end of the day, isn't that what 'cultivation' is all about? The realization of your and your world's full potential?

 

 

 

Now yer talkin ' !

 

Looking at the makeup of the psyche  ( and MANY cultures  do this ) there are several 'parts' , and a part of our life's work / evolution is about a  right combining  of those . In Zoroastrianism its essential for  successful 'transmigration' , the Kvaranah is an essential component of that .  Then you WOULD be   led beyond limitations and into a greater world ... that of the 'Faravahar'

 

 

 

That is, the person's urvan (soul), mainyu (spirit), fravashi and khvarenah can unite and the spirits of the departed are generally referred to collectively as that person's (united) fravashi .

 

 The symbol of the fravahar or farohar  three meanings nowadays:

• As a general symbol of the Zoroastrian faith: a symbol of belonging to the Zoroastrian community and of being a Zoroastrian (a symbol in a manner similar to the Christian cross).
• As a fravahar or farohar: a general symbol of the united fravashi or a guardian angel.
• As a symbol used by a Persian Achaemenian king: a personal symbol of the king's khvarenah or farr, his kingship in grace, or his fravashi.

 

One might note the  similarity in the image with the winged disc of Egypt  ... and Egyptian  'soul science' also relies  on a bringing together of soul components during our life to achieve 'immortality of spirit ' .

 

[Nungali]

18 hours ago, helpfuldemon said:

I feel sad for Nungali, he seems to take certain points and removes them from the greater good to promote his bias.  He also seems to be convinced that he understands Thelema in a way that doesn't actually fit into its context.  If there was such a thing as "True WIll", then we would all be following it and there would be perfect order.  That isn't even on the menu for Crowley.  He wants people to do what they will so they can get what they want, and it isn't about some sort of altruistic advancement of our species.  He thought that if we all did our own will and didn't repress our desires, that it would all even out and we would have order.  He isn't about doing good works or being benevolent.  I think that Crowley failed at his mission and I agree with Old Bob;  Crowley co-opted many enlightened ideas and twisted them for his own purposes.  Crowley didn't like Christianity and felt it was repressive.  He wanted men to live like kings, doing what they will, and the ones that cannot, will be their slaves.  I really don't understand where Nungali gets his interpretation, though I have heard some of it before.  

 

 

I get it through a WIDE range of comparative studies and practices .

 

To many that do understand , Your viewpoint is very exoteric and not backed up by the understandings needed to comprehend such issues .

 

I would also add that someone who openly admits in public forum that they do have issues comprehending reality and understanding things , to the extent that you have have persecuting hallucinations, have or are having psychological treatments  and have or are having professional treatments including medications , might have a slightly clouded view on such a subject that has been veiled in the mysterious and occult .

 

Well, if you do want to get personal here ... and I am not being bitchy, I am merely outlining some facts that you yourself have told us ... I think it would be sensible to take these facts into account  when  analysing your individual understandings and observations about things  .

 

 

 

[Nungali]

14 hours ago, old3bob said:

besides Solomons existential breakdown and yet also stark insight and realization of a condition  he experienced  and described as, "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity" we then hear him tell of coming out the other-side of that conundrum in the latter part of the book of Ecclesiastics.... which could also be said to be along the  lines of this later saying in the NT,  "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a ringing gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing" 

 

I think a few of us here now realise that ruling armies, having palaces and teams of dancing girls are not really the supreme aim of life .  Aside from the issue that the modern world IS ALL ABOUT VANITY     .... or so it seems at times .

 

And what does Solomon conclude about what is NOT vanity  - the  " coming out the other-side of that conundrum " ?

[Nungali]

14 hours ago, Lairg said:

 

And yet there are many spiritual practices that hardly mention love 

 

" Love is the law, love under will "    

 

- which of course means nothing , because a ' right bastard'  wrote that .

[Nungali]

9 hours ago, Giles said:

 

It's mistaken to conflate

 

 

with

 

 

because, in marked contrast to Augustine, Crowley stated that love is secondary to will.

 

 

 

Well, this be fun  

 

" love is secondary to will."  ?

 

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law   -  yep, thats first .

 

Love is the law  - yes that appears to be second .

 

Love under will .   

 

But if do what thou wilt is the law , and that law is love   ad do what thou wilt comes first as the law , and the law is love , then love comes first .

 

 

 

[Nungali]

5 hours ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

 

It's not my mistake to conflate them, it is your mistake to think that I intended to do so.  All I did was provide the originating context, about which Crowley, being raised in the fundamentalist Christian sect, the Plymouth Brethren, probably knew nothing, however, he was quite familiar with Rabelais from whom he, oh sorry, I forgot, Aiwass,  "borrowed" quite a bit, including the very term thelema.  I am quite familiar with Crowley and his writings, as I made clear nine years ago here:

 

 

When and at what age did you buy your copy of Magick in Theory and Practice, oh all wise one?  I have read, about, studied and practiced magic for decades, and I don't care to waste further time with you, so as far as I am concerned we are done here.  As far as Crowley goes, there is not much reason, except possibly historical, to pay attention to him.  I have posted about him and my reasons for thinking so in various places on Dao Bums over the years and anyone who wishes can find them with a search or two.  It should be noted that part of my criticism of Crowley is also a criticism of what I call neo-magic, magic as practiced based on the Nineteenth Century revival of magic.  My posts in Eliphas Levi, whom Crowley loved to consider his previous incarnation, dealt with the magical revival and my criticism of it to a certain extent.  As a final note just in case someone makes the mistake of thinking that because I emphasis Magick in Theory and Practice above, that it is is all that I read of Crosley's work, which it was not, however, during the early Sixties it was practically all that was readily available.  I did read a great deal more of Crowley as it appeared through the later Sixties and early Seventies.  Humorously, among other things, I was probably the only thirteen year old in the U.S. to get a copy of The Equinox of the Gods for Christmas in 1963, but that is another story, and I don't have time for that now.

 

ZYD

 

 

as I said , its a long tradition that winds through good and bad  ... you didnt even mention

 

Sir Francis Dashwood and 'The Good Nuns and Knights of 'St Francis '  Rabelais

 

yes, Rabelais  ... and others , in ONE  focus .... and right back to  whatever religions influenced early Zoroastrianism .

 

By the way  ..... who gives a 13 yo that as  Christmas present !       My earliest was around 16 when a copy of The Book of Lies fell out the library shelf  into my hands when I was rummaging through other books near it  - try starting with that !  

 

Around 13 , people where giving me really stupid presents   for Christmas ... like one that gave me a  huge Teddy Bear Annual book   - yeah , great way to show appreciation of my mature entry into teenhood ! 

[Lairg]

It seems from what I have observed that in this solar system the over-riding objective is right relationship.   Right relationship is partially reflected in the human concept of love.

 

Right relationship is required so that the various groups/species/planets can cohere sufficiently to withstand and transmit the impact of Divine Intent.

 

Casual observation of Earth humanity indicates that it is far from the coherence necessary to transmit higher will.

 

 

[old3bob]

36 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

I think a few of us here now realise that ruling armies, having palaces and teams of dancing girls are not really the supreme aim of life .  Aside from the issue that the modern world IS ALL ABOUT VANITY     .... or so it seems at times .

 

And what does Solomon conclude about what is NOT vanity  - the  " coming out the other-side of that conundrum " ?

 

Surely you have a Bible tucked away somewhere, if not they are on line, thus a possible benefit from your own reading.

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

Why are you here ?   Why did you incarnate ..... at this time, in that body,  under these circumstances ?  What is your purpose and mission in life ? What is it that your individual point-of-view / consciousness experience  ( which is totally unique and like no other ) has to offer others , in their quests ? What do you love doing and find the most joy and real abiding satisfaction from ?  What do you hope to achieve ?

 

And why would any of this be  spooky magic or self spun sorcery ?

 

I would like to add , what some others have hinted at ;    some just 'do it ' , the doing and expression of their True Will flows naturally from them , I have even seen it in children  ( those special, aware ones ) .

 

Yet some lament as even in latter adult life , their life is little more than some  type of automaton / worker , for the system .. They even talk about 'loosing their soul' and having no purpose .

 

I find it mystifying, that when separating this idea abuot one of the components that make up our spiritual being from one of the authors that tried to explain the concept  is met with such hostility .  I mean sure ... shoot the messenger if you have to  .... but ripping up the message before its read and examined  ..... ?

 

 

a sexually predatory pervert and drug addicted scammer is not my cup of tea.  Apparently he is for some which is of their choice regardless of any other rationalizations for drinking such a  cup of tea. 

[Lairg]

In some traditions, being possessed by a god is highly desirable.  If no god will take you, you may have to settle for possession by a lesser entity

[Michael Sternbach]

2 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Now yer talkin ' !

 

Looking at the makeup of the psyche  ( and MANY cultures  do this ) there are several 'parts' , and a part of our life's work / evolution is about a  right combining  of those . In Zoroastrianism its essential for  successful 'transmigration' , the Kvaranah is an essential component of that .  Then you WOULD be   led beyond limitations and into a greater world ... that of the 'Faravahar'

 

 

 

That is, the person's urvan (soul), mainyu (spirit), fravashi and khvarenah can unite and the spirits of the departed are generally referred to collectively as that person's (united) fravashi .

 

 The symbol of the fravahar or farohar  three meanings nowadays:

• As a general symbol of the Zoroastrian faith: a symbol of belonging to the Zoroastrian community and of being a Zoroastrian (a symbol in a manner similar to the Christian cross).
• As a fravahar or farohar: a general symbol of the united fravashi or a guardian angel.
• As a symbol used by a Persian Achaemenian king: a personal symbol of the king's khvarenah or farr, his kingship in grace, or his fravashi.

 

Whoa! Learning a bunch of new words here... It's much like trying to find your linguistic path through the Dune universe!

 

So in Zoroastrianism the 'greater world' or faravahar is somehow linked to one's 'united' ancestors and/or guardian angel?

 

And at the same time it seems to refer to the ruler's 'kingship in grace'... (That one actually quite resonates with me, especially since you said I was being graceful. :D)

 

Anyhow... Could you flesh all of that out for me a little more, please?

 

One association coming to mind here is Nietzsche's 'Superman', from his favorite of his own books which he may not by chance have titled Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

 

 

2 hours ago, Nungali said:

One might note the  similarity in the image with the winged disc of Egypt  ... and Egyptian  'soul science' also relies  on a bringing together of soul components during our life to achieve 'immortality of spirit ' .

 

 

I am actually much more familiar with the ancient Egyptians' terminology than with the Persians'. And now I wonder if the concept of the True Will might have its equivalent in that system as well. (Waiting for the cat to chime in.)

[Michael Sternbach]

3 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

 

I get it through a WIDE range of comparative studies and practices .

 

To many that do understand , Your viewpoint is very exoteric and not backed up by the understandings needed to comprehend such issues .

 

I would also add that someone who openly admits in public forum that they do have issues comprehending reality and understanding things , to the extent that you have have persecuting hallucinations, have or are having psychological treatments  and have or are having professional treatments including medications , might have a slightly clouded view on such a subject that has been veiled in the mysterious and occult .

 

Well, if you do want to get personal here ... and I am not being bitchy, I am merely outlining some facts that you yourself have told us ... I think it would be sensible to take these facts into account  when  analysing your individual understandings and observations about things  .

 

Oh well, that kind of thing can happen to the best of us...