Recommended Posts

 

21 hours ago, Nungali said:

The essence shared  in both traditions …

 

and in some other ones too, e.g.:

 

On 04/02/2024 at 11:24 PM, Cobie said:

“water & fire” (John 3:5) cf “yin & yang” (DDJ Ch 42)


 

Edited by Cobie

Share this post


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

… magic harnesses ... you cant see them  

 

Why are there no reins?  Also invisible?

 

Quote

… Sphinx's tail … get itchy …

 

Why are the sphinxes lying down? On strike? Or too “itchy” perhaps?

 

 

Edited by Cobie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 11/02/2024 at 4:56 PM, NaturaNaturans said:

… a team of winged horses …

 

I prefer the Visconti-Sforza cards. This one has the winged horses, with harness and reins.
She is holding sceptre (yang) and orb (yin). She is not holding the reins. 
 

image.jpeg.5082efc3344a3e604111ad12b9449120.jpeg

 

 

Edited by Cobie

Share this post


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

 

Because the IFS has passed a certain degree of scientific testing, while eg the one used by the magickers hasn't. So the IFS is closer to the truth.

 

It's also a matter of the understanding built around a model, for a scientific one there's a much better understanding of its scope and also on which tools related to it should be applied & when.

 

On the Buddhist one I wrote above, the complete absence of self in the skandhas implicitly requires accepting rebirth. This "detail" is typically omitted when the view of absence of self in the skandhas is discussed.

 

If one uses a model that leaves part of self out of the picture, then the self knowledge acquired is also incomplete. Which is ok, as long one knows what's missing because of the model & tool they used.

 

meh, psychology can hardly be called scientific, apart from being lectured in universities where real science is being lectured.

besides,  Jung and his predecessor are typically a useful model for brainy persons, ie, only a small proportion of the population.

 

 

and for me its not so much if something is closer to the truth, but which perspective fits the best with the person.

The modern psychology seems to be your good fit and thus you now try to make it compatible to Buddhism, to each his own.

Can't speak of Buddhism, apart from being respectful to it, it's just not my perspective.

 

But neither psychology nor Buddhism is closest to the truth, these are  the perspectives that fits the best with your ehm...personality and proclivities

 

I do not believe in the building of models anymore, it distracts from the direct contact with the source.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, blue eyed snake said:

 

meh, psychology can hardly be called scientific, apart from being lectured in universities where real science is being lectured.

besides,  Jung and his predecessor are typically a useful model for brainy persons, ie, only a small proportion of the population.

 

 

and for me its not so much if something is closer to the truth, but which perspective fits the best with the person.

The modern psychology seems to be your good fit and thus you now try to make it compatible to Buddhism, to each his own.

Can't speak of Buddhism, apart from being respectful to it, it's just not my perspective.

 

But neither psychology nor Buddhism is closest to the truth, these are  the perspectives that fits the best with your ehm...personality and proclivities

 

I do not believe in the building of models anymore, it distracts from the direct contact with the source.

 

 

Jung actually didn't exactly present a therapeutic model.

Though his work is used for that too ofc, other, more modern forms of therapy, imo are just more straightforward strictly for the purposes of addressing therapeutic goals.

 

His work instead extends beyond therapeutic goals, carves a full spiritual path and provides measurable roadmaps.

 

It's also applicable to everyone, at least more so than other paths, because it was constructed that way.

His clients ranged from schizophrenics, as they used to call psychosis then ( he was the head of a whole clinic ) to the perfectly logical and all-around genius Wolfgang Pauli.

 

Some yanas of Buddhism are great too, especially as daily practice, which is why I practice it, and its textual references are also very worthy of study.

But as far as the ship direction is concerned, Jung ( and others after his time) gave a more complete map and better roadsigns.

 

But here I'll refrain, as I just discovered the 5 Noble Posting Truths and the 1-fold posting path that alleviate all forum suffering 😁.

Edited by snowymountains

Share this post


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

 

Because the IFS has passed a certain degree of scientific testing, while eg the one used by the magickers hasn't. So the IFS is closer to the truth.

 

yes it has . I said I can supply clinical trials evidence of it .

 

 

7 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

It's also a matter of the understanding built around a model, for a scientific one there's a much better understanding of its scope and also on which tools related to it should be applied & when.

 

That applies with your 'magickers' to .  I am assuming the 'problem ' here is , you know a fair bit about psychology , but not about the real inner workings of magick . Thats like me disputing that psychology can work, when not having  much information about it .

 

 

 

7 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

On the Buddhist one I wrote above, the complete absence of self in the skandhas implicitly requires accepting rebirth. This "detail" is typically omitted when the view of absence of self in the skandhas is discussed.

 

If one uses a model that leaves part of self out of the picture, then the self knowledge acquired is also incomplete. Which is ok, as long one knows what's missing because of the model & tool they used.

 

 

You mean like those  'parts' added to 'brain' that makes 'mind '  ?

Share this post


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

So how do we coordinate them, or get to know, understand and master them? For socrates, the answer was knowledge

 

Well yes, first one needs knowledge OF something , first , hen knowledge of   how  it / they 'work'   within their natures ( the 'understanding' part )   ....  the next stage is learning how to balance and strengthen them .   The longer answer is the whole magical curriculum .  But it   all comes down to ; an accomplished magician should be earing to master the forces of  their own psyche , using them as tools , not them using you .

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

Why are there no reins?  Also invisible?

 

Yes.

 

Can you  see the reins which you control your 'vehicle' by ? 

 

( You do realise the images on tarot cards are symbolic , magical and psychological  and not an accurate representation of the material plane  ?  )

 

 

Quote

 

 

Why are the sphinxes lying down? On strike? Or too “itchy” perhaps?

 

 

 

 

'Couchant ' .  Everyone gotta rest sometimes .

 

I am not actually a fan of the Waite deck , I prefer the Thoth deck, on that "chariot' card  it is pulled by the four elemental  sphinxs .

They are couchant too . 

 

There are cards which show other relationships to parts of psyche / animals  and sometimes they are rampant, volent ,  naiant, segreant  etc .  IE  'active'  according to their nature ... in the small cards . The major ones - Trumps , show a different dynamic of potential .

 

EG

image.png.eb807ef227a7103a1ac12dbf150c1991.png

here the three principles are requiring some force to 'keep them in line ' , they and the 'chariot driver'   are 'active' . 

 

 

Further on this, you should ask me in tarot forum .

 

 

.

 

Edited by Nungali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think honesty is everything in the exploration of knowledge in general, and even more so in self knowledge. Honesty with Your self, with others, in your words, thoughts and action, and having the guts to express them clearly and authentically.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NaturaNaturans said:

I think honesty is everything in the exploration of knowledge in general, and even more so in self knowledge. Honesty with Your self, with others, in your words, thoughts and action, and having the guts to express them clearly and authentically.

 

Honesty at the conscious level is good but not sufficient.

Most people at the conscious level want to be good actually, more often than not, it's their unconscious that acts differently.

 

The difficulty is recognising and accepting what's unconscious as it's not always pretty.

 

Eg when people first "meet" their shadow self they're like, no way this thing is part of me.

The shadow is by definition the nasty part of our Psyche.

If this work is done through dreamwork, they literally do meet their shadow, in a dream ofc.

 

 

Without acceptance though there's no integration and integrating our shadow is linked even to our creativity.

Integration doesn't mean being taken over by our shadow of course.

 

 

After integrating our shadow we're also not triggered by the personality of others, which allows more effective interactions, including setting better boundaries.

 

 

Which goes back to why these sort of integrations are so important.

If they're not done they "rule someone from the unconscious and she or he calls it fate" even if their conscious intentions are different.

 

Conscious intent is the start but it's not enough.

Edited by snowymountains
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Thats why i added honesty with oneself. That might be the harderst out of all of them.

 

"  15. Nevertheless have the greatest self-respect, and to that end sin not against thyself. The sin which is unpardonable is knowingly and wilfully to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices.  "

 

- Liber Librae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, snowymountains said:

Honesty at the conscious level is good but not sufficient.

Most people at the conscious level want to be good actually, more often than not, it's their unconscious that acts differently.

 

The difficulty is recognising and accepting what's unconscious as it's not always pretty.

 

Eg when people first "meet" their shadow self they're like, no way this thing is part of me.

The shadow is by definition the nasty part of our Psyche.

If this work is done through dreamwork, they literally do meet their shadow, in a dream ofc.

This is very interesting indeed, may I get a short source so I don't have to walk through sands of time (being endless writings of Jung)?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Elysium said:

This is very interesting indeed, may I get a short source so I don't have to walk through sands of time (being endless writings of Jung)?

 

If you want to do shadow work it's not recommended to do it alone, better do it with a therapist.

FYI it may come under different names depending on the type of therapy it may not be called "shadow self" but eg the shadow may be part of so-called "automatic reactions".

 

In terms of a quick read ( but imo don't do this work alone, at best it simply won't be done properly), though I haven't read the book myself, I've heard good things about "Johnson's

Owning Your Own Shadow: Understanding the Dark Side of the Psyche" - no clue if that book discusses it in terms of dreamwork or other methods.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

In terms of a quick read ( but imo don't do this work alone, at best it simply won't be done properly), though I haven't read the book myself, I've heard good things about "Johnson's

Owning Your Own Shadow: Understanding the Dark Side of the Psyche" - no clue if that book discusses it in terms of dreamwork or other methods.

Seems like we found a motivation for therapy/psychologist already :D. I was just looking for something to read and now I have that. Much appreciated.

Edited by Elysium
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/02/2024 at 10:29 PM, Nungali said:

 

yes it has . I said I can supply clinical trials evidence of it .

 

 

 

That applies with your 'magickers' to .  I am assuming the 'problem ' here is , you know a fair bit about psychology , but not about the real inner workings of magick . Thats like me disputing that psychology can work, when not having  much information about it .

 

 

 

 

 

You mean like those  'parts' added to 'brain' that makes 'mind '  ?

 

There's some old work on mapping concepts, not to the IFS which is more modern (for the personal unconscious), but instead to Jungian concepts.

I was trying to remember where it was but was bogged down discussing the Suttas are not infallible on the other thread.

It's in von Franz's book, Alchemical  Active Imagination.

 

As to why choose one vs the other, efficacy, better understanding built around it etc.

Edited by snowymountains
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

 

There's some old work on mapping concepts, not to the IFS which is more modern (for the personal unconscious), but instead to Jungian concepts.

I was trying to remember where it was but was bogged down discussing the Suttas are not infallible on the other thread.

It's in von Franz's book, Alchemical  Active Imagination.

 

As to why choose one vs the other, efficacy, better understanding built around it etc.

 

Sorry ,  but I am not understanding your 'responses'  above  ,   in relation to my post you quoted .

Share this post


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

 

Sorry ,  but I am not understanding your 'responses'  above  ,   in relation to my post you quoted .

It's a book that maps older concepts ie from alchemy to more modern, Jungian, concepts, if you want to practice eg alchemy and use older concepts you may find it of use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What ?  :huh:       Again I emphasise  ;  " ... in relation to my post you quoted .  "

 

ie.  why quote me saying  ...

 

" yes it has . I said I can supply clinical trials evidence of it .

That applies with your 'magickers' to .  I am assuming the 'problem ' here is , you know a fair bit about psychology , but not about the real inner workings of magick . Thats like me disputing that psychology can work, when not having  much information about it . "

 

..before offering this other info ?

 

and the post you quoted from me  relates  to a relevant response to a quote I made from you .    ... a 'string of context ' .  Well, thats how I manage discussions .

I am 'still back ' where I offered a counterpoint ( a few times ) to what you are declaring here , and offering to back up what I said with valid references  .. but then you  hoped on a segway *  .

 

Let me ask one more question and let's see if you can make a relevant answer  ( and it might supply the reason for such confusions  ) ;  Are you contributing to this thread via a mobile phone ?

 

*

 

image.png.0c27cb4af524552540ee1763257f54cd.png

 

- if only we had those red cones here to keep people 'on a true course' .

 

 

(Its an old pun , our youngsters can look it up here ; )

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/segue-segway-commonly-confused

 

 

.

Edited by Nungali
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2024 at 8:22 PM, NaturaNaturans said:

These imortal words, inscrived at the temple of Apollo, Delphi has ressonated and inspired countless wise men aswell as the Intellectually challenged, as my self.

 

It is seen by many as the only and most important «commandnent.» What does it mean to you?

 

To me this wonderful pith instruction has levels of meaning. To know myself requires that I look at myself with honesty and directness, as if in a mirror. It requires openness and clarity and I can greatly benefit from also looking at myself through the eyes of others. This has been a great benefit of engaging in this forum for me. As I begin to see the conditioned patterns, habits, reactivity, and tendencies in my thoughts, feelings, and behavior, they become less autonomous, thus losing some of the power and control they exert over my life and relationships. As I continue to go deeper with this investigation, new choices and opportunities emerge and I am no longer as limited in how I engage with life. I begin to see through the sense of identity I previously accepted unconditionally and realize who I have thought I am is, in reality, not who I am. With persistence, through coming to know who I am not, I have the opportunity to actually discover the truth of who I am, which is far more powerful and has far greater potential than I ever imagined. Here is an excerpt from a Bön dzogchen teaching regarding 'who I am' that I find inspiring -

 

Its positive qualities are inconceivable,

Like the revelation of a king's treasure.

The one who rests within its true meaning

Enjoys the inexhaustible wealth of its fruition.

~ from The Seven Mirrors of Dzogchen attributed to Drenpa Namkha

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2024 at 12:34 PM, steve said:

 

... With persistence, through coming to know who I am not, I have the opportunity to actually discover the truth of who I am, which is far more powerful and has far greater potential than I ever imagined.
 



It's an interesting point.  I believe that in the first four Nikayas, at least, Gautama usually stopped at "who I am not", as here:

 

Whatever… is material shape, past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, or whatever is far or near, (a person), thinking of all this material shape as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. Whatever is feeling… perception… the habitual tendencies… whatever is consciousness, past, future, or present (that person), thinking of all this consciousness as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. (For one) knowing thus, seeing thus, there are no latent conceits that ‘I am the doer, mine is the doer’ in regard to this consciousness-informed body.”

(MN III 18-19, Pali Text Society Vol. III pg 68)

 

 

I see that as a major difference between the teachings of Gautama, and the teachings found in most other wisdom traditions.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mark Foote said:



It's an interesting point.  I believe that in the first four Nikayas, at least, Gautama usually stopped at "who I am not", as here:

 

Whatever… is material shape, past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, or whatever is far or near, (a person), thinking of all this material shape as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. Whatever is feeling… perception… the habitual tendencies… whatever is consciousness, past, future, or present (that person), thinking of all this consciousness as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. (For one) knowing thus, seeing thus, there are no latent conceits that ‘I am the doer, mine is the doer’ in regard to this consciousness-informed body.”

(MN III 18-19, Pali Text Society Vol. III pg 68)

 

I see that as a major difference between the teachings of Gautama, and the teachings found in most other wisdom traditions.
 

 

Well Mark do you think or have come across it in Buddhist texts that the historic Buddha saw that there is only one of us in countless quadrillions of forms which are all relative? 

Edited by old3bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites