They Sold Their Soul To Rock And Roll: Aleister Crowley (Page 6 of 8)

I accept your withdrawls and apologise for any upset I might have caused anyone but I have no desire to debate with you on any subject.

You and I Sir, are done.

"Nexxy" here.   Nice one ZT i like it.   "Sexxy" too Zejithy Themisithy?

ZT wrote    "Intent which all people writing the bible seem to think they KNOW, interpolating and translating as is convenient to THEM."

All we can do ZT is interpolate and translate for ourselves.  That is, to try to divine the original intent and meaning behind words.  But if we're honest with ourselves the discovery of meaning is not always "convenient."  It is often confronting.  Much of the scripture is a presentation of the higher Mind attempting to reach the soul both by attraction and by confronting the carnal mind.   To some extent [different for everyone] the carnal mind dominates the souls of almost everyone.  Much truth has been brought to bear on this sorry state of affairs and some of it can be found in the bible. 

The possibility that the person writing some of the books compiled in the bible was a conduit for "source" is worth considering.   But how would we know uinless we found the same source within ourselves confirming the written word?  So the possibility also exists that a person writing about the bible does know the meaning of it's content if they are in touch with it's source.  And the possibility exists that i do too.  To deny all those possibilities is to deny the reality of the inner- christ as teacher of the soul and to deny it's expression in any forum whatsoever.

I wrote:

"Thou shalt have [in your consciousness] no other gods before me"
"Thou shalt not make unto thyself [in your mind] any graven image"

Zejithy wrote in reply:  "IT IS NOT SO WRITTEN, the mind bits have been interpolated.  Who sat down and had a heart to heart with Jehova to authorise these additions?  Yet you reproduce it here"

Anyone reading the commandments i quoted knows the difference between the words of the bible and my explanation in brackets.  I don't represent them as the actual words of the bible thats why i use the brackets.  I don't trumpet them as the literal word of the law of Moses.  They are just there.  If you don't believe they are true, make of them what you will.  As evidenced here there is some contention about what many of the bible quotes mean.  Even though i've said that scriptures can mean some things and not other things they are often interpretable on more than one level.  Our interpretations can be true to the original intent or not.  Who can know the mind of God?   WE can.

But ZT your gripe seems to be ... "Who do you think you are Nexxy...  Aren't you really incapable of a heart to heart with God?  Doesn't it therefore follow Nexxy that God could not "authorise" your interpretation of the word and it's reproduction in this forum?"

You can come to your own judgement about that ZT.    But almost everyone who ever did what i am doing has been shouted down [or worse] because of similar misunderstandings regarding the following bible passage....

"The word became flesh and dwelt amongst men".

If you accept  that the "incarnate word"  applies to all souls and not just to Jesus' soul, then i too am capable of truthfully interpreting the written word by the discriminating presence of the inner- word.  It is within me and is my only compass for truth.   By all means dissagree with what i say but it's wrong of you to deny my right and ability in general to speak truth about anything including the scriptures.  Jesus, as a boy and later as an adult,  was accused of the same thing you accuse me of when he was contending with the priests in the temple about the meaning of the scriptures.  They marvelled at his 'learning' as a boy and shot him down in flames as an adult.  "Who does this Jesus think he is corrupting the scriptures like he does"

ZT wrote... "If MENTAL IMAGES are "false gods" then words that REPRESENT mental images are even lesser "false gods".

I actually went to the issue of "source" when discussing "false gods"/ "graven images".  If a mental image is thrown up by the carnal mind it is false.   If the christ- mind projects an image into the mental body then it is not false.  It is real.  I made the point that therefore, even though both images are conceptual, one has been borne out of spirit and the other from consciousness beneath.  We must know the difference.  One is the issue of God.  The other is a "false god" or a "graven image" produced by the carnal mind.  "Words" are no different in that regard to "mental images".  From whence does a concept [mental or textual] originate?  That is the question.

As for the qoute : "Mine eyes are too pure to behold iniquity"  ZT wrote  " I was pointing out the fallacy of literalism nothing more"  ZT assumed that i was the one who took the quote literally [even though i went into a lengthy explanation of the quote regarding God's multiple levels of consciousness.]  You would think after ZTs characterisation of my "literalist" perceptions that i had just written a treatise about an old man with a beard who sits on a cloud and won't look at anyone.

ZT then wrote  ... "eyes cannot "behold" for one of two reasons... either :

1) There is nothing there, OR
2) they are blind. "

ZT First you berate me by saying "how dare you tell me what i think or interpret... don't try and define me",  then you admit that my perception of your interpretation is correct.  I said yours and Crowley's interpretation is "There is no iniquity".  You confirm my perception again by stating  "there is nothing there"  or   "they are blind"   If you are defending your credo : "Do as thou wilt is the whole of the law" they are essentially the same thing ZT.   Ie.. Iniquity doesn't exist  OR  Purity of perception is entirely unconcerned with iniquity to the point of willfull blindness.   So do whatever thou wilt.  I [God] make no distinctions so you have no responsibility in the matter.  Don't concern yourself with cosmic law.   Whatever you can concieve of is the law.  Nothing more.  You are a law unto yourself. 

Every rock musician that i've ever heard who claims crowley as Great Mentor is claiming the right to do as they will.  That is the crude attraction to crowley for many of them.  They respect his rebellion not because it is a rebellion against groupthink but because it is a rebellion against any law higher than their own puny carnal will.  Where did they get this idea if not from Crowley to whom they attribute it?  They sow the wind of that carnality and they will reap the wirlwind.  In that respect they are crowley's pied pipers.  The "WILL" which these people refer to is no higher than their own carnal will.  Have they all misunderstood crowley too?

You define yourself in every word you write ZT but obviously you are a moving target.  Maybe being "misunderstood" at all times allows you to remain superior at all times.  You concede nothing [except errors of style] and you misunderstand others.  I suggest instead of directing our attention to 10,000 pages of crowley that you quote him in support of your own interpretations of him.  It would be interesting to see his perceptions and your interptretations of him side by side.  I quote what i am most familiar with in discussing subjects i am less familiar with.  If everyone did the same we would much sooner discover where we are in accord and where we are not.  At the least we would understand each other better, if that is indeed what you even want.   Maybe in some respects you're wrong about crowley yourself ZT.   Quoting him in relation to the issues raised would help us to know that.  You might begin with some of crowley's beliefs regarding "will".

You remind me a bit of those Doctors of Theology who, because of their bible studies, their degrees and libraries, they believe themselves to be the epitome of spiritual knowledge.   Some will point to their degrees in answer while others will share their knowledge in answer.  It is riskier to share because it reveals the shortcomings of one's knowledge but it can build bridges of mutual understanding.  That is assuming that everyone wants that.

as Nexus mentioned:
...and these are his words.

Some people on NR have dismissed the notion of a spiritual hierarchy as being a limiting concept born out of the reptillian brain.  granted, the false hierarchy is just that.  Their job is to decieve us into constant ignorance and loosh production for as long as they can keep us here doing it.  But there is also a true spiritual hierarchy spanning the vast reaches of cosmic consciousness.

which i see connected to this from Antaeus:
...I am just doing copy and paste.  I find quite often that I cannot submit the words of Purucker, using my own words.

there is the reiterated statement that even beyond the 'world of Brahma,' i. e., beyond Brahman, there are realms of consciousness and being still higher than this 'world of Brahma,' in which reside the roots, so to speak, of the Cosmic Tree and therefore the Root of every human being, the offspring of such mystical Cosmic Tree. What is this Mystic Root, this that is higher even than Brahma? It is the individualized Adi-Buddha, the Cosmic 'Creative' Logos of Adi-Bodhi, or Alaya, the Cosmic Originant; for even a 'world of Brahma' is a manifested world; and, therefore, however high it may be by comparison with our material world, is yet a relatively imperfect sphere of life and lives. In consequence, the teaching runs that higher even than Brahma there is something Else, the rootless Root, reaching back and within, cosmically speaking, into Parabrahmic Infinitude.
-------------------------------------------
...and these are Z_T's words.
or Gnostic Pleroma, or Qabalistic Ain... yes i know lots of images. but that's how i parse these things!  All of the mentioned cosmogonies postulate a true heirarchy and varying levels of illusion, or barriers along the way. Theosophists warn to be wary of the parasitic and trickster entities of the lower astral as one attempts rising on planes, so does most western occultism including the branch that the crow belonged to.

...Now this, made the whole thread worthwhile.  It's an interesting statement, Z.
i've formed an idea of highest conciousness being above conflict much in the same way we don't prefer the positive or negative pole of a battery... it's the two of them that make the circuit, and that flow is what we want. not to evilly enrich the positive pole at the expense of the negative, but for the moment of current and what comes of it.
-------------------------------------------
Nexus: ...that i had just written a treatise about an old man with a beard who sits on a cloud and won't look at anyone...   that was funny nexus.
-------------------------------------------------
Z_T:
YES. confront with the following from Book 65 of the thelemic holy books:

"Adonai spake unto V.V.V.V.V., saying: There must ever be division in the word.
For the colours are many, but the light is one.
Therefore thou writest that which is of mother of emerald, and of lapis-lazuli, and of turquoise, and of alexandrite.
Another writeth the words of topaz, and of deep amethyst, and of gray sapphire, and of deep sapphire with a tinge as of blood.
Therefore do ye fret yourselves because of this.
Be not contented with the image.
I who am the Image of an Image say this.
Debate not of the image, saying Beyond! Beyond!"
-------------------------------
For the colours are many, but the light is one. -  IITim. 2:15 comes to mind but does not make an adequate comparison. - A corollary involving also octaves and a view to infinity is envisioned, I must be too relaxed from being tired.  I was wanting to simply stare at that one line for a long time.

I read this in "Isis Unveiled," by H.P. Blavatsky, in vol. i pp 308-309 when I was reading about elementary's and elementals.  I'm currently studying both volumes of "The Esoteric Tradition," by Gottfried de Purucker.

G. de Purucker was born in 1874 at Suffern, New York, son of an Anglican minister who later served as chaplain of the American Church in Geneva, Switzerland.  There he was educated in private schools and by tutors, specializing in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek in preparation for the ministry.  However, subsequent study of the early Church Fathers, Eastern philosophies, and Sanskrit led him to theosophy with its broad comprehension of all religions, philosophies, and sciences.  Dr. de Purucker was head of the Theosophical Society from 1919 until his death in 1942.  Perhaps his greatest contribution to spiritual thought has been his elucidation of the writings of H. P. Blavatsky.

"...It is Spinoza, however, who furnishes perhaps the truest key to a portion of this unwritten secret.  While Moses forbids "graven images" of Him whose name is not to be taken in vain, Spinoza goes farther.  He clearly infers that God must not be so much as described.  Human language is totally unfit to give an idea of this "Being" who is altogether unique.  Whether it is Spinoza or the Christian theology that is more right in their premises and conclusion, we leave the reader to judge for himself.  Every attempt to the contrary leads a nation to anthropomorphize the deity in whom it believes, and the result is that given by Swedenborg.  Instead of stating that God made man after his own image, we ought in truth to say that "man imagines God after his image," forgetting that he has set up his own reflection for worship.

Where, then, lies the true, real secret so much talked about by the Hermetists?  That there was and there is a secret, no candid student of esoteric literature will ever doubt.  Men of genius -- as many of the Hermetic philosophers undeniably were -- would not have made fools of themselves by trying to fool others for several thousand consecutive years.  That this great secret, commonly termed "the philosopher's stone," had a spiritual as well as a physical meaning attached to it, was suspected in all ages.  The author of "Remarks on Alchemy and the Alchemists" very truly observes that the subject of the Hermetic art is MAN, and the object of the art is the perfection of man.  ...But he is also that stone physically. The latter is but the effect of the cause, and the cause is the universal solvent of everything -- divine spirit.  Man is a correlation of chemical physical forces, as well as a correlation of spiritual powers.  The latter react on the physical powers of man in proportion to the development of the earthly man.  "The work is carried to perfection according to the virtue of a body, soul, and spirit," says an alchemist;  "for the body would never be penetrable were it not for the spirit, nor would the spirit be permanent in its supra-perfect tincture, were it not for the body; nor could these two act one upon another without the soul, for the spirit is an invisible thing, nor does it ever appear without another GARMENT, which garment is the SOUL."

http://forum.noblerealms.org/viewtopic. … 029#p66029   #24  by Nexus.
We have used our freewill to create an external pseudo- self which obscures the inner christ Self and so the "word" has been "lost" to our conscious awareness.   Our souls are now [to some degree] wrapped in the shroud of the psuedo- self instead of being clothed in the raiment of spiritual Selfhood.   The old testament refers to this unfortunate state of affairs in the story of Adam and Eve.  God says to Adam after he has partaken of the fruit of knowledge [of relative good and evil].... "Adam, where art thou?" [in consciousness].   And also... "Adam who told you you were naked?"  ie... 'Your nakedness of soul is not the result of my WORD which, if you had remained faithful to, would not have resuled in your soul's nakedness... ie. the [conscious] loss of my inner WORD.'

All of us are Adam and Eve, archetype man and woman  [reason and intuitive feeling].  All of us have disobeyed the inner guide and proceeded [from the garden of divine consciousness] to create a false external- self.  By and by that shroud of external selfhood has more fully obscured the inner light.  Today, all the states of human consciousness of fear, doubt and all the schisms in lower- selfhood are the result of our soul's "nakedness" because the inner Word has been lost.   But all the fractured states of lower consciousness can be restored to wholeness through the inner WORD.   The inner garment of spiritual consciousness can be woven again by the soul and spiritual oneness "as above[in spirit] so below[in matter]" can be restored again.   

"When thou hast entered the form thou hast dwelt in [incarnated]
"Use the cross and the circle combined [use the material and spiritual faculties combined]
"Open thy mouth and use thou thy voice 
"Utter the WORD and thou shalt be free 
                                                                [ this does not refer to any one particular word spoken only once, but to the perseverance in the use of the science of the spoken word, SOUND.  This faithfull practice activates the flow of the inner WORD from spirit into matter.  It bathes the soul in spiritual light and transmutes the dark energies of the pseudo- self which burden the soul.  This is STILL the key.]

"Only the one who of LIGHT has the fullest - [realisation of the inner WORD]

"can hope to pass by the guards of the way  [the elements of lower- self identity and those
                                                                        nefarious beings who fully embody the same. 
                                                                        These stand at the threshold of divine Self
                                                                        awareness to oppose the ascent of an aspiring soul]

"And then must he move through strange curves and angles [of all internal and external "out of
                                                                                                  alignnment" states of consciousness]

"that are formed in direction not known to [ignorant] man. 
                                                                                         [the begining of wisdom is to know
                                                                                          from whence we have fallen and to
                                                                                          where we have 'landed' in consciousness.
                                                                                          Knowing both, we can know the direction
                                                                                          of the return to oneness with the inner WORD]

Top picture may or may not be Yoko Ono and behind her a person revealing only arms to suggest a four armed deity.

I never was a big Beatle fan, but for some reason if their songs are mixed with Pink Floyd songs you get a good synergy.

The deity looks like a wrathful deity.  That's what my Father was.

"Top picture may or may not be Yoko Ono and behind her a person revealing only arms to suggest a four armed deity."

If you look at the picture with the woman... off to her left is actually a male.  He has a red face and dark hair.

That was awesome Zejith.  I don't know about your interpretations on the circle and the cross within the circle.  By the way, I looked at that Zeitgeist video again.  I enjoy the astrological or astronomical aspects, whatever they may be.  I guess it is referred to as astrological whenever the celestial bodies are viewed as there being a definate relationship between all the bodies in the heavens and all the living bodies on Earth's ecosystem.  It is astronomical when they are simply studied with no preconceptions about celestial bodies relating to humans.

Actually, a person is really putting theirself in a box when they claim no relationship between celestial bodies and human bodies.  Humans are made of the same stuff that stars are made of and a human has within him that which is hidden; intelligence, consciousness.  So you can claim that beyond what is physically evident when viewing a physical human form, which is made of the same stuff as the stars, there is also that which is not immediately evident.  Or in otherwords, hidden.  There is even more and more evidence appearing before us that planets grow.  Its been postulated that the Earth is now four times larger than it was at the time dinosaurs existed. 

Who is A H I H  and  A G L A ?  I know the others.

It was my pleasure having your input to the thread.  I am also very impressed.  That is a very beautiful picture, yael.

A lot of people discuss the subject of ascension, transcendence, transferrence and whatever else may be had as a descriptive for rising up from this manifestation as a human onto some spiritual or divine or eternal existence.  I would say that we are here by our own choosing to gather experience until there is nothing more that we can learn, during a manvantara in our ceaseless striving to emulate... how do you say?  HaShem.  Some have written that through these very efforts is explained why we never cease.  It seems duality is a very important topic for as we have life/death, pleasure/pain, man/woman...  -- I did not intend anyone to infer by the way I laid out those examples, any particular message -- it also is true that with our opportunity for unending evolution, there must also be avenues that halt or even reverse our creative efforts toward becoming. 

I think I will be reading, "The Palace of the World" a lot of times.  I liked it.  My teacher seems to love Buddhism and the following was part of her latest correspondence to me:

story, told by Thich Nhat Hahn, a Buddhist teacher.
    "When I grow lettuce, if the lettuce does not grow well, I don't blame the lettuce, I don't argue with the lettuce.  I don't say, Oh lettuce, don't you know how much time I've spent with you and you still don't under-stand me at all.  That would be funny.  I never argue, blame, or punish lettuce -- they'd die.  The only thing to do is to look carefully and discover the causes that led to the situation: water, too little or too much; too little or too much fertilizer.  Once I understand I can take good care and I'll have beautiful lettuce.
    The people who live with us -- they are all lettuce.  Look at them carefully, understand them, take good care of them and they'll grow beautifully.  If they don't grow beautifully, we should not argue with them, don't blame them, don't punish them.  That leads nowhere.  Only, look deeply to see and understand, accept and take good care of them and they'll grow, like good lettuce.
    Once, after I told this story in our dharma-talk, I heard a child saying to her mom, "Mom, remember, I am your lettuce."  I  barely had time to fully enjoy her statement when her Mom re-plied, "Yes, but you should know also that I am your lettuce too."  She meant that if you don't love me, if you don't take care of me, I'll be very unhappy too.  They were telling each other that they should take care of each other, not blame, not ar-gue, but SEE each other, understand each other, and take good care of each other.  I thinks this is a very hard, very high art of living.
    It has been said:  "Love is the highest form of understanding."