Occultic Games (Page 2 of 2)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Wow!  That's great Nexus.  The unicorn, horse and ox.  Words, action and thought.  They are very important and you mention quality.  I'm studying archaic, ancient and mediaevel material, but Prov. 20:25 has me.  So I fit what I learn into that I first visited.

I copied this down years ago because I liked it.

In the "Vedas" and the older laws of Manu -- we find many magical rites practiced and permitted by the Brahmans.  Thibet, Japan, and China teach in the present age that which was taught by the oldest Chaldeans.  The clergy of these respective countries, prove moreover what they teach, namely:  "that the practice of moral and physical purity, and of certain austerities, developes the vital soul-power of self-illumination.  Affording to man the control over his own immortal spirit, it gives him truly magical powers over the elementary spirits inferior to himself."  "Isis Unveiled."  didn't note vol. or page so I'd have to look for it.

I think it is possible that what makes the shackles rise, or what might look like anger, arise in Zejith_Themis is people who seem to tell other people what is proper and improper to put attention to.  I'm starting to get the idea that most of the hells are actually spheres of existence higher than this one we currently find ourselves.  I also think it is possible to put ourselves in place worse than the one we currently find ourselves.  I'm sure that Zejith_Themis knows more of the teachings of Aleister Crowley than your average dauntles explorer in these things.  I don't believe AC had anything to do with human sacrifice, and where he makes reference to Satan, I think that is of more or less importance.  I've seen where Satan is mentioned in writings even older than the Pentateuch, and that Christianity might be using the name possibly to make use of archetypes, i.e. do not fall toward satan away from Christ, but also do not veer away from Satan going too far toward Lucifer.

Sorry, I'm really doing this on the wrong thread, but I built up momentum and might as well keep going.  With the little I know so far of Aleister Crowley, I think his flaw is in interpretation of Democritus:

"Let us turn now to the Latin poet Lucretius. Lucretius has been greatly misunderstood in modern times. He was a disciple of the Greek philosopher, Democritus, or rather, perhaps, of that other Greek atomistic philosopher, Epicurus, who was a follower of the Democritan atomistic system. In connexion with the latter name, the very adjective, 'epicurean,' in our modern ears, rings unpleasantly. To Europeans it seems to signify a man or a woman who follows naught but pleasure, making that an end in life. But this misunderstanding is downright unfair. These men were two really great thinkers, who, one may say in passing, actually laid the foundation of the modern scientific doctrine of the atomic structure of the material world.

From their theories, only a few hundred years ago European chemists and physicists obtained the fundamental ideas of modern physical chemistry; and the latter even adopted the early Greek exoteric meaning of the word 'atom' -- which, of course, is from the Greek -- as signifying an indivisible, something that can no longer be divided: although since the most recent discoveries of physical chemistry, it is known that the atom is indeed a true divisible. These early European chemists did not understand what those two men, Democritus and Epicurus, who were really great in their way, actually meant. They meant indivisibles, as the Greek word 'atom' itself shows, as signifying that which cannot be cut or divided. In other words, Democritus and Epicurus and their early School meant precisely, although in physical-astral relations, what the Theosophist calls Monads. It is quite likely, indeed probable, that Democritus taught a Monadism identic with that taught by the Esoteric Tradition. They indeed taught Monadism -- the existence of spiritual consciousness-centers, spiritual Individuals; and they have been misinterpreted as teaching the existence -- as earlier European chemists did -- of little hard round bodies, incompressible and virtually eternal, which until very recently were supposed to be indivisible, and moreover the ultimates or originals of matter.

Lucretius, then, in his noble poem, De rerum natura ('On the Nature of Things'), most eloquently describes the Democritan and Epicurean system of philosophy. A few citations are hereinunder given:

I shall proceed to tell thee of the entire system of celestial things, and of the gods, and to unfold to thee the first principles of all things, from which Nature produces, develops, and sustains everything that is, and into which Nature again resolves all things at their dissolution: these first principles in explaining our theme we are accustomed to call matter, and the generating elements of things, and to call them the seeds of all things and to give to them the name of 'primary bodies,' because from them as primaries all later things are derivatives -- (119)
In other words, in all important points, this is a fair approach to the Theosophical doctrine of Monads ensouling Atoms.

And again:

Reason and the study of Nature must be the dispellers of the terrors and darknesses of the mind . . . of the human soul -- and our first philosophical principle is this, that NOTHING IS EVER DIVINELY PRODUCED FROM NOTHING. (120)
Somewhat later in the same first Book, he declared:

Furthermore, Nature resolves every single thing into its own fundamental elements, and DOES NOT REDUCE ANYTHING TO NOTHING.(121, 122)

If the reader be under the sway of European orthodox religious teaching, he might say readily enough that this ancient Roman Epicurean was teaching personal immortality; on the other hand, the Epicurean philosophy has been mistakenly supposed to teach that man is a bundle of physical atoms only, which bundle or aggregate falls to pieces when he dies; and that hedonism, or the doctrine of seeking mere pleasure in life, is a natural and logical outflowing consequent therefrom. But Lucretius did not teach either idea. He taught in this respect somewhat as the Theosophist holds: to wit, that the central spiritual core of man is an indivisible entity, an Atom, or indivisible Individuality, an indivisible consciousness-center, which expresses itself necessarily through lower atomic aggregates, inferior to it, because in no other wise can it have contact or contactual relations with this physical sphere."  The "Esoteric Tradition" by Gottfried de Purucker. vol. 1 ch. 9

What Epicurus and Democritus was talking about was our immortal Spirit.  Also known as Monad.