ilumairen

As I understood it, he was asking for practices, and didn't find pontifications quite as welcome (or as addressing what he was actually seeking). My own advice would be to understand the question before believing one has the answer and going on a rant. But, ymmv...

Thanks. This is dependent upon limitation of viewing area - given a large enough viewing area without obstruction of vision curvature is seen. I used to enjoy photography as a hobby, and due to my experiences with this along the cliffs and beachfront of Lake Michigan I believe experience could be manipulated to lend an idea of "truth" to your assertion, however it is in error imo. For example, if I set up a tripod at a higher elevation more sky was in the frame, unless I adjusted the angle to include more lake. And while driving towards the lake from a lower elevation it did appear to rise above ground level in the distance, it did not reach a mid point along the horizontal axis of the visionary field. From a much greater distance and elevation it again could be seen in the distance, but still failed to reach a horizontal midpoint - unless corrections of view were made to create this illusion. At which point the view was no longer 90°. Warm regards

@Trunk The course started a few days ago. Do you have any preliminary thoughts you could share?

Do you have stereoscopic vision?

... and here comes Jeff with his hugs @Ecclectica It's ok to say, "no thanks." - even if part of this particular web may be the subtle play on you closing yourself off if you don't respond in kind (and (eventually and after some subtle coaching) tell him how big his boobs are).

Oh my stars!!! I'd rather make @liminal_luke tea. Chai good for you? Anyone else?

Where do us "sisters" fit in? Or do we just belong in the kitchen supporting the efforts of the brotherhood?

If you don't mind, I'd like to add to this.. The individual experiencing the deviations has posted more regarding personal issues and experience elsewhere, and I believe the present deviations to be caused by fragmentation and emotional habituations - leaving the practice aspect of it for those more qualified to comment on it.

Blah blah blah... "if only you understood, if only you saw what I see all your troubles would dissipate"... what a bunch of pretentious hooey.. The wood of your soap box is rotting...

Ralis, Nungali, and Earl Grey all "honored" me and my contributions in this thread, so again, your observation and conclusion is flawed.

:tosses @Mskied a box of Kleenex : Whenever you're done with your personal pity party, perhaps we could actually discuss the subject matter like grown ups..

Most likely because we've been here awhile, and have become rather good at spotting who wouldn't hear/listen anyway..

There are a number of ways this could be looked at. I don't know what thoughts you are having which correlate with which sensations for you, but perhaps the simplest way to look at this would be subconscious awareness of "whatever" manifesting as physical sensations. As the feet and legs generally correlate with the hell realms and variations of anger and or resentment, perhaps there is suppression manifesting as it seems to inevitably do.. As for the stomach, it's correlated with where we hold our ideas of self, and perhaps more importantly the processing of life experiences.. I'm not big on reification - which to my understanding can lead to stagnation and some of the issues you're dealing with. I would suggest exploring ideas of your own sovereignty.

The Book of the Law is a rather short read. It is "channeled" material dictated in one hour increments over the course of three days, and can be read in less time than the dictation took. The author is said to be Aiwass, who subsequently spoke with the voice of three divinities correlated with three Aeons. For me, there are two principle ways to map these out. First is chronologically as an early matriarchal understanding, a more recent patriarchal understanding, and the present individualistic understanding. I think this is the more simplistic and easily grasped understanding. The second is a bit deeper and more complex: Nuit/Mother as space and Hadit/Father as potentially - the manifestation of their union is the unruly and unbridled child finding his way in the present Aeon. We went through nurture and love; we passed through discipline and rule, and now we are (potentially) free and individualized - each able to recognize the inner universe and manifest experience according to this internal law. IMO If one takes the book as actually telling them to do something, they have entirely missed the mark, and are still manifesting attributes consistent with the second Aeon - hence have not reached a stage of self-actualization, and are not acting in accord with their true will. Unless, of course, their will is to acquiesce... We can look at different ways of understanding certain passages if you'd like, and I am able to share how they would fit into either of the two maps for understanding I've shared in this post if you are interested.

In a general sense, it does seem avoiding placing one's personal understanding/experience on others is much more conducive to open exchange and dialogue. Leaving people some space to share their own experience, in their own way, seems to be what you're fighting for for yourself, while not recognizing the manner in which you've been communicating perhaps leaves others fighting for their own voice. It's an interesting (and apparently self perpetuating) dynamic. For the moment I'm going to focus on language. Words are only useful due to agreed upon meanings. In a living language, such as the English we're using here, these meanings can change in a manner similar to what you describe only if enough people agree, and begin to use the word in the new manner - which simply establishes a new norm. If people refuse the new meaning, the old norm remains. When it comes to Crowley and the manner he used "will" there is an established norm, and your interpretation would be the "new meaning" which is being refused. The old "norm" remains. This doesn't mean you can't speak of your own experience as your own experience, but it does mean if you use Crowley's "will" to back it up, arguments against your departure from the norm are likely to arise. From what I've experienced and understood enlightenment has nothing at all to do with what is to one's liking. Time is up for now. Perhaps I'll return later.

Guess they've transcended the "I".. and we should take the pontifical "you" as proof of this transcendence. [bad joke]

So, reactions to inaccurate perception somehow equates to what you call enlightenment? In my understanding it would be the antithesis.

Do you recognize any difference in what he shared and the manner he shared it, and what you share and the manner you share in? The word which is coming to mind is "mores." You seemed to trip over the group mores while @TheCove somehow (probably unintentionally) recognized them and moved in tune with them. In short, if you speak only of your own experience without aggrandizing yourself or your understanding you'll most likely be fine here, if you don't you're most likely in for rough sailing - especially if you are passing along what is considered misinformation from a (self) presumed position of authority.

(Bold mine) This is the primary reason I've had him on ignore for some time now. I don't think he even realizes how many people's experiences he has dismissed, diminished and or spat upon... He's an unintentional gas lighter imo, and (if people were paying attention he) would do more harm to those struggling (with whatever) than good.

I was referring to your assertion regarding Islam and Christianity basically being Judaism which imo is a misrepresentation. How many wars and brutal deaths would have been avoided if what you claim were true? Then perhaps you could simply say, "I've found xyz to be the base, and it has been useful to me in such and such regard."

It's reference to The Pretender by Jackson Browne. "I'm gonna be a happy idiot And struggle for the legal tender Where the ads take aim and lay their claim To the heart and the soul of the spender And believe in whatever may lie In those things that money can buy..." Mostly it points towards my working woman status and acceptance of "what is" within the social construct coupled with my general contentment. It's a good song imo, and if you'd like you can check it out here: Thanks for the curiosity regarding the title I chose for myself. And yes, I see it may have been meant as some misinformed derision (especially as you've now completely ignored the subject of crop circles), and yet I choose to respond as the "happy idiot" and pretend otherwise. Take care.

Then could you try not to misrepresent them?

No fundamentalist from any of those religions would agree with this assertion.

You want more information then look it up. I'm sure what I'm referring to wouldn't be hard to find these days and may take about as much time to find as your sarcastic reply took to type. Edit to add link to an article on crop circles and wooden planks: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2016/03/two-men-started-phenomenon-crop-circles-planks-wire/ Further edit: Since you are interested in spectrums, perhaps understanding "wow how mysterious" and "creative and kind of neat" as points on a spectrum showing "interesting" would help allay some of your sarcasm - unless it's simply a personality trait, in which case carry on with the churlishness.

Because I found them interesting once upon a time. Then I discovered just how easy/simple they were to create, and the interest shifted from "wow how mysterious", to "well that's creative and kinda neat". BTW I'm not a "bro" - which has always seemed an odd turn of phrase to me - where comraderie or derision is based on context and tone. "Fellow bum" would work just fine.