9th

Anarchy is the same as Utopia. It is a society of people who are naturally predisposed to doing the best thing possible for everyone else, without the need for enforced laws and the rulers (archons) which make them. Rather than an enforced system of laws controlling the actions of society, it is a natural, intuitive "lawfulness" on the part of every person. (you could say that such a group of people follow the "dharma" or the "tao" perfectly, without interruption) These would be people who live by internal conscience rather than external morality. Is this kind of situation viable for everyone? No - otherwise it would already be happening right now. The current evolutionary state of humanity as a species prevents the realization of a total collective utopia. Of course that is the ultimate goal of the species, but the question of whether it will happen or not is practically impossible to predict. What can be roughly predicted is the amount of resources that will be available in the future, and this is the most dire prospect that we know of at the moment. It appears that humanity cannot sustain the kind of industrialized world that we live in even for another hundred years. This could change with the advent of new technologies, but the race between natural consequences and technological adaptation is something that could be co-opted at any time by any number of cross-currents - so speculation is pointless. What we can say with certainty is that utopia is not currently a physical reality for everyone on this planet.

I think he was an interesting fellow, perhaps somewhat of a genius - but I think his indulgences and vices ultimately got the better of him. He made some useful contributions, and offered some unusual perspectives. I dont particularly find him to be much of a "master", though. An adept, certainly... but I do not resonate with his intent, and therefore I consider his path to be sidetracked at best. Regardless of the claims he made, I dont think his work was less binding than moreso. I think other people may have better luck with his works - personally I dont find it very useful... but then again I dont find anything about the Golden Dawn group or their contemporaries to be useful either. It sometimes comes across as flash for its own sake, and seems to draw in people like that. IMO, flash can have purpose, as a tool - but not as an end in itself. Same goes for ritual magic. Its not really that big of a deal, and to consider it as such is like setting out on the wrong foot. The most effective methods of "magic" are not written down or talked about. As with all things in life, its a matter of priorities.

Not sure if this is entirely accurate, as CC and "the witches" both directly worked with yaqui and peruvian shamans, which has been verified by numerous sources - although I dont really have much interest in trying to "prove it". I encourage people to do their own research and draw their own conclusions (or not, as the case may be). I find that claims of "uniqueness" always seem suspect (intentionally or not) when dealing with any teaching, especially in regards to those with supposed "lineage". This is not an accusation, but I have witnessed people over the years simultaneously praise Crowley while condemning Castaneda, which I find to be near the height of absurdity, IMHO... (as well as being indicative of certain other things). Even as a person, CC was notoriously controversial. If you are interested in learning more about that side, I would suggest watching the video I posted above - which consists of interviews with students who worked with him personally over many years. Castaneda's works are certainly not for everyone, and in this way he is akin to other "modern" teachers like Gurdjieff and Trungpa. A key feature of their work is the creation of conditions in which blind faith is made untenable, if not outright dangerous. As always, your mileage may vary, just as your views on the efficacy of such techniques.

It depends on what you mean by that. If you are asking whether or not its all complete fiction, that is certainly not true - however there is ample evidence that he conflated a number of teachers into the singular character of Don Juan. The more important point has less to do with the strict realism of the narrative and more to do with what you are able to learn from it. In this way, his books have much more resemblance to hagiographies or myth - and the real knowledge is often encoded, and symbolized. As Gurdjieff would say, he "buried the dog's bones". Some of it is hiding in plain sight, some of it is much more obscured. It takes a certain kind of key to unlock the utility of his books, and if you dont have that key, they are nothing more than silly stories. But if you do have that key, the true worth is revealed, which I would say is extensive. http://youtu.be/Gpc33hz6qVs

The name "Wednesday" is derived from Old English Wōdnesdæg and Middle English Wednesdei, "day of Wodanaz", ultimately a calque of dies Mercurii "day of Mercury". Odin (/ˈoʊdɨn/; from Old Norse Óðinn) is a major god in Norse mythology, the Allfather of the gods, and the ruler of Asgard. Homologous with the Old English "Wōden", the Old Saxon "Wôdan" and the Old High German "Wôtan", the name is descended from Proto-Germanic "*Wodanaz" or "*Wōđanaz". "Odin" is generally accepted as the modern English form of the name, although, in some cases, older forms may be used or preferred. His name is related to ōðr, meaning "fury, excitation", besides "mind", or "poetry". His role, like that of many of the Norse gods, is complex. Odin is a principal member of the Aesir* (the major group of the Norse pantheon) and is associated with war, battle, victory and death, but also wisdom, Shamanism, magic, poetry, prophecy, and the hunt. Odin has many sons, the most famous of whom is the thunder god Thor. Worship of Odin may date to Proto-Germanic paganism. The Roman historian Tacitus may refer to Odin when he talks of Mercury. The reason is that, like Mercury, Odin was regarded as a Psychopomp, "guide of souls". As Odin is closely connected with a horse called Sleipnir, a spear called Gungnir, and transformation/shape shifting into animal shapes, an alternative theory of origin contends that Odin, or at least some of his key characteristics, may have arisen just prior to the 6th century as a nightmarish horse god (Echwaz), later signified by the eight-legged Sleipnir. Some support for Odin as a latecomer to the Scandinavian Norse pantheon can be found in the Sagas where, for example, at one time he is thrown out of Asgard by the other gods—a seemingly unlikely tale for a well-established "all father". However, it could also mean Odin represented an older cult of proto-Germanic hunter-gatherers, his association with being a wanderer and having shamanic qualities, and this story might on the contrary mean the Odin-cult was taken over by newer sedentary cults. Scholars who have linked Odin with the "Death God" template include E. A. Ebbinghaus, Jan de Vries and Thor Templin. The later two also link Loki and Odin as being one-and-the-same until the early Norse Period. Scandinavian Óðinn emerged from Proto-Norse Wōdin during the Migration period, artwork of this time (on gold bracteates) depicting the earliest scenes that can be aligned with the High Medieval Norse mythological texts. The context of the new elites emerging in this period aligns with Snorri's tale of the indigenous Vanir who were eventually replaced by the Æsir, intruders from the Continent. Parallels between Odin and Celtic Lugus have often been pointed out. Both are intellectual gods, commanding magic and poetry. Both have ravens and a spear as their attributes. Julius Caesar (de bello Gallico, 6.17.1) mentions Mercury as the chief god of Celtic religion. A likely context of the diffusion of elements of Celtic ritual into Germanic culture is that of the Chatti, who lived at the Celtic-Germanic boundary in Hesse during the final centuries before the Common Era. (It should be remembered that many Indo-Europeanists hypothesize that Odin in his Proto-Germanic form was not the chief god, but that he only gradually replaced Týr during the Migration period.) *Æsir is the plural of áss, óss "god" (gen. āsir) which is attested in other Germanic languages, e.g., Old English ōs (gen. pl. ēsa) and Gothic (as reported by Jordanes) anses "half-gods". These all stem from Proto-Germanic *ansis ~ ansuz, which itself comes from Proto-Indo-European *h₂énsus (gen. h₂n̥sóus) "life force" (cf. Avestan aŋhū "lord; lifetime", ahura "godhood", Sanskrit ásu "life force", ásura "god" (< *h₂n̥suró)). It is widely accepted that this word is further related to *h₂ens- "to engender" (cf. Hittite hass- "to procreate, give birth", Tocharian B ās- "to produce").

Now we are getting somewhere.

Perhaps you shouldnt jump to conclusions on this.

yeh... need hempel to weigh in on this ... btw, the one where he debated the wanderling on zen and the subtleties of translating 'nirodha'... classic

Yes... really!

the iron ox plows the field, planting golden coins