Do What Thou Wilt

[Apech]

2 hours ago, kyoji said:

what makes you disagree with the 'stopping thinking' ? in my experience, the more you can drop incessant egoic thinking, the more you can let a far greater intelligence work through you. no thinking required. thinking only inhibits this.

 

There's a big difference in my experience between stopping mental chatter - or egoic thinking as you say - and 'stopping thinking' as such.  Just my conclusion after a few years of practicing meditation - you are free to disagree of course

[Nungali]

21 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Obviously ... what I meant was everyone except Bruno!!!!!!!!!   (I knew it was a quote though  ).

 

He didnt ?  

 

 

see   5.   ^

 

“We can state with certainty that the universe is all center, or that the center of the universe is everywhere and the circumference nowhere.” — Giordano Bruno, 1584

 

 

Edited December 25, 2019 by Nungali

[Nungali]

I shouldn't tease people while they still have a Christmas hangover  ...... 

 

 

 

 

[Apech]

50 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

He didnt ?  

 

 

see   5.   ^

 

“We can state with certainty that the universe is all center, or that the center of the universe is everywhere and the circumference nowhere.” — Giordano Bruno, 1584

 

 

 

Ah ... I should read more slowly ... especially after a bottle of red ha ha.

[kyoji]

2 hours ago, Apech said:

 

There's a big difference in my experience between stopping mental chatter - or egoic thinking as you say - and 'stopping thinking' as such.  Just my conclusion after a few years of practicing meditation - you are free to disagree of course

i don't think i disagree.. 

[manitou]

19 hours ago, Apech said:

 

There's a big difference in my experience between stopping mental chatter - or egoic thinking as you say - and 'stopping thinking' as such.  Just my conclusion after a few years of practicing meditation - you are free to disagree of course

 

 

I think it's the quality of the thinking that makes the difference.  I do still think, of course - but it seems to be much more uncluttered, more focused.  And capable of being turned off to enjoy the moment.

 

the interesting thing about losing one's memory, as I am, is that it doesn't really affect the immediate moment.  If one can mellow their thoughts, utilizing the brain as needed, it can actually be pulled off pretty well.  As my mom (who has Alzheimers) got worse, her sense of panic about forgetting things was palpable.  But if one is trained in meditation and can stay in the moment, the loss of memory is easier coped with and less discombobulating. 

 

A big difference, as I see it.  The only down side, is that I probably wrote this same exact thing 4 posts ago.

[idiot_stimpy]

If all is one, then there can be no distinction between any parts. 

[SirPalomides]

35 minutes ago, idiot_stimpy said:

If all is one, then there can be no distinction between any parts. 

 

I've got complicated news for you.

[Apech]

4 hours ago, idiot_stimpy said:

If all is one, then there can be no distinction between any parts. 

 

'All' is 'one' in the sense that there is nothing other than it.  Technically if we take the 'all' as a continuum then it has no parts - but it does have an infinite variety of expression, as witnessed for instance by the variety of life on earth.  There is distinction - as this word comes from a root meaning 'to prick' or perhaps 'sting' (cf. distinguish) - because the expressions of the 'all' each have their own unique point or purpose - or if you like, function.  Form follows function and so we perceive this as a variety of forms (10k things) - even though they all share the same inner nature which is not different to the 'all' itself.

 

All is one - because whatever thing, form, being or so on you encounter has this as its source and nature.  But it is not one at the head of a series like, one, two, three ... it is what the Vedantans call a one without a second - the absolute.

 

 

[Nungali]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 ...  if we take the 'all' as a continuum then it has no parts - but it does have an infinite variety of expression, ....

 

 

 

 

 

 

[helpfuldemon]

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

There is no law other than do what thou wilt.

 

That means that there is no law, and you are free to do what thou will.  That means no cops, no judges, no one to tell you no.  

[Earl Grey]

38 minutes ago, helpfuldemon said:

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

There is no law other than do what thou wilt.

 

That means that there is no law, and you are free to do what thou will.  That means no cops, no judges, no one to tell you no.  

Wrong.

[Earl Grey]

12 minutes ago, Draco said:

 

Pretty much correct.

 

There is also "Sine Metu" which points in the same direction, while generically meaning Without Fear, also further envelops the Ideal of following one's Truest Passions Unaverted

People spend years studying this. @Nungali probably won’t repeat himself anymore.

[Earl Grey]

7 minutes ago, Draco said:

 

"Centuries" Brother

Burgundt.

[helpfuldemon]

5 hours ago, Earl Grey said:

People spend years studying this. @Nungali probably won’t repeat himself anymore.

 

I've heard the arguments and read the material.  I know about the true will argument.  The book of the law however is quite clear "none may say nay".  

[Earl Grey]

51 minutes ago, helpfuldemon said:

 

I've heard the arguments and read the material.  I know about the true will argument.  The book of the law however is quite clear "none may say nay".  

Just like people who have their first beer read Chomsky their very first time.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Earl Grey

[Nungali]

15 hours ago, helpfuldemon said:

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

There is no law other than do what thou wilt.

 

That means that there is no law, and you are free to do what thou will.  That means no cops, no judges, no one to tell you no.  

 

 

No .

[Nungali]

7 hours ago, helpfuldemon said:

 

I've heard the arguments and read the material.  I know about the true will argument.  The book of the law however is quite clear "none may say nay".  

 

 

 

[Nungali]

7 hours ago, helpfuldemon said:

 

I've heard the arguments and read the material.  I know about the true will argument.  The book of the law however is quite clear "none may say nay".  

 

Wow !   Thats a first !

[helpfuldemon]

Aleister Crowley fought for freedom to do what you will, and he declared each person sovereign of their own worlds.  As such, he applied the rules of kingdoms to each person, giving them the right to define their own laws and defend them, to the point of murder.  All civilizations have done this, but is it just?  According to the laws of Crowley, the rights he says to fight for are God given, normal rights that we take for given in the West.  However, the wording of his Law seems to indicate that anyone can do anything and kill for their right to do so, but I don't know if that was his belief.  He said that if you do something to another person, it can be done to you, which seems to conjure up the Golden Rule, which he said was stupid.  In any case, it is up to the person to define their laws and to see that they work for them within civilization and if it doesn't, then you live or die accordingly.

[Lairg]

When I first saw AC in his post-mortem state he was stuck at the top of the lower mind (5.4) furiously using his personal will for decades to move beyond the mind.  The internal contradiction may not have been obvious to him.

 

He was such a grumpy sod that I did not tell him what to do, but I must not have veiled my thoughts properly because when I looked at him a couple of weeks later he had moved up just a little but out of the personal mind - in the bottom edge of 5.2 - the love petals of the soul body.

 

When I look now he has moved up to perhaps 5.2.4.   Not far at all.

 

 

[stirling]

My understanding of Crowley's "Law of Thelema" wasn't that it meant we are free to exercise our whims in the world, but instead find our "inner self" and allow that to guide us.

[helpfuldemon]

10 hours ago, stirling said:

My understanding of Crowley's "Law of Thelema" wasn't that it meant we are free to exercise our whims in the world, but instead find our "inner self" and allow that to guide us.

 

Yes, Crowley believed that we are conditioned to act a certain way depending upon our environment and experiences.  He believed that this was made up of old ways that didn't meet with his new liberty and power of do what thou wilt.  He believed that that person was a facade, and that the real you lay within the freedom to choose who and what you will be.  It's kind of like being raised a Christian and being taught to always do good and help people, and think the best of them, but then you realize that you don't necessarily want to do that all the time.  Or being taught to remain a virgin until marriage, and to stay married til death.  In many ways, Crowleys new world lacks the kind of morality that had been refined by the religions.  Yes, it is more free, but it lacks the kind of good that we sometimes rely upon should we be disadvantaged or impoverished.

[thelerner]

The problem is a selfish person could justify a whole lot of evil actions under 'Do what thou wilt'.  Course an evil person won't necessarily be checked by society's code of conduct anyway.  

 

On the other hand DWTW is also an antidote to societies repressive mores.  A bit of wisdom from Robert Heinlein, ie 'Don't hurt people unnecessarily'.   <googles> he wrote '“Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense.” 

It modifies it a bit. 

 

The law draws it's lines, society others, we draw our own.  How many do we step over?

[helpfuldemon]

That's why the Wiccan take on DWTW is a bit better, IMO.  But then, if you read all of Crowley, you'll see that harming people was never off the table for him.