Re: Pantheism
Posted: Tue May 16, 2017 1:27 pm
Yes!Vanadís wrote:It is so amazing to have new awakenings inside your world(s)view!
Forum Archive - ⛧2010 ⸸2023
https://www.azazel.fi/forum/
Yes!Vanadís wrote:It is so amazing to have new awakenings inside your world(s)view!
I love Grant's work. I'm currently on book 7, Outer Gateways, of the 9 books in the Typhonian Trilogies. If you want to study Grant together in private messages or on fb chat, let me know! I'm always happy to discuss his work. And Fra. Fomalhaut is also a big fan of his writings.Vanadís wrote:I'm just studying Grant's Nightside of Eden and it really resonates with me. Earlier I was more pagan style pantheist focusing on earths energies. Now after more intense Thelemic studies my pantheism have been opening up towards the stars and black holes and Nuit <3
It is so amazing to have new awakenings inside your world(s)view!
I'll get back to you after reading more For now I just try to read him with an open mind, because some of his central facts have been "total crap" in my mind before, but some other stuff he writes about is so well put together, like some Thelemic hints added to Blavatsky's proto-ideas and then some Setian seasonings and outcome is interesting mix, where (in my opinion) something is very important revealings and something is way-behind-the-X-files-series-stuff. But because I know his texts yet so poorly, I don't have enough material to disguss with.Sebomai wrote: If you want to study Grant together in private messages or on fb chat, let me know! I'm always happy to discuss his work. And Fra. Fomalhaut is also a big fan of his writings.
THE PRAYING MANTISVanadís wrote: So via cosmic manifestation God is in all, but also in no-thing, because god is already in potential, where nothing IS, but everything is able to be. Total blackness, call this side Satan if you like. Maybe this is something I can share with anti-cosmics
This was quite interesting, post although it seems I didn't understand even half of "The Praying Mantis".Insanus wrote:I think I'm some kind of gnostic dualist, heavily thelemic at least. I think of "everything" as the four letters of Tetragrammaton, everything in the "everything but no more" sense. Everything is an obstacle, everything is a nuisance & therefore everything is also the object of the great work. Nothing as nothing, as beyond, as nowhere is the ideal purpose of it. Nothing as a part of some more total everything eliminates the sole meaning of the word in my opinion.
THE PRAYING MANTISVanadís wrote: So via cosmic manifestation God is in all, but also in no-thing, because god is already in potential, where nothing IS, but everything is able to be. Total blackness, call this side Satan if you like. Maybe this is something I can share with anti-cosmics
"Say: God is One." This I obeyed: for a thousand and one times a night for one thousand nights and one did I affirm the Unity.
But "night" only means LAYLAH; and Unity and GOD are not worth even her blemishes.
Al-lah is only sixty-six; but LAYLAH counteth up to Seven and Seventy.
"Yea! the night shall cover all; the night shall cover all."
-The Book of Lies
I would ask Majnun is the wine part of Laila or not. The old player was pretty straight though: "I do not love her for her form" & "she's like a cup in my hand". What is this about? Didn't he just say that he doesn't care about the girl, only about the bliss he experiences?Kavi wrote:
What is the meaning behind this, is that we tend to look on external things or to exclude something. To think and love about beautiful cup but not to adore the wine. I guess this might bring us closer to debate over traditional philosophy of christianity where spirit is seen over matter. I have thought that Rumi was monist, which would make more sense to think about the cup and wine together.
How would You interpret this?
I am by no means any expert on this field but what I found out from the tragic story is actually what you seemed to have noticed.Insanus wrote:I would ask Majnun is the wine part of Laila or not. The old player was pretty straight though: "I do not love her for her form" & "she's like a cup in my hand". What is this about? Didn't he just say that he doesn't care about the girl, only about the bliss he experiences?Kavi wrote:
What is the meaning behind this, is that we tend to look on external things or to exclude something. To think and love about beautiful cup but not to adore the wine. I guess this might bring us closer to debate over traditional philosophy of christianity where spirit is seen over matter. I have thought that Rumi was monist, which would make more sense to think about the cup and wine together.
How would You interpret this?
The Praying Mantis is poem, which includes some of the basic stuff of Crowley's thoughts about universe: For example god-name Allah contains LA, which in kabbalistic system means all & everything. It's manifestation of God, masculine. While LA means opposite of it nothing & no-being. So the name of god includes creation of universe and withdrawal of it, that is cosmic rythm of coming into being (breathing out) and collapsing (breathing in). Compare this to Shiva's dance and creating & destroying, breathing in and out -> yoga (pranayama).Kavi wrote: This was quite interesting, post although it seems I didn't understand even half of "The Praying Mantis".
There are of course many possible interpretations. It could be argued that the bliss Majnun experiences is because the girl is such a fine channel,or that the bliss is the innate spiritual nature of all beings (and paradoxically, he loves the girl even more and only ignores the appearances) or that the idea of "truly loving someone in touch with reality" doesn't even mean anything and the way of appreciating God's love in solitude is the highest way to go, or that the wine is actually Majnun's own love towards the girl, or what not. For a true mystic it probably won't even matter that much: love is one love and bliss is one bliss anyway.Kavi wrote:I am by no means any expert on this field but what I found out from the tragic story is actually what you seemed to have noticed.Insanus wrote:I would ask Majnun is the wine part of Laila or not. The old player was pretty straight though: "I do not love her for her form" & "she's like a cup in my hand". What is this about? Didn't he just say that he doesn't care about the girl, only about the bliss he experiences?Kavi wrote:
What is the meaning behind this, is that we tend to look on external things or to exclude something. To think and love about beautiful cup but not to adore the wine. I guess this might bring us closer to debate over traditional philosophy of christianity where spirit is seen over matter. I have thought that Rumi was monist, which would make more sense to think about the cup and wine together.
How would You interpret this?
He loves the bliss and not the girl. After hearing that he can't marry and be with the girl he moves to wilderness where by day time recites love poems. Even when his parents die he still continues to stay in the desert. After the husband of Laila dies, he continues to be in the desert eventhough the girl has sent a message that they could finally be together. Only then, when Laila dies will Majnun come out of the wilderness to grieve on the tomb of Laila.
This kind of story definitely brings me an idea that the experience of bliss, which someone might call love was actually out of the touch with reality.
It's not the ideal story about lovers but more of telling about separation from the unity where wine and cup are actually one and the same.
But honestly speaking I have never read any commentaries or books on this subject so everything is only my own speculation