Thoughts on Goetia and Theosophy...

[Nemiel]

I compare the spiritual factions of the new age - both Gnostic, Hermetic and Kabbalistic, but very different in execution when investigating.

Theosophy can be very counter intuitive, as it still gravitates towards concrete objectives, it reinterprets religion, but doesn't give much practice for agency.

Crowley and magick, however, gives you the tools to work with what you have, what you want and what can be the best you can achieve through applied practice to give you a platform for agency in this world, it is very existential and empowering, as it gives you action to reflect on to develop your own world view, without giving you a pre-fixed system to base your own system on.

Philosophy happens after the fact and a life lived in this world will enable you to develop your own view of it.

It also concentrates more on your own will, desires and values, which are the key aspects of an individuals' identity.

[manonthepath]

You sound like Willigut.

[Ramscha]

You sound like Willigut.

Arghs, that's a bit of an extreme description.
I would more tend to see a lot parallels to Steiner, though I don't really sympathize with the whole theosophy and "we all are one" thing.

Ramscha

[Nemiel]

You sound like Willigut.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Maria_Wiligut - This guy? How come? He was a Nazi was he not?

[Nemiel]

You sound like Willigut.

I would more tend to see a lot parallels to Steiner, though I don't really sympathize with the whole theosophy and "we all are one" thing.

Ramscha

Not really looked into Steiner, a friend of mine was into him though. He's always one of those intellectuals that comes up here and there, maybe I should check him out since you bought him up again here.

Funny how his works coincide with the turn of the 20th century, such a curious era. May I ask how I sound like Steiner in the video? Which concept etc? As I noticed this as part of his ideas : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthroposophy, specifically "Anthroposophy, a philosophy founded by Rudolf Steiner, postulates the existence of an objective, intellectually comprehensible spiritual world accessible to direct experience through inner development." - I may be wrong in assuming that this is what you maybe referring to from what I say in the video about "from within", but my perspective is quite different.

Essentially, Anthroposophy is nothing more than Platonic theory of ideas/forms etc, as is Theosophy in general too, see the BOLD section of its' description for emphasis. Philosophy happens after the fact, therefore the spiritual is a creation of man also.

I have recently been working on the concept of innatism, of which I will refrain from starting here and will begin a new thread in the near future, but one of the problems that Willard Quine focused on is how "non-being" must in some sense "be", many refer to mathematics as a priori and as close as we can get to Platos' forms, but mathematics can be a self supporting system, Bertrand Russell famously said "The subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true." Quine, in his essay "On what there is". explains that if we mention "unicorn", you will instantly know what it is, even though it is generally accepted that it doesn't exist.

If you are referring to his concepts on individualism, I will need to look into him to see where he is coming from with that, as "individualism" is a term I refrain from using often, as it is too ambiguous and harder to define than other concepts to describe my "individuality".
Yeah, Theosophy to me is like a template of metaphysics that you represent with modification, however it does not really get to action.

[Ramscha]

You sound like Willigut.

I would more tend to see a lot parallels to Steiner, though I don't really sympathize with the whole theosophy and "we all are one" thing.

Ramscha

Not really looked into Steiner, a friend of mine was into him though. He's always one of those intellectuals that comes up here and there, maybe I should check him out since you bought him up again here.

Yeah, Theosophy to me is like a template of metaphysics that you represent with modification, however it does not really get to action.

Well, he is considered as one of the individuals who brought occultism out to public as did Levi and Blavatsky. Theosophy in its basics raised from Steiner and Blavatsky is another chapter. I don't want to harass a complete school of thought too much, but theosophy showed during the history two very troublesome tendencies which I want to point out:

1) The presence of the "higher mahatmas" or "hidden masters". It is nothing new to worship or ask something divine for guidance but it is something completly different if this "something" is preached to be the only valid lead to salvation and higher levels and that a human itself is plainly spoken a dumb cretin unable to find its own path. It is the incapacitation i dislike the most about this. "The secret doctrine" from the old hag Helena Blavatsky or "Theosophy, Religion, and Occult Science" by Henry S. Olcott should give enough of an impression of what I try to point out.

2) Theosophy is praised for bringing together different thoughts and teachings under one roof in one school. Though this is nice and everything it appears more like a kraken trying to spread its tentacles as far as it can into other schools and teachings. One should not forget that theosophy in its core is still rooted in christian inspired spiritism and grew with that into other systems, bended them until they were fitting into its stomach and then proceeded. "The Golden Rules of Buddhism" by Olcott are a great example.

I end it now since I don't want to be stigmatized for bulling other peoples believes but I would ask people to be careful as theosophy tends to preach being the sheep instead of the shepherd. Another paralell? [happy]

Ramscha

[Nemiel]

Well, he is considered as one of the individuals who brought occultism out to public as did Levi and Blavatsky. Theosophy in its basics raised from Steiner and Blavatsky is another chapter. I don't want to harass a complete school of thought too much, but theosophy showed during the history two very troublesome tendencies which I want to point out:

1) The presence of the "higher mahatmas" or "hidden masters". It is nothing new to worship or ask something divine for guidance but it is something completly different if this "something" is preached to be the only valid lead to salvation and higher levels and that a human itself is plainly spoken a dumb cretin unable to find its own path. It is the incapacitation i dislike the most about this. "The secret doctrine" from the old hag Helena Blavatsky or "Theosophy, Religion, and Occult Science" by Henry S. Olcott should give enough of an impression of what I try to point out.

2) Theosophy is praised for bringing together different thoughts and teachings under one roof in one school. Though this is nice and everything it appears more like a kraken trying to spread its tentacles as far as it can into other schools and teachings. One should not forget that theosophy in its core is still rooted in christian inspired spiritism and grew with that into other systems, bended them until they were fitting into its stomach and then proceeded. "The Golden Rules of Buddhism" by Olcott are a great example.

I end it now since I don't want to be stigmatized for bulling other peoples believes but I would ask people to be careful as theosophy tends to preach being the sheep instead of the shepherd. Another paralell? [happy]

Ramscha

Totally agree, they are two of the issues at least, I can name many more with more methodology. I see no issue with criticism and analysis of ideas, I use the word "ideas" instead of "beliefs" as ideas are always open to discussion and beliefs can become fixed. As long as we give our own perspective without trying to convince, I see no issue with that. Also, it is related to the content of the video too.

I did modify my post, apologies for that, you don't have to respond.

I find goetia to be much more practical and dynamic, I think it is impossible to enter dogma by using it.

[LandOfShadows]

Hi Nemiel,

Great video, funny, I joined my local Theosophy group in Northampton, and to be honest I have found no attack on the church, very little talk of the master or comparisons of religion. They talk more of powers latent in Man, interconnection of us all and the microcosm of the universe and that there is no religion greater than truth.

They welcome speakers of all areas... we had one chap attend from the local Uni that investigated paranormal happening etc.

Even though I was a member I never read Blavatsky's work, so perhaps I don't know the group as much as I thought I did.

==============

When it comes to Crowley, I have been pointed at him as a link to my own work, and from what you have placed into words I can see why, as my system is based on intention and energy direction via vibration.

My self conducting a ritual from the XOYLO system.
Here is my work.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/deoqx5y9exri ... Cmc2a?dl=0
I would like it if you would take a look and perhaps place it into process as how you state they come to you in dream/lucid states is how I envisage such.

I don't practice any other system, and don't class myself as an occultist.

LoS
Steve

[Cybernetic_Jazz]

Some of what you're saying is why I tend to draw this way - ie. more toward mysticism. What I think you're saying about Crowley also seems to be what the 'mystery schools' in the proper sense are about rather than Esoteric TM which is just exoteric structure built on more bulk esoteric data.

The way I think of it when it's done right or when I experience it right, and I'm not really a practicing ceremonial magician to any degree yet, is that it's really like subjectively staring right back down my own retina. A lot of the kinds of visions that you were talking about remind me of the things I'll get in semi-sleep, ie. when I'm trailing off or if I meditate when I'm tired enough. It's like something sentient and beautiful takes me by the hand and wants to lead me off to some great adventure but quite often it's leading me somewhere that my rational mind can't quite follow - ie. like trying to visually comprehend 4D and 5D objects. Once the plot thickens I either lose track or feel like I'm being pulled toward a whirlpool of sorts where I get a strange feeling that I'm coming up a 'point-of-no-return' and a sort of mortal fear kicks in (I've tried sticking through it but it just redoubles as each new color of the tunnel or whirlpool seems to add another exclamation point to the sense of peril).

It comes back to the imaginary friends that you may or may not have had as a kid, those dreams where someone dashingly attractive is pulling you off to go on some Animae-esque adventure where you're one of the lead heroes, and rather than being sad or escapist clap-trap it's one of those mechanisms that you're inner-self, at least in my own experience, likes to dredge back up from the course of your life as its way of flirting with you and deepening that flirtation.

This is part of why when I started to really understand the flavor of Hermetic Qabalah I knew I'd hit on the 'it' that was missing from my life as a core concept up until recently. It was that intangible feeling of 'there's something huge to this' that I'd get when I used to drop acid, mushrooms, or get a good third DXM plateau. That feeling of a vast ocean of Hecate within you who has Christ Logos and Kether hidden somewhere in her cloak really makes you want to run full speed at gaining access and really probing the situation properly for an understanding that works. It would have to be one of the top 3 or top 5 reasons for being alive in my opinion. For me Qabalah does just that - drops Jacob's ladder right at my feet and tells me that the rungs are sturdy enough for climbing.

As far as Crowley's concerned I have his Thoth Tarot book, need to read it but still haven't yet, have however read David Shoemaker's 'Living Thelema' about A.'.A.'. (he reads large sections of his own book on Youtube) and it really seems to be Golden Dawn in different language - ie. LRP vs. Star Sapphire, LRH vs. Star Ruby, Christ Logos and Isis vs. The Beast and Whore of Babylon. I might be misguided in getting the impression that Thelema is just the western mysteries' alternative of the same exact formula for people who've been scalded too much by Christian upbringing to be able to deal with Jesus as a positive figure but that's quite often how it comes off. The Golden Dawn having the Knowledge and Conversation with the Holy Guardian Angel thing seems like it would underscore that point. Thelema has much more upfront publicity about the HGA and bringing down the racy John of the Cross experiences with the inner-self but in reading Jason Lotterhand's Thursday Night Tarot, getting further in my Builders of the Adytum studies, it seems like all of this is just what Qabalah is all about. Even moreso I love the idea that if politicians are bunk, that Washington DC can turn anything to crap, and if I feel like I'm living in a world where the human condition as its popularly misunderstood brings all solutions to gridlock - one thing is assured in the western mystery tradition, it's that if you really work on getting yourself right and your life right within you'll be one more individual cutting back in the other direction and making a substantial difference, which is what 'building the adytum' is all about - even if it sounds a bit para-masonic it would make sense that if we're all connected the increasingly advanced among us have greater control of the psychic weather conditions in our area. Our only obligation for that kind of added control is to just use it wisely.

[Nemiel]

I will reply to the other comments later this week, been a little busy on other things, but here is an extension of something I said in the other video.

[manofsands]

Yeah, Theosophy to me is like a template of metaphysics that you represent with modification, however it does not really get to action.

Well, he is considered as one of the individuals who brought occultism out to public as did Levi and Blavatsky. Theosophy in its basics raised from Steiner and Blavatsky is another chapter. I don't want to harass a complete school of thought too much, but theosophy showed during the history two very troublesome tendencies which I want to point out:

1) The presence of the "higher mahatmas" or "hidden masters". It is nothing new to worship or ask something divine for guidance but it is something completly different if this "something" is preached to be the only valid lead to salvation and higher levels and that a human itself is plainly spoken a dumb cretin unable to find its own path. It is the incapacitation i dislike the most about this. "The secret doctrine" from the old hag Helena Blavatsky or "Theosophy, Religion, and Occult Science" by Henry S. Olcott should give enough of an impression of what I try to point out.

2) Theosophy is praised for bringing together different thoughts and teachings under one roof in one school. Though this is nice and everything it appears more like a kraken trying to spread its tentacles as far as it can into other schools and teachings. One should not forget that theosophy in its core is still rooted in christian inspired spiritism and grew with that into other systems, bended them until they were fitting into its stomach and then proceeded. "The Golden Rules of Buddhism" by Olcott are a great example.

I end it now since I don't want to be stigmatized for bulling other peoples believes but I would ask people to be careful as theosophy tends to preach being the sheep instead of the shepherd. Another paralell? [happy]

Ramscha

Hey All,

I've been a Theosophical Society member for ~10yrs now, though I don't actively participate in group meetings or anything.

First I'd like to say there is no set theosophical beliefs beyond the 3 objects...

The three objects

The three declared objects of the original Theosophical Society as established by Blavatsky, Judge and Olcott
were as follows:

First — To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex,
caste, or color.
Second — To encourage the study of Comparative Religion, Philosophy, and Science.
Third — To investigate the unexplained laws of Nature and the powers latent in man."[1]

Other than that... the motto is...

There is No Religion Higher than Truth

On those alone did I join. You gotta understand, Blavatsky isn't Theosophy. She is obviously it's most influencial member/creator, of course,... but there are members of all faiths, who keep those faiths, but open up to a more universal interpretation of their faith. There are athiest, Christian, wiccan, and labeless.

There are many basic beliefs that are often considered generally accepted, but in anything I've done with Theosophy there was a general sense of openess... that people were brought together mainly for their own version of the search for truth.

Even something like belief in Mahatmas or the Masters is not an accepted belief by all Theosophists. Many of their letters don't sound all that lofty or enlightened. And even if they were somehow 'spiritually elevated', who is to say they aren't left over from a previous round.