As per request by Rudolph, a thread dedicated to the exploration of AP as a magical practice.
I'll refer loosely to Arthur C. Clarke, the sci-fi author.
One of his three laws is something to the effect of, any sufficiently advanced technology appears as magic.
That in mind, magic is a scientific/technological understanding of reality and how to manipulate it. We, as ones who chase the mystery, are indeed aspiring magicians. we seek to understand reality and how our perception interacts with it. that's all magic is. nothing supernatural about it. it's just a technological understanding that "modern science" is either unaware of, or unable to acknowledge. we are still systematic in the way we approach this stuff. and the techniques are repeatable by other people with similar results. of course, because of the nature of the topic (subjective as it is), the results won't be identical, but results are rarely identical, even in the most well designed experiment. bottom line, magic is nothing more than an ability to use our will and intention to direct our attention in a manner that shows results in our reality. astral projection then is the pinnacle because it requires the utmost control of attention in order to completely disassociate from the body and explore the otherworlds. with proper training, AP is the most effective manner in which to manipulate physical reality. it is literally a "graphic user interface" for the mind. go into your mind, move things around, change some, remove others and your physical reality changes, beliefs are altered and reality moves in kind.
Quoteastral projection then is the pinnacle because it requires the utmost control of attention in order to completely disassociate from the body and explore the otherworlds. with proper training, AP is the most effective manner in which to manipulate physical reality.
I saw a similar comment on a Magick forum but there was very little response. That surprised me a little.
Personally my lifelong objective has been more along the lines of attaining high states of consciousness in the Surat Shabd Yoga tradition but much of that School has been unraveling in recent decades (Baba Fakir Chand came right out admitted that the Sat Guru story was a farce) and my attention turned to Western Schools to see what they had to offer.
Once the hurdle of getting OBE is passed we then come to the possibility of consciously and purposely setting astral energy in motion in such a way so as to manifest a desired physical outcome. I have read of one teacher who spoke of this but of course he gave very little specific info. Most of these characters were *very* reluctant to give out the details.
The Hermetic Schools and the Rosicrucian Tradition are ridiculously secretive about their methods. They claim that ALL initiates learn to get conscious OBE ability basically 'at will'. But I spent some time among them and after much circumlocution and even a few rare moments of open honesty I have concluded that the claims are gross exaggerations. Their Kabala knowledge and gematria skills are impressive and they might even show great Law of Attraction ability but when you get right down to the OBE nitty gritty they just don't measure up.
The funny thing is how folks on these AP forums speak so casually about their OBE experience, even those who only get a good solid OBE once a month or so would be the envy of most of those Kabalists.
The big difference is that for people on a forum like this, AP is typically the goal.
In the occult orders, AP is a tool for personal perfection, but it is certainly not the only tool. To be honest, there are many much simpler tools at our disposal, which leads me to believe that only the most dedicated masters use AP because why would you if you can just use active imagination to the same end?
When I started the practice, AP was my goal. It has become a tool to me recently and as such I have stopped practicing AP in favor of much easier tools, like phasing/active imagination/visualization. These types of visualization journeys are just plain easier and I've found them to be highly effective for what I am trying to achieve. I regularly use imagination journeys as an interface with my mind for the purpose of perfecting it in such a way as to allow me to "rise above" the rhythms of physical reality.
AP requires so much more discipline, and I am about to start practicing AP again soon (just because it feels right), but it's not my goal anymore.
QuoteTo be honest, there are many much simpler tools at our disposal, which leads me to believe that only the most dedicated masters use AP because why would you if you can just use active imagination to the same end?
Well, my objective with AP cannot be gained with active imagination, because I want to know what it is, in and of itself. Within the Surat Shabda Yoga tradition astral projection is strictly verboten because it was observed over time that a large percentage of the devotees would fall into a fascination with the place and stop making the effort to move beyond it. But I figured that after a certain number of stagnant years it would be okay to take a peek.
If the goal is to merely manipulate physical conditions, I would agree that conscious AP is not absolutely necessary.
QuoteThe simple method of the Body of Light is a thousand times better than all that book at once, and it has been written more than two centuries ago.
This claim was made with respect to the Raduga/SOBT method. Despite the obfuscatory semantic tricks of the claimant, it really does constitute a claim to a 'superior' method.
I spent some time among the Thelema/Crowley folks trying to get enough info to decide whether to seek initiation with them or not. I also spent a period months as a probationer in what I found to be an excessively secretive Rosicrucian GD type school. This involved full on daily practice, keeping a magickal journal and submitting the journal for monthly review by the powers that be.
In the beginning I found that during instruction and discussion there are many claims made about tremendous abilities and great wisdom, etc. to be had for those who persevere in the Path. The neophytes are regaled and wowed with incredible stories and anecdotes.
If you spend enough time among them and just get to where you can comfortably chat about this and that, occasional comments will drop that reveal just how little progress most of these serious, hardcore would be Magicians are truly making. The effort required of these aspirants is immense. They must memorize huge tables of obtuse and arcane information. They must perform daily rituals and essentially immerse themselves into that lifestyle. But in the end there is often very little to show for it.
I got to know initiates that had been practicing these methods for many, many years and they admitted that they could not even get OBE at all much less at will. This was not so much the exception but more often the common reality. A couple teachers that I spoke with held high office and initiation status that implied wayyy more than the ability to just get OBE now and then. The leadership and senior members will make big claims about fantastic abilities and such but when you get into a position to get to really know them a little better it is found that they 'exaggerate', to put it nicely.
Quote from: Rudolph on June 27, 2011, 13:43:01
This claim was made with respect to the Raduga/SOBT method. Despite the obfuscatory semantic tricks of the claimant, it really does constitute a claim to a 'superior' method.
To be fair here, whenever anyone mentions that a particular method or exercise is "superior" on these forums... I usually take them to mean that it's superior only in context of them personally. I don't take absolute statements to be anything but personally true to that individual.
I have no problems with anyone believing or saying that their method is superior, because you and I both know that it's only true in context to themselves.
That is not true.
I was being fair. The claim was made in the context of putting down a method developed by someone identified by name.
When someone wants to make an observation "only true in context to themselves" they usually qualify it in that manner. Without the proper qualifiers such as, "speaking for myself" or something along those lines a general statement is properly understood to apply generally.
Quote from: Rudolph on June 27, 2011, 15:00:49
That is not true.
I was being fair. The claim was made in the context of putting down a method developed by someone identified by name.
When someone wants to make an observation "only true in context to themselves" they usually qualify it in that manner. Without the proper qualifiers such as, "speaking for myself" or something along those lines a general statement is properly understood to apply generally.
You take it however you choose then. :)
My position is quite clear.
Rudy, you constantly neglect and understanding of what perception is. The external stimuli may be objective and concrete, but the interpretation I'd that data is ALWAYS subjective. Even if you list the name of the founder of a technique doesn't make it objectively superior for the simple fact that the way a person perceives that method is unique. You're way too black and white.
Quote from: personalreality on July 01, 2011, 10:24:34
Rudy, you constantly neglect and understanding of what perception is. The external stimuli may be objective and concrete, but the interpretation I'd that data is ALWAYS subjective. Even if you list the name of the founder of a technique doesn't make it objectively superior for the simple fact that the way a person perceives that method is unique. You're way too black and white.
How so? In fact, I understand completely what perception is. I had to deal with it on a daily basis throughout my career.
I did not claim that listing the name of the founder of a technique makes it objectively superior. Please reply to what I actually said. I was replying to the claim of a "thousand times better" which reasonable folks ought to agree constitutes a claim to superiority.
Not only is the body of light method not nearly as good as described by Selea but for the vast majority of folks that I have known in magickal circles... it does not work at all. I suppose the rare few Crowley, Regardie, L. M. Duquette types it may work well, but for most people, not so much.
sorry, i wasn't replying to the actual topic of discussion. my bad.
all i'm saying is that unless you're talking statistical data, you can't say that anything is superior to anything else without also admitting that it is purely your opinion and nothing else. that's all.
:?
I am not the one who claimed a method was "a thousand times better" than any other method.
Plus your claim, "you can't say that anything is superior to anything else without also admitting that it is purely your opinion and nothing else" is simply not true. Not even close. People make those sorts of claims on a fairly regular basis and rarely include statistics. (Though "a thousand times better" might qualify as a weak attempt at statistics;). In fact, in my experience outside of scientific circles the stats behind a claim are routinely left out until a challenge is extended.
I quoted the statement and it looked like a straightforward claim that a thing was thus and so. No opinion level qualifiers were included. I saw no "personal opinion" implied on any real and recognizable level, not in context nor implied. You are free to make that assumption if you wish but people make false assumptions on a regular basis too. :wink:
you completely missed my point.
if you say (and i'm not saying that you did say anything, this is not an attack on you), "this method is the best" you are making a subjective statement based on personal experience. opinion.
however, if you say, "this method is the best according to the data found in such-and-such experiment", you can make a case for objective fact.
that's all i'm saying.
if you argue with that then i don't know what else to say to you.
now, that doesn't mean that a particular method is "1000 times better" for that particular person.
i just don't understand why people on this forum can't stop taking up vendettas to discredit others who make big claims. always remember that barring data that can be generalized, every statement made on this forum is in effect a personal opinion (maybe based on experience, maybe not) and nothing more.
things don't always have to be a battle.
i'm done with this now, because i know that you're just going to retort with a tone of competition, trying to prove that you are in the right. i just wish that you would get that i'm not attacking you, i'm not saying that you're wrong about anything. all i'm saying is that we are discussing techniques and methods on this forum that are based almost entirely on the particular psychological make-up of the person using them. there is no one way to do any of this, there is no objectivity here. if you can't get that and contribute constructive conversation, don't post.
that was partially for you rudy, but mostly for everyone, so please don't take personal offense.
we've been down this road on this forum before, but people forget. or maybe they just can't control themselves.
Quotei'm done with this now, because i know that you're just going to retort with a tone of competition, trying to prove that you are in the right. i just wish that you would get that i'm not attacking you, i'm not saying that you're wrong about anything.
I do not have to 'prove' that I am right -- your error is obvious on the surface... for anyone over 50. The brainwashing of the younger folks has been incredibly effective. This "maybe your truth isn't my truth" nonsense is so thoroughly beaten into otherwise intelligent people... it is a sight to behold.
I know and fully understand that you are not attacking me. You are only trying to insist on your indoctrination in order to avoid the dreaded "conflict".
Quote"this method is the best" you are making a subjective statement based on personal experience. opinion."
Wrong. :wink: Firstly, we are talking about the claim of "1000 times better" which is very different. Injecting a superlative is another common trick I see in forum discussions. Yet, it is very possible to make "an observation" based on personal experience that is simply false. (by defining the scenario as a "subjective statement" defines it as opinion outright which is like saying if someone gives an opinion it is just an opinion... duh). Say I am looking at three ice cream cones lined up on a table and a short person at table level looks and sees only the closest one and reports that there is one ice cream cone on the table, he is wrong. It is not just a matter of opinion. If he says, "I see one ice cream cone on the table" he is giving an accurate report. Again, it is NOT just an opinion but a fact, and accurate when properly qualified.
I can recommend several good books that may help you but try this one;
In Fifty Years We'll All Be Chicks: . . . And Other Complaints from an Angry Middle-Aged White Guy [Paperback]
Adam Carolla (Author)
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Rudy, you're probably that old guy in your neighbourhood who sits on your front porch in your rocking chair with your shotgun yelling, "GIT OFF MA LAWN!" to the local kids... aren't you?
More like the guy riding around the property in his golf cart shouting, "Hey you dang woodchucks, quit chuckin' my wood!". :x
I just got done stacking over two cords of my wood yesterday. Double thick stack this time, so the bears won't knock it over (hope springs eternal).
The kids think I'm pretty cool. Last snowstorm they came around and I paid them to shovel the driveway and deck. They shoveled for ten minutes and then spent a half hour using the shovels as sleds to ride down the hill above my house. I paid 'em anyways.... :-)
Quote from: Rudolph on July 02, 2011, 00:02:32
I do not have to 'prove' that I am right -- your error is obvious on the surface... for anyone over 50. The brainwashing of the younger folks has been incredibly effective. This "maybe your truth isn't my truth" nonsense is so thoroughly beaten into otherwise intelligent people... it is a sight to behold.
I know and fully understand that you are not attacking me. You are only trying to insist on your indoctrination in order to avoid the dreaded "conflict".
Wrong. :wink: Firstly, we are talking about the claim of "1000 times better" which is very different. Injecting a superlative is another common trick I see in forum discussions. Yet, it is very possible to make "an observation" based on personal experience that is simply false. (by defining the scenario as a "subjective statement" defines it as opinion outright which is like saying if someone gives an opinion it is just an opinion... duh). Say I am looking at three ice cream cones lined up on a table and a short person at table level looks and sees only the closest one and reports that there is one ice cream cone on the table, he is wrong. It is not just a matter of opinion. If he says, "I see one ice cream cone on the table" he is giving an accurate report. Again, it is NOT just an opinion but a fact, and accurate when properly qualified.
I can recommend several good books that may help you but try this one;
In Fifty Years We'll All Be Chicks: . . . And Other Complaints from an Angry Middle-Aged White Guy [Paperback]
Adam Carolla (Author)
:lol: :lol: :lol:
*sigh*
i quit with you sir.
i have no patience for youngsters either though. so i feel you.
it's not really about the age, it's purely generational indoctrination. you had your's, i've had mine, thus we are at odds because we've been taught to think in different ways.
my whole philosophy on life is based on solipsism (loosely, but close enough) and that's all i'm trying to share.
i mean f*ck, look at me screen name, "personalreality", that says it all. and i feel that it is as true now as it was like 8 years ago when i came up with it.
meh. no harm no foul. we'll both get there one way or another my friend.
Quote from: Rudolph on June 27, 2011, 13:43:01
This claim was made with respect to the Raduga/SOBT method. Despite the obfuscatory semantic tricks of the claimant, it really does constitute a claim to a 'superior' method.
I already explained why that's so and what I meant by it, isn't it? I did go into specifics and practical things, I explained the differences and all.
You don't believe in this or don't want to believe this? Fine, but please avoid posting your nonsense that I just made a statement backed up with nothing. In fact, it seems the contrary to me because apart ample arguments on ample terms nothing of what you say is concrete.
Quote from: Rudolph on June 27, 2011, 13:43:01
I spent some time among the Thelema/Crowley folks trying to get enough info to decide whether to seek initiation with them or not. I also spent a period months as a probationer in what I found to be an excessively secretive Rosicrucian GD type school. This involved full on daily practice, keeping a magickal journal and submitting the journal for monthly review by the powers that be.
In the beginning I found that during instruction and discussion there are many claims made about tremendous abilities and great wisdom, etc. to be had for those who persevere in the Path. The neophytes are regaled and wowed with incredible stories and anecdotes.
If you spend enough time among them and just get to where you can comfortably chat about this and that, occasional comments will drop that reveal just how little progress most of these serious, hardcore would be Magicians are truly making. The effort required of these aspirants is immense. They must memorize huge tables of obtuse and arcane information. They must perform daily rituals and essentially immerse themselves into that lifestyle. But in the end there is often very little to show for it.
A) Nobody can "teach" you anything. A master can focus you on a path but learning is only done by yourself. If you do nothing, you will learn nothing. Put others aside and focus on you. Instead of going here and there to test the knowledge of others care about YOUR personal knowledge. Btw this is why people as you usually cannot either enter in real orders, and naturally instead of thinking "maybe I've done something wrong" they think "it is all idiocy then"; then they become 80 years old putting down everything they didn't either get and thinking it's everybody elses fault. It's another form of personal commiseration, nothing more.
B) The OTO has NEVER been a learning order in magical practices. Its function is just to show some specific sexual magick practices, that have little to do with what you are talking about. If you are serious about learning that path then the only way is to go for the A.'.A.'. (supposing you can find it and you are admitted), where you only meet a "master" that talks to you directly and you know ANYBODY else. The OTO is just a club where to share experiences (usually of little value), nothing more, until the 7th, 8th and 9th degrees, that are the only one that matters (and that you need to be admitted to partecipate; I know people that are in the OTO from more than 30 years and never gone there - one example is Jimmy Page - and there's a motive). The degrees below are only meant to give you some understanding of what's to come and for other things (along removing or stopping idiots), but not surely to "teach" you OBEs. As always, you don't either know what you search and then blame external causes.
C) The GD is long lost nowadays, and also in the times of its "glory" it always had members that were interested manly in popularity. This is the reason why all the very good practnioners (and there were a lot, especially Bennet) did quit and learned that the way the GD was structured it didn't work and started working on serious, admittance only, internal orders by themselves where students could only enter having tested themselves and where teaching was structured on a personal basis with little "talk" outside of it (so no groups of people sharing their "experiences", especially at beginning, it just ends in a circle where people just talk and talk, debating intellectually and growing up their egos more and more on it). There is an "internal", *real* order of the GD, a lieneage started by Regardie, Bennet and Butler, but it has not ties at all with the external and "fake" one, so you can get there only by "luck" (if you want to call that so).
Quote from: Rudolph on June 27, 2011, 13:43:01
I got to know initiates that had been practicing these methods for many, many years and they admitted that they could not even get OBE at all much less at will.
You learn OBEs in the A.'.A.'. in the neophyte grade, the 1st, so *immediately* and you are tested therein for your understanding and ability in them and you must pass the test before being admitted on the 2nd grade. This knowledge is then expanded in the philosophus degree, when you learn to control the experience fully and you are tested also there in the same way.
So, you see, all these "magicians" you have met are simply idiots and they don't mean anything at all. You find these people everywhere in every field, but in things of this nature fanatics, wannabe gods etc. are either more common, so there's nothing strange in it and nothing that it's not already obvious. People you have met haven't practiced nothing, especially nothing in a structured and concrete matter and primarily because they don't really care and that's why they are where they are.
So, no, I'm sorry for you and for your "research", but what you "discovered" is all wrong because it is like you searched for pearls in the mud and then became angry because you did find any.
Quote from: Rudolph on June 27, 2011, 13:43:01
This was not so much the exception but more often the common reality. A couple teachers that I spoke with held high office and initiation status that implied wayyy more than the ability to just get OBE now and then. The leadership and senior members will make big claims about fantastic abilities and such but when you get into a position to get to really know them a little better it is found that they 'exaggerate', to put it nicely.
The "teachers" you are spoking about are in "open" orders. It is obvious that these people are not good; they are there only for the passing of the time, nothing more, and surely not for their "experience".
The only system that works in magic is a system when a teaching is done in a personal matter, with testings in the proceedings along the way, and where the "masters" are those that passed those tests before. A teacher has at most 3 students to care of at once and the pupil knows only of that teacher and s/he is instructed by him/her, in a personal, specific way, depending on the way s/he reacts and his/her personal nature.
So, no, you never met anybody that meant something so don't pretend you know the "truth" of the matter.
Quote from: Rudolph on June 27, 2011, 15:00:49
I was being fair. The claim was made in the context of putting down a method developed by someone identified by name.
A) Raduga didn't develop anything. Do you get it? Wake up.
B) I already explained everything about it, I either told you the differences and such.
Then can you people do me a favor:
IF YOU WANT TO TALK WITH ME ABOUT THINGS THEN WRITE TO ME.
This nonsense of debating about things I've said with others just to try to discredit what I say it's getting tiresome. I didn't either noticed this till now.
Apart that's unpolite, I'm neither one that it is here all day and check everything to see if what I've said has being used to say things completely different.
Quote from: Rudolph on July 01, 2011, 10:57:32
Not only is the body of light method not nearly as good as described by Selea but for the vast majority of folks that I have known in magickal circles... it does not work at all. I suppose the rare few Crowley, Regardie, L. M. Duquette types it may work well, but for most people, not so much.
A) The "people" you have met in those "magickal" circles knows even less than you on how it works, and that says it all.
B) The method is to be teached in person and showed how it works in person. Crowley, Regardie etc. even said this expressedly, in fact. You can either learn to do it by yourself, but it's much easier to have someone experienced in it already showing you because it has a "trick" that it's difficult to get by yourself.
C) Stop talking of things you don't understand, putting them down and such just because you think you know everything about them. You don't either understand that the "magic" orders you have frequented means anything at all and are just for people to met and grow up their egos. Real magical orders are by ADMITTANCE ONLY and are only internal affairs, not external and open to the public. For the OTO it is the A.'.A.'. for the GD it is a name I cannot tell you. This is done *purposedly*.
DuQuette for example is a 9th degree OTO but he is also, and *primarily* (also if nobody knows) an Adeptus Major in the A.'.A.'. For this, differently from others, he knows how the method really works and why it works for him. People you have talked about have learned anything, probably they have relly done nothing of importance (because they like to talk only, usually) and they just want to show their egos with fables about what they know and are so sure about, as you do. For this they join those orders, and for this those orders are done, to divide the unimportant from the important, i.e. to filter the *serious* seeker from those that are there for show and that will do nothing anyway.
This you naturally didn't get, also if a little of logic would have tell you the same. Would you admit anybody in your house without knowing them personally and why they want to enter?
Quote from: Rudolph on June 23, 2011, 13:08:07
The funny thing is how folks on these AP forums speak so casually about their OBE experience, even those who only get a good solid OBE once a month or so would be the envy of most of those Kabalists.
People you have met, sure.
People as me are more interested in practical applications, not just having the experience, that, for me (and others like me), it means very little by itself.
As for the non-debating about these things openly in these sort of forums by experienced "magicians": would you debate about how to move chess pieces in the chessboard when you're studying positional plans? It's not a thing of grandeur, it is only that they are not interested in these things anymore now.
Magic forums, then, are just a conglomerate of a lot of the most various and generic arguments, with little of concrete, you will not find anybody "good" in there, if not only for a casuality. They are much less practical and specific of simple AP forums since at last here people talk only about a thing, also if only from a point of view. Magic has little of talking (if not on practical parameters and only on specific occasions), especially at beginning, so all people you find in those forums are usually of the type I mentioned in the post above.
Personally I'm here to give people a different view on the thing, so that they can maybe understand that there's something more than just "exiting the body" and that's all, that there are practical applications to be had in there, so that, if they want, they can be interested and research on how to do it by themselves. Having an another option is never a bad thing, don't you think? Naturally it's not easy because it's human nature to have a point of view and try to always "defend" it, no matter if it is really yours or not and no matter if you are sure about it or not. But that's fine for me; if I didn't took this for granted I would neither be here to begin with.
Quote from: Selea on July 06, 2011, 06:54:58
People you have met, sure.
People as me are more interested in practical applications, not just having the experience, that, for me (and others like me), it means very little by itself.
Well, of course it is people that I have met. How else would I know? Note that I am not just talking about the value of "having the experience" but I am replying to the claim "essentially all Initiates gain the ability to go OBE at will". I pointed out that not only is that not true but it is a gross exaggeration, at best. I observed that not only do most initiates not gain the ability but even some in high office and advanced initiation status will privately admit they have not ever gotten a conscious OBE. (Their ritual test success stemmed more from a "remote viewing" type effort).
If possible I would like to stick to the actual challenges and claims that have been made. For example the claim that the Body of Light method is "1000 times better"; Given that most initiates fail in this method while other methods succeed at a much higher rate, I do not know how you can such a statement. I mean... it is so obviously False!... what gives?
QuoteAs for the non-debating about these things openly in these sort of forums by experienced "magicians"....
I said nothing about a 'debate' with these would be Magicians. I spoke of casual conversation. And it was not necessarily on an open forum.
QuoteMagic forums, then, are just a conglomerate of a lot of the most various and generic arguments, with little of concrete, you will not find anybody "good" in there, if not only for a casuality....Magic has little of talking (if not on practical parameters and only on specific occasions), especially at beginning, so all people you find in those forums are usually of the type I mentioned in the post above.
(my bold)
This is simply not true. Some forums are better than others. And some are not just frequented by serious, capable Magicians but are created and moderated by and maintained by world renowned leaders in the field.
(particularly the Thelemic Orders).
Quote from: Selea on July 06, 2011, 02:43:42
I already explained why that's so and what I meant by it, isn't it? I did go into specifics and practical things, I explained the differences and all.
No you didn't. Unless I missed it in there somewhere -- perhaps you could paste in a couple of these "specifics and practical things"...? I am pretty sure that they aren't there. In fact, in the case of your hand waving at the Middle Pillar, I was the one who posted the link with any sort of practical info.
QuoteIn fact, it seems the contrary to me because apart ample arguments on ample terms nothing of what you say is concrete.
In this matter, I am the one challenging YOUR claim. I am not the one that needs to be concrete here on this topic, you are. On another thread I made a claim about the historicity of Jesus and I was challenged. I replied with direct quotes from near-contemporary historians to back up my claim. I can and will be concrete when that ball is in my court.
Now, you have made some dubious claims and it is incumbent upon you to back up your claim. So far all you have done is a little hand waving at the subject in addition to repeated efforts to weasel out and play an illogical turnabout hand.
QuoteA) Nobody can "teach" you anything. A master can focus you on a path but learning is only done by yourself.
Totally irrelevant observation. I have not rquested that anyone 'teach' anything... only that you back up your claim with something that supports it. I am getting the distinct impression that you do not know how this works.
QuoteBtw this is why people as you usually cannot either enter in real orders, and naturally instead of thinking "maybe I've done something wrong" they think "it is all idiocy then"; then they become 80 years old putting down everything they didn't either get and thinking it's everybody elses fault. It's another form of personal commiseration, nothing more.
"they think "it is all idiocy then"" :? Selea, I do not recall where anyone has said anything like this. What are you talking about? I never said anything close to that. You on the other hand keep using the 'idiot' word on a regular basis.
Not only is this more completely irrelevant obfuscation, it is pure fantasy-land speculation on your part and based on a false assumption. Truth be known... I was 'informed' that in my case the otherwise strict probationary time period would be shortened if I would request such.
QuoteB) The OTO has NEVER been a learning order in magical practices. Its function is just to show some specific sexual magick practices, that have little to do with what you are talking about.
[....] As always, you don't either know what you search and then blame external causes.
!! wow! yet another patently false claim....
The O.T.O.'s specific purpose is to secure the Liberty of the Individual and his or her advancement in the Light, Wisdom, Understanding, Knowledge, and Power through Beauty, Courage, and Will. What do you think it is that I am talking about? I keep repeating for you... you said the body of light method is a thousand times better and I keep asking you to back that up but you keep replying with irrelevant OTO and A.'.A.'. smokescreens.
This has nothing to do with my 'search'. I have said that I asked a simple question about OBE and was told that essentially all initiates learn to go OBE at will. Based on what I've seen, I believe that claim is a gross exaggeration. Selea, please try to reply to what I am actually saying and simply asking and stop replying to your arrogant, presumptuous and condescending opinions on what you fear I am saying.
QuoteC) The GD is long lost nowadays,[ ....] There is an "internal", *real* order of the GD, a lieneage started by Regardie, Bennet and Butler, but it has not ties at all with the external and "fake" one, so you can get there only by "luck" (if you want to call that so).
Again, this is completely irrelevant... unless you can be more specific and provide detail about this *real* order...?....
:lol: :lol:
QuoteSo, no, I'm sorry for you and for your "research", but what you "discovered" is all wrong because it is like you searched for pearls in the mud and then became angry because you did find any.
The "teachers" you are spoking about are in "open" orders. It is obvious that these people are not good; they are there only for the passing of the time, nothing more, and surely not for their "experience".
The only system that works in magic is a system when a teaching is done in a personal matter, with testings in the proceedings along the way, and where the "masters" are those that passed those tests before. A teacher has at most 3 students to care of at once and the pupil knows only of that teacher and s/he is instructed by him/her, in a personal, specific way, depending on the way s/he reacts and his/her personal nature.
So, no, you never met anybody that meant something so don't pretend you know the "truth" of the matter.
Really! And please tell me how it is that you came to be privy to so much personal and intimate detail of my life? (this oughta be good...) :wink:
How is it that you know, "It is obvious that these people are not good"?
"A teacher has at most 3 students to care of at once" -- Have you ever been a student of these unseen teachers in unknown orders?
?
Quote from: Selea on July 06, 2011, 02:48:56
Then can you people do me a favor:
IF YOU WANT TO TALK WITH ME ABOUT THINGS THEN WRITE TO ME.
This nonsense of debating about things I've said with others just to try to discredit what I say it's getting tiresome. I didn't either noticed this till now.
Apart that's unpolite, I'm neither one that it is here all day and check everything to see if what I've said has being used to say things completely different.
Selea, relax why dontcha....
We were not discussing you or even the merits of your claim but rather if the statement itself constituted an objective claim whose veracity could be challenged or if it were just a subjective opinion meant to be taken with a grain of salt. It morphed from part of an earlier discussion between me and PR that started on a comment he made earlier about OBE in the realm of magic practice and our ongoing disagreement about what constitutes opinion status in forum discussions and it merged with your claim as an example or case in point sorta thing.
It happens.
You were not treated in rude fashion in any manner whatsoever.
Quote from: Rudolph on July 06, 2011, 12:51:11
Well, of course it is people that I have met. How else would I know? Note that I am not just talking about the value of "having the experience" but I am replying to the claim "essentially all Initiates gain the ability to go OBE at will".
Where I claimed that? You are now fabricating things. I said that it is possible, not that all "initiaties" (what the word it means, then?) can do it. In fact there are a lot of people that think they are "initiated" that cannot do it.
Quote from: Rudolph on July 06, 2011, 12:51:11
I pointed out that not only is that not true but it is a gross exaggeration, at best. I observed that not only do most initiates not gain the ability but even some in high office and advanced initiation status will privately admit they have not ever gotten a conscious OBE. (Their ritual test success stemmed more from a "remote viewing" type effort).
And I repeat that those "initiates" you have met they mean nothing at all.
Then "remote viewing" is a part of exploring the astral planes. There are some orders (as the SOL now, after the death of Butler) who prefers to don't use a full conscious transfer of consciousness to do what they have to do, and the "teachings" on that are only later and only if the students want. Sometimes people neither try because for what they want to do it is not either needed.
For other orders it is different because they use the "planes" in a different manner, so full conscious transfer is needed. The A.'.A.'. is one of them. It also depends on what a magical order wants to accomplish.
But a thing it is sure: a magical order primary function is to learn the control of the astral plane. So if the "orders" you have been and people you have met cannot do it it means that they have learned nothing. It would be like trying to learn boxing without ever trying to spar. Personally I don't either like the new SOL method because full consciousnes it is needed to do certain things, but to anyone his/her own, I guess.
And apart this, don't you think if those people you talk about really wanted to learn to do these things couldn't find a way to do them? Also if they are really teached nothing of the sort, or nothing that works, they could just look around and try the many other methods you find in the net, included the very easy to adopt sleep ones. Do you think they cannot read?
The problem is much more simple. Many people in open "magical" orders (that aren't orders at all) just like to babble around about what they don't know as if they are experts and yet when there's really to do work, they never do it. But this can be said on a general note and not only for what it concerns OBE and not only on open, "magical" orders (you find evidence also here, in fact). It is just that in these open to the public orders this sort of ego show happens a lot because people just meet to talk and talk. They share this and share that, they talk of this and talk of that, but they do nothing in the end. And we return to why some people understood that this method of working it doesn't bring anything good and they devised other ways and just did give a "bait" for those people to simply continue what they like to do.
Many people in the OTO, for example, have had either the possibility of entering the A.'.A.'. and start learning seriously, but they *voluntarily* didn't do it because they knew they had to do real work instead of talking and talking (and they either sometimes admit it). Some people just want to be "armchair magicians" and that's all. Still, just because they do nothing, they learn nothing and they little they do it serves nothing in the end the same because it has no structure. So, judging "magical" orders on these people it is nonsense, and you either think you are looking good doing it.
You know the motto: "be careful for what you ask for, you can obtain it". This is exactly what happens, and, I repeat, not only in some "magical" orders, but in every field.
Quote from: Rudolph on July 06, 2011, 12:51:11
If possible I would like to stick to the actual challenges and claims that have been made. For example the claim that the Body of Light method is "1000 times better"; Given that most initiates fail in this method while other methods succeed at a much higher rate, I do not know how you can such a statement. I mean... it is so obviously False!... what gives?
It's not false. It is just that they haven't been shown how it works.
The "method" has two ways of working. The first is literally (and practically) a trick, the second it requires basis on many practices and especially full concentration, a thing that all "initiates" you have met don't either know where to begin from to have.
So, or those people have met someone that did show that method in practice, meeting in person, or they have nothing to say about it apart intellectual debate.
And then you still insist on bringing up these "initiates" as proof of something. First who are these "initiates" and on what "order" they are? There's in that "order" someone that teaches that technique directly, in person? How they do it?
If you ask someone that pretends to be a master of chess yet in practice s/he has 1200 ECO to tell how how a certain positional strategy works therein, would you then pretend that what s/he tolds you it is how it must be?
First you insist that those "initiates" know nothing but then you insist that what they told you it's how things must be because it is how you want them to be. You should make-up your mind a little. The fact that they even tried the method (and I would like to see it) it doesn't mean that they know how to do it.
If somebody would come here telling you that the sleep methods don't work because he clearly mistakes something in the process would you believe him/her the same? The people you speak upon have never received a formal training in that technique, nor they know how it works. General people that tries do it without knowing how it works do it as a phasing method, but that's NOT how it works. If you do it that way you just lose time. It can work the same after a while, but there are many better alternatives.
Naturally you can either believe that what I'm telling you it is not true. It's perfectly fine, but don't pretend that what those people told you must be the truth instead, just because you want it to be. Or you go in one direction (i.e. believing only what you can experience) or you go in the opposite. Middle grounds for convenience are never an intelligent behaviour.
If it didn't really work how do you pretend that neophytes of an order are teached it usually in just the first personal section and use it everyday to do their work?
Either Crowley said this (if you want to have a "quote" as if that would mean anything):
"The experiment is an easy one; with two pupils only (of some dozens) I have failed, and that completely; with the others only a first experiment is needed." This is how the method works and how it must be teached and the way it must be adopted. It is a trick. At the time of Crowley with some people it could fail for the way the trick works and the knowledge of the times in those matters this could happen (Bennet, the deviser of that trick, was a genius and a precursor, but still some things were impossible to know at at time). Now there are alternatives to always make it work.
But I suppose either Crowley did made it up and those "initiates" know better, isn't it? Belive what you want, I don't care. I would only like you to be fair therein.
Then what does have "success" rate or either practicality for beginners who knows nothing about it to do with this it is beyond me. Have I ever only once said that the BoL is "superior" on these points? It doesn't seem to me, and in fact I NEVER said it (I said the contrary, in fact). Why you continuosly fabricate things I never said just to try to have a point on something? And then you either try to contradict it as if I was the one saying it. Is this a common behaviour you and others like you have?
I explained on what things the technique is superior and the "1000 times better" is not on a whole. A Ferrari is 1000 time superior than a Fiat in every possible point technically speaking but an user can find better the latter for price/costs, for the way he uses the car and what he wants to do with it and either because it's much easier to drive. My "superior" claim was on this aspect as I thought it was obvious (given the context, that I either explained fullly later), but naturally people have always to turn aside things just to look smart and have a point either if they know little of the things they speak about.
Quote from: Rudolph on July 06, 2011, 12:51:11
I said nothing about a 'debate' with these would be Magicians. I spoke of casual conversation. And it was not necessarily on an open forum.
(my bold)
It was a simple deduction by how you talked about these things, and it seems, in fact, I was not wrong.
And so now they were "casual conversations"? It seemed to me all another thing, in fact:
"
If you spend enough time among them and just get to where you can comfortably chat about this and that, occasional comments will drop that reveal just how little progress most of these serious, hardcore would be Magicians are truly making."
"But
I spent some time among them and after much circumlocution..."
There's nothing about "casual conversations" in there, it implied all the contrary, in fact.
So, do you know really all of this personally, are they assumptions derived from random talks or you just are relying on hearsay? Not that what you said it's not true, because it is, but still, there's a difference.
Quote from: Rudolph on July 06, 2011, 12:51:11
This is simply not true. Some forums are better than others. And some are not just frequented by serious, capable Magicians but are created and moderated by and maintained by world renowned leaders in the field.
(particularly the Thelemic Orders).
It depends on what you mean by the term "capable". If you mean by it genuine magicians that do personal work and share their experiences, yes, there are (also if they are not so common), if you mean by it people that have received a structured teaching, no, there aren't and if there are they don't speak about them. Thelemic forums are only frequented (in the sense that they "share" what they know or talk about it) by OTO people or people that are interested in thelemic matters (and also magic in general), and I already told you what's the difference. Students of the A.'.A.'. for example are advised against going on those forums and if you are found there passing a lot of time you can either be removed without possibility of entering again. This is done for various motives. So, you see, "thelemic" people (I use the term "thelemic" here for a motive, to evidentiate the type of training) that have received real structured instructions are seldomly found in those forums and if they are they never speak about what they do or debate on it.
There are only two people I know of that have this structured teaching and are there often: Bill Heidrick and DuQuette, but the first usually speaks only on things pertaining closely to OTO "affairs" and Lon he goes there for fun, mostly, and only with hidden handles, so you can neither understand when it's him, and surely both never speaks about serious things pertaining teachings and such, if not in a joking way and if not privately and when it's due.
Quote from: Rudolph on July 06, 2011, 20:08:24
No you didn't. Unless I missed it in there somewhere -- perhaps you could paste in a couple of these "specifics and practical things"...? I am pretty sure that they aren't there. In fact, in the case of your hand waving at the Middle Pillar, I was the one who posted the link with any sort of practical info.
You asked how to exit voluntarily, I told you from where to start.
You didn't ask about how the BoL method works. So don't say you have asked something. I explained why it is better, because it enables you do have a control that you cannot have with sleep methods (that you use). This I explained fully, rearead that thread, so, yes, you missed it.
Quote from: Rudolph on July 06, 2011, 20:08:24
In this matter, I am the one challenging YOUR claim. I am not the one that needs to be concrete here on this topic, you are. On another thread I made a claim about the historicity of Jesus and I was challenged. I replied with direct quotes from near-contemporary historians to back up my claim. I can and will be concrete when that ball is in my court.
And in what matter I can do it? The only way I could show you directly would be that you would learn how to do it to see the difference in *practice* for yourself.
All I can do here is explaining you the differences, as I've already done, nothing more, but they are words, and you can always not believe in them.
Backing up a claim on some philosophical or historical thing it's another matter because you can back-up your statements with quotes, as you have done. When you go into practical things if you don't have that experience yourself I can only tell you what it happens but you can always confute it, saying that what I say it's not true, no matter how many "quotes" I provide, isn't it?
Or do you expect me to magically appear in your home and be your Don Juan?
Quote from: Rudolph on July 06, 2011, 20:08:24
Totally irrelevant observation. I have not rquested that anyone 'teach' anything... only that you back up your claim with something that supports it. I am getting the distinct impression that you do not know how this works.
On the contrary, I know exactly how it works. You ask a thing, I reply to that thing, but then you don't like it so you continuosly try to find ways to put it down. This is what always happens.
Quote from: Rudolph on July 06, 2011, 20:08:24
"they think "it is all idiocy then"" :? Selea, I do not recall where anyone has said anything like this. What are you talking about? I never said anything close to that. You on the other hand keep using the 'idiot' word on a regular basis.
You insisted that all "magicians" knows nothing about OBEs and whatnot. I just told you that what you "discovered" is just idiocy.
And yes, I use the word "idiot" when it's due. I don't use it when someone is really an idiot, I use it when someone it's not but s/he wants to play that card for convenience, as you are doing.
Quote from: Rudolph on July 06, 2011, 20:08:24
!! wow! yet another patently false claim....
The O.T.O.'s specific purpose is to secure the Liberty of the Individual and his or her advancement in the Light, Wisdom, Understanding, Knowledge, and Power through Beauty, Courage, and Will.
Crowley never estabilished a formal teaching curriculum for the OTO (and he did so purposedly, because the A.'.A.'. is for real teaching, the OTO is just the repository of a certain "secret" and sharing of a certain phylosphy of life - if you care about it). There is no TEACHING in it, at all. Nobody teaches you anything in the OTO, you only "learn" what other members share to you (so very little, because they know little to begin with) or you do for yourself.
The phrase it is to be read in regard to the free mason "secrets" that are held in its late degrees and especially on sharing the so called "law of thelema" and the precepts of the Book of Law, but it is NOT (again) a teaching order, at all.
You either insist than I'm giving false informations when you don't either know of what you are talking about to begin with. Why instead of always pretending you know better sometimes you don't consider the fact that maybe you can be wrong, and that, in fact, you can also not know nothing "better" at all?
Either more here, because I don't think you pretend to be an expert in the OTO and Crowley, isn't it?
Quote from: Rudolph on July 06, 2011, 20:08:24
What do you think it is that I am talking about? I keep repeating for you... you said the body of light method is a thousand times better and I keep asking you to back that up but you keep replying with irrelevant OTO and A.'.A.'. smokescreens.
???
A) We never talked about the BoL method directly to begin with. You did never asked NOTHING about it, you just asked me a way to "exit" voluntarily. They are two separate things, don't you know? They can be tied in the fact that learning one of the two ways to do the BoL technique enables you to exit voluntarily, but they are not both the same thing. The BoL it is just a technique, "exit voluntarily" it is a method that's based on a certain knowledge. You can either not use the BoL method at all when you know how to do somet things, for example.
B) It is you that insisted that the orders you have met had people that didn't knew neither how to do an OBE, not me. You brought upon the OTO as an example and I replied to you that the OTO it is not meant for that. I'm just replying to what you said.
Quote from: Rudolph on July 06, 2011, 20:08:24
This has nothing to do with my 'search'. I have said that I asked a simple question about OBE and was told that essentially all initiates learn to go OBE at will. Based on what I've seen, I believe that claim is a gross exaggeration.
And I repeat, what you have "seen" it's nothing at all. And I repeat (since you discarded it altogheter): OBES ARE LEARNT IN THE 1ST DEGREE OF THE A.'.A.'., IMMEDIATELY AND YOU ARE TESTED IN IT BEFORE PASSING ON. So, it's clear that the "experienced" Thelemic magicians you have met don't mean nothing at all because they obviously didn't either partecipate in that "magical" teaching, isn't it?
The thelemic order that teaches magic and mysticism in a structured manner as devised by Crowley it is the A.'.A.'. and only that. The OTO it's not a teaching order and especially NOT a magical order. A magical order is an order structured primarily on the working of the astral plane and its practical applications. The OTO it is not meant for that, the function of the OTO is only to held a special "secret". and to share the "law of thelema", ONLY that.
The A.'.A.'. neither share at all the "law of Thelema" as the OTO does, for example, the Book of Law is neither mentioned there if not for some practical application in some passages, or for a philosophical study (among many other different point of views).
As for others "magicians" it depends who they are and especially where they are. In general terms, if it is an order that's open to the public (as the ones you have partecipated in) then what you "discovered" was already obvious if instead of making assumptions and pretending you know better you would have researched a little more about how these things really works. So, or you really do a real research or just avoid posting false things that are born only from superficial assumptions.
Quote from: Rudolph on July 06, 2011, 20:08:24
Selea, please try to reply to what I am actually saying and simply asking and stop replying to your arrogant, presumptuous and condescending opinions on what you fear I am saying.
OMG. Now you play the innocent.
You began saying that all the "orders" you have frequented had people with fables and nothing of concrete. I replied to you that the "orders" you have frequented means nothing at all and that you don't either know where to search (as in the OTO). I'm just replying to what YOU are saying. Now it either comes out that your "evidence" is from "casual talk". Oh my....
Quote from: Rudolph on July 06, 2011, 20:08:24
Again, this is completely irrelevant... unless you can be more specific and provide detail about this *real* order...?....
:lol: :lol:
It's not irrelevant at all. The old GD was structured so that the internal order was in the degrees from adeptus minor onward. Members changed that and it now has two orders, one external and one internal. And no, I cannot tell you the name of the internal order, I'm sorry.
Quote from: Rudolph on July 06, 2011, 20:08:24
Really! And please tell me how it is that you came to be privy to so much personal and intimate detail of my life? (this oughta be good...) :wink:
How is it that you know, "It is obvious that these people are not good"?
"A teacher has at most 3 students to care of at once" -- Have you ever been a student of these unseen teachers in unknown orders?
A) I reply to what you write. It's as simple as that. You make assumptions I reply to assumptions.
B) Because they are there for a motive, as I already explained. As for the OTO, people in it I know much too well personally and, apart higher degrees, there's nothing "good" in there (apart seldom cases that however, usually, don't frequent the groups), but this is how it must work.
C) I have.
Quote from: Rudolph on July 06, 2011, 21:35:37
Selea, relax why dontcha....
We were not discussing you or even the merits of your claim but rather if the statement itself constituted an objective claim whose veracity could be challenged or if it were just a subjective opinion meant to be taken with a grain of salt. It morphed from part of an earlier discussion between me and PR that started on a comment he made earlier about OBE in the realm of magic practice and our ongoing disagreement about what constitutes opinion status in forum discussions and it merged with your claim as an example or case in point sorta thing.
It happens.
You were not treated in rude fashion in any manner whatsoever.
Whatever.
You used one of my statements to discuss a thing that was completely different and in a completely different context without neither having the courtesy of telling me first.
If you think this polite then more good to you.
Rudolph, why bother? Some people just don't want to learn from others because they see it as a weakness. You are worth much more than that, buddy! :)
Quote from: Selea on July 07, 2011, 01:29:24
Where I claimed that? You are now fabricating things. I said that it is possible, not that all "initiaties" (what the word it means, then?) can do it. In fact there are a lot of people that think they are "initiated" that cannot do it.
And I repeat that those "initiates" you have met they mean nothing at all.
I fabricated nothing. I did not say you said that. I said I was told that by - I believe it was the Magister Templi, of a very respected Thelemic order. So, you say those initiates "mean nothing at all"? Hmmm, what's it up to now, so far we see that you are arrogant, presumptuous, illogical, ill-informed and now egotistical and recklessly dismissive.
Selea, either you truly are a "lucky" initiate under the tutelage of one of these mythical Exalted Secret Masters who is giving you personal training (and if so you might actually have the right to pass these judgments on the outer orders) or you are not. If not, you are just blowing a lot of hot air and trash talking the outer orders for whatever reason suits you. But if you are one of these blessed few Chosen Ones fortunate enough to receive personal instruction, you are here and now demonstrating what a total failure their methods can be. Any way you slice it, it doesn't look good for you.
QuoteThen "remote viewing" is a part of exploring the astral planes. There are some orders (as the SOL now, after the death of Butler) who prefers to don't use a full conscious transfer of consciousness to do what they have to do, and the "teachings" on that are only later and only if the students want. Sometimes people neither try because for what they want to do it is not either needed.
So what? Of course RV is part of the astral planes, duh. Just more irrelevant obfuscation on your part. And yeah, I remember talking to some of those initiates who asked "so Rudy, explain again how it is you get OBE?... er, I mean... ya know if I ever *want* to give that sort of thing a try... maybe I'll give that a shot some day...." Hahahaha, yeah right! -- the whole time his aura is shot through with green bolts of ENVY! :lol:
QuoteFor other orders it is different because they use the "planes" in a different manner, so full conscious transfer is needed. The A.'.A.'. is one of them. It also depends on what a magical order wants to accomplish.
Hehheh... you definitely got the shore story down. But Selea, I have already pointed this out for you, what these esoteric orders might really want is totally irrelevant. I asked you to back up your claim that the Body of Light method was a thousand times better. To reply with endless circumlocution about what some irrelevant magick club 'really' wants has nothing to do with it. Just answer the question. But then, at this point I am wondering whether you know the difference between a 'reply' and an 'answer'. People who know the answer will usually respond with the answer. But those who do not know but want to pretend that they know will reply to a word in the sentence of a question and insist they gave an answer. Either they do not know the difference between a reply and an answer or they are purposely deceptive in their response.
QuoteBut a thing it is sure: a magical order primary function is to learn the control of the astral plane. So if the "orders" you have been and people you have met cannot do it it means that they have learned nothing.
Again, it does not mean that at all. More false logic. And if a magical order's primary function is to learn the control of the astral plane I would not bother wasting my time with such an unimaginative bunch of underachievers.
Quote...they could just look around and try the many other methods you find in the net, included the very easy to adopt sleep ones.
Oh, so now you admit that the Raduga methods are very easy... I thought you said the BoL was a thousand times better than other methods. :? Now you say the sleep methods are 'very easy'...
... which is it?
QuoteAnd then you still insist on bringing up these "initiates" as proof of something. First who are these "initiates" and on what "order" they are? There's in that "order" someone that teaches that technique directly, in person? How they do it?
Again you err. I did not insist and I did not present those accounts as "proof". I merely recounted my personal experience among them. These orders are exceptionally secretive. I suspect one reason is to cover the high failure rate among their members. But I admit that is pure speculation at this point. There are good reasons as well.
QuoteFirst you insist that those "initiates" know nothing but then you insist that what they told you it's how things must be because it is how you want them to be. You should make-up your mind a little.
Again you put words in my mouth. I did not insist on any such thing. One way for a failure to feign success is to put false words into the mouth of someone they wish to discredit and then disagree with and disprove something they never said. Yes, I should make up my mind at this point... I conclude at this point that you are totally full of not just yourself but stuff and nonsense as well. Unlike you, I base this on what you have actually said and I have quoted you accurately throughout the course of this discourse. You at least try to quote me -- I give you credit for that. But then you go off on a reply that has nothing to do with the words in the quoted piece.
!?
QuoteGeneral people that tries do it without knowing how it works do it as a phasing method, but that's NOT how it works. If you do it that way you just lose time. It can work the same after a while, but there are many better alternatives.
Ohhh? And what alternatives are those?... and how do you know they are better?
8-)
QuoteNaturally you can either believe that what I'm telling you it is not true. It's perfectly fine, but don't pretend that what those people told you must be the truth instead, just because you want it to be.
I don't believe anyone who makes unsubstantiated claims that are inconsistent with my broad and mature experience. But I can be persuaded. Just put your evidence where your mouth is. I readily admit that I have plenty to learn and I would love to learn from someone with valid, practical knowledge in these matters. But I can be a little short on patience with blowhards and phony pretenders.
QuoteEither Crowley said this (if you want to have a "quote" as if that would mean anything):
"The experiment is an easy one; with two pupils only (of some dozens) I have failed, and that completely; with the others only a first experiment is needed."
Well, good for Crowley then. But he is dead and likely no one reading this now was ever taught by the man -- so what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
QuoteThis is how the method works and how it must be teached and the way it must be adopted. It is a trick. At the time of Crowley with some people it could fail for the way the trick works and the knowledge of the times in those matters this could happen....
ok then, so if Crowley or Bennet were the teacher and we could transport ourselves back to AD1913 or so this method, or "trick" might actually work?
QuoteBut I suppose either Crowley did made it up and those "initiates" know better, isn't it? Belive what you want, I don't care. I would only like you to be fair therein.
No one has suggested that Crowley made it up. Why would you suppose that? (right off the bat like that?... yours was the man's first mention here... why don't you ask first?)
I am probably more fair than most.
QuoteThen what does have "success" rate or either practicality for beginners who knows nothing about it to do with this it is beyond me. Have I ever only once said that the BoL is "superior" on these points? It doesn't seem to me, and in fact I NEVER said it (I said the contrary, in fact). Why you continuosly fabricate things I never said just to try to have a point on something? And then you either try to contradict it as if I was the one saying it. Is this a common behaviour you and others like you have?
Ahh... so here you reveal yourself as so hugely deceptive -- your claim is tantamount to a lie. I quoted you EXACTLY as claiming the BoL was "a thousand times better" and asked you to back it up.
I also paraphrased it as a claim to superiority which it obviously was as part of a separate thread and discussion. I did NOT attriubute that particular choice of words to you personally. What a giant deceiver you are!! For you to pull this line egregious BS out of your sphincter and try to play this game with me you write your own name in the Great Book of Deception Hall of Shame.
Get thee behind me Selea.
QuoteAnd so now they were "casual conversations"? It seemed to me all another thing, in fact:
"If you spend enough time among them and just get to where you can comfortably chat about this and that, occasional comments will drop that reveal just how little progress most of these serious, hardcore would be Magicians are truly making."
"But I spent some time among them and after much circumlocution..."
There's nothing about "casual conversations" in there, it implied all the contrary, in fact.
HAHAHHAHAHAAAAA :lol: :lol: :lol:
Since WHEN! does "comfortably chat" NOT... I repeat NOT qualify as "casual conversations" ???!!!
What a giant Deceiver you are!
So, you are the type who would twist even the simplest words to turn them completely around!... yeech! Selea... your horns are showing plainly now. Did you think you had half a chance to get away with such blatant abuse of the language?!
Holy crap... the ego in this thread is WAAAAAAAY out of control.
You guys need to learn some humility.