Magic & AP: Where their paths cross

[personalreality]

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.

[Rudolph]

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.

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.

[personalreality]

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. 

[Rudolph]

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?

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.

[Rudolph]

The 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.

[Xanth]

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.

[Rudolph]

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.

[Xanth]

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.

[personalreality]

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.

[Rudolph]

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.

[personalreality]

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.

[Rudolph]

 

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. 

[personalreality]

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.

[Rudolph]

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.

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".

"this method is the best" you are making a subjective statement based on personal experience.  opinion."

Wrong.    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)

[Xanth]

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?

[Rudolph]

More like the guy riding around the property in his golf cart shouting, "Hey you dang woodchucks, quit chuckin' my wood!".   

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.... 

[personalreality]

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.    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)

*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.

[Selea]

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.

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).

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.

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.

[Selea]

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.

[Selea]

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]

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?

[Selea]

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.

[Rudolph]

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?

As 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.

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....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).

[Rudolph]

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.

In 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.

A) 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.

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.

"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.

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.
[....] 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.

C) 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...?....

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.

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...) 

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?

?

[Rudolph]

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.