|
Post by notnotthing on Dec 29, 2018 14:31:32 GMT
Greetings!
Has anyone else used Khonsu's stone and ZOS's stone to open the door? I could only keep it open for a few moments so far. While novel and interesting, whats the point of tinkering with universe B and the Elysian fields / aeon of ZAIN? I've never seen anything useful come of it, I suppose it goes with the spells in AL and Helios. I can get prophecy and acausal results without it, just wondering why one would use it, perhaps for research purposes, bifurcating the eye and sacrificing the shadow to it for a void safari, maybe. Seems dangerous though.
|
|
|
Post by Raj Don Yasser on Dec 29, 2018 15:51:18 GMT
I absolutely concur with you, notnothing, with regards to the dangers of "tinkering" and/or "researching" what Michael Bertiaux refers to as "Universe B". Having met numerous "casualties" of practical occultism, both personally and professionally, I highly advice against engaging in ANY such practices unless one is at, to Gurdjieff's term, the level of "good householder".
As far as I'm concerned, there is only ONE reason to experience the Nightside of the Tree: because such activity is in accord with one's True Will, to better understand one's already-existing congruence with the Current in which we seem to manifest, and to advance the Law of Thelema.
Practical advice: Avoid any such "trying" to keep the doorway open. Ultimately, there is no door to open nor close, and any "trying" ultimately leads to disappointment. Instead: simply relax before contemplation of Daath and allow, surrender, observe the Gateway without any lust for result. After prolonged engagement without any "trying" or any other type of activity, the door will open without any effort, and you will be "pulled" or "drawn" into Universe B. "Prolonged" might mean a week, a month, a year, a decade, or a lifetime, the span of time seeming to be contingent upon the amount of "personal ego" involved in the practice. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by notnotthing on Dec 29, 2018 16:02:21 GMT
Hi Raj Don,
One thing I'm not sure about this door, is it the same as Daath via its door in Tav? I've always relegated that to the pole star complex, and that door allows one to jump to the supernals along the backside, or take a detour to the cells if thats your thing, which aligns to your practical advice on ingress. Maybe it is the same thing, approached a different way with the stones, but it seems different than the nightside, possibly a door outside the tree itself, which may be different than the tunnels. When Grant wrote about the nightside gates, it seems he focused a lot on the qlipa of Venus via Qulielfi where he received the fragments of Besqul, which makes sense since the human vibrations from extraterrestrial forces impinge through Venus, which is at the mouth of Daath anyway. But, this was still in the tree.
My reason for thinking this door is different than Daath, or the nightside, is reference to a discussion that the Stele existed prior to the human lifewave, or at least, Khonsu was able to capture the pre-human geometry in it. I must have read that from Grant but I can't remember where. The 2 stones are sentient, ZOS's a result of Ilyarun, Aossich, and ZOS picking the locks of the Stele with the one ZOS drew for the Nu Isis Lodge. They tend to activate themselves without any direct effort, although the Stele needs to be tweaked a bit. When active they create a stress in Yetsirah which opens (or rips open) the door. Properly done I expect this could be precipitate into manifestation, but that would be unlawful (and stupid) as I understand. Bringing about the aeon of ZAIN and then working with the stones is probably how they did it in the lodge, but if you can 'catch them in between' in waking consciousness, so to speak, they will pop, but only as long as you can stay between.
|
|
|
Post by Raj Don Yasser on Dec 29, 2018 16:53:14 GMT
Hi Raj Don, One thing I'm not sure about this door, is it the same as Daath via its door in Tav? I've always relegated that to the pole star complex, and that door allows one to jump to the supernals along the backside, or take a detour to the cells if thats your thing, which aligns to your practical advice on ingress. Maybe it is the same thing, approached a different way with the stones, but it seems different than the nightside, possibly a door outside the tree itself, which may be different than the tunnels. That's my understanding. Spare, Grant, and Bertiaux used different language patterns to describe similar ideas. For example, Michael Bertiaux's model might appear quite at odds with Grant when perceived from a certain angle, although when viewed from afar there seems to be little difference in terms of outcome. Spare lived a VERY different life than Grant and his models/abstractions can (and should) appear contrary to Bertiaux and/or Grant, but after years of study, these now appear to be merely "on the surface", the perennial wisdom professed by each author simply dressed in the fabrics available and most congenial. I DO NOT want to give the impression that these three approaches are basically "the same", as they are NOT, and my experience using various systems has yielded concretely different results at times, but in the end each of these approaches results in a similar understanding albeit using a different chain of abstractions. Lots of folks hate it when I bring up chains of abstractions when conversing on "occultism", but a basic understanding of General Semantics will GREATLY and EXPONENTIALLY increase one's ability to work effectively within more than one "system" in a more coherent manner. Also, when one understands abstraction chains, one will communicate more effectively and decrease misunderstanding. www.generalsemantics.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/articles/other/korzybskis-structural-differential-and-hayakawas-abstraction-ladder-by-steve-stockdale.pdfAttachments:
|
|
|
Post by notnotthing on Dec 29, 2018 17:15:21 GMT
Very interesting - I edited my post probably while you were responding about why I get the impression they are different doors, but your post sheds some light on it. I've had some trouble with Michael Bertiaux's model, just getting past the outer sheaths of the voudon has been difficult, its my limitation for sure. But, I know his perspective is valid and may provide another context on this matter if I put more effort in.
I think the voudon gnosis may be an example of the chains of abstraction, the concept anyway makes sense to me - layers of personal gnosis which tread the 'vultures neck' in a different way, but end up in the same place as any other chains. But on this case, they were all working together on this for the Nu Isis Lodge, so it is not purely a ZOS or Grant invention, you could even throw Khonsu into the mix since they were hacking his Stele, so it is not an invention of any of them independently.
Thank you for the link to the paper, I will give it a study.
|
|
|
Post by Raj Don Yasser on Dec 29, 2018 20:46:09 GMT
Very interesting - I edited my post probably while you were responding about why I get the impression they are different doors, but your post sheds some light on it. I've had some trouble with Michael Bertiaux's model, just getting past the outer sheaths of the voudon has been difficult, its my limitation for sure. But, I know his perspective is valid and may provide another context on this matter if I put more effort in. I think the voudon gnosis may be an example of the chains of abstraction, the concept anyway makes sense to me - layers of personal gnosis which tread the 'vultures neck' in a different way, but end up in the same place as any other chains. But on this case, they were all working together on this for the Nu Isis Lodge, so it is not purely a ZOS or Grant invention, you could even throw Khonsu into the mix since they were hacking his Stele, so it is not an invention of any of them independently.Thank you for the link to the paper, I will give it a study. That's my understanding as well. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that, when working with any system/framework focusing on "Outside" domains, it would be incomprehensible to suggest otherwise. As I recently heard from one wiser than I (paraphrased from my faulty memory): "It is true that every man and every woman is a star. We also know that stars travel in constellations." Out of curiosity, is your avatar a real picture or a computer drawing? Looks like a friend of mine from way back, a prodigy violinist. Edited to add: Also, I strongly believe that you will greatly benefit from that paper by Stockdale. In addition to the Typhonian Gnosis in it's various manifestations (e.g. Draconian, Advaita, Thelemic, Zen, 4th Way, Dzogchen, to name a few) I also consider the natural science of General Semantics to be among the most influential teachings I've ever been fortunate enough to discover. Without question, my personal work is highly informed by Korzybski.
|
|
|
Post by notnotthing on Dec 29, 2018 22:07:12 GMT
Very interesting - I edited my post probably while you were responding about why I get the impression they are different doors, but your post sheds some light on it. I've had some trouble with Michael Bertiaux's model, just getting past the outer sheaths of the voudon has been difficult, its my limitation for sure. But, I know his perspective is valid and may provide another context on this matter if I put more effort in. I think the voudon gnosis may be an example of the chains of abstraction, the concept anyway makes sense to me - layers of personal gnosis which tread the 'vultures neck' in a different way, but end up in the same place as any other chains. But on this case, they were all working together on this for the Nu Isis Lodge, so it is not purely a ZOS or Grant invention, you could even throw Khonsu into the mix since they were hacking his Stele, so it is not an invention of any of them independently.Thank you for the link to the paper, I will give it a study. That's my understanding as well. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that, when working with any system/framework focusing on "Outside" domains, it would be incomprehensible to suggest otherwise. As I recently heard from one wiser than I (paraphrased from my faulty memory): "It is true that every man and every woman is a star. We also know that stars travel in constellations." Out of curiosity, is your avatar a real picture or a computer drawing? Looks like a friend of mine from way back, a prodigy violinist.Edited to add: Also, I strongly believe that you will greatly benefit from that paper by Stockdale. In addition to the Typhonian Gnosis in it's various manifestations (e.g. Draconian, Advaita, Thelemic, Zen, 4th Way, Dzogchen, to name a few) I also consider the natural science of General Semantics to be among the most influential teachings I've ever been fortunate enough to discover. Without question, my personal work is highly informed by Korzybski. Ah, the avatar is the lovely Karen Gillan of Dr. Who fame, it seems fitting given their excursions in the multiverse. She's since done some other great work, making quite a name. www.imdb.com/name/nm2394794/
|
|