|
Post by stepnwolf on Jul 3, 2013 18:14:34 GMT 9.5
Some of our posts deal with subjects that most of us will never know experientially. We either accept them or reject them based on our personal philosophy. It seems futile to try to defend this approach with logic, which is designed for another arena of activity. For the use of a better word, I apply the word OCCULTISM to describe this field of interest. This field demands intense training and experience.
The other area, I call MYSTICISM, seems to be open to a larger group of seekers. Its requirements are no less demanding, but they seem to be more easily acquired than OCCULTISM. The former seems to need an acute mind while the later an open heart.
We seem to be gifted with both mind and heart, with the potential to traverse either the occult or mystical path, depending on natural inclination. If we accept the idea of the 7 rays, we might be inclined to believe that once operating on that ray, we are rather stuck in it. This just might be true in the short view. In the long view I'd be more inclined to believe that before it's all over, so to speak, we may work in any of these areas with equal familiarity.
The closer I get to the end of this incarnation the more attractive the mystical approach appears to be. It seems to be practice for that ultimate experience we all get to know intimately once in every lifetime. The words I first heard at my Raising seem even truer today than they did 50 years ago.
OCCULTISM seems to work on the particular. Even its generalities are particular. There is a kind of joy in piecing together elements of a mystery, in uncovering the hidden and mysterious. In the highest reaches of occult research the seeker does seem to experience the mystical in its own way.
If “as above so below,” we might expect to find an occult element in the deepest mystical experience. I'll let you know, if I ever get there.
|
|
François-Marie Arouet
Guest
|
Post by François-Marie Arouet on Jul 3, 2013 18:38:53 GMT 9.5
“When he to whom a person speaks does not understand, and he who speaks does not understand himself, that is metaphysics.” - Bro. Voltaire.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 4, 2013 7:37:21 GMT 9.5
It may be that Mysticism is essentially based on a potentially passive experience of the Greater Whole - being swept along in the River of Life.
Occultism seems to me to lead potentially to a more conscious and managed process whereby there is some steerageway that allows manoeuvrings in the River of Life. As such it leads to a spiritual (moral) science as might be the basis of co-creatorship.
As for understanding (seeing what stands under), that may not be easy for the Mystic. In my limited experience in computer modelling, seeing what was required often came some days or weeks before I could understand why it was required.
|
|
|
Post by stepnwolf on Jul 6, 2013 1:36:53 GMT 9.5
It may be that Mysticism is essentially based on a potentially passive experience of the Greater Whole - being swept along in the River of Life. Occultism seems to me to lead potentially to a more conscious and managed process whereby there is some steerageway that allows manoeuvrings in the River of Life. As such it leads to a spiritual (moral) science as might be the basis of co-creatorship. As for understanding (seeing what stands under), that may not be easy for the Mystic. In my limited experience in computer modelling, seeing what was required often came some days or weeks before I could understand why it was required. I have given your post considerable thought and have to agree with you on all counts. However, are we close to saying that one way is better than the other? I still remember as a blossoming occultist my attitude toward mystics as rather empty-headed feel-gooders. The Tarot and the Tree were the ways to go! Today I am reminded of an AA motto, "Let go and let God." Some of us have learned the hard way that we are not very good managers and the more we try to manage the more we screw up, to coin a phrase. In AA's 3rd step, we "Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him." That does sound like a mystical approach. The step was originally formulated for alcoholics, but it has become part of programs for other addictions like gambling, eating, sex, etc. Who knows, maybe mystics have addictive type personalities. Is it too simple to say that occultists are concerned with the particulars and the mystics with the general? If I didn't know better I'd say we are talking about the male/female dichotomy. Of course, that is just foolishness, isn't it? Another excellent example is the ceremony of censing in many masonic lodges. In Old Line the whole idea of censing is too Catholic to be even considered. In many English-speaking Lodges of LDH, you will find the influence of the Church (via CWL's hand) in its circles and spirals with attention to rank and position. In the old American Working of LDH, the censing was based on 90°s and diagonals and was a rather a more masculine affair. Still in the hands of a woman, who was an excellent ritualist, the ceremony was an expression of grace and beauty. I think I understand the motivations of an occultist as I respond to the appeal of the mystic way. In the final analysis neither reveal their ultimate secrets to logic because their field of operation is beyond the mental sphere. These paths cross each other at points where each fortifies the other in ways I cannot understand.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 6, 2013 6:29:48 GMT 9.5
I think the term occultist is contaminated and past its use-by date.
I suggest the terms Mystic and Co-Creator.
In my view, being in the human kingdom is to experience and learn Will. If so, entities incarnated as human must eventually learn higher Will or pass out into other non-will kingdoms.
Thus I would propose Mystic and Co-Creator as separate stages in a longer sequence.
|
|
|
Post by stepnwolf on Jul 6, 2013 10:37:13 GMT 9.5
I've never seen the term non-will kingdoms. Can you give an example or two?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 6, 2013 10:42:01 GMT 9.5
The nature spirit kingdom is sometimes called The Army of the Voice. The voice is provided usually by the deva kingdom. The devas in their turn operate to implement received patterns. Thus neither kingdom has a focus on the learning of will.
|
|
|
Post by stepnwolf on Jul 6, 2013 21:47:26 GMT 9.5
The nature spirit kingdom is sometimes called The Army of the Voice. The voice is provided usually by the deva kingdom. The devas in their turn operate to implement received patterns. Thus neither kingdom has a focus on the learning of will. Goodness! Does that mean I am a fairy caught in the human line of evolution? I remember reading of such in a CWL book. What might be worse is a mindless but magnificent angel, whose only job is to be a messenger for The Most High. Still, some of the glory of the employer may accrue to His servant. I have to confess that the idea of mindlessly gamboling among the flowers does not sound very appealing. But I also have to believe that all that stuff is part of the Greater Plan. I am content to be a part of the Plan, not its director. But are you saying that the great mystics of the past, like Hildegard von Bingen or Francis of Assisi are destined to become mindless fairies in someones garden? Surly not! I have no idea what my place will be in the evolution of the universe, but I guess I am so passive now that I will accept it with gratitude. Humility is a new emotion for me but I'm willing to give it a try.
|
|
|
Post by stepnwolf on Jul 6, 2013 21:55:34 GMT 9.5
I wish I signed in as Schopenhauer so that this quote would follow our time-honored tradition:
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jul 6, 2013 22:33:05 GMT 9.5
... philosopher to mystic ... good men made better. Remember the C..... from which we cannot err.
And the secret is safe because it is incommunicable?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 7, 2013 6:34:21 GMT 9.5
>are you saying that the great mystics of the past, like Hildegard von Bingen or Francis of Assisi are destined to become mindless fairies in someones garden?
As I suggested above, mysticism may be a stage on the path and not the final stage.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 7, 2013 6:35:52 GMT 9.5
This is not particularly accurate. There have been many mystics that translated their inner observations into practical works - thereby moving beyond the mystic stage. Steiner and Tesla come to mind.
Authors are particularly prone to having visions and dreams that they present as literature. If I recall correctly the entire Harry Potter series is the articulation of the material seen in a single vision whilst on a train. I also recall reading that the Star Wars series resulted from dreams. Thus significant cultural change occurs in the western world through dreams and visions of a few.
Further, it is not usual that a mystic will try to convince. Convaincre: to conquer. Where is the mystic interested in the mental conquering of those that are inwardly unsighted?
Convincing is best left to those needing company to assure them of the rightness of their beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by stepnwolf on Jul 7, 2013 22:16:13 GMT 9.5
I think the term occultist is contaminated and past its use-by date. I suggest the terms Mystic and Co-Creator. In my view, being in the human kingdom is to experience and learn Will. If so, entities incarnated as human must eventually learn higher Will or pass out into other non-will kingdoms. Thus I would propose Mystic and Co-Creator as separate stages in a longer sequence. Now I am confused again. CWL (not a reliable source in my book anyway) says there are two kingdoms: angelic and human – and never the twain shall meet (except on rare occasions). He does describe a human who for some reason had previously been on the angelic line of evolution. The guy seemed to me to be a rather vacuous, empty individual, not a very human human. According to CWL, these two separate lines of evolution reach the same heights of advancement, the angelic (that is to say mystic) is not “lower” than the human (the occultist – bad word). To my mind the co-creator (your term) dwells on the particular on all the planes, while the mystic keeps his sight on the Source. Speaking of your computer programming analogy, I just read about the quantum computer which no longer deals with 0's and 1's but with quibits, which can represent more than those values at the same time! Score 1 for the mystics! I'm not entirely comfortable with the term co-creator either. To use another analogy: Computer designers attempt to create a more perfect machine, while being imperfect themselves. Are they like the co-creators in Paul's system? Can co-creators create without error? I've seen that class of investigators more as cataloguers, observing reality with finer eyesight. They may switch cards around in the catalogue, but the system remains. There do seem to be more dualities that appear on the surface. There are the rationalists, obsessed with truth, logic, etc. Then we have the non-rationalist who does not rely on those principles, but more on unverifiable report. Then in that group we have “co-creators” and mystics. The former view the particulars and the later the whole. Is that a fair assessment?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 8, 2013 8:14:22 GMT 9.5
>CWL (not a reliable source in my book anyway) says there are two kingdoms: angelic and human – and never the twain shall meet
It is useful to consider the nature spirit kingdom. By some accounts nature spirits may incarnate for a time as humans (to learn will) and then transfer to the angelic kingdom.
Nature spirits in human form are often easy to identify provisionally by body type. Consider for example geologists and earth workers - the chosen professions of many gnomes and earth spirits.
Forestry is often chosen by wood spirits - tall thin, and s.xually ambiguous.
I had a short, square-jawed foot-stamping female clerk. I once said to her that I thought she was previously a nature spirit associated with volcanoes. She said that what she most loved in the world was watching things melt.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 8, 2013 8:21:14 GMT 9.5
>I'm not entirely comfortable with the term co-creator either. .... Can co-creators create without error?
Perhaps I can refer you to the thread on the 21 steps to enlightenment.
"6.2 Desire for Good. The junior initiate hopes that there will be one set of things/decisions that can please or be good for everyone. Of course there is not and eventually the initiate discovers that they just have to make a call and everyone has to put up with the results."
Thus the co-creator makes the call and learns from the outcomes. Does The Creator not learn from outcomes?
|
|
|
Post by stepnwolf on Jul 8, 2013 12:30:32 GMT 9.5
>I'm not entirely comfortable with the term co-creator either. .... Can co-creators create without error? Perhaps I can refer you to the thread on the 21 steps to enlightenment. "6.2 Desire for Good. The junior initiate hopes that there will be one set of things/decisions that can please or be good for everyone. Of course there is not and eventually the initiate discovers that they just have to make a call and everyone has to put up with the results." Thus the co-creator makes the call and learns from the outcomes. Does The Creator not learn from outcomes? Ah, Paul, you are a thorn in my figurative side, which isn't altogether a bad thing. Are we speaking of the Gnostic Demiurge or the Creator/Source. The Demiurge may test and learn in Creation, the Creator doesn't have to for I believe his activity is beyond all activity. I have pasted this graphic on my desk top for easy reference in the future. While I'm at it, would you answer a question? What is this fascination with aliens, crop figures and the like? It rather reminds me of medieval philosophers who counted the dancing angels on a pin. My one goal is "self-actualization" and eventually the removal of self. Does that have anything to do with aliens?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 8, 2013 12:52:51 GMT 9.5
> Are we speaking of the Gnostic Demiurge or the Creator/Source
The creative impulse seems to manifest in every entity at every level of existence.
The creator of this universe (who uses it for a body) seems to me to be unfolding.
Likewise for the being whose body is all the universes humans can see (He is the GAOTU)
> the Creator doesn't have to for I believe his activity is beyond all activity
So is there beyond manifestation a Beingness that does not act?
All that I can see is beings manifesting bodies through which they learn. I do not know if there is a non-acting (non-learning?) Beingness. I am fully occupied keeping up with the GAOTU.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 8, 2013 12:56:47 GMT 9.5
>What is this fascination with aliens, crop figures and the like? There are several issues here: - Are humans the property of off-site entities (physical, astral and mental)? This has to do with free will and the war in the heavens manybooks.net/titles/fortc2247222472-8.html- Is there some signalling to humans that bypasses governments and any owners? - Is (almost) everything that humans believe wrong? www.lloydpye.com/eykiw.htm
|
|
|
Post by stepnwolf on Jul 8, 2013 17:08:03 GMT 9.5
> Are we speaking of the Gnostic Demiurge or the Creator/Source > the Creator doesn't have to for I believe his activity is beyond all activity So is there beyond manifestation a Beingness that does not act? All that I can see is beings manifesting bodies through which they learn. I do not know if there is a non-acting (non-learning?) Beingness. I am fully occupied keeping up with the GAOTU. As far as I can tell, yes! I have no proof, no reason, nothing but an awareness. And that is a nice turn of phrase btw Come to think of it, the conviction might come from reading too much of Suzuki's Lankavatara Sutra It's a terrible excuse, I know, but I want to believe so I believe. With that confession I am prepared to throw it all into the trash heap, nirmanakayas and all, if my life experience leads me to another belief system. Some people may say, "I am committed to truth," but truth is an illusion which we may never know fully. Might I say, "I am committed to a search beyond forms, beyond all constructs?" There are no signposts there, no crop circles or alien faces. In that search I came upon Freemasonry that captured my imagination heart and soul. Whether in the grips of death or in caverns beneath the earth, this system sustains the search. It will sustain me until I must move beyond manifestation. It's a personal journey. It feels like a solitary path, yet I feel there are countless others making the same effort. Paul had a great insight in saying that mystics don't often try to convince others (it never even occurred to me). We see what we see and feel what we feel. Sometimes even that is too much.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 8, 2013 17:38:46 GMT 9.5
I think there is a tendency to over-simplify the Divine process, for example into Spirit and Matter, Creator and Created.
As we know spirit and matter are the two extremes of the same spectrum. Perhaps it is the same for Creator and Created.
|
|