buddhist wisdom for 2006.21.10

Aleiah <***@gmail.com> writes:

Alt.magic is not the right newsgroup for this posting.

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Aleiah

2006-10-21 13:28:38 UTC

Post by Bruce Barnett
Alt.magic is not the right newsgroup for this posting.

several pagan groups borrow bits of spiritual wisdom and practice from
other groups, such as hindu or buddhist studies.

It is entirely appropriate.

--
May the Earth bless you richly with
Health, Prosperity, and much Joy.
Aleiah

David Carter

2006-10-21 14:10:15 UTC

Post by Bruce Barnett
Alt.magic is not the right newsgroup for this posting.

several pagan groups borrow bits of spiritual wisdom and practice from
other groups, such as hindu or buddhist studies.
It is entirely appropriate.

I think he means they do card tricks not occultism.

Carter

Tom

2006-10-21 15:35:29 UTC

Post by Bruce Barnett
Alt.magic is not the right newsgroup for this posting.

several pagan groups borrow bits of spiritual wisdom and practice from
other groups, such as hindu or buddhist studies.
It is entirely appropriate.

I think he means they do card tricks not occultism.

One good reason why Crowley added the -k was to avoid that confusion of
meanings.

However, since the lore of occultism is largely based upon confusion of one
kind or another, it's not at all surprising that this particular confusion
persists.

David Carter

2006-10-21 15:54:13 UTC

Post by Bruce Barnett
Alt.magic is not the right newsgroup for this posting.

several pagan groups borrow bits of spiritual wisdom and practice from
other groups, such as hindu or buddhist studies.
It is entirely appropriate.

I think he means they do card tricks not occultism.

One good reason why Crowley added the -k was to avoid that confusion of
meanings.
However, since the lore of occultism is largely based upon confusion of one
kind or another, it's not at all surprising that this particular confusion
persists.

do you really find occultism to be confusing? I dont and I dont
understand why it would be but it is a genuine question.

carter

Tom

2006-10-22 01:31:17 UTC

Post by Tom
One good reason why Crowley added the -k was to avoid that confusion of
meanings.
However, since the lore of occultism is largely based upon confusion of
one kind or another, it's not at all surprising that this particular
confusion persists.

do you really find occultism to be confusing?

I did not say I found occultism confusing. I said occultism was largely
based upon confusion of one kind or another. Are you confused about the
distinction between these two statements? That's not at all surprising
either.

David Carter

2006-10-22 05:47:07 UTC

do you really find occultism to be confusing?

So you are saying that your understanding of a system based on confusion
isnt confusing. Thats not at all surprising either. Fell at the first jump.

Carter

Tom

2006-10-22 15:32:37 UTC

do you really find occultism to be confusing?

So you are saying that your understanding of a system based on confusion
isnt confusing.

Not to me.

David Carter

2006-10-22 16:25:23 UTC

do you really find occultism to be confusing?

So you are saying that your understanding of a system based on confusion
isnt confusing.

Not to me.

so you say a system based on confusion doesnt confuse you. What makes
you feel it is confusing then? For how long were you confused and when
did you stop being confused?

carter

Tom

2006-10-22 22:49:18 UTC

Post by David Carter
do you really find occultism to be confusing?

I did not say I found occultism confusing. I said occultism was
largely based upon confusion of one kind or another. Are you confused
about the distinction between these two statements? That's not at all
surprising either.

So you are saying that your understanding of a system based on confusion
isnt confusing.

Not to me.

so you say a system based on confusion doesnt confuse you.

Yes, I'm saying that.

However, let's dispense with the misnomer. Occult lore is not a "system".
It is a random accretion of information and misinformation which has been
growing, sort of like a rubbish heap does, for many, many years. A "system"
implies some overall organization, which is lacking in occultism as a whole.
And no, occultism does not confuse me at all.

Post by David Carter
What makes you feel it is confusing then?

Again, I have not said it confuses me. Occultism is based on confusion.
That's an entirely different concept and one you don't seem able to grasp.

David Carter

2006-10-23 04:27:42 UTC

Post by David Carter
do you really find occultism to be confusing?

I did not say I found occultism confusing. I said occultism was
largely based upon confusion of one kind or another. Are you confused
about the distinction between these two statements? That's not at all
surprising either.

So you are saying that your understanding of a system based on confusion
isnt confusing.

Not to me.

so you say a system based on confusion doesnt confuse you.

Yes, I'm saying that.

You mean you dont get confused, but everybody else does right?

Post by Tom
However, let's dispense with the misnomer.

You mean lets correct your own mistake Tom?

Post by Tom
Occult lore is not a "system".

Well that is what you called it. Occult lore does however contain many
'systems'. It is not an unstructured set of facts Tom.

Post by Tom
It is a random accretion of information and misinformation which has been
growing, sort of like a rubbish heap does, for many, many years.

How can yo support a contention that it is random Tom? perhaps by
defining the word random for use in this context?

Post by Tom
A "system"
implies some overall organization, which is lacking in occultism as a whole.
And no, occultism does not confuse me at all.

No, a system implies that at some level there is organisation. You were
the one that used the word system iirc.

Post by David Carter
What makes you feel it is confusing then?

Again, I have not said it confuses me.

That isnt what I said. Please re-read and then attempt another answer...

Post by Tom
Occultism is based on confusion.

Why is it? How is it. I think you will need to support that rather
extraordinary suggestion. If ou wish it to be taken seriously.

Post by Tom
That's an entirely different concept and one you don't seem able to grasp.

Well, I find it difficult to grasp many things that you say Tom, but
that isnt necessarily unique to me. This thread is a good example. You
claim things are confusing but arent confused. You say things are a
system but arent a system, you say things are random but make no attempt
to say why or how.

Then you say I cant grasp what you are trying to say. And you are right.

carter

Tom

2006-10-23 06:44:58 UTC

Post by Tom
Occult lore is not a "system".

Well that is what you called it.

No, that is not what I called it.

Post by David Carter
Occult lore does however contain many 'systems'. It is not an unstructured
set of facts Tom.

Sure it is.

Human brains are wonderful things. Pattern-recognition is one of those
remarkable abilities. It's pretty well documented that people can sometimes
detect a pattern from very little hints in a larger frame of random
information. However, it is also well-known that people tend to impose
imaginary patterns on random data and create for themselves the illusion of
a pattern. Something to do with dopamine levels, I think.

A number of people have attempted to create some sort of "system" out of the
hodge-podge of occult lore. Their results are not impressive.

Post by Tom
It is a random accretion of information and misinformation which has been
growing, sort of like a rubbish heap does, for many, many years.

How can yo support a contention that it is random Tom?

By observing how it accretes. There is no editor for occult lore. Nobody
decides which lore will be included or excluded nor are there any universal
standards by which anyone can tell what information is accurate and which is
manufactured out of whole cloth. Myths, news reports, speculations, bogus
claims, and visions of mystics and madmen alike are all part of the mix.

Post by David Carter
perhaps by defining the word random for use in this context?

As in "not systematically collected and reviewed for accuracy and
consistency".

Post by Tom
A "system" implies some overall organization, which is lacking in
occultism as a whole. And no, occultism does not confuse me at all.

No, a system implies that at some level there is organisation.

That's what "overall organization" means. Occult lore has none.

Post by David Carter
You were the one that used the word system iirc.

Oh, I suppose thast at various times in my life I've used the word "system"
in one context or another, but in referring to occult lore specifically, I
have not claimed that it is a "system".

Post by David Carter
What makes you feel it is confusing then?

Again, I have not said it confuses me.

That isnt what I said.

Nor is it what I said.

However, as to whether or not occultism is confusing to somebody other than
myself, I cannot speak for everyone. No doubt some people do find it
confusing.

Post by Tom
Occultism is based on confusion.

Why is it?

Because it frequently presumes an identity between symbols and what those
symbols represent. Because it frequently relies on ambiguity in meaning.

Post by Tom
That's an entirely different concept and one you don't seem able to grasp.

Well, I find it difficult to grasp many things that you say Tom,

I'm aware of that.

Post by David Carter
but that isnt necessarily unique to me.

You have no monopoly on the failure to grasp the obvious.

Post by David Carter
You claim things are confusing but arent confused.

No, I have not claimed that.

Post by David Carter
You say things are a system but arent a system,

I did not say that either.

Post by David Carter
you say things are random but make no attempt to say why or how.

You usually have to ask the question before you can reasonably the answer.
Also, you have to recognize an answer when it's given. You're showing some
difficulty in both these areas.

Post by David Carter
Then you say I cant grasp what you are trying to say. And you are right.

I'm aware of that, too. And I've just told you why and how.

David Carter

2006-10-23 07:12:05 UTC

Post by Tom
Occult lore is not a "system".

Well that is what you called it.

No, that is not what I called it.

I notice you snipped the bit where you called it just that. Old habits
dying hard?

Post by David Carter
Occult lore does however contain many 'systems'. It is not an unstructured
set of facts Tom.

Sure it is.

This displays a poor understanding of what Magic is and where it comes
from. It is far from being the 'random' that you suggest.

Post by Tom
Human brains are wonderful things. Pattern-recognition is one of those
remarkable abilities. It's pretty well documented that people can sometimes
detect a pattern from very little hints in a larger frame of random
information. However, it is also well-known that people tend to impose
imaginary patterns on random data and create for themselves the illusion of
a pattern. Something to do with dopamine levels, I think.

Irrelevant

Post by Tom
A number of people have attempted to create some sort of "system" out of the
hodge-podge of occult lore. Their results are not impressive.

Including the GD. And every occult author I have ever read.None of them
has described magic as a 'random series of data; as you believe it to be.

<snipped the crap that remained since it is not very sensible>

Carter

Tom

2006-10-23 14:45:42 UTC

Post by Tom
Occult lore is not a "system".

Well that is what you called it.

No, that is not what I called it.

I notice you snipped the bit where you called it just that.

I couldn't have snipped what I never wrote in the first place. If you say I
wrote this, where is it?

Post by David Carter
Occult lore does however contain many 'systems'. It is not an
unstructured set of facts Tom.

Sure it is.

This displays a poor understanding of what Magic is and where it comes
from. It is far from being the 'random' that you suggest.

It shows that you have confused "Magic" with occultism in general. "Magic"
is actually very, very small part of the lore of occultism. Most occultists
don't claim to practice "Magic" at all. Mostly they are seers, diviners,
and channellers and their customers.

Post by Tom
Human brains are wonderful things. Pattern-recognition is one of those
remarkable abilities. It's pretty well documented that people can
sometimes detect a pattern from very little hints in a larger frame of
random information. However, it is also well-known that people tend to
impose imaginary patterns on random data and create for themselves the
illusion of a pattern. Something to do with dopamine levels, I think.

Irrelevant

Just because the fact is inconvenient to your argument does not make it
irrelevant. It's just another part of reality that you choose to ignore.

Post by Tom
A number of people have attempted to create some sort of "system" out of
the hodge-podge of occult lore. Their results are not impressive.

Including the GD.

I agree. They were notably unimpressive in their results as well. They
operated for only a few years before disintegrating due to fraud,
embarrassing gaffes, and egocentric power struggles. Their modern
reconstructionists carry on that ignominious tradition of idiotic antics and
boastful, empty, and conflicting claims of "legitimacy".

Post by David Carter
And every occult author I have ever read.

All three of them?

Post by David Carter
None of them has described magic as a 'random series of data; as you
believe it to be.

Of course not. They chose to ignore that fact just as you do.

David Carter

2006-10-24 04:35:47 UTC

Post by Tom
Occult lore is not a "system".

Well that is what you called it.

No, that is not what I called it.

I notice you snipped the bit where you called it just that.

I couldn't have snipped what I never wrote in the first place. If you say I
wrote this, where is it?

In your original post Tom, as you well know. Another email to the Google
embarrassment-saving team was it.

You are completely hopeless.

<more shit from the shitmeister snipped on account of he is a complete fool>

Carter

Tom

2006-10-24 06:16:36 UTC

Post by Tom
Occult lore is not a "system".

Well that is what you called it.

No, that is not what I called it.

I notice you snipped the bit where you called it just that.

I couldn't have snipped what I never wrote in the first place. If you
say I wrote this, where is it?

In your original post Tom, as you well know. Another email to the Google
embarrassment-saving team was it.

Here is the full text of my original post:

"One good reason why Crowley added the -k was to avoid that confusion of
meanings.

However, since the lore of occultism is largely based upon confusion of one
kind or another, it's not at all surprising that this particular confusion
persists."

This post, along with every other post in this thread is available at the
Google Usenet archives, and appears in its original order. Further, it is
quoted by you, in full, in your reply to it, which is also archived by
Google. Or are you claiming that I have the ability to edit your posts in
the Google archives, too? How do you think I managed this miracle?

While it is possible to delete a post from the Google archives, it is not
possible to edit out a particular line or word from an archived post, nor is
it possible to delete or edit other peoples' archived posts. There is
absolutely no mention of the word "system" in my original post to this
thread or in any other post of mine in this thread, except where I quote
*you* using the term. Your accusation is demonstrably false. Not that this
will come as a big surprise to anyone.

David Carter

2006-10-24 16:34:04 UTC

Post by Tom
Occult lore is not a "system".

Well that is what you called it.

No, that is not what I called it.

I notice you snipped the bit where you called it just that.

I couldn't have snipped what I never wrote in the first place. If you
say I wrote this, where is it?

In your original post Tom, as you well know. Another email to the Google
embarrassment-saving team was it.

"One good reason why Crowley added the -k was to avoid that confusion of
meanings.
However, since the lore of occultism is largely based upon confusion of one
kind or another, it's not at all surprising that this particular confusion
persists."
This post, along with every other post in this thread is available at the
Google Usenet archives, and appears in its original order. Further, it is
quoted by you, in full, in your reply to it, which is also archived by
Google. Or are you claiming that I have the ability to edit your posts in
the Google archives, too? How do you think I managed this miracle?
While it is possible to delete a post from the Google archives, it is not
possible to edit out a particular line or word from an archived post, nor is
it possible to delete or edit other peoples' archived posts. There is
absolutely no mention of the word "system" in my original post to this
thread or in any other post of mine in this thread, except where I quote
*you* using the term. Your accusation is demonstrably false. Not that this
will come as a big surprise to anyone.

wrong post my friend. As you know. Deceitful to the last/

Carter

Tom

2006-10-25 04:31:14 UTC

Post by David Carter
wrong post my friend. As you know. Deceitful to the last/

Yes, you are.

David Carter

2006-10-25 11:41:59 UTC

Post by David Carter
wrong post my friend. As you know. Deceitful to the last/

Yes, you are.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Carter

104K

2006-10-21 20:30:42 UTC

Post by Bruce Barnett
Alt.magic is not the right newsgroup for this posting.

several pagan groups borrow bits of spiritual wisdom and practice from
other groups, such as hindu or buddhist studies.
It is entirely appropriate.

I think he means they do card tricks not occultism.

One good reason why Crowley added the -k was to avoid that confusion of
meanings.
However, since the lore of occultism is largely based upon confusion of one
kind or another, it's not at all surprising that this particular confusion
persists.

And why do you believe occultism is largely based on confusion Tom? Is
it because your skeptic approach finds that answer more desirable?
Operations such as the KCHGA and experiences of Samadhi involve immense
moments of clarity, not confusion. I think you are concentrating on what
is not real and thinking that is all there is, which is a form of
confusion. So maybe you are projecting?

--
I,04: Every number is infinite; there is no difference.

Tom

2006-10-22 02:16:39 UTC

And why do you believe occultism is largely based on confusion Tom?

Well, for one thing, the bulk of occultism treats symbols as if they were
the objects, states, or conditions they represent and, vice versa, that the
thing represented by a symbol is the symbol. Thus, by manipulating the
symbol, occultists believe that you manipulate the thing itself. It's
essentially a confusion of the symbol with its meaning.

Post by 104K
Is it because your skeptic approach finds that answer more desirable?

No, it's not. See above.

Post by 104K
Operations such as the KCHGA and experiences of Samadhi involve immense
moments of clarity, not confusion.

Except that hardly anyone agrees on what the KCHGA actually is. The
definition of that term is quite unclear. As for "experiences of samadhi",
we should clarify that, too. A more accurate description would be "claims of
experiences of samadhi". Any person's claim to have experienced samadhi as
a result of occultism is quite unverifiable.

Post by 104K
I think you are concentrating on what is not real and thinking that is all
there is, which is a form of confusion. So maybe you are projecting?

You speculate that I'm thinking that what's not real is all that is. That
certainly would be a confused thing to think.

Well, let me clear that up, I do not think that what is not real is all
there is.

104K

2006-10-22 03:09:51 UTC

Post by Tom
One good reason why Crowley added the -k was to avoid that
confusion of meanings.
However, since the lore of occultism is largely based upon
confusion of one kind or another, it's not at all surprising that
this particular confusion persists.

And why do you believe occultism is largely based on confusion Tom?

Well, for one thing, the bulk of occultism treats symbols as if they
were the objects, states, or conditions they represent and, vice
versa, that the thing represented by a symbol is the symbol. Thus,
by manipulating the symbol, occultists believe that you manipulate
the thing itself. It's essentially a confusion of the symbol with
its meaning.

I think you are confused into believing what you think the "bulk of
occultism" does or does not do. Can you provide a couple of examples
where Occultism (rather than individual occultists) confuses symbols for
what they represent or that this is what Occultism teaches in general?
Are you saying this confusion is what magick is about also?

Post by 104K
Is it because your skeptic approach finds that answer more
desirable?

No, it's not. See above.

Well, this is what you claim, but what if your skeptic approach is
ruling your thinking without you realizing?

Post by 104K
Operations such as the KCHGA and experiences of Samadhi involve
immense moments of clarity, not confusion.

Except that hardly anyone agrees on what the KCHGA actually is. The
definition of that term is quite unclear.

Well, to be clearer then, I will say that the KCHGA involves making the
two as one, which is a gnostic term.

GoT 106. Jesus said, "When you make the two into one, you will become
children of Adam, and when you say, 'Mountain, move from here!' it will
move."

And I suppose if I say these statements about these experiences are only
unclear (or confusing) to those that have not experienced them your
skeptic approach will accuse me of what?

As for "experiences of samadhi",

Post by Tom
we should clarify that, too. A more accurate description would be
"claims of experiences of samadhi".

Experiences of Samadhi or Union, are unmistakable, but I see what you
mean where some might be confused into thinking this is what they are
experiencing. But that confusion is what occultism is about, it is the
banishing, or moving beyond, such confusions which is the goal of the
Great Work.

Any person's claim to have

Post by Tom
experienced samadhi as a result of occultism is quite unverifiable.

Of course it is, and you're being extremely pedantic here. There are,
though, certain signs of attainment that will point to a person having
experienced such things and be recognized by others having already done so.

Post by 104K
I think you are concentrating on what is not real and thinking that
is all there is, which is a form of confusion. So maybe you are
projecting?

You speculate that I'm thinking that what's not real is all that is.
That certainly would be a confused thing to think.
Well, let me clear that up, I do not think that what is not real is
all there is.

No, let me clear this up for you, you *claim" to not think what is not
real is all there is. It is possible you are confused about that.

--
I,04: Every number is infinite; there is no difference.

Tom

2006-10-22 04:55:35 UTC

Post by Tom
One good reason why Crowley added the -k was to avoid that
confusion of meanings.
However, since the lore of occultism is largely based upon
confusion of one kind or another, it's not at all surprising that
this particular confusion persists.

And why do you believe occultism is largely based on confusion Tom?

Well, for one thing, the bulk of occultism treats symbols as if they
were the objects, states, or conditions they represent and, vice
versa, that the thing represented by a symbol is the symbol. Thus,
by manipulating the symbol, occultists believe that you manipulate
the thing itself. It's essentially a confusion of the symbol with
its meaning.

I think you are confused into believing what you think the "bulk of
occultism" does or does not do.

Or perhaps you're confused about that yourself.

Post by 104K
Can you provide a couple of examples
where Occultism (rather than individual occultists) confuses symbols for
what they represent or that this is what Occultism teaches in general?

Do a Google search on "thoughts are things".

Or "Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel".

Post by 104K
Are you saying this confusion is what magick is about also?

Do a Google Groups search for the key word "confusion" in alt.magick posts
by Tom.

Post by 104K
Is it because your skeptic approach finds that answer more
desirable?

No, it's not. See above.

Well, this is what you claim, but

But, of course, *you* know what I'm thinking and won't be deterred by
anything I might say that does not agree with that.

Post by 104K
Operations such as the KCHGA and experiences of Samadhi involve
immense moments of clarity, not confusion.

Except that hardly anyone agrees on what the KCHGA actually is. The
definition of that term is quite unclear.

Well, to be clearer then, I will say that the KCHGA involves making the
two as one, which is a gnostic term.

A neat bit of confusion there. "making the two as one".

Post by 104K
GoT 106. Jesus said, "When you make the two into one, you will become
children of Adam, and when you say, 'Mountain, move from here!' it will
move."

Well nothing confused there, right? We are all, according to the bible
children of Adam, but here we must make two into one before we can become
what we already are. And then the mountains will move at our command.
Oooookay. Totally without any ambiguity or contradiction, I suppose.

Post by 104K
And I suppose if I say these statements about these experiences are only
unclear (or confusing) to those that have not experienced them your
skeptic approach will accuse me of what?

The confusion is deliberate.

Post by Tom
As for "experiences of samadhi",
we should clarify that, too. A more accurate description would be
"claims of experiences of samadhi".

Experiences of Samadhi or Union, are unmistakable,

But totally subjective. Any claim that anyone makes about their
"experiences of samadhi" are unverifiable.

Post by 104K
But that confusion is what occultism is about,

Yes, it is.

Post by 104K
it is the banishing, or moving beyond, such confusions which is the goal
of the Great Work.

Magicians work in a world filled with paradoxes and conundrums, deliberate
obfuscations, blinds, and half-truths, hints and unsupported allegations,
ambiguities and ineffabilities. You don't "move beyond" them. You just
fill yourself up with them until you haven't got any clear notion of what's
going on, so that you can then easily believe whatever silly shit you like.
Like believing you can move mountains by counting to two wrong.

Post by Tom
Any person's claim to have
experienced samadhi as a result of occultism is quite unverifiable.

Of course it is, and you're being extremely pedantic here.

The important thing you said here is "Of course it is".

Post by 104K
I think you are concentrating on what is not real and thinking that
is all there is, which is a form of confusion. So maybe you are
projecting?

You speculate that I'm thinking that what's not real is all that is.
That certainly would be a confused thing to think.
Well, let me clear that up, I do not think that what is not real is
all there is.

No, let me clear this up for you, you *claim" to not think what is not
real is all there is. It is possible you are confused about that.

That's the most confused thing you've said yet, outside of that bizarre
gnostic babble, of course.

Post by 104K
I,04: Every number is infinite; there is no difference.

This tag line is another good example of what I mean. It's a deliberate
paradox that's intended to breed and maintain a state of confusion.

104K

2006-10-22 05:27:35 UTC

Post by Tom
One good reason why Crowley added the -k was to avoid that
confusion of meanings.
However, since the lore of occultism is largely based upon
confusion of one kind or another, it's not at all surprising that
this particular confusion persists.

And why do you believe occultism is largely based on confusion Tom?

Well, for one thing, the bulk of occultism treats symbols as if they
were the objects, states, or conditions they represent and, vice
versa, that the thing represented by a symbol is the symbol. Thus,
by manipulating the symbol, occultists believe that you manipulate
the thing itself. It's essentially a confusion of the symbol with
its meaning.

I think you are confused into believing what you think the "bulk of
occultism" does or does not do.

Or perhaps you're confused about that yourself.

Perhaps, but also perhaps your response is a signal that you are not
prepared to to entertain you may be confused.

Post by 104K
Can you provide a couple of examples
where Occultism (rather than individual occultists) confuses symbols for
what they represent or that this is what Occultism teaches in general?

Do a Google search on "thoughts are things".

I don't need to if you're talking about that guy (can't remember his
name atm) who supposedly channeled the Universe. How does this prove
your assertion that Occultism is about confusion? If I have your
attributation of the phrase wrong then please do clarify, I'm not going
to do the work for you.

Post by Tom
Or "Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel".

Post by 104K
Are you saying this confusion is what magick is about also?

Do a Google Groups search for the key word "confusion" in alt.magick posts
by Tom.

I don't need to do that either, as far as I remember you claim this
confusion is key to magick as well as occultism. So how do you
discriminate between occultism and magick?

Post by 104K
Is it because your skeptic approach finds that answer more
desirable?

No, it's not. See above.

Well, this is what you claim, but

But, of course, *you* know what I'm thinking and won't be deterred by
anything I might say that does not agree with that.

Aha! You don't like me doing what *you* do to others? Something to think
about perhaps?

"what if your skeptic approach is
ruling your thinking without you realizing? "

Why did you snip this part?

Post by 104K
Operations such as the KCHGA and experiences of Samadhi involve
immense moments of clarity, not confusion.

Except that hardly anyone agrees on what the KCHGA actually is. The
definition of that term is quite unclear.

Well, to be clearer then, I will say that the KCHGA involves making the
two as one, which is a gnostic term.

A neat bit of confusion there. "making the two as one".

Why do you think that is confusing? Do you think everyone must find it
confusing because you do? Are you basing your ideas on magick and
occultism on your own confusions Tom?

Post by 104K
GoT 106. Jesus said, "When you make the two into one, you will become
children of Adam, and when you say, 'Mountain, move from here!' it will
move."

It is called Esoteric Wisdom, and your response only goes to show that
the greatest Truths can be stated openly and be safe from the profane.

Post by 104K
And I suppose if I say these statements about these experiences are only
unclear (or confusing) to those that have not experienced them your
skeptic approach will accuse me of what?

The confusion is deliberate.

The moving beyond confusion is deliberate. Anything else claiming to be
magick is just Black Magick, like Archie's current.

Post by Tom
As for "experiences of samadhi",
we should clarify that, too. A more accurate description would be
"claims of experiences of samadhi".

Experiences of Samadhi or Union, are unmistakable,

But totally subjective.

Well, duh, talk of stating the aobvious Tom.

Any claim that anyone makes about their

Post by Tom
"experiences of samadhi" are unverifiable.

Well, duh, talk of stating the aobvious Tom.

Post by 104K
But that confusion is what occultism is about,

Yes, it is.

Post by 104K
it is the banishing, or moving beyond, such confusions which is the goal
of the Great Work.

Magicians work in a world filled with paradoxes and conundrums, deliberate
obfuscations, blinds, and half-truths, hints and unsupported allegations,
ambiguities and ineffabilities.

And the Initiated Know this, no confusion about it at all.

You don't "move beyond" them. You just

Post by Tom
fill yourself up with them until

Nonsense, hombre. Even your amigo Erwin agrees with this point I am
making that the KCHGA is about clearing away all the dross/confusions.

you haven't got any clear notion of what's

Post by Tom
going on, so that you can then easily believe whatever silly shit you like.
Like believing you can move mountains by counting to two wrong.

What you are describing is not True Will, boyo, you're stuck thinking
that one way of entering altered states of consciousness is what magick
is all about because obviously that is all you Know about. Are you
prepared to entertain your idea on confusions may be wrong? I guess that
depends how able you are of letting go of pet theories. Especially when
you appear to be putting so much energy behind it, clingy.

Post by Tom
Any person's claim to have
experienced samadhi as a result of occultism is quite unverifiable.

Of course it is, and you're being extremely pedantic here.

The important thing you said here is "Of course it is".

Er, it was just obvious.

Post by 104K
I think you are concentrating on what is not real and thinking that
is all there is, which is a form of confusion. So maybe you are
projecting?

You speculate that I'm thinking that what's not real is all that is.
That certainly would be a confused thing to think.
Well, let me clear that up, I do not think that what is not real is
all there is.

No, let me clear this up for you, you *claim" to not think what is not
real is all there is. It is possible you are confused about that.

That's the most confused thing you've said yet, outside of that bizarre
gnostic babble, of course.

Perhaps you are just confused about what I was saying?

Post by 104K
I,04: Every number is infinite; there is no difference.

This tag line is another good example of what I mean. It's a deliberate
paradox that's intended to breed and maintain a state of confusion.

LOL! Is that so eh Tom? You don't think that it just might be you don't
know or understand what the saying means?

--
I,04: Every number is infinite; there is no difference.

Tom

2006-10-22 15:35:11 UTC

Post by 104K
Can you provide a couple of examples
where Occultism (rather than individual occultists) confuses symbols for
what they represent or that this is what Occultism teaches in general?

Do a Google search on "thoughts are things".

I don't need to if you're talking about that guy (can't remember his name
atm) who supposedly channeled the Universe.

So you ask for evidence and then, when I give it to you, you say you don't
need to look at it.

How does this prove your assertion that Occultism is about confusion?

Now what have I told you about the difference between evidence and proof?

Post by Tom
Or "Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel".

No need to examine this evidence either, I suppose.

Post by 104K
Are you saying this confusion is what magick is about also?

Do a Google Groups search for the key word "confusion" in alt.magick
posts by Tom.

I don't need to do that either, as far as I remember you claim this
confusion is key to magick as well as occultism.

I see that this was just another request for information that you really
didn't want and refuse to look at.

So how do you discriminate between occultism and magick?

No, I don't think I'll be giving you any more answers you don't want.

David Carter

2006-10-22 16:28:45 UTC

Post by 104K
Can you provide a couple of examples
where Occultism (rather than individual occultists) confuses symbols for
what they represent or that this is what Occultism teaches in general?

Do a Google search on "thoughts are things".

I don't need to if you're talking about that guy (can't remember his name
atm) who supposedly channeled the Universe.

So you ask for evidence and then, when I give it to you, you say you don't
need to look at it.

How does this prove your assertion that Occultism is about confusion?

Now what have I told you about the difference between evidence and proof?

Post by Tom
Or "Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel".

No need to examine this evidence either, I suppose.

Post by 104K
Are you saying this confusion is what magick is about also?

Do a Google Groups search for the key word "confusion" in alt.magick
posts by Tom.

I don't need to do that either, as far as I remember you claim this
confusion is key to magick as well as occultism.

I see that this was just another request for information that you really
didn't want and refuse to look at.

So how do you discriminate between occultism and magick?

No, I don't think I'll be giving you any more answers you don't want.

thats a pity Tom, it would have been an interesting question for you to
answer.

carter

104K

2006-10-23 10:25:03 UTC

Post by 104K
Can you provide a couple of examples
where Occultism (rather than individual occultists) confuses symbols for
what they represent or that this is what Occultism teaches in general?

Do a Google search on "thoughts are things".

I don't need to if you're talking about that guy (can't remember his name
atm) who supposedly channeled the Universe.

So you ask for evidence and then, when I give it to you, you say you don't
need to look at it.

Er, I said I don't need to google it because I am aware of one person
who used that phrase. Perhaps you could be clearer in what you wish to
convey because in fact you haven't actually offered any evidence, you
faintly hinted at some phrase and then tell me to google it and you
expect this to be taken as serious evidence? Hello? The phrase has over
40,000 search results Tom. It is for you to provide this evidence not
for me to try and work out what your vagueness is all about, so until
then your point fails. Here's one that may or may not be the one you are
hinting at: 'The great Edgar Cayce, in his Universal Mind channelings,
would over and over again say "thoughts are things"'.

Oh and please don't tell me you are going to attempt to pluck out a few
persons who may or may not have been Occultists (perhaps a definition is
in order?) and then use that to back up your claim about Occultism.
You do realize that would be a logical fallacy, right?

How does this prove your assertion that Occultism is about confusion?

Now what have I told you about the difference between evidence and proof?

Where did I use the word proof? You do remember me giving you the
dictionary entry for the word "prove" don't you? Are you now trying to
say your assertion can not be proven then?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proven

Post by Tom
Or "Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel".

No need to examine this evidence either, I suppose.

With around 1,000 hits you aren't seriously expecting me to sift through
all those wondering which ones you might be talking about eh Tom? Are
you feeling ok?

Post by 104K
Are you saying this confusion is what magick is about also?

Do a Google Groups search for the key word "confusion" in alt.magick
posts by Tom.

I don't need to do that either, as far as I remember you claim this
confusion is key to magick as well as occultism.

I see that this was just another request for information that you really
didn't want and refuse to look at.

Tom, you seem to be under the delusion that it is my job to waste time
searching through all your newsgroup posts in order for your point to be
proven. It isn't, you are the one making the assertions so it is
therefore on you to provide the specific evidence to back up these
assertions.

So how do you discriminate between occultism and magick?

No, I don't think I'll be giving you any more answers you don't want.

Do you think that magick is about confusions Tom? To you think Occultism
is about confusions Tom? If yes to both questions then in what way do
you discriminate between magick and occultism?

"MAGIC is the Highest, most Absolute, and most Divine Knowledge of
Natural Philosophy, advanced in its works and wonderful operations by a
right understanding of the inward and *occult* virtue of things; so that
true Agents being applied to proper Patients, strange and admirable
effects will thereby be produced. Whence magicians are profound and
diligent searchers into Nature; they, because of their skill, know how
to anticipate an effort, the which to the vulgar shall seem to be a
miracle."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/grim/lks/lks04.htm

You don't seriously believe that these "proper Patients" are all
placebos do you Tom? Do you believe that the "right understanding of the
inward and occult virtue of things" is just knowing what causes
confusion (which is more or less what a placebo does, right Tom)?

--
I,04: Every number is infinite; there is no difference.

Tom

2006-10-23 15:03:38 UTC

Post by 104K
Can you provide a couple of examples
where Occultism (rather than individual occultists) confuses symbols for
what they represent or that this is what Occultism teaches in general?

Do a Google search on "thoughts are things".

I don't need to if you're talking about that guy (can't remember his
name atm) who supposedly channeled the Universe.

So you ask for evidence and then, when I give it to you, you say you
don't need to look at it.

Er, I said I don't need to google it because I am aware of one person who
used that phrase.

The point I'm making is that a lot of occultists make that claim, not just
one. It's a pervasive concept that recurs very often in occult lore and
quite clearly demonstrates the confusion I'm talking about. But you don't
need to look at that because you know it quite well and would prefer to
minimize it, if you can't ignore it outright.

Perhaps you could be clearer in what you wish to convey because in fact
you haven't actually offered any evidence, you faintly hinted at some
phrase and then tell me to google it and you expect this to be taken as
serious evidence?

This reminds me of the old adage: You can lead a horse to water but you
can't make it drink. I can give you all the explanations and evidence I can
find, but I can't make you take it seriously.

Hello? The phrase has over 40,000 search results Tom.

Which is itself evidence of the pervasveness in occult lore of this basic
confusion between a symbol and the thing it refers to.

Post by 104K
How does this prove your assertion that Occultism is about confusion?

Now what have I told you about the difference between evidence and proof?

Where did I use the word proof?

You used the word "prove", the verb form of the noun "proof". I will
reproduce it for you with emphasis added in case you didn't notice it.

"How does this ****prove**** your assertion"

You do remember me giving you the dictionary entry for the word "prove"
don't you? Are you now trying to say your assertion can not be proven
then?

No one can "prove" anything to someone who refuses to accept the evidence
offered.

Post by Tom
Or "Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel".

No need to examine this evidence either, I suppose.

With around 1,000 hits you aren't seriously expecting me to sift through
all those wondering which ones you might be talking about eh Tom?

I don't expect anything of you. And for good reason.

Post by 104K
Are you saying this confusion is what magick is about also?

Do a Google Groups search for the key word "confusion" in alt.magick
posts by Tom.

I don't need to do that either, as far as I remember you claim this
confusion is key to magick as well as occultism.

I see that this was just another request for information that you really
didn't want and refuse to look at.

Tom, you seem to be under the delusion that it is my job to waste time
searching through all your newsgroup posts in order for your point to be
proven.

There goes that "prove" thing again. And, no, I don't think it is your
"job". I don't expect you to do anything but continue to repeat the same
old preconceptions without making any effort to seriously consider the
evidence I offer for a different view.

It isn't, you are the one making the assertions so it is therefore on you
to provide the specific evidence to back up these assertions.

I did. Volumes of it. You flatly refused to look at it.

Post by 104K
So how do you discriminate between occultism and magick?

No, I don't think I'll be giving you any more answers you don't want.

Do you think that magick is about confusions Tom?

Look it up. I've given you the answer to this question many times.

You don't seriously believe that these "proper Patients" are all placebos
do you Tom?

Have I said so? Or is that merely something you want to believe I might
say?

104K

2006-10-24 01:23:33 UTC

Post by 104K
Can you provide a couple of examples
where Occultism (rather than individual occultists) confuses symbols for
what they represent or that this is what Occultism teaches in general?

Do a Google search on "thoughts are things".

I don't need to if you're talking about that guy (can't remember his
name atm) who supposedly channeled the Universe.

So you ask for evidence and then, when I give it to you, you say you
don't need to look at it.

Er, I said I don't need to google it because I am aware of one person who
used that phrase.

Then clearly quote which occult lore states it, why are you being so
obfuscating and dithering about it?

But you don't

Post by Tom
need to look at that because you know it quite well and would prefer to
minimize it, if you can't ignore it outright.

See how you're building a strawman here Tom? Why the hell do you keep
reverting to these logical fallacies all the time?

This reminds me of the old adage: You can lead a horse to water but you
can't make it drink. I can give you all the explanations and evidence I can
find, but I can't make you take it seriously.

Nonsense, I am asking you to be clearer with what you wish to say and
actually provide the quotes (you know, the things you so often ask
Archie for??).

Hello? The phrase has over 40,000 search results Tom.

Which is itself evidence of the pervasveness in occult lore of this basic
confusion between a symbol and the thing it refers to.

Bwahahahah! Yeah ok, from now on I'll use the amount of search results
any short quote I make as evidence for my asserions - I mean, come on
Tom wtf???? You can do better than this, or used to.

Post by 104K
How does this prove your assertion that Occultism is about confusion?

Now what have I told you about the difference between evidence and proof?

Where did I use the word proof?

You used the word "prove", the verb form of the noun "proof". I will
reproduce it for you with emphasis added in case you didn't notice it.
"How does this ****prove**** your assertion"

Read the link I provided to the definition Tom. This is a clear case of
you clinging to your own idea of this "proof" meme you so love to
propogate.

You do remember me giving you the dictionary entry for the word "prove"
don't you? Are you now trying to say your assertion can not be proven
then?

No one can "prove" anything to someone who refuses to accept the evidence
offered.

FFs, you are so clingy to your "proof" thing you are even attempting to
form more logical fallacies around it. So can you prove your point or
not? If you convince someone of your point then surely it is proven to
that person? So why are you hesitant to make that effort in a clear and
convincing way? Are you actually accepting you are not able to logically
argue your point strongly enough to convince anyone?

Post by Tom
Or "Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel".

No need to examine this evidence either, I suppose.

With around 1,000 hits you aren't seriously expecting me to sift through
all those wondering which ones you might be talking about eh Tom?

I don't expect anything of you. And for good reason.

I think it looks like it is I that should stop expecting anything of
you, Tom.

Post by 104K
Are you saying this confusion is what magick is about also?

Do a Google Groups search for the key word "confusion" in alt.magick
posts by Tom.

I don't need to do that either, as far as I remember you claim this
confusion is key to magick as well as occultism.

I see that this was just another request for information that you really
didn't want and refuse to look at.

Tom, you seem to be under the delusion that it is my job to waste time
searching through all your newsgroup posts in order for your point to be
proven.

There goes that "prove" thing again. And, no, I don't think it is your
"job". I don't expect you to do anything but continue to

Oh? And why do you have this expectation (minus your strawmen, that is)?

repeat the same

Post by Tom
old preconceptions without making any effort to seriously consider the
evidence I offer for a different view.

You haven't offered anything but the usual merry-go-round in this thread
so far. I ask you for clarification, you then build and burn your
strawmen as an excuse not to. You can't see this?

It isn't, you are the one making the assertions so it is therefore on you
to provide the specific evidence to back up these assertions.

I did. Volumes of it. You flatly refused to look at it.

I flatly refused to accept google searches as a clear answer from you
because that would involve a lot of inventive thought on my part. I
prefer to be more logical and scientific because I prefer to see your
own evidence supplied directly rather than leaving me to do the
guesswork. See how you have managed to take us away from the subject at
hand with all this wank Tom? Do you want to discuss the subject or not?

Post by 104K
So how do you discriminate between occultism and magick?

No, I don't think I'll be giving you any more answers you don't want.

Do you think that magick is about confusions Tom?

Look it up. I've given you the answer to this question many times.

Not in this thread you haven't, what's up, scared I am exposing your
placebo theory of magic? Is that why you snipped most of it?

You don't seriously believe that these "proper Patients" are all placebos
do you Tom?

Have I said so? Or is that merely something you want to believe I might
say?

Well I am asking now, do you think Magick is about placebos Tom? Or will
you avoid this question too?

--
I,04: Every number is infinite; there is no difference.

Tom

2006-10-24 01:38:30 UTC

Post by 104K
Can you provide a couple of examples
where Occultism (rather than individual occultists) confuses symbols for
what they represent or that this is what Occultism teaches in general?

Do a Google search on "thoughts are things".

I don't need to if you're talking about that guy (can't remember his
name atm) who supposedly channeled the Universe.

So you ask for evidence and then, when I give it to you, you say you
don't need to look at it.

Er, I said I don't need to google it because I am aware of one person
who used that phrase.

Then clearly quote which occult lore states it, why are you being so
obfuscating and dithering about it?

All those thousands of pages state it, each in their own way. This is not
obfuscated, it's simply vast.

Too much work for you, apparently. You keep asking to be spoon-fed
pre-digested pap instead of taking a bite and chewing it.

Post by Tom
But you don't
need to look at that because you know it quite well and would prefer to
minimize it, if you can't ignore it outright.

See how you're building a strawman here Tom?

I don't think so. But perhaps you have a different take. Let's find out.

You said you didn't need to look at the evidence tat you requested and I
offered. Would you like to explain why?

Post by Tom
This reminds me of the old adage: You can lead a horse to water but you
can't make it drink. I can give you all the explanations and evidence I
can find, but I can't make you take it seriously.

Nonsense, I am asking you to be clearer with what you wish to say and
actually provide the quotes (you know, the things you so often ask Archie
for??).

I gave you a thousand pages of quotes. All you have to do is look at them.
But you have refused to do so.

Post by 104K
Hello? The phrase has over 40,000 search results Tom.

Which is itself evidence of the pervasveness in occult lore of this basic
confusion between a symbol and the thing it refers to.

Bwahahahah! Yeah ok, from now on I'll use the amount of search results any
short quote I make as evidence for my asserions - I mean, come on Tom
wtf???? You can do better than this, or used to.

I often do become more specific, when I judge that my querent is open to it.
You have not demonstrated the least intetrest in actually examining the
evidence, so I'm not going to any extra effort. If you are already
overwhelmed with information, more won't help.

Post by 104K
Where did I use the word proof?

You used the word "prove", the verb form of the noun "proof". I will
reproduce it for you with emphasis added in case you didn't notice it.
"How does this ****prove**** your assertion"

Read the link I provided to the definition Tom.

No. You'll have to explain it to me in very clear and simple terms. I
refuse to look anything up. Sound familiar?

Post by 104K
You do remember me giving you the dictionary entry for the word "prove"
don't you? Are you now trying to say your assertion can not be proven
then?

No one can "prove" anything to someone who refuses to accept the evidence
offered.

FFs, you are so clingy to your "proof" thing you are even attempting to
form more logical fallacies around it. So can you prove your point or not?

I'm telling you quite clearlty that I cannot prove anything to you when you
refuse to look at the evidence.

Let's test it. See if you can prove anything to me that I don't already
believe. Ready? Go!

104K

2006-10-25 03:55:01 UTC

Post by 104K
Can you provide a couple of examples
where Occultism (rather than individual occultists) confuses symbols for
what they represent or that this is what Occultism teaches in general?

Do a Google search on "thoughts are things".

I don't need to if you're talking about that guy (can't remember his
name atm) who supposedly channeled the Universe.

So you ask for evidence and then, when I give it to you, you say you
don't need to look at it.

Er, I said I don't need to google it because I am aware of one person
who used that phrase.

Then clearly quote which occult lore states it, why are you being so
obfuscating and dithering about it?

All those thousands of pages state it, each in their own way. This is not
obfuscated, it's simply vast.
Too much work for you, apparently. You keep asking to be spoon-fed
pre-digested pap instead of taking a bite and chewing it.

More logical fallacies from you, which is no surprise. I am not asking
to be "spoon-fed pre-digested pap" I am asking you to provide specific
evidence for your claims. Why are you so reluctant to do so?

Post by Tom
But you don't
need to look at that because you know it quite well and would prefer to
minimize it, if you can't ignore it outright.

See how you're building a strawman here Tom?

I don't think so. But perhaps you have a different take. Let's find out.
You said you didn't need to look at the evidence tat you requested and I
offered. Would you like to explain why?

I have already told you why, pay attention. Also pay attention to the
actual sentence I wrote, which was: "I don't need to IF...", which was
then inviting you to clarify IF I was thinking of the same evidence you
were pointing to. So far you have refused to be clear about that and are
even attempting to make out it is my fault you are refusing to do so.

Nonsense, I am asking you to be clearer with what you wish to say and
actually provide the quotes (you know, the things you so often ask Archie
for??).

I gave you a thousand pages of quotes. All you have to do is look at them.
But you have refused to do so.

What, you want me to look at all those thousands of pages and wonder
which ones you mean? Or do you just want to waste my time?

Post by 104K
Hello? The phrase has over 40,000 search results Tom.

Which is itself evidence of the pervasveness in occult lore of this basic
confusion between a symbol and the thing it refers to.

Bwahahahah! Yeah ok, from now on I'll use the amount of search results any
short quote I make as evidence for my asserions - I mean, come on Tom
wtf???? You can do better than this, or used to.

Oh, so you refuse to provide specific evidence to your claims unless you
judge the person asking for it might be open to agreeing with you? I am
indeed interested in examining the evidence once you provide some from
the google searches that are the ones you wish to use for your evidence.
Otherwise I may as well be searching for needles in a haystack and I am
not allowing you to waste my time in such a trivial way. All you are
doing here Tom is making excuses to not be specific and I have to wonder
why that is.

Post by 104K
Where did I use the word proof?

You used the word "prove", the verb form of the noun "proof". I will
reproduce it for you with emphasis added in case you didn't notice it.
"How does this ****prove**** your assertion"

Read the link I provided to the definition Tom.

No. You'll have to explain it to me in very clear and simple terms. I
refuse to look anything up. Sound familiar?

No, it doesn't sound familiar at all. I gave you a direct link to the
dictionary definition I was using, whereas what you are doing is telling
me to sift through thousands of links and expect me to know which ones
you wish me to look at. I am surprised you would even attempt to claim a
similarity.

Post by 104K
You do remember me giving you the dictionary entry for the word "prove"
don't you? Are you now trying to say your assertion can not be proven
then?

No one can "prove" anything to someone who refuses to accept the evidence
offered.

FFs, you are so clingy to your "proof" thing you are even attempting to
form more logical fallacies around it. So can you prove your point or not?

I'm telling you quite clearlty that I cannot prove anything to you when you
refuse to look at the evidence.

I am not refusing to look at the evidence at all, it is you who is
refusing to provide any clear evidence for me to consider. Perhaps
you've realised you have lost the argument and this is why you are so
reluctant?

Post by Tom
Let's test it. See if you can prove anything to me that I don't already
believe. Ready? Go!

This red herring just won't wash with me Tom. It is up to you to provide
the specific evidence for your claims, not for me to start new claims to
try and prove to you. Next time I see you ask people for evidence I
shall remember to advise them to get you to google for it yourself.

I see you snipped my question about placebos, so here it is again:

"Well I am asking now, do you think Magick is about placebos Tom? Or
will you avoid this question too?"

--
I,04: Every number is infinite; there is no difference.

David Carter

2006-10-22 06:01:24 UTC

Post by Tom
One good reason why Crowley added the -k was to avoid that
confusion of meanings.
However, since the lore of occultism is largely based upon
confusion of one kind or another, it's not at all surprising that
this particular confusion persists.

And why do you believe occultism is largely based on confusion Tom?

Well, for one thing, the bulk of occultism treats symbols as if they
were the objects, states, or conditions they represent and, vice
versa, that the thing represented by a symbol is the symbol. Thus,
by manipulating the symbol, occultists believe that you manipulate
the thing itself. It's essentially a confusion of the symbol with
its meaning.

I think you are confused into believing what you think the "bulk of
occultism" does or does not do.

Or perhaps you're confused about that yourself.

Time for a supersonic backpedal.

Post by 104K
Can you provide a couple of examples
where Occultism (rather than individual occultists) confuses symbols for
what they represent or that this is what Occultism teaches in general?

Do a Google search on "thoughts are things".

Our job to verify your confused statements is it? Not yours then?

Post by Tom
Or "Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel".

Ditto

Post by 104K
Are you saying this confusion is what magick is about also?

Do a Google Groups search for the key word "confusion" in alt.magick posts
by Tom.

Ditto

Post by 104K
Is it because your skeptic approach finds that answer more
desirable?

No, it's not. See above.

Well, this is what you claim, but

But, of course, *you* know what I'm thinking and won't be deterred by
anything I might say that does not agree with that.

I am not completely sure even *you* know what you are thinking Tom.
Speculation seems justified in this case. You certainly seem confused.

Post by 104K
Operations such as the KCHGA and experiences of Samadhi involve
immense moments of clarity, not confusion.

Except that hardly anyone agrees on what the KCHGA actually is. The
definition of that term is quite unclear.

Well, to be clearer then, I will say that the KCHGA involves making the
two as one, which is a gnostic term.

A neat bit of confusion there. "making the two as one".

Did you really find that confusing Tom? it seems perfectly simple. How
many ways can you interpret 'make the two as one'? Or are you now in
full retreat?

Post by 104K
GoT 106. Jesus said, "When you make the two into one, you will become
children of Adam, and when you say, 'Mountain, move from here!' it will
move."

Well nothing confused there, right?

Only the confusion you are now about to manufacture.

Post by Tom
We are all, according to the bible
children of Adam, but here we must make two into one before we can become
what we already are. And then the mountains will move at our command.
Oooookay. Totally without any ambiguity or contradiction, I suppose.

There we go...

Post by 104K
And I suppose if I say these statements about these experiences are only
unclear (or confusing) to those that have not experienced them your
skeptic approach will accuse me of what?

The confusion is deliberate.

As opposed to yours which appears to be absolute Tom.

Post by Tom
As for "experiences of samadhi",
we should clarify that, too. A more accurate description would be
"claims of experiences of samadhi".

Experiences of Samadhi or Union, are unmistakable,

But totally subjective. Any claim that anyone makes about their
"experiences of samadhi" are unverifiable.

which makes them unreal in your rather confused thinking. yes?

Post by 104K
But that confusion is what occultism is about,

Yes, it is.

But you can't say why - right?

Post by 104K
it is the banishing, or moving beyond, such confusions which is the goal
of the Great Work.

Tis is nonsense. What you really say is 'Tim believes that magician
work..... to two wrong". But yur apparent inability to understand basic
and simple ideas suggests it is only you who is confused.

<much more backpedalling blah snipped>

Just when you think Tom is getting better, he has a relapse. Try to
control your need to appear cryptic and knowledgeable Tom, then you wont
have do do so much ignominious climbing down.

Or put a reverse gear on your bike.

Carter

David Carter

2006-10-22 05:52:53 UTC

And why do you believe occultism is largely based on confusion Tom?

Rubbish.

Post by 104K
Is it because your skeptic approach finds that answer more desirable?

No, it's not. See above.

See the rubbish above. What happened here is that Tom suddenly thought
os something he thought would sound all cryptic and mystica, and now he
is having trouble salvaging the position.

Post by 104K
Operations such as the KCHGA and experiences of Samadhi involve immense
moments of clarity, not confusion.

Except that hardly anyone agrees on what the KCHGA actually is.

Then you havent been reading the posts from me, 104 and (even) Bassos on
the subject.

Post by Tom
The
definition of that term is quite unclear.

It could not possibly be simpler or clearer Tom, you just dont
understand it. Which is also a result of your confusion about Magic in
general.

Post by Tom
As for "experiences of samadhi",
we should clarify that, too.

LOL. You have to be joking.

Post by Tom
A more accurate description would be "claims of
experiences of samadhi". Any person's claim to have experienced samadhi as
a result of occultism is quite unverifiable.

Which is a matter of persuading dolts that is happened, (dolts who seem
to think that nobody's experience matters unless they personally verify
and approve it, that is). it is not the same as not actually having had
the experience. Can you really not see the difference in your confusion Tom?

Post by 104K
I think you are concentrating on what is not real and thinking that is all
there is, which is a form of confusion. So maybe you are projecting?

You speculate that I'm thinking that what's not real is all that is. That
certainly would be a confused thing to think.

Which appears to have confused you.

Post by Tom
Well, let me clear that up, I do not think that what is not real is all
there is.

Excellent. You get this years award for stating the perfectly bloody
obvious.

Carter

Tom

2006-10-22 15:35:04 UTC

Post by David Carter
Rubbish.

Content, "David". You forgot the content again.

David Carter

2006-10-22 16:28:01 UTC

Post by David Carter
Rubbish.

Content, "David". You forgot the content again.

Nope, I was referring to the content Tom.

Carter

Tom

2006-10-22 22:37:54 UTC

Post by David Carter
Rubbish.

Content, "David". You forgot the content again.

Nope, I was referring to the content Tom.

But not offering any of your own.

There is no content in simply declaring what someone else says to be
"rubbish".

David Carter

2006-10-23 04:21:08 UTC

Post by David Carter
Rubbish.

Content, "David". You forgot the content again.

Nope, I was referring to the content Tom.

But not offering any of your own.

correct. On this occasion. Some rubbish is irretrievable.

Post by Tom
There is no content in simply declaring what someone else says to be
"rubbish".

yes there is. Listen carefully. This is the content of my message:

The content of the message to which I was responding was rubbish.

There, easy when you take a structured approach to problem-solving.

Carter

Tom

2006-10-23 06:45:23 UTC

Post by David Carter
Rubbish.

Content, "David". You forgot the content again.

Nope, I was referring to the content Tom.

But not offering any of your own.

correct.

Bruce Barnett

2006-10-21 16:23:21 UTC

Post by Bruce Barnett
Alt.magic is not the right newsgroup for this posting.

several pagan groups borrow bits of spiritual wisdom and practice from
other groups, such as hindu or buddhist studies.
It is entirely appropriate.

No it isn't.

alt.magic is a newsgroup that deals with sleight of hand, stage magic,
and illusion, like David Copperfield, Houdini, etc.

We deal with trickery and deception.

If you are willing to tell people that you want to trick them into
believing in the spirituality, then fine - stay here.

So Aleiah - how do you stand?

Do you still think alt.magic is the right newsgroup for your messages?

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

alienseer23

2006-10-21 17:41:02 UTC

Post by Bruce Barnett

Post by Bruce Barnett
Alt.magic is not the right newsgroup for this posting.

several pagan groups borrow bits of spiritual wisdom and practice from
other groups, such as hindu or buddhist studies.
It is entirely appropriate.

No it isn't.
alt.magic is a newsgroup that deals with sleight of hand, stage magic, and
illusion, like David Copperfield, Houdini, etc.
We deal with trickery and deception.
If you are willing to tell people that you want to trick them into
believing in the spirituality, then fine - stay here.
So Aleiah - how do you stand?
Do you still think alt.magic is the right newsgroup for your messages?

This isn't alt.stage-magic is it? or alt.theatrics? no, it isn't even
alt.magic, I thought it was alt.magicK.eh...silly me.

David Carter

2006-10-21 17:43:16 UTC

Post by alienseer23

Post by Bruce Barnett

Post by Bruce Barnett
Alt.magic is not the right newsgroup for this posting.

several pagan groups borrow bits of spiritual wisdom and practice from
other groups, such as hindu or buddhist studies.
It is entirely appropriate.

No it isn't.
alt.magic is a newsgroup that deals with sleight of hand, stage magic, and
illusion, like David Copperfield, Houdini, etc.
We deal with trickery and deception.
If you are willing to tell people that you want to trick them into
believing in the spirituality, then fine - stay here.
So Aleiah - how do you stand?
Do you still think alt.magic is the right newsgroup for your messages?

This isn't alt.stage-magic is it? or alt.theatrics? no, it isn't even
alt.magic, I thought it was alt.magicK.eh...silly me.

And it was a bit silly. Have a look at the crossposts and you will
understand all. Instead of fuck all.

carter

Bruce Barnett

2006-10-22 11:58:06 UTC

Post by alienseer23
This isn't alt.stage-magic is it? or alt.theatrics? no, it isn't even
alt.magic, I thought it was alt.magicK.eh...silly me.

There is no alt.stage-magic (because we also do card tricks in homes,
restaurants, etc.)

But this is cross-posted to alt.magic

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

alienseer23

2006-10-21 17:09:12 UTC

The brahman Dona saw the Buddha sitting under a tree and was impressed by
"Are you a god?"
"No, brahman, I am not a god."
"Then an angel?"
"No, indeed, brahman."
"A spirit, then?"
"No, I am not a spirit."
"Then what are you?"
"I am awake."
-Anguttara Nikaya

Nice post.

Nevermore

2006-10-22 19:58:25 UTC