Nice place he’s got there
“life is a meaningless illusion but it makes no sense not to induldge in it unless that indulgence gets me into karmic trouble”
Thats what Crowley said, and what Osho implied.
But my point was that Asceticism, let alone merely being a dying flame, isn’t enough to transcend the wheel of suffering, or attain nirvana -
Sauwelios ‘Athelema’ is, in thelemic terms ‘Yellow magic’, which is seen as lower than White magic (magic by will power for the benefit of mankind and the Hierarchy, ‘the city of the Pyramids’) but higher than Black magic (magic for egotistical reasons)
Saully when are you gonna graduate from yellow magician to white magician, start giving a damn and want to help mankind?
Well, except for the lust underlying that whole delusion, as I said.
OMG, you’re still at Descartes and not at Nietzsche? Nietzsche said the “fundamental certainty” was that there was a process of imagining, not a subject who imagines (nor an object which is imagined). And even that is not completely certain, for there need not even be an “imagining Being [Sein]”; there may be an imagining Nothing. Then again, Being is time and time is no-thingness.
No, you’re wrong. The only thing you can experience is not existing. That’s the sole difference between life and death (lifelessness): life experiences not existing (though most life isn’t aware that that is what it experiences, of course), and death/lifelessness does not.
Yes, you’re still stuck in “it’s illogical to say”.
And yet you “experience” it during every deep sleep.
And again I ask, why should philosophy become political?
And why do you take the word of someone so obviously dishonest as Jakob? To be sure, a not just so-called philosopher requires a certain asceticism: a certain chastity, poverty, and humility, the respective “disvalents” of Wollust, Herrsch-Lust and Selbst-Lust (cf. GM III 8 and TSZ III 10; also GM I 5); but not as yellow but rather as black magick—‘rather’, because words like “selfish” and “egotistical” make no sense in this context.
I think I agree with most everything you say, except perhaps this part:
“The use of sukha in reference to Nibbāna is subtle—it isn’t “pleasure” in a hedonic sense, but a deep, unshakeable ease or contentment, not conditioned by circumstances. That makes it beyond contrast, though it’s often described using contrast for the sake of communication.”
I disagree that there’s an ease or contentment that is beyond contrast to unease or discontentment; that’s still only Buddhism as a religion, not as philosophy. What is “beyond contrast” is lack of contrast, and this itself contrasts with contrast, and vice versa. Contrast is only contrast in contrast with lack of contrast, and vice versa, and ease or contentment is only ease or contentment in contrast with unease or discontentment, and vice versa.
Actually:
“The Black School of Magick, which must by no means be confused with the School of Black Magick or Sorcery, which latter is a perversion of the White tradition, is distinguished fundamentally from the Yellow School in that it considers the Universe not as neutral, but as definitely a curse.” (Aleister Crowley, Magick Without Tears, “The Three Schools of Magick”.)
So the actual Thelemic terms are “the Yellow School” etc., not “Yellow Magic(k)” etc… And if Crowley really sees the Yellow School as lower than the White School, I see him as lower than I saw him previously. Just listen to this laughably superficial drivel:
“We may define the doctrine of the White School in its purity in very simple terms.
Existence is pure joy. Sorrow is caused by failure to perceive this fact; but this is not a misfortune. We have invented sorrow, which does not matter so much after all, in order to have the exuberant satisfaction of getting rid of it.” (ibid.)
If existence is pure joy, it’s pure neutrality; same if it’s pure sorrow. Sorrow and joy are only sorrow and joy in contrast to each other. Which seems indeed to be why we’d have invented it [namely, to transform neutrality into joy]; but if it doesn’t matter so much after all, and, moreover, we know we have invented it, how could it possibly give “exuberant satisfaction” in getting rid of it! 
I shall give Crowley the benefit of the doubt by supposing that he was writing exoterically there, for the benefit of the lower orders.
May I suggest that you’re operating within a strict non-dual framework, where even the idea of liberation is deconstructed by insisting that no experiential state—ease, bliss, or peace—can be truly “beyond contrast” if it is still describable, nameable, or felt? Your objection seems to be a philosophical purist’s stance in which you say that even “deep contentment” cannot transcend contrast if it still has any phenomenological content that stands apart from unease.
Could it be that when the Pali Canon or some Advaita or Zen texts refer to sukha in relation to nirvāṇa or mokṣa, it is not so much as the presence of an experiential state like joy, but more as a pointer toward the absence of craving, aversion, and delusion?
This could mean, when we say:
“Unshakeable ease or contentment, not conditioned by circumstances”
… that we’re not necessarily naming a thing but indicating a freedom. Not the presence of ease, but the absence of agitation. It’s not a state with content, but a lack of disturbance—like pure awareness or stillness. From that perspective, the use of ‘contrast’ (ease vs. discontent) is pedagogical, not ontological.
I might be guilty of thinking in terms of left vs. right hemisphere dynamic (McGilchrist), but your argument seems ‘left-hemispheric’ in its analytic, recursive deconstruction of contrast, identity, and meaning. In comparison, the original phrasing (“unshakeable ease… beyond contrast”) can be seen to be more ‘right-hemispheric’, that is relational, poetic, and gestural—gesturing to what lies outside language, even if imperfectly.
My friend, you have too much going on. You’re overthinking it. Religion and Spirituality invite the intellect, it can get very deep, but you have missed the simple heart of the matter. If a mother cannot understand it, then it’s unnecessary. Interesting and worth discussing, but unnecessary, meaning the heart of the matter is not with this, but something else. I believe it is Worship to God, and Requited Love back from him. Theosophers like yourself and Bob rarely get read, your arguments become very niche my friend! Peace!
1 Like
What kind of poverty is this? Compare with the fullness of Yogananda’s Samadhi. Which you, if you can not ignore it, will likely ridicule. Such exuberance must be false - because I cannot attain it! Existence is pure valuing. Valuing is the opposite of neutrality. @Bob Stillness is not neutrality, or mere indifference, it is clarity in the face of infinite power.
“but you have missed the simple heart of the matter.”
And you have been doing that since you killed your heart. The most dishonest things I have ever done were out of pity, and generosity, for you after that.
“love is itself en empty heart”
Aha, theism through the back door?
The Absolute. The more ambitious schools of Zen, of Yoga, and of Taoism strive for that, by employing the flame, transmuting it into clarity. Excellent karma is required, as only that gives true courage before the source.
There is no stillness when the flame just goes out, just muddy darkness.
My mistake was to get into conceptual philosophy. That gradually polluted me. What an utter shitshow that tradition has been, it seems to me now that I remember my Zen days… in which I would do my Shaolin kung fu set and then standing meditate for sometimes six hours straight, be in absolute bliss.
Who needs will to power when you have the cosmos between your brows?
1 Like
Twisting facts to your “values” again, as usual. (The Ukraine referendum 
.) I never denied that exuberance was possible.The deluded can experience great joy and great sorrow.
“Killed my heart” 
‘or an empty pussy’!
(Super)abundance, as in the self-lightening will to power, amounts to the same thing as lack, as in (Platonic) eros. If there is too much of something, that means there’s too little of something else (e.g., having too much time or not having enough time). More on this in my upcoming reply to Bob.
I guess you were gaming at the time
Your ideas are, and have been truly destitute poverty.
(these links show the result of the referendum of which sally is ignorant (thus thinking it laughable), and the steps to revoke the peoples right to a referendum)
I obviously did not merely say that exuberance is possible. For you, the most deceitful man ive ever known, to call me dishonest… deceit is precisely where you truly excel, where you could always baffle and astonish me.
“(Super)abundance, as in the self-lightening will to power, amounts to the same thing as lack,”
That goes to show precisely what your philosophic concoctions and distortions are worth. Purest of nihilism. Absolute leveling. Absolute relativism. The anti-creator.
Yes, how smug you became when you had your inner slave revolt.
1 Like
Rausch/Exuberance to you is result of wildly jumping around with some weights to some exciting music, preferably in view of others, or using some sense-stimulating apparatus, not of attaining physiological precision - you could never muster the discipline or grace, coordination for that… You cant even fathom what it is. Neither can Bob, obviously.
But the human body attuned to/aligned with its cosmic mould, the only real truthfulness there could ever be, brings about the encounter with the Absolute. Method, not concepts.
Buddha’s teachings too were about methods, not concepts. Existential Precision, the 8 fold path.
I first and foremost meant dishonest with yourself, my dear… And I was very much aware of the referendum (instigated by the Geenstijl crowd, Jan Roos and the like…) and voted for the trade treaty with Ukraine, of course. But for them it was like winning a match in their home stadium (as usual with such referenda).
I loathe all the neo-nationalist “strongmen” you love(d) so much.
“Jumping around”? “In view of others”? You’re surpassing yourself in dishonesty!