GENIUS FORUMS

It’s totally opposite, it’s a completely opposite system. No matter how you put it, all the systems, and the systems of the East in particular, are based on destroying the desire to receive, on destroying the ego.
Our desire to receive, our ego, is constantly developing. And we can see it in China, for example, in Japan, and we can also see it in India, that in recent years, from one year to the next, there have been huge changes. People are beginning to leave the life they led for thousands of years—you're right about that—and now they begin a new life.

Why? The ego that develops and starts burning in them is beginning to demand new kinds of fulfillment. A cup of rice a day just isn’t enough anymore. Now they need more and more, so all the systems of suppression that you call their religious systems, do not work anymore.
What do you think about it?
And whatch this video about difference between two sistems:
http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/kabbala ... a-buddhist

In order to feel reality, you need to have a vessel that can grasp all of reality. And for that, you need the largest ego, to its fullest depth. One has to be cruel, and to feel himself as tight fisted and as a careless spender and as lustful and everything, and he has to go on living with all this and not to suppress anything, but on the contrary, to develop it.

An egotistical man does not have a vessel that can grasp all of reality. He is driven by desire, not reason: if reality does not conform to his desires, he will pretend that it does. His ego will be too unreasonable to change, even in the face of the most fundamental truths. With a large ego, there is no room for objectivity.

Given this much information about his beliefs, I have no way of telling if this guy is speaking about genuine Kabbala: he could be merely stating what he wishes Kabbala was like. If at some point in his life, someone pointed out his inaccuracies, he wouldn't budge.

It seems to me that 6000 years of Chinese culture was about more than "a cup of rice a day".

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It seems to me that 6000 years of Chinese culture was about more than "a cup of rice a day".

My take is this "BGen" aka Bobbie Gentry, is pushing this Kabbalah website and all the additives (add-ons) that go with hanging tight like Madonna and fellow hangers-on.

Kabbalah also pushes too much religious "new age" dogma ... see roman catholic church, mormon, jehovah's witness, anglican, baptist, lutheran, buddhism, shinto, methodist, muslim and assorted main-stream collectives of (man-made) group-think.

Cut your foreskin - Christianity, Judaism - it somehow surrounds "Israel" and killing the palestinians. Did they (kabbalah.org) buy their lands legally? A clear deed to the physical land? To hell with the UN mandate (Balfour Declaration) Complete rubbish.



Thanks, but no thanks. I gave at the office (paid my taxes) to The Man.



Tomas


.

I don't think saying they are complete opposites holds. They are systems that emerged out of different socio-political contexts, and will have alot of surface variation due to that. Difference emphasis, different values, etc... There is still a common core structure however. They are both systems that have methodologies to engage the subtle, causal, and non-dual states. From a purely structural standpoint, I find alot more in common amongst the ancient traditions than I find different.

yougene wrote:I don't think saying they are complete opposites holds. They are systems that emerged out of different socio-political contexts, and will have alot of surface variation due to that. Difference emphasis, different values, etc... There is still a common core structure however. They are both systems that have methodologies to engage the subtle, causal, and non-dual states. From a purely structural standpoint, I find alot more in common amongst the ancient traditions than I find different.

Kabbalah admits of a Deity. Buddhism does not.

Not directly, but there is buddha-nature, or the Buddha, which is a carry-over from Brahman and/or Atman in Hinduism.

Exactly. They are both the same experience with different contexts of interpretation. Buddhism has a heavy emphasis on 3rd and 1st person perspectives in its writing while Judaism's emphasis is on the 2nd person. The states themselves are not bound to any one of these pronoun perspectives, and will be interpreted accordingly.

Kabbalah also has as one of its aims the transformation of the Kabbalist into something to which the Deity will grant power beyond that of a normal man. This differs from Crowley's Magick in several extremely important ways, but the structure of the "Aethers" and the multi-tiered nature of Reality are in common. The difference is that Crowley's chilling dictum was "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be the Whole of the Law." Crowley was appealing to the Ancient Ones of the Necronomicon. The Kabbalist appeals to the Elder Gods. "Ancient" is relative, as the Elder Gods predate the Ancient Ones back to the dawn of time itself. The Ancient Ones go back hundreds of thousands of years and are local to the Earth and this part of the cosmos.

I'm using these two esoteric schools to underscore the difference between Kabbalah and Buddhism. The latter negates ego while the former seeks to purify it. Roughly, the Kabbalist might "work" a miracle, the Buddhist might experience one.

"Miracle" connotes "good." The person practicing Magick may produce results, but the the value judgement is conpicuously absent as can be seen from Crowley's credo. In an historical perspective, The Dark Prince (the Devil), Satan, Beelzebub, etc. are among the Ancient Ones who cast their lot in with Lucifer. Christ, before his incarnation as Joshua ben Joseph, was one of the Elder Gods, and for us on Earth, the Elder God ("Who has seen me has seen the Father"), Creator of the New Gods and ultimately their judge. Many of the New Gods are free, pending judgement, to roam the earth, but are not free to act on mankind or inhabit men's minds unless invited to do so. The techniques of inviting, or invoking, is what the Mad Arab wrote down in the Necronomicon and which Crowley later reprised.

The Kabbalist would be a staunch defender of the Elder Gods. The Buddhist would wisely avoid trafficking with the Gods as a willful creature, and experience the miracle of Nirvana.

The practioner of Magick necessarily contacts an other who acts in his or her behalf. This other is from among the Ancient Ones, such as Cthulhu and Azathoth, Sumerian names for two of the Dark Prince's minions. These Ancient Ones were sent to guide and mentor humanity as it evolved on Earth, but betrayed their mission by aligning themselves with the rebellious Lucifer.

I should point out that none of this is made up by me.

Per Gurdjieff, Magic is no more than doing. I think David Quinn et al, in their Buddhist/logic thinking, don't believe any doing is possible (as we are all caught in the gears of cause and effect) (and any doing would require some measure of free will). Crowley's "Do what thou wilt" can be interpreted either way (do as thou is caused to do, or, do what thou can will to be done). "...shall be the whole of the law" also can be interpreted two ways (the law of cause and effect, or, the law of willing). I have not read enough about Crowley to know his context. In my experience there is some latitude of movement possible, a potential for will and hence for doing, provided there is consciousness, particularly sustained consciousness, present.

Carl G wrote:Per Gurdjieff, Magic is no more than doing. I think David Quinn et al, in their Buddhist/logic thinking, don't believe any doing is possible (as we are all caught in the gears of cause and effect) (and any doing would require some measure of free will). Crowley's "Do what thou wilt" can be interpreted either way (do as thou is caused to do, or, do what thou can will to be done). "...shall be the whole of the law" also can be interpreted two ways (the law of cause and effect, or, the law of willing). I have not read enough about Crowley to know his context. In my experience there is some latitude of movement possible, a potential for will and hence for doing, provided there is consciousness, particularly sustained consciousness, present.

As I understand it, it would be more the law of willing, or acting without restraint of any kind. External restrictions are abolished. Any internal restrictions are the ones you choose to put there. It is very simple. Do whatever you want. The Law is that there is no law other than do what you want. I find him fundamentally disturbing in that respect. He believed himself to be the reincarnation of one of the Ancient Ones and knowingly opened the gate to this world by inviting or invoking these ancient powerful spirits.

brokenhead wrote: "Miracle" connotes "good." The person practicing Magick may produce results, but the the value judgement is conpicuously absent as can be seen from Crowley's credo. In an historical perspective, The Dark Prince (the Devil), Satan, Beelzebub, etc. are among the Ancient Ones who cast their lot in with Lucifer. Christ, before his incarnation as Joshua ben Joseph, was one of the Elder Gods, and for us on Earth, the Elder God ("Who has seen me has seen the Father"), Creator of the New Gods and ultimately their judge. Many of the New Gods are free, pending judgement, to roam the earth, but are not free to act on mankind or inhabit men's minds unless invited to do so. The techniques of inviting, or invoking, is what the Mad Arab wrote down in the Necronomicon and which Crowley later reprised.

The Kabbalist would be a staunch defender of the Elder Gods. The Buddhist would wisely avoid trafficking with the Gods as a willful creature, and experience the miracle of Nirvana.

The practioner of Magick necessarily contacts an other who acts in his or her behalf. This other is from among the Ancient Ones, such as Cthulhu and Azathoth, Sumerian names for two of the Dark Prince's minions. These Ancient Ones were sent to guide and mentor humanity as it evolved on Earth, but betrayed their mission by aligning themselves with the rebellious Lucifer.

That is some weird shit. I can hardly believe this is on the logically anal genius forums.

brokenhead,

Ah, a la the hedonistic satanic church of Anton LeVay. Yeah, pretty dark stuff. Not along either of the lines I was talking.

Kabbalah also has as one of its aims the transformation of the Kabbalist into something to which the Deity will grant power beyond that of a normal man. This differs from Crowley's Magick in several extremely important ways, but the structure of the "Aethers" and the multi-tiered nature of Reality are in common. The difference is that Crowley's chilling dictum was "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be the Whole of the Law." Crowley was appealing to the Ancient Ones of the Necronomicon. The Kabbalist appeals to the Elder Gods. "Ancient" is relative, as the Elder Gods predate the Ancient Ones back to the dawn of time itself. The Ancient Ones go back hundreds of thousands of years and are local to the Earth and this part of the cosmos.

I can't say Magick is a system I'm particularly familiar with but I fail to see the one-to-one connection. There is alot going on in your post for me to address in a linear fashion so I'll just start somewhere.

1) All traditions are multi-tiered hierarchic structures, even Buddhism. The Buddha does not deny the subtle realm( the phenomenological space where "Gods" as you call them, arise ), he just considered it negated by Nirvana.

2) Worship of ancestry is a universal pattern of tribal structures. The fact two systems share this pattern shows common structural origin in this regard, but little else in the absence of more information.

3) Going back to 1, most branches of Buddhism do value ego-development. Particularly the non-dual varieties. You don't attain skillful means, you develop them.

That is some weird shit. I can hardly believe this is on the logically anal genius forums.

What actually happened to bring this world to where we have found it is not the focus of this forum, you're quite right.