![]() of the cosmos than at any time in recent memory, and at a time when biblical. Magic is having a plan of all the tunnels, and seeing the overall condition in which they all work. Reasonable faith : Christian truth and apologetics / William Lane Craig. The whole universe is based on Marxist theory if you’re an intent Marxist. There is the Communist reality tunnel, the Feminist reality tunnel, all of which seem to be the whole of reality when you are in the middle of them. All beliefs are reality tunnels, to use Anton Wilson’s phrase. It’s a point outside normal consciousness from which you can look at normal consciousness, it’s a point outside beliefs from which you can look at beliefs. ![]() I see magic as a vantage point from which one can look down on the rest of consciousness. So my definition of magic is a bit less invasive and intrusive. I would rather that what I wanted was more in tune with what the universe wanted. I don’t want to impose my will on the universe, I’d rather the universe imposed its will on me. In my relationship with the universe, I do tend to see myself as very much the Junior Partner. It’s certainly part of it, but to bring about change in the universe in accordance with your will seems to me to be misunderstanding the relationship between the individual and the universe. Now does the mind see this as a truth, as a reality, that all my life is living in the past? I may paint most abstract pictures, write the most modern poems, invent the most extraordinary machinery, but I am still living in the past.Ĭontext: The traditional definition of magic – and I think this comes from Crowley who laid down a lot of the ground rules – he defined magic as bringing about change in accordance with the will. That's all, as long as the observer is living. And living has become the living of the past in the present, modified in the future. And all our life is based on the past, memories, knowledge, images, according to which you react, which is your conditioning, is the past. Right? No? As long as there is an observer there must be living in the past, obviously. And is the observer then, knowing all the intricacies of naming, linguistically caught in the image of violence, what happens to that violence? If the observer is violent, can the observer end, otherwise violence will go on? Can the observer end himself, because he is violent? Or what reality has the observer? Right sir? Is he merely put together by words, by experience, by knowledge? So is he put together by the past? So is he the past? Right? Which means the mind is living in the past. Right? The observer is the observed, there is no division and therefore no conflict. Now how is the observer to end himself and not be violent? Have you understood my question so far? I think so. And by being aware it sees the observer is the observed, that violence is the observer, violence is not different from the observer. It is a trick of thought which demands security. Then out of that awareness you see there is no division between the observer and the observed. Context: Now, one sees all that by observing, by being aware, watching, one is aware of all this.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |