Mutational Alchemy Essentials 002

[m1thr0s]

"my god, it's full of stars!"

In this segment I want to talk a little about the star model of human evolutionary "dharma" (destiny), or potential, and how Abrahadabra/Mutational Alchemy ties into this. Before diving headlong into this little rant, I want to make it very clear that nobody has to be onboard with this in order to still derive enormous benefit from the methodology itself. It is perfectly possible to approach Abrahdabra and Mutational Alchemy as a simple matter of uniting whole Macrocosm to balanced Microcosm and leave it at that. Nevertheless it is because I was originally tracking "the star" with a vengeance that I encountered any of these ideas at all and it has been consistently in this same vein that these ideas have continued to build upon themselves with remarkable regularity, continuity and clarity.

In Essentials 001 I made the statement that there is no such thing as a uniquely Thelemic Body of Light standard, but also stipulated that Thelemic philosophy has managed to introduce a new model that requires our attention. I do not consider myself a "Thelemite" primarily because I am uncomfortable with the word itself and always have been. I am not comfortable with its definition and I am certainly not comfortable with its origins. The utopian projections of François Rabelais (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Rabelais) were dysfunctional in the extreme. They could never have worked in his own time, nor at any time I can even remotely imagine. I simply refuse to tag along behind some romantic 15th century dreamer under any circumstances, no matter who may have added upon his assertions. The fact that he was also a Catholic monk doesn't help matters much either. I am of the opinion that Aleister Crowley will finally be remembered by history as the premier star-theorist of his day, not as the leader of a magickal movement so much at all. It is Crowley's insistence on the language of "stars" that really sets him apart from the crowd and forces us to ask ourselves...is this a literal reference he is alluding to or is it metaphorical? If it is simply metaphorical, he rather belabors it to death I think. But if it is intended to be taken literally, suddenly we have something very powerful brewing here.

To get some idea why this might be important, we need to do another quick survey of history. The symbolism of stars as the natural inhabitants of Heaven (and therefor Macrocosm) has been with us since the dawn of civilization, if not actually predatng it. It doesn't take a remarkably powerful imagination to ascertain the reason for this...we need only look up to make the logical connection. But what is sometimes not so readily observed is that from very ancient times the connection between the gods and stars has also been a very strong one. While it is true that some god/goddess forms are based on other factors (forces of nature or forces of mind etc) the relationship between the gods and stars, overall, remains a prevalent theme throughout the whole of human history. Even cultures that seem to have avoided the language altogether, nevertheless cannot seem avoid the parallels between a Supreme Intelligence and Stars. The Tao itself is said to have a spherical quality and also observes the laws of nature in its universal interactions. Even ideas of Nothingness are typically embued with starlike qualities and throughout the various lineages of tantricism and mysticism, again we find unmistakable parallels to stars. And yet somehow, through all of this, no one seems to have been quite bold enough to link humankind directly to this standard. People have been quick to confess that this is where we come from, but hardly anyone has been bold enough to assert that this is what we are!

I don't altogether know what exactly compells Crowley to suddenly hammer on this assertion as hard as he does, but it has to be observed I think that there are certain logistical problems involved with asserting a literal lineage to literal stars. If you don't really know what a star is to begin with, for instance, your assertion is fairly sure to fall on deaf ears and blind eyes anyway. It may simply be the case that Crowley found himself at a moment in time where people do, in fact, have the wherewithal to begin forging this connection, having learned enough about themselves and stars both to at least begin the process of identifying the whole dynamic. And yet it is evident to me in surveying his life's work, that Crowley himself was uncertain just how far this assertion might extend, seemingly vacilating between the idea of stars as synonymous with whole universe (as he asserts in Magick In Theory & Practise) and stars as points of light in the Body of Nuit etc. But whether you like the man or loathe him, the harder you scrutinize his work, the more you come to appreciate just how good he really was at sniffing out the necessary pieces of the puzzle, even if he did not fully comprehend the final picture itself...and there is ample evidence to establish that he did not, but I will address this in more detail later on in this presentation.


Regarding Literal Stars

Just as soon as we begin discussing the whole idea of human beings as "literal stars", we have a lot of difficult issues to be sorted out. So far as anybody knows, stars are a whole lot bigger than people and a whole lot hotter too. While the average person is packing maybe a 5-watt electrical charge, stars are packing millions of megawatts of raging thermonuclear energy. If it turns out that even stars are not the "real star"...that the "real star" is actually synonymous with whole universe itself...our supper pretty well just fell right off the plate. It's going to be a little difficult to bridge that kind of action, to be sure. While such notions may be attractive from an aesthetics point of view, from a logistical standpoint we have a few serious discrepancies to iron out before we can call this a doable sort of project. As long as we are getting literal, we have another problem to sort out as well: stars, as near as we can tell, are not technically immortal. While it has been speculated that some stars may have the ability to pass successfully through entire cycles from white to black and eventually back to white again (presumably perpetually), the vast majority of stars have a beginning and an end. This means that stars have themselves not really risen above the constraints of duality, but are in fact the great beacons of duality peppered across time and space. While we may achieve significant life extension by evolving into stars, for the most part we have no reason to think we would accomplish technical immortality. One cannot be both literal and not-literal at the same time, so that if human beings are literal stars of some kind, we will need to be able to answer what kind of stars they are before we can do anything deliberate about it.


Checking the Maps

When a data analyst (of any kind really) hits the wall with a particular problem or another, the first thing to be done is to survey the entire body of data which can at least be regarded as having achieved a measure of stability over time. The situation is pretty much exactly the same for an occultist as it would be for any research scientist, save only that the nature of the data itself will tend to be more suspect (ie, more volatile) for the occultist. That just goes with the territory and has both its positive and negative aspects. It turns out that in terms of Body of Light data, most of which has been compiled into one or another pictoral "maps", we really don't have a whole lot to look at. Of the maps that do exist, the most comprehensive and time-tested ones can be pretty well narrowed down to just a handful of major players, with various off-shoots appearing at random intervals in various times and places.

The problem I immediately encountered was that of all the maps I could find, literally none of them really seemed to resolve the question of what a "star" might actually be. Explaining how one goes about making such determinations is an extremely complex task, because, on the one hand we are dealing in very lofty kinds of structural and thematic calculations while on the other we are also looking at performance itself and attempting to guage the success or failure of any of these maps to have actually yielded the properties they have charted. There are more variables even than this since there are things we might logically anticipate from a legitimate "star" map that would be altogether new and unseen before, the ability to account for all other maps within itself for instance, the ability to make better sense of existing maps than they even make of themselves and so on. There is a delicate balance between logic and intuition involved in this and one also has to be willing to "try on" various models in a hands-on sort of way. There are no schools you can check into that really teach you how to do this kind of analysis, no books that really define it, no teachers that can really teach it and yet it is a kind of analysis that can nevertheless be accomplished if one already has the natural skills and aptitude to accomplish it.

Occasionally people are born to certain tasks in this world and there really is no exact explanation for it that I know of. I have reason to believe that I was somehow born to this task of identifying the "star" model so that people can scrutinize it and use it to good advantage. I have no idea why this should be the case and I really don't care. But it means that there are some things I know how to approach as though I had approached them a thousand times before already and the qualifying criterion for how those assessments are made are virtually impossible to define, yet I know what they are on an intuitive level. I don't try to assert that Abrahadabra is the only star model possible...that would be egocentric to the point of being stupid. I do assert that it is a legitimate star model to the best of my ability to define one and is hands down the strongest and clearest model of its kind that I have yet seen anywhere in this world.

I want to keep these little articles reasonably concise since there is a lot to consider in each section. In the next segment I will begin looking at what makes Abrahadabra a viable "star" model that we can immediately take action upon.


m1thr0s

[Naomi]

Nice.

When I was performing an evocation of Raven (U'melth of the Kwakiutl) he introduced himself by several names, I still find them intriguing....here's a few:

'he who walks between the stars'

'he who speaks the language of the stars'

'the shadow of the sun'


Anyways I'm tracking you....

[m1thr0s]

there are star system and systems and I never doubted that for a second. sometimes certain structures can be identified that have the general effect of mobilizing great tides of change, yet they may not be the only structures possible. still, their expressions are critical as a means of igniting ten-thousand chain-reactions that might never have been ignited without them...

edit: consider the major/minor musical scales for instance...totally changed the world of music...but this is hardly the only musical scaling system in the world or anything...there's thousands of them world-wide...

This is roughly what I see occurring in all this Mutational Alchemy stuff...it lays down a physics that physicists themselves will finally have to own up to. they have no choice. I am leaving them none. If they even look...I've got them.

hehe...

m1thr0s

[MythMath]

—"Come quickly, I am drinking the stars!"—
Dom Perignon, the apocryphal inventor of champagne

(actually from a print advertisement in the late 1800s
by the producer of Dom Perignon Champagne.)

[hitman777]

A question:
I love your stuff on mutational alchemy, but I must admit, some of it has me completely lost. One thing I am not clear on (among others) is the goal. I think I have an idea, but what is the desired end result (if such a thing is possible!) of mutational alchemy as a system?
It is very interesting, and I apologize if my question is stupid, I just want to learn more.

hitman

[m1thr0s]

it's really all about reeling in the starbody hitman777...we can draw this puppy right down to earth if we play our cards right...the numbers back it all up...it's all there...it's just a matter of fine-tuning our technique...

now...that's MY goal...others may opt for less ambitious things like just maximizing what they've got already...that's cool too...me, I want it all...I don't pretend otherwise...

so you could say the goals are flexible but the most powerful thing this has to offer is complete control over everything the grid includes...which is pretty much every "thing" there is...

there's always room at the top...:cool:

not a stupid question btw...it needs to be asked...some may not like the answer...oh well...
I've never felt like having a very lofty goal has made me crazy or any of the stuff people seem to fear...I'm a very realistic person actually, but if the sky is the limit I want the sky...if there is no limit, I want it all...to me that's just called being smart. whether we get there or not is a separate matter. We sure as hell won't get there if we aren't even trying...

when you really look at it...all mystical & magickal goal-orientation is about the same thing...they all want it all, and why not? We all wanted to fly for thousands of years too but it took somebody to negotiate the physics correctly for flight to become a reality. That's all nature has ever really asked of us and that's the bill we have to pay every time. Anything is possible so long as it is done by the laws that make it possible...

m1thr0s

[Kain]

Great article m1thr0s...

Kain

[Anibis]

Anything is possible so long as it is done by the laws that make it possible...

m1thr0s

Power and humility make a perfect couple.
-Ibisis

[oak]

i once stumbled into this weird-0-plane where i saw we all are literal star systems, congregations of countless galaxies. countless human shaped universes all in different phases of rotation. looked kinda neat actually.
when i flew towards one i started to get smaller or "it" started to get bigger and look like what we see from earth with telescopes. but then some big honcho interrupted me and pulled me back to mine. :no:

promising series of articles btw.
sounds like i might be able to figure out how to use the system eventually, intuition telling me it can be done, but not really being interested in visualisations and such, having troubles as of now on how to map it to the geometry of the body in practice.

[hitman777]

Hey, M1thros, that makes a lot of sense, and does help clear things up for me some. Thanks, man!

[feranaja]

Ok - again I commend you for clarity and for making thedifficult accessible - but this section raises some questions in my mind and like the hitman, I need to risk sounding daft in order to reach out for clarification.

In answer to the query regarding the goal of MA, you wrote:

"it's really all about reeling in the starbody hitman777...we can draw this puppy right down to earth if we play our cards right...the numbers back it all up...it's all there...it's just a matter of fine-tuning our technique..."

Can you elaborate?
Is the goal immortality, mastery of one's own universe - chunk it down a little for me. I'm probably someone who wants to maximize what they already have, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to other possibilities.


I also want to ask with regard to this statement:

"The problem I immediately encountered was that of all the maps I could find, literally none of them really seemed to resolve the question of what a "star" might actually be"

How can that be? You mean in a metaphorical sense, right?

The commentary on AC here is interesting to me - I neither love nor loathe the man and his work, but I have been evaluating it from a radically different stream of modern hermeticism...I think this is an interesting sideline but not essential to your theory, right? Are there specific passages in AC you'd recommend to help the reader obtain a fuller grasp of your ideas?

So you're saying that MA can be applied to various levels, it can aid the individual in maximizing his or her individual life or it can also reach outward to a potentially much larger capability?

Sorry if I sound a bit slow...I've traded off speed for depth or so I like to think these days..
It sounds to me like this is perhaps the most challenging part of MA, no? Or at least, so far...

fera

[m1thr0s]

Hey, M1thros, that makes a lot of sense, and does help clear things up for me some. Thanks, man!no sweat hitman...glad it cleared things up...

Is the goal immortality, mastery of one's own universe - chunk it down a little for me. I'm probably someone who wants to maximize what they already have, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to other possibilities.it sort of sounds to me like you have not familiarized yourself with the Tree of Life fera. That's not intended as a criticism, it's just that the better you understand that system, the clearer all of this tends to be. Abrahadabra posits a certain properties corresponding to the human body itself. In essence it tells us that human beings and whole universes are essentially the same thing, separated only by a "division" in consciousness itself. Remove the division and you also remove the discrepancies. So whatever properties can be assigned to whole universe can also be assigned to human beings in the final analysis.

"The problem I immediately encountered was that of all the maps I could find, literally none of them really seemed to resolve the question of what a "star" might actually be"

How can that be? You mean in a metaphorical sense, right?no, actually more in a technical sense. understanding why this is the case is difficult to explain at one pass. I will be exploring this a bit further in future articles, but a lot boils down to the language employed by all these various models. If we are not training ourselves to think as universes think, we don't stand a very good chance of bridging the division between ourselves and our universal natures...

I think this is an interesting sideline but not essential to your theory, right? Are there specific passages in AC you'd recommend to help the reader obtain a fuller grasp of your ideas?If you are going to be a psychologist you will have to know something of Freud's work. You don't have to be onboard with any of it necessarily but as a matter of understanding the science as a whole, you will need to start from the beginning. Crowley was a brilliant star-theorist and way ahead of his time...some of the stuff he pulled out of his hat baffles the best minds on the planet, bar none. While I don't buy into his "religious" persuasions per se, I would be remiss not to give credit where it's due. Many of the ideas I have developed find their origins in his work, cleaned up and pushed way beyond where he was able to take them in most cases but still rooted in many of his core assumptions & assertions.

So you're saying that MA can be applied to various levels, it can aid the individual in maximizing his or her individual life or it can also reach outward to a potentially much larger capability?larger than whole universe? probably not. I think we have to understand that, whereas "self" is separated from other "selves", "Self" (ie, True Self) is not. That doesn't mean we are all the same individual per se, it means that we are all connected so that what is of benefit to Self is also of benefit to All. Again this has to do with coming to think as universes think...

certainly not everything can be sorted out in one article...I very much appreciate these questions and will keep them in mind for future installments...

m1thr0s

[feranaja]

it sort of sounds to me like you have not familiarized yourself with the Tree of Life fera. That's not intended as a criticism, it's just that the better you understand that system, the clearer all of this tends to be. Abrahadabra posits a certain properties corresponding to the human body itself. In essence it tells us that human beings and whole universes are essentially the same thing, separated only by a "division" in consciousness itself. Remove the division and you also remove the discrepancies. So whatever properties can be assigned to whole universe can also be assigned to human beings in the final analysis.
hhmm...well I have been looking into Qabalah for many years now although I may have emphasized certain aspects of my studies... that focus on personal growth and self development in a psychological sense - can you point me in the direction of some reading that would enhace my understanding?
fera

[Radiant Star]

Crowley was a brilliant star-theorist

I think thats a big clue ;)

Do you have any of Crowley's stuff Fera?

[feranaja]

I think thats a big clue ;)

Do you have any of Crowley's stuff Fera?

hhmmm, yes lemme see..Magick in Theory and Practise; Magick Without Tears; 777 - and Book of the Law. Possibly others, its a nightmare in there. Nuhad has it all though. What do you suggest?

[m1thr0s]

hhmm...well I have been looking into Qabalah for many years now although I may have emphasized certain aspects of my studies... that focus on personal growth and self development in a psychological sense - can you point me in the direction of some reading that would enhace my understanding?I actually don't place a huge emphasis on qabbalah...I think this is a big mistake people are making with regards to modern magick personally. But this model is fundamentally syncretic...actually...it's more like a beacon of syncreticism all by itself! So the more you know about the Tree of Life in general, the more points of reference you will be able to access. While I credit Crowley for his own work, it should always be remembered that he was also a prolific syncretist so that the vast majority of his work actually has its own roots in other times and places. Abrahadabra itself is much much older than Aleister Crowley for instance. In general, I think the more you know of the Tree of Life and Gematria in general, the better you will be able to reference many of the ideas set forth in this work. A working understanding of I Ching and eastern metaphysics is also very useful. I am actually a very classical thinker, I attend to history with meticulous care, even though I depart from many traditional constructs at critical junctions...

m1thr0s

[Radiant Star]

hhmmm, yes lemme see..Magick in Theory and Practise; Magick Without Tears; 777 - and Book of the Law. Possibly others, its a nightmare in there. Nuhad has it all though. What do you suggest?

It would be rude of me to suggest anything since I haven't read all of those myself, especially as I hardly understand them, but I will anyway lol

Magick in Theory and Practice to tie in the parallels with your own experience and that should hopefully give you a leg up.

[m1thr0s]

before you all go nutso with reading assignments, you should at least know that this really is a stand-alone system in the end...meaning that most of the actual disciplines I will be outlining can be learned without ever having read anything else. So it's really mainly a matter of giving yourself a better backgrounding...which is a good thing and really does help. But it's not 100% required. I think it's important to understand that with this stuff...

edit: I should also point out that the more you know of Pythagorean philosophy and ideas, the better you will grasp many of the ideas set forth in Abrahadabra. This actually was one of Crowley's major failures...he was so intent on linking Abrahadabra to the Golden Dawn system that he omitted to recognize that it is a classical Pythagorean Construct...the Tetractys is literally all over this thing...it's astonishing to me that he never really saw this...

I sometimes affectionately refer to this whole thing as Pythagoras's Revenge...you just wait...this will all become more evident with the passage of time...

m1thr0s

[m1thr0s]

One thing I want to revisit for a minute is this whole idea of "the goal"...because it's important to understand that this is not necessarily a universal prerequisite any more than it is with any other branch of Yoga. On the one hand, we can assert with confidence that Abrahdabra is aimed at the idea of "Completion", much in the same way that all tantric disciplines always have been. There is always this underscoring notion of "Perfection" here that we can attach to if we choose to attach to it.

But there is a deeper and much subtler approach to things as well and this is simply the matter of achieving an utmost internal/external equilibrium...of balance for balance's own sake if you will, without regard to any "goals" of any one kind or another. It is hard to make people understand just how strong that makes this kind of practise and it is the reason it is going to survive me by many hundreds and thousands of years if I can just manage to get that vision across to a few good people only. Because while it can be very useful to have a certain "goals", in the final analysis any discipline of this kind has got to be able to establish its worth without them. It is this and only this that renders a thing intrinsically "good" for the general consumption of all people...just as excercising is good for the muscles and lungs and cardiovascular system etc...it's a good thing in and of itself...not requiring of any "goals" to be of value in our lives.

This will generally not be uderstood by younger members and that's ok...it's ok to have an ambitious goals and this technology can well afford it. Yet more experienced practitioners will understand what I am saying...that once you get past the "goal orientation", here, in this practise, the techniques of balance and clarity of mind and an indomitable strength of character itself shine through and this is the most difficult, yet almost certainly the most important thing, that needs to be recognized as well as properly communicated. There are simply not that many organized practices in this world that can make you strong on every conceivable level. This particular practise has this most unusual characteristic, or I probably would have long ago abandoned it. But the bottom line for me is that I return time and time again for the simple strength itself and according to the fact that really nowhere in this world have I been able to find its equal through any other practise.

Exactly why that should be the case is one of the things I still have to try to hash out openly...it does take awhile to lay the whole thing out and I haven't even begun to really address any kind of serious nuts and bolts yet...

m1thr0s

[Ci Celli Ddu]

On the subject of stars, I hope this will be of interest:

In Welsh mythology there are two main divine families, the children of Llŷr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llyr) and the children of Dôn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_%28goddess%29).

Whereas Llŷr is a god of the sea and his children associated with Annwn (the Other or Underworld), Dôn and her children are celestial and associated with light and the stars. Three in particular still lend their names to astronomical features in the Welsh language:


Llys Dôn "The Court of Dôn". Cassiopeia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassiopeia_(constellation))
Dôn is The Mother Goddess, but a Celestial Mother Goddess, not a Mother Earth.


Caer Arianrhod "The Fort of Arianrhod". Corona Borealis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_Borealis).
Arianrhod ("Silver Circle") is a daughter of Dôn and mother of the hero-god Lleu ("Light") as well as the marine god Dylan ("High Tide").

Caer Gwydion "The Fort of Gwydion". The Milky Way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_way)
Gwydion is the most mercurial of Welsh gods. A trickster, a sorcerer, a bard, and a thief. He is a son of Dôn. The root of his name comes from the Celtic for "Knowledge".

[m1thr0s]

I see...so Gwydion is really our local *contact* so to speak, right?...I mean...we're riding on his bus and all of that, partying in his house and so on...

It's fascinating to me because Gwydion & Hermes are virtually identical twins or something...

m1thr0s

[Ci Celli Ddu]

I see...so Gwydion is really our local *contact* so to speak, right?...I mean...we're riding on his bus and all of that, partying in his house and so on...

It's fascinating to me because Gwydion & Hermes are virtually identical twins or something...

m1thr0s

Definately. Reading the three other main tales of the Mabinogion (Pwyll Prince of Dyfed, Branwen the daughter of Llyr, Manawydan the son of Llyr) is like plodding through a landscape where Christianity has watered the former gods down to be mortal men and women, but as soon as you get to Gwydion and his family in the tale Math son of Mathonwy (http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/mab/mab26.htm) its magic and sorcery left right and center.

[m1thr0s]

bizarre...I just spent 30 minutes trying to find an image of this cat with no luck worth mentioning...

If you've got a good image someplace I'd love to see it...

m1thr0s

[Ci Celli Ddu]

bizarre...I just spent 30 minutes trying to find an image of this cat with no luck worth mentioning...

If you've got a good image someplace I'd love to see it...

m1thr0s

Im afraid I don't. There are no old images of Welsh or Irish deities, so there's only modern portrayals to go by, and more often than not they don't fit the images we have in our heads from reading the stories.

[m1thr0s]

I found one...and one only...that didn't look like some sort of bad joke. And even this one isn't great...

http://abrahadabra.com/images/gwydion01.jpg

I'll keep looking though...any alternate spellings on the name might help...
There's got to be at least one decent image out there someplace...

m1thr0s

[Ci Celli Ddu]

Hmm yes, can't say I approve of the clothing. Especially Pryderi, who looks like he's just got back from some wierd Viking party :)

Alternate names? Gwydion fab Don, Gwydion vab Don, Gwydion ap Don...?

[m1thr0s]

yeah...well it's still better than some of the princess merlin crap I've been looking at...

I have a hard time understanding this...how can such a dynamic form be so abandoned? Is this all due to Xian suppression of magical traditions?

We might want to bug Talkingfox about this...she's a good enough artist to crank out a much better Gwydion than any of this tripe...she may not have the time right now but still...

m1thr0s

[Ci Celli Ddu]

yeah...well it's still better than some of the princess merlin crap I've been looking at...

I have a hard time understanding this...how can such a dynamic form be so abandoned? Is this all due to Xian suppression of magical traditions?

m1thr0s

Both Welsh and Irish myths were part of an exclusively oral tradition until recorded in the 10th/11th century. Your average historic physical representation of a Celtic deity looks like this:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/186/374172132_4fa56817f3.jpg

source:

http://www.irishcultureandcustoms.com/CultureCorner/CultureCorner.html

[m1thr0s]

well this is getting a little OT but I'll keep looking anyway...

m1thr0s

[Kuroyagi]

it's really all about reeling in the starbody hitman777...we can draw this puppy right down to earth if we play our cards right...the numbers back it all up...it's all there...it's just a matter of fine-tuning our technique...

its maybe too personal but Im just too curious: have you had any of this manifest in physical reality already?, or more generally formulated: how would this manifest, have you had "visions"/hints or images how this would manifest for you/anybody else? does it mean to turn into small suns that could move freely around in space7time or do I understand you wrong there?

[Kain]

its maybe too personal but Im just too curious: have you had any of this manifest in physical reality already?, or more generally formulated: how would this manifest, have you had "visions"/hints or images how this would manifest for you/anybody else? does it mean to turn into small suns that could move freely around in space7time or do I understand you wrong there?Even though the *Starbody* language is more rightly communicated by m1thr0s, as far as the 'subtle body' or 'Body of Light' is concerned, I should point out that all these maps and charts can be extensively utilized for direct physical manifestations (as I have described from personal experiences in greater detail in various other threads) in a quite immediate manner. Regarding stars per se, m1thr0s would be best to answer I think...

Kain

[m1thr0s]

does it mean to turn into small suns that could move freely around in space7time or do I understand you wrong there?rofl...I seriously doubt that but I suppose none of us can be sure what the longrange possibilities might be. I think that in order to understand the qualities of the *starbody* we need to scrutinize the classical qualties and characteristics of the gods themselves...particularly the more well developed of these. The ability to *stand down* as meta-human beings and still *fold up* as star-like beings is not at all unheard of so that may in fact be one of those longrange capabilities. In the shorter term I doubt this kind of thing would be immediately accessable but the ability to access higher states of energy & consciousness at will has pretty much always been predicted as a logical outcome of having balanced the books on the *godman* potential.

And yes, I would have to say I have definitely experienced aspects of this higher state of coexistence but the problem is typically one of being able to successfully maintain those states for very long. Things slide into and back out of sync so that we are able to observe these kinds of things intermittently but seem to lack a reliable methodology for stabilizing any of it.

It is very possible that our models are wrong to begin with and also that the methodology required is a great deal more technically exact that we have traditionally assumed. If these are anatomical issues moreso than *spiritual* ones, if this is actually all about physics itself...then our maps and our methods will be of paramount importance. We either get it right, or we just don't get it, for the mostpart...

m1thr0s

[Kain]

Very good post m1thr0s...

By the way, I should incidentally point out since this came up that other sources, such as certain texts relating to Theosophy and Agni Yoga, describe a course of evolution and Self-Realization that eventually culminates in the realization of a single consciousness (jiva) as a Solar Logos, which would pretty much be the subtle, conscious and directional potential behind what we perceive as a gross star. So I suppose that there are those who accept even the literal aspect of this assertion.

Kain

[Naomi]

I can demonstrate that this is in fact a point A to point B form during wormhole travel.

[m1thr0s]

that's very interesting Kain...I was unaware of that. The term *star* itself is subject to multiple possible interpretations of course. In looking at it from everything Abrahadabra seems to be implicating, I think that perhaps the term *universe* might actually be more technically accurate. But the term *star* is a little closer in cognitive proximity than *universe* I think. If you say every man and every woman is a star, you might even turn a few heads in the direction of trying to account for what that might actually mean. If you say every man and every woman is a universe, I think you will probably lose the vast majority of your potential audience. That's just a bit bigger bite than any of us is really capable of taking on all at once...

Moreover, I think that human beings are technically embryonic universes and the Earth itself is technically a universe nursery. You might think that this would make me and my ideas wildly popular but the truth is that there are not very many people who are willing and able to identify to such a lofty proposition...

m1thr0s

[Kain]

Well, there was a site where all the charts of Alice Bailey and DK's 'Esoteric Philosophy' series of books were assembled but it seems to be down at the moment. I found one of them here (http://www.kheper.net/integral/planes.html) and incidentally, the author of this page couples this with the I Ching, the 3 Gunas, Qabbalah and other similar systems so it might be worth a look. There was another chart though, similar to the one at the top of this page, which showed the evolutionary progression in relation to Planetary and Solar Logi...
You might think that this would make me and my ideas wildly popular but the truth is that there are not very many people who are willing and able to identify to such a lofty proposition...Heh, I guess you're right m1thr0s. In my mind, 'Universe' is more accurate a term perhaps although it is agreeable that both are quite far from what the majority can accept so it doesn't make much difference.

Kain

[Kuroyagi]

what surprises me is that also very seasoned hermetic and qblistic scholars seem to shit themselves when faced with this conception. I have always thought like that and never even thought about any thing else but applying cosmic consciousness to ours.

[m1thr0s]

If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, a little status is even worse. I think that *minority* philosophies/philosophers fall prey to this all the time...trying so hard to defend the little status they have obtained that they completely lose track of what they are actually all about and seek to revise those more dynamic distinctions so as to better meet with popular approval.

Qabbalah (for instance) is supposed to be all about *raising the foundation* of humankind itself! What's so damn confusing about that? Yet when pressed on this matter and the obvious *transhumanistic* implications going on with it, many qabbalists will simply turn tail and start going off about rhetorical blah-blah-blahs as though none of it ever did mean anything at all. Yeah, that Uncle Rhemus was such a character etc...

Since I have no Section 501(c)(3) to protect, I suppose I am free to say whatever the hell I think. I've seen a little status kill off a lot of otherwise good and powerful philosophies though...

m1thr0s

[Kuroyagi]

word up homie.:p thats also some of the problems I see with academic "professional" philosophy: people who are paid by the state to be "free thinkers" simply are- consciously or not- subjected to certain limitations. no wonder that the "real" natural philosophers- like Heraklitus- often spent much of their time with their primaray subject (ie nature) and the other time quarreling with others.

This (Ibisis check it out) is one point of critique I have with "school" (university)...though I very well see and completely support the idea of schooling per se. differentiation is important. [sorry, that reference pertains to my "zoints" profile where I more jokingly/"satanically" wrote "I spit on school" and Ibisis asked me about it, it fit in here, well.]

[Naomi]

Just as soon as we begin discussing the whole idea of human beings as "literal stars", we have a lot of difficult issues to be sorted out. So far as anybody knows, stars are a whole lot bigger than people and a whole lot hotter too. While the average person is packing maybe a 5-watt electrical charge, stars are packing millions of megawatts of raging thermonuclear energy. If it turns out that even stars are not the "real star"...that the "real star" is actually synonymous with whole universe itself...our supper pretty well just fell right off the plate. It's going to be a little difficult to bridge that kind of action, to be sure. While such notions may be attractive from an aesthetics point of view, from a logistical standpoint we have a few serious discrepancies to iron out before we can call this a doable sort of project. As long as we are getting literal, we have another problem to sort out as well: stars, as near as we can tell, are not technically immortal. While it has been speculated that some stars may have the ability to pass successfully through entire cycles from white to black and eventually back to white again (presumably perpetually), the vast majority of stars have a beginning and an end. This means that stars have themselves not really risen above the constraints of duality, but are in fact the great beacons of duality peppered across time and space. While we may achieve significant life extension by evolving into stars, for the most part we have no reason to think we would accomplish technical immortality. One cannot be both literal and not-literal at the same time, so that if human beings are literal stars of some kind, we will need to be able to answer what kind of stars they are before we can do anything deliberate about it.

Just a word in edgewise here, what are your thoughts concerning the new idea of stars not powered from a thermonuclear core? Most of the scientists working on the thermonuclear theory were sure that the theory would be supported by the sun itself, the way they prove it is by the neutrinos which are shed as a byproduct of the sun's thermonuclear nature. The detectors are put into place 1-2 miles underground - one was located in a mining facility in Africa. During this time almost zero solar neutrinos were detected. Apparently the sun SHOULD be shedding lots and lots of these if it is indeed powered by thermonuclear power. Here's an excerpt from Stellar Thermonuclear Energy: A False Trail? <


But dismay was slow in surfacing. After the first full year of fruitless effort in the search for solar neutrinos, Science News commented (July 20, 1968) that "it is a testament to the persistence of the neutrino astronomers and to the strength of their theoretical base that their intensive search for these ghost particles still goes on". Another four years were to pass, the "intensive search" continuing without interruption, before V. Trimble and Reines, discussing "The Solar Neutrino Problem - A Progress(?) Report," would concede that "The conflict between observation and theoretical prediction of the flux of . . . neutrinos from the sun has advanced from being merely difficult to understand to being impossible to live with" (Reviews of Modern Physics 45, 1, January 1973).
At a meeting of the International Astronomical Union in Warsaw late in 1973, W. A. Fowler of the California Institute of Technology reported that the status of the theory had gone from bad to worse. Instead of detecting about one neutrino per day, as previously estimated - and this only ten percent of the predicted number, the experimenters were recording only about one per month, and even this one might well be of extraneous origin. Actually, "the number of [solar] neutrinos reaching the earth . . . may even be essentially zero" (Scientific American, January 1974, p. 50).


As you said and I am repeating it to be sure I am understanding correctly, it is easy (relatively easy) to go from microcosm to macrocosm, whereas to go from microcosm to microcosm relative to the star model - evolving from man into star, is much more difficult, is that right?

So what I see when i relate this to the eastern methodologies of shamanistic journeying,the all-is-one mindset is easily achieved because it is always readily available, as one might expect from a standpoint of everything being deluded. yet within the same there are differing levels of consciousness and the goal of the practitioner was never to abandon this world entirely, but instead find new reaches of consciousness within the life giving waters of the abyss. (or as the Mesopotamians put it, the apsu)

Put more simply, becoming a buddha is only the first step in achieving unity with the stars themselves or something like that. I don't know. It makes some sense if you picture achieving unity with godhead and the supreme, or nirvana with building a pylon on one side of a river, and then picturing your earthly unenlightened self as being the counter pylon on the other side, and the *star* model as being the pylon in the middle of the river, with the bridge itself being the flowing unity of all three states of being. And of course, in the universe there would be trillions of different "midway points" aside from the star. The star is just the one we're needing to understand as a species. What do you think?

The other theory of the stars is one of an electrical universe, and this is slowly coming to the forefront of science though as stated in that article, plasma science is much more complicated and difficult to navigate. I'm sure it'll all come out in time, in the meanwhile I think I would be more willing to back the idea of an electrical (plasma) star model simply on the principle that electricity is much more friendly to humans than nuclear radiation...hell...

[Naomi]

This is stunning, I didn't even notice until just now the website that records the anti-thermonuclear theory stance is named Kronos Press. I had not even been thinking about Kronos since this morning over in the Killing Zeus thread (where we were discussing Cronus). I had just decided to go on the Abrahadabra board and address the star theory out of the blue because it's so important. Weird huh?

Well I don't know if it's a good thing, but it is evidence of the Tao....

Anyways the Kronos Journal of Interdisciplinary Synthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronos_(journal)) was founded to deal with Immanuel Velikovsky's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky) work, a theorist who worked with Einstein and proposed the theory that the Earth was ravaged by the close proximity of other planets in the solar system in the past.

There is evidence that it is a journal focused on pseudoscience, so I actually need to find a better source on the history of the plasmic sun theory, I'm not totally convinced of these guys being anything more than a bunch of fruitloops.

anyways just a bookmark...

Remember this thread?

http://forums.abrahadabra.com/showthread.php?t=1189

it's still bugging me

[m1thr0s]

I'm partial to the plasmic sun theory myself and in so many ways it fits the magickal paradigm much better than the nuclear sun theory, so if I have used the nuclear rhetoric, that's all it is...just a rhetoric. The term *nuclear* has another meaning to mutational alchemists anyway...

I'm a little confused by your use of macro & micro cosms but in general yes, it is a lot harder than we typically recognize- in part because it can't be faked...it isn't metaphorical and it is linked to the whole chain of evolutionary progression of our species both neurogenetically and at the level of knowledge...it is not something I can convince myself could have ever been achieved in the past, despite the fact that we have been bumping into it at intervals all along...

Certain kinds of progress require being in the right place at the right time to occur, particularly those things whose technical knowhow may necessitate an extended series of steps spanning numerous generations of humankind...with respect to some things at least, we really are all in this together. Occultists don't usually like to hear that and I understand this...I don't like it either but I am convinced that some things involve the group dynamic even if the group - in general - is either too damn dumb or oblivious to consciously embrace the reality.

m1

[Naomi]

Why are we going nowhere with all of this? It seems like such a long time since anybody really took a serious glance over here, and we're still working through outdated crap. What the hell is going on here? It's like people's minds are stuck in mud.

[m1thr0s]

???

Sorry...I don't understand your question...

m1

[Naomi]

I mean the star model, why arn't more occultists working on it?

edit:

I know it's not a fair question, I'm running all my circuits right now, bear with me...

yes, this is me being emotional...

[m1thr0s]

well...it isn't *trendy* is it?

and in my experience people barely scan the surface on this stuff and imagine they've seen it all already and move on...rofl...

where they think they are going I have no idea...nor do I especially give a damn I guess.

I think you have to come to terms with the fact that very few occultists are actually very reality oriented...maybe 1/1000 from what I have ever witnessed...

So the odds are against us in what is a very small pool to begin with...

m1

[Naomi]

You're right, I don't care either I suppose. it doesn't need to be extended at all. The truth of it all has to be sought by the practitioner.

Why is it so difficult to extrapolate answers from the hexagrammal fields themselves, is it because, as human beings, we are so infinitesimally tiny in comparison? Are we so far behind that we may never catch up? Or is the timing, like the Tao, perfected?

[m1thr0s]

well it's not necessarily...both the binary and ternary systems were well developed oracles for instance, but as your perceptions change, your sense of what the images really are may change as well so there can come a lapse as a result of this uncertainty.

That's one of the reasons I developed a deck around them for instance (which no one has seen yet I guess)...because I became less and less convinced of the relevance of the traditional images etc...even though they still have a certain resonance in certain cases...

so I guess my best guess is that it's all transitional...

m1

[Naomi]

No, I havn't seen it!!!!

m1thr0s are you saying this is all transitional? Really?

[m1thr0s]

The Tai Hsuan Ching itself forces us to reevaluate the way we read hexagrams since it is based on a different logic than the eight kua...rather we see a system that is much more elemental and is combining the 9 ternary bigrams in sets of either 2 or 3 for a grand total of 81 tetragrams or 729 hexagrams. The entire paradigm shifts over to a different kind of language and since the 64 binary hexagrams are a subset of the 729 ternaries, we are naturally forced to read them differently as well.

So this whole challenge to the eight kua doesn't begin with me and it opens up the door to the genetic code itself and a different way of *talking* at the neurogenetic level...a different way of interacting with the hexagrams at the level of archetypal imagery...

So yeah...transitional...like having to relearn the rules of music for instance...

m1thr0s

[Naomi]

omg I just realized....I love the ternary bigrams and the hexagrams more than anything else in the whole world

[m1thr0s]

a love that lasts if you can find it to begin with...

and surely this will not be generally apprehended...so you know...screw 'em.

reality creationists have to focus on wholes, not partials and sure as hell not self-aggrandized splinters...

Hadit addresses this issue in Liber al as have many others...sometimes you just have to cut bait and go...

m1

[MythMath]

omg I just realized....I love the ternary bigrams and the hexagrams more than anything else in the whole world
Well I can certainly understand this strange statement...

I have been buzzing all day reading my newly acquired book:
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q48/MythMath/WALTERSTHCCOVERcopy.jpg

[Naomi]

yay mythmath!!

[m1thr0s]

good book...should clear up many little confusions...

m1

[Kuroyagi]

That book looks good....(didnt know it thanks for the recommendation.) :)

[MythMath]

Published in '83, but out of print...

Used copies are out there,
though, even via amazon, etc...

[Kuroyagi]

Yes I was lucky yesterday when I ordered it ('twas the last one they had on German amazon/marketplace...ordered it from a seller in the States...)

[m1thr0s]

lol...apparently repetition should not be discredited as a vital communication strategy...

By all means, snag this translation if you can get it...there does not exist any other treatise on the Tai Hsuan Ching that is anywhere near as lucid.

And unfortunately, there are exactly none that are truly definitive at present.

This one is good at least and consistent with the rest of Yin-Yang philosophy as we have it.

m1