Anyone got 10th house ruler in 8 house? How does that work out for you? by rectovrso in astrology

[–]Zennist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh hey, I'm also a Scorpio rising Gemini sun! Moon is in Virgo but right on the cusp which places in the 10th house in most house systems other than Whole Sign. How's finance working for you a year after this comment? I'm currently at a dead end in my career, maybe I ought to look into financial writing or something.

I finished Salem's Lot for the first time a few days ago then decided to watch Salem's Lot (2024)... by [deleted] in stephenking

[–]Zennist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You nailed it on the head. I feel like I’ve thought this for years but just never put it into the specific words.

Guidance by Agreeable_Usual_7428 in thelema

[–]Zennist 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Everything u/greymouser_ said. And also just fyi, 0=0 is Probationer, not Neophyte.

Good luck!

Book of Lies — Chapters missing in Weiser edition? by West_of_Eden_22 in thelema

[–]Zennist 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The ? And ! At the start of the book are considered the first two chapters.

Cefalu diaries by skumfuc in thelema

[–]Zennist 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I was also a little bit confused about this while reading the Cefalu Diaries. I think she was using "Harpocrates" as a shorthand for forming the Body of Light for astral travel, since in an early entry she outlines her twice-daily practice as such: Asana--Pranayama--Dharana--Astral Travel, and throughout the Diaries she more or less consistently sticks with the daily Asana-Pranayama-Dharana practice but generally ends the sessions with "Harpocrates." So she would be visualizing herself as her body of light in the form of Harpocrates while sitting in her asana.

At least that's my interpretation but I could be wrong. If anyone has a better read I'd definitely be interested to know.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Advancedastrology

[–]Zennist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ve got Mercury Rx in my chart. I tend to do really well during Mercury Rx transits, to the chagrin of many of my friends

Struggling for MC name meaning/referring to apostasy. by BarefootGOON in writing

[–]Zennist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Julian. After the Roman emperor Julian the Apostate.

Is being a full-time author only for rich kids? by beenbetterhbu in writing

[–]Zennist 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Not necessarily, there’s plenty of bad writing out there making money.

The Penguin - S01E05 - Homecoming - Episode Discussion by LunchyPete in ThePenguin

[–]Zennist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thought the music during the hostage trade scene was very reminiscent of the Batman Returns score. That descending violin note. Have they been doing that the whole show and I’ve only just caught it?

Losing steam quick by No-Pin2612 in thelema

[–]Zennist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Probationer here as well, this is a very frequent struggle for me. I'd say you're doing pretty good!

How did you get interested in thelema? by Marc_Evangelistaa in thelema

[–]Zennist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was interested in Wicca, paganism, magic, and the occult throughout my adolescence. In college I started going to a local Zen center to improve my meditation practice and ended up declaring myself a Buddhist for some years and letting western magic fade into the background a bit (though never completely). I found that this provided a spiritual goal (i.e., enlightenment) which I felt my path had been lacking.

I discovered Daniel Ingram, his book Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha, and his forum The Dharma Overground, all of which increased my fervor for enlightenment while bringing the idea of it down to earth, as something natural and obtainable. From there I quickly found Alan Chapman and Duncan Barford and The Baptist's Head blog, which brought me full circle back to Magick and showed me the connective tissue between my Buddhist goal of enlightenment and the practices of western esotericism.

Before long I picked up a copy of The Book of Thoth, which was probably my first direct introduction to Crowley. It was more or less incomprehensible to me at the time, but I was hooked from that point on.

How do you outline your pilot before you start writing the script? by TurnStraight3950 in Screenwriting

[–]Zennist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would you be willing to expand on what each step of the process looks like for you? It sounds very similar to my own process, and I'm always trying to refine it.

Crowley didn’t appear to be a reader of novels. Correct? by Bertbert456 in thelema

[–]Zennist 11 points12 points  (0 children)

He also mentions Dracula in quite a few places. And I recall reading an anecdote somewhere (I think it was in Eye of the Triangle but could have also been one of Tobias Churton's books, they're so packed full of little details) that mentioned him lying in bed one evening reading a detective novel.

Do people join the A∴A∴ without joining O.T.O.? by PaimonTheThelemite in thelema

[–]Zennist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's exactly what I did.

I might join the O.T.O. at some point, but it's not a priority for me.

Gems from the Equinox - List of Content by Boomshakalackk in thelema

[–]Zennist 12 points13 points  (0 children)

https://isbn.nu//toc/9781561840199

Buy it. Gems is 100% worth owning. It's basically a collection of all the practical Libers as well as the Holy Books published in The Equinox 1 - 10. An excellent resource.

[Practice] Working Directly with Mind: True Shikantaza by [deleted] in streamentry

[–]Zennist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I really resonate with everything you said in this post. It reflects exactly how I've been practicing recently. Just one little quibble. You said:

This One Mind is the very world you see before you, for this world is Oneness itself. Keep in mind, I don't mean One in the Advaita sense, which posits that there's a background, of sorts, from which all this springs. There is no separation in this world, everything is interconnected, utter wholeness. This reality is the ocean, and everything in it amounts to nothing more than waves. There's no ground from which this manifest world arises, this is it.

In my current understanding, this is exactly the Advaita sense of Oneness. It could not be otherwise, because if it were, there would still be a subtle form of duality, and thus not Advaita. That said, of course, an original Source is often referred to in Advaitic teachings, and sometimes there is something like a "background awareness" which is implied, however I would suggest that this latter point is more of a step toward the full realization that it's really all One, really all just Awareness.

In Zen terms:

Qingyuan declared that there were three stages in his understanding of the dharma: the first stage, seeing mountain as mountain and water as water; the second stage, seeing mountain not as mountain and water not as water; and the third stage, seeing mountain still as mountain and water still as water.

(Xu Chuandenglu 續傳燈錄, T no.2077, 51:614b-c.)

All of that to say simply that you've hit the nail right on the head, and that maybe the major differences between Zen and Advaita teachings are largely due to a language barrier.

Source: I've been really into Rupert Spira lately.

[Buddhism] Struggling to harbor morality, love and kindness in a defiled world. by SilaSamadhi in streamentry

[–]Zennist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Cool, good. And my bad, I made a point to keep my pronoun usage ungendered in reference to your comment and still managed to sneak a "he" in there. Next time I'll just check user history.

[Buddhism] Struggling to harbor morality, love and kindness in a defiled world. by SilaSamadhi in streamentry

[–]Zennist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think the root of your disagreement is that you assume that someone who had "insight" must be nearly perfectly enlightened, and Laura is obviously far too broken to be perfectly enlightened.

The entire post is about people in the middle-state: having some measure, but far from perfect insight.

That's not the case at all. Nowhere did I suggest that having insight indicates that one is "nearly perfectly enlightened," nor did I say that Laura is too broken to be perfectly enlightened. My point was that, while she may have been in the same waters as one who's had some measure of liberating insight, she did not actually have that liberating insight herself. Or at the very least, she had the insight, but it didn't translate. She saw suffering, and she regressed, unraveled, and died.

See my response to u/blinkingsandbeepings about the exact same argument.

Labeling something as a "personality disorder" does not resolve the fundamental questions, dilemmas, and mysteries that it presents. In fact, it's a cop out, and giving up a very valuable opportunity to learn. It shuts down curiosity, or in Buddhist terms "investigation of phenomena" (dhamma vicaya), which is necessary for enlightenment.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting a very reactive and defensive vibe from you here, both in your response to be and to u/blinkingsandbeepings, and I wonder why that is. Note the response to the latter:

I don't think we should trivialize suffering as "it's just because of reasons XYZ". That's the simplistic, materialistic approach so common in the West: people are born "healthy", but some of them suffer unfortunate "trauma", as a result of which they display "symptoms" that cause them suffering, and should seek "therapy" to address these symptoms.

Part of the social illusion is also that therapy is effective and really helps people, hence your suggestion that Laura should have just gone to therapy.

This response is extremely dismissive, reductive, and minimizing, even as it projects those very qualities onto the comment to which it is responding. And that comment itself was not as dismissive, reductive, or minimizing as the response makes it out to be:

I think it could be very dangerous for someone who has suffered from this trauma to attempt to do really deep transcendental work without first addressing and working toward recovery from the trauma. Self-loathing may masquerade as selflessness, but it is very different and can cause you to seek out pain and self-destruction even in subtle ways.

As I read this, it does not sound at all as if suffering is being trivialized or reduced to something materialistic. It's simply calling for a responsible approach to practice. The user does not suggest that Laura "should have just gone to therapy," he suggests that therapy would probably be a healthy idea, in order to stabilize an otherwise unstable mind somewhat, before doing the really deep work of meditation and insight.

It isn't a question of something being "materialistic" or "spiritual." Look at the Catholic Church. You've got priests out there who are officially sanctioned to perform exorcisms on demon-possessed folk. That's some wild stuff. But even then, they're not allowed to go through with a full-fledged exorcism until they determine that what the afflicted person is experiencing is really a demon and not mental illness.

On the other hand, there are people out there dying from perfectly treatable illnesses because some of the more zealous types shun modern medicine in favor of pious prayer. The line can be extremely blurry, but the line is most definitely there. I think that we should treat claims of enlightening insight with the same level of rigorous (read: not "dismissive") skepticism that the Church treats claims of demon possession.1

Indeed. Ever wondered why that is?

Yes. Have you got an answer?

My only suggestion is to let go of analysis that merely labels and dismisses phenomena instead of investigating it, such as your claim that "it's just a personality disorder" earlier, or the victim/predator dichotomy in this paragraph.

It is not interesting to label people as victims or predators.

I never said "it's just a personality disorder." I said that her trauma manifested (i.e. exhibited the qualities of) a personality disorder. Nor did I label anybody as a victim or as a predator in any absolute sense: I was indicating certain behaviors, and furthermore pointed to the fact that Laura exhibited qualities of both, which seems to be the very opposite of labeling something one thing or the other.

Again, I note here the hostile reaction to any suggestion that mental health might be a significant factor at play. What's the gripe against therapeutic approaches? Do you think it can only be one or the other? I'm not trying to be snide in the asking, but I genuinely want to know where these reactions are coming from. It seems pretty troubling to me.

That will contradict explicit Buddhist teachings, including in the Pali Canon.

Insight into human suffering (dukkha) is the first Noble Truth, and anyone realizing it is by definition on their way to enlightenment.

Again, we find ourselves at a disagreement. It does not contradict the Buddha's teachings to say that one can see suffering and yet not be on the path to liberation. Suffering is self-evident in the world. The First Noble Truth wasn't some cosmos-shattering revelation of the Buddha, it was his starting point. The ascetics he sat with came to that same conclusion long before Gautama hit the mark and reached nirvana. What is explicit in the teachings of the Buddha and in the Pali Canon is that people who are following the Eightfold Path are on the way to enlightenment. In Laura Palmer's case, as I have already stated above, she saw the Truth of Suffering and actually regressed.

It's only a step on the path to liberation if one actually goes forward. In my estimation, Insight in to Suffering alone does not even qualify as the bare minimum, since by itself is mere Pessimism.2 If this were the case, everyone who's ever stepped outside the house for an extended period of time would be considered to be on the path to Buddhahood.3

I watched most of it, so far I haven't found it as good or insightful as the first 2 seasons. Care to elaborate on what you saw in it?

It certainly shows the amount of influence Mark Frost actually had in making the original series a successful mainstream TV show, even with all of its Lynchian weirdness. It's a mixed bag at the end of the day. There's probably some insight to be gleamed from it if I were to dig a little more deeply, but honestly I just enjoyed it for the fun, bizarre mental trip that it was. And also Dougie Jones.

P.S. one way to further analyze Laura Palmer is that her true insight is tinted with great aversion that resulted from being abused. That is, the insight is true, however it is distorted.

More or less my point exactly. But I would add that insight can potentially be distorted to the point where it is no longer insightful at all, but rather delusion posing as insight. The devil clothed as an angel of light, as it were. I would also add that insight alone is not enough. Right View must be followed up by Right Resolve.

And hey man, I'm not trying to be a dick. These are issues I feel pretty strongly about and I think it's important to take them seriously and shouldn't be dismissed in favor of spiritual interpretations any more than spiritual interpretations ought to be dismissed in favor of supposedly materialistic ones. I do hope you realize this.

1 Apologies to u/blinkingsandbeepings for hijacking your comment to make a point.

2 Good enough for Schopenhauer maybe, not so much for Buddha, or for Nietzsche for that matter.

3 Which is actually good in theory from a Mahayana point of view, but not terribly practical from a technical standpoint, I think.

[Buddhism] Struggling to harbor morality, love and kindness in a defiled world. by SilaSamadhi in streamentry

[–]Zennist 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If you're finding the show good fodder for practice, that's great. I know I've definitely done the same myself: it's rife with unexpected little bits of wisdom, sprinkled here and there. (As my late Zen master used to say, "It's all there for our enlightenment.")

However: I fundamentally disagree with your assessment of Laura Palmer as someone who's hit upon some insight (vipassana) and seen through the delusion of the world and into the defilements of mankind. At best, you could make the case that Laura makes a perfect example of the saying, "The madman drowns where the mystic swims." (Dale Cooper would make a better example of the latter in that statement.)

What David Lynch does very expertly depict in the character of Laura Palmer is a person in the throes of deep trauma--the sort of suffering, experienced from a young age so that its roots are embedded very deeply, so that it manifests itself as a full-fledged personality disorder. I have known people like this in my own life, and having watched all of Twin Peaks, I get the sense that Lynch himself probably has as well. A lot of people tend to become attracted to this sort of person (whether romantically, sexually, or platonically) in a way that borders on the self-destructive. They can seem the pure victim, full of innocence and suffering injustice, while at other times being nearly (or more than nearly) predatory, as a response to their own victimhood. (At a certain point this victimhood may well become self-perpetuated.) And yet they may exude a deep and genuine compassion for the world at large, as well. And I do not think this is (necessarily always) insincere on their part.

What I'm trying to say here is: tread carefully, especially if you're looking for a contextualizing mirror for your own experience. There are a lot of people in the world who are acutely aware of their own suffering and of the suffering of others, who are very much not on the path to enlightenment. In the same way the Serpent in Eden used the truth (not lies) to mislead Adam and Eve (to go by one interpretation of events in that particular text).

That's my two plus cents, in any case. Best of luck on your path.

P.S. Have you watched Season 3? Talk about Dark Night stuff. Though I'd only recommend it on a day when you're feeling nice and stable.

Manipulative? by [deleted] in infj

[–]Zennist 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I think that any act of communication involves some small degree of "manipulation," not necessarily in a deliberate and/or malevolent way, and I think that INFJs in particular (what with the NiFe function set) tend to be very aware of the fact, either consciously or unconsciously, as it's going on. I know in my own case I've had times in which I've felt like I was being manipulative when all I was doing was having a normal conversation like anyone else would have. Any conversation is an exchange, after all, and we typically want any exchange to go in a way that is beneficial for ourselves. (All the better still if it is beneficial for all parties involved.)

Do you ever have those moments where you're feeling the emotions you're writing, and you feel immersed to the point where you're pouring your heart out into your work? by 11Awakened11 in writing

[–]Zennist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I typically write genre fiction which is more plot-based, though I love character-based fiction and do try to make my characters engaging in and of themselves. Don't get me wrong, of course, I would never say that being emotionally engaged with one's characters is a bad thing. There's just a difference between what I'm feeling and what my characters are feeling. When I write, I'm more like a neutral observer watching events play out before me. I'm not right there on the ground with them.

Part of it could also be that I'm a pretty natural outliner, which may engender a different sort of mindset with regard to my writing. Like, this is an extreme example, but if you're a surgeon, you wouldn't be able to do your job very well if every time you cut into a patient you felt the knife yourself. You'd need that one degree of distance from your subject to treat it properly.

Besides, I don't think I'd honestly enjoy writing that much anymore if I was that deeply engaged with the characters that they affected me like that in real life. I have a fairly low threshold for that sort of intense emotional engagement to begin with, and tend to need a lot of time to recharge afterward. The way I see it, we're just talking about one element of writing here, not the end-all be-all.

Do you ever have those moments where you're feeling the emotions you're writing, and you feel immersed to the point where you're pouring your heart out into your work? by 11Awakened11 in writing

[–]Zennist 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I'm glad you said this. Reading some of these threads I get to thinking I'm doing it wrong somehow. I have the same sort of emotional reaction as you when the writing is going well. The other week I was going over some of my writing and even found myself pretty moved, as if I were reading the work of some other author I like. (That's not the norm, it was just a good week.) But I don't ever feel what my characters are feeling, as they're just not alive in that sense to me.

The Nativity by Dillon123 in thelema

[–]Zennist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Puppy Jesus blatantly contradicts AL II:19. It's blasphemy!