From: iew21308@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Ian E. Wickram)
Subject: Re: Crowley's Soul and Annata
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 04:34:22 GMT

shava@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Shava Nerad Averett) writes:

>In article <1992Apr7.230921.15767@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> iew21308@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Ian E. Wickram) writes:
>>As most of you are aware I'm sure, Frater      
>>Perdurabo was want to borrow or absorb many ideas from Buddhist teachings, yet
>>it seems to me like many Western sholars of the time he never trully absorbed
>>the truth of Annata into practice which is a central doctrine of the Dharma.  
>>Annata if you are unfamiliar with Buddhist Dharma is a rather puzzling doctrine
>>to Westerners as it basically states that humans have no permanent self, or
>>soul.  Yet I find Crowley constantly suggesting or expressedly stating a  
>>permanence of self even though one can of course find exceptions, and even
>>n accurate description of Annata in the Confessions.  I find this point highly
>>troubling personally as I approach Buddhism and look back to what I've revered
>>before.

>Did I ever read this in Crowley?  I haven't read the whole autohag rag...

>However, I can describe my ideas about this to you.  

>I believe (for no particularly expressible reason) that the individual is
>like a ripple on the surface of the ocean, just a passing phenomenon that
>has no permanance nor any particular individual reality in some senses.
>However, I believe that all the other wavelets believe in the individual
>existance of each wavelet, and energy of individual waves gets distributed
>as memory.

Interesting, if I understand this correctly this is a form of Monism not that  
different from that of Berkely's position.  
But what I had really wanted here with my original posting was a debate as to
wether or not Crowley had retained the Dharma of Annata within the Drrsti of
Thelema. I contend that the higher self emerging from the void is really the   
Hindu Equation of annihlaton of self (atman) with the merging to Brahmin, and
not therefor compatible with the dharma of Buddhism.  In Buddhaism it would
be iinnapropriate to speak of anything emerging from the void or even to imply 
that there was anything to emerge from (voidness of the void, ala Ngargna).
Although someone a few weeks ago asked me to look closer at the issue of the 
Higher Self, everytime I do so I still find the equation of Brahmin=Higher
Self. Someone last week supported my assertion that Crowley deviated from the
Dharma by quoting from the Book of Lies I believe, to the effect that Crowley
had some displeasure with the truth of Dubka.  What I would like to know now is
given this not so suprising discrepency how many of you would take the         
authority of Frater Perdurabo over Sakiyamuni Buddha?      
	I am suprised a certain personality whom enjoys quoting the Law on both
	this and the soc.religion.eastern group has not entered this           
	discussion yet.  I once read a claim he made to be 
	of the black school which I beleieve Crowley once said were individuals
	whom did not emerge from the void.  Yet this would mean Sakiyamuni
	never emerged, and Crowley specifically identifies him in Magick
	Without Tears with the White; is this another discrepency? 
		The former question as to the authority of the persons of
		Sakiyamuni vs Perdurabo is more important to me.(and
		can probally be answered by anyone)
					Still looking for the Cloud,
					 Upon the Sanctuary,
						Yrs,
							Ian Wickram!!!
							iew21308
							@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu


Be Realistic,
Expect a Miracle!
Bag Sri Raj.

>belief is flexible on this -- I just can't see any *reason* to believe in
>either, although I can see where a number of different models have their
>own lessons to teach.  Since I am not afraid of the concept of the 
>anhilalation of the ego/self at death, I find it to be the least-effort
>working theory, personally and logically.

>To be more explicit -- I don't believe in the soul in the sense of the
>western idea of the creature.  I believe that the energy of the temporarily
>coalesced self is reabsorbed into the universe.  On the other hand, I 
>believe in the potential immortality (or endurance) of one's works.
>Chogyam Trungpa, Crowley, and bunches of other people (including lots of
>folks currently alive, like my parents) are continued in their influence
>in the world through my acts, which are influenced by their acts.  Some
>of these people I have never met except through their influence indirectly
>via writing or other cultural influences.  Some of them I don't even 
>know by name -- it always fascinates me to find out where I picked up an
>idea through, say, my father, from some random philosopher or theologian.

>Is this an immortality of sorts?  Perhaps.  Perhaps I am just finding 
>harmonics in myself.  Perhaps I am deluding myself that I have any 
>commonalities with these folks' ideas at all (but I doubt that...).

>-- 
>Shava Nerad Averett				shava_averett@unc.edu
>/*  all materials (c)1992, Shava Nerad Averett, and have nothing significant
>    to do with the University of North Carolina, a mostly owned subsidiary 
>    of the NC Legislature, a mostly owned subsidiary of the DOT.      */