From: shava@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Shava Nerad Averett)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Crowley's Soul and Annata
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:35:45 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

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.

I don't believe in an afterlife, nor do I believe in reincarnation.  My
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.      */