|
|
Quantum wroat: [trivia]The human consciousness can hold more than 7 things at once, you are thinking of the digit span which is 7 +/- 2. [/trivia]
Actually, I was trying to quote from memory whatever it is that Sir Miles tells his assistant at the beginning of the coronation of the Moonchild. Sort of a parenthetical joke that fell flat.
Illmatic illed: Seems strange to focus on 5 different points stimultaneously.
The way I understand it is that since the chakras/Qabballic "trunk"/Gurdjieffian "minds" all contain certain intrinsic information, trying to light them up simultaneously not only gives one access to greater awareness of one's whole self, stimulating areas of the brain oftentimes dormant or rarely multitasking, but also greater awareness through the body, allowing one to perceive what might ordinarily be background noise. I think the point to making them correspond to certain colors is so that you're forced to stretch in order to have all five online.
Illmatic: I think we often get caught up in trying to replicate what we read in books - or rather, what we imagine we have read. I know I do. We attribute or project definitive authority onto books which, possibly, they don't deserve. We all want a faultless guru who's going to tell us what to do, I suppose (subject for another thread perhaps). It's only this guys experience after all, maybe your experience will be very different, maybe he's talking a load of old chakras. I think a superior approach is too see whatever it written as a template for a creative approach, stick to it and/or play with it as you see fit, there's no way to get it "right" or "wrong". Think for yourself - your experience should always have precedence over what you read.
Preaching to the choir over here. The reason why I find this particular fella's perspective compelling is that he attempts to approach magickal practice as a science, so much as one is able to without forcing a certain dogma of who you need to pray to or whether you should beat off with the right hand or left, overhand or underhand. (I know there's going to be someone reading this who's ready to pounce with, "If you think all magick is is beating off to sigils rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb..." YES. I KNOW. IT'S A JOKE. CALM DOWN.) I think his emphasis is not so much on any one technique, but explaining a possible skeletal structure, with more room than not for experimentation as befits the user and the purpose. No, I don't need to do this exercise precisely as he prescribes... but until I find another technique that rings as true as his does, or until I've got enough experience to make my own path, why don't I keep it to the bunny trails for now?
[beat... "skiing metaphor"... no, I don't ski... no, I've never had sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky...]
I really wish I had someone around here who's read the damn Cooper book and could back me up when I say it doesn't smack of dogma or demagoguery. I'm not a desperate, easily-imprinted sheep, after all; I don't need answers, just the right questions.
VJB2 |
|
|