Amado-Crowley.net

[Radfahrer]

Yes, thanks Poor Tom. Good to see you entering into the discussion.

I for one, think I realised that. My point, at least, is that there cannot be 'this' world without 'that' connection. It is not that there isn't a spiritual connection. It is just that it may not be realised and actively participated in. By ignoring it, it doesn't mean that it isn't there. It is not two, not separate, but one, whatever we might think. If anything it is our being 'unaware' of how everything is inextricably linked. The fault is in not in materialism, that we are underlings, but in ourselves.

And that there is nothing wrong with being 'well off' if you are aware and not using it to try and drown that awareness out, or to push/pull away from it.

Perhaps I am being 'picky' again Sofia? But the connection is always there, possibly just not acted upon. And I might even argue that just being aware of the spiritual connection would not be enough without participating and making one's life an expression of that - rich or poor or otherwise. I might further add being poor can hamper expression significantly and may equally indicate a lack of awareness of that connection.
_________________
In hac spe vivo: Pericles

[Sofia Moon]

hi Radfahrer,

No, I don't think you are being picky, but just clarifying your meaning.
Words are only symbols, aren't they? Often we need a lot of discussion to each come close to a central idea.
One must begin with a 'universal set of symbols' so as to establish the ground upon which the ideas exist, before moving on to a deeper understanding and communication.
So, in this respect, by 'a spiritual connection', and 'being intimately connected to the divine', what I imply is that one is on one's destined path. On that path one may or may not have an outward expression of spirituality.
For example: when my grandmother died Amado said to me "Don't worry, things will be wonderful for her." It was very comforting, and I didn't worry about her; but I doubt that he would have said that if it were not true in some sense. My grandmother was not in any way religious or spiritual. She was a good person, and expressed that as she felt to be right. But if things were good for her after death, then she must have had that 'connection' in some way, and she must have been on her right, destined, path. So, then, as you say, one does not have to be aware of the spiritual connection for it to exist.
Equally, just being aware of an inherent spirituality- without acting upon it- is not enough.

I am not sure that it always exists, though. Except in the sense that we are 'spiritual creatures'. The core of our identity is the soul- that which is intimately connected with the divine.
Perhaps some people don't have a connection, or break it somewhere along the way, severing the connection irreversibly. Some people can be so far from their destined path that the reality is that they will never get back to it.

Being rich, poor, or indifferent doesn't have much to do with spirituality and destiny. As you say, being poor could be as much a hinderance as being rich.
I remember Amado saying: "It is only the poor that complain about the inequality of wealth- rich people don't seem to mind!" Such a nice way to put it.
Some people are destined to be rich, some aren't... I don't think it particually matters. Both can be difficult paths. Both conditions can hinder or help. One mustn't neglect one's real destiny.

You say: "There cannot be 'this' world without 'that' connection... "
as in all things are created by and sustained by, and linked to, the divine, if I understand correctly?
In that sense, all things are equally connected to the divine.
Having a 'spiritual connection' implies that one is aware of the divine, and acts upon that awareness.
This may not be a conscious comprehension, but more of an intuitive response to conscience which motivates one to live a 'good life', and to instinctively remain on one's destined route towards the unification with the divine.
A conscious apprehension of a spiritual connection, and acting upon that with will to move closer to God and fulfil one's destiny, is preferable.

[Bobster]

Lots of interesting posts here.

Sofia said:

-Like Amado, Aleister was aware of the time of his due death... but unlike Amado, he died before that time.

I would probably disagree with your statement Sofia, I think Amado died before his time. It came sudden and unexpected.

-Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven."

From what I remember the eye of a needle is an expression meaning a narrow alley. Easier to go through it than a rich man with all his wealth and I agree the gospel has alot to teach us if we understand its symbols and metaphors.

Radfahrer said:
-Sometimes, I think that we expect to see something more than what we are already participating in, but the subtlety is what alludes us.

I like what you've said here very much and this is especially the case when it comes to magic and the occult.

[Sofia Moon]

hi Bobster,
Sudden and expected, but to whom? To Amado?
As early as 2000 he said that he was 'entering into the final phase' of his journey in this life.. 'like an aeroplane approaching the runway'.
But, it doesn't really matter that much now. Or does it?
You say that you think he died before his due time... why do you say that? Is it because you weren't expecting it?
Think of the implications of that statement, if it were true. Did the gods let the master die before his due time, before his destined hour?
If so, why?

[Bobster]

Morning Sofia

-Sudden and expected, but to whom? To Amado?

To Amado. I was surprised and shocked but from the description of the french of what happened in France, I don't think Mike was expecting what was to come.

-if it were true. Did the gods let the master die before his due time, before his destined hour?If so, why?

I don't know

[Steve]

[Sofia Moon]

why not just ask Amado?

[Radfahrer]

He was in pretty good hands when he died. He was not alone like Aleister. He died peacefully.
_________________
In hac spe vivo: Pericles

[Radfahrer]

As far as I know there isn't any doctrine that says a Master MUST know when he will die, even though there seems to be some tradition of their claiming to know. Even if a Master does, what if his prediction proves wrong? Nothing is indelibly written - except when it becomes the past. The Gods might have seen fit to finish Amado's life all the sooner, despite whatever else he expected, who knows? And Amado made predictions that didn't come true. The ground of the future shifts according to what happens today.

The "Final phase" of one's life is a relative term. It need not mean in the very near future or any specific time. Shakespeare's sixth phase of life would be the penultimate, and the seventh the final.

'Prediction theory' is covered amply in his talks.

The question isn't whether he was fallible or not, because in many ways he was, of his own admission. He knew better what it was to be human.

The question is to what extent would a student's faith hold learning that he might have been wrong at times, or that he was not what they expected a Master to be? I think it is irrelevant his knowing or not. It was the way he lived and the way he died that counts. And what he taught each of us in his own wonderful/terrible/variable way.
_________________
In hac spe vivo: Pericles

[Steve]