User talk:Scyrme/Archive Q1 2022

Some points

Re Augoeides, see Luminous mind and Illusory body, the latter from the Six Dharmas of Naropa. That is part of Mahamudra, the Great Seal, which is to say the Magick of Union, Star Sapphire, etc.

Re natural structure for our current project - it's not an exact parallel, but this is what I've done with the Tibetan tradition of Dzogchen. Curiously, Thelemic magic appears to fall into a similar structure, while the previous Hermetic (G.D.) magical structure is more five-fold. Quite curious. Skyerise (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Skyerise: To clarify, are you suggesting Crowley's "body of light" is derived from the Buddhist luminous mind or illusory body, and not the astral body of the Neo-Platonic tradition (more precisely, the interpretation of it common to Theosophy and the Golden Dawn)? Tbh, it seems like a stretch based on what I know, but if you know differently I'd be interested in learning more. Conceivably Crowley could have synthesised the two traditions, but I've not seen anything to affirm that. I don't see anything particularly Buddhist about it, but you're more familiar with Vajrayana Buddhism than I am so you might see a connection I don't. As far as I can see, the "body of light" section unambiguously describes the "astral body" as conceptualised by people like Blavatsky, ie. a synthesis of the Neo-Platonic concept of the augoeides okhema and Vedantic subtle body.

Re: structure, I think I see what you mean by the comparison (Ground, Path, Fruit), but I'll get back to you later when I have some more time. -- Scyrme (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I doubt Crowley did because afaik, he never had access to Vajrayana except maybe Avalon's translation of the Chakrasamvara tantra (of course his Buddhist teacher started in the Golden Dawn, so who knows what he may have combined). But there was certainly interchange between Greece and India - originally it was not permitted to make images of the Buddha, but the Greeks, not being so restricted, made the first Buddha images to Greek standards (to sell to the Buddhists). But it seems there are natural parallels that arise in the descriptions of the process from multiple sources. To point this out would be OR. But to use that knowledge to our advantage in presenting the material will make it make much more sense to the reader. I am not actually writing much text, some intros to new sections, etc., but rather rearranging the presentation of the existing material... (that Dzogchen article was a jumbled mess, history mixed with practice, etc. when I started.) Skyerise (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

By the way, Body of light seems to be redirected where it is only due to someone tagging Crowley on at the end of the article. Perhaps move current Augoeides there and make it a section. Skyerise (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

So, thinking about it, there seems to be three systems of this... the Tibetan luminous mind and illusory body; the Indic/Hindu derived systems are covered in subtle body, and the western esoteric tradition is in astral body; body of light would be Thelemic way of referring to it. Three systems, three articles. It might be best resurrect body of light as astral body tends to get linked to all the other Theosophical causal, etheric, and what not bodies, while the astral body/body of light we are speaking of is much simpler and doesn't really go into that kind of hierarchical detail. The dividing point seems to be Theosophy - it and its derivatives use the subtle body - while the magical side uses body of light. In the long run, we should have those two and astral body should then redirect to subtle body, with body of light covering the Hermetic side. That way we get rid of the confusion of astral body being a term used in Theosophy which makes the subject of that article broader than it should be, repeating material also in subtle body. Skyerise (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Skyerise: I'm going to reply to everything now to get my thoughts out while they're fresh. I apologise for the length of my reply; I tend to overthink. I would appreciate if we could focus on only one of these at a time. Dealing with everything all at once is a bit much. -- Scyrme (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Replies

Guardian angel

You did not reply to me regarding our dispute there; are you waiting on Kryn? I think they're probably not interested in reading through all we've said and figuring out what we're disputing this time. -- Scyrme (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's good. If you want to request a third-opinion, that's fine too. Skyerise (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Structure

While I acknowledge the connection between India and Europe goes back to antiquity (clear examples include Greco-Buddhism, Pyrrhonism, Barlaam and Josaphat, and Manichaeism), I think suggesting that Crowley was influenced by Buddhism via Hellenistic philosophy is a stretch too far. Especially so if you're suggesting tantric influence, since the major Neo-Platonic writers predate tantric traditions by centuries. The Platonic concepts can be sufficiently explained as original developments elaborating on ideas from Plato (particularly Timaeus) and Hellenistic astrology. I don't think it's helpful to organise the Great Work along the lines of Dzogchen based on a speculative link. The Tibetan tradition is explicitly organised along the lines you've described. In contrast, the Great Work isn't explicitly expressed in similar terms in Thelemic literature afaik, so it would necessarily be an editorial imposition.

Regarding the terminology of "attaining", "achieving", and such consider "achieving" concentration. Concentration is a process; you achieve it by continuously sustaining it. While I agree that True Will depends on faith, unlike enlightenment it is not a kind of final salvation/liberation, so I think it's a bad comparison.

A better comparison than Buddhism may be Christian mysticism. The Great Work is "synergistic" (in a Christian sense), involving both the individual self and the universal all (in Christianity, the immanent God) to work in union. "True Will" is comparable to allowing one's (free) will accord with God's will; a major theme in Christian mysticism. This isn't something that is attained as a "result" or a "fruit" but is a process that must be continuously attained. The Great Work involves the HGA much like the order of salvation involves the Holy Spirit. The process involves crossing the Abyss; comparable to kenosis, the emptying of oneself. In this comparison True Will is synergy, and the Great Work is divinisation/theosis. Synergy is not the basis; the basis is accepting the grace of God, which is a prerequisite to synergy. However, synergy is a defining part of the process of divinisation/theosis. Likewise, True Will is a defining part of the Great Work.

I could be way, way off; as I admitted earlier, I'm not that deep down that rabbit hole. This is just my present understanding. -- Scyrme (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I think I was pretty clear that I wasn't suggesting derivation. I was point out a couple of article structure outlines that worked well for a system with some similarities. That's it. Skyerise (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Subtle, Astral, Augoeides, etc.

Ok, so I agree that Augoeides, Subtle body, Astral body, and Etheric body need some sorting out. To this we can also add Septenary (Theosophy), which summarises the various "bodies" of Theosophy; for a start, it needs section headings. I would also add that Template:Planes of existence also needs sorting out, and I've some ideas on that.

Augoeides is basically a pointless fork of Astral body. Because it's such a poorly referenced article and consists mostly of quotes it may better to simply blank Augoeides and redirect it to Astral body. We could rescue a couple of the sources to use on Astral body; the article is missing anything on Porphyry and neglects the connection between Blavatsky and Neo-Platonism. The edit history will preserve the original so the refs won't be lost. I would only intend to use them for a brief sentence or two, and wouldn't bother duplicating any text from Augoeides in its current form.

"Body of light" is a translation of "augoeides", as is "astral body"; they are among several other translations: "luciform", "radiant body", "shining image", "shining form", "astral vehicle", "radiant vehicle", etc. All these have been used, although some only rarely. Currently, "body of light" is being presented on Wikipedia as original to Thelema/Crowley but it's not; the terms "body of light" and, more concisely, "light body" are common in Western spirituality and esotericism. This considered, I object to making "body of light" anything more than a redirect to "astral body". I strongly object to your suggestion of merging/redirecting "astral body" to "subtle body"; material on the "astral body" pertaining to Platonic philosophy and Renaissance medicine (Paracelsus, etc.) does not belong in Subtle body. It's misleading and ahistorical.

"Subtle body" is a translation of "shukshma sharira", but was later expanded by Western esotericists to encompass ideas from all sorts of places including the "astral body" of the Platonic tradition. As result, it became popular to talk about there being many subtle bodies, with astral body as one of them. The Theosophical idea of the "subtle body" includes the "astral body" so an article on the former has to at least mention the latter. It's important to note this expansion is not limited to Theosophy. Anthroposophy, Gurdjieff's Fourth Way, etc. have their own takes on this broadened, syncretic view. It's a wider phenomenon, so it can't be isolated as a Theosophy-specific problem.

Having looked into it, I do think Luminous mind and Illusory body are relevant to some extent; Blavatsky discusses what she calls the "mayavi rupa" and its relationship to the 'septenary'. As far as I can tell, her "mayavi rupa" is supposed to be the illusory body, and not sure why she messes up the Sanskrit name. She's not entirely consistent about the topic; there may be an 'early writings' vs 'later writings' issue here. Regardless, this could very plausibly have influenced Crowley's thoughts.

As a note, Subtle body already has a section on Buddhism but it discusses a different set of terminology entirely. I think it would be best to sort the Buddhist side of things after the Hellenistic and Vedantic/Theosophical material has been sorted.

The way I see it, three major traditions relevant:

1. Hellenistic, naturally structured by era (corresponding to Astral body)
   1. Antiquity
   2. Renaissance

1. Indic, naturally structured by sub-tradition (corresponding to Subtle body)
   1. Hindu/Vedantic (related to the Three Bodies Doctrine and Kosha)
   2. Jaina (presently not mentioned in the article, but the Tattvartha Sutra names five sharira)
   3. Buddhist

1. Syncretic (relevant to both Astral body and Subtle body)
   1. Theosophy (related to Septenary (Theosophy))
   2. Thelema
   3. etc.

The syncretic tradition views the Hellenistic astral and etheric bodies/vehicles as components of the Indic subtle body, however that's a relatively modern innovation that reflects a particular POV not shared by the original philosophers of either the Hellenistic tradition or Hindu tradition. It is tempting to find a word to encompass all these topics under one article title, but I have no idea what title would work. Can't use "spiritual" or "mental" as these are used as synonyms for particular "bodies" in the syncretic tradition. "Parts of the soul" doesn't work because the soul is often distinguished from the spirit. If you can think of good neutral title, then I may be open to a merge proposal. -- Scyrme (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Blavatsky is a red-herring, always has been, always will be. I do not believe that Crowley based the body of light on the Indic subtle body, you'd need to show me some third party sources. That being the case, it is a different lineage of teaching that that used by Blavatsky, and combining Blavatky with Thelema does nobody any good. I'm sticking with the term Crowley actually used: body of light. Subtle body can be discussed as a different stream or listed as a see also (along with illusory body, luminous mind, etc. Skyerise (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Crowley's Liber LXXI is one of Blavatsky's books plus commentary; it also happens to one of her books associated with Buddhism. Crowley was influenced by Theosophy; that's not in doubt, only the extent of the influence is in doubt. I don't know if the body of light specifically was influenced by her work. You're the one who suggested a connection to Buddhism in the first place; I still think he was referring to the then-popular interpretation of the Neo-Platonic astral body, without any connection to the Buddhist illusory body or luminous mind. If any connection to Buddhism exists, it's probably via her or a similar source, not some fossil influence embedded in the Western philosophical tradition as you suggested.

As for "combining" them, to be clear, I'm not. I'm just acknowledging they're both part of a broader syncretic culture arising in the 19th century. I'm not proposing they be discussed in the same section of an article or anything like that. -- Scyrme (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I propose we just follow WP:COMMONNAME:

• crowley "body of light": 755, 000
• crowley "subtle body": 279, 000
• crowley "astral body": 76,000

Body of light is by far the most commonly used phrase with respect to Crowley's usage, more than twice as many hits as "subtle body" and "astral body" isn't even in the running. Skyerise (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Skyerise: You didn't put quotes around "crowley", so there could be some mixed results. It also seems weird to make a decision solely based on Crowley's use. "Body of light" alone gets 89,100,000 hits, with "spirit" to cut out pop-culture noise still leaves 10,900,000 hits - even assuming 755,000 are Thelema-related, the vast majority aren't. -- Scyrme (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, are you proposing renaming "astral body" to "body of light"? That might be controversial with other editors. -- Scyrme (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Results using "aleister crowley" (in quotes) plus each phrase yield similarly proportioned results. Skyerise (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Updates

Added five new potential sources on Augoeides. Good stuff. You should be able to access via the dois if you are logged into WP:LIBRARY. WRT astral body, the defining factor between subtle body and body of light is that the former is based on the Eastern esoteric tradition and the latter is based on the Western esoteric tradition. Perhaps astral body is based on both? That would make a good criteria for determining which article specific traditions belong in. Theosophy being the primary synthetic tradition? Skyerise (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey!

Everything okay with you? Your absence is noticed. I've improved True Will a bit, there was better material in Thelema so it is at least not all primary sources now. If you do come around, could you drop in at Enochian? Your input on the talk page would be useful. Skyerise (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Skyerise: I've been occupied elsewhere (IRL), sorry. If you want my input on Enochian, I'd appreciated a tl;dr summary. There's several recent sections involving you and multiple other editors; I'm not sure what you want my input on. -- Scyrme (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It may be moot now, we'll see... Skyerise (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No, looks like more eyes will be useful. A new consensus version was established on 28 January, not edited again until today. There was discussion on the talk page on 29 January, but there was no consensus for further change among three editors discussing. One of the editors has come back and simply reverted to his older preferred version three times. I believe we should go slowly here, the new consensus version being new, and actually have a talk page discussion that arrives at a consensus for change before the article is changed further. For example, there is a 2 to 1 consensus to maintain the longstanding section order, which is one of the things the edit-warrior is reversing. That was a long-standing order in the article for years, changed by the editor in question recently and changed back in the current consensus version, for which I have support from a third editor. The editor in question seems to confuse "consensus" with "my old version". Skyerise (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Sripadaraja, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. MRRaja001 ^(talk) 12:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I've replied at the talk page. -- Scyrme (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Category:All articles with excessive see also sections

The page Category:All articles with excessive see also sections has been deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. As the page met any of these strictly-defined criteria, it was deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been deleted are:

• The category had been empty for seven days or more and it was not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories. (See section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Linear Elamite

I'm just trying to add new evidence. See my new ref for Mader. So please give me some time to complete. Y-barton (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Y-barton: Fair enough; I didn't notice it was being actively worked on. Didn't mean to get in the way. Thanks for taking the time to update the article. -- Scyrme (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Cool. My new ref for Mader is very useful. Some good info there. Y-barton (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Rite as a disambiguation page

I noticed you had converted Rite into a disambiguation page. This has created over 1100 links to the dab page (shown here) - could you help to redirect them to the correct article for readers?— Rod ^talk 21:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rodw: Yes, I've already worked through several of them, but most of them are from a template that I can't edit. See: Template talk:Infobox religious building#Requesting an update to parameter link -- Scyrme (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - I am not expert enough with templates to help with that, but hopefully someone will tackle it soon.— Rod ^talk 21:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Undoing bot archival

Hi Scyrme, regarding this revert of the archival bot at Talk:Sex reassignment surgery, be aware that the bot will just archive again, next time it swings by, unless you block the bot from that page (inadvisable), or use the {{DNAU}} template to slow it down. If you do the latter, please document it in the discussion, so it's transparent, as DNAU leaves no visible trace. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I assumed it would swing by, so I simply changed the min threads left setting. It's a temporary measure; I intend to change it back once it's not needed anymore. Didn't know about the DNAU template; do you think using it would be better? If so, do you know if it respects threads that have subsections, or would I need to place it under each heading? -- Scyrme (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Scyrme. It might be better, in the sense that DNAU only affects that one thread, and changing minthreads is blunter. It respects threads with subsections. The one minor question Im not certain of, but it's really an edge case that you don't have to worry about, is what happens if people add undated comments—I'm not sure how the bot acts in that case; but that's not really a DNAU issue. I'd say you're fine to use DNAU if you wish to. Mathglot (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Sanskrit remover

Found an editor who's been removing Sanskrit from Buddhist articles for some time, apparently intending to remove it from all Buddhist articles. I've asked him to revert every removal. Perhaps you would like to comment? Skyerise (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Alas, he's not going to do it so I've opened an ANI... There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Not sure what to say that you've not already said. Unless the exemption is revoked, there's absolutely no cause for removing the script indiscriminately. Their argument that scholarly literature is published in transliteration is bizarre. What do they think the scholars are transcribing? – Scyrme (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I guess you're probably right about that. They are in WP:ICANTHEARYOU mode. Though perhaps knowing that other editors disagree with them might make a difference? AGF says maybe, but I'm more pessimistic. Skyerise (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Lent

Dear User:Scyrme, I noticed your edit here and wanted to let you know that I was the one who largely wrote the Origins section of the Lent article, including adding information on the Canons of Hippolytus. They are related because of the diet prescribed, respectively. Nevertheless, I have accepted your edit and instead added a small section on the observance of the Daniel Fast during Lent. I trust that if you have any issues with it, you will discuss it with me rather than reverting. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Anupam: The Daniel Fast allows more than only bread and salt, so I don't agree that they are related even in regards to the kind of diet they prescribe. The only respect in which they are similar is that both are very restrictive, which doesn't at all make them related; there a lot of similarly restrictive diets. The historical context of the two diets is very different. Since some groups choose to combine the Daniel Fast with the Lenten Fast, I have no problem with mentioning it in the article under another heading; I don't object to the section you've added. – Scyrme (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding User:Scyrme. I'm glad we can agree with having the information under another heading. Happy editing, Anupam^Talk 00:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)