THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.freemasonry,alt.magick,talk.religion.misc,alt.magick.order,alt.pagan.magick,alt.magick.ethics From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nigris (333)) Subject: Re: Basics of Thelema (LONG)(was 'Who's a Thelemite?') Date: 23 Mar 1997 12:49:50 -0800 49970225 AA1 Hail Satan! E6 333: #> 'Thelemite' is an ideal, an auspicious individual who upholds and #> embodies the Law of Thelema as understood by the great sages of its #> propagation (to be determined, though this appears to include such #> people as Rabelais, Crowley, Grant, possibly Achad, perhaps others). #> compare this directly with 'Sage' as elaborated by _Tao Teh Ching_, #> the Confucian _Analects_, or other Eastern sources. Solis: # ...what IS the Law of Thelema? the Law of Thelema is variably considered by religious cultists to be a regulatory dictate from some "higher authority" (as you suggest) or, by Thelemic philosophers and mystics as a Law of Nature. I prefer to see it as a principle of sentient behavior described in brief by the dictum: do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. I interpret this literally and plainly as an exhortation to achieve whatever we fervently desire, dismissing the restrictions others would impose upon us in their moral and myopic approach to life. it is of course recommended that the repercussions of these achievements and the extent of one's true will be kept firmly in mind so as to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering, yet this is only a suggestion (comparable to the 'Wiccan Rede'). # Who is that higher authority? Ra-hoor-khuit? I don't personally take it to be this kind of 'Law'. I think Crowley makes it plain he considers it to be a Law of Nature. these are much different than regulatory mechanisms, describing instead principles of activity or behavior which have been observed and to which we may attune ourselves. # Is the sentence for breaking such a Law self imposed by # ones Higher Self, Unconscious, Ego, Id? What? the Law of Thelema as I understand it cannot be broken. there is no 'sentence' doled out and no 'higher authority' responsible for imposing conformity to this Law. such is a misunderstanding of the Evil Book and the Beastmaster as I see it, though I would welcome citations of refute. #> the most inclusive definition I can think of is not particular: #> 'Thelemite' means whatever the thinker thinks it means. # I feel uncomfortable with that definition, here's why: many # inappropriate actions can be justified away with that statement. within the Law of Thelema there is no 'inappropriate action', there is only 'that which is encompassed by one's orbit', and 'that which interferes in the orbit of another' (fetching pain in response as the individual whose true will is triumphant decimates the interloper). # If I # decide to kill some one, I could, in my defense say: "It was my will" # without considering the will or rights of my victim. As far as my # victim I could ever say: "It must have been his or her will to dies, # because, they did." this is the usual objection to 'do what thou wilt' in a literal understanding, yet I would ask you from where you derive this perspective. Crowley gives the following example: (28) _Every man has a right to fulfil his own will without being afraid that it may interfere with that of others; for if he is in his proper place, it is the fault of others if they interfere with him._ (Illustration: If a man like Napolean were actually appointed a destiny to control Europe, hs should not be blamed for exercising his rights. To oppose him would be an error. Any one so doing would have made a mistake as to his own destiny except in so far as it might be necessary to learn the lessons of defeat. The Sun moves in space without interference. The order of Nature provides an orbit for each star. A clash proves that one or the other has strayed from its course. But as to each man that keeps his true course, the more firmly he acts, the less likely are others to get in his way. His example will help them to find their own paths and pursue them. Every man that becomes a Magician helps others to do likewise. The more firmly and surely men move, and the more such action is accepted as the standard of morality, the less will conflict and confusion hamper humanity.) _Magick_, by Aleister Crowley, eds. Grant/Symonds, 1973; p. 138. ________________________________________________________________ so it appears that the Beastmaster contends your sort of morality, one which is usually brought up by the religious and cultish of the Thelemic community in lieu of whining and complaint about their will being 'interfered with', is not part of the Law of Thelema. the woes of the religious apologist are a type of parasitic moaning which I think the wrathful 3rd chapter of the Evil Book puts down nicely. # There must be some "ruler" by which we could measure or define this # law: must there? perhaps if you were to quote some of your favorite writers on the subject in support of your contentions that would assist me in knowing from what 'Thelemic' tradition you draw. I presume that you mean 'ruler' in a sense of an established standard. # if we can't talk about what Thelema IS, I think we can talk about it very plainly. it is the will of life, that 'goingness' symbolized by the ansate cross (ankh) and which constitutes the energetic resource supporting all magical enterprises. # perhaps we can talk about what Thelema IS NOT. this is the usual recourse of the religious and cultish, and I would say to this: the word of Sin is Restriction. do thy will and no Thelemite shall say 'nay'. more than this and you enter into peril. Bill Thom : #># Are there standards that must be met? If so, who set(s) them? #> these standards are designated by any particular authority involved. #> that is, for an individual, that individual sets the standards. for #> an organization, the organization sets its own standards. in this #> way we can see plainly that there are a variety of meanings and #> criteria brought to bear in evaluation. # Aha! But what if (by the definition of Thelemite, above) I decide that # the actions of such an order are unThelemic (there's that word again)? the definition I offered was the most inclusive and therefore it would be impossible to categorize someone or some group as 'unthelemic' unless they believed it meant something in particular and then acted contrary to their own beliefs. your decision is illogical as long as you are allowing that organization to have its chosen definition. # Does that make that order unThelemic because I (a Thelemite) says it is? by the inclusive definition there is no logical means of determining what is 'unthelemic', since this term becomes meaningless when the definition of 'thelemic' becomes 'whatever a thinker thinks it is', at least as a generalization. you would be applying a univeral ruler to a relative circumstance. as regards the less inclusive, more pointed definition I offered within these last two posts (vide supra 'dwtw' and one who supposedly conforms), firstly I don't know you to be a Thelemite. I know few by this meaning (as a personal evaluative of someone in conformity with the Law of Thelema), though I also cannot say you do NOT so qualify. however, given this, just because you say an organization of any type (an order or a kaos) does not mean that your evaluation is correct. 'Thelemite' need not necessarily imply omniscience, infallability or deception. # Were the Knights Templar a Thelemic Order, at least in spirit? I'm not sure I know enough about them to say. typically the knightly and Christian dissolves irretrievably the individual will in a miasma of church and order, hamstringing through chivalric code and duty to regent the innate and beautiful will which would otherwise thrive. this does get into the question of 'what makes an organization Thelemic?' and I think I've answered this succinctly previously though solely in application to the individual: the Thelemic org is that which supports and encourages the Law of Thelema (i.e. the individual will and its natural direction of accomplishment). that which hampers or in some way perverts or opposes this Law of Nature is 'unthelemic' by my standard, and is one which I find value in opposing. my Order (one of the few organizations to which I have ever belonged, one whose relationship I still value and put effort into keeping clear), the COTO, has taken actions in ways which I deem destructive of this Law as I see it. for this reason I oppose it through various artifices, inclusive of undermining its tendency to capitalize on information scarcity and advertizing my opposition in public ('nigris' reflects this), even while its overall Constitution and promulgation has great importance to human liberation as I see it. I'm not sure that 'Thelemic in spirit' is meaningful. either we support that Law or we don't. half-assed support strikes me as failure, and it is this reason more than any other that I take a hard line with COTO. # Why? there are a host of reasons why *not*. it has become popular amongst the throng of neuvo-religious to continue a longstanding trend of martyrdom-identification, a bandwagon upon which Witches and Satanists have also jumped. the Knights Templar are a psuedo-Christian symbol, DeMolay and his band of free-wheeling banker-knights the subject of much adulation, mostly without our knowing very many details of their practices/tradition. the story goes that they were destroyed and plundered by Church and State (the latter being France's King Phillip), usually followed up by martyrdom cultists with the claim that it survived the onslaught in fact or 'in spirit', though there is little evidence to support either claim (I'd be happy to see counter-evidence to this). #> often people within the 'Thelemic community' will apply this title #> to themselves, justifiably and egotistically so. much like the #> adoption of grandiose Masonic or Rosicrucian officenames, that of #> 'Thelemite' indicates a (gradually dissolving) significance as an #> appellation. # # For this reason, many good people keep silence about their beliefs. I gather that 'this reason' means the dissolution of the meaning of the appellation. it seems to me that if people retain the Evil Book's significance of 'Thelemite' as less of a social self-identification (cult/religion) and more one of respect and honor (philosophic and esteem-supportive) it'd preserve the current more purely. as it is the whole thing gets bogged down in cultish fanaticism and idiocy. # What is Thelema if not a religion? I think I've said alot about how I disdain the religion of Thelema as it manifests in unthinking slavishness. as a religion I think Thelema fails to conform to the Law from which it gets its name. otherwise Thelema can be seen as a principle, a philosophy founded upon this principle, and a context of a those dedicated to the preservation and liberation of all living beings. the religion and cult sacrifice their principles and respectability for the purposes of belonging and the propping up the semblance of authority. # Ironically, I feel more comfortable with individuals who behave like # Thelemites, and have no knowledge of Crowley or Liber Al, than those who # wear it like a badge. comfort is the enemy of mysticism. I'm sure it is usually easier to be around people who conform to our standards of morality. I don't think this indicates in the slightest its relation to Thelema, however. #> 'knowledge of one's true will (Will)' usually amounts to a kind #> of self-perception and awareness of one's place in the cosmos, #> abilities as regards causing change, and where this leaves off #> into the proper domains of other individuals (their 'orbits'). # # You mean Self Realization? Gnosis? I'm unsure that these are necessarily connected. from what I have read of the gnosis it is best considered a 'knowledge of the heart' (esp. amongst self-professed Gnostics), and does not necessarily afford any type of worldly power or ability. it need not carry a functional orientation surrounding 'orbits' or 'destiny' either. 'self-realization' comes closer, perhaps, though this is another over-used term. one might also compare 'moksha', 'heaven' or 'nirvana'. #> cultists typically only require a vocal (if not slavish) adherence #> to _The Book of the Law_ (whatever this means). sometimes this #> enlarges to include the consideration of Crowley as the Prophet of #> the Horusian Aeon, or other metaphysics. in this way it takes on #> the appearance of Western religious creed-membership. # # I see this too... this sloppyness need not be blamed on Thelema as a # movement, but more on the organizations that require such oaths, and # fail to enforce them. I disagree strongly. the social movement of Thelema *includes* these organizations, in many cases is SUPPORTED by them. as such, there is no easy way to separate out those of the Thelemic community who belong to organizations (esp. if these oaths be essentially thelemic ;>) and say 'they are causing the problem'. in fact, I see a great diversity amongst individuals and org-members, some of the former adhering to slavish half-understood concepts, some of the latter shining examples of what it means to be a Thelemite. the simple quality of membership (except in very horrid orgs) tells me little. #> the most philosophic and stringent would probably claim that only #> those whose exploits consist of finding and carrying out their true #> will in the world are 'real Thelemites'. # # But there are other attributes: The Thelemites of Rabelais, The Knights # Templars, etc... please elaborate on these, if you would be so kind. I admittedly balked at reading Rabelais' 'gargantuous' masterwork which supposedly contains the essentials of his Thelemic philosophy, mostly because it was not properly indexed or reviewed to my taste in the books I found at my local library. I have seldom heard much about his ideas beyond that he put a frenchy 'Do as you please' over the entrance to his 'Abbe Theleme'. I have no basis from which to support an assertion that the Templars were in any way, shape or form associated with Thelema as a movement or with its principles, though I would love to hear how you have arrived at this assessment. do the Sufis, with whom the Templars are sometimes associated, also qualify? the Hashishins? where do we draw the line and whose propaganda shall we use in this determination? # Take a simple, rarely mentioned line from the Book of # The Law: "Compassion is the vice of Kings." What means this? the significance of any line of a revelatory text is usually best determined through 1) its context and 2) the reflections of the individual who penned it. I suggest that you begin with these and in another thread construct a context in which to understand its meaning if you are seriously interested. I gather, however, that you intended to use this as some sort of example, perhaps in relation to 'attributes of the Thelemite'. if so, I'd like some elaboration, since I am not about to here become a Centre of Pestilence by discussing the Evil Book. #> ...the matter of where one's true will stops #> and another's starts is often a matter of controversy within the #> Thelemic community as a whole. often the issue of legality and #> morality, exemplifying the cultist-philosopher divide, comes to #> the fore: the former usually requiring some sort of moral or #> doctrinal standard, the latter sometimes disclaiming any agreement #> save between an individual's actions and hir true will (this last #> being an ambiguous parameter). # ...The two examples you have used are # perfect. One attempts to apply Thelemic philosophy at solving the # dispute: the other, simply ignores or refuses to accept his opponent's # philosophy and decides the most Thelemic thing to do is engage in some # sort of "battle." (Shouting, striking ones breast, making them look # stupid on these lists, or some other primitive testosterone induced # ecstatic ritual.) I am frankly confused by your text here. you have above demonstrated your adherence to what I have classified in this exchange as 'Thelemic cultishness' or 'religion', which I tend to oppose as corrupt. and yet you here support the notion that action based on principle without regard to moral standards is a legitimate and mature course. if I have misunderstood, please correct me, thanks. #># Can a King remain a King, regardless of personal behavior? Or are true #># Kings identifiable through the wisdom of their actions? #> ...a Regent is a Regent due to #> having attained to a certain level of consciousness, awareness, and #> that the actions or behavior undertaken by said Regent will reflect #> this. it is, I think, possible, for a person to avoid, obscure, deny #> or disregard what they know to be a 'wise choice', and in this manner #> 'abdicate their Regency'. for this reason I would be hesitant to #> offer unlimited latitude on the behavior of said Regents as #> exemplifying their depth of virtue. # Isn't it possible for a "King" to appear as a "slave" in order to # improve communications between his house and his subjects? of course, and this is why an evaluation of another (if said is at all necessary) as "King" or "Slave" must needs be allowed some time, so that the most essential qualities may be observed. immediate exchange is what I consider to be primary: how does this person interact with me? do I feel respected by them? if not, are they truly offering offense, reacting to something I am doing, myself, or have I somehow misinterpreted their acts altogether? what is my best response? #># If I acknowledge certain rights for myself must I acknowledge those same #># rights to others? #> #> this brings to mind a comparative text (to that of the Evil Tome): #> Crowley's _Liber Oz_, one of the few documents of which I am aware #> that speaks directly to the concept of 'rights' within the popular #> Thelemic textual body. # # There is also "Duty." this is the usual response to the citation of Oz, yes, though I would like you to quote from that work of Crowley's in support of its description of how 'rights' are to be viewed and who has what 'rights'. please note that it is rational to disclaim one work by an author while supporting the maturity and lasting value of another. I have not yet understood the value of 'Duty' as argued by its adherents. # I have done a search on Liber Al for the words "slave/s" "servant/s" # and was much surprised in what manner the Book of The Law uses these # terms. please present and discuss these at your convenience. it is one of the things I have enjoyed in Thelema93-L to see how people utilize the Evil Book to prop up their preferred ideologies. ;> #># 1. There are a significant number of people who, having no knowledge of #># Thelema, Liber Al, or the Equinox of the Gods, appear to truly be #># practicing some form of the Law. #> I would ask you to elaborate, since you mention it, on what precisely #> you mean by "some form of the Law" and what qualities you can describe #> which indicate to you that it is so "practiced". # # Okay... I'll throw in some for the sake of discussion (sorry if I hack # the spelling to bits): The freedom rally at Tienemen Square, the # destruction of the Berlin Wall. Thelemites? Martin Luther King, Malcom # X, Oskar Schindler, Mahatma Gandhi, Joan of Arc, Sapho, Valentinus, # Nelson Mandala (sp), etc..... names. does 'Thelemite' equate to 'social hero'? what qualities in particular do you feel that these individuals share? why and how do these qualities symbolize or represent Thelema in a way others cannot? #># 2. There are a significant number of people who have read Liber AL, #># probably have read The Holy Books, belong to any number of Magickal #># Orders, proclaim themselves to be Thelemites, and don't seem to have a #># clue what the Law is, means, or care to DO much of anything. #> #> pretend your audience is of this category. how would you go about #> informing us of what this "Law" consists? what have we missed which #> was ostensibly contained within the various sources or bodies you #> mention? # ...Rabelais gives good practical advice. We can learn from the # Kings of OUR times: no, I don't mean football players. King Phillip of France? :> Francis King? Martin Luther King, Jr.? I don't see that you have truly responded in clarity to my direct questions above. #> it seems you presume there is one "Law" to *be* understood, as if, #> through examination, we will find a commonality amongst those who are #> 'in the know' or 'correctly aware' of the curriculum the latter have #> somehow overlooked. how have you arrived at this presumption? how #> have you determined that you are not among those of us who 'missed' #> it? what qualities do you see in this "significant number of people" #> which discloses to you that we "don't have a clue" what this "Law" #> means? # Do we want to start throwing verses of Liber Al at one another? I'm not at all sure what relevance that would have to the conversation. is that like throwing verses from _The Holy Bible_ around in support of Our Religious Conviction? I've never found that strategy to be convincing, have you? # ...If a person, is sincere, and has a vested # interest in doing "the right thing" (what ever that is) then they will # begin to REALLY study the Book of The Law. substitute 'Bible' for 'the Book of the Law' and perhaps you will come to understand why I class all fundamentalists (whether Thelemic or Christian or Buddhist) together as irrational progs. I'll be happy to be shown in error of this estimation regarding you or other 'religious Thelemites'. # If Thelema is really close # to your heart, and you want to give your life to it, then you will not # use the book to justify behavior you know runs against the grain of the # words written therein. this exemplifies the cultist-philosophic divide nicely. I suggest that Frank Zappa's words are a due response here when attempting to argue against the 'religions of the book' perspective: _Dumb All Over_ ... Nurds on the left Nurds on the right Religious fanatics On the air every night Sayin' the Bible Tells the story Makes the details Sound real gory 'Bout what to do If the geeks over there Don't believe in the book We got over here You can't run a race Without no feet 'N pretty soon There won't be no street For dummies to jog on Or doggies to dog on Religious fanatics Can make it be all gone (I mean it won't blow up 'N disappear It'll just look ugly For a thousand years...) You can't run a country By a book of religion Not by a heap Or a lump or a smidgeon Of foolish rules Of ancient date Designed to make You all feel great While you fold, spindle And mutilate Those unbelievers From a neighboring state # Read, and remember the whole book. (Zappa cont'd) TO ARMS! TO ARMS! Hooray! That's great Two legs ain't bad Unless there's a crate They ship the parts To mama in For souvenirs: two ears (*Get Down!*) Not his, not hers (*but what the hey?*) The Good Book says: "*It's gotta be that way!" But their book says: "*REVENGE THE CRUSADES... With whips 'n chains 'N hand grenades*..." TWO ARMS? TWO ARMS? Have another and another Our God says "*It's all okay!*" Our God says "*This is the way!" It says in the book: "*Burn 'n destroy... 'N revenge, 'n redeem 'N avenge, 'n deploy 'N rumble thee forth To the land of the umbelieving scum on the other side 'Cause they don't go for what's in the book 'N that makes 'em* BAD *So verily we must choppeth them up And stompeth them down Or rent a nice French bomb To poof them out of existence While leaving their real estate just where we need it To use again For temples in which to praise* OUR GOD ("*Cause he can really take care of business!*") And when his humble TV servant With humble white hair And humble glasses And a nice brown suit And maybe a blonde wife who takes phone calls Tells us our God says It's okay to do this stuff Then we gotta do it, 'Cause if we don't do it, We ain't gwine up to *hebbin*! (Depending on which book you're using at the time... Can't use theirs... it don't work ... it's all lies... Gotta use mine...) Ain't that right? That's what they say Every night... Every day... Hey, we can't really be dumb If we're just following *God's Orders* Hey, let's get serious... God knows what he's doin'... He wrote this book here An' the book says: "*He made us all to just like Him,*" so... If we're dumb... Then God is dumb... (An' maybe even a little ugly on the side) [Dumb all over A little ugly on the side Dumb all over A little ugly on the side.....] ------------------------------------------ 'Dumb All Over', by Frank Zappa, from the album 'you are what you is', copyright 1981 Munchkin Music; [my additions reflecting sonics - 333] _______________________________________________ E6/6/6 3 3 3 _______________________________________________________________________________ nigris (333) -- tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com -- http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
|
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|