Faith
-
93,
JAE said:
"But the main point here is that many Thelemites, Crowleyans, non-Christians, and post-Christians of various types use "faith" with the emotional charge of "being open to whatever The Man wants to us to swallow, in order to control us." "
This is the stumbling block, isn't it? We come into Thelema having been, in many cases, burned by our own willingness to subscribe to a received viewpoint, only to find out we have bought into someone else's fantasies. A lot of what Crowley wrote backs up our apparent need at this point for a skeptical, in fact doubting, view of the world.
I think before we can reach faith, we have to develop trust in our own ability to discriminate. Which means, I suppose, that the faith needs to be in ourselves, or at least in the guiding principle within.
And that, I suspect, is where most of us get stuck.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Edward Mason said
"I think before we can reach faith, we have to develop trust in our own ability to discriminate. Which means, I suppose, that the faith needs to be in ourselves, or at least in the guiding principle within.
And that, I suspect, is where most of us get stuck."
Agreed. And it also triggered a thought interesting to me.
Discrimination (both in the simple psychological meaning, and in the sense of viveka) is attributed to Zayin; and Zayin, according to The 32 Paths of Wisdom, "provides faith to the Compassionate."
-
JAE wrote:
"Zayin, according to The 32 Paths of Wisdom, "provides faith to the Compassionate.""
I think we tend to see faith as a static thing, or maybe a passive state, except in its protested form, evangelism. Compassion, though, requires an extension of awareness from out of self. This text from the 32 Paths implies, to me, a stirring or an activation that stimulates the 'faith faculty' in that way.
So faith isn't something we have, but something that looks Out There for itself...?
In L.V.X.,
Edward
-
Agreed. My original definition renders it as a perception, not as a state - so, by this definition, it is something dynamic. There is only faith when there is such a present-time perception.
-
Jim Eshelman wrote:
""Fourth: This leads to the definition I have long used for the word - when I'm originating the usage rather than simply joining in a conversation where others are already using it differently. I define faith as the means of direct perception through Neshamah.
The language of Ruach is literal language - letters, words, and their combination. These form the framework of the internal mathematical relationships of reason. However, the language of Nephesh is composed of symbols. Symbols are the actual units of receiving, communicating, and otherwise exchanging information within the subconscious mental processes that we include in Nephesh.
Similarly, Neshamah - superconsciousness - has its own units of language. The "words" of Neshamah are neither literal words nor symbols but are archetypes. But as reason and feeling are the means of perception within, respectively, Ruach and Nephesh, the means of perception within Neshamah is faith.
"Faith," which at root means "certainty," is exactly what we mean when we speak of the direct knowing of true intuition or gnosis. It is not accepting things without evidence or direct perception - not at all! Rather, it is the the evidence of things not seen - nor, for that matter, felt - certainly not merely believed! - but the evidence of things coming neither from the senses nor from reason nor from emotion.""
I am wondering how this applies to us who have not yet attained to a conscious awareness of the level of Neshamah? For example, what is it that drives people to seek out initiation into the Mysteries? What leads people to begin the practices of magick and/or yoga when initially we have nothing to go on but what we have read in books or heard from another person? Yet we touch upon something that awakens a desire within us and we “know” sometimes without explanation that we have found a spiritual path and that we must explore it. Is this compulsion, this awakened desire to learn more, an expression of that faith? And when we find the tradition that speaks to us, there is also that sense of certainty. And as we move through a program of instruction, often through a particular expression of the Mysteries, an Order or Mystery School, we often know just when it is time to move forward. There is a point where we recognize that it is time move forward. So it seems that some sense of certainty or faith is with us throughout our journey on the path of initiation, which may be the same as what you speak of but on a lower arc, perhaps filtering through our subconscious. This is not to say that we have direct access to it or that we have that sense of certainty all the time. For me at least, there are brief moments of clarity, when that knowing shines through. This is often followed by periods of doubt and uncertainty and it is the initial clarity that carries me through. I must admit that this is not always the case and sometimes I falter and sometimes fail. I accept that throughout all of this, it is the Holy Guardian Angel guiding me even when I feel I made a wrong turn.
This leads me to a question. Would you say then, based upon your initial discussion in this post, that this faith, and archetypes as units of language of Neshamah, is the language of the Holy Guardian Angel? You mention that the archetypes are the units of language of Neshamah.
Love is the law, love under will.
Howard -
"
Aspiration is the tendrils of Neshamah interpenetrating Nephesh so that it can inspire Ruach."This leads me to a question. Would you say then, based upon your initial discussion in this post, that this faith, and archetypes as units of language of Neshamah, is the language of the Holy Guardian Angel?"
Yes, I would - at least at one (fairly rarified) level.
-
Just a quick note: In greek (the language of early christianity for this context- and of the word of the Law) a word strictly analogous to "faith" does not exist; the word that was later translated "faith" is "pistis", meaning NOT "faith" but, loosely, "confidence".
There was no certainty/faith in the early church, which was later (second century, "officialised" in 325) expressed as the notion of the trinity, which could then only be transliterated for western/european thought as "God is Nought" or "there is no god, silly". The notion of christian monotheistic "faith" in today's sense, certainty etc, came much later in this context, roughly from the 8th century. Until then, pistis meant confidence: In my pursuit, I may come to an end, I may find "God", but I also may not; however, I take part in communicated confidence- more or less, that was pistis. IMHO of course.
-
@YHVH said
"Just a quick note: In greek (the language of early christianity for this context- and of the word of the Law) a word strictly analogous to "faith" does not exist; the word that was later translated "faith" is "pistis", meaning NOT "faith" but, loosely, "confidence".
Confidence. That is so much more accessible than blind faith, which always seemed so nebulous and therefore nearly impossible to me.
Thank you for giving so much backstory and insight into this concept. This definition works much better for me, too.
Donna
-
This discussion of faith grew out of an earlier discussion on Christianity. And there I was peeling some personal layers in regards to that system. This is not so much to discuss the principles of faith itself, but to show them in a description of my beliefs in general about Thelema. Why I find it viable.
Now to address my "faith" in this system of thought. I have "confidence" that Thelema is not something external to me. No organization is Thelema. No person the head thereof. It is mine. It is my Life, Love, Liberty, Light. It is about my relationship with the divine within me. I am a Thelemite by the nature of my existence. Self exploring, Self actualizing, Self realizing.
Historically, or possibly archaeologically, Thelema as a system of thought, or as a religion, is everything that went before it. As my adaptations and experiences of it are built upon those foundations and all that has happened since 1904. So on and so forth, ad infinitum. It is a movement, a current, a shift, a birth right. It is tangible and accessible, because it is "personal".
Now words like mine and me and I, are simply problematic in that they refer to a personality that is not me, and thus part or our understanding of the spiritual path is shaded by the limits of the personality and language. In redefining or properly understanding self referential or personal singular pronouns we can better understand the nature of OUR position within Self.
Every Man and Every Women is a Star. Every number infinite....
-
Good posting Jim, such a little word yet causes so much debate.
Augur, lovely post and something which certainly I am familiar.
For myself I equate Faith with Love (of which there is much certainty). It didn't come easy, indeed belief had to come before Faith consumed my being, when I finally surrendered myself to my calling.
For Thelema itself, I was drawn to read TBOTL not too long ago, and once read it simply gave a name to what I was already doing.
She guides her servants where they need to go
In Love and Night
Rev.D -
I believe there is no room for faith in Thelema. It is science and Thelema deals with facts. Crowley was not an obscure figure who supposedly rose from the dead.he was real man with issues like all of us. That's what makes Thelema so wonderful Beautiful and intelligent. Aiwas gave us The Word, Crowley gave us the facts the exact way it was dictated. Not one word changed. Facts,, not stories. Faith is for the blind,,we as Thelemites can see,whether its pretty or not. 93/93 93 AGAPE.. Frater Nocturnus
-
@damian blackthorn said
"I believe there is no room for faith in Thelema. It is science and Thelema deals with facts."
I hve to take a moment to disagree with this.
There is a tendency for people to confuse (a) Thelema, (b) the work and practices of Aleister Crowley, and (b) the A.'.A.'.. Though these overlap, one shouldn't confuse one with the other.
For example, principals of the A.'.A.'. put out a journal called The Equinox which adopted the motto, "The method of science, the aim of religion." That's not even an A.'.A.'. motto per se - it's the motto of The Equinox. It does, however, overlap with the A.'.A.'.'s self-description (under the founders of the modern system) as Scientific Illuminism.
Even here, that shouldn't be confused with Thelema. At the time that A.'.A.'. foundation was established, The Equinox began publication, and that motto was adopted, Crowley hadn't accepted Thelema. They were taking a strict Scientific Illuminism approach that made no public mention of Thelema and held even The Book of the Law back until Second Order!
Thelema is the philosophy the A.'.A.'. currently employs, but the two shouldn't be confused. It's just the current fad (for a few centuries
).Thelema per se is no more a science than, say, Shintoism is a science.
"Faith is for the blind,,we as Thelemites can see,whether its pretty or not."
This, of course, depends on how you define "faith." I define it as the language of Neshamah, in which case it is the essence of what we're all about. I suspect you are using it to mean, "Just believe, fucker, don't ask for proof, don't think about it," etc.; and I would agree with you that this sort of thinking isn't likely to produce very good results.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I define it as the language of Neshamah, in which case it is the essence of what we're all about."
I would certainly say that in the 'hierarchy' of words, the idea of Faith is pretty high up there.
A kind of thing that occurs all the time without you really thinking about it. When you try to, the attempt to understand it gunks up its conscious meaning.
My first reading of the Law was also my first encounter with the concept. Reading the book, I found exactly what I was looking for. Faith, whispered in my ear all the answers. But! That does not mean I understood them all, I simply have Faith (and what she told me).
There is my "everything is meaningless" shtick, but that is objectively.
I am all about the subjective!
eye
ee
y -
Jim, would this also apply to Mathers' prefatory remarks in The Scared Book of Abramelin the Mage being:
"an encouragement to that most rare and necessary quality, unshaken faith;"
"for of all hindrances to Magical action, the very greatest and most fatal is unbelief, for it checks and stops the action of the Will."
"the absolute necessity of unshaken faith in order to produce a Magical effect."
TIA,
Mike
-
@Nudor said
"Jim, would this also apply to Mathers' prefatory remarks in The Scared Book of Abramelin the Mage being:
"an encouragement to that most rare and necessary quality, unshaken faith;"
"for of all hindrances to Magical action, the very greatest and most fatal is unbelief, for it checks and stops the action of the Will."
"the absolute necessity of unshaken faith in order to produce a Magical effect.""
I can't speak for what Mathers meant. But I will give an opinion on the above.
He appears to be using "faith" in the common sense, in which it means confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing, etc. While this has value, it isn't what I was talking about. He seems to mean, more or less, confidence and perseverance.
-
So it seems then there are three definitions of faith.
Blind faith (embracing without discrimination)
Faith (certainty)
and True (enduring) Faith (means of direct perception through Neshamah)
Most people assume the first, but this discussion is about the third. The faith I mentioned from Mather's introduction must be of the second type, faith as certainty. (One can't go in blind...)
But my new question generated from this discussion is, does the True enduring Faith (perception) relate in any way to True Will. Or to push it further, is it True Will?
-
93,
Nudoro wrote:
"But my new question generated from this discussion is, does the True enduring Faith (perception) relate in any way to True Will. Or to push it further, is it True Will?"
I think we only express True Will when Faith is active, or via a Faith-based perception. To the extent we are tuned into Neshamah, that governs how True (real, connected, grounded, complete) our expression of the Will is.
Otherwise, we are just expressing mundane will, or at least confusing egoic ideas with True Will intuitions.
The real problem for most of us is that such Neshamah/Faith-based action can't be made subject to reason, or we are back in Ruach-based action. That is valid in many situations, of course, but it will be "Half-True Will" at best. We are, in such circumstances, using reason in the sense: "If Will stops and cries Why, invoking Because, then Will stops & does nought." (AL II, v 30)
93 93/93,
EM
-
The Biblical concept of 'Faith', or 'the Faith' (pistis) corresponds to the modernistic sociological term 'Worldview'. It simply implies one's perceptions, beliefs, and views concerning the nature himself and the world around him.
Every human being has a 'faith'. The meaning is that simple and that profound.
-
Ive always regarded "Faith" as an active force in the human reperatoire. Faith is something you use in order to not fall into a despair situation.
I have faith that the company I work for will not close so I still care about the products I produce. As example.
In this context it would be the same as passive prayer and excercising some form of will.
I could be extremely ignorant of course as I have barely read anything. -
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Hate to get all autobio on such a pure discussion, but this leads to a practical question: If one has little faith (in the sense that Jim is describing), how does one acquire more? What about zero faith?
I can now reach a state of mild faith in what I'm doing magically, but it was a long baren road. And, in my case, it required a catalyst of physical evidence to get the ball rolling.
I still struggle when doing daily practices to get into the proper attitude. My default setting is a sort of childish "prove it" attitude, which effects greatly the work I'm trying to do. Obviously, building a relationship with the Neschamah would be key, but the effectiveness of the practices that are supposed to accomplish this seem to be related to the amount of faith present to begin with. (Practicing the non-acceptance of gifts seems to help a little.)
Any thoughts on the most effective way to escape this negative feedback loop?
Love is the law, love under will
