Thelemic &"Sin&" & will
-
@DavidH said
"I was just reading MTP today on the train and there was a section where AC was explaining that magick could be mundane things as well as the traditional definition of magick. He went on to give examples for about 2-3 pages. Many examples were the domination of one will by the will of the magician. For example, he said if he wanted a woman who was in love with another, he would use his more powerful will to change hers.
He gave similar examples using one will dominating another.
Would this not be a no-no in thelemic practice? If each person is to have thier own will, orbit and be a star, it seems that trying to dominate another's will is the greatest evil.
Any comments?
On the other hand, it also seems that almost everything we do during the day is trying to change another person's will. Wanna go to a movie tonight? No? Come, on, it'll be fun, exciting, and I'll buy you popcorn! I knew you'd come around!"
It is obvious our wills intertwine with others, as gravity of one star affects another. 'Thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay.' There is no factor, especially moral, to guide action other than the Will - if it is to interact with others, so be it. Some may view this as 'interference' but from another point of view it is 'helpful' or even 'necessary.' To 'go out of one's way' to interfere with anothers life/will is obviously a sign that 'you are going out of your way,' quite clearly. No one can know for sure except for you, really. There is no law beyond do what thou wilt. There is no grace, there is no guilt (no sin or virtue either), this is the law - Do what thou wilt. Liber Nu recommends you meditating and concentrating on the fact of exertign your will in the least possible resistance (i.e. lying down is better htan standing up etc), and then you think about exercising your will without regard for another, and the third meditation is to realize these two practices are one.
-
I was just having this discussion with my teacher. I like aum418's answer as lot. It seems to me that if you are really doing your true will then you can't do much harm by moving others who get in your way. (i.e. lets say I need to give a presentation at my work, which I did recently: I knew some of the board members were against my project while others were for it. If I use my Magick to sway a few in my direction, knowing that my project is good and what I truly want to be doing, this seems like very the point of using influence and knowledge.) If you're using your skills to do something petty, or that you don't really want, then that seems manipulative and like "black magick". In the end, even if you succeed you will probably be doing yourself more harm than good since it is not what you really want/need/will anyhow.
That's my take in any case. Neat discussion.
--M
-
Lots of interesting ideas.
First of all, the comment was made that as long as the desire is not petty, then it's ok, otherwise it's black magic. Well, what one define as petty may be different from mine. I might want lots of money and you might think that petty but I might consider it necessary to carry out my true will. Just an example.
Aum418 quoted: "Thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay." But crowley also says he has the right to kill anyone interferring with his will. But in the MTP pages I refered to, his examples were of direct magical attack against the will of multiple people. It was thier will to be together and it was AC's will to break them apart and take her.
I am not talking about morals here, I used the word "sin" as a sort of joke, but it seems that although we manipulate people's wills everyday somewhat, there seems to be a line where one is breaking the law of thelema in using force of will against another's will.
When do we know when WE have crossed that line, gone out of orbit and collided with another person's true will?
-
@DavidH said
"I was just reading MTP today on the train and there was a section where AC was explaining that magick could be mundane things as well as the traditional definition of magick. He went on to give examples for about 2-3 pages. Many examples were the domination of one will by the will of the magician. For example, he said if he wanted a woman who was in love with another, he would use his more powerful will to change hers.
He gave similar examples using one will dominating another.
Would this not be a no-no in thelemic practice? If each person is to have thier own will, orbit and be a star, it seems that trying to dominate another's will is the greatest evil."
An excellent question. I think the apparent moral and ethical quandry it poses is really a semantics issue.
I think AC, in that section, is not sufficiently differentiating between the casual, common, profane use of "will" and the magical-spiritual understanding of it. So, bypassing his words for a minute, let me try to say this differently and see how it lands.
We casually speak of persons as having "wills," "will-power," "choice," etc. By "persons" I don't here mean self-aware spiritually awakened beings but, simply, personalities. However, this person level is all that most people are able to understand themselves to be (or, for that matter, others to be). For most people, anything more subtle is all theory.
Personalities don't have "will." Persons don't have will. They have what passes for will, including character traits of persistence, stubbornness, etc. I like to say that, while personalities don't have "will power," they have a lot of "won't power!" That is, the main function that passes for "will" that most persons have is the power to get in the way of real Will.
With respect to "will," persons can only do two things: Trip themselves up or surrender. Surrender is the key. You just have to surrender to the right thing, i.e., to the influx of genuine Will into the channels of mortal expression.
Mostly, I don't give a flying fig what persons want, what they choose, or what they mistakenly "will." It rarely (especially with Muggles) rarely has anything at all to do with True Will.
I do care that persons choose, however, even if there is no sane reason to expect they'll make the right choices. Nothing teaches the right choices better than making a whole series of mixed right and wrong choices and experiencing the various consequences.
Ultimately, the only right choice for a person to make is one that surrenders to authentic Will flowing into the psyche from a level outside the limited personality structure; that is, the Voice (by whatever conscious or unconscious means of sensation it is perceived) of the Holy Guardian Angel.
In the unilluminated psyche the closest one gets to conscious perception of this is by learning to trust an inner sense of what is "right" for oneself in a given situation. Also, there is conscience which, when stripped (by our increasing discrimination) of the critical voices of parents, etc., becomes a purified clear instinct of rightness. This true conscience is no different at all from the Voice of the H.G.A. in one of its manifestations.
OK, so that's a long explanation differentiating between two possible uses of "will." Which leads me to my answer to your question.
I don't give a flying fig for what a personality "wills". If it's authentic, it's by accident. Most choices by most unilluminated people are bad choices in the sense that their short-term consequences are either negative or more or less inconsequential.
If you also are coming from the personality level, then any attempt to use your "stronger" will to over-power somebody else's "will" is just shadow boxing. It is of little consequence. It's most likely negative effect is if you actively regard your behavior as wrong. In that case, the knowingly and consciously choosing behavior that you judge to be wrong will fuck you up at least a little. But in terms of the battle of "will vs. will," there is nothing cosmic going on. It's an ant-fight over food.
On the other hand, if you are coming from an enlightened place - from actual conscious alignment with Will - then it isn't "will vs. will" but rather "Will vs. will." That is, REAL vs. fantasy. Go for it.
In the rare situation where you are coming from Will and encounter someone else who is also coming from Will, it is pretty unlikely you'll be able to move them on the matter. If you are, then it might be educational, might be a mutually selected joust to test or enhance your powers or simply to play, or might be an act of black magick.
-
Dear David H. and Jim E.,
Thanks for this thread on what the definition of True Will, or will is.
This is a sticking point for many BOTA members.
In L.V.X.,
chrys333 -
93 everyone,
Is is possible to get a definition of black magick? Or an example of it to kinda flesh out the definition? I gotta say that I am pretty perplexed, frustrated even, at the fact that it I just can not wrap my mind around it. Is it an act of black magick to will things into existence that serve the magician without causing harm to another i.e: willing lunch (for example) into existence when one has no money, and lo and behold, someone treat's the "willer" to lunch? At what point does white (magick) turn into black? And can different terminology be employed to describe the same principles (white vs black magick)? Because truthfully I desire stuff (with respect to another star's health, wealth and well being), I think about posessing whatever it is that I desire and I recieve it (a good portion of the time and with due thanks and gratitude to my HGA). It's been this way for a while now (waaaaaay before The Secret) and if this is wrong then what do I do to correct it? Aaaaahhh so many questions!!!
93 93/93
Reef -
@Ra-Imhotep said
"Is is possible to get a definition of black magick?"
I would say: That which is at odds with one's own True Will.
Since the universe is perfectly integrated and all Wills are part of a common, interrelated matrix, this carries the implication that Black Magick includes anything which interferes with the True Will of any other being.
The best way to avoid this is to take actions only that are consistent with one's own True Will which, by definition, cannot be at odds with anyone else's True Will.
"Is it an act of black magick to will things into existence that serve the magician without causing harm to another"
It depends. Is this a necessary part of the magician's True Will?
Part of the key idea here is that all morality is relativistic. That is, it is contextual. However, it is not woozy or vague, because there is an absolute standard for it for all people in all situations. But you cannot, from this, say that a particular act is or is not moral unless the particular individual and the context are taken into consideration.
"willing lunch (for example) into existence when one has no money, and lo and behold, someone treat's the "willer" to lunch?"
Notice that your example doesn't specify the other individual's actions, only your result. The universe coordinates such things, matching your need against someone else's complementary need, fulfilling both of you.
-
Many many thanks Jim!
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Surrender is the key. You just have to surrender to the right thing, i.e., to the influx of genuine Will into the channels of mortal expression."
Yes, thanks Jim
Very pithy answer. Your explanation reminds me of following the Tao as expressed in the Tao Teh Ching. -
If your will is used to bend anothers will, it doesn't necessarily mean to bend it forcefully.
If you actually can ,through your willpower, change somebody's mind, it is very likely if not sure, that this someone will never know it, he will feel it as an impulse or desire.
Let's say it's like you are influencing his will by yours, as when you influence people using your reputation, that doesn't mean you are forcing them to follow you.AUM.