Definition of a Thelemite
-
@Zeph said
"A Thelemite is a man or woman performing the work they were born to perform."
While I admit I love the sentiment it appears this definition seems to allow for the introduction of anyone who feels they are doing the work they were born to perform to be a thelemite. But, Thelema is specific to a certain classification of belief -- in other words it is a label founded on the dictates of the Book of the Law-- and putting the label on anything does necessarily align that personality to being a Thelemite.
That said, I look forward to your clarification of this 'generalization'.
Thank you, Zeph.
-
93,
I enjoyed Froclown's list of attributes. Simultaneously, I found them impossibly restrictive. I couldn't achieve a pretence of all that if I tried for years. And
"A thelemite has no friends, family or social support. "
...? Please - let's keep some balance here. I need people around <i>in order</i> to fulfil my Will - I need to work <i>with</i>? them, not aloof from them. Stars move in their own orbits, but all stars have a gravitational effect on each other.King of the Wolves wrote:
"But, Thelema is specific to a certain classification of belief -- in other words it is a label founded on the dictates of the Book of the Law"
Crolwey was always the first to recognize the need for a broad definition - his one for Magick itself ('the science and art of producing change ... etc.) is a classic of inclusiveness. And if someone is doing that which he or she was born to do, then the requirements of Liber L are being fulfilled. Attempting conscious identification with a laundry list of objectives is just as likely to deflect him or her from the Thelemic 'prime directive' as it is to see it fulfilled.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
When I say a Thelemite has no friends etc.
I do not mean he has no aquired set of people on whom he relies for various ends, nor that he does not help them in order to gain their mutual support.
I mean that a Thelemite is not a member of his friends, as if his personal identity is defined by something other than himself.
He is always conscious that people are tools to be used by his TRUE WILL, and he has power over them via his WILL, he does not belong to others, they belong to him.
The same is true of the state or nation, a Thelemite is certainly not a nationalist and marginally a "patriot" he does not belong to the state, he is not owned by it, the state is his tool to use to his ends, his WILL.
Nothing is to be taken as an end in itself, save that it is necessary to the Great work.
"ever unto me"
A friend or a lover is not taken for it's own sake, but only as a means to an ends, The Great Work.
-
Froclown, 93,
I understood your point. I'm not sure YOU do.
"He is always conscious that people are tools to be used by his TRUE WILL, and he has power over them via his WILL, he does not belong to others, they belong to him. "
I don't seek egoic power over other people, and I cannot see how this notion is anything OTHER than being about ego-based power. If we are all stars within the body of Nuit, then trying to exert power over other people would be a matter of separating ourselves from Her, not uniting. Some interactions will be more power-based than others, but that should be a temporary necessity, not a habit.
What you propose sounds horribly lonely.
And requiring a lot of guns..
93 93/93,
Edward
-
"And if someone is doing that which he or she was born to do, then the requirements of Liber L are being fulfilled. "
True enough, but they could or we could refer to said personalities by any other label or title that ties into such a model of fulfillment. We could say that have attained bodhisattvahood-- which is the point I was trying to make. The label itself is determined to a classification of personalities. *
"Attempting conscious identification with a laundry list of objectives is just as likely to deflect him or her from the Thelemic 'prime directive' as it is to see it fulfilled. "
I completely agree. However, there are those that require many directives to keep them moving in a definitive direction! [grin]
-
@King of the Wolves said
"
@Zeph said
"A Thelemite is a man or woman performing the work they were born to perform."While I admit I love the sentiment it appears this definition seems to allow for the introduction of anyone who feels they are doing the work they were born to perform to be a thelemite. But, Thelema is specific to a certain classification of belief -- in other words it is a label founded on the dictates of the Book of the Law-- and putting the label on anything does necessarily align that personality to being a Thelemite.
That said, I look forward to your clarification of this 'generalization'.
Thank you, Zeph."
As an aside, after a conversation earlier today with a brother, I note in my mind the performance of one's Work includes the quest to determine what that Work is.
That aside aside, you and I simply disagree with whether or not Thelema is a specific classification of belief.
Oh, wait:
@Froclown said
"He is always conscious that people are tools to be used by his TRUE WILL, and he has power over them via his WILL, he does not belong to others, they belong to him."
Well, certainly not Thelemic, that, so let me redefine:
A Thelemite is a man or woman who is performing the Work for which he or she has incarnated, or is actively seeking to discover that Work, while simultaneously respecting the right of every other man and woman to perform their Will without interference.
-
Rey, 93
"True enough, but they could or we could refer to said personalities by any other label or title that ties into such a model of fulfillment. We could say that have attained bodhisattvahood-- which is the point I was trying to make. The label itself is determined to a classification of personalities. * "
Now, is a 'Thelemite' related at all significantly to his/her personality? I'm startin' ter git them ole cognitive dissonance blues.
I'm not sure I grasp your analagy to bodhisattvas. A bodhisattva has renounced final liberation in order to continue serving sentient beings in the round of births until the last blade of grass is brought to enlightenment - the definition is quite clear, and quite narrow. Levels of spiritual attainment can vary among them from (in Western terms) Minor Adepts up to Magi.
Thelema casts a wider net to begin with, and accepts its proponents may be found in many places and many guises (It may be that yonder beggar is a king ... Or: there are also of my friends whi be hermits.Now think not to find them in the forest, etc.)
The determinant seems to me be the Thelemite, and not we who might set up definitions. 'The' Comment advises, "All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself."
93 93/93,
Edward
-
"A Thelemite is a man or woman who is performing the Work for which he or she has incarnated, or is actively seeking to discover that Work, while simultaneously respecting the right of every other man and woman to perform their Will without interference."
Now, what's not to like about this definition.
I don't think we disagree, Zeph. I think I find the label, 'Thelemite' definitive to a given group of personalities who choose to use the label, term, descriptive -- it is again a specific reference. Now, if I 'choose' to use the term, Thelemite to describe myself and I am doing as noted in your definition, than sure...I am a thelemite.
But, if I follow the self-same definition and call myself a Borg based on that definition, it is equally valid.
That said, I appreciate your stance on this matter.
-
Greetings Edward,
"The determinant seems to me be the Thelemite, and not we who might set up definitions. 'The' Comment advises, "All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself.""
Yes, I believe that those who consider themselves to be Thelemites can call themselves as such. Whether their actions and deeds add validity to the title is an entirely different matter. I personally, have no issues with anyone calling themselves a thelemite -- but I reserve the right and privilege to accept that as truth for me.
-
@King of the Wolves said
"I think I find the label, 'Thelemite' definitive to a given group of personalities who choose to use the label, term, descriptive -- it is again a specific reference."
And yet - to repeat my initial position above just to rattle some cages
- if Liber L. is consulted on the matter, "Thelemite" only appears as a lable that other people call us. The one thing this seems to exclude is self-labelling."Now, if I 'choose' to use the term, Thelemite to describe myself and I am doing as noted in your definition, than sure...I am a thelemite. "
Or not. See above. (One could ask the provocative question: Why would a Thelemite use a label? I'm not saying there is no legitimate answer to this question, I'm just pushing the question up to the surface.)
"But, if I follow the self-same definition and call myself a Borg based on that definition, it is equally valid."
I would submit that most Thelemites in the world call themselves all sorts of other things and rarely, if ever, call themselves Thelemites.
-
"I would submit that most Thelemites in the world call themselves all sorts of other things and rarely, if ever, call themselves Thelemites."
True enough...I generally just call myself, Rey. But, I was working from the tread of this discussion in my defining the label of what is a Thelemite?
Personally, those who call us thelemites can do no wrong.
So, Do what THOU wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
-
"And yet - to repeat my initial position above just to rattle some cages Twisted Evil - if Liber L. is consulted on the matter, "Thelemite" only appears as a lable that other people call us. The one thing this seems to exclude is self-labelling. "
I sincerely believe that there is a reason for this choice in self or Self-labeling as the case may be. The choice is inherent to us as 'thelemites' to call ourselves whatever is in alignment with our Truth...our true will. I suspect that calling our self a thelemite is most appropriate if we understand what the label means to us and why we use it.
-
@Froclown said
"even one's ego ends must submit to WILL, thus it's not egoism.
It's a trans-egoist WILL."
Your choice of pronouns in your original comments belies this sentiment.
You sure put a large number of restrictions on what it is to be a Thelemite. Since you don't have the slightest inkling of my purpose in life, you have no idea whether it's necessary for me to, for instance, maintain good standing in the public eye, or offer assistance without expecting anything in return, two things which you apparently find anathema to the work.
@Froclown said
"Thelema = be unique and conquer the universe."
Thelema does not equal anything of the sort. You're going to have to get past the soundbites if you want to succeed at this.
-
To me there are two definitions, a general and a specific:
General: On who seeks to discover their true will and do it in conjunction with the universe.
Specific: One who does the above while following the system and methods set forth by The Prophet.
Sorryfor more "sound bytes" but it'sall I have energy for right now!
-
@DavidH said
"To me there are two definitions, a general and a specific:
General: On who seeks to discover their true will and do it in conjunction with the universe.
Specific: One who does the above while following the system and methods set forth by The Prophet."
I wouldn't argue with the fence-sitting approach. That's also the most rational of the specific definitions I've seen, I think.
-
If you do that which appeases others, then you are allowing them to use you for their WILL, thus in this situation they are the Thelemite and you are the slave.
It may be at times that you want to take the roll of a slave, however this is an illusion and you are more than willing and capable to back-bite when the situation turns to your favor. I do not mean whenever you can achieve whatever little pleasures cross your mind, but when it comes time to rise up from your obscurity as a peasant in disguise and take on the robe of a king in order to facilitate your TRUE WILL.
This also means that a thelemite does not pity and coddle others, let the chips fall where the may and let each man solve his problems for himself. Strike him "low and hard" and if he falls, then oh well that is his busisness, if he is strong and worthy he will find away to survive your blows.
A thelemite is concerned with his own business and leaves all others to concern themselves with their business.
For Thelema each individual's own inner genius or HGA is GOD of his own universe, is the highest on only justified authority, no one bows before any one else.
Thus, the HGA is master of all, he submits himself and his own desires, wants, needs, etc to the HGA, which is the TRUE WILL.
Thus if a thelemite engages in a wild sex orgy, it is in service of higher mystical principles, it is not a mere joy ride for personal pleasure, (as he will have transcended these bodily interests with yoga) but a scientific investigation into the nature of his own being, and his act is fully an act of devotion to NUIT.
-
@Froclown said
"If you do that which appeases others, then you are allowing them to use you for their WILL, thus in this situation they are the Thelemite and you are the slave. "
This seems to me to be only half the story - as if only Chapter 2 existed in Liber L. It's the Hadit perspective - "myself singled out as an individual, a point-consciousness, independent and unique." It seems to me that it entirely excludes the Nuit perspective of Chapter 1, which is equally and concurrently true, the "part of everything, no separation among us, global consciousness, unity" etc.
Theory aside, from observation I have long thought that a telltale mark of someone who actually had the experience of "infinitesimal self differentiated and distinguished in its uniqueness" - the Hadit consciousness - was that they were concurrently and equally aware of the Nuit perspective. I don't think you can truly "get" one of these points of view in anything approaching its fullness without concurrently experiencing the opposite - can't get the Nuit experience without a simultaneous awareness of Hadit, nor get the Hadit experience without a simultaneous awareness of Nuit. Can't understand how we are all separate without concurrently understanding how there is no separation between us at all. The Infinite and the Infinitesimal are the context for each other.
It's possible that you and I would understand the word "appease" differently and, since you're the one who used it, ultimately I yield to you on what it means in your sentence. The point I want to make, though, is that there is rarely any real understanding of, or even clear instinct for, one's own True Will except in a context of the True Wills of others. Mindfulness of the stellar nature of each other, and of the necessary interconnection among all of us, is one of the main tools for knowing that one is on track with oneself.
You are describing a highly polarized "one is master, one is slave" reality which is, at best, an immature understanding of Thelema. A better understanding is that we all exist and move in continuous service to each other. There is no separation. We are, after all, a single being.
"A thelemite is concerned with his own business and leaves all others to concern themselves with their business."
But there are no "others."
"no one bows before any one else."
I bow before others all the time, in adoration and admiration. It seems a natural and spontaneous response to recognizing and discovering something about another's miracle. Does this make me not a Thelemite?
"Thus, the HGA is master of all, he submits himself and his own desires, wants, needs, etc to the HGA, which is the TRUE WILL."
You're really caught up in this master-slave thing, aren't you. As an expression of erotic tastes among consenting adults, that's one thing; as a model for society at large it kind of gets in the way in the New Aeon, don't you think?
"Thus if a thelemite engages in a wild sex orgy, it is in service of higher mystical principles, it is not a mere joy ride for personal pleasure"
That's what Thelema teaches as the best approach, agreed. But if you're making a statement of what, in fact, is the usual state of affairs, I'd have to question whether that is always the case. (PS - I almost missed the further dualistic either-or here. Those "higher mystical principles" aren't incompatible with a "joy ride for personal pleasure." Reread CCXX 1:13 for the method.)
"(as he will have transcended these bodily interests with yoga)"
No, not really. That would be very Klingsor of you.
-
Froclown, yours is an interesting perspective. Mine differs.
Appeasing is different than offering assistance, which is what was mentioned. Offering assistance, if it is not rejected, is more likely to be an act of True Will, on the part of the servant, than eschewing his or her fellows.
Conflict is an illusion which occurs at the personality level, not at the level of True Will. Therefore, hiding as a slave until the situation allows a "back-bite" seems not at all to me to be evidence of True Will.
I agree that pity and coddle are best avoided. One can help move the chips into proper channels, however, without pitying and coddling those on whom the chips are falling. That man who fell by your side is you.
A Thelemite ought indeed concern him or herself with their own business. One wouldn't expect a Thelemite, for instance, to make long lists of Do's and Don'ts, but rather would allow each individual the freedom to determine their own ethic.
There is only one universe. Everyone bows before everyone else.
There is nothing to submit. The personality is a tool developed for the use of the HGA which is refined in order to be of fit use.
