"Low men" and Kings
-
@Froclown said
"yes but how does one treat a king?"
A good place to start would be r-e-s-p-e-c-t.
"he does not presume the king needs help of a handicap on life. He does not curb his tongue least the he offend the king nor does he pull his punches. "
Kings often curb their tongues when that best serves their purposes. For example, the art of diplomacy is a major part of even traditional kingship. One is reminded of Crowley's observation that, in one Thelemic fellowship, good manners were likely to be a far better mark of one's readiness to pass on than any amount of technical magical knowledge or skill. The bearings of aristocracy demand graciousness as a baseline, even when one has to occasionally wander from it to make a point.
"Even if one is enslaved but not spiritually brken one is not truly a slave. Their are amongst the most beaten and deprived slaves those individuals who are happy with their lot and live as kings amongst the vagrants and outcasts."
This might be a good time to mention where the word "slave" originated. It definitely puts a different spin on the word. The following is from The American Heritage Dictionary:
"The derivation of the word slave encapsulates a bit of European history and explains why the two words slaves and Slavs are so similar; they are, in fact, historically identical. The word slave first appears in English around 1290, spelled sclave. The spelling is based on Old French esclave from Medieval Latin sclavus, "Slav, slave," first recorded around 800. Sclavus comes from Byzantine Greek sklabos (pronounced sklävōs) "Slav," which appears around 580. Sklavos approximates the Slavs' own name for themselves, the Slověnci, surviving in English Slovene and Slovenian. The spelling of English slave, closer to its original Slavic form, first appears in English in 1538. Slavs became slaves around the beginning of the ninth century when the Holy Roman Empire tried to stabilize a German-Slav frontier. By the 12th century stabilization had given way to wars of expansion and extermination that did not end until the Poles crushed the Teutonic Knights at Grunwald in 1410. · As far as the Slavs' own self-designation goes, its meaning is, understandably, better than "slave"; it comes from the Indo-European root *kleu-, whose basic meaning is "to hear" and occurs in many derivatives meaning "renown, fame." The Slavs are thus "the famous people." Slavic names ending in -slav incorporate the same word, such as Czech Bohu-slav, "God's fame," Russian Msti-slav, "vengeful fame," and Polish Stani-slaw, "famous for withstanding (enemies).""
"If they are slaves then don't offer a hand te help them back up because they will only try to drag you down. instead leave them to die in their misery."
When you make comments like this, do you also keep in mind that there is no real separation between you and they? That you are the same being they are?
-
everything is the same being
Dishes and jugs are made of the same clay, but the form makes all the difference.
The flag of triumph is cut from the same cloth as the white flag of defeat.
and if it turns out that my spirit is broken and I lie defeated in misery then shall I know that Ra-Hoor-Kuit has forsaken me and perhaps my corpse will make a pleasing mat for the feet of someone who may carry on the great work where I left off.
However Though I may be trampled upon my attitude is that of a king who is not defeated even in death and disgrace. As my WILL un-defeated, goes on and with my last breath my final act of WILL, I consecrate my mortal remains to the great work.
-
"and if it turns out that my spirit is broken and I lie defeated in misery then shall I know that Ra-Hoor-Kuit has forsaken me and perhaps my corpse will make a pleasing mat for the feet of someone who may carry on the great work where I left off.
However Though I may be trampled upon my attitude is that of a king who is not defeated even in death and disgrace. As my WILL un-defeated, goes on and with my last breath my final act of WILL, I consecrate my mortal remains to the great work."
These are selfish statements. If one gets wrapped up in the glory of their own Kingliness then they are no better than the beggar in the King's robe. Something which might be helpful: Try visualizing other people as Sun-Gods on Earth, especially the difficult people.
-
I like what most people have said here. I do think its good to remember not to be a slave to material things or to let yourself become weak either. I think I don't want to be among the "dead and the dying".
Christ said something similar about letting the dead bury the dead.
Respect is good when you deal with others, but I try to be brutally honest with myself and let myself know when I am wallowing or letting myself get away with things. I think maybe all of these passages can be taken both ways--i.e. slaves are okay in the sense that they are servants, but one wants to remember to be about One's Own Work. Slaves don't get to do their own work.
I like some of the harsh wording in Book II a lot. It reminds you not to be soft on yourself and to get up and Do Something instead of rolling around in your own filth like most people.
-
since when is thelema not about being selfish?
the whole idea is solipsist, I am the center of the universe and all others revoulve around me and my WILL.
the only distinction from pure solipsism is that Thelema recognizes that every other individual is also the center of his own perspective universe and will use you as fast as you will use him.
Thus it works out better to use others in a way that complements their nature.
however oneself is still GOD and all others are cannon fodder!
-
Froclown, 93,
"
however oneself is still GOD and all others are cannon fodder!"A key factor in any description of what people anywhere call God is the identification or at least continuity of God with the creation. Even in the conventional Abrahamic traditions (Judaism, Xianity, Islam) there is no impedence to communication between God and and Its creation. The reverse may be true, since the created can have trouble communicating with the Divine, but the Creator has no opponents to gun down.
If you are seeing the rest of us as cannon-fodder, you're failing to be God, and thus you're not fulfilling the Law.
93 93/93,
EM
-
@Froclown said
"since when is thelema not about being selfish?"
I've never regarded it as being about being selfish - except in the abstract sense that contributing to the well-being of the universe is ultimately quite selfish.
Or, to put it another way: It's all selfish, but the definition of "self" evolves with one's own psychological and spiritual evolution, until it eventually includes the whole universe. (But that understandably takes a while.)
"I am the center of the universe and all others revoulve around me and my WILL. "
Ah, there's the rub. That's a very egoic statement (to which you're most definitely entitled!), but the ego - the personal manifestation - has no WILL. It has personality games that, most of the time, heavily interfere with True Will and, at their very best, don't rise about "true want." Actual Will can't exist outside of the context of all others, because only the Whole provides all the circumstances which determine the Will. (Think astronomy: A planet has its own distinctive orbit, complete and definable in its own terms, except that the existence and positions and motion of all other parts of the system are among the variabls in those equations.)
"Thus it works out better to use others in a way that complements their nature."
Bizarrely, I thin I agree with you on that!
"however oneself is still GOD and all others are cannon fodder!"
No, all others also are GOD in exactly the same way that you are. (And it's not your ego that is GOD! It's something before which your ego, like mine, is a bit of a joke.)
-
"Or, to put it another way: It's all selfish, but the definition of "self" evolves with one's own psychological and spiritual evolution, until it eventually includes the whole universe."
Tell it!
Love under Will. (They're the same thing eh? 93=93). And of course Love requires both an awareness of self as separate and an understanding of the interconnectedness of others and self. I doubt that it is anyone's True Will to go about damaging others.
-
@Froclown said
In particular, I have always liked the following excerpt from that chapter - and draw your attention to its last sentence:
"In practice, I begin afresh, it is almost entirely a matter of the point of view. That poor chap looks as if a square meal wouldn't hurt him; and you chuck him a half-crown. You offend his pride, you pauperize him, you make a perfect cad of yourself, and you go off with a glow of having done your good deed for the day. It's all wrong. In such a case, you should make it the request for favour. Say you're "dying for someone to talk to, and would he care to join you in a spot of lunch" at the Ritz, or wherever you feel that he will be the happiest.
When you can do this sort of thing as it should be done, without embarrassment, false shame, with your whole heart in your words — do it simply, to sum up — you will find yourself way up on the road to that royal republic which is the ideal of human society."
-
in any effect the only thing one can know for sure is that oneself is real and all others are but phantasms which aid the self.
Thus everyone and everything I perceive is nothing in and of itself but a mere creation of my mind to amuse me.
Thus there is no harm done in treating those imaginary friends in any way I like.
but it is to my advantage to use characters in my drama according to their proper role and not cast the butler in the role of the king or the detective as a house maid.
-
@Froclown said
"in any effect the only thing one can know for sure is that oneself is real and all others are but phantasms which aid the self.
Thus everyone and everything I perceive is nothing in and of itself but a mere creation of my mind to amuse me. "
Wow. If this was really the fundamental ontology of Thelema (and if the "self" above is intended to imply what we usually regard the "ego-self" to be), then I'm no Thelemite.
I have a feeling that this is a topic on which Thelemites disagree...
After doing some quick reading,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
I find that there are hosts of ways that these ideas interpenetrate schools of thought like Buddhism, Advaita Hinduism, etc. -- but I have a feeling that the "Self" spoken about in those traditions isn't the same thing as the standard conscious ego.Steve
-
the self includes the world. that is everything is an aspect of the self.
and it is true that I too am just an aspect of your self.
however, I am not you and thus it is proper for be to concern myself with my own perspective. Thus all things are lesser spirits that are to be put to proper use by my WILL to achieve those ends that are proper to me.
A general might find that the proper use of pawns is to send them across a mine field to clear the way for his better fighters, and the only proof that this act was proper and moral is that he he succeeds that is he wins the battle.
The pawn will not harbor a grudge for it is his Will to die for a cause of strong leader, thus he will rejoice at the oppertunity to prove his devotion in any way he can.
-
@Froclown said
"the self includes the world. that is everything is an aspect of the self.
and it is true that I too am just an aspect of your self.
however, I am not you and thus it is proper for be to concern myself with my own perspective. Thus all things are lesser spirits that are to be put to proper use by my WILL to achieve those ends that are proper to me. "
Now we're getting somewhere!
Froclown, the above is an example of cognitive dissonance. "The self includes the world" and "I am not you" are mutually contradictory statements. This doesn't mean that they can't both be true at once in some sense(s) - it just acknowledges the logical incompatibility.
I think the practical resolution is that, in the course of spiritual growth, one becomes more capable of understanding (rather than simply theorizing abot) the actual truth of the former, and one realizes that the second quoted sentence is only true by temporary definition and in a limited way.
I think it entirely right that you speak from the level of what is actually evident to you at the present time, and therefore you're going to speak in terms of ego-isolation, divisions between people, polarization and power-dominance games, and the alienation and antagonism that arises naturally from not actually experiencing that there every other person you encounter is authentically the same person you are.
But - in speaking from the personality level - I think it also important to understand that most of the statements you've been quoting don't have much to do with the personality level. The words mean something different (sometimes subtly, sometimes grossly) than they would mean if the only reality were the dividual and personality level of existence.
"A general might find that the proper use of pawns is to send them across a mine field to clear the way for his better fighters, and the only proof that this act was proper and moral is that he he succeeds that is he wins the battle. "
As long as you experience that you are both the general and the pawns (and, for that matter, the opposing army), I have no problem with this. A test: Would you feel the same way in this scenario if you place yourself in the pawn position as you would if you place yourself in the general's position? That is, can you see the equality and even identity of the "king" and the "slave"? (I'm not asking for theory. I'm asking for your actual feelings about the matter.)
-
you have to understand relativity to gen what I said.
This Solar system is 8 planets, a star, and many smaller bodies asteroids, moons, pluto, etc.
now we say the sun is the center and all else revolves about the sun, but this is only a mathematical convenience.
The Geo-centric solar system is just as true as the helio-centic. The If we take the earth as a point of reference the sun and planets all move arround they earth. They only advantage to the helio-centric is that the planets orbit in neat circles that yield easier mathematics.
however each point has its own unique web of relations within its own perspective. That is every planet is part of the perspective solar system that is unique to each chosen point of reference.
Truly however, we only speculate that there is a solar system that is shared in common with every reference point. We attempt to justify that a world out there exists on its own by taking the average sum of differences in perspective or trying to banish subjective qualities from the equation.
his is fruitless all we learn is the similarities and differences between ifferent perspectives never that there is an objective world out there that lies open to be perceived.
Anyway he sun in not the moon and thus the sun does not have access to the moons perspective. If the sun where te behave as the moon then the solar system would fly apart.
So the sun is the sun and all the planets are part of the suns universe the all serve the sun and glorify it.
However for the earth all the planets and even the sun are part of its universe and far be the earth to bend a knee to the sun, it is the sun which warms and serves the earth.
Thus say I, I am as the sun and all else is my plaything it exists to glorify and amuse me and I shall use all as I see fit.
-
When interpreting the Book of the Law, I have found it useful to remember that we are looking to return.
In other words, we must first be like Ra-Hoor-Khuit, fortifying ourselves, using force and vigor to conquer personal enemies and become a "King of Self."
Then you become "He who goes" ever moving forward. Compassion becomes the vice of a King because it requires you to stop. Instead of continually advancing yourself, you stop to offer someone else assistance.
Lastly, do you become "chief of All" by becoming "one" with Nuit. You come to view things from a "higher" perspective, that of the continuity of existence. Their joy becomes your joy, their sorrow your sorrow.
A bit of an oversimplification. Things can certainly be viewed the other way around as well.
Where you become one with Nuit, recognizing the fact that all things are but one thing.
Once that occurs you would stop being compassionate - as you are no longer helping others but rather something that is a part of your Self.
All penetrant and ever moving forward, your enemies fall before you like insects because you never actually stop to do anything. They are brought down by their own transgressions against the Self.
Hopefully this all makes some sense
-
@Froclown said
"Thus say I, I am as the sun and all else is my plaything it exists to glorify and amuse me and I shall use all as I see fit."
Just a quick question... Does telling other people THAT, totally make them want to DO immediately what you want them to do?
Cuz that would be sweet...
btw- I think this thread needs a little perspective... enjoy!