Treating Spirits with respect.
-
@Edward Mason said
"93,
I disagree. With different forms of information, initiation is extended. This idea that other people's opinions damage us is a bit silly. It harks back to the "You mustn't comment on Liber AL" school of thought. Protecting people from ideas is not my notion of what Thelema teaches.
"you're misunderstanding me. opinions don't cause damage - but setting in stone what true will can and can't be Does cause dogma and orthodoxy, which is a royal pain in the ass for gnostics.
"
I didn't say this - you keep shooting from the hip, without looking to take aim. My point is, our ultimate spiritual goal, the True Will, might include making cash, but only as an aspect of the totality of what TW represents. The TW might (as a hypothetical example) be: "To extend my scope to the infinite" and making cash could be the expression of that on the material plane. But it almost certainly wouldn't be the core truth, the vital and essential expression of being, that is True Will."what Was said is "True Will wouldn't involve making money, mining metals, running railroads ... or conquering most of Europe."
and i'm saying you can't know that for another star. if your point was, as you say, that the Goal may include these kinds of things then i agree with you - but wouldn't that "involve" making money and so on? then again, i wouldn't dream of saying that it's impossible.
"
I know what Liber AL says. My point is that each incarnate person experiences sorrow, at least until 8=3 A.'.A.'., and (for all we know) beyond that. Sorrow might, in the final analysis, may involve an incorrect perception of our experience, but suffering is a fact of life in the realm of Assiah, at the very least. It is one of the means of education. We can transcend sorrow, but that's not the same as eliminating it. "i disagree and hold to my point on this one - there's no reason whatsoever that we can't disagree on this point, of course. that's one of the awesome things about thelema - no orthodoxy!
i would make the point that you annihilate sorrow by uniting it with it's opposite.
"
Agreed. But since I've yet to meet anyone who admits to living in total accord with their TW, or appears to do so, collisions occur.
"yes! absolutely! that's the exact thing. however, here you're saying - if i understand you correctly - that the collisions aren't part of your true will, while in your above post you're saying quite the opposite. i won't deny you your right to contradict yourself, but it can make for confusing conversation.
now, for froclown's post...
"More important, when seen in the light of the WILL, there are no set backs, because every event is beneficial. Even a seeming obstacle is an opportunity to improve ones Skills or an indication that one is veering off course and must recalibrate ones course with the WILL. "
every event is beneficial when you're acting in harmony with your will, Yes - and i agree with you totally about obstacles as opportunity. the thing is, as edward pointed out above, the vast majority of people are not always acting in harmony with their will. those collisions Can be beneficial, if you use them (as you say) as indicators, but they can also become pointless, repetitive ordeals.
"As Nietzsche explained all our sufferings are part of what makes us who we are, to deny a painful event, or to say given life to live over again one would choose not to undergo that suffering, is to say one does not like who one is.
Thus to regret any thing one has done, is to disdain oneself, and such a negative self appraisal is contrary to Thelema."
very interesting, and i'd agree, but i get the sense that you don't think i agree with that based on my posts in this thread. why is that? please be specific - i may have been unclear or simply misunderstood
...the same with the rest of your post after that. i agree with you! we're agreeing! where's the confusion coming in?
now, redd fezz.
"I noticed this, too. Not only without a pause to take aim, but without proper consideration of the target. Shooting blindly, what need is there for an target? Agreeing and disagreeing with the same point in the very next breath shows one is not carefully considering any point of view but their own. "
ah! check out crowley's comment to that verse. one of the things he says is "so great is the power of asserting ones right that it will not long be disputed." i would add to that and say "saying nay" would imply an ability to actually Stop you, which is impossible if you're really acting in harmony with your will.
one kind of funny and enlightening thing here is that you seem to be saying liber AL vel Legis itself is contradictory from chapter to chapter. on some planes, it absolutely is.
"ye are against the people" and "let it be that state of manyhood bound and loathing" don't contradict themselves on all planes, though. "the people" can be read as the crowd in your head - the "state of manyhood," as it were.
also, i really think my point stands.
you said:
- How many beings oppose my view?
and
- Does it appear that I will be (successful)?
what's funny about the accusation of self-contradiction here is that my answer to point five in your list can be used just as easily to express the same idea if i address it to your first point!
as for point five, as i mentioned above, in crowley's new comment to the "against the people" verse, he talks about the people as, on one plane, "the many-headed and mutable mob which swarms in the slums of our own mind." since most of us aren't in total control of ourselves yet, the crowd in our heads will often try to convince us that acting in harmony with our wills will NOT be succesfull.
let me give an example from my own life. i'm transgendered. i used to look like a guy, but i never really was one. i was convinced for the longest time that i could Never In A Zillion Years transition and live full time as a woman. the truth was, doing that was a Huge, Massive part of my true will and i Absolutely Had To Do That before i could proceed.
every ***apparent ***odd was stacked against me, especially in my own mind. and yet! here i am!
to suceed, however, i did indeed have to set myself "against the people" both internally and externally. however, the objections didn't last long after i went ahead and did it. do you see what i mean now? or do you still think i'm contradicting myself?
as an aside, i think some of y'all have me all wrong. i'm having a great time in here! we don't need to agree on these points - i have my ideas to get across just the same as all of you. some things i've read here i agree with, some things i don't, some things i've never even considered (which is the really cool thing, i think.)
Love is the law, love under will
-
Yeah, Liber AL is read at a few levels which is why it's not a great idea to go back and forth about it. I notice a lot of people seem to take it on face value as justification for selfish behavior, somehow ignoring the bits they don't want to hear. - NOTE: I'm not accusing you of anything here - One certainly doesn't need a book to tell him it's alright to be a selfish person. But, on the other hand, some people plagued with guilt need exactly that: someone to tell them it's okay.
It's paradoxical and poetic, but it's not self-contradictory from chapter to chapter. Crowley himself noted that when he failed to follow his True Will, he ran into difficulties. If people be saying "nay" you should stop and check if you really know what the heck you're doing or if you're just mindlessly self-indulging (which is fine, but it's not True Will). Of course, Crowley did have his share of difficulties right up until the end, but I don't know what I could say about that except that the idea has been put forward by many that his entire character was meant to be evidence that "all could attain." He had his faults and maybe they were clear signs of where he veered from the path. I don't know.
You quoted from line 42 - 43, but why not 41?
Is it because 41 doesn't say, "Rape your lover if it be thy will, imprison her if she would leave thee?" Taken from line 41 on, the text takes on a different flavor from than you seem to be presenting it, but either way it still says only that if you do your will that "no other shall say nay." It doesn't say your will is whatever you want and to go ahead and impose your will without thought or care for others. Crowley put Liber Al in a drawer and tried to forget about it for 3 years. His True Will was the Will of the divine, to do the will of the Secret Chiefs. He had a devil-may-care sort of personality, true, but that wasn't his Will.Also, quoting lines related to crossing the Abyss is not a great back-up for a discussion specifically related to the Work in this world, which by its nature is relative and below the Abyss. Crowley was the one who said to come back down from the experiences and ground them in reality by analysis and introspection (Froclown's apparent specialty
). In fact, his body of work showcases his outrageously in-depth and untiring use of logic in the relative realm.Incidentally, Goetia is "Old Aeon" as much as Hitler and terrorism are. And I don't mean to seem like I'm attacking you. No ill will here.
-
LIHF, 93,
You said
"what Was said is "True Will wouldn't involve making money, mining metals, running railroads ... or conquering most of Europe."
and i'm saying you can't know that for another star. if your point was, as you say, that the Goal may include these kinds of things then i agree with you - but wouldn't that "involve" making money and so on? then again, i wouldn't dream of saying that it's impossible. "
My actual statement was:
"
True Will wouldn't involve making money, mining metals, running railroads ... or conquering most of Europe. An individual person's True Will formulation would be something both wider and simpler than any of those, and the actual worldly activity would be simply a manifestation of the deeper reality. "I make a little more sense (usually) when the entire quote is cited, though I concede there's some ambiguity in how I expressed myself.
I don't see that I, or anyone here, is "setting anything in stone," beyond what is commonly accepted about the nature of True Will (its primary emanation coming out of Chokmah, or if you prefer, Atziluth; its manifestation throughout life, but specifically in one sephirah of the Tree more than others, etc.) It operates on all levels, and the things of Assiah (such as money or railroads) are hardly likely to be relevant to the TW as it is formulated higher up the scale.
"i would make the point that you annihilate sorrow by uniting it with it's opposite. "
I agree. But in the case of real sorrows - loss of a loved one, of a job, of a significant phase of life - that isn't overnight. The transcendence comes out of the learning process, not as some conscious, quickly chosen shift of attitude.
In such instances, while I accept the True Will is operating to bring this situation about, it isn't a situation that is chosen via conscious awareness and selection. There's "life as governed ultimately by the TW," which includes all that we undergo, and "life chosen via the TW", which is what we strive to attain and to live as completely as we can.
Who sorroweth is not of us, agreed, but then there are phases when we explicitly lose all conscious connection with Hadit, or with Nuit. That's the growth process, death-states alternating with life-states. In particular, the three paths of the Middle Pillar involve such conditional deaths. Crowley's own career provides ample examples. I suggest that the Thelemic approach is based, above all, on awareness and understanding of all factors in life.
93 93/93,
EM
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
@redd fezz said
"You quoted from line 42 - 43, but why not 41? Is it because 41 doesn't say, "Rape your lover if it be thy will, imprison her if she would leave thee?" Taken from line 41 on, the text takes on a different flavor from than you seem to be presenting it, but either way it still says only that if you do your will that "no other shall say nay." It doesn't say your will is whatever you want and to go ahead and impose your will without thought or care for others. "
well, we were talking about Appearances, and i didn't really need that line to make my point.
however, since you bring it up, let's see.
- does it appear that i'll succeed (or something like that)
"41. The word of Sin is Restriction. O man! refuse not thy wife, if she will! O lover, if thou wilt, depart! There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse. Accursed! Accursed be it to the aeons! Hell.
-
Let it be that state of manyhood bound and loathing. So with thy all; thou hast no right but to do thy will.
-
Do that, and no other shall say nay."
it's really the same point i was making. it may appear that the way to success in love is to bind your lover in some way, but that won't work. when you bind, you restrict and keep things from annihilating. if you're doing your will, this isn't an issue.
since love under will is the law, love is the example used. it doesn't have to just be love as in people who are having sex and stuff - it's any kind of union. of course, we as primates have a tendency to bind what the rest of the world thinks of as love, too, so the example holds on almost all planes.
and no, it doesn't say your will is whatever you want, and neither did i!
however, i would say that a thought or care for others is immaterial. i don't really have to worry about what other people are up to. all i need to be concerned with in that regard is keeping those people who are part of my khu under will - as they are a part of me, it's on Me to keep that under control - which brings me right back to my original point about the goetic spirits, by the way.
Love is the law, love under will
-
I cannot agree with this list...
@Redd Fezz said
"
A good checklist would be:-
How many beings oppose my view?
-
How logical is that opposition?
-
Does it appear I am right?
-
Am I successful?
-
Does it appear I will be?
" -
You are not going to do your Will because others oppose you?
-
You are not going to do your Will because it is not logical?
-
You are not going to do your Will because you are not right?
-
The only proof.
-
See 4.
Edit:
As for Spirits and their treatment, I like to follow the golden rule:
Do unto others as you would have done unto you! -
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
@Her said
"
@Uni_Verse said
"As for Spirits and their treatment, I like to follow the golden rule:
Do unto others as you would have done unto you!"Isn't that the rule that Crowley labeled the most stupid ever invented?
"i'm not sure but i'd love to see the reference!
for my forty and found i'd prefer not to be summoned in a triangle, but that's just me...
well, okay, maybe once or twice just to see what it's like
Love is the law, love under will
-
@luxinhominefactum said
"i'm not sure but i'd love to see the reference!"
In the New Comment, for I:31, "The Golden Rule is silly. If Lord Alfred Douglas (for example) did to others what he would like them to do to him, many would resent his action."
-
@luxinhominefactum said
"i'm not sure but i'd love to see the reference!"
I misquoted. It's "foolish" not "stupid".
From the The Djeridensis Working: (emphasis added)
"Compassion, the noblest virtue of the Buddhist, is damned outright by Aiwass. To “suffer with” some other being is clearly to cease to be oneself, to wander from one’s Way. It always implies error, no Point-of-View being the same as any other: and in Kings—leaders and rulers of men—such error is a vice. For it leads straight to the most foolish Rule ever laid down, “Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you.”"
-
@Uni_Verse said
"I cannot agree with this list...
@Redd Fezz said
"
A good checklist would be:- How many beings oppose my view?
- How logical is that opposition?
- Does it appear I am right?
- Am I successful?
- Does it appear I will be?
"
@Uni_Verse said
"1. You are not going to do your Will because others oppose you?"
Certainly not what I am saying. IF others oppose you, evaluate and determine your course. Most people, I am sure, have not discovered their True Will. If they have, then they are properly poised to evaluate their actions.
@Uni_Verse said
"2. You are not going to do your Will because it is not logical?"
Certainly not what I am saying. How logical the opposition is depends on the situation. Crowley had opposition throughout his entire life. But, he evaluated the difference between "off the path" difficulty and rolling over the bumps in the road while crushing the old aeon in his new aeon mobile.
@Uni_Verse said
"3. You are not going to do your Will because you are not right?"
Certainly not what I am saying. Maybe you can figure it out from here on...
@Uni_Verse said
"4. The only proof."
@Uni_Verse said
"5. See 4."
"That's the point.
-
93
Crowley said many things, but that's not part of the holy books. Should we take everything he said as unassailable, absolute truth? What nonsense.
You are throwing away the pavement for a dirt road because you don't like the philosophy of the construction worker.
93, 93/93
-
@Her said
"
@luxinhominefactum said
"i'm not sure but i'd love to see the reference!"I misquoted. It's "foolish" not "stupid".
From the The Djeridensis Working: (emphasis added)
"Compassion, the noblest virtue of the Buddhist, is damned outright by Aiwass. To “suffer with” some other being is clearly to cease to be oneself, to wander from one’s Way. It always implies error, no Point-of-View being the same as any other: and in Kings—leaders and rulers of men—such error is a vice. For it leads straight to the most foolish Rule ever laid down, “Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you.”"
"This reminds me of how Crowley wrote that he was not spewing hatred for Jesus Christ, the man. It was the modern Christians he despised. I wouldn't take this comment to be in contrast to the idea of compassion at all. He did translate the Tao and he was very interested in Buddhism and Yoga, which symbolism and methods he incorporated into his system. I don't take his comments about Buddhism to be "the end of it" at all. His continued interest in Vajrayana symbolism shows to me that he rejected the popularly-held view of Buddhism which pervaded that era in the West: Theravada, the Buddhism of his friend Allen Bennett. Mahayana disagrees with Theravada, too. There is a big difference between the first yana and the ninth yana! Just as the New Aeon reforms the old, so do the highest Yoga teachings alter the perception gleaned from the lowest.
Crowley's system of spiritual advancement is said to be much faster than the Old Aeon methods because they are appropriate for these times (the same is said of the highest yana). But, Crowley's system uses gradual methods of Yoga (ie. lower yana methods) which involve "samadhi" and a lot of time. Highest yana methods are MUCH faster and utilize non-meditation, surpassing the achievements of samadhi and going straight to the point. I believe this is what Crowley was trying to do with Liber Samekh and his alterations of Old Aeon formulas, since he would not be available to everyone for direct transmission.
From the viewpoint of the Taoist or that of Highest Yoga Tantra, "compassion is the vice of kings" makes perfect sense. However, that does not mean these people are then cruel or uncaring. It's a higher view that encompasses the lower view and it doesn't mean the lower view is a bad idea or totally stupid. Just an incomplete one. Crowley realized that clinging to such views stunts spiritual growth.
-
@luxinhominefactum said
"
for my forty and found i'd prefer not to be summoned in a triangle, but that's just me...
"We are manifest - maybe we are already in a triangle(or two - a tetrahedron more accurately)?
@Her said
"
Isn't that the rule that Crowley labeled the most stupid ever invented? Laughing
"Maybe because it is so difficult a demand? You could just call that my motto, I am not implying I manage to due it all the time. I am still human
Though, I prefer to think of it as "making no difference." It gets all the more difficult, when you consider the levels. Standing in your circle, you are the King. I see spirits as objectified parts of you, so what is best for you is best for the spirit. If that requires its manifestation in a triangle, so be it. Just as that spirit answers the summons, so must you answer the summons of being a King ( and keeping the Kingdom in order).
"
If Lord Alfred Douglas (for example) did to others what he would like them to do to him, many would resent his action."
"Never hurts to ask?
I guess that depends on what you are asking... -
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
@Redd Fezz said
"
This reminds me of how Crowley wrote that he was not spewing hatred for Jesus Christ, the man. It was the modern Christians he despised.
"well, no, all "sorceror of nazareth" aside, how could he hate a man that he didn't believe existed?
"
I wouldn't take this comment to be in contrast to the idea of compassion at all. He did translate the Tao and he was very interested in Buddhism and Yoga, which symbolism and methods he incorporated into his system. I don't take his comments about Buddhism to be "the end of it" at all. His continued interest in Vajrayana symbolism shows to me that he rejected the popularly-held view of Buddhism which pervaded that era in the West: Theravada, the Buddhism of his friend Allen Bennett. Mahayana disagrees with Theravada, too.
"yes, this is, in part, the "the flesh of the Indian and the Buddhist, Mongol and Din." however, it is not the eyes/vision/gnosis of same.
Love is the law, love under will
-
@luxinhominefactum said
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
@Redd Fezz said
"
This reminds me of how Crowley wrote that he was not spewing hatred for Jesus Christ, the man. It was the modern Christians he despised.
"well, no, all "sorceror of nazareth" aside, how could he hate a man that he didn't believe existed?"
Right! Especially since he's a catch-all for pagan myths.
In this particularly 'let me set the record straight' statement, he simply distinguishes clearly what it is he despises about Christianity isn't the example or character of Jesus Christ, but rather it is the hypocritical example of modern Christians. Can't find the quote at the moment, so I don't know if he also stated in this particular instance that he didn't believe in the guy or not (but I don't see why he would believe in the guy).
Crowley was a funny guy how he would make such a strong statement and leave the full disclosure part to a completely different publication. IE. "how can I hate someone who doesn't exist?" or "why would you want others to do unto how they would want done to themselves? what about suicidal maniacs and masochists?" But, this tendency sure did cause a lot of misunderstanding. I think that's why he emphasized the Work above all else. The same is true in various tantras; they are meant only to perhaps clarify your experiences, not to explain everything in a nutshell. And there are wrathful Buddhist deities which would appear to be just as violent as what you might find in Liber AL.
-
@luxinhominefactum said
"
well, no, all "sorceror of nazareth" aside, how could he hate a man that he didn't believe existed?"Where does Crowley assert that he never believed that Jesus of Nazarene ever existed? There is a difference in believing that Jesus was the immaculately conceived embodiment of God and believing that he existed and was a prophet. I'm pretty sure I've seen Crowley assert the latter, somewhere.
-
Crowley's philosophical stance was generally one that took everything that exists to have a unique niche or expression of its own existence, which he called the WILL.
Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you, is a good generalized code, in so far as those aspects of others happen to overlap my own. That is being human we may share certain similarities, being of the same gender, race, under the same rule, social class, breeding, etc.
However, how is one to treat those who are less similar that oneself, certainly one does not treat a dog as one would seek to be treated himself. Rather one treats a dog in the way that is befitting of a dog.
Each individual being utterly unique, beyond the surface similarity, it would be quite contrary to the Law of Thelema, to base my assessment of others and what is proper for them based on what I believe to be proper to myself, even if by some miracle I managed to attain to a pure notion of my own WILL, undefined by the rubbish that passes for moral education, that stamps Cleanly into the mind. Like me is good, other is evil, and sets children out en assimilate the world.
How the words of the magus Christ have been distorted!
Does it matter if a magus is manifest as an historical Man or a fictional character? History is fiction, and the Magus in any event a pure being of Pure fabrication, His word the unfolding of history itself.
-
"
However, how is one to treat those who are less similar that oneself, certainly one does not treat a dog as one would seek to be treated himself. Rather one treats a dog in the way that is befitting of a dog.
"I choose this quote in particular, though it is more a general response to the comments about the "golden rule."
The treatment of animals is a discussion in of itself. I do not draw a line as to how I treat humans opposed to dogs. With humans there are just more possibilities of interaction.
But, for the sake of argument, and keeping it to the genre of human(<-we could certainly argue what this means too (and the rest of what I say as well)):
Assuming (going out on a limb) you like to get hit in the face closefisted.
( Just follow where I am going...)
Taking the golden rule, you would think... "HEY, I AM GOING TO HIT EVERYONE I MEET IN THE FACE CLOSEFISTED, CAUSE I WANT TO GET HIT IN THE FACE CLOSEFISTED"You need to stop... think. Do YOU want to be forced to do something against your will?
One would assume the answer is no. So, if the person does not want to be closefisted in the mouth, you should not do it to them against their will. To do that would invite them to force something upon you (which you do not want, I assume).Ok, in case someone says "But what if you want to be forced to do something against your will?"
The person does not want to be forced to do something against their will. Since, you do want to be forced to do something against your will, you must force yourself to enforce their will on you, to have nothing done to them against their will .What happens when someone does hit you in the face? Sounds like someone wants a good punch in the face...
The choice of what to do next is always yours. The golden rule, is really a silly idea. Henceforth I knight it the golden guide. You should never limit yourself.
Love is the law.
-
there is no reason to assume that others really know what they want, and giving people what they think they want, is often the worst thing one can do to punish them.
Therefore, it is wine to do unto others as is scientifically discovered to be what is actually what is best, rather than to rely on their subjective first hand accounts.
Going with dogs again, if we feed them what they think they want in the quantity they think is right, the dog will get obese and die. Dogs will eat until their stomachs split open, this does not mean that feeding dog til they burst is how to properly deal with them.
Servant class people may think they want to have run of the world, but their megalomania is delusional, if granted that power they will only serve to make themselves and others miserable.
Thus use each thing as it is proper to use it, use each person for an ends to which that individual is a proper means.
Thus is the "golden rule" of Thelema.
-
Kuniggety said:
"Where does Crowley assert that he never believed that Jesus of Nazarene ever existed? There is a difference in believing that Jesus was the immaculately conceived embodiment of God and believing that he existed and was a prophet. I'm pretty sure I've seen Crowley assert the latter, somewhere."
His comment on Liber AL, Cap I, v. 49, says "Isa is the legendary 'Jesus', for which Canidian concoction the prescription is to be found in my book Liber DCCCLXXXVIII."
At this point, at any rate, it sounds like he didn't think there was much historical fact around 'the legendary' Jesus.
93 93/93,
EM