Treating Spirits with respect.
-
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
-
93
Regardless of the legendary qualities of Jesus, and the actual, the point is that there was a teaching there, a set of principles, which were a correct point of view on Life and Law, from a certain perspective, to those 'who could hear." That teaching was from the previous Aeon of Osiris.
We are now in the Aeon of Horus. Well, some of us. And so, you have a teaching that works, the old one, which has been further expanded to become the new one. You can say the teaching is outdated, but it still works, just like a shovel is old technology, and it would be more efficient to use a snow-blower (pardon me, I live where it snows) on a snow covered driveway than the shovel.
So, how are you going to treat the spirit? You say "to hell with them, master." And that might work on Louisa your Latin American nanny, but she probably won't stay long b/c she can go find work elsewhere without the abuse. If you try the same approach to your father, and your father, let's say is muslim, he will strike you down like the disrespectful dog you are.
Everything in its place.
93, 93/93
-
@froclown said
"
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.
"I would never assume I know what a person wants( the last post was assumptions made purely for argumentative purposes). That is why I use my self as the "measuring stick." It is the only one I have.
@froclown said
"
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.
"I posses neither the time nor inclination to discover what is scientifically best for each individual. Not to mention, science is limited to observable behavior. Unless there is a means of tapping into a persons inner monologue that I am unaware of, you are only observing a small portion of the phenomenon taking place.
@froclown said
"
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.
"As I said, I do not treat dogs much differently than humans...
I would never force a person to live somewhere. I afford animals the same consideration. Therefore to own a dog would imply going against the 'golden guide' effectively making it useless in determining how to "properly" treat a dog.@froclown said
"
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.
"To me, it sounds like you are implying that people are objects to be used as you see fit (what is proper being subjective).
-
@kuniggety said
"
@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."
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
i quote the clearest instance i know of, from his new comment (on III,51) -
"One must not suppose for a moment that this verse supports the historicity of 'Jesus.' Jesus is not, and never was, a man; but he was a 'god,' just as a bundle of old rags and a kerosine tin on a bush may be a 'god.' There is a man-made idea, built of ignorance, fear, and meanness, for the most part, which we call 'Jesus,' and which has been tricked out from time to time with various gauds from Paganism and Judaism."
Love is the law, love under will
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
@Edward Mason said
"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.""
i don't think crowley was right about this. asar is indubitably osiris. there's no getting around that. from the context of the verse i would argue that "isa" is, in fact, isis.
isis and osiris are indeed inseperable from each other - "who are one," but the end of the verse "Hoor in his secret name and splendor is the Lord initiating" seems to indicate that isa and asar, with their roles as adorant and sufferer, no longer apply as formulas of initiation in the new aeon, and in fact represent the two Previous formulas of the two previous aeons - that of isis and osiris, respectively.
Love is the law, love under will
-
93
"i don't think crowley was right about this. asar is indubitably osiris. there's no getting around that. from the context of the verse i would argue that "isa" is, in fact, isis.
"First few times I read this verse I assumed that, too.
But in the Koran, and in Islam generally, Jesus is called Isa. Crowley had been studying with a Sufi sheikh at the time Liber AL was given. So I suggest we should read 'Isa' as Jesus, not Isis.
93 93/93,
EM