Treating Spirits with respect.
-
@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
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
the vast majority - including crowley and motta, would agree with you
in practice, the difference is academic. regardless of "isa's" identify, the Practice in the new aeon is the same
we're far off the topic now, but something i've always found fascinating about thelema, especially in my own lodge, is that while points of view, philosophies and interpretations are many and manifold, the practice often is the same
Love is the law, love under will
-
do you think a person is not an object, that is an thing that is, with its awn unique and particular nature. That is with specific properties that make each individual fit for particular results?
Fish are not suited to life on the land.
A fat man is not suited to play professional basket ball.
A dim wit is not suited to work as a rocket scientist.No matter what the personal delusions of these individuals might be, their True objective state determines their WILL. Subjective states are merely objective states that are unique to the individual. The thoughts in my head are objective events in space-time of the brain. The best tool anyone else has to access these brain states, is to ask for my personal expression of them.
So when we scientifically access what is proper to others, we must take into account their first hand "subjective accounts" However these are best treated as scientific data on par with objective measures.
now, the pulse, breathing rate, % body fat, physical condition, etc are to be accounted for as much as cognitive effects, personal aspirations, personality, affect style, and the common themes of dream states, visions etc.
These are all vital in the determination of the TRUE WILL, which although a personal matter on one level, ie ones awareness of his TRUE WILL is subjective, but the awareness indicates the objective existence of that. Thus I am able to be aware of my fingers now, because fingers actually exist objectively.
We conclude with Crowley's Scientific solution to the problem of government, that a panel of experts help to work out the WILL of individuals in conflict, such that they understand where their personal delusions about what they want, are mistaken from the objective scientific fact of what they ace fitted for objectively, their TRUE WILL.
-
Your mode of thought is applicable, when speaking of things in a single moment. A vacuum without a past or future.
In a single particular moment the Will does not change, however the knowledge one posses of it fluctuates from moment to moment.
A fat man is not suited to play basketball, but if his Will was to be a professional basketball player it would first manifest as a Will to exercise and get fit. It may not be until that is accomplished that the fat mans knowledge of his Will evolves into becoming a professional basketball player. In turn, becoming a professional basketball player could be just another step.
The same applies to the dim wit (But gets more complicated). His Will may be to become a rocket scientist, unfortunately too much karmic debt has to be overcome. It may not be possible for him to fully manifest his Will in his current incarnation. Not everyone manifests their Will in a single lifetime.
Regardless, despite the Will of the person manifesting as being a professional basketball player or rocket scientist ; it is just a manifestation. The actual Will of the person cannot be said to be "become a rocket scientist" that is just how it is expressed. Will, as an objective idea has no qualities in of itself by which we can measure or define it.
True Will could be considered the fourth in which the accomplishment, doing and realization are united. A finite structure designed to express something infinite.
The panel of experts may be able to work out the Will as a reflection of the moment when the conflict is brought to their attention. It would be a mistake to assume the same solution would be applicable, even if the same conflict arose in the future.
-
-
there is only one life, you are a machine.
-
there is no "karmic debt".
-
everything it the universe is of the same source it all fits together, everything has a niche in the dynamic equilibrium of the cosmos.
Thus, their is a place for everything and Thelema means putting things back in their place.
When you are is your place, there is no need to manifest awareness of ones separate existence, one is fully integrated into the environment, like a piston that fires in time, it stops knocking and back-firing.
A 500lb man will never set the high jump record. So long as he believes he can, he denies reality, then he is in conflict with himself, his true nature and his environment. The fact that he is grossly over weight shows he is already out of alignment. But it is obvious that even if he gets in shape, he will be a large man.
A is A, figure out what A is, and deal with it, your hopes, wishes, or attempts to use magick to make A something other than A will only end in failure.
Success is proof A is A and we treat A like A.
Magick is the art of understanding reality and putting each entity according to its possible and proper use.
-
-
@froclown said
"
- there is only one life, you are a machine.
"
The path of Thelema (and mysticism in general) I view as freeing oneself from the idea that you are a machine.
I, or how I am defined through my ego, lives only once.
As you point out:@froclown said
"
- everything it the universe is of the same source it all fits together, everything has a niche in the dynamic equilibrium of the cosmos.
"
I has a part in the equilibrium of the cosmos, being a part of the cosmos. Although I and my ego may die, only living once - the cosmos (which I am a part of, and is a part of me) continues on.
If, in this life time I were not to accomplish my Will. Then the universe would manifest something else, to effectively pick up where I left off.
@froclown said
"
- there is no "karmic debt".
"
There is no "karmic debt" ; it is just a useful term in the attempt to describe a concept. The dim wit constantly saying to himself, as well as others saying to him: "the dim wit will never be a rocket scientist" accumulates as "karmic debt." This debt (whatever it may be) must be overcome before the dim wit can fulfill his Will to be a rocket scientist.
One, could possibly theorize that the fat mans "karmic debt" has manifested itself through the extraneous weight. All of his "negative" thoughts and feelings coming to physically as well as mentally weigh him down and stop him from being able to attain his Will.
I agree that the 500lb man as he is will never set the high jump record. But the 500lb man could also die (transform) to create a 150lb man that can set the high jump record. You are saying "the fat man is a fat man" as if there is nothing that can be done about the fact that he is fat.
A is always A, but was never A.
If you went around and talked to the general populace, asking "Can you do magick?" The majority will say "No." But that does not mean you can not or that they could not do magick if they applied their Will?
- there is only one life, you are a machine.
-
A fat man is not recycled into a thin man. And a clay pot does not become a ceramic figurine ofter it is broken.
You are the form the atoms take, once you die that is it. There is nothing of YOU that remains, it does not matter if you decay and are used to fertilize plants, you do net become the plants. Smash a toaster and there is no more toast, the machine is gone.
A fat man can loose weight, that is not the point. Genetically he will always be a large person, he can not change that anymore than he can change his gender, if he takes pills and cuts off his junk, he only becomes a freak, not actually a woman.
Magick is not the man thinks he is a woman so he uses magick to mutilate himself, rather Magick works by the man realizing he is a man and accepting that, and casting all delusions to the contrary out of his mind, and learning to act like a man. Magick does nat propose a supernatural excuse, "oh but I have a female soul, our a female kamic debt, or I was a womon in my last life" Magick may take the fact that one has accumulated these notions from ones life, as a part of ones Psychology, figure out why this is and discove how they add into the equation of ones WILL.
Yes, a Fat man is fat, he is extra fat because he feels powerless, and he can choose to lose some weight. Or if he is in the right social situation he can choose to become a sumo wrestler. There are other options, but do insist that he really is thin, but trapped in a fat mans body, is a lie. An appeal to supernatural delusion, to blame karma for his situation is a lie. A spade is a spade. If one happens to be a spade, the fist step is to stop trying to be something else.
or as the say in AA, "the first step to a cure, is admitting you have a problem"
I thing that is more or less the first step in the A.'.A.'. also.
-
Froclown wrote:
"
Genetically he will always be a large person, he can not change that anymore than he can change his gender, if he takes pills and cuts off his junk, he only becomes a freak, not actually a woman.
Magick is not the man thinks he is a woman so he uses magick to mutilate himself, rather Magick works by the man realizing he is a man and accepting that, and casting all delusions to the contrary out of his mind, and learning to act like a man. Magick does nat propose a supernatural excuse, "oh but I have a female soul, our a female kamic debt, or I was a womon in my last life" Magick may take the fact that one has accumulated these notions from ones life, as a part of ones Psychology, figure out why this is and discove how they add into the equation of ones WILL. "Were you trying to be consciously nasty here? Or was it a notion that sprang "accidentally" out of your unconscious?
EM