Pure Will and True Will
-
Where does the everyday will or self-discipline stand in this?
Edit: For example, I can imagine someone using the concept of pure will to justify laziness. As in - the pure will is spontaneous and unassuaged of purpose. Therefore making plans and disciplined practice is just my intellect getting in the way.
-
@Nudor said
":rofl: And Crowley is always the voice of reason, right? OR is it how people read him?"
We're talking about Crowley's system of Thelema here and his writings... what are you talking about?
"To me they are quite separate. Seems like it is saying before he could be pure will he had to discover his True Will to take him to that state (whose name is that word)."
So you can have pure will without True Will but not True Will without pure will?
@JNV33 said
"Where does the everyday will or self-discipline stand in this?
Edit: For example, I can imagine someone using the concept of pure will to justify laziness. As in - the pure will is spontaneous and unassuaged of purpose. Therefore making plans and disciplined practice is just my intellect getting in the way."
"Delicious languor" is of us
I think one point is that one wouldn't be 'justifying' anything for pure will is 'unassuaged of purpose'. There is no thought of 'Why' or 'Because' (Liber AL chapter 2), there just IS is the Will.
IAO131
-
@Aum418 said
"I think one point is that one wouldn't be 'justifying' anything for pure will is 'unassuaged of purpose'. There is no thought of 'Why' or 'Because' (Liber AL chapter 2), there just IS is the Will."
I can't tell you how often I've encountered: "Have I paid rent yet? Hey, I'm living in the NOW. Where are you living?" Or - "Late? In the NOW, there is no concept of the past of future. How could I possibly be late?!" From descriptions above and elsewhere, I wonder if the True Will concept is similarly malleable to justify... pretty much anything?
I'm also wondering about the relationship between the mundane everyday will and the transcendent will. Are they quite distinct? Does the exercise of one lead to apprehension of the other? Are they opposed to each other in some respects?
-
@JNV33 said
"
@Aum418 said
"I think one point is that one wouldn't be 'justifying' anything for pure will is 'unassuaged of purpose'. There is no thought of 'Why' or 'Because' (Liber AL chapter 2), there just IS is the Will."I can't tell you how often I've encountered: "Have I paid rent yet? Hey, I'm living in the NOW. Where are you living?" Or - "Late? In the NOW, there is no concept of the past of future. How could I possibly be late?!" From descriptions above and elsewhere, I wonder if the True Will concept is similarly malleable to justify... pretty much anything?
I'm also wondering about the relationship between the mundane everyday will and the transcendent will. Are they quite distinct? Does the exercise of one lead to apprehension of the other? Are they opposed to each other in some respects?"
I'm the last person with enough insight to discuss this, though I'll offer my current and limited opinion anyway.
I believe that I have glimpsed something akin to the "Tao", or True Will. For me it was a sort of spontaneous reaction to my environment where there was no conflict, little intellectualizing - a sort of "flowing with the ebb of life". "Being in the moment", call it what you will.
But there is more to this than one can examine intellectually based merely on past experience of attempting to "be in the moment". There is a sort of perfect "archetypal flowing" of the so-called mature male archetypes in response to one's situation. During the few days of my life when I experienced this I was driving back from work when a car drove past me and soaked me with rain water through my open window. Under normal circumstances I would have been extremely annoyed but in this case I found it wonderfully refreshing. Of course I wasn't carrying any of the normal stress with me at the time because I dealt with every work situation appropriately. Playing with my kids was like becoming a child myself (the fool) from which I naturally evolved towards the magician - transforming their psyches through "play". I don't know perhaps this is not the "Tao" or the "True Will" but this is the closest I have come and the experience was profound.Getting back to your point about using Will as an "excuse" say for laziness. I think if one follows this "instinct" one will eventually become rather bored with life - the psyche will naturally create some discomfort, some irritation or depression that will push one towards becoming let's say for example more "goal driven". This is the natural Alchemy of life - we will evolve regardless. The problem with this attitude however is that it can be rather painful and laborious and that is what spiritual systems are for - an evolutionary shortcut. Does one want many to indulge in many failed relationships to find a fulfilling relationship or does one want to "work on oneself" to achieve a fulfilling relationship now? One could of course also make the excuse that one had the right to kill someone during a fit of anger but there will of course be consequences to such an action. Better to understand what underlying insecurity would drive one to kill and work with this. Of course it's all relative - killing may well be the "perfect" action under certain circumstances.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.
-
Personally, I tend to separate the ideas of "knowing and doing one's True Will" and "the path of finding one's True Will."
Just by the nature of the quest, there are going to be times where "True Will" and the authority to act decisively are going to be invoked. Kind of like, "I rely on the tools and freedoms afforded my by the concept of True Will, until I discover it in full." Before the True Will of an individual is known, you have the freedom to explore all avenues of finding it. A person can seem to justify meaningless acts by the concept, but if the goal is legitimate and the heart intent on learning and discovery by this method, then all of these seemingly senseless justifications go toward the learning process and are in the end fruitful by the law of trial and error. In contrast, if a person is merely excusing themselves to perform foolish acts, then the road is going to be longer and more painful, but it could still be said that the law of cause and effect will eventually lead them to taking the process more seriously, and all, in the end, once again, is fruitful.
Regarding the discovery of the True Will, I can only speak to you from as far as I've come. For me, so far, there is the sense of knowing the function of a personality like mine in the scheme of the evolving Beauty of Life. From that perspective, I have been able to touch the idea that if everyone knew their own place in that Scheme, humanity would function much more organically and efficiently, everyone and everything understanding its proper function and performing it with passionate and fulfilled hearts.
I can only say that I value the process of finding one's True Will enough to allow others to make their own judgments and decisions based on the sacredness of that quest.
When a person knows, they know they know, and all their actions make sense in regard to that specific expression of Greater Purpose, whatever it may be, however nonsensical it may seem to others. I think Crowley was a perfect example of this concept. Everything else is a function of the freedom to find that Purpose.
SO... all that to say, Yes, I think "True Will" can be invoked to excuse some rather silly things on the path to true discovery. I see these as necessary aspects of the journey, for a person will only excuse foolish actions by invoking True Will to the extent that they need to learn from the lawful consequence of those actions.
Maybe you could say that to the extent that a person is willing to pay the consequences of the actions for which they invoked the right of True Will, to that extent they are probably actually attempting to express it.
just thoughts...
-
Possibly one could look at Will in phases. Pure Will would be Will as being. Doing one's True Will, would be that Will in action.
These two could be encapsulted as "Being true to one's Being."
This would have the fundamental injunction to answer to oneself first and foremost, without the the need to resort to invoking "Because it is my will," creating a more self-referenced responsibility and having less recourse or response to external validation.
At the end of the day, how we choose to interpret doing one's Will, the philosophy it instills, the resultant ways in which it would then manifest, are ultimately part of that individual quest.
-
@Chris Hanlon said
"Hi Everybody,
Aum, thanks for the note.
The Abyss - you think people really have crossed the Abyss? No, that's not what I meant.
Who on this list assumes they have or someone else has crossed the Abyss, and how can you tell?
Thanks,
chrys333"93,
I think so, and I dont think you can 'tell.' A King may be yonder beggar.
@JNV33 said
"
@Aum418 said
"I think one point is that one wouldn't be 'justifying' anything for pure will is 'unassuaged of purpose'. There is no thought of 'Why' or 'Because' (Liber AL chapter 2), there just IS is the Will."I can't tell you how often I've encountered: "Have I paid rent yet? Hey, I'm living in the NOW. Where are you living?" Or - "Late? In the NOW, there is no concept of the past of future. How could I possibly be late?!" From descriptions above and elsewhere, I wonder if the True Will concept is similarly malleable to justify... pretty much anything? "
That would be the confusion of planes, I think. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; if one wants physical freedom of movement, one must obtain the necessary means (paying rent in this case).
"I'm also wondering about the relationship between the mundane everyday will and the transcendent will. Are they quite distinct? Does the exercise of one lead to apprehension of the other? Are they opposed to each other in some respects?"
I think the former is an extension, or small part, of the latter (the Will is both transcendent and immanent).
IAO131
-
@Frater MDC said
"Possibly one could look at Will in phases. Pure Will would be Will as being. Doing one's True Will, would be that Will in action."
Although Crowley writes that Will is fundamentally dynamic in many places ("The Will is the dynamic aspect of the self").
"These two could be encapsulted as "Being true to one's Being."
This would have the fundamental injunction to answer to oneself first and foremost, without the the need to resort to invoking "Because it is my will," creating a more self-referenced responsibility and having less recourse or response to external validation."
Certainly, but does Thelema give that injunction anyways in Liber AL ch2 etc?
"At the end of the day, how we choose to interpret doing one's Will, the philosophy it instills, the resultant ways in which it would then manifest, are ultimately part of that individual quest."
Indeed - although there seem to be definite suggestions in Liber AL and in Crowley's writings...
IAO131
-
"
Although Crowley writes that Will is fundamentally dynamic in many places ("The Will is the dynamic aspect of the self").
"I'm not implying that the nature of our "Being" is static and I'm not implying that it's Not. Though you're right, it could construed that way by some. Discovering that nature is part of it.
"
Certainly, but does Thelema give that injunction anyways in Liber AL ch2 etc?Indeed - although there seem to be definite suggestions in Liber AL and in Crowley's writings...
"I like where you're going with that one
"But exceed! exceed!" - Liber AL ch2
-
The concept of True Will and Pure Will are both more or less hampered by the dualism it takes to believe that there can be an "Un-true" or "Im-Pure" Will. This is a simple and unfortunate byproduct of linguistic conventionality which utilizes duality as a form of representation in a field of non-dual.
If Thelema means "Will", and Ill go out on a limb here - this Will is the vehicle of the HGA as pouring through ones psyche at a conscious and unconscious level of continual reception as an outpouring of the primordial spark. The misapprehension is that, when a person makes an incorrect judgment or misapprehends conditions, or actions, one has manifested or witnessed untrue or impure Will, but that cant be, IMHO because the Will does not partake of duality in an intellectual or moralist sense.
Perceptions pivot not on the singularity of total unity (of which the Will is the unbroken vehicle & messenger) but on the intellectual grounds of object-subject relation in a moral universe where somehow this Will can be manifestly imperfect. As soon as one experiences un-truth and impurity, it is an indication that one is* moving away* from ones natural axis, or Will, which generally rests in the center, not on opposing sides.
-
Well, at the risk of lowering the level of conversation.
You guys remember the Matrix movie in which Neo was struggling with Predestination of future events? The answer came that he had "already made his decision" but that he still "wanted to know why" he made the decision.
I consider knowing one's True Will in a similar way. We are always doing our True Will, but sometimes it is unconsciously. When this is still true, we experience ourselves to be "searching for it" while what is really true is that we are attempting to become conscious of what direction our Will is organizing us to move in. The more conscious we allow ourselves to become of who we are and what we are being organized to accomplish by our "Will," the more we experience the powerful flow of Will through our lives.
Make any sense to anyone but me?
Peace.
-
Actually, makes sense and is well said.
In L.V.X.,
chrys333 -
I would agree, but not that it applies to all people. While there are some who may be following the true will unconsciously (from not knowing) there are certainly those who are not doing their true will. And those who are even going against their true will. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much pain and suffering in the world. Crowley has written about the upheaval that can be inflicted on those who deny their true will.
-
Also, I've never really met anyone who only held ONE of those perspectives ALL the time.
I kinda think that everyone flips back and forth depending on how much they think they understand the situation that they are in.
At least that's been my experience with real live people.
It's one of the great questions of the spiritual life within the adventure of Time.
-
"True Will" is specific and relative to a given object. "Pure Will" is an essential principle.
-
93,
Well this became more long winded than I had initially intended…
There are far more knowledgeable people on this forum that very likely have a better perspective of the difference between True and Pure Will than myself. However, sometimes a different point of view can lead to further ideas and discussion, so I'll throw myself into the mix, so to speak.
I think this is a pretty good place to start:
@Scapegoa said
""True Will" is specific and relative to a given object. "Pure Will" is an essential principle."
Particularly, if we look at the context that the term "Pure Will" is brought forth in Liber L.
"For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect."
To my way of thinking… if we start from the premise that “Pure” Will is the essential principle in and of itself, unlimited by words which are “Restrictions” (“The ‘Word’ of sin is ‘Restriction’”)… we begin to make some headway.
"The Perfect and the Perfect are one Perfect and not two; nay, are none!"
Therefore, “Pure Will” is “Nought”… since “Pure Will” is Perfect, and “Perfect” is “Nought”.
"Nothing is a secret key of this law. Sixty-one the Jews call it; I call it eight, eighty, four hundred & eighteen."
I’ll stick with 61 for now (although I have some intuitions about 8, 80, and 418 in relationship to 61). AIN (Nought/Nothing) = 61 and as we know, this is the “No Thing” of the Kabbalah. One meaning attached to AIN Kabbalistically is that it refers to “Concealment”. This “Nothing” that is “Concealed” is therefore not “Known” and thus can not be described per se. To describe it… would be to impose “Restriction”.
If we examine this carefully we see that “Nothing” is beyond “Wisdom, Understanding, and Knowing” (Knowledge, Wisdom, Understanding = Mochin [Mentalities] i.e. the Supernal Sephiroth in a more Kosher interpretation), it is beyond any attributes at all (attributes = middot = measures = Seven Lower Sephiroth). So, this is the “Unrestricted” Will. It is “Potential” Will as opposed to Will that is “Actualized”. Will that has been “Actualized” is “Revealed” and thus no longer “Concealed”, and thus Something (Yesh; Hebrew for “Something”) versus the concept of Nothing (AIN). Nothing has to be “Restricted” (i.e. in Hebrew “Tzimtzum”) to become “Something”.
Let me go on a slight tangent… and use humans as an example.
Our “Potential” Will is nearly “Boundless” (without limit, i.e. Ain Soph). I may “Desire” “Perfection” when this desire strikes me, I “Emanate” a “Lightning Flash” of a “Thought” to “Create” a perfect Thelemic Society on a beautiful island in the Pacific. This lightning flash and thought to create is then “Formed” into mental words that precede my “Actions” to “Make” this happen. However, the various planes that my “Potential” Will is exposed to place “Restrictions” on the “Potential” Will. I definitely would have to consider the financial end of things, the planning, weather, building materials, labor, etc. After all these “Restrictions” are considered… I end up meeting every other Tuesday with anybody with a slight interest in Thelema at my home in a small town in Michigan.
Now, all anyone can know about my Will in this matter is what can be “Revealed” through my “Actions”. So, the nearly perfect “Potential” Will is an entirely different entity than my “Revealed” or “Actualized” Will.
If we creatively draw from this analogy… “Pure” Will is in a way, “Unlimited” Desire for “Nothing” and thus “Perfect” because it has not been “Restricted” by Thought, Word, or Deed. It is beyond “Truth” and “Falsehood” and so highly “Concealed” that it can not be apprehended… and is thus “Nothing”, and therefore “Unassuaged of Purpose”, and “Delivered from the Lust of Result”.
Since it is “Nothing” it is beyond “One”. “One” implies “Two” and is therefore subject to both “Truth” and “Falsehood”.
However, “True” Will has a “Purpose” which is described in the next stanza…
“But they have the half: unite by thine art so that all disappear.”
“One” being the half of “Two”, which is the “Revelation” that “Truth” and “Falsehood” are equal necessities to the “Realization” or “Actualization” of “Pure” Will… if by art we unite the Opposites thus destroying both concepts we are led to that most “Concealed” place that has “No Limit” and “No Name” (i.e. it can not be grasped by the intellect or described in any manner at all – this is why the Prophet often appears as a “Fool”). This is the “No Where” and no Sin exists there as it is beyond the “Restriction” that causes the initial dichotomy of being in the “First” Place. The first step being the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. For this to occur we must first learn the art of “Silence”… and that progressively. This is also the reason that Initiation is so important to our evolution.
93 93/93
Dennis
-
Good elaboration Dennis, very well conceived.