Thelemic Conversion
-
@xkip93 said
"Let's say I create a cosmology/ mythology/theology/philosophy using the names from the Lord of the Rings characters. But I change them up. Sauron becomes a good guy, bringing freedom to everyone, Frodo becomes an evil spy, Gandolf a Black Magician and Gollum is the Saviour of Middle Earth, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Can I say then that I brought to the table the "true meaning" of these characters?"
You would have told one (equally valid) version of the same story - the version seen by the folks that J.R.T. labelled bad guys. They very likely may have seen it that way.
A few years ago, when newspapers were daily writing stories about "rebel insurgents" in Iraq, I proposed that people read exactly the same news articles except, for words like "rebel insurgents" substitute words like "freedom fighters;" and for "American troops," etc., substitute, "the invading army." Don't change any facts, just change the labels you apply and see how you feel that the story is entirely different than the one you first read.
"Devils" were on the side that lost the war.
-
@xkip93 said
"I have heard others make statements about Babalon saying that St. John made her out to be evil and gave her a bad name. I don't remember her being a prominent character anywhere prior to these types of biblical associations?...Babylon as a city of decadence, etc."
Babylon features quite prominently in the Book of Revelation, viz. The Revelation of St. John the Divine; see Revelation 14:8, 16:18, 17:5 and much of 18.
Note especially 17:5 - this hints much more about her nature than merely a 'city of decadence'. -
@PatchworkSerpen said
"
@xkip93 said
"I have heard others make statements about Babalon saying that St. John made her out to be evil and gave her a bad name. I don't remember her being a prominent character anywhere prior to these types of biblical associations?...Babylon as a city of decadence, etc."Babylon features quite prominently in the Book of Revelation, viz. The Revelation of St. John the Divine; see Revelation 14:8, 16:18, 17:5 and much of 18.
Note especially 17:5 - this hints much more about her nature than merely a 'city of decadence'."PatchworkSerpent,
Thanks for your reply. But one of the things I was asking was, (or another way in which I could have asked this question was) is there an example of Babalon "other" than the Book of Revelation all together?
-Xkip93
-
Frater LR stated, "You could also turn that around and see the question as being the result of Crowley presenting New Aeon ideas in Old Aeon, dualistic terminology."
Ah, Frater LR gets exactly what I am saying/asking. I think this subject is worthy of discussion and I am glad there are those here who agree.
I know it would help clarify many things for me and help me to put things in proper perspective.Jim brings us a really good point as many times it is the perspective of who is writing/creating the historical recording of events who color them according to their perspective or for reason of influence for one's particular cause. As in the idea that the "Winners write the history books."
Maybe it is not so much as a revision of history as it is just a Gnostic way of reading deeper or reading things* backwards * so to speak as Gnostics are so well at doing. I remember reading that it was Crowley's opinion that St. John the Divine did not really understand his own vision so that he erred in his recording and interpretation.
So going back to the LOTR example, could we say that JRT did not understand that Sauron was really a benevolent leader and we needed to have sympathy for the Orcs plight, and see that they were they were the real victims? I mean, is there not some Universal understanding of good and evil even among Thelemites? Surely everything cannot be relative. If an oppressive government harms its people and keeps them from their True Will can we not just staunchly say they are wrong/evil, etc?
Another example that comes to mind:
Obviously St. John the Divine used the idea of the blood of the Saints as meaning the blood of the prophets and those who followed Christ whom were martyred by way of unrighteous murder. Now we have Crowley using this in a totally different manner. He turns it totally into something very different. What is the (or his) purpose of using this groundwork/basis and then changing it up? And how does this benefit us?93 93/93
-Xkip
-
@xkip93 said
"...one of the things I was asking was, (or another way in which I could have asked this question was) is there an example of Babalon "other" than the Book of Revelation all together?"
To my knowledge, that's the earliest literary appearance of that archetype under that name.
-
I spend a lot of time thinking about this question too.
To me, it seems as if Crowley did pretty much everything possible to cast himself and our period in history as the fulfillment of the "prophecy" of John's Revelation. He presented himself as To Mega Therion, The Great Beast. His entire philosophy is related to the Stele of Revealing, labeled "The Abomination of Desolation." He took 666 as his own number and instituted a ritual where the initiate is marked with "the mark of the Beast," not only on their flesh, but as an indelible mark upon their soul. He established worship unto the "great whore," "Babalon."
He does this while teaching that Christianity is a lie.
His great seeming contradiction is that he pushes people to transcend duality while covering himself with all the symbols of one side only of the most pervasive dualistic religion of the West. Not only this, but he demands the acceptance of these one-sided symbols by all of his students as being representative of a larger and more encompassing truth than the dualistic religion from which his one-sided symbols are generated.
This is the conundrum that he presents all students who have ever been educated in the Christian Scriptures or inspired by the story of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.
I don't know Xkip, I have my own ponderings, but I'm wondering if you'd care to throw out some of your own ideas about why he does this. Any thoughts?
Anybody else?
-
@xkip93 said
"Frater LR stated, "You could also turn that around and see the question as being the result of Crowley presenting New Aeon ideas in Old Aeon, dualistic terminology.""
I wonder where the idea originates that dualism is Old Aeon, and non-dualism is New Aeon.
Mystical systems aspiring to non-dualism were rampant in the Old Aeon.
And Liber L. establishes dualism as one important characteristic of the universe it promulgates. Nuit characterizes herself as "none... and two," and goes on to substantiate the place of each in the scheme of things. In Chapter III we learn early that, "There is division hither homeward."
Transcending duality is certainly the goal of specific spiritual practices. However (as Nuit's words make plain, if we didn't already know), it is neither more nor less true than non-duality.
The Magus 9=2, having a grade based on Sephirah 2, employs duality as an essential formula of His or Her function. See Liber Magi for multiple references to this. Crowley characterized the three chapters of Liber L. as reflecting the three primary rivers of philosophy, Dualism, Monism, and Nihilism.
Etc. I'm just sayin', y'know? This isn't really something that distinguishes the present Aeon from what went before.
"So going back to the LOTR example, could we say that JRT did not understand that Sauron was really a benevolent leader and we needed to have sympathy for the Orcs plight, and see that they were they were the real victims?"
No, I don't think we could say that. He may have understood, or not understood. But it wasn't the story he was telling. Hells' bells, I get frustrated when newspaper editorial writers try to tell a balanced story and
won't stake a claim to a distinctive opinion. (Save it for the court room!) For a story teller (fictional or historical), it's fatal! Humans love stories, and stories thrive on division, reconciliation, and the stirring of strong partisanship for characters."I mean, is there not some Universal understanding of good and evil even among Thelemites?"
There is almost no universal anything among people who characterize themselves as Thelemites.
"Surely everything cannot be relative."
Yes, everything is relative. Relativity applies to the entirety of the human condition, as well as to the physical universe.
"If an oppressive government harms its people and keeps them from their True Will can we not just staunchly say they are wrong/evil, etc?"
We probably would say that, and I probably would be among the loudest voices. OTOH that's because I believe in the sort of democracy that thrives on acute, person-by-person partisanship that propels us to raise our voices not so much from a place of enlightenment but from a place of passion. I take the first rule of Rosicrucianism to mean, in part, that I am first and foremost to behave as a citizen of the land wherein I sojourn, which includes being a passionate patriot for my homeland. (Rosicrucianism has elegantly divorced this duty from the presumably more detached spiritual perspective of the enlightened. I don't much mix my spirituality with my politics, but I'm passionate about both.)
Still - while we are the kind of people who likely would raise our voices against such a government - we also might be wrong. (This shouldn't stop us from following our instincts anyway.) Liber L. doesn't define the individual outside of the context of the collective - each is an aspect of us. I often call these the Nuit Perspective and Hadit Perspective, that of the Whole and that of the Particular (which are not inherently separated). I personally don't think that in the long run a society can be good for the Whole while denigrating the rights of the Particular; but I could be wrong.
"Obviously St. John the Divine used the idea of the blood of the Saints as meaning the blood of the prophets and those who followed Christ whom were martyred by way of unrighteous murder. Now we have Crowley using this in a totally different manner. He turns it totally into something very different. What is the (or his) purpose of using this groundwork/basis and then changing it up? And how does this benefit us?"
We understand the principles better now. One doesn't need the symbol once one gets the reality.
-
JAE, 93,
"I wonder where the idea originates that dualism is Old Aeon, and non-dualism is New Aeon. "
Christianity, as I've always read its primary texts (there's a vast range, I realize) heavily stresses the antagonism of the Good Guy(s) and the Bad Guy(s). Nuit, via Aiwass as her interlocutor, says in Liber L, "For I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all."
So I've always assumed there is a more explicit perspective in Thelema that the dualism(s) we employ are functional and provisional, but not perpetual, let alone eternal. We can't, that is, end up in hell for betting on the wrong spiritual horse.
93 93/93,
EM
-
Frater LR,
Your make a valid observation as once again you demonstrate your continued ability to articulate your perspective. Let me quote from my reply to Bryan's "honesty in ritual"; "our personality has an influence on everything we do directly proportional to the complexity of the act" Starting a new religion is a very complex act, hence the personality of the "Founder" would be interwoven throughout the whole process. The most powerful symbolism of one's unconscious mind is in most cases linked to the symbolism/archetypes of our most impressionable stage...that is childhood. The young Crowley grew up amidst "The Plymouth Brethren" which our ex-participant the illustrious "Ave de Prata" named his brief lived sect after. His mother used to call him "a beast" when he was young. The whole xtian mythology was deeply embedded in Crowley's unconscious, and his personality was such that his illumination demanded taht he transcend these concepts in a way most suited to his personality, in this case meant to lose fear of them by embracing these concepts, identifying with them and thereby resolving the duality within himself. Allow me to quote from the introduction to "Magick in Theory and Practice" ..."to identify it with my own career; and compel mankind to respect, love and trust that which they scorned, hated and feared." Now do a little transposition a la Jim's example, and replace mankind with myself and you have the flip side of the coin, Crowley's illumination demanded that he identify with what he feared, this is also illustrated by your reference to his advice to Israel Regardie to go out and have every type of sexual encounter he could think of, and who proceeded to do no such thing! I think this is a valid consideration when studying Crowley's work to put things in perspective, that similar objectives may be achieved using different symbolism.
@FraterLR said
"His great seeming contradiction is that he pushes people to transcend duality while covering himself with all the symbols of one side only of the most pervasive dualistic religion of the West. Not only this, but he demands the acceptance of these one-sided symbols by all of his students as being representative of a larger and more encompassing truth than the dualistic religion from which his one-sided symbols are generated"
.I don't think it is a contradiction though, as Crowley himself admitted it is symbolism, which is just a tool; whereas xtians usually have a more literal approach; in a sense though you could think of it as the other half/ opposite symbolism approach, to what was already out there in the Dominant World-View of his environment, and as such by default an equilibrating force and necessary evil
(0=2)."debate not of the image beyond beyond"
Life, Prosperity, Health
X0X6 -
@Edward Mason said
"
"I wonder where the idea originates that dualism is Old Aeon, and non-dualism is New Aeon. "Christianity, as I've always read its primary texts (there's a vast range, I realize) heavily stresses the antagonism of the Good Guy(s) and the Bad Guy(s). Nuit, via Aiwass as her interlocutor, says in Liber L, "For I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all."
So I've always assumed there is a more explicit perspective in Thelema that the dualism(s) we employ are functional and provisional, but not perpetual, let alone eternal. We can't, that is, end up in hell for betting on the wrong spiritual horse."
I guess I separate Manchaeism from other forms of dualism
-
93
"I guess I separate Manchaeism from other forms of dualism"
I guess I'm having a 'slow neurons' day. Are you saying you agree with me?
93 93/93,
EM
-
Well, yes and no.
I'm not convinced at all that the duality is a temporary framework to outgrow. The complement is that, beyond a certain point, one needs to grow back into it. To take a possibly unnecessarilty high-fallutin' example, the 8=3, in growing to 9=2, must undertake "the renunciation of His enjoyment of the Infinite so that he may formulate Himself as the Finite." (I pick that example because it started with an extremely high level of non-dualism.)
I think the main dualism to overcome is the idea that Kether and Malkuth are separate. Ultimately, there isn't any difference between "the One Thing" and "the ten thousand things," except the representation - and both representations are useful.
-
@xkip93 said
"Let's say I create a cosmology/ mythology/theology/philosophy using the names from the Lord of the Rings characters. But I change them up. Sauron becomes a good guy, bringing freedom to everyone, Frodo becomes an evil spy, Gandolf a Black Magician and Gollum is the Saviour of Middle Earth, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Can I say then that I brought to the table the "true meaning" of these characters?"
Not to move too far off-topic, but it's interesting that this very perspective was seriously discussed by David Brin, in an online article from 2002. I think that Phillip Pullman (author of the "His Dark Materials" novels) has also said similar things.
Steve
-
Steve,
I have no knowledge (prior or current) of anyone using such an example.
I just used the LOTR example because I thought all could relate to it as a current mythology. If you are saying someone else used the comparison with LOTR and Thelema, well, that is going to trip me out. But the concept of just flipping a story and viewing it from another's point of view is not uncommon even in today's pop culture as seen in the story and stage performance "Wicked." Apparently the Wizard of Oz story viewed through the Witches perspective.-Xkip
-
Greetings,
Well, Fr. LR filled in many of the other parallels of the names and concepts which Crowley uses in contrast with the Christian ideology found in the Book of Revelation. You asked what I think…well, I am no expert in the chronology of Crowley’s revelations, but all of it seems to be a progressive evolution over many years. It does not appear that he woke up one morning and decided to create his own religion. What amazes me is that over his lifetime the pieces fit together in quite a mysterious way to say the least. It appears that he filled in the blanks with his own methods of most every aspect of religious and spiritual practices, not to mention just everyday living down to eating and sleeping, making it an all inclusive way of life.
Fr. I-ness and I share some of the same observations and thoughts concerning this topic… I don’t want to repeat the same things he already stated but they may overlap. It seems to definitely begin early on in his life with the strict and dogmatic Christian upbringing in his youth.
This aspect, I think speaks to many people coming to Thelema because they too have been raised in a similar environment. It seems most of the Thelemites I have ever met, conversed with, read about, or listened to, came from a similar background. This I also find interesting though I guess it should not be all too surprising for many reasons.
I wonder if we took a poll of all the Thelemites in the world how many would admit they came from a “Christian” background or upbringing? This is telling on many levels IMO.
Could mean many things; which may include Christianity failed in fulfilling us or we are just a bunch or rebellious Satanists, lol.I have always thought that if one does not have a grasp on Christian doctrines, history and philosophy, one cannot even comprehend much of what Crowley speaks about in the first place.
Every other paragraph at times is full of quotes, parables, puns, and allusions from the Bible.I would like to know at what point he really began to put all of these parallels and contrasts together.
Here is another thought to ponder: What would Thelema be like if there were none of these contrasts or Biblical concepts involved?
Frater LR, I really don’t have the answers. But I do have many thoughts and questions concerning this topic. I appreciate all who have contributed thus far and I look forward to the upcoming dialog.
PS. Interesting day today as I randomly picked an episode of Thelema Coast to Coast to d/l to listen to on my commute to work and lo and behold it featured an interview with a representative from the Temple and College of Thelema!
I could not help but think today on my commute (and please don’t take this wrong as I do not want to sound like I am trying to flatter or whatever) but I am continually impressed with Jim and his taking the time to moderate this forum and answer even my elementary (and possibly irritating) questions.
Most of the people who I have come across in my lifetime who head up any type of spiritual or religious organization do not genuinely take time for the laity. I have also surely come across a few in Thelema who would otherwise turn me off from the current community altogether if it were only based upon their actions, attitude, or character. All I can say is thanks for welcoming me here and putting up with me thus far…you never know who you may be helping and to what degree.Light, Life, Love and Liberty,
Sincerely,
-Xkip
-
lol... Well, I may be able to relate to your question, but that doesn't mean I have any sort of definite answer at all. Truth is, it frustrates the hell out of me.
Jungian psychoanalytic types speak of "redeeming the shadow" or "integrating the shadow" on the path to wholeness. And to me, it seems as if everything scandalous about Crowley revolves around redeeming (if that can be the proper term) all the ancient symbolism that was vilified by Christianity. This repression and vilification is woven all throughout the Western mind, symbolism, and speech, even within non-Christians. Crowley spotlights precisely those aspects of the Self that have been misunderstood, rejected, and repressed; and we are accordingly shocked and disturbed by them. Of course we are... That's the nature of the beast... so to speak
I wish it was easier, honestly. I wish that I could understand that pure pressure of Life, the Life Power ...what-have-you... without having to deal with terms like "Satan." But though the Life Power evolves into beautiful, proportional, balanced expressions of life, at its core it is an amoral, or perhaps "pre-moral," force. And if terms like Satan are avoided, these images remain buried and unexamined within the subconscious and cut off from our conscious image of the Whole.
Personally, I wish he didn't go so damn far in his demanding that all leftover Christian superstitions be eradicated. It sort of turns around on itself in the end and seems to support those superstitions in the subconscious as if in fulfillment of the very prophecies he seeks to discredit. And that, my brother, is the kind of knot that people like you and I have to learn to untie, cut, transcend, or leave alone...
Was it that he was so biased against Christianity, or was it that he was so in love with the liberation he found in all the formerly rejected symbols? Is there a difference?
Jung said that the emergence of the "Anti-Christ" was a psychological inevitability. Because the symbolism is so pervasive, it makes sense that this will happen/is happening on a large scale. In a way, you might say that Crowley has done us all a favor by providing a schema for integrating what may have otherwise been completely disintegrative energy - if that makes sense. To me, that's the value of his conception of True Will.
-
@xkip93 said
"
Could mean many things; which may include Christianity failed in fulfilling us or we are just a bunch or rebellious Satanists, lol."We are Satanists, but so are the rest of the Christians who are in denial of that fact. We are all Satanists in the West, who follow To Mega Therion "The Great Beast 666" some explicitly and others Implicitly. Crowley's Unique service to mankind in my opinion cannot be underestimated.
-
Funny you should say this. I have long wondered, are we as Thelemites actually practicing some form of bizzare esoteric Christianity or are we subtle, sublime, sophisticated Satanists?
In spite of the shared frustration of some of these concepts I am still very much caught up in the rapture of the New Aeon and whether I like it or not I am slowly beginning to see through the eye(s) of Horus.
-Xkip
-
@xkip93 said
" whether I like it or not I am slowly beginning to see through the eye(s) of Horus.
-Xkip"
http://www.cilco.co.uk/stock-photos/party-art/images/eye-of-horus-backdrop.jpg
-
@xkip93 said
"Funny you should say this. I have long wondered, are we as Thelemites actually practicing some form of bizzare esoteric Christianity or are we subtle, sublime, sophisticated Satanists?"
Consider that the second coming of Christ is integral to the modern doctrine of Christianity; Lack of an "Anti-Christ" precludes "Christ", such that the significance of an "Anti-Christ" is equivalent to that of "Christ" even from a Xtian perspective being a prerequisite, and hence integral and indistinguishable from the Second Advent. This concept on deeper analysis can be compressed into Anti-Christ = Christ; either, being one side of an mirror image; This equation both intentionally and inadvertently Crowley personified. From a Xtian perspective, with a more literal leaning interpretation as far as gambles go, Jesus being the omniscient Son of God merely risked his physical body, while the ambitious but imperfect Crowley gambled on his very eternal soul! as such his sacrifice is the greater, a worthy advocate indeed if there ever was one!(':bush:')(':allout:')