As brothers fight ye!
-
Just as a student of martial arts may spar with his teacher, without malice, without rancor, but in order to perfect and establish his method, so brothers may fight, not out of hatred, but out of the purest and highest sort of fidelity.
The era of peace is over. On every side it is shouted, "PEACE! PEACE!" But it cannot be so. Were the adepts to sit, and relinquish vigilance, the world would fall utterly to pieces. What the advocates of peace really desire is a life of security. And security, as we know, is a living death.
Even Jesus, that poster-child of the peacemongers, ran through the temple with a scourge, beating the money changers.
I find a many correlations between Thelema and Bushido, the code of the Samurai. In reading the stories of these brave, self-realized men, I am often struck by the serenity with which they face death. They truly illustrate the verse: "Make no difference between one thing and and any other." These men, from the utmost sense of honor, thought nothing of ending their own lives for the sake of a greater and harmonious whole.
-
@JPF said
"The era of peace is over. On every side it is shouted, "PEACE! PEACE!" But it cannot be so. Were the adepts to sit, and relinquish vigilance, the world would fall utterly to pieces. What the advocates of peace really desire is a life of security. And security, as we know, is a living death."
FWIW I totally disagree (by which I mean: I disagree with every phrase in this paragraph).
-
Al Ha-Shemat, that does seem to be one way of looking at it.
I also think it is worth pointing out that Ra-Hoor-Khuit (god of war and vengance) has a twin, who is in essence, peace.
JPF, is the security of Hoor-Paar-kraat a living death?
I think it is also worth pointing out that many (not all) advocates of war are also doing it out of a desire for security. The "security" of 'keeping the world from falling to pieces'. In a world bound by entropy, that is a very illusory security. The tower card never fails to manifest. "This too shall pass" is a phrase any advocate of war or peace should chew on."Just as a student of martial arts may spar with his teacher, without malice, without rancor, but in order to perfect and establish his method, so brothers may fight, not out of hatred, but out of the purest and highest sort of fidelity."
I agree with this interpretation of the verse in question. I always looked at the verse as saying something like "when you fight, respect your opponent as a brother." I also know that in order to carry this out effectively, the cultivation of peace is necessary if you have a tendency towards aggression. fighting, with respect is also not possible if you are too squeamish for a row.
Not that I think everyone should take martial arts, or engage in online arguments. I think "war", "battle", "conquest", etc as spoken of in Ch III are largely metaphors for "internal" processes, though they can be carried over to more mundane interpretations.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@JPF said
"The era of peace is over. On every side it is shouted, "PEACE! PEACE!" But it cannot be so. Were the adepts to sit, and relinquish vigilance, the world would fall utterly to pieces. What the advocates of peace really desire is a life of security. And security, as we know, is a living death."FWIW I totally disagree (by which I mean: I disagree with every phrase in this paragraph)."
Could you explain your reasoning? I respect your views, and would like to know. If I've said something in youthful haste, or in ignorance, I will not hesitate to stand corrected.
"JPF, is the security of Hoor-Paar-kraat a living death?
I think it is also worth pointing out that many (not all) advocates of war are also doing it out of a desire for security. The "security" of 'keeping the world from falling to pieces'. In a world bound by entropy, that is a very illusory security. The tower card never fails to manifest. "This too shall pass" is a phrase any advocate of war or peace should chew on. "It seems I've touched a nerve. Let me explain. By security I mean the illusory sense of safety espoused by the advocates of the Old-Aeon worldview, the idea that we should sit soundly in our homes and react, instead of act. By my advocation of war I don't mean the bipartisan tomfoolery we see on TV, or the occupation of foreign soil for political interest, or any such thing. I was speaking in spiritual terms. (I should have made that clear.)
I myself once espoused a doctrine of "peace." But in the harsh reality of life there is struggle. Was Crowley a peaceful person? Recall his magical "war" with Mathers. It was this I had in mind when advocating war. Is one to allow the "Black Brothers," so called, to have free reign in this world, and stand idly by? By peace I don't mean inner balance and stability, but the idea that conflict should be avoided at all costs. Such I see as cowardice. Anybody who has spent any time in the real world knows that conflict is a fact of life. There are those who would love nothing more than to impose their will (lowercase "w") on others, and to propogate falsity. I know without doubt that the realization of my True Will has involved a great deal of hardship and conflict.
Perhaps it would be better to say, "If it is your Will to fight, then fight. If it is your Will to be peaceful, be peaceful."
[edit]
What is one to make, then, of the verse :"Stamp down the wretched and the weak. This is the law of the strong, and the joy of the world." ?[further edit]
"Worship me with fire & blood; worship me with swords & with spears. Let the woman be girt with a sword before me: let blood flow to my name. Trample down the Heathen; be upon them, o warrior, I will give you of their flesh to eat!"
Not very peaceful language, I would say.
-
@Bryan, I tend to agree(first post). So, too, with the internal works,though this Book is also of our lives and how we live them. @JPF, So you feel that our infighting is bred of this "purest and highest post of fidelity," and not egotism? Coming from a personal point of view, most Thelemites today have little concept of honor, let alone the honor of a realized warrior. Just a thought. @Shemat,There is somewhat of a fit, though I feel Nuit goes beyond anything on the Tree, yet still being All Things. The Nothingness of All Things, to quote one my Adorations a little. It's a good post topic.
-
@FiliusBestia said
" @JPF, So you feel that our infighting is bred of this "purest and highest post of fidelity," and not egotism? "
Infighting? I have nothing but the highest respect for the people in this forum, which I thought was a place where people could discuss their ideas openly. Or is everybody to agree all the time? In which case: what is the point of a "forum"? I haven't attacked anybody personally, or even their opinions. I've merely done the best to explain my convictions.
-
93 JPF, My apologies. I see I put you on the defensive. Other than the norm, I haven't seen much bickering on this forum. In life, and other sites, this is not always so. I was more trying to get a point of view from others. I am a fulltime Thelemite in life, and go but by my own experiences.
-
@FiliusBestia said
"93 JPF, My apologies. I see I put you on the defensive. Other than the norm, I haven't seen much bickering on this forum. In life, and other sites, this is not always so. I was more trying to get a point of view from others. I am a fulltime Thelemite in life, and go but by my own experiences."
No worries. I'd just hate for someone to think I was attacking them personally. Obviously everybody isn't going to agree all of the time. I find that often my ideas are tempered through debate, and if I speak in rebuttle, it is anything but personal. My sole interest is to share and grow in knowledge. 93
-
@JPF said
"By security I mean the illusory sense of safety espoused by the advocates of the Old-Aeon worldview, the idea that we should sit soundly in our homes and react, instead of act. By my advocation of war I don't mean the bipartisan tomfoolery we see on TV, or the occupation of foreign soil for political interest, or any such thing. I was speaking in spiritual terms. (I should have made that clear.)
I myself once espoused a doctrine of "peace." But in the harsh reality of life there is struggle. Was Crowley a peaceful person? Recall his magical "war" with Mathers. It was this I had in mind when advocating war. Is one to allow the "Black Brothers," so called, to have free reign in this world, and stand idly by? By peace I don't mean inner balance and stability, but the idea that conflict should be avoided at all costs. Such I see as cowardice. Anybody who has spent any time in the real world knows that conflict is a fact of life. There are those who would love nothing more than to impose their will (lowercase "w") on others, and to propogate falsity. I know without doubt that the realization of my True Will has involved a great deal of hardship and conflict. "
Ok, so by "War", you mean real/meaningful (as opposed to illusory/trivial) war. By "Stability" you mean false stability. By "Peace" you mean fake peace. In other words, you meant to say, "The era of illusory peace is over. ... What the advocates of illusory peace really desire is a life of false security. And false security, as we know, is a living death." In this case, I agree. I am an advocate of real peace, stability, war, love, etc. Let's hear it for reality!
"
"Worship me with fire & blood; worship me with swords & with spears. Let the woman be girt with a sword before me: let blood flow to my name. Trample down the Heathen; be upon them, o warrior, I will give you of their flesh to eat!"Not very peaceful language, I would say."
No, I guess not. In a way, language itself is a form of violence. When I read Chapter 3, I keep in mind that Ra-Hoor-Khuit is doing all the talking, and Hoor-Paar-Kraat is there equally as much, "doing" all the silence.
-
@JPF said
"By my advocation of war I don't mean the bipartisan tomfoolery we see on TV, or the occupation of foreign soil for political interest, or any such thing. I was speaking in spiritual terms. (I should have made that clear.)"
Yes, you should have! If that's what you mean, why not say it? "War" has a particular meaning. This admission reduces your entire thread to a troll.
To clarify: If "in spiritual terms" is really what you meant, then essentially all of the discussion in this thread has been off-purpose, derailed, the noise-to-content ratio high. I suggest you ask me to delete the entire thread, and start all over - saying what you actually mean.
That kind of crap REALLY pisses me off BTW. It's a particularly pernicious kind of trolling. I will not so disrespect you as to believe that you were ignorant of what your exact word choices here would stir up. If you really meant something else, then I can only conclude that you were intentionally trying to start an argument. People have been removed from the forum for that kind of behavior!
"What is one to make, then, of the verse :"Stamp down the wretched and the weak. This is the law of the strong, and the joy of the world." ?"
These are things inside of oneself.
"
"Worship me with fire & blood; worship me with swords & with spears. Let the woman be girt with a sword before me: let blood flow to my name. Trample down the Heathen; be upon them, o warrior, I will give you of their flesh to eat!"Not very peaceful language, I would say."
So wait a minute, which is it? Are you "speaking in spiritual terms" (as you just insisted), or in the conventional sense of the words (as your current question seems to imply)? I totally agree about the interrnal battle - that's the way to resolve the compensatory need for outer conflict.
But in this particular passage - the 11th verse of the 3rd chapter, which is also the 156th verse of the entire Book - you're missing the much deeper instruction. At its outer level, this is a call for social reformation in the roll of women in society, especially with them claiming their intellect and will. At the deeper level, it is an instruction on Neshamah and its conditions. Some of these thoughts may be of interest or use to you: aumha.org/arcane/ccxx3.htm#11
-
93
@FiliusBestia said
" most Thelemites today have little concept of honor, let alone the honor of a realized warrior. "
This doesn't stand for any Thelemite I know. Not my experience at all.
93 93/93
A.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@JPF said
"That kind of crap REALLY {nasses} me off BTW. It's a particularly pernicious kind of trolling. I will not so disrespect you as to believe that you were ignorant of what your exact word choices here would stir up. If you really meant something else, then I can only conclude that you were intentionally trying to start an argument. People have been removed from the forum for that kind of behavior!"
"I apologize. It was my fault for not making myself clear. I should have chosen my words with more care. It was never my intention to start an argument. (It seems the conflict was my own.
)As far as III:11 is concerned, you say you consider this an internal struggle. What then, is one to make of external conflict? Is one to espouse non-agression?
I cite III:42
"Them that seek to entrap thee, to overthrow thee, them attack without pity or quarter; & destroy them utterly. Swift as a trodden serpent turn and strike! Be thou yet deadlier than he! Drag down their souls to awful torment: laugh at their fear: spit upon them!"
I don't bring these things up to incite argument. I'm trying to resolve what I see as a fundamental contradiction between Liber Legis, and the attitudes of the Thelemites I've come into contact with. I see Liber Legis as very martial, very warlike. And yet about every Thelemite has seemed not to espouse this notion. Is it my mistake that I take Liber Legis seriously? Again, I am only speaking from conviction, not a desire to create conflict in the ranks.
-
@JPF said
"As far as III:11 is concerned, you say you consider this an internal struggle. What then, is one to make of external conflict? Is one to espouse non-agression? "
There are means of aggression that are non-violence. I won't tell people what they should espouse, but, as an individual, yes I'd vote for non-violence. - The eye should be kept, I think, on the bigger goal, which is a world predominantly filled with people consciously knowing and doing their True Wills in a state mindful of a vast diversity composing a whole framework that is internally harmonious.
"I don't bring these things up to incite argument. I'm trying to resolve what I see as a fundamental contradiction between Liber Legis, and the attitudes of the Thelemites I've come into contact with. I see Liber Legis as very martial, very warlike. And yet about every Thelemite has seemed not to espouse this notion. Is it my mistake that I take Liber Legis seriously? Again, I am only speaking from conviction, not a desire to create conflict in the ranks."
Not a flaw to take it seriously. But it probably is a flaw to take any part of it as referring to external conditions or events. Or, rather, one should start with the idea that its primary communication is interior, psycho-spiritual, which of course can have waves reaching out from there.
-
I get it. It's like that saying, "you should be the change you wish to see in the world."
Is this the opinion of Thelemic organizations accross the board, that Liber Legis refers primarily to internal circumstances?
-
@JPF said
"I get it. It's like that saying, "you should be the change you wish to see in the world.""
Works for me!
"Is this the opinion of Thelemic organizations accross the board, that Liber Legis refers primarily to internal circumstances?"
I can't speak for other organizations. - But you asked an opinion question, so you got an answer.
-
93, That is your experience, Allogens, and I will certainly not challenge that. I've net those with honor and those without. Of course, it then comes to the question of just what one considers honor, no?
-
But, FB... the question remains, were they really Thelemites? (Or did they just call themselves that.)
-
Ditto, Jim. The number of posers amazes me. Cowans, I believe the Masons call them? But then, I find those with true intent, but false or misleading info. Wow. I find the question arising, what is a true Thelemite? It's a heavy question, it seems to me.
-
93
@FiliusBestia said
"then comes to the question of just what one considers honor, no?"
No.
@Dictionary.com said
"honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor."
@Liber A'ash:19 said
"There is no act or passion that shall not be a hymn in mine honour."
Doesn't seem up for dispute to me.
93 93/93
A.
-
Sure. Fairness, for example. What's fair for me, might not be far for you. So does that make the other party dishonorable? Yes I feel it is fairly straightforward, but I also feel there's more to it than dictionary definitions.