As brothers fight ye!
-
@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.
-
I feel both, Jim. I call myself Thelemite because I try to walk the walk, and not just read and talk about it. I feel those of us who walk it, and aspire, are Thelema. Too, though, I don't feel you have to call yourself Thelemite to be one.So yes I feel some are and some are not. But I still find myself asking just what a true Thelemite is?
-
@Filius:
...And yet, let us recall just how many initiated masons are still - technically - no better than cowans for it!
P.S. - This is not my opinion, but rather the opinion of a number of masons I have conversed with on esoteric matters.
Thus: what of these posers; might some handful of them be further along the Path than some handful of technical initiates (decorated cowans, essentially)? Thus, I suppose it begs the questions - as you know: who's the true Thelemite or Freemason; what makes the true Thelemite or Freemason? ...Can we even ascertain this is/is not so in any particular case?
Thanks for your time,
QaZsE - Fr. T.E.U.
-
We are to fight a war against restriction, it is a war against the internal restrictions that we allow to dominate our lives.
The only way that our Will can be truly restricted is if we subjugate ourselves as slaves to others, false desires or fears.
By overcoming these failings of the psyche and putting them in line with our Will we stand as the Conquering Child.
This is a continuous battle and it must be fought vigilantly. Peace is found in every moment of the struggle, as it is the struggle itself that will bring us to our true desire.
Too much time is spent worrying about externalities when we do not have our own shit together. As "brothers" and "sisters" we should stand beside each other, giving each other strength and focus toward the one goal, the arrow of our aspirations. How does it benefit us individually or collectively to have infighting? How does it benefit us to give our energy to pettiness and avarice when the whole of creation lies within?
"I give unimaginable joys on earth: certainty, not faith, while in life, upon death; peace unutterable, rest, ecstasy; nor do I demand aught in sacrifice." NUIT from Liber DCCCXXXVII
-
@FiliusBestia said
"I feel both, Jim. I call myself Thelemite because I try to walk the walk, and not just read and talk about it. I feel those of us who walk it, and aspire, are Thelema. Too, though, I don't feel you have to call yourself Thelemite to be one.So yes I feel some are and some are not. But I still find myself asking just what a true Thelemite is?"
I have some difficulty with the concept of people proclaiming themselves Thelemites.
It seems to me one is getting off on the wrong foot if one does that - consider the Zen (or it might be Dzogchen) analogy of the flower in the forest (looking beautiful for nobody, not knowing that it's called "a flower"), and consider the phrase "by their fruits shall ye know them".
-
I think that external action is indicated, as "the will and the determination to succeed must be expressed in words, and these words by deeds."-The Tree of Life, I.Regardie.
There is no confusion for me as to the apparent conflict between Liber Legis and thelemites and the world and so on. The key is the definition of the strong and the weak. Are you strong if you are the type of person who can only feel secure by gaining wealth, power, and control over other people? The true adept laughs at the childishness of this. He is the stronger. He doesn't need to murder and wage war for material things because all things are already his. He does fight a battle to get to that state, the internal battle, but he also fights external battles daily as he fights to exert his true will, his orbit in the universe. This can mean much fighting, even physical, but I think that will depend on ones's own destiny, orbit and true will.
-
"I have some difficulty with the concept of people proclaiming themselves Thelemites.
It seems to me one is getting off on the wrong foot if one does that - consider the Zen (or it might be Dzogchen) analogy of the flower in the forest (looking beautiful for nobody, not knowing that it's called "a flower"), and consider the phrase "by their fruits shall ye know them"."
I understand what you mean, George, and the core of your argument is pure truth. And yet, are you saying that one is false because they call themselves Thelemites? If so you negate the entirity of Thelema.
Are you a Thelemite, or not? If not, then other than petty squabbles to appease your sore ego, why are you on this site? If you are, then do you not, by proxy, proclaim yourself a Thelemite?
The flower idea really has no meaning here, for you are aware of yourself. THAT is the difference between myself, and a daisy. I have a working consciousness of myself, with which I may move to understand myself. The flower does not(at least not in our field of human reasoning). If you claim to be a flower, while yet moving amongst these circles, you are merely lying to yourself.... -
@FiliusBestia said
"
"I have some difficulty with the concept of people proclaiming themselves Thelemites.It seems to me one is getting off on the wrong foot if one does that - consider the Zen (or it might be Dzogchen) analogy of the flower in the forest (looking beautiful for nobody, not knowing that it's called "a flower"), and consider the phrase "by their fruits shall ye know them"."
I understand what you mean, George, and the core of your argument is pure truth. And yet, are you saying that one is false because they call themselves Thelemites? If so you negate the entirity of Thelema.
Are you a Thelemite, or not? If not, then other than petty squabbles to appease your sore ego, why are you on this site? If you are, then do you not, by proxy, proclaim yourself a Thelemite?
The flower idea really has no meaning here, for you are aware of yourself. THAT is the difference between myself, and a daisy. I have a working consciousness of myself, with which I may move to understand myself. The flower does not(at least not in our field of human reasoning). If you claim to be a flower, while yet moving amongst these circles, you are merely lying to yourself...."I wouldn't call myself a Thelemite. I'm an independent mystic who is very fond of AC's writings and have a lot of respect for (and a bit of experience in) the A:.A:. system of training, but while I have some mystical experience under my belt (enough to be 100% certain there's "something to it"), and although I do see some sense in Thelemic philosophy and religion as expressed by AC, I'm much more of a rationalist and materialist, and am extremely dubious about the "magick" side of things - praeterhuman/discarnate intelligence, etc., etc.
But even if I were into the whole enchilada, I still don't think I'd be brave enough to call myself a Thelemite. To me, that's staked out for paragons. I'm far too weak-willed and vacillating to feel confident to call myself a Thelemite.
-
93,
FiliusBestia wrote:"Are you a Thelemite, or not? If not, then other than petty squabbles to appease your sore ego, why are you on this site? If you are, then do you not, by proxy, proclaim yourself a Thelemite?
"I'd like to think you could come on here, ask a few questions and offer a few responses without proclaimng yourself to be anything other than someone who comes on the site, asks a few questions, and offers a few responses. The ego appeasement would be the free bonus offered to all our copper members and above.
93 93/93,
Edward
