Detailed questions on the Klippot
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Capital-F Fools are different from run-of-the-mill fools <vbg>.
Despite the intriguing Qabalistic temptations, I've never been convinced that any of the lower-f fools in Liber Legis really mean capital-F fools. (It appears, in singular or plural, 9 times on Liber Legis, plus a "foolish" for good measure.)
But I take as rather simple and straightforward: "Despise also all cowards; professional soldiers who dare not fight, but play; all fools despise!" (In contrast to the next verse: "But the keen and the proud, the royal and the lofty; ye are brothers!")"
I forgot about those capitals.
and I do succumb to temptations...
I hope that someday I can have a glimmer of your clarity Mr.Eshelman...
-
Well if someone does not want do dig down into the shitty parts of themselves and reality that is fine.
Some have the Will to do so: there is gnosis to be found in that which is terrifying, those truths that disgusts us or shatters our world completely - that which we don´t want to see, that which breaks down the ego. Actually, in a sense it could be described as a journey where one seeks truth - not truth in any philosophical sense - whatever it would mean. It is the abandoning and giving up of everything. The egos perceptions on what one supposed to find, those shiny light pictures that the sephirothic ego builds up about what gnosis is will be shattered.
Indeed, this is where *meaning *(which is a kind of ego-masturbation within the mind) has to be overcome.This undercurrent within both western and eastern esoterisism is not new, it is old.
To each his own.. -
atlantis, I agree with most of what you said, but not about the meaning as "a kind of ego-masturbation within the mind" --- it is essentially all that we have at the 'rational' level. the meaning among the concepts is like the Sun among the planets. it centers the Ruach 'part' of our being, thus - in perfectly balanced manner - connecting the One and the Many.
-
Hi!
With meaning I try to indicate something in an "existential" sense of the word.
Just to clarify. -
Jim said:
"I reserve the right to be completely dismissive of idiocy. My religion requires me to despise all fools. "
To the first part I would say, of course that is your choice.
To the second I would, personally, be cautious. Even 'fools' are not what they may appear to be and despising them
serves no useful purpose. In this, Crowley, was foolish imo
-
Atzilut, 93,
"Even 'fools' are not what they may appear to be and despising them
serves no useful purpose. In this, Crowley, was foolish imo"It wasn't Crowley who said this, though.
93 93/93,
Edward -
Yes, but it is a moot point. Personally, I have never found that philosophy endearing
although I understand it in a reactive and human way. Personally, those members I know
in Crowley's Orders who seem most vocal on this issue are often those
who are finding their way in Thelema and use it to vent their frustration.
Those who have been around for some time
and are not struggling with low self-esteem, seem to display far more tolerance for
'fools' than one would expect given their 'commitment' to the Order etc. But that's just
my opinion. -
Atzilut, 93,
The Book of the Law comprises many Qabalistic riddles, mystical puns, subtle aphorisms and so forth. It isn't something we can critique easily, like a philosophy text, one of St. Paul's discourses, or a Buddhist sutra. It was delivered as it was, and is meant to be studied as-is. It's always problematic in that way: a paradox that appeals to a higher (intuitive) reason, not to the rational mind, yet insists on going beyond reason. It needs to be approached in a fundamentalist spirit, so that it can up-end all our fundamentalisms. If it hasn't driven us crazy at some point, then we're not trying hard enough.
So, if we start looking on it as a set of opinions, then we're not reading it as it was meant to be read. It remains opaque if we do that, because we haven't risen to the task it sets us. Crowley spent years learning that himself.
I agree that plenty of people use passages from the Book as a series of excuses for being coarse, or affecting some irritating macho stance, or other forms of ego defense. That doesn't disqualify the text itself from careful meditation and application.
93 93/93,
Edward -
Edward
You raise many valid points. It is all too easy to be deflected by how others choose to interpret the
Book of the Law when you are surrounded by thelemic politics I do agree that this does not
detract from the Book in its own right.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective
tool in the thelemic ideal?The majority of OTO thelamites (for example) I know do not discuss the Book, despite its apparent centrality.
There are occasional quotes, but not much else. What I ask myself is, despite what founding documents may
say etc, what does one hope to achieve in a group context, based on such a book?Thanks for your thought-provoking post.
Atzilut
-
It is an interesting topic you are raising, but it maybe it could get a little bit more on topic?
-
Atlantis
Yes, this does tend to happen with some threads. If the moderator agrees, I am more
than happy for my post to be filed under a separate/new thread.Atzilut
-
Atzilut, 93,
I opened a new thread in Thelema, Discussing the Book, in response to you questions. I don't have a lot to contribute to discussion of the Qlippoth, which is why I've not said more on this thread.
93 93/93,
Edward -
Great!
Anyway. Anyone interested in how one can look at the Qliphoth from an initiatory thelemic perspective can read back some posts in the thread.What would you say are the most important specifically *thelemic *books (aside from the wonderful but for some people, especially those with no practical knowledge on the Qliphoth, a bit difficult to read books by Grant) on issues relating to the qliphothic initiation?
I would of couse say Liber AL, Book of Lies and Liber 231.
-
Edward
Thanks for that!
Atzilut
-
one post reminded me of this poem.
-
93
I have a question, which although may seem unorthodox, my perception has changed since an experience I had about 1-2 years ago.
Why do we consider "demonic/dark" archetypes as Qlippothic?
Although for the past few years I had been involved with both invocations and evocations, one of the most successful rituals I had been involved with, was connected with the invocation of such a dark archetype. The end result was:
- I managed to achieve a state of consciousness which seemed to free me from various restrictions.
- subconsciously at that time all my innfer fears rose up the surface and I managed to free myself from a very big portion of them.
It actually seems that it made me free from energies that had been trapped in the shells for quite a long time, instead of doing the opposite.
93/93
-
@TOHPA said
"Why do we consider "demonic/dark" archetypes as Qlippothic?"
The terms are not, in fact, synonymous. It's very sloppy to equate them. Many dark things, and most true demons are not Q'lippothic. Q'lippoth are specifically unresolved residuals that no longer serve a present purpose and therefore degenerate - things that used to be vital and purposeful, and are now merely husks.
You are correct to question any necessary connection between the dark, the demonic, and the Q'lippothic - the Venn diagrams for these three separate ideas would have only partial (probably small) areas of overlap.
-
"Many dark things, and most true demons are not Q'lippothic."
I understand that something Chthonic is not necessarily Q'lippothic but who would be those “true demons”?
I can only thing of Q'lippothic princes or goetic beings, all that I understand as Q'lippothic.
-
@Faus said
"...but who would be those “true demons”?"
The Greek daimon simply means a "spirit" - something of nonmaterial existence, even something divine - but the practical meaning has changed over the millennia to specifically mean an "evil" something of nonmaterial existence.
In practice, especially in the language of magick, it has come to mean a being at the lower end of the Yetziratic spectrum ("lower" in the sense of "closer to material"), somewhat below these beings categorized as "Planetary Spirits," and having a malignant character - "malignant," or malicious, or malevolent (all from mal, "bad") in the sense of being at odds with the nature, character, and purposes of humans in general.
-
Thanks, now i get it.