Discussing the Book of the Law
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
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?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.My own studies in Thelema indicate that many things simply reverse their apparent meaning when they're worked on patiently, and in depth. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
Edward@Edward Mason said
"
I agree with your other point about the arts allowing people to explore changing perspectives. In fact, I'm a little surprised at the tack you've taken on this, given your own experience with theater.
"I'm not against discussion, or group process, just not sure how it makes sense in terms of discussing Liber Al.
I self-define myself as a Thelemite; as such I accept the Book of the Law. How I am able to do this is a private matter. Talking about it seems impossible to my mind for any number of reasons: to do so would be to cheapen my relationship with the book, or willfully enter into a conceptual confusion when my experience is more of an experiential sort. I think I could get very confused very fast if I dealt with the Book in the wrong way.
Theater is different. It is, in my experience, the highest expression of the group dynamic possible—enlightened, generous. But it is what it is. It was designed to help people live together. You want to transform the culture? Make Theater an integral part of K-12!
A couple of posts back FraterYod asked about the difference between Discussion and Instruction. In practice they tend to overlap, but they are different. They form, along with Sharing the three things that tends to happen on this forum: people either discuss; they look for, or provide information; or they share something about themselves and their magical process. It's a messy world, so these rarely exist separate from the others, but they are nonetheless still separate activities.
Let me share: As you pointed out in your initial post, chapter three is especially challenging, very difficult to understand, and even repulsive on some level. Appropriately, my acceptance has little to do with a rationale defense of the book in terms of its rhetoric. It feels more like a dance, a new style of physical locomotion where I am blind folded, but if I fling myself forward in just the right way I somehow manage a skating momentum on the edge of what is possible—beyond old, constricting frames of reference. I feel I am in the zone when all the opinions and arguments amount to a great big nothing—so what, I am moving forward—what is that fear and defensive posturing that used to dominate my thinking, and who cares...
As for instruction: If you were to point out some mystery about Liber Al I would be eager to hear what you had to say.
Having dealt with sharing and instruction we are left with discussion. What is the essence of this activity? When is discussion not a debate?
@Edward Mason said"For me, 'discussion' doesn't have to happen between a group of people sitting in the same room, nor do there need to be conclusions reached, let alone, agreement or consensus. I regard consensus is intrinsically impossible, not to mention undesirable. The need isn't for agreement, but for better and wider comprehension of the ways in which interpreting it should be approached. The art of Qabalistic exegesis needs to be learned from example."
Does what you are describing have more to do with the benefits of sharing and instruction than it does with discussion?
"...argue not; convert not; talk not over much!"
Love and Will
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
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?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.My own studies in Thelema indicate that many things simply reverse their apparent meaning when they're worked on patiently, and in depth. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
Edward -
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
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?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.My own studies in Thelema indicate that many things simply reverse their apparent meaning when they're worked on patiently, and in depth. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
EdwardRobert ,93,
"I self-define myself as a Thelemite; as such I accept the Book of the Law. How I am able to do this is a private matter. Talking about it seems impossible to my mind for any number of reasons: to do so would be to cheapen my relationship with the book, or willfully enter into a conceptual confusion when my experience is more of an experiential sort. I think I could get very confused very fast if I dealt with the Book in the wrong way. "
Well, I'm not suggesting we have to talk about it! You have formed your own relationship with the text and all that lies behind it, which sounds like the fruit of careful thought, meditation and whatever practices you follow. My concern is that too many people can't get into the text because they find it hard to open the doors to it.
In addition, I think Crowley's own relationship to Liber L, while highly important, has blinded a lot of people to the intuitions that can arise. I sometimes find him too set on a particular course in his published exegeses, and I need to spurn him in order to stay with the tendencies of my True Will in this matter.
But to "get very confused very fast" is a part of the process of opening up to the Book. We need to make wrong turns, so that when we finally make the corrections, remembrance of what we learned stays with us. To do this solely in a private bubble slows our learning.
I don't see the distinction between discussion and instruction as a valid division of ideas. I am instructed by discussing my own ideas with others. Again: I basically want the gag-order lifted permanently, not to find an excuse to lecture people on my own private explorations.
"Let me share: As you pointed out in your initial post, chapter three is especially challenging, very difficult to understand, and even repulsive on some level. Appropriately, my acceptance has little to do with a rationale defense of the book in terms of its rhetoric. It feels more like a dance, a new style of physical locomotion where I am blind folded, but if I fling myself forward in just the right way I somehow manage a skating momentum on the edge of what is possible—beyond old, constricting frames of reference. I feel I am in the zone when all the opinions and arguments amount to a great big nothing—so what, I am moving forward—what is that fear and defensive posturing that used to dominate my thinking, and who cares..."
It's perspectives such as this that we need to share as much as specific insights into individual verses. For example, people coming to this forum are, quite probably, still trying to figure out literal meanings of verses, and don't have a wider frame of reference.
"As for instruction: If you were to point out some mystery about Liber Al I would be eager to hear what you had to say."
The only thing that occurs to me in this context is what happened after I'd spent a long time - over a year, maybe two - memorizing Chapter One. One evening, as I sat down to go through it as usual, I found it being recited through me. That was when I first understood that Nuit, rather than being just a grand philosophical proposition about All & Everything, has the actual character of a Goddess. She was far beyond what I was really able to grasp or encompass with my normal consciousness.
The more I try to say about that experience, the further from the reality my words are going to go. But simply noting it for the benefit of others could be worth something. And I don't think that goes against "talk not overmuch."
93 93/93,
Edward -
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
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?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.My own studies in Thelema indicate that many things simply reverse their apparent meaning when they're worked on patiently, and in depth. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
EdwardDo what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
@RobertAllen said
"I would love to read a play, a hypothetical dialogue between a group of individuals, where opinions are discussed, and where the result is an enhancing of ones inner connection to the truth and not a weakening of it."
There's one in the Curriculum of the A∴A∴:
Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous by George Berkley
Love is the law, love under will.
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
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?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.My own studies in Thelema indicate that many things simply reverse their apparent meaning when they're worked on patiently, and in depth. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
Edward"As for instruction: If you were to point out some mystery about Liber Al I would be eager to hear what you had to say.
"
Part of my problem with this is that I have taken many OATHS and I have a hard time determining if I initially learned something on my own or was instructed under the oath. So I get anxious sometimes when I think about discussing Liber AL
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
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?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.My own studies in Thelema indicate that many things simply reverse their apparent meaning when they're worked on patiently, and in depth. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
EdwardEdward,
As often happens, at some point the in discussion the 'back and forth' seems more like a general agreement than a clearly defined demarcation between your camp and my camp. Nevertheless, I still feel I have a valid concern, but getting hung up on definitions is just bad form.
Something else begins to kick in for me, in so far as I am still thinking about the general proposition of discussing the book, and you keep talking about how you see it as an opportunity, not as a mistake. This is an artifact of my thinking related to being a director. Instead of insisting on my point of view I begin to think: if it's going to happen, how should it be done—what is the best way to get there from here. I become genuinely curious to see if I can make it happen.
@Edward Mason said
"I think Crowley's own relationship to Liber L, while highly important, has blinded a lot of people to the intuitions that can arise. I sometimes find him too set on a particular course in his published exegeses, and I need to spurn him in order to stay with the tendencies of my True Will in this matter."
@Edward Mason said
"But to "get very confused very fast" is a part of the process of opening up to the Book. We need to make wrong turns, so that when we finally make the corrections, remembrance of what we learned stays with us. To do this solely in a private bubble slows our learning."
@Edward Mason said
"I don't see the distinction between discussion and instruction as a valid division of ideas. I am instructed by discussing my own ideas with others. Again: I basically want the gag-order lifted permanently, not to find an excuse to lecture people on my own private explorations.
"Not quoted are yours and my examples how we each related to parts of the book. I take that gesture as a possible first step—I could see a survey, an open invitation to other Thelimites asking them to share similar stories. This can be directed by asking leading questions, left totally open, or a combination of both. In this way it might be possible to develop a general sense of the kinds of things that tend to happen, a mapping of the various paths taken that have allowed people access to the book in some measure. I would consider this research and preparation for the creation of an actual study group.
This group would be created with the intent of exploring the general idea of discussing the book, in addition to exploring related practices like further sharing, instruction in exegetical practices, and becoming familiar with past commentaries. The general goal would be to develop a practice. Post discussion analysis should be part of the process to address the known concerns, new concerns and pit falls that are discovered in the process, the role of the moderator, if any, and so on...
I stop here. It would not really be my place to do this, despite my impulse to make every effort to be supportive and help based on my past experiences with ensemble created work. I lack the history and the connections.
Love and Will
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
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?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.My own studies in Thelema indicate that many things simply reverse their apparent meaning when they're worked on patiently, and in depth. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
EdwardRobert Allen said:
"This is because vertical energy is private, something between you and what is above and below. "
There is a view that this only represents a particular phase of development. There is a view that also says that Man
has to develop via group initiation eventually; that certain initiations/developments are simply not possible unless it is on a group level. AA Bailey is a good example of this Theosophical idea, along with HPB who Crowley regarded in
very high esteem. Traditional Kabbalah also emphasizes the importance of the group towards the correction of Adam HaRishon.What remains to be seen is whether specifically Thelemic groups will adopt this in the future, despite the current
initiatory procedures. There have been underground groups working on this principle for many years although the
results have never been made public.Interesting thread to follow imo
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
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?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.My own studies in Thelema indicate that many things simply reverse their apparent meaning when they're worked on patiently, and in depth. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
Edward"There is a view that also says that Man
has to develop via group initiation eventually; that certain initiations/developments are simply not possible unless it is on a group level."There a certain Initiations, Practices, Developments of Liber AL that CANNOT be done in a solitary manner....my 3 cents;)
I am positive there are those here who have walked way farther on the paTh then me. So i am sure that what I am saying can be validated if those individuals wish to do so.
I am sure I will get a severe reaction to this:p
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
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?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.My own studies in Thelema indicate that many things simply reverse their apparent meaning when they're worked on patiently, and in depth. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
EdwardTo clarify what i mean I want to reiterate that for me discussion and instruction cannot be seperated. For me instuction is a Child of discussion.
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
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?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.My own studies in Thelema indicate that many things simply reverse their apparent meaning when they're worked on patiently, and in depth. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
Edward@Atzil said
"Robert Allen said:
"This is because vertical energy is private, something between you and what is above and below. "
There is a view that this only represents a particular phase of development. There is a view that also says that Man
has to develop via group initiation eventually; that certain initiations/developments are simply not possible unless it is on a group level. "I'm not impressed by these kinds of statements. I've read similar sentiments myself. God, or the Devil, is in the details.
As I see it, if you want to assert this is happening, or is possible, you have two options. You can either claim the answer has to do with 'enlightened' practice—basically it looks the same as as old practice, but it is enlightened—or you can provide a structural model that can actually be tested. The enlightened argument, while it may be the only/best answer, is still a bit of a cop out because it basically asserts that any problem will be overcome when we are able to do it better.
I would argue, more from experience than anything else, that unless a person has a very firm grasp of who they are and what they know for themselves, group activity can be a mistake. This certitude in ones position—verticality—is the only thing I know of which can stand against the tidal forces of the group—horizontality.
Not saying it can't be done, I just am really curious to see for myself!
Love and Will
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
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?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.My own studies in Thelema indicate that many things simply reverse their apparent meaning when they're worked on patiently, and in depth. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
Edward"I would argue, more from experience than anything else, that unless a person has a very firm grasp of who they are and what they know for themselves, group activity can be a mistake. This certitude in ones position—verticality—is the only thing I know of which can stand against the tidal forces of the group—horizontality.
"
Thats true. In my opinion both sides of this issue is true.
But you dont need enlightenment to understand either of these issues. If u just read various myths and understand them via your intellect, u will see these patterns of Instuction and discusion over and over.
Anyway, here are concrete examples in various outer orders that show in certain degrees/grades the interplay between discussion/instruction.
O.T.O
H.O.O.R.
The Temple of BabalonI have been involved in all three of these Orders and I can state with confidence that at higher grades this interplay becomes pronounced.
Thats all I can say about it. I value my Oath and also I cant afford to be sued in civil court:p
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
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?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.My own studies in Thelema indicate that many things simply reverse their apparent meaning when they're worked on patiently, and in depth. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
Edward@FraterYod said
"
Thats all I can say about it. I value my Oath and also I cant afford to be sued in civil court:p"Oh, come on, spill the beans! It's not like you have to say what people were talking about, just describe how they talked about it...
ps I'm thinking of suspending my keyboard from the ceiling so when I contribute to this forum I will also be extending my arms overhead to form a 'V,' the attitude of Apophis, the destroyer!
Love and Will
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
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?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.My own studies in Thelema indicate that many things simply reverse their apparent meaning when they're worked on patiently, and in depth. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
Edward"ps I'm thinking of suspending my keyboard from the ceiling so when I contribute to this forum I will also be extending my arms overhead to form a 'V,' the attitude of Apophis, the destroyer!
"
haha:) well said:)
"There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt."
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
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?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.My own studies in Thelema indicate that many things simply reverse their apparent meaning when they're worked on patiently, and in depth. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
Edward"I'm not impressed by these kinds of statements"
They are not said to impress anyone, merely to reflect upon. These issues are not necessarily 'old' aeon
just because they were uttered or formulated then."I would argue, more from experience than anything else, that unless a person has a very firm grasp of who they are and what they know for themselves, group activity can be a mistake. This certitude in ones position—verticality—is the only thing I know of which can stand against the tidal forces of the group—horizontality."
The first part I agree with with qualification, though not knowing who 'you' think you are has also been known
to be an advantage. Typically I find that some members of Thelemic Orders I have belonged to stress the individual over the group because of their conception regarding the 'true will' and developing it, whilst relying on the 'group'
to provide a social/ritualistic environment. By 'group' I wasn't referring to this idea of a social horizontal group, but
rather something that exists in the very nature of 'vertical' ascent. Personally, the vertical/horizontal or directional idea doesn't really work for me. The Group, therefore, is not referring to some corporeal body of people, but rather the inner identity of our nature, so-to-speak."The enlightened argument, while it may be the only/best answer, is still a bit of a cop out because it basically asserts that any problem will be overcome when we are able to do it better. "
Can't see how it can be a cop out, unless we simply rest on our laurels hoping to be enlightened or delude ourselves we are, when we are not.
The question for me, given what I see around me in terms of 'group' /individual practices, is whether the idea/concept/reality of the 'Kabbalistic' teachings of Adam HaRishon etc incorporated into Thelemic theory and practice is really taken seriously and understood. And would that change the way we operate? Im just exploring
here -
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
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?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.My own studies in Thelema indicate that many things simply reverse their apparent meaning when they're worked on patiently, and in depth. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
EdwardI thought it was generally known that Crowley wrote the "is forbidden" just to stop one student, possibly Norman Mudd, from sending him reams of Cabalistic gematria analysis of Liber Al. As has been pointed out, Crowley never stopped discussing it. The commandment should be seen as one of Crowley's "joke traps" for those over-literal!
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
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?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.My own studies in Thelema indicate that many things simply reverse their apparent meaning when they're worked on patiently, and in depth. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
Edward@Atzil said
"
"The enlightened argument, while it may be the only/best answer, is still a bit of a cop out because it basically asserts that any problem will be overcome when we are able to do it better. "Can't see how it can be a cop out, unless we simply rest on our laurels hoping to be enlightened or delude ourselves we are, when we are not."
It is because it doesn't attempt to offer concrete solutions in terms of what we know. It avoids that effort. This doesn't mean it may not be how things will play out, in time, but in terms of the 'discussion' it is still a cop out.
@sethur said
"I thought it was generally known that Crowley wrote the "is forbidden" just to stop one student, possibly Norman Mudd, from sending him reams of Cabalistic gematria analysis of Liber Al. As has been pointed out, Crowley never stopped discussing it. The commandment should be seen as one of Crowley's "joke traps" for those over-literal!"
I hope this is true if only because I too will go out of my way to avoid people with this fly up their butts. As a practice it is important, but as a something shared, It just goes on forever and usually proves nothing.
But these "joke traps" are a real concern. It could just be viewed as Crowley not wanting to deal with a pest, or it can be a real trap, the discussion thing spiraling out of control as it tends to do.
Case in point. I was at a 'group event' the other night. This was my first time there, so my opinion of the experience may not be the whole story. But I was surprised to find a room full of people with silly opinions on everything, and I mean every trivial detail. Instead of being a classroom it was just an opportunity for people to pontificate on what they thought they knew. It was a total waste of time. This might have been okay if they knew what they were talking about, but they didn't. On the other hand, the moderator did know, and as far as I could tell, was in a position to relate some real understanding, but he politely allowed the whole event to fall off the bridge, because it was a discussion! I could only imagine that over the years most of the people, the talkers in the room, had ground down the edges of their intellectual/critical swords to such a degree that one doubted their ability to cut soft butter. But that didn't stop them from waving those swords around with great bravado, as if they were the greatest swordsmen of all time. In their posturing, anyone who knows the Commedia masks will readily recognize one of the most beloved clown figures, El Capitano. It would have been high comedy if it wasn't so sad. This sorry state of affairs was clearly nurtured by each one of these individuals, over many years, in the laboratory of egalitarian 'discussion.' The opportunity to have a discussion didn't improve anything, it just made things worse.
I sound totally negative here, but I don't want to be. In fact, I plan to go back to this group because I want it to work! I'm genuinely interested in learning something and deepening my connection to things spiritual!
In conclusion, anyone who wants to defend 'discussion' should be prepared to define exactly what they mean by it, or it's just a vague word that includes my example above as well as some potentially helpful activities that, while I may feel is not discussion proper, I will nonetheless probably admit has some value.
Love and Will
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
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?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.My own studies in Thelema indicate that many things simply reverse their apparent meaning when they're worked on patiently, and in depth. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
Edward"It is because it doesn't attempt to offer concrete solutions in terms of what we know. It avoids that effort. This doesn't mean it may not be how things will play out, in time, but in terms of the 'discussion' it is still a cop out."
Surely that is the point. It argues that there are no solutions based on the criteria of what we think we know. I agree, it is easy to use the transcendental argument to sidestep to finding a 'concrete' solution. So what do we know? How do we verify what others say regarding such knowledge, whoever they may be? Discussion can only take us so far....then....?
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
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?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.My own studies in Thelema indicate that many things simply reverse their apparent meaning when they're worked on patiently, and in depth. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
EdwardFor the record, I specialized in Epistemology, and the basically the problem with 'precisely' defining something is that the tighter the definition, the smaller the number of things that can be included as counting as knowledge. Trying to define things is tricky, for the answer is conditional upon the how the question is phrased. The issue is what is our goal. What do we want to know or experience? Then we can look at the various solutions others have offered, accept or reject or consign to 'don't know'. Or one, with experience and changing values and desires, finds a path that best expresses that goal for a given time. That may point beyond the individual towards the collective, or it may not. We can only do what we feel is right, however irrational or impossible it may seem. After all, if we knew we could achieve it, where would be the attraction, the desire?
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
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?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.My own studies in Thelema indicate that many things simply reverse their apparent meaning when they're worked on patiently, and in depth. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
Edward@Atzil said
"For the record, I specialized in Epistemology, and the basically the problem with 'precisely' defining
something is that the tighter the definition, the smaller the number of things that can be included
as counting as knowledge. Trying to define things is tricky, for the answer is conditional upon the
how the question is phrased."My background is theater. I never studied Epistemology, but part of my education as a director included things like text analysis and dramaturgy. My attitude is that in describing something, the more you can describe the nitty-gritty bits that make up the whole, the better. It helps avoid commonplace platitudes, generic emotion, and general sentiment. I also believe that the more we can chop things up into their various parts the better we can talk about the actual reality we are trying to describe—only the term suffers, as well it should! The thing people are wanting to call discussion is still intact, albeit with more parts to consider. It's a mistake to identify with your words too much or you will find yourself defending something you don't believe in.
@Atzil said
"The issue is what is our goal. What do we want to know or experience? Then we can look at the
various solutions others have offered, accept or reject or consign to 'don't know'. Or one, with
experience and changing values and desires, finds a path that best expresses that goal for a given
time. That may point beyond the individual towards the collective, or it may not. We can only do
what we feel is right, however irrational or impossible it may seem. After all, if we knew we could
achieve it, where would be the attraction, the desire?"I think this is more or less what I have been pushing for the whole time. A careful reading of my previous comments will show, that while I have serious doubts about the value of discussion as a positive tool for growth, I am still open to the possibility of making it work.
As far as this discussion is concerned I guess I could simply accept that people mean something more than simple debate when they use the term, but that would be lazy. There would still be this thing that was ill-understood and that formed the basis of the entire topic.
Love and Will
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
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?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.My own studies in Thelema indicate that many things simply reverse their apparent meaning when they're worked on patiently, and in depth. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
Edward@Atzil said
"
"It is because it doesn't attempt to offer concrete solutions in terms of what we know. It avoids that effort. This doesn't mean it may not be how things will play out, in time, but in terms of the 'discussion' it is still a cop out."Surely that is the point. It argues that there are no solutions based on the criteria of what we think we know. I agree, it is easy to use the transcendental argument to sidestep to finding a 'concrete' solution. So what do we know? How do we verify what others say regarding such knowledge, whoever they may be? Discussion can only take us so far....then....?"
When all is said and done I am a very practical person. Speaking for myself, at some point I will need to get into the rehearsal studio with a few warm bodies and awake minds and try to make it work.
Love and Will