One's own Will
-
93,
@Al Ha-Shema said
"That being said, the ideas encapsulated in Crowley's Resh are designed to reinforce the Thelemic symblism and cosmology. These things may be vague or even senseless to you now, but the persistent reinforcement of the common symbology etc. specifically aids you in gradually gaining a deeper alignment with Thelemic principles."
Agreed. Progress is cumulative. The Joy is in the Going.
That being said, Resh is a part of the curriculum of the O.T.O. and the A.'.A.'. as adorations designed for those systems of attainment. Honestly, only you know what is "Thelemic" or not. I wouldn't trust anyone else's definition. I like the motto: the aim of religion, the method of science. NOT the dogma of religion with the method of doing what you're told (with the exception of your Oath requirements).
In other words, I think you're asking the right questions.
@HWNH said
"Does altering the rituals to one's own will make a person less or more in line with Thelemic principles? Opinions?"
Is it less "in line" altering the rituals? No. But, there are multiple reasons why they are uniform. Again, Resh is part of an established system of attainment. There is no reason why you couldn't use Resh and have personal rituals as well. But again, to quote Alrah:
@Alrah said
"I'd say the matter is entirely between you and the HGA and has bugger all to do with anyone else."
Which is a fancy way of saying:
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
93 93/93
"HWNH wrote:
Does altering the rituals to one's own will make a person less or more in line with Thelemic principles? Opinions?
"You should be real careful about altering any rituals. Their structure is intentional and aligns you with the UNIVERSE.
If you was making chocolate chip cookies, it would be ok to stray from the recipe with some added suger for instance. But if you say, " This recipe is stupid. I think I will add a cup of salt." Now you dont have chocolate chip cookies, you have monsterous version.
If you dont follow the recipe "you wont get your meat".
There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.
-
93,
@Alrah said
"Equilibrium can exist on it's own but disequilibrium can only exist in the presence of equilibrium."
Alrah, this is pretty eloquent and also a great point.
Can you please expound on this? I think this is an important principle and deserves more attention, in the "current" thread (if you'll forgive the pun) and in all rituals for that matter...
This thread has had a lot to do with the intellectual idea of rituals. I think what you're trying to address is a very important aspect, away from the intellectual side of things (correct me if I'm wrong), and it may be helpful to discuss it a bit further? Maybe in a different thread?
Love is the law, love under will.
-
93,
@Alrah said
""Good can exist without evil, whereas evil cannot exist without good.""
I like it. I also like this one, especially the way it applies to ritual:
-
Learn first - Oh thou who aspirest unto our ancient Order! - that Equilibrium is
the basis of the Work. If thou thyself hast not a sure foundation, whereon wilt thou
stand to direct the forces of Nature? -
Know then, that as man is born into this world amidst the Darkness of Matter,
and the strife of contending forces; so must his first endeavor be to seek the Light
through their reconciliation.
-- Liber Librae
But, kind of off topic now. Sorry.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
-
93 93/93
"4. And so on. We cannot here enter at length into all the necessary preparations; and the student will find them fully set forth in the proper books, of which the "Goetia" is perhaps the best example.
These rituals need not be slavishly imitated; on the contrary the student should do nothing the object of which he does not understand; also, if he have any capacity whatever, he will find his own crude rituals more effective than the highly polished ones of other people.--Liber O
"I take back what I said. I thought this might help.
There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.
-
That you for all of the very diverse perspective everyone. I can appreciate the immense symbolism inherent in the adorations set forth in Resh. I think for now, I will allow myself to just get the feel of the general rhythm and the pragmatic aspects of performing adorations four set-points per day with more emphasis on feeling than doing correctly. Once I have "felt things out", as it were, I will have a better sense of purpose when I focus more on Resh.
-
This reminds me of how in Yoga asanas I can be standing on the mat in a posture, or I can be standing on the mat working in a posture. Just because one is flexible enough to get into a posture doesnt mean that you dont take your next breath and push on..
Postures are like rituals, if they actually just arent rituals in among themselves. Rituals are (or should be) your Will in action. My Tree is my own because I am me. -
93 93/93
@Veronica said
"This reminds me of how in Yoga asanas I can be standing on the mat in a posture, or I can be standing on the mat working in a posture. Just because one is flexible enough to get into a posture doesnt mean that you dont take your next breath and push on..
Postures are like rituals, if they actually just arent rituals in among themselves. Rituals are (or should be) your Will in action. My Tree is my own because I am me."That makes sense.....
There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.
-
On the same note, I have my doubts that Crowley meant "noon" and "midnight" in the conventional sense. "Sunrise" and "sunset" refer to the suns actual lowest point in the sky on opposite ends. Their actual time changes every day from one solstice to the next. Whereas "noon" and "midnight" are conventional set point that stay the same every day regardless of the sun's position.
Regardless of the specifics of a ritual, what has always been the most important ingredient to me is that you 1) know why you are doing what you are doing and 2) stay consistent.
It would seem fine if we broke the 24 hour day into 4 equal distant points and said "perform the ritual at 12am 6am, 12pm and 6pm." Or if we equivalently said "perform when the sun is at each horizon, when it is lowest and when it is highest." but to me it makes little sense to mix the two.
It seems to me that Crowley may have been using "noon" and "midnight" more as a convenient way of referring to the Sun in its highest point in the sky, and on the opposite end of the globe.
-
aka "solar noon" and "solar midnight"
-
Time zones are relatively recent invention (it was a slow transition from about 1880-1930, mainly in reaction to railroad planning). Before that, most places kept local time based on solar time, where they would adjust their clocks to the sun . If you spent any time away from major western cities, you kind of had to use solar time, if you wanted to stick to a tight schedule...
