Literalism and Thelema
-
Everyone depends on guns to keep them safe. Especially pansy liberals. They just want someone else to wield it for them. They want someone else to put themselves in harms way so they don't have to. They say that they want everyone to attain K&C of the HGA, but what they don't realise is that if the scientific facts of K&C were to be made public it would cause a civil war.
-
@kedwards said
"Everyone depends on guns to keep them safe. Especially pansy liberals. They just want someone else to wield it for them. They want someone else to put themselves in harms way so they don't have to. They say that they want everyone to attain K&C of the HGA, but what they don't realise is that if the scientific facts of K&C were to be made public it would cause a civil war."
-
your reply is off topic. It's a talking point of the gun lobby. Personally I might care if you want to have a gun or lots of them, and I might care a lot more if you want to make it possible for every unbalanced soul to get one as well. But that's a fight for the courts and the for the ballot box, and for the lobbyists. I will point out however, that outside of a standing army, there have been, and there are communities, and whole countries that have kept the peace with no one, not even the cops, possessing fire arms. It's a fact, so I know it's possible.
-
your reply may not have been off topic if your comments centered around Thelema and whether you think guns are somehow mandated by the Book of the Law.
Love and Will
-
-
Let every man bear arms, swift to resent oppression, generous and ardent to draw sword in any cause, if justice or freedom summon him! -Aliester Crowley; The Law is for All ; An Extenuation of The Book of the Law.
-
@kedwards said
"Let every man bear arms, swift to resent oppression, generous and ardent to draw sword in any cause, if justice or freedom summon him! -Aliester Crowley; The Law is for All ; An Extenuation of The Book of the Law."
I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove. Seriously. What's the point?
It seems like a very mean quote to justify "I'm ready for the chaos with my guns to keep me warm" philosophy that is what one has come to expect from at least one other of your comments on another thread.
Even if Crowley did mean people should have lots of dangerous toys to make them feel secure, which he obviously didn't, it's still unwise to accept everything he wrote just because he wrote it. Fact is, violent conflict doesn't have a very good record for making things better, or even rectifying wrongs. The most successful, transformational movements, having to do with principles of 'justice or freedom,' which is clearly an important qualifier for Crowley, have all been non-violent.
I shrug!
Love and Will
-
You are both coming from two different points of view, which are both right and wrong. And You can't argue from the other's point of view until you achieve Understanding and until then, there is no peace. Equilibrium is Justice now.
-
@Takamba said
"You are both coming from two different points of view, which are both right and wrong. And You can't argue from the other's point of view until you achieve Understanding and until then, there is no peace. Equilibrium is Justice now."
But I want to fight!
I'm in the mood. Unfortunately, this is not the place for a long, involved back and forth about second amendment rights, which I am ready to go to the mat with, but there are other forums for that. Read my first post.No one will ague that militaristic point of view, so far. So maybe the literals are a scarce breed.
If Kedwards really thought Thelema was about the 'law of the strong' in a literal sense, that would be dandy, but it seems all he wants to do is justify owning semi-automatic weapons, or some such—yes, I'm assuming things about him I shouldn't. Basically, all he has said is that he is not worried about anything because he has a gun. And he quoted a bit of Crowley's commentary on The Book of the Law. He hasn't really argued anything. This makes him little more than an object I can point to and say: see, this is the kind of person who inspired my first post in this thread.
There is a lot of other things to be hashed out, but we won't get to them if all we do is argue about guns. The topic is about the nature of Thelema—about how we should 'not' view the Book of the Law. Sounds restrictive, I know, but there it is. Anyone who literally takes the injunction to perform blood sacrifices seriously is a deranged fool, in my not so humble opinion.
There is a real question here. As such, I want help in crafting my response to what I see as an adolescent, and genuinely misguided fixation as regards Thelema. If people argue with me I can see this point of view more clearly for what it is—I can make assumptions about the underlying psychological immaturity behind it. So my motivation is selfish, and I don't expect the arguments to change anyone's point of view, just help me craft my own sort of weapon, for myself to use, in terms of what I believe Thelema is not. The thread is a parting gesture on my part because this is still one of those unanswered considerations best dealt with in a community. Then again, maybe I will wake up tomorrow and feel the impulse has expended itself and I can simply walk away from it.
Literal interpretation, or how literal, or not at all?
Anyone?
Love and Will
-
A couple of thoughts were triggered by your posed questions. (I intentionally waited past the first couple of days so that I stood less of a chance of setting the direction of the thread.)
First... not a question about a particular person, or a question to find a specific answer, but rather a "continuing question" about evaluating what we and others write on the subject:
Do we read Liber Legis and, based on what we find there, form a point of view and opinons?
Or do we have a point of view and consequent opinions and, when reading Liber Legis, grab hold of those things that confirm them?
I think everyone at least starts with the latter. That is, all you can bring to reading a book is yourself, which includes both your conscious thoughts and your unconscious (projected) thoughts (among other things). That's what causes someone to "connect" to this book (or, I suppose, to any other): You may find that it is articulating what you've long thought. You may find that it is uncovering truths about yourself that are new to you. You may find that it disgusts you but you can't put it down or get rid of it (which is a variation of it uncovering truths about yourself that you don't presently know about or accept). Etc. But, probably, everybody first brings themselves to the book.
The question then becomes whether one "goes on from there." That is, are we changed by what we read? Do we let it uncover things we didn't know, or give us new points of view that shift how we witness life and create new opinions? Or do we just use it like a lazy fundamentalist to justify stagnant conclusions already in place?
(NB - I'm contrasting "lazy fundamentalism" to really committed, dedicated fundamentalism. I'm not saying fundamentalists are lazy. In fact, Liber L. demands fundamentalism of us, i.e., a "preserving to the letter the literal received law" approach. But since all interpretation has a big dose of projection in it, "literal interpretation" still leaves a big question of how we are to understand the those "unchanged" letters.)
Second set of thoughts... Crowley gave a standard for interpretating Liber L. in The Equinox of the Gods. Technically, it was his criteria for commentary; and I think it can be repurposed to study and thought about it in general. It was mostly "steps to keep thinking honest" advice.
The gist of it is: Don't overlok the literal, simple meaning, especially when the verse seems to have a simple, literal meaning. OTOH be sensitive to a deeper meaning behind the surface one and, especially when their are wierdnesses in the text, be sensitive to a Qabalistic or other veiled meaning.
All true "scripture," I think, needs to be open to layers of meaning, since we are layered individuals who (hopefully!) grow and develop over time. Liber Legis anticipated that how we see it will changes as we change: CCXX 3:63-68.
Crowley's "principles of Exegesis" are given at the end of Chapter VII of E.o.t.G. It's long, and some of it pertains specifically to his unique task of writing a commentary; but here are parts that could apply to how any of us approach it interpretively:
-
"Where the text is simple straightforward English, I shall not seek, or allow, any interpretation at variance with it. [Par:] I may admit a Qabalistic or cryptographic secondary meaning when such confirms, amplifies deepens, intensifies, or clarifies the obvious common-sense significance; but only if it be part of the general plan of the 'latent light,' and self-proven by abundant witness."
-
[Documents his claim to be "sole authority competent to decide disputed points" in the Book, his conclusions in such matter being "absolute without appeal."]
-
Wherever certain strange conditions exist - viz., the text is inherently obscure, the expression is strained, syntax or grammar or spelling etc. is peculiar, there are puns or ambiguity, or the text openly declares a puzzle or problem - then, "in all such cases I shall seek for a meaning hidden by means of Qabalistic correspondeces.cryptography, or literary subtleties. I shll admit no solution which is not at once simple, striking, consonant with the general plan of the Book; and not only adequate but necessary."
-
"The Comment must be consistent with itself at all points, it must exhibit the Book of the Law as of absoute authority on all possible questions proper to Mankind, as offering the perfect solution of all problems philosophical and practical without exception." (Related points about AC's comment's suitability for the masses and its relevance to "the problems of our own times," etc.)
-
"The Comment must appeal on behalf of the Law to the authority of Experience. It must make Success the proof of the Truth of the Book of the Law at every point of contact with Reality."
There is more. But these are the excerpts that, it seems to me, might be useful to the questions you're stirring.
-
-
I don't know if this will help any,
But I will offer it up any ways.I see the world as an evolutionary process.
Everything is always becoming something else.
Even so called Laws.
Even so call natural laws,I personally feel that the words received in The Book of The Law were words that were meant tobe heard at that moment in time.
At that moment in time, every word was perfect.Literal or figurative. It worked for that moment in time, perfectly.
But we are no longer at that moment. My mothers mothers mother lived during that late 1800 early 1900 European mindset, and I know for a fact that she would be completely flabbergasted at me, and my life, what I freely do and say, how I choose to look, what I eat. All those things, were world apart from where the human culture was when the book was received.
Things change, things evolve and that is good and right. To fight that, to struggle against that, is not going to be helpful.
Before I wrote this out, I went back and reread the Book, just to see....and I still tasted a bitter aftertaste in reference to women.....but if I pause and recall that at that time women were a different lot...and saying Rhodes words would pretty much ensure that a change in that would transpire....well I can swallow it easier.
-
Worship me with **fire **& blood; worship me with **swords **& with spears. Let the woman be girt with a sword before me: let blood flow to my name. Trample down the Heathen; be upon them, o warrior, I will give you of their flesh to eat!
**Sacrifice cattle, little and big: after a child. **Couldn't be any clearer.
BUT there's a chance that i might be wrong.It's metaphorical for; play tambourines and flutes, and sing kumbaya.
AND sacrifice means be a wanker!
What a great sacrifice that is.If one must insist than maybe, some frogs or cattle.
-
@Angel of Death said
"Before I wrote this out, I went back and reread the Book, just to see....and I still tasted a bitter aftertaste in reference to women.....but if I pause and recall that at that time women were a different lot...and saying Rhodes words would pretty much ensure that a change in that would transpire....well I can swallow it easier."
Are you saying there is something offensive to women in The Book of the Law? Please point me to this offense.
-
@Takamba said
"
@Angel of Death said
"Before I wrote this out, I went back and reread the Book, just to see....and I still tasted a bitter aftertaste in reference to women.....but if I pause and recall that at that time women were a different lot...and saying Rhodes words would pretty much ensure that a change in that would transpire....well I can swallow it easier."Are you saying there is something offensive to women in The Book of the Law? Please point me to this offense."
Not to women,
But this woman, still does not like chapter three verse forty three. -
@sebastian said
"Worship me with **fire **& blood; worship me with **swords **& with spears. Let the woman be girt with a sword before me: let blood flow to my name. Trample down the Heathen; be upon them, o warrior, I will give you of their flesh to eat!
Sacrifice cattle, little and big: after a child.
Couldn't be any clearer."
Recommended reading:
aumha.org/arcane/ccxx3.htm#11
aumha.org/arcane/ccxx3.htm#12 -
@Angel of Death said
"But this woman, still does not like chapter three verse forty three."
Angel of Death, have you, perchance, read my article on this topic in Black Pearl No. 3?
You can download the issue from www.thelema.org/publication
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Angel of Death said
"But this woman, still does not like chapter three verse forty three."Angel of Death, have you, perchance, read my article on this topic in Black Pearl No. 3?
You can download the issue from www.thelema.org/publication"
Excellent article. Myself, I woulda just asked Angel of Death, "Oh, so you think you are The Scarlet Woman do you?"
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Angel of Death said
"But this woman, still does not like chapter three verse forty three."Angel of Death, have you, perchance, read my article on this topic in Black Pearl No. 3?
You can download the issue from www.thelema.org/publication"
No, I haven't read that. Unfortunately when I attempted to down load the PDF it continuously crashed my iPad. Must be to big. So I shall have to wait till I get on my laptop.
But I most definitely will check it out, thank you for mentioning it.
-
@Takamba said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Angel of Death said
"But this woman, still does not like chapter three verse forty three."Angel of Death, have you, perchance, read my article on this topic in Black Pearl No. 3?
You can download the issue from www.thelema.org/publication"
Excellent article. Myself, I woulda just asked Angel of Death, "Oh, so you think you are The Scarlet Woman do you?"
"Don't quite see how you made that leap,
I don't think I am anything other then myself, the one and only me.
And it was not really that I was offened at all by that verse.
Truthfully, I will admit that it fires me up, enflames if you will....I may or may not be the scarlet woman, and if I am not she
Then that only means,
That one of my sisters, my kin...is she...And I love my sisters, and Their babes, and would draw my sword to defend them against what I concider childishness and immature rash behaviors.
I do believe I understand what is being said in that verse, and why, which I thought I was saying in my original post, it is bitter, to me. Human beings really only have three tastes, sweet sour and bitter...
It wasn't sweet, and certainly isn't sour....
Bitter foods have a specific role to play in diet and so do bitter words.
-
@Angel of Death said
"Don't quite see how you made that leap,
I don't think I am anything other then myself, the one and only me.
And it was not really that I was offened at all by that verse.
Truthfully, I will admit that it fires me up, enflames if you will....I may or may not be the scarlet woman, and if I am not she
Then that only means,
That one of my sisters, my kin...is she...And I love my sisters, and Their babes, and would draw my sword to defend them against what I concider childishness and immature rash behaviors.
I do believe I understand what is being said in that verse, and why, which I thought I was saying in my original post, it is bitter, to me. Human beings really only have three tastes, sweet sour and bitter...
It wasn't sweet, and certainly isn't sour....
Bitter foods have a specific role to play in diet and so do bitter words."
We have five taste buds. You've named three but forgot savory (Umami) and Saltiness. To savor the saltiness of reality, we only want healthy babies.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@sebastian said
"Worship me with **fire **& blood; worship me with **swords **& with spears. Let the woman be girt with a sword before me: let blood flow to my name. Trample down the Heathen; be upon them, o warrior, I will give you of their flesh to eat!Sacrifice cattle, little and big: after a child.
Couldn't be any clearer."
Recommended reading:
aumha.org/arcane/ccxx3.htm#11
aumha.org/arcane/ccxx3.htm#12""It is necessary for us to consider carefully the problems connected with the bloody sacrifice, for this question is indeed traditionally important in Magick. Nigh all ancient Magick revolves around this matter"
"This subject must be studied in the "Golden Bough", where it is most learnedly set forth by Dr. J. G. Frazer. Enough has now been said to show that the bloody sacrifice has from time immemorial been the most considered part of Magick. The ethics of the thing appear to have concerned no one; nor, to tell the truth, need they do so. As St. Paul says, "Without shedding of blood there is no remission"; and who are we to argue with St. Paul? But, after all that, it is open to any one to have any opinion that he likes upon the subject, or any other subject, thank God! "
"It would be unwise to condemn as irrational the practice of those savages who tear the heart and liver from an adversary, and devour them while yet warm."
"On the other hand, the practice of torturing animals to death in order to obtain the elemental as a slave is indefensible, utterly black magic of the very worst kind, involving as it does a metaphysical basis of dualism. There is, however, no objection to dualism or black magic when they are properly understood. See the account of the Master Therion's Great Magical Retirement by Lake Pasquaney, where he "crucified a toad in the Basilisk abode"."
"An animal should be selected whose nature accords with that of the ceremony"
" *For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence *"
DISCLAIMER:THIS DOES NOT MEAN WHAT IT SAYS.
ONLY A HIGH INITIATE CAN KNOWS THIS.
"Those magicians who abject to the use of blood have endeavored to replace it with incense"
"But the bloody sacrifice, though more dangerous, is more efficacious; and for nearly all purposes human sacrifice is the best"
DISLAIMER: AGAIN THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE OBVIOUS.
ISN'T THAT OBVIOUS.I could carry on until the cattle comes home.
Your response is just disingenous qabbalistic smokes and mirrors.The Beast himself found The Book of The Law hard to stomach.The Black Magicians he decried,is what Thelema leads to.
But not obviously straight away,where's the fun in that
Gota give it to Aiwass,that praeter-human intelligence was very intelligent.
Here he tells the 'prohhet' to kill and sacrifice;there he says he will not understand the Book
-
If The Master Therion himself can't understand the import of the Message, than your 'opinion' is good as mine, or Dick's.
And these are some of your comments from the above link.
"This being said, I am hesitant to peer too deeply into the verse, to try to explain it too concretely. If my perceptions so far are correct, it would require a Master of the Temple 8=3 to Understand it. Normally I would, therefore, content myself with a rational analysis and let the deeper levels evolve in their own time; but for a verse such as this, such rational opinions could be little more than the dung of Choronzon. "
"I am equally certain that the present verses do not advise either animal sacrifice or child sacrifice. There is a more hidden meaning.
Crowley, as I recall, held the same basic view; and, concretizing these verses into events in his personal life, he saw their fulfillment in the death of the daughter he shared with Rose. (In later life he lost other children. His desire to sire viable progeny unfolded in a long story of grief and loss.)"
This is just laughable.Sacrifice is only valid and acceptable if it's done with intent.
Here AC is hintingIf he made it too plain, then Thelema would have totally died out long time ago,and AC executed or locked up in a nut house.
It's pretty defunct as it is.
Just a small fringe crowd.
In a world of 7 billion, virtualy non existent.And heres the shocking secret: The most potent spell is cast by sacrificing a male child. Many BLACK MAGICIANS in Africa,India and Europe believe this,and the so called praeter human intelligences love it.
So keep up the 'good' work.
You don't have to wait 'till 8=3.
If it takes that long for you to navigate past the 'magick' smokes and mirrors than you'r a dullard.And JIm,rather than alot of 'I think' or 'I speculate' or I etc etc just sai I dont know!
-
@sebastian said
"I could carry on until the cattle comes home.
Your response is just disingenous qabbalistic smokes and mirrors."Your words imply that I am insincere. Quite the contrary. I am entirely sincere.
All of your quotes from MT&P Chapter XII refer to a specific point AC was attempting to make (which, as you correctly quoted, he said was a veiled point). In any case, none of it means that these specific verses refer to the same thing.
I'm quite familiar with the bloody sacrifice in the various forms that AC referred to it in the chapter you quoted. I've used it in its various forms for decades. But they don't refer to what I was specifically saying here.
Besides - as he pointed out - the greatest magicians sacrifice their own blood.