Literalism and Thelema
-
@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.
-
@sebastian said
"Sacrifice is only valid and acceptable if it's done with intent."
I agree with this as written.
Where we likely disagree is that I don't think you understand what the word "sacrifice" means.
"And JIm,rather than alot of 'I think' or 'I speculate' or I etc etc just sai I dont know!"
The passage were from a series of meditations in the early1990s intended to approach Liber L. in a specific way. They were not written as articles for others; it was only afterwards, at the urging of my teacher, that these were typed up and made available. I know that this wasn't clear in what you read, and the fault is mine for jumping you into the middle with that link instead of giving you the proper context. The introductory page is here: aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm
Even now, years and grades later, I'm quite happy to continue with the language of the inquirer.
I also fear that we are digressing from Robert's original question, though perhaps we are exemplifying the very dynamic he was asking about.
-
"Your words imply that I am insincere. Quite the contrary. I am entirely sincere."
Sure you are
Let me put it another way:
-
Suppose there's a community of Thelemites who sacrifice all manner of animals and the occasional most 'efficacious' sacrifice,would you have any problems ?
-
Whether you agree or not, do you consider a literal blood sacrifice as 'effective' ?
-
If the above is effective do you agree with AC that male child would make a more efficacious substitute ?
Ofcourse if you,or any one else here advocated child sacrifice in no uncertain terms,then its gona make things a wee bit difficult
The above is my understanding of what consitutes black magic.
Put simply anything that you do which harms another, is black magic.
Expanded anything you do to **any creature **that harms it is black magick, in **particular if torture is inflicted **on the animal; like AC did with the frog.4 ) Do you agree with the above definition of black magic; and if so do you believe that's what AC did on occasion, i.e the 'crucifixion' of the frog ritual ?
-
-
"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
*It appears from the Magical Records of Frater Perdurabo that He made this particular sacrifice on an average about 150 times every year between 1912 e.v. and 1928 e.v. "
-
Open up and say aahhn,
Doctors used to analysis health by looking at your tou ge, a lost art to some, but one I am skilled at.
Actually, no not all human being have five tastes. Most all human beings have three regions of the tounge, some may have two other regions. Salt and sweet share a region. The three regions correspond to the three primary cells in our body, the heart, the brain, and the skin, and the three taste correspond to the three primary components of food, fats, carbohydrates and proteins.
I want healthy babies and healthy life too,
But...
Life is life.
And I personally do not think that most human beings are capable of truly taking that life, and effectively transmuting it's energy. But that is bullshite metaphysical talk.Do you have a living will?
If my existence gets to the point where I am no longer a help and an assets to my kin, and I am a burden....then I will gladly give it up, to ensure the success of my loved ones.But, in this day and age, what my family can and will bear....as a perceived burden, Is vastly different then my ancestors.
While I do believe that modern medicine has allowed many children and mothers to survive birth who would have died not to long ago, and I wonder if that is good or bad....
I will bow my head in humility, and know that SHE is the Circumfrance, to a vessel deeper then my pitiful little brain and heart can grasp....an I will not deny HER Lifeforms, and I will defend And protect her lifeforms, no matter how pityful weak and stupid I may perceive them to be.
And so when I read that, three:43 I get fired up, because it feels to me like some other lower being then SHE, is saying HE is going to deny HER what is rightfully HERS.
Maybe it is just a silly knee jerk reaction on my behalf, and maybe after I read Mr. Eshelmans Ideas, I will have a change of heart.
I apologize to Robert for derailing his Thread.
@Takamba said
"
@Veronica 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."
-
@sebastian said
"1) Suppose there's a community of Thelemites who sacrifice all manner of animals and the occasional most 'efficacious' sacrifice,would you have any problems ?"
I eat meat. I have no problem with the killing of animals for a purpose. A ceremonial sacrifice, properly carried out, would, in most instances, be far more humane than most of the conditions of commercial slaughter.
That said, it would be rare that this would be the most magically effective approach. (It's also damned expensive! <g>)
"2) Whether you agree or not, do you consider a literal blood sacrifice as 'effective' ?"
Yes. Any sudden release of a great quantity of life-force, especially if it has a physical medium to capture and carry it, provides power that can be employed effectively in magick. This does include the literal bloody sacrifice.
"3) If the above is effective do you agree with AC that male child would make a more efficacious substitute ?"
I agree with what he meant when he wrote that, but not with the simplest, superficial reading of the words he used. (I am only being obscure because I have actual oaths of secrecy attached to this specific text.) As you know, Crowley was quite explicit the passages in question were normally not going to be understood correctly - they were intentionally obscured.
"Of course if you,or any one else here advocated child sacrifice in no uncertain terms,then its gona make things a wee bit difficult
"It would, yes. Fortunately, that's one problem I don't have to worry about, because we do not advocate it. Quite the opposite.
Fundamental to the philosophy of Thelema is non-interference with the True Will of others. There is probably no action that interferes with the True Will of another more thoroughly than killing them.
"The above is my understanding of what constitutes black magic. Put simply anything that you do which harms another, is black magic. Expanded anything you do to **any creature **that harms it is black magick, in **particular if torture is inflicted **on the animal; like AC did with the frog.
4 ) Do you agree with the above definition of black magic"
Your definition isn't bad. I think it would cover the topic in most circumstances.
I wouldn't agree unconditionally without first analyzing the definition more carefully - the curse of a legally trained mind. On a cursory look, for example, I'd have to exclude examples that were consistent with the target's choice, and we'd have to go around the barn a couple of times sorting out what "harm" means - but, broadly, it's pretty good. (For example, it articulates why I am against war and the death penalty in nearly all situations.)
"and if so do you believe that's what AC did on occasion, i.e the 'crucifixion' of the frog ritual ?"
Simple answer: Yes, regarding the frog.
A less simple answer: I'm almost transfixed at the logic of his most singular act of black magick being the specific ritual he performed for the overthrow of Christianity. That's so very much like the late Sen. Robert Byrd proposing an openly unconstitutional law to force his life-passion of compelling people to study the U.S. Constitution. The irony is sublime! (The underlying magick principle BTW is that you gain access to assail someone's fortress by operating within the universe as they, themselves, have constituted it.)
-
"Your words imply that I am insincere. Quite the contrary. I am entirely sincere."
"I am only being obscure because I have actual oaths attached to this specific text"
So you're being obscure (because of oaths
) but NOT insincere !So in you're little mind **deliberate obfuscation **doesn't mean insincerity.
Did i mention smoke and mirrors ?
Here's the defintion of obfuscation:
Obfuscation (or beclouding) is the hiding of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, wilfully ambiguous, and harder to interpret.
So AC was being obscure, on top of it others were being obscure, and on top of all that, you're being obscure
Now everything is clarified.
So on one end of the spectrum, there are people like you, full of self importance because they imagine they are privy to an ultimate secret, and are bound by oaths.
On the other end are the novices who are trying to make sense of this material, but they can't be helped because you have oaths to honour.
So what's the **point **of any discussion.
Endless going around in circles.
As i said, gota give it to Aiwaz
-
Jim, here's you and your 'great secret'.
-
@sebastian said
"So you're being obscure (because of oaths
) but NOT insincere !"
The two aren't incompatible. And I'm only being obscure on the specific matter addressed in MT&P Chapter 12, not the discussion in general. (Even in obscurity, I'm being completely sincere: Not falsifying anything, just not openly saying some things.)"So in you're little mind **deliberate obfuscation **doesn't mean insincerity."
Correct. Obfuscation does not mean insincerity. In my statements there is no deceit or hypocrisy. There is incompletion (withholding some statements), not adulterating with noise.
"So AC was being obscure, on top of it others were being obscure, and on top of all that, you're being obscure
Now everything is clarified.
"Excellent!
Notice that there is no deceit. He openly said he was being obscure. There are some things that it is not permissible to say clearly for various reasons, not the least of which is honor; i.e., one gave one's word.
BTW I am very sensitive to the fact that we appear to be moving farther from the thread's original topic. Or, maybe this is the type of thing Robert had in mind? In any case, I leave it to him whether I excise this particular sub-thread to its own space. In the meantime, I'm endeavoring to be responsive.
"So on one end of the spectrum, there are people like you, full of self importance because they imagine they are privy to an ultimate secret, and are bound by oaths.
On the other end are the novices who are trying to make sense of this material, but they can't be helped because you have oaths to honour."Of course they can be helped! That's what the entire delivery system of the Order is about. (My only claim here BTW is that I know precisely what Crowley meant by the section under discussion of MT&P. I know this because I have his specific explanation of it.)
"So what's the **point **of any discussion. Endless going around in circles."
That would be like someone relatively ignorant of electrical wiring hiring an electrical contractor with decades of experience, then starting an argument on current density. One can blame neither the contractor nor the electricity for any "going around in circles" that results.
"
As i said, gota give it to Aiwaz" -
@Veronica said
"Open up and say aahhn,
Doctors used to analysis health by looking at your tou ge, a lost art to some, but one I am skilled at.
Actually, no not all human being have five tastes. Most all human beings have three regions of the tounge, some may have two other regions. Salt and sweet share a region. The three regions correspond to the three primary cells in our body, the heart, the brain, and the skin, and the three taste correspond to the three primary components of food, fats, carbohydrates and proteins."
Apparently I wasn't as efficient a librarian as you to have learned to discern a person's health simply by looking at their tongues. My doctor still uses a tongue suppressor and makes me go "aaahhh" but he's not looking at my tongue, he's looking at the back of my throat.
Besides that, let me direct you to a little something called taste: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taste_bud
I hope you do get to read Jim's article, but in case you don't let me kind of sum it up:
The Scarlet Woman is an officer of Thelema, a "role" played not by everyone but only ONE - and in context of equality with The Beast this role is prototypical in Crowley and Rose and archetypal in general. It isn't to all women these verses apply, but to that One Type of woman (who when she hears them will already feel an affinity to the ideal of it). She is to be the ultimate woman girt with sword (whereas all other women can also be girt with the sword, but not necessarily wed to it as The Scarlet Woman would be).
-
"That would be like someone relatively ignorant of electrical wiring hiring an electrical contractor with decades of experience, then starting an argument on current density. One can blame neither the contractor nor the electricity for any "going around in circles" that results."
Totaly wrong analogy,but who cares, if you can obscure more.
The right analogy would be, a student learning electrical engineering.
He asks a question, and the lecturer comes out with some bull about oaths he took.
The student would have a right to ask for a refund, and tell the prof to go **** himself for wasting his time.This carrot of a secret only works for donkeys.
" I know precisely what Crowley meant by the section under discussion of MT&P. I know this because I have his specific explanation of it"
And who told you that !
God, there's not **a **sucker born every minute; there's tens of thousands born!
You need to be given the same treatment that AC gave to the frog.
That'll take care of the secret. -
I would say that you got a ridiculously good deal on your investment of $0 and bad manners.
I would also say that I know very few occultists who give as clear and direct answers as Jim consistently, to non-initiates like me. Your history of 7 posts indicate that your sample size is too small, and that you're projecting when you talk smack about "obfuscation".
-
@sebastian said
"The student would have a right to ask for a refund, and tell the prof to go **** himself for wasting his time."
While you're entitled to your opinion of others responses, if you find it a waste of time, then please cease engaging in conversation or even reading this forum. If you're already knowledgable of the secret(s) mentioned here, then surely you can find something better to do with your time than to post on a online forum being intentionally rude to someone who is taking time to thoroughly (as well as he is able via obligation) answer your questions.
On the topic:
I say it seems obvious that taking most of Crowley's writings literally would be a huge mistake. Lately, I've been reading through Magick Without Tears, and he says in the note on Qabalah that there is a depth to the Book of the Law that he doesn't even understand and didn't expect to within this incarnation. With this thought coming Crowley himself, doesn't it seem unreasonable to think that one would be able to read a verse of the Book of the Law and just immediately know based on first impression?? Crowley also seems to mock the idea of how some people will read things and take them literally, I see this as perhaps one of the reasons to obscure a passage like this. Making his motives akin to the use of the frog ritual regarding Christianity (if I'm understanding Jim correctly).
-
"While you're entitled to your opinion "
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"I would say that you got a ridiculously good deal on your investment of $0 and bad manners."
@ANEA said
"surely you can find something better to do with your time than to post on a online forum being intentionally rude"
As you've so eloquently pointed out, no one here has an issue with you having a different opinion. But, if you'd see the above quotes, it's your approach that won't get you far here. Jim is the admin of these forums, and he has demanded that members engage these topics with respect towards each other.
I told you to cease posting and reading because you clearly said that this was wasting your time. Should you volunteer to waste your time, then so be it, but don't take that out on others here by being rude.
Very sorry to post totally off topic. Just thought I'd like to clarify my earlier post.
-
"I told you to cease posting and reading because you clearly said that this was wasting your time"
No,never claimed that.
I gave an analogy countering Jim's."but don't take that out on others here by being rude."
If anything is rude than it's the passages under discussion, and attempts made to white wash them.
"I would say that you got a ridiculously good deal on your investment of $0 and bad manners."
Did I ?
What did I get, care to enlighten.
All i got was i have to be obscure, because of alleged oaths !"surely you can find something better to do with your time than to post on a online forum being intentionally rude"
I'm sure we all could.
But it is as it isAfter all we're discussing blood baths gore and sacrifice here.
-
"I would also say that I know very few occultists who give as **clear and direct answers **as Jim consistently, to non-initiates like me"
-
@sebastian said
"
Did I ?What did I get, care to enlighten.
"Yes, you got clear, direct answers to your questions. And your insults were ignored.
-
"The right analogy would be, a student learning electrical engineering.
He asks a question, and the lecturer comes out with some bull about oaths he took.
The student would have a right to ask for a refund, and tell the prof to go **** himself for wasting his time."This analogy is incorrect. There are no prohibitive oaths in electrical engineering. There are, however, the necessary degrees and licensing procedures in which the student must demonstrate competency before being allowed to do the actual work.
That would be a better analogy, since the only thing that seems to be able to keep an occult student from performing this particular work without the proper degrees is enforced ignorance, unlike the state's regulation of electrical engineers.
-
(In case you didn't know, sebastian was soofi.)