Is Thelema a "New Religion"?
-
Of course, there is another clue. Of the two words, new religion, "new" does occur in the Book of the Law once and "religion" not once. But "worship," "worshipped," and "worshippers" 16 times. If we define religion as above and add that "worship" is also to be included, I'm still going with "new" is the flaw in asking "So, is Thelema a new religion?"
-
@Takamba said
"Of course, there is another clue. Of the two words, new religion, "new" does occur in the Book of the Law once and "religion" not once. But "worship," "worshipped," and "worshippers" 16 times. If we define religion as above and add that "worship" is also to be included, I'm still going with "new" is the flaw in asking "So, is Thelema a new religion?""
By that logic, The Book of the Law is suggesting that Thelema is a "New Worship" to be worshipped by worshippers and not a religion. Or I'm missing something in your explanation.
-
@kasper81 said
"@the OP. One word; "faith". All religions prior to Thelema have faith at their core. However in Thelema "I bring certainty not faith". "
I've always found that verse fascinating... since, by etymology, "faith" means "certainty."
"To me it's the final dismantling of religion and an attempt to hold a scientific application to "religious experience". Buddhism nearly got it right but it became blackened by prayer wheels and metaphysical meanderings"
These are effective techniques.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"By that logic, The Book of the Law is suggesting that Thelema is a "New Worship" to be worshipped by worshippers and not a religion. Or I'm missing something in your explanation."
Oh no! I'm quite sure that by my logic, "new" is nothing under the sun! Not new at all! But worship is not to be thrown out with the bapt water.
-
@Takamba said
"
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"By that logic, The Book of the Law is suggesting that Thelema is a "New Worship" to be worshipped by worshippers and not a religion. Or I'm missing something in your explanation."Oh no! I'm quite sure that by my logic, "new" is nothing under the sun! Not new at all! But worship is not to be thrown out with the bapt water."
As I said, I must be missing something in your explanation. You cite the use of the word "new" and "worship" (and its derivatives) in the Book of the Law and note the absence of "religion".
I guess I could qabalistically analyze your last statement to discover how "new"/Nu is "no-thing"/Tao which is under the sun/son-Tiphereth. I'd question this as I believe that while Nu may be partly under Tiphereth, she is also partly above and to the side and 8 3/4 dimensions slantways of Tiphereth. And the Tao is Not. Then again, if we're talking about "new" (nun-yod) then we're looking specifically at the two paths to the right of Tiphereth. Are you saying that this discussion has tipped the Tree on it's side?
Not(31) new/Nu(60) at all(31)! = 121 = אלילים (Vain idols) = 11^2 (Ahah! squared)
And that worship, while initiated in the bapt(ismal) water (and fire, surely) must continue throughout one's life and not be tossed the minute one has come up for air as is done with most Christmas/Easter religions.Ah... I see your joke now. Thelema is not a "new" religion but rather a Nu religion. Seems like a bit of a side track from the questions raised in the OP, but amusing nonetheless.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I've always found that verse fascinating... since, by etymology, "faith" means "certainty.""
Good point. If I were to dig out my high school Latin, I might find a nuanced difference between certus (meaning settled & sure) vs. fidelis (meaning trustworthy) but they do essentially mean the same thing. Imagine how much miscommunication and misunderstanding could be avoided in the world if we all agreed upon the same meaning of words.
("And how much poetry," the devil on his shoulder pipes in, "would be lost.")
-
@kasper81 said
"All religions prior to Thelema have faith at their core."
Not exactly true. As far as the literary record shows, faith was not a required tenet of most of the Gnostic sects (and was actually shunned in some) nor was it a factor in the Hellenic and Roman religions. I would guess that there are other examples throughout the world but my research has generally been around the Mediterranean. Faith (as something higher than belief), as a religious tenet, is really something that grew out of the new testament.
By her statement there, I've always seen Nuit as specifically contradicting the "religions of the book" which require faith but leaving the door open to the older initiated religions which do not.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
@Takamba said
"
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"By that logic, The Book of the Law is suggesting that Thelema is a "New Worship" to be worshipped by worshippers and not a religion. Or I'm missing something in your explanation."Oh no! I'm quite sure that by my logic, "new" is nothing under the sun! Not new at all! But worship is not to be thrown out with the bapt water."
As I said, I must be missing something in your explanation. You cite the use of the word "new" and "worship" (and its derivatives) in the Book of the Law and note the absence of "religion".
I guess I could qabalistically analyze your last statement to discover how "new"/Nu is "no-thing"/Tao which is under the sun/son-Tiphereth. I'd question this as I believe that while Nu may be partly under Tiphereth, she is also partly above and to the side and 8 3/4 dimensions slantways of Tiphereth. And the Tao is Not. Then again, if we're talking about "new" (nun-yod) then we're looking specifically at the two paths to the right of Tiphereth. Are you saying that this discussion has tipped the Tree on it's side?
Not(31) new/Nu(60) at all(31)! = 121 = אלילים (Vain idols) = 11^2 (Ahah! squared)
And that worship, while initiated in the bapt(ismal) water (and fire, surely) must continue throughout one's life and not be tossed the minute one has come up for air as is done with most Christmas/Easter religions.Ah... I see your joke now. Thelema is not a "new" religion but rather a Nu religion. Seems like a bit of a side track from the questions raised in the OP, but amusing nonetheless."
No. I implied none of that. It would be interesting if you discovered anything from all that qabalistic gymnastics, but I never intended it. The logic of my own that I am using begins by ignoring the final statement "that word is not in the Book" and sticks with the logic that the given definition by Crowley of what is a religion qualifies for Thelema provided it doesn't go against "science and magick." So although the last statement that "the word doesn't even appear in the Book" can only apply to the word "religion," I discount that statement as mischievous. Everything above that statement (ie the acceptable definition of what constitutes a religion in the sense Skeat might define it, but not necessarily in the way Frazer (and Crowley) might define it), supports that Thelema can be defined as a religion ("But this is certainly not the sense of the word in your question" - he wrote to his student). The operative idea is here, though, is "can be," not "must" or "shall be." Then the concluding idea of "you can call it a new religion" but there's no need to. My logic (it's not really a logical argument used by Crowley as it turns and rather avoids instead of provides an answer) is that the fallacy is to believe it "new."
-
@Takamba said
"It would be interesting if you discovered anything from all that qabalistic gymnastics, but I never intended it."
I definitely did. Thanks for providing the prime matter.
-
@kasper81 said
"@the OP. One word; "faith". All religions prior to Thelema have faith at their core. However in Thelema "I bring certainty not faith".
To me it's the final dismantling of religion and an attempt to hold a scientific application to "religious experience". Buddhism nearly got it right but it became blackened by prayer wheels and metaphysical meanderings"
Interesting association. Is it complete though to say that Thelema brings certainty, or rather that *Nuit * brings certainty?
I would not think that 'certainty' is the sole core offering to aspirants of Thelema as Religion as a way to replace the 'faith' of old aeon religions, making thelema the new bird on the branch and hence Crowley's subtle warning.
Thelema as a Religion seems to bring certainty and uncertainty, art and science. Certainty, combined with faith, becomes more like 'inspiration' combined with an empirical framework to express the opposites, distinguish them, unite them, and extinguish them. So if Religion is a 'binding' of text, and the text is indeed 'high art' or inspired/received writing from the HGH, it makes sense that the word 'new' could be very deceiving but entirely accurate, perhaps even alchemically.
-
Just to clarify my own initial question, I'm not thoroughly convinced that "new" is actually the word in question here. The qabalistic gymnastics above allowed for some insight into the pun of the title, perhaps, but the line that Takamba used for evidence doesn't, for me, mean what he seems to suggest it means.
To wit:
"Call it a new religion, then, if it so please your Gracious Majesty; but I confess that I fail to see what you will have gained by so doing, and I feel bound to add that you might easily cause a great deal of misunderstanding, and work a rather stupid kind of mischief.
The word does not occur in The Book of the Law."
From his previous post, Takamba discounts that second statement as "mischievous". I would submit that the tone of the entire letter is "mischievous". However, this sentence structure clearly pins it as a clarification of his previous statement. That is: "I confess that I fail to see what you will have gained by doing so, and I feel bound to add that you might easily cause a great deal of misunderstanding, and work a rather stupid kind of mischief" by calling it [Thelema] the word that does not occur in The Book of the Law [religion].
The wording is precise. He is not saying here that Thelema is not a religion but that Cara Soror might "cause a great deal of misunderstanding, and work a rather stupid kind of mischief" by calling it one. Consequently, he "fail[s] to see what you will have gained by so doing."
Which brings us back to the questions posed in the OP:
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"How should this be dealt with in the real world? Is it important to call Thelema a religion in order to reclaim the word from its generally accepted (and etymologically incorrect) connotation, regardless of the misunderstandings that will cause? Or is it more beneficial to acknowledge that the current understanding of the word is not going to change and call Thelema something else (spiritual philosophy?) in order to highlight its different nature?"