"Stepping" into the new Aeon
-
@gerry456 said
"...when will Thelema catch on as a religion? "
Wrong question. We're not in competition with anybody. Start thinking that way and before long you're condemning opposing views as heretical (think Pope Benny and his condemnation of the Gospel of Judas yesterday) in an attempt to win converts from other faiths.
Remember: "Let my servants be few & secret: they shall rule the many & the known." AL I, 10
We're never meant to be a populous (or popular) religion. Let Tom Cruise and CoS have their fun--only that part of Scientology that deserves to survive will survive.
later,
Dan -
The Self-Clearing Manual put out by the Pilot seems sane enough. I think it's kind of cool that someone is basically pulling the rug out from under Scientology. The Pilot is saying, "You want to learn what it's all about, but are afraid of wasting your money and getting brainwashed? Well, here's the sensible part of Scientology-- for FREE!"
-
@ar said
"We're not in competition with anybody."
No... but unless we are totally deluding ourselves, we're aligned with an evolutionary step that is in competition (in the Darwinian sense).
Which makes the challenge of tolerance all the more interesting.
"(think Pope Benny and his condemnation of the Gospel of Judas yesterday) in an attempt to win converts from other faiths."
I don't remember - did I go public with my official letter to Pope Benedict on the day of his enthronement?
"We're never meant to be a populous (or popular) religion."
I disagree - except that we could debate for centuries on the word "religion" and how to use it etc. If Thelema is to fulfill its promise, it will completely replace prior religions - except that many of the forms it takes won't necessarily resemble what is presently in any of our heads; but they'lll be Thelemic. Additionally, there iwll always be the need for pockets of religions themed to prior Aeons for those who individually haven't reached the personal evolution of the baseline of their day. And, of course, there will always be the need for the gadflies buzzing around the eventual Thelemic orthodoxies to keep it from getting too entrenched.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I don't remember - did I go public with my official letter to Pope Benedict on the day of his enthronement?"
No. Please do so. I'd love to read it.
Dan
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I disagree - except that we could debate for centuries on the word "religion" and how to use it etc. If Thelema is to fulfill its promise, it will completely replace prior religions - except that many of the forms it takes won't necessarily resemble what is presently in any of our heads; but they'lll be Thelemic. Additionally, there iwll always be the need for pockets of religions themed to prior Aeons for those who individually haven't reached the personal evolution of the baseline of their day. And, of course, there will always be the need for the gadflies buzzing around the eventual Thelemic orthodoxies to keep it from getting too entrenched.
"I meant religion in the rather restricted sense as that embodied by the Mystery Schools which, come to think of it, have rarely enjoyed anything like wide-spread acceptance. Perhaps the Thelemic version of Christianity? What did Crowley call it? Crowleyanity?
-
Crowleyanity?
That's good. There'll be arguments about what Thelema is and who is a true Thelemite. The identity of Christ has never become more fragmented than when you study the gnostic texts.
In L.V.X.,
chrys333 -
@ar said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"I don't remember - did I go public with my official letter to Pope Benedict on the day of his enthronement?"No. Please do so. I'd love to read it.
"Here it is:
"From: James A. Eshelman
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 1:27 PM
To: [his private email address]
Subject: Congratulations and best wishesYour Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
On this occasion of your inaugural mass, please accept our best wishes and blessing. May you flourish in your Calling.
As you reach forth to embrace communion with those of other faiths and other spiritual paths, so do our hands reach to meet yours for our shared goals.
As expected, those pursing differing spiritual paths will not agree on all things. We would disagree with you, for example, on the issue of moral absolutism. It is our teaching that true morality is founded upon the God-graced conscience living within each soul, with which each must strive to be in communion.
But we share with you common goals on many fundamental things. We wish and work for a more spiritual life for all, increased personal moral responsibility, and peace among nations in the realization of God's love.
Benedictio, Benedicto.
Love is the law, love under will.
Yours in Light,
James A. Eshelman
M.G.H. Prolocutor General, Temple of Thelema" -
@ar said
"Perhaps the Thelemic version of Christianity?"
I have said for decades that if Christianity would set aside its emphasis on the crucifixion formula - the slain-god archetype - and focus steadily on the newborn Christ-child as a symbol of love and renewed light in a recurring dawn, then Christianity wouild buy itself another couple of thousand years.
Because, of course, it then would be Thelemic.
-
Thanks for sharing your letter Jim.
Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if the RCC had a revolution within and they came to accept The Book of the Law?
We could all be elevated to Prelates or some such. I stake my claim on all of Canada. Any challengers?
93, 93/93
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I don't think there was a change. I think Tzaddi was always The Emperor, so that discussions are on the wrong foot suggesting one Tree of Life used to be valid and another is now valid. The old Tzaddi attribution was simply an error IMO. The Zohar already had told us around 1300 that there was a big piece of the puzzle that we didn't understand concerning the letters, and that the puzzle was in Tzaddi - and intentionally withheld."
I've been looking around for a direct reference to this puzzle of Tzaddi in the Zohar, but so far I've come up empty. Can it be found anywhere in Mather's "The Kabbalah Unveiled" ? I've been searching through that text, but have yet to find anything about intentionally withheld information.
-
@Her said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"I don't think there was a change. I think Tzaddi was always The Emperor, so that discussions are on the wrong foot suggesting one Tree of Life used to be valid and another is now valid. The old Tzaddi attribution was simply an error IMO. The Zohar already had told us around 1300 that there was a big piece of the puzzle that we didn't understand concerning the letters, and that the puzzle was in Tzaddi - and intentionally withheld."I've been looking around for a direct reference to this puzzle of Tzaddi in the Zohar, but so far I've come up empty. Can it be found anywhere in Mather's "The Kabbalah Unveiled" ? I've been searching through that text, but have yet to find anything about intentionally withheld information."
The Kabbalah Unveiled is by no means the whole Zohar (and - I'm trying to remember without going to look it up - some of the books may not, in fact, really be part of the Zohar).
The part I mentioned above is the story of how Beth got to be the first letter of creation and Aleph the first letter of the alphabet.
In my Introduction to 776 1/2, I wrote:
"...Qabalistic teachings have stated for centuries that the attributions of Tzaddi have been wrongly understood. This idea did not originate in 1904 E.V. One is reminded especially of the charming allegory in the Sepher ha-Zohar, attributed to Rabbi Chananya, explaining why Aleph is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, yet "God" (that is, Elohim) commenced creation with the letter Beth (the first letter of Berashith, the first word of the Hebrew original of The Book of Genesis). This story can be read in many translations and reproductions; but its gist is that each of the letters (beginning with Tav) processed by God's throne one-by-one, each asking to be the letter wherewith Creation was commenced. Each argued its case; but the Lord had a good reason to skip past each of them, until Beth eventually won the honor by being the initial letter of berakha, "blessing." Since shy little Aleph hadn't yet gotten a chance to be heard, it was awarded a special place in the scheme of things; but that would digress us further from the main point of the present digression, which is this: The letter Tzaddi sought to be that force whereby the world was created because it is the initial of Tzedekim, "the righteous," and because it is written, "The righteous Lord loveth righteousness." In rejecting Tzaddi for this particular honor, God is quoted as saying:
"Tzaddi, Tzaddi, thou art truly righteous, but thou must keep thyself concealed, and thy occult meaning must not be made known or become revealed, and therefore thou must not be used in the creation of the world."
The true "occult [that is, hidden] meaning" of this letter was not then to be disclosed! Even at such an early date, it was thus recorded in the primary foundation literature of the Qabalah that the true significance of Tzaddi was not what it was suspected to be."
-
Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law.
Hello,
"I'm trying to remember without going to look it up - some of the books may not, in fact, really be part of the Zohar).
The part I mentioned above is the story of how Beth got to be the first letter of creation and Aleph the first letter of the alphabet."
This story is in the Prologue to the Zohar. Volume 1, Page 10 in the Old Soncino Press Edition.
Love Is The Law, Love Under Will.
In LVX,
Olen -
About Thelema "taking over" in the religions' stardom:
Voicing an opinion very cognate to Jim's and others', I don't think that some day the "popular religion" will be Thelema.Actually, most of people today are unconsciously (pro-)Thelemites: The % of "passive atheists/agnosticists" and, more importantly, "the faithful" with an extremely bleached faith (of the "yes, I'm a christian/muslim" mechanically answering type) seems to be MUCH bigger than the religious and/or pietistic people of the official Chr/Muslim faiths (as a sidenote, after some research it seems that core orthodox (eastern) christianity is fundamentally painfully identical with Thelema). All over-simplistic heresies (such as Jehova's witnesses etc) seem to be peoples' childish (pun intended) pro-thelemic dabbling, however not willing to lead to a -dogmatic- (apo pantos kakodaimonos!) ideological (be THAT damned for a dog) "conversion" (convert not!) to Thelema... thank god! let's see...
-
I personally think that Thelema will grow, rather than suddenly arise as a religion out of the briney, such is seen in other beliefs around the globe - they often take time to develop, and along with that development many trains of thinking and interpretation.
As such you will most likely end up with various sects as prophet after prophet rises. Different groups within society will be drawn to whichever prophet speaks on their level.
So you will have Thelemites who are largely a development of Christianty, yet you may also have groups who are more Pagan based in their interpretations etc etc.
The Law is for all, after all
Rev.D