Death and Thelema
-
93,
The subject of death in Thelema has been occupying my thoughts for a couple of weeks - since the Solstice, in fact, the Sun's annual death-point.
We are told "Death is forbiden to thee, O man" in the Book of the Law, and Crowley explicitly repudiated the idea of identification with the Dying God in this Aeon. Yet there is still a requirement for death in one form or another throughout the system. "Die daily" says the Heart of the Master in its section on the Death card, and there is a necessary for the mundane ego to 'die' to allow the HGA in. Crossing the Abyss would be an even more profoundly death-like process.
Certainly a lot of professed Thelemites seem to have problems with interpreting the teachings as involving death at all, apart from the transition of the Greater Feast.
I conceded that death in the Qabalistic process is a transitional thing. But the catch is, for it to 'work', the aspirant has to experience it as intensely as possible. For Christians, too, death has no final dominion. I sometimes have the impression the difference between dying in the Old Aeon and the New One is a matter of degree, not an absolute division.
Any thoughts out there on this?
93 93/93,
Edward
-
Well, I'm glad everyone agrees with the suggestion.
Which I find odd.
Edward
-
I haven't replied to this so far because I think death is one of those subjects that we can only speculate upon while we are alive. We can only guess about what might or might not happen after death.
I'm not going to find out what death is like until I die. Unfortunately I won't be able to tell you what it's like either.
-
@Edward Mason said
"Well, I'm glad everyone agrees with the suggestion.
Which I find odd."
I'm actually not sure what the question is
I think the primary differentiation of the Thelemic vs. Christian view of such things is from a different verse from Liber L., specifically 1:58:
"I give unimaginable joys on earth: certainty, not faith, while in life, upon death; peace unutterable, rest, ecstasy; nor do I demand aught in sacrifice."
-
93
Edward wrote:
"Certainly a lot of professed Thelemites seem to have problems with interpreting the teachings as involving death at all, apart from the transition of the Greater Feast. "
Yes, I admit that I am one of these professed Thelemites, and I have a problem with death. Having studied comparative religion, I know about the Hindu's death, the Buddhist's death, the Christian's, Athiest's and Rosicrucian's death. My answer to Death is an amalgamation of all these ideas put together. I am all the worse for it.
Ironically, I recently had a near-death experience of the extreme variety, and the only thing I gained from that was 'that I was terrified of death and wanted to live.'
My favourite comment from Crowley on this was his comment on Valhalla; all the dead go to the same place. A manly sort of thought. Yes, the squirrel and I abide in the same.
I think all of our thoughts on death are influenced by our primary reactions to physical death, so this would colour our ideas on lesser deaths of ego, dying daily, etc.
I also admit I know nothing about death and the above is completely worthless.
93, 93/93
-
93,
JAE wrote:
"I'm actually not sure what the question is "
I was intrigued by the continuing necessity for phases of spiritual death, rather than the physical kind, as part of the growth process. I'm not trying to deny the 'unimaginable joys' side of Thelema, but curious about the degree to which states of spiritual or psychological death-and-rebirth are necessary.
There are times when I find it hard to say the Dying God archetype is wholly absent from Thelemic processes, at least as I've experienced them.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Edward Mason said
"There are times when I find it hard to say the Dying God archetype is wholly absent from Thelemic processes, at least as I've experienced them."
I think the better metaphor is that of a snake shedding its skin. (You like snake-gods, right?
)The key philosophical difference between the Thelemic view of continuity of life, and the view of Dying God religions, is in that word continuity. The Dying God formula speaks of a thing ending and then starting up again - even the classic Judeo-Christian model speaks of being dead and then, at some later time such as a Last Judgment, having God call one back to life. That has changed in the popular mind over the last century (as best I can tell, that's the time period of the change), but that seems more like Old Aeon religions tacitly absorbing some of the characteristics of New Aeon forms.
Under Dying God formulae, Dad dies, he's really really gone, and sometime later he is reborn in some non-material form. The Sun dies, it's really gone, and the next morning we have the Sun again.
Under Conquering Child formulae, we are all kids constantly growing. Nothing ever goes away, it just (like energy) keeps changing form. The continuity of the snake is my favorite metaphor here because it speaks to continuity of existence rather than to the discontinuity of reboots. What is "dying" around us is our skin - our reality, how we frame the universe.
Whether or not we go through the sense of dying depends on how closely we are idenified with that reality matrix. It's what's dying. If (like most people) we are identified with it, then we experience ourselves as dying, too. But this is also a recurring opportunity to identify less with our reality-of-the-hour (year, decade, whatever). It is in the recognition that we are continuous and at essence unchanged that we flow through this much as we might flow through traffic.
I was pleased with your reference to self-identified Thelemites. That's the nub, I think. That is, this discussion could go one way if we talk about "How Thelemites Might View This" vs. talking about "How Aspirants Embracing the Thelemic Philosophy Might View This." Phyllis said quite often that one isn't a Thelemite unless one is an Adept - in the A.'.A.'. sense, i.e., one who has attained to the Knowledge & Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. I don't think I ever heard her say anything supporting the idea that any "Man of Earth" was a Thelemite. It would do me no good to insist on this definition, though I have to admit to an extreme affection for it. I don't press the point often because people can call themselves any damn thing they want AFAIC. (On the other hand, Liber L. says "Thelemite" is what others call us, not what we call ourselves.)
The reason for dwelling on that here is that, to Thelemites - to those who live consciously within the K&C of the HGA - these issues readily resolve themselves. (These are mysteries of the Path of Nun - including all the shedding-serpent symbolism - and one who has attained to Tiphereth in Briah will have assimilted these mysteries.) But Thelema needs to serve those, as well, who identify themselves with its philosophy, and the approach to discussing these points necessarily differs.
-
@Edward Mason said
"Yet there is still a requirement for death in one form or another throughout the system. "Die daily" says the Heart of the Master in its section on the Death card, and there is a necessary for the mundane ego to 'die' to allow the HGA in. Crossing the Abyss would be an even more profoundly death-like process."
I can't speak from personal experience with regard to these latter two attainments, but I have the feeling that the "death of the ego" imagery for the HGA experience is something of an incomplete metaphor. Isn't it supposed to be more of an awakening to the idea that: "Hey, I'm more than I thought I was." In the commentary to Liber LXV (somewhere), AC wrote that one shouldn't view the K&C as the annihilation of the two (ego and HGA) into a third merged being, but simply the realization that the ego is the HGA, at least in part.
In the A.'.A.'., the aspirant goes through a symbolic death-and-rebirth in the 2=9 initiation, right? This seems to be the place that introduces the ideas, summarized by Jim in this thread, that a continual skin-shedding kind of death experience is the way to think about it here in the new aeon. This forum isn't the place to be discussing details of the 2=9 initiation, of course, but if one does want to study it, it's out there on the web. (See also the Rite of Saturn in AC's Eleusis series.)
Steve
-
@Steven Cranmer said
"In the A.'.A.'., the aspirant goes through a symbolic death-and-rebirth in the 2=9 initiation, right?"
Yes. That's the formula used.
-
Thanks for all the comments. The continuity issue, I think, was/is the key issue for me, mostly because I still tend to look for (psychological) death as a way through a blockage. My favorite day every month, for instance, is New Moon, which cancels out, or at least closes off, the previous 28 days.
Some Fridays, some of us where I work go out and inebriate ourselves. I think it's the same idea - killing consciousness, if you will, to be revived after. The hangover is of course a minor problem to be addressed, but offsetting that is the illusion that unconsciousness (= death) will fix the preceding period of nasty consciousness, and a few hours of subsequent negative somatics isn't so bad.
Edward
-
@Edward Mason said
"93,
Crowley explicitly repudiated the idea of identification with the Dying God in this Aeon. Yet there is still a requirement for death in one form or another throughout the system. "Die daily" says the Heart of the Master in its section on the Death card, and there is a necessary for the mundane ego to 'die' to allow the HGA in. Crossing the Abyss would be an even more profoundly death-like process.
"It is very interesting to read this post. Yesterday, there was a bug flying around my apartment. I usually catch them and throw them out by opening the window, but this one in particular was acting strangely. It was somewhat lethargic and avoiding my various attempts to put it on a piece of paper. I understood it wanted to be left alone, so I decided to stop and respect this sentient being. It was not a threat to me, so I forgot about it for a while. I sensed something was going on.
When I came back that afternoon, it was dead on the same place I left it, with rigor-mortis and everything.
I can say that this bug taught me a lesson. It accepted its death. It waited for it to happen... quietly and completely alone with only some sun rays coming from the window lying on my apartment floor, right where I do my LBRPs. I understood how Death is like True Love. You just have to surrender to it, and how this Love is intimate, all consuming, absolutely personal and at the same time, universal. -
Death, Fear for many, why?
The first revelation I had was of the cycle and web of life and death.
All that lives so shall die, yet from death does new life rise.
As upon the forest floor, the forest rises from the decay of itself. Just as the Earth feeds upon itself to birth anew.
Then of course is the corn god traditions, such as Osiris which continue this pristine wisdom.
Ouroboros.
Each night we sleep, and in sleep we touch upon the lands of death, for it is that subconscious realm, abode of Somnus, twin of Death - which is why so often people see spirits and such in dreams, the subconscious is the crossroads.
To fear death, is to fear life itself, so love and yearn for death so ye may truly live.
In Love and Night
Rev.D
44 -
But what of that which neither lives nor dies.
If you fear death, it is because you identify with a transient form, it is because you do not understand the nature of life.
Just as in your body trillions of cells are born and die all the time, and yet the body take no heed of this. So likewise do trillions of being live and die but the cosmos takes no note of it.
A living being is just one sort of structure, it's a complex structure but only a structure. And just as there is nothing "special" about two stones that happen to rest touching compared to two stones that rest far apart, there is likewise nothing special about lifeforms.
From clay we can make statues, pots, plates, any number of forms, yet no matter what form we shape it, the clay is still clay, life is the same way.
To fear death is no different than to fear that a clay pot might break. However, no matter how rough you treat the pot, the clay remains at it ever was.
Thus, in a sense, the clay was never a pot and thus it never stopped being a pot, it is, was and shall be clay.
Well, a human being is nothing but atoms, a swirl of cosmic dust, thus, we are never born and we never die, all that happen is the cosmic dust swirls into a pattern and then that pattern runs it's course and new patterns form.
Does this mean that "I" will be reborn as a new person or a new body, IT does not. It means that "I" do not exist, never did and never WILL, but that which makes me up, the cosmic dust that constitutes my temporary swirl of life, is, was and shall always be forever.
-
It sounds like this is an athiestic view, is it not? It sounds that you believe humans are nothing more than the physical matter that makes them and we will just return to cosmic dust? Is this correct? All religions and mystery schools (to my knowledge) require a believe in "God" and that the soul lives on past the body. The body is a vehicle for the immortal soul. We can disagree on what God is and where or how the soul exists afterward, but without these beliefs, it makes one an athiest, no? Please correct me if I am misunderstanding.
I can see relating the human body to the clay pot, but not the soul.
-
@DavidH said
"All religions and mystery schools (to my knowledge) require a believe in "God" ..."
That would be 'No', at least as far as the "Mystery Schools" aspect of it.
Dan
-
Why can it not be that the material universe is GOD.
We all arise from and return to the material universe, it is the limits of the material universe that represent the "order of the cosmos", which includes that the material constitution of each individual thing is unique and yet each thing is in relation to all things as a whole, (TRUE WILL).
Also, it is an illusion that one's is a discrete and separate entity from all other things, because there is no definite line between oneself and one's surroundings. We take in food, water and air that becomes out body and we excrete matter as parts of our body die off.
Thus, mystical union, or enlightenment is a result of transcending ego, which is to say to realize the higher lever of order in which one's mind and body are casually interwoven with the fabric of all space-time events.
And with the discoveries of quantum mechanics, physicalism (materialism) can not be discarded on grounds that it is too mechanical or denies agents any degree of free action.
I would say on a deeper level of awareness, certainly above the abyss, where there is no concern that this particular being came to be or ceased to be.
If you think of yourself as a wave in the ocean. The water than makes up a wave is not the same form moment to moment, yet the wave goes on. However the depth of the ocean, from which all the water than makes up the waves originates, is unaffected and unconcerned with waves on the surface. no matter how turbulent the sea gets, the water remains water and in it's depth is unmoved.
Thus is all reality (beings) are nothing but ripples in the surface of Kether. And that part of yourself which is Kether is unaffected by life and death. however you as a particular wave run a course and that is the end of you, but Kether is still there and still ripples, and the way it ripples is effected by your wake. (karma).
Thus, your Karma is re-incarnated in that the effects of your actions effect things in the future forever, in a sense a there is a little bit of you in everything to come.
If you relocate your center bellow the waves, then you escape karma. What happens to the body is dissociated from what happens to YOU, who are all things, and thus unaffected by particular events.
-
@ar said
"
@DavidH said
"All religions and mystery schools (to my knowledge) require a believe in "God" ..."That would be 'No', at least as far as the "Mystery Schools" aspect of it.
Dan"
93 Dan,
I'm sure you must be correct, but I can't think of an example. Can you supply one?
-
I'm curious about this, also. I can't think of an exception off hand.
-
@Froclown said
"Why can it not be that the material universe is GOD.
"
93!
Good comments and lots to think about. However, if you read any of the primary sources of Western Mystery Schools, including the Kabbalah, you will see the material world is just ONE aspect and there are much higher aspects. On the tree of life only the final Sephiroth in the 4th world is the "material world." It is the lowest and actually in small proportion to the rest of the tree. It is the one we are in at this moment but it is not the only world, and thus itself can't be GOD. It may be contained in God, and God can dwell there, but ithe material is just one small part and thus can't be the WHOLE (God) as you are saying. However, your writing brings up many interesting points and observations. I am no means an expert, so I am open to correction if I'm in error.
-
yes, but western occultism originated in the 1500 and we have refined our understanding of more or less everything since then.
malkuth is not so much a representative of the material universe as such, but of direct sensory perception. It is sensation without cognition of what is sensed. Yesod is the bank of what plato would have called forms, it is ideas and concepts, which sensory perceptions invoke into awareness.
Tiphereth is the awareness itself, the conscious mind, and Kether is the unconscious mind, it is more than this it is the source of all things that we may potentially be aware of. beyond Kether in the ayn soph is the actual material universe all things that are, that which we can be aware and that which we are incapable of being aware.
Thus Malkuth is immediate sensation (those aspects of the material universe that happen to be bumping up against us) and Kether is all possible phenomena, that which may bump up against us.
Tiphereth is the mind, awareness itself. not that of which one is aware but the knower inside the shell of the known.
Anyway all we are aware of is our inner world, which includes the whole tree of life, but the material universe it bigger than us, it contains out entire universe of awareness, it is Nuit.
Out of Nuit precipitates Kether which is the sum of one's entire subjective universe reduced to a single point (hadit).
Thus Hadit is the microcosm and Nuit is the macrocosm.
Or in Kantian language Nuit is nuemena and Hadit is phenomena