Definition of a Thelemite
-
@Wilder said
"Why is it important that Aiwass delivered the message to Crowley? Isn't Liber L the core of Thelema, not how it came to be?"
I agree with Crowley's view that the single most important thing about Liber L. is that, for the first time in human history, there is something close to documentation of suprahuman consciousness capable of communicating with the human.
-
A thelemite is one who takes ordered from his own inner being, who uses scientific observations of his own thoughts, emotions, and behaviors to discern the expression that is most proper for them. One who refuses to be given a social roll by others, one who denies the social rolls inherent in the world.
A thelemite does not recognize the authority of state, church, democratic mob, or any social moral, rule, or custom.
A thelemite is one who discards the 2000+ years of old aeon social structures and sets his watch by his own inner clock not by the old faithful in the town square.
A thelemite is one who learns to trust his inner voice above and in place of all other external voices. One who with pig headed persistence follows his own inner light, without the slightest fear or determent from how others react to his actions.
A thelemite does not seek to engender a good reputation, he does not care for social status, wealth or fame or even good standing in the public eye or the eye of his friends.
A thelemite has no friends, family or social support. For a Thelemite he has but one driving force his WILL and all else is a tool to be used up in pursuit of that WILL, and if his world drop beneath him, then he knows "Ra-hoor-kuit" as forsaken him, and he will accept his infamy, poverty, even his death joyously as fulfillment of his WILL.
A thelemite is "against the people" and thus the masses will not praise him, and his degradation in their sight is the sign of his superiority and success in his WILL.
The Great Thelemite Crowley will be forever villianized and his image spat upon by the general public, and for this reason not in spite of it, the True Thelemite raised his glass to the Great Beast.
When the Beast's reputation is clear, when there are statues of him in libraries and his quotes are used to innagurate new adventures of the state, then will the aeon of Thelema have come to an end, and new prophet rise up under a new banner to teach the same old teaching, liberated from the symbols of Thelema which became degraded to represent the morals of the masses.
Thelema = be unique and conquer the universe.
For now, but if it becomes open and popular, it will just become Christianity with different names and titles.Thelema a religion for "evil" geniuses.
-
@Zeph said
"A Thelemite is a man or woman performing the work they were born to perform."
While I admit I love the sentiment it appears this definition seems to allow for the introduction of anyone who feels they are doing the work they were born to perform to be a thelemite. But, Thelema is specific to a certain classification of belief -- in other words it is a label founded on the dictates of the Book of the Law-- and putting the label on anything does necessarily align that personality to being a Thelemite.
That said, I look forward to your clarification of this 'generalization'.
Thank you, Zeph.
-
93,
I enjoyed Froclown's list of attributes. Simultaneously, I found them impossibly restrictive. I couldn't achieve a pretence of all that if I tried for years. And
"A thelemite has no friends, family or social support. "
...? Please - let's keep some balance here. I need people around <i>in order</i> to fulfil my Will - I need to work <i>with</i>? them, not aloof from them. Stars move in their own orbits, but all stars have a gravitational effect on each other.King of the Wolves wrote:
"But, Thelema is specific to a certain classification of belief -- in other words it is a label founded on the dictates of the Book of the Law"
Crolwey was always the first to recognize the need for a broad definition - his one for Magick itself ('the science and art of producing change ... etc.) is a classic of inclusiveness. And if someone is doing that which he or she was born to do, then the requirements of Liber L are being fulfilled. Attempting conscious identification with a laundry list of objectives is just as likely to deflect him or her from the Thelemic 'prime directive' as it is to see it fulfilled.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
When I say a Thelemite has no friends etc.
I do not mean he has no aquired set of people on whom he relies for various ends, nor that he does not help them in order to gain their mutual support.
I mean that a Thelemite is not a member of his friends, as if his personal identity is defined by something other than himself.
He is always conscious that people are tools to be used by his TRUE WILL, and he has power over them via his WILL, he does not belong to others, they belong to him.
The same is true of the state or nation, a Thelemite is certainly not a nationalist and marginally a "patriot" he does not belong to the state, he is not owned by it, the state is his tool to use to his ends, his WILL.
Nothing is to be taken as an end in itself, save that it is necessary to the Great work.
"ever unto me"
A friend or a lover is not taken for it's own sake, but only as a means to an ends, The Great Work.
-
Froclown, 93,
I understood your point. I'm not sure YOU do.
"He is always conscious that people are tools to be used by his TRUE WILL, and he has power over them via his WILL, he does not belong to others, they belong to him. "
I don't seek egoic power over other people, and I cannot see how this notion is anything OTHER than being about ego-based power. If we are all stars within the body of Nuit, then trying to exert power over other people would be a matter of separating ourselves from Her, not uniting. Some interactions will be more power-based than others, but that should be a temporary necessity, not a habit.
What you propose sounds horribly lonely.
And requiring a lot of guns..
93 93/93,
Edward
-
"And if someone is doing that which he or she was born to do, then the requirements of Liber L are being fulfilled. "
True enough, but they could or we could refer to said personalities by any other label or title that ties into such a model of fulfillment. We could say that have attained bodhisattvahood-- which is the point I was trying to make. The label itself is determined to a classification of personalities. *
"Attempting conscious identification with a laundry list of objectives is just as likely to deflect him or her from the Thelemic 'prime directive' as it is to see it fulfilled. "
I completely agree. However, there are those that require many directives to keep them moving in a definitive direction! [grin]
-
@King of the Wolves said
"
@Zeph said
"A Thelemite is a man or woman performing the work they were born to perform."While I admit I love the sentiment it appears this definition seems to allow for the introduction of anyone who feels they are doing the work they were born to perform to be a thelemite. But, Thelema is specific to a certain classification of belief -- in other words it is a label founded on the dictates of the Book of the Law-- and putting the label on anything does necessarily align that personality to being a Thelemite.
That said, I look forward to your clarification of this 'generalization'.
Thank you, Zeph."
As an aside, after a conversation earlier today with a brother, I note in my mind the performance of one's Work includes the quest to determine what that Work is.
That aside aside, you and I simply disagree with whether or not Thelema is a specific classification of belief.
Oh, wait:
@Froclown said
"He is always conscious that people are tools to be used by his TRUE WILL, and he has power over them via his WILL, he does not belong to others, they belong to him."
Well, certainly not Thelemic, that, so let me redefine:
A Thelemite is a man or woman who is performing the Work for which he or she has incarnated, or is actively seeking to discover that Work, while simultaneously respecting the right of every other man and woman to perform their Will without interference.
-
Rey, 93
"True enough, but they could or we could refer to said personalities by any other label or title that ties into such a model of fulfillment. We could say that have attained bodhisattvahood-- which is the point I was trying to make. The label itself is determined to a classification of personalities. * "
Now, is a 'Thelemite' related at all significantly to his/her personality? I'm startin' ter git them ole cognitive dissonance blues.
I'm not sure I grasp your analagy to bodhisattvas. A bodhisattva has renounced final liberation in order to continue serving sentient beings in the round of births until the last blade of grass is brought to enlightenment - the definition is quite clear, and quite narrow. Levels of spiritual attainment can vary among them from (in Western terms) Minor Adepts up to Magi.
Thelema casts a wider net to begin with, and accepts its proponents may be found in many places and many guises (It may be that yonder beggar is a king ... Or: there are also of my friends whi be hermits.Now think not to find them in the forest, etc.)
The determinant seems to me be the Thelemite, and not we who might set up definitions. 'The' Comment advises, "All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself."
93 93/93,
Edward
-
"A Thelemite is a man or woman who is performing the Work for which he or she has incarnated, or is actively seeking to discover that Work, while simultaneously respecting the right of every other man and woman to perform their Will without interference."
Now, what's not to like about this definition.
I don't think we disagree, Zeph. I think I find the label, 'Thelemite' definitive to a given group of personalities who choose to use the label, term, descriptive -- it is again a specific reference. Now, if I 'choose' to use the term, Thelemite to describe myself and I am doing as noted in your definition, than sure...I am a thelemite.
But, if I follow the self-same definition and call myself a Borg based on that definition, it is equally valid.
That said, I appreciate your stance on this matter.
-
Greetings Edward,
"The determinant seems to me be the Thelemite, and not we who might set up definitions. 'The' Comment advises, "All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself.""
Yes, I believe that those who consider themselves to be Thelemites can call themselves as such. Whether their actions and deeds add validity to the title is an entirely different matter. I personally, have no issues with anyone calling themselves a thelemite -- but I reserve the right and privilege to accept that as truth for me.
-
@King of the Wolves said
"I think I find the label, 'Thelemite' definitive to a given group of personalities who choose to use the label, term, descriptive -- it is again a specific reference."
And yet - to repeat my initial position above just to rattle some cages
- if Liber L. is consulted on the matter, "Thelemite" only appears as a lable that other people call us. The one thing this seems to exclude is self-labelling."Now, if I 'choose' to use the term, Thelemite to describe myself and I am doing as noted in your definition, than sure...I am a thelemite. "
Or not. See above. (One could ask the provocative question: Why would a Thelemite use a label? I'm not saying there is no legitimate answer to this question, I'm just pushing the question up to the surface.)
"But, if I follow the self-same definition and call myself a Borg based on that definition, it is equally valid."
I would submit that most Thelemites in the world call themselves all sorts of other things and rarely, if ever, call themselves Thelemites.
-
"I would submit that most Thelemites in the world call themselves all sorts of other things and rarely, if ever, call themselves Thelemites."
True enough...I generally just call myself, Rey. But, I was working from the tread of this discussion in my defining the label of what is a Thelemite?
Personally, those who call us thelemites can do no wrong.
So, Do what THOU wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
-
"And yet - to repeat my initial position above just to rattle some cages Twisted Evil - if Liber L. is consulted on the matter, "Thelemite" only appears as a lable that other people call us. The one thing this seems to exclude is self-labelling. "
I sincerely believe that there is a reason for this choice in self or Self-labeling as the case may be. The choice is inherent to us as 'thelemites' to call ourselves whatever is in alignment with our Truth...our true will. I suspect that calling our self a thelemite is most appropriate if we understand what the label means to us and why we use it.
-
@Froclown said
"even one's ego ends must submit to WILL, thus it's not egoism.
It's a trans-egoist WILL."
Your choice of pronouns in your original comments belies this sentiment.
You sure put a large number of restrictions on what it is to be a Thelemite. Since you don't have the slightest inkling of my purpose in life, you have no idea whether it's necessary for me to, for instance, maintain good standing in the public eye, or offer assistance without expecting anything in return, two things which you apparently find anathema to the work.
@Froclown said
"Thelema = be unique and conquer the universe."
Thelema does not equal anything of the sort. You're going to have to get past the soundbites if you want to succeed at this.
-
To me there are two definitions, a general and a specific:
General: On who seeks to discover their true will and do it in conjunction with the universe.
Specific: One who does the above while following the system and methods set forth by The Prophet.
Sorryfor more "sound bytes" but it'sall I have energy for right now!
-
@DavidH said
"To me there are two definitions, a general and a specific:
General: On who seeks to discover their true will and do it in conjunction with the universe.
Specific: One who does the above while following the system and methods set forth by The Prophet."
I wouldn't argue with the fence-sitting approach. That's also the most rational of the specific definitions I've seen, I think.