What is a Thelemite?
-
@Anne-Claire said
"Jim, expel me if you like to: this loser is really too stupid, and someone had to say so!!!"
If someone's opinion and words are of no use to me, it's just as easy to ignore someone.
A teacher I once had said that when someone angers you, or insults you, first look to yourself, and see if the persons words were true. If they are then fix yourself, and thank them for pointing giving you the opprotunity for growth. If they are not true, either correct the person, or if the persons opinion means nothing to you, then accept it's something you can not change and move on.
-
@Anne-Claire said
"
Of course not! It was just an allusion to our discussion on the "faux comment" thread! - should have put a smiley, excuse me
"Oh, I am keeping a light hearted attitude towards this discussion. I was just making a point though in my attitude towards the Comment. How can the Comment create a law for people to follow, when the law is Do what thou wilt?
-
I haven't decided myself if this is something that I should discuss, and am trying to find a way in my thinking to allow for this.
Making reference is allowed as far as I can tell, as long as I don't make the connection for others that I've found.
I've read through the Book of Law several times, not to figure out why things were said, but to figure out exactly what was said.
The more I read this board, and these threads the more I understand the reason for The Comment. Even amongst several key points as in to what the interpretation of the Law is. It seems to me that this is why there is a CoT and ToT. To illuminate the truth, through education and and direction to realization. Discussion breeds misinterpretation for lazy minded indiviuals who forget that:
All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself.
Is there nothing more to do what thou wilt than do whatever you want?
-
-
Let me ask you Michael, did you destroy your copy of the Book of the Law and buy a new one every time you read it?
Also, Jim is at the upper eschelon of both the ToT and CoT, yet here he is discussing the contents... hm...
"Is there nothing more to do what thou wilt than do whatever you want?"
Do what thou wilt and do whatever you want are two completely different things. The former requires discipline and the latter not.
-
@kuniggety said
"Let me ask you Michael, did you destroy your copy of the Book of the Law and buy a new one every time you read it?
Also, Jim is at the upper eschelon of both the ToT and CoT, yet here he is discussing the contents... hm..."
No, I haven't destroyed it, as I'm going to accept the consequences. And just because Jim is in the upper escehelon of both the ToT and CoT doesn't make what he does the right way. How many Bishops and Cardinals of the Catholic(no offense intended, making a point) church go against teachings and the doctrine of their faith?
This has turned into a case of "agree to disagree" in that some people believe that the entire Book of Law and the Tunis Comment are to be taken as a whole, and some do not.
It is my preference to discover the meaning of a statement, by learning all the background information I need, instead of someone telling me what they think the statement means. I personally get no value from this, which is why I don't read the daily meditation section on this board.
Others obviously interpret the book of law and comment differently than I do. This is completely understandable, and expected.
III:63 The fool readeth this Book of the Law, and its comment; & he understandeth it not.
@kuniggety said
"
"Is there nothing more to do what thou wilt than do whatever you want?"
Do what thou wilt and do whatever you want are two completely different things. The former requires discipline and the latter not."
Do whatever you want, is what I see most people interpreting Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law as. That perhaps is a misconception on my part.
-
@Michaeljwjr said
"
No, I haven't destroyed it, as I'm going to accept the consequences. And just because Jim is in the upper escehelon of both the ToT and CoT doesn't make what he does the right way. How many Bishops and Cardinals of the Catholic(no offense intended, making a point) church go against teachings and the doctrine of their faith?"The mentioning of Jim with the CoT and ToT was in response to your reference of them being there for the illumination of truth through education, which I do whole-heartedly agree with. If you think Jim is misrepresenting those organizations, then I think you have a misunderstanding about those organizations, though.
"This has turned into a case of "agree to disagree" in that some people believe that the entire Book of Law and the Tunis Comment are to be taken as a whole, and some do not."
The question is the Class A status of the Tunis Comment, which I ask of you where the Class A status of it is ever given.
"
Do whatever you want, is what I see most people interpreting Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law as. That perhaps is a misconception on my part."One of the problems here is that I don't think any person can know the will of another, so how can you know if they are doing what they want or their will? You can only know and follow your own will.
I think sometimes it gets lost, but I just want to say that I don't mean any of this as anything personal. I want to see your responses and maybe either you or me learn something.
-
@kuniggety said
"
@Michaeljwjr said
"
No, I haven't destroyed it, as I'm going to accept the consequences. And just because Jim is in the upper escehelon of both the ToT and CoT doesn't make what he does the right way. How many Bishops and Cardinals of the Catholic(no offense intended, making a point) church go against teachings and the doctrine of their faith?"The mentioning of Jim with the CoT and ToT was in response to your reference of them being there for the illumination of truth through education, which I do whole-heartedly agree with. If you think Jim is misrepresenting those organizations, then I think you have a misunderstanding about those organizations, though."
I completely understand why you mentioned the above statement. Do I think Jim is misrepresenting the CoT or ToT? Well I have no idea if he is or isn't because I do not know enough about either. I am applying to the local ToT in the hopes of a more focused and directed application of effort.
What I can say, is that to go against the teachings doesn't make sense. In my understanding, of Thelema, you are to uphold all the Laws of Thelema. My interpretation of 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law' and 'There is no law beyond do what thou wilt' does not preclude other laws. An analogy is as if you were to replace 'do what thou wilt' and 'will' with shell, 'love' with yolk, and law with egg you get:
Shell shall be the whole of the egg
There is no egg beyond shell.
Yolk is the Egg, yolk under shell.At the risk of being a centre of pestilence I post the above.(I have tried to limit the logical connections to not cheat someone of the personal discovery).
@kuniggety said
"
@Michaeljwjr said
"This has turned into a case of "agree to disagree" in that some people believe that the entire Book of Law and the Tunis Comment are to be taken as a whole, and some do not."The question is the Class A status of the Tunis Comment, which I ask of you where the Class A status of it is ever given."
Forgive my ignorance in this matter, I don't know what Class A means. Other than what I've read in this thread.
@kuniggety said
"
@Michaeljwjr said
"Do whatever you want, is what I see most people interpreting Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law as. That perhaps is a misconception on my part."
One of the problems here is that I don't think any person can know the will of another, so how can you know if they are doing what they want or their will? You can only know and follow your own will.
I think sometimes it gets lost, but I just want to say that I don't mean any of this as anything personal. I want to see your responses and maybe either you or me learn something."
And I do not take anything you've said personal. I welcome the discussion. I understand this is more a technical discussion, and ultimately a personal choice. I wouldn't say you can never truely know the will of another, however it is a safe bet most do not know the will of another.
To me the Law is like an onion(or parfait) it has layers under will, all to be employed at the direction of will.
If there was nothing more than "Do your will" (initially) there would not be a need for a CoT or ToT.
-
@Michaeljwjr said
"
What I can say, is that to go against the teachings doesn't make sense. In my understanding, of Thelema, you are to uphold all the Laws of Thelema. My interpretation of 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law' and 'There is no law beyond do what thou wilt' does not preclude other laws."But how is Jim going against the Laws of Thelema? Also, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". How does this not preclude other laws?
@Michaeljwjr said
"
Forgive my ignorance in this matter, I don't know what Class A means. Other than what I've read in this thread."All official A.'.A.'. documents have a classification as to how they are to be regarded. Class A documents are ones that are "received" and not to be changed by the style of a letter. The Book of the Law is one such book. There are other classifications such as class B, which are enlightened scholarly works, Class C which are suggestive, class D which are the official rites and rituals and class E which is promulgation of Thelema. If a document is not classified as Class A, or does not receive any classification, then there is no standard how to approach it. The Tunis Comment need not be taken literally.
"If there was nothing more than "Do your will" (initially) there would not be a need for a CoT or ToT."
The idea is that people are not born knowing their Will. Organizations like the ToT are there to guide/aid people in the discovery of their Holy Guardian Angel and their True Will. If you can find enlightenment and your True Will without going through the ToT, then yeah, there is no need. However, most can't.
-
@kuniggety said
"
@Michaeljwjr said
"
What I can say, is that to go against the teachings doesn't make sense. In my understanding, of Thelema, you are to uphold all the Laws of Thelema. My interpretation of 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law' and 'There is no law beyond do what thou wilt' does not preclude other laws."But how is Jim going against the Laws of Thelema? Also, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". How does this not preclude other laws?"
Going against the laws by disregarding the comment, which even though was written after the Book of Law, was still referenced within the Book of Law:
I:36
III:39
III:40
III:63And as far as not precluding, that's something I can't answer without discussing further interpretations of the Book of Law. Which I admit sounds like a cop-out, however I can say that it just doesn't feel right, given my current state of knowledge of the way I interpret.
-
If do what thou wilt is the whole of the law, is there any room for restriction by anything?
-
@Techpries said
"If do what thou wilt is the whole of the law, is there any room for restriction by anything?"
Yes. Absolutely. Because you have no right except to do your Will. That's a restriction. (An important one!)
-
Crowley in Magick Without Tears: (emphasis added)
"What is true for every School is equally true for every individual. Success in life, on the basis of the Law of Thelema, implies severe self-discipline."
"About 90 % of Thelema, at a guess, is nothing but self-discipline. One is only allowed to do anything and everything so as to have more scope for exercising that virtue.
Concentrate on "...thou hast no right but to do thy will." The point is that any possible act is to be performed if it is a necessary factor in that Equation of your Will. Any act that is not such a factor, however harmless, noble, virtuous or what not, is at the best a waste of energy. But there are no artificial barriers on any type of act in general. The standard of conduct has one single touchstone. There may be—there will be—every kind of difficulty in determining whether, by this standard, any given act is "right" or "wrong": but there should be no confusion. No act is righteous in itself, but only in reference to the True Will of the person who proposes to perform it. This is the Doctrine of Relativity applied to the moral sphere.
I think that, if you have understood this, the whole theory is now within your grasp; hold it fast, and lay about you!"
-
@Michaeljwjr said
"
I:36
III:39
III:40
III:63
"There are references here of the Comment being understood, but not followed as law. I think there is quite a difference there. As, there is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.