What is a Thelemite?
-
I notice this section here, and wanted to know what a Thelemite exactly is considered? Can anyone who simply knows the word call themselves a thelemite? Or does one have to be accepted into the ToT or CoT?
-
Anybody who accepts the Law of Thelema, whether they belong to any Thelemic order or not, can be called a Thelemite. Let me quote chapter I, verse 40 from Liber L: "Who calls us Thelemites will do no wrong, if he look but close into the word. For there are therein Three Grades, the Hermit, the Lover, and the man of Earth. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
-
@Michaeljwjr said
" Can anyone who simply knows the word call themselves a thelemite?"
Yes. Its a label. What does it change whether you or someone else is a Thelemite or not? Absolutely. Nothing.
" Or does one have to be accepted into the ToT or CoT?"
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHA! No.
@Anne-Claire said
"K, it is not lawful to discuss the contents of the Book, as you should know by now..."
Yes it is. THERE IS NO LAW BEYOND DO WHAT THOU WILT.
DO WHAT THOU WILT SHALL BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW.
You obviously missed those lines.
"To be a Thelemite is to accept that Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law, and that love is the law, love under will."
But... how can we accept what they mean if its unlawful to discuss this? Therefore ANYONE can claim to be a Thelemite because htey interpret the lines however they want! A sense a contradictino in your approach...
"According to me, we should add what the prophet added as "things required" to join the A.A., that is, to accept Ra-hoor-khuit as the Lord of the Aeon, to work at the extension of his reign upon earth, and to consider the Book of the Law as the letter of Truth."
You grew up Christian didnt you? This is ABSOLUTELY ridiculous.
First of all, Liber AL never says 'Lets call ourselves Thelemites!' it says "THOSE who call us Thelemites will do no wrong," i.e. if people were to call us Thelemites, sure, fine, youre not committing a crime...
The only justification I can see for proclaiming someone a Thelemite is if they accept "Do what thou wilt shall be the WHOLE of hte Law; There is no law beyond DO WHAT THOU WILT." What this exactly means I would love to talk about, but Anne-Claire incredibly thinks its against the law to do so! Quite naive, I must say... and obviously did not read the first and last lines in the Comment...
Thank you kuniggety for having actually some sense.
65 & 210,
111-418 -
@Anne-Claire said
"K, it is not lawful to discuss the contents of the Book, as you should know by now..."
In Anne-Claire's limited world is not "lawful". In the world of Thelema... is this:
"the law of
the strong:
this is our law
and the joy
of the world." AL. II. 2"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." --AL. I. 40
"thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay." --AL. I. 42-3
"Every man and every woman is a star." --AL. I. 3
There is no god but man.- Man has the right to live by his own law--
to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as he will:
to play as he will:
to rest as he will:
to die when and how he will. - Man has the right to eat what he will:
to drink what he will:
to dwell where he will:
to move as he will on the face of the earth.
3. Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as he will. - Man has the right to love as he will:--
"take your fill and will of love as ye will,
when, where, and with whom ye will." --AL. I. 51 - Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.
"the slaves shall serve." --AL. II. 58
"Love is the law, love under will." --AL. I. 57
See the difference?
- Man has the right to live by his own law--
-
@aum418 said
"
First of all, Liber AL never says 'Lets call ourselves Thelemites!' it says "THOSE who call us Thelemites will do no wrong," i.e. if people were to call us Thelemites, sure, fine, youre not committing a crime..
"I think that sums up the use of the word "Thelemite" well.
Anyone who is doing their Will, their Thelema, can be called a Thelemite.
There is no restriction:the Law is for All. -
I think the point (or one point) of "Who calls us Thelemites will do no wrong, if he look but close into the word" is that we shouldn't take the concept of "Thelemite" too seriously. The suffix -ite implies a group of people who conform to some standard or share a set of beliefs and practices. But look at the word -- thelema. It means "will", and is the very essence of non-conformity; the only standard that Thelemites conform to is the insistence that each person live according to his or her own standard.
(This relates to the question -- much bruited about on other fora lately -- of whether Thelema is a religion. The gist of I:40 is to say, call it a religion if you want, but remember it's a religion each member of which has his or her own god, system of ethics, sacraments, modes of worship, etc.)
(Which is the point of what Uni_Verse said above. I'm just saying it again <g> )
-
@Anne-Claire said
"K, it is not lawful to discuss the contents of the Book, as you should know by now..."
So are you telling me you know what my Will is? You see, following my will is the whole of the Law for me.
-
@kuniggety said
"
@Anne-Claire said
"K, it is not lawful to discuss the contents of the Book, as you should know by now..."So are you telling me you know what my Will is? You see, following my will is the whole of the Law for me."
I suggest ignoring her as she is a mass of contradictions. Why is she even here if she thinks discussing anythign related to Liber AL is forbidden? And further: who cares about people who stifle themselves and try to stifle others?
65 & 210,
IAO131 -
You should also notice that in the beginning of the Book of the Law, that Crowley states that in theory all actions are lawful, but in practice only one at each particular moment.
-
SITE ADMINISTRATOR'S NOTE
Just a quick note asking everyone to take a breath and remember to play nice.
That's a basic expectation on this forum: Play nice. Sometimes mutual rough-housing is part of playing nice. Asking challenging questions and making challenging assertions isn't at odds with playing nice (and sometimes is a very high level of play!).
But when you play close to the edge, there is risk (more likely the certainty) of occasionally slipping over the edge into acrimony. When this occurs, please make it a priority to restore equilibrium.
This is a moderated forum. People are (very rarely) removed for excessively disharmonious behavior. A friendly reminder from Ye Olde Administrator seemed warranted on this thread.
-
@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.