Clarification Regarding Union
-
93,
So, I was reading through Motta's commentary to Liber Al yesterday, and noticed something in Crowley's commentary that I hadn't before.
In his commentary to verse II:21, Crowley writes,
"Compassion, the noblest virtue of the Buddhist, is damned outright by Aiwass. To “suffer with” some other
being is clearly to cease to be oneself, to wander from one’s Way. It always implies error, no Point-of-View
being the same as any other: and in Kings—leaders and rulers of men—such error is a vice."Ok, so I admit I hadn't read that in several years, not since I was first beginning to learn about Thelema and this character Aleister Crowley. This time reading it, I immediately thought of a line from his essay "Duty," which runs, "Unite yourself passionately with every other form of consciousness, thus destroying the sense of separateness from the Whole, and creating a new baseline in the Universe from which to measure it." as well as "I am divided for the chance of union," and of course, "let no difference be made among you between any one thing and any other thing, for thereby there cometh hurt."
The first time I read the commentary I didn't think of any of these things, but rather just soared dully through. Motta, for his part, writes that Crowley, always repulsed by the content of the verse in question, was simply not up to the task of dealing with it, and consequently wrote a poor and contradictory defense of it.
Does anyone else have any other thoughts?
Love=Law
- C
-
""Unite yourself passionately with every other form of consciousness, thus destroying the sense of separateness from the Whole, and creating a new baseline in the Universe from which to measure it.""
I think this is talking about the formula of Babalon who recieves all impressions what so ever into her cup, not letting one change her but assimilating all.
""Compassion, the noblest virtue of the Buddhist, is damned outright by Aiwass. To “suffer with” some other
being is clearly to cease to be oneself, to wander from one’s Way. It always implies error, no Point-of-View
being the same as any other: and in Kings—leaders and rulers of men—such error is a vice." "Compassion is, however, deffinitely not part of that formula. To "suffer with" an impression is to let that impression "take over" and becomes un-true to your nature. Also compassion has always carried a conotation of pity with me, and we all know "damn them who pity!"
-
I think the key to understanding the diatribes against compassion, mercy, pity and the like in the Book of the Law is to contrast "love under will" with its opposite "will under love".
To "unite yourself passionately with every other form of consciousness" is the former. When you are uniquely yourself, you express yourself uniquely -- you do your true will -- by uniting in love with the infinitely other.
The kind of compassion that is condemned consists of denying or suppressing yourself because you think that love requires it. It's will under love when you refrain from acting for fear of hurting another's feelings; it's will under love that keeps people in abusive relationships.
I don't see that Crowley was "always repulsed" by these verses, though he may have been at first. Nor do I see any real contradiction in his defense of them.
-
93,
Ok. Thanks Phoinix, that's a really good point that I had not considered.
Love=Law
- C
-
First of all Nuit and Hadit are soul mates. That is why the law is for everyone. Unfortunatly in our world of ignorance it is hard to recognize true love, until its too late (except for the word ABRAHADABRA suggests that it is not too late) This is when "death" occurs. When a wise man coming to the summit of wisdom and begins searching for true love has the realization that he Hadit all along, and the whole time she Nuit ( But has moved on). A truly broken heart that burns with desire. Similarly to how Jesus and Mary are depicted with burning hearts?( The stories of Jesus were twisted by power greedy people and it seems they murdered anyone who tried to speak the truth). ( According to the WORD this is not the end but the beginning, where the souls effectively combine and each one has a supernatural effect on the other, the trinity) It seems that it is her turn to experience and his turn to hold her in his heart. Having attained the wisdom to recognize true love it is wrong for him to hold it in reserve and they will not have completion of two squares on either side of HAD (math) if he does. It is his job then to follow his true will, to love everything and everyone equally as she did. She will begin the path that he just completed and he will assume her former role. There is the Balance that must be completed to join them. He must assume the mentallity and free spirit of a fool for love, the dreamer that he was as a child, the father of all that which he surveys. If you are past the point where union is possible then do not be discouraged as this phenomenon is for rare souls according to Crowley, anyways,it sucks to be separated from your true love, except for the fact that theoretically with true universal love in your heart you have the power to "transmute" others into believers and lovers. And supposedly it was planned by your souls before your descent from wherever our souls hang out. So it is just a big long love story I guess. Immortal Love
-
93,
As another mentions, compassion is tied up with the notion of pity. compassion comes from compatio which literally means to suffer (patio) with (com)...
"Essentially, sorrow, pain, regret, fear, and one other psychological phenomenon – pity – are all signals of “failure” to perform an act of “love under will” properly – that is, assimilate an experience in a harmonious way.
In regards to pity, in the second chapter of Liber AL vel Legis it is written,“Pity not the fallen! I never knew them. I am not for them. I console not: I hate the consoled & the consoler”[7] and also in the third chapter it is written, “Mercy let be off; damn them who pity!”[8] Crowley comments on this saying, “It is several times shewn in this Book that 'falling' is in truth impossible. ‘All is ever as it was.’ To sympathize with the illusion is not only absurd, but tends to perpetuate the false idea. It is a mistake to 'spoil' a child, or humour a malade imaginaire. One must, on the contrary, chase away the shadows by lighting a fire, which fire is: Do what thou wilt!” Crowley asserts that pitying another is akin to “sympathiz* with the illusion,” for it is said in Liber AL that “Existence is pure joy,” and “all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains."[9] One can only pity someone that is in a situation that one perceives to be “unfortunate,” but if one truly understands the dictum of “Existence is pure joy,” they know that even this pity is based on a false perception of things and therefore “sympathyz* with the illusion.” This echoes the sentiments that Friedrich Nietzsche expressed when discussing Christianity as a religion of pity. He writes,
“Pity stands in opposition to all the tonic passions that augment the energy of the feeling of aliveness: it is a depressant. A man loses power when he pities. Through pity that drain upon strength which suffering works is multiplied a thousandfold. Suffering is made contagious by pity; under certain circumstances it may lead to a total sacrifice of life and living energy--a loss out of all proportion to the magnitude of the cause.” [10]
Nietzsche also identifies pity as the “contagious source” of even more of “that drain upon strength” than what normally is experienced from suffering or sorrow “multiplied a thousand fold.” He continues,
“Pity thwarts the whole law of evolution, which is the law of natural selection. It preserves whatever is ripe for destruction; it fights on the side of those disinherited and condemned by life; by maintaining life in so many of the botched of all kinds, it gives life itself a gloomy and dubious aspect. Mankind has ventured to call pity a virtue… Let me repeat: this depressing and contagious instinct stands against all those instincts which work for the preservation and enhancement of life: in the role of protector of the miserable, it is a prime agent in the promotion of decadence--pity persuades to extinction… Aristotle, as every one knows, saw in pity a sickly and dangerous state of mind, the remedy for which was an occasional purgative: he regarded tragedy as that purgative… Nothing is more unhealthy, amid all our unhealthy modernism, than Christian pity.” [11]
Pity not only causes more identification with the “shadows” of suffering, but it “preserves whatever is ripe for destruction” because it is a “contagious instinct [that] stands against all those instincts which for the preservation and enhancement of life” – something that one obviously should have to maintain physiological and psychological health.
Aside from these appearances of sorrow, pain, regret, fear, and pity being treated as signs of maladjustment – or “love” being performed not “under will” – there are also the considerations of sin and reason that are mentioned in previous chapters. The thought of oneself as sinful is obviously a misperception in Thelema, and reason must be kept in its rightful place as interpreter and helper of the Will, which must be performed with tireless energy, without regard to purpose, and unattached to any lust of result. Any diversion from this necessarily restricts the Will, and not only is “the word of Sin… Restriction,”[12] but “thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay.”[13]" -Psychological Commentary on Liber AL: Psychological model of failure
IAO131