Thelema, Natural Law or Dogma?
-
You know all this talk of "obedience" to the prophet got me curious about peoples' opinion on this critical issue. If Thelema is an "Universal Law" then it essential exists in Nature/Time, whether it is expressed in words or not; that is to say, Thelema must be independent of the BOTL! Otherwise it is mere dogma like other "Religions", I find i hard to see any other way of looking at it. I accept the BOTL because of the higher "truth" i intuit it reflects, and not vice-versa.
-
Yes. Exactly.
Which is why the need for all this "obedience" stuff: Happiness, fulfillment, self-actualization, liberty, and all the other cool stuff comes from voluntarily conforming oneself to Reality. Anything else is a lesser or greater degree of insanity.
-
All men are prophets!
-
But Nuit referred specifically to her prophet - the one She declared in Liber Legis.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"But Nuit referred specifically to her prophet - the one She declared in Liber Legis.
"Taking it from that direction, I would say Nuit was talking directly to Her prophet. As in, calling for Her prophet to obey Her, not others to obey Her prophet.
I have a more "universal" view of the books contents, the references to "Crowley" not really being references to "Crowley" per say.
-
@Uni_Verse said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"But Nuit referred specifically to her prophet - the one She declared in Liber Legis.
"Taking it from that direction, I would say Nuit was talking directly to Her prophet. As in, calling for Her prophet to obey Her, not others to obey Her prophet.
I have a more "universal" view of the books contents, the references to "Crowley" not really being references to "Crowley" per say."
Right on.
-
@Uni_Verse said
"Taking it from that direction, I would say Nuit was talking directly to Her prophet. As in, calling for Her prophet to obey Her, not others to obey Her prophet."
You can say anything means anything if you want, and the BoL is certainly full of vagueness and apparent contradiction, but "Obey my prophet" is pretty clear and unambiguous.
-
I think the title of this thread, "natural law or dogma," smacks right into the heart of what so many "thelemites" about here claim but fail to live up to - open-minded universalism or some such "do what I will when I will" philosophy. When it comes to questioning their own mental appreciations, it gets to be like watching generals prepare for war.
One side of the line seems to be saying, "this verse means this and can only mean this." The other side of the line seems to be saying, "this verse can mean many things to many people, or all things to all people, and it depends on the context of when the seeker is asking to understand their will."
"Obey my prophet!" may mean that the prophet was being told to obey. Or it could mean that we the reader are meant to obey the prophet of Nu. It could also mean both depending on the moment the aspirant decides this. Fun exercises indeed but not an important call-to-arms. What you could do is memorize the Book of the Law and recite it "prayerfully" with whatever tones and accented words and sylabbles you feel are most tastey and decide for yourself how the BotL feels.
"When I read the Book of the Law, it felt ambiguous and sometimes contrary. When I put the BotL to my lips, it sang of sweet nectar."
There's always the answer that both are correct. Thelema is a natural law. Dogs bark and chase cars. Racoons climb trees and eat garbage. Soldiers fight, for if they do not fight they are dying. Rocket Scientists do not do well teaching 2nd grade (my 2nd grade teacher was the adventurous grandson to Grizzly Adams and he was perfect for the job). The infinite spirals of motion that make up this Universe of Space and Time where long in motion before your feet planted themselves on this rotating planet - you've been propelled in some general direction or another since before you were a zygote in your mother's home. Gravity and motion work with or without your approval and understanding. So for the sake of that understanding, when it comes to the pull and push these laws (of The One Law) have on ethical and spiritual and personal matters, it has been advised that we seek only two sources for our answer - "seek me only" says Nu, and in addendum to that, the "Short Comment" tells us to seek only The Prophet (or, rather, his writings) for answers to the questions of The Law. So, with that in mind...
@The old man's commentary on Ch. I, V. 32: said
"
"It is proper to obey The Beast, because His Law is pure Freedom, and He will give no command which is other than a Right Interpretation of this Freedom. But it is necessary for the development of Freedom itself to have an organization; and every organization must have a highly-centralized control. This is especially necessary in time of war, as even the so-called "democratic" nations have been taught by Experience, since they would not learn from Germany. Now this age is pre-eminently a "time of war," most of all now, when it is our Work to overthrow the slave-gods."- The Law is for All p.37"
-
How exactly does one not obey a prophet who said, "Do what thou wilt"?
-
@Frater LR said
"How exactly does one not obey a prophet who said, "Do what thou wilt"?"
it's a god point.
but, it can be done, and it is done everyday - by not living and doing the Will, not getting to know who you are... 'astraying', so to say, from oneSelf. -
@Frater LR said
"How exactly does one not obey a prophet who said, "Do what thou wilt"?"
this here is the dilemma; is it the "Prophet"," Aiwass " or "Nuit"? that says "Do what thou wilt.." and is there or should there be any distinction?
I think I agree with Uni-verse in that all men are prophets, let me reiterate my previous analysis of this verse
@CCXX 1:32 said
"Obey my prophet! follow out the ordeals of my knowledge! seek me only! Then the joys of my love will redeem ye from all pain. This is so: I swear it by the vault of my body; by my sacred heart and tongue; by all I can give, by all I desire of ye all."
** seek me only!** is obviously the operative culmination of the first two exclamatory phrases, which become incidental to the real imperative here, which is made exclusive by the word only ;
(the word only excludes all other considerations as such Uni-verse interpretation seems to be the correct one)
@Takamba said
"
@The old man's commentary on Ch. I, V. 32: said
"
"It is proper to obey The Beast, because His Law is pure Freedom, and He will give no command which is other than a Right Interpretation of this Freedom. But it is necessary for the development of Freedom itself to have an organization; and every organization must have a highly-centralized control. This is especially necessary in time of war, as even the so-called "democratic" nations have been taught by Experience, since they would not learn from Germany. Now this age is pre-eminently a "time of war," most of all now, when it is our Work to overthrow the slave-gods."- The Law is for All p.37"
"
Here Crowley's** personal politics** come through; if Thelema is a natural law then it would not produce an "organization" but rather an "organism" which is self- organizing as is everything in nature.
if the "Beast" is to be distinguished from his "Message" then he is distinguished on account of his "Personality" which by default could only obscure the message to a greater or lesser degree, as such it is this very personality htat must be filtered out to leave the distilled and "Pure Message"
- The Law is for All p.37"
-
A quote of a quote of a quote:
" But it is necessary for the development of Freedom itself to have an organization; and every organization must have a highly-centralized control. "
I hereby interpret 'organization' (in this case and at the present time), to mean the "organization of the Star". Every man or woman is a Star. Incidentally, the Star can also refer to Nuit Herself. In any event, my point is that we are "subjectivity" reaching out into "objectivity"; an infinite amount of ways with an infinite amount of interpretations.
What is important here is the unification of the One and the All. Everything else is mere politics. When all these words divide, what can bring about a unification? The 'rising into brilliance of bloom' is unmistakeable and everything else falls away:
"Yea! the night shall cover all, the night shall cover all.
Thou wast long seeking Me; thou didst run forward so fast that I was unable to come up with thee.
O thou darling fool! what bitterness thou didst crown thy days withal.Now I am with thee; I will never leave thy being. "
Love is the law, love under will.
Frater 639
-
Great thread. I think of it this way - say, any engineer who discovers how something works, or a great physicist who discovers some fact of nature, or a great poet who writes something that really stirs peoples hearts' universally - all these are products of the Universe, products of God.
I mean, if you think about it, really, really think about it, the fact that someone can come up with something that's TRUE (or at least close to the truth), is a remarkable miracle. (Or alternatively, it's a prosaic process of generate-and-test algorithms over time, but I digress ...
)The same with the Book of the Law. It is an exquisite expression of the Universe, a truth about the Universe being spoken by the Universe to the Universe, just like "E=mc2".
But it's not something you "obey". That, to my mind, is the trap - and the trap of religion as it has been mixed up with political power-play and monkey business and all the rest of it. I think Liber AL wants to get away from that, and Crowley wanted to get away from all that too. Disentangling religion, the religious impulse, the mystical and magickal impulses, from power-play, dominance and submission, and that whole game (which may be fun if played consciously, but is hell if you're dragged along sleepily and automatically).
It's not something you "obey", but it's something you have to take account of. All those scientists' discoveries aren't something you "obey", but something you take account of if you're wise and want your plans to come to fruition. "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" (don't know who came up with that but it's one of the true things Ayn Rand said - it's virtually the essence of Daoism too).
Similarly, the deep movements of the heart expressed by great poets and writers and artists, are things you are wise to take account of when you deal with people, with the world, with yourself (great literature gives deep, subtle insights into how people tick, etc.).
It's all *food *- if you're hungry, a nice hot dog from a street vendor will do you fine, provided it's made with sufficient care to not give you food poisoning. Liber AL is a fantastic three-course meal, but there are other banquets, and other meals, and they're all satisfying. People have channelled truth all through history.
It's all good. There really is nothing to fear (except in a practical, common-sense sense - e.g. avoiding oncoming freight trains, treating demons with respectful firmness, etc., etc.), this is our Home, we are it, and it is us.
-
In the physical world, one could have a passive law of nature, and a separate goal. You could want to build a boat, so you "obey" a blueprint, which in turn "obeys" the laws of physics.
But what if we're talking about an active law of nature? A law and a goal entwined?
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"
But what if we're talking about an active law of nature? A law and a goal entwined?"
"do what thou wilt..." must be an active law it is present continuous, like magnetism[I would have said gravity but of gravity i still have doubts];The journey and the destination are synonymous.
-
I think it's safe to say that as regards Thelema: nobody really knows what it is yet! The Book itself is so thoroughly shrouded in ambiguity, there exist any number of interpretations. It is perhaps the greatest joke played upon mankind in the last two thousand years. Any number of psuedo-occultists and Thelminions will point to Liber AL, saying "this is this", or "that is that"--but as yet the fundamental mysteries of the Book are unsolved. So have at it!
As the situation stands now, things are very "Each unto their own."
This is very different from "Each according to their Will."
Anything other than this is division. We are experiencing now the necessary Chaos which precedes every new order. Things must necessarily get worse before they solidify. It remains for some-body to take up the Book of the Law and replace its mystery with wide-eyed wonder.
-
The difference between myself it seems and most others here is this.. my starting point is NOT the "Book of the Law".
My starting point is NATURE; I accept the Book of the Law only as Mirror of the "Natural Universe" of which at any point within my personal investigations should i believe the BOTL to contradict my understanding of Nature i would immediately reject that aspect or the whole of the BOTL if fracture and division seems irreconcilable. so Then if i work with the assumption that the BOTL is indeed an accurate simulacrum of Nature, and with increase of information and experience i find no inconsistencies such that there is complete inter-changeability between either the "Map" or the "Territory" then the BOTL is vindicated by my personal understanding and experience and up until the point that it is not. Such that I make no oath not to reject "do What thou wilt" if I find some other simulacrum or simulation that strikes a deeper resonance with my inner most being at any hypothetical time "T" which is irreconcilable with the former, or to decide i have no use for a simulacrum soever[reach samasammadhi
] "T" is then an underlying variable i am not adverse to, I am merely an extremely curious observer i have no sentimental attachment to either outcome but only for an outcome at all or to discover that there is no outcome at all,so it is from this perspective that i present any argument here with a completely open mind but with a working assumption that "Do what thou wilt" is an expression of a fundamental universal force as a temporary simulacrum.Since my understanding of existence * at present is a balance of forces with a sum total of Zero. either way i am anxious for either refutation or concordance and am partial to neither. nowadays it seems my wold-view may be summed up as; "there may be no ultimate truth" yet "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law", replacing the word "yet by "so" may be better but would look even more like a license to do the first thing that comes to mind in each instance. -
If I understand you correctly, this is what I am "hearing you say,"
@a paraphrase of what Agent Smith said
"The difference between others and myself here is this... my starting point is NOT the "Book of the Law." My starting point is NATURE; I accept the Book of the Law only as a mirror of the "natural universe" of which if ever I conclude the BOTL to contradict my understanding of nature, I would immediately reject the BOTL's description. If I work with the assumption that the BOTL is an accurate image of nature, and my research continues without contradiction of this image, then the BOTL proves itself a useful map until the day it does not. Therefore I make no obligation toward "do what thou wilt" in the event I find some other image more accurate and relatable with my inner understandings. As an objective observer of the universe and searcher of viable "working instructions," I have no personal attachment to any outcome of discovery on this matter and am always anxious for more discovery.
So it is with these words of few syllables and simplicity that I present any opinion here with a completely open mind and with a working assumption as my temporary model."
I just want to be sure that that's what you meant.
-
[
@Takamba said"If I understand you correctly, this is what I am "hearing you say,""
forgive me if i seem anal retentive but here goes,
@a paraphrase of a paraphrase of what Agent Smith said
" Maybe The difference between most others and myself here is this... my starting point is NOT the "Book of the Law." My starting point is NATURE; I accept the Book of the Law only as a mirror of the "natural universe" of which if ever I conclude my understanding of the BOTL to contradict my understanding of nature, I would immediately put aside the BOTL's description. If I work with the assumption that the BOTL is an accurate image of nature, and my research continues without contradiction of this image, then the BOTL proves itself a useful map until the day it does not. Therefore I make no obligation toward "do what thou wilt" in the event I find some other image more accurate and relatable with my inner understandings. As an objective observer of the universe and searcher of viable "working instructions," I have no personal attachment to any outcome of discovery on this matter and am always anxious for more discovery."
@Takamba said
" it is with these words of few syllables and simplicity that I present any opinion here with a completely open mind and with a working assumption as my temporary model."
funny guy!!
-
@Agent Smith said
"[
@Takamba said
"If I understand you correctly, this is what I am "hearing you say,""forgive me if i seem anal retentive but here goes,
"
Not retentive at all -very expressive. Thanks, those seemingly minor clarifications helped a lot.
"
funny guy!!"
Laugh as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Humor is the law, humor under will.