Symbolic act of Christ
-
@Foolster said
"
"I think there is plenty of mythos surrounding Thelema to satisfy the average mortal."i think you're out of touch with the average joe then."
I'm absolutely uninterested in the average joe - as they exist at this point in time. My point is, in part, that Thelema will not mainstream until the mainstream changes. I once thought this would take a thousand years or more, but (with accelerations occurring) I think this might be able to happen in half that time.
We have lots of time.
"Anyway, no more prophets please! Haven't we had enough!?
"We'll need one to overthrow Thelema in a millennium or two, and foster in whatever comes next.
-
Christianity took 300 years to start becoming serious. Thelema has 500 years if you count Rabelais, but counting from Crowey just 100 years. This is still a very young concept. You gotta give it time to unfold…
The way i see Thelema taking hold is not as a religion or anything like that. It's by changing the consciousness of people, and that happens slowly without people ever noticing. And it's happening.
Look at Jay-Z at 15s or the lyrics on the song.
There are signs everywhere.About Christianity, it's already slowly eroding. Every country that legalizes abort or homosexual marriage kills a little bit more Christianity. Every christian who pays lip service instead of taking the commandments seriously or that believes in "my own vision of God" stab Christianity another wound. It's a matter of time.
PS: I still fear Thelema's Council of Nicea
-
JayZ is doing it for $$. Go to a tool concert. Laser unicursal hexagrams, star of babalon banners and 15 minute intermissions where they lower 10' decagons from the ceiling that are inscribed with sigils.
Their studio is arranged according to the tree and Maynard sings from Ain Soph when recording.Anyway, I think my original point was lost and I didn't clearly communicate it because I liked hearing opinions. Talking about hastening the collapse of the abrahamic religions by attacking from within their ranks. You can let a building become delapidated or pack it full of explosives. Speaking purely metaphorical btw.
I want to see these fuckers go down, make no mistake; it's what I think about everyday. Anyone who would like to do some group work pm me because there is alot we can get done sitting right where we are.
-
@Foolster said
"I want to see these {shaggers} go down, make no mistake; it's what I think about everyday. Anyone who would like to do some group work pm me because there is alot we can get done sitting right where we are."
Perhaps you are translating your internal strife to external matters.
The most effective changes come from within.
-
@Foolster said
"Talking about hastening the collapse of the abrahamic religions by attacking from within their ranks. You can let a building become delapidated or pack it full of explosives. Speaking purely metaphorical btw."
There's another way. Unfortunately, it involves work, and not enough people have been willing to commit to the years of work needed.
In your building metaphor, the biggest way that old structures are being removed today is that somebody else builds something newer and cooler and better that people want to move relocate to. Eventually the old places are empty and then someone buys them to tear down and build a parking structure or mini-mall.
The metaphor is solid: We need people (lots of people! lots of groups! lots of ideas!) to build new cool stuff - visibly, creatively, intelligently, with follow-through and decades-long commitment to them as emergent institutions. When the new "architectural" standards become evident, people will "move into them" and vacate the old spots.
To make a perhaps unnecessarily uncompassionate comparison: Rats do not flee a sinking ship as long as it's still floating, even if it's only drift wood. They need someplace else to flee to.
-
Jpf- your assessments are shallow and do not add anything to the conversation.
Jim: I like it. Having built up a an international business from nothing to something while taking out other corporations, I can say I know a bit about bringing a vision to fruition. I think there enough of us for some to handle demolition and others man the new construction. I think operating in silence or through proxies is a good idea too.
-
@Foolster said
"I think operating in silence or through proxies is a good idea too."
Useful in business. I think, though, that it is not a very Thelemic approach (simply because it's not a very honest approach).
My only concern in this whole conversation is that we would end up changing ourselves more than our targets. You know, the old "you've become what you hated" principle. Intending to act without integrity of self is a treacherous path - not unmanageable, but clearly treacherous.
The truer path is to be "most ourselves."
-
@Foolster said
"Jpf- your assessments are shallow"
Indeed, it can be difficult to penetrate the paper-thin!
As regards your war with Christianity:
Observe the nature of the Dao!
"He that, desiring a kingdom, exerteth himself to obtain it, will fail. A Kingdom is of the nature of spirit, and yieldeth not to activity. He who graspeth it, destroyeth it; he who gaineth it, loseth it.
The wheel of nature revolveth constantly; the last becometh first, and the first last; hot things grow cold, and cold things hot; weakness overcometh strength; things gained are lost anon. Hence the wise man avoideth effort, desire and sloth. "
Thelema was not created as a new toy for the masses. The law is for all, but the Light and the Liberty remain for the Kings, who know naught, do naught, and are naught.
-
@JPF said
"Thelema was not created as a new toy for the masses. The law is for all, but the Light and the Liberty remain for the Kings, who know naught, do naught, and are naught.
"I think uou miss the whole point: Everyone is intended to be a king!
Hence my take, mentioned above: It's absolutely for the masses... but down the road, when the masses are ready for it!
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@JPF said
"Thelema was not created as a new toy for the masses. The law is for all, but the Light and the Liberty remain for the Kings, who know naught, do naught, and are naught."I think uou miss the whole point: Everyone is intended to be a king!
Hence my take, mentioned above: It's absolutely for the masses... but down the road, when the masses are ready for it!"
But what of the verse:
"Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was."
?
-
@JPF said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"I think uou miss the whole point: Everyone is intended to be a king!Hence my take, mentioned above: It's absolutely for the masses... but down the road, when the masses are ready for it!"
But what of the verse:
"Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was."
?"
Trying to make an essay length answer concise...
The first part of that verse doesn't deny change. The universe is nothing but change. Change is! Change occurs. - In observing human behavior, it seems that the main practical meaning of the first sentence is that we shouldn't waste our time trying to change other people and other circumstances - we should be ourselves, period!
As for the rest... It is often mistaken as defining a two-tiered caste system. I don't read it that way at all. Truly, "all is ever as it was." But the key thing here, I think, is that the difference between a "slave" and a "servant" is not in the acts they do but in how they approach it - whether an act is done under suppression or by choice, under will. This phrase promises that slaves shall become servants - shall be of service! - shall be free.
And - as anyone who has had top ranked position in anything knows from experience - there is no more ultimate servant than the king. In the central, sublime premise of service, they are equalized.
(PS - Liber L. uses "king" as a metaphor or title for "adept.")
Kings rule. Servants serve. Carpenters build. Teachers teach. Merchants sell. Everybody does the thing that is inherently theres to do.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
The first part of that verse doesn't deny change. The universe is nothing but change. Change is! Change occurs. - In observing human behavior, it seems that the main practical meaning of the first sentence is that we shouldn't waste our time trying to change other people and other circumstances - we should be ourselves, period!"Then I think we agree.
Each of us is to attend to our own work, and change ourselves from within, always enslaved to the necessities of Will. In holy service is perfect freedom, and the road to mastery is one of utter servitude: always Under Will.
It remains, however, that not all desire this mastery, and ineveitably wind up supporting the higher ranks. The masses deserve Thelema, as the "Law is for All," but not all will "chance to abide in this bliss," as the vast majority of mankind enjoys its yoke, and would feel uncomfortable with the great resposibility (service) that comes with Kingship.
-
@JPF said
"It remains, however, that not all desire this mastery, and ineveitably wind up supporting the higher ranks. The masses deserve Thelema, as the "Law is for All," but not all will "chance to abide in this bliss," as the vast majority of mankind enjoys its yoke, and would feel uncomfortable with the great resposibility (service) that comes with Kingship."
Not for quite a while.
I guess it's understandable that people want to think of these things in terms of their present lifespans. That causes lots of frustration and aggravation. If one thinks about it across centuries, independent of the person as whom one is presently incarnated, then the only things left are to act NOW in a fashion completely true to ourselves. (My main objection to many ideas presented in this thread BTW is that they would have us begin operating in ways untrue to ourselves. That's not the way to go. That's the way to abandon what matters.)
-
Wow, great discussion!
Re. hoi polloi - I'm of the opinion that "the Lord works in mysterious ways". The human being in civilised lands of today is already vastly different from his counterpart at the end of the 19th century. Child consciousness. Everyone is less mature (neoteny? interesting subject that), more playful, more creative, but also more prone to hissy fits. I hate the word "current", but I have to admit it's pretty apt. The change has already occurred, it's already happening. We here are merely specialists with a little bit of a deeper insight into it, that's all.
Re. the Christian thing. I'm deeply interested in Christian origins as a sort of third-rank intellectual hobby, and I'm of the "mythicist" opinion (also shared by Crowley and Motta). There was no human being called "Joshua the Messiah". What there was was a loose movement to exotericise the Mysteries, based around a Jewish god-man idea (Jews were cool, like Tibetans are cool nowadays). There may have been a loose biography to hang the philosophy on, but it was very vague and not everyone held to the same ideas. The strongly historicized Jesus myth we all know and love gradually got filled out, partly innocently ("but what did Jesus do in the war daddy?") and partly as a result of political shenanigans. The Roman branch of a divergent movement wanted to rein it in so the lunatics would pay their dues, so it invented the idea of the Apostolic Succession - i.e. the idea that the original founders of the movement KNEW THE CULT FIGURE PERSONALLY. This is the tail that wags the dog. Up that point, the invention of orthodoxy or literalism (which itself was no doubt fairly gradual, from about 70 (i.e. post-Diaspora) to about 150 CE (by which time the synoptics had been firmed up and Acts had been written) - up to that point, the Christian movement was extremely loose and diverse. Some were visionaries, some mystics, some theologians, some scripture-hounds, some philosophers, etc., etc. But it was all based around the idea of a Middle-Platonic "intermediary" figure, with Jewish (probably proto-Gnostic Jewish) roots. And even after orthodoxy got established in Rome, it took imperial edict to make it stick throughout the whole community (and even *then *there were holdouts).
ANYWAYS, the point is, "Christ in you" was always the central message. The "immortal" (eternal, Aeon) part of us that's a little chip of God. The Absolute is too vast to comprehend straight off the bat, but we have a hotline to it via our own inner essence, which shares a portion of it, communes with it, is "crucified" in this world (in matter) but is already immortal, already beyond death, already saved. Good news, sisters and brothers! (Basically a kind of Jewish/eclectic Greek non-dualism.) That aspect of it is still perfectly valid. What's not valid is the idea that we should be beholden to some entity that sacrificed itself "for us". That's the lie, the twister, the thing that distorts our psychology, that perpetuates the lie "That Thou Must Die", that self-sacrifice is a good thing, that we should remain ever so 'umble, not raise our heads above the parapets, not be rich, not enjoy our lives, etc., etc. Basically, the long and the short of it, and the dirty truth behind literalist/orthodox Christianity, is that what you end up with is people sado-masochistically fascinated by the image of the crucifixion, masturbating to it, becoming deeply ashamed of themselves, and turning to "priests" for "forgiveness" and becoming puppets of the "Jesus Christ" egregore. A very ugly affair, altogether.
But being a true, gnostic Christian is ok. I consider myself a Christian - as well as a Buddhist, a Daoist, etc. etc. I KNOW, I know there is THAT within me, the little me, that's a Big Me that's almost (although of course not quite, but close enough for jazz) God.
Hearken to the beautiful words of the Apostle Paul (well, beautiful apart from the clumsy translation, hehe
) from the Nag Hammadi collection, bravely squirreled away by some unknown, unnamed true Christian monks during one of the orthodox persecutions. This is the true, gnostic Christianity, as it was originally intended:-*... your light, give me your mercy! My Redeemer, redeem me, for I am yours; the one who has come forth from you. You are my mind; bring me forth! You are my treasure house; open for me! You are my fullness; take me to you! You are (my) repose; give me the perfect thing that cannot be grasped!
I invoke you, the one who is and who pre-existed in the name which is exalted above every name, through Jesus Christ, the Lord of Lords, the King of the ages; give me your gifts, of which you do not repent, through the Son of Man, the Spirit, the Paraclete of truth. Give me authority when I ask you; give healing for my body when I ask you through the Evangelist, and redeem my eternal light soul and my spirit. And the First-born of the Pleroma of grace -- reveal him to my mind!
Grant what no angel eye has seen and no archon ear (has) heard, and what has not entered into the human heart which came to be angelic and (modelled) after the image of the psychic God when it was formed in the beginning, since I have faith and hope. And place upon me your beloved, elect, and blessed greatness, the First-born, the First-begotten, and the wonderful mystery of your house; for yours is the power and the glory and the praise and the greatness for ever and ever. Amen. *
That's the good news, brothers and sisters. We are already "saved", it's a done deal, there is nothing alien in this Universe, it is our home. All the toil, the heartbreak, the tears, are as nothing, mere clumsy efforts by the Deceiver, matter, to make us believe we were trapped in a hell-hole. All is light, star-bright!
**It is a lie, this folly against self. The exposure of innocence is a lie. Be strong, o man! lust, enjoy all things of sense and rapture: fear not that any God shall deny thee for this.
Success is your proof; courage is your armour; go on, go on, in my strength; & ye shall turn not back for any!**
-
For what it's worth, and just to express diversity of approaches, I almost completely agree with George. I just also believed that someone also "lived the myth" - though perhaps not in every detail of the stories we have received.
For me, it's the idea that humanity has a collective unconscious. At times, entire people groups live out collective nightmares and hero myths. Heros, villains, and scapegoats appear, thrust upon the stage by the waking dream of the people. Crowley's life, with his Beast imagery from the Apocalypse of John, is a perfect example. Is it so difficult to believe that a similar soul who grew up with Jewish Messiah stories did the same - and was just as ably misunderstood by the masses who either rejected him or created fanatical versions of what he said?
There are times that I take great comfort that "one of us" had the Will to "live the myth" - in both instances. It blows my mind and both breaks and fills my heart for the tragic beauty of it: the Great Mis-Understanding. Babel and Babalon.
But some are determined create for themselves a nightmare of domination - even out of a hero/liberation story.
-
FWIW, another striking thing I forgot to mention, on this topic.
If you look at the history of early Christianity, sociologically it's pretty small beer for the first hundred years or so. No more than a few hundred believers, scattered abroad.
Now why does that sound familiar?
I don't think we should be concerned about numbers "joining our Church", we should just be concerned that the mass of humanity is doing well. Our own organisation as self-conscious Thelemites is just a leaven for that. Whether the mass is nominally "Thelemite" is of little concern (other than it would be nice for a little tip o' the hat to AC now and then - "in the night watch one shall steal close and grip thee with a secret grip").
In fact, I think that's precisely the mistake that was made in Christianity- to try and "force" the movement, to grow in numbers too fast, and to alter doctrine to suit that aim. It's not that it's a bad thing to want to see self-conscious Thelemites grow and prosper, but it's that we should let Nature take it's course. Quality is always better than quantity.
In Christianity's case, it grew only slowly and remained as a relatively small affair (a few thousands, maybe nearly 10?) for several hundred years, until it was "taken up" by Constantine. We don't want a repeat of any such thing. If our open, public religious ceremonies are beautiful and fun, if our works are good, our philosophy coherent, people will join as they will, and the numbers will take care of themselves, in time. If we apply the rules of good kingship as elucidated in the Dao DeJing it should be fine
(IOW, to get peoples' respect, and make it attractive for them to develop an interest in the religion, they must have confidence that we practice what we preach. We must be *exemplars *- we must practice and attain, so that we have something to show for our efforts, a difference in our bearing and personality from the norm, even from the sociologically "rebellious" norm - something inspiring to others, if we will. We ourselves must have *tasted *something of the cosmic and spiritual we recommend to others - we must have attained something, for our "message" to be spread by us in a wholesome manner.) -
@Frater LR said
"Is it so difficult to believe that a similar soul who grew up with Jewish Messiah stories did the same - and was just as ably misunderstood by the masses who either rejected him or created fanatical versions of what he said? "
I'm a mythicist as well. People see whatever they want to see in Jesus. You see a "similar soul" to Crowley, who was also "misunderstood by the masses". Elton John sees Jesus as a "compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems”.
Check out Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection by DM Murdock.
**(http://books.google.ca/books?id=Iaqe9CG_s6cC&dq=christ+in+egypt&source=gbs_navlinks_s) -
Working my way through this book.
His major premise seems to be that "mythmakers" hijacked Egyptian symbolism and that the whole "Jesus event" never actually happened. The way he's presenting it so far makes it sound as if there was a secret cloister of highly intelligent people who constructed a new myth out of old ones in order to gain control over the masses. There is a strain of paranoia (? almost) throughout his entire presentation so far.
I absolutely love the information he is presenting, but where he sees a collusion even before Constantine and Nicea, I see the natural phenomena of synchretism surrounding the martyr of a mystic, perhaps even a master, whose Will was to set his people free from the politico/religious oppression that was rampant at the time. Yet another one of us lived the story of Plato's "Cave" and got killed for it. The martyrdom of a love-preaching spiritual liberator at that time and place in history set a fire in the collective psyche of the people - and as they tried to unpack everything that it meant, they ran across the archetypal story across all cultures. They saw him as a "fulfillment" of all the stories they had ever heard and where inspired and captivated by it. It made a mess of the Roman empire - this "kingdom not of this world" - and killing the followers for sport only beatified them.
He points seems to simply be - "they stole these stories from someone else." My point is that these stories are timeless precisely because they do happen. They happen in the psyche of those who seek enlightenment, and when time and circumstance are right, the populace also will externally "live out" these inwardly true stories. What gets suppressed in the psyche of an individual manifests externally in the life of the individual. What gets suppressed in the psyche of a nation manifests externally in the life of the nation.
Now, after Constantine, I will readily admit willful and knowing synchretism on the part of the political leaders. That's just apparent from the historical record, and the author demonstrates that as well. Before Nicea, however, I think it was much more unconscous psychic synchretism clustering around an actual historic event.
Ultimately, I guess it doesn't really matter and can never be known for sure. I don't need anybody else to believe that it happened that way, and some days I'm not sure I believe it happened that way either. But I do think there is value in exploring the idea that very large people groups share relatively consistent spiritual worldviews - and in the evolution of that people's worldview, psycho-spiritual transformation dramas get enacted on the large scale through historical events and individuals.
I had to develop that "lens" through which to view the world in order to understand Thelema and the procession of the Aeons. So now, when I point that same lens backward to the emergence of Christianity, the above hypothetical description of the "Jesus event" seems to come to my mind much more easily that any sort of cloister of colluding mythmakers with a power agenda. To me, that reads more like a sort of "classic fear" of the psyche than an understanding of how humans and religion interact and evolve naturally.
But that's just my two cents worth of thoughts about the book so far. I incredibly enjoying seeing the correlation of the Christian and Egyptian mythos. It's like the Christian era took all the same god-symbols and took out any potential for sex between the gods. Father - Mother - Child.... Never NEVER Wife nor Lover. And Conquering Hero gets pushed into the never-ariving "tomorrow."
At least until the Beast arrives on the scene...
