Detailed questions on the Klippot
-
Jim wrote:
"The original statement, to which I responded, used the word "all." It allowed no room for exceptions or variances."
True. Im not sure any other quantifier, such as 'some', 'most of' etc would help either. I generally define magic as operating within the sphere of development towards complete transcendence of the ego, after which I wouldnt call it magic personally. I was not suggesting that all forces that are available during this process are egoistical, but rather that as long as the ego is intact to some degree, the klipot still operate, though their hold is more subtle and
weakened.
As with the concept of Adeptship and many other abstract concepts, including grades, I do not define thresholds. Some would say the grade of 8=3, AA Bailey says the 4th Initiation etc. In my experience, which includes initiations in GD related bodies and outside, the external grade rarely reflects the inner attainment.
Ultimately, only our personal experience teaches us according to my experience. I do think that if you are going to use kabbalistic concepts such as klipot, sitra achra etc, one needs to understand the origin of these terms. The GD and those that followed were in the habit of taking, translating(often inaccurately, due to limited knowledge and availability of first-hand materials) from Jewish texts and usually putting their own interpretation on them. And this is where, rightly or wrongly, I believe the danger lies. Kaplan once suggested that the comparison and evaluation of traditional Kabbalah and the hermetic/christian kabbalah might prove a useful area of research. I am inclined to agree, given the lack of insight into this subject displayed by so many initiates, particularly in the
GD derived bodies, many of whom I know personally across all 'grades'.
I am interested to know where you put the grade or threshold and whether you think that is subject to revision?I am interested in constructive and intelligent dialogue, not merely dismissive statements. We are all students after all
-
@Atzil said
"I generally define magic as operating within the sphere of development towards complete transcendence of the ego, after which I wouldnt call it magic personally."
Just to (hopefully) further the discussion somewhat, I'd define things differently. What you have described is one path (perhaps the primary eventual path) of what I would call mysticism. On the other hand, the ego is one of the most important agencies in magick. (Even when one has become mostly abstracted from the reactive personality patterns, magick still requires selectivity, the isolation of one in contrast to the the dissolution of the multiple.)
"I was not suggesting that all forces that are available during this process are egoistical, but rather that as long as the ego is intact to some degree, the klipot still operate, though their hold is more subtle and weakened."
That's a much more moderate statement than the previous one, and - depending on exactly which definition of Q'lippoth you are using at the moment - I might not be able to disagree with this one. For example, if you are including any reactive components of an individual's personality, I would tend to agree.
In that case, though, I would take it further: I would say that these are present as long as has a physical body. In fact, the body is the inescapable gauge in there being some Q'lippothic action. The one idea at the root of q'lippoth is "husk, something shed"; and, as long as you have a body shedding skin cells, creating waste matter, etc., you have this. (In a healthy body, though, this is a natural process that requires negligible attention.)
"As with the concept of Adeptship and many other abstract concepts, including grades, I do not define thresholds. Some would say the grade of 8=3, AA Bailey says the 4th Initiation etc. In my experience, which includes initiations in GD related bodies and outside, the external grade rarely reflects the inner attainment."
In the A.'.A.'. it does by definition. That is, one doesn't actually have the grade unless one has the attainment. The tests aren't "formal," but actual. (This is separate from the fact that people sometimes claim grades they haven't attained.)
"I am interested in constructive and intelligent dialogue, not merely dismissive statements. We are all students after all
"I reserve the right to be completely dismissive of idiocy. My religion requires me to despise all fools. OTOH in this case the statement had the better effect of drawing attention back to the actual language and discovering that even the author of the original statement meant something different.
-
"...My religion requires me to despise all fools..."
Utterly?
completely?Are there levels or grades of fools?
I am sincerly interested in this statement, I was recently led to believe that the Tarot, and the Book should be read backwards, so that we end up at the Fool.
for me, to despise means that I am feeling a very negative emotion, and that I have focused this feeling upon a specific perception, (ie a judgement about an individuals choices).
it is a very strong and forceful emotion,
how would that be properly used?
For what end...
I cant seem to see how motivation would be it primary function.maybe I am not supposed to understand that....yet
-
Capital-F Fools are different from run-of-the-mill fools <vbg>.
Despite the intriguing Qabalistic temptations, I've never been convinced that any of the lower-f fools in Liber Legis really mean capital-F fools. (It appears, in singular or plural, 9 times on Liber Legis, plus a "foolish" for good measure.)
But I take as rather simple and straightforward: "Despise also all cowards; professional soldiers who dare not fight, but play; all fools despise!" (In contrast to the next verse: "But the keen and the proud, the royal and the lofty; ye are brothers!")
-
Didn't it also say not to discuss the book of the law?
-
@Jastiv said
"Didn't it also say not to discuss the book of the law?"
No, it didn't. That was a note Crowley appended later, not part of the Book itself.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Capital-F Fools are different from run-of-the-mill fools <vbg>.
Despite the intriguing Qabalistic temptations, I've never been convinced that any of the lower-f fools in Liber Legis really mean capital-F fools. (It appears, in singular or plural, 9 times on Liber Legis, plus a "foolish" for good measure.)
But I take as rather simple and straightforward: "Despise also all cowards; professional soldiers who dare not fight, but play; all fools despise!" (In contrast to the next verse: "But the keen and the proud, the royal and the lofty; ye are brothers!")"
I forgot about those capitals.
and I do succumb to temptations...
I hope that someday I can have a glimmer of your clarity Mr.Eshelman...
-
Well if someone does not want do dig down into the shitty parts of themselves and reality that is fine.
Some have the Will to do so: there is gnosis to be found in that which is terrifying, those truths that disgusts us or shatters our world completely - that which we don´t want to see, that which breaks down the ego. Actually, in a sense it could be described as a journey where one seeks truth - not truth in any philosophical sense - whatever it would mean. It is the abandoning and giving up of everything. The egos perceptions on what one supposed to find, those shiny light pictures that the sephirothic ego builds up about what gnosis is will be shattered.
Indeed, this is where *meaning *(which is a kind of ego-masturbation within the mind) has to be overcome.This undercurrent within both western and eastern esoterisism is not new, it is old.
To each his own.. -
atlantis, I agree with most of what you said, but not about the meaning as "a kind of ego-masturbation within the mind" --- it is essentially all that we have at the 'rational' level. the meaning among the concepts is like the Sun among the planets. it centers the Ruach 'part' of our being, thus - in perfectly balanced manner - connecting the One and the Many.
-
Hi!
With meaning I try to indicate something in an "existential" sense of the word.
Just to clarify. -
Jim said:
"I reserve the right to be completely dismissive of idiocy. My religion requires me to despise all fools. "
To the first part I would say, of course that is your choice.
To the second I would, personally, be cautious. Even 'fools' are not what they may appear to be and despising them
serves no useful purpose. In this, Crowley, was foolish imo -
Atzilut, 93,
"Even 'fools' are not what they may appear to be and despising them
serves no useful purpose. In this, Crowley, was foolish imo"It wasn't Crowley who said this, though.
93 93/93,
Edward -
Yes, but it is a moot point. Personally, I have never found that philosophy endearing
although I understand it in a reactive and human way. Personally, those members I know
in Crowley's Orders who seem most vocal on this issue are often those
who are finding their way in Thelema and use it to vent their frustration.
Those who have been around for some time
and are not struggling with low self-esteem, seem to display far more tolerance for
'fools' than one would expect given their 'commitment' to the Order etc. But that's just
my opinion. -
Atzilut, 93,
The Book of the Law comprises many Qabalistic riddles, mystical puns, subtle aphorisms and so forth. It isn't something we can critique easily, like a philosophy text, one of St. Paul's discourses, or a Buddhist sutra. It was delivered as it was, and is meant to be studied as-is. It's always problematic in that way: a paradox that appeals to a higher (intuitive) reason, not to the rational mind, yet insists on going beyond reason. It needs to be approached in a fundamentalist spirit, so that it can up-end all our fundamentalisms. If it hasn't driven us crazy at some point, then we're not trying hard enough.
So, if we start looking on it as a set of opinions, then we're not reading it as it was meant to be read. It remains opaque if we do that, because we haven't risen to the task it sets us. Crowley spent years learning that himself.
I agree that plenty of people use passages from the Book as a series of excuses for being coarse, or affecting some irritating macho stance, or other forms of ego defense. That doesn't disqualify the text itself from careful meditation and application.
93 93/93,
Edward -
Edward
You raise many valid points. It is all too easy to be deflected by how others choose to interpret the
Book of the Law when you are surrounded by thelemic politics I do agree that this does not
detract from the Book in its own right.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective
tool in the thelemic ideal?The majority of OTO thelamites (for example) I know do not discuss the Book, despite its apparent centrality.
There are occasional quotes, but not much else. What I ask myself is, despite what founding documents may
say etc, what does one hope to achieve in a group context, based on such a book?Thanks for your thought-provoking post.
Atzilut
-
It is an interesting topic you are raising, but it maybe it could get a little bit more on topic?
-
Atlantis
Yes, this does tend to happen with some threads. If the moderator agrees, I am more
than happy for my post to be filed under a separate/new thread.Atzilut
-
Atzilut, 93,
I opened a new thread in Thelema, Discussing the Book, in response to you questions. I don't have a lot to contribute to discussion of the Qlippoth, which is why I've not said more on this thread.
93 93/93,
Edward -
Great!
Anyway. Anyone interested in how one can look at the Qliphoth from an initiatory thelemic perspective can read back some posts in the thread.What would you say are the most important specifically *thelemic *books (aside from the wonderful but for some people, especially those with no practical knowledge on the Qliphoth, a bit difficult to read books by Grant) on issues relating to the qliphothic initiation?
I would of couse say Liber AL, Book of Lies and Liber 231.
-
Edward
Thanks for that!
Atzilut