If you were not a Thelemite, what would you be?
-
"Why should I not find that alarming?"
A better question: Why do you find it alarming?
What is your image of what *should be *happening?
What practical steps would you take to accomplish that in your personal sphere?
And what do you imagine the results would be?
-
@igniprimum said
"Since this whole business of "All faiths point to the same thing, and are all therefore equal" "
It's in quotes, but not something I said.
-
I'm a big fan of Vivekananda's statement to the effect that, until one has direct experience of God, it's better to be an atheist than a hypocrite.
That general mode of thinking applies to so many things in the course of spiritual development.
For example, it's a fairly spiritual mature perspective that all external forms of worship share the same Holy of Holies - that, behind all visible systems is a shared, deep reality of which the best of the outer systems is but a veil.
This idea is expressed rather well in Liber X: Porta Lucis, and meant to be intellectually assimilated near the beginning of one's formal journey - but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily understood or appreciated at the beginning.
And, until one's mature journey lets one look back on the Path - look back down the mountain, so to speak - one isn't likely to see how many paths lead up the same mountain.
It is both understandable and admirable that someone would take a stand for what is evident to their own mind and senses, rather than buy into a theory that they just can't see.
-
@Aegis55 said
"A better question: Why do you find it alarming?"
An even better question: Why don't you?
But I'll bite on yours. If you read what I've written before in this thread, you might find some clue as to why I find it alarming.
"What is your image of what *should be *happening?"
I don't think I should have to formulate an alternative to what we have all by myself. Equinox I:1-10 contains articles that describe the image, and Equinox III:1 and III:10 are almost exclusively devoted to further developing that image. If you think that we have now is already like what is described in those books or even a reasonable approximation given the time we've had to work on it, then I would like to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.
"What practical steps would you take to accomplish that in your personal sphere?"
Please see the answer to your first question. I've already described some details of my personal work.
"And what do you imagine the results would be?"
I can't imagine what the results would be, but I can safely guess that the product of dedicated and focused individuals all working energetically toward a common goal must be better than that of indecisive and scattered individuals all working haphazardly on something they can never agree on.
-
Well, I can't complain that you put the question back on me, but it assumes that I have more desire and energy to put into a debate that has already solidified in my mind. I will, however, fill you in on where the debate stands as I understand it:
Primitivism vs. Evolution: A fundamental presupposition that people usually forget to question is the degree they ascribe to primitivist vesus evolutionary viewpoints.
The primitivist viewpoint is that "it was perfect in the past, we have fallen from it (because that's what we expect from people), and we need to return to that pristine perfection."
The evolutionist viewpoint is that "knowledge and understanding continually increase, and we have more of both at present (because that's what we expect from people)."
Either viewpoint can be reduced to absolutism and thus be negated, but regardless, it seems to lie as an unexamined assumption in your argument, and you will have to take a position (along with all its inherent weaknesses) if you wish to re-establish the debate at the level it has occurred in the past.
All possible positions (including middle ground), except for the dogmatic primitivist position, assume the practical necessity of the relativism you regard as error and wish to correct.
However, in that dogmatic primitivist position, one must necessarily align oneself perfectly with Crowley's own position and thinking - something I'm under the impression he discouraged - rather, encouraging students to examine absolutely every idea and practice for themselves - in accordance with their Will - a position that seems to leave room for his own thoughts to be relativised according to the life, experience, and Will of the student.
-
It's just a question, you know. A good thelemite should be researching on all kinds of disciplines, and it has in itself very many. If someone here would say he'd be some kind of New Zealandish zombie-maker, then maybe someone else will get interested. I mentioned Baha'i, as some others, though I bet not many have researched on it. Maybe someone will get interested, you know.
Also, it tells of a person. If someone embraces Discordianism (which I could, too; in fact my eldest brother happens to), it's a bit different from being a Tantric Buddhist or a Hindu Shivaist. It tells something of the person: if he hadn't bumped onto this, where would he be.
E. also, you're barking at wrong trees about realization in here.
-
I might be getting ready to pull the plug on this off-topic migration and delete all the off-topic posts, To save them, please swing this back to the original topic.
-
Here is the original post on this thread. It defines the topic of discussion in this thread. - As a matter of policy, this forum understands that, in the course of discussion, an original topic frequently is served by digressions that eventually converge back onto the main topic (this is the nature of thought and of conversation) - but, otherwise, we expect discussion to remain on the original topic, which should not be derailed.
@Solitarius said
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
I've been thinking about this for some time, as I notice that many Thelemites espouse philosophical or religious ideas common to other systems, within the O.T.O. alone I know of people who are not exactly hard-line Thelemites (which is as it should be in my opinion) and the Systems of both O.T.O. and A.'.A.'. both contain elements of many other religions.
I know there are other Thelemic systems out there, but the two I mention are the only ones that I have any personal experience with.
So for my Two cents, I'd have to say I'm probably More or less Taoist in my outlook, I view Thelema as a very western form of Taoism, with a heavy dose of Hermetic philosophy to make it more palatable to western minds.Love is the law, love under will."
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"(And, of course, there's my mostly serious joke that, after he died in 1903, Vivekananda moved to Egypt and changed his name to Aiwass.)"
That is pretty funny. I am reading Raja Yoga now and I am amazed by how much Crowley took from it.
[EDIT] I would also second the way of Vivekananda. Raja Yoga strikes me as having everything you need to achieve Samadhi, which I assume is another term for the HGA. Please correct me if I am wrong.
-
I'd sell things over the phone. I'd be a thelemarketer.
-
I seem to like them all but I feel I follow or consider myself on the path of the Silent Warrior
www.metacafe.com/watch/2298042/silent_warrior_enigma/@Jim Eshelman said
"On this, you and I disagree. I see them as every god or object of worship from every pantheon or personal path - everything external, every image at all."
As you look back through the history of religion and possibly philosophy you start to see 'form' taking shape.
I sort of look at this, like looking at steps or looking at an evolution of gods. From the earliest part of our creation man has been serving gods of wind, lightning, water, air, etc.
At some point all of these gods seemed to be replaced with one god but not truly one god as each belief had it’s one god and still there was many gods among many beliefs or many parts of the truth (light = rainbow)Truthfully I am not sure where I am headed with this thought, but I feel that all these gods are parts of the highest God and Goddess called self and in worshiping them we worship the part of the self that we don’t understand.
As far as winners are concerned, I have decided to not worry about winning which supposes that I must be the best of what I do according to other people interpretation. I have just decided to do what I do with all intent of learning and understanding, and not worry if it is the best as described by someone else. I believe that it is my trying to understand at my utmost ability that makes me part of the best of all people. When I consider the idea that we are all the best, based on our own understanding then we are all in the same boat.
