Accepting the Law of Thelema
-
As a neo-Pelagian Christian, I accept the Law AS I UNDERSTAND IT. Does this make me a "Thelemite"? More importan, does anyone CARE?
My Christian sources have it that the original "Have love, and do what you will" is from St. Augustine.. but never seem to give a specific citation. Does anyone have light on this?
And where do Pierre Louys and the Code of Trypheme fit into the history?
-
"does that make me a Thelemite...?"
In my book, true inner spiritual acceptance of the archetypes of Thelema, and the resulting psycho-spiritual ordeals resulting from this system of interior classification and organization, make you into a Thelemite whether you can find anyone else's intellectual consent to call you one or not. Ultimately, the true definition is completely interior, but, yes, taking initiation into a particular order seals the deal in the minds of others whether they are able to give intellectual assent willingly or not.
Now, theologically speaking... Ehhh... that's a different matter.
Even when you self-identify as a Neo-Pelagian, there is a... a tacit acceptance of the theological playing field. The issue between Pelagius and Augustine was regarding salvation - defined as salvation from eternal damnation.
I think belief in such eternal damnation runs absolutely counter to the Book of the Law, and this is the main manipulative tool the book was intended to destroy. I am against it, and I am against any God who supposedly instituted it. Define me by that.
Now, if you define "salvation" as "enlightenment" in some form or another* instead of *as salvation from eternal damnation, then you're more on the right track. Or, if you define "damnation" in some sense of *karmic return *to conditions you have developed for yourself in previous lives... that would work too (Purgatory = Current Life). However, viewing life as solely purgatorial, in the traditional sense of passively accepted punishment instead of karma, reincarnation, and unlimited potential also seems to go directly against the grain of the Book of the Law.
Add a little (pro not anti-matter) gnosticism in there, and you've got a form of esoteric Christianity, at least...
But to make it healthy and complete, and to disabuse it of past psychological stuntings and manipulations, yes, I would encourage the embracing of Thelema. Most esoteric Christians have absolutely no problem laying down their lives for humanity. Indeed, they do it daily to the best of their understanding. However, just as the returning and Conquering Christ rules with a rod of iron, the dead and raised esoteric Christian must also learn to wield the flail as well as the shepherd's crook. In doing so, all the "hard sayings" and actions of Jesus (overturning the money-changers' tables and driving them out with a whip, loudly and publically calling the Pharisees "vipers," and "white-washed tombs," etc) begin to make much more sense.
As do the temptations in the wilderness.
Anyway... all this from the perspective of someone whose esoteric Christian journey culminated with the internal proclamation: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will."
And then I once again was made to become a student instead of a teacher.
Personally, I think Chardin's "Christogenesis" was a work of beauty and genius. It was rejected at the time by the RCC, but there have since been stirrings, I read.
All that to say... It matters to you alone. It really only matters to you alone.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Love is the law, love under will. -
@Pelagius said
"As a neo-Pelagian Christian, I accept the Law AS I UNDERSTAND IT. Does this make me a "Thelemite"? More importan, does anyone CARE?"
Basically, the sole criterion for being a "Thelemite" are the study, acceptance, and application of Liber AL vel Legis, or the Book of the Law.
-
I mentioned in another short post that I've completed the Glossary for my new book, and was entertained by the fact that the definitions of core Thelemic words had a unique problem: You pretty much expect a fight from someone no matter how you define them
Here is how the Glossary (just for the sake of the Glossary!) defines "Thelemite."
"THELEMITE. n. An adherent to the system of Thelema. [Note: Exact definitions of this word are varied and sometimes contentious. The definition given here is the simplest.]"
-
I sincerely (perversion can be sincere!) hope that the glossary definition of Thelema is: "a system adhered to by Thelemites"
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"I sincerely (perversion can be sincere!) hope that the glossary definition of Thelema is: "a system adhered to by Thelemites"
"Unfortunately, it isn't that witty, although yours is wittier (and certainly more certain) than mine. Here's the pretty conventional thing that I wrote:
"THELEMA. n. (1) A system of principles (variously characterized as a philosophy, religion, social system, &c.) derived from Liber Legis. (2) The “Word of the Law,” or central magical formula, for the Æon of Horus, originally articulated in Liber Legis 1:39. [Gk. {thelema}, “will.”]"
Of course, terms like "Liber Legis" and "Horus, Aeon of" are also in the Glossary.
-
Thelema: doctrine of beliefs which stems from a metaphysical ontology that transcends rational quantification and knowable only by direct experience which nullifies all particular experiences. The metaphysics developed in relation to the subjective perspective that each point of reference is derived contextually from an illusional division in this pure being, placing all instances of particular experience as a relative product of unity between perspective subject and object. Normatively the doctrine grants absolute power to each point perspective to discover the limits and extents of it's ability to unite with it's complement opposite, so long as that activity is aimed as direct experience of the ontological unity that transcends dualistic awareness, resulting in growth of the perspective aggregate of experiences, thus honing it's skills at uniting with aspects of the other which differ greatly than itself seeking ultimately to build itself up to total annihilation with that which is it's total opposite vector, that which most offends it's sensibility as it threatens annihilation through unity. Annihilation being the greatest fear and yet the calling of every point perspective, in the return completely to the undivided continuity of the ontological origin beyond all discrete particular expressions as entities.
-
You are such a clown.
-
At least it has critique-defying wording built-in, just like Jim's definition.
-
@Froclown said
"Thelema: doctrine of beliefs which stems from a metaphysical ontology that transcends rational quantification and knowable ...."
Right on par with the California Civil Code. I like its definition of "transaction:"
(c) "Transaction" includes the deposit, withdrawal, transfer, bailment, loan, pledge, payment, or exchange of currency, or a
monetary instrument, as defined by subdivision (d), or the electronic, wire, magnetic, or manual transfer of funds between
accounts by, through, or to, a financial institution as defined by subdivision (b).Or how about "criminal activity:"
(e) "Criminal activity" means a criminal offense punishable under the laws of this state by death or imprisonment in the state prison or from a criminal offense committed in another jurisdiction punishable under the laws of that jurisdiction by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
Let's hope the "Law" of Thelema steers clear of this sort of nonsense.
Thelema (Theh-luh-muh) (noun/adverb): a cause of dissention to the internet community, such as that no two people seem to agree on any one point of doctrine, practice, or methodology.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Critique defying?
@Froclown said
"Thelema: doctrine of beliefs which stems from a metaphysical ontology that transcends rational quantification and knowable only by direct experience which nullifies all particular experiences."
1.) A doctrine of beliefs presupposes a rational quantification.
2.) What ontology isn't metaphysical?
3.) Knowable by direct experience is a tautology.
4.) A direct experience nullifying particular experiences is a contradiction.
5.) Nullification of all particular experiences would be an "experience".I would say this is perfect example of Ruach balancing!
Love is the law, love under will.
-
@JPF said
"Thelema (Theh-luh-muh) (noun/adverb): a cause of dissention to the internet community, such as that no two people seem to agree on any one point of doctrine, practice, or methodology."
Thank You! Thelema is not an adjective, and to use it as such denies ourselves a great deal of information. The moment we began to qualify such and such as being "thelemic" or "non-thelemic" we stop thinking and analyzing. Rather we should say something like:
This particular biblical verse contains elements of Thelema.
or
Jim Eshelman's life long work shows him to be a true Thelemite.
or
The main literary sources to consult concerning the ideology of thelema are the works of uncle Al.
But to contrast:
That book is un-thelemic.
or
It's not very thelemic to go to Catholic Mass.
We lose a great deal of potential information, as we can only retort with "why" and "because"
-
See the works of Martin heidigger as far as ontology not being in itself metaphysical.
However the set beliefs defining ontology is a metaphysics.
Particular being and their relations are merely ontic not ontological.
Direct experience of the ontological is non discrete and thus transcends metaphysics of language.Language is based in discrete ideas not in pure being, rather language is "the house of Being"
Thelema then is metaphysically an attempt to express ontological being, or rather to use language and practices to help people enter into the house that is language and directly experience pure being. That is nuit, in which all discrete beings are annihilated along with all experience of language and discrete concepts, including self.
However the means by which each self interacts with other fragments of discrete beings, to eventually approach that which lies behind them all, is unique to the individual. It must be discerned on an individual basis, through uniting with those experiences that produce anxiety and terror, in the unity of love the anxiety is overcome and is destroyed in the interaction, rather the self image is destroyed this fear of ego destruction the anxiety before the nothing is bridged and a new self that includes that which destroyed it grows and seeks new annihilation by unity with that which it most fears and hates.
Thelema is ultimately masochistic is a sense, all evil is merely that which offends one, what one fears hates,is disgusted by, that indicated what one must learn to love and must unite with to destroy evil. And incorporate everything especially what one hates part of oneself, and under control of ones will to impose the image of oneself onto the world.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
@Froclown said
"Particular being and their relations are merely ontic not ontological."
This is Heidegger's perspective. I'm sure others agree with him.
@Froclown said
"Direct experience of the ontological is non discrete and thus transcends metaphysics of language. "
If we like Heidegger, we could possibly reword this using a "term under erasure".
@Froclown said
"Thelema then is metaphysically an attempt to express ontological being, or rather to use language and practices to help people enter into the house that is language and directly experience pure being. That is nuit, in which all discrete beings are annihilated along with all experience of language and discrete concepts, including self. "
To quote Heidegger:
"The botanist's plants are not the flowers in the hedgerow; the 'source' which the geographer establishes for a river is not the 'springhead in the dale'."
I think we agree: a definition of Thelema will never be the 'springhead in the dale'.
Love is the law, love under will
-
For a full disclosure of thelema
I must direct you to "a star in the west" by captain Fuller.
The section entitled philosophy has an extremely detailed account of crowley as he fits into the philosophical world with Plato, arestotle, berkley, Hume, Kant, Descartes, and fichte describing crowley as a phyrronic Zoroastrian and an atheist mystic. -
Since joining the forum, I have felt a growing need to map out my thinking on this topic. I did a search, and viola, there was a thread! . I did read the other posts, and they only deepened my need to say something a bit truer to how I feel and conceive the problem: what does it mean to accept the law of Thelema? So I’m just going to add some thoughts onto the end. I am assuming the thread was started because other peeps were needing to hash out a similar catechism of faith.
There is a style of rhetoric that folks sometimes fall into when debating the core, or essence, of an ideological position. This style pretends to be scholarly, it relies on subtle interpretations of minor words in a larger context, it appeals to the authority of published books and opinions by originating personalities, it invokes logical argument, and educated conclusions to make a point, or rather a bludgeon.
This style of debate causes me intense spiritual discomfort. When this happens I usually feel for the pack of smokes in my shirt pocket. I the nudge the person I am sitting next to, show them the pack of cigs, and mouth as quietly as possible the words “I will be right back.” Then I quietly make my way out of the row of seats and up the aisle until I am in the open air where I can breath.
The most striking element in this behavior is the fact that I don’t smoke.
I am left contemplating one of two possible explanations for my discomfort. Either my philosophical world and my thoughts about phiolosophy are so incestuous that I will do anything in order to avoid getting on that merry-go-round—please don’t make me think those thoughts ‘again;’ or, try as I might, I just can’t find any mental hand and footholds that make me feel as though I am dealing with anything real—in other words, I don’t see the need for being philosophically armed to the teeth, when the reasons for my convictions should be part of the actual life I live from moment to moment.
I accept the Book of the Law, and the Law of Thelema, but for me this acceptance comes in this form:
- Anyone who has managed to get to where they are at any moment in their lives has only been able to do that because of the principles of Thelema. It doesn’t matter if they use the word, or not. It doesn’t matter if they have never heard of Aleister Crowley, or if they have outlandish ideas about who he was and what he stood for.
- People who claim the Book of the Law is Holy Writ, but who do not have the spiritual, and life experiences to back up that claim are just farting out of a place higher than their b**t hole, to quote the French. This includes me.
- I assume, because it is the best assumption I can muster at this point in the journey that has allowed me to get to where I am now, that when I finally achieve gnosis, the truth of Thelema will be self-evident. If I never achieve it, I may continue to attempt to accept it for what it is, but I will have no real basis for insisting or proving the argument (though, the whole conceit that providing reasons for accepting Thelema is all about making an argument is specious, imho).
- Should I access the truth via a direct transmission from my angel—we can call it that—the truth of that experience will define Thelema as much as confirm it. In other words, while I do not expect my angel to greet me with the words “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law,” I nevertheless expect the angel to greet me with words, or to impress on me an experience, appropriate to explain the truth of my life and key to the mysteries of the universe. This understanding, even if it should take the form of “don’t follow Crowley, reject the book of the law, do something else with your life” is by my definition, the essence of Thelema—do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
Thanks for indulging me.
love and will