College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

@Jim Eshelman said

"I think the need to convince people in these points is a false need - that it's a substitution for a different need. (What other need? I'd have to guess, and you're in a much better place to track that yourself.)

Liber Legis is quite clear on this point: "Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not overmuch!"

That one seems unambiguous, to me. There is another passage where my own interpretation varies from most people's interpretations. Verse 3:39 ends, "...to each man and woman that thou meetest, were it but to dine or to drink at them, it is the Law to give. Then they shall chance to abide in this bliss or no; it is no odds. Do this quickly!" This passage is often interpreted as remarks on how the comment was to be prepared. I read it as saying that, to each person you meet, "it is the Law to give" - tell them a bit about it - then shut up and leave it to them to run with it or not. I read "Do this quickly!" as meaning we are to share about the Law in few words, in a few moments, with a few remarks.

In any case: Argue not! Convert not! Talk not overmuch!"

I don't think it's so unambiguous. A distinction needs to be made between promulgation (which Crowley definitely advocated pretty heavily) and conversion. Conversion implies force, whereas promulgation means making people aware of the Law and explaining it to them properly. To that end, explaining certain points to people--such as the fact that Thelema isn't some cult with gurus telling you what to do--is essential for proper and effective promulgation.

"Convincing" someone doesn't necessarily mean getting into a long argument with them, but rather making them aware of certain points of Thelemic philosophy and practice that clearly refute their misconceptions. Crowley was very clear on the fact that establishing a Thelemic society is inherently a part of doing one's Will. It is difficult to establish such a society if we allow rampant misconceptions to go unchecked. Correcting these misconceptions is not inherently "conversion."

"I've tried explaining thelema to some non-thelemites, and here are the misconceptions I have had to deal with.

1. Its some cult with a guru who tells you what to do. The most important part is joining some organization like the OTO or AA, else you are not a real thelemite.

2. If you do what you want, you will just end up following every whim or desire, for instance if you want to eat the whole bag of potato chips, you will do just that (or any other habit that feels good in the short term but has negative long term consequences, because after all, you are not supposed to do anything for lust of result.

3. If you discipline yourself to do things under will, then how come for example, a man shouldn't' become a doctor, for instance, because his father was a doctor even though he hates the profession because has dad told him, you will make a lot of money that way, and he wants the end result, the money, even though he loathes the whole process of becoming a doctor and practicing medicine.

4. If all that's too confusing, and self-contradictory, then how come people practice mysticism and magick to find there true wills, when it may not be something they want to do anyway (following ones true will that is), or that they think is in anyway good?

I'm not any good at convincing people that it is anything other than the following. Under normal circumstances I would give up, but I feel that in this case, it is my true will to discuss the matter further regardless if people like it or not."

To answer the original poster, here are some basic ideas:

1. Joining a spiritual organization such as O.T.O. or A.'.A.'. is a completely voluntarily decision. Even upon joining, you can withdraw at essentially any time and do not have to accept someone else's interpretation of any point of Thelemic doctrine if you do not desire to do so. The fact that there are several competing Thelemic organizations shows that not all of them agree of certain points, and thus membership in any of them does not confer the label "Thelemite" upon one. If this is the case, what does confer such a label? In my opinion, accepting the Law of Thelema, as outlined in The Book of the Law, as the sole basis for human conduct. While part of this involves one's interpretations being in accordance with those of the Beast, since Thelema isn't just whatever we want it to be, much of it is left up to one to decide for oneself, as is discussed in The Comment.

2. "Do what thou wilt" refers to doing the True Will, which is completely different from doing one's whim or whatever one (in the mundane, egoic sense) "wants." This was detailed by Crowley on numerous occasions. I'm not sure why "lust of result" is being brought up in this context. In any case, Thelema involves renunciation of those things that are not truly you in favor of those that express your deepest nature the most authentically. That's what "do what thou wilt" means, in my opinion.

3. He shouldn't become a doctor if it is not his True Will. If he loathes the idea, that may or may not be a strong indicator that it is contrary to his Will. Engaging in Thelemic mysticism and gaining self knowledge and learning the nature of his Will would help him in deciding this. There are other ways for him to make good money than becoming a doctor, if money really is a part of his True Will. If he merely "wants" the money, maybe that's what he should be renouncing rather than professions outside the medical field. Again, not being said person, I can't say what his Will is. Each individual must discover it for him/herself.

4. Because Will and want are not the same thing. Also, I don't know anyone who practices mysticism or magick that doesn't want to.

Great find! I love these articles and am very excited to see where they take them in the future. Just liked their Facebook page as well.

@Alias55A said

"Thanks Jim

A more precise question relating, when Apo pantos kakodaimons is used, would it make the negativity/spirits flee? Or force them to back you up? If used as apart of a general banishing of a working space..."

It's my opinion that the first "APO PANTOS..." is more of a warning to leave before you forcefully banish them. You then proceed to elevate your state of consciousness through the use of the NOX signs, which figuratively take you across the abyss. There are a number of aspects of this ritual that express 2=0 as well, such as "IO PAN," wherein you move from a state of duality (IO) to unity (PAN = the All), which is important. Once you elevate your consciousness through the rest of the ritual, you are in a position of authority, in a spiritual sense, wherein your final "APO PANTOS..." will actually command spirits/whatever to leave.

I agree with Jim on all points: you do not have to be 5=6 to perform the ritual effectively, though the symbolism of this grade is included in the ritual. If you look at an actual star ruby, they are a red (5 - geburah) stone that reflects light in the form of a six pointed star, making a nice symbol for the 5=6 formula. The Geburah symbolism does not require you to be at that level of initiation. Rather, take a look at the symbolism of Geburah and how it relates to the Star Ruby. Unlike the LBRP, the Star Ruby is very martial and forceful in its mechanism.

@ptoner said

"93 All
As part of my daily practice I have been carrying out Resh 4 times a day followed by LBRP for at least 18 months... whilst this is a long and mundane practice for some, i find that it is such a complex ritual, that almost daily i notice different details or improve aspects of it personally for me.

Now since the turn of the year i have started Regardies "One Year Manual" and have also been twice a day using the "Body awareness" task twice a day and have move up from 10 mins to 15mins a session as he advises until the month is concluded and 30mins for each session is achieved.

It has only been since the start of this year and possibly the start of Regaries program that during the LBRP following Resh that i have started to Yawn once during the course of the ritual. This at first started in the work place where i conduct myself in the usual location and has since spread a week later to my personal temple at home.
Is this a common occurrence?
Do people generally yawn during rituals or am i doing something wrong...
Just to add i am not tired in the slightest but i still yawn...

Possibly i am be answering my own question here but also since the start of the year i have noticed a change in the way i charge each pentagram...
I actually feel the energy surging up my body and out thru my arms (the enterer) into the pentagram.
Sometimes it happens before i get to this stage and more often than not after...

I am very interested to listen to anyone else that has experienced this or is aware of what it represents."

While I'm not convinced that your yawning is magically significant, perhaps it will comfort you to know that I sometimes go weeks at a time with a yawn in the middle of each performance of Resh. I've never had to yawn during a performance of a public/group ritual, fortunately, though I sometimes worry

Here's a question: What are you doing before performing Resh? Are you sitting at a desk or on a couch and then rising to perform it? Yawning is a biological function designed to increase the flow of oxygen to the brain. It could be that you stand up, a portion of your blood flows down to your lower limbs, and you yawn a couple minutes later to compensate for for the decreased brain oxygen, as you need more to compensate for more physical exertion. Just a theory, I'm no biologist.

AliceNuit, this is awesome! Thanks!

I agree with the sentiment that a huge portion of this ritual's symbolism derives from blood being drawn from the breast of the magician. I have experimented with various other forms of this ritual that I've come across online, including a form that turns it into a sex magick operation, but haven't found them to be as effective as Crowley's original. Liber Aleph's "De Cultu" specifies a few suitable rites for daily consumption of the eucharist. If it isn't your Will to draw blood (and assuming you don't have a full Gnostic Mass team/setup), perhaps you can combine the formulae and symbolism of these various rites into a ritual of your own that you can do?

Didn't realize I was being so unclear, Jim... I'll try to clarify and you can tell me where I've gone wrong. If I'm fundamentally misunderstanding the universe, I'd like to know about it.

Here's my understanding of how things work:

The planets, Earth included, revolve around the Sun. The nature of this revolution causes their position in our sky to change constantly.

@Jim Eshelman said

"I'm not really sure what this sentence means. In particular, I'm not sure what you mean by the words "the action of the stars,""

By this, I meant to say "the effect planets and other things in the sky are said to have in astrology." Venus in Capricorn acts differently than Venus in Aries. Sidereal astrology seems to posit that this is because the constellations themselves have an effect that combines with the effect of the planets to produce the effect of "Venus in Capricorn." Tropical astrology says "the constellations themselves aren't what matters, it's the position of the planets in certain parts of the sky." For example, the moon will cause a high tide in a certain part of the sky and a low tide in another part. The angle and position relative to our planet clearly matters.

@Jim Eshelman said

" the word "constellations,""

Am I wrong in assuming that Aries, Taurus, Gemini, etc are constellations? That would be an embarrassing mistake.

@Jim Eshelman said

"the phrase "the movement of the constellations,""

The constellations are fixed, but they are in a different position in our sky than they were thousands of years ago when tropical astrology first came into being. Thus, sidereal astrology says "hey, Venus isn't really in Capricorn, this is wrong." Tropical astrology says "it doesn't matter if Venus is really in the part of the sky where Capricorn is currently, it's the same part of the sky that we meant by Capricorn 2,000 years ago and that's what counts."

@Jim Eshelman said

" or (the big obscurity) the phrase "relative to Earth.""

Not sure how I can make this any clearer. When the moon is in certain positions "relative to Earth," the tide is either lower or higher than when it is in other positions relative to Earth. While we don't know the mechanism of astrology (we just have observations), it seems more likely to me that the planets would cause some sort of effect on Earth based on their position in our sky rather than having their effect as a result of being lined up with constellations much, much, much further away.

@Jim Eshelman said

"
"Movement of the constellations" is a strange phrase since (ignoring very tiny amounts of proper motion that amount to a few minutes of arc of many thousands of years), the constellations aren't moving. (Everything else is moving relative to the constellations.)"

Am I incorrect that the constellations are in different parts of our sky than they were when tropical astrology first came to be, thus the constellation Aries is not in the part of the sky we call Aries?

@Jim Eshelman said

"
As for the last phrase, I'm going to assume that you aren't saying that Tropical astrology is geocentric and Sidereal astrology is not. If that's a correct guess, then you seem to be saying that the Tropical astrology somehow measures things "relative to Earth" in some other way. If you mean (for example) "relative to the surface of Earth [mot even a few feet in the air!] between the equator and the Arctic Circle" (i.e., about one third of the surface of the Earth) then you might be right; otherwise, I'm not sure what the words would mean."

Again, I'm saying that one (sidereal) posits that the effect of the planets in the part of the sky that lines up with the physical constellation is what counts, whereas the other (tropical) says that their effect comes from being in that part of the sky, not necessarily having anything to do with the physical constellations.

As far as "relative to Earth," it of course means relative to a particular position on earth. When we pull out an ephemeris and look up the position of the planets based on our latitude/longitude, that's of course the position I mean. While something may change if I go 100 miles into the air, that's really just splitting hairs about how we measure the positioning. The moon changes the tides based on certain positions relative to Earth, and that effect persists even if different altitudes affect the way it appears to be positioned.

@Jim Eshelman said

"Of course not. But, unless you're living only in a fantasy world, premises should be conformed to measurable, demonstrable fact when such facts are available. If one is ignorant of the facts, one can, perhaps, be taught; but if one knows the facts and ignores them, then that's where ridicule rightly enters the picture."

Above, am I ignorant of the facts? I'd like to make sure I have the picture straight. I wouldn't want to be living in a fantasy world.

@Avshalom Binyamin said

"No, you were right, even basic astronomy makes tropical astrology sound pretty ridiculous. "

It is my understanding that Sidereal astrology posits that the action of the stars is a result of the combined forces of the positions of the planets with the constellations, hence the change in dates to compensate for the movement of the constellations over time, whereas tropical astrology posits that the position of the planets relative to Earth is more important. The latter makes much more sense to me, given the great distance of the constellations from Earth (relative to the planets), etc. I'd say that it doesn't really matter whether "Sol in Aquarius" really means Sol is in the constellation of Aquarius... it's much more important that it's in the part of the sky that we call Aquarius.

After much experimentation, I've found tropical astrology to be incredibly accurate when practiced properly (with a proper understanding of planets, planetary aspects, signs, and everything else), whereas sidereal astrology has not given me these same results. I do not think either one is inherently "ridiculous;" they merely posit different premises. To think that astronomy invalidates tropical astrology is to misunderstand the premise of tropical astrology, in my humble opinion.