College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

@chris S said

"
@landis said
"
@chris S said
"As we like to think the objects of our understandings are independent from us in some way.

What does it mean to follow a rule?"

How does this relate to OP? I'm not saying it doesn't--just not understanding it myself. Could you please explicate?"

Crowley was wrong about Buddhism.

How do i become enlightened?

I wasnt going to add this but here it is anyway..
Methods may happen, methods may not.. what happens simply happens, and whether someone practices a method or not is completely irrelevant."

I absolutely agree. But to answer your question, rules are for orders that pledge to practice and pass on a particular method precisely as they have received it because they have found it to work.

Yet, one can become an enlightened Buddhist without being a monk. The same is true of Thelema.

In short, when you have an Enlightened One being the source of a popular religion, there's always (seemingly) a simplification that takes place somewhere so that the people can more easily comprehend it. Go more deeply into it, and you'll find a discussion of a more complex nature, but on the surface, simplicity.

In my opinion, it's the difference between a religion that's for "the people" and "Ye are against the people, O my chosen!"

I've sat with some local Buddhists and loved everything they said except that "life is suffering."

It works as a perspective if the goal is detachment from everything that you give the power to make you suffer. But I can't get past the sense that this is merely a functional perspective to take toward that goal.

"Life is change" seems more factual and less of a value judgement, in line with the goal of doing one's Will (personal dharma?) with freedom, joy, and peace, without the lust of result.

Better, in my view: "Life is change. The lust of result is suffering."

But how much can one communicate simply to one's audience at once, considering their immediate, personal, spiritual needs versus the level of complexity of thought their education has allowed them to develop?

What if that's a question/concept that people shouldn't have to deal with the first time they pick up the Law?

What if...? There's a million of those that submission to the Adept's final Class A publication would silence. That's my point. That's the reason for the classification system...

The Law has to serve all three readings at once: first the Silver, then the Gold, then the Stones of Precious Water.

What if altering it jacks with that? What if the change emphasizes one reading more than the others, making it serve the others less?

What if? What if? What if?

Or just... leave it as received, and leave room for the mysteries of particularity that the Class A designation was designed to protect.

Well, my intelligence is exhausted on the subject.

Peace.

Thinking again about what I wrote more off-the-cuff...

No, it was never "popular."

I thought about replacing it with "effective," but... I guess that's for the future to determine.

Then I thought "proper," but it seems to have always been scandalous.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see if, and who, and what then, won't we?

Any takers? lol...

@Frater Horus said

"
@Bereshith said
"who has ears to hear, let them hear... at least, that's how they used to say it."

They even used to say "666" ! "

Yeah, they most certainly did.

**](http://books.google.com/books?id=VKMMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=666+he+phren&source=bl&ots=o3Glv2Jmi9&sig=95dchewkPZS4IjklKXWLv8KPyYc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ncKcUaTyJYe-0QHmwYGoBw&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=666 he phren&f=false:yxhs0j06)

But the all the batty, boogity-boogity stuff only perpetuates the dualistic Christian literalist's misunderstanding of it.

For me, John's Apocalypse is a message to the wise veiled within a message to the sheep. Some of the more concrete-minded, truly faithful dualists will never be able to reach into its heights. Their instruction is to be faithful to what they do understand to the very end. What other path of action could be understood as holy to them?

For the wise, the message of John's dream is more instructive of the seemingly diverse, interacting, internal processes of the One Thing, as the Aeons revolve.

I don't mean to pick on you, but this is my point.

Your thoughts would be more valid if it were a Class B document.

However, it is a Class A document, and the issue is one of authority and nothing more.

Of course, a room full of scholars will tend to be biased toward the authority of the scholarly perspective. But it's a Class A document, and scholarly criticisms are irrelevant.

One either allows the Class A designation to be potentially more meaningful than one may rationally justify or not. That's the point of it, and any other more critical response kills that potential and places the power of the original text beneath, lower than, the power of the scholar and the rational mind.

Just gonna ramble a bit.

Back in the day, people didn't read. So, these days, where we have documents graded "Class A" and such, that wasn't the way the old Enlightened One's worked. They just spoke it right to you - if they were of the type to know, to will, to dare, yet not in silence.

It's dangerous, you know, to "utter" as an Adept straight to a crowd. You might get a few who understood the reality you were attempting to put into words, but the rest of them, they'd call you a "god," or the "Son of God," or what have you, depending on where you were talking. If they had a bit of the gnostic in them, they might get it. But if they were running around thinking that everyone really is seperate, that you really do only live once, that "God" really is distinct from humankind, then they'd either worship you or kill you. It's just the way of people. It's too much to manifest and speak that way directly to someone who's not ready for it and can't understand it.

And so, over and over, these Enlightened Ones were worshipped more than they were understood. But in one way or another, their stories and some of what they said lived on. And for some of them, it was worth it to live that life, and perhaps that death as well, to speak and act into the Dream in a way that would live on.

But so now we're slowly but surely coming to end of Pisces and starting to be Aquarians. More people read. More people have at least a touch of the gnostic understanding. They get that what you say from a certain frame of mind doesn't mean that you are "The God" or "The Son of God." But it's really not popular to just embody it and speak it to people anymore. Now, you write it down, mark it as something that came from you when you think you were really "in tune," and let them that take it serious enough think about it from more of a distance. It's on paper, and they can pull it out and look at it over and over again as they themselves learn to traverse those different states of mind, sometimes more "tuned in," sometimes more skeptical and analytical. It just works better that way than the old way of just speaking it right to them. Just speak it right to them, and you leave them wondering just who in the fuck you think you are to talk to them that way. Put it on paper, admit that you're not always "that guy," and let them think about it. It helps that most people can read these days.

But like I said, the further back in Pisces you go, the less there was of that kind of thing. And if you really wanted to change the world, you went out and spoke it directly to people, letting them think whatever they were gonna think about it. Most of them would get it wrong, but some people would catch a kernel at least, and it would get inside them and end up helping them, and I guess that was enough for some of the old Piscean Enlightened Ones, even if it meant their death at the hands of the rest.

I've been around preachers a lot in my life. Yeah, yeah, Christianity is all big, bad, and black. But some of them, the old men especially, they still speak the water-language. They might not get the big picture, but they've touched a piece of it. And when one of them tells you can understand it, they just might drop some really good stuff on you. But there's the bad kind too... poisoners. They'll use it to get what they want from you - pull your strings with it. Aquarius pretty much hates them and sometimes lumps the good and the bad together. Doesn't trust it. Wants to sit with it a while an analyze it. That's why Aquarius wants you to write it down and admit that you're not always "that guy" if you bust out and start speaking for the Great Adam, the One Son of Man.

Anyway... Just some ponderings.... who has ears to hear, let them hear... at least, that's how they used to say it.

@Archaeus said

"
Under the imprimatur: V; V.V.; & S.U.A. I believe, so as long as people pay attention and know which Lineage of A.'.A.'. produced it then it shouldn't pose a huge problem."

Interesting.

Well, regarding the "kill me" version being printed under the imprimatur "A∴A∴ Publication in Class A," I think you know how the preacher in me stands. But the scholar in me says you'd at least need some kind of specific lineage reference in order to even make "A∴A∴ Publication in Class A" a factual statement.

I don't like where the precedent leads, but it's the only honest, responsible thing to do if it's going to be done anyway. Otherwise, it's just pure fiction to cite A∴A∴ authority if not a thinly veiled authority-grab.

But it would aid those like me to discern the level of final authority given by each lineage to the Prophet. I want it "as received," not "'as corrected' a century later by sincere scholarship under the personal belief that a particular coincidence reflected the Will of the Secret Chiefs."

Class A?
How declasse.
Filioque!
Filioque!

From the original post:

"The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)"

I do note that you choose to characterize it this way, and I do agree that the distinction is important. However, I'm not entirely inclined to agree with your characterization for the following reason [emphasis mine]:

"lib.oto-usa.org/libri/liber0220.html
Liber AL
vel
Legis
sub figurâ CCXX
as delivered by
XCIII = 418
to
DCLXVI
A∴A∴ Publication in Class A

. . .

"Aum! let it kill me!" "

Copyright issues aside, in my opinion, use of the designation "A∴A∴ Publication in Class A" constitutes the presentation of an actual textual change in the Book of the Law given under the imprimatur of the A∴A∴.

Respectfully, as much as this is a sensitive personal issue between friends, respected colleagues, and fraternal brothers, and as much as my seeming disregard for such sensitivities is loathed, in my opinion, the issue of the authority to present a document as an "A∴A∴ Publication in Class A" is of greater importance.

@Frater 639 said

"
Well, it certainly has the "the kids" talking. HB has a Genius.
"

@Frater 639 said

"It just sounded a little ostentatious? . . . this particular point presupposed precise pulpit pontifications. . . . Just look at the tone, bro..."

I'm not interested in such projection games.

I stand by what I said.

"
I got it. Talking of irony... Jesus signed the petition today.
"

See? I've always said he was a good guy, just misunderstood by the YOLOs, that's all.

That's what happens when you don't write anything down yourself. Ehhh... Maybe he knew they'd just change it to "what he should have written but didn't" anyway. I guess he just let them go ahead and do that in the first place.

Crowley tried to fix that problem, but...
Here we are... "what the prophet should have written."

My point, Takamba, was that he was referrencing another Class A document to reinforce his own point about not getting one's panties in a bunch about someone altering a Class A document.

Perhaps the irony was a little too subtle.

Happy Venus Day to you as well. Having a couple to celebrate myself.

But just to make sure you don't lack for an appropriate rejoinder...

That sure is a pretty quote. Who said it? I hope they knew what they were talking about... You know?

"They [the members of the Order S. S.] are all, however, bound by the original and fundamental Oath of the Order, to devote their energy to assisting the Progress of their Inferiors in the Order.
"

These "kids"?

The Abyss lies ahead for all bound to the order.

What has been duly spoken in Time, duly approved in Time, and duly sealed into Time, on these things you may certainly rely.

With how many refined scholarly uncertainties and questions of prophetic authority would you like to begin your journey? With how many such uncertainties would you like others to begin their journey?

Submission to that which has been duly given has its advantages.

Re individual freedom: The order and its rules and their consistent application by all those who maintain the original spirit of the order's rules serve to maintain the consistency of the collective human spiritual dream that is the New Aeon. Take away from the historic authoritative determinations of its founding prophet, and you bring disorder to that collective dream. You throw out the compass that is the final authority of the founding prophet.

But, yes, in any case, individuals are free to act under Will, as always.

Re my previous Osirian argument: I admit I'm learning some things as we go. To me, who has had to forsake much of my spiritual past, some of the new has tasted bitterly, artificially "different" while in truth being the same. "Unless a seed falls to the ground and dies..." But I understand the new also brings a further progression that breaks the old wineskins of form of the eternal truth of transformation.

To be true to my own nature, I will not refuse myself to say this much...

The wind stirs within me against this, but such speech carries no weight here. So why bear the blows of the insane?

My intuitions and elemental passions warn in the language of a Great Truce being broken - of Saturn's bars being bent - of lawlessness - the seditious seek release from their lawful restraints - a deviation from the Prophet and Magus' set boundaries for humanity's collective New Aeonic spiritual dreaming.

It's a bad course to set - a precedent of refuting the Prophet's concrete, official, historically enacted authority.

To say that, I am willing to bear my blows if deserving.

The rest is learning.

Now, back to the scholar's persona for as long as I can restrain this other.

This creates an imagined scenario in which the founder of these very same order rules, who repeatedly published and designated his own Class A utterance without this correction, was out of communication with these same chiefs who supposedly now desire this correction.

Who is the Prophet of the New Aeon? Did he really speak for these same chiefs, or was he too lazy and/or closed off from them to hear and take action himself?

The question goes to the authority of the Prophet and Magus of the New Aeon. Was he truly their/its prophet or not? Does he truly carry his own "Class A" authority in his own Class A utterances or not?

"Order : a group of people united in a formal way: as (1) : a fraternal society <the Masonic Order> (2) : a community under a religious rule; especially : one requiring members to take solemn vows (Merriam-Webster). "

"Rule: the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members (Merriam-Webster). "

"The publications of the A∴A∴ divide themselves into five classes.

Class “A” consists of books of which may be changed not so much as the style of a letter: that is, they represent the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organization.
Class “B” consists of books or essays which are the result of ordinary scholarship, enlightened and earnest.
Class “C” consists of matter which is to be regarded rather as suggestive than anything else.
Class “D” consists of the Official Rituals and Instructions.
Class “E” consists of public announcements and broadsheets.
(lib.oto-usa.org/libri/byclass.html)
"

The Rule of the Order is broken.

A Class A document is being altered according to Class B criteria, i.e. those of "ordinary scholarship, enlightened and earnest."

This discussion continually centers around such scholarly debate instead of the Rule of the Order.

But what is at stake is very literally and simply acceptance or rejection of the Rule of the Order itself by "ordinary scholarship, enlightened and earnest."

And as much as it pains me to say this in its overt dramatic grandeur in an environment of friends and colleagues... the nature of orders and their rules being what they are, the question goes to the divestment of the Visible Head of the Organization, having rejected the Rule of the very Order he heads in favor of his own ordinary scholarship, however enlightened and earnest it may be.

Not that I want that or call for that myself. But these are the facts, and orders have their rules, or they are not truly orders nor do they truly have rules.