College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

I still think that for the purposes of examination it is important to hold everyone to the same standard, and to demonstrate competence in the task, so for the purposes of examination Liber E should be followed. However for continuing practice beyond examination conditions it is really up the student how they proceed.

93 everyone.

Although this is somewhat of a perennial topic I'd like to hopefully start a dicussion on the use of a prop. I've been practicing the dragon posture for about a year now in the AA and for the past month or so I've employed the use of a small zazen-style stool. I've found that it relieves me of great physical strain and allows me to better focus on the task at hand, whilst not making it an easy task by any stretch of the imagination, however I am able to sit for longer. Now I've been advised against this as reliance on a prop, which at first I thought wassound advice. As much as I've resisted the idea by telling myself that it's laziness or the desire for a shortcut, I can't shake the feeling that the use of a stool isn't an impediment to my practice nor is it shortcut to anything. I'll outline some reasons for feeling this:

1. Any position will be difficult, the body finds many ways to beckon you to move or adjust even when lying in bed.
2. The problem with a prop is that it may not always be on hand, and so one may come to rely on it. This is probably the best criticism, however use of a stool in dragon posture only causes reliance on a prop as much as the god posture causes reliance on a straight-backed chair. The latter is a suggested exercise, so reliance on a simple prop doesn't seem to be inadvisable.
3. The point of Asana does not seem to be to damage the body, or in any way weaken it, but rather to tame it. Indeed I believe we should be fortifying the body. Some out there suggest that this posture (and any posture that puts prolonged mechanical stress on joints, ligaments and tendons) can lead to, among other things, knee injury (one such place is the wiki for Vajrasana). Now this might only be a problem for those with a certain anatomical makeup or body type (e.g. large gastrocnmeius muscles could increase stress on the knee joint) and others might have no problems. At least for myself the stool ensures no damage comes with the practice, and as I'm also an athlete my knees are important.

I could, theoretically, just go and opt for a different posture (perhaps the hanged man, or simply a half lotus) but I've been sitting like this even before I was admitted to the AA, my body is familiar with it, and I now feel new life in it with the use of a stool. Given what I've written, would anybody still advise me against the use of a stool? How many people out there (I'm interested more in initiates of AA) use a prop in their Asana? May I ask whether you were advised against it, and why?

Peace!

93 93/93

Update:

I have been received by a Motta lineage. They're out there just try, try again.

Treor that's very good advice, it seems my prayers were answered, I've received two replies thus far, although I'm still unable to join the Order it is good to make contact

I've been applying for A∴A∴ membership, I live in Australia and as C.O.T. as well as T.O.T. operate in North America they would not be able to help me, I will try emailing the A∴A∴ address from the site once more but I have never received a reply from this address in the past (nor any other for that matter), and I've made various attempts

Unfortunately that site refers me to an email address I've already tried, also I live in Australia so they wouldn't be able to help me anyway. Still stuck it seems, thank you though.

Thank you for your repies. It is sad that the great majority of honest people are continually disappointed when seeking out this Order.

93

A few months ago now I wrote a letter stating my desire to be initiated into the A∴A∴ and sent it to the address of the Canellarius in London along with numerous contact details. I am yet to hear a response. I'm the secretary for my OTO Lodge and I know we try and be very prompt with replies, so I'm puzzled. Is this address viable? Has anyone here received a reply from this address? Any help or friendly advice is very much appreciated.

93 93/93
Fr. Aurum

"College of Thelema has always recommended against this Motta edition. Even where the original commentary is authentic to Crowley, Motta's further remarks aren't well differentiated and it is easy to confuse them."

Is there something the matter with Motta's commentary?

I believe the commentaries of AL are by Motta and not by Crowley, so the content would not be the same. I have them in ebook form and they seem interesting although I've not given them a good read

I've found the texts to be very illuminating but I have the same problem with the followers of the fourth way (at least, most of those that I've met), I feel there is an unnecessary rigidity to them and I find it hard to be relaxed in their presence. I've also felt there was something in the texts that perhaps they were missing (that's not to say I got it either). I'm quite in love with both the systems of Crowley and Gurdjieff, and I too find them to illuminate one another (even if finding the parallels isn't easy sometimes) and I'm quite sure they are two systems I want to pursue at the same time. But there is still that something about the followers of the fourth way that doesn't sit right with me.

"Fatalism is the truism/tautology that what will be will be; determinism is just a fancy restatement of causality - the idea that every event has a prior cause (or rather, in deterministic terms, a causal chain). "

For the sake of clarity, determinism as far as I understand it, is a theory about the nature of causality in the universe, not a restatement of it, causality being the relationship between a cause and its effect. It says that this relationship is strict and a causal chain will follow a strict pattern and cannot deviate from it. For instance in a deterministic universe there would be only one possible history because the causal chain of history would be strictly defined from the first domino, due to its nature as being deterministic. But in a universe that is not deterministic, there are many "possible histories" because causality is not rigid and choice is possible. That is on a universal scale.
Fatalism actually takes away our freedom of action because it means we cannot control the outcome of our actions, regardless of our will. It is not true that "IF you had wanted to you could have done otherwise". Fatalism is not determinism, because in a deterministic world its still true that "IF you had wanted otherwise you could have done otherwise" if it was part of that particular world-history. In fatalism this is not true as your actions cannot be controlled.

I hope that adds to the discussion

Thank you

If there is a god, or absolute being (for which silence is the most apt metaphor) and all this, you and I, all that is, is a manifestation of its will, does it follow that personal will is then an illusion or delusion?

If this is the case, is true will the realisation of the will of the absolute in the "individual"?

I recall something in Gunther's book saying something to effect of "Thelema is antithetical to determinism" and I'm not sure I really agree with this. Freedom is still compatible with determinism I think, that is if we take determinism to mean that in a deterministic universe only one history is possible and each cause has only one unique effect and vice versa. Only one causal chain would be possible in a deterministic world. Freedom is compatible with determinism insofar as the laws that govern a deterministic universe allow for the conditions necessary for freedom. No this is not a contradiction, if by freedom we mean that there is nothing to stop a persons volition affecting their action, or to stop a person from being able to change their own will by reflection upon their will. Even if such reflections or actions are externally caused the conditions for freedom are still met.
But what are your conditions for freedom? How do you define freedom? Do you agree with gunther that thelema is antithetical to determinism? Why?

also, is it wise to experiment with something that one does not fully understand?

I've recently begun to take a serious interest in the IOT as a means for exploring a new avenue of this obscure area called magick. However in the (admittedly limited) reading I've done on the subject it seems to be a somewhat reckless mishmash of postmodern attitude toward magick with tongue-in-cheek detachment about the whole thing. While I am attracted to the idea of innovation and experimentation with magick, it seems reckless and perhaps a bit dangerous. It seems like pouring light into a vessel full of holes. With regard to Thelema, I am an active member of OTO and I greatly value Crowley's ethical philosophy and am baffled by/in awe of his mystical and magical texts and methods. While this is close to my heart something inside of me sees joining the IOT as somewhat a threat to my own personal inclinations and morality. Chaos magick seems to cheapen these things by using them like condoms in some respects.
My questions are:

1. Is chaos magick reckless? Do you think it is wise to pursue it?
2. Are there some ways in which it contradicts thelema?
3. What (if any) positive or negative experience have you had with the IOT or chaos magick?
4. Is chaos magick wholly selfish or does it have a benevolent side I'm not seeing?
5. Can chaos magick assist one in the attainment of K&C and/or "Moksha" "crossing the abyss" etc?

thank you for clarifying that

What are the differences between skinner's "veritable key" and peterson's "lesser key" if any? Is one held to be better than the other?

I'm curious to know what people's thoughts are concerning Gurdjieff and his methods/teachings, and how they may relate to, enhance, or contradict the methods/teachings of Crowley. Up until recently I have been a member of a fourth way group, and I've felt this to be a very productive period.

93