College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

Thanks.

@Frater Pantha said

"Before Steve or Frater H. go out and spend a few hundred dollars trying to track down a copy of *Magical & Philosophical Commentaries *you might be interested to know that a new and more complete copy of ALL of the commentaries with a massive amount of footnotes in a hardcover edition is said to be in the works right now by the O.T.O. under the leadership of Hymenaeus Beta."

Excellent! That's what I wanted to hear. Any word on when this stuff is going to be released?

@Jim Eshelman said

"Symonds and Grand did publish it. It's in the back of Magical & Philosophical Commentaries on The Book of the Law. I've had it in that beautifully made book (produced in part, BTW, by a gifted young publisher named Bill Breeze) for 30 years or so."

I was unaware of it being published in the Magical & Philosophical Commentaries. That's good to know. For most people, I would imagine, M&PC isn't much of an option due to cost.

It's not a matter of vital importance that it gets published. After all, it's available on a few websites. But it does strike me as odd that something like D, which is short and compact, would be left out of books like The Law is for All. Steven Cranmer echoes my sentiments in a comment above.

"One confusing thing, though, is why Crowley himself didn't have the thing published in his lifetime, or why Symonds, Grant, or Regardie didn't include it in post-1947 editions of the comments. (Might they not have had copies of it?)"

I'm seeing a general disinterest in D, anyway. Nobody else is excited about the idea of it being included with the other commentaries in the future, so it looks like my stapled print outs will have to do for now. Thanks, Jim, for the info on M&PC, and thanks to everyone else for chiming in.

@Aum418 said

"Why do you care if someone would buy it? Do you have any remote chance of getting this to be so? Why even wonder about it?"

I find it curious that it's never been published. I was asking if people would buy it because I wanted to see if there's any interest in having it published. If there appears to be an interest, I can take additional steps like emailing people to inform them that there are people out there who want to see it published some day. As it stands, nobody seems to care much about it here. I hope this answers your questions.

@ThatNarrowFellow said

"I have no information on the Djeridensis working. I asked for information about it in another thread, and no one was forthcoming, so, maybe no one's really sure why Crowley never published it."

It's a little strange that no one seems to have anything to say about why it hasn't been published. We're talking about one time in an issue of The Magickal Link, which is hardly as convenient as having it available in a book. And unless you're in the OTO, you can't even get that. If you google search the word "Djeridensis" the first thing you'll see is a link to Ash's website. Why isn't it on hermetic.com and other sites that try to host all the major Crowley writings? Hermetic has commentary from Motta, Rowe, Sam Webster, etc., but no Comment D.

This isn't some inconsequential letter Crowley wrote to an acquaintance, it's a comment on The Book of the Law. Why isn't there any interest? Even if you personally have no interest in studying it, doesn't it strike you as odd that no one else seems to care about it either?

If there are no objections to the idea, I'd like to get everyone's thoughts on whether or not you would likely purchase a new edition of The Law is for All with the Djeridensis Comment included in it. If you already own a copy of The Law is for All, would you buy the new edition anyway? If you do not yet own a copy, would the inclusion of the Djeridensis Comment make it any more likely you'd get one?

The Djeridensis Working (The Comment called D) has been published only once, in a '95-'96 issue of The Magickal Link.

I would like to see the Djeridensis Working (The Comment called D) included in future editions of The Law is for All. Is there any reason why it wasn't included in past editions? Is there any reason why it shouldn't be included in the future? It seems like a common sense addition to the Old and New Comments, if you ask me.

@ThatNarrowFellow said

"I see no problem with calling an enlightened Hindu Swami, Taoist monk, or even Quaker a person doing their true Will, provided the seat of consciousness has shifted enough to satisfy me that they understand what that means."

Crowley's system of magick, in my opinion, is the fast track of development - not that it's "fast" per se, just in comparison to older methods which, because of their centuries worth of accompanying tradition, are sometimes prone to confusing and sidetracking the student. I think Crowley went to great lengths to eliminate the useless stuff and teach what really works, giving his students the advantage over those of other traditions.

When we look at someone like Hubbard who didn't seem to be following any kind of spiritual methodology whatsoever, we're left with the question of whether or not he just stumbled onto his true Will. If I'm in Crowley's camp because he's offering a more advantageous method of attainment, as I described above, naturally I'm going to find it less likely for a Taoist or a Quaker to have as deep an understanding of their Wills as a Thelemite. How much less so a man like Hubbard who - correct me if I'm wrong - didn't adhere to any tradition at all, at the time of Parsons' statement? I don't think being willful or forceful in one's actions amounts to an understanding of one's true Will, if that's what Parsons was trying to express.

@gerry456 said

"JW Parsons was pleased whne he met L Ron Hubbard

he wrote that h ehad at last met someone who was "naturally Thelemic"

can someone be naturally Thelemic?"

This is a huge issue that I think everyone in the Thelemic community is grappling with right now. What makes a person a Thelemite? There appears to be as many opinions on the matter as there are practicioners.

Some people feel very strongly that Crowley's the lead authority on every question of life, and insist that if your views don't conform well enough to his, you can't be considered a Thelemite. Others think being a Thelemite is as simple as doing your will.

In The Law is for All, Crowley writes, “…unless you know what your true Will is, you may be devoting the most laudable energies to destroying yourself." This passage makes me think twice before tossing the term "Thelemite" around. We may regard some people as strong willed, but if they've never read any Crowley books, how likely is it they're doing their true Will? Furthermore, I've met a lot of strong willed people who struck me as being deeply confused.

This is enough to convince me that the "anyone who does their will is a Thelemite" view is kind of an oversimplification. But maybe it made more sense to Parsons.

I'm an OTO member new to this forum. So far I've really enjoyed reading what everyone has been writing, and I look forward to participating in group's discussions.