College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

@Aum418 said

"
@Frater Pantha said
"
@Frater Pantha said
"
@Froclown said
"Crowley's method is to fully merge with life, be it pleasure or pain, hedonistic or ascetic, the key is in doing what you repulses or intrigues you, until it no longer does either. The ultimate goal is the same as the Buddhist, release from ego attachments. Perfect control over the repulsions and inclinations of the body and mind, by transcending them via burnout, rather than use it or lose it methods of Buddhism."

What Crowley book(s) most focus on this method? What Bhakti Yoga books are suggested that focus on the like method?"

I thought there would actually be a lot of quick responses to this one... I guess I was wrong!"

Liber Astarte? Liber Cheth?

IAO131"

Any classic Bhakti Yoga texts that could be suggested? Are there any good translations of the texts that you would recommend?

Scarecrow,
I cannot answer all your questions because I do not have The Magical and Philosophical Commentaries but I might be able to help a little.
I think there are 3 Commentaries done by Crowley about Liber Al.
One is The Law is For All. It was released at least twice ... one edition edited by Regardie and one edited by H.B. --- besides the editor notes there shouldn't be much different between the two.
Another Commentary was published as The Equinox of the Gods. It has been published alone and also in the "big blue brick" edition of Magick.
The third Commentary is Commentary D(Djeridensis Comment). I think this was in The Magical and Philosophical Commentaries and it has also been published in Knights Templar Oasis newsletter called the Lifted Lance. I am uncertain where else it has been published.
The Magical and Philosophical Commentaries should have all three in it (but as I said I don't own it -- so I am sort of guessing). Since you enjoyed The Law is for All you might want to check out the other Commentaries. There is a rumor going around that all the Commentaries are going to be published together again in one better than ever Hardcover edition packed full of editor notes. I wouldn't hold my breath or wait for that though. It might be a while before that happens (if it happens at all).

@Frater Pantha said

"
@Froclown said
"Crowley's method is to fully merge with life, be it pleasure or pain, hedonistic or ascetic, the key is in doing what you repulses or intrigues you, until it no longer does either. The ultimate goal is the same as the Buddhist, release from ego attachments. Perfect control over the repulsions and inclinations of the body and mind, by transcending them via burnout, rather than use it or lose it methods of Buddhism."

What Crowley book(s) most focus on this method? What Bhakti Yoga books are suggested that focus on the like method?"

I thought there would actually be a lot of quick responses to this one... I guess I was wrong!

@Froclown said

"Crowley's method is to fully merge with life, be it pleasure or pain, hedonistic or ascetic, the key is in doing what you repulses or intrigues you, until it no longer does either. The ultimate goal is the same as the Buddhist, release from ego attachments. Perfect control over the repulsions and inclinations of the body and mind, by transcending them via burnout, rather than use it or lose it methods of Buddhism."

What Crowley book(s) most focus on this method? What Bhakti Yoga books are suggested that focus on the like method?

@Aum418 said

"93,
There are two types of people who dont want you to talk about politics and religion: the people who control politics & religion, and the people who are too weak to engage in actual debate.
IAO131"

There are also those of us that realize that what the thinker thinks -- the prover proves (Robert Anton Wilson's). Unless the person that you are going to have the conversation with is looking to change their opinions (or doesn't have any opinion that they are attached to) -- you are not going to reach them or change their mind. You can debate them and beat them to a bloody pulp with the rules of logic (or any other weapon) and it doesn't mean you have changed ANYTHING. Unless they choose to think differently you are just as likely to have proven to them not that your opinion in a debate was correct -- but that you are a total jackass that they do not want share the same point of view with you. People process what they want to. Most of the time people only process the information that “proves” what they already “think”.
I do still debate people sometimes, but I don't delude myself into thinking I am going to change anyone else’s mind. I debate because I enjoy it (sometimes) and because it helps me to consider why I think as I do.
It might be useful to honestly ask yourself if you have ever seen a Hindu/Christian/Moslem in a religious debate suddenly throw up their hands and say "Alright! I was wrong! I am changing my religion!". I have never seen that, and I have never seen a hardcore Liberal or Conservative suddenly surrender what they already think in ANY debate. It is very possible that nearly all debates are a waste of time, and that some people don't debate because they don't want to waste their time.
For the record I think Obamas win was business as usual. Not one 3rd party was allowed on the ballot for President in my State. 3rd parties were also shut out of the debates around the nation. America had a choice between two Washington insiders both claiming to be for "change" and "outsiders" -- and that isn't much of a choice at all. All the real outsiders that would have meant truly historic change were blocked out of the process from the start.

@gmugmble said

"
@Nudor said
"Your previous post makes it sound like you're an atheist. That may not be true, but if it is, why are you on this forum?"

I'm an atheist every now and then. It is, in fact, during my atheistic periods when I am most likely to see the the Face of God peek through the veil of illusion. For this reason, I hardily recommend the practice of atheism to all Thelemites. Conversely, I think a Thelemite forum like this one is the healthiest place for an atheist to hang out."

So what do you think the difference is between an Atheist and a Thelemite? Anyone can feel free to answer -- not just gmugmble.

@Jim Eshelman said

"They're both solar.

The first is an Semitic (Egyptian and Hebrew) name for the Sun. In fact, it's the old Egyptian name for the city the Greeks called Heliopolis, or "Sun-City."

IAO is a Greek-gnostic Divine Name of very high frequency and intensity, especially related to exalted ecstasy. I regard it as solar. (In fact, as Yod Aleph Vav, it's the notariqon, or initials, of the Hebrew Divine Name for Tiphereth.) It especially came to have a relationship to the Dying God formula, but isn't exclusively that - for its inherent virtues, as well as the notariqon mentioned above, I regard it as the most practicable Divine Name for the Sun."

Could you go over how both relate to the Gnostic Mass?
What other Gods do you equate/Assoc. each one with?
Crowley said "The second main point is the completion of the A, babe Bacchus, by the O Pan (Parzival wins the Lance, etc.)". How does Pan complete Bacchus? Could we then call Bacchus the "child" of Pan?

@luxinhominefactum said

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ...all arguments about whether the O.T.O. is just a club aside... " there is no inherent identity between the O.T.O. and Thelema per se" this is absolutely, unquestionably, perfectly......TRUE!!!
the O.T.O. as it stood under Theodor Reuss was founded before the Aeon of Horus even started. this is a matter of historical record. i think the confusion comes in with the claims of Certain Parties who really want people to think that their O.T.O. is the Only Thelemic Order.
that's not what them initials stand for, doncha know.
Love is the law, love under will"

The Supreme Secret that is kept by the O.T.O. isn't about Thelema -- as you point out it pre-dates it.
The O.T.O. accepted Thelema into its system and worked to spread the law of Thelema to the world. For many years there was no other public body doing this work. It isn't hard to imagine why many people identify the O.T.O. with Thelema.
The O.T.O. also owns the rights to all of Crowley's written material. This makes them a powerful force in spreading the word of Thelema to the world today. I would think that every Thelemite would want the O.T.O. to thrive if for no other reason than they want to see unreleased Crowley material published, or rare material reprinted for their reading pleasure.
I wish all the people spreading the law of Thelema well. There are so few of us that it sometimes seems silly when we start feuding between ourselves. Sometimes there is strife about ideas or concepts but all too often the strife is about personality and taking sides. Now to make it more strange we don't even have Motta or McMurtry alive so people are taking sides with their successors. The successor’s students then spend time arguing about which line of succession is correct and fighting about minor differences of opinion. I have seen this before in the history of Moslems where the successors of Mohammed label themselves followers of the rightly guided Caliph. They label themselves Sunni and Shiite and kill each other over succession. They have been doing it for years. Frankly it seems stupid to me that the Moslems do this, and that Thelemites attack each other and try to "assassinate" each others teachers (the teacher’s characters, the teacher’s right and proper succession, etc.). Isn't there something more important Thelemites can do? Something more important to fight for? Freedom maybe?

@sethur said

"There is one fly in the ointment. W B Crow was appointed world head of the OTO before Germer, not as Crowley's post-mortem successor but there and then (AC was very ill I imagine). Crowley later apparently "rescinded" this. However, by definition, he had no power to do so, and Crow later claimed headship after Crowley died, but was unable to find anyone who would support him. However, his lineages (he collected them) continue...."

Where did you happen to read about this part of history? I haven't heard much about these events.

@Jim Eshelman said

"... For many years now, though, I've persisted in the opinion that Crowley didn't really put that much thought into it, and simply grabbed whatever Greek names he found handy at the moment and threw them in..."

In your experience working with Crowley material have you noticed him making a habit of just throwing things in without much thought? If not, why would you think so now?

@Jim Eshelman said

"
@Frater Pantha said
"The "destroyer" needs to be identified."

Oh, sorry. I forget what's not obvious or known sometimes

"The Destroyer" in this context is the ego."

I didn't actually say that the destroyer needs to be identified (I think there must have been some confusion of posts), but since we are on the subject the Red Flame number 2 says that the destroyer is restriction. I understand that the ego can be limiting and restricting but is this being viewed in a different context? Or in the same context in your opinion?

@Lapis said

"
@Frater Pantha said
"I had this same issue when writing one of my own rituals. I thought of birds but my partner doesn't eat them so I changed my mind and went with HONEY. You can make a bunch of things that have honey in them or eat it raw."

We actually decided on baked acorn squash glazed with honey, cinnamon, nutmeg, allspice, ginger & clove!

L.Lazuli"

Sounds good!

@Jim Eshelman said

"And the difference between the two is...?"

Are you trying to say that BAPHOMET is the product of BABALON's experiences -- so both are correct?
Are you trying to say something else?

I had this same issue when writing one of my own rituals. I thought of birds but my partner doesn't eat them so I changed my mind and went with HONEY. You can make a bunch of things that have honey in them or eat it raw.

In the Gnostic Mass Crowley writes "O Lion and O Serpent that destroy the destroyer, be mighty among us!". The union of the Lion and the Serpent should be Chnoubis or BAPHOMET.
In the Red Flame #2 it says "That which destroys the destroyer is BABALON, ecstasy of experience".
I get the feeling that I am missing something. Are they both right? Or is one wrong? I am a bit confused here.
Thanks for any help.

It certainly helps to be able to look at it from a different angle. By looking at it in this new way I can still have no real interest in money. Your points about focusing on the outcome are right to the heart of the matter. To do anything else limits the numbers of ways a goal can be achieved. It makes perfect sense that I not limit or tie the hands of the forces of the universe.
Thank you for the helpful information Mr. Eshelman.

Thanks for some food for thought.
I know that things are not always as they appear, but it does appear that some have success using spiritual methods to gain material things. Also, Crowley used methods of magick for material gains according to some of his diaries. Why would he do this if he knew it was against the laws of nature/"spiritual law"?
I normally have no interest in working for material gain (by magick or material methods). Not because I am wealthy, but because it doesn't seem very important to me. Sometime earlier this month it occurred to me that I could put to very good use some material structures that I cannot afford right now. It has me wondering about the different methods for material gain. I have other things to concern myself with, but some material things can be of benefit to more than me.

Crowley once said that to attempt to gain material things by spiritual methods when material things could be gained by material methods was a violation of "spiritual laws".
What are these spiritual laws?
Where did the concept of them come from?
Are there some laws beyond "Do What Thou Wilt"?

@Uni_Verse said

"
@Metzareph said
"The most powerful weapon we have in this society built on fear, is to not give into it. It is coming to the point where I do not even want to turn on the TV. Growing tired of sitting there and being told of all the things I have to "fear.""
"

I agree. They want us scared to death so that we think all of their programs are the thing that is going to save us. (Like we need to be saved!)

@Steven Cranmer said

"Just one relatively minor quibble...Steve"

I think it is a very important point and not a minor "quibble". There was going to be NO CONSTITUTION unless the Bill of Rights were included in it. The Anti-Federalists were not going to accept or vote for the Constitution without the Bill of Rights. The funny thing is that the Federalists were trying to claim that man already had all of these rights and that no one in their right mind could ever dream to imagine that the Constitution would ever allow the government to infringe upon them. The Anti-Federalists insisted that the rights of free men be listed in the Constitution as untouchable by the government. They made it clear that these rights come from a power well beyond the grip of the government and that these rights (already held by The People) could not be assaulted by or harmed in any way by the government unless it violates its own supreme law of the land. The government is acting in a criminal manner, and no one is above the law. The criminals should be punished, and the Constitution enforced. I trust the Supreme Court to do it.