College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

@Jim Eshelman said

"We'd do much better as a species and part of the larger ecosystem if, say, half the people on the planet decided not to procreate for a generation or two. If we overdo that, recovery will be quite easy."

That sounds great in theory, but who's going to deal with the disproportionate increase in the elderly population? Declining birthrates in the developed world have recently made this a pressing issue. Most Western nations currently try to solve this problem by importing increasing amounts of cheap foreign labor. To me it sounds like a Ponzi scheme.

Then there's the problem of a shrinking tax base. Fewer people having kids means fewer people entering the work force and an ever smaller tax intake. Sure, you can increase taxes, but it can only go so far before the young are financially crippled. Do we ban retirement and institute a "work until you drop" policy for the elderly until balance is restored? We're already heading in that direction anyway without a drastic reduction in the future young population!

Adepts and non-Adepts - the King and the Cobbler.

The cobblers business is to mend shoes. The shoes are sandals, emblematic of the Ankh and the 5th power of the sphinx - IRE, the Power to Go. Endlessly prattling on and on about work beyond ones grade (the Royal matter) does not contribute to the work at hand.

Cobble - from the Old French "coubler", means to join together. The work of the cobbler is Union.

I believe the OP is asking how the Four Worlds relate/correspond to the constitution of man.

@Patriel said

"#1 (It's quite clear, I think? I may be wrong.)"

It's not clear to me.

Currently I'm working on the assumption that the text of Liber Arcanorum is a sort of commentary on the sigils found in Liber XXII. The sigil-pairs indicated on the comparison table appear to match up with the text, provided you only use the Mercurial ones. The corresponding Qliphotic sigil appears to indicate that something has gone wrong.

For example in line 3 of Liber Arcanorum the Virgin of God seeketh Seventy to her Four. The Mercurial sigil for Ayin displays something suggestive of an erect phallus. While the Qliphotic Ayin looks limp and flaccid to me. I suspect the Mercurial Ayin/Seventy is the one she seeketh.

Between the two sets of sigils in Liber XXII is a table instructing the reader to compare the sigils that match the Hebrew letters. But which comparison is being implied?

If we take the first line as an example (Compare Aleph with Tzaddi), are we meant to be comparing:

1. The Mercurial-Aleph with the Qliphotic-Tzaddi?

or

2. The Mercurial-Aleph with the Mercurial-Tzaddi? (and vice versa with the Qliphot.)

At the moment I'm leaning towards option 2. If a direct comparison between the Mercurial and Qliphotic sigils was intended, then a direct comparison would be more appropriate. (Compare Aleph with Aleph.)

But having said that I fail to see what sort of general pattern is being presented by this table of comparisons. Does anyone know what sort of scheme is being implied? I'm not exactly new to Qabalah, but I'm still not getting much aside from some slight connections between some individual sigils. But I still can't see an overall pattern.

For instance I can see a vague connection between the Mercurial-Aleph, the Mercurial-Tzaddi, and the Swastika on both sigils. The letter Aleph is symbolically related to the Swastika. The letter Tzaddi was/is(?) attributed to Atu XVII, The Star. And 17 is numerically related to the Swastika. But so what? What else am I missing here?

This is the picture of the typical spiritual "seeker" on a journey. But the journey is in vain. It's only purpose is to exhaust the seeker and make his/her feet weary. Only then are they ready to sit in silence and wait.

@Jim Eshelman said

"I think it's a "vice" not because it's one kind of compassion or another etc., but for a more exacting reason: Compassion is one of those spaces where one "makes a difference between" one thing or another. Anything like that is flawed eventually."

I'm trying to reconcile this view, including your comment about Adepts and Masters, with the following quote by Chogyam Trungpa:

@Chogyam Trungpa said

"When we talk about compassion, we talk in terms of being kind. But compassion is not so much being kind; it is being creative to wake a person up."

There may be no connection, but I was still intrigued by the idea that attempting to "wake a person up" could possibly be in some way flawed.

Speculation alert! Could this mean that an Adept's attempts at trying to awaken another person are, in a certain sense, futile. While the Master sees the futility in the exercise, knowing that you can't wake someone up unless they want to be woken up in the first place?

@Jim Eshelman said

"I think it better, though, to make sure people know what the word really means. "

I couldn't agree more.

But I think there are always going to be difficulties when common, everyday words with well established 'popular' meanings are used in a different context for another purpose. I mean how many times have you had to patiently explain what "Will" and "Love" mean within the context of Thelema?

@Jim Eshelman said

"I find it fascinating that some people feel better calling it "ruthless," that there is something more inherently Thelemic about it with that adjective."

I can see your point, Jim, but the catchy name didn't swing it for me. The main selling point was that Trungpa defined his terms. He makes it very clear that he is not talking about compassion as ordinarily understood by most people. Once those core definitions are in place, and the reasons behind them, things make much more sense.

One area where I think the ruthless prefix might work for some people is in counteracting the view that compassion is in some ways linked with sentimentalism. Coming from that angle makes it kind of hard to square it with the tone of AL II:22. I struggled with that one myself for a while.

@Sardonyx said

"My vice of True Compassion will always be criticized by the other colors of the spectrum as the wrong kind of compassion. Well, ...duh. That's what you think of my spectrum of Compassion?"

In the context of the Trungpa quote above I fail to see what you mean by a spectrum of compassion. Trungpa merely states that conventional notions of compassion are rooted in the ego, it's need for security, and an aversion to pain. Compassion of this sort is like a band aid applied to an infected wound that hasn't been cleaned out. The only thing that matters is that the pain and distress goes away, even if the infection still remains.

The ruthless compassion that he speaks of seems to me to be about doing what is necessary, even if that should cause more distress or pain. In my opinion this view seems to be consistent with the tone of AL II:22, and doesn't require the 'challenging aspects' of that particular verse to be downplayed, ignored, or vetoed.

@Sardonyx said

"And so, you know. Shut the {****} up."

Charming...

The closest thing to Thelemic Compassion that I have seen is in the writings of the Chogyam Trungpa. In his book, Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism, he describes something called, Ruthless Compassion. He is very careful to differentiate it from conventional notions of compassion, what he refers to as "grandmother's love". But he also states that it is a dangerous practice for reasons that may shed light on why it is the "vice of kings".

@Chogyam Trungpa said

"To the conventional way of thinking, compassion simply means being kind and warm. This sort of compassion is described in the scriptures as "grandmother's love." You would expect the practitioner of this type of compassion to be extremely kind and gentle; he would not harm a flea. If you need another mask, another blanket to warm yourself, he will provide it. But true compassion is ruthless, from ego's point of view, because it does not consider ego's drive to maintain itself. It is "crazy wisdom". It is totally wise, but it is crazy as well, because it does not relate to ego's literal and simple minded attempts to secure it's own comfort.

The logical voice of ego advises us to be kind to other people, to be good boys and girls and lead innocent little lives. We work at our regular jobs and rent a cosy room or apartment for ourselves; we would like to continue in this way, but suddenly something happens which tears us out of our secure little nest. Either we become extremely depressed or something outrageously painful occurs. We begin to wonder why heaven has been so unkind. "Why should God punish me? I have been a good person, I have never hurt a soul." But there is something more to life than that.

What are we trying to secure? Why are we so concerned to protect ourselves? The sudden energy of ruthless compassion severs us from comforts and securities. If we were never to experience this kind of shock, we would not be able to grow. We have to be jarred out of our regular, repetitive and comfortable life styles. The point of meditation is not merely to be an honest or good person in the conventional sense, trying only to maintain our security. We must begin to become compassionate and wise in the fundamental sense, open and relating to the world as it is.
.........
Q: This ruthless compassion sounds cruel.

A: The conventional approach to love is like that of a father who is extremely naive and would like to help his children satisfy all their desires. He might give them everything: money, drink, weapons, food, anything to make them happy. However, there might be another kind of father who would not merely make his children happy, but who would work for their fundamental health.

Q: Why would a truly compassionate person have any concern with giving anything?

A: It is not exactly giving but opening, relating to other people. It is a matter of acknowledging the existence of other people as they are, rather than relating to people in terms of a fixed and preconceived idea of comfort or discomfort.
...........
Q: Isn't there a considerable danger of self-deception involved with the idea of ruthless compassion? A person might think he is being ruthlessly compassionate, when in fact he is only releasing aggressions?

A: Definitely, yes. It is because it is such a dangerous idea that I have waited until now to present it...

... At the stage of which I am speaking, if a student is to actually practice ruthless compassion, he must have already gone through a tremendous amount of work: meditation, study, cutting through, discovering self-deception and sense of humour, and so on. After a person has experienced this process, made this long and difficult journey, then the next discovery is that of compassion and prajna. Until a person has studied and meditated a great deal; it would be extremely dangerous for him to try to practice ruthless compassion."

@Patrick Ossoski said

"I think it is important to recognize that "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt" as a starting point, or one of the starting points. "

But that's kind of like the Catch-22 of Thelema. Do what thou wilt presupposes that you already know your will. How can you consciously act in accordance with something that you're ignorant of? But that doesn't stop one 'ignorantly' parroting out those four words as a defence mechanism to neutralize anything that causes psychological discomfort.

One of my views on The Book of the Law is that it is meant to push your buttons. But what's the point if there's a glib catch phrase at the ready that can put out every fire before it even starts?

@Patrick Ossoski said

"(If I can jump in.) Stamping down the wretched and the weak doesn't contradict having compassion for them. I think I can see the implicit assumption that it does in your post, but it's not really there."

Doesn't that kind of restrict one's options though? If someone is perceived as wretched and weak the compassionate response is to simply stamp them down? But can't you try another approach? Sure. And the most common interpretation at this point is to toss in, what I call, a "Do what thou wilt neutralizer." Basically anything that is thought of as threatening in The Book of the Law can be dismissed and ignored with those four words. I've used this interpretive mechanism myself as a means of making the book safe. Just saying "Do what thou wilt" can give one license to ignore challenging and confronting passages. It's kind of like a 'get of jail free card' that can be played whenever the book presents something that threatens the security of the personal 'comfort zone.'

@Jim Eshelman said

"Compassion is the vice of kings.

All of our vices are in Hadit's service."

How do we interpret this Vice of Compassion in the light of stamping down the wretched and the weak? I've come across various interpretations that this 'stamping down' is an internal act. While I can accept this up to a certain point, I feel that this interpretation follows a common theme found in many interpretations (mine included) that I've read (with the exception of Crowley's.) Namely:

If the verse or passage in question is perceived as nice or good, then interpretation tends toward the literal and the passage is taken at face value.
But...
If the verse or passage in question is perceived as 'threatening', then interpretation tends toward the symbolic. This defuses the 'threat' and renders it 'safe' once more.

I've noticed my own personal interpretations following this pattern. Accept the good sht, try to 'explain away' the bad sht. But is this cherry-picking style of interpretation little more than a form of discrimination that panders to personal prejudice, while remaining firmly within the realms of safety and comfort.

@BAG said

Look not so deeply into words and letters; for this Mystery hath been hidden by the Alchemists. Compose the sevenfold into a fourfold regimen; and when thou hast understood thou mayest make symbols; but by playing child's games with symbols thou shalt never understand. Thou hast the signs; thou hast the words; but there are many things that are not in my power, who am but the warden of the 28th Aethyr.

Now my name thou shalt obtain in this wise. Of the three angels of the Aethyr, thou shalt write the names from right to left and from left to right and from right to left, and these are the holy letters:

Despite the warning of the angel I became intrigued by these lines from the 28th Aethyr. I'm light years away from Understanding, so I figured I would tempt fate and play some child's games with symbols.

Adding the constructed name, LIXIPSL, to the three angelic names of the 28th Aethyr could be one (admittedly shallow) interpretation of composing the sevenfold into a fourfold regimen. Each of the angel names is seven letters long. Written according to the instructions of the angel of the Aethyr, with the new name on top written left to right, you get seven columns of four letters.

LIXIPSL
PXINBAL
FOCISNI
RAPOLXO

I wondered if a pattern might emerge by adding the numerical values of the columns. Sadly I don't think there is a pattern. Or at the very least I can't see one. But for the sake of posterity here's the numerical value of each column from left to right.

LPFR = 119
IXOA = 496
XICP = 768
INIO = 200
PBSL = 113
SANX = 463
LLIO = 106

There's some interesting numbers. Four out of the seven were instantly recognisable (496,200,463,106) and raised my hopes that there was something there after all. But the other three (119, 768, 113) are obscure or of no great significance (except for totalling exactly 1000. Ho Nikon?). But maybe someone else might see something in the arrangement?

@Jim Eshelman said

"I agree that 551 isn't very impressive, but I did find one Hebrew word that seems totally on target for the vision."

One word that I stumbled upon is the word for "ashamed" used in Ezekiel 16:27. HNKLMVTh. The context and some of the 'strong language' used in the 16th chapter of Ezekiel made me think of the Unveiling of the Mother that is mentioned in the 29th and 28th Aethyrs.

I'm probably way off though.

On page 119 of V&V there appear to be a couple of errors. First Crowley enumerated the name, LIXIPSP, as 553, not 533 as stated.

Second the name LIXIPSL is enumerated as 491 using the geomancy based method. But this value is 60 short of the actual total of 551, and part of the commentary is based on the former value of 491.

I can't find anything significant relating to 551. But using Crowley's system where P=Leo we get 552 which is Σαταν, Satan in Greek.

@Takamba said

"
@Her said
"
@Takamba said
"It seems rather simple to me, I don't understand the argument against it. Here's what I'm seeing (the blue arrows represent the order of the signs and numbers, the red arrows show the order of the letters). This seems quite beautiful to me."

Take a second look. Since when did the order of the zodiac go from Cancer to Libra or from Leo to Scorpio? "

It doesn't, you're looking at the wrong arrows. It goes from Leo to Virgo and Libra to Scorpio (red arrows the Zodiac, blue arrows the letters). It's a symmetry of two different motions. You look again."

Take another look now that you've changed your mind about the arrows. You've simply swapped one problem for another. On the red arrows you've now actually got a double loop around Virgo. Great!
But at the other end you've got a mess. Capricorn going to Aries! And Aquarius going to Taurus.

@Takamba said

"It seems rather simple to me, I don't understand the argument against it. Here's what I'm seeing (the blue arrows represent the order of the signs and numbers, the red arrows show the order of the letters). This seems quite beautiful to me."

Take a second look. Since when did the order of the zodiac go from Cancer to Libra or from Leo to Scorpio?

@Jim Eshelman said

"Oh, I see: You wanted a literal zodiacal sequence all the way through the 12. Yeah, you're right, I don't think it's important that it isn't quite that."

How so? In the Book of Thoth (p.9-10) Crowley claims the double loop in the zodiac is the "most convincing evidence possible that the Book of the Law is a genuine message from the Secret Chiefs." The diagram on page 11 really does show a double loop in the zodiac. Unfortunately it messes up the Hebrew letter and card sequences.

The diagram that Gnosomai Emauton posted is in reality not much different from Crowley's. It gets the Hebrew letters and card sequence right but at the expense of the zodiac. It's just an inverse image of Crowley's diagram but with the same fundamental flaw. It's the exact same data set just displayed in a different way.

The fact of the matter is that it is not possible to have perfect symmetry in all three sequences, Tarot, Zodiac, Hebrew, on one double loop diagram because the two swaps, VIII & XI, and, IV & XVII, are not the same. In the former case the letters and signs stayed with each other. In the latter case they didn't. The net result is an unbalanced asymmetry that can be shown in two different ways. Crowley's diagram and the one Gnosomai Emauton posted are proof of this. Both diagrams contain the exact same asymmetry but in different sequences.

@Aleister Crowley said

"For "The Star" is referred to Aquarius in the Zodiac, and "The Emperor' to Aries. Now Aries and Aquarius are on each side of Pisces, just as Leo and Libra are on each side of Virgo; that is to say, the correction in the Book of the Law gives a perfect symmetry in the zodiacal attribution, just as if a loop were formed at one end of the ellipse to correspond exactly with the existing loop at the other end."

The problem with the above statement is that the "correction in the Book of the Law" only mentions cards and letters. But according to Crowley this 'correction' also has a knock on effect on the zodiac as well. But this would only be true if the IV-XVII swap exactly matched the VIII-XI swap. It's a very simple point of logic proven by both diagrams.