College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

Lol wow. I wonder why I believed this bs for so long seeing nothing but these types of comments. Unbelievable. Sad thing is, you guys can't even see it yourselves. I'm glad I do now.

I don't think you HAVE to "be" anything, but it doesn't make too much sense to align with Christian ideals and repressive moral stances. Thelema was about personal freedom and expression, and Trump is anything but for the freedom of the individual, as he is obviously racist and willing to impose restriction. Did you forget - "the word of sin is restriction"?

...and this above is exactly why I became disillusioned. So many "enlightened" people within Thelema (and magic in general) who would rather be snarky, or mean and arrogant. BTW, I meant Q# for the Quantum programming, I simply misspoke. Grow up.

As for Islam, what in the hell would AC admire about it? The machismo? The misogyny? Maybe you can refresh my memory on the grand aspects worth praise? What preconceived notions do you think I have? The book is on par with the Bible with its level of BS and insanity. There is nothing there worth admiring. Ridiculous.

Makes me physically ill to hear a Thelemite (let alone anyone) would endorse Trump, or Islam to be frank. This mention of the verse in Liber L is weak, and we shouldn't ignore (if one takes Liber L seriously) that Trump would in no way be Thelemic. He is one who oppresses and doesn't liberate, and who in the hell considers him "fit"?!

Now, I realize AC agreed with Islam, (which never settled with me, to be honest), but Thelema is about freedom to express oneself, and make decisions, and is hardly on the side of oppressive Christian morals, while he may be faking his Xtian beliefs, he is certainly helping them with their agenda. He hardly seems one to admire as a master tactician, or even halfway intelligent as well - he's an obvious moron.

I think some look at the language in the Book of the Law that seems to speak about being without mercy, and pity and this, in fact, does reflect Trump (and Repubs in general), but I hardly think this suggests Trump is somehow qualified to represent the Thelemic idea.

Hello old friends, it's been a while! Years in fact! Anyway, I haven't thought too much about magic and Thelema for a while, mainly because I became disillusioned with it for various reasons.

Anyway, over the years I learned to code, and recently started learning Q# ( a new programming language to be used with quantum computers ), suddenly a blast from the past popped into my head - Thelema!

Turns out that in quantum computing they use what is called a Qubit, (Microsofts particular brand is called the Topological Qubit). Quantum differs from today's classical computers because they are based upon a binary system, while the new quantum arrangement is trinary, 1, 0, or both (the qubit). See the resemblance?

I couldn't remember if AC went into quantum mechanics (its hard to believe he would have missed the obvious comparison), and I wondered if anyone knew if he did? The idea of a central "superposition" of both 1 and 0 aligns with the symbolism of Ra-Hoor-Khuit ( and of course, Nuit and Hadit with the binary ).

Did AC mention this? My books are all boxed up somewhere in garageland, and I figured this would be the quickest place to find out. Just curious about it.

Thanks!

(Edited: Corrected C# to Q# language, they are similarly named and I do that often. I'm used to C#)

We don't know the point of needing to discover, or why the whole set up leads to us needing to discover this "authentic" tendency etc (tw), do we?

I wonder what is so special about something, so called "authentic" anyway. Think about this a moment. Why would something we truly like or feel good about, or that was somehow "true" to our character, automatically be "right"? What is right? What is "good"? Many things historical figures accomplished, occurred by mistake, or would not have been possible without some character flaw, some wrong choice perhaps.

I am starting to ask the question, what is so wrong with imperfection and illusion? Most of what we see, and think is illusion, much of the personality is illusion. Yet, how many have accomplished great things with the most pronounced ego's and self delusions? How many actually find happiness in their lives based completely on a delusional perception not only of themselves, but of the world? Evangelicals, I'm looking at you!

Hell, what is happiness? Is that the end goal? Is that what makes us finding some mythical authentic set of traits so great? Maybe, what we need is simply the right delusions to spur us on, and make us confident, and more productive? What great wrong is committed if someone lives according to some "wrong" picture of themselves? Are we saying that nothing productive or important can arise from a person who is acting on bad information?

My point is, what if it is natural, after all, and human to be fooled by all sorts of things? What is our delusion, or one we unknowingly are handed, or even create for ourselves is just what we needed in some greater scheme of things?

Instead of worrying about what is "real" for us, or authentic to some secret true self etc., we instead look at what is, what we are handed, and what we need to do to change it. In other words, we don't say that the starving child in Africa is deprived of finding his true authentic choices, but rather, that child needs to understand his circumstances, and what he can do to change his circumstances period. If that entails fooling himself to gather self esteem and an inflated ego to motivate himself, so be it. If the would be Dr., hates being a Dr., and would rather be a Chef, maybe he should think again about what being a Chef may change in his life, and what that may lead to, instead of changing careers based upon some obscure fact it is his authentic want.

So many things to question. If we are all united in a greater, interconnected "thing", it would stand to reason that EVEN the "mistakes", the illusions we hold have value and worth, and a purpose. How many people in history tell this story? Something they loathed about themselves, or that held them back turned out to be the very thing that spurred them on to success. So, now, I can hear someone say, well those flaws were of course the very authentic aspects, or True Will!

Maybe, as the Book of the Law states, "Do what Thou Wilt, shall be the whole of the Law" is the whole thing. We simply be ourselves, and by that I mean, we simply follow what we are given, and what delusions we are handed, and can't escape! Illusions about ourselves we spend most of our time ignorant of ARE in fact our True Wills. After all, no matter what argument you have regarding this, one thing is for certain, those illusions brought you to the great work, or self mastery in the first place - or they didn't allow you to arrive at all.

"I am certainly of opinion that genius can be acquired, or, in the alternative, that it is an almost universal possession. Its rarity may be attributed to the crushing influence of a corrupted society. It is rare to meet a youth without high ideals, generous thoughts, a sense of holiness, of his own importance, which, being interpreted, is, of his own identity with God. Three years in the world, and he is a bank clerk or even a government official. Only those who intuitively understand from early boyhood that they must stand out, and who have the incredible courage and endurance to do so in the face of all that tyranny, callousness, and the scorn of inferiors can do; only these arrive at manhood uncontaminated." - AC

Taking a "top down" view, and seeing each of us as the greater, then to paraphrase Takamba "we are what we are". Nothing is "acquired", one can't say he can "work on himself, and attain genius" if he is pinned to the ground being what the greater has planned for him regardless. It becomes useless to tell anyone they can do this or that ritual to obtain change, if that change is already part of the plan and whole. The work is nonsense if there is no true "from down here" control over ones decisions and "True Will." Looking at the above quote from AC, we see him talking about the career choices etc., however, if what we are truly saying is that we are simply who we are, and nothing can be done unless that up there (who we truly are) allows it, then it is a fools errand. Again, this would mean we already have "success" no matter what happens. We ALL must be doing our True Will, if who we are is the greater aspect of ourselves. If I have no real control over the hidden mechanics of forming my decisions then who do we blame or praise for progress or failure? There couldn't be failure if the greater was the force behind all these decisions, and we are nothing but pawns. Magic seemed to me to be about "causing" change to conform to the will. How is this possible then? How do we conform anything if we are "looking down" from above? If what we are is not from the bottom up, then why do we even TRY to perform magic to create "change"? We could attain many of the things we are looking to use magic for by other means, or perhaps, we wouldn't need magic at all if the universe truly wanted us to have them. I am failing to see now the necessity of "magic" at all.

@ldfriend56 said

"
@Jason R said
"I really enjoy this, you all have some great insights.

It has been my idea for a while now, that everyone is doing their True Will. Is it correct then to say that it is impossible to not accomplish one's True Will? What about the "Black Brothers", and the cat of slime of the Abyss?
"

I'm not sure if 'doing one's true will' and being aware of one's true will are the same. I could see that someone with relatively poor levels of awareness or corrupted ideas could be fooled by nothing more than their own magick.

If one becomes aware of the 'continuity of existence' - then ultimately yes our true will is the continuity of existence so yes we are all performing our true wills - and if one finds themselves spending an aeon or two in a pile of sludge because they deluded themselves to their own intentions that does not circumvent their own true will to exist."

I am still not sure, after going over this a while now, if it makes sense.

I think it is pretty evident that we honestly have no true control over the source of our conscious thoughts. This can be demonstrated by trying to explain the process behind any random thought, and how one arrived at it. If this is the case, saying things like "...they deluded themselves" doesn't make sense - because obviously you have no choice in the matter. You either are deluded beyond your control or not. Therefore, the idea that one can consciously, and willfully take up the Great Work, and succeed - has to be false. If you succeed, it wasn't truly because of your conscious choice, and if you fail, well - it wasn't under your control as well.

If we simply look around at various people we meet, or those around the world, I think it is painfully obvious that some simply would never be able to do this work, even if they did have true free will. In the end, the only conclusion I can see, is that everyone is simply flowing along this river called life, and moving according to some grand picture, without any possible control whatsoever. The only real control is something that is much higher perhaps and not at all personal.

Those who achieve any type of self mastery or 'True Will' - do so because something greater pushed them there. Or, perhaps there is no personal True Will at all. Maybe the BOL is simply one declaration, that tells us what is happening, that we are "to do" "Thou" "Will" period. We all MUST do it, and never fail at doing it. The task of finding this is an illusion, and some simply are a part of a current beyond their choosing that takes them down this Thelemic road.

I really enjoy this, you all have some great insights.

It has been my idea for a while now, that everyone is doing their True Will. Is it correct then to say that it is impossible to not accomplish one's True Will? What about the "Black Brothers", and the cat of slime of the Abyss?

If one fails, was that their True Will? This is the part where I am confused. It would seem to me that the Book of the Law, and the idea behind Thelema is to liberate the individual, to give them freedom, and to enlighten etc etc. If we cannot help where we are pulled along by this greater Will, then how can we ever say anyone has failed? This is why I assume the BOTL says "There is success". Likewise, how about those that the book warns against? For example the fill/kill debate? All these start to become sort of lost in the shuffle of we are all just going along, and so why the worry?

Gnosomai Emauton,

Hello! Wow, wonderful! I truly appreciate your post, because it put into words what I miserably couldn't! This is exactly what I was trying to say. I have been struggling with the same ideas, and I am glad to see it spelled out so perfectly. Thank you! Now I will go over it a few times and try to absorb it lol. Then re read everyone's posts and see what I am left with. My brain takes time to get to it all!

I truly appreciate everyone's input. I feel it really does help give food for thought and understanding the True Will in relation to Thelema.

@gurugeorge said

"

Sam Harris is a great, great modern rationalist thinker and I love him to bits. His recent book Waking Up is quite amazing. Apart from being a top drawer rationalist, scientist and philosopher, he's done a lot of "seeking" with gurus in India and Tibet, culminating in his meeting one of the main Dzogchen guys and finishing it. His stance of persuading rationalists and atheists not to throw out the baby of meditation practices with the bathwater of religion (even though he's one of the main bathwater-thrower-outers of recent times) is very brave in the context of his rationalist fellows.

HOWEVER, on this matter of free-will, he's a bit off the mark. There's an extremely cogent response to his position by another great philosopher, Daniel C. Dennett (it shows you how honest a thinker Harris is that he's reprinted that critique on his own website here)."

Thank you for this informative reply. Yes, I agree, I really like what he has to say in a lot of areas. Especially his ideas regarding organized religions. I feel we need more people speaking out like this.

@Jim Eshelman said

"(I like a lot - most? all? of the answers so far. Adding...)

Yes, True Will has little or nothing to do with free will as usually expressed, and has almost nothing to do with a personality's choices.

Qabbalistically, Will is motion. True Will is the sum of all the vectors operative in a person's life. These vectors include biological restrictions, other resistances and restrictions in life, the social connections we hold onto and the considerations we place and attach to them, as well as all the empowerments, etc.

To understand it, look at it in nature: Look at erosion patterns down a hill, how gullies are carved. Given the conditions of gravity, water's molecular cohesion, etc., water at the top of a hill will make it to the bottom (unless it finds a natural stopping place such as a basin where it can pool; and then, given enough water, it still will overflow and move down, taking other water with it). When you look at how gullies are carved in soil you see the inevitability of water motion - what it in fact will do - interacting with harder and softer parts of the soil.

This is us moving through life; and by True Will we consider all of this - the water, the laws of gravity and molecular cohesion, the hard and soft parts of the soil, etc.

One can take this ride happily or unhappily. Thelema counsels taking it happily (joyously, ecstatically). This is rarely done by the personality taking the reins to force a direction. It is nearly always done by the personality discovering and acknowledging the true motion of a star through existence and then consciously conforming its choices to that actuality."

Thank you Jim. This does clear a bit up for me, and makes a lot more sense.

@Takamba said

"First of all, the premise of your entire quandary, Jason, is that you are taking the Harris argument as valid. For one, I'd have to read this work of Harris' myself to be able to give you a hand with that. For two, you didn't quote Harris to me, you quoted someone who was paraphrasing (interpreting for us) Harris' argument. Based on those two points I'm not going to approach anything about what Harris has or had to say on the subject."

Hi Takamba,

As always, thanks for the well said response. My apologies for not making it clear that the quote wasn't a direct quote of Harris. I have listened to Harris, and his arguments, and found this quote to be pretty close to what he said. For ease, I simply used that shortened quote that seemed to get across the point in less words.

Regardless, I feel you (and the others) have answered a lot of my confusion. It would seem that the idea is that no matter what may influence or originate the origin of an idea behind a thought, we are still choosing and so in alignment with the greater picture (i.e. Will). If I am correct in understanding everyone.

Seeing how you have mentioned Harris using a silly argument with unsound logic (regarding the desire for chocolate etc), I thought I may try to add a little more to that just in case. Listening to him give a talk about free will, he gives an exercise to try. He asks for anyone to think of anyone from their past. After doing so, he then asks the person to explain the reason or mechanics behind why they chose that particular person. According to him, they can't. His argument is that we are not aware of causes behind our choices, and so these choices we make are not of free will. Here is a video on YouTube that goes a bit more deep. Of course he explains it a lot better than I can.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRIcbsRXQ0o

I hate that I am not as articulate, and it is hard for me to put into words what I am trying to say. I apologize. I guess what I am trying to say is that if the causes of the choices we feel we are making (the illusion of free will) are not within our awareness, how can we hope to have control over doing our true will? That make any sense? What I am taking from everyone, is that this doesn't truly matter. That what choices we make, even if not freely chosen, is - for lack of a better term, guided. Since we are part of a larger mechanism, what chain of events occurs to bring us to some choice, is itself, part of our True Will?

I'm not wording this properly maybe, let me try again.

If I am correct, we have in Thelema our True Will. This is something we discover by way of doing the prescribed work (we all know what this is according to Thelema, or at least the general idea). The Book of the Law tells us to "Do" this Will. However, and this is my point, if we are not in control over our choices, how can we?

In order to do anything like accomplishing our True Wills, we would need full control over the mechanism behind our choices. If factors "infinite and unknown" (i.e. environment and biology) are in command of this, we do not have the ability to do this.

So we may be prisoners of this illusion and unable to do anything unless these hidden aspects behind choices are in alignment with whatever it is that we call True Will. If it is simply who we are as part of some larger picture, then maybe I can see this. However, seeing it this way sort of makes all the "training" etc found in trying to discover and accomplish this Will (not to mention the "magic") pointless.

If we are not the decision makers at the root of choices, then who is doing the magick of any ritual? If you are saying the "Gods", then we sort of become pawns and have no real power at all. Maybe I am missing the point. I'm not sure.

@Patriel Machad said

"
@Jason R said
"If it is the case, that we do not have free will, then it seems to stand to reason that we could not truly perform our True Will."

How so?

It doesn't matter a tiny bit whether "free" will really exists. The appearance of choice exists, and we act based on that. "

So, "Do What Thou Wilt" has nothing to do with truly "free" will, just the "appearance" of what we "think" it is? I'm still not entirely sure I get you. If we do not have free will, in other words, we aren't in control of the ideas, choices that arise within our minds, then we have no true control over doing it. For example, there are many ideas and choices we make that hinders us from doing the work. If these are not under our control (because we are not in control of the root thoughts that create that choice) then we have no power to "do" our True Will. That would mean that in appearance only are some lucky enough to achieve their True Wills, while others may not be capable.

Hello everyone,

I haven't posted in a long while. I hope everyone is doing well. I have a question that I hope someone can answer for me. I am sure you have heard of the Atheist Sam Harris, and his thoughts on free will. In short he doesn't believe we have free will. In his book entitled "Free Will" he says:

"Harris argues that the concept of free will makes no sense and so those who believe they act freely and are responsible for those actions are being duped by their biology. When a person make a decision (and then acts on that decision), the thought “I choose a over b” appears in his mind in the same way a pain experience or a desire for chocolate might. The person doesn’t seem to have any control over where the thought comes from—it just appears “out of the darkness.” Further, the person, try as they might, can’t trace where the thought comes from. It’s genesis is a product of a complex nexus of biology and environment about which the person knows very little and does not control. If this accurately describes the situation, how can we say that such a person is free in any sense that would please those who claim the person is responsible for the decisions they make? No coherent answer can be given to this answer so free will must be a false idea."

If it is the case, that we do not have free will, then it seems to stand to reason that we could not truly perform our True Will. At the very least this may mean (if we hold onto the idea of a True Will) that we can not help but do whatever is within our nature. Another idea, I feel, would be that we would have to change the subconscious root where choices really take place. What are your thoughts? Thanks.

93 Frater 639,

Popping in, and have to say, this is a great post! Wonderfully put! As always, I wish I was as adept at being as clear.

"Extending this to one's consciousness, until your action is already intrinsically ideal without comparison to a cloudy "lucid correctness" ideal - which is a subjective measurement - you will always be pitting your action against something that you wish you were. At least, this is true in the realm of Reason. Move it out to the Cone, and your individuality and personality and events all get integrated as correct "no matter what," e.g. you already Know your nature - which is To Go and you know that True Will has no goal. It only is Spirit Going. And it's this trance that marks the Adept. An Adept is "above" a thought like "I may be in trouble and out of line with some lucid correctness that I may be able to discover someday...""

What I have been trying to say is so well put here, thank you. The bold above my own, as this is so perfectly said. I may steal it in order to make my point clearer in future, if I may!

93 93/93
J.

@Jim Eshelman said

"
@Jason R said
"With all due respect Jim, what do you mean by you guys? "

You and Alrah have dropped into personal attacks.

I don't care who started it, who is trying to defend themselves, or who insists on getting the last word. None of the above is acceptable.

"I defended myself."

So stop it. Defending yourself by attacking back is an attack, and you can get kicked off this site for that as much as for picking a fight in the first place.

"So I don't think I am doing anything but making sure my points are recorded, and it is perfectly clear I in no way being sexist. I think it fair to point out that she is making unfair accusations."

Sure. You say, "That is an inaccurate, unfair accusation.""

Oh and so if I had simply stopped and ignored her first accusation you would have given her a skull or pointed out she was unfairly calling me a sexist? This is BS! I simply refuse to participate then in this forum, if I am forced to ignore someone attacking me, allowing them to say whatever they want without any ability to defend myself. That is simply unfair.

Really Jim?

@Jim Eshelman said

"
@Takamba said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"I'm going to presume the last set of posts were made without noticing my prior post. So, before issuing warnings to individuals, I'm going to repost this:

OK, everyone... the attacks are getting personal. Roll it back, please.

Thank you."

You are being incredibly kind to Alrah as she clearly quoted your warning."

They both did. Warnings formally issued. (And a Jason post completely deleted that had nothing to do with the topic of this thread.)

C'mon, guys, just because you know I'm leaving town for two days to hit about 10 wineries, please don't break the furniture."

With all due respect Jim, what do you mean by you guys?

I simply said her idea was convoluted. She went off on me with PERSONAL attacks and calling me sexist! I'm sorry but that needs to be addressed, because obviously she is under the impression you some how agree, and that it is ok.

I defended myself. So I don't think I am doing anything but making sure my points are recorded, and it is perfectly clear I in no way being sexist. I think it fair to point out that she is making unfair accusations.