For fundamental Crowley works, I'd start with Crowley's comments on the Book of the Law (The Law is for All is a handy book in this regard). If you can track down a copy of Magick Without Tears, that's another book which can lead you deeper into some practical aspects of Thelema.
The documents Arsihsis mentioned are valuable and interesting, but perhaps a bit esoteric for someone new to Thelema.
@Froclown said
"Certainly one factor of initiation is that the initiate is induced into a community often an elite community with certain authority. But is this really the primary function of initiation. Is their not some complex bio-physical and psychological and if such a plane as spiritual exists changes on all these aspects of the person. Can not a single man living alone on an island undergo these inner changes with no special training or rituals, but rather these changes are marked by cerian vision, realizations, and a re-crystallizing of one perspective paradigm, along the lines of a new order of synthesis. "
I don't dispute that some sort of metanoia may occur as a result of initiation (or visions, or other crises). If belonging and acceptance were the only reasons to be initiated, then we'd be as well off joining the local chess club as we would joining some spiritual cadre. The psychological points of initiation are addressed in Naturalistc Occultism, I was just stating that I felt that the sociological points were understated.
@Aum418 said
"
@jw. said
"However, my suspicion is that for many occultists the real-world status of being able to claim to be an Nth degree of some order has more psychological sway than their particular individuation progress."
getting degrees in initiatory systems to 'show them off' isnt really treated since that is just basic 'I have more golden tokens/whatever-valuable-something than you' of elementary school but extended"
When I wrote this, I wasn't thinking as much about people consciously being "show-offs" as I was thinking about the effect that attainment/accomplishment has generally on a person not sufficiently safeguarded against "lust of results". If you feel you have been acknowledged as an adept (either via a physical initiation or some initiatory vision), you may feel more confident in your ritual work (or your forum posts, or whatever) than you did as a neophyte. I'm saying for some it may be this feeling of acknowledgement and not the awakening of initiation which drives the confidence. If you felt the spiritual lineage you belonged to was somehow validated (or invalidated) by some turn of events, that might also have some affect on your confidence, attitude toward results, etc. These are purely hypothetical examples, but I hope they clarify what I was driving at in my prior post.
Naturalistic Occultism neatly encapsulates all of the things which attracted me to Crowley's perspective on magick to begin with. Its size, scope, and depth really make it a good introduction to the concept of "scientific illuminism". I can definitely see myself sharing this book with people who have expressed curiosity about my interest in magick.
I did feel that the impact of group work was a bit understated, especially within the chapter on initiation. Initiation primarily confers a perception of belonging, acceptance, and unity within a particular social reference group. Of course it may be the case that one's reference group is conterminous with the infinite universe, which would be in agreement with the definition presented in Naturalistic Occultism. However, my suspicion is that for many occultists the real-world status of being able to claim to be an Nth degree of some order has more psychological sway than their particular individuation progress.
@Shunyata said
"
@jw. said
"Are you familiar with the concept of a kōan?"
Are you? Clearly(correct me if I'm wrong) you see them as riddles. They are not. Koans are examples from the past of interactions involving people who are awake."
I understand kōan to be a statement or dialogue from a teacher which is supposed provoke a certain degree of awakening in the mind of a student when meditated upon.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Invoking a principleis really an aligning of your consciousness with it so that you both embrace it and have dominion over it within yourself (and, thus, outside of yourself). Banishing revrses this, divorcing you from the principle (at least consciously) - which means, it supports conscious denial."
David Allen uses a great quote in one of his productivity books (not sure if it's his quote or someone else's), "What you resist you're stuck with."
Are you familiar with the concept of a kōan?
The study of this book makes you a trespasser (or uninvited guest) in Crowley's universe of ideas. It is wise to analyze this book ruthlessly, after reading it through. The peril is losing oneself in Crowley's territory. I.E. spending countless hours trying to solve riddles like II:55 or II:76, instead of crossing the "trackless wastes and unfathomed oceans" of one's own universe.
It isn't inconsistent with Thelema (or less Thelemic) for an order to maintain orthodoxy in its performance of certain rites. If IOT is an initiatory order, I'm guessing they have some measure of consistency in their performance of initiations.
What is your intent in posting these essays from castletower.org?
One way to think of Qlippoth is like the outer bark of a tree, "dead matter" which is not nourished by the waters of life in the tree. The inner bark is "living matter" (Assaiah) still fed by the water of life (divine/spiritual light).
In the traditional kabbalah, the outer-bark becomes mixed up with the inner bark through a catastrophe referred to as shevirat ha-kelim (the breaking of the vessels). As with a real tree, the cells of the inner bark now suffer because they have become cut-off from the the source of water, or have become exposed to the "outside" elements/toxins.
This catastrophe can be undone through tikkun (the repairing). Tikkun is, in a sense, "working the qlippoth", by clearing away the "dead husks" that are between the living cells of the inner bark and their spiritual wellspring or figuratively realigning these husks so that they protect the living cell from the "outside".
This article discusses the mythology relevant to the Qlippoth (aka qelipot):
Tikkun in Lurianic Kabbalah
It's not so much that the aspirant attracts "Qlippothic energies", but that that aspirant becomes more aware of what veils or stands between themselves and the pure source.
@Metzareph said
"It's Gems from the Equinox:
www.amazon.com/Gems-Equinox-Aleister-Crowley/dp/156184019X"
By the way, here's a link to pre-order the forthcoming reprint (I believe it is to be released sometime between now and the end of the year):
www.amazon.com/Gems-Equinox-Aleister-Crowley/dp/1578634172
I agree with kuniggety, there's no reason to avoid Crowley's commentaries when the symbolism in Liber AL came through him. A number of books on mythology and religion listed in Course I of the A.'.A.'. Curriculum (as published in the Equinox) would be helpful prerequisites. Many of the Victorian era translations/transliterations are available online. For example, the series "Sacred Books of the East" (S.B.E) referenced in the list is available online.
@Froclown said
"so, it seems that magic and mysticism can very well be expressed scientifically, without any element of faith in bazaar entities or abstract, poetic, allegorical, or otherwise unfamiliar metaphysics. As such, I fail to see of what use it is to continue the use of fairy tales, which have little to no practical ability for progression. It seems like continuing to use roman numerals, which are useless for advanced mathematic, for aesthetic reasons."
First of all you are ignorant of the sociological potential of language, symbols, and cultural history on the mind. Second, some ideas are propagated genetically (instinct). I wonder how many generations does it take to get sensory information encoded, and if there is an instinctual response (psychological or otherwise) to certain auditory or visual stimuli. Third, you are speculating about the scientific correlation of mystical experiences you may have had - and extending your speculation to cover experiences you haven't had. There's nothing wrong with that; unless of course you intend to prove that your theories aren't bullshit.
@jlpugh said
"Scientist operate in a process of peer review, under which results must be independently verified many times. This process is what gives the results of modern science credence. Scientist who lie don't get far. (Unless they work for a lobbyist
)"
Modern science's credence is limited to a segment of society willing to accept its fundamental premises (which is not--for better or worse--100%). This includes the notion that independent verification of results is somehow meaningful. Ever see a great stage magician? The audience's limited perspective skews their perception of causality. The same can be said of science, religion, and mysticism and their perception of causality in the universe. Science tries to get closer to the stage and crane its neck for a better view, mysticism tries to mimic its observations, and religion runs out to the street to tell everyone they know about the show. Magick relies on all three (learn, practice, demonstrate).
@Froclown said
"I find it important to add that the above fully and with more specific detail describes spirits and the process of evocation, without need to summon supernatural entities, mystical gobbledy-gook, or strange new worlds, that must be accepted on faith."
Magick can be psychoanalysis and vice versa; however Magick is not psychoanalysis, and psychoanalysis is not Magick. Each has its own symbol/jargon set, and each has its own "rituals". Not everyone responds to either system in the same way. You say "we should make an endever to reform magick as a hard science" - this is already what science is. If all Magick is for you is "psychoanalysis with gobbeltygook" then go find some therapy more suited to you (or NLP or something).
You list sociology as one of the sciences that can validate your claims. A sociologist would recognize that the "gobbeltygook" is an important aspect to social bonding, especially when that jargon and ritual connects an individual to a rich history of mystery, wonder, and taboo (Rosicrucians, Templars, Sol Invictus, Pythagoreans, etc).
"Science will never discover a mind that chooses to incarnate itself by astrological data, because its absurd and not just wrong, but competely backwards to speak of such hokey tripe"
No, science will never discover this particular mind, because science and astrology do not overlap completely in their fundamental premises - they are different belief systems and not wholly compatible.
Science is based on faith too and has premises you take for granted. For example demonstrability of a certain result from a certain experiment assumes that the participants (whether they are scientists or atoms) are honest. Whats the guarantee that the universe just isn't performing sleight of hand when under the microscope (as with The Matrix for example)? On a more practical level the honesty of the scientists themselves is often circumspect, esp. given all of the financial pressures in both private sector and academic R&D.
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@jw said
"Say you live decades being familiar with one 'bubble' of memories. You have no frame of reference for any other bubble but your own. Every time you've remember something out of the blue, its been your memory (as far as you can tell). So if suddenly your mind becomes aware of other bubbles of memories, it seems natural that you would assume them to be your memories, right?"
Well, not necessarily. There is a very different feel between one's own memories and "just other images" that go through one's mind. For example, there is a big difference in the feel of remembering your own past or remembering the vivid, compelling story of a movie or literary character."
Well, typically one remembers a book or movie as an observer, not as a participant. If the memory bubble contains first-person memories (perhaps a residual memory of some prior individual drifting about in a collective unconsciousness), then it may account for the process. The backward momentum of the regression experiment may account for why these lives appear to be along a single line of succession (even if they aren't recalled in order). In other words, I'm not disputing that these may be memories of past lives; but I think there may be a difference between saying "I remember my past lives" and "I remember past lives". The "practical" application wouldn't be terribly different either way, except perhaps in one's attitude toward attachment to one's identity.
@jlpugh said
"Perhaps this accounts for the few Thelemites who do not believe in reincarnation!"
Say you live decades being familiar with one 'bubble' of memories. You have no frame of reference for any other bubble but your own. Every time you've remember something out of the blue, its been your memory (as far as you can tell). So if suddenly your mind becomes aware of other bubbles of memories, it seems natural that you would assume them to be your memories, right? If you choose (consciously or unconsciously) to identify with some bubble of memory, then reincarnation seems to be a pretty good explanation (especially if you come to the memories via temporal regression exercises). The concept still leaves the problem of explaining the seemingly persistent nature of memories. Part of me can't help but wonder though, if people with more knowledge of human history identify with more interesting or varied past lives that those ignorant of history.
@Redd Fezz said
"Holy shit, my friend says "NG" (en gee) all the time, meaning the same thing. He's all "cool." Maybe Crowley influenced the hip hop generation?"
@Metzareph said
"Dude, this post is kind of scaring me."
Shrug, even if Froclown is serious about this (though somehow I doubt it, given the Discordian admission), people can still quote Matthew 7:16 and "you get the teacher you deserve" to their hearts content, like they do about all of the other A.'.A.'. lineages. Statements like "not kept written records as orderly as one should" and "I may lumber a bit on physically doing things, but I have attained much on the inner planes" are certainly telling of a potential teacher's worth (not to mention the various misogynist statements made by F'clown on this website among others).
By the way Froclown - I think its funny you are suddenly claiming all this stuff about inner planes and hailing inner orders... weren't you psychologizing and technologizing the whole spiritual experience a week or two ago? If it happens that you are serious about "running an A.'.A.'." you're clearly using that name to ride on the coat-tails of the reputation of Crowley's order, and not sincere in your appreciation of "inner order" in any way shape or form. Without that time-tested name A.'.A.'., you've got nothing but a jumble of disconnected and untested ideas about the future, psychology, yoga, and the occult. If you had a serious system, one worthy of students on its own merits, then you'd have the balls to call it by its own name.