College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

@Jim Eshelman said

"immediate spin-offs to CCXX, such as Crowley's commentaries on CCXX, The Equinox of the Gods, and a handful of things written by the Prophet on the matter (such as - probably, without my stopping to reexamine them at the moment - all the Class E documents)."

Awesome, thank you, that was completely my question.
Unknown exceptions aside, we have all Class E documents, the account of the reception (makes a lot of since as it's requested in AL, thanks for pointing that out), Liber AL itself, and it's commentaries (I'm assuming this includes Tunis, Djeridensis, the new and old comments).

I like this grouping and will probably adopt it, though maybe the Class E documents one at a time as I reread them for this purpose. I find this topic most interesting from a comparative religion standpoint or in terms of the historicity of our particular movement, it's not something I'm using to further my Great Work, though I do think it helps to be able to be clear during promulgation.

Jim, can you describe the relationship of Class A documents to this 'strict' definition of Thelemic texts?
And maybe classify the A∴A∴ itself in these 'strict' Thelemic terms?

@Solve et Coagula said

"Taken vary strictly, my first thought is that what's Thelemic is what's in the Book of the Law. That's easy enough, and hard to argue with, but it doesn't mean other Thelemic things don't exist as well. The qualifier there might be that the Book of the Law is Thelemic, and so is anything else that seems to espouse a similar philosophy.

[...]

Can all Class A documents be said to be Thelemic? Maybe just Libri VII, LXV, & CCXX? (and if so, why?)
Has Crowley written somewhere a definition of this adjective?

Even as I write this I'm realizing I've used it here to mean both a strict and a loose interpretation, i.e. strict would be pure Thelema, e.g. Liber Legis, whereas loose might be something which mirrors the philosophy but was written centuries ago.

Any thoughts on whether the term is usually meant in a strict or loose sense, how either of those senses can be defined, and/or (especially) which things fulfill the strict sense?"

Thank you all for your thoughts. I feel like good discussion occurred but that the majority of my question was left unanswered by most. Many of you basically specified whether you thought the word (if unqualified) meant what I've termed the 'strict' or 'loose' definition, largely focusing on how the 'loose' definition might be defined.
I'm honestly less interested in which aspects of life or history can be considered Thelemic in this 'loose' sense and more interested in which texts or ideas (though I assume the ideas have a literary basis) you think fulfills the 'strict' definition.

Is the Holy Guardian Angel Thelemic? It isn't mentioned in Liber AL.

If any book(s) or idea(s) can be said to be Thelemic in the 'strict' sense (other than Liber AL), what are they and why?
And specifically, Why? If Æons are Thelemic, why? I can interpret some implication here:

@AL III:34 said

"the fall of the Great Equinox; when Hrumachis shall arise and the double-wanded one assume my throne and place. Another prophet shall arise, and bring fresh fever from the skies; another woman shall awake the lust & worship of the Snake; another soul of God and beast shall mingle in the globèd priest; another sacrifice shall stain the tomb; another king shall reign; and blessing no longer be poured To the Hawk-headed mystical Lord!"

but nothing to the extent of Isis, Osiris, Horus, & Ma'at, clearly described.

I agree that there is a 'loose' definition and that seems to be the favored implication here when the adjective is unqualified, however, I'm now specifically qualifying it.

What is 'strictly' Thelemic?

@Ash said

"I think of it as being anything related to or conducive to the unveiling of one's Self/doing of True Will. That results in me putting a lot of things into the "Thelemic" category that may or may not have anything to do with the occult, Thelema proper, religion, etc.

I could I could sum my interpretation up like this: Something is "Thelemic" when it shares any kind of resonance at all with "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.""

I feel like that fits what I was calling the 'loose' definition and on that note I agree with you very much, maybe inserting all of Liber AL where you have 'Do what thou wilt' but inasmuch as that phrase is an apt summary, I do agree.

You listed 'Thelema proper' up there, and I think that fits what I was calling the 'strict' definition.
Can you expand on that? What is 'Thelema proper' to you? Liber Legis? Class A documents?

@Jason R said

"Great! Like it very much, thanks for sharing. I especially liked the line, "My thoughts turned inward to the deepest me""

Thanks

If it isn't obvious, I was thinking of Nuit in the first quatrain, Hadit for the second, and Heru-ra-ha for the third, with an attempt to summarize them all in the final couplet (though the last line is admittedly more Ra-hoor-khuit than Hoor-paar-kraat).

93

Different people lump various ideas in with Thelema in conversation and I believe this is mostly because they gained familiarity with these things as a result of their studying Crowley or otherwise attempting to learn or do their Will. E.g. when asked what they love most about Thelema, some will begin speaking about ceremonial magick, others about Raja-yoga or their local magical community.

Taken vary strictly, my first thought is that what's Thelemic is what's in the Book of the Law. That's easy enough, and hard to argue with, but it doesn't mean other Thelemic things don't exist as well. The qualifier there might be that the Book of the Law is Thelemic, and so is anything else that seems to espouse a similar philosophy.

That sat well-enough with me for a while until I was reading De Lege Libellum, Liber II or something similar when it seemed obvious that many Class E documents make obvious reference to the Book of the Law, their purpose being it's promulgation.

Now, as I'm lumping Class E documents in there, Class A documents and the A∴A∴ in general come to my attention.
While there is an obvious inclusion, I don't believe the A∴A∴ is so utterly Thelemic that any official publication thereof can be said to relate to the Book of the Law.

Can all Class A documents be said to be Thelemic? Maybe just Libri VII, LXV, & CCXX? (and if so, why?)
Has Crowley written somewhere a definition of this adjective?

Even as I write this I'm realizing I've used it here to mean both a strict and a loose interpretation, i.e. strict would be pure Thelema, e.g. Liber Legis, whereas loose might be something which mirrors the philosophy but was written centuries ago.

Any thoughts on whether the term is usually meant in a strict or loose sense, how either of those senses can be defined, and/or (especially) which things fulfill the strict sense?

93 93/93

As I looked up to see the starry sky
and ponder cosmic distances and scale,
the omnipresent symbol caught my eye;
the All and Nought weren't hidden by a veil.
My thoughts turned inward to the deepest me;
I looked right through my soul, down to my spark:
that central hidden thing that needs to be
alive and always burning, never dark.
The two conceptions meld and form a third;
a vicious Will to Love is now aroused.
Strength and silence have been thus incurred
and liberty for all has been espoused.
When each is moving and yet all are still,
I find the courage to perform my Will.

My compilation:
solve-et-coagula.us/rituals/resh.html

I:29. For I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union.

It's interesting to me, but I feel like I like the idea of it more than I enjoy reading or find myself applying the actual text. It gets related to Liberty, Will, and the Wand in De Lege Libellum and I can only think this is because it's a book about creation.
The idea of adding a point to the broken & unbroken lines is interesting, but I'm not sure if there is any practical application as far as I Ching is concerned.
So I guess I value it as a hypothetical and archetypal model for creation.

From the Synopsis in The Holy Books of Thelema:

"being a book of Trigrams of the Mutations of the Tao with the Yin and the Yang"

One thing that gets to me about this and his attribution of the Trigrams to the Tree of Life, is that he ignores Te, instead seeing Yin and Yang opposed to each other, being combined in the Tao.
I tend to see it more like Tao/Yin/Love/Nuit vs. Te/Yang/Will/Hadit.

How do you feel about it?

Dunno if you've come across this yet, but although it's only Bereshith to Lekh Lekha from the Genesis section, the price is right.

"This is not a critical edition; written by a pseudonymous Theosophist, probably British, it is laced with out-of-place terminology such as 'Karma' and 'Planes.' It nevertheless lets you wade in the rip current of one of the most magical of the world's sacred texts, and leaves you gasping for air and wanting more. "

Jupiter has a lot going for it in my chart and among other things its Quintile with Neptune. I calculated the aspect during my computation because I had a list of aspects in front of me and I wanted to see if I could find an explanation of its influence I found satisfying or if I should cease it's calculation.

Have you observed anything about this aspect?

A quintile aspect in astrology is a seperation of 72° (a division of 360° by 5). Most of what I've read about the aspect refers to the 5 being numerologically connected to Mercury but I tend to think of Geburah and Mars with 5.
Sepher Sephiroth offers:
mist, vapor
back; food
elevation, top; pit, water-hole

this is the wrong thread now but, what is your interpretation of it?

Is there a Thelemic interpretation of this aspect? I have found most explanations lacking.

I've just read in the Modern Text Book of Astrology that Mutual Reception 'brings them into relationship as if they were in conjunction.'

Practicing physical clairvoyance, I named Valour and drew Pleasure. I initially perceived them to be without relation, wands and cups, but I've noticed that, aside from being connected by Nun, the Mars depicted in Valour rules the Scorpio of Pleasure and that the Sol in Pleasure rules the Leo of Valour.

How are those factors evidenced in their relationship?
When drawn in concert, would you say they become dignified?

What tradition first diverged from the associations between planets and double letters set up in Sepher ha-Yetzirah and when? Why?

Aside from the Atman and Brahman; Purusha & Prakriti = Hadit & Nuit?

Does the Atman correspond to the HGA?

And Purusha to Hadit?