College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

@Jim Eshelman said

"Rugby. It's rugby at King's Cross."

Ahhh, so that's the way the "giving blood" is done!!!

@Bereshith said

" Now, back to the scholar's persona for as long as I can restrain this other."

LOL...the story of my life!

@belmurr said

"That is, the Secret Chiefs, the hidden heads of the Order, brought this volume to the visible head providentially."

But in all seriousness, Belmurru's point is an excellent one, and for that reason, it may be that the debate generated here and now by the "event" is exactly what Thelema needs. Certainly in my life, it's been a positive thing, and served to draw my interest back into an area I'd mostly abandoned and show me some new opportunities for growth, as well as some great new work that I'd been missing out on. This is my favorite of the Thelemic forums, and the exchanges this round have been particularly inspiring.

Hence, though there are assumptions here that I feel honor bound to call out, as both a scholar and practitioner, I do respect all involved. People can publish whatever they will, however they will, and face whatever consequences that entails. If it's useful to my work in either arena, I'll buy it; if not, I won't. Simple as that. The way that this all works out is one of the core reasons I hold the Law so dear.

LLLL,
M

@he atlas itch said

" The logical conclusion is that Crowley did not want discrepancies to appear between Liber 31 and Liber 220...."

Bingo! And this is as much a conscious, well thought out decision made by the person in the prophetic office as anything else that has been proposed. That is the whole problem here. The evidence - lack of a corrected publication or direct instructions to that end - supports that Crowley intentionally chose to not regard the matter as one needing to be corrected. HB's entire argument is that he is fulfilling the command of the Prophet by changing Liber 220, even though - for the past 19 years that I've been intimately familiar with Thelema - the "Book of the Law" in publication is both Liber XXXI and Liber CCXX. His scenario proposes a rationalization of why Crowley never made the change as the base of that argument. But it starts from the assumption that Crowley was deciding to make a change when he made the marginal notation. And many of us, regardless of affiliation or even personal relationship to Thelema as a Religion, do not agree with that assumption.

@he atlas itch said

" Under this scenario, whatever was "transmitted" by Aiwass during the Cairo Working, regardless of what Crowley meant or intended or decided later, is what constitutes Liber Legis."

Then "Under this scenario, whatever was "transmitted" by Aiwass during the Cairo Working, regardless of what Crowley meant or intended or decided earlier, is what constitutes Liber Legis" is equally true.

In that case, the crux of the issue is whether Aiwass was directing Crowley to use the Paraphrase as it was written in the days before the working (which many believe was quite feasibly "kill"),or to use what he was inspired to write down during the transmission itself, which is clearly "fill." If one's desire is to get as close to the original transmission as possible, then it may be indeed necessary to look beyond the words of Liber XXXI, as - just as with any transmission of spiritual Truth - the interface can distort the message. But this also raises some serious problems, the biggest being that Crowley's decision not to publish a version of CCXX which did not conform with Liber XXXI would then reflect his own desires - possibly an ego-based one, perhaps a subconscious resistance, rather than following the explicit instructions of Aiwass. And that leads to the extremely slippery ground of deciding when Crowley was acting under the influence of Aiwass and when he was serving his own purposes. Have at that one all you want!

There is a very simple solution to this, which is that Crowley did not feel that the change of the letter would warrant the problems it would cause for those readers sincerely trying to understand the Book of the Law, as the Liber CCXX is necessary to create a uniform reading of Liber XXXI. The divergence in letters would create an unnecessary dissonance, while the possible meanings of "kill" could be as easily accessed through "fill" if one is working within the Thelemic paradigm. I've never known anyone in my life among Thelemites to stumble over that one, personally - everyone pretty much understood that we were, through the entire practice, aspiring to the moment of surrending our entire essence into the Cup of Babalon, and until that time, were seeking only to be more and more filled with devotion, power, light, and inspiration to get us there. Crowley's writings leave no doubts about that. Thus I feel it's quite feasible that he felt that the direct instruction "not to change a letter" was more important that the matter of the paraphrase.

This does disagree with HB believes and has decided as policy for the OTO. Fortunately, I get to do that all day long. What oaths still bind me are to the Law itself, not anyone or anything else. But those who are under some sort of obligation of friendship or oath to him obviously feel justified supporting his position. Out of respect for the Wills of others, I'm sensing the boundaries of what I can Lawfully say before it becomes persuasion or argument. So, the cases have been made, and each until their own, DWTW.

@chris S said

"
Actually not a coincidence, an inevitability. "

I would say it's a necessary stage in the life cycle of a religion. As a delightfully heretical Pentacostal minister I knew once described the life cycle of his churches: "The First Generation has the vision. The Second Generation is taught the vision with the witness of their father's conviction. The Third generation recieves the vision only as words, and so has decide between accepting it as scriptural authority, or seeking a new vision by which to get the revelation first hand again."

In other words, interpretation of scripture has to arise as time changes the context of the original revelation so that it's no longer clear, and as the organizational pressures of the external structure impose their own demands/Wills on the individual needs within it. (And here, I'm speaking of the energetic Will of the organizational entity itself, or egregore, if you want to call it that - it wants to live and grow as much as anything else.) The decision by the OHO of the OTO marks the point where a religious authority feels justified in adjusting the valves...because you're really not just swapping out a letter in the text here. There's many other things going on, not the least of which is the affirmation of religious authority "in the name of the Founder" vs. by the Founder's direct instructions. This allows the organization or religion to make whatever continued updates are necessary to stay viable.

But this distances the external religion from the central Mystery that connects it to the Interior. The Book of the Law proposes a solution to this problem. If you take the view that the original text should be preserved as commanded "for in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another: in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine", then the Mystery is extended indefinitely, and each person can work it out themselves based on whatever they receive through working with it. It's not possible or necessary to know what the Prophet meant to say or intended to transmit, because - like the little fairy chick says: "Prophets don't know everything!" And in the Book of the Law, the Prophet is clearly designated the scribe, not the author. Once squabbling over interpretation (literally "what should be there instead of what's actually there") sets in, the primacy of the Mystery and the individual relationship to it are very quickly lost, as is the ability to peacefully "break bread together." (Bread=Word, of course.) Crowley's Plymouth Brethren upbringing would have very empahtically taught him this - no prophetic ability even needed here.

Greetings, all, and 93s,

It's been a few years since I've been around the forum, and some things have changed, so I thought a re-introduction was in order. I originally discovered Thelema around 1994 or so, coming from an area in the Mid-South where Crowley was loathed and feared by Pagans and Christians alike. There was something in his work that sparked my interest hard enough to look beyond that, and I joined the OTO in '96 (as that was all we had in the area.) I moved to the SF Bay area shortly after my 0*, and got to experience the wider world of Thelema, including a few friends working with COT/TOT. I've always admired Soror Meral's work very much and so this lineage has always been special to me. Unfortunately, I had to relocate back to the Midwest before I could follow that attraction. In 2006, I left the OTO after completing the MoE and opting not to pursue the next triad, and since then I've been forging my way on my own. I had been very heavily involved in Thelemic society for around a decade (and needed to clear my head and look through other lens for a while) but at present things have settled into a nice balance, and it's been my joy to discover Thelema in new places and perspectives and to find new ways to fulfill the dedication I made as an EGC Priestess. I'm really not within range of any of the TOT public events, but I'm starting to travel more with my work and hope to make it up to NYC sometime soon (as I'd really love to check out the Babalon Salon.) So it's nice to have the interaction on the online forum, and I hope to find some new friends in between the usual jousting.

In Light, Life, Love and Liberty,

MNA

@he atlas itch said

"Perhaps it would be more to the point to ask proponents of the “fill me” camp what they see in Crowley’s marginal correction in Windram’s Thelema?"

First of all, people have to understand the nature of marginalia...it's generally a reader's response to emotions or thoughts that arise during the process of reading. In cases where the reader is also the author, it can be self-commentary or a sort of note taking, but it is primarily a process of intimate reflection on the subject matter to be shared by other readers of that text. (If anyone wants to get deeply into this subject, there's some great studies out there. Start with H. J. Jackson's Marginalia: Readers Writing in Books.) So while I can play all day with what Crowley might have been thinking, and speculate on what he may have been intending as a result, or even interpret the circumstances as some sort of significant event, in the end, what we have is a marginal note that indicates that at the time of reading that "fill" in a copy of Thelema, someone (potentially Crowley) was thinking of the related meaning of "kill" that Crowley had used poetically elsewhere and noted it for whomever would be encountering that book. That's it. Anything else is pure speculation, and requires a set of assumptions based on what you can extrapolate from other data...or what you want to believe about it.

@he atlas itch said

"Crowley’s marginal correction in Windram’s Thelema overrides his “fill me” in Liber 31 because 1) both comments are in his handwriting 2) the Windram correction occurs later and 3) it is the only textual example where “fill” is clearly corrected in favor of “kill.”"

Again, it's a huge jump from "marginal notation" to "intended correction to the foundational document of the entire Thelemic belief system." And your comment that it's the "only textual example where 'fill' is clearly corrected in favor of 'kill'" only supports that - had it been more than a marginal thought, it would have been mentioned as a correction in other texts, because he would need to communicate the importance of those thoughts clearly to someone else (as was done in the case of the correction in EG 1(10) as mentioned in Threefold31's essay.) Unless you want to argue that he or the Secret Chiefs or Aiwaz left something of this importance up to a chance "discovery" like this....certainly your prerogative, but far too sketchy for me.

My strong objection to HB's decision to treat this as a correction and start publishing the new version of Liber AL as if it had always been Crowley's intended version is primarily due to the mess it will make for those of us who study Crowley's life and work from a scholarly position (regardless of whatever personal meaning we have for it.) I left the OTO on peaceful terms in '06 after a useful 10 years, and their decisions have long ceased to have any impact on my personal work, life, beliefs, etc. But this would have already turned into a historian's nightmare without the quick and excellent work that has been done by so many already. We do at least have a good current batch of data to keep the evidence intact and can track the changes, and it has opened up a fascinating new area of investigation. So thank you to all involved with that.

But I do agree with Belmurru that this is a watershed moment...it will show whether or not the religious authority of a modern organization is sufficient to make a significant alteration to scriptural authority based on a leader's personal fiat, breaking a taboo that has been in place for a century now. What happens next is new territory for Thelema, since should HB (and thus OTO members) continue to insist on its legitimacy, there will no longer be one Book of the Law common to Thelema. There's been many "dividing lines" before, but not of this caliber (IMO.)

@AliceKnewI said

"
But part of me felt it oversimplified or left out something important. I am not completely articulate what exactly.
"

I've been considering this myself, as I had a similar feeling. So far, the main thing that I identify is that it doesn't really adequately address the use of power, especially as resistance to the attempted domination of one's Will by other forces. There's a lot about accepting, embracing, etc...but there's nothing that really affirms that pesky last bit of Liber Oz, which has historically been a big part of discussions on Thelema principles. And without that, for me, there's a gap between affirming ideals and being able to translate them into working ethics.

Being able to take that cosmic view and seeing the beauty/joy/humor in all things is important, and something to aspire to - don't get me wrong. But in the day to day, especially in societies where we are bombarded with constant attempts at manipulation and domination, we also need something that challenges us to develop the internal discipline and ethical clarity to deal with that in a way congruent with the Law. Without a realistic discussion of that, these kind of ideals very quickly slide to the level of "loving them in Jesus' name" or something similar.

I've enjoyed the thoughtful discussion on it, too, and it's been a good exercise. Thank you.

@belmurr said

"
Given the pattern of revising the paraphrase, I think that the evidence of the original manuscript of Liber L and the typescript made from it far outweight the significance of a marginal note made probably as late as 1912, from what was almost certainly a revision of the paraphrase made after April 10, 1904.... He liked "kill me" more when he wrote the Great Invocation, and, apparently, when he wrote the marginal note in Windram's ΘΕΛΗΜΑ. But he never implemented the change in a printing of Liber CCXX, which strongly suggests he thought better of it."

I concur, and I'm very happy to see the detailed presentation of the textual argument. As a scholar, my current studies have included marginalia, particularly as a means of helping to understand the mind and intent of an auctor. While they are important, as they reflect the individual reader's personal emotions or insights - it is a long loong leap to reading any kind of intent into them, especially when there's no "outward" directed instructions to accompany them. As far as I can call it, HB's analysis is a blatant case of wanting very badly to read something into the textual situation that just isn't there.

It will be interesting to see where it goes from here...though I'm very thankful that the matter for me is settled for now and I can sit on the sidelines for the rest of it.

@Los said

" I freely concede that a person could call themselves a Christian Thelemite or a Buddhist Thelemite, and I further concede that a person could redefine those words in ways that make them compatible, but the truth is that those things are incompatible."

But "those words" can only apply to the labels as you define them, which means that any incompatibility is in your viewpoint, not necessarily anyone else's. For that matter, if you go through any modern denomination of a religion and the source texts/teachings it is based on, there will be incompatibilities....that's the nature of the game. Thelema is already showing that it's not exempt from that tendency.

I feel it's more accurate to say that if you go point by point through the tenets of any given religion and Thelema, there will be points of compatibility AND incompatibility. Crowley's articulation of Thelema drew heavily from his experience and regard for many other religions, as much as the shortcomings as he saw them. The points of incompatibility are very specific and instructive, and the points of compatibility are even more important, as they show the hidden doors. The old question again: Why did Crowley choose to modify "The Cloud Upon the Sanctuary" for "An Account of A.'.A.'.", as part of the design for a vehicle to carry the new Word in the world?

@Los said

" I freely concede that a person could call themselves a Christian Thelemite or a Buddhist Thelemite, and I further concede that a person could redefine those words in ways that make them compatible, but the truth is that those things are incompatible."

But "those words" can only apply to the labels as you define them, which means that any incompatibility is in your viewpoint, not necessarily anyone else's. For that matter, if you go through any modern denomination of a religion and the source texts/teachings it is based on, there will be incompatibilities....that's the nature of the game. Thelema is already showing that it's not exempt from that tendency.

I feel it's more accurate to say that if you go point by point through the tenets of any given religion and Thelema, there will be points of compatibility AND incompatibility. Crowley's articulation of Thelema drew heavily from his experience and regard for many other religions, as much as the shortcomings as he saw them. The points of incompatibility are very specific and instructive, and the points of compatibility are even more important, as they show the hidden doors. The old question again: Why did Crowley choose to modify the "Cloud Upon the Sanctuary" for "An Account of A.'.A.'.", as part of the design for a vehicle to carry the new Word in the world?

@Frater 639 said

" Thanks for sharing. Hope to see more posts..."

And thanks for starting a very-thought provoking thread. I'm very glad to get drawn back to this board in time for it!

LLLL,
MNA

@Frater 639 said

"....thou wilt not hinder him by thy superfluity of compassion. Let me not begin to tell thee of the mischiefs that I have seen, whose root was in kindness, whose flower was in self-sacrifice, and whose fruit in catastrophe. Verily I think there should be no end hereof. Strike, rob, slay thy neighbour, but comfort him not unless he ask it of thee, and if he ask it, be wary.*

In the end, I think it is living the example of happiness that works the best...and the best teachers lead by example.... there is a magnetic aura to happiness that seems to heal and inspire -- and that root is love."

Great points!

I think the list is an excellent thing to aspire to, on many points, and as inspiration, it works. (And for me, a simple trip to visit my Southern Baptist kinfolk in Mississippi usually shows how *well *these things work.)

My main objection is that with things like this, it is very easy to disingenuously sidestep the "harsher" Chapter 2 & 3 parts, and those are the parts that are the most difficult to integrate. (Don't get me wrong - I'm a classic "Chapter 1" sort by nature, though in the past few years of my training I understand the reason why that's not the only chapter in the book.) Without confronting those and working through them, there's a real danger of this falling into same trap as any other religious platitudes: I "accept" and "love" and "enjoy" you, except when you offend me or don't do what I want, and then I will to try to get rid of you, all the while claiming that I'm simply responding appropriately to your negativity. "Principles" can either strengthen one's honesty and ability to critically self-reflection, or provide a really attractive chart for self-delusion....and so much that depends on the character that comes to the teachings or principles in the first place.

I love the quote you've included. We see the reality of this all the time in healing work - the way people come to identity with their condition/illness/dysfunction is usually the biggest adversary faced in the work we do. That attachment is like a vampire - it jumps in front of everything you do and steals the energy of that love away for its own sustenance. So we're taught to spend very little time listening to people's "problems" or comforting them. If they want to get rid of it, they'll do the work, and they'll be grateful that your attention is completely on the work. This is no way means being cruel or unfeeling or having a crappy bedside manner...just very aware of the dangers involved in trying to intervene outside your own Kingdom. I agree totally with your remarks on happiness - a person who is genuinely happy can walk into a room and elevate the energy, bring people out of their misery for a moment, and leave them with hope....as long as they are able to cast that Light freely and without attachment to it (because you if you try to get any of it back, you'll find some monster gators on the end of that line!!)

The clearest path for me in de-jargoning Thelema is simply to stress Honesty, first of all with the self. I'm firmly convinced at this point that not everyone out there is meant to tackle this Tradition, at any dosage level. I'd much rather get people training internal arts with me and getting their heads and energy clear, becoming healthy and happy people who are pain-free enough to find whatever it is that will lead them to the discovery of their Genius, before I even think about discussing spiritual theory with them. I can share all the benefits of my Thelemic praxis with them much better that way, without so much time spent on arguing in the head about it.

@Frater 639 said

"Hello All,

I'd like to talk about what people consider the "essence" of Thelema, as it seems to be a topic of interest lately around the forum. "

I had to give this one a shot - it's been on my mind a lot lately as well, since I always find myself coming back to it in my wanderings.

For me, the essence of Thelema is the direct reference to a unified Will pervading and giving form and purpose to all existence. I see this Will best expressed in the concept of the Ratzohn (I defer to FrAAAAAM's explanation here: heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?p=21931#p21931), or the Egyptian concept of Ma'at, which links it with Truth and a beneficial, generative force of Life/Order/Health/Beauty/Goodness. From that True Will, all things derive their individual True Wills, as they exist when not limited by death or disorder/confusion. The expression of this Will goes from formlessness to form, and thus the individual Wills are restricted by time and place, which cause a separation from their origin and a resulting delusion that they are disconnected from the Source. This cannot happen, in reality. The unity of the True Will is a natural law; it can no more be broken than any other natural law. Flight is an expansion of the Law of Gravity, not a violation of it. But to those who don't know the physics of it, it looks like the power of Gravity is shattered. Same with us, in our lives...by Gnosis, we can perceive the greater workings of the Will even though our senses may insist that we are separate from it, due to the uniqueness of our individual place within it. Nothing that is manifest can do anything other than reflect its nature, which flows from this Source. Even complicated humans with our pesky ability to reason, invent, alter and create are in our abilities reflections of the Intelligence that is a component of this True Will. Yet, in knowing ourselves, we can know All. The reflection that traps us also shows us the way to freedom.

All of my religiousness as a Thelemite, and the ethical code produced by it, derives from this central concept. The state of ignorance caused by the sensual entrapment causes movement against the True Will, which results in Suffering ("isfet", to go back to Ancient Egyptian terms), perpetuating the illusion. Two necessary forces in the world (going back to Empedocles) - Love and Strife, and the purpose of the Thelemic path is to make them both Love. In the natural strife which is built into the way the individual Wills resolve their existence in accordance with the True Will, there is no really harm done - even the compost generates life. It's when something is forced too far out of their nature due to ignorance or delusion that serious injury results, and to even the person responsible for it, since everything is actually connected. You always have to remember that in the True Will, the concept of Time as we know it might as well not exist. The rate at which the skin cell lives and dies is different from that of the Sun, but each are completely necessary to life. So I look at it as a guiding philosophical concept, which I personally try to increasing apply to every aspect of my mundane life. (And in this day and age, that's a real fight, hence the need for a warrior's faith.)

In brief (otherwise I'll be here all night, and that's no way to spend a Friday evening!), the Book of the Law - for me - is a modern explanation of this Reality, given at a specific time and place as an aid to realizing Truth. I don't feel charged at all to accept it as the sole revelation of the Law or as something that opposes the perennial Truths expressed in previous revelations (though just like in scientific discovery, it changes the understanding that precedes it when there are assumptions that are in error.) Crowley wasn't the only one having visions or revelations during this period - in my book, our understanding of the nature of Light which led to the quantum age is probably a far more paradigm-shattering manifestation of the change in human understanding going on. But Crowley's legacy does have a very important lesson and correction, for those of us with the karma of being born into this time and place. I'm personally not bound by what has presented itself so far as
"Thelemic religion," as I found it restrictive to my understanding of the Law, but that fact doesn't cancel out how effective Crowley's work has been as a lens by which to see Reality.

In Light, Life, Love and Liberty,
MNA

@Fr Cognosco cum Lux said

"I would like to mention xingyiquan in this thread.
It is an internal style like tai chi that emphasizes 5 ways to emit force that parallel the chinese 5 element theory.
It is these 5 fists that the xingyi practictioner constantly trains in. 5 types of force. I thought it apt that I mention it given the OP."

I've been training in the Chinese/Taoist internal martial arts for a few years now - wonderful stuff! When embraced across all its levels, it's a complete theurgic practice in itself. Very transformative, especially when combined with the studies in healing (as it should be) and the perfection of internal energy. It has completely redefined the way I look at Magick now. Though, the school I work with is rather unique in that we don't spar - the focus is on personal Reintegration through training in the techniques, where the fighting abilities gained from it are basically side effects (similar to what Crowley says about siddhis.)

Prior to that, my very first martials arts training was in a private family style, which was an elemental based system. Quite useful training, as I found around the time I was starting to seriously study Magick and the elemental work complemented each other well. The system classified movement and the fighter's natural style based on a combination of factors, rather than the arts themselves:

Fire: Mobile, linear, aggresively seeking to consume the opponent, active. fast but damaging attacks, purely offensive
Water: Reflective (returning whatever energy is sent), circular, flowing and entrapping, seeking to contain the opponent,
Air: Circular, evasive, passive (preferring to exhaust or ellude the opponent), valuing causing the least amount of harm,
Earth: Linear, Passive until zone is invaded, uses blocks as strikes, crushing or breaking, defensive. Standing ground or going to ground.
Void: Mixes styles as appropriate, strategic, lacks a ruling style and will use what is appropriate to the situation. Able to put aside one's personal style to use another to effective counter opponent's energy.
Ethereal: "Fights without fighting," by controlling or directing energy, intimidation, mental or energetic dominance, psychic insight, etc. Filling the void with a superhuman power.

The system's training approach was based in learning to find your natural style, and developing yourself in harmony with it while at the same time mastering the other elements to be able to counter an opponent's natural style by using the element which negates it. There's been an echo of this in my current studies, where finding one's natural style (using the animal styles instead) involves destroying learned or assumed patterns that distort one's true nature. It complements the principle of "Know Thyself" very well. From there, one starts to unite with opposing or dissimilar styles to balance the nature and achieve a state greater than the sum of the parts, just as in alchemy.

It's good to see a discussion of this subject here...this is an important part of the Work, and in my opinion particularly suited, if not necessary, to Thelemic practice.

In Light, Life, Love, and Liberty,
MNA

@Alrah said

"I make the following observations while making the usual disclaimers and warnings about Gematria, and trust you know what they are....Both King (MLK) and Kill are high frequency words in the book and they both = 90. "

I've been wondering about Crowley's gematric reading of the issue, myself. (Please pardon if this been discussed already - I have limited online time and haven't been able to make it through every post on the subject yet.)

Depending on which word in Hebrew is chosen for "kill", there are some interesting interplays between the two options. I'm particularly looking at (71) מלא MLA (fill) and נכא NKA (strike/wound/break), and (75) נכה NKH (taking on more complete meaning of kill/slay, from what I've seen so far). There's some rich ground in there. If this was an area that Crowley had unsolved questions about, it seems likely that he would have investigated it qabalistically. I can understand where he would have been a strong preference for the "kill" side (for other reasons as well), but I think it's a mistake to think of the note in the marginalia as a correction. It is definitely good stuff that adds to an appreciation of the text (at least in my book!), but I don't feel that it replaces the fact that "fill" was what went down on the main document, our only surviving handwritten primary source for the revelation. I have to agree with the view that had he felt it warranted a change to Liber Legis, he would have been sure that it was immediately made and a corrected version issued within his lifetime. This book is, after all, the foundation of all his work. If a true error was discovered in 1912, it seems like he would have moved Heaven and Earth to get a corrected one published to sustain that work properly.

However, that doesn't rule out instances where he might have wanted to ritually incorporate the "kill" meaning or whatever personal insights he'd gained. Just offhand, I can see where "fill" would be more appropriate in some instances (such as when needing to radiate Divine authority over a evoked spirit), and where "kill" would be beneficial in something like Ritual CXX, or in something that was playing directly on the idea of "self-slain."

Without something more conclusive, such as a direct explanation of this "error" and the need for correcting it explained somewhere in Crowley's writings, I think that it's going too far to impose a personal meaning - even if it is Crowley's personal meaning - on Liber Legis itself. This has all become a more confusing with the online versions being instantly edited (and I don't have access to a good Crowley library at present), so if I am wrong on this point, and there was a Liber Legis using "kill me" issued by Crowley's authority during his lifetime, please correct me. (It may or may not change my personal opinion on the matter, since I do not hold Crowley as infallible on any matter, but I don't want to be stating a falsehood. )

@Froclown said

"I fail to see how you can insist on separating Thelema from Crowley, or soy something absurd like Crowley did not understand the book of the law, when he wrote the book. His comment even says to appeal ONLY to his works in interpreting the book, not to the works of liberal humanism or Quantum mechanics."

I've seen this exact debate played out so many times on Thelemic forums (including John's blog) that there's not a lot I can say here that hasn't already been said more times than I can stand to think about. But this discussion so far has been very useful in spurring me to reflect deeply on what has brought me back around and where I want to go from here...so redundant as it may be, and in case you really do want to try to understand this side of it:

I was heavily active for ten years in Thelemic communities - it was only in the last couple of those that I started encountering Thelemites (all online) that were demanding this return to "fundamentals" in Crowley's work and trying to draw a tighter circle around what or who was considered Thelemic. Prior to that, while debate over particulars was constant and heavy and often just as divisive, all the Thelemites I'd encountered worked from the assumption that we were supposed to emulate Crowley's curiosity, breadth of study and investigation into the most up to date scientific theories and ideas of his time before attempting to understand the Class A docs. They not only encouraged me to explore anything that could expand my range of knowledge to better grasp the very difficult concepts and language presented in the work, but to push myself rigorously to develop the kind of objectivity, balance, and tolerance expressed via Liber Librae so that I wouldn't hamstring myself with aversions to one symbol set or another. So I have a hard time understanding why this openness is so threatening or how it constitutes trying to separate Crowley from Thelema. For me, learning about Thelema has always come through interaction with my Brothers and Sisters - direct experience, testing, and observation of results. The theoretical arguments or opinions were just the things we experimented with in our day to day life with each other. Some of Crowley's ideas have held water...some haven't, and those are set aside in favor of what works. The dichotomy you set up here is far too simplistic for me to take seriously - it may work fine for you based on your personal experiences, but it's useless to me. If the quotations you base this argument are enough for you, so be it...but surely you have noticed there was an "each for himself" in there. I did not notice any mention of liberal humanism or quantum mechanics in the Comment, and actually, it's "only by appeal to my writings" not "by appeal only to my writings." If one is going to be so literal in interpretation, it's best to get the words right.

There are many ways to approach Crowley's work - for me, I came to Thelema based on a strong empathetic connection with the man himself gained through an intensive study of Confessions (which I was doing for a class, as I had no interest in Crowley's legacy at the time - it seemed like an interesting and slightly controversial case study.) I come from a religious raising very similar to his own, and in my early teens had already fought my way through a fundamentalist conditioning that had tried from the first week of my life on to instill fears in me that would make me obedient to whatever a spiritual figurehead told me to do, think, or believe (ranging from the traditional eternal pain of hellfire to some quite creative ones, like getting brain cancer for reading books that God wouldn't approve of.) Breaking that left me utterly without the compunction to worry about disobeying a Prophet, straying off the straight and narrow, or facing the disapproval of my "tribe." I developed my beliefs regarding freedom and my dedication to it long before I encountered Crowley's writing, and I still to this day don't need Thelema to provide me with any religious or philosophical justification for them.

What I did see in Thelema was a very powerful Mystery, and a very intelligent and creative person (Crowley) wrestling with what it meant for his life. Of course I don't think that Crowley fully understood the Book of the Law- "the scribe" is warned directly that he won't, and that prophets don't know everything, and his writings reflect his work to refine his understanding of the Law throughout his lifetime - it wasn't just easily given to him. The fascination with his journey led me to experiment with his work and to ultimately credit its processes for being able to promote the development of a type of genius whose presence enriches humanity - yet this has not made me blind to the discouraging pile of wrecks that line the sides of this road, either.

I have been blessed to be around individuals of true genius for much of my life, enough to know that for all those times when something almost unearthly wise, knowing, or beautiful breaks through them, it doesn't change the personal struggles or perceptions that keep them bound to the karma of their time, place, and biological/emotional makeup. Because of my background, I understand what it is like to be able to find deep, timeless meaning in Christian scripture (as Crowley obviously did) and at the same time call for those who would shove it in your face to be fed to the Lions. What I have gained from study of Crowley's work and the practices associated with it is a very joyful appreciation for the puzzles I have been presented with in this life, and also true empathy and compassion for those who engage the Mysteries in whatever form it appears to them. For me, it's all a reflection of Thelema. I can't look at anything which shows the splendid miracle that is existence and **not **see the Law within it. I don't particularly feel like putting blinders on, and since I no longer have to worry about something damning me to pain and suffering for such waywardness...I won't. It's that simple.

I'm not going to labor much harder on this point - you either get it or you don't, you agree or you don't. I've been in this scene long enough to know that Thelema frequently attracts people who need Crowley as a Prophet/Saint/infallible King-that-was to justify some behavior or attitude that would be considered unacceptable and unhealthy in any other society. I will not waste my time on that. I know the dangers of pity - I've dealt with half a dozen dearly loved ones' destruction or death via their addictions, most claiming them as part of their Thelemic education/Will, and learned about "enabling" the hard way. I also know that there are dangers and ordeals on this path that make "tough love" very necessary, as well as what happens when someone can't handle the emotional forces unleashed by initiatory forces because they came into this too blind and broken to really have this incarnation be anything more than a warm up for it.

It is my understanding based on what I've been told over the years that this is why the A.'.A.'. curriculum - in particular the student portion - exists. If we were only to approach Thelema by the writings of Aleister Crowley (noting that you make no distinction between works he writes and works he claims were given to him by an Intelligence beyond his own), then there would be no need to encourage the study of such an extensive list of outside texts. If Compassion for those not yet understanding the Law or being received as Initiates was such an alien concept to Thelema, there would be no obligations on the highest Initiates to devote their lives in service to teaching it. And if Love - basic care and affection for the whole of mankind, dross and all, as sentimental and self-sacrificing as a parent's love for a child - wasn't part of it, then the A.'.A.'. itself wouldn't exist to ensure that the lights stayed on throughout the ages. Read "The Cloud on the Sanctuary" and then Liber XXXIII: An Account of A.'.A.'. - note what changes have been made to "update" that work. Note what remains constant. That's all that has been revised in the formula of Love, as far as I'm concerned. And back to the point of the overall discussion - if one is looking for a model to emulate in ordering earthly societies, I would give far more attention to the concepts Liber XXXIII contains than trying to slavishly emulate the feudal model of "Crowleyesque" daydreams.

Just how I see it, take it or leave. If anything resembling GAWD showed up and tried to tell me I was wrong on this point, I would thank it for it's concern and send it back to where it came from...so good luck Mr. Person I Just Met Online. I trust by this point we're pretty clear in each other's opinions on this subject so I hope you'll pardon me if I move on to new ground, with my thanks for all this debate has clarified for me, and your participation in that.

In Light, Life, Love, and Liberty ~ Manami

Thank you for the warm welcome, Frater I-Ness. I'm coming off a good long break from debates and it's made me a little hyper, especially when it's summer and I'm getting a luxurious six hours sleep. I am really glad to see this forum isn't lost in the lethargy that has overtaken so many and greatly appreciate all I've gained from the discussions so far - as well as everyone's tolerance for me jumping in full blast.

@Frater I-Ness said

"yet with new understanding in quantum theory and mathematics, the notion of causality is questionable; Space-Time at the Planck scale is not a continuum, this counter-intuitive fact is lost on most C21st scientists. It is actually an assumption that "stars" may not be "conscious" in and of themselves, firstly because no one as yet has given a satisfactory definition for "Consciousness". "

You have me here. Because we can't really know at this point what the consciousness of a star is, nor to what extent it resembles our own, I erred on the side of empirical data for this specific instance. I'm not nearly as Newtonian as that.

What I mean in this case is that I don't agree with the use of the image to imply that conflict is either non-occurring when people are properly in their "orbit" (which is one way it's been applied in an overly literal sense) or else that it means that two people heading towards each other on the same course are necessarily obligated to conflict (which is the other way.) The imagery Crowley uses is beautiful, and much can be gained from contemplation of it, but I would argue that regardless of a star's Consciousness, it does not have choice as we know it. My Soul may well have laid out a star-like path by which it will collect all the experiences and sensations that it needs to accomplish its Will in all the lifetimes beyond this one, and those may include experiences which I just have to push forward through regardless of whether it ends in my explosion or someone else's (doesn't matter, it's just one dream among countless others) -- the image does hold very true for that.

But one of the problems in the discussion at hand is that its not very clear where people are talking about Will (..."Twue Will"...) vs. Desire...and the metaphor holds true for one better than the other. My Will may be star-like in its orbit, but Desire (and it's conspirator, Intellect) can initiate changes and patterns of thinking that are foreign to the nature of a star. I know this opens up a whole new area (either dreaded or beloved) in Thelemic debate....hence I was just trying to get a way with a drier version of stellar mechanics.

The main point I was after was that in my view, conflict can be consciously mediated in ways that expand my evolution and awareness of Will by the recognition of the specific choices available to me and the skillful application of my intent. But it's game theory - some are won by conflict, some by cooperation. Holding on to an interpretation of Crowley's metaphor that doesn't include the possibility of the latter is a dead end, in my book.

You raise an excellent point about how quantum theory can change a lot of these ideas we inherit - in ways that could not at the time be anticipated by those we look to for guidance, and thus puts us in an open, new field where we're going have to figure this out ourselves. If the topic of the New Aeon and quantum theory hasn't been exhausted yet in other threads, I would enjoy pulling the rest of this over to a new discussion. I wonder how the Liber Aleph passage would read if Michio Kaku had been on Crowley's bookshelf?

In Light, Life, Love and Liberty ~ Manami

@Froclown said

"Rather than large global world wide empires, driven by economic domination, and justified under the notion than we all because we breath and bleed are equal sheep that must be tended and protected by powerful economic masters. I propose we for small organic communities, where our individual Brutishnesses are organized along a common transcendent vision shared by a Race or group of people with a common history and tradition. A tradition into which one can be more or less initiated, the less initiated the more individual and brutish one is, the less part of the social sphere, that is one can be a total out caste to like alone and without Rule of the King. "

Thank you, Froclown, for the the expanded illustration of the ideal community you've given - it is helpful for the discussion of the original point of the thread. Look, I get the point you've been making, and in that...as you Will. I am perfectly comfortable letting survival of the fittest sort out the difference in views.

I do, however, hold a deep conviction that the progress of the Aeon will transform the top-down hierarchical structure that Crowley envisioned in the Utopian manner of his times (from the pyramid structure to the circle, basically.) If true, it has a lot of implications for dealing with life in a period of transition and efforts toward long-term reorganization into compatible models. Whatever the theorists think "should" be the rights of individuals in a Thelemic world, right now we are karmically bound to the conditions and conventions of our country of residence, which presents us with challenges requiring both courage in conflict and accountability in cooperation.

I would love to hear how others are experiencing that or what has worked, for those experimenting with models of Thelemic society in their own lives. I also am a wee bit curious as to how those who see it otherwise envision actually pulling off the societal takeover it would require to convince a large population to return to monarchy - even symbolically - for anything other than weekend entertainment.

@Froclown said

"However the more one contributes and abides by the tradition of the local community the more "Rights" one is granted it reciprocation. Those outside the Walls (real or figurative) of the city, have no innate rights within the city, and are basically seen as enemies of the city, or at least distrusted and not seen as fully persons. The King or Highest initiates are held up as protectors of the way or life, the elder(s) whose wisdom was earned by pasing ordeals, proving higher loyalty and understanding of the Tradition that the others, and the Ability to apply the tradition. "

I see little difference between this structure and what I grew up with in the rural Deep South: a small organic community, as self-sufficient as it is going to get in this day and age, xenophobic and kinship based, homogeneous in culture and ethnicity (and kept that way by intentional effort), stratified social caste enforced by heavy socialization/initiation into community institutions and roles, leadership via elders and a few powerful individuals, and the local peace enforced as necessary by use of force under a untouchable control. While I recognize such a structure's strengths, due to the ease with which it becomes restrictive and limiting, I - like most of my generation - couldn't wait to get out of it. Those with the talent and ability to succeed elsewhere* fled*. As the town lives by the old "if you don't like it, leave" rule...the youth left in droves, and today it is an industry-less void kept barely alive by corporate farming, discount retailers and meth manufacture, whose only future hope is that sprawl from a neighboring city will one day invade and raise the property value enough to make a suburb out of it. No thanks - a Crowley quoting version of that isn't any less miserable. I demand the right - as Frater I-ness suggested - be sovereign on my own ground and to treasure Wisdom in whatever form She takes. For the love of Babalon, man....do you not understand how inherently promiscuous this force is?

I am very skeptical of the viability of any model that requires obedience, acceptance of rigid structures, or role division based on "fated" circumstances (race, gender, culture, etc.)...regardless of what people can read into Crowley's writings as justifying that, the tendency of the Aeon itself seems to be eating such structures alive. Currently, organizations are having to revise their entire outlook on hiring and retention to deal with the new generation which values personal freedom and the flexibility to play and explore over what has traditionally been "givens" - security, institutional belonging/tradition, order and firm chain of command. The most cutting edge leadership programs center on self-leadership, dynamic leadership, chaordic organization structure, game theory - all variants on the theme of flexibility and individual initiative, and promoting a self-reflective awareness of one's power and choice. While a heavy shock in the economy could change that somewhat (as in companies favoring "safer" older workers or people being more reluctant to make changes), there's also no reason to expect that it won't just fuel the creativity and lead to even greater independence from traditional structures.

In my area, people are forming organic communities where those who choose this life and have the resources to pursue it find their unique niche as they see fit and proceed to do what pleases them in mutual benefit -- they are not waiting on some Supreme and Holy Scientific Illuminist King to lead the way. I'm not talking about far-fetched idealistic communes, either - these are successful businesses applying this principle to co-housing development, community sustained farming operations, employee-owned and operated corporations...increasingly mainstream and supported across a wide and diverse population and very much in demand. The gains that have come with being able to exchange across distance (and thus cultural boundaries) doesn't bode well for xenophobic model, and the pace at which technology changes the culture can radically change a local caste system overnight.

The only way I see this changing, personally - especially if it's supposed to be part of cosmic evolution beginning an Aeon of the Child - is to insert either a catastrophic event blows things back to a primitive state of survival, or the appearance of a person with the overwhelming power to get things done his way (which would need to be considerable both in terms of military might and marketing acumen). Either way, for my taste, that is just way too much like waiting on the Tribulation to bring Jesus back so he can fix things for us.

In Light, Life, Love and Liberty ~ Manami

@Frater LR said

" You spoke only in terms of the kind of life you would like for yourself to have."

Thank you, Frater....the life I that I have -right here and right now- created from how I respond to the forces at play in it is the only thing I have control over.

If the point under debate here is that no one can truly make another person do something unless that person either consents or lacks the power to resist another's intentions, then sure, I agree. And if one is willing to live with the consequences of their actions, then there's really not a lot that can be done about it. If someone wants to get their friends together and go create a place where they can live by their own myths and customs (be it treehugging or headkicking), and they can pull off the organization it requires to be anything but a pipe dream -- then they are certainly at liberty to try it. I avidly study intentional communities and organization theory, so it will be interesting and edifying to watch their results, regardless of if it's something I would personally enlist in or not.

" As much as my own mind and heart have been enlarged and filled with an image of Beauty by Thelema, I can never get away from the fact that this Beauty is a balance struck by opposites, and the Law favors neither."

This is a very important observation, and well put. One of the problems with Utopianism is that it is too often driven by a limiting definition of Beauty which is based in artificiality, not in the reality which is dependent upon the interplay of opposites. Through it, people project their own distortion into the World rather than reflect the influence of the Reality which is perfect via their Work and thus nourish it: "This shall regenerate the world, the little world my sister, my heart & my tongue, unto whom I send this kiss."

And yes, no one has to worry about nourishing anything if they don't want to...but for those of us who view our presence here as an obligation to participate according to the Law, it's a tendency that demands constant vigilance and critical reflection.

In Light, Life, Love, and Liberty ~ Manami

@Froclown said

"actually I think the fundamental difference in the two ways of view thelema stems from what it means that Everyone is a unique star its own orbit... if two stars are on a collision course, then both shall charge full steam ahead, and if need be they will collide, but generally one or the other will be weaker or less determined and the fight will not last long, one will cry uncle and the other will continue on his way. The one simply did not want it enough to risk death of sever injury. (See Hegel's Master-slave dialectic.) "

This discussion demonstrates what I meant in a previous post about being careful about imaginaries, or the way that we bond ideas and assumptions to these images. Contemplating the stars in their orbits and reflecting on how this illustrates one's path in life can lead to some useful things, but there is a critical difference that makes this inaccurate for the way it's being used here. Namely, stars are passive subjects to the forces that move them in their orbits, and as such, their peace or conflict is fated and occurs without desire, self-reflection or recognition. They have no rights to enforce or resign. However charming or poetic the metaphor may be, as humans - especially as those engaged in the Hermetic or Thelemic tradition - we do not share their nature, being more kin to the Intelligence that is historically credited with setting them in motion. There may be a suggestive idea in there to play with in regard to how much control I have vs. how much control I think I have, but it doesn't tell me much about how to be a conscious being intent on realizing my own God-like essence, and thus freeing myself from the illusion of separation or powerlessness.

It pays to be careful with what images one falls in love with. What you've described, Froclown, - a world where two people cannot even pass each other in the street without behaving like animals asserting their dominance, where social order is neatly filed and sorted into enforced "niches" under an all-powerful godhead, where hospitality is given only at swordpoint - is for me in no way at step forward into a New Aeon. In fact, it sounds like a repeat of the failure and fall of the Carolingian empire to me, with nothing learned in the process. Even dressing it up in some nice Gorian garb isn't going to make it Thelemic in my book.

People confident in their power can afford to be gracious without it being self-debasing - we are sharing light and passion and delight with each other, and if I am Sun-like in my nature, then it doesn't matter to me what the flower thinks when I shine on it. I'm too intent on getting where I'm going to care if you thought that I sidestepped you when you attempted to plow through me because I thought myself inferior to you. There are many obstacles that regularly impose themselves between me and my desire, and as a human, I work through, around, over, under or with them according to what seems wise and most efficient to me in my way.

In the discussions of Hegel's Master/Slave dialectic I've seen, the point made by it is that the relationship is not satisfying or beneficial to either side - especially to the Master, whose power begins to be drained and diminished from the moment the slave is bonded into his/her identity. The Master must produce the resources for the upkeep of the slave as a trophy, or consign to it labor (as you've suggested)...and thus the slave gains the means to a measure of control over the Master's existence that will increase and push towards synthesis until one day transforming the Master/slave dichotomy. If forced to accept a temporary domination by another due to lack of equitable power, there will always be those who will use the opportunity to undermine their oppressor's strength and take them when they get flabby and lax and turn their back.

Beyond my own self-interests, if I care about ending the Aeon where suffering is deemed to be good for the soul, and aiding the advent of one in which I will thrive joyfully, then I would want to use the sympathetic magick of decreasing the suffering of others wherever it was within my power to do so, thus weakening the power that imprisons all I Love. If such changes are beyond my range and I am truly just fated to play out my time on this run, then my intent may not make a difference to the Powers That Be but it makes a considerable difference to my quality of life during my time here.

In Light, Life, Love, and Liberty ~ Manami