College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

You are very welcome.
It is my pleasure to speak/ write/ tell what I observe.

And I am thankful to know someone who is always willing to help me see clearly.

Awesome ! Thanks for sharing.

Something similar to what seems to have happened to the Boulaq during that time:

In LA, there is a great, old church with astounding acoustics called the Cathedral of St. Vibiana. After it suffered serious earthquake damage and was boarded up, there was great public interest in getting it repaired. The archdiocese of LA promised that St. Vib's would be preserved; but then, they were also busy allocating money to build the new cathedral in town (often deemed a monument to Cardinal Roger Mahoney, and variously called the Roj Mahal, or Taj Mahoney). Anyway, they really needed their money for the new building, so, keep their promise, they set aside a corner of the underground level (an area about half the size of my office at work) and... yes, you guessed it!... named that corner St. Vibiana's.

St. Vib's had been moved to the new building.

BTW, a few years ago some private investors bought the old location, fixed it up, and now it is again used for major classical music events, so all is well in the end. But that's a digression from the point here: The Boulaq Museum actually existed in the Cairo Museum. (Other museums today will occasionally "house the collection" of another museum for a time.)

Bara does mean create yes though in the context of "in the beginning' its meaning 'separation' A proper use after that context would be Yatsar.

The idea being put across that the creator was a primitive state.. unaffected by anything so to speak, after that idea of separation is where 'form' and complexity arise.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

@Jim Eshelman said

"The English word religion is essentially "re-ligature" - re-connect. It has a 12th Century Middle English origin, tracing back to the Latin root religio (which, as you noted, simply means "religion," or words like conscience, holiness, etc.) This Latin word, in turn, emerges from re + ligare, "to tie or fasten." (Interestingly, the English word rely also comes from this. I'd missed that link before.)

I'm not home, so can't look it up. I think this is one of those words that just isn't in Traupman. (The standard edition isn't exhaustive. It's just the best there is, except for the Traupman unabridged. I've never seen one of those outside of a college library reference section.)"

Rest assured, I have an abridged, 700 page paperback version. Although I'd love to have an unabridged edition, I don't have that kinda cash available for books right now! 😆

I did actually find another word, right above "religio" that resembles what we're talking about: "religatio -onis," which has the singular definition of "tying back or up." I apologize for overlooking that and not providing it in my previous post.

I found something under the etymology section of the Religion wikipedia page that reinforces your point a bit:

@Wikipedia said

"Religion (from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," "obligation, the bond between man and the gods") is derived from the Latin religiō, the ultimate origins of which are obscure. ... Modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell favor the derivation from ligare "bind, connect", probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect," which was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius. The medieval usage alternates with order in designating bonded communities like those of monastic orders: "we hear of the 'religion' of the Golden Fleece, of a knight 'of the religion of Avys'"."

I have to know more about St. Augustine's use of this! Definitely something worth researching, methinks...

EDIT: Found a great source on this topic!!! Check this link out, and scroll down to "Definitions of Religion and Philosophy." Quite enlightening, and it is a proponent for the same roots that you propose!

modernP you said things very well but from my understanding there are only a few misconceptions that may be dangerous to hold. A belief that it is just a psychological species of a game using different tools of the trade. (By using the word game, I imply hunt, not frivolity).

The Goetia, for instance, are not to be integrated into you. Trust me, they'd love nothing more than for you to believe that they are only pieces of you and you need to put yourself back together. They are indeed related to you, I might say, but only like a mirror shattered into 78 pieces is related to you. Your command of them, so to speak, is ultimately your command of yourself (this is true and you might have a hint of understanding that already) but only in as much as you realize that they are not you.

The Jungian concept of Individuation is nothing I would scoff at, but it is only one of many valuable psychological theories and honestly is more psychology-lite compared to some of the travels a magician makes. These "heavens and hells" we speak of, these states of mind (on one level) and states of existence (pure and rarefied but not just imaginations), they will require Herculean Will and Love to pass through far more so than any event an analyst and a couch could create.

In short - in my opinion - I think you are mixing the planes just a bit. There isn't too much danger in that, but if can be used to support an argument that the beasties are only mere aspects of yourself and you need to collect them into yourself and do their bidding, there is danger in that. They need to be bottled, in a brass vessel, not in your brain.

As far as the zen koan expression of who's will is it, the flute or the musicians: excellent. Meditate further on that and you will meet yourself, that companion you speak of. You will be "one with the flute." But you are not the flute.

I haven't had my coffee yet, so I hope I've been coherent.

Posted this strangley as Takamba was posting apparently.....

@EgoLuxMens said

"are these experiences of communication with "angels" or "spirits" etc. mean literally or metaphorically or what?"

I've often asked the same question myself and find the question asked by others commonly. I also recognize the question as "Are these things totally subjective or also objective? Inside me or out?" As a student, the best observation I've made is the answer is both. Experience is our language. If anything objective were to communicate to us it would do so via the language and symbols that are within (or possibly we can only recognize those). That thought is incomplete though.....

"Every Man and Woman is a Star"

Didn't mean any disrespect - hope you find balance in what you're doing.

I think I would agree with you about the connection between the ego and one's "Personal Timeline". It seems to me that the ego is the thing that connects our impressions into a unified identity. Notice that the ego forms around the time of the 'terrible twos'; and this is about when we start having islands of 'memory' coalesce into self-awareness.

Also arising at this time, is our notion of a future identity. To use an anecdote to support this, I would mention that my very earliest memory is from a little before 2, being in diapers, aware that my older brother had different underwear, and then deducing that when I was bigger like him, I would get to wear underwear instead of diapers too (apparently, I was easy to potty train, and I suspect that this was a factor!).

Of course, this is all the computer program that is the Ruach...

I would say that Chesed is a good synonym for Buddhist compassion, and that the following quote from the Mystical and Magical System of the A.'.A.'. is apt.

"The common translation of "Chesed" as "mercy" can be misleading. This has fed a misinterpretation of the relationship between Geburah and Chesed. To emphasize the polarity that occurs naturally between opposed Sephiroth, Chesed is translated "mercy" against Geburah's "severity". [...] Although useful on their own level, these complements are often misconstrued to render Chesed passive, even emasculated. Compassion, which should be characterized by a potent vitality or virility, becomes confused with weakness. [...]

What is overlooked too often in this view is that an Adeptus Exemptus is also an Adeptus Major. The attainment of Chesed subsumes all lesser attainments. A buddhist view of compassion includes both mercy and severity, because it means the giving unto a being whatever it truly needs - and a painful confrontation with reality is often every bit as compassionate as is sympathetic understanding"

Since joining the forum, I have felt a growing need to map out my thinking on this topic. I did a search, and viola, there was a thread! . I did read the other posts, and they only deepened my need to say something a bit truer to how I feel and conceive the problem: what does it mean to accept the law of Thelema? So I’m just going to add some thoughts onto the end. I am assuming the thread was started because other peeps were needing to hash out a similar catechism of faith.

There is a style of rhetoric that folks sometimes fall into when debating the core, or essence, of an ideological position. This style pretends to be scholarly, it relies on subtle interpretations of minor words in a larger context, it appeals to the authority of published books and opinions by originating personalities, it invokes logical argument, and educated conclusions to make a point, or rather a bludgeon.

This style of debate causes me intense spiritual discomfort. When this happens I usually feel for the pack of smokes in my shirt pocket. I the nudge the person I am sitting next to, show them the pack of cigs, and mouth as quietly as possible the words “I will be right back.” Then I quietly make my way out of the row of seats and up the aisle until I am in the open air where I can breath.

The most striking element in this behavior is the fact that I don’t smoke.

I am left contemplating one of two possible explanations for my discomfort. Either my philosophical world and my thoughts about phiolosophy are so incestuous that I will do anything in order to avoid getting on that merry-go-round—please don’t make me think those thoughts ‘again;’ or, try as I might, I just can’t find any mental hand and footholds that make me feel as though I am dealing with anything real—in other words, I don’t see the need for being philosophically armed to the teeth, when the reasons for my convictions should be part of the actual life I live from moment to moment.

I accept the Book of the Law, and the Law of Thelema, but for me this acceptance comes in this form:

Anyone who has managed to get to where they are at any moment in their lives has only been able to do that because of the principles of Thelema. It doesn’t matter if they use the word, or not. It doesn’t matter if they have never heard of Aleister Crowley, or if they have outlandish ideas about who he was and what he stood for. People who claim the Book of the Law is Holy Writ, but who do not have the spiritual, and life experiences to back up that claim are just farting out of a place higher than their b**t hole, to quote the French. This includes me. I assume, because it is the best assumption I can muster at this point in the journey that has allowed me to get to where I am now, that when I finally achieve gnosis, the truth of Thelema will be self-evident. If I never achieve it, I may continue to attempt to accept it for what it is, but I will have no real basis for insisting or proving the argument (though, the whole conceit that providing reasons for accepting Thelema is all about making an argument is specious, imho). Should I access the truth via a direct transmission from my angel—we can call it that—the truth of that experience will define Thelema as much as confirm it. In other words, while I do not expect my angel to greet me with the words “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law,” I nevertheless expect the angel to greet me with words, or to impress on me an experience, appropriate to explain the truth of my life and key to the mysteries of the universe. This understanding, even if it should take the form of “don’t follow Crowley, reject the book of the law, do something else with your life” is by my definition, the essence of Thelema—do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Thanks for indulging me.

love and will

According to my calculations Thelema is the key to solving all the worlds problems.

It is the Utopia of man, Peace on Earth.
In my view it is inevitable that eventually a "Thelemic Political Party" will coalesce, as this is the design of the GOD of the Aeon of the Child. There is no stopping it.

It is nice to think humanity is gracious enough to slowly begin to accept the Light of the Truth and change & evolve gently, but I don't think it's going to happen like that.

An event will happen disrupting/destroying the present system, and from the ashes a new plan will unfold.

Thelemites already do govern the planet, by way of their magic. Thelemic societies do exist proving heaven on earth, I like to imagine a future widening that influence across open territory. Where all people recognize themselves governing the planet through establishment of their True Wills, this is the natural way of harmony & order.

The so-called "Politics of Thelema", should be taught in kindergarten, and not doing so is corruption.
Defining a working blueprint of the Politics of Thelema is something that interests me. I have my own ideas and outlines too.