@Jim Eshelman said
"It is our belief that the apocalyptic tones of Chapter 3 of The Book of the Law refer primarily to a transformation of consciousness"
When you say "our", who are you talking about? The plural you? Or some group?
Anyway, your position is simply not the one Crowley professed.
So, why should we reject his view and accept yours instead?
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Tarotica said
"
@Edward Mason said
"Some of the rest of the piece is internally coherent, if you're into loathing and disgust as a general attitude. Though I personally do NOT want ANY state religion, Thelemic or otherwise, thank you."
Then you do not want the Thelema of Aleister Crowley."
Non sequitur."
How so?
@Jim Eshelman said
"One mustn't confuse faith with reason."
Then why care about the method of science?
@Jim Eshelman said
"Just as Christian scriptures usually (always?) are not actual history, genuine Holy Books in general (such as The Koran and Liber Legis) should not be read reasonably."
And again, then why be concerned with demonstrations of "proofs" concerning their verses?
You may have faith that Liber AL commands you to eat enough cheddar cheese to turn yourself into a giant rat, and that this is your true cosmic will.
And after devouring mounds of the cheese, perhaps you would imagine you were a rat, and your faith would say it is so.
But there would be no demonstration this is the case, nor any evidence indicating how the verses of Liber AL should reasonably be read to guide a person to the determination to which faith brought you.
And a reasonable interpretation, even a literal interpretation, of the verses is both acceptable and recommended by Crowley as valid.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Personally (and, to be clear, I am only speaking personally on this), I think it's not only probably wrong, but actively destructive. This sort of position is an example of what makes Thelemites look threatening to the rest of the world."
Well, Jim, shouldn't Thelemites be seen as threatening to the rest of the world?
Of course, strategically, if you mean it is easier to infiltrate and subvert the governments of the world, if Thelemites falsely appear kindly and beneficent (or merely metaphorical), there is that point and consideration.
But, I think Crowley spoke to this, pointing out that expressing the truth to the world is not going to clue it into anything that shall obstruct the current. And that is true, because the world will not believe there is a current to fear, until it is too late.
@Agent Smith said
"Although personally i have nothing against militancy, this seems more like fantasy, denial and/or escapism. An Imaginary platform whereby you channel frustration and anger against the present status quo( which I don't blame you for having)."
Maybe you are projecting, more than reflecting about what I wrote, and more pertinently about what Crowley wrote.
I am not angry and frustrated about some status quo. I am trying to understand and to explain what Crowley (and Aiwass) actually said. I am thus interested in the way the status is actually very much in flux.
@Agent Smith said
"however there are fundamental flaws with this approach firstly the enemy is not readily identifiable;"
Liber AL says otherwise. It specifies the enemies. It specifies the remedies.
It doesn't matter whether you like that or not.
@Agent Smith said
"How does one determine who is actually a Thelemite"
Well, if that isn't already obvious, it should be the ONLY thing under discussion on a forum such as this.
It's pretty basic, especially for people alleging to be Thelemites.
@Agent Smith said
"Identity is a mental construct, arguably one may consider himself a Christian but yet in action conform to "Do what thou wilt.."
Then he would be confused. And in need of assistance to correct his understanding. In any case, if he stands by the cross, he would be in danger when it is destroyed.
@Agent Smith said
"Furthermore like you rightly point out, our consumer culture does not produce that many militants, so there is little hope of ever gathering this army barring a major cataclysm, so maybe you could conceive of how to create one!"
Whether or not it is created or supplied, if that is the method of the current, so be it.
I did not in my article dictate or prophesy anything specific on that count.
Nor did I declare any particular government or state an enemy—because I do not know which ones may actually be allies of Thelema, when the time comes, or which may be sufficiently infiltrated to be instruments of Thelema, no matter what their public postures may be.
Also, and I think this is one of the more interesting aspects, which I intend to write more about shortly, but of course there is always the possibility that Crowley was writing ironically in all respects, but I find that a questionable argument.
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"Like, for example, that the jihad of the Book of the Law is literal. Why not also assume that verses away from commands to "torture" and "kill" that the mention of "blood of a child" is really encouraging child sacrifice?"
Liber AL doesn't encourage it. It commands child sacrifice, and Crowley plainly said this was the case.
Refer to the discussion about this here.
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"I have no expectation of being called to go to a holy war."
No, you wouldn't.
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"I'm a Thelemite"
What makes you that? Your affirmation?
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"I'd be surprised if you found many on this forum that really expect something like this."
I would agree with that.
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"Maybe a misguided OTO minerval reading the BOTL for the first time thinks that, I suppose."
My experience is that such people do not know what to think—and are not much helped by enquiring in forums where they are told not to worry their little heads about all those violent "metaphors".
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"I think Edward's post does a better job of answering these questions than I could."
OK. Well, I answered his posting also, as you may see.
@Edward Mason said
"I don't see a reasoned statement here, just an ignorant, Palin-esque, diatribe. Was that really how the Prophet of Islam won over so many converts - join us or die?
This is not a story of gentle persuasion, but of war and conquest, "join us or die." We should not be surprised, since that was generally the means of spreading hegemony in that time and in this one as well.
Have you ever read a history of early Islam? It was all very different to what you suggest."
Or, it was pretty much what I suggest. So, how shall we know?
In a book the New York Times described as "a brisk account of Islam's momentous first century", The Great Arab CONQUESTS-How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live in, the chapter list is instructive:
The CONQUEST of Syria and Palestine
The CONQUEST of Iraq
The CONQUEST of Egypt
The CONQUEST of Iran
The War at Sea
Voices of the CONQUERED
And I'm pretty sure those conquests were not at academic debates.
But, the author is specific:
"The Arabic sources use the term conquest (fath) to describe the taking over of the lands of the Byzantine and Persian empires. The fth root in Arabic implies 'opening', but in the conquest literature it clearly implies THE USE OF FORCE. At one extreme it meant the BRUTAL AND VIOLENT sack of a city, the PILLAGING of its wealth and the EXECUTION of MANY or ALL of its defenders."
While acknowledging that the conquests were often more peaceful affairs, the author makes clear the conquered peoples "would agree to the imposition of terms...because of the use, or threat of the use, of FORCE."
Obviously, after establishing a reputation for "brutal and violent" conquests, the Muslim forces sometimes had to do little more than show up and demand surrender.
But, the sword spread Islam, not intellectual arguments.
@Edward Mason said
"Really? Yes, we know there are millions who do, or who might. That's a tiny percentage of the whole."
Depending on the polls and the wholes, majorities of Muslims have enthusiastically supported the slaughtering of infidels, and especially American ones occupying lands of the Islamic faithful, by the means mentioned.
Not tiny percentages. Healthy ones.
@Edward Mason said
"The problem we are running into is a Thelemic explosion happening within the Islamic world, that is parallel to own but coming through a very different paradigm"
And what precisely do you mean by that?
Are you saying Muslims are converting to Thelema in "explosive" numbers?
Or what exactly?
@Edward Mason said
"Some of the rest of the piece is internally coherent, if you're into loathing and disgust as a general attitude. Though I personally do NOT want ANY state religion, Thelemic or otherwise, thank you."
Then you do not want the Thelema of Aleister Crowley.
@Edward Mason said
"I suggest an exercise that Crowley might have prescribed, but which I doubt you have the courage to attempt. That is, read the Koran in its entirety, but with a prayerful attitude."
Well, good luck with that. I have another suggestion, which I know for a fact Crowley would have prescribed. And that is read Liber AL with an open mind and heart. And that I have had the courage to do.
For what it matters, I have done the same with the Koran as well.
@Edward Mason said
"Yes, prayerful, because its inner message cannot be accessed by rational analysis."
And so no reasoned statements required from it. Very generous of you.
@Edward Mason said
"That reading took me five weeks"
And at that point you were a master of Islam?
Or maybe just somebody who poked his nose into the Koran once upon a time.
@Edward Mason said
"But in the end, I no longer doubted that the faith of Islam is one of spiritual (not necessarily temporal) peace."
So, what difference does it make if the Koran preaches peace of the spirit, while cutting off people's temporal heads?
@nashimiron said
"I wonder if Mr/Ms tarotica posted this link on any Muslim discussion forums?"
I do not see why Muslims would have much interest in it, but anyone who thinks otherwise can certainly post a link to those forums and find out.
@JPF said
"Assuming one agreed with the basic principals of this essay, (or whatever it is), that is simply a horrible way to present the material."
And why is that?
@JPF said
"When it comes to presenting an argument, rational examples and clear, lucid observation go a long way."
OK. Then practice what you preach. Using your approach, show me how what I wrote is in error.
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"A waste of 10 minutes. It's just a juvenile flight of fancy."
You mean pointing out what Crowley actually said? Well, that might be true, but your problem then would be with Crowley, not myself.
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"It just makes lots of assumptions."
Like what for example? And how have I assumed something incorrectly?
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"Lots of Thelemites have lots of different views of the book of the law"
So? The diversity of views does not means all views are correct, which I think is the point you are suggesting, correct?
So, then how do we determine what is correct or likely about Liber AL? Wouldn't application to what it says and what Crowley also says be a good start?
And that is what I have done. So, again, what error have I made in what I wrote in that article?
A commentary on the martial similarity of Thelema and Islam.
@modernPrimitive said
"Yes, Lon doesn't exactly ooze the persona of a 'serious occultist'. But, so what?"
So, very few people ever articulate that, or that it might be a problem, especially given Lon's role as a public spokesperson for Thelema.
Someone posted the following to my blog today, complaining about the fact I had attacked the beloved "savior":
"Duquette's a nice fellow whose half-dozen well-researched, useful, and straightforward books about Thelema have played a great part in saving the religion from the dustbin of history..."
I think that is a popular view of Lon's contribution. And few people question it.
@modernPrimitive said
"I also think that what was written is as much indicative of an unbalanced mind (especially in terms of language use) as it might contain some kind of "valuable insight"."
Are you talking about Lon, or myself?
What particularly seems indicative of this? And what measure of "balance" are you employing?
@modernPrimitive said
"I'm not sure I agree with the Satanism bit. This to me, is all really just a matter of semantics."
That is not a minor matter, especially in the occult.
Thelemites may not like being associated with Satan or Satanism, but they have their prophet to complain to if they have a problem about that.
Crowley was not vague or ambiguous about worshipping Satan or being his servant or even offspring.
If a person, such as Crowley, means by "I am a Satanist", that he is really a baker, or a postal employee, then he probably needs to learn a better appreciation for the semantics of the terms he uses.
But I am sure he well understood that. And chose his words carefully, and righteously.
@modernPrimitive said
"I'd also say that Crowley's "Satanism" is a far cry from LaVey's type of Satanism."
And Jehovah's Witnesses are a far cry from Catholics. But still Christians.
@modernPrimitive said
"Crowley also spent several years studying Sufism and esoteric Islam."
And a lot of other religions and systems, which he sometimes admired, as he did Islam. But Crowley was not a Muslim.
He was a Satanist.
(jk)
A review of a recent Lon Milo DuQuette podcast, particularly a couple of his policy narratives.
(jk)
At Onion-Peelings:
onion-peelings.blogspot.com/2009/11/aiwazminister-zero.html
His authority, role in Thelema, and his name(s).
New information regarding the latter that suggests that somebody (Rose, Crowley, both?) may have been playing a particularly wicked little joke on someone, or everyone.
(jk)
@h2h said
"Pity and compassion are often confused for each other"
"pity" has as its meaning in part to feel compassion for another.
Allow God to explain it in plain terms:
"And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them."
It seems Aiwass or Crowley recalled Jeremiah 13:14.
And also, note that the God of the Hebrews generally made use of human agents to effect these merciless and terrible destructions. So, he could just as well have been saying "Kill and torture; spare not; be upon them." In fact he often said things like that. And he wasn't being metaphorical.
(jk)
@Jim Eshelman said
"FWIW my own short remarks on this verse are here:
aumha.org/arcane/ccxx3.htm#18"
I do not think you and I are much divergent in our views on this verse, except that you say:
"A fundamentalist reading of this verse would take it as an injunction to “Kill and torture,” and so forth. Although I have no easy explanation for my point of view, I simply renounce this meaning."
Questions:
Do you mean by "fundamentalist reading" one is that is necessarily in error?
Would you provide a concise, if not easy, explanation for your point of view regarding the meaning of "kill and torture" in Liber AL III, 18?
Do you think Crowley's comments about the verse, and other points he made about the violent commandments in Liber AL, should be read literally (as peshat), or only ever metaphorically?
(jk)
An examination of the ethical principles of Liber AL III, 18.
(jk)
@h2h said
"Tarotica - you mentioned seeing AC's notes on the gematria of Hadit scrawled on the back page of the Stele paraphrase. Can you provide a scan of these notes? I would be very interested in seeing them."
Actually, that isn't what I said. What I said was that his Qabalistic calculations were written on the back of the French translation, that is the prose translation.
But I also never said I had a scan of anything. I said I had handwritten notes, taken at the time I viewed the material a number of years ago.
I would ask this. If I posted scans of the pages, how would you know they were images of the backs of the pages of the documents in question, and not something I concocted to fool you into believing in my "conspiracy theory"?
For that matter, given that some people claim to have seen these documents, and have published regarding them, it is odd I think that none of them have ever mentioned this before.
Perhaps we should ask them why they haven't.
If their reply is that they saw nothing on the backs of the pages, then we may have more to talk about on this point.
(jk)
@Jim Eshelman said
"You're acting like you've discovered the lost map to an ancient native American golden city, but your vast disclosure is about as important as, "Hey, my single male neighboor is starting to have Tampons show up in his garbage every Wednesday.""
I've seen this criticism from a number of people, who seem compelled in spite of this alleged unimportance and irrelevance to continue to post lengthy replies to my article and posts.
The interest level denies its lack of importance. So does the level of concern (to put it politely) on the part of some of the people trying to discredit what I am saying.
@Jim Eshelman said
"So, just for the record: All of your supposition above is your spin on my story. It isn't my story and I'm not party to it."
You're not party to your alleged conversation with Lon? I think my statements concerning it are not "spin", but reasonable inferences and questions.
If Lon admits OTO was aware of "that one", and presumably what it meant, then why would Heidrick and others concoct a false hieroglyphic explanation of it?
Jim, is this the first time you've heard of Heidrick's "Ba-Hadit" explanation? Or his claim that the "misspelling" was on the stele?
@Jim Eshelman said
"(But anyone who thinks there was a Great Secret Collusion & Alliance between Lon DuQuette and Bill Heidrick in 1979-80 has missed most of the subtext of O.T.O. history of that time."
Where did I say anything about a collusion between those two in 1979-80?
Or for that matter in any particular year? My first knowledge of Heidrick's theory occurred in 1995.
My only knowledge of what Lon thought and when comes from his own published words, which I've mentioned, and your claim about a conversation you had with him, apparently back in 1979-80.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Lon and Bill would have to speak for themselves."
I contacted Lon and told him about what you said. He hasn't replied back with any comment. And Bill publicly declared he had nothing more to say on the matter 10 years ago. I think he's stuck to that.
Seems this is a sensitive matter for them.
@Jim Eshelman said
"For myself: I also refer frequently to Hadit being on the stele."
But you don't blame hieroglyphics for that, do you?
And, it's one thing to say it to yourself. It's quite another to make a public representation of this as fact, and without any explanation of what exactly you mean.
@Jim Eshelman said
"
LOL, trying to get good quotes out of me?"
Don't seem to have to try, Jim. You're happy to provide them.
@Jim Eshelman said
"I didn't say they are setting up straw soldiers, I said you are."
Actually, you said that respecting my quoting the OTO Grand Lodge website contradicting what you said about the non-Egyptian nature of the Thelemic deities.
So, if I was setting up a straw soldier in that case, it would have been OTO's opinion—which however on that point I wasn't attempting to knock down at all. I did give you an opportunity to do so, but you seem to have thought better of it.
@Jim Eshelman said
"I don't mind that you're writing fiction"
I know. If this was "Chemical Wedding", we'd all have a big laugh, and know it doesn't matter in the least.
No, you mind that I'm writing facts.
@Jim Eshelman said
"I don't use the word "heretical" very often in referring to Thelemic topics, and this probably doesn't reach "bizarre." Just seriously uninformed."
OK, so is the OTO Grand Lodge Website seriously uninformed on this point too?
@Jim Eshelman said
"You aren't worth the bother"
You're sure writing a lot of words for something not worth the bother.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Please reread and then ask specific questions if necessary."
OK.
What else did you and Lon talk about respecting "Hadit" and its presence or lack of same on the stele?
And did you ever discuss this matter with other OTO members, such as Heidrick or Bill Breeze? If so, what was said about it?
@Jim Eshelman said
"I have no problem with your facts."
Well, it's good you acknowledge I have some, given you wrote above I was just writing "fiction".
@Jim Eshelman said
"It's when you start putting interpretations on your facts that you start moving from solid ground."
I have repeatedly posed my points about OTO's "conspiracies" as questions. But they are questions raised upon reasonable suspicions, given the facts.
If you disagree, then explain why we should think OTO's failure to explain this "Hadit" question in plain terms (acknowledging the error AND the false hieroglyphic explanation) is innocent.
@Jim Eshelman said
"The facts, in and of themselves, have no particular meaning."
The fact Heidrick and others in OTO have been telling us something about "Hadit" that isn't true has no meaning?
Why is that?
@Jim Eshelman said
"You then put meaning on them, and your meaning is contentious, baiting, and self-aggrandizing."
How so?
@Jim Eshelman said
"Then there is no Thelema and we're all idiots to begin with; because if this is true, then The Book wasn't literally translated by Aiwass and taken down by Nuit's prophet in a form that must be preserved without changing so much as the style of a letter. And all the copies should be burned."
They should be burned?
Why is that?
Because you would have wasted your time believing in a silly story?
Jim, do you really believe there was a spirit entity (or Secret Chief) called Aiwass that translated Liber AL for Crowley to transcribe in 1904?
What is your evidence for believing that?
@Jim Eshelman said
"without altering a single letter"
And you really think that happened? In spite of Crowley plainly saying he had to edit the thing afterward because he didn't "hear" some of it, and because the paraphrase part wasn't even recorded in the Working since he could add that later? Note that Aiwass in other words would have acted like a politician talking to a speechwriter, piecing together things that he supposedly agreed with but did not in fact write himself.
Again, to a skeptic, what this points to is a deliberate act of imaginative literary creation on the part of Crowley, not a praeternatural intervention from timeless cosmic guardians.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Yes - its teachings. Not necessarily its academia. One has to embrace and live The Book of the Law for its instructions to be demonstrably true."
That isn't what Crowley said. He said it contained elements which should prove convincing even to skeptics, and to people who hadn't lived one day of its instructions.
@Jim Eshelman said
"The basis for our accepting this is that we had a first-hand witness"
Actually, you had two first-hand witnesses. If the Working was so convincing, why wasn’t Rose impressed sufficiently to become something other than a disposable Scarlet Woman? Is it because she well understood the whole thing was just an elaborate romantic play, essentially a gift she offered to her beloved husband?
@Jim Eshelman said
"One either finds the witness credible or not credible."
My experience in the occult and in studying occultists is that black and white approaches to understanding them and their work are not generally helpful.
Case in point, Crowley is demonstrably not credible on his claims about a praeternatural intelligence authoring Liber AL. Reason? The evidence he pointed to as the most convincing possible (the Tarot key adjustment) didn’t hold up.
It doesn’t necessarily follow from this that everything in Liber AL, and everything Crowley wrote is a waste of time.
It just means the strong, and I would say concincing, likelihood is that Crowley, not something called Aiwass, wrote Liber AL.
@Jim Eshelman said
"And have you read his specific proofs? For example, the extensive demonstrations he wrote in The Equinox of the Gods?"
Jim, which one or two of those alleged demonstrations do you find the most convincing? And why so?
@Jim Eshelman said
"Math isn't "faith-based,""
Actually, at some point it is.
And more pertinently, belief in myth certainly is.
@Jim Eshelman said
"The root postulate of Thelema is "Aiwass dictated The Book of the Law to Aleister Crowley"
And just to clarify this point once again, if that isn’t literally true, people should burn all copies of Liber AL, correct?
And that doesn’t strike you as being the histrionic reaction of a disappointed true believer?
(jk)
@Uni_Verse said
"The question then becomes, where is Ra Hoor Khut?"
That would be the figure you've identified as "Aiwass".
See, for example. Click on the first picture, "Funerary Stela". That is "Ra Hoor Khuit", or Re-Harakhty.
(jk)
@Edward Mason said
"93,
Sir Alan Gardiner died in the early 1960s, BTW. His version says: "Behdet (?) Hadit (?)" That is, he felt there was some question about pronunciation. I don't know who Gunn is/was."
Actually, there was some question about whether or not the correct word "Behdet" was the one Crowley had changed to "Hadit". Gardiner-Gunn would no doubt have well understood there wasn't any "Hadit" on the stele. It seems likely if their client had asked about this, they would have explained it to him. In any case, there are no notes to this question explaining its significance.
And this seems to have been Battiscombe Gunn.
@Edward Mason said
"The second translation says "The Behedite.""
But again no explanation concerning what that means nor why "Hadit" is missing.
@Edward Mason said
"So an OTO-sponsored publication 20 years ago acknowledged the variant spellings."
"Hadit" is not a variant spelling. It isn't anything Egyptian.
@Edward Mason said
"What the current leadership thinks may be different, but Jim's view on this, at least, is at least supported by the view of an earlier generation of OTO management."
I don't see any indication Jim's generation thought anything differently than Crowley's or later ones.
None of them have been forthcoming about this question.
(jk)