@Wilder said
"What, in your mind, does it take for one to be accurately placed under the category of "Thelemite?" Are their specific beliefs or practices that are requisite? If so, what and why?"
the problem with the way that this is asked is that it begs for a universalism which does not exist. there are groups of people who seem to agree on it, individuals maintaining certain positions as well. the way that i use the term is that i apply it to those displaying a cognizance of true will and individual sovereignty. this simultaneously signifies that they are oriented, willful, and fully engaged in defending the integrity of their cooperative kindred. one of those things they help to diminish is a universalist delimination on liberating technologies and doctrines.
@Wilder said
"Why is it important that Aiwass delivered the message to Crowley?"
generally it isn't. to Crowleyan cultists it gives a ledge off which to push in the region of practical bhakti yoga.
@Wilder said
"Isn't Liber L the core of Thelema, not how it came to be?"
no, not for all. the Law which is for all is a principle of will, not a doctrine surrounding it or in reflection of it. this is not to say that one may not benefit from cults aggregating around such doctrines.
@Jim Eshelman said
" ...the single most important thing about Liber L. is that, for the first time in human history, there is something close to documentation of suprahuman consciousness capable of communicating with the human."
@Aum418 said
"This isnt documentation at all by any standards."
false. it is documentation by standard of knowing about and having the written ('automatic writing') record of a human being communicating with a god (or angel). it's not at all the first time in human history this has come into being, but it may be the first recognized by those who so aggrandize or evaluate it within Crowleyan cults.
@Aum418 said
"By these standards, Lao Tzu was in touch with the Secret Chiefs or the author of the Gita, etc. Again, thats not 'evidence' or 'documentation' at all. If Liber AL is entirely for {the} purpose of proving this it fails entirely."
that Star God has few indisputable human traces. far better to talk about the current batch of priests or diviners who are part of the Celestial Masters cult. any of them might be a Beast and Prophet, just not writing in the Queen's English. over-emphasis on the particulars discloses cultural myopia. familiarity with the techniques and processes should be part of a long-term study, whether as one's own career takes off or in the wake of another.
@Wilder said
"Is the study of Qabalah requisite? Occultism in general?"
the purpose of adopting "Qabalah" is the stealing of fire from Western cults of antiquity, usurping popular authority by association to mystical acumen in alpha-numerological calculation. it no more participates in the supposition that the very God constructed the language (and its Letter-Numbers) than an application of Liber Astarte vel Berylli constitutes initiation to a particular and well-known cult. occultism is completely optional for the willful, though it is a demonstration of volition exercised or manifested at a symbolic remove.
@Jim Eshelman said
" ...if Liber L. is consulted on the matter, "Thelemite" only appears as a {label} that other people call us. The one thing this seems to exclude is self-labelling."
logically to describe those using the term as 'doing no wrong' does not in any way set out an exclusion. call yourself what you will shall be the whole of the Law.
@Jim Eshelman said
"...Why would a Thelemite use a label? ..."
as a willful influence and positioning, activating her own consciousness and social atmosphere with the stigma or connotation thereof. willful autonomy precludes establishment of motivation or restriction.
@Andie said
"...Do you have to know about the BotL in order for the Will you're doing to be called "Will"? Do you have to know about Crowley to be called a Thelemite?"
there is no central authority to dub a will as 'Will'. this went the way of central religious authorities and theocracies which are on their way out in the New Aeon. you will not be able to find such ratification in any zone where disputation exists. once you identify your selection of authority then they may provide you with a rendered judgement on 'Will'. that can only rationally be assessed insofar as it comes into direct conflict with someone identifying their own trajectory as opposing and blocking it. elsewise hindsight will yield the valence or someone is playing at prophet and manipulator.
as is evident from the above, i feel comfortable using the term to describe (or compliment) those who display a cognizance of true will and individual sovereignty. having heard of any given human being is unnecessary for this liberated and initiated understanding of the term (one i presume is best inferred from I.40). others will disclose other standards of use, and this is pure and perfect in every way.