Advice on LBRP

foolMoon


I thought that looked familiar. I have it in Gems From The Equinox that Falcon Press published in hardcover in 1986. I believe I was using Regardie's instructions back when I was working with the LBRP.

Thank you AW and BW, it seems certainly very comprehensive info regarding the topic. I am thinking of getting more books by Regardie and Crowley soon, as I like paper copies.
 

ravenest


Ditto - in the first sections .... but at section 3 it becomes a bare skeleton of directions with little comprehension (if you dont get all the previous under your belt first ) .

I often wonder how 'religious Thelemites' balance their beliefs (and more so, the believing, objective experience they have given to OTHERS subjective experiences , ie. Crowley) .... and their own requirement of not giving " objective reality or philosophic validity " to results.

If that isnt clear, try this :

On the one hand

Thelemites believe that Crowley's invocations and ... gave rise to a transmission from a 'praeterhuman ' (or whatever the word was ) intelligence that dictated the Book of the Law and the new Aeon was revealed. It was a magical operation.

On the other hand He wrote very clearly in LIber O

" By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them. "
 

Zephyros

Well, it seems like an exercise in Doublethink, doesn't it? Every religion has its own creation myth, but at the same time every religion has more mundane tenets that deal with day to day life. You can certainly follow Christ's example of love and sacrifice without believing in the resurrection.

I don't see an obligation to buy the Aiwass story, not when the Book of Law itself is full of applicable and pithy truths. Same thing with the advent of the new Aeon, I don't need Crowley's assurances that there is such a thing to conclude that the age we live in really is distinct from those that came before.

This isn't to say I don't believe Crowley about his experiences, only that I am unwilling to commit to that belief. I don't believe, but belief is unnecessary. I also don't disbelieve, for the same reason, I simply don't concern myself with belief in any way. I just shrug.
 

Aeon418

" By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them. "
Crowley was typically very careful and precise in his phrasing and choice of words. The word that stands out for me in this quote is "students."
 

ravenest

I wasn't saying anyone in particular did forbid discussion, but just was making points in general :)

I think my point was, ok each and everybody could have their own definition of true will, but also one's own choice to adopt an adept's definition should not be regarded as meaningless. I feel it is my point which is totally missed.

Its not about not defining it, its about being clear on what we are defining. Perhaps I am being overly semantical but when the subject turns to 'will' , can we be assured one is talking about the 'Thelemic' concept of the 'True Will' or the everyday concept of will or Christian concept of 'free will', that was supposedly a gift from God.

When will is bandied around, IME the conversation becomes sloppy, new people come along and think it means free will or whatever else. A few times here people have written ' true will' or better 'True Will' .

Its a bit like the concept of HGA and 'angel' being blurred nowadays. (Or even 'spirit' and 'soul' , which are two very different things).

Here are some things I relate to the True Will;

Incarnatory purpose - general and specifically individual. (And here I speculate specific, related 'genius', 'inherent' skill sets, etc .)

'Reincarnatory tendencies'.

Life's work ( and that can be one's 'job', if one is fortunate enough to be paid for 'expressing one's essential nature').

IME it relates to what brings us, not just happiness , but deep 'spiritual' contentment and satisfaction, also purpose and meaning in and to life. WHAT it is ... butcher, baker or candle-stick maker ... is immaterial .

Also it can give one a good relationship with society (in a good society); the individual's skills are needed and appreciated, s/he is fulfilled by the acceptance of their work and society benefits from the individuals genius ... this is an extension of the social idea that Crowley seemed to have visioned.

I cant rerally see it working in a huge factory with mindless repetitive work , endlessly producing one component for a product that comes together further down the line. Here ones True Will may be totally divorced from one's 'means of income'.

Here the idea of attainment is somewhat different .... well, MY idea of attainment is different ... from the east. It seems more similar to Sufism. If one is a bricklayer and becomes enlightened, one doeant go off to live in a cave and deliver obscure philosophy to visitors... it means the town now has an enlightened bricklayer, more beautiful and functional buildings and houses will be designed and built - everyone benefits socially

{I saw a doco on one of these builders, he built probably half the town, in many different variations and expressions - all incredibly beautiful and functional. He didnt use plans or drawings, even some of the mud bricks were made in unusual shapes that were to be incorporated into complex designs later. he was asked how he knew what to do with no plans ... he said he just laid one brick after another... the design ? ... he tapped his head.

He said he knew everyone in the town, their family needs, requirements, work, children, life style. When someone asked to have a house built, they didnt even tell him what they wanted, he just knew what to build for them, instinctively, and they were happy with that. He said God sent him here to be a builder. He was beaming and smiling and radiating out his spirit as he talked about his work

http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/847b4d0c-da80-4249-a8e6-42ead2fd0680.img }

I also see it as the focus for an essential dynamic and expression of 'soul' ( soul as the imaginative / creative faculty ... the essential human quality ... not some 'ghost figure' that looks like me ).

Yes, it may change through your life. I believe some may never find what their will is, some do and it is ongoing, some do and complete it ... what is one to do then ? So I feel it can change or be multiple.

I will even go as far to identify things which may indicate where one's True Will lies. In some cases, finding and expressing it can heal one's whole life and turn it around from a false mess rapidly heading down hill to a new happy and satisfied expression - I have seen that.
 

ravenest

Crowley was typically very careful and precise in his phrasing and choice of words. The word that stands out for me in this quote is "students."

Aha!

I wonder when that is supposed to change and one is to give objective reality and validity to a vision ?

And if this means students should not accept the BoL , only 'masters' or 'teachers' should accept it as 'objective and philosophically valid' ?

Me? I'll just pick and choose parts of it .... at will ;) .... that I accept as subjective or objective.
 

Always Wondering

I thought that looked familiar. I have it in Gems From The Equinox that Falcon Press published in hardcover in 1986. I believe I was using Regardie's instructions back when I was working with the LBRP.

Yes, it's a bit hard to find unless you know what your looking for, tucked away in Gems like that.

Ravenest said:
I often wonder how 'religious Thelemites' balance their beliefs (and more so, the believing, objective experience they have given to OTHERS subjective experiences , ie. Crowley) .... and their own requirement of not giving " objective reality or philosophic validity " to results.

I more or less view Crowley as a pioneer who was much braver than I and try to learn from his mistakes. :laugh:But you did pick and choose a little here...
" By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them. "

From Liber O
It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them.

3. The advantages to be gained from them are chiefly these:
("a") A widening of the horizon of the mind.
("b") An improvement of the control of the mind.

3. a and b resolve it all in my own mind.

foolMoon said:
Thank you AW

Your welcome. Good luck.
 

Barleywine

Aha!

I wonder when that is supposed to change and one is to give objective reality and validity to a vision ?

And if this means students should not accept the BoL , only 'masters' or 'teachers' should accept it as 'objective and philosophically valid' ?

Me? I'll just pick and choose parts of it .... at will ;) .... that I accept as subjective or objective.

This got me thinking about one of my favorite sources of "condensed Crowley": Little Essays Toward Truth, first published by the O.T.O. in 1938. In the essay "Truth" I found this:

"Consider the statement of the Angel in the 5th Aethyr in The Vision and the Voice:

. . . all the symbols are interchangeable, for each one containeth in itself its own opposite. And this is the great Mystery of the Supernals that are beyond the Abyss. For below the Abyss, contradiction is division; but above the Abyss, contradiction is Unity. And there could be nothing true except by virtue of the contradiction that is contained in itself."
 

Aeon418

I wonder when that is supposed to change and one is to give objective reality and validity to a vision ?

And if this means students should not accept the BoL , only 'masters' or 'teachers' should accept it as 'objective and philosophically valid' ?
Hmmm... this is rather bizarre. I'm unclear on how you can take an instructional paper that forms part of the early teaching of a particular graded training system and blow it up into this?! :confused:

Liber O makes it's appearance right at the very beginning of the A.'.A.'. system. It is designed to equip the student with a useful set of 'tools' that will/may prove highly useful to them on their journey towards 5=6 Within. Before that particular landmark is reached however the student is almost totally reliant on intuition as a guide. One of the greatest dangers during this phase of the training is that the student will begin to believe their own bullsh*t (or energized enthusiasm as the case may be) and take a one way trip up their own arse hole. Crowley's words of guidance are aimed at 'students' who are in need of this very advice, at a particular stage of training, and expressed in the strongest possible way.

What any of this has to do with accepting The Book of the Law is even more obscure to me though. But maybe that's because I agree with Vivekanada on the subject of atheists and hypocrites and don't see Thelema as a faith.
Me? I'll just pick and choose parts of it .... at will .... that I accept as subjective or objective.
That's your choice. No one preventing you from exercising that choice, are they? And neither does Liber O in my opinion. But you can take that or leave it.
 

foolMoon

Its not about not defining it, its about being clear on what we are defining. Perhaps I am being overly semantical but when the subject turns to 'will' , can we be assured one is talking about the 'Thelemic' concept of the 'True Will' or the everyday concept of will or Christian concept of 'free will', that was supposedly a gift from God.

When will is bandied around, IME the conversation becomes sloppy, new people come along and think it means free will or whatever else. A few times here people have written ' true will' or better 'True Will'.

I will even go as far to identify things which may indicate where one's True Will lies. In some cases, finding and expressing it can heal one's whole life and turn it around from a false mess rapidly heading down hill to a new happy and satisfied expression - I have seen that.


I think I am quite happy with my present definition of the True Will, which is Love. One could write it as "thE truE wilL or lovE, and it is up to her / him. Nothing wrong with that. But it is interesting to know what other people's version of the True Will is, and why.

Of course, my present definition of tHe truE wilL will evolve through time, and also I do reckon other peoples' will too. The unpredictability of what will come to just adds to curiosity and more interests on the studying and learning the topic. Meanwhile discussion, reading and learning will continue. :)