Tarot of Ceremonial Magic Study Group - The Magus

foolMoon said:

Not sure about this, but certainly Crowley must have believed in after life and reincarnation. In Book Four, it says Crowley used to believe that his previous life was Elifas Levi, who died in the year Crowley was born, the year of 1875.

Click to expand...

Yes, he did . Also he was Buddhist ar times (old school, that has nothing to do with reincarnation as seen nowadays. To understand what this means, AC's one time teacher, Allan Bennett, (who himself became a Buddhist and retired to a monastery in Ceylon), who AC much admired, wrote an excellent paper on transmigration from this perspective, no doubt it was highly influential in the development of AC's ideas on this subject.

But overall in later life, Crowley seems to have been open for a whole range of afterlife options and possibilities:

From his Gnostic Mass :

The DEACON: " Unto them from whose eyes the veil of life hath fallen may there be granted the accomplishment of their true Wills; whether they will absorption in the Infinite, or to be united with their chosen and preferred, or to be in contemplation, or to be at peace, or to achieve the labour and heroism of incarnation on this planet or another, or in any Star, or aught else, unto them may there be granted the accomplishment of their wills; yea, the accomplishment of their wills. "

foolMoon said:

Death is, I think, unknown realm, and belongs to the area of faith,

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you here .

foolMoon said:

i.e. you either believe that you will come back as another life, or be freed from this worldly profanity as a freely wandering spirit in the space, or it is the end, there is no such a thing. It is up to your faith.

Click to expand...

Well, that's 3 options

... how do you feel about 'absorption into the infinite' ? That's very Buddhist, and very 'Nuity' IMO .

smw said:

"While it is relatively easy to find someone who is knowledgeable concerning the occult arts, it is very rare indeed to meet someone who actually practises them.

Click to expand...

INDEED !

foolMoon said:

I have not read any general comments on the Thelemic texts, so my understanding is purely from my own recent reading on Book Four, Liber Aba and especially Book of Law. I knew it would be different from others.

That book from your link looks interesting. Thanks for the link.
93

Click to expand...

You're welcome. I was not trying to infringe on your point of view, just add some others, especially in case a beginner happens along.

AW

ravenest said:

Of course we all get old ... and that is my very point.

You know, Fool Moon, you are very hard to converse with.

You said, in relation to 'every man and every woman is a star' that some stars are dead old or die ... remember that ?

I responded ... well in the way I did, to try and show you another meaning, and what that phrase relates to according to a wider reading of Crowley and Thelema.

You were the one that bought up the dying and old thing with the stars. I was following your analogy and explaining why it isnt seen the way you outlined BECAUSE that would mean that birth growth life rest death etc isnt seen as part of life and part of the initiate's life and part of a star's life ... like there was some how something wrong with that.

You seem to have ignored all the other stuff I said, and picked up on the one thing you feel has the hole in it , for a dispute and dont comment on the rest ... in any case , it was a point you seemed to be making yourself about stars and your own complaint about Crowley (and mine ) metaphore used.

Not that I mind dispute ... but one needs to be able to do it from a valid standpoint .... and keep track of the to and fro of the subject matter.

Click to expand...

You know Ravenest, you always seem missing my points when I speak in metaphors. I mentioned the old and dying stars as metaphors for spritual poverty in some people, not people getting old and dying in actual terms.

And also from my example of everyone has to get old and die one day eventually, I spoke for the point of people having no other choice or freedom to avert from the destiny. You seem trying to make out my metaphor as actual people getting old ending up in nursing homes, and dying.

You, then incredibly, retort if Crowley would oppose to that or whatever. I could not believe your way of reading metaphors.

It is you, ravenest, who needs to keep track of the point of discussion more clearly in my opinion.

Always Wondering said:

You're welcome. I was not trying to infringe on your point of view, just add some others, especially in case a beginner happens along.

AW

Click to expand...

Before I was not sure if Thelema were a religion or not. But when I got hold of the book 4, and keep reading it, I am getting more convinced it is.

I appreciate your input AW. Comments and views from different angles for the facinating topic such as Thelema are always interesting and captivating.

Thelema as a religion has been on my mind a lot lately. Sometimes I think Thelema is what I make it to be or need it to be. At any rate I go back and forth a lot.

Always Wondering said:

Thelema as a religion has been on my mind a lot lately. Sometimes I think Thelema is what I make it to be or need it to be. At any rate I go back and forth a lot.

Click to expand...

Even last year, I didn't even know the difference between Thelema and the GD. But with discussions in this forum and some readings, things seem getting clearer to me now.

I am sure I will go through the similar journeys you and others have gone through in the course.

My current idea is that there are different planes in Thelema from,

1. The writings of Crowley himself. But they are not clear instruction manuals of the subject. They are written in full of metaphors, poetical prose and some sketchy instructions. Maybe it was his writing style, or maybe he intended to be illusive about the topics.

His descriptions on some key issues and terms are scattered in many different Libers. Some are consistent, and some are different.

2. There are comments and notes on the subject by other initiates, authors, followers and scholars. They could be help in understanding the subject, as they offer point of views from different angles.

3. There are understandings of my own on the sUbject with the readings and considerations. These could be same as general comments by other people, or could be totally different. Even if my understandings are different from others, if they make sense to me at present, it is still valuable in the study of the subject. These views and understanding may change and evolve in the future through more studies and discussions.

I feel, that to understand Thelema, Thoth and Crowley, however, one has to try NOT to focus on what he is talking about literally, but rather one must try to read between the lines, i.e try to read what he is trying to say, and why he is saying it.

foolMoon said:

You know Ravenest, you always seem missing my points when I speak in metaphors. I mentioned the old and dying stars as metaphors for spritual poverty in some people, not people getting old and dying in actual terms.

And also from my example of everyone has to get old and die one day eventually, I spoke for the point of people having no other choice or freedom to avert from the destiny. You seem trying to make out my metaphor as actual people getting old ending up in nursing homes, and dying.

You, then incredibly, retort if Crowley would oppose to that or whatever. I could not believe your way of reading metaphors.

It is you, ravenest, who needs to keep track of the point of discussion more clearly in my opinion.

Click to expand...

No, I disagree with that as you actually made up a metaphore and attributed it to me that I never used !

I dont even know what this means : " if Crowley would oppose to that or whatever "

IT helps to follow the points in and the thread of conversations. This particular point started with your question;

“ Yes, I get your point of the Book of Law and the underlying principle that every man and every woman is a star implying the deities are present in all of us humanities. However, I still feel that the deities only emanates to those who are the initiates, not to everyone, tom dick and harry on the street.

So every man and woman is a star, if and only if, they are the initiates or at least aware of the Thelemic teachings? “ (#50)

The Thelemic view is every man and every woman is a star …. According to the view of a star and the metaphor Crowley uses (not ones we make up on a whim or a totally different understanding).

You say you ‘get my point’ that a “ star implying the deities are present in all of us humanities “ , but I never said or meant that. You were the one that started that. I am not nor have never been talking about ‘deities present in all of us humanities’ (I am not even sure what that is supposed to mean ?) .

…. Somehow, a system that was clearly developed for every man and every woman ( you MUST have read that in Liber Aba Intro ? ? ? ) is now suggested by you that it is only for initiates and not every Tom, Dick and Harry in the street …… actually, to defray any farther silly denials and obfuscations I will quote it here :

“ This book is for
ALL:
for every man, woman, and child.
My former work has been misunderstood, and its scope limited, by
my use of technical terms. It has attracted only too many dilettanti and
eccentrics, weaklings seeking in magic an escape from reality. I
myself was first consciously drawn to the subject in this way. And
it has repelled only too many scientific and practical minds, such as
I most designed to influence.
But
MAGICK
is for
ALL.
I have written this book to help the Banker, the Pugilist, the
Biologist, the Poet, the Navvy, the Grocer, the Factory Girl, the
Mathematician, the Stenographer, the Golfer, the Wife, the Consul
and all the rest fulfil themselves perfectly, each in his or her
own proper function. “

(and the ALL part are his highlights, not mine .)

I have been talking about it in context of the way Crowley himself described it. You, me and anyone here can state what we think it means , but what it means in the context of understanding Thelema in the way Crowley developed it is the meaning Crowley gave it and in the way he himself used the context and allegory.

Always Wondering said:

Thelema as a religion has been on my mind a lot lately. Sometimes I think Thelema is what I make it to be or need it to be. At any rate I go back and forth a lot.

Click to expand...

" I think Thelema is what I make it to be or need it to be. "

There is 'the thing' ; discipline or security blanket ?

This is a basic across the board dynamic / problem.

Take religion nowadays, many people are Christian but have a New Age sort of approach and adopt other principles like reincarnation, Christ as an avatar, Buddha as a God and a whole range of things. from our approach, that seems fine.

But from the teachings approach it isnt . A teaching or a religion is supposed to take us away from our whims and personal interpretations and correct us to a better way. We are not supposed to pick and choose what commandments we follow or break due to our own judgement ... thats the point of the whole 'exercise' ?

Yet how can we not ? We are all individuals and need to adapt things for ourselves, Crowley too insists on this and warns against slavishly copying him .

Its a dilemma. I hit it all the time in martial arts training ;

Kids "Nah ... I am going to do that THIS way ! " < jumps around wildly flailing arms >

Me : "No, you need to learn the basics, the rules, the form ... you are out of balance and out of control there . "

Kid; " No I'm not ... anyway, Bruce Lee broke all the rules ! "

Me: " That was AFTER he learnt all that stuff, THEN he adapted it to suit his individual needs. "

Its actually basic lesson one in the first of Crowley's OTO initiations - Initial discipline allows greater later freedom ( my transliteration ) .

I agree. Another way to look at it is not as "stars" but as "suns," a word which, like Luna, specifies a specific body. The Book of Law certainly does not speak of white dwarfs or any other type of generic designation for a star but rather of a single star that gives life and warmth, the object of worship since the beginning of time on Earth. And Earth is what we're talking about, the expansion of man's awareness of his place relative to the Earth's deity. And it has always been the Sun, by whatever name this or that people chose to call it.

So, every man and every woman is the Sun.

In the previous thread about the Fool there was discussion of whether general symbolism can be used to interpret the Thoth Tarot. Now, it can be debated whether the deck can be used in such a fashion, no need to go back to that, but Crowley was certainly operating within a certain symbolic framework in which stars are not the stars of astronomy, deities are not those found in old Aeon religions and man's relationship with both operates under a different logic.

But then, that's the point. Crowley could have formulated an entirely different set of symbols in order to get his points across but he didn't because the archetypal connection is still there. What he did was redefine them. The old symbols still "work," but their meanings don't.

At least, that's how I see the underlying logic of the Book of Law. Every literary work has its own rules, whatever that work may be. In the world of Goldilocks bears talk, eat porridge and live in houses, and that's just the way it works. Arguing about whether bears talk in our world doesn't work because in that world they do.