Thelema & The Brotherhood Of Man

[Dar]

Oh yes, before it gets said,
1) the presence of good evidence for excarnation (defleshing) and possible cannibalism in earlier periods does not automatically equate to 'violence'.  Defleshing doesn't mean the meat is eaten (Christopher Columbus was for example in line with the custom of the day for people of his social rank) and it is quite possible to eat your relatives without having to murder them and for reasons other than the purely dietary.

Right, think I'll go see if I can attack someone in the park.

There was a great BBC programme about this, just a few months ago.  As I recall - Homo Erectus was a cannibal and the evidence suggests he liked his flesh raw.  Neanderthals cooked their food.  Although our species wiped them out, as there are some Neanderthal genes floating around the modern European Homo Sapien, then some of our forebears must have taken a "make love, not war" approach.  On the other hand, there is a gene implicated in cannibalism - it acts as a sort of ancestral cannibal tracer, and about 50% of people in the UK have it - meaning that at least half of our ancestors at one time were engaged in eating each other.  If Evolution had a page on facebook, I'd go and 'like it'.

I do think it's a problem when people get the idea that they are living in a violent society.  In a country of 60 million people then it's inevitable that violent conflict will be happening on a daily basis, but in all but extreme cases it usually has a non lethal outcome.  Even when there is a killing, then the other 60 million people were just getting on with their day.  However - it's a regrettably common perception by people, especially in the older generations, that we are living in a violent society; that murder is a common thing and that we should be fearful of our safety as we walk through parks at night teaming with you atavistic gentlemen.  ;-)

At this point I'd usually blame the media, especially the TV, but this is only true of someone who watches TV while being ignorant of the overall picture.  I feel a responsible media should be working to represent the overall picture as well as the hotspots of trouble.  For instance; there were 42 robberies at knife-point yesterday, and although that's highly regrettable, another 60 million folks were doing other things with their time.

The fact that these things occur does not affect the thesis that as social animals, we are evolving new and more complex social systems, while people get their atavistic urges satisfied by a Nintendo.

When I look at the news these days, and watch all the posturing of politicians as they try and justify yet another war agenda to the public, that too seems to be an atavistic feature.  It's all very old aeon.  The people in Iran don't want to be at war.  The people in the UK don't want to be at war.  What each country really needs is a public veto, so the people can muzzle the dogs of state when they get out of hand.  We need an open door, public peace conference with Iran where people work together to resolve difficulties in relations.  The United Nations is founded on the principle of transparency of negotiations and diplomacy, but it's looking a little opaque at the moment.  Iran has a rich, vibrant and complex culture.  I just don't know how we can conceive of doing violence to it.

[amadan-De]

Hi Dar,
Nice post but I'm afraid that your first paragraph is far too definitive with regards to current archaeological theory - which no doubt reflects the way TV always presents the ideas of which ever researcher a programme is built around as established unshakeable fact.  TV doesn't like things to be simply 'todays possible explanation'.  I was amused a few years ago when in the space of a month the BBC and Channel 4 both presented programmes on the function of Stonehenge with completely different theoretical models both presented as 'fact' and with no reference to the others ideas..

The idea that there is a 'cannibal gene' is anything but certain see here for example.  I'm guessing that the programme was based around the work done at UCL (local to the BBC) and the idea that Erectus ate raw human flesh would allow for easier transmission of the alleged prion disease.  Both Erectus and Neanderthals had fire and could have cooked food.  The idea that Neanderthals were agressively wiped out by the early anatomically moderns is a very old one with no hard evidence so far to support it and it is likely that lots of factors played a part, see this for another idea.  The idea of interbreeding comes and goes regularly and though it currently looks pretty damn likely that could change.  The study of DNA and genetics at this level is far too young a science for us to think that any results are unshakeable and new evidence keeps arriving - last time I was involved in looking for Neanderthal remains we had no knowledge that the Denisovians existed.
To demonstrate how fluid these ideas really are look here and start with the oldest story and move forward, several quite different ideas get suggested relating to the nature of Neanderthals and possible reasons for their disappearance, sometimes in the same story, and that's just over the last year.
An honest archaeologist will have no problem admitting that interpretation is largely composed of multiple competing paradigms, a good one will avoid getting overly attached to any specific one exclusively.

[Dar]

amadan-de,

Now I come to think of it, the show was a historical re-enactment based on the evidence available, of what might have happened.  'Planet of the Apemen' it was called.  It was fun, but I shall remember not to rely on it for facts from now on.  It's quite nice to hear we didn't go around eating each other regularly in the prehistoric past.    Cheers.   

[Camlion]

I have to go to the "you're not O.T.O. enough" park. Apparently that's where they have all the cool stuff I'm missing out on.

Huh?

[Los]

Reordering your points....

The Brotherhood of Man comes when people make those distinctions but remain unattached to them, reminding themselves that "there is no difference" between one's own self and any other.

I’m going to disagree that this is when “The Brotherhood of Man” comes, or at least I’m going to disagree with the wording: this sounds too vague.

I’m going to argue that one realizes the Brotherhood of Man when one gives up one’s ideas about everyone getting along and sees human relations for what they are – sometimes cooperative, sometimes competitive – and doesn’t allow ideas of how human relations “should be” to color the impressions.

Incidentally, this is a practical example of not letting a difference be made. Cooperation is not “better” than competition, nor is competition “better” than cooperation. Each situation demands what it demands, and we are not to let our ideas color our approach to human relations.

So, again, maybe I’ve just rephrased what you said in more precise terms, but I think not. I have a sneaking suspicion that you actually think compassion and kindness are somehow “better” than other means of relating to others.

I can also choose to be indifferent about the entire thing, having no compulsion towards the dog, his shit, or my neighbor. In this last case, I could end up with a yard full of dog shit.

You seem to think that Indifference – in the sense that I’ve been using the word – means not acting, or remaining in some kind of flight-of-fancy trance wherein one cannot distinguish things.

To the contrary, one is perfectly capable of being Indifferent to the sight of a dog walking across one’s lawn and preparing to take a dump; one is equally capable of being Indifferent to one’s own anger at the sight and desire to chase the dog off one’s property; one is equally capable of being Indifferent to one’s decision to chase the dog off, and one is equally capable of being Indifferent to one’s own  actions in chasing the dog off.

It’s the very fact that one is Indifferent to one’s own anger, for example, that enables one to keep it in its proper place, and not let the mind make that anger more important than it really is and follow it into some rash act, like shooting the dog.

However, one is equally capable of being Indifferent to one’s own inconsiderate actions, too. There’s no a priori reason to avoid being inconsiderate.

This connects back to the point I was making above: one has to be Indifferent to one’s own ideas about how human society should be if one is to live in a Brotherhood of Man.

Not giving a fuck creates inconsiderate people, who become part of the pack called "dogs of reason".

You’re wrong. That verse of the Book of the Law has nothing to do with behaving in inconsiderate ways: it has to do with, among other things, the dangers of being misled by one’s reason to act in ways contrary to one’s own True Will. Sometimes, acting in ways that others label “inconsiderate” will be perfectly in line with one’s True Will.

Compassion is defined as (and I know you hate this, but bear with me), "sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it". That doesn't mean anyone has to run around "saving" people. It simply means that when one is able to see the world in the Light of LVX, one can see how the suffering of others casts a veil upon them. Helping someone to rend that veil may be as simple as talking to them "god to god" instead of "god to man" or "god to dog". There are many people who have enjoyed even a momentary release from suffering just by simple interaction with "holy men", and this is the source of Veneration. This Veneration in any case is a side effect, when ones interaction with another allows even a momentary glimpse of the Light, a momentary relief from sorrow. This is a part of the meaning behind the verse, "Compassion is the vice of kings."

Yikes. For the record, I don’t “hate” compassion, but I do try to avoid incorrect interpretations when possible.

AL II:21 simply does not mean “let’s go, compassion!” and it takes a perversion of interpretation to twist the words to mean the opposite of what they actually say. That verse is about – among other things – the simple fact that those following their True Will have full sanction to crush anyone who gets in their way, if they need to so in order to follow their True Will.

Of course, by the same token, “kings” are forbidden to use any more force than is necessary – and forbidden to do anything else that is unnecessary – to accomplish their True Will.

One is not expected to walk up to one's father and literally spit in his face. One is to examine those things which one has received and will receive from one's father, take them into account, and then treat them with non-attachment, so that one can "break lose" from that parental bondage, and Go One's Own Way.

But, in order to interact with one's father, the differences have to be made and understood, as one mingles without attachment. Else, one would not be able to interact with one's father after the dissolution.

Here’s the first cogent and intelligent interpretation you’ve advanced (at least that I’ve seen recently): that verse is about breaking the (imaginary) connections of Self with others. It’s about differentiation of oneself from one’s family and about not being entangled and enmeshed in (dare we say…attached to) the human relations known as family.

We might say it’s a verse about Indifference to those familial bonds.

And again, this isn’t describing anything like a call to compassion: it’s a call to understand one’s actual relationship with others – not the relationship one fondly images oneself to have with them.

[Los]

Here’s a separate post about the important issue of interpretation. If you must address this, Azidonis, do so in a post separate from your response to my above post.

you are here trying to make a point that there is a "right interpretation" to any of these texts. In such a case, we shouldn't be talking about it at all, and simply (slavishly?) referring to Crowley's Comment to Liber AL. If there was only one "right interpretation" there would only be one school of thought. That is not the case.

You’re wrong here on a number of points. First, it may be that there are a handful of accurate ways to read any given text – or any given verse in Liber AL (see my first post in this thread for an example of me presenting two diametrically opposed readings of a single verse and explaining how they both work as readings).

But that doesn’t mean that any and all interpretations are equally correct, and it doesn’t mean that there aren’t outright wrong readings. And you, Azidonis, have advanced several outright wrong readings on this thread (see my above post for examples).

Second, if there weren’t ways to read the text that were more accurate than others, it would be impossible to talk about the meaning of the text because it would have no meaning: if a text can mean absolutely anything, then it means nothing. If there were no right interpretation – or group of right interpretations – then you would, by your own logic, Azidonis, be forced to concede that my interpretation – that there is a right interpretation and that you’re wrong – is valid. So your argument defeats itself.

Third, the fact that there is a right interpretation – or group of right interpretations – in no way means that everyone would automatically arrive at the right interpretations, nor would it mean that Crowley was automatically right in every one of his interpretations. Thus, the fact that there is a right interpretation (or group of right interpretations) does not mean that there has to be “one school of thought.” There can be many schools, many opinions – most of which may be wrong.

The purpose of rational discourse is to determine which interpretation (or group of interpretations) is most accurate, and rational discourse is, of course, part of what we do on messageboards. Certainly, Crowley’s readings of the verses have to be our starting point, but if he can be shown to be wrong, either by reference to the Book or to reality, then we can discard his interpretation in favor of a better one.

And finally, it’s obvious that every interpretation you advance is “your opinion.” Every interpretation that everybody advances is an opinion, so we don’t have to say it explicitly. What we’re talking about here is whose opinion is correct. There are lots of opinions – arguably most of them -- that are flat-out wrong.

Oh, bullshit. Explain to me how cases of insanity in which people "were enlightened but not prepared", and also the concept of the "Black Brothers" even exists if those statements hold true.

I’m not saying that everyone is prepared for enlightenment right now: I’m saying that clearly understanding the source material, the practices, and the goals are beneficial – and not at all a hindrance – to someone who wants to study this subject and pursue enlightenment.

Again, you have said in the past that “seekers” should be left to find “their own answers.” I’m saying, in contrast to that, that leaving people to find “their own answers” is spectacularly unhelpful to them, despite the fact that maybe a tiny handful of them will somehow attain enlightenment without any instruction whatsoever.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that clearly explaining a subject to someone will rob that person of something – I’m saying that this assumption of yours is entirely false. The opposite is the case, and it’s true for every other area of knowledge: if I teach someone, for example, how to punctuate a sentence properly, am I robbing that “seeker” of something by keeping him from finding his “own answers”? Obviously not: while this “seeker” might, on his own, come up with a vague idea of how to punctuate a sentence – though he certainly might fail to do so – my teaching him in clear, consistent terms 1) hastens the process and 2) robs him of nothing.

As far as "Black Brothers" go, I would say that adhering to one's "own answers" -- without bothering to find out if those answers are actually right -- is one of the fastest tracks to deifying oneself and becoming such a Black Brother.

[Azidonis]

Away at Park.

While I'm away, enjoy this!

[kidneyhawk]

Clusterfuck or no, I think this thread is both interesting and important.

Camlion-you wished to hear more about the evolutionary trajectory I had mentioned. I think it’s been touched on already with reference to AC’s writings re: a proliferation of True Will Manifestation  creating a “space” where unnecessary clashing and opposition would be minimized, if not done away with. Such a “utopia” (or any of the stages along the way which bring us closer to it) can only be of benefit to the individual endeavoring to put DWTW into practice while sojourning on this planet.

Now, the whole dialogue regarding violence and the bestial nature of man:

I think Los offers some comments that are very realistic. My euphoric epiphanies of an ideal world as I might conceive it must come up against the ignorance, ill-will and opposition of our present state of affairs. I think of Martin Luther King Jr’s “Dream” which was a guiding ideal. This “Dream” arguably remains with us and has grown in influence. Never the less, King was killed and bullets (metaphoric or otherwise) still fly at those who follow this “Dream.”

Because of this, OTO offers the paradigm of the Knight-Monk, which, to my thinking, is still a very relevant mode of being in the world for one who has attained to a degree of Gnosis while remaining in the company of human darkness.

Another paradigm which is relevant to this realism is that of the Buddhist Bodhisattva, something Crowley strongly and passionately identified with.

In various schools of Buddhism there is a realm known as the Asura Realm or the Realm of Jealous Gods. Chogyam Trungpa offers wonderful commentary on this in his book The Myth of Freedom. In essence, the Jealous Gods have achieved a DEGREE of enlightenment but remain in a zone of competition and intrigue. It’s my thought that this Buddhist Realm targets what we call, in Thelemic parlance, the Black Brothers.
 
Now these “Black Brothers.” What do they look like? Where are they on the globe? Do they have a special “Black Brother Society” with its own set of secret rites and lavishly published magical tomes?

Yep.

If one looks at the Asura Realm, we find a wonderful picture of our modern “occult subculture” replete with wisdom, bullshit, intrigue, insight and competition.

I find it very interesting that the “Black Brothers” are not only labeled as “Black” but as “Brothers.” Even in their limitations and occluded vision, they are our kin in as much as we are citizens of the Cosmos. They’ve just got some beams stuck in the old eye socket.
 
Well, haven’t we all?

I certainly have walked about with lumber jammed in my skull-which is a roundabout way of saying that I’ve carried my own membership card in the “Black Brotherhood.” It’s a tricky and insidious realm. But these are not folks who have committed some “unpardonable sin.” They’re brothers. Prodigal, perhaps, but portions of the Divine Body working it out.  The Bodhisattva gets this.

I would not suggest that we shun facing facts and dealing with brutalities of life. But we are also “above the herd” (or at least we fancy ourselves to be so, yes?). This means we are pushing, as individuals, more and more deeply into Gnostic zones of understanding-and this pushes us into transhuman realms of thought and apprehension.
 
Los observes that we are built for survival. Yes, we are. Survival and procreation and a few other things, to boot. And despite our programming, we die. So we ask (as inquirers into the meaning of life): WHY are we built this way? What purpose does it serve? What of the person who rises above fear and revulsion of death (i.e. the Feasting Thelemite), who attains to some sense of “immortality?” What then to do with this temporal lifespan?

What I’m getting at is that Thelema (Crowley’s Thelema) is meant to raise the human being from “Darkness to Light.” Along this path, our perspective and powers change-and with this, our tendencies within the world of space-time.
 
There was a time when young AC was an ardent young student of the GD. He would end up reconstituting the OTO as a vehicle meant to have societal impact in accord with his own unfolding degrees of enlightenment. From a hungry mind and heart to one pouring out its contact with Light to the human race, AC’s life indicates a real involvement with the “Brotherhood of Man” problem.

Now, we return to the “Secret.” Whatever this “Secret” is, it is a MEANS to “realize” this dream (which we might now understand as a deeply rooted element in consciousness extending our understanding of consciousness-ala Buddhism-beyond biological impulse). 
   
The other option is, of course, what Blake calls the “same dull round.”

Been there. Done that. Goes nowhere.
 
And it doesn’t Do What Thou Wilt.

No, I don’t think Crowley, for all his self-aggrandizing, held carrots on sticks.  This theme was a legitimate and vital concern-and one which relates to our own stages of growth on the path of attainment.

It’s also an example of the life-work of this strange Englishman being of crucial relevance to a world that mostly understands him as an oddball at best.

Kyle 

[ignant666]

I would largely agree with much of what Los has to say say above as to the degree of elasticity in interpretation that it is reasonable to take. For example, in the "On fear" thread, I argued that the "existence is pure joy...the sorrows are but as shadows" verse is explicitly intended by the author of AL to deny the First Noble Truth, and pointed out as an interpretive aid that AC thought so too.
However, with regard to the "vice of kings", as with several other verses ("as brothers fight ye", eg), while there is a very clear straightforward reading, I think it would be wise to not blind ourselves to AC's considerable love for paradox, whether we think he wrote AL, or was chosen as the vehicle for the New Aeon (presumably he must have been chosen for a reason, after all, and the degree of support for his proclivities found in AL may help us understand the reason for so choosing), and also rather considerable love for what others considered vice, again whomever (or Whomever) we think wrote AL.
Thus, I think this verse can just as reasonably be read as indulging noblesse oblige as urging vigorous smiting of the heathen trogs.
Or, rather, both.

[ignant666]

The issue, after all, is Good Sportsmanship, a virtue about which AC was rather emphatic.
Apols for serial posts.

[Camlion]

Clusterfuck or no, I think this thread is both interesting and important.

It could be, but that remains to be seen. Many promising threads just don't deliver, for one reason or another. That's the nature of the cluster-fuck, though. It is very demanding of each participant, because it requires rapid paradigm-shifting to navigate, to relate accurately to each Point-of-view and then respond appropriately from one's own Point-of-view.

Camlion-you wished to hear more about the evolutionary trajectory I had mentioned.

Yes, I'm particularly interested in the automatic course corrections that guide the evolutionary trajectory. Without these there would be no evolution, and they are built into it, or the mechanism of Adjustment is hardwired into it. They are usually misunderstood as interuptions in the normal flow of things.

I think it’s been touched on already with reference to AC’s writings re: a proliferation of True Will Manifestation

Where? When? How? Please elaborate. Can you describe this Advent as you have seen It? The last hundred or so years have been a wild ride, for sure.

....creating a “space” where unnecessary clashing and opposition would be minimized, if not done away with. Such a “utopia” (or any of the stages along the way which bring us closer to it) can only be of benefit to the individual endeavoring to put DWTW into practice while sojourning on this planet.

Tell that to the salmon that swims downstream to spawn rather than upstream where the real action is, or the Lion-Serpent Sun which yields to Tide and Circumstance. Sometimes resistance does guide the way, yet at other times the path of least resistance guides the way. The navigation of true Will is more complicated than is commonly assumed when it is just a vague goal in the Quest. Someday, hopefully it will be a bona fide Science or, better yet, will just be automatic.

On the other hand, I quite agree about the benefits of an environment optimally conducive to the hindrance-free accomplishment of true Will by our kind. The provision of this is the proper function of government, actually, something we pay them to accomplish, or so the theory of income taxation goes. 

Now, the whole dialogue regarding violence and the bestial nature of man:

I think Los offers some comments that are very realistic.

Yes, be provides ballast.

My euphoric epiphanies of an ideal world as I might conceive it must come up against the ignorance, ill-will and opposition of our present state of affairs.

You ain't seen nothin' yet. There are harsh course corrections in store, by my reckoning.

But, as essential as "euphoric epiphanies of an ideal world" are, the path to realizing them may involve outwitting and undermining the opposing forces. Or, do you think that this can be done entirely by manipulating the overriding forces that guide our Universal Path, or by some other means? Pray tell?

I happen to believe that we are manifest with the abilities of thought, word and action for a reason. These are, indeed, simple, primitive tasks in the Great Scheme of Things, but there must be a reason for Stars to manifest as the illusions of apes who can think, speak and act amongst one another. If there is no purpose to this, it is most certainly a wasteful redundancy. (Or, a curse, of sorts, as they believe in the 'Far East.')

Because of this, OTO offers the paradigm of the Knight-Monk, which, to my thinking, is still a very relevant mode of being in the world for one who has attained to a degree of Gnosis while remaining in the company of human darkness.

Yes, I'm familiar with the paradigm. I believe that the gist of it is that remaining "in the company of human darkness" is Voluntary, and therefore Noble. This belies the cry "I never asked to be born!" This is the theme of the OTO "Path through Eternity," in the Man of Earth degrees, I believe.

Another paradigm which is relevant to this realism is that of the Buddhist Bodhisattva, something Crowley strongly and passionately identified with.

Yes. Service. Compassion is the vice of Kings. But, you will note, only when the MOE degrees or equivalent have been assimilated, I believe. The first rule is "to know and be thyself." The second rule comes, well, secondarily. Then, "Do what thy wilt."

In various schools of Buddhism there is a realm known as the Asura Realm or the Realm of Jealous Gods. Chogyam Trungpa offers wonderful commentary on this in his book The Myth of Freedom. In essence, the Jealous Gods have achieved a DEGREE of enlightenment but remain in a zone of competition and intrigue. It’s my thought that this Buddhist Realm targets what we call, in Thelemic parlance, the Black Brothers.

Yes, the "unhappy birth." This is where Thelema and Buddhism (with a nod to Hinduism) part ways, I beleive, and this is important. There is no lament in these circumstances we find ourselves in, for they are Voluntary.

From Liber XV: OTO: "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."
 

I would not suggest that we shun facing facts and dealing with brutalities of life. But we are also “above the herd” (or at least we fancy ourselves to be so, yes?). This means we are pushing, as individuals, more and more deeply into Gnostic zones of understanding-and this pushes us into transhuman realms of thought and apprehension.
 
Los observes that we are built for survival. Yes, we are. Survival and procreation and a few other things, to boot. And despite our programming, we die. So we ask (as inquirers into the meaning of life): WHY are we built this way? What purpose does it serve? What of the person who rises above fear and revulsion of death (i.e. the Feasting Thelemite), who attains to some sense of “immortality?” What then to do with this temporal lifespan?

We are to do what we are manifest, Voluntarily, to do. If we can't recall, then we MUST recall, but we must not mistake ourselves victims of circumstance. We are the creators of these circumstances, we are responsible for our circumstances, we DID ask to born, we WILLED it.

What I’m getting at is that Thelema (Crowley’s Thelema) is meant to raise the human being from “Darkness to Light.” Along this path, our perspective and powers change-and with this, our tendencies within the world of space-time.

The only thing to be "raised" is our recall of who and what we truly are. We coexist in the Light and the Darkness, we are not lost, we are on a grand and Voluntary adventure which cannot harm or change us, save for the opening of each petal of the Rose by virtue of Memory, the serial realization of the sum of our possibilities. This is Joy, not sorrow. (See Liber AL, here and there.) (Compare LVX to NOX.)

 

There was a time when young AC was an ardent young student of the GD. He would end up reconstituting the OTO as a vehicle meant to have societal impact in accord with his own unfolding degrees of enlightenment. From a hungry mind and heart to one pouring out its contact with Light to the human race, AC’s life indicates a real involvement with the “Brotherhood of Man” problem.

Yes, the question of service, AFTER self-realization, IF we Will.

Now, we return to the “Secret.” Whatever this “Secret” is, it is a MEANS to “realize” this dream (which we might now understand as a deeply rooted element in consciousness extending our understanding of consciousness-ala Buddhism-beyond biological impulse). 

I don't think we have gotten to the "Secret" yet, but I hope to hear back from you about my thoughts above in contrast to your own.

[Camlion]

It occurs to me that some may be unfamiliar with Crowley's Thelemized OTO system. He describes it as follows in the HAG:

"The main objects of the instruction were two. It was firstly necessary to explain the universe and the relations of human life therewith. Secondly, to instruct every man how best to adapt his life to the cosmos and to develop his faculties to the utmost advantage. I accordingly constructed a series or rituals, Minerval, Man, Magician, Master-Magician, Perfect Magician and Perfect Initiate, which should illustrate the course of human life in its largest philosophical aspect. I begin by showing the object of the pure soul, "One, individual and eternal", in determining to formulate itself consciously, or, as I may say, to understand itself.

It chooses to enter into relations with the solar system. It incarnates. I explain the significance of birth and the conditions established by the process. I next show how it may best carry out its object in the eucharist of life. It partakes, so to speak, of its own godhead in every action, but especially through the typical sacrament of marriage, understood as the voluntary union of itself with each element of its environment. I then proceed to the climax of its career in death and show how this sacrament both consecrates (or, rather, sets its seal upon) the previous procedure and gives a meaning thereto, just as the auditing of the account enables the merchant to see his year's transactions in perspective.

In the next ceremony I show how the individual, released by death from the obsession of personality, resumes relations with the truth of the universe. Reality bursts upon him in a blaze of adorable light; he is able to appreciate its splendour as he could not previously do, since his incarnation has enabled him to establish particular relations between the elements of eternity.

Finally, the cycle is closed by the reabsorption of all individuality into infinity. It ends in absolute annihilation which, as has been shown elsewhere in this book, may in reality be regarded either as an exact equivalent for all other terms soever, or (by postulating the category of time) as forming the starting point for new adventure of the same kind.

It will be clear from the above that the philosophical perfection of this system of initiation leaves nothing to be desired. We may write Q.E.D. The practical problem remains. We have already decided to incarnate, and our birth certificates are with our bankers. We do not have to worry about these matters, and we cannot alter them if we would; death, and what follows death, are equally certain, and equally able to take care of themselves. Our sole preoccupation is how best to make use of our lives.

[kidneyhawk]

Camlion-

Thank you for you detailed and point by point reply. Here are some of my thoughts in response to that post:
 
Many promising threads just don't deliver, for one reason or another. That's the nature of the cluster-fuck, though. It is very demanding of each participant, because it requires rapid paradigm-shifting to navigate, to relate accurately to each Point-of-view and then respond appropriately from one's own Point-of-view.

Yes, it can be demanding but we tend to participate because we want to. We also have plenty of options as to how we engage with outflowing discussions. I started this thread because of personal interest and concern with its theme.

I'm particularly interested in the automatic course corrections that guide the evolutionary trajectory. Without these there would be no evolution, and they are built into it, or the mechanism of Adjustment is hardwired into it. They are usually misunderstood as interuptions in the normal flow of things.

Interesting that you would call these corrective elements “the mechanism of Adjustment” as it would indicate a link to the Law of Thelema (Liber AL being Liber L being Liber L[ibra] or Adjustment, as has been suggested). Adjustment also indicates movement of forces in a way that may be seen as beneficial to some at the expense of others. As this movement is a ubiquitous phenomena, we might observe a perpetual field of conflict underlying existence.  But the idea of conflict is an assessment, relative to the values of the observer. The force which yields in the give/take dynamism of the cosmos may be seen as cooperating (along with the “dominant” or overriding force) with the whole. I’ll say more about this in a moment. 

I wrote:

I think it’s been touched on already with reference to AC’s writings re: a proliferation of True Will Manifestation

To which you ask:

Where? When? How? Please elaborate. Can you describe this Advent as you have seen It? The last hundred or so years have been a wild ride, for sure.

What I was referring to here was “AC’s writings: re: a proliferation of True Will Manifestation.” One such example was quoted by Ignant:

“Take this carefully; it seems to imply a theory that if every man and every woman did his and her will—the true will—there would be no clashing. “Every man and every woman is a star,” and each star moves in an appointed path without interference. There is plenty of room for all; it is only disorder that creates confusion.
From these considerations it should be clear that “Do what thou wilt” does not mean “Do what you like.” It is the apotheosis of Freedom; but it is also the strictest possible bond.”

This is the idea we’re working with, an idea to be examined and tested against Reality.
 
Now you write:

Sometimes resistance does guide the way, yet at other times the path of least resistance guides the way. The navigation of true Will is more complicated than is commonly assumed when it is just a vague goal in the Quest. Someday, hopefully it will be a bona fide Science or, better yet, will just be automatic.

I agree with this and I think I should be, perhaps, more definitive as I use words like “obstruction,” “resistance” and “opposition” in this discussion as these are relative terms. One can follow that “path of least resistance” (least resistant to the expression of WILL) into an environment which outwardly seems to be filled with more conflict and obstruction than otherwise. We can take the classic story of Prince Siddartha as example. His life in the palace offered no hardship or resistance-but his Will was immobilized. His departure into the world outside was marked by tremendous difficulties. But these he embraced and worked with. On one hand, the world opposed him but on the other, it cooperated with him. It was the self-chosen and superior field for the movement of his Will.
 
On the other hand, I quite agree about the benefits of an environment optimally conducive to the hindrance-free accomplishment of true Will by our kind. The provision of this is the proper function of government, actually, something we pay them to accomplish, or so the theory of income taxation goes.
 
Right-and as I see it, the “Brotherhood of Man” of the OTO’s Manifesto is the bedrock for this government. So I am inquiring into the foundations of the possibility. 

(Los) provides ballast.

I’d say our daily lives provide ballast. It’s a question of how we are relating to and working with that in relation to Will.


You ain't seen nothin' yet. There are harsh course corrections in store, by my reckoning.

Again, a reason for genuine concern for this topic on my part. 

But, as essential as "euphoric epiphanies of an ideal world" are, the path to realizing them may involve outwitting and undermining the opposing forces. Or, do you think that this can be done entirely by manipulating the overriding forces that guide our Universal Path, or by some other means? Pray tell?

I really think this problem is one which must be met with a double-edged sword. This is why I questioned the idea of "Brotherhood” as a state of consciousness alone. If this is all the Manifesto is driving at-and all we need be concerned with-then we needn’t focus anymore on considerations of significant change in human relations. We can tap the Brotherhood in our heads and sit placidly while enmity in the environment mows us down.   

I happen to believe that we are manifest with the abilities of thought, word and action for a reason. These are, indeed, simple, primitive tasks in the Great Scheme of Things, but there must be a reason for Stars to manifest as the illusions of apes who can think, speak and act amongst one another. If there is no purpose to this, it is most certainly a wasteful redundancy. (Or, a curse, of sorts, as they believe in the 'Far East.')

Right. And here we get at consideration of ourselves in context of a larger identity, a “Cosmic Identity” if you will. This doesn’t whisp us away from our human lives but rather it significantly alters how we participate in human existence. 

I wrote:

Because of this, OTO offers the paradigm of the Knight-Monk, which, to my thinking, is still a very relevant mode of being in the world for one who has attained to a degree of Gnosis while remaining in the company of human darkness.

You reply:

Yes, I'm familiar with the paradigm. I believe that the gist of it is that remaining "in the company of human darkness" is Voluntary, and therefore Noble. This belies the cry "I never asked to be born!" This is the theme of the OTO "Path through Eternity," in the Man of Earth degrees, I believe.

I am also seeing in the Knight the outward action in the universe with the Monk embodying the inward Gnosis. The Knight serves a Kingdom the Gnosis of which is evoked in the heart of the Monk. Whether one’s guise is more metallic or tonsured will be relevant to Will. 

I comment:

Another paradigm which is relevant to this realism is that of the Buddhist Bodhisattva, something Crowley strongly and passionately identified with.

You respond:

Yes. Service. Compassion is the vice of Kings. But, you will note, only when the MOE degrees or equivalent have been assimilated, I believe. The first rule is "to know and be thyself." The second rule comes, well, secondarily. Then, "Do what thy wilt."

I have also touched on this theme and believe Crowley saw it as part of his OTO schema. We begin with ourselves and as we unfold and develop, things begin to look differently. We’re seeing with a broader vision. This evokes new sensibilities as we regard our relationship to what we call the “world.”

We are to do what we are manifest, Voluntarily, to do. If we can't recall, then we MUST recall, but we must not mistake ourselves victims of circumstance. We are the creators of these circumstances, we are responsible for our circumstances, we DID ask to born, we WILLED it.

With a crash landing through the amnesiac asteroid belt. Hence (as we are discussing above) step one is wake up and get back to the path, the “mission.” This will lead to further states where “Brotherhood” will be seen anew. And of course implementation of this Brotherhood renders help to those who are “waking up.” Similarly, we see how we have, ourselves, been assisted. Within the “Cosmic Identity” we perceive the unity in this give and take. I tend to see this process being connected with Cosmic Velocity, an increasing speed of awakening on the Universal level. This is on the Grand level but on the individual human level it manifests through a variety of impulses and subsequent change of the vehicle.   

The only thing to be "raised" is our recall of who and what we truly are. We coexist in the Light and the Darkness, we are not lost, we are on a grand and Voluntary adventure which cannot harm or change us, save for the opening of each petal of the Rose by virtue of Memory, the serial realization of the sum of our possibilities. This is Joy, not sorrow. (See Liber AL, here and there.) (Compare LVX to NOX.)

Agreed.

 
Yes, the question of service, AFTER self-realization, IF we Will.

Right. I have expressed this thought on other threads before as have numerous others. But let’s just step things up. I’ve read you taking umbrage at expressed views which seem to sidestep what might be considered as concerned and constructive involvement in external affairs. This includes your contrasting Mick Staley’s sentiments with those of Kenneth Grant (at a particular point in time) which seemed more in line with Crowley’s thinking on OTO.  So clearly this issue of “involvement” is of some value to you, personally. You have identified a “place” where these values come to play within the initiatory schema. I would agree that we cannot make particular acts of service compulsory as ideals for each human. “One Law For the Lion and Ox is Oppression.” But let’s look a bit more at those who ARE compelled to give energy to this arena. OTO holds out a Modus Operandi and this sanctioned by the Prophet of the Aeon.  The Gnostic insights are important as they demonstrate how the “Brotherhood of man” is connected to DWTW. It remains to apply the Secret to the Realization in the parlance of the Manifesto.
 
I have no “point” to argue against others here. Yes, I am questioning points as they are brought up but doing so with a genuine concern over human affairs as they relate to the Law. Liber 52 seems to say: We are SNAFU but not FUBAR-and there’s a better way to de-F the SNAFU.

Returning to the opening statement of this post, no one need talk about this if it's not of interest. I was under the impression that it IS of interest AND concern to you. If this is so, I would be interested in looking more closely into the "correctives" which we might voluntarily apply as Thelemites-as opposed to those the universe will apply for lack of the former.   

[Dar]

As seen across nature, one of the hallmarks of intelligence is co-operation.  You can even see it at work in a yeast culture if you study it enough.  The yeast both learns and takes action in an intelligent and co-operative manner.  For instance - drop an oval tablet of Vitamin D into a yeast community and I've seen them eat the tablet by splitting it lengthways down the the ellipse so as to maximise the surface area on which the community can feed on.  So both learning and co-operation seem to be a hard-wired response in any simple or complex living thing which has microtubules. 

The brain is not just a fancy type of quantum computer though.  There are qualia to our experience of self aware existent beings that is non-algorithmic, such as Love, and that of Will.     

Do you feel the concept of a 'Brotherhood of man' sums up these seemingly omnipresent traits of consciousness?  Learning, Co-operation, Love and Will all seem to come into it.
 
 

[Azidonis]

Letter from an actual (former) slave to his former 'master'