Torturous animal sa...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Torturous animal sacrifice

Page 2 / 3

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

JTM would you care to elaborate on your point over the frog being subject to Thelema? How is it senseless? If the Law is for All is it not the case that this principle is has much relevant to animals has well has humans? And if not why not? Why should animals not be subject to the principles of Thelema? If we use discrimination against animals do we cancel out the principle of the Law is for All?

Secondly nobody yet has breached the subject of how torturing an animal would be in line with the Thelema/Agape current. How could a Thelemite torture an animal to death and then say they are a vessel of unconditional spiritual love?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Hi Hawthorn. I didn't actually come down either way on the argument - just pointed out that the argument is one of dogma, and the longer it goes on, typically, the less one learns and the more one wastes one's time. We are subjecting ourselves to each others' preconceptions and prejudices. Now if I were in locution with my guru, this might be an interesting topic.

If you ask me personally, I can say that I find torturing an animal abhorrent. But this isn't about me. I understand that there are ascended masters, highly enlightened people, who have the ability to guide events, including death and war etc.... At some level these are necessary. Karma has us all 'burning off' our delusions through suffering their consequences. It's beyond me whether, perhaps, the frog is a reincarnation of someone who in an earlier incarnation tortured frogs. Or if the frog-torturer likewise is countering some past activities promoting torture but not dirtying hir hands with it. Not only is it beyond me, it is counterproductive for me to labor myself over it.

Thelema is the law of love under will. This means taking the wisdom of love and compassion from the most recent aeon, and adding to it the ability to direct the will that humanity has begun to master in this aeon. That is, creating our own future universe as one of love, through our own will to do so.

To show how tricky this type of material is, and why I can appreciate Ian's very delicate attempt at addressing it - consider that the teaching that I follow has it that our mission here is to cease being reincarnated, by purifying ourselves. Once we all have no more karma to 'burn off', we will cease dreaming this dream, and wake up into the light in which we all currently live already. Now Imagine striving for the goal of having no more babies born, while being the parent of a beautiful newborn baby.

Suffering must be avoided, and soothed where it is found. But it will never cease while we live. What must be ceased is the delusion of sensory existence. And this includes both suffering and joy. The result is what is called in my traditions 'bliss'. This is often confused with joy and happiness, but bliss is essentially I-lessness. Nothingness. Emptiness. Pure light, with nothing to refract or reflect it, or even to see it. Just light. Light has no emotion, no soul, no suffering.

But I digress...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

It is funny given the original nature of sacrifice was for manifesting order in the cosmos, people now understand as a means for deriving some individualistic sadistic sense of 'magickal' benefit under a guise of some profound 'higher meaning'. Watch out for the merging between boundaries between human and animal here... Many a serial killer has lots of instances of previous animal torture to their name! Also, watch out for the stuff that goes up into the ether if you perform such a disgusting thing, it will stick to you and breed...

We have cosmic order now, in the way of electricity and social law. Anyone who wants to agonise some poor defenceless creature for 'beauty and truth' would do better living in a Mike Strutter Bubble...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riksZX0G66o

Comedy
Best Wishes
Charles


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"magispiegel" wrote:
In 'The Secret Rituals of the O.T.O.', edited and introduced by Francis King. 1973. C.W. Daniel Company Limited. In 'De Nuptiis Secretis Deorum cum Hominibus'. Part III, 'Of Certain Rites Secretly Practised in Russia', Page. 191, where it states in the last paragraph:

"If by favour and indwelling of the Holy Ghost the Priestess (that is unto this Rite espoused, and else virgin) do conceive and bring forth, then is the child baptized by its father the Priest for the Purification by water, and for the Consecration by fire is roast and divided among the worshippers for use as a sacrament, as a talisman and as a medicine against all diseases. This also is said of the Knights of our Holy Order of the Temple, that the offspring of any one of them by a virgin was roast and an unguent made of its fat wherewith to anoint the Magian and Ineffable figure of BAPHOMET. [Consider of this]".

My Italics.

However, what is strikingly interesting from peeking at the top shelf of my bookshelf is what is written in 'O.T.O. RITUALS AND SEX MAGICK' by Theodor Reuss and Aleister Crowley. Edited and compiled by A.R. Naylor, Introduction by Peter R. Koenig. I-H-O Books. 1999. There is no reference to any form of animal/human sacrifice which is associated with BAPHOMET.

This is interesting, as the title of the XI degree is 'Baphomet'...

On page 481. The editor states that;

"Prior membership of the O.T.O. is not a requirement for the XI degree, but presumably a 0 degree initiation would be conducted first"

also, it was considered that;

"...the XI degree was the magickal link to the A.'.A.'.".

No mention of sacrifice, animal or human is mentioned within this system of knowledge...

"Of the Eleventh Degree, its powers, priviledges, and qualifications, nothing whatever is said in any grade. It has no relation to the general plan of the Order, is inscrutable, and dwells in its own Palaces. Baphomet".

Thus, having no real need to write a 9 month magickal diary for Mick Staley back in 1995 or perform any cruel forms of animal sacrifice. Discipleship was void from the start...

Keep up the Great Work
Best Wishes
Charles Papapetrou
Member of The General Osteopathic Council
Member of The British Acupuncture Council


ReplyQuote
Baxian
(@baxian)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 74
 

Hi Patriach156

Why? As it is merely a representation of a particular point of view (i.e. something is beautiful),

Thats fine. Like I said earlier I dont much care for it, thats all.
I suppose I should be even clearer. Why would someone wish to see beauty in this?
For a moment I will entertain this idea. 😯
If Andy(I will call him) is being held captive and being forced to view torture of some human or animal etc. Maybe he would be able to focus on the beauty of it to protect himself from the potential trauma of seeing this act.
On the other hand, I would suggest his time might even be better spent working out a way to stop it or somesuch.

it rather seems that you have missed something vital in Thelemic discourse: you are insisting that your own particular Point of View should be shared with everyone.

If you meant shared by everyone then I would say-
Not at all really, only those who disagree wiht me. πŸ˜† πŸ˜‰

However the only Thelemic (if we are going to argue by authority of the Law of Thelema we should refer to the core writings of the Law of Thelema rather than ourselves

Yes by all mean apeal the authority of the great book.

But I doubt you could express to me an objective interpretation of any passage.
Isn't it the case, that no one can interprete the BOTL for anyone else? You would then only be argueing your own views(which are welcome).

otherwise you are basically invoking your own authority as that of the Law of Thelema

I was giving my personal views- not some "thelemic" over-arching view.

protection animals have is that we not adulterate them as per Duty D.1, where it is stated that it is a violation of the Law to "abuse the natural qualities" of animals.

I dont understand a need to look to a book for how to treat one's fellow man or animal etc. Its a matter of the heart (with wings), I would think.

Fortunately for animals etc(becasuse of my cunning, speed and superb ability to obtain divice's of pain) I need no book to tell me not to abuse animals, whether its a thelemic work or otherwise.
This, treatment of animals is not for me a thelemic arguement per se(it can be). Its a matter of personal opinion and compassion it seems to me.
Remember I am talking of occult animal torture, in the specific, not animal sacrifice specifically.

to be decided by the general value of the contending parties in the scale of Nature."

Sorry? what scale of nature?(annother topic I suppose)

I clearly can see that sacrifice for magical purpose, be it to replenish ones own energies by turning meat and drink into spiritual substance by subordinating it the Great Work, or some other more particular part of the Great Work, could obviate this protection and justify sacrifice of animals from the point of view of the Law of Thelema.

Since you are speaking here of animal sacrifice(not torture and sacrifice),
its a tricky one I think, up to your own personal feeling and, as someone else has said, whether you can stomack doing such a thing.

Cheers
Baxian.


ReplyQuote
Baxian
(@baxian)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 74
 

Hi jtm
These "profound" teachings that you speak of bare little solace for those being mistreated.

Ian - kudos for offering something of that level. But some teachings just can't be given in the town square, no matter the altitude of the town center.

No of course not, the town square might bring it down to earth and sully such profound clean sentiments by bringing up the actually reality of suffering for most people, animals etc πŸ˜†

Cheers
Baxian


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

Charles,

"magispiegel" wrote:
We have cosmic order now, in the way of electricity and social law.

So what do you think of the electric chair? πŸ˜†

"magispiegel" wrote:
No mention of sacrifice, animal or human is mentioned within this system of knowledge...

So why waste an entire post on it? I do wish you'd stop interjecting such bizarre comments as these, and you were requested not to do this. For the benefit of future discussions could you please send all posts to myself or Paul for moderation prior to posting.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 486
 
"hawthornrussell" wrote:
Patriach156, in your opinion then, animals in general are not subject to the principles of Thelema? And if so where does that leave the principle of the Law Is for All?

Yes they are subject to the principles of the Law of Thelema as are Trees. I even referenced Duty to that effect to demonstrate this. My point however is that if you want to argue by reference to authority (in this case Thelema), then you need to do so by reference to the writings of Thelema.

Whether or not an animal has an Will in the sense that human beings have one (though Crowley said no), and speculation as to what their Will if this is the case is, is largely mad metaphysics of the scholastic type, that ends up arguing how many angels may dance on the tip of a pin.

This goes back to my earlier point over the right of choice and consent given in Do What Thou Wilt. If you decided to ritually kill an animal, your not giving it any choice or consent. Therefore corrupting the principle behind Do What Thou wilt. Just so that i understand you clearly here Patriach156, you would have no problem torturing an animal to death for you own "magickal" purposes? Because that is what you seem to be defending here.

I would have problem doing so, since I am a very squeamish person, but thinking that my own particular point of view is universal would be missing the vital point of the Law of Thelema that it is not universal. Nor can I rule it out as in violation of the Law of Thelema or even that the person in question has missed something vital, given that there is no grounds to oppose it in our writings or even our principles. What there is, is grounds to oppose adulteration of animals as I noted, but even here apparent conflicts might be reconciled as I noted and which obviously Crowley himself noted.

Don't misunderstand me, I think it is fine that you find it abhorrent to sacrifice animals in the universal sense. While I don't share this particular point of view, I certainly can sympathize with it. But you can't readily argue from the point of authority (the Law of Thelema) if you are not willing to actually argue by reference to the writings that outline this Law.

As for Baxian's retort, it was not me who argued by reference to Thelema or Thelemites missing something vital. I merely outlined the irrationality of appealing to authority and then ignoring the very authority that one has invoked.


ReplyQuote
Baxian
(@baxian)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 74
 

(modified my post a bit, hope no one has already replied! πŸ˜† )

Patriarch156
On occult animal torture you have this to say it seems(with some ref. to Thelema).

Nor can I rule it out as in violation of the Law of Thelema or even that the person in question has missed something vital, given that there is no grounds to oppose it in our writings or even our principles.

.
There seems to be some misunderstanding.
I was not argueing by reference to any authority other than my own(which I feel is thelemic in the sense of "do what thou wilt" if I must reference something thelemic.)

That vital something I mentioned in an earlier post(in my view) is namely an abiltity to be empathic. And frankly I dont care a monkeys pendulous testicles if this is in the BOTL or not.

I hope this has clarified things a little.
Cheers
Baxian


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 486
 
"Baxian" wrote:
I hope this has clarified things a little.

Not really, considering how you referenced Thelema in the discussion. It is a curious double speak when you can't reference your own thinking as your own without applying the term Thelema to it.

While you certainly are free to feel as you please on these issues and disregard AL or any other thing, and while it is now clear, you should realize how that it is difficult to mean what you say if you don't say what you mean.


ReplyQuote
Baxian
(@baxian)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 74
 

Patriach156
you say

Not really, considering how you referenced Thelema in the discussion.

ay really?
Thats strange.
I do recall saying these things in previous posts-

I was giving my personal views- not some "thelemic" over-arching view.

This, treatment of animals is not for me a thelemic arguement per se(it can be). Its a matter of personal opinion and compassion it seems to me.

(added emphasis)

As you can see now, you have misread me. Thats ok.
What about the actual discussion???
Cheers


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

I've just had a look, and I can't see any appeal to the authority of Thelema in your posts, Baxian, or even the mention of anything related to Thelema like BOTL until Patriarch156 brought it up.

FWIW, I agree with Patriarch156's views about how this relates to Thelema generally, as it gets to the heart of my own views:

That being said, for there to be social order, there are certain commonly guides for conduct, rules and protections that were intended from the point of view of the Law of Thelema to be accepted.

And if I can misquote AC in your presence, Patriarch156: "Why not behave like a clean-living gentleman, even if one does have insane views about the universe?" πŸ˜›


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 486
 
"ianrons" wrote:
I've just had a look, and I can't see any appeal to the authority of Thelema in your posts, Baxian, or even the mention of anything related to Thelema like BOTL until Patriarch156 brought it up.

True enough, looking over it it seems I conflated him with some of the others. For that I apologize.

And if I can misquote AC in your presence, Patriarch156: "Why not behave like a clean-living gentleman, even if one does have insane views about the universe?" πŸ˜›

Because an aristocrat is one who takes pride in what he is, no matter what that might be? :p


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1126
 
"Patriarch156" wrote:
Because an aristocrat is one who takes pride in what he is, no matter what that might be? :p

Well I've always interpreted it to mean something like "Suit oneself to one's environment, even though there's no necessity to do so." or "Etiquette has no ultimate validity, but it's better not to upset one's neighbours nonetheless." Neighbours include toads, I suppose...


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 486
 
"ianrons" wrote:
"Patriarch156" wrote:
Because an aristocrat is one who takes pride in what he is, no matter what that might be? :p

Well I've always interpreted it to mean something like "Suit oneself to one's environment, even though there's no necessity to do so." or "Etiquette has no ultimate validity, but it's better not to upset one's neighbours nonetheless." Neighbours include toads, I suppose...

Yes, I was merely making a joke by "misquoting" A.C. πŸ˜‰ In any case I view it largely as removal of distractions. Without protection of what A.C. calls our vertebrate rights and a social order centered on teaching us to mind our own business and what our business actually are, we would be left with no time at all for the Great Work. We would be too busy to protect what little we might call our own.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"ianrons" wrote:
"Why not behave like a clean-living gentleman, even if one does have insane views about the universe?" πŸ˜›

Ah! My attitude towards life summed up in a sentence! Thank you Ian!

Steve W


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

To put it otherwise, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

Or even : "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

A good attitude to have living in the states these days. It's the new Roman Empire and Nazi Germany all rolled into one. But to kvetch about it out loud just makes my life hell. So I smile at those around me and pretend to appreciate their provincial ignorance.

After all, if the US is going to destroy the natural world, I might as well enjoy living here while it saves its own self for last; and enjoy the show. Wars always make for the best TV.... at least when your government is winning.

πŸ™„


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3548
 

An interesting discussion.
How sad that the only contribution I can make is to point out that tortuous means twisted, devious or convoluted, or, interestingly, having to do with the zodiac signs from Capricorn to Gemini because they rise more obliquely into the sky (the OED describes this usage as obscure), but not having to do with or related to torture, which is torturous.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

Oh dear, how dreadfully slapdash. 😳 I suppose you wouldn't believe me if I said I knew that? πŸ˜‰


ReplyQuote
algoul
(@algoul)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 61
 

I think that regarding animal's sacrifice you could not limit it to torture and nothing else and put it in the rubbish and despise it.

Personally I'm not attracted by it but I could not understand how people could react when animal sacrifice was used in thousand of years and in many places,

Maybe people which lives in Africa, Caraibi, Brasil ect. are not so much impressed by an animal sacrifice, it is in their culture and surroundings and they polluted maybe less than an average human being living in the West leaving behind him/her kilos of plastic bags and gas from the car and ect. ect.

People which are living in the countrysides and in touch with animals I think they do not have such problems, as they used to kill animals for their feeding and at the same time taking care of them...

I repeat myself I'm not prone to work in these terms but I've had some experiences with Ifa cult in which there is animal sacrifice, there is respect for the animals and there is not a kind of madness related to it...

Aleister Crowley said that a chicken is a chicken after all but if you eat a chicken, the chicken could arrive to become you so there is some kind of advancemente by the chicken side...

Maybe we must raise our tolerance and understanding for including in it some kind of practices which we do not arrive to understand but which have been existed for a long time...hoping not to reincarnate in some aztec time in which they were doing high walls of human skulls....:)

regards


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

93

The Ifa religion is changing. At an Oshun ritual I attended in 2000 chicken eggs were broken over the idols rather than a chicken being sacrificed, and I heard from the priest that this was now common in Nigeria too.

93 93/93

Steve W


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Just to give an alternative view on sacrifice (in the genuine sense of sacrifice aka you really dont want to lose or part with it.) Tale a look at the taboo busting ritual of the K foundation burning /destroying a Β£ million of there own money. I could argue that this was the most powerful chaos magick ritual ever done.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2_GjZ7i4A6M

Put in context could the "sacrifice" of an animal by a westerner/European be seen has a genuine sacrifce? Would it have the same importance has the loss of a suppiler of food to a village in Africa? Maybe a western alternative would be putting your nice brand new Ferrari in a car crusher? Or putting a 50 in flat screen TV on a bonfire?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

hawthorn, great point. Two things :

"simple" sacrifice, as algoul puts it, is not the same as the 'torturous' sacrifice described at the top of this thread. Simple sacrifice, typically done gracefully, respectfully, and painlessly (as much as possible), is different.

And Hawthorn's point needs amplification. Sacrificing something that you don't need, or that you just went out and got specifically to sacrifice, is not a sacrifice. SACRIFICE means giving up something valuable.

Catching a frog and killing it is not a sacrifice, unless you subsist on caught frogs. However, I think the original idea at the top of this post was for divination, which is not sacrifice. So it's kind of a lateral move. i.e. still heinous in my book, whether a sacrifice or not.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4132
Topic starter  
"ianrons" wrote:
Neighbours include toads, I suppose...

Depends where you live, I expect.

πŸ˜‰


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"sethur666" wrote:
93

The Ifa religion is changing. At an Oshun ritual I attended in 2000 chicken eggs were broken over the idols rather than a chicken being sacrificed, and I heard from the priest that this was now common in Nigeria too.

93 93/93

Steve W

That sounds very US-Ifa to me as I have hear similar things before from people attending Ifa rites in the US. Without judging this, I must say however that I have never come across anything like this in Nigeria - and I lived there for about 7 years and saw a lot of rituals. But of course there may be some who do this. However, we must not forget that animal sacrifice in african or Latin American cultures often have another dimension. This may be one of the few occasions where people actually are able to eat meat. The sacrificed animal will always be eaten by the people and it provides a rare possibility for them. And that the animal to be slaughtered in a rite in such societies is being worshipped and respected was already said before. Also we need to keep in mind the different attitude to animals in their and our society. We have the 'privilege' and 'possibility' to think about animal wellfare etc. while in Africa for ex. many people still struggle for survival and have not that luxury.
This may escape us in the West where we overdose on meat all the time.

That said, my own personal take on animal sacrifice is that I do not endorse it at all, especially in a society where we do not need the meat of sacrificial animals to sustain us (while I do respect and are ok with it in traditional societies for the mentioned reasons).
Torture of animals as examplified by Crowley I find totally useless and senseless, especially in our society in the west. I also believe we have much better sources of energy available to 'feed the gods'.

just my few cents, Agape
David


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

If you want to use torture to 'feed the gods', try BDSM techniques as tantric sexmagick ritual.

I recommend it highly. It produces results. The only thing being 'tortured' is yourself, and who can argue with that?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Personally I think that animal sacrifice means killing an animal part of yourself. Cattle means wandering thoughts, etc. - that's the meaning, appiled both to Liber Al passages and to many other books. BTW, Crowley's passages about animal sacrifice from MTP is completely identical to some in Abhinavagupta's Tantraloka - I was amazed while comparing them.

As for animal sacrifice in physical form, in my opinion it may be arguable. It must be performed quickly and without torture, and all edible parts should be cooked and eaten or given as charity - as some Muslims and some Hindu do. Ethical vegeterianism is only for city people who never worked at farm and simply don't know how many animals of various species you must exterminate to grow one pound of grain. I think that in real non-killing practice one should be consistent, like Jain sects for example: use a broom while walking and a gauze while speaking.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

Dear 'Enjoy93',

I realy enjoyed your contribution to this tread.

If someone is interested: I am one of those (performed 'Stauros Batrachou' ritual).

"Love is the law, love under will."

best wishes,

Apostates.


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 450
 
"enjoy93" wrote:
BTW, Crowley's passages about animal sacrifice from MTP is completely identical to some in Abhinavagupta's Tantraloka - I was amazed while comparing them.

Enjoy93, could you be more specific? Tantraloka is a large text and I would appreciate if you could point out a particular chapter or some other relevant point of reference.

Otherwise, as an example, Hindu / Brahmanic ritual was originally often an animal secrifice, before the criticisms from the Jain and Buddhist circles led to the employment of non-animal substitues (typically ghee, clarified butter). Since the Upanishads (contemporary with early Buddhism) and particularly within the context of the esoteric / magical practice of the tantras, an 'inner sacrifice' (antar-yaga) became prominent. The sacrifice now becomes not an outward act but its esoteric equivalent: regulation of breath in pranayama, meditation, celibacy, asceticism (tapas) and the like.

I have no doubt that the sacrifice is a powerful form of ritual, but the question remains: is that power worth of somebody's else's life and pain? Also, what is one's chosen orientation: exoteric or esoteric? And finally, I find it important that Crowley mentions (in MTP) that in the Old Aeon the sacrifice consists of blood, while in the New Aeon, what is sacrificed is the sperm / sexual fluids. I am all for the latter variety.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Apostates my personal opinon is that Liber LXX is a flawed ritual that could be a foolscap/trick. The material for it is not 100% explicit in what a Thelemite could gain from the ritual. And at no time does Crowley suggest why a Thelemite would need to perform the ritual.

Apostates how do you square the circle of being a vessel of Agape/Thelema whilst at the same time indulging in the murder of animals?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Gordan" wrote:
Enjoy93, could you be more specific? Tantraloka is a large text and I would appreciate if you could point out a particular chapter or some other relevant point of reference.

Look those in Tantraloka 16.28-72. I can't find a good translation in English - as I know none is still published. Also (if you're interested) I can remember the similar passages in Crowley's Book 4 with Kshemaraja's Spanda-Nirnaya, not related with the subject though. I consider such coincidence as a revelation of magickal memory (or a very high degree of knowlegde and Kashmiri descendance of Crowley's Hindu teacher).

"Gordan" wrote:
Otherwise, as an example, Hindu / Brahmanic ritual was originally often an animal secrifice, before the criticisms from the Jain and Buddhist circles led to the employment of non-animal substitues (typically ghee, clarified butter). Since the Upanishads (contemporary with early Buddhism) and particularly within the context of the esoteric / magical practice of the tantras, an 'inner sacrifice' (antar-yaga) became prominent. The sacrifice now becomes not an outward act but its esoteric equivalent: regulation of breath in pranayama, meditation, celibacy, asceticism (tapas) and the like.

As I know, animal sacrifice in it's natural form is still practiced in most of Shakta sects. Cult of Durga, for example, is very popular, and for me it's impossible to imagine it without animal sacrifice.

"Gordan" wrote:
I have no doubt that the sacrifice is a powerful form of ritual, but the question remains: is that power worth of somebody's else's life and pain? Also, what is one's chosen orientation: exoteric or esoteric? And finally, I find it important that Crowley mentions (in MTP) that in the Old Aeon the sacrifice consists of blood, while in the New Aeon, what is sacrificed is the sperm / sexual fluids. I am all for the latter variety.

I consider their esoteric meaning as related with consciousness - and fluids are also just symbols of thoughts. Esoteric meaning of blood, etc. is clearly stated in Book 4 part II. And as for sexual fluids, I think it's not some special New Aeon symbols, such symbolism actively used in Tantra, and all tantrik practices in their basic form can be found in Vedas. ("New Aeon" to me means something related with New Age, Teosophy, etc. with their active introduction of Eastern elements - karma, sansara, Tantrik practices, etc.) I consider outer sex magick techniques are very useful, anyway, and sacrifice too. Torture in my opinion is useful in esoteric context only - as preparation and analysis of indriyas or skandhas, for example.


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 450
 

Thank you, Enjoy93, for the references. Otherwise, I am surprised a bit with your statement that the worship of Durga implies animal sacrifice. While I was in India, during navratra Durga festival, there was no trace of animal sacrifice. Similarly, even the Kali Puja, which I attended in Benares, involved a vegetable substitute as a 'sacrifice' and as far as I know, only in Bengal is the black goat occasionally sacrificed during the same celebration. Similarly, the dynamics between the esoteric and exoteric remains both interesting and, perhaps, controversial. For example, for the Traditionalists (Guenon et al.), the observance of the formalities of the exoteric religion is a necessary prerequisite for esoteric practice. And as far as the nomenclature is concerned, I agree that it needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but we still need some common points of reference in order to communicate - thus, I was using Crowley's designations from MTP in order to express my understanding of the issue. Whatever be the esoteric dimensions of the issue, Christianity as an exemplar of the 'Old Aeonic' religion is based around the mystery of Christ's blood, which he shed willingly in order to redeem the humanity and which is also present symbolically (or actually, if you are a Catholic) in the eucharist. My point being that the foundational myth of the 'Old Aeon' rests on the symbolism of the sacrifice of blood, and the 'New Aeon' is based on the mystery (among others, I guess) of the Babalon and Beast conjoined and the sacrifice of sexual fluids. This can be interpreted on many levels. Where the symbolism ends and the 'reality' enters the picture is difficult to say. Anyway, one more time, thank you for the interesting and informative post.


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 375
 

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

This post may seem rather disjointed or choppy, and vaguely expressed here and there, but I am attempting to compress a lot of my thoughts concerning this subject into it.

I am coming to the conclusion reflecting upon AC's early years, and especially the toad/frog incident-- that 666 already had all that he needed to be himself from the moment of conception. The Golden Dawn initiations were only the tools he used to realize that self upon the plane of Malkuth. In other words, he was the Beast from birth. It was necessary to use the things most advantageous to the realization of himself, and the Golden Dawn was the method for the time, century, and cultural incidentals most amicable to his task.
This is not to mention, that the GD system itself was an offshoot of a system of initiation he himself was familiar with in its pure form when he was Ankh-af-na-khonsu. It had enough of the "crucial" aspects of its original self to still be valid as a true centre of initiation--being derived from the original source as his own very self.
That's what one particular thing presented by such schools are for: that we might know ourselves through the magickal memory of our original and prior life legacy, that is often hidden for a tad upon each and every incarnational episode.
It's like looking at your family tree for the first time; it's in you, only you had to see it outside to understand what's within; the working method of invocation through symbols etc.
You lock your own treasures somewhere for safekeeping, go off for a while and whereupon returning have to prove you are you to access what is already yours.
So think of the toad thing this way: It was necessary for AC to do something totally unnecessary to realize and actualize a particular aspect or element of his being crucial to his officiation as Magus and Master of the Temple of the Aeon of Horus.
In other words, the toad incident will not make a Magus of you. It did not make AC a Master of Magick!. It was though, an act of Magick that united two modes of experience and being that had been understood as Master of the Temple and was thenceforth made changeably manifest as, by and through Magus. It was there and then, that above and below ceased to be-- through union of the two opposites of all that is already one. All very unique for a process so commonplace.

AC presented many rituals intended to be used effectively by those in future times, or not used--according to their will.
He also presented rituals that were peculiar and particular to the implementation of his own --mode of expression,--and did not expect such things to be blindly "mimicked" by future Thelemites. They were presented "for the record".

For instance, taking Resh as an example---every Thelemite (or non Thelemite for that matter) is free to use the version as given by AC, and is encouraged to do so---or to completely come up with their own versions. I use those as given: not having come up with anything better; but there is no obligation for me to adhere to them in the sense of traditionally redundant vespers as recited every day in the abodes of monks, etc. The majesty and glorious nature of Resh is obvious, so we use them. Its an expression of our love utterance that we do so, not out of any specific orders given to use them as the only permissible Thelemic solar greetings.

The Ritual of the Phoenix done at least once a week, and the Mark of the Beast--will do more for you than any rituals involving animal sacrifice and/or torture. I will go so far as to proclaim that any willful act of animal torture for whatever purpose will have its consequences and repercussions as it is balanced out upon the Earth plane, especially so in this day and age. Of course, if it is by chance your will to engage in that sort of thing--it is by all means your right to do so ( such being a fact that does not in the slightest condone animal torture). But consider that "true will" is not at all a mode of "excuse" for atrocity. If carrying out our will appears quite brutal in its implementation, as it sometimes happens to be,--closer examination will disclose the difference between wanton acts of violence and acts of aggression that are necessitated, being as they are-- the proper and just reaction to other forms of aggression..
I think the animal kingdom has suffered enough horrors at the hands of humankind. Go to Utube if you dare to see cats and dogs skinned alive for their fur! How indeed should a Thelemite react to such a thing? Or anyone for that matter. Should he or she be horrified? Indifferent, or angry? One can only react according to one's current mental and spiritual state at the time. One would hope that we would react with a level headed maturity, if we are to even have a chance of doing something meaningful to stop it. Some animal lovers might choose political activism, whilst others might choose magickal means. To react with blind rage and aggression might work for a time, and only expediently bring about temporary relief. To what degree, would a person love animals so much as to willingly choose to live only to protect them from the cruelties inflicted by human hands? Many have chosen that path though, making it their life's work.

The piece of poetry about toad crucifixion elucidates things in a much clearer way than any thing written concerning the workings of the ritual itself.
I have, through experience, found out that the best way to overcome the religions of the slave gods is to be true to your own self. We discover that self through honest and sincere introspection and using whatever tools we come to recognize as helping to assist in the matter of our inner and outer working and development.. In time we learn that the natural and true state of our experience and fulfillment thereof is far removed from the odious elements of spiritual and mental tyranny. We do not live regretting the damage these slave systems have caused us, but rather transmute through a magick that works retrogressively -- such negative energies and their effects,-- into a way of progression upon the path that overcomes them.

All in all, I cannot condemn or condone AC's actions concerning the toad/frog ritual; it was, what it was. It is your divine right to think what you will of him concerning the matter, as well as it is your right to condemn or condone the ritual itself.
If anyone has ever been unjustly cruel to any animal at one time or another, and one feels/knows it was wrong--one can simply dedicate all or a portion of one's life to protecting, rescuing, helping, and assisting
animals in need, and setting an example for others to do likewise. It is hard to imagine that it can be part of someone's particular life path, to engage in a particular act just to become fully aware that the very nature of their being is the antithesis to acting that way!

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I just wanted to say:

"sonofthestar@Gmail.com" wrote:
The Golden Dawn initiations were only the tools he used to realize that self upon the plane of Malkuth. In other words, he was the Beast from birth. It was necessary to use the things most advantageous to the realization of himself, and the Golden Dawn was the method for the time, century, and cultural incidentals most amicable to his task.

To me, it seems - that is the Path (and learning in general). A type of recall or reminder of the knowledge our soul posses.

On animal sacrifice:
I do not see anything wrong with it, perhaps because it is needed. More importantly it allows us to take a 'lesser' part and exalt it, using it to power the Great Work within manifestation.

On torturous animal sacrifice:
This, however, I am against. It is my belief that torturing the animal defiles the sacrifice, turning it into something else.

In a broader view:

"enjoy93" wrote:
Personally I think that animal sacrifice means killing an animal part of yourself.

ReplyQuote
algoul
(@algoul)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 61
 
"TauMelchizedek" wrote:
"sethur666" wrote:
93
That sounds very US-Ifa to me as I have hear similar things before from people attending Ifa rites in the US. Without judging this, I must say however that I have never come across anything like this in Nigeria - and I lived there for about 7 years and saw a lot of rituals. But of course there may be some who do this. However, we must not forget that animal sacrifice in african or Latin American cultures often have another dimension. This may be one of the few occasions where people actually are able to eat meat. The sacrificed animal will always be eaten by the people and it provides a rare possibility for them. And that the animal to be slaughtered in a rite in such societies is being worshipped and respected was already said before. Also we need to keep in mind the different attitude to animals in their and our society. We have the 'privilege' and 'possibility' to think about animal wellfare etc. while in Africa for ex. many people still struggle for survival and have not that luxury.
This may escape us in the West where we overdose on meat all the time.

That said, my own personal take on animal sacrifice is that I do not endorse it at all, especially in a society where we do not need the meat of sacrificial animals to sustain us (while I do respect and are ok with it in traditional societies for the mentioned reasons).
Torture of animals as examplified by Crowley I find totally useless and senseless, especially in our society in the west. I also believe we have much better sources of energy available to 'feed the gods'.

just my few cents, Agape
David

i agree with you
regards
r


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

Dear 'hawthhornrussel',

you wrote:
"Apostates my personal opinon is that Liber LXX is a flawed ritual that could be a foolscap/trick."

As you say: it is your personal opinion; but anyway... I am amused with your 'flawed & foolscap ritual' mention...

So you continue:
"The material for it is not 100% explicit in what a Thelemite could gain from the ritual. And at no time does Crowley suggest why a Thelemite would need to perform the ritual."

Well, my opinion is that you did not studied the text of 'Liber LXX'.

And you finally end with:
"Apostates how do you square the circle of being a vessel of Agape/Thelema whilst at the same time indulging in the murder of animals?"

Hm... I square the circle with 'square-toed' shoe... no, seriously - are you PET activist? Then you should go to any elementary school in any country where the experiment's with frog's are part of educational program (for children) and protest for such 'indulging'...

No offence, just another hard day... and you was my victim. I apologize for this but... all this whimpering on this tread about poor little frog/toad and how good and moral we shall be make me invidious and grudging... it must be that I am a bad person... but I wish you all well.

"Love is the law, love under will."

Apostates.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Thanks for your reply Apostates.

I apologise if i have cause you any offence. I am merely looking for answers to an awkward aspect of Crowley's work. Like i have said previously, if a person has engaged in the "sacrifice"/killing/murder of an animal for a non explicit magickal purpose how does the practioner maintain themselves has a vessel of Agape? And since you said you did the working of Liber LXX maybe you are the best person here to explain the difficulties of maintaining spiritual love & Thelema whilst taking away the life of a living creature.

So Apostates can you explain to the forum the dangers and pitfalls of working Liber LXX?

Best regards.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Gordan" wrote:
Thank you, Enjoy93, for the references. Otherwise, I am surprised a bit with your statement that the worship of Durga implies animal sacrifice. While I was in India, during navratra Durga festival, there was no trace of animal sacrifice.

And I'm not surpised with your statement. The official policy of Indian government is to avoid and to disapprove any public performances which may frighten away tourists. Also many temples (I think most of them) are closed and concealed from "yavanas" (all non-Hindu barbarians) - to avoid both desecration and fright. (Let alone many superstitious Hindu cults full of nonsense and perversions of any kind.)

"Gordan" wrote:
Similarly, the dynamics between the esoteric and exoteric remains both interesting and, perhaps, controversial. For example, for the Traditionalists (Guenon et al.), the observance of the formalities of the exoteric religion is a necessary prerequisite for esoteric practice.

Regular religious observances estabished in country of residence is usually accepted both by European Rose-Cross adepts and Tantrik sects - at least according to their documents. I.e. exoteric practice should be local and conforming.

"Gordan" wrote:
This can be interpreted on many levels. Where the symbolism ends and the 'reality' enters the picture is difficult to say. Anyway, one more time, thank you for the interesting and informative post.

On question of various levels of interpretation we are in complete agreement. Thank you too for your explanation.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

Dear 'hawthornrussell' (sorry, previously thy name/nick was written wrongly),

you do not need to excuse becouse I was not offended. And I will answer to your question about "dangers and pitfalls of working Liber LXX"... tomorrow.

"Law is the law, love under will."

Best wishes and best regards,

Apostates.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

93

India has been sniffy about Tantra since the moslems and then christians arrived. The whole idea of good karma and bad karma is only 19th century. But Tantra was NEVER acceptable, and sacrifice hidden indeed.

93 93/93

Steve W


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"sethur666" wrote:
India has been sniffy about Tantra since the moslems and then christians arrived. The whole idea of good karma and bad karma is only 19th century. But Tantra was NEVER acceptable, and sacrifice hidden indeed.

It's not exactly true. The idea of Karma is as ancient as all Hindu culture, and many modern Indian cults are really Tantrik (or, better to say, Agamic) both in theory and practice - all cults of various forms of Shiva&Shakti. Some of them reject animal sacrifice, and some support it. Supporters clearly stated in their dogma, that to be sacrificed is a blessing for an animal (exactly as Crowley wrote in MTP XII) and even a way to liberation for it - so it's a good karma both for an animal and a giver of sacrifice.

Nevertheless, your proposals have real foundation.
1) Hindus tend to avoid the name Tantra itself as related in public opinion with black magic and debauchery.
2) Vegetarianism (and also rejection of animal sacrifice) was introduced by Buddhist preachers and lately supported by Shankara's advaitins - it's one of a few elements that really has no source in Vedas (and all recognized Tantrik practices have it, as I already stated). In my opinion, real and reasonable causes of such prohibition were not ethical, but maybe ecological (too many cattle destroy everything), economic (settling down and switching from breeding to agriculture), health protection (meat of ill animals, absence of health service and refrigerators :), etc. - use your fantasy to find more.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 348
 

MichaelStaley wrote: "I half expected someone to come back with the verse from the Book of the Law about sacrificing cattle little and big etc. ..."

Of course, as I'm sure you know, there's no need to take The Book of the Law literally. Anyway I certainly don't take Crowley's opinions seriously. Aiwass, on the other hand...


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4132
Topic starter  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
Of course, as I'm sure you know, there's no need to take The Book of the Law literally.

Well, Aleisterion, you think that, and I think that. But there do appear to be not a few literalists out there, particularly when it comes to the Third Chapter.

It's what people mean when they refer to the "Third Chapter Ra-Ra Girls, with their shrill cries of Apocalypse Now!".

😯


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"ianrons" wrote:
Would it be possible, however, that a hypothetical mystic, having transcended conscious suffering, would see it from another perspective? I think the only possible defence of torture, etc., would have to come from the position that "consciousness" is not necessarily worthy of special protection, and hence "suffering" not especially to be guarded against. Actually, since I would consider it magickally wrong for me to try to protect my own consciousness from destruction in samadhi under all circumstances, so also I would not wish to restrict another creature from undergoing pain or any other experience. It's not an argument for torturing animals, of course -- I see no real reason why one should; but then again I see no reason why one shouldn't, and I certainly think you're overstating the case when you say it's "psychotic", Mick.

Hi Ian, am rather late in joining this one, but I am interested in this hypothetical mystic of yours.

Let us say that as part of his discipline this mystic undertakes the sacrifice of a 'lower' life form. If you can see no reason why he shouldn't do it once, then I presume you would have no objection if it became a daily practise? Now pretty soon this chap has run out of toads, so imagine then the neighbours cat goes missing. The neighbour suspects something, calls the RSPCA and our hypothetical mystic gets busted.

All moral issues, of course. But what do you think a mental health professional would say to our enlightened mystic? How do you think it sounds when he is told that the 'consciousness' of these animals is not worth protecting and that 'suffering is not to be guarded against'? Do you think it might qualify as 'bizarre behaviour' and that the professional might feel the individual has 'lost contact with reality' and has 'delusion beliefs'? Is animal sacrifice a normal social functioning? No, of course not. Such behaviour could easily be classed as psychotic.

When it comes to the sacrifice of living creatures I feel this kind of approach is better interpreted as a metaphor for personal transgression and should not be taken literally. Andrew Chumbley knew this, as Oneiros has illustrated above. And might I just remind everyone that Spare was a lifetime champion for the welfare of animals, as is Michael Bertiaux.

bazelek


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 348
 

Aleisterion wrote: "Of course, as I'm sure you know, there's no need to take The Book of the Law literally."

MichaelStaley wrote: "Well, Aleisterion, you think that, and I think that. But there do appear to be not a few literalists out there, particularly when it comes to the Third Chapter. "

Literalists...yes, I've spoken with a few, to my astonishment. "Kill and torture" is one example that the Bush Administration seems to take literally. In the first chapter, as another example, we find Nuit describing Herself as "blue-lidded". I'm quite sure She wasn't describing makeup - though I could be wrong. And Hadit describing Himself as a snake. If they are right, however, have them delineate the "eight and ninety rules of art". Or "thy stature shall surpass the stars". Or even "blessing & worship to the prophet of the lovely Star!" What Star, exactly? And if it's to be taken literally, why capitalize? And - in the third chapter - the cannibalism of verse 11 of chapter 3. And the "miraculous colour" of the Stele. And of course the fresh blood of a child. These literalists are obviously fools.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

Hi Rob,

"bazelek" wrote:
Let us say that as part of his discipline this mystic undertakes the sacrifice of a 'lower' life form. If you can see no reason why he shouldn't do it once, then I presume you would have no objection if it became a daily practise? Now pretty soon this chap has run out of toads, so imagine then the neighbours cat goes missing. The neighbour suspects something, calls the RSPCA and our hypothetical mystic gets busted.

All moral issues, of course. But what do you think a mental health professional would say to our enlightened mystic? How do you think it sounds when he is told that the 'consciousness' of these animals is not worth protecting and that 'suffering is not to be guarded against'? Do you think it might qualify as 'bizarre behaviour' and that the professional might feel the individual has 'lost contact with reality' and has 'delusion beliefs'? Is animal sacrifice a normal social functioning? No, of course not. Such behaviour could easily be classed as psychotic.

Of course one can always come up with a hypothetical example that shows psychotic behaviour (killing the Queen's corgis?); but that doesn't make all torturous animal sacrificers psychotic (actually, Mick used the word "psychopath"). Animal testing is still done in this country -- would you say the scientists doing so are all psychopaths? Or doesn't that count? Why not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Hare.27s_Checklist

Aside from the example I gave of an exalted mystic who sees beyond suffering, an average human could hardly be labelled a psychopath for sacrificing an animal in a cruel way if they didn't show callousness, and had to deal with remorse, and took responsibility for the death. The toad ritual doesn't imply callousness.

You see, Mick's argument rests on (amongst other things) the assumption that no-one who has ever killed a frog or a toad in that way has ever felt remorse afterwards (not to imply that one would be a psychopath if one didn't feel remorse for "this sort of thing").

However, you can certainly make an argument for psychopathy based on size and frequency of killing -- cruelly despatching larger animals (esp. primates) one a daily basis is clearly more significant than foully having murdered an amoeba at the Christmas party. That said, quite a lot of warfare is cruel and inhuman (e.g., napalm), yet it seems that a good number of people doing it are clearly *not* psychopaths (because of their feelings of guilt, terror, etc., later). The point here, of course, is that society condones warfare, so it's easier for non-psychopaths to engage in it (and I refer back to the Milgram experiment). Killing a toad -- even cruelly -- isn't actually terribly transgressive in our society (as evidenced by the fact that we're talking about it openly), so by the same token I think it impossibly unlikely that everyone engaged in such practices is psychopathic (or even psychotic).

In a similar way, you bring it down to a question of "Is animal sacrifice a normal social functioning?" Are you suggesting that anything that is "abnormal" is "psychotic"? I take a diametrically opposite view; but even if I didn't, cruel killing of animals is quite normal in our society -- lobsters & foxes. That doesn't make it alright, and nor would the absence of such examples condemn it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Again Ian makes some interesting points but no one on this thread has touched these 3 points :

1: If someone is truly aligned with the 93 current (Agape/Thelema) then how can the taking of life/ murder be an act of spiritual unconditional love?

2: Can the use and practice of Liber LXX even be described has a Thelemic?

3: If the Law is for All then why does this not apply to the toad being sacrificed?


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

hawthornrussell,

This is really off-topic, but I'm going to answer your points anyway.

"hawthornrussell" wrote:
1: If someone is truly aligned with the 93 current (Agape/Thelema) then how can the taking of life/ murder be an act of spiritual unconditional love?

There seem to be two unstated premisses here. Firstly, you seem to be saying that "love" is somehow less likely to manifest as murder than as any other phenomenon. Why? AC regarded "love" as something quite simple, such as when hydrogen unites with chlorine to form hydrochloric acid. Just because the product is dangerous to human skin, doesn't make it less an act of love.

But is it "under will"? This is your second hidden premiss. You seem to be saying that someone doing Thelema is somehow less likely to kill another creature; but Thelema/Will is, like love, a universal principle that isn't defined in relation to things like human relations (e.g. H+Cl again; but see my next point about the word "Thelemic"). I feel that you mistake Thelema for a system of morals.

"hawthornrussell" wrote:
2: Can the use and practice of Liber LXX even be described has a Thelemic?

What do you mean by "Thelemic"? I appreciate that the term is "current coinage", but in my opinion it's grossly misused. To say one thing is "more Thelemic" in human affairs than another thing is to imply an absolute code of conduct; but the principles of Thelema as expressed in the Book of the Law are fundamentally relativistic: "Do what thou wilt" -- the phrase "thou wilt" is singular; it doesn't say "Do what I tell you", "Do what others do", or anything suggesting a universal standard of conduct. So what does the word "Thelemic" mean? Nothing, on its own: it needs an agent and an act in order to place it. "One man's meat is another man's poison." What's "Thelemic" for me isn't necessarily "Thelemic" for you, etc.

"hawthornrussell" wrote:
3: If the Law is for All then why does this not apply to the toad being sacrificed?

There are two points to address here. Firstly, whilst of course the every toad and every atom in the universe would be better off for doing its Will (assuming an atom can somehow not do its Will...), why should this somehow prevent a Thelemite from killing a toad? Why can't it be the toad's Will to die? Or perhaps the toad isn't doing its Will, and so gets bumped off by some human?

Secondly, however, its worth addressing this "Law is for All" quote. Let's see the context:

"Then the priest fell into a deep trance or MS. Page 9swoon & said unto the Queen of Heaven: Write unto us the ordeals, write unto us the rituals, write unto us the law! But she said: the ordeals I write not; the rituals shall be half known and half concealed; the Law is for all. This that thou writest is the threefold book of Law."

Show me a toad that can read...

(Please don't let's get dragged into whether or not toad killing is "Thelemic" -- besides that being a meaningless question in my opinion, we're talking about mental health not universal principles.)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

Dear 'zain',

you wrote in 'shout box':

"zain: Apostates seems very quiet?
zain: did he not say he was going to explain the deeper significance of sacrificing animals?
zain: And defend the working of Liber LXX.."

The day before yesterday I wrote 'tomorrow'... I will answer on 'hawthornrussell' questions and I will... tomorrow. Sometimes my days are very very long...

In the meantime you should read the 'ianrons' and 'enjoj93' contribution's.

"Love is the law, love under will."

Best wishes and best regards to all 'fans' of this topic,

Apostates.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Thanks for your reply Ian.

Lets start with your issue over using the term Thelemic. From your position its merely a label that can cover a wide range of actions (including animal sacrifice) to suit each individuals will. But to use that in the context of animal sacrifice is misguided. This is not so much a morality issue has an issue of integrity. To put in context, if someone is aligned with the 93 current and they are a vessel for Agape/Thelema how can unconditional love/Agape be maintained while indulging in the ritual killing of a defenceless animal that had no choice or consent. From your stance Ian this seems to be irrelevant. You seem to be suggesting that Agape is subjective. That maybe so, but i dont believe Agape includes the killing of creatures for indulgent "spiritual" purposes. I dont recognise that killing for ritual purposes could ever be an expression of Agape. I can agree there can be exceptions in the real world eg: Euthanasia; the mercy killing of a loved one is suffering with no recourse to a medical cure. Euthanasia when done is horrible to everyone involved but the intention is done out of love to stop their loved one from suffering any longer. This would be one of the few times that Agape could be involved. But ritual killing? Nah dont see it.

The second point over the Law is for All. I dont believe i have taken it out of context in the sense of Do What Thou Wilt applies to all things not just humanity. In that context, going out of your way to lure, trap and kill a toad just for personal gratification in the hope of getting "spiritual/magickal powers" doesnt meet the consent or choice given under the principle of Do What Thou Wilt. Again this goes back to the issue of integrity. There is no point adhereing to a set of principles if they are going to be broken.

Thirdly the issue over killing a toad is not a "meaningless question" Ian. From my experience of the internet there are a lot of sick people who are looking for ways to justify their disturbed nature. And probably one or two of them will read this thread thinking that their bloodlust can be sanctioned under "Thelema". So to me its important that these issues are debated fully so that something like ritual killing doesnt end up motivating a horse mutilator or a cat strangler. I hope you agree with me on this.

Anyway whats your problem with toads Ian? A toad is just a friend you havent met yet! πŸ™‚


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 3
Share: