Notifications
Clear all

Crowley and love  

  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
24/09/2011 3:15 pm  

Love is the law, love under will.
In the 2nd part the word love is not only a noun defining "the love being the law", but also a command as in "do thou love under will". So how do you handle it?

What is love to you personally, in your life and magick (which are about the same)? How do you express it?

There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse.


Quote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
27/09/2011 11:23 pm  

0=2


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
27/09/2011 11:42 pm  

Love is the law, love under will.
In the 2nd part the word love is not only a noun defining "the love being the law", but also a command as in "do thou love under will". So how do you handle it?

What is love to you personally, in your life and magick (which are about the same)? How do you express it?

There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse.

As we grow older, our capacity to love should grow with our experience of life. Our access to the currents of love and life should grow richer and deeper. Life should not become grey and tasteless as a fading tapestry but as rich, diverse and delicate as a garden in spring.

As magicians we work to unite ourselves with all in the universe... from the little silly things to the profundities. We cultivate our capacity to love, under will.

Sometimes we may not handle it, and we drop the ball. Whenever we choose to indulge in the negative and shut out the light from our heart, and let chaos rule our limbic system, we aren't handling it. But when we do let it in and consciously turn towards positive acceptance of joy - even through the surface tears - and without denying the pain of the world also - then maybe we're 'handling it'?

I would like to hear more from other people too on this... 🙂


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
27/09/2011 11:56 pm  
"Dar" wrote:

Love is the law, love under will.
In the 2nd part the word love is not only a noun defining "the love being the law", but also a command as in "do thou love under will". So how do you handle it?

What is love to you personally, in your life and magick (which are about the same)? How do you express it?

There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse.

As we grow older, our capacity to love should grow with our experience of life. Our access to the currents of love and life should grow richer and deeper. Life should not become grey and tasteless as a fading tapestry but as rich, diverse and delicate as a garden in spring.

As magicians we work to unite ourselves with all in the universe... from the little silly things to the profundities. We cultivate our capacity to love, under will.

Sometimes we may not handle it, and we drop the ball. Whenever we choose to indulge in the negative and shut out the light from our heart, and let chaos rule our limbic system, we aren't handling it. But when we do let it in and consciously turn towards positive acceptance of joy - even through the surface tears - and without denying the pain of the world also - then maybe we're 'handling it'?

I would like to hear more from other people too on this... 🙂

AL 2: 22 "I am the Snake that giveth Knowledge & Delight and bright glory, and stir the hearts of men with drunkenness. To worship me take wine and strange drugs whereof I will tell my prophet, & be drunk thereof! They shall not harm ye at all. It is a lie, this folly against self. The exposure of innocence is a lie. Be strong, o man! lust, enjoy all things of sense and rapture: fear not that any God shall deny thee for this."

...Including chaos, darkness, any thing which may be considered repulsive, obscene, etc.

2=0

Subject + Object = Dissolution

Solve et coagula - Solve and coagulate

Liber AL

1: 27. "Then the priest answered & said unto the Queen of Space, kissing her lovely brows, and the dew of her light bathing his whole body in a sweet-smelling perfume of sweat: O Nuit, continuous one of Heaven, let it be ever thus; that men speak not of Thee as One but as None; and let them speak not of thee at all, since thou art continuous!

1: 28. None, breathed the light, faint & faery, of the stars, and two.

1: 29. For I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union.

1: 30. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all."

etc...

And of course, for those so inclined to perform the Operation:

Liber 156, v 10: "Thou hast love; tear thy mother from thine heart, and spit in the face of thy father. Let thy foot trample the belly of thy wife, and let the babe at her breast be the prey of dogs and vultures. "

...and 156 v 20: "This Path is beyond Life and Death; it is also beyond Love; but that ye know not, for ye know not Love. "

156 v 22: "Therefore unto Hadit and unto Nuit be the glory in the End and the Beginning; yea, in the End and the Beginning. "


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
28/09/2011 12:39 am  

1) The snake of initiation.

a) All ways are lawful to innocence. Pure folly is the key to initiation.

b) It is said that three kinds of event can occasion our fall from innocence: death, an awareness of evil, our sexual awakening.

As so we come to that stage of life where we develop according to a new formula.

2) The divided lovers to be united.

a) Life is suffering. Suffering is caused by desire.

b) Life is pure joy. In joy is the dissolution of desire.

We grow... blossom, ferment, turn to vinegar or wine or even... rich red port?

3) The hermits of Will.

a) The sovereign reins forever alone.

b) Loneliness is the coin paid for it's own transcendence into all else. Pan has the last word - is eternally unspoken.

I like your quote Azidonis. Love under will in 3 extracts. Like sticky ambergris, sugar grains and salt pork (respectively).

^ needs more work. 😉

93's!


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 686
28/09/2011 1:23 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
0=2

See, Love really is like Oxygen.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
28/09/2011 1:28 am  

An excellent selection of quotations on the subject, Az.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0

ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
28/09/2011 3:00 am  

Greetings Camlion.

The OP asked us how we handle 'Love under Will' ... personally. And although I love a good and appropriate quote, I must admit that I am more interested in the personal approach. A persons own words can often be as individually enlightening to others as they are revealing to themselves. Or at least, that's what I've noticed.

Not that I'd want to see hundreds of scrawled diary entries about love, mind you... 🙂

How do you 'handle love', Camlion? In it's different aspects... and perhaps in the different life stages you've been through as a Thelemite?

🙂


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
28/09/2011 5:55 am  
"Dar" wrote:
A persons own words can often be as individually enlightening to others as they are revealing to themselves.

I agree, but also consider the value of such quotations, for they are a common language through which one may be introduced to Understanding.

It is ultimately imperative for each individual to discern the nature of 'love under will' for themselves. All one can do really is help them paint certain images. The various languages given by past Masters in the systems they have left for us are of a certain benefit when we consider that if we pick any Master - say Crowley (or V.V.V.V.V. if you prefer) - well, each of us ultimately understands Crowley's words in our own unique ways, through our own unique lens.

Now, one can give years to the study and practice of Crowley's system (or Buddha's, Mohammed's, etc.), and after years of study and practice, one thing should be fairly certain: that at the minimum a basic understanding of the language used in the System has developed, and thus the Student will be able to communicate within reasonable limitations of said system.

It may take one years of study and practice to arrive at a thorough understanding of the language, although said understand will never be quite that of the original author. Who better knows what point Crowley wanted to get across better than Crowley? The point Crowley attempted to convey is indeed limited, in some part, by the reader's knowledge concerning the particular language Crowley chose to use.

So, if one is spending lifetimes learning the language of say Crowley, and wants to know what I think about a subject Crowley wrote quite extensively on, it only seems fitting to at first allow the one asking the initial question a chance to get some idea of any future languages and systems I may use to express my own understanding of the subject. Also, given that both of you are rather new to these boards, there is little to no history of how you respond to certain events and approaches. And, since there does not seem to be introductory posts from either of you (nice to meet you, by the way), the safest assumption is to assume we know absolutely nothing about each other, and therefore it is a very plausible and pragmatic approach by beginning the dialogue in question with a few recitations, in a common language, that are relevant to the subject.

I guess I should give a more "personal response":

"Love" can only be known by also knowing "not-love", and vice-versa. Note, "not-love" does not imply "hate", but rather the "absence of love".


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
28/09/2011 6:56 am  

As always on this forum, there is a lot of quotation -- trotted out by the usual suspects – but very little attempt to actually explain this material, which always leads one to wonder whether these quote-machines have a grasp on what the material actually means.

“Love,” in the context of Thelema, means union, a uniting of a point-of-view (one manifestation of Hadit) with one possibility (one manifestation of Nuit): that is to say, every single event that happens is an act of love. All experience is love. It is for this reason that AL states, “For I am divided for love’s sake, for the chance of union.”

The division of the universe into self/not-self occurs so that experience (love) becomes possible. The image is of Hadit expanding outwards into the starry heaven of Nuit, growing with each experience until he is eventually coterminous with the universe itself (it is possible to generate a faint but useful echo of this feeling by the practice of the Qabalistic Cross, Liber NU, and other practices along these lines).

So if all experience is love, and everything that happens to you is experience, then how is it possible not to love? Why even bother talking about love? [In one sense, arguably, it is fruitless to speak of: “let them speak not of thee at all, since thou art continuous!”…but in another sense, not talking about a subject isn’t very practical and helps absolutely no one, so let’s continue our discussion]

The answer to this question is to note that the Law of Thelema does not state “Go thou forth and love however you like.” It says, specifically, “Love is the law, love under will.”

Acts of love – our experience – must be under the control of the will, our natural inclinations. Attempts to try to direct our experience down a particular course of action – to restrict the expansion of your true self out into the universe – are in violation of the Law of Thelema and will accordingly bring suffering.

Examples of such violations are almost too easy to call to mind for anyone who is even slightly self-aware. There are three main forms. The first is emotional: one allows the emotions to talk one into thinking that one enjoys an activity when, in fact, one really just enjoys the idea of the activity or the corresponding self-image it provides.

If you’re looking for a “personal” example, I can think of several times in my teenage years, long before I had anything remotely resembling insight into my nature, when I talked myself into thinking that I enjoyed being in certain relationships and even that I “loved” some people who did not, in fact, love me back.

Instances like these – which are pretty common in everyone, especially stupid teenagers – highlight the tendency of our sappy emotions and our saccharine self-images to restrict our manifestation of love. In the name of “love,” we turn our backs on the fulfillment of self that is actual love.

Thus, we read in the Book of the Law: “Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love. There is the dove, and there is the serpent. Choose ye well!”

Indeed, in addition to a number of spiffy “esoteric” readings we could give this passage, we need to consider that the verse is telling us not to mistake a false substitute for the real thing. Getting rid of delusive beliefs that force us to funnel our love in one direction allows us to open up to new experiences and do the things that we actually want to do, that our true selves will.

This isn’t just mushy, feel-good stuff. Dropping foolish sentimentality leaves us free to pursue other relationships that we actually find fulfilling.

There are two other primary ways that love gets retricted. The first is morality. The belief that such-and-such actions are inherently virtuous leads one to consciously try to act in such-and-such a way, even if such a way isn’t in line with one’s actual nature. This restricts love and prevents the will from properly expressing itself.

If you want a personal example of this, I can think of a number of times – again, during those teenage years – when I’ve helped others out not because I wanted to or even because I particularly liked the other person but because I thought it was “good” to do so. I can also think of times that I refrained from telling people how I really felt about their actions because I thought it would be “bad” to hurt their feelings.

Examples like these restrict love by forcing actions to conform to arbitrary senses of what is “right” or “wrong.” Telling someone off – when you really feel like telling someone off – isn’t “good” or “bad” in itself. It’s just what it is, and if you truly want to do it, there’s no ultimate reason that you “should” not do it. In this context, it is a manifestation of love to tell someone off, and it is a restriction and poisoning of love to refrain from doing what you will because of your silly idea that it’s somehow “bad” to do so.

As we can see, “love” in the Thelemic sense has absolutely nothing to do with being nice to everyone and trying to “get along.” Indeed, the idea that there’s some inherent “goodness” in being nice to people is yet another restriction of love. If you want to be nice to people, then fine; if you don’t want to be nice to people, then don’t. “Good” or “bad” doesn’t enter into the question, and it is impossible to properly love – in the Thelemic sense – as long as you consider actions to be inherently good or bad.

The final way that love gets restricted is acting on delusory beliefs. In many ways, this restriction is closely tied to morality: morality itself is one kind of delusory belief, and many delusory beliefs can feed into a morality.

To name one example – a favorite hobby horse of mine – many Thelemites believe in reincarnation, a false belief with no basis in reality, and for at least some of them, reincarnation feeds into a system of morals.

Since I don’t have a personal experience with constructing such a moral system, I’ll cite one that popped up on another Thelemic forum recently. Jim Eshelman recently commented the following about his belief in reincarnation:

“I've long been clear that it's been too many lifetimes since I've been a woman. Also clear that this is because I wouldn't be as effective, given societal definitions. So, part of my work is to do as much as possible to empower women in this lifetime, to accelerate the liklihood that I can incarnate as a woman next time and be as effective in the world as I've been as a man for the last few thousand years.”

Now, since reincarnation isn’t true, what this Thelemite is doing is allowing his delusive belief in reincarnation guide his actions by constructing a personal morality for him: working to “empower women” is “good” because he thinks it will help him achieve his imaginary aims.

Someone invested in a delusion of this kind is likely to act in a way that his fantasy considers “good” whether or not he actually wills it.

This is yet another clear example of the way that love is restricted and funneled down a particular path instead of liberated and allowed to follow the natural course of the true will.

In closing, let me add that it’s common in so-called “Thelemic” circles to find people yammering on and on about their precious feelings and being nice to others when the subject of “love” comes up, but we can now see that such reactions are, at best, misguided. “Love,” in the context of Thelema, is emphatically not a sentimental feeling or an injunction to be kind to others. In fact, in many situations, it is precisely the opposite: it is an injunction to rid oneself of the delusory ideas of “good” and “evil” that taint one’s ability to perceive and carry out the true will and to cease to restrict one’s experience by imposing arbitrary restrictions upon it.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
28/09/2011 7:32 am  
"Los" wrote:
As always on this forum, there is a lot of quotation -- trotted out by the usual suspects – but very little attempt to actually explain this material, which always leads one to wonder whether these quote-machines have a grasp on what the material actually means.

Wonderful to see you have arrived at your little answer, and thrilled to see you have decided to use this chance to try and show how cool you are by knowing an answer, instead of simply pointing to where you got the answer, and allowing the seeker to find their own answer.

Kudos.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
28/09/2011 8:40 am  

in greek there are different words for love,depending
(ἔρως érōs- passionate love
φιλία philía-friendship or brotherly love
στοργή storgē-natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring
ἀγάπη agápē-unconditional love)

are they all 1??
what #s do the other add up to
(as i write this jimi hendrix is on the history channel talking about love!)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
28/09/2011 9:59 am  

eros=375,philia=551,storge=487,hebrew words for love ahab=9,hesed=69,raham=267 or 807 not sure!!


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5325
01/10/2011 9:16 am  

Unlocked on request from Khui.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
01/10/2011 5:27 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
Unlocked on request from Khui.

Thank you Paul!


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
06/10/2011 12:35 am  
"Khui" wrote:
Love is the law, love under will.
In the 2nd part the word love is not only a noun defining "the love being the law", but also a command as in "do thou love under will". So how do you handle it?

What is love to you personally, in your life and magick (which are about the same)? How do you express it?

In this context, love is a verb (how you approach the world) rather than an emotion. Love is striving to act according to one's will.

Love is maintaining a state of mindful openness in order to hear the inner voice that directs your actions such that they are aligned with your essential nature, regardless of any internal or external pressures that try to entice, shame or otherwise distract you from making those choices that are aligned with your will.

Also, what Los said.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
01/11/2011 10:01 pm  
"Dar" wrote:

Greetings Camlion.

The OP asked us how we handle 'Love under Will' ... personally. And though I love a good and appropriate quote, I must admit that I am more interested in the personal approach.

🙂

Little Essays Toward Truth-Love is hardly a simple quote. I've been trying to wrap my head around this for a few years. Crowley's definitions actually angered me. A clue that he was hitting home? I thought so.

I think the trouble with talking about Love is the definition. We are bombarded by many difinitions of love throughout our lives. So I throw myself up against this little essay a few times a year and see what it changes in me.

It never fails to shake me up.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
01/11/2011 10:55 pm  
"linda93" wrote:
"Dar" wrote:

Greetings Camlion.

The OP asked us how we handle 'Love under Will' ... personally. And though I love a good and appropriate quote, I must admit that I am more interested in the personal approach.

🙂

Little Essays Toward Truth-Love is hardly a simple quote. I've been trying to wrap my head around this for a few years. Crowley's definitions actually angered me. A clue that he was hitting home? I thought so.

I think the trouble with talking about Love is the definition. We are bombarded by many difinitions of love throughout our lives. So I throw myself up against this little essay a few times a year and see what it changes in me.

It never fails to shake me up.

I'm often a pest about asking for definitions, even about what may be the simplest seeming words or ideas being discussed. It's a good practice, I think; saves wasted time and energy to get it straight up front.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
03/11/2011 2:34 am  

Me too. It might be asking to much to be on the same page with everyone, but maybe a try would get us in the same book.
Ah, who am I kidding. Same planet? 😆


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
03/11/2011 2:42 am  

Some good stuff about love: Plato's Symposium


ReplyQuote
Share: