Notifications
Clear all

Magick and Money


 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

I'd like to hear what people's views are on the relationship between money and magick.

I know that many practicioners of magick of different varieties see it as wrong to perform magick for compensation, i.e. being a "professional magician", so to speak. On the other hand there are those who see magick as just another specialised tool, and getting paid for it is no different to a doctor or psychologist getting paid for their expertise. I am not thinking in terms of payment for such things as general "theurgical" training or teaching, but more along the lines of professionally doing tarot readings, astrological charts, creating sigils / amulets for clients...

Is their a specific Thelemic take on this?


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

93
I wouldn't agree on the idea of getting rich through magick, maybe I'm too catious, but if there was some magickal formula to get rich, we would all be rich. I don't know, the whole breaking of natural laws kind of get's me in my nerves.

As for profiting from magick... I guess it depends, as long as it is not some form of superstion or "pay me a 100$ and I promise I'll clean your house from "evil" spirits" I can't see what would be wrong with it. Maybe it's up for the individual to decide what he wants to do with his life.
93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I don't know why, but thoughts arise of "Jesus" throwing the money changers out from the temple.


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 501
 

I don't find that story either credible or instructive. As there were more than one of them they not only could have dealt with him but also their rates would have been competitative so what's his problem? Possibly he went round with his whole team of bandits - 'Pete the Rock' in particular habitually went armed and eventually cut a policeman's ear off. If the authorities had stamped down hard at the time we wouldn't have had all that trouble later.

Seasons gleetings,

OK


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

As a parable it has quite an obvious allegorical meaning - keep money and commerce out of the Temple. As to whether this mythological character ever literally existed and literally did the things written about, well that's a whole different story.

I have nothing against using magick to bring in some ducats when necessary. Money is simply another manifestation of energy, after all. To practice magickally trying to get rich seems like a waste of time and talent.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

To fear money or to be self consious of its value is a very Christain thing. Money is a number on your self worth, never make the number a low one.
As an artist Im often asked to put a value on my own work, there is no logic to it, its as absract as the concept of art in the first place.
I tend to use numbers that are significant to me. Enochian number logic.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

As for profiting from magick... I guess it depends, as long as it is not some form of superstion or "pay me a 100$ and I promise I'll clean your house from "evil" spirits" I can't see what would be wrong with it. Maybe it's up for the individual to decide what he wants to do with his life.
93 93/93

I agree with this. In the town I live in there was a woman who advertised Psychic readings our of her house. The local police shut her down after some people filed complaints against her and if memory serves me she actually went to jail for a few years. She would tell people that she was speaking to a loved one who was "stuck" and of course all to the tune of X amount of dollars she could help them get to heaven. I believe it was something like $50 a candle and she would set them free. (this scam was "popular" for quite sometime in many areas)
Now this sounds like an obvious scam to anyone with half a brain but preying on the emotionally vulnerable was quite profitable for her, sad and disgusting as that is.

This paticular story happened many years ago and infact my mother was one of her victims. My 13 year old brother had passed a few years prior and I supose she was desperate to "speak" to him again. Being a student of the occult I was able to assure her that she did not need to go back to this woman and pay her to send him to heaven in terms that could make sense to her but to say it pissed me off and hurt me is an understatement. If I had even known she was going to go see this woman I would have talked her out of it.

Now I also know several people who make their living reading the Tarot. It's an honest read and I see no reason they shouldnt make money off of their "talents". I believe Art work or magickal jewlery making or what have you to be in a different category altogether and one should be paid for their efforts and talent. It's really the "psychics" I'm leery of as it seems this is the area where most people get conned. I've been offered money to preform certain "talents" and I've always turned it down as it just felt creepy to me but this is just my personal feeling on the subject. I know there are legitimate psychics out there but I dont believe there are many here in the states. At least in my experience.

Just a few of my thoughts and experiences on the subject.

93 93/93
Kym


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I believe Art work or magickal jewlery making or what have you to be in a different category altogether and one should be paid for their efforts and talent.


What if the art is invisible, simply conceptual and untangable


ReplyQuote
daopig
(@daopig)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 68
 

[private]


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

What if the art is invisible, simply conceptual and untangable

Can you give me an example of what exactally it is you mean by this? I just want to make sure we're on the same page, thats all. 😀

Are you speaking about, for example, Reiki? If this is an example then yes, I believe you should be paid for this service.

93
Kym


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

It's interesting that a negative reaction regarding being compensated for something "magickal" is so common, and I'm trying to understand why this is.

Obviously the problem of fakes and frauds does come up, but surely this isn't enough to explain it. You get fakes and frauds in all fields, and quite a few doctors have been prosecuted for practicing as such without ever being qualified to do so. Yet one doesn't get the same reaction when someone suggests that a doctor be paid for healing someone.

Sometimes I wonder whether this has something to do with letting some of the more negative attitudes to magick of non-practicioners or non "believers" in magick affect us. There seems to be this almost over-compensatory dynamic at work where we somehow doubt the reality of magick, or are afraid that others might doubt it, so we are immediately skeptical of someone who uses magick for profit - as if we're scared it might not be real after all and don't want it to be opened to the public scrutiny of others, as may well happen when it happens in a "business" context. I may be totally off base here, but it's something I've been pondering.

I've read much of these fake psychics who exploit people, but that's another issue entirely I believe. This sort of thing is common in other professions too, as I've said... what about these "inspirational" courses or workshops given by psychologists, supposed to solve all your mental problems, over the course of a weekend? Obviously it's bullshit and the ethics of it are very questionable, and again it doesn't really reflect the reality of psychology or the work done by psychologists in real therapy. But as I said, I was thinking in terms of magick more than in terms of psychics who may or may not actually channel dead people.

Tarot readings, as was mentioned, is a good example. Why would it be questionable to apply your skill in this regard to help another? The same with astrology... if you were, say, skilled in horary astrology, what is wrong with applying this knowledge in a way that will create profit? Why do we automatically see money, profit or the like as "evil"? Is this view really appropriate or is it part and parcel of the "baggage" of old-Aeon religions? Also, what about perhaps using sigil magick to help clients with various problems. Is this different from going to any other professional? If so, why is it different? Is a talisman crafter's knowledge of a variety that is so different from that of another specialist in a field, such as, say, a plumber, a doctor, a mechanic, that the magician should not receive compensation?

I don't see how money is inherently evil... it's up to the person. Looking at some news reports, it's obvious that ascetics aren't immune committing acts of evil either.

So, why are we afraid of money?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

"Money is the root of all evil"
Everybody has heard this one. Unfortunately, it's one of the most famous misquotes of all time. The original quote comes from the New Testament and the correct quote is "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil". The love of money is an obsession but were not really talking money, maybe ambition.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

While to take an analogy in my own life... I am working on my very first alter, which requires money. I must start my business so that I can move in that wonderful house where I will be able to practice magick with more devotion and meditate without distractions. I also having sworn to make magick the most fundamental and primary thing in my life, making it quite difficult to get out of my head.

Crowley points out that in order for one to do anything worth doing, one must have money, however with money comes its corresponding afflictions. I am also reminded of a zen story about the monk who did service for free. He would help everyone out without asking for a coin. Then he realized that he didn't have enough time for the truly dedicated students, so he began to charge a small fee; then everyone accused him of doing wrong.

I wouldn't even think of charging for a tarot card reading, mind you I don't know enough yet, nor would I like to do one for every soul that comes my way. However, the rituals and meditation I perform happen to keep my head clear so that I can run a business on the side.

There is a difference between the black brother who uses magick solely for personal gain, and an aspirant who goes about getting money for things that will further his career as a magician, overlooking that lovely Sedan parked in a rich man's driveway. Although if an old working beater would prove convenient to drive out of the city and cut a branch for a wand, it might not be too bad an idea.

I guess it's all about keeping things in perspective.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"l_c_cicero" wrote:
I know that many practicioners of magick of different varieties see it as wrong to perform magick for compensation

If "every act is a magical act", how else are you going to make money?

"l_c_cicero" wrote:
Is their a specific Thelemic take on this?

The "Thelemic take" on this is the same take Thelema has on every other moral issue:

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Do that, and no other shall say nay."

Note, the whole of the Law. As in, nothing else.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I reckon money is a man's number and has nothinng to do with anything spiritual whatsoever. Jesus was My Better brother.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Do you want to be a fan of money? Surely not!. Anyway why wont anyone criticise my pomes>


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I'd like to hear what people's views are on the relationship between money and magick.

If you are a successful magician, then you will be rich.

On the other hand there are those who see magick as just another specialised tool, and getting paid for it is no different to a doctor or psychologist getting paid for their expertise.

I am a physician. I can, if given the proper tools and numbers of patients and access to scientific literature, prove a cause-effect relationship between what I do and what happens to the patient. Psychiatrists can do this, too, and most likely clinical psychologists (if that is, indeed, what you mean). Currently, I doubt that the types of 'professional magicians' you describe have this ability. Here, the magical community falls short.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

"If "every act is a magical act", how else are you going to make money?" -Erwin

"The "Thelemic take" on this is the same take Thelema has on every other moral issue: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Do that, and no other shall say nay." - Erwin

I'm with you on this one, Erwin. I also personally think a free-trade, more communal way of living is better than money at all. But that's just me.

Jerry, I thought you were some kind of Doctor. I'm not sure if a physician is the same thing, by all technicality though your definitions on the post concerning the infant heart were increcible. Now, when you say "I can, if given the proper tools and numbers of patients and access to scientific literature, prove a cause-effect relationship between what I do and what happens to the patient. Psychiatrists can do this, too, and most likely clinical psychologists (if that is, indeed, what you mean)." - what exactly do you mean? Or, would you elaborate please?

- Becky


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Vilaven" wrote:
"If "every act is a magical act", how else are you going to make money?" -Erwin

"The "Thelemic take" on this is the same take Thelema has on every other moral issue: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Do that, and no other shall say nay." - Erwin

I'm with you on this one, Erwin. I also personally think a free-trade, more communal way of living is better than money at all. But that's just me.

Jerry, I thought you were some kind of Doctor. I'm not sure if a physician is the same thing, by all technicality though your definitions on the post concerning the infant heart were increcible. Now, when you say "I can, if given the proper tools and numbers of patients and access to scientific literature, prove a cause-effect relationship between what I do and what happens to the patient. Psychiatrists can do this, too, and most likely clinical psychologists (if that is, indeed, what you mean)." - what exactly do you mean? Or, would you elaborate please?

- Becky

__________________________________________________________

I can remember reading various accounts of one "Aleister Crowley", wherein he exercised his "Thelemic Right" to use Magick for obtaining wealth.

Is this observation helpful?

Regards Starlight Shining


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

As far as Jerrys' comments and my request for elaboration, I'm not sure if it's relevent, I don't know what he's talking about.

And you may be right with my observation not being helpful. I suppose I justified my opinion in thinking "I'm a Thelemite, by some degree, and I think it, therefore it's a Thelemic take on things." I'm not sure if that's appropriate. Of course, I considder A.C.s' opinion though I wonder what it would be in todays' economic setting. There's a whole 'nothing thread! How would Aleister Crowley react to todays' societies? And what would he think of this Thelemites' take on Thelema?

Anyways, not sure if this helps either,

93,

becky


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1929
 
"Argentum_Star" wrote:
I can remember reading various accounts of one "Aleister Crowley", wherein he exercised his "Thelemic Right" to use Magick for obtaining wealth.

93!

The funny thing of course is that all the prophet did was for the cause of promulgating the Law, so he technically could not be selfish. Whereas, if I had a little money on my hand, I would spend it for me and my loved ones, though surely on some things connected to Thelema. And yes, if I had really big money, probably the 93current would profit from that. But you know of course what I mean...

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
imbas
(@imbas)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 21
 

93 All,

Perhaps I could suggest Napoleon Hill's "Think and grow rich" as an interesting discussion point. It seems to me to be remarkable common sene and yet entirely within the thelemic current!

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I would like to challenge Jerry's comment.

If you are a successful magician then you will be rich

.

If this is the case why have the recorded historical cases of genuinely good occultists leaving the world with no money or material possessions?

Spare had very little in material possesions but his occult abilities were unchallenged. Crowley died with very little to show materialistically for his years in the occult but his legacy lives on.

Dr Dees latter years were spent in the charity of other people. But no one doubted his magickal abilities. So this assertion of wealth equating good magickal skils is rubbish. I will put it another way. There are lots of millionaires out there in the world who are inadequate human beings who have no compassion , humanity,discipline , or decency. Are we to say that being a millionaire is a sign of being a good magician and occultist? This assertion is on very shaky ground.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1929
 

93!

In my view it is impossible to feel one with the whole universe and be obscenely rich at the same time. Probably if you have crossed a certain point in your magical career the concept of money is absolutely meaningless. You don't need to be intelligent or talented to get rich. And if you are really rich (and I mean really rich) I think you have betrayed "LOVE is the Law" somewhere on your way.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"hawthornrussell" wrote:
So this assertion of wealth equating good magickal skils is rubbish.

If magick is the 'science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will', then 'self-made' millionaires at least can demonstrate having caused some pretty significant change. You can argue that change wasn't in conformity with their will, if you like, but you're going to have a hard time convincing anybody you have any grounds for making such an statement.

"hawthornrussell" wrote:
I will put it another way. There are lots of millionaires out there in the world who are inadequate human beings

"Inadequate human beings" - pish and nonsense! Who on earth are you to make such an assessment? Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

"hawthornrussell" wrote:
who have no compassion , humanity,discipline , or decency. Are we to say that being a millionaire is a sign of being a good magician and occultist? This assertion is on very shaky ground.

Your assertion that displaying "compassion, humanity, discipline, or decency" is "a sign of being a good magician and occultist" is on much shakier ground. Being a "good magician" is about successfully causing willed change. You are quite within your rights (misguided, in my opinion, but within your rights nevertheless) to state that displaying "compassion, humanity, discipline, or decency" is something that should be aimed for, but it is a error to try to infer anything about magical competency based on either a presence or absence of such a display.

Your argument seems to boil down to "people with a lot of money are immoral - boo to immorality! therefore they are not good magicians, because good magicians are not immoral", which is a false argument. Your original contention may or may not be correct, but you are getting no closer to demonstrating it either way with this line of reasoning.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
In my view it is impossible to feel one with the whole universe and be obscenely rich at the same time. Probably if you have crossed a certain point in your magical career the concept of money is absolutely meaningless.

In my view, such statements are merely political or moral partisanship, and "absolutely meaningless" in the context of either Thelema or magick.

Your point appears to be that if "the concept of money is absolutely meaningless", and that someone who is "obscenely rich" is clearly attached to such a concept, then they must in some way have "strayed from the path".

This is a groundless assertion. "If you have crossed a certain point in your magical career" the concept of pretty much anything becomes meaningless. It is a mistake to think that an attachment to money is "straying", but that an attachment to compassion, humility or even to the work itself is not. In Thelemic terms, an attachment to any of these things - or an attachment to not being attached to them, as in this case - is a sign you are still "worshipping the Khu". All these concepts are ultimately equally as vapid and meaningless, and there is no reason to prefer any one of them over any other except to the extent that the will dictates.

The problem with money is simply this: it is a perculiarly powerful talisman, and it is easy to fall into the trap of diverting energy into pursuing that talisman rather than following the true will. That's it. There is no further moral significance. If following the true will happens to coincide with generating large quantities of money for a particular individual, then such is his will. To argue that he must have somehow betrayed "love under will" because you have an independent moral objection to wealth is not the path of wisdom, and it has nothing to do with Thelema.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Hi Erwin. Thanks for your reply.

Would i be right to assume that from what your inferring that your take on Do What thou Wilt is justification of making lots of money without consequence? or reaction?

Would i be right in thinking that you would see computer billonaire Bill Gates has a greater "magician" than Crowley? I am just trying to clarify your argument.

Also is the need for material acquisition beyond genuine need a sign of a weak or non existent will? When desire controls will , the ability for true will to come through can be challenging. It could be argued that some milionaires who still need to "make" money are suffering from an Obssessive Compulsive Disorder. The fear/demon of not continuing to "make" money controls them.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"hawthornrussell" wrote:
Hi Erwin. Thanks for your reply.

You are most welcome.

"hawthornrussell" wrote:
Would i be right to assume that from what your inferring that your take on Do What thou Wilt is justification of making lots of money without consequence? or reaction?

No, you would not be right to assume that. I don't view "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" as a "justification" of anything, I view it as a simple statement of physical fact. The fact that "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" implies that no "justification" is necessary (from a Thelemic perspective, at least) at all for making lots of money, or for doing anything else. From a Thelemic perspective you have the right to do your will - "Do that, and no other shall say nay", regardless of what the "consequence" or "reaction" is. "Consequence" and "reaction" may have a bearing on the decision to act in the first place, but both these things are completely irrelevant in determining whether such an act is "right" or "moral", before or after the event.

"hawthornrussell" wrote:
Would i be right in thinking that you would see computer billonaire Bill Gates has a greater "magician" than Crowley? I am just trying to clarify your argument.

No, you would not be right in thinking that. If making money is part of Bill Gates' true will, then I am saying he is clearly successful in causing change in conformity with that will, and can therefore be reasonably assumed to be a "good magician". If somebody else (for instance, Crowley) has a true will that does not involve making lots of money, then the fact that they have no money is singularly useless in determining how successful they are in causing change or in manifesting their will.

In terms of measuring success in causing change, material "self-made" wealth is a definite and quantifiable thing that can reasonably be used to infer a degree of success. The lack of wealth, on the other hand, cannot be reasonably used to infer a lack of success, since for any given individual seeking wealth may not have been part of the goal.

Comparing success is in any case fraught with difficulty. In your example, Bill Gates is clearly successful at causing willed change, and so is Crowley. How are we to say that one is "more successful" than the other? What criteria would we use to make such a judgment?

"hawthornrussell" wrote:
Also is the need for material acquisition beyond genuine need a sign of a weak or non existent will?

Depends what you call "genuine need". Certainly seeking material acquisition beyond the level required for bare subsistence is no such sign. Wealth is, at the end of analysis, a degree of influence over the physical environment. Just as capital is necessary to operate most types of business, so material wealth can be necessary to effect certain types of change. As a trite example, if it is your will to construct a private spaceship to take you on a trip to Jupiter, you are going to have a hard time fulfilling this without a degree of material influence or 'wealth'.

To put it simply, if fulfilling your will requires material capital, then such acquisition is no indicator either way. Since defining the will accurately is possible, it's perfectly reasonable that people are inclined to err on the side of acquiring too much than too little, and this is also not a reliable indicator of the type you suggest. You could just as easily argue that a need to avoid 'excessive' material acquisition is an indicator of a weak will.

"hawthornrussell" wrote:
When desire controls will , the ability for true will to come through can be challenging. It could be argued that some milionaires who still need to "make" money are suffering from an Obssessive Compulsive Disorder. The fear/demon of not continuing to "make" money controls them.

No argument there. As I said in my other response, the problem of money is that it can distract powerfully from one's true will. However, this is not a necessary condition. Not only that, but a need to "seek humility", "cultivate compassion" or "develop spiritually" can have an equally distracting and stunting effect as a need to make money can - money is hardly unique in these qualities, even if it is the most politically correct target in certain circles.

Do what thou wilt, and refrain from worrying about how you are doing it.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1929
 
"Erwin" wrote:
Your point appears to be that if "the concept of money is absolutely meaningless", and that someone who is "obscenely rich" is clearly attached to such a concept, then they must in some way have "strayed from the path".

93, Erwin!

One thing was badly formulated by me: I did not want to say that the concept of money is meaningless then, but the concept of "making money" is meaningless. To me (and I know that there are not many Thelemites who share that opinion) it is on the other hand really meaningless to think of someone whose true will is "making money" - in my view (at this moment in space-time) this is far from what "true will" means. I am still of the opinion that Thelemic magick is not some elitist philosophy to make gods out of some, but it can be a concept to better the whole planet also (yeah, pity the silly me). It's just that the "Love is the Law" part is more important to me than the "Do what thou wilt" part and I still think that being and staying obscenely rich is at best a "Do what you like" thing. And for a final clarification: for the sake of this thread I am talking only of obscenely (obscenely here describes the quantity not the quality) rich people, not of someone making good money. I have absolutely no moral objection to wealth, it is just plain old common sense that very wealthy people are fucking up this planet - which of course might be meaningless to people of a certain exalted mystical state ... but not to me.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Lets not forget that Mr. Great Beast himself inherited a very large sum of money, equivalent to millions of pounds at todays rate of currency...

If wealth was not an issue, then Thelema and the Abbey, and his books! (many self published) would have just been a dream on a piece of paper... or a moment of contemplative thought within the space-time continuum...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Crowley is a good example of not allowing distractions to control/manipulate true will. Whereas while other people in his postion would have used money for material issues, Crowley used it to further Thelema and Agape. He never showed "attatchment". He was never going to find Agape and Thelema in materialistic issues.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"hawthornrussell" wrote:
Crowley is a good example of not allowing distractions to control/manipulate true will. Whereas while other people in his postion would have used money for material issues, Crowley used it to further Thelema and Agape. He never showed "attatchment". He was never going to find Agape and Thelema in materialistic issues.

I had the honour of meeting Mr. John Symonds last year for a cup of tea and fruit cake (he used to live down the road from me). He told me in a very gentle way, pointing his finger in the air, that Crowley was a 'user'. He befriended people 'to use them' according to 'his' needs or wants at the time, and he did this for his own selfish purposes, so that he could get whatever he wanted from people. After, he would disregard them. He also mentioned that Crowley wanted and thrived upon having followers and notoriety....So, your take on 'non-attachment', is a fantasy, most idealistic, and maybe aroused by a romantic idolisation of 'The Great Beast'?

But, then again, what would Mr. Symonds know? other than, being long time personal friends with Kenneth and Steffi Grant. Also, it is not as if he never met 'The Great Beast' himself... 🙄

He then gave me a personal copy of 'The Great Beast'.

Nice Chap.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I'm going to reorder your post a little to make it easier to respond to.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
To me (and I know that there are not many Thelemites who share that opinion) it is on the other hand really meaningless to think of someone whose true will is "making money" - in my view (at this moment in space-time) this is far from what "true will" means.

Firstly, I'm sure I don't have to point out how presumptuous it is in general to believe to know what the true will of another is, or to attempt to limit its scope.

Secondly, I just don't see how your position can be supported regardless of this. I'm going to assume by "making money" you mean "making money for the sake of making money", since clearly making money with the purpose of applying it to an end is easily within the remit of the true will, lust of result notwithstanding.

Even then, I see no grounds for your position. It may be the true will of a sculptor, for instance, to bring shapes to life out of blocks of stone, to craft his masterpiece, to bring it closer to perfection. Equally, I see no reason why it could not be the true will of an individual to craft, say, a business empire, for the joy of seeing it grow, for the exhiliration in exercising control, for the satisfaction in the exercise of creative power. Instead of viewing progress in terms of beauty, he may view progress in terms of size, or wealth. Just like the artist, he is exercising his particular skills, fulfilling his nature and imposing his will on the universe. Just because the former may be seen as more "sublime" or more "noble" than the latter to some minds, this is absolutely no justification for the statement that such a thing must be "far from what 'true will' means".

We have no reason for supposing that the "true will" must necessarily direct one towards what we might describe as "spiritual" or "artistic" ends. Just as the archetypal banker or pugilist may fulfil his true will through his profession, so may the businessman fulfil his through the building of a material empire, through the acquisition and growth of wealth.

You may not approve of such a course of action, and it may not accord with your idea of what a "noble" or "fulfilling" life should be, but to state that it cannot possibly be someone's true will is going several steps too far.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
And for a final clarification: for the sake of this thread I am talking only of obscenely (obscenely here describes the quantity not the quality) rich people, not of someone making good money.

Even so, I see no a priori reason why the simple acquisition of quantities of wealth cannot be a component of the true will of a person, any more than the acqusition of quantities of, say, artistic ability, understanding or compassion cannot be. I think you are taking a personal value judgment and trying to convince yourself that the Law must work in accordance with that, which is error.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
it can be a concept to better the whole planet

Yes, it can be. But it needn't be. And as noble as such a goal may sound to you, there may be many who object to your attempts to "better the whole planet" in alignment with your own values at the expense of theirs. Away from the main point, but beware of presuming that you or anyone else knows what is "best" for others, let alone the entire planet. Even if you did know what is "best" for them, it is quite another thing to assume that giving it to them is the "best" course of action for you or them.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
I have absolutely no moral objection to wealth, it is just plain old common sense that very wealthy people are fucking up this planet - which of course might be meaningless to people of a certain exalted mystical state ... but not to me.

You are entitled to your values, but your values are just that, your values. To object to individuals acting in a particular way is one thing, but to assert that they cannot be "good magicians", that they cannot be acting in accordance with their true wills, or that they are not "Thelemic" because their actions conflict with your values (which is at least what you seem to be implying, here) is quite another, and is unwarranted.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

What a great thread! Looks like there were two lines of discussion:

1. A Thelemic opinion on money and the management of money
2. Whether it's ok to make a living on tarot readings and such

The second part seems to have fizzled out, but Vilaven wrote:

Jerry, I thought you were some kind of Doctor. I'm not sure if a physician is the same thing, by all technicality though your definitions on the post concerning the infant heart were increcible. Now, when you say "I can, if given the proper tools and numbers of patients and access to scientific literature, prove a cause-effect relationship between what I do and what happens to the patient. Psychiatrists can do this, too, and most likely clinical psychologists (if that is, indeed, what you mean)." - what exactly do you mean? Or, would you elaborate please?

I mean that, for example, if a patient comes in with a fever, and a stiff neck, and confusion and I give him antibiotics for meningitis, we can do a study, if given enough patients and a group that does not receive antibiotics (or any other treatment), and directly demonstrate a cause-effect relationship over time: the patient will get better or die, influenced by whether he received antibiotics or not. The body of magical literature is unable to demonstrate this sort of thing on a regular basis, at least from what I've read. So, to make a long story short, someone who charges for making a talisman or doing a tarot reading is pulling in more than their fair share of suckers, IMO.

On to money in general and its management (or mismanagement)...

I likely have more in common with Erwin than Mr. Hawthornrussell here. I also should say that, if someone asked, I wouldn't decribe myself as a Thelemite, so I guess you can't use my opinion as a Thelemic take on things.

My opinion "If you are a successful magician, then you will be rich," is simply that. Perhaps I should rephrase it: If you are a successful magician, then finances will not be a problem for you. You will be 'financially free,' wealthy, etc...

I'm unable to fathom how a financial environment of lack and limitation is beneficial to anyone.

Perhaps I could suggest Napoleon Hill's "Think and grow rich" as an interesting discussion point. It seems to me to be remarkable common sene and yet entirely within the thelemic current!

I agree, and that leads into my thoughts on the following:

... it is just plain old common sense that very wealthy people are fucking up this planet - which of course might be meaningless to people of a certain exalted mystical state ... but not to me.

How is it common sense? What are some examples? I don't feel that wealth is a zero-sum scenario. Stupid people are wrecking the world. Some of them may have money. But so do the people with the power to save the world.

Not many Thelemites have alot of money, relatively speaking. I feel that wealth and abundance is a state of mind. Many Thelemites, I think, have a poverty-type worldview. My being rich doesn't make someone else be poor.


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 686
 

Not many Thelemites have alot of money, relatively speaking.

Actually - while (some) Thelemites (and magic(k)ians) may not be that rich relative to their immediate neighbours taken against a global average they are all going to be pretty damn near the top of the tree.

If you have food in the refrigerator, clothes on your back, a roof overhead and a place to sleep...you are richer than 75% of this world.
If you have money in the bank, in your wallet, and spare change in a dish someplace...you are among the top 8% of the world's wealthy.
Everyone posting on this has access to the internet - that places all of you ahead of the game.

My being rich doesn't make someone else be poor.

- it may not cause it but relatively speaking it does make it so.

I agree with almost all that the_real_simon_iff says above. Though I do not think it is just rich people (or stupid people as Jerry suggests) that are wrecking the planet, it's just people. The random removal of about 75% of them (us) would be a good start....

As to arguing the toss about 'True Will' it would probably help if you all clarified your terms and provided definitions. I don't think you are all meaning the same things at all. the_real_simon_iff seems to suggest a reading along the lines of the Great Work, raising all to the highest. Erwin's position comes over as more solipsistic. Of course I may be reading you both wrong - apologies (it was not me it was my 'will').

Do what Thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law
Love is the Law
.'. What Love IS, doing that that Thou Wilst SHALL BE.
(Suggesting that the condition aspired to is LOVE, no?) 😈


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1929
 
"Erwin" wrote:
You are entitled to your values, but your values are just that, your values. To object to individuals acting in a particular way is one thing, but to assert that they cannot be "good magicians", that they cannot be acting in accordance with their true wills, or that they are not "Thelemic" because their actions conflict with your values (which is at least what you seem to be implying, here) is quite another, and is unwarranted.

93!

Erwin, I think I can't put any more "in my opinion" and the like into my posts without sounding unaesthetic (at least to me). In my humble opinion I am under the impression at this moment in space-time that this is simple hair-splitting here. You may say that anybody might have the true will to be richer than the others, I simply say I don't think/feel (and all inner and outer impressions that brought me to this Thelemic way of gnosis - so to speak - seem to further that) that this is where the true will leads. Until anybody will show me such a super-rich Thelemite - who in theory might exist - I am seemingly under the impression that the collecting of wealth (thereby taking it probably away from others - although those might be simple "slaves") in all its forms is responsible for a lot/nearly all of bad Karma on this planet - to be polite. Please be sure that this is not about MY values. And I never said that those hyper-wealthy people (it would be nice if one of them would post an answer also here) are bad magicians. I simply stated that in my opinion they master a different kind of magic - or so it seems to me.

"hawthornrussell" wrote:
He was never going to find Agape and Thelema in materialistic issues.

Isn't that what I am trying to say? Everybody has the right to get as wealthy as they like (though some seemingly don't have the chance), I am simply not a friend of this concept and I don't think it is "Love under Will" and any harm resulting through this wealth-gaining can be excused by "Will".

"Erwin" wrote:
Away from the main point, but beware of presuming that you or anyone else knows what is "best" for others, let alone the entire planet. Even if you did know what is "best" for them, it is quite another thing to assume that giving it to them is the "best" course of action for you or them.

I never said to know what is best for them. I am simply noticing that there are some things that are obviously - obviously in my opinion - not good for them (them are not all). If I simply substitute an Almighty and Infallible God with True Will, well, I think this is too easy, but of course you can prove anything with it since you can't prove against it. I am German, I hope it is clear what I mean.

"Erwin" wrote:
Just as the archetypal banker or pugilist may fulfil his true will through his profession, so may the businessman fulfil his through the building of a material empire, through the acquisition and growth of wealth.

In theory, yes. Once again, there are many not sharing my point of view here, but I think I have the right to assert that "do what thou wilt" and "the slaves shall serve" are interpreted too simple by many and that "love is the law" and "every man and woman is a star" are often forgotten. But most of all it is of course a little meaningless to theorize about super-rich people (I don't know any) and if they "do their will" - because you said it yourself: who are we to know? You say it might be possible they are doing it, I say I don't think so.

"Jerry" wrote:
If you are a successful magician, then finances will not be a problem for you.

That makes a lot of people highly regarded in "our" circles unsuccessful magicians. But anyway:

"Jerry" wrote:
I feel that wealth and abundance is a state of mind.

Of course!

"Jerry" wrote:
How is it common sense? What are some examples? I don't feel that wealth is a zero-sum scenario. Stupid people are wrecking the world. Some of them may have money. But so do the people with the power to save the world.

If you are really of the opinion that most of the wrecking of the planet is not directly connected to the lust of gaining wealth/territory/etc. then we can of course argue forever. Why can't I say that "very wealthy people are fucking up this planet"? What is better with your "stupid people are wrecking the world"? The difference is that I can agree with you, because I think I know what you mean and that you are not talking about all stupid people. So please be assured that I am not talking about all rich people. You are allowed to generalize a little, I think I am also allowed. In general: Stupid, obscenely rich people tragically have the power to wreck this planet and I think those people can't be excused by "their doing their true will".

"Jerry" wrote:
1. A Thelemic opinion on money and the management of money
2. Whether it's ok to make a living on tarot readings and such

1. My opinions have been formed before I became interested in Thelema and they haven't been altered a lot after. To me this is more about the tendency to excuse everything by saying "True Will! True Will!" No, I don't think that Bill Gates, Mr. Abramovich or the Bush family are good examples for Thelemites. I might be wrong...
2. Yes, we have forgot about that a little.

All best from Munick!

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1929
 

93 again!

The comment by Amadan-De to this news item is very fitting:

http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/News-article-mode-flat-order-0-sid-875.phtml#1230

Here we have a person who did maybe something that might be called magick. Nonetheless I am still of the opinion that some actors, sport stars or fonds managers are hopelessly overpaid. Maybe I should finish my contributions with that. Though I am still not too sure about what in this example is part of the "True Will": a) I am going to be a good actor someday b) I am going to be a very well-paid actor some day c) I want to have a lot of money and acting might be a good way to get it.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Proteus
(@proteus)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 243
 

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

Here's my 2 florins:
Money has no inherent value in this plane and has no value whatsoever in the other planes. The resources one has are but a weak indicator of an individual's potential and do not reflect achievement in any sense.

Abra-melin discussed how to obtain Gold and Silver sufficient for ones needs. He was given 3,000,000 gold florins by his Angel. Since he "made such good use of the Sacred Science" and understood so well how to augment his goods he was able to give each of his three daughters 100,000 florins and still had 1,000,000 florins left (and a large amount of valuable furniture to boot!) I'm not too good at finances, could someone please calculate the ROI on this esteemed magician's endeavor?

Later he writes, "for the pleasure and contentment thou wilt enjoy when thou shalt be the possesor of this Science will be so great that thou wilt despise all amusements, excursions, riches, and every other thing however attractive such may be."

[Source The Book of the Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage translated by Mathers]

John
(Please remove your shoes prior to entering the Oratory. Thank you.)

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
In my humble opinion I am under the impression at this moment in space-time that this is simple hair-splitting here. You may say that anybody might have the true will to be richer than the others

Not quite. Will is about doing or going, not being. I said that it may be someone's true will to perform actions which result in them being wealthy. It's a subtle difference, and you can call it hair-splitting if you like, but I think it's an important one.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
I simply say I don't think/feel (and all inner and outer impressions that brought me to this Thelemic way of gnosis - so to speak - seem to further that) that this is where the true will leads.

This is my point - you don't think/feel it. The sum of all your experiences led you to this thought/emotion. What you are failing to take into account is that the experiences of one of the other six billion or so people on the planet may have led them to a different conclusion.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Until anybody will show me such a super-rich Thelemite - who in theory might exist - I am seemingly under the impression that the collecting of wealth (thereby taking it probably away from others - although those might be simple "slaves") in all its forms is responsible for a lot/nearly all of bad Karma on this planet - to be polite. Please be sure that this is not about MY values.

Based on the above, I say it is. "Bad karma" is just an expression for "actions I morally disapprove of". There is no hint of "negative actions" having "karmic repercussions" in Thelema, so I am forced to conclude that this either is about your values, or you are using a definition of true will that does not arise from Thelema, and is hence incomprehensible to me.

What you seem to be clearly stating above is that you think true will entails a measure of morality - that what you view as "immoral actions" such as "taking wealth away from others" or "wrecking the planet" must necessarily be outside of the true will. Such a concept is wholly absent from Thelema - if you believe you can demonstrate otherwise, I'd like to hear your reasoning. Anticipating your quotes below, "every man and every woman is a star" implies a particular path which defines the will, but there is nothing herein that suggests such a path must be free of "conflict" or what you might call "negativity". On the contrary, in fact:

"AL II:18 - These are dead, these fellows; they feel not. We are not for the poor and sad"

"AL II:21. We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world."

"AL II:48 - Pity not the fallen! I never knew them. I am not for them. I console not: I hate the consoled & the consoler."

"AL II:59 - Beware therefore! Love all, lest perchance is a King concealed! Say you so? Fool! If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him."

I am saying the kind of "karmic considerations" that you are ascribing to the will have no basis in Thelema. Regardless of whether you are correct or not, I am saying it is inconsistent with the Thelemic concept of will, which, on a Thelemic forum, is what I am discussing here. As I said, if you can demonstrate otherwise, I'd like to hear your reasoning.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
And I never said that those hyper-wealthy people (it would be nice if one of them would post an answer also here) are bad magicians. I simply stated that in my opinion they master a different kind of magic - or so it seems to me.

No real argument with that, although I don't completely understand what you mean by "a different kind of magic". How would their magic differ from any other kind?

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
I never said to know what is best for them. I am simply noticing that there are some things that are obviously - obviously in my opinion - not good for them (them are not all).

Replace "best" with "better" in my original quote, and this is exactly what you are saying here.

You got the "obviously in [your] opinion" part right, though. The whole concept of changing the world to change or "improve" the lot of others is fundamentally un-Thelemic. Changing the world because it is your will to do so is not, but feeling you have a duty to make decisions for others is. Again, all this is regardless of the correctness of your views, but what you are discussing here is not a part of Thelema, which is my point.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
In theory, yes. Once again, there are many not sharing my point of view here, but I think I have the right to assert that "do what thou wilt" and "the slaves shall serve" are interpreted too simple by many and that "love is the law" and "every man and woman is a star" are often forgotten.

Certainly you have the right to assert it, but it doesn't follow that you are going to be correct about it.

The "love" in "love is the law" doesn't imply a kind of world-peace, karmic, hippy-type love at all. Love is simply union. A love of money could be the law, using that quote in isolation. A murderer can love his work.

I've explained the interpretation of "every man and every woman is a star" above.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
who are we to know? You say it might be possible they are doing it, I say I don't think so.

That's the difference. I say I don't know what the true will of another may or may not be, so I don't try to limit it. You say you don't know what the true will of another may or may not be, but you then go on to say "it isn't this". Such a statement is unjustified as I have explained.

I don't want to keep going over the same points here, and there is a danger of doing that, so I will summarise: I think you are reading this into Thelema that are not there, either through simple misinterpretation, or through a desire for it to embody your own personal values. If you disagree, and you can see support for your views in Thelema, I'm happy to discuss it.

I'm not interested in determining the correctness of your general world views, and I'm not interested in discussion morality in isolation, since I consider moral statements to have no truth values. What I am interested in is Thelema, and what I am saying is that, right or wrong, your position has no basis in Thelema, and your usage of the term "will" is inconsistent with the Thelemic usage. I think you are trying to place limits upon what the true will of another can be based on your own moral preferences, which as I have said before is the complete opposite of what Thelema is about.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1929
 
"Erwin" wrote:
or you are using a definition of true will that does not arise from Thelema, and is hence incomprehensible to me.
"Erwin" wrote:
Regardless of whether you are correct or not, I am saying it is inconsistent with the Thelemic concept of will, which, on a Thelemic forum, is what I am discussing here.
"Erwin" wrote:
Again, all this is regardless of the correctness of your views, but what you are discussing here is not a part of Thelema, which is my point.
"Erwin" wrote:
I've explained the interpretation of "every man and every woman is a star" above.
"Erwin" wrote:
If you disagree, and you can see support for your views in Thelema, I'm happy to discuss it.
"Erwin" wrote:
I think you are trying to place limits upon what the true will of another can be based on your own moral preferences, which as I have said before is the complete opposite of what Thelema is about.

93, Erwin!

Well, I won't bother you again with my world views. Especially since you seem to know what Thelema IS. Good for you. Maybe you have convinced others, it did not work with me (not even your interpretation of LITLLUW). Putting everything aside with "my moral preferences" is pretty easy. No need for discussion if I have to find support for your views on Thelema.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

I haven't got much time before work today but I recall in Confessions something about Crowley and Bennett, while living together before Allen became primarily Buddhist, had quite a strict code on money concerning something to the effect of "not giving it to other Magicians". Money was to be obtained through Will and Magick for oneself, was the impression that I got. I might not have been reaading closely enough and it was nearly a year ago but, I may also not be wrong here... I do recall even Crowley not supplying Allen with any cash while he was in terrible pain. Am I wrong about this? I read most of this book very fast and was hankering to finish it, and read it again and again. There's just so much in there! Does any one else know what I'm referring to? It could open up this debate some more if I understood the Chapter of the book correctly.

Thank you,

Becky

ps. Don't pyre me if I'm way off for some reason. 😉 Thanks.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Vilaven" wrote:
I haven't got much time before work today but I recall in Confessions something about Crowley and Bennett, while living together before Allen became primarily Buddhist, had quite a strict code on money concerning something to the effect of "not giving it to other Magicians". Money was to be obtained through Will and Magick for oneself, was the impression that I got. I might not have been reaading closely enough and it was nearly a year ago but, I may also not be wrong here... I do recall even Crowley not supplying Allen with any cash while he was in terrible pain. Am I wrong about this?

According to Crowley's version of events, he had Bennett stay with him in the relative comfort of his apartment rather than give him money, ostensibly for this reason. When it became clear his health was not improving, he claims to have convinced a woman to give him the money to pay for Allan's passage to Ceylon - without telling her what it was for - in return for knocking her up. It's anyone's guess what the real story was. Certainly Crowley was not short of funds at that point in his life.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Hi Erwin!

I tend to agree with the old rotter Lutz...

I have read your threads, and have not really found much to them? You seem to be dishing out quite a hair-splitting oratory... which does not really convey any substance.

Surely, anyone can reel off loads of quotations by Crowley...

On reflection, I find that your comments upon the 'Magickal Will' seem to be very peripheral, in the sense that you are not really conveying much to what the 'Magickal Will' really is, and represent your views in a very loose and exoteric fashion i.e. relying upon certain stanzas and quotations found within Liber AL. Meaning, you have not really represented the essence of, or have shown any depth or understanding to this mysterium magicum, other than more and more Crowley quotes.

This is most probably due to an inability to actually realise the subtle elements which make up the subtle and occult nature and dynamics of what the 'Magickal Will' is, or that you 'know' already, and want to hold the secret closely to your chest, hence, not revealing anything? I am more inclined to go with the former, rather than the latter.

In regard to your statement upon Karma having no relation to Thelema..... Well, I think you are very wrong here, and I do hope that any aspiring student of the mysteries makes it a priority to understand the Laws of Karma before they consider doing any occult work whatsoever.

The mysterious processes of Karma are very much integrated within the occult path...and its presence precipitates, overshadows and is aligned to all aspects of Magickal Work e.g. The understanding of the processes involved within the occult anatomy, like the observation of the phases/transitions of the elemental forces.... i.e. Tejas merging/transforming into Prithivi...and hence onwards to Akasha, and round and round again ad infinitum. Initially, it is up to the adept to follow this mental gymnastic, and grasp the basic metaphysical abstract principles; the observation of cause and effect, which ultimately builds the temple within the adept to gradually realise (by degree) the presence and the general flavour of the forces which make up the anatomy of the Magickal Will. The understanding of the processes involved in Karma are essential in understanding the basics of Magickal Force....they are synergistic to Thelema from an esoteric and gnostic working. However, if you want to practice Thelema in an exoteric way....then, this would not interest you.

Best Wishes

Charles


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"magispiegel" wrote:
I have read your threads, and have not really found much to them?

Well, that's not my problem.

"magispiegel" wrote:
You seem to be dishing out quite a hair-splitting oratory... which does not really convey any substance. Surely, anyone can reel off loads of quotations by Crowley...

The previous paragraph "does not really convey any substance", so I'll refrain from further comment.

"magispiegel" wrote:
On reflection, I find that your comments upon the 'Magickal Will' seem to be very peripheral, in the sense that you are not really conveying much to what the 'Magickal Will' really is

Putting aside the fact that "magickal will" is a misspelled term which I have never and will not ever use, none of the threads have been about what the "magickal will" is, so it's not surprising you don't find any discussions of it in there. My comments here have not really conveyed much as to what the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram really is either, and to criticise me on this basis would be equally as absurd.

"magispiegel" wrote:
and represent your views in a very loose and exoteric fashion i.e. relying upon certain stanzas and quotations found within Liber AL. Meaning, you have not really represented the essence of, or have shown any depth or understanding to this mysterium magicum, other than more and more Crowley quotes.

This is simply false, meaning you are mistaking your thoughts for the real world. I have represented my views in substantial detail, supporting them with relevant quotes where appropriate to show where they are coming from. Two or maybe three posts only have contained any substantial quotes from Crowley, relating to a topic (the HGA) on which he alone has said anything of any substance, hence their relevance. You are misreading reality, here, in your rush to see what you want to believe is true. This is, the more astute will observe, exactly one of the things I've been talking about.

You here, on the other hand, are representing a rather strange view without any substance or support at all. It is far from clear what your view even is. I'll leave it as an exercise to you to determine which one shows some "depth or understanding".

"magispiegel" wrote:
This is most probably due to an inability to actually realise the subtle elements which make up the subtle and occult nature and dynamics of what the 'Magickal Will' is, or that you 'know' already, and want to hold the secret closely to your chest, hence, not revealing anything? I am more inclined to go with the former, rather than the latter.

This is an example of what I would refer to as "gibberish". When people use terms like "subtle and occult nature and dynamics", and fail to elaborate, my experience is that this is a very reliable indicator that they don't know what they are talking about. It can be roughly translated as "Ah, grasshopper, you know not the lofty flights of spiritual mastery to which my soul reaches, so say I, and you will believe it!"

Again, if you think this is a misrepresentation of your situation, I will be happy to confirm that thought if you can demonstrate otherwise.

"magispiegel" wrote:
In regard to your statement upon Karma having no relation to Thelema..... Well, I think you are very wrong here

You are at liberty to think so. But you are incorrect about it.

If you disagree, I invite you to provide any references from Thelemic literature which can support your position. If you cannot do this, there are only three possibilities:

1. You are simply incorrect, as I say.

2. You are correct, but only by complete chance.

3. You, personally, define what Thelema is.

I'm going for number one as being the most likely. As always, I invite you to demonstrate otherwise if you believe my presentation is inaccurate.

"magispiegel" wrote:
and I do hope that any aspiring student of the mysteries makes it a priority to understand the Laws of Karma before they consider doing any occult work whatsoever.

The mysterious processes of Karma are very much integrated within the occult path...and its presence precipitates, overshadows and is aligned to all aspects of Magickal Work e.g. The understanding of the processes involved within the occult anatomy, like the observation of the phases/transitions of the elemental forces.... i.e. Tejas merging/transforming into Prithivi...and hence onwards to Akasha, and round and round again ad infinitum. Initially, it is up to the adept to follow this mental gymnastic, and grasp the basic metaphysical abstract principles; the observation of cause and effect, which ultimately builds the temple within the adept to gradually realise (by degree) the presence and the general flavour of the forces which make up the anatomy of the Magickal Will. The understanding of the processes involved in Karma are essential in understanding the basics of Magickal Force....they are synergistic to Thelema from an esoteric and gnostic working. However, if you want to practice Thelema in an exoteric way....then, this would not interest you.

This is also an example of what I refer to as "flowery jibber jabber". It has no substance, and little more meaning.

The jist of your post here can be summed up "yah, boo, I refuse to believe you, sirrah!" Other have, with varying degrees of success, at least tried to support an alternative position, but you have only rambled and vaguely protested. If you wish to engage in substantive discussion over particular points of disagreement, I will be happy to oblige, but if you just want to rankle bizarrely you will find it a lonely task.


ReplyQuote
Share: