Thelema is not Magi...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Thelema is not Magick? Thelema is not occultism?  

Page 2 / 2
  RSS

Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
04/11/2014 11:30 am  
"Tao" wrote:
Go back and actually read the response I posted in which I fully agreed with the two of you on the original topic of this thread. The points you are attempting to nitpick me apart with are not at issue in that response and the way you are going about it .

Crowley's "lechery, penury and addiction" don't affect my views on his "Duty" that's all I'm saying.  I had a four paragraph response ready but I think we're best staying OT and that goes for the guys' discussion about heroin and bronchitis too.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
04/11/2014 12:05 pm  

david, you're the one who raises these side issues which you now declare to be off-topic.

If you don't want a thread to go off-topic, then stick to the point, surely.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
04/11/2014 12:11 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
david, you're the one who raises these side issues which you now declare to be off-topic.

If you don't want a thread to go off-topic, then stick to the point, surely.

Yes Michael I stand corrected.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
04/11/2014 12:52 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"Shiva" wrote:
Well, actually, it seems like it was originally started with the docs who prescribed both heroin and cocaine (I believe] to counter his asthma. So maybe his usage later (at Cefalu and then for the rest of his life) wasn't for asthma, but merely to sustain an addiction that was already in place - and of a "medical" origin.

Yes, of course I agree with you here, Shiva. However, that was not david's question. He suggested that the use of the "addictive" drugs was medicinal. Whilst he first started taking these drugs for medical reasons, this developed into a massive habit, and Crowley became a drug addict for the rest of his life.

In the interests of full accuracy I should also make the amendment that Crowley came off heroin use in the mid20s, by dint of his own effort and willpower, and did not regularly indulge (if at all?) until he was medically re-prescribed it around the beginning of the Second World War - for his asthma and bronchial problems, again. 

He was then under an increasing prescription for this until it reached the level of eleven times (I believe – a nice number, if so) the normal toxicity required to kill someone by the time he died – which he did arguably as a result of complications due to having his script withdrawn because of the prodigious level of his intake, and as was discussed in a little more detail in some previous thread which could no doubt be searched for if required.

Written not as a Doctor (Oriental or otherwise! 😀 ), other than maybe having acquired a Ph.D in Life Studies:
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
04/11/2014 2:34 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
Crowley came off heroin use in the mid20s, by dint of his own effort and willpower, and did not regularly indulge (if at all?) until he was medically re-prescribed it around the beginning of the Second World War - for his asthma and bronchial problems, again.

This is a typical scenario. Sometimes addicts actually "kick the habit," only to be re-"infected" again at a later date. Once a person is addicted, they remain an "addict" for life, whether or not they indulge in that addiction.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
04/11/2014 5:18 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
This is a typical scenario. Sometimes addicts actually "kick the habit," only to be re-"infected" again at a later date. Once a person is addicted, they remain an "addict" for life, whether or not they indulge in that addiction.

🙁 This sounds like bleak news for those of us who might be partial to coffee, & particularly with a bit of sugar to go with it!
(not to mention biccies...  :P)

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
04/11/2014 6:54 pm  

Not to worry, Norma. Your partiality to coffee isn't an addiction but rather an Authentic Preference, True to the core. 😉


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
04/11/2014 7:17 pm  

In my dissertation for Doctor of Botanic Medicine (1972), I addressed the subject of addiction. I pointed out that an addictive substance was one that, when ceased, caused physiological "withdrawal" symptoms. I specifically addressed the most benign of substances: Coffee. Many people, when swearing off coffee (and, likewise, sugar, experience "jitters" and headaches. By the most basic medical definition, both coffee and sugar are addictive substances. Not that most people will deny such a definition.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
04/11/2014 7:32 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
Not to worry, Norma. Your partiality to coffee isn't an addiction but rather an Authentic Preference, True to the core. 😉
"Shiva" wrote:
[...] By the most basic medical definition, both coffee and sugar are addictive substances. Not that most people will deny such a definition.

Not to mention the chocolate biscuits!

(Back to topic? ;D )

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
04/11/2014 9:56 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
I find myself (dare I say it) agreeing fully with Los and david on this one. There is no occult or magical requirement to finding and doing your true will. .

Tao why do you think that some (or most?) occultists think otherwise?  How and why would they miss this point? 


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
04/11/2014 10:28 pm  
"david" wrote:
Tao why do you think that some (or most?) occultists think otherwise?  How and why would they miss this point? 

Ours not to reason why, ours but to do and die.

(with apologies to Lord Tennyson)


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
04/11/2014 10:34 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
"david" wrote:
Tao why do you think that some (or most?) occultists think otherwise?  How and why would they miss this point? 

Ours not to reason why, ours but to do and die.

(with apologies to Lord Tennyson)

You don't want to answer ok fair enough.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
04/11/2014 11:16 pm  

93!

"david" wrote:
Tao why do you think that some (or most?) occultists think otherwise?  How and why would they miss this point? 

What point is there to miss, david? I would have thought that it is quite clear that there is no requirement for belief in magical and occult stuff (the supernatural) to do one's true will. And I guess most magicians and occultists (supernaturalists) will agree. I think the only point is that YOU think that NOT believing in magical and occult (supernatural) stuff is a requirement for doing one's true will, but that is clearly not the case. Those are totally different topics. The question is why do YOU (and the other Los crusaders) think that believing in "the supernatural" is uncompatible with doing one's true will? Please answer without quoting Crowley... (because he obviously believed all that bullshit)

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
05/11/2014 12:14 am  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
93!

"david" wrote:
Tao why do you think that some (or most?) occultists think otherwise?  How and why would they miss this point? 

What point is there to miss, david? I would have thought that it is quite clear that there is no requirement for belief in magical and occult stuff (the supernatural) to do one's true will. And I guess most magicians and occultists (supernaturalists) will agree. I think the only point is that YOU think that NOT believing in magical and occult (supernatural) stuff is a requirement for doing one's true will, but that is clearly not the case. Those are totally different topics. The question is why do YOU (and the other Los crusaders) think that believing in "the supernatural" is uncompatible with doing one's true will? Please answer without quoting Crowley... (because he obviously believed all that bullshit)

Love=Law
Lutz

Good question Simon. 

On analysis I tend to think that Crowley's scepticism and his religiosity worked like a bicycle (Method : science Aim : religion) where the scepticism is (a) the thrust of the foot on the pedal and (b) the application of the brakes...... but the religious experience/suspension of disbelief are the wheels so both forces drive the vehicle forward in an orderly manner but one without the other means he goes nowhere.  I guesse he could've rode to the top of a hill, took his feet off the pedals ,abstained from using the brakes and let the wheels do all the work downhill but that would've been unwise and probably disastrous (this of course is what the New Agey world does where scepticism is openly discouraged and viewed as failure.)

Scepticism and religiosity  (Method : science Aim : religion) are like two gonads or two ovaries or the left side and the right side of the heart or the left brain lobe and the right brain lobe or right lung and left lung.  They work in tandem.  This explains Crowley's apparent "split personality" on these issues.  We've seen enough tennis matches on the forum involving the many Crowleyan sceptical statements and then the non sceptical statements. I was reading his Magickal Diaries which is a documentation of a lot of magickal rituals, their intent and any subsequent results duly recorded; an extensive example of suspension of disbelief in full effect.  He had a licence to say what he wanted on the matter as does anyone if we keep it real i.e. keep it sceptical.  You don't want to be a newage psychic, right?

On second thoughts I will provide a quote," 1. This book is very easy to misunderstand; readers are asked to use the most minute critical care in the study of it, even as we have done in its preparation.

2. In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist.

It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them"

LIBER O


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
05/11/2014 1:02 am  
"david" wrote:
I was reading his Magickal Diaries which is a documentation of a lot of magickal rituals, their intent and any subsequent results duly recorded; an extensive example of suspension of disbelief in full effect.  He had a licence to say what he wanted on the matter as does anyone if we keep it real i.e. keep it sceptical.  You don't want to be a newage psychic, right?

Well, this represents an area of difference between you and I. I don't think that Crowley was operating on the basis of "suspension of disbelief"; to him, contact with praeter-human Intelligence was a fact.

I don't feel the need to "keep it sceptical". You clearly do, and that's fine. No reason why I should feel obliged to wear blinkers just because you do.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
05/11/2014 9:10 am  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"david" wrote:
I was reading his Magickal Diaries which is a documentation of a lot of magickal rituals, their intent and any subsequent results duly recorded; an extensive example of suspension of disbelief in full effect.  He had a licence to say what he wanted on the matter as does anyone if we keep it real i.e. keep it sceptical.  You don't want to be a newage psychic, right?

Well, this represents an area of difference between you and I. I don't think that Crowley was operating on the basis of "suspension of disbelief"; to him, contact with praeter-human Intelligence was a fact.

I don't feel the need to "keep it sceptical". You clearly do, and that's fine. No reason why I should feel obliged to wear blinkers just because you do.

Cool.  It's the proof and evidence thing that makes that a bit wishy-washy.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
05/11/2014 9:53 am  

That suspension of disbelief should just be part of your magickal work and magickal experience; there's no need to throw in that lifelong Jehova's Witnessy type of faith clinginess.  Newage psychics say beware of scepticism it messes up your psychic channels.  Well, in Thelema you have to take a step back.

If I feel like taking a trip to Yod then I take it to Tav up into Yesod, up Samekh  to Tipareth and then I enter Yod.  I get fully into it like yeah maybe these planes are for real after all...............then I come back.  Likewsie if I feel like chilling out to Jerseylicious , Jackass or The Vampire Diaries then if, while I'm watching  I'm mentally writhing over what someone said to me in work or i'm writing an email at the same time then my entertainment session hasn't worked; for it to happen or work properly I get into it fully.

Frater Perdurabo is the most honest of all the great religious teachers. Others have said: "Believe me!" He says:""Don't" believe me!" He does not ask for followers; would despise and refuse them. He wants an independent and self-reliant body of students to follow out their own methods of research. If he can save them time and trouble by giving a few useful "tips," his work will have been done to his own satisfaction.
Those who have wished men to believe in them were absurd. A persuasive tongue or pen, or an efficient sword, with rack and stake, produced this "belief," which is contrary to, and destructive of, all real religious experience.
The whole life of Frater Perdurabo is now devoted to seeing that you obtain this living experience of Truth for, by, and in yourselves!

BOOK 4


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
05/11/2014 10:23 am  

david, 93!

It's nice how everything works for you. Congrats.

But remember that this infamous Liber O introductory quote is quite wishy-washyly in a maybe state. "may or may not", "exist or not", "warned against" can be used by virtually everyone to prove virtually everything. And more importantly, even if AC meant it exactly the way you understand it, please remember that he never ever spoke in this way of Aiwass, of Alamantrah, of the Cairo Working. Just because you don't accept the validity of his proofs doesn't make it go away. Many people might not accept the proof that you have found something like a true will inside yourself.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
10/11/2014 3:33 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
Well, this represents an area of difference between you and I. I don't think that Crowley was operating on the basis of "suspension of disbelief"; to him, contact with praeter-human Intelligence was a fact.

I don't feel the need to "keep it sceptical". You clearly do, and that's fine. No reason why I should feel obliged to wear blinkers just because you do.

How is your belief in "praeter human intelligence" different to a Jehova's Witnesses's beliefs in Jehova and the bible?

Is this "praeter human intelligence" a substitute for any dogmatic religious belief e.g.  christian's dogmatic belief in jesus etc?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
10/11/2014 6:51 pm  
"david" wrote:
How is your belief in "praeter human intelligence" different to a Jehova's Witnesses's beliefs in Jehova and the bible?

Never having been a Jehovah's Witness, and never having discussed the matter with a Jehovah's Witness, I have no idea how it might differ. I care even less.

"david" wrote:
Is this "praeter human intelligence" a substitute for any dogmatic religious belief e.g.  christian's dogmatic belief in jesus etc?

No, I don't think it is.

edit: sorry to have cut across, arthur; yes, c'est la vie.


ReplyQuote
arthuremerson
(@arthuremerson)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 157
10/11/2014 6:52 pm  

More importantly, David, you might ask yourself where in the passage you've quoted Michael expresses a belief in praeter human intelligence.

edit: seems Michael swooped in while I was typing. C'est la vie.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
10/11/2014 8:06 pm  
"arthuremerson" wrote:
More importantly, David, you might ask yourself where in the passage you've quoted Michael expresses a belief in praeter human intelligence.

edit: seems Michael swooped in while I was typing. C'est la vie.

Well, duh if he says, "I don't feel the need to "keep it sceptical"." then that sort of gives me a clue.  The questions were aimed at anyone here who believes in praeter human intelligences.  Anyway he answered me so what was your query all about?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
10/11/2014 8:11 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
93!

"david" wrote:
Tao why do you think that some (or most?) occultists think otherwise?  How and why would they miss this point? 

What point is there to miss, david? I would have thought that it is quite clear that there is no requirement for belief in magical and occult stuff (the supernatural) to do one's true will. And I guess most magicians and occultists (supernaturalists) will agree. I think the only point is that YOU think that NOT believing in magical and occult (supernatural) stuff is a requirement for doing one's true will, but that is clearly not the case. Those are totally different topics. The question is why do YOU (and the other Los crusaders) think that believing in "the supernatural" is uncompatible with doing one's true will? Please answer without quoting Crowley... (because he obviously believed all that bullshit)

Love=Law
Lutz

Why does belief in praeter human intelligences takes us away from our TW?  Well, is any given Jehova's Witness ever doing their TW?  Your True Self doesn't need these weird props to be anything  more than mere props.  TW is the active aspect of (True) Self.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
10/11/2014 10:45 pm  
"david" wrote:
Why does belief in praeter human intelligences takes us away from our TW?

I don't know that it does. Do you?

or

TW is a formula of action. Belief and Action are two different classes that can co-exist.

or

The collectives "us" and "our" might not be best used in a discussion of a concept (TW) that is, by definition, individual.

"david" wrote:
Well, is any given Jehova's Witness ever doing their TW?

Any ever? Statistically, if there is such a thing as TW, I'd say there's a high likelihood of that having happened at least once.

"david" wrote:
Your True Self doesn't need these weird props to be anything  more than mere props.  TW is the active aspect of (True) Self.

What gives you such certainty in this? Such judgmental faith? What happened to sceptical doubt? Or have you finally transcended and are now disseminating universal truths from the snowy peak of Success?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
10/11/2014 11:08 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
"david" wrote:
Why does belief in praeter human intelligences takes us away from our TW?

I don't know that it does. Do you?

yeah you too can demonstrate it to yourself if you want.  Lose your beliefs in such "gods" and see how you get on.

"Tao" wrote:
TW is a formula of action. Belief and Action are two different classes that can co-exist.

TW is the active aspect of True Self.  This "formula of action" business is just a  word game therefore any talk of coexistence is null and void..

"Tao" wrote:
The collectives "us" and "our" might not be best used in a discussion of a concept (TW) that is, by definition, individual.

Eh?  That's some sort of fallacy.  For example "we" have a sense of taste and "we" are all bipeds.  Right?  We all have a True Self yeah it's individual too like your legs and sense of taste are.

"Tao" wrote:
"david" wrote:
Well, is any given Jehova's Witness ever doing their TW?

Any ever? Statistically, if there is such a thing as TW, I'd say there's a high likelihood of that having happened at least once.

Only if they relinquish their Jehova's Witness identity so yeah in that respect if they could do that and in that instance you're right but strictly speaking you're general point is wrong.

"Tao" wrote:
"david" wrote:
Your True Self doesn't need these weird props to be anything  more than mere props.  TW is the active aspect of (True) Self.

What gives you such certainty in this? Such judgmental faith? What happened to sceptical doubt? Or have you finally transcended and are now disseminating universal truths from the snowy peak of Success?

Eh?  Relinquishing weird beliefs is scepticism.  That's how we become sceptical.  Anything else is medievalism or primitivism or more to the point; dogma.   


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
10/11/2014 11:18 pm  

These muslim jihadists or suicide bombers have something in common with anyone who needs to believe some weird creed.  Any creed.  That includes the white supremacists in 30s/40s  Germany or in America etc.     

What was that the pope said when he ordained that the Cathars should be neutralised en masse?  "Kill them all and let God sort them out."


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
11/11/2014 8:43 am  

93, david.

"david" wrote:
Your True Self doesn't need these weird props to be anything more than mere props.

It appears that YOUR True Will very much needs this "weird prop" to belief that *occultists* believe in *praeter-human* intelligence out of a need for something that redeems/saves/enlightens/elevates them from without. Not only is this belief of yours extremely unsubstantiated by evidence and simply based on your ridiculous ideas of what *occultists* ARE, it has already been discussed quite often here that Thelema has nothing to do with this at all. It still is possible though that there really exist some caricature occultists like the ones you imagine, just like there are sceptics who regularly pray to God.

"david" wrote:
TW is the active aspect of (True) Self.

By the way, HOW new-agey can you become?

You are not the first and won't be the last "Thelemite" (that's why you always speak of "us") who fashions this megalomaniac belief that he has to explain to "us" what Thelema REALLY IS and who tries to proselytize those poor "occultists" - even including Aleister Crowley himself which makes yourself appear quite desperate and ridiculous at times. In fact this fancy picture of being the "explainer of what Thelema is and what Crowley really meant" seems to be quite more common among "Thelemic sceptics" as the alleged fancy picture of the "Thelemic occultist" who has been inducted to his True Will by giant squids from Sirius. I think it has been established that there is no connection between the belief in the existence (or non-existence for that matter) what you call "supernatural" and the True Will. In fact, the conscious and willed (or compelled) belief in scepticism or supernaturalism cannot (by definition) be a part of what you call "natural inclinations" of the self.

To many it might appear that the beliefs of Jehova's witnesses and the belief in the existence of some weird unsubstantiated and unverifiable hidden self is equally ridiculous, but at least the Jehova's witnesses just stand chummily in pedestrian areas (they don't really knock on your door - at least here in Germany) and don't try to proselytize actively.

Anyway, happy crusading...

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 501
11/11/2014 9:44 am  
"david" wrote:
Well, is any given Jehova's Witness ever doing their TW? 

Hank Marvin

OK


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 3118
11/11/2014 1:52 pm  

Two excellent posts.
The Jehovahs certainly knock on your door here in America, every Saturday morning for many months in my current house until I think I made their "don't bother" list.
My father always said that Witnesses weren't really trying to convert anyone, they were just house-hunting, since they interpret "the meek shall inherit the earth" literally- the rest of us will be gone, with only Witnesses left.
Enough digression, but it is the ACS after all, a site devoted to one of the most digressive authors to commit words to paper.


ReplyQuote
arthuremerson
(@arthuremerson)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 157
11/11/2014 4:51 pm  

Very well said, Lutz.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
11/11/2014 8:26 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
93, david.

"david" wrote:
Your True Self doesn't need these weird props to be anything more than mere props.

It appears that YOUR True Will very much needs this "weird prop" to belief that *occultists* believe in *praeter-human* intelligence out of a need for something that redeems/saves/enlightens/elevates them from without. Not only is this belief of yours extremely unsubstantiated by evidence and simply based on your ridiculous ideas of what *occultists* ARE, it has already been discussed quite often here that Thelema has nothing to do with this at all. It still is possible though that there really exist some caricature occultists like the ones you imagine, just like there are sceptics who regularly pray to God.

"david" wrote:
TW is the active aspect of (True) Self.

By the way, HOW new-agey can you become?

You are not the first and won't be the last "Thelemite" (that's why you always speak of "us") who fashions this megalomaniac belief that he has to explain to "us" what Thelema REALLY IS and who tries to proselytize those poor "occultists" - even including Aleister Crowley himself which makes yourself appear quite desperate and ridiculous at times. In fact this fancy picture of being the "explainer of what Thelema is and what Crowley really meant" seems to be quite more common among "Thelemic sceptics" as the alleged fancy picture of the "Thelemic occultist" who has been inducted to his True Will by giant squids from Sirius. I think it has been established that there is no connection between the belief in the existence (or non-existence for that matter) what you call "supernatural" and the True Will. In fact, the conscious and willed (or compelled) belief in scepticism or supernaturalism cannot (by definition) be a part of what you call "natural inclinations" of the self.

To many it might appear that the beliefs of Jehova's witnesses and the belief in the existence of some weird unsubstantiated and unverifiable hidden self is equally ridiculous, but at least the Jehova's witnesses just stand chummily in pedestrian areas (they don't really knock on your door - at least here in Germany) and don't try to proselytize actively.

Anyway, happy crusading...

Love=Law
Lutz

Some food for thought there Simon.  A good critique.  Thanks.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
11/11/2014 9:59 pm  
"david" wrote:
Well, is any given Jehova's Witness ever doing their TW?

Prince
Venus & Serena Williams
Hank Marvin
George Benson
Larry Graham
Mickey Spillane

There's the evidence. It's up to you to decide whether or not they represent examples of "doing their TW".

http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/famous-jehovahs-witnesses.php


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
11/11/2014 10:38 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
"david" wrote:
Well, is any given Jehova's Witness ever doing their TW?

Prince

You forgot the Jacksons.  I don't think public microphone-stand  shagger Prince is your typical JWitness now is he?  He's a good example of Thelema actually.  Can you see how Liber Al oozes out of him?  Clue number one; "purpleness."

"all prophets are true save they know a little"; maybe that includes Abrahamic prophets?  Crowley quoted Christ and the Bible now and again didn't he?

In the true religion there is no sect, therefore take heed that thou blaspheme not the name by which another knoweth his God; for if thou do this thing in Jupiter thou wilt blaspheme יהוה and in Osiris יהשוה. Ask and ye shall have! Seek, and ye shall find! Knock, and it shall be opened unto you!

and


Rejoice therefore, O Initiate, for the greater thy trial the greater thy Triumph. When men shall revile thee, and speak against thee falsely, hath not the Master said, “Blessed art thou!”?

😉


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
11/11/2014 10:42 pm  

above quotes from LIBER LIBRÆ SVB FIGVRÂ XXX


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
27/04/2015 5:31 pm  

(All in square brackets, and all emphasis, added by me.)

"Los" wrote:
If you look at the list of Crowley quotes you've found

, you'll notice that [...] all of them treat "Thelema" and "magick" as distinct, discrete objects (grammatically, as well as ontologically).

The attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of one’s Holy Guardian Angel, which allows one to know one's so called True Will, and the Crossing of the Abyss, where one’s ego is annihilated, are at the core of Crowley's understanding of a process he referred to as the Great Work. And this constitutes the main task of any adherent to the Thelema associated with Aleister Crowley, which is to discover and express one's so called True Will.

Crowley does not treat ""Thelema" and "magick" as distinct, discrete objects (grammatically, as well as ontologically)", in the two following quotes, from the two very last chapters of Magick Without Tears, where Crowley calls the method for accomplishing the said main task within the said Thelema, "Magick", and warns that anyone practicing "magick", should never forget that their "central and essential work", is the said task. A fact that is in line with, and which confirms, the position of the leading scolar on Aleister Crowley and Thelema, Marco Pasi - already referred to and described in the original post of this thread - namely that "Two aspects stand out as fundamental in his [= Crowley's] work: magic (which, for various reasons, he chose to spell "Magick") and Thelema." and that "... Crowley saw magic as a convenient term to define his doctrine as a whole, including Thelema." Source: Page 284 in Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism, published by Brill Academic Publishers in 2006, and edited by Wouter J. Hanegraaff:

"Aleister Crowley" wrote:
"... there can be no possible doubt about the existence of some kind of intelligence, and that kind is far superior to anything of which we know as human. How then are we to explore, and finally to interpret this intelligence? [...] To attain to the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel is consequently without doubt by far the simplest way by which you can yourself approach that higher order of being. That then, is a clearly intelligible method of procedure. We call it Magick." Source: Magic Without Tears, Chapter LXXXII: Epistola Penultima: The Two Ways to Reality.
"Aleister Crowley" wrote:
"I must conclude with a warning. So many of these branches of magick are so fascinating that any one of them is liable to take hold of the Magician by the short hair and upset his balance completely. It should never be forgotten for a single moment that the central and essential work of the Magicians is the attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. Once he has achieved this he must of course be left entirely in the hands of that Angel, who can be invariably and inevitably relied upon to lead him to the further great step—crossing of the abyss and the attainment of the grade of Master of the Temple.

Anything apart from this course is a side issue and unless so regarded may lead to the complete ruin of the whole work of the Magician." Source: Magic Without Tears, Chapter LXXXIII: Epistola Ultima

Above, Crowley, does not treat ""Thelema" and "Magick" as distinct, discrete objects, but as interconnected terms, referring to "Magick" as the method for accomplishing the main task[-s] of "Thelema".   


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
27/04/2015 8:52 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
Above, Crowley, does not treat ""Thelema" and "Magick" as distinct, discrete objects, but as interconnected terms, referring to "Magick" as the method for accomplishing the main task[-s] of "Thelema".   

Which is why I said, on the first page of the thread, that one has to pay attention to definitions, not to words. Crowley defines "magick" in lots of different ways throughout his work, and to the extent that he defines magick in the limited sense (as ceremonial rituals) he consistently presents it as separate from Thelema. To the extent that he defines it as encompassing all acts whatsoever or as a metaphor for discovering the True Will, then yes, "magick" in that sense is necessary for Thelema.

Source: the first page of this thread.

Pay attention to what's meant. You'll find that a lot of difficulties disappear once you do that.

Source: opening your eyes.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
28/04/2015 1:01 am  

If you pay attention to what is meant by Crowley's warning that anyone practicing "magick", should never forget "for a single moment that" their "central and essential work", is "the attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel", which is the first main task of Thelema, it means that the said task is all ways the "central and essential work" for all practicing "magick". A basic meaning and definition, which consistently underlies all other definitions of "magick", by Crowley.

And Crowley's said basic meaning and definition is, unlike your idiosyncratic interpretation of Crowley's Thelema, in support of the leading Crowley scholar Marco Pasi's following description, on page 284 and 285 in in the Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism (Brill Academic Publishers in 2006): "Traditional ceremonial and sexual magic could be used, in Crowley’s vision, both for immediate purposes and as a means to achieve the ultimate spiritual goal."


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
28/04/2015 1:30 am  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
... the leading Crowley scholar Marco Pasi ...

... the leading ... scholar? ???

Does that mean he's way out ahead of those other (trailing) scholars?


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
28/04/2015 1:41 am  
"Shiva" wrote:
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
... the leading Crowley scholar Marco Pasi ...

... the leading ... scholar? ???

Does that mean he's way out ahead of those other (trailing) scholars?

I means that Marco Pasi, was the first scholar to make Aleister Crowley and Thelema, the main object[-s] of more extensive scholarly work[-s].


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
28/04/2015 10:38 am  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
"Shiva" wrote:
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
... the leading Crowley scholar Marco Pasi ...

... the leading ... scholar? ???
Does that mean he's way out ahead of those other (trailing) scholars?

I means that Marco Pasi, was the first scholar to make Aleister Crowley and Thelema, the main object[-s] of more extensive scholarly work[-s].

I was unaware that “leading” can mean the same thing as “first” – that’s a new one on me (unless you happen to be meaning lead position).  But even if so, Pasi wasn’t the first scholar anyway – there have been a few “academic papers” on the subject of A.C. and Thelema within the last thirty to forty years, and now more so than ever.  Hurrah!

Norma N Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2
Share: