Book of Law Study Group 1.3

Aeon418

One of the biggest drawbacks to explaining transcendental concepts in the language of reason is that it frequently ends in self-contradiction. The rational mind just isn't equiped to think about these subjects on their own plane. An anology might be trying to explain emotions by using mathematics.

I noticed that you interpreted "original, individual, eternal essence" as "solid, enduring, single being". The first description is trying to describe something that is beyond form of any kind. In fact, according to the laws of the rational mind, the original, individual, eternal essence doesn't even exist. And yet, in order to get a conceptual grip on it, you've had to bring in down the planes and give it form.

It might be better to say what the original, individual, eternal essence is not. It's not your personality or anything that you identify as you. It's much, much deeper than that. Trying to imagine conscious awareness without identity might be helpful. Most people indentify with their personalities so strongly that the thought of it's end is horrifying. The fear of death is only as strong as your attachemnt to your personality.

As anyone who meditates will tell you, as meditation deepens there comes a point where consciousness of the mind and body drops away and is replaced by, what I can only describe as light. But it's an intensely aware state. Much more intense than normal consciousness. But there's certainly nothing to fear.
 

Abrac

The idea of every man and every woman being a star is as much an expression of democracy as anything. As long as there have been humans there has been the tug-of-war between the few elites and the many commons. "Aiwass's" position seems to be clear. Every person is on equal metaphysical ground regardless of their worldly position. A similar transition occurred in Egypt starting c.the Middle Kingdom; it has come to be known as the "democratization of the afterlife." And more recently, Protestantism. But I'm not sure Crowley had as much of a problem with organized religion as he did with initiatory schools like the Golden Dawn.
 

ravenest

Crowley hated democracy just about everything he set upo or organised had nothing to do with it ... he preffered a more 'natural' expression of 'politics'.

The most favorible comment I have heard about it from him; "The only thing wrong with democracy is it doesnt work."

My understanding of Thelema is VERY far removed from democracy.
 

Abrac

Aeon418 said:
Not even close. Democracy is essentially mob rule. Thelema is closer to self-government. And no, that doesn't mean anarchy either.
Click to expand...
dem·o·crat·ic [dèmmə kráttik] adjective

With equal participation by all: characterized by free and equal participation in government or in the decision-making processes of an organization or group.

Democracy is characterized by the equal participation of individuals, not mob rule. In any democratic process there are winners and losers, but everyone gets their say. In mob rule it's usually just a few directing the actions of the mob (cf. mafia).

I'm all for self-governance, but you seem to be suggesting that self-governance is incompatible with democracy. A self-governing individual has the ability to willfully subjugate their own autonomy to a certain degree in the interest of an overall better situation. If a society has absolutely no rules at all you can guarantee that sooner or later there will be chaos. It's unfortunate, but that seems to be the reality. Of course a self-governing person also has the ability to go off by themself to a deserted island if the idea of cooperation is too much for them.
 

Abrac

ravenest said:
The most favorible comment I have heard about it from him; "The only thing wrong with democracy is it doesnt work."
Click to expand...
If you're looking for a magic bullet then yeah, it won't work, but by that standard nothing will. Unconditional self-governance won't work perfectly either because it depends on humans who are all absolutely moral, ethical, humble and have complete integrity.
 

ravenest

It's more than that. AC saw democracy as an unnatural rule (or way). He def believed in the heirarcy model and fully acknowledged our mammalial politics. His organisations had an alpha-male at the top (or a queen bee), things were structured and formed in layers of heirarchies. You dont get a vote in heaven.

In one example he outlined how the interaction of two wills in 'opposition' worked; if two boys want the same apple how is it decided? Simply, AC said, they fight over it. No one votes on it.

people aren't considered smart, intelligent and responsible enough to vote on affairs that effect the life and wills of others, not the normal 'average man'.
people get a vote when they have trained themselves to evolve in expanded consiousness, compassion, empathy, and balance between severity and mercy. You dont get a vote just becasue you are human and present.

And as AC pointed out when did the great leaps in human conciousness, social evolutuion, etc come about by mass movement or of the will of the majority or a collective in agreement? It came about, usually by brilliant individuals, who were outside the collective majority.
 

Beira

In AC New Comment there is something about clashing of stars..
This thesis is fully treated in "The Book of Wisdom or Folly". Its main statement is that each human being is an Element of the Cosmos, self-determined and supreme, co-equal with all other Gods.
From this the Law "Do what thou wilt" follows logically. One star influences another by attraction, of course; but these are incidents of self-predestined orbits. There is, however, a mystery of the planets, revolving about a star of whom they are parts; but I shall not discuss it fully in this place.
Man is the Middle Kingdom. The Great Kingdom is Heaven, with each star as an unit; the Little Kingdom is the Molecule, with each Electron as an unit. (The Ratio of these three is regularly geometrical, each being 10 to the 22 times greater in size than its neighbour.)
See "The Book of the Great Auk" for the demonstration that each 'star' is the Centre of the Universe to itself, and that a 'star' simple, original, absolute, can add to its omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence without ceasing to be itself; that its one way to do this is to gain experience, and that therefore it enters into combinations in which its true Nature is for awhile disguised, even from itself. Analogously, an atom of carbon may pass through myriad Proteus-phases, appearing in Chalk, Chloroform, Sugar, Sap, Brain and Blood, not recognizable as "itself" the black amorphous solid, but recoverable as such, unchanged by its adventures.
This theory is the only one which explains "why" the Absolute limited itself, and why It does not recognize Itself during its cycle of incarnations. It disposes of "Evil" and the Origin of Evil; without denying Reality to "Evil", or insulting our daily observation and our common sense.
Click to expand...


Every one of us has a inner light, and strenght, which is direct expression of the Divine. Let it shine is the best thing we can do both for ourselves, and the Deity.
This light leads us towards the manifestation of our True Will.
I don't know what the whole of my own True Will is, but I do know that some of the actions I have performed in my life must have been direct expression of this True Will, because of the way I felt as I was living through those actions and decisions.
I felt that what I was doing was right and good for myself AND everyone else, in a very deep and wide sense.. it felt good doing it.. and I felt the power of the "Universe's inertia" pushing me towards achievement.
I personally use these sensation also as an aid when I don't know what course of action to take: going with the flow may sound silly but for me is good advice, since it can well be a hint of the True Will.
(This obviously doesnt mean sheepishly accept whatever happens.. quite the opposite: knowing when to step back from a former position, or knowing when to allow a little loss to gain a victory on another "plane" requires full comprehension of the situation and of the goals we are set to achieve..)
 

ravenest

Ahhh .... that's a better post about 'Thelemic stars' . :thumbsup:
 

ravenest

I agree with your view on 'sensation' ... one I go by is the feeling of deep inner enjoyment and satisfaction one gets from expressing one's true will or things related to it or things that lead you to find it. Other things, after a time get 'used up' , 'hollow', boring ....

Its a buzz ... I haven't found a better one yet ( a long term ongoing ' natural ' one , that is ;) ) .
 
Book of Law Study Group 1.2 Book of Law Study Group 1.4