The Book of the Law Study Group 2.21

Grigori

Aiwass said:
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.

Freddie said:
My honest question this: If I feel my true will is to teach and work (and feel true love in my heart for) with people who have a disabilty does this make me a weak person?

I'm glad that you introduced the topic of disability into this line Freddie. I saw someone once in the past have a fit at the idea that this line was a Thelemic way of saying to cast out those with a diagnosed disability. Though certainly Thelema seems to me to have a strong hierarchical structure, based on strengths (I'm constantly reminded of wolf packs, where the biggest and strongest are the leaders), I don't see this as a criticism of those with weaknesses (after all, that's all of us) but rather a call to follow each of our own Will/Strengths to find our own place in the big scheme of things. Or even follow our weaknesses, but do something about it! To me the wretched are those who moan and whinge about their situation, but don't do anything to change it. I see that sometimes with people after tarot readings, they ask the same questions over and over, always expecting a different answer or some magical change in their circumstances without actually doing anything about it themselves. Serial querants like that are a pet peeve of mine. Actually scratch that, the querant isn't the problem, the problem is the reader who molly-coddles them with faint praise about what a good person they are, and how they don't deserve to have such misery, but doesn't advise them to do anything about it. Indulging weaknesses is what this line tells us to not do, I think in ourselves and also for others.

The wolves who lead the pack, do so because its in the best interest of the rest of the pack. It reminds me in fact of the Knights from the Thoth deck, or warrior kings. The get to be the leaders, but also the first to risk death in battle as they are also the strongest fighters so its not really a great prize. A King on horseback who serves his people, rather than a King in a throne off in some fancy castle who taxes them to fill his coffers.

Line 1.10 was really striking for me in that regard, to me it seems to say leadership is given to the servants of Nuit, i.e. those who serve the many (like a warrior king). So I don't see any weakness in a role of service if that is your Will, just as long as its not a position that is used to take strength away from others by making them dependent on you (i.e. making them wretched and weak to give you the feeling of power). In that way its not really about what you do, but it seems to me to be more about the way you do something.

I'm experiencing a similar situation in my work life at the moment. I work as a healer and am finding more and more that I want to see clients for a short time, and get them to a place where they don't need/want to come anymore so I can say goodbye. This makes business more difficult for me in that I need a constant stream of new clients for the financial side of things, but the business model of some others I know who have a smaller client base but encourage dependency to keep the cash register pinging is not something that I could do comfortably. This has been a growing feeling for me lately, which I'd not linked to my studies of Thelema until just now, but is very clear to me that this study is the source of that increased discomfort for me. Thanks!

Always Wondering

:;

I fiound Duty very helpful this morning after thinking so hard yesterday.

http://lib.oto-usa.org/crowley/essays/duty.html

Perhahps you can find something helpful in it Freddie.

AW

Aeon418

similia said:
I saw someone once in the past have a fit at the idea that this line was a Thelemic way of saying to cast out those with a diagnosed disability.

I think I remember that thread. I'm surprised there wasn't a lynching of you know who. :laugh:

similia said:
To me the wretched are those who moan and whinge about their situation, but don't do anything to change it.

In this respect some people with disabilities often put most able bodied people to shame. How many times do we hear of people overcoming the adversity of a disability and go on to achieve something? For most able bodied people the vast majority of obstacles are self created and reside within their own minds.

The Thelemic view of difficulties and obstacles is that they are opportunities for self knowldge, learning, and growth. Some rise to the challenge and allow it to bring the best out in them. Others throw in the towel, raise the white flag, and give up.
Not for nothing to did Crowley place the Sigil of To Mega Therion on the 5 of Wands. Yet how many people are pleased when it comes up in a reading?

1. Know then, that as man is born into this world amidst the Darkness of Matter, and the strife of contending forces; so must his first endeavour be to seek the Light through their reconciliation.

2. Thou then, who hast trials and troubles, rejoice because of them, for in them is Strength, and by their means is a pathway opened unto that Light.

3. How should it be otherwise, O man, whose life is but a day in Eternity, a drop in the Ocean of time; how, were thy trials not many, couldst thou purge thy soul from the dross of earth?

Is it but now that the Higher Life is beset with dangers and difficulties; hath it not ever been so with the Sages and Hierophants of the past? They have been persecuted and reviled, they have been tormented of men; yet through this also has their Glory increased.

4. 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!"?

similia said:
Line 1.10 was really striking for me in that regard, to me it seems to say leadership is given to the servants of Nuit, i.e. those who serve the many (like a warrior king).

I'm not sure if agree with the idea of leadership being given. If you're a natural leader, then lead. No one needs to give you leadership.

It reminds me of the Thelemic rights of Liber Oz. Many people seem to think they are like any other rights that they are "given" by society. This is why you sometimes meet clueless self-professed Thelemites who do little more than sit around and whine about their rights. What they fail to realise is that the rights of Oz aren't given. You must claim them! It's not called law of the strong for nothing.

Aeon418

Always Wondering said:
I fiound Duty very helpful this morning after thinking so hard yesterday.

Hi Aw.

Have read the Class E Libri? They were all written in the same style, and aimed at the same level as Duty.

http://lib.oto-usa.org/libri/byclass.html (Scroll down)

ravenest

The first 3 sentances in the line can be seen as a message from 'the God of Evolution' (I dont know how else to describe it - those forces behind evolution and develoment of 'fit' species). Its all rather harsh and certainly NOT geared towards the individual, nor even the family or tribe. The survival of the fitest where "neccesity alone is supreme" (A.C. - The Rites of Eleusis)

In a predictive sense it's rather like the rise of facism, specifically the Nazi's - the new world (and the new man) must be cleansed. There are some interesting statements about this 'predictive' approach written in the introductory chapters to the BoL in the small red covered version. ( Just the type of interpretation Aeon loves to read

. )

Of course, the statements interpreting the line on an internal level are valid - I just like to put up varient viewpoints (in case no one's noticed yet :laugh:

) other than the 'correct' ones - there are enough people here doing that

.

Aeon418

ravenest said:
The first 3 sentances in the line can be seen as a message from 'the God of Evolution' (I dont know how else to describe it - those forces behind evolution and develoment of 'fit' species).

I think what you are looking for is called Mother Nature. :laugh:

It's the 5 of Wands again.

I've already commented on this this elsewhere. The law of nature is, and always has been, survival of the fittest. We humans like to think this doesn't apply to us. After all, we're smart and civilised. We hide behind a veneer of morality and tell ourselves that natural law doesn't apply to us, that's just for animals. Wrong!

We think it is noble, morally correct , and even spiritual to facilitate life where nature herself says otherwise. (Osirian ethos) This same violation of natural law has allowed us to massively overpopulate our planet and consume it's natural resources at a frightening rate. But what happens when this safety net of natural abundance is depleted? Then comes the time of consequences and hard choices. Ouch!
This is a bitter pill to swallow for us who have been raised in cultures that are saturated with the compassionate Osirian ethic. To us the new ethic appears awful and completely un-spiritual, in the Osirian sense. But if we carry on in this way it will lead to our own destruction.

ravenest said:
Its all rather harsh and certainly NOT geared towards the individual, nor even the family or tribe. The survival of the fitest where "neccesity alone is supreme" (A.C. - The Rites of Eleusis)

Ever heard of cooperation based on mutual self interest? Even animals practice that. It's a harsh neccessity of survival.

Astrology, Aleister, & Aeon p.298-299

Upon the culmination of the Osirian formula, however, and the establishment of a new world order as "Ra-Hoor-Khuit hath taken his seat in the East at the Equinox of the Gods," [AL I:49] it is no longer the case that the affairs of the world and the affairs of the spirit are dissociated. The actualization of their unity is now called for within the personal sphere of every individual human being. From an institutional perspective, the problem of the relation of "church" and "state" is resolved by the formula, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." Institutions are nothing other than amalgamations of individual wills and therefore have no sovereignty of their own. They come and go as a function of voluntaristic cooperation. Only individuals are sovereign.

One may therefore ask: How does the fulfilment of collective purpose come to pass? Wherein lies the power of direction and articulation that ensures continuity and order in the affairs of the world? The answer to such questions is obviously that collective purpose will continue to be achieved as it always has been, through the maintenance of cooperative institutions. There is nothing about the Law of Thelema that stands in the way of human cooperation.

ravenest said:
In a predictive sense it's rather like the rise of facism, specifically the Nazi's - the new world (and the new man) must be cleansed. There are some interesting statements about this 'predictive' approach written in the introductory chapters to the BoL in the small red covered version. ( Just the type of interpretation Aeon loves to read . )

You forgot to mention that Crowley also lumps Communism and Democracy in with it too.

Always Wondering

Aeon418 said:
Hi Aw.

Have read the Class E Libri? They were all written in the same style, and aimed at the same level as Duty.

http://lib.oto-usa.org/libri/byclass.html (Scroll down)

I had read Khabs am Pekht early in this study. I found the concept of kindlng just lovely.

I'll read the rest this weekend.

AW

Curtis Penfold

I'm trying to understand this Thelemic Cruel Compassion better. I'm a journalist who loves psychology. Discomfort, to me, can be a very good thing.

Is brutal honesty part of this Cruel Compassion? Sometimes, I feel pushing people to see themselves as they really are is a good thing. I feel its the sign of a true friend, even though I'm always told that friends should make you comfortable, that friends shouldn't tell you when you're being stupid. But I think there's a real value to tactlessness.

I'm also in this Intro to Ethics class. We've been talking about the view that we need to do what's best for the most amount of people. Is that part of these new ethics of Thelema?

Grigori

Curtis Penfold said:
Is brutal honesty part of this Cruel Compassion? Sometimes, I feel pushing people to see themselves as they really are is a good thing. I feel its the sign of a true friend, even though I'm always told that friends should make you comfortable, that friends shouldn't tell you when you're being stupid. But I think there's a real value to tactlessness.

I think so also. I think one of the key elements in Thelema is that it's supposed to be transgressive and to shake up social norms. Subsequently it often attracts criticism, but that just means its doing its job. The point of occultism should be to make you uncomfortable and force you to question yourself. We can do that for our friends also, or we can fit into the social norm and offer consolatory warm gooeys that enable them to keep on suffering without any impetus to change what it is that is upsetting them. I think the friends I value the most are the ones who would do anything I asked them to in order to help me, but who would also give me a good slapping if I refused to do anything to help myself.

Curtis Penfold said:
I'm also in this Intro to Ethics class. We've been talking about the view that we need to do what's best for the most amount of people. Is that part of these new ethics of Thelema?

Maybe this is like the Hanged Man, representative of the old aeon, which Crowley's commentary on is pretty damning. It's redundant and not Thelemic if you're sacrificing yourself for the good of the group/many, if you're doing it only because you've been taught that self sacrifice is the moral ideal.

Crowley's Book of Thoth said:
It should be the chieftest aim of the wise to rid mankind of the insolence of self-sacrifice, of the calamity of chastity; faith must be slain by certainty, and chastity by ecstasy.
In the Book of the Law it is written: "Pity not the fallen! I never knew them. I am not for them. I console not: I hate the consoled and the consoler."
Redemption is a bad word; it implies a debt. For every star possesses boundless wealth; the only proper way to deal with the ignorant is to bring them to the knowledge of their starry heritage.

Aeon418

Curtis Penfold said:
I'm always told that friends should make you comfortable, that friends shouldn't tell you when you're being stupid.

These are the same people, who in the name of friendship, agree with every word you say. Even when you're talking a load of sh*t.

These are the same people, who in the name of friendship, take your side in any argument. Even when they know you are wrong.

These are the same people, who in the name of friendship, provide validation for your feelings of helplessness and victimhood. They think that will make you feel better. But, most importantly, it makes them feel better.

Curtis Penfold said:
We've been talking about the view that we need to do what's best for the most amount of people.

Matthew 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

The Book of the Law Study Group 2.21

Grigori

Always Wondering

Aeon418

Aeon418

ravenest

Aeon418

Always Wondering

Curtis Penfold

Grigori

Aeon418