What is Love?

Zephyros

I prefer the negative golden rule which, although not found in the Old Testament is nevertheless regarded as an important edict.

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

—Talmud, Shabbat 31a

On the other hand, Jesus sums it up as

"Do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets.

Luke 6:31"

The negative is, in my opinion, both far more freeing and also more in accord with Will. You don't have to love everyone, turn the other cheek or be crucified for their sins, but merely to follow the orbit of your own Will while not interfering with anyone else's.
 

Aeon418

The Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

A Thelemic revision of the same: "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them."
 

Zephyros

The Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

A Thelemic revision of the same: "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them."

I like that very much!

Anything to say about Love? :)
 

yogiman

A Thelemic revision of the same: "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them."

I would translate this into: Transform will into love, in accordance with the otherone's intention.
 

yogiman

Not necessarily. Scientific Illuminism shares a lot with science, and although there are Thelemites who view the Thelemic pantheon as just that, gods, a great many view it a scientific principles describing forces at work in nature.

If this is no bias for Hod vs. Netzach, then it is likely an adaptation of the will to scientific status quo. Maybe we should perceive it as a sort of sacrifice for the sake of promotion.

Paul Case states on p.199 of the Book of Tokens:
Yet is this naught but words
Without the key supplied
by the understanding heart.
Love is that key. Love, not reason;
For reason followeth after love,
And when reason would enslave love,
Then is reason but a tyrant
Punishing itself with what it trieth in vain
to enslave.
Love cometh first as thou mayest see in Tarot,
Where the Empress cometh before the Emporer.
Without love reason is sterile,
For love is the generatrix of true imagery.
Reason can arrange, reason can harvest;
But the harvester weareth also
the mask of death.



Theoretically speaking, when you do your Will, even doing something mundane like washing the dishes feels ecstatic, like the best love you've ever made.

As this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEpJdHS1pV0 shows, we still have a very long way to go.:D

The Sun was seen to die in Winter, only to be reborn in the Spring. After performing, the phallus was seen as dead and spent. However, since we know now that the Sun does not die, that formula no longer works.

This will hold true for the christians. But the old egyptians saw the eb and flow of the Nile, and it was still the same water. I think there is nothing new under the sun.:grin:

Although it is true that Crowley had no love for Christianity, it is a simplification to describe the Book of Law solely under those terms.

I didn't hint at "solely". Again I like to cite Paul Case (p.197), because also the Book of the Law doesn't proclaim eternal truths.

The Great Work directs itself always
toward the building of the Temple of ADONAI.
And in its earlier stages there are needs
which do not continue
throughout the building process.
Yet men mistake the scaffolding for the building itself,
And thus pay idolatrous reverence to old rules
which have no longer any useful purpose.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhrBDcQq2DM

Have we all got that out of our system? Good, then we can move on.

By the way, those women do have large limbs, and fire and light in their eyes, and masses of flaming hair about them.
 

ravenest

But should in our mundane dealings Love always be under Will? I don't think so. Towards my mother for example I don't see any reason. Also in my attitude towards nature and animals, I rather relax. How much "Will" is necessary depends on the circumstances.

Maybe Crowley's creed was above all inspired by his despise for christianity, and is no iron law.

I don't get this at all , why cant love be under sill towards the mother ? I love mine as she helped fulfil my will ... I wouldn.t be here without here, Same as nature ... and I love animals .. animals assist me to fulfil my Will and I relax about it , being a thelemic Daoist.

And whatever that had to do with your claims on the supreme 'above all' inspiration I am stumped ! And it isn't even necessarily Crowley's creed ... Thelema, true will and various ideas about love existed long before Crowley ... even the usage of the word Thelema some of these concepts.
 

ravenest

The Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

A Thelemic revision of the same: "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them."

Is that the same as "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them ? ... but NOT against your will " as in post #5 ?

I added the caveat as at times some have wanted me to 'do unto them' and it was against my will.
 

ravenest

By the way, those women do have large limbs, and fire and light in their eyes, and masses of flaming hair about them.

And I have the purple bed sheets ... so why aren't they here?
 

yogiman

I don't get this at all , why cant love be under sill towards the mother ?

You and LRichard treat Will as some philosophical concept. I rather work from the ground up. Like the rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (originally from Confucius)

Not only a matter of taste, but also a matter of life experience.


And whatever that had to do with your claims on the supreme 'above all' inspiration I am stumped !

I don't claim it, but keep open the possibility.
 

ravenest

You and LRichard treat Will as some philosophical concept. I rather work from the ground up. Like the rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (originally from Confucius)

Not only a matter of taste, but also a matter of life experience.

Why do you assume I have not had life experience that affirms my philosophical concepts???

That's a bit of a prejudiced assumption.


Your theory leaves you wide open to abuse from others who adopt it eg I think it is my will to save souls ... souls are more important than the body , I notice that in the inquisition some people confessed and turned to God under torture .... or a law that says if you are not if the book you must confess Islam or be put to the sword ... if I was a devout medieval Moslem (or any other type of modern person with a lesser agenda ) I would help you ... knock on your door on sunday and want you to look at pamphlets ... want you to change your sexual preferences ... I would want someone to 'SAVE' me ... so I will do that to you ... even if I have to throw you in the river and cleanse you of sin and hold you under and ... :bugeyed: goodness, that philosophy is infective!


I don't claim it, but keep open the possibility.

Okay but you 'maybed' it as an above all inspiration ... why not other maybes?