The Book of the Law Study Group 2.22

Curtis Penfold

Aeon418 said:
Yes, you've already mentioned that you're a Mormon. Section 89 of The Doctrine and Covenants warns Mormons against consuming drugs, tobacco, alcohol, and hot drinks.

Doesn't specify drugs, but it's certainly inferred and recogonized today as being the case. (The Word of Wisdom is what we call it). As a matter of curiousity, where did you learn about Doctrine and Covenants and all that stuff? Just wondering if it's an academic interest or a friend or what.


Aeon418 said:
Really? Try sitting in asana for about 20 minutes and feel the endorphin rush. You might like it. You may find it's very conducive to your spirituality. ;)

Obviously, my view on spirituality is different, since I believe it's necessary to have total self-control to do the Will of God.

But having briefly studied the cult of Dionysius, I think I understand the connection between letting go, taking drugs, and spirituality. It's something I disagree with, obviously. But I find it interesting that Crowley tried taking this ancient concept and presented it to a modern audience.


Aeon418 said:
What's the motivation behind an addict's craving? Is is a desire to worship Hadit? Or just a need for another fix?

Some people try to justify casual drug use in this way? But do they stop and question their motivations? Do what thou wilt? Or Do what you want?

Alright, this is when I'm looking for specifics to understand what Crowley taught.

"Do what thou wilt" and "Do what you want" are different. But I want to understand exactly why they're different. Was Crowley trying to get people to accept the Divine Will?

For example, Crowley is against Osirian thinking. So his "Do what thou wilt" does not mean "Self-sacrifice" if that's what you want to do. Um...help me better understand Thelema's ethics.
 

Grigori

Curtis Penfold said:
"Do what thou wilt" and "Do what you want" are different. But I want to understand exactly why they're different. Was Crowley trying to get people to accept the Divine Will?

For example, Crowley is against Osirian thinking. So his "Do what thou wilt" does not mean "Self-sacrifice" if that's what you want to do. Um...help me better understand Thelema's ethics.

My understanding is that "Do what you want" is doing whatever random things your ego self thinks would be gratifying and strengthen it's dominance in your life. Like a 2 year old calling for ice-cream "I wannit, I wannit, I wannit".

"Do what thou wilt" is a call to discover your own divine Will and to follow it, which means you may not get ice-cream as it's not a necessary part of your divine plan. Essentially it is the same as being called to find God's Will and follow it, but in this case its not a one size fits all dogmatic Will, but an unique individualized Will to fit your own unique individualized god (HGA). The highest deities in Thelema is Nuit and Hadit, "I Am" and "I Am Not". Not a lot of personality there ;) Ra-Hoor-Khuit is closer to the traditional idea of a God, in that he's more personified, but he's also seen as a stand in for your own HGA (your divine self). He's a symbol of divinity and not the divinity itself. I guess you could draw a comparison with Christ, and even the Saints or Angels within Christianity (in some ways). They are symbols of something higher, and a path to it, but not the higher thing itself. In Thelema you are looking for your own unique 'symbol', rather than having the same one as everyone else.

Religion and society in general work by conditioning people to accept a social norm of their choosing. A good example I think is the "Good Christian Values" constantly being preached by some people, that are substantially contradictory to scripture. We say "Christian Values" like its a positive thing, or the definition of what is acceptable, but don't consider often what that actually means. Or a more day to day metaphor; the desire to eat McDonalds. No sensible person would want Macca's but we've all been programmed from a young age to like it, so every so often we crave over-salted fries and some pork fat ice cream ;) Why!?

This line is suggesting a way to break social norms using drugs and alcohol, though I know of Thelemites who like you don't want to use these methods and instead use spiritual methods to crack their skulls :D The goal is not to be get smashed, but instead to rip you out of the programming of your society/family/clan/etc, so you can look around and see what it is that you really want, not what Disney and Sony have programmed you to want.

My knowledge of Mormanism is fairly limited so please correct me if I'm off on this, but in some ways I think Mormanism is more like Thelema than other Christian sects.

Morman Saying said:
As man is, God once was;
as God is, man may be."

The Thelemic versions is different that you don't have to follow any set criteria to become a/like god, you already are a/like god, you just have to crack your skull a bit so you can remember that. One way to do that would be the Dionysian approach.
 

Yygdrasilian

lux et voluptas

Aeon418 said:
It's not obvious me. Hedonism for it's own sake isn't worship of Hadit.
The ‘obvious interpretation’ offered was hardly presented as the correct One. Taken at face value, this particular verse (2.22) can be easily misconstrued as such an endorsement - especially if it is confused with Crowley’s own reputation for excess.

Rather, we are offered a clue to divine intoxication: enlightenment as unmediated awareness. Inasmuch as the body itself is a form of media (‘monkey-suit’), the fabled panacea imbibes One with the drunkenness of pure Bliss - the Snake that giveth ‘bright glory’ being akin to the golden spiral, a recurring theme throughout Liber al Legis and The Book of Thoth.


Curtis Penfold said:
I'm against drug usage, though. I fail to see how it could help a person's spirituality.
It has been suggested that entheogenic ‘wines’ were utilized in many of the ancient mystery traditions...
http://books.google.com/books?id=lZ...resnum=4&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false
 

Curtis Penfold

Grigori said:
The Thelemic versions is different that you don't have to follow any set criteria to become a/like god, you already are a/like god, you just have to crack your skull a bit so you can remember that. One way to do that would be the Dionysian approach.

(It's MORMON by the way. A lot of people mispell that, so it's alright).

See, I see it as pretty similar, even though it's...pretty different. I mean, we believe we're all Children of God. But yeah, you can't become like God unless you try to do the right thing. You know, try to help other people.

We're always told, though, that we each have our own purpose in His plan. Like, it doesn't really matter if a person is shy or out going. When we take the sacrament, we say we're an extension of Christ, that we're part of His body.

For His work (as opposed, I guess to our individual God's work...is that the way it's looked at?), anyway, for His work we need teachers and fathers and all that stuff...well, I guess that's different since in Thelema, it appears that we don't want to be part of a group. Or do we?

Yeah, Thelema goes a little farther than Mormonism, but I do like seeing the similarities.
 

thorhammer

I find this verse singularly confronting because of my own past experiences, both direct and observational, of drug and alcohol use. Always Wondering, your note about developing your panic disorder after years of sobriety is a little worrying to me :D because I now don't drink and I've never smoked or taken drugs in anything resembling a regular fashion. (And I'm not going to ask you for a reference . . . do I really say it that often? :|)
Aeon418 said:
I always get the sense that this verse is Hadit screaming, "Let me out!". Our everyday rational dullness imprisons the creative fire within the Tower of the little self. Here Hadit urges us to break down the walls. He doesn't care how it is done, as long as he can be released and allowed to flow through us.
This is a helpful (to me) way of looking at it, because it sort of suggests that it's not necessarily an injunction to go out and use drugs, but just to shake things up, let him out. Okay, I'm already working on that :) and I think it's helping. He seems happier, anyway :p
Curtis Penfold said:
I wrote an essay called "The Ancient Dark Gods of Moshpits and Voodoo Rituals."
I'd like to read it, if you still have it.
Curtis Penfold said:
I'm against drug usage, though. I fail to see how it could help a person's spirituality. So losing your inhibition makes you aware of yourself? Alright. But what about addiction?
Another case of right place, right time for me - I just read a bit in Abrahadabra about this. I'm not going to quote unless someone wants me too, as no doubt I'm about the last person among us to read it :rolleyes: but Orpheus notes that addiction implies that the drugs are no longer "strange" to the user, as is specified in the II:22. So it's saying that it's fine if you feel the need to break those inhibitions through drug use - mushrooms, peyote, kava, crack, weed - whatever. Just don't turn it into a habit. The drug use isn't the point, you see. It's the state of openness that's the point.

And from my own personal POV, I'd rather not use the (as I see it) crutch of drug use. I'd rather do it the hard way the first time.

\m/ Kat
 

Always Wondering

thorhammer said:
Always Wondering, your note about developing your panic disorder after years of sobriety is a little worrying to me :D because I now don't drink and I've never smoked or taken drugs in anything resembling a regular fashion.

I really did over simplify. Again. :rolleyes:

I got sober, got married, had two kids, a dog, a mortgage, and a business all within a matter of a few years. I made little time for myself, and more importantly I think, did not allow much of my need to break loose and feel the joy of abandonment. In fact I felt that my need for abandonment made me bad mom, bad wife, bad business partner, ect. I denied much of myself. I suspect this is what led to disorder.

Looking back I see many outlets I could have given myself. Drinking would have been an easy, socially acceptable way. But I had been there done that. :|
I never ran through the woods, naked, under a full moon though.
Yet. })
Poor me and my empty nest. :laugh:

thorhammer said:
(And I'm not going to ask you for a reference . . . do I really say it that often? :|)\m/ Kat

:laugh: It good. I get a little lazy sometimes. I just wanted to tease you a little.

AW
 

Grigori

Curtis Penfold said:
(It's MORMON by the way. A lot of people mispell that, so it's alright).

Sorry, that was silly of me.

Curtis Pendold said:
See, I see it as pretty similar, even though it's...pretty different. I mean, we believe we're all Children of God. But yeah, you can't become like God unless you try to do the right thing. You know, try to help other people.

Yes similar, except the Thelemic version is more like you're already God and don't need to become like him, and doing the right thing won't make a jot of difference to that. You're a God having a human experience, not a human following the rules for a chance at a God-like experience.

For His work (as opposed, I guess to our individual God's work...is that the way it's looked at?),

I don't think so, there is no super-god to conform to, because the highest deities are Am and Am Not. Jehovah is the demiurge, a lower god who thinks they are the highest. Zeus, Jove, Jupiter, all thinking they are the highest power and forgetting what came before. There is no gods will superior to your own will, its simply "do what thou wilt".

anyway, for His work we need teachers and fathers and all that stuff...well, I guess that's different since in Thelema, it appears that we don't want to be part of a group. Or do we?

Different I think, a thelemite rejects the father or the teacher, where that person conflicts with their own will. Crowley says some fairly ugly things about the family unit and its effect on a person. It's one of the things Hadit is trying to shake you out of, reject your families inherited values and instead work out your own.

Yeah, Thelema goes a little farther than Mormonism, but I do like seeing the similarities.

Yeah I'm finding it interesting also, thanks for posting :) It's interesting to think from this angle.

Always Wondering said:
I never ran through the woods, naked, under a full moon though.

There's still time :)
 

thorhammer

Grigori said:
Different I think, a thelemite rejects the father or the teacher, where that person conflicts with their own will. Crowley says some fairly ugly things about the family unit and its effect on a person. It's one of the things Hadit is trying to shake you out of, reject your families inherited values and instead work out your own.
Crowley's comments on family were balm to my heart, considering how fraught my relationship with my family has always been. It seems it's impossible to relate to one's family as one would a collection of unrelated individuals, despite the logical potential.

In Magick Without Tears, Chapter LII: Family: Public Enemy No. 1, he says:
Uncle Al said:
Weak members or weak neighbours: it is the mob spirit crushing genius, or overwhelming opposition by brute arithmetic.
And:
Uncle Al said:
I think that "family" should include any body of persons with common interests which they expect or wish you to share. . . But the family is the classic type, because its pull is so potent and persistent. It began when you gave your first yell; your personality is deliberatedly wrenched and distorted to the family code; and their zoology is so inadequate that they always feel sure that their Ugly Duckling is a Black Sheep. Even for their Fool they find a use: he can be invaluable in the Church or in the Army, where docile incompetence is the sure key to advancement.

Curse them! They are always in the way.
I WUB Magick Without Tears :D 'Tis my favourite Crowley.

\m/ Kat