The Book of the Law Study Group 2.21
Aeon418
This one is going to be good. Literalists love this one. Lets see how quickly the excreta hits the air-con. 
But who's been paying attention to the recurring theme of the previous verses?
http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/mwt/mwt_46.html
This weak ego centered compassion is damned by Hadit. Thelemic compassion is actually closer to what the (controversial) Tibetan Buddhist, Chögyam Trungpa, called Ruthless Compassion. It has nothing to do with feeling good. It is not driven by a desire to appear nice and kind or sooth the wants of the ego. It is doing that which is necessary in a given situation, and that can be very, very hard. Most people when they encounter a distressing situation begin to feel uncomfortable. We don't like these feelings and want them to go away as quickly as possible. So we set about doing things, anything, that will alleviate and sooth our own sense of distress and unease. We like to call this compassion. It might make us feel better, but it doesn't always do much good. In a way it's like putting a bandage on a wound that hasn't been cleaned. Yes, the cleaning process is going to be painful, but has to be done. It does no good to run away from that fact. It takes real strength to stand your ground and confront negative feelings, to really feel and own them. It's easy to surrender to weakness, retreat from these feelings and seek safety in something soothing. Awwwww... there, there.
From Trungpa's, Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism. [Emphasis added]
Why the vice of Kings? This one is important.
But who's been paying attention to the recurring theme of the previous verses?
The subject of compassion within Thelema is a difficult one because a lot of people automatically assume it means being kind, feeling sorry for others, pitying them and their misfortune. Not so. See MWT, letter 46:
http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/mwt/mwt_46.html
This weak ego centered compassion is damned by Hadit. Thelemic compassion is actually closer to what the (controversial) Tibetan Buddhist, Chögyam Trungpa, called Ruthless Compassion. It has nothing to do with feeling good. It is not driven by a desire to appear nice and kind or sooth the wants of the ego. It is doing that which is necessary in a given situation, and that can be very, very hard. Most people when they encounter a distressing situation begin to feel uncomfortable. We don't like these feelings and want them to go away as quickly as possible. So we set about doing things, anything, that will alleviate and sooth our own sense of distress and unease. We like to call this compassion. It might make us feel better, but it doesn't always do much good. In a way it's like putting a bandage on a wound that hasn't been cleaned. Yes, the cleaning process is going to be painful, but has to be done. It does no good to run away from that fact. It takes real strength to stand your ground and confront negative feelings, to really feel and own them. It's easy to surrender to weakness, retreat from these feelings and seek safety in something soothing. Awwwww... there, there.
From Trungpa's, Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism. [Emphasis added]
Why the vice of Kings? This one is important.
Aeon418
We've already come across this reference to a lack of feeling* twice before in I:31 & II:18. In both cases I believe it is suggested that the elemental/ego self acts as a kind of selective filter of experience. And the ego-self is very picky about what it feeds on because it works on the basis of fear and the need to protect itself. But it's not the ego's job to decide what will and will not be experienced. Thou hast no right but to do thy will. The ego has to align itself with the True Will and thereby become a proper vehicle for that Will.
But if the ego digs in it's heels and refuses to budge, refuses to open up to experience, and sits inside the "safe" walls of it's self created Tower, then Hadit's answer is "Fine. Suit yourself".
(* I'm wondering if this is an attack on the unbalanced aspects of Netzach. Because the next target it Reason/Hod)
Always Wondering
I've never had a problem with this concept of compassion. I've always called it rigorous honesty. But I come from a therapeutic and 12 step background, so I can't imagine my life without it.
Plus I'm a Sag, I can always blame it on that. I am not the most popular of people.
Perhaps I am being pigheaded, or daft. Pure Ecstasy Forever vs Nothing? I can't seem to reconcile the two.
AW
Plus I'm a Sag, I can always blame it on that. I am not the most popular of people.
Perhaps I am being pigheaded, or daft. Pure Ecstasy Forever vs Nothing? I can't seem to reconcile the two.
AW
Aeon418
But what if we were to consider this verse as a course of action aimed at the outcast and unfit aspects of the little ego self. The enemy within is always the hardest to fight.Always Wondering said:
This verse reminds me of the sentiments expressed in Mark 9:45-47.
Of course to take this in a literal sense would be ridiculous. But taken symbolically it's very much in the same ruthless, compassionless spirit as AL II:21.
I'm a Sag rising, so you're in good company. Oh, the joy of being outspoken ........ and the touble that frequently comes with it.Always Wondering said:Plus I'm a Sag, I can always blame it on that. I am not the most popular of people.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Can you elaborate?Always Wondering said:
Can anyone else see the discipline (and results) of yoga in this verse?
"If the body of the King dissolve" reminds of the a description of zazen as the great dropping away of body mind. But pure ecstasy forever? Well isn't one of the qualities of Dhyana/Samadhi characterised as a complete lack of time sense. So how long does an experience last in a state where there is no time?
Always Wondering
Aeon418 said:
Well now I got to thinking too much. On a grosser level this seems obvious. If I am unwilling to be honest with myself then what is the point? Ego has skewed all perception and denial reigns both inward and outward. If this is severe enough to keep me from functioning in family or society there is more of a chance that others step in with ruthless compassion.
But when it comes down to something so personal as True Will, where I am infringing only on myself, it seems to get subtle and slippery. Rigorous honesty can be a double edged sword. I could sit in my tower and slash myself to pieces. Sometimes it is not so easy for me to know if I am clinging to the Tower or wandering with the Hermit.
Aeon418 said:
It's amazing I still have both eyes and both feet
Aeon418 said:
Well now this is where I start to sound like a burned out old hippie and stop making sense even to myself.
But this helps
Exactly. This to me seems like the closest to “Nothing” that I can imagine. Perhaps my idea of bliss or ecstasy is keeping me resistant. Any result I have had so far with classic meditation has hinted more toward the relief of nothing rather than what I perceive as bliss.Aeon418 said:
But I will keep practicing.
Aeon418 said:
Well naturally, I rather appreciate this about you.
AW
Grigori
I quite like you Sag and all AW
There's something about this line that leads me to see Nuit and Hadit as conflicting forces, a battle of the sexes perhaps. Perhaps the false duality of 0=2 is running amock in my brain.
While I can't back this idea up in context (e.g. 1.31 where Nuit says a very similar thing as the current line) and it seems "off" even as I type this, this gender conflict feeling keeps popping up for me.
I think it came from trying to read the "For they feel not" as "For they feel Nuit". In that light it reads more like the "Kings" are a masculine force associated with the more masculine Hadit and perhaps things more Osirian. In contrast to the outcast and the unfit, who would be more welcome with the all-receptive feminine Nuit.
There's something about this line that leads me to see Nuit and Hadit as conflicting forces, a battle of the sexes perhaps. Perhaps the false duality of 0=2 is running amock in my brain.
While I can't back this idea up in context (e.g. 1.31 where Nuit says a very similar thing as the current line) and it seems "off" even as I type this, this gender conflict feeling keeps popping up for me.
I think it came from trying to read the "For they feel not" as "For they feel Nuit". In that light it reads more like the "Kings" are a masculine force associated with the more masculine Hadit and perhaps things more Osirian. In contrast to the outcast and the unfit, who would be more welcome with the all-receptive feminine Nuit.
Freddie
This is the type of ethos I am studying as a counsellor and I am putting it into practice a bit at a time. I am finding that alot of Crowley has written about Thelema has been manipulated and quoted out of context by ignorant Christian fanatics (I'm openminded) who are too thick to research the history/benefits of Thelema.
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 found this path later in life after many years I pursued another occupation (singer/songwriter) to no avail (worked in all the while factories instead to play the bills).
I read this book as a young man and if befuddled me, but makes more sense to me at 45.
Freddie
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 found this path later in life after many years I pursued another occupation (singer/songwriter) to no avail (worked in all the while factories instead to play the bills).
I read this book as a young man and if befuddled me, but makes more sense to me at 45.
Freddie
Aeon418
How do you square this with I:6 where Nuit herself says, "Be thou Hadit, my secret centre." Has she suddenly invoked the female prerogative and changed her mind?similia said:
Grigori
Aeon418 said:How do you square this with I:6 where Nuit herself says, "Be thou Hadit, my secret centre." Has she suddenly invoked the female prerogative and changed her mind?
Nah, like I said, I can't square that idea with much of the BoL, but it is there for me anyways. I'm putting it down to the illusion of duality
