The Book of the Law Study Group 2.21

Zephyros

If separation is an illusion, then the objects of separation are also an illusion, which means that everything is an illusion. If the objects of separation are not an illusion, then separation is not necessarily an illusion. For example, I don't know how you or me are related to a spacelab hundreds of miles above the earth.

The Book of Law goes into this quite specifically.
 

ravenest

I don't have the right to kill anyone.

Well, that is certainly up to you to decide. I would in certain specific circumstances, but that's me .... and humanity through all of history.

No one belongs to me so I can't decide whether they live or die.

No one belongs to me either ... it, in a way, is their decision whether they live or die ... if they decide to ingest large amounts of 'strange drugs' and do a home invasion and intend to deprive my wife and children of their lives ... I'd take theirs first if I could ... and there didn't seem another way to avoid it .... I am not advocating going around and executing non-Thelemites.


Can I really decide someone has fully explored all alleys available to do his Will?

Of course not ... but if someone short-circuits their own exploration that is their doing.

How can that not interfere with mine? If separation is an illusion, wouldn't killing a criminal be tantamount to cutting off my own hand? Were I to give the criminal treatment of some sort, wouldn't I benefit both from his attainment of his own (or at least trying to) or at least benefit from my trying to teach him? Isn't the criminal still a star, and to be revered in a "kingly" fashion?

I agree, but I am not talking about executing a criminal. I am talking about killing as a last resort defence to STOP a crime interfering with someone's will, a crime that the perpetrator had already decided upon ... say; to deprive someone of their life, or a whole village, or town, by doing that, they have declared they believe they have the right (or just don't care) ... by starting such an action they have invoked a justified defence.

Even so, it may interfere with one's self. But all sorts of dynamics like that happen in life, to all sorts of extents.

I know that some of the social, rather pathetic, soft-cock approaches in my country in the law/justice department and all the way down to some individual people's attitude is just the thing certain types thrive upon, even gloat upon while the innocent are disadvantaged and old people live in terror of kiddie thugs roaming the streets at night.

I do appreciate your attitude and I will try to implement that as best I can, in cases of reform, however I wont stand by and watch some innocent be beaten to a pulp. In some cases it is extended way too far .... and that urks me and gets my goat nearly as much as its opposite .... unjustified force and oppression.

Again, I have to modify all this with subsequent teaching and training ... I take my understandings of the Book of the Law in context of my initiations ... both from the same author.

Sorry to bore people, but it is another case for Liber Librae (yet again);

“Remember that unbalanced force is evil; that unbalanced severity is but cruelty and oppression; but that also unbalanced mercy is but weakness which would allow and abet Evil. “
 

Zephyros

Well, I don't disagree completely with anything you say, but I have the feeling we aren't talking strictly Thelemic philosophy, but rather demonstrating how anyone can fit any scripture to suit their own beliefs. I'm a bleeding-heart liberal, and so both see in Thelema a confirmation of that, and also use it to explain my views and justify them. Others may not be, and can quote the Book of Law to suit their own beliefs. Libertarians can use it to show the merits of small government while I can just as easily show it to mean the opposite.

But I guess, that goes back to Will and all that... I really doubt that we disagree Thelemically, but it doesn't mean the same to you as it does to others. As brothers fight ye, etc. :)
 

ravenest

Well, I don't disagree completely with anything you say, but I have the feeling we aren't talking strictly Thelemic philosophy, but rather demonstrating how anyone can fit any scripture to suit their own beliefs. I'm a bleeding-heart liberal, and so both see in Thelema a confirmation of that, and also use it to explain my views and justify them. Others may not be, and can quote the Book of Law to suit their own beliefs. Libertarians can use it to show the merits of small government while I can just as easily show it to mean the opposite.

It will never mean the same to everyone IMO ... that's why Crowley devised a Senate ... differing opinions are important ... but they must eventually be bought to resolution and action.
But I guess, that goes back to Will and all that... I really doubt that we disagree Thelemically, but it doesn't mean the same to you as it does to others. As brothers fight ye, etc. :)

Exactly and if one 'brother' is being an arse another 'brother' might ram his stuff into a suitcase and get him in a headlock and 'escort' him to the front gate.

Its all part of both exploring and learning about their True Will ... on one level. Meanwhile the right hand side of the chamber wants blood and the left is angry at ravenest for being 'violent' (until there is real trouble and they cant deal with it .... 'Errrm ... ravenest would you mind going down to the camping ground and removing that mad ex-bikie guy, his caravan and gun collection we just realised he has." ) Of course I have ‘got in trouble’ for the opposite, refusing to actat the direction of others when they think a harsh approach is needed ( like “ Ravenest, go and sort so-an-so out as he has been abusing his GF .” Me; “No, I did that once before for her and then a week later she decides to start bonking him again.” )

I should add that I worked in a hospital for 10 years " Ravenest, would you mind going to the casualty ward and subduing the 20 stone guy that is mad on drugs as he is starting to smash up valuable life saving equipment ?" (And in that case one cant act aggressively or violently at all , unless it is in 'justified self-defence' ... which is a tricky legal concept at the best of times)

Obviously I have ‘stuff’ about this issue (not with you but) because its something I have had to deal with for about 30 years, in different situations … karma? <shrug>

IMO Crowley knew the ethics and morals of the BoL were going to need supplementary explanations ... that's one reason why he devised and re-wrote the initiation rituals and many other documents.
 

Aeon418

IMO Crowley knew the ethics and morals of the BoL were going to need supplementary explanations ... that's one reason why he devised and re-wrote the initiation rituals and many other documents.

I agree with you, but also agree with Closrapexa. IMO neither of your views are contradictory. In the end it all boils down to a matter of perpective.

As has been pointed out before in older threads Crowley did provide a fair amount of supplementary explanation. But as with a lot of Crowley's writings you have to be mindful of the intended target audience. The vast majority of this 'guidance material' was written for the benefit of OTO members. As Crowley points out in Liber Aleph:
Aleister Crowley said:
Firstly, then, I would have thee to know that Spiritual Experience and Perfection have no necessary connection with Advancement in Our Holy Order.

It is precisely because there is "no necessary connection" that Crowley provided extensive guidance for the laity in the Outer where external direction and control are still required.
In the A.'.A.'. there is a "necessary connection". This is why Liber Librae is part of the Probationer curriculum. The guidance material appears right at the start. It provides the "sure foundation" on which the Probationer stands at the beginning of the journey. But from that point onwards control and guidance should increasingly come from within. This gradual 'handover' occurs along the way to Adeptship.

And this is where I think the misundertsanding is. You seem to coming from a pragmatic 'ground up' perspective, working upwards in the less then ideal conditions of normal life. Closrapexa on the other hand is looking at things from the 'idealized' perspective of the goal of Adeptship. Ultimately there is no contradiction between these perspectives. But for practical purposes you have to make a distinction. I believe AL I:40 points directly to this issue.
 

ravenest

I agree with you, but also agree with Closrapexa. IMO neither of your views are contradictory. In the end it all boils down to a matter of perpective.
Certainly.
As has been pointed out before in older threads Crowley did provide a fair amount of supplementary explanation. But as with a lot of Crowley's writings you have to be mindful of the intended target audience. The vast majority of this 'guidance material' was written for the benefit of OTO members. As Crowley points out in Liber Aleph:


It is precisely because there is "no necessary connection" that Crowley provided extensive guidance for the laity in the Outer where external direction and control are still required.
In the A.'.A.'. there is a "necessary connection". This is why Liber Librae is part of the Probationer curriculum. The guidance material appears right at the start. It provides the "sure foundation" on which the Probationer stands at the beginning of the journey. But from that point onwards control and guidance should increasingly come from within. This gradual 'handover' occurs along the way to Adeptship.

'Guidance material' comes in right at the start of the OTO ... the Minerval ritual is full of it ... enacted on the physical plane (the very first thing one experiences physically) and all through the ceremony in allegory, demonstration and the equivalent of the 'knowledge lecture' and how this is meant to be applied by the self to gain 'guidance from within'. All through the degrees is is suggested that you wont be just handed teachings, you get pointers and signposts, as you go along you have to increasingly develop guidance from within .... it is so clearly spelled out in no uncertain terms right from the beginning ... one is even warned against thinking otherwise.

I must be confused... isnt the A'A supposed be led by some outward astral chiefs or something ? The whole system is about 'out ward' guidance. Or is that an analogy for an inward subjective conciousness of a higher order? If so that confuses me further.

In the OTO the physical affairs and admin of the Order come from its physical head, but inner guidance and development are the responsibility of the developed inner self.

Still in the first stages (Man of earth) in the II degree Liber Librae is the central theme of the whole thing (and the II deg is the central theme of all other OTO initiations - representing life).
And this is where I think the misundertsanding is. You seem to coming from a pragmatic 'ground up' perspective, working upwards in the less then ideal conditions of normal life. Closrapexa on the other hand is looking at things from the 'idealized' perspective of the goal of Adeptship. Ultimately there is no contradiction between these perspectives. But for practical purposes you have to make a distinction. I believe AL I:40 points directly to this issue.

I dont think the issue is my seeming to come from a ground up perspective. Its Crowleys distinction ... one is working on the self and advancement via a system like the AA and the other is a socio/cultural experiment implementing Thelemic concepts (or if one likes ; revelation) into society.

The A.A. works fine in the armchair , self, theory and philosophising about Thelema ... but I am talking about practical application of it ... and I thought this thread was too ? Crime in society and punishment and its implications seem a social issue to me.
 

Aeon418

The A.A. works fine in the armchair , self, theory and philosophising about Thelema ... but I am talking about practical application of it ... and I thought this thread was too ?
It's a BoL study thread... but whatever...

IMO individuals are the units of society. If those units working on themselves is not a practical application of Thelema I don't know what is. Changing the self has a direct knock on effect on the not-self. This is every bit as valid as the 'social movement' route. Change, real change as opposed to enforced change, happens one person at a time. Once again I see no inherent contradiction between our perspectives.
 

ravenest

It's a BoL study thread... but whatever...

It is a Bol study thread but the quote in post# 45 and other posts (43, 46 onwards) focused this thread on social issues and the application of Thelemic philosophy to them.

IMO individuals are the units of society. If those units working on themselves is not a practical application of Thelema I don't know what is. Changing the self has a direct knock on effect on the not-self. This is every bit as valid as the 'social movement' route. Change, real change as opposed to enforced change, happens one person at a time.

Yes, and that is one of the points of instruction in the OTO but it includes AS WELL, the relationship of an instructed and developed individual within a social system and the application of Thelemic ideals into society.

Once again I see no inherent contradiction between our perspectives.

Thats because there isnt a contradiction (except that I think the subject matter is now focused on social issues - 'Duty' {your quote} has 4 sections; only the first relate to self ) .

One way (AA) seems to work is as you say say above ... but what then? The individuals try to effect change from an instructed and developed Thelemic perspective, within the established social system, while the other (OTO) try to effect change from an instructed and developed Thelemic perspective, within a new social order as well.

Crowley may have been placing a bet each way.