The Book of the Law Study Group 2.21

[Zephyros]

regardless .... there are going to be 'troublemakers and disrupters' .... they have to be dealt with somehow ... and I certainly do not approve with current methods ( a smack on the wrist and a stern look).

But always back to Will. I find it significant that in the text Aeon quoted Crowley doesn't actually define what crime is, and Duty also somehow skirts the issue and says that crime is interfering with another's Will (or something to that effect). How society defines troublemakers Osirianly perhaps isn't how it defines them Horusly. Many people in jail today, especially in the US, are people who committed a crime that hurts no one and may even be a stepping stone toward their Wills, namely, "strange drugs" in the form of marijuana. On the other hand, people who were directly responsible for the 2008 crash were never penalized, although it could be argued that they interfered with billions of peoples' Wills. If it is someone's Will to become a dictator, and another's to resist him, who is the troublemaker? Maybe people who commit "real" crimes such as murder would be better taken care of if society's attitude towards lighter, non-Will-interfering offenses were dealt with differently.

In any case, my view towards this is the same as any, separation of faith and State, and freedom and sanctity of the individual. Thelema may afford a certain point of view, but the way it is directly applied, especially on matters of policy, changes dramatically, depending on locale and society, and the system in place now that is developed through discourse, trial and error, is preferable to any other. Besides, it could be argued that if anyone goes off orbit, he will himself suffer the consequences of his actions by "the most puissant forces in the universe." Even Ezekiel recognized that the punishment for some sins is that the man "shall surely die," meaning that God himself would punish him, not a temporal form of justice which, it could be argued, man isn't equipped to deal with (such as interfering with another's Will by carrying out a death penalty)

 

[Aeon418]

yes ... I think it may possible that ... in the greater scheme of things that someone may have a True Will or purpose ... or even 'evolutionary function' that seems averse to what we think is desirable or 'normal' ; like stealing or murder.

Ah..... 'evolutionary function' is much better. I wouldn't necessarily equate it with True Will though. It's more like the result of imbalance or calcification and blockage. It's a sign that something is out of alignment with the True Will. It's not too far removed from the early 'results' of intense magical practices. It all seems like plain sailing at first, until you realise you've been stiring the hornets nest of your own Qlipphoth.

A short digression...... this is why I insist of interpreting the war themed third chapter of The Book of the Law symbolically. War may have an 'evolutionary function', but it's manifestation is a sign that something is f**ked up somewhere else. Externalizations of the third chapter indicate that change and transformative energy have been blocked and not allowed free expression. The upshot is Atu XVI The Tower. This is why Crowley seemed to think that war and bloodshed were almost inevitable as the New Aeon birthed itself. An intransigent and stubborn humanity needed the 'evolutionary function' of a collective kick up the rear.

And maybe it still does.....

Crowley talks about this in Magick Without Tears. The A.'.A.'. and the Planet.
http://hermetic.com/crowley/magick-without-tears/mwt_75.html

Were Hitler and Mussolini doing their True Will? Or were they an 'evolutionary function'? I lean towards the latter.

But then (you will object, if an objection it be) people like Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, the Mikado, et hoc genus omne, are loyal emissaries of the Masters, or the gods! Well, why not? An analogy, once more. In the Christian legend we find God (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent) employing Judas, Pilate and Herod, no less than Jesus, as actors in the Drama which replaced Isis by Osiris in the Great Formula. Perfectly true; but this fact does not in any way exculpate the criminals. It is no excuse for the Commandants of Belsen and Buchenwald that they were acting under orders. The Drama is not mere play-acting, in which the most virtuous man may play the vilest of parts.

 

[yogiman]

In the Christian legend we find God (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent) employing Judas, Pilate and Herod, no less than Jesus, as actors in the Drama which replaced Isis by Osiris in the Great Formula.

Who is God? Is he personal? Where is buddist Crowley?

 

[Aeon418]

Who is God? Is he personal? Where is buddist Crowley?

The sentence began, "In the Christian legend...."

 

[Zephyros]

Who is God? Is he personal? Where is buddist Crowley?

God is used many times as shorthand for unlimited possibility. Although Crowley was decidedly against the Christian hegemony he did acknowledge the effect it had on the world, and also borrowed its symbols and ideas to explain the new Aeon. He did this in much the same way he utilized Buddhist doctrines in his work, but that doesn't mean he was either Buddhist or Christian. I don't think Buddhist Crowley actually exists.

 

[ravenest]

Ah..... 'evolutionary function' is much better. I wouldn't necessarily equate it with True Will though.

Well, that's a discussion we could have for hours ... Plato's 'Gorgias' has a debate within it that I find sheds light on the subject (the 'might is right' or is it ? debate).

Crowley broaches the subject as well .

This is why Crowley seemed to think that war and bloodshed were almost inevitable as the New Aeon birthed itself. An intransigent and stubborn humanity needed the 'evolutionary function' of a collective kick up the rear.

And maybe it still does.....

Sometimes I think it is an inevitable human trait ... across the board

Were Hitler and Mussolini doing their True Will? Or were they an 'evolutionary function'? I lean towards the latter.

Perhaps .... I would LIKE to agree .... but the further I get into the idea of True Will Vs evolutionary function ... the less distinction there seems .

Anyway, the issue still stands ; ... yes, we can postulate a future society where people don't get punished and everyone does their True Will and all move in orbits like the stars, with no clashes .... but in the meantime ... how are we to deal with it?

My comments back in 2010 related more to some people that have a syndrome* and a seditious expression, not specifically an expression of True Will .... more a (okay guys ... get ready for it; ...) ... New Age expression of rebellion towards any type of order and insistence that somehow they have a right to disrupt things, ignore common sense, not pay rent, be an arse, etc. with a vague philosophical stance or indeed (if they heard about it) 'True Will' - to act like an arse and therefore no one has any right not to accept them or their behaviour .

Fine .... go back to regular society and live like an arse then .... or go and start your own one ... and as AC said, gradually come to the realisation that you yourself will have to regulate things somehow ... and deal with disruptors yourself (now at my age I get to see a similar dynamic unfold .... the rebellious youth of yesterday are now experiencing the same thing : one of the really wild and 'uncontrollable' kids from the past (now an adult) confided in me the other day ... they let his 16 year old son have a beer the other night ... when they woke up in the morning he had drunk 17 of them and .....


* the syndrome seems to be ; energy was needed to be invoked to overthrow the old order ... but it seems stuck and some people need to seem to have to overthrow ANY order .... even ones they themselves helped to set up.

 

[Zephyros]

My comments back in 2010 related more to some people that have a syndrome* and a seditious expression, not specifically an expression of True Will .... more a (okay guys ... get ready for it; ...) ... New Age expression of rebellion towards any type of order and insistence that somehow they have a right to disrupt things, ignore common sense, not pay rent, be an arse, etc. with a vague philosophical stance or indeed (if they heard about it) 'True Will' - to act like an arse and therefore no one has any right not to accept them or their behaviour .

True, but before adulthood sets in, there is the Crowned and Conquering Child(hood):

Everywhere his government is taking root. Observe for yourselves the decay of the sense of sin, the growth of innocence and irresponsibility, the strange modifications of the reproductive instinct with a tendency to become bi-sexual

combined with nightmare fear of catastrophe, against which we are yet half unwilling to take precautions.

Consider the outcrop of dictatorships, only possible when moral growth is in its earliest stages,

Communism, Fascism, Pacifism, Health Crazes, Occultism in nearly all its forms, religions sentimentalized to the point of practical extinction.

Consider the popularity of the cinema, the wireless, the football pools and guessing competitions, all devices for soothing fractious infants, no seed of purpose in them.

Consider sport, the babyish enthusiasms and rages which it excites, whole nations disturbed by disputes between boys.

Consider war, the atrocities which occur daily and leave us unmoved and hardly worried.

We are children.

Even as a society mistakes should be met with some indulgence. In the Aeon of Osiris, any mistake could lead to death, or worse. Now, even mistakes are "pure joy" and a process of continual growth.

 

[ravenest]

Only if one sees them as that .... these 'types' were not in pure joy and were not learning from their mistakes ... it is more of a case of shape up (or at least move in that direction) or ship out IMO. With that dynamic I agree with Crowley's 'Duty'.

I hope we are not ignoring Liber Oz here ... especially the last clause ?

What do we do about those who would 'thwart these rights' ?

 

[Zephyros]

I don't have the right to kill anyone. No one belongs to me so I can't decide whether they live or die. Can I really decide someone has fully explored all alleys available to do his Will? 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?

 

[yogiman]

I don't have the right to kill anyone. No one belongs to me so I can't decide whether they live or die. Can I really decide someone has fully explored all alleys available to do his Will? 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?

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.