helpfuldemon

Just after I wrote this I realized that Do What Thou Wilt is the Law of the strong, that it means that if you are strong enough to get your Will done, you win. That is what it really means. Whether by force or reason, this is the Law of life.

While "Do what thou wilt" is true in the sense that we are free to do what we will, it is not the law. Law is based on other things than freedom, like harming someone else. Love is the Law is closer to the truth, but we cannot legislate love. Love is a personal choice, but we should treat everyone with the respect of love. Jesus said to love everyone as you love yourself, and to forgive those that do you wrong. This is good if you don't want to carry negativity, but at some point crime needs to be addressed. It is wise to have a conversation about crime with the criminal, to see if one can reason with them to get them to see their error. I don't think punishment should be the first option. If the criminal persists in doing crime, then restraining their freedom is necessary, and perhaps enforcing a reimbursement for damages. In our country things are so wild and out of control when it comes to crime, damages being assessed at millions of dollars, immediate punishment for accusations against someone. It is a shame.

God is surrounded by questions, but God will not be named. One can either question God endlessly or find peace in knowing a portion of Gods essence, and sit in Gods presence in contentment.

God is Chaos, and God is Infinite. All the rest is trying to bring Order to a Lawless species.

I can't find the button on that podcast link to play it. I think I understand the difference between relative reality and absolute reality. Relative reality is personal Will and want while absolute reality is the interdependence on one another that we all must abide by to survive, is that right? The one-ness of everything. I still don't see how Do What Thou Wilt is a good statement for getting us to co-operate with one another. Seems misleading. I'm also still fairly sure that my interpretation of the Law of Liberty is correct and that Crowley defined morality as protecting freedom. I don't see where he wrote about not doing certain things, or what would stop a person from actions. All in all I think Crowley failed. I think he touched on a lot of good ideas and revealed a lot of truth, but as a system, I think he failed to define what he was really after. His writing is also convoluted with other things which make it hard to find the moral meaning and guidance I need to find to understand. I think I will just take my interpretation and keep it. I believe that I understand it enough. Thank you for enlightening me on True Will of absolute reality, that helped.

Some literature says that opposition makes you stronger, and I suppose that Choronzon is seen in this light, but for me it has made me weaker, though I now feel established in my understanding. Being tortured by a demon has taught me to love less, and not believe in the protection of loving intention. I'm more fearful now, and far less bold and confident. Truly, at any time i could collapse. I'm more aware of my crimes than I was when I just walked away from them, for I believe this to be a sort of justice against them. No, I don't feel like opposition made me stronger, it just depleted my fortitude and left me wondering why.

It isn't fear or resentment, it's just me trying to understand Thelema. Crowley wanted to outline a new method of life and morality, and I want to get it right. I'm not angry, I just think that people missed the point of what he was doing. Why would he go through so much trouble just to affirm Christianity, or some other tradition which he denounced? His idea was pure: do what thou wilt. It means to do what you need to do. Saint Nietzsche redefined Good and Evil, and Crowley took it and ran. Good is liberty, Evil is restriction. I'm not saying that Crowley necessarily wants to promote crime, but he doesn't denounce it either. Crime in Crowley's eyes is to diminish someone's nobility and restrict their liberty. I guess if you read between the lines one might see cause to say that doing harm to another is wrong in Thelema, but there are many points where it seems like it is approved of.

I take it back, Crowley did have a moral code, it involved allowing people to do their Will. That is the :"good unto others" he is talking about; allow them to do their Will. Do not abuse or abase them for what they choose to do. This is not old world Slave-God doing Good, it is allowing freedom. Crowley drew no distinction between a monk and a murderer, so long as both were doing their Will.

Anyway.... my point was that Thelema has no moral code, as can be seen by the freedom to rob and slay. The Law is Do What Thou Wilt, and that is the end of it.

Everything about life is transient. Life itself is transient. Nothing is permanent. While I agree that desire has a dark side, might as well get what you want while you're here.

I'm just waiting for someone to use a criminal defense of religious liberty from Do What Thou Wilt.

I've never fully comprehended what is involved in non-dual thinking. Uniting opposites? What does that even mean? The only opposites I can think of is good and evil, and while I think there is some evil that is not evil, I find a hard line is drawn in my mind about it, and I don't think you can unite what I understand as Evil with the Good.

People will do what they will do, regardless of wisdom or experience. Yes, the tools of Magick are meditation, mysticism, ritual... things that will train the mind to think clearly and rationally, and to perhaps lead to morality. But my point is that Thelema, in its essence, is about doing whatever you will to do. Thelemites, when in the higher rank of an Order, are meant to defend this truth. Morally speaking, there is no code and nothing is off limits. People like to argue that this is not true, but I am convinced it is. The only thing limiting action is fear of punishment and retaliation from the one you choose to do something to. The stronger one wins. Its Sophism renewed.

The point isn't that people are going to rob and kill their neighbor because Crowley said so, the point is that they can do it, under Do What Thou Wilt. And if people can do those things, then what can't they do? Nothing is off limits.

It feels good to be vindicated, though I doubt Nungali will want to accept what is written.

Speaking of women, Crowely didn't have a very high opinion of them. In Liber Aleph, there is a passage where he likens them to the swine in "Don't cast your pearls to swine". He says not to tell them the truth. I think to Crowley, all they were good for was to plant his seed.

Crowley had an opinion on a lot of actions, but the core of his teachings is that you can do what you need to do. He said that if you did something, the magickal rule is that it can be done to you, which sounds an awful lot like "Do unto others as you would have done unto you". which is a statement he openly mocked. He also, in the Book of the Law, denounces Muhammed, Buddha, and Jesus, but in other places he grants them honor. Crowley's ethic is to do what you will, and to protect that right for all people. He says that you will learn as you go what you can get away with. Thelema follows the rules of the Neophyte, which states that you can do what you like to learn Wisdom and power. There is no guidance on what that is in the "higher degrees". He has no moral compass, and did many things that a lot of people would disagree with. Do and die, that is the way.

DE STULTIS MALIGNIS. My Son, there are afflictions many and woes many, that come of the errors of men in respect of the will; but there is none greater than this, the interference of the busy-body. For they make pretence to know a man's thought better than he doth himself, and to direct his will with more wisdom than he, and to make plans for his happiness. And of all these the worst is he that sacrificeth himself for the weal of his fellows. He that is so foolish as not to follow his own will, how shall he be so wise as to pursue that of another? If mine horse balk at a fence, should some varlet come behind him, and strike at his hoofs? Nay, Son, pursue thy path in peace, that thy brother beholding thee may take courage from thy bearing, and comfort from his confidence that thou wilt not hinder him by thy superfluity of compassion. Let me not begin to tell thee of the mischiefs that I have seen, whose root was in kindness, whose flower was in self-sacrifice, and whose fruit in catastrophe. Verily I think there should be no end hereof. Strike, rob, slay thy neighbour, but comfort him not unless he ask it of thee, and if he ask it, be wary.

Thelema is a mess. Crowley says to draw no distinctions between one thing and another; that all acts are Holy. He has no immoral actions. His Ethic is to protect the freedom to do what you will, yet he says it's not to do what you like. That you have to dig to find your True Will. I say all Will is valid, until the magician decides against it.

Re-read Liber Aleph. It's like half way through. I don't feel like doing it. You've missed Crowley's point entirely.

It's written in Liber Aleph, one of his missives say that you can lie, cheat, steal from your neighbor, but don't degrade his honor, or something like that. I tried to find the passage but my kindle wouldn't find it and I don't feel like paging through the whole book to find it. Crowley's ethical code was freedom, and that is what bound his fraternities. He tried to tie in honor for your enemies and allies, that was about it. His God was Chaos, and liberty, and he didn't structure any more moral code to action. The word of Sin is restriction, and he felt that people should do what is in their nature to do, and that they would learn what not to do by the result.

If we're talking about Magick, as in Crowely's writings, he didn't leave much in the way of moral training for his students. He said to liberate yourself from inhibitions, he said to regard your fellow human beings as stars, but he also said to "lie, cheat and steal from your neighbor".

After thinking about this more, I'm inclined to say that placing a value of one person over the value of another is probably the leading cause of all the troubles in this world. Our materialistic society separates one from another and holds some worthless while others valuable. This starts at a young age and continues on throughout life.

Oh I got confused. I was arguing with other Thelemites about there having to be One True Will for All if there is such a thing of True Will. I no longer believe this to be the case though, or if it is, it is hard to find.

I agree with you about this. I think it is immoral to place a higher value on someone over someone else. But, getting back to my original point; it is immoral to harm another person's wealth or their right to earn their wealth. Placing a limit on their wealth is another matter.