Moral Truth.

[Nungali]

Crowley wrote, in Liber Aba  that  Helpful Demon writes bullshit . Its in there  but 'my kindle cant find it ' . 

[helpfuldemon]

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

[Cobie]

 

.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Cobie

[Nungali]

Yes, which is why a fraternity or other similar group has 'its own' ethics .  The responsibility of ethics , in magical training, increases via degree ; it starts with fairly simple obligations ( . " ......... , which I swear to uphold  " ) and become more specific and particular as one advances  eg ' the 7 bonds of brotherhood' attached to and sworn to in a higher degree ' .

 

Morals are more personal, although probably instilled from an outside source earlier , morals are usually a combination of this , with personal interpretation modified by experience .   They are instilled ( or not , eg in the case of a sociopath )  via the level of parental / social interaction , and specifically  ( but not primarily ) by deep (or lack of any, in the case of a sociopath ) eye contact . 

 

Deep loving eye contact therapy has turned around  young kids that have started to develop sociopathic  tendencies .

[Cobie]

2 hours ago, Nungali said:

… a fraternity  must have an ethical code …

I agree. Every system needs to set boundaries, and create group cohesion. 

[helpfuldemon]

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.  

[Nungali]

" Thelema is a mess "

 

   have you been on the Thelema forum again ?   It certainly is a mess  ; a religion  whose founder says it isnt a religion ,  unregulated , no church , no hierarchy , an obscure and half crazy 'Bible' - that is not to be discussed , no central interpretation authority.   ..... religious anarchism !

 

Its almost as if it was designed to be highly personal without anyone telling you how you should relate to it .   

 

 

."   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.   "

 

The drawing no distinction between one thing and another is a meditation for those of a grade high enough to be able to practice and comprehend it .  It isnt for those that interpret it as an excuse to steal or enact other crimes against others and their rights .

 

Regarding Crowley's  'experiments'  with  'breaking the boundaries of personal morals ' and especially  in public ( which was probably more geared to generating outrage ) , he  was right off IMO .  He was right off in many areas of his life , however  in my experience ,  none of that stuff entered into the 'degree work' .    Most assume it did ..... sorry folks ....  ' no goats '   ( and those that want to be outraged and complain about that are disappointed ) .

Edited March 23, 2023 by Nungali

[helpfuldemon]

On 3/22/2023 at 3:50 PM, Nungali said:

Crowley wrote, in Liber Aba  that  Helpful Demon writes bullshit . Its in there  but 'my kindle cant find it ' . 

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.

[helpfuldemon]

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.  

[Cobie]

.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Cobie

[helpfuldemon]

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.

[Cobie]

.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Cobie

[helpfuldemon]

On 3/24/2023 at 4:08 AM, helpfuldemon said:

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.

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

[Nungali]

11 hours ago, helpfuldemon said:

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

 

I accept what is written  in the way I see it written  ... along with taking in a bigger picture - instead of an immediate button pushing reaction  ( looks like he 'got ya'  ) 

 

I can accept that the words are there but the context  seems to have eluded you ....  you seem to think he is  saying  to go and attack one's neighbor  and taking that last sentence  alone and removing it from the corpus. I could explain, but I see you are set on this one  bit so , sure , go ahead and think what ever you like .

 

I really dont think though that you will go and attack your neighbor just because Crowley said so  . Do you really think he has that much influence on people ?  I won't be going  next door  to strike slay or rob my neighbor  either ,  I might even  offer her 'comfort' , if she needs a massage .   But I won't be a 'busy body '  at  her .

 

Try this ; consider the subject of the piece - the busybody - and read it all with that in mind .  Also in context of the times it was written and the sort of 'interference the busybodies' where up to back then .  Now mix in some sarcasm  and totally reckless  ranting .... the ' kill maim and torture them ,  if be , but dont spread gossip      - I dont take that part seriously .... why would you ?      It reminds me of this ;

 

We are in a car going up a steep long winding hill ; a couple in front seat me in the back , been stuck behind a truck for ages , husband in front passenger seat is impatient :  "Overtake him, go around ... I cant stand this any longer . "

 

Wife ( driving ) :  " What !  No way,  I can see a thing , we could have head on accident ."

 

Him :  " Anything would be better than this  ! " 

 

I laughed, and if I was driving I would have laughed .   But it might be reckless , as some other idiot driving  may well take the 'advice'   !

 

Do you really think Crowley advocated everyone not help their neighbor but rob steal and slay them instead ?  .  If you do think that, and  taking into account  other things you have said about your interpretation about what he has written  I cannot comprehend why you would have anything to do with him ???   - I mean , half the time you bitch about him and expose him , and the other half you seem to be some type of adherent of his .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2023 by Nungali

[Nungali]

Regarding some of his comments about women ;  they suck dont they ?  However he has written some surprising stuff as well , like his higher initiations would not have been possible without women .   In any case , nearly everything crucial in his life depended on them , with no Rose there would have been no Book of the Law, with no Frieda  there would have been no Thoth tarot deck, etc .

 

Like many men they seems awfully confused , obsessed and rejecting of women  ( at the same time ).  Yesterday I was talking to guy at fish market , he starts off on this rant against women , I looked at him ;  " Are you a misogynist ?"

"No. "

" Are you gay ?"

" No."

" ..... are you married?  "

" YES! " 

 

Oh dear .   makes me think of the  60s , there was a man's magazine out called     simply   'Man' .... a magazine for men  , every cover had a picture of a woman on it     Men's magazines ... full of women , with the occasional motorcycle and steam train 

 

It is probably safe to say, at least , that Crowley had a crazy mixed up psychology , was a product of the times, his upbringing and simply, himself .  Thing is , things have not changed that much , just  shifted around a bit .

[helpfuldemon]

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.

Edited March 25, 2023 by helpfuldemon

[Lairg]

3 hours ago, helpfuldemon said:

Do What Thou Wilt

 

What thou wilt is not the same as what thou want.

 

There are levels of will.  In the Hindu tradition spiritual will is a plane beyond spiritual heart.

 

I saw AC a couple of times in his post-mortem state.  He was stuck using personal will when I first saw him.

 

The second time I could see that he had learned that the heart is the way forward - not that he had got very far - only a subplane or two.

[stirling]

4 hours ago, helpfuldemon said:

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.

 

My understanding of Crowley's "Do What Thou Wilt" is that it does not mean "do what you feel like doing", or "indulge your most insane urges", but rather that the adept finds alignment with the unity principle variously labelled "Self" (big "s"), "God" or, "no-self", or what Lao Tzu would call the Dao. 

 

This fairly recent podcast by chaos magicians Duncan Barford and Alan Chapman does an great job of describing this set of ideas:

 

https://shows.acast.com/worp-fm/episodes/003-do-what-thou-wilt

 

No excuses made by me for Crowley's more arcane urges or motives.

[helpfuldemon]

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.  

[wandelaar]

3 hours ago, helpfuldemon said:

People will do what they will do, regardless of wisdom or experience.

 

Why do you even call yourself helpfuldemon, when all you do here is posting fallacies and non sequiturs?

 

If it were so that wisdom or experience doesn't play any role in what people do, than Taoism, spirituality, or even posting here on The Dao Bums would be completely pointless and a waste of time. Unless of course you like trolling and/or debating for the fun of it. But that wouldn't be very helpful, would it? 

[stirling]

7 hours ago, helpfuldemon said:

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.  

 

People will do what they will do, yes, in accord with their level of understanding. Unfortunately the structure of many Thelemic magick organizations don't have a truly rigorous structure of lineage and realized masters that some other disciplines do. If you meet selfish, manipulative, unkind teachers in any organization, walk the other way. 

 

Quote

The Great Work is the uniting of opposites. It may mean the uniting of the soul with God, of the microcosm with the macrocosm, of the female with the male, of the ego with the non-ego. - Aleister Crowley, Magick Without Tears

 

This IS non-dual realization. Realized "beings" largely tend to toward certain behaviors after understanding, though there is always the danger of what we in Zen call "Zen sickness" which is the delusion of becoming an enlightened "self". In this scenario, the awakened "person" understanding the basic realization but doesn't completely have opening into the fabric or EVERYTHING also being enlightened, which includes the people you might seek to manipulate. This is why a number of traditions emphasize devotional or loving-kindness practices to open up both "waking up", but also "growing up". 

Edited March 26, 2023 by stirling

[helpfuldemon]

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.  

[stirling]

22 hours ago, helpfuldemon said:

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.  

 

That makes sense, since non-duality is more of a non-conceptual or experiential understanding rather than anything we can arrive at by thinking about it. I agree that it does sound confusing.

 

It is not so much about uniting apparent opposites, but rather realizing that "opposites" are an arbitrary conceptual idea, which I think you partially get. It is seeing through the idea of opposites - seeing that opposites exist only in the thinking mind. 

 

Seeing through opposites, on a deeper level, is seeing through the subject/object relationship in the way we frame reality and the way we use language. If we realize that the ideas of "here" and "there" (space), or "before" and "after" (time) even more mind-blowing, "self" and "other" (being), we can realize that these are all intellectual designations we use for things that don't exist in the way we think they do.

 

Believe it or not, a taste of this (though not the complete understanding) can be shared within a minute so if there is some openness to it. I did this last Friday with a new student. In Tibetan Buddhism is called "Pointing Out Instruction". It honestly isn't something you don't understand, it is just too obvious and therefore commonly be dismissed. 

 

 

Quote

 

Four Faults of Natural Awareness - Kalu Rinpoche

 

So close you can’t see it.
So deep you can’t fathom it.
So simple you can’t believe it.
So good you can’t accept it.

– Kalu Rinpoche

 

1. The nature of mind is just too close to be recognized. Just as we are unable to see our own face, mind finds it difficult to look into its own nature.
 
2. It is too profound for us to fathom. We have no idea how deep it could be; if we did, we would have already, to a certain extent, realized it. 

 

3. It is too easy for us to believe. In reality, all we need do is simply to rest in the naked, pure awareness of the nature of mind, which is always present. 

 

4. It is too wonderful for us to accommodate. The sheer immensity of it is too vast to fit into our narrow way of thinking. We just can't believe it. Nor can we possibly imagine that enlightenment is the real nature of our minds. 

 

 

[Nungali]

On 3/26/2023 at 8:52 AM, helpfuldemon said:

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.

 

I dont understand what you mean by they won't do it because Crowley said so but  you can also say   'they can do it under do what thou wilt .' ... which is 'Crowley's 'say so'  ???  

 

Isnt that like saying   do not do what I say to do but do it under what I say to do ?     People will do what they want anyway under  any pretext , even if it is strictly forbidden they may come up with any excuse or reason to commit crime, or  just reject the law  and do what they are going to do for whatever reason .

 

One cant just declare what they think things mean and go and do anything anyway  .....   can't they ?  ... Just like you have decided that  your interpretation of Do what thou wilt means  nothing is off limits .

 

I dont interpret it that way  .... however I know you have your own interpretations that you are sticking to .... the problem with that is , your interpretations seem unwholesome , unhealthy, confused , conflictual, non-loving, and old aeon Christian guilt ridden flavored .

 

I will stick with my interpretations thanks  and decide  that I will not rob and murder my neighbor , that I will offer her comfort if appropriate , and I will not interfere with her will  nor be a busybody in her affairs .

 

You see, my interpretation of do what thou wilt means I should let others explore ,  find or do their will and not interfere with them .... it doesnt mean I can do my own will to the detriment of others and 'fuck em all' .  I dont interpret it like that  because of my extensive reading of the subject and that simply .... I am not like that .

 

-  I find these 'tough guy Thelemites' * a bit boring .

 

 

* meaning they choose a 'tough' interpretation to justify whatever 'urges' arise in them  and think they have to play them out .... because Crowley said so .

[Nungali]

On 3/26/2023 at 1:37 PM, stirling said:

 

My understanding of Crowley's "Do What Thou Wilt" is that it does not mean "do what you feel like doing", or "indulge your most insane urges", but rather that the adept finds alignment with the unity principle variously labelled "Self" (big "s"), "God" or, "no-self", or what Lao Tzu would call the Dao. 

 

This fairly recent podcast by chaos magicians Duncan Barford and Alan Chapman does an great job of describing this set of ideas:

 

https://shows.acast.com/worp-fm/episodes/003-do-what-thou-wilt

 

No excuses made by me for Crowley's more arcane urges or motives.

 

 

Its an old principle that Crowley adopted and does not originate with him ... as you probably realize .  A lot of his stuff  comes from ancient Zoroastrianism and other sources .  The idea of 'True Will' as you rightly outlined has come to us 'down the ages' in many forms and philosophies .   All this has been communicated and explained to our confused friend HD here .

 

But he ain't gonna let that 'stand in his way' .