[From private correspondence. Names changed to protect the guilty.]

Correspondent: 1) To you, what is fundamental to “Thelema?”

You ask: “Once again, what IS fundamental to Thelema? Simply Liber AL?” In short, yes. Yet, as I’m sure I don’t have to tell you, “simply” is hardly an appropriate word in that context.

Here is what is fundamental in as much of a nutshell as I can get it…

Nuit is potential and the infinitely large, Hadit is the (unmanifest) point and the infinitely small. For something potential to become actual, it has to extend equally in positive and negative directions (i.e. 0=2) from an (unmanifest) point. Thus all manifestation arises as the interplay between Nuit and Hadit.

Nuit cannot by herself experience, since she already contains all potential — she would just be perceiving parts of herself, which is unsatisfying. Thus, she is forced to create self-aware individuals who perceive themselves to be merely a subset of the all, so that by uniting with what they perceive to be distinct subsets of the all, they can achieve a real development by expanding the boundaries of their own being. Hence, “I am above you and in you. My esctasy is in yours. My joy is to see your joy.” (Naturally, this is a metaphorical and not physical or literal account)

This expansion, this apparent growth in being, this real development, is the “love” from the “love under will” equation. Hence “Bind Nothing!” “For I am divided for love’s sake, for the chance of union.” “seek me only! [i.e. seek to transcend boundaries, unite with all = infinite]” “The word of Sin is Restriction” “There is no bond that can unite the divided but love” “But always unto me [i.e. unto the infinite, to a state of non-restriction, of no boundaries]” “if the ritual be not ever unto me: then expect the direful judgments of Ra Hoor Khuit! [i.e. the direful judgments are restrictions, self-imposed, and “thereby cometh hurt”]” “Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love…He, my prophet, hath chosen, knowing the law of the fortress, and the great mystery of the House of God. [the ‘House of God’ being the Tower, the breaking of boundaries and restriction, the destruction of form]” So much for love. Naturally this is nothing even remotely to do with romantic or compassionate love, as the cholera example should demonstrate by itself as if any other evidence were necessary.

Will is basically the directing force behind that expansion. The expansion is in “all directions” but must proceed from the nature of the individual. Symmetrical expansion from any other point but his own Khabs will not be symmetrical for him, and thus partial and incomplete. Hence “love UNDER will” — will must assume primacy, else love will be in vain. This is why “Do what thou wilt shall be the WHOLE of the Law”, and why there is “NO LAW beyond do what thou wilt” — “love” appears in neither of these phrases.

Morality therefore consists of undertaking that expansion in accordance with your own nature. Its effects on others are wholly and completely irrelevant. Thelema destroys the idea of “responsibility towards others”. “Do what THOU WILT shall be the whole of the Law” “Do that and no other shall say nay”.

This, in a nutshell, is what I consider to be fundamental to Thelema. I will go further and say that whosoever disagrees with the above, whatever they think they are following, it is not Thelema. I don’t give a hoot for those who think they have the liberty to decide what Thelema “means to them” — they of course have the liberty to interpret however they like, but this does not give them the liberty to be correct about it. I consider the account I have stated above to be the only reasonable interpretation of the Book of the Law, and that this can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt with reference to the Book by itself.

Correspondent: 2) What method/way do you recommend to move consciousness out of the ego into the true Self?

“Know thyself”, by whatever method is necessary. The method will vary by individual, and it will vary hugely. For some people, the “traditional magical path” will be the most appropriate. For the vast majority, it will not be. This is why I stress so heavily the importance of understanding, in plain terms, what all this stuff really means. Without such an understanding, the individual can not sensibly determine and direct his own work, and must rely on discovering his nature by chance.

Correspondent: 3) Is the Great Work merely to understand that work on the ego is fruitless and that the real important thing is to identify with that Self beyond self & not-self?

The Great Work is ultimately to understand that the Great Work is unnecessary. Unfortunately, it’s practically impossible to understand this without “completing” the Great Work.

Correspondent: Perhaps “perfect” is a misnomer but “more well-suited” to the facilitation of the Will seems plausible.

I must disagree again. The question of the vehicle becomimg “suited” to the facilitation of it almost completely ends at physical and mental maturity. From that point it, it’s not so much a case of becoming more suited, as it is a question of just learning to listen.

Correspondent: Define ‘work’ & ‘attainment’ and how they differ and perhaps I will be able to reply adequately.

My opposition to the common usage of the term “work” arises from the tendency of the so-called “occultists” to exhort “just do your work!”, preferably “without question”, “work” here meaning yoga, ritual, divination etc etc. Regardie (whom I consider to be almost wholly worthless) made the same elementary error — he decried the obsession with “grades” (quite rightly, but for the wrong reason) with the idea that there is more than enough work in the Golden Dawn curriculum to keep one busy for a lifetime. Which would be quite right, if the objective was solely to become proficient in the Golden Dawn curriculum, which it isn’t. It is (at least from a Thelemic perspective) to discover and then carry out the will. There will (let there be no doubt) come a point (if one is successful) at which continued application at the vast majority of these practices will become completely useless, even counterproductive. To read merit into a blind and slavish following of arbitrarily prescribed practices is not a virtue, it is foolish. To do this is to do something I have already described, to run away from the real task, to take solace in the idea that you are accomplishing something with your “work”, whereas in reality you are simply evading through fear. Again, this is why I stress the importance of understanding, so that the work may be chosen and directed towards the appropriate end. This is not in conflict with “lust of result” — action must be in line with the will, goal or not.

“Attainment” is essentially what I have described, the removal of the veils which prevent one from apprehending one’s true self.

Correspondent: Its not a detaching of the ego from itself but a simple letting go of things — no releasing from anything else, just a release. How would one go about shifting “the entire seat of consciousness out of the ego, and into the ‘real’ self”?

By eliminating — or “making transparent” — the things that stop that happening naturally. It is the nature of the conscious mind that pulls the identification away from the ‘real’ self in the first place — it’s not ‘naturally’ there, it gets pulled across when the conscious mind starts to develop. It happens because the conscious mind is “too good” at its job, and starts working against itself — it is “re-entrant”, if you like. Attainment is merely (!) a matter of “fixing” that. The shift is necessary because otherwise the conscious mind will never learn to work right, and it has to work right before you can sensibly direct your own being.

Correspondent: The thing is that people’s consciousness isnt just in the Khu or Khabs by choice — it is stuck in the Khu-view of “veiled ignorance.” You make it seem as if it is just a mistake to identify with the khu and veil the khabs but this is the natural state. The work is getting rid of this veiled view to move to the view of the Khabs.

As per above, not sure I would agree it is the “natural” state. It certainly always happens in normal people, so I guess you could say it’s “natural” in that sense. The point is that the “universe” still doesn’t care whether man suffers — suffering is just more experience to the glory of Nuit. It’s only because the Khu doesn’t like it that this even becomes an issue. I can’t recall the exact words off hand (and I’m too idle to look them up right now) but “the entire subject of magick is a disease of language” summed this up.

Correspondent: They are methods that have been proven efficacious and combine & distill ideas from earlier systems — why discard them as simply arbitrary? I understand that they are one approach and that Thelema transcends these, but the idea for many is that they worked for Crowley who helped manifest Thelema so it seems reasonable to emulate his methods to an extent.

I’m not saying “discard them as simply arbitrary” — I’m saying that discrimination is necessary. Beyond that, I’m afraid I have no better answer for you that this: consider all the “occultists” who delve deeply into these systems, then ask yourself seriously how many of them you think have “attained”. You say they “have been proved efficacious” — I dispute this. I think they are more liable to lead one astray then not. Without intelligent discrimination, the longer I go the more I think that attainment happens in spite of these practices, not because of them. There is more to this than I have time to say here without rambling.

Correspondent: This seems like a somewhat Taoist idea, but doesnt the ego interefere often with the Will manifesting perfectly?

No, the ego interferes with its own ability to perceive that the Will is manifesting perfectly well without its help.

Correspondent: Isnt the idea of the work to eliminate ego to get rid of the restrictions and friction created by it & its attaachments?

No. This idea of “eliminating ego” is essentially a myth. There may be moments which can be described as “egoless”, but these are fleeting, and cannot by themselves comprise attainment. The ego is always there, and so is the friction, and so are the attachments. The idea, to stress once more, is not to remove these things, but to make them transparent. The ego may tell itself that, for instance, it is a disaster that one’s wife has left one. The difference between the man who has attained and the man who has not is that the latter man believes the ego, and the former man does not. Really, genuinely, fully, does not believe it — one little bit. Yet, for all that, it is still there.

Correspondent: Taken infinitely, it is perfect. Taken finitely, it is not.

I must disagree again. Taken finitely, it may appear imperfect, but this is a completely different thing to it actually being imperfect.

Correspondent: You state earlier that one is to transcend sorrow but hte ‘state of duality’ inherently has the idea of sorrow in it.

Sure. Sorrow is part of the perfection.

Correspondent: All actions may in turn be defined as actions of ‘love under will.’ i think we both understand that to label them restricts them in a way.

All actions may indeed be defined as actions of ‘love under will’, but this doesn’t necessarily mean they are. It doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t, either. We’re in danger of mixing up the planes again.

Here is the problem when people criticise reason: labelling is only a restriction if you are restricted by labels. Just because the road sign says “turn left to go to London”, doesn’t mean I have to go that way. Being restricted by labels is just another form of restriction that can be transcended.