93 Erwin,

I enjoyed this, especially the part about the mind: “the mind has evolved as a tool for survival, not as a tool for engendering personal happiness. Once we are freed from the need to constantly just survive, the brain starts applying its modus operandi to things it was never “meant” to deal with in the first place, and accordingly starts going haywire.”

That is an interesting evolutionary perspective on the mind’s troubles.

Secondly, I am not sure if you are familiar with Hindu metaphysics although it seems you would at least be familiar with Vivekananda’s Raja Yoga & Patanjali’s Yogasutra (which are included & commented upon in Raja Yoga)… In this they draw a dichotomy between Purusha (which literally translated means “man” but is the cognate to Adam Kadmon, the cosmic man…). Purusha is the “essence,” “unconditioned,” etc. and it manifests through the Prakriti which is understood essentailly as the universe as we know it, matter, etc. Its made up of the three gunas (active, passive, neutral) which always turn, etc. This seems to be a correlation to the Khabs (star, essence) and Khu (universe, possibilities). As for Hadit & Nuit, there is an interesting correlary in Advaita Hinduism of Atman = Brahman which seems to correlate well in some respects and not so well in others, but the Purusha=Khabs; Prakriti=Khu seems to fit almost exactly.

Would you say that the Khabs can exist without the Khu? Does the term Khabs only make sense in relation to a Khu? Would you say the Khu is understood as “illusion” in the Thelemic tradition? (I know it ‘hides’ the real essence but this hiding seems to be part of the natural way of things, and reveals ourselves to ourselves)…

65 & 210,
IAO131

Why do you feel its necessary to assert a new dichotomy of Khabs/Khu when Hadit (core of the star anyways) and Nuit (all Khu-possibilities) already have a dichotomy that does not seem so dualist/divided? i.e. its easy to conceive of Nuit & Hadit as two aspects of one thing but Khabs/Khu seem to specifically about separating one from the other, like Jnana yogis who separate what is real (eternal) from the illusory (non-eternal, i.e. everything thats not purusha/atman/brahman).

Firstly, this is not a “new” dichotomy; it was first advanced by Crowley in the new comment to AL I, 8. That aside, the fundamental reason I assert it is because it’s there. I’m not trying to invent new and confusing dualistic ways of thinking about things, here; I’m describing something that’s actually out there. The fact is that there is an experiential vehicle of the individual – the Khu – which does not (at least fully) describe the individual – the Khabs – and that this gives rise to what are considered to be problems. Whether or not something else “does not seem so dualist/divided” is beside the point; I’m trying to describe fact.

Moreover, the Nuit/Hadit combination doesn’t work here. Hadit is not the “core of the star” except insofar as he’s the principle behind the idea of the point. It’s Ra-Hoor-Khuit that is actually the core of any individual star. Also, Nuit can’t sensibly be reduced to “all Khu-possibilities”, since the development of the Khu (metaphysically) was created for the purposes of growth through experience, which is something Nuit cannot by herself do, for all her potential.

Ultimately, the existence of the Khu gives rise to the appearance of dualism, and this appearance at least is manifestly in existence. As such, denying the “reality” of it, whilst arguable from a metaphysical standpoint, is not particularly helpful from a practical standpoint. The Khabs/Khu distinction as I describe it and as Crowley described it is practically useful.

Would you say that the Khabs can exist without the Khu?

In a sense. The Khabs represents the individual object, so any object that does not have self-awareness (such as rocks) could be said to have a Khabs but not a Khu. However, the boundary between “individual” and “not-individual” is purely a function of perception and thought, so without the existence of any Khus in the universe at all, there’d be nothing capable of drawing such boundaries, so we could say that no Khabs exist, either. The Khabs really only has reality as a mental construct, ultimately.

It’s one of those areas where you have to acquiesce in the illusion for it to make sense, and it’s an acquiescence that one should be able to pick up and put down at will. Like the rest of the “magical alphabet,” it’s a convention made for convenience, and should be put to one side during the times when it becomes an inconvenience.

Would you say the Khu is understood as “illusion” in the Thelemic tradition?

Well, the sense of separateness is an illusion, and the Khu contains the mind which is the generator of other illusions, but it’s not an illusion in itself. I don’t think the postulate “Khu is illusion” parses very well; the concept of Khu is not equivalent to the concept of illusion in general.

(I know it ‘hides’ the real essence but this hiding seems to be part of the natural way of things, and reveals ourselves to ourselves)

It certainly is “part of the natural way of things,” and the original post tries to explain why this is so. This really has to be the case; if not, then we have little alternative but to postulate the existence of some kind of punisher god who gave us unnatural attributes in retribution for some kind of transgression, which is what the Abrahamic religions did. If anything, it is the quest for enlightenment itself which is “unnatural,” because as I described that does not appear to be the evolutionary purpose of consciousness. The quest for enlightenment can be likened to trying to hammer in a nail with a spoon; the tool is unsuited to the task, and it’s going to be a tricky and long-winded process, but it can be done, and if a spoon is the only tool you have, then you don’t have much of an option other than to just tolerate an unhammered nail for the rest of time.

Secondly, I am not sure if you are familiar with Hindu metaphysics although it seems you would at least be familiar with Vivekananda’s Raja Yoga & Patanjali’s Yogasutra

I have a passing familiarity with them, but I’ve never been able to get much out of them. I find the whole approach in general, and the terminology in particular, really quite off-putting. The Hindu approach just doesn’t appeal to me as much as others do, so I don’t bother spending much time with it. I’m not particularly keen on Buddhist doctrine, either, with the notable exception of Zen which I understood and embraced the moment I came across it, along with Taoism. I do think the Dhammapada is instructive and valuable, though.

I meant new as in a dichotomy had already been established in the very first line.

You’ve lost me. First line of what?

What are you talking about? Liber AL II:6. “I am the flame that burns in every heart of man, and in the core of every star.”

Yes, in the core, not am the core. Hadit has to be in the core because the idea of the point is required before we can have cores in the first place. For instance, atoms are in apples, and must be in apples, but apples are not atoms. Hadit is unmanifest, and cannot “be” anything at all. Refer to Chapter 0 of Magick in Theory and Practice.

So Khabs is eternal and Khu is temporal, i.e. it is “created”? I know Nuit cannot do it by herself, hence the “possibilies” part of the phrase.

Not exactly. It is the experience generated by the Khu that is created, and not contained within the potential of Nuit (although, obviously, the potential for experience was always there). The Khu is as real and as eternal as the Khabs, it’s the phantasms of awareness that the Khu generates that are illusory.

Is the Khu “separate” from the Khabs?

Yes, from the point of view of the Khu.

Why worship the Khabs to the exclusion of the Khu if we are to “Bind nothing!”??

Because that is exactly the method of “binding nothing.” The function of the Khu is to discriminate, to draw distinctions, that’s precisely how it allows for the acquisition of experience. You cannot be successful in “binding nothing” if you “worship” the Khu, i.e. if you give credence to the reality of those distinctions. Again, the injunction to worship the Khabs “to the exclusion of the Khu” is given to the individual in a state of duality already, so is not problematic for this reason. You can’t ignore duality until you are able to ignore duality. Don’t mix the planes.

How do you see this being ‘practically useful’ especially in light of the Bind nothing! injunction?

For the above reasons – it indicates the method.

Nowhere does it say in Liber AL that rocks are stars. It is specifically stated that Every MAN and every WOMAN is a star.

It doesn’t say that rocks aren’t, either. In particular, it doesn’t say that stars are stars, although they clearly are.

Does your final remark mean that Khabs only has ‘meaning’ in relation to the Khu (which we normally find ourselves functioning ‘in’)?

It means that, without the Khu, the distinction could not be drawn and the label could not be given. Rocks don’t go around calling themselves “Khabs” or anything else; only self-aware people do that. “I have omitted to say that the whole subject of Magick is an example of Mythopoeia in that particular form called Disease of
Language” – Magick in Theory and Practice.

If it wasn’t for the existence of the Khu, we would not be able to perceive the Khabs, we wouldn’t be aware of its existence, and we wouldn’t be able to label it. It would be not only a completely unnecessary concept, but a completely impossible one.

Indeed. In what situations do you see this dichotomy becoming an inconvenience?

When actually succeeding in “binding nothing” is the obvious situation. It would have to be abandoned just prior to success.

What if we use the term “Initiation” or “Great Work” or “Individuation” or “Growth” instead of “enlightenment” and use Crowley’s definition of this in one place: “the Great Work is the raising of the whole man in perfect balance to the power of Infinity”… This seems ‘evolutionary’ by most standards.

I think this is a misconception that a lot of people have. Many people believe that evolution is a process of progressive “perfection,” that is moving us slowly towards some “better” state. It isn’t. Evolution is dumb, and purposeless. It doesn’t promote successful organisms, it kills unsuccessful ones.

For instance, it may be supposed that a lion is a “better” organism than a gazelle, since the former eats the latter, but this is clearly not the evolutionary case, since gazelles continue to survive. Man, for all his supposed advances, still manages to get himself killed at the hands of the humble microbe. He may be the dominant species, but if he exercises that dominance and kills all the rest, he’ll die, too.

Evolution over time has certainly given rise to greater complexity, and this is fundamental to the laws of physics, as the universe has developed in the same way, contradicting the ideas of the creationist. But it is a mistake to equate this increased complexity with progress along a scale of “betterness” or “perfection”.

The individual genetic mutations that cause evolution are random, and the vast majority of them are in fact aberration, and harmful. Occasionally, a mutation will leave an organism with slightly better chances of survival than his compatriots, and this will increase the probability of that mutation being passed on through genetic reproduction. If the environmental circumstances change to dictate it, those without this mutation will not survive, or simple competition from those with it will settle the matter. If circumstances change again, that mutation can itself become a barrier to survival.

Take the case of the giraffe. Popular legend states that the giraffe’s long neck enabled it to eat leaves which were higher up than other organisms could reach, so as they scrabbled below competing for food, the giraffe could leisurely eat from the treetops. If these groundmunches ate all the leaves down there, and the giraffes were enormously successful as a result, we could imagine the development of a reverse situation, where treetops were bare and there was a wealth of food on the grounds. In such a case, shorter necks would be an advantage. Of course, this doesn’t describe any actual evolutionary process that the world has seen, but it illustrates the point; evolution results in organisms suited to a changing environment, not organisms which are “better” than previous versions were.

But also my favorite have been the Bhagavad Gita

I should have mentioned this also, as this was one of my first texts, too, and in fact Krishna’s dismissal of Arjuna’s reasons for wavering on the battlefield were instrumental in clarifying to me the philosophy which I am expounding today. I have nothing against Hindu philosophy, it’s just that other approaches suit me better. There may be a lot of parallels, but parallels are parallels; they explain the same thing, and so whilst a comparative study can certainly be interesting and enlightening, it’s not necessary for understanding, unless one way makes sense to you and the other doesn’t.

Liber AL vel Legis. “Had! The manifestation of Nuit.” Had/Nuit is a dichotomy. Is that clear enough for you?

Well, in that case, in answer to the question “Why do you feel its necessary to assert a new dichotomy of Khabs/Khu,” I don’t. AL does it itself, in I, 8.

I really have no idea what you are talking about here. To worship the Khabs to the exclusion of anything is not “Bind[ing] nothing!” let alone the entirety of our universe to our normal perception.

Along this erroneous line of reasoning, “binding nothing” is impossible, since it implies excluding binding anything, such exclusion being in itself a “bind”. “Worship” and “perception” are also quite different concepts, and cannot be equated. You might as well ask “how could one possibly attain to Dhyana by focusing on one thought to the exclusion of all others, since to do so is to affirm duality?”

Why would worshipping what the Khu perceives to be the Khabs help anymore than the normal technique of hte “Scarlet Woman” whcih is teh acceptance of all impressions in themselves and Binding nothing, dualistically understood or not.

Now it’s my turn to have no idea what you are saying. Where is this idea of “worshipping what the Khu perceives to be the Khabs” coming from? The Khabs as a concept relies on the Khu for it to arise, but the things that the concept refers to are real.

To make sense of your paragraph for you, the two things you are describing here are the same thing. Your “scarlet woman” technique of accepting all impressions is equivalent to worshipping the Khabs, since it is the Khu that discriminates, and rejects impressions. The Khabs doesn’t do this. “Worship” is “homage paid to God,” and to worship the Khabs is to act like it does, by the process of non-discrimination.

I believe its because it goes withotu saying that stars are stars

It also goes without saying that all individual objects have individuality, which is what Khabs is.

Crowley writes: “Evolution demands exceptional individuals…

Yes, Crowley’s understanding of evolution was poor.

Thats making a comparison outside yourself. The lion isnt ‘better’ than the gazelle, btu the lion can become stronger, healthier, grow wiser, etc. and evolve in himself. That the point.

Indeed, but this latter process is not evolution; it’s self-development. The macro-evolutionary process has no such purpose; or, indeed, any purpose.

Crowley writes: “This is also a general Law of Biology, for all Development is Structuralization…” It doesnt necessarily mean ‘better,’ but if the ego can handle more information, structuralize/integrate it, it becomes able to adapt more easily/naturally to more diverse circumstances.

Indeed, but again, this is not evolution at work, unless you are talking about the evolutionary increase in the capacity of the mind. If so, again it is just chance mutations which survive because they happen to be suited to their environment. It’s not some kind of progression to get a particular point; it’s just change.

Here’s a good example of what I’m saying:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm

This article speculates that the human race may split in two as a result of evolution, with a genetic upper class and “‘underclass’ humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.” It speculates further that even the upper class humans may peak in the next 1,000 years, before beginning to retrograde themselves due to a reliance on technology. Whilst this is pure speculation, it’s an example of how evolution could result in species less able to adapt to circumstances, not more able.

Does a person have individuality?

If he doesn’t, then he isn’t an individual object. My statement is true by definition.

If so, does it end at their respective bodeis and minds?

It ends at the boundaries that the Khu gives to it.

Is the fact that rocks in themselves are composed of mostly atoms which are mostly empty space mean that somehow they are individual on an arbitray level?

Yes, the Khu arbitrarily assigns individual boundaries for them. Just like I said, the Khabs as a concept has no meaning without the Khu, because it is the Khu that makes the distinction between “individual” and “not-individual”. Without this distinction, there’s just “stuff”, and nothing to distinguish one group of stuff from another group of stuff.

Individuality is a product of the Khu. That, from a Thelemic metaphysical perspective, is its primary function.

I would call that devolution, not evolution.

That’s because “evolution” in your mind contains an idea of progression. Actual biological evolution contains no such idea. “Evolution” is simply “development”, which is a series of connected changes. There are no restrictions on the direction in which that development must proceed.

It’s interesting to note that the model of the origins of the universe which describes the universe developing from a “primordial fireball” to the clumps of cooled galaxies that we see today is a development from a highly ordered state down to a less ordered state. It’s the second law of thermodynamics at work, and it’s completely opposite to what most people would conceive of as “progress”.