[From private correspondence]

Correspondent: Could you give me a ‘definition’ of Love in concise terms as possible?

Certainly. Love is the expansion of the individual, its consciousness, and its Universe:

1. in all directions equally;
2. without partiality; and
3. free from any restriction.

We could get this shorter whilst saying an identical thing — “Love is the expansion of the individual in all directions equally.” — but we would be sacrificing clarity for the sake of conciseness in so doing.

This is described fully in Part II of the Introduction to the Book of the Law — I don’t know why people seem to enjoy deliberately and persistently failing to read this. I also cannot comprehend why anybody would voluntarily choose to live in such a tiny universe as one where “love” has anything to do with sentimentality, or, even worse, compassion, rather than with this unspeakably perfect idea.

Also, to anticipate some inane prattling, the fact that love must be “under will” does not constitute a “restriction” — love must have a subject and therefore a direction, and without this direction it cannot exist; “under will” is therefore not a concept which restricts it, but the concept that gives it its very existence. “under will” means expansion in all directions equally from the centre of the Self.

A “restriction” is anything which inhibits this omnidirectional expansion, any notion of morality whatsoever being a very obvious one. Sentimentality is another, and hate is a third. Naturally one can indulge in these things (indeed, arguably one must do so if expansion is to proceed without partiality) but one should put them back down when one is done. One may paint one’s living room green, for instance, but if one starts to believe that everything should be green one has a problem. Read the rest of this post »

The true will is the will of the individual essence of which what we commonly mistake for our selves is but the vehicle. The perceptions of this vehicle are “conditioned” by many things, social influences being one, but just the nature of its own mechanics gives rise to most of its problems. It’s not a case of unravelling the tangles in the “ego” so that it permits a smooth flow, but a case of seeing through the tangles altogether and perceiving what you really are.

It’s like spending a lifetime sitting in front of a dirty and distorted window, looking out at the world. You can try to clean the window all you like, but you are still perceiving a warped picture of the world through a window. Success in this matter is like realising you can actually get up, walk through the open door and go outside. It really is as simple that that, but the problem is that this course of action will be inconceivable to you if you’ve never looked over your shoulder and realised there’s a door back there. It isn’t that the concept or even the practice is especially more difficult than many other things, but it’s like trying to explain colour to a blind man – the chief difficulty is getting people to perceive in this way just once, and getting them to realise what they’ve done. Once they’ve done that, their chances of being able to replicate it improve enormously, since they now know what they’re trying to do.

[From private correspondence]

The key to “integrating these two minds [i.e. the conscious and subconscious minds]” is to understand exactly what is causing them to be separate in the first place. The quote I gave which was just under the one you included in your message is actually more helpful here, so I’ll repeat it:

“The Khu is the magical garment which it weaves for itself, a ‘form’ for its being beyond form, by use of which it can experience through self-consciousness…Our minds and bodies are veils of the Light within. The uninitiate is a ‘dark star’, and the Great Work for him is to make his veils transparent by ‘purifying’ them. This ‘purification’ is really ‘simplification’; it is not that the veil is dirty, but that the complexity of its folds make it opaque. The Great Work therefore consists principally in the solution of complexes.”

I’m not overly familiar with Case’s work, so the correspondences may not be exact, but you can liken the “Khabs” from AL I, 8 to the subconscious you spoke of [Note: this identification of the Khabs with the “subconscious mind” is most unsatisfactory, but the analogy was close enough given the context of the original question – EH], and the “Khu” to the conscious. The function of the Khu is to give ‘form’ to the Khabs, essentially to give it self-awareness and a directing or decision-making faculty. In order to do this, to give that sense of self-awareness, the Khu has to “veil” the true nature of the individual from its conscious self. This is why Crowley describes it as both a “garment” and a “veil”.

This is why they are separate, and this would be fine if it wasn’t for one problem: instead of acting as a tool or a vehicle for the Khabs, the Khu starts to believe it is the individual itself, turning the separation into a chasm. When this happens, the Khu stops interpreting phenomena in terms of their relationship to the true self, but in terms of itself. Correcting this process is what we really mean by “integration”.

This is all possibly better understood through some examples. Have you ever, for instance, driven to work, and when you’ve gotten there you realise you were on “automatic pilot” for the whole time? Or eaten a meal while thinking about a problem and never really tasted it? Or gone to an area of natural beauty with something else on your mind, and not appreciated what you were seeing?

In all these examples, your mind was not perceiving what was actually out there. Neither was it perceiving your subconscious or “true” self. What was it perceiving? Itself. In all these examples your mind was focusing on the images contained within itself, not on reality.

This would be annoying, but it doesn’t stop there. The real problem is not that the mind perceives itself, per se, but that it then begins to perceive itself and mistakes that perception of itself for reality. Here is where the conflicts really begin. Read the rest of this post »

[From private correspondence]

On the question of “organisation” and “legal” law — which is always a thorny issue in Thelema — legal restrictions (e.g. on the dumping of waste, to continue this example), while apparently preserving the freedoms of others can actually have the reverse effect. In the above example, the scientist “responsibly” disposed of his waste as a matter of pure practical expediency, and the objecting community acted (or would act) purely as a matter of protecting their own freedom. Once you enshrine this in legal form, and start confusing expediency with “rights”, people tend to forget the wills of both themselves and others, and this idea of “right” leads precisely to the conflicts which it was intended to solve.

Thus, restriction begets restriction, and the “protection of rights” leads only to the emasculation of the entire population. It is true that without such legal protection, people may be restricted due to a lack of power, but it is a mistake to assume that the provision of such protection is without its own cost, which may in fact be greater. After all, such legal protection leads only to a different group of people being restricted by another group with power, only this time it is the interests of some abstract principle, instead of in the interests of actual individuals.

“I have no sympathy with any regulations which interfere with the natural activities of human beings. I believe that they aggravate whatever trouble they are intended to prevent; and they create the greatest plague of humanity, officialdom, and encourage underhand conduct on both sides, furtiveness and espionage. Any law which tends to destroy manly qualities is a bad law, however necessary it may seem on the surface…But I observe with regret that humanity is being compelled to turn its attention from its proper business by having to comply with innumerable petty formalities.” The Confessions of Aleister Crowley

For instance, if we were to pose a question such as “should it be illegal — i.e. a legal offence punishable by the state — for one individual to dump toxic waste on another individual’s property” we would receive a resounding “yes!” from almost everybody we ask. My point is that this unquestionable assumption that it is a good idea to have enforceable legal rights enshrined in statute is not justified. It may prevent some “injustices”, but the net effect of the arcane and complex web of restriction which inevitably develops from this beginning may have negative effects with outweigh this prevention. In particular, it may actually increase the frequency of such injustices, since instead of accepting responsiblity for their own actions from a practical point of view all ideas of “proper” (or “practical”) conduct are now delegated to the state or to the legal system, with the result that whatever personal motivation individuals may have had for regulating their own conduct is now gone. Read the rest of this post »

[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”. Read the rest of this post »

Vilaven: Was Thelema just another expression of “choose your own path”, in so many ways?

I’d honestly struggle to think of something that is more completely opposite to what Thelema really is about than this idea.

Papanick: If it’s not exactly that, then what is it?

Let’s assume you did fall into “Will, Resh and orienting yourself towards Boleskine, etc” when it was not “appropriate” for you to do so.

Why would you do such a thing? Unless someone was holding a gun to your head, then the one and only reason you would do it was if you “chose your own path”, and that was the choice you made. Making an alternative choice to avoid what everything else is doing is no more likely to be appropriate than choosing to do what you’re told. With all the millions of alternative paths you could take, you face almost impossible odds against the one you “choose” being an appropriate one.

If people concentrated on listening to what the Universe is telling them, instead of going out of their way to “choose their own path”, then they wouldn’t make mistakes like this. The conscious mind makes choices – the self doesn’t. The essence of attainment is precisely to get the conscious mind to shut up, to stop jabbering, and to do what it’s told – not to go along with its frivolous “choices” and to make itself believe that it is “liberated”.

“Thou must (1) Find out what is thy Will. (2) Do that Will with a) one-pointedness, (b) detachment, (c) peace.” – Liber II

If one could solve (1) by simply “choosing” what one’s Will is, Thelema would be a pretty stupid and pointless philosophy.

“It is the apotheosis of Freedom; but it is also the strictest possible bond. Do what thou wilt–then do nothing else.” – Liber II

It sometimes staggers me that people who like to think they know a thing or two about Thelema can, after all this time, still mistake “Do what thou wilt” for “Do yer own thang”. This isn’t Wicca. Read the rest of this post »

Aum418:It is necessary that we stop, once for all, this ignorant meddling with other people’s business. Each individual must be left free to follow his own path…the original brand of American freedom — which really was Freedom — contained the precept to leave other people severely alone, and thus assured the possibility of expansion on his own lines to every man.“

One thing I think people need to bear in mind when reading Crowley is that sometimes he deals with what he considers to be “truth”, and sometimes with things that just reflect his values, and its not always apparent which of the two it is. For instance, “Each individual must be left free to follow his own path” – I personally agree with this completely, but I do not think there is some quality inherent in the fabric of the universe which requires us to do this. I see no such quality to support any moral statement whatsoever, which is why I say such statements have no truth value.

The very first quote in the “new comment” is “The theogony of our Law is entirely scientific”. To me, what sets Thelema apart from other philosophies is exactly this, that it is based wholly in reality. To take one example, a Christian might be happy accepting a statement like “Thou shalt not kill” without further question, but if we are to construct a philosophy based in reality (which, to me, is the only kind of philosophy which can be considered “worthwhile”) then we cannot accept such a commandment unless there is a compelling reason in reality for why it must be so. My opinion is that in its ultimate interpretation, Liber AL expounds just such a philosophy.

Thus, while I can personally stand entirely behind a statement such as “Each individual must be left free to follow his own path”, I cannot go further and say that one absolutely “must” or “should” do this as a matter of dogma. So when Crowley says “It is necessary that we stop, once and for all, this ignorant meddling with other people’s business” I do not accept that “necessary” in that case is the same sense in which “Thou hast no right but to do thy will” represents a physical necessity. I interpret it as having an unspoken qualifier along the lines of “It is necessary….unless you want to be a complete and contemptible ass”, which is unashamedly a value statement. Read the rest of this post »

Aum418: Really, I should have said ‘The highest Sin in Thelema is to restrict Will’ (including self as well as others).

This would indeed have been better, but I still don’t think it’s right.

“The word of Sin is Restriction” indeed, but there is nothing herein that suggests that “restriction” means “to restrict the will of others”. There is nothing within that quote itself which suggests it means “to restrict one’s own will”, either, but when considered together with the injunction “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law” then it’s pretty clear to me that is what it means. (Also, note obviously “Do what thou wilt”, not “Let do what someone else wilt”).

That being said, the idea that “one should not restrict the will of another” is itself a restriction on one’s will, means that I find it completely impossible to get anything even remotely along the lines of “thou shalt not restrict the will of another” from that verse. What’s more, the rest of the verse, and the (say) ten verses either side of it contain absolutely no suggestion whatsoever of such a concept. Indeed, “Do that, and no other shall say nay” two verses later implies the exact opposite.

Aum418: “41, 42. Interference with the will of another is the great sin, for it predicates the existence of another. In this duality sorrow consists. I think that possibly the higher meaning is still attributed to will.”

This is from the “Old Comment” as you know. Let’s look back to the last time in Chapter I that restriction is mentioned:

AL I, 22: “Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt.”

Compare this last sentence with “…it predicates the existence of another. In this duality sorrow consists”. They are two very similar ways of saying exactly the same thing.

What this is saying is that “interference with the will of another” is not “sinful”, in the sense that it is “bad” or “morally objectionable”, but that it is erroneous. The concept of “interference with the will of another” requires this predication of duality. Similarly, the idea that one can “interfere with the will of another” creates this predication of duality, and we are expressly told in I:22 not to do this. Therefore, to perpetuate the idea that one should not (or even that one can) interfere in the will of another is to perpetuate this idea of duality, which we are told not to do.

Therefore this statement that “Interference with the will of another is the great sin” does not mean that “[it is a] Sin in Thelema is to restrict the Will of another”, but that by “Binding nothing”, by accepting and contacting all impressions (“love under will”, again) and making “no difference…between any one thing & any other thing” then the “interference” disappears. It is the interference that is the “hurt that cometh thereby”.

In short, what this comment actually says is the the idea you should not “interfere” is itself a restriction and that this is the real “sin”. It does not support the idea that “The highest Sin in Thelema is to restrict the Will of another” – it directly contradicts it. Read the rest of this post »

magispiegel: The fact that you mention, that it is just a matter of making slight querky changes to the petty ego…(doing this, doing that etc.) and then Kaboomm!, Realisation! Godhead!… you have made contact with your ‘Magickal Will’!, Erm. No. The attainment of the Magickal Will is an occult process, it is an alchemical process…it is more than just, doing and unfolding your self/nature/inner child in a Liber Ozian way.

There are a number of elementary errors in your reasoning that have led you to both your faulty observation and to your faulty conclusion, which I will describe for you.

Your first error is your assumption that if something is simple to describe, or simple to understand, then it must be simple to do. This is a fallacy. I could, within the space of an hour, give you a pretty clear understanding of how an airplane works and how its major systems function, but if you went up and tried to fly one on your own armed with just that knowledge you would die. Similarly, if you went straight out and tried to build one your logical error would become immediately clear to you.

Yet, such an understanding would nevertheless give you an idea of your goal as you embark on the path of learning to do either of these things which will help keep you on track. If you try to design an airplane, for instance, without the knowledge that you are ultimately going to have to stick a 300 lb engine in the nose then you’re going to be designing some pretty strangely behaving birds.

I have already given you two examples of Crowley doing exactly what I am doing here, stating plainly and simply what the nature of (in this case) KCHGA is. I can understand you not wanting to believe me, and even though you have little interest in Thelema your presence here suggests that you have some interest in Crowley, so maybe it would help you to believe him instead of me.

Your second error is in your argument that you do not believe the true will can be described prosaically (I’m correcting your other error here) because it is not itself prosaic. This is a meaningless and circular statement that can be restated simply as “I believe the true will is something mysterious”. If I say “I can explain something previously believed to be mysterious in simple and plain terms”, you cannot sensibly counter that with “no you can’t, because I believe it to be mysterious”. If you really wanted to give a serious argument as to why it cannot be described plainly, you would have to give convincing reasons as to why that should be the case. In order to give those reasons, you’d have to explain simply what it’s nature is, and why it cannot be described so simply. Do you see the trap your reasoning is keeping you in? For you to convincing argue that I cannot describe the true will simply you would have to describe it simply in order to demonstrate that argument. The fact that you either cannot or will not do this means your entire argument here can be reworded simply as “I just refuse to believe you, Erwin, I will not believe you and that’s that”. You must be able to understand how this approach is not going to convince many people. Read the rest of this post »

magispiegel: The Keys to the Magick of the ‘Will’ are not found in the stanzas that you have quoted above, but are found through the study of the science of the occult forces which exist within our being…the occult anatomy.

Now this is exactly what I am talking about. All this flowery talk about “the study of the science of the occult forces which exist within our being” needs to end. It’s an excuse for people to avoid facing up to the task in front of them.

Anybody interested in following the path of Thelema (and, to be fair, you have freely admitted that you are not one of them) needs to:

a) Determine their will; and

b) Carry it out.

To accomplish (a), you need to know (or at least approach an understanding of) what the true will actually is, or you are just wallowing in illusion and woolly thinking. Reducing it to “occult forces which exist within our being” is just another way of saying “I have no idea what it is, I don’t want to know (because then I might actually have to do it, which may force me to face reality which could be uncomfortable for me), but I want to think I’m doing it – because I like feeling all warm and fuzzy inside – so I’m going to call it mysterious names like ‘occult forces’ so that whilst I can be assured that I never will actually have to face it, I can pretend to myself that I am, since I know in advance I will never be able to say anything sensible about it so I don’t have to feel bad that I can’t”. It’s mindless escapism, a way for you to forever evade failure by agreeing up front with yourself to stay well away from the issue. This has always been the bane of the occult community – a pronounced desire to put romantic mediaeval notions of arcane and foolish wizardry ahead of actual efforts, work and understanding.

You can complain about “exotericism” and “dry psycho-social manifestation” all you like, but let there be no doubt here: the proper domain of the magician, the student of the occult, call it what you like, is the investigation of reality. If the true will is part of reality, then it is something definite, and it can (at least potentially) be described in simple and concise terms. If it is not part of reality, then we should have nothing to do with it. You don’t build bridges or generate electricity by prattling on about “occult forces” and “subtle alchemy”, and you won’t discover your true will by doing that, either. This may offend the glamorous illusions in your mind about what it is you think (or choose not to think) you really are doing, but since the aim is to approach reality as we have already stated, then disenfranchising you from that nonsense is a good thing.

If there is going to be any serious attempt to advance the practice of magick, and to make “spiritual attainment” more accessible, then this has to be understood. This exchange is a good example. For all your talk of “subtle alchemy” you have contributed precisely nothing to the question of what the true will actually is, because your “study of the science of the occult forces” has given you no understanding of the matter; if it had, you would be able to discuss the concept sensibly. This alone should be sufficient to demonstrate the correctness of my position – if you deliberately choose to ignore addressing the question of what the true will actually is, your chances of ever discovering yours approach zero.

You have, on the other hand, provided an excellent illustration of why such an investigation is necessary for someone who has any hopes of attainment, and of where people can expect to end up if they don’t heed this advice, and for that your contribution was valuable.