Thelema

[RPSTOVAL]

Well, not being a Thelemite anymore (or was this not a recent change...?). And also, if I haven't got you wrong, I thought you prefered the Caliphate interpretation to the Typhonian...

It happened quite a few months ago.
No, I rejected (when I was a Thelemite) much of Caliphate and even Crowley himself's interpretations and conclusions (I don't believe in the HGA, being "higher self" or otherwise). I was coming to Thelema from two angles: Islamic in my view of Aiwass (that it is a force beyond Crowley's mind, that it was from God), and Hindu in my view of the deities and much of the theological/metaphysical/philosophical aspects.

I very much respect Kenneth Grant combined with any other successor of Crowley, as he had the balls to explore things instead of simply being another Crowley fan or rehasher.
Thelema was serious for me, as it was my religion - I loathed people claiming it to only be a philosophy, it seemed like a complete cop-out, a safe way to defend their interest in Crowley's work (in their perspective).
For me, I felt Crowley was very mislead in much of his interpretation of Liber Legis and the "Thelema" he build around it, still I loved many of his writings.
The Book Of Lies is still a favorite piece of literature/poetry/aphorism/riddles but I have since tried to stay away from Thelema and have rejected it completely and Crowley himself (I even took all my Crowley books of my bookcase and put them away). And Liber Legis, I have practically memorized from reading it as much as I have, I have sections of it pop up in my mind on a daily basis still - I can't get it out.

During the period of leaving it behind, I explored Sufism with great immersion for a while but have settled into a splash of the three things that sit comfortably with my natural way of seeing the world; Hinduism, Hermeticism and Discordianism. But I am at the moment mostly letting religion, spirituality, philosophy and the occult sit quietly in the background in my life at the moment.

To restate however, I really have deep respect for Kenneth Grant. I never agreed on a lot of his own conclusions or connections but found him to be an invaluable writer, who alone can send you off into further study elsewhere. Michael Bertiaux was also someone I had quite a bit of respect for, in spite of also not agreeing largely with. Both of them in a sense, explore the conceptual depth of Thelema and go down the rabbit hole. It scares (or even embarrasses) many Thelemites because they have a balance between crazy (Thelema itself) and sane (public appearance and perception) they are trying to keep up. Thelema really isn't your average coffee conversation, so dressing it up in psychological pseudo-intellectual talk to make up for that certain anxiety is obviously gonna make them more self-comforted that they don't have really wacky beliefs
Kenneth Grant takes away that safety net completely. In a way, Kenneth Grant is MORE loyal to what Thelema is than all of modern Thelema but at the same time, he is completely off.


As far as Thelema communities (online and not) go, the less I say the better

[RPSTOVAL]

Even though this is much a matter of opinion, I think it's slightly rude to underrate the effect of religious impulse in one's work. I personalyl see that there is, to a certain amount, a level of religiousness in Thelema also. This, I think, should be respected, amongst it's other qualities.

You are right and around the time I wrote this, I was coming out of religious following of it. I don't actually think that it's a philosophical or psychological system fundamentally whatsoever, but philosophy and psychology can be derived from it, like every other thing.
I think throughout it is religious (people can quote "there is no God but man" all they damn well please but it only shows an anti-religious bias and a selective preference to ignore the blatantly religious aspect of 99% of Thelema).
Some people take the deities (Nuit, Hadit, Ra-Hoor-Khuit + Aiwass) as only metaphors but it's just a defense mechanism. The three deities of Liber AL are theologically GOD, or composites of. There is the polarity, then there is the image, then there is the voice. I can't take atheistic Thelema seriously (even as a non-Thelemite now).
Many people for some reason, come into Thelema out of spite for Christianity, so they use it as a way to bury their angst but in the core of Thelema, is the concept that God is an interpenetrant force that pervades all of the universe and beyond, which we are microscopic reflections of ("stars"). It connects with the Kabbalistic and Hermetic (as well as Hindu) conceptions that man is a primitive physical manifestation of God that can evolve/transcend to be God through the study and attainment of Gnosis of the full nature of reality itself. But Thelema (I'm leaning more to Crowley on this than to the contents of Liber AL, which only hints) goes further to say that we are already God (in the finite, microcosmic) but don't realize it.

You are right (in one of your other comments) that it is ancient knowledge, which sort of questions the usefulness of Thelema (to me) as a unique entity. The most important parts of Thelema are actually present in the traditions of Hinduism, quite literally even going as far for Crowley to directly include Hindu rituals and practices in his writings.

I disagree with Crowley's "Aeon Of Horus" theory, I think rather (in consideration, as a non-believer now) that Liber AL Vel Legis (being the only text that truly matters in the end - to Thelema) is a return to Vedic Magick, to Vedic freedom and worship - but 'the gods' are different. Thelema is not a step forward, but a step back before ("the word of sin is restriction") spiritual oppression, before the time where dogma and fierce laws where built around spirituality (Christianity - not that I actually personally dislike the scriptures themselves), back to pagan worship in a sense. This current century has fast forwarded developments to an astounding pace but then, the destruction of the Libary Of Alexandria similarly threw us back many many centuries of human knowledge

The concept of "Will" (or "True Will") is a religious BELIEF, as is "Aeon Of Horus". I can never agree with anyone who asserts Thelema to be just a dressed up philosophy or psychological practice, it isn't, it's a religious belief. Of course, there is nothing wrong with religious belief.

[obnoxion]

Thank you for elaborating, RPSTOVAL!

I know next to nothing about the Thelemic community. When I was immersed in the serious study of Crowley, Grant and others, it was a solitary venture in line with the Typhonian tradition. And I sort of shy away from the DuQuette-style easy-going, fun-loving approach, because - as you said - I considered it shallow and I grew weary of the constant jokes. And there is nothing wrong with funny - I mean, Robert Anton Wilson was a riot, and I loved his work.

Anyway, your criticism sounds quite legit.

[RPSTOVAL]

It seems Twin Peaks is quite Thelemic, because I see the new season through the glasses of Jack Parsons & Hubbard's Workings in the Agape Lodge in Pasadena, what finally lead to Babalon Working, which had many results and manifestations, but one was the answer "2017 is the year one for Babalon" - the same year than TP 3rd season came out.

As I've said previously, it's one of the events in occult history that really intrigues me. But it does make me curious why all of a sudden it is being included in particular media (Ridley Scott has apparently got a bio-period piece coming out soon about it to.....)

Which is indeed out now.

Strange Angel




The show (so far) has surprised me. It's not a great representation of Thelema itself (as most Thelemites pre-2018 would've said about Jack Parsons himself - he's mostly been ridiculed in the past, including by Crowley himself, despite having an incredible but tragic life story) but it's turning out to be a very entertaining ride. I've seen all current 9 episodes so far (apparently there are only 10 in the first season) and don't have much to complain about, aside from that it's not at all an accurate portrayal and takes many creative liberties. It's best to see it as it's own thing.

[RPSTOVAL]

Thank you for elaborating, RPSTOVAL!

I know next to nothing about the Thelemic community. When I was immersed in the serious study of Crowley, Grant and others, it was a solitary venture in line with the Typhonian tradition. And I sort of shy away from the DuQuette-style easy-going, fun-loving approach, because - as you said - I considered it shallow and I grew weary of the constant jokes. And there is nothing wrong with funny - I mean, Robert Anton Wilson was a riot, and I loved his work.

Anyway, your criticism sounds quite legit.

I initially liked that DuQuette was a seemingly happy, cheerful fellow but after a while I realized that he was a completely vapid - both intellectually/scholarly and spiritually devoid of any value, aside from offering cheap summary packs of Thelema and Kabbalah without adding any substance or valuable insight, similarly with even younger guys like IAO131 which take a psychological, pseudo-Jungian reductionist approach - it's just worthless IMO.

I give DuQuette props for Chicken Quabalah, it's a funny book in areas but it's better (for any eager Kabbalist) to actually put in the hard yards, grab Sepher Yetzirah (and other foundational Kabbalistic texts) and learn it in depth.


Robert Anton Wilson is a truely brilliant writer, both for the humor and for the maze of synchronicity and connection his work entails. Like Spare, Crowley before him, Grant after him, Wilson forms a massive world around him which we get completely immersed in as he does, in his books. Class act, original man, someone to look up to.




I do feel to an extent, that I am starting to come around to Thelema again (still, non-orthodox). Liber AL Vel Legis, (however recognized it may be within occultism) is a religious/sacred text beyond the words on the pages. It's something else. I mentioned several things earlier in my recent re-appearance here but I'll add that Thelema itself is a convergence of so many things that came before - but not in a derivative sense - in a fully successional manner. Liber AL Vel Legis marks the unification of what was once scattered, in other words:
Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Ancient Egyptian Religion, Judaism, Islam/Sufism, Taoism, Hermeticism etc etc etc - are all the same thing, underlying all of them is the truth about the universe - as dogmatic as that may sound.
Orthodox Thelema contains this but it's not spoken about generally by the average Thelemite.
There is this image among the general occult and LHP community that Thelema is opposed to Christianity (all the 'slave morality' stuff) but one will find quickly when studying Legis, The Book Of Lies and OTO °IX (Liber 100) that Thelema is a fulfillment of the true Christianity (as opposed to many of the bastardized versions of it we get today) - one could very much say that Jesus' message in the Gospels was "Do What Thou Wilt" and "Love Is The Law".
Keeping in mind, I am also talking about Gnostic Christianity too - which also leads to how the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica IS what the title suggests, it is a Gnostic church. This is not atheistic or psychological stuff. It's more than Christianity though, it's all those things I mentioned above combined - from Hinduism to Zoroastrianism to Ancient Egypt, to ancient Greece, to Islam to Hermeticism - it's all Thelema's backbone and leads to Aiwass' call to arms for mankind to rediscover what has been lost for so long. And so forth.

[Kenazis]

And I sort of shy away from the DuQuette-style easy-going, fun-loving approach, because - as you said - I considered it shallow and I grew weary of the constant jokes. And there is nothing wrong with funny - I mean, Robert Anton Wilson was a riot, and I loved his work.

It has been interesting to read this Thelema thread. About DuQuette: I've read many of his books and liked them. I don't see him such a "bad light" as is presented here (in this thread). DuQuette's books are entertaining and includes useful information. However, I'm also going with fra Obnoxion here. This fun-loving approach turns against itself and the more you read DuQuette's books, the more you see the shallow and superficial aspect of them. It seems that DuQuette has found it easy just to write with his humorous style to his fanbase and has forgotten the continual study to deepen his understanding, more and more. Good reading for start - or better than many - because I think the information is pretty valid and not erroneous. But if you really want to understand things, after the easy ladders, go to the source.

[obnoxion]

Good reading for start - or better than many - because I think the information is pretty valid and not erroneous.

I suppose DuQuette is a good place to begin for many, who are mainly interested in practice.