Posts

Showing posts from May, 2014

Aiwaz—Minister Zero

Image
Originally published November 3, 2009



Who or what is Aiwass, or as Crowley eventually called him, Aiwaz?

What, if any, place does he have in the Thelemic pantheon, or the Thelemic hierarchy of powers?

Is his position actual, or implied? For example, is Aiwaz actually head of the Thelemic Church, such as that exists? There is evidence that Crowley understood Aiwaz to be like a Priest-King figure, whose authority in dictating the Law of the Aeon of Horus was unquestionable, and unbearably true, meaning that one who stood against Aiwaz and his authority, which even Crowley attempted to do, would be broken—Will contra will.

And how can these things be true, if Aiwaz was merely a figment of Aleister Crowley's imagination, or less than this, a literary metaphor used to feign an authority for a piece of occult writing? The latter is certainly an occult tradition, and Crowley was well aware of it, but if that is all it is, then how can we explain Crowley's lifelong devotion to promot…

Between a Rock and a Soft Spot

Originally published October 24, 2009

I am having a multi-venue discussion now about these questions of Thelema as religion, and how it might relate or not to other religions, especially Christianity. By the way, Keith418, if you have something to offer on these points, pro or con, offer it here as well, so I can reply.

The following is something I posted to my Facebook wall. The reference below to Jesus' lesson is in reply to someone who made this claim—that it could be summed up in part as an encouragement to be more than we let ourselves be.:


In Christianity and Thelema, which we should recall are respective heresies of an older tradition, there is an idea that is central, and which is generally ignored by alleged adherents. This is the idea of surrender, and of diminishment and indeed destruction of self to serve the Great Work.

I think if Jesus' lesson was that we can be more than we let ourselves be, it would not be much different than the US Army's "Be All Y…

On and Over

Christ says love your enemy. Christians instead kill them.

Crowley says "Do what thou wilt." Thelemites can't find the "thou" to do that.

The Way speaks once, and then moves on and over.

(jk)—akagfw

Thelema—Religion or Philosophy?

Originally posted October 21, 2009

No, I don't intend to give you a deep scourging in answering this perennial question. In fact, the question was once again asked a few weeks ago on a Facebook group, and I answered it concisely, and in a manner I thought might be helpful to people wanting to cut to some kind of chase.

So, I will repost it here:

This question gets asked a lot, and the same answers given:

1. Religion.
2. Philosophy.
3. Both.
4. Neither.
5. Something else (additionally or instead)).

So, what gets learned or settled?

What makes something a religion?
What makes something a philosophy?

Greek philosophers were rejecting or avoiding a religious worldview and adopting another brand, which invited skeptical inquiry and disputation.

I think most philosophers would be bothered and find dubious a commandment such as "Do what thou wilt", especially given its alleged origin, a praeternatural entity. They would not only want to know why such a commandment is correct fo…

The Pinheaded Inquisition

Originally posted July 3, 2009

I saw today where somebody was arguing against the Thelemic legitimacy of Kenneth Grant. As you may know, Grant's ideas are a little (or a lot) heretical to some Thelemites, and also Grant for many years stood in opposition to the authority of the organization anointed by a couple of Old Aeon magistrates as the OTO.

No matter how you may view Grant or his ideas, I thought this rebuke of him was particularly silly:
"Occultism which wallows in and derives itself from fiction can have no possible relevance to any but the mentally ill." To which I replied:

Occultism is fiction.

Fiction is not only relevant to the mentally ill.

If Kenneth Grant wants to call himself a Thelemite, that is no more or less fictional, or insane, than Aleister Crowley claiming there is such a thing as a Thelemite to be in the first place.

Occultists are already dancing together on the head of a pin. When they start inquisitions about who is the real one, or the insane one…

Thelemic Gardening

Image
When I see spring springing,
I do not see sweetness and lite,
and certainly nothing peaceful.

There are the conquering hordes,
pushing up through great cracks,
driving ruthlessly to the light,
pillaging every resource in reach.

These green mongols, who are
as much jihadists of the LIGHT,
make the human ants who mimic them
seem like rank diffident amateurs.

And yet against these thick armies
the wind breaks their supple ranks,
the waters drown them in rapid nourishment,
the sun which they seek burns them.

This is nothing if not all-out absolute WAR!

Mars is the symbol of spring, the breaker of
deadly winter; for it takes war and the ethics
of warriors to stir peaceful Nature back to life.

Open your legs harlot goddess, and be raped
by your children! And little flowers and bees
will mask your writhing incests with lying
costumes of peace, love and harmony.

(jk)—adjustment avatar of gfw

"Mercy Let Be Off", A Commentary on Liber AL III, 18

Image
Originally Posted November 17, 2008
AL III, 18: "Mercy let be off: damn them who pity! Kill and torture; spare not; be upon them!"A commentary on AL III, 18

There are many verses in Liber AL (AKA The Book of the Law), especially in Chapter III of the book, which disturb a lot of people, which even disturbed Aleister Crowley initially. As he writes in Confessions:
"The fact of the matter was that I resented The Book of the Law with my whole soul...I was bitterly opposed to the principles of the Book on almost every point of morality. The third chapter seemed to me gratuitously atrocious...the Magical Formula denounced pity as damnable, acclaimed war as admirable and in almost every other way was utterly repugnant to my ideas." As Crowley notes, maybe the most disturbing verse in Liber AL is AL III, 18, for it argues for the elimination of mercy and the damnation of the compassionate (those who pity)—thus the elimination or marginalization of two pillars from the Tree…