50060507 ix om
"eyeofhoor" My Favourite New AEon Prophet <owner@...
# 93! Do as you please!
E6! There are no words of sin, O My Chosen!
Granville Savidge addresses my 'do as you please' Thelemic Greetings:
#> I am hoping this email will reach whoever is beginning these
#> messages with "do as please" I am not sure why ythis is bing typed
#> but if it it is being used as an Thelemic greeting it is highly
#> offensive to the Thelemic community
# The 'Thelemic community' is quite diverse, and I'm certain
# you don't speak for all of us.
does and can anyone? surely they are correct that this little
bitty batch of Rabelais text is offensive to the cultists who
are dead-set on constraining themselves and becoming Slaves
of the Master and his cults.
#> Do what thou whilt is the whole of the law and means
#> the exact opposite to do what you want.
# Based on what evidence?
based on the exposition of their superiors obviously.
# With scripture in hand, I can quote numerous passages
# that contradict your conclusions:
that is the problem with prooftexting from such hodge-podge
constructs (whether editions or 'automatic writings'):
one may ignore the "intentions of the author" and make it
appear to advocate exactly the opposite to what was meant,
or whatever the arguer wants to have it mean. usually that
kind of prooftexting doesn't extend to etymology or some
kind of supplement explaining and detailing how we can
know what the author meant.
this is shielded in the case of "Liber Al vel Legis" in
that Crowley claims that he didn't write it and that his
references to Egyptian gods (arguably faulty/false/wrong)
don't make it easily possible for us to IDENTIFY that
author's intention. even so Crowley says that 'Do what
thou wilt' might mean anything.
since we have established a rapport extending far beyond
the various interactions we've had through the years, you
will of course not take what I say as intending insult,
my questions below very clear to you as well-meaning.
contrast this with the Thelemic cultist who interprets
THELEMIC GREETINGS THEMSELVES AS INSULTING. weird. a loss
of the spirit of the Law based on aggregate ignorance,
and a display as to how far the cults have corrupted.
# "Bind nothing!" -- I assume this statement applies
# to misconstrued Thelemic Greetings.
why do you assume this? your whim of interpretation?
# "The word of Sin is Restriction." -- Restricting the
# meaning of the the Thelemic greeting in question to
# your own narrow view could be seen as an effort at
isn't it great? for those who have studied this little
red book of the Crowleyan, all manner of apparently
controversial and "insulting" expression may be found.
I was one of the few promoting the *following of the
'Offering of the Law'* with the phrase "The word of
Sin is Restriction." and preceding "Love is the law,
love under will!" with "Invoke me under my stars!",
having had the interest and intelligence to appeal to
the Master who asserted that 'Do what thou wilt' might
mean *anything* if but the reader be illuminated.
# "For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from
# the lust of result, is every way perfect." -- The only
# way the [excitation?] of will can be delivered from the
# lust of result is when willful action is spontaneous,
# meaning doing whatever one pleases instinctively.
argument including prooftexting contradicts this!
those who are insulted by Rabelais ignore this also.
# "I am alone: there is no God where I am." -- This
# statement contradicts the erroneous belief that
# 'Do what thou wilt' means doing the will of a God.
Crowley said that it might refer to 'Ateh' (/God)
if the reader was illuminated. now do we accept
the fallible receiver of this text as some kind
of authority for its interpretation? if so, why?
# "Fear not at all; fear neither men nor Fates,
# nor gods, nor anything." -- One of the finest
# statements ever made in support of humanism.
because of 'gods'? well maybe if one has a God and
this is in contradistinction to gods, it would be
more suitable to a monotheism.
# For the record, I am aware of the belief that the
# main focus of the Crowleyan system of attainment
# is Knowledge & Conversation with the Holy Guardian
apparently after Crowley's riff on the system of
Abramelin. few discuss his selected differences
and what level of reliability we have in Crowley --
for more on that subject including Crowley, see
recently revised in contention with Thelemic trying
to whitewash the man Crow who are apparently cultists
and glorify him for Thelemapedia.org in association
or overlap to wikipedia.org. Darohl (Shah) classes
this as part of 'The Angel Cults' in his text on
# Crowley presents us with a dramaticized account
# of what he believed was a successful effort at
# performing the Abramelin operation,
how to discern what he believes is at times quite
difficult, since he seems to have been somewhat
unaware of his condition and prone to deceit for
the purpose of self-aggrandizement, occasionally
revealing his corruption and error as a counter-
indicator to fool the unwary.
# but the truth of the matter is he abandoned the
# operation, renounced his interest in magick, got
# married on a whim, and went on an extensive
# vacation that ultimately led to the reception
# of the Book of the Law.
his vacations also led to the death of his child.
there is much here to be accounted for and few who
have an interest in seeing the whole picture.
# One of the most interesting instructions provided
# by Aiwass during the Cairo Working was to do things
# that were 'magically absurd'. The picture painted
# by the events is one in which spontaneous activities
# became a potent magical formula or process.
making it more likely that the indisciplined could
give the impression of being grandiose. in reality,
the assertive and successful Thelemite is capable of
not only predicting and setting into motion the
course of their personal will (oriented through some
method or in association with some reliable guide),
but also of alerting others to this fact and
displaying as a demonstration of discipline that
their consistency and willpower are reliable. when
one enshrines the spontaneous, this is a step AWAY
from a demonstration of discipline, however valued
spontaneity should be (I agree there are times that
it is extremely important).
# Becoming adept at ceremonial magical technique
are you certain this is what was achieved?
# and developing mastery of a magical alphabet can
are you certain that this is what was achieved?
# certainly facilitate contact with the divine,
as a demonstration or example/exposition it is a
very good one. actually APPLYING the advice may be
more difficult for some (addicts, for example, and
those tending to misrepresent mystical traditions
other than those they promote), than for others.
# but ultimately, any significant contact with
# divine forces is a matter of divine intervention,
# as opposed to human subservience to divine
# concepts or religious dogma.
an interesting statement. it appears to make such
yogic paths as 'bhakti' non-performers, a bust.
# Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
The word of sin IS restriction.