Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law,
Where is it explicitly stated that Liber CXX *is* a secret ritual? I have
encountered nothing of the sort. It appears to be that the use of the word
'secret' by Crowley in many instances does not mean secret in the mundane
sense but instead means 'unspeakable' as in 'beyond articulation'. Consider
the following quote from the preface to 777, "Eliphas Levi knew the true
attributions [of the Tarot] but was forbidden to use them.// All this
secrecy is very silly. An indicible Arcanum is an arcanum that *cannot* be
revealed. It is simply bad faith to swear a man to the most horrible
penalties if he betray..., etc, and then take him mysteriously apart and
confide the Hebrew Alphabet to his safe keeping [which is absurd considering
it is already available to the public, as were the Rosicrucion manuscripts
in the British Museum]". Aleister continues to illustrate the point, "The
secret of Adepts are not to be revealed to men, We only wish they were.
[...] But to withhold the Alphabet of Mysticism from the learner is the
device of a selfish charlatan. That which can be taught shall be taught,
and that which cannot be taught may at last be learnt." I think the
principle Crowley is explaining is fairly straightforward, it is folly to
deny an aspirant the means of attaining, that is, it is a crime to preserve
ignorance and the "device of a selfish charlatan".
Love is the law, love under will,
> Actually thelema93 is and always has been trial by fire. It's useful to
> understand the details of what we are talking about before making undue
> assumptions. Sorry you took offense, none was intended (as I am sure will
> learn it takes a lot to actually get even the semblance of my directed
> but I think two ideas which you find somehow axiomatic, i.e. democracy as
> determiner of value and secrecy as a negative are all too common a priori
> assumptions to would be thelemites. The attack on these concepts was far
> from personal, but directed at what I think are two of the most general
> misconceptions about Thelema as set forth in the Book of the Law.
> Personally I think they are about as Osirian as you can get, equalizing
> everyone before judgement and are in fact fairly obvious Old Aeonic
> worthy as they may be of their Christian, Muslim, Lutheran, Buddhist and
> Enlightenment roots. I just don't see how any arguments using the verses
> the Book of the Law as premises can be constructed supporting them.
> Individual freedom is a completely different issue, but the idea that the
> majority does or should rule and that every one should have unlimited
> to whatever private information may be available is to my mind unthelemic.
> The nature of this forum is rapid fire dialectic, I for one assume people
> say what they mean and mean what they say. It is, in fact often not the
> case but if not then the burden is on the writer of the words not me, and
> certainly get held to the minutiae of what I say. Besides I am the
> Advocate, it's a sometimes annoying job but it pays well and you really
> can't beat the fringe benefits.
> Love is the
> law, love under will.
> David R. Jones aka ^333^