achad.net

Thought I’d do a really quick analysis of this statement from Liber AL (III:30) as I always wondered about it. A quick Google search doesn’t pull up much that really describes “open brass work,” although I’m guessing it has to do with brass plating or something of the sort. We do have this interesting reference [...]

Due to the great difficulty of finding an easy to understand guide to Thelema which does not bore its readers back to whence they came, I have written this. With all due respect to Thelema 101, which does a decent job, I hope that this is something that even someone with an average (or even below average) IQ can understand. This is meant to be *very* general and basic, hopefully not at the expense of too much accuracy.

When asked about their opinion on the Tunis Comment, the Class A document found at the back of Liber CCXX, most Thelemites say something like “I ignore it, I think it was a joke” or “it was to prevent dogma” or “it was used to shut up an annoying pupil who kept asking Crowley questions” or “it is meant as a test — being Class A it represents ultimate authority, and to really be a king, you can’t let any outside authority take precedence over your own.” While these interpretations may be interesting, I will not cover them here as they are discussed at length in many places online. This interpretation sees The Comment as more of a warning than a command, contrary to the initial impression most get from reading it.

I decided it was time to try making my own Cakes of Light, so as to enhance my Gnostic Mass experience and allow for performance of the Mass of the Phoenix, a daily Thelemic eucharist. At this stage in my life, I think I agree with Crowley’s emphasis on the importance of the daily consumption of a eucharist.

My stay at Pyramid Lodge, as always, was quite pleasant. The environment always carries an intellectual and hospitable feel. It is the kind of place where you can grow because there is constant intellectual stimulation, and no unnecessary bounds or groupthink (beyond the egregore — which is a good thing). After returning home, I feel like a lot of the creativity has stuck with me, and I am constantly coming up with new ideas and challenging old ones in much the same way as my brothers at the lodge were doing.

A few months ago I came across an article on Excommunicate.net entitled “Thelema, a destructive path?” It was clear from the article that the author had very little knowledge of the subject matter, and I found the information to be inaccurate. As a result, I took it upon myself to write a rebuttal, which was kindly posted on the same site.

I have received a bit of feedback on my rebuttal from various people, and decided I would like to rewrite/modify it to reflect new understandings. As always, I am open to comments and feedback, and to make it clear in advance: I do not claim to be any sort of authority on any subject matter, and as Thelemites do not always agree on various issues, these opinions are only my own. The bold text is from the original author’s article, and the plain text below it is my response.

For those who don’t know, Thelema acquired most of its notoriety from Aleister Crowley. The word had existed long before he but it was he who readopted it and gave it new purpose. Aleister sought to bring about a new religion something to replace the antiquated views of old. However his work came quite a bit after the appearance of the Golden Dawn, Rosicrucians, and even the Freemasons. Crowley’s religion was an adaptation of a new dogma.

This new path was revealed to him by a being called Aiwass. Aiwass was channeled through Crowley at first by his wife Rose and then later himself. This alleged being was Crowley’s Holy Guardian Angel. However the writing itself is very indicative of any style of automatic writing. Like many “channeled” works it is written in a very abstract and esoteric manner. Only those worthy to walk the path may understand type approach.

I’d like to begin by stating that I disagree with the last sentence in the above paragraph. The author is correct in asserting that some of Crowley’s channeled work is central to Thelema. This is especially true of the text “Liber AL vel Legis,” or “The Book of the Law.” According to AL I:34, “. . . the Law is for all.” Crowley even wrote an interpretation of Liber AL which was published under the name “The Law is For All.” The idea was to make the often obscure and disorganized Liber AL more accessible and comprehensible to anyone interested in study — not just some elite few who are “worthy.”

That said, I would like to note that the aforementioned commentary to Liber AL should not be seen as the be-all and end-all final word on the book. Although it is helpful in getting one to think about what the message and meaning may be, one’s relationship to AL can be highly personal — and as such, each person is encouraged to form their own continually evolving interpretation of the book, “each for himself.” Due to the personal nature of each interpretation, a natural resistance to dogma is possible.

As for the esoteric writing style, I would say there are a number of good reasons for this. Most obviously, Thelema, Hermeticism, and in fact most systems of ritual magick of which I’m aware, are esoteric traditions. As such, it seems to follow that there is going to be symbolism and esoterica within them, and perhaps a need for initiation into the Mysteries of the given tradition in order to make sense of what is being taught. In any case, when a text is written in a more or less obscure manner, it requires you to think differently than you would when interpreting something mundane. This abstraction allows for principles within the text to apply to many different scenarios, rather than discussing something specific and rather limited. For example…