Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.satanism,alt.magick.ethics,alt.pagan,alt.religion.wicca,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage Subject: Western Magical and Religious Ethical Guides (was Re: Harm None?) Summary: A review of the ethical and moral guidelines of Western esotericism. Keywords: ethics religious occult Western overview References: <4ve1l9$179a@useneta1.news.prodigy.com> From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nagasiva) Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nagasiva) [lost the lastest file - restructured and posted to this thread for review] kaliyuga 49960824 TERMS Important words to consider within my vocabulary: 'moral'; 'ethic'. When I say 'moral' or 'morality' or 'moralism' I intend to mean an association with social judgement and behavior-prescription-schemes. When I say 'ethic' or 'ethics' or 'ethical' I intend to mean an association with personal feelings and/or personal systems of self-restraint. Thus 'amoral' to me merely indicates withdrawing from judgement on another person's affairs, while 'unethical' indicates to me that a person has no sense of what is right for them. I think it important to consider that some (like myself) don't engage morality and may not construct a system of ethics, following our intuition and the feelings of our heart. TEXT Concerning popular ethical and moral guides within the Western occult and religious communities: Thelema 1. 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.' is a quote from _The Book of the Law_, a text claimed to have been received by Aleister Crowley in April of 1904. Out of context this phrase has been used by all manner of individuals for a variety of reasons. Some see it as an indicator of a new system of ethics of which they are proponents, some use it to identify themselves within a social movement given its initiative by Crowley, and some intend to duplicate Crowley's own usage of these words as what he called 'Thelemic Greetings' (that is, a magical commitment of energy and dedication expressed within social circumstances; possibly equal to self- and social-programming). As an indicator of a system of ethics (or lack thereof), there is no absolute and pre-defined meaning for the phrase, even when taken in context. Crowley himself, when providing an overview and reflection of the phrase, claimed that all meanings are true if but the reader be illuminated. I think it imperative to note that within the Thelemic community itself there is a quite healthy debate over the meaning of 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.', along with very many other similar and related phrases. To illustrate the range of possibility here, some consider that the word 'thou' indicates the divine and that 'what thou wilt' is equivalent to 'the will of God'. Thus if one were to take 'do what thou wilt' as a dictum within these meanings, one would hear 'do the will of God'. Of course the other end of the spectrum, and perhaps that which is most popular among the *individuals* aligning themselves with these words, is that 'do what thou wilt' is very literal and simply implies that what is spoken of here is the ethic of doing whatever one wishes to do. The more perspicacious among us will of course point out that it is somewhat important not to overlook the balance of the phrase ('shall...'). In any case, rest assured that, as with most religious and philosophical speculation and doctrine, there is no widespread agreement as to what constitutes the meaning of this phrase as a foundation of ethics. It should also be noted, however, that (perhaps expectedly) organizations which promote themselves as 'Thelemic' take a rather more conservative perspective on the meaning of that phrase when they offer any interpre- tation at all. Personally, I understand that phrase as an observation of Natural Law, in that we shall always do what we will no matter the consequences, and as we accept this as the context of our actions so is our life made more peaceful. From there of course we may wish to set about devising all sorts of moralistic and ethical systems to guide and constrain us to 'proper behavior'. I don't choose to participate in these last, of course. :> Wicca/Neopaganism 2. 'An it harm none, do what thou wilt' (and its variants) is often referred to within the Neopagan community as 'the Wiccan Rede', and it is quite important that it has this designated title. While the more conservative will conveniently forget and the novices will perhaps be unaware, a 'rede' is merely a guideline, a recommendation. It does not participate in moralism in the slightest, and those who use it in this way can be said to be interpreting the rede as a law where their predecessors did no such thing. There is some controversy about the meaning of 'harm' within the Wiccan community and the Neopagan community at large. Those unaccustomed to philosophical speculation on the meaning of the Rede are quick to include all manner of damage to all of life, therefore making the guideline use- less except for suicidal ascetics (since we must kill to survive). Others are more conservative and maintain that 'harm' need only mean unnecessary suffering, bringing into question what actions are 'necessary' and when an animal or plant 'suffers' prior to our consumption. Needless to say, there are a few Wiccans who maintain that in order to abide this rede one must become vegetarian (if they have any ecological background), though I'm not aware that such is a trend among either Neopagans or Wiccans. Seldom is the word 'thou' used as a pointer toward 'the divine' unless it be 'the Goddess', since many Wiccans are formerly Christian with a dislike for anything resembling their upbringing, and when they accept 'God' at all, most are likely to identify this with the agrarian Lord of the Animals and Sun King and reject the transcendant divine altogether. Thus 'thou' is usually interpreted as implying the individual Wiccan. I see the Wiccan Rede as one of the most useful of ethical guides, and I understand 'harm' to be intentional action or inaction which violates or coerces another being outside the parameters of the necessities of self-sustenance. I have difficulties with the way humans treat other living beings, and I think that that issue is representative of the controversy within the Wiccan and perhaps Neopagan community over what actions need be taken in order to completely follow the Wiccan Rede. Judeochristianity and Beyond 3. 'That which you would have done unto you, do also unto your neighbor.' or one of the many variants on this phrase (the Golden Rule) is quite common amongst the doctrines of the world religions. It is quite often taken as a moral and ethical rule, and for this reason I think it differs quite markedly in character from the two previous phrases. My impression is that it is only of limited use, for our tastes from culture to culture and even home to home may not make this a worthwhile rule. Example: I am depressed and want someone to kill me. By the Golden Rule I ought go out and kill. Another: I take great pleasure in being flogged with a cat-o-nine-tails (whip). By the Golden Rule I should go about flogging people. Obviously these are extreme exceptions but they do point out a problem with it as the basis for a system of ethics. 4. . I have often thought that these and the teachings of Jesus Christ were the basis for the Christian ethical system, and that this was true *regardless of context*. That is, it does not matter whether one is engaging politics or magick, these moral proscriptions and prescriptions are sufficient to guide one along the Righteous Path. I prefer to interpret these as I'm able (which I gather is somewhat encouraged by Jews at least, regarding _Torah_), and to place what bits of wisdom I may have received directly from God BEFORE these teachings, so I have little use for systems of morality or ethics at all. I therefore tend to see these as very important social rules which steer the behavior of those who do not yet have a deep relationship with Christ, and while I tend to follow them within my daily activity (as I understand them), I do not always think that they apply to me. Satanism 5. '...do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but if your courtesy is not returned, treat them with the wrath they deserve." (_Satanic Bible_ paraphrase). Anton LaVey compiled and added to this book, and it has become a popular handbook for many Satanists, though surely it does not encompass all varieties. this expression is a further development of both the moralistic or the the mystical systems analyzed above (10 Commands, 'harm none', or 'do what thou wilt'), and Satanists usually aspire to approach some sort of natural parallel with what is called 'the law of the jungle'. the latter is generally associated with the wild, though whether the type of justice typically associated with this by Satanists ("an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth") is truly something practiced in the wild may be difficult to substantiate. often Satanists will associate this 'law of the jungle' with writers and thinkers like Machiavelli or Nietzsche, and there is indeed reason to do so. their expressions as regard social power, politics and the 'will of the strong' appeal to those who would resist the domination of the majority in protection of perceived weak, fulfilling a needed role in 'culling the herd of illness'. while I do think that a 'the law of the jungle' is a noble ideal, I suggest that individuals who purport to desire this set about examining carefully how animals in the wild actually treat one another. it seems to me that more often than not they tend to 'do what they wilt', and that this sometimes entails an abandonment of their normally congenial styles amongst kindred when they begin to feel violated (in body, territory or mating bonds). even when hostilities do escalate there is rarely true danger involved in the conflict. bluster, minor scuffles and quick resolution appears the norm, resulting in either a return to apparent social hierarchy or a fragmentation of the community not unlike what can be seen in the history of countless human esoteric social traditions. the quickness of the scuffle and response is provided support within such texts as _The Prince_, wherein Machiavelli urges the Prince, when faced with insurrection, to exercise swift remedial attention, sometimes in a violent manner. yet he also warns that leaders who persist or over- exercise this quality are likely to lose social face and trust, undermining their ability to persuade and serve the whole fruitfully. in my life this principle supports showing my anger and upset to those who appear to be trespassing my boundaries in as tactful a manner as I'm able. yet it seems best done immediately or very near the incident, so that my true feelings do not dissipate and the dispute is not prolonged beyond its necessary duration. resolution of personal and social boundaries can thus be effected both naturally and with integrity (Thelemites sometimes quote their text in support of such a civilized dispute: "As brothers fight ye!"). many counsellors for those who manage children and nonhuman animals indicate that this is the most effective method with the least confusion and disease. showing our honest upset (wrath) is the essential mark of the Sage, and is exemplified by some of the most popular and widespread gods (as with the oft-raging Kali, the 'Mad Mother'). your comment and discussion of any of the above is encouraged. cc me via private email should you desire my participation. tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com nagasiva ========================================== Revised kaliyuga 49960824 (c) EOF