From thelema93-l-owner@bitsy.hollyfeld.org Tue Jul 30 12:46:30 1996 Received: from nova.unix.portal.com (nova.unix.portal.com [156.151.1.101]) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA15267 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 12:46:28 -0700 Received: from bitsy.hollyfeld.org (bitsy.hollyfeld.org [38.240.235.1]) by nova.unix.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA21794 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 12:45:57 -0700 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by bitsy.hollyfeld.org (8.6.12/8.6.9) id PAA05544 for thelema93-l-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 15:46:04 -0400 Received: from nova.unix.portal.com (nova.unix.portal.com [156.151.1.101]) by bitsy.hollyfeld.org (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id PAA05540 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 15:45:49 -0400 Received: from jobe.shell.portal.com (jobe.shell.portal.com [156.151.3.4]) by nova.unix.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA19512 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 12:39:46 -0700 Received: (tyagi@localhost) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) id MAA12712 for thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 12:39:41 -0700 Message-Id: <199607301939.MAA12712@jobe.shell.portal.com> Subject: Re: Satanic Thelema? To: thelema93-l@HOLLYFELD.ORG (Thelema93-Listserv) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 12:39:41 -0700 (PDT) From: tyagi@HOUSEOFKAOS.ABYSS.COM (xiwangmu) Orientation: House of Kaos, St. Joseph, Kali Fornika, US -- Kali Yuga X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 7955 Sender: owner-thelema93-l@HOLLYFELD.ORG Precedence: bulk reply-to: thelema93-l@bitsy.hollyfeld.org Status: RO 49960730 AA1 LUNAtix! taking instruction from kin in italy, it seems. welcome! Do as you please, oh chosen ones! Hail Satan! LilWing623@AOL.COM: #> I believe that we can't have Satanist Thelemites of course, we have #> much in common as we can't have buddist Thelemites vincent@mv.village.it [warning given re: english not being first language]: #hi,i don't belive that may be satanist Thelemites because or you are a #Thelemites or you aren't, you couldn't have two feet into a shoe I hear you saying that there are Thelemites regardless of whether they consider themselves 'Satanist' or 'Buddhist' or whatever. possibly more, you are saying that Satanism and Thelemism are mutually exclusive, as are Buddhism and Thelemism (though this latter claim is less clear), in that the former err through particularity, the usage twin-barbed and mayhaps of different class. #The 93 corrent is one ,one is our canon of truth ,one the prophet ,the #others may be open oppossed to the Thelema(as christian curch)or may be #no opposition but they aren't thelemites ,the condition that enables a #man to call himself a thelemites is that he must acept the Book Of Law #as the supreme canon of truth with all the subsequent implications I wonder of the meaning of these words such that we might be strapped to a particular book (rather than, say, a mystic and personal 'Book of Law' as may be described and adhered-to within masonic fraternities). is it that a person calls *themselves* 'Thelemite', or as the Evil Book itself dictates, "Who calls us Thelemites"? is this assessment best made by the individual (thus fabricating a cult resorting to the terminology of which you speak below), or by those who have been subject to their will, an awed admission of the stature of another? and when we say 'one current, one canon of truth, one prophet', do we mean that we have identified and particularized these (93, Liber Al, ACrowley), or that there is an identity of character within the currents, canons and prophets upon which Thelemites lavish their attentions, support with their blood, and study with full attention (perhaps transcending materiality)? is it thus a 'privelege' (single law) that those who, like the religious the world over mouthing adherence to their holy books as 'the best truth', 'identify with the righteous' ("I am a Thelemite"), or is it better, like the taoist 'sage', to leave this attribution to others in our wakes, us unfettered by strict allegiances to labels, books and flags, teachers and practical systems, which even the text below points out as extreme? #(i try to expain wit a cit.) liber LXI vel causae #paragraph 22 #(translating from an italian version) #expecialy he have to be aware to found of particular settar symbols on #the teaching of their master _Liber LXI vel Causae_ concerns the A.'.A.'. and its structure and history. Paragraph 22 reads as follows [my comments in brackets]: Therefore by the order of D.D.S. [GCJones - GD] did P. [Perdurabo - ACrowley] prepare all things by his arcane science and wisdom, choosing only those symbols which were common to all systems, and rigourously rejecting all names and words which might be supposed to imply any religious or metaphysical theory. To do this utterly was found impossible, since all language has a history, and the use (for example) of the word "spirit" implies the Scholastic Philosophy and the Hindu and Taoist theories concerning the breath of man. [prana and chi respectively] So was it difficult to avoid implication of some undesirable bias by using the words "order," "circle," "chapter," "society," "brotherhood," or any other to designate the body of initiates. I agree with you about the care of founding a particular set of symbols on the teachings of their master (the master who gave these particular symbols; also a generic in regards fabrication of such a system -- in that we may create such a system ourselves when suitably prepared), but I'm unsure that 1) Liber LXI vel Causae concerns 'Thelema' per se except as a description of a particular Thelemic system (namely the AA), 2) these paragraphs you cite indicate so much that the specific master should be sought out so much as that all linguistic derivations must remain suspect by virtue of cultural bias, or 3) their master need be strictly defined in some rigid and historical mode (ACrowley, Gautama Buddha, Lao Tzu, etc.). #paragraf 23 the ritual will speaks with terms that seem imply the #egyptian philosophy ,taoist,buddhist,indian,persian, greek.... #but he will understand that this only a fault of the language;letteral #limitations and not spiritual prejudice of the man P. #Vincenzo Paragraph 23 states: Deliberately, therefore, did he take refuge in vagueness. Not to veil the truth to the Neophyte, but to warn him against valuing non-essentials. Should therefore the candidate hear the name of any God, let him not rashly assume that it refers to any known God, save only the God known to himself. Or should the ritual speak in terms of however vague) which seem to imply Egyptian, Taoist, Buddhist, Indian, Persian, Greek, Judaic, Christian, or Moslem philosophy, let him refelect that this is a defect of language; the literary limitation and not the spiritual prejudice of the man P. [Perdurabo - ACrowley]) I would also continue with paragraph 24: Especially let him guard against the finding of definite sectarian symbols in the teaching of his master, and the reasoning from the known to the unknown which assuredly will tempt him. We labour earnestly, dear brother, that you may never be led away to perish upon this point; for thereon have many holy and just men been wrecked. By this have all the visible systems lost the essence of wisdom. We have sought to reveal the Arcanum; we have only profaned it. all quoters from _Gems from the Equinox_, p. 9. _________________________________________________ in an argument as to whether there may be 'Satanist Thelemites' or 'Buddhist Thelemites', therefore, we must first accept that this text truly *applies* to the conditions of 'a Thelemite'. given that a lection regarding the character of the AA does so, and this particular text is accurate, your assertion would appear to be that such descriptions err in that they are not *vague* enough, not sufficiently vague as to 'warn the Neophyte against the non- essentials', perhaps even that they err by virtue of bias. yet I would ask, what is it but this same lack of vagueness which leads the individual to *claim to be a Thelemite*, adhere to a specific text as "the one canon of Thelema", identifying it as _Liber Al vel Legis_, follows in the terminology and footfalls (as well as traps!) of the Master Therion, and generally makes up a *new religion* with which to befuddle onself, mislead the Neophyte, and eradicate that 'troublesome, wearisome, horrible vaguery?!' why can't those we deem 'Thelemites' be not of a particular religious or doctrinal persuasion but instead of different cultural *flavors*, perhaps 'buddhist' or 'satanist', while understanding (rationally or merely in their hearts) the Law of Thelema as a principle of respect aside of culture, religion, 'name and word'? in the same way we describe ice cream by flavors, "chocolate", "strawberry", "doublefudge-nut", so the ice cream itself stays true to texture, fiber and quality (if the brand be well-chosen), so too why cannot a Thelemite be "satanist", "christian", "horusian", "gnostic catholic", and yet retain the texture, fiber and quality regardless of each of these 'flavors'?? I'm sure there is text from the Master Therion to support this notion though I care not presently to seek it out for you. love is the law, free love right now! tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com mu