Path: news.bjt.net!not-for-mail
From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nigris (333))
Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Thelemic Religion vs. Philosophy
Date: 6 Sep 1997 12:08:38 -0700
Organization: Bay Junction Technology, Inc.
Lines: 105
Sender: tyagi@news.bjt.net
Message-ID: <5us9nm$pc0@bay1.bjt.net>
Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nigris (333))
NNTP-Posting-Host: bay1.bjt.net
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 (NOV)
Xref: news.bjt.net alt.magick.tyagi:1004 alt.magick:6674

[orig-To: thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org (Thelema93-Listserv)]

49970825 aa2 Hail Satan!

E6


nigris (333):
#> typically the religious would then set about "rectifying" the
#> tarnished image of a person whom we *know* (because of what he
#> inspired, look at us) must have been an icon of moral supremacy. 
#> except in Crowley's case he made it *so* plain that he was a
#> reprobate and had severe biases at odds with socialized and PC
#> rhetoric that it'll take thousands of years!  this is a good thing,
#> since it keeps the religious out of power and guarantees them a
#> relegation to an out-of-the-way-quack corner.
#> 
#> those who understand the principles of the Law of Thelema otherwise
#> will utilize them, as with the principles Crowley derived as regards
#> the practice of magick (no, not just the ceremonial claptrap, but the
#> science of coming to know one's true will and the art of manifesting
#> change in conformity to it -- it is this to which the dry ceremonial
#> husks truly point despite the fanaticism of the religious who would
#> rather make of them a social ladder assessing nebulous 'spirituality'
#> and 'saintliness' while corrupting the individual beyond repair).
 
Nexist {DAR} <xendaths@geocities.com>:
# ...I, for one, have no desire to "rectify" AC or try and paint him as 
# "an icon of moral supremacy" 

I wasn't speaking of any one religious, I was talking about the tendency
of religions generally and the usual manner of their development: they
co-opt language and history to their social-egotistical ends, disregarding
truth and playing havoc with the planes of meaning.


# (which set of morals would we choose? ....

the religious tend to choose their own at the time.  there are some which
are popular and therefore more often encountered than others.  usually
these serve the social group to the detriment of individual integrity and
independence.  this is why 'Thelemic religion' can be considered an oxymoron.


# ...I have always been left with the impression that AC went to great 
# lengths to avoid being "perfected".  

strongly agreed.  it was this which drew me to him initially, as I saw
his willingness to make some of his cankers known to those who read
his works.  I think he hid quite a bit nonetheless.


# If we "perfect" AC and elevate him to messianic (ala the Mythic Xtian 
# Jesus of Bethlehem/Nazarath) status, we will have lost our way from 
# the =message= AC delivered, namely of Thelema.

I agree and have suggested numerous times that this is the major hazard
of even having a 'religion of Thelema', since inevitably (he only died
30 years ago, give it some time) there will arise Thelemic fundies and
these will rewrite his character so as to make it more appealing and
thereafter draw more membership who would otherwise be repulsed by his
abject humanity.


# Finally, the implication that those who have a religious bent are
# distinct from "those who understand the principles of the Law of
# Thelema" is also annoying.

I did not mean to imply this, though I do think that more often than
not the religious are prone to misunderstand these principles, having
assimilated the social principles instead and valuing the rites and
liturgy more than the preservation of individual liberty.

on the contrary, I think that there are some religious whose notions
of the Thelemic Law are very beautiful and worthy of attention.  one
of these was here recently in T93-L: Brother Duncan.  his particular
conversation style and the somewhat lukewarm (:>) reception he
received may have obstructed the quality of his Thelemic integrity,
and some of his ideas are rather extreme, yet I felt his respect.

understanding the principles and operating out of them are again
another set of parameters.  I may have a mere intellectual grasp
of them and yet never apply them in life.  I don't think that a
religious framework or container tends to yield Thelemic results,
so take that into consideration.  if nothing else, it begins to
identify as 'Thelemic' something religious and therefore social
of character, possibly obscuring the concepts and values of
individual sovereignty and liberation with which I associate 'Thelema'
as a philosophical foundation and spiritual (individual) path.

these two (religious/spiritual; social/individual) may of course 
coincide, but I think that there are natural obstacles placed before 
the latter in any social structure, especially that which establishes 
any kind of 'tradition' or 'accepted standards' from a social 
authority.  it begins to seriously and unfortunately distract the 
individual from hirself, debilitating rather than assisting hir 
maturation.

E6/6/6
_______________________________________________________________________________
nigris (333) -- tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com -- http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/
-- 
(emailed replies may be posted);join the AMT syncretism!!;call: 408/2-666-SLUG!
see http://www.abyss.com/tokus; "Clement of Rome taught that God rules the world
with a right and a left hand, the right being Christ, the left Satan." - CGJung