Testing Ceremonial Magick (Link to an Essay off-site)

https://www.academia.edu/2283146/Testing_Ceremonial_Magick

Excerpt

The world of Ceremonial Magick is rather complicated. Various schools of thought and diverse ideologies have combined over the centuries to fragment the ritual practices of the past into conflicting and often competing methodologies. Combine this with the rise of materialism which dominates Western culture and we find that Magick itself has taken on a dubious character.

Click on the link above to read more.

Accepting the Law

What is a Thelemite?

Thelemites are, by nature, a fiercely individualistic breed. This has been latched onto by a particular demographic that works against the revolutionary nature of Thelema in favor of the continuance of mainstream normative values of modern consumerist culture. However, words actually mean things. Thelemite is no exception. A good baseline for identifying the enemy is through the nature of their antagonism to other people’s insistence of an actual definition for Thelema and Thelemites.

In one such altercation, I came up with a simple and straightforward formulation of what it means to be a Thelemite or a member of the Ordo Templi Orientis (which is a Thelemic organization to which I belong):

(1) A Thelemite is one who accepts the Law of Thelema

(2) The Law of Thelema is defined by Liber AL vel Legis (Liber AL, The Book of the Law)

(2a) Rabelasian Thelema is pure sophistry

(3) Membership in the Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO) requires acceptance of the Law of Thelema

(3a) Q.v. Point 2

(3b) This means to accept Liber AL without wanting to change it.

Below are the summaries of the long, and sometimes tedious, discussions that arose from this simple formulation.

A Thelemite is one who accepts the Law of Thelema / The Law of Thelema is defined by Liber AL

Since these are interdependent, it is easiest to address them at one. The word Thelemites appears in Liber AL in verse I:40, where it states “Who calls us Thelemites will do no wrong.” In the D Comment, Crowley states “We who accept this Law may rightly be called Thelemites.” Since the word, as it is commonly used, derives from Liber AL and the comment from the person designated by that text as authoritative on that text states point one in no uncertain terms, we can, for now, accept it as axiomatic.

Many alternative definitions revolved around some formulation of “A Thelemite is someone who is doing their will.” This leads to the second point. What is the Law of Thelema as defined by Crowley? He put forth three statements derived from the text which are meant to summarize the Law of Thelema, much as how Jesus summarized the Law of Christianity as “Love the lord, thy god, with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself.” Crowley’s summarized the Law of Thelema as follows:

• Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
• Love is the law, love under will.
• There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.

Given this summation, it seems obvious that any attempt to use the Will as the basis of the definition of Thelemite is actually a clandestine acceptance of the Law of Thelema. One might theorize that attempts to define Thelemite without reference to Liber AL derives from cognitive dissonance with the other portions of the text. Regardless, it is little more than claiming to disagree while affirming each and every point.

Much attention has been given to the definition of the word accept. The valid definitions of accept range from “to receive” to “affirm” to “agree to marriage.” While I personally love the image created by the last definition, I suspect that such an interpretation is not what Crowley intended (though Liber Astarte could make an argument in favor). Instead, let us look at the statement “Accept The Book of the Law” in context. Both the OED and Websters provide example sentences whereby the degree of affirmation changes due to the nature of the object being accepted. “To accept a present” gives a different meaning than “to accept a treaty” (which is also different from “to accept a proposal of marriage”). How did Crowley view Liber AL? Did he view it as a neutral item, akin to a pen or a sweater, or did he view it as a treatise for the emancipation of the human race?

In his preface to Liber AL (4 Jan 15), Crowley says, “This Book explains the Universe,” “This Book lays down a simple Code of Conduct,” and “The establishment of the Law of Thelema is the only way to preserve individual liberty and to assure the future of the race.” It seems clear that Liber AL is an object of such import that its acceptance cannot be a neutral act. Such acceptance necessitates some level of approval for the contents therein. Further, the language used in his description indicates a conformance to the Law one has accepted. One adheres to a code of conduct. I will leave further examination of the nature of Liber AL and what constitutes acceptance to the reader.

Rabelaisian Thelemites is pure sophistry

From time to time, people appear trying to lay claim to the title of Thelemite but rejecting the system put forth by Aleister Crowley by invoking Rabelais. Rabelais is an important figure, which is why he is mentioned in The Antecedents of Thelema (4 Jan 15). However, Rabelais work was a work of fiction. Neither did it involve magick, occult theory, Eastern traditions, Qaballah, or Knowledge and Conversation with one’s Holy Guardian Angel. These things derive from Crowley. If they are practicing a somewhat libertine monastic tradition rather than magick, we might lend some credence to their claims. Invariably, however, they are merely trying to justify their smorgasbord approach to Crowley’s Thelema.

Membership in the OTO requires acceptance of the Law of Thelema

Strangely, this assertion also causes a stir of controversy. This is a simple matter of stated policy. As per the FAQ on Blazing Star Oasis’s website, "If you decide to pursue full membership, as a I°, you will be stating that you accept The Book of the Law as written, without wishing to change it. Even in the Minerval degree, you will be expected to make a commitment to uphold the ideals of freedom set forth in The Book of the Law." (4 Jan 15)

Since this is listed on an official OTO website, I do not believe it is a violation of any oaths for me to state that I remember being required to do precisely this. It should be born in mind that the Minerval degree is a guest degree and actual membership is counted as starting from the First degree. It should also be mentioned that the requirement is an official policy regardless of whether it is enforced with any degree of consistency. The fact that it is a requirement but not adequately enforced is one of the reasons why this essay came to be.

We can also engage in debate on the meaning of the word accept. However, these arguments are the same as above and their resolution is also the same. In fact, the argument for the nature of Liber AL takes on more force as Liber AL is presented here as a foundational document around which the members of the order are meant to organize themselves.

Conclusion

As we can see, the points laid forth are supported by the internal logic and consistency of the materials referenced. Criticisms that the definition of Thelemites being derived from Liber AL is circular reasoning are not relevant due to fact that Thelema and Thelemites are defined by Liber AL and the other class ‘A’ material. To argue such would be like claiming that Rousseau’s idea of the “Social Contract” is invalid purely because it is referenced in Of The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right (Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique).

Given that these points are valid, one can also conclude that there are many people who profess to be Thelemites but are in violation of these points. It is obvious that they are mistaken. Anyone who ignores, rejects, or wants to change Liber AL vel Legis — i.e, anyone who does not accept Liber AL — is not a Thelemite. Given the stated policy of the Ordo Templi Orientis, anyone who is not a Thelemite is not qualified to be a member of that order.

Addendum

Such is the nature of the work, people who are within the Thelemic tradition but are not Thelemites will eventually fall prey to the cognitive dissonance inherent in working with a value system to which they do not subscribe. Such people will typically fall in one of two ways. One is to try and change Thelema into socially accepted cultural norms. The other is to leave the order. The first harms Thelema by subverting it into just another variation of the dominant paradigm which is, in itself, a carry-over of the previous aeon. The second merely means that the person has wasted time and effort in a system for which they are unsuited. For a list of the first, look at what people are saying and see how it differs from some strand of the dominant societal discourse. For a list of the second, look for “big names” within the order who are no longer active or are now antagonistic. They will often say things like “I was never really a Thelemite,” “I never liked Liber AL,” or “<group/religion> suits me better.” Far better to spend the time engaging in introspection now rather than finding out, a decade down the road, that you are happier being a Buddhist.

Book Review: Living Thelema by David Shoemaker

David Shoemaker, the Chancellor of the International College of Thelema, has presented us with a new introductory Thelemic text, Living Thelema (2013), which provides the novice with an outline for starting with the Thelemic material. He begins with some comments on basic practices, moves on to some material tied more clearly to his A∴A∴ work, and finishes with some advice on how to integrate this material into a Thelemic lifestyle. This material is aimed for those drawn to Thelema, but who do not have significant exposure to the works of Aleister Crowley or occultism in general.

I should probably begin by stating that I am not a fan of beginner books. They tend, by virtue of being targeted at beginners, to reduce the material to a ridiculously unusable level. They try to cover for their paucity of information by utilizing bland platitudes which are, far too often, nothing more than standard opinions culled from Western (typically American) society.

I am not claiming that Dr. Shoemaker avoids these pitfalls. However, I found them to be far less egregious than other books in this category. The fact that Dr. Shoemaker can actually write makes this book stand out from the others of its kind.

Interestingly, a journal recently released an advance article on the tendency to psychologize occultism. The target of the article was Dr. Israel Regardie.1 Like Dr. Shoemaker, Dr. Regardie was a psychologist. It is only natural, perhaps, that the disturbing tendencies to sacralize psychology and psychologize occultism are also present in Living Thelema. For the most part, this trend is a potentiality, but it is something to be aware of — and possibly be on guard against.

The book itself is divided into three parts: Tools for the Journey, Perspectives on the Path of Attainment, and Life Outside the Temple. The first covers basic terminology and rituals. The second moves to a more theoretical framework, discussing tools such as tarot and alchemy within the initiatory framework of the A∴A∴. The final section is sacred psychology. I am not dismissing the value of psychology, nor am I saying that it isn’t important for the magician to be balanced; however, I do feel that there is a risk of conflating spirit and the mind. While the maxim “As above, so below” is a given, we must not forget that one is above and the other below — or, to use language more in keeping with Shoemaker’s book, it is a mistake to restrict the neshemah by the rules of the ruach.

While the author’s background in psychology casts an interesting slant on the material, I find his selection of what to include and what not to include more interesting. For starters, the book does not include an index. Any book without an index is difficult to use as a reference. This indicates to me that the work is not really intended for actual use. At best it is intended as a one shot that can be easily discarded after being read.

Further, despite several locations where it would be wholly appropriate, there is no reference to De Cultu. In part one, there are various sections detailing the practices appropriate for the beginner. The importance of these practices are given time and again in Crowley’s work, but are listed and presented most succinctly in De Cultu.

While it is phased in, which either implies that the work is dangerous and/or complicated, most of the elements from De Cultu are present in part one of Shoemaker’s book. While I do not recall it being explicitly mentioned, I will just grant him the study of the Holy Books. He discusses Resh, the pentagram rituals, astral work, and yoga. However, of the three Masses listed, only Liber XV, the Rite of the Gnostic Catholic Church, is mentioned. According to Crowley, a eucharistic rite should be performed daily. The omission is doubly strange as this practice ties with several points that he elaborates in his section on getting started — specifically, 1) magical hygiene, 2) calling/directing magical force, and 6) forging a link with one’s HGA.

This omission is common. Either because of its solitary nature (which allows the magician to partake of the sacrament outside of the group) or because of the minor use of blood, the Mass of the Phoenix has fallen from favor. I am not saying that Dr. Shoemaker has caved to social pressures by excluding this rite from his section on the eucharist. It may be an honest oversight. Perhaps his lineage introduces this practice later. However, it is obvious that by not including the directions from Crowley, he bypasses the supposed controversy altogether.

This leads to another issue. In chapter six, dealing with the hexagram rituals, Dr. Shoemaker tells us that the elemental attributions given by Crowley in Liber O are incorrect. He states that the elemental directions given are those valid within the Vault of the Golden Dawn and instructs the reader to use the attributions for the Lesser Pentagram Ritual. He gives no explanation as to why the attributions are not relevant outside the vault, nor does he cite any source that uses his elemental attributions. Given that the Hexagram Rite is on a higher plane (in the author’s parlance, macrocosmic rather than microcosmic), and that various pentagram rituals have different attributions (e.g., the Star Ruby puts Fire-Leo in the East rather than Air), I would think that some justification for this change would be warranted. As it stands, it seems that Dr. Shoemaker just decided Crowley was wrong and just grabbed the attributions of the Lesser Pentagram Ritual from habit.

Part two is where this book becomes interesting. Part one is rather mechanical, covering the basics of De Cultu. Part two is where we can see some of the authors own opinions and ideas. Two chapters which stand out are the chapter on the Tarot as it relates to the System of Initiation within the A∴A∴ and the chapter on the Chakras. This is a practical interpretation of the poetical form present in The Wake World. Thus, one starts in Malkuth. The grade of Zelator, being in Yesod has its tasks related to the Universe card (which is attributed to the path leading from Malkuth to Yesod). Likewise, Practicus’ tasks are tied to the Aeon and Sun cards. Finally, Philosophus is tied to the Moon, Emperor, and Tower cards. The presentation is clear and useful.

Dr. Shoemaker’s chapter on the chakras is also interesting. He bypasses the whole energy vortex slant, which was popularized by the Theosophical/New Age movement, and instead focuses on their relationship to the sephirah, i.e., their symbolic meaning, and thus to the related A∴A∴ degrees. He does not discuss the chakras in relation to the OTO, instead referring the readers to the diagram in the Equinox III:10. While I may have practical reservations about the mapping of the Hindu system to the Hermetic Qabalah as put forth by Crowley, it is important to know them so as to understand what Crowley meant when he referred to the chakras. Dr. Shoemakers refusal to regurgitate the New Age claptrap that has accreted on the doctrine is refreshing.

Altogether, Living Thelema is a beginner’s book and suffers from many of the problems that all beginner’s books seem to have. I don’t see it as having a significant reread factor. Further, Part one could have been greatly reduced without loss. The chapters on the HGA and True Will are useful since they define these terms as the author uses them. The chapter on Ritual Construction is undoubtedly useful for the beginner. The rest could be replaced by a copy of de Cultu with footnotes on where to find the practices described.

Part two is the more interesting section, and I would have liked to see this section expanded. The weakest parts seem to be the chapters on Alchemy, in particular, the one titled 21st Century Alchemy. Part three was pretty much a total wash for me. As I mentioned earlier, I find the intersection of psychology and occultism to be limiting for occultism and unfair for psychology.

As a beginner’s book, it will have more value for the true novice than others of its kind. Since I found something interesting, it is actually on the top of the list. If you are a beginner, by all means, buy this book. Just promise that you will actually read the referenced Crowley materials, which, despite rumors to the contrary, are not that difficult.

1 Plaisance. Israel Regardie and the Psychologization of Esoteric Discourse

Note: a version of this review first appeared in the Coph Nia Wand 2015.