Review of '93: An Aleister Crowley Primer' by Jerry and Erica Cornelius

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Jerry Cornelius, IX* and head of the Grady McMurtry A∴A∴, with Erica M. Cornelius, has given us another work sharing their insights into Thelema, titled 93: An Aleister Crowley Primer (2019). Reminiscent of Crowley’s Magick Without Tears, it covers a wide range of material suitable to variable levels of experience and exposure to Thelema.

Generally speaking, I dislike “Beginner Books”. By calling itself a primer, 93 places itself in that category. However, this book is closer to what I want to see.

Let me start with what I dislike about the book. First, its presentation is lacking. The book itself is visually unimpressive. I got it at the same time as another book which was double stitched and had all the other bells and whistles that I have come to expect from a limited edition book. I realize that 93 was priced as a standard book (i.e., $31) so this is a quibble. However, my initial impression was not favorable.

Next is the font. The font on the cover and elsewhere in the book reminds me of the font I used in my Anarcho-punk zines in the 1980s. This also detracts, in my opinion, from the impact of the book. Even though I acknowledge that these are rather piddly concerns, I feel it makes the book look a bit sad and dated.

As always, I find the lack of an index to be disappointing. While it is less of a concern given the question and answer format of this book, an index would still be beneficial.

A final complaint, if you are going to put a word in over-sized font, make sure it is spelled correctly. I have been unable to find a definition for the word “Aherant”. I can only infer that it is a misspelling of the word “Adherent”, which is discussed in some detail earlier in the book. Perhaps I missed this word, “Aherant”, being defined elsewhere in the text, but I do not recall it, nor did I find it anywhere near the text in question. Having complained about this, I will no doubt introduce a glaring typographical error in this essay.

So, what do I like about the book? First off, it isn’t another beginner book where the author just gives us a simplified version of what Crowley wrote. DuQuette’s The Magick of Thelema is useful because it actually puts the god-names for the Hexagram ritual as a footnote to the Hexagram ritual. For some reason, Crowley did not. Useful, yes. Ground breaking, no. Even Shoemaker’s Living Thelema engages in some of this. That is not the case for 93. The book is a discussion of Thelemic thought, not a collection of recipes with the chef’s notes in the margins.

Being more akin to Magick Without Tears than Liber O, we get several questions with their answers. As it explicitly points out, this is from the Grady McMurtry school of the A∴A∴. Jerry has a rather fascinating history of his own in the Thelemic community. I will not claim I agree with him on everything, but I will give him a fair hearing. If I agreed with someone on everything, I would need to assume they were lying to me.

There are 116 questions (assuming I can still count), and six non-questions (including the preface et al). As I have been a Thelemite for three decades or so, I already had answers for some of the more basic questions — “What are the Secret Chiefs?” or “What is a Kaaba?” — though it is important to read these as one needs to know how the author is using the term. Various A∴A∴ lineages can have divergent meanings for the same terms. This doesn’t mean any of them are wrong, per se. It does mean that you can get tripped up when you assume they mean X but they actually mean Y.

I really enjoyed where they start discussing the Tunis commentary and various trends within the present day Thelemic community. They also discussed some of the flaws of the prophet. While I may not agree with all of their assessments, or the ramifications deriving from those assessments, it is refreshing to hear something a bit deeper than “he fails to meet up with the modern western moral values, so he is bad and wrong”. Objectively speaking, Crowley failed some of his charges as the prophet of the new aeon. Denying this will lead one into falsity and error.

So, all in all, this book is worth the money I spent on it. It is also worth the time I spent reading it — this being a more significant evaluation these days. I look forward to re-reading portions of this book and seeing if any other insights arise. I do plan on discussing a couple of portions of the book, so look forward to those videos.

Truth is found in the rubble of falsehood. 

Love is the law, love under will.


https://www.bitchute.com/video/n5k5gxEQ09wT/

The Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law

This essay came about from a discussion on another forum. It dates from about a year and a half ago. Some Edits have been made to (hopefully) clarify the text.

All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself. (AL: Comment)

In the Tunis Comment, which is often used by the OTO and other self-identified Thelemites to stifle/avoid open discussion on what it means to be a Thelemite, we are instructed to look to Crowley’s writings. It strikes me as strange that his full commentaries are not in print. We were promised them back in the 1990s, but they have not materialized.

While the commentaries, which I understand to be abridged, are available online, the only published commentaries are out of print. This includes the “new” version of The Law is for All (1996) [Priced 26 May 2018 at $118 used]. The gold standard for commentaries has always been the Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law (1974). This book has been out of print for some time. I almost had a heart attack when I realized that replacing it would cost about a $1000  [Priced 26 May 2018 at $765 used].

This book contains the Old and New Commentaries interspersed with the verses, and the Djeridensis Comment at the end. The old and new comments are differently edited than those of the original Law is for All (1983) [26 May Only $75 used]. Reading them all is probably the best option available to us. I will continue to wish for a complete, faithful edition of Crowley’s commentary, preferably with footnotes explaining any references, people, or places alluded to by the text.

Anyway, the commentary is important. It elaborates on the metaphysics underpinning the new Æon as understood by Crowley--who is enjoined in the text to do this. Accepting the Law means accepting the spiritual authority of Crowley as the prophet of the new Æon, and this text tells you what that means.

The text must be read carefully and repeatedly. There are many things that will upset modern readers, entrenched as they are in the modern worldview. Then again, I am very amused by how long passages of the most objectionable type (e.g. on women) are then followed by a “but we of Thelema reverse all of this”.

While writing this, I noticed that The Hermetic Library has a Magical & Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law section under Liber AL vel Legis. I do not know if this is an actual transcription of the book or merely the old and new comments combined. I also spied the Djeridensis Comment, but the formatting of Chapter I is odd (it is in two columns in the book). (While checking to see if it is a faithful reproduction, I found that it is incomplete) [Note: As of 26 May 2018, it seems to be complete].

Further reading can be found at the bottom of The Hermetic Library’s Liber AL vel Legis page (Additional Reading is at the bottom).

#thelema #liberal #crowley #outofprintbookspissmeoff

Thelemic Ethics and Rights (Video + Script)

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Update

• I believe I mentioned this last video, but
• I am changing my ending track. I am tired of getting an automated copyright flag, disputing it with the Creative Commons license, and then having them approve some and disapprove others. Annoying.
  • The New Track is “The Charon” by Keosz from the “Entity EP”.
  • My Opening is still “Chant of Night Blades” by Kai Engel form the “Deathless: The Renaissance” album.
  • Links are below.
  • My use should not be taken as endorsement of my content by either artist.
• I went to Enoshima yesterday
  • Honored Benzaiten and The Dragon God. I also stopped by a Shingon Temple, but there was no fire so I didn’t stay long.
  • It was hot and muggy, but the discomfort will fade away and I will treasure the memory.
• My favorite Japanese gods are Inari, Benzaiten, Kannon, Jizo, and Tenjin.

So on with the video

• Thelema is an individualistic philosophy.
• Thelema borrows heavily from Nietzsche.
• Thelema also borrows heavily from various spiritual and religious practices from around the world
• Finally, it also borrows from Science, both Soft and Hard.
  • Please see my video on Thelema and the Scientific Method.
• Thelema positions itself as the inheritor of the past ages of mankind.
  • Rather than being post-modern, it attempts to inject a meaning and purpose back into life.
  • The influence of the Christian/Modern age cannot be undone, nor should it.
  • Those who seek to undo time are delusional
  • Also, those who seek to continue on the path of modernity to post-modernity are lost, directionless, and adrift.
  • This can be seen in the fractious and unrealistic behaviors of the more extreme elements of society
  • The seeds of modernity sown by Christianity have their natural culmination in behaviors of the SJW crowd.
  • Water flows downhill. Going back would merely return us to where we are today. This is the path of least resistance.
  • Thelema is resistance. A fight against the Spirit of Gravity. An upheaval which will divert the river onto a new path.
• Which brings us to the topic of this video.
  • The highest state of Overcoming is knowing one’s will. This typically involves work, discipline, and time.
  • One’s Will is the summation of one’s being. So how should one act until one achieves knowledge of their will?
  • Also, what if it is not one’s will to seek one’s will. Not everyone is meant to be a magician, hermit, or priest.
  • How should the Baker and the Banker act?
• Crowley penned three documents which are helpful in this regard.
  • Liber OZ sub figura LXXVII
  • Liber Libræ sub figura XXX
  • And an essay titled “Duty”
  • These documents form a basis for a Thelemic Society

Liber OZ sub figura LXXVII was written by Crowley to explain the “Rights of Man” in simple words of one syllable.

• It should be born in mind that this was written back when Man was still commonly used to refer to all humans of both sexes
• I’ve actually had some morons try to tell me that they didn’t apply to women (usually feminists)

Liber OZ is divided into 5 sections

1. Moral
2. Bodily
3. Mental
4. Sexual
5. And the right to Resist Tyranny

The title contains the mark of the beast in the seven pointed star (associated with Babalon) & several quotes from Liber AL.

• The symbolism of the graphic is rather obvious and outside the scope of this video. 
• Also, the I will also set aside discussion of the verses. 
  • I’ll include a link to the commentary of Liber AL for those interested.

So let us move on to the enumerated Rights. They are pretty straightforward, so comment will be minimal.

• 1) Man has the right to live by his own law—to live in the way that he wills to do: to work as he will: to play as he will: to rest as he will: to die when and how he will.
• 2) Man has the right to eat what he will: to drink what he will: to dwell where he will: to move as he will on the face of the earth.
• 3) Man has the right to think what he will: to speak what he will: to write what he will: to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will: to dress as he will.
• These first three points pretty much cover all the basics for the life of a true Anarch or Autarch. Note that this is specific to the individual. No one else has to like it. And except for the last two items of section two, no one else is necessarily involved. If I choose to dwell in another persons house, or choose to move through another persons property, this may cause conflict. We will deal with that in section five.
• 4) Man has the right to love as he will:—“take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where, and with whom ye will.” —AL. I. 51
• This often involves another person. As indicated, will tends to have a special meaning in Thelema (which itself is a word indicating Will). 
• I will quote a small portion of Crowley’s commentary on this verse: “But he should not injure himself and his right aforesaid; acts invasive of another individual's equal rights are implicitly self-aggressions. A thief can hardly complain on theoretical grounds if he is himself robbed. Such acts as rape, and the assault or seduction of infants, may therefore be justly regarded as offences against the Law of Liberty, and repressed in the interests of that Law.” (New Comment)
• I recommend reading the whole thing.
• 5) Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.
• This is the most controversial of our rights. This is where the Will is so important. Is what you are trying to do important enough to kill? If I deem it is my will to dwell in your house, and you seek to stop me, then by section five, I have the right to kill you. However, in section one, you have the right to die when and how you will. Thus, you have the right to kill me. It can get complicated. Crowley added some more considerations in “Duty”. 
• However, we can also look at this as a form of the “Mandate of Heaven” (ala Confucius). The fact of there being a conflict is indicative of having lost the “Mandate of Heaven”, or, in Thelema, of one party not being in accord with their Will.
• This can easily go down a Theological rabbit hole, so suffice to say, no one wants to live where we are in constant danger of being killed, so this should probably be viewed as something to be reserved for an extreme case.

Liber Libræ sub figura XXX is an official instruction of the A.’.A.’.

• As such, it has a much more spiritual and occult tone.
• I will skip over much of it and only point out parts that would be of use to the layman
• The full text can be found in the link provided in the comments.

The title gives an indication of the tone of the work.

• Libræ refers to the astrological sign of Libra, the Scales
• XXX is the number for the Hebrew letter Lamed, which refers to an “Ox Goad”
  • The Goad is used to keep the beast moving in the proper direction, that is to guide it in the proper direction
  • Lamed is also attributed, in the Hermetic Qabalah, to Libra
• Thus the book (Liber means “book”) is meant to guide the aspirant in the proper path, that of balance.
• Liber Libræ is also referred to as “The Book of Balance”.

So, some of the relevant portions

• 0. Learn first — Oh thou who aspirest unto our ancient Order! — that Equilibrium is the basis of the Work. If thou thyself hast not a sure foundation, whereon wilt thou stand to direct the forces of Nature?
• 5. Yet, oh aspirant, let thy victories bring thee not Vanity, for with increase of Knowledge should come increase of Wisdom. He who knoweth little, thinketh he knoweth much; but he who knoweth much hath learned his own ignorance. Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope of a fool, than of him.
• 6. Be not hasty to condemn others; how knowest thou that in their place, thou couldest have resisted the temptation? And even were it so, why shouldst thou despise one who is weaker than thyself?
• 9. A man is what he maketh himself within the limits fixed by his inherited destiny; he is a part of mankind; his actions affect not only what he calleth himself, but also the whole universe.
• 10. Worship and neglect not, the physical body which is thy temporary connection with the outer and material world. Therefore let thy mental Equilibrium be above disturbance by material events; strengthen and control the animal passions, discipline the emotions and the reason, nourish the Higher Aspirations.
• 11. Do good unto others for its own sake, not for reward, not for gratitude from them, not for sympathy. If thou art generous, thou wilt not long for thine ears to be tickled by expressions of gratitude.
• 12. Remember that unbalanced force is evil; that unbalanced severity is but cruelty and oppression; but that also unbalanced mercy is but weakness which would allow and abet Evil. Act passionately; think rationally; be Thyself.
• 15. Nevertheless have the greatest self-respect, and to that end sin not against thyself. The sin which is unpardonable is knowingly and wilfully to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices.

So, the target for this is for “newbies” — people who are joining the group. Just in case it isn’t obvious, these are people who are not yet aware (or fully aware) of their Will. This is a general instruction meant to guide people along the path to become Thelemites.

• The general themes are toward restraint, to avoid false vanity, to respect and honor oneself, to do things for their own sake.
• I want to bring special attention to items 12 & 15.
  • We can see these in modern politics. Calls for unbalanced mercy are routinely made in Identity Politics, Migration Policy, etc
  • Failure to practice unbalanced mercy are met with equally unbalanced severity, as can be seen by anti-fa, BAMN, etc
  • As an aside, the terms mercy and severity refer to the right and left pillars of the Hermetic Qabalah (I am unsure if they are also in the original Jewish Qabalah).
  • Thelema, being a Middle Path tradition (as is the original Buddhism), exhorts us to follow the Middle Pillar (aka Aaron’s Rod).
  • 15 makes an allusion to the unpardonable sin of Christianity (there is only one). Which is to sin against the Holy Spirit. As we are all gods, we are holy spirits, thus the only unpardonable sin is to sin against one’s self.
  • Obviously, any harm to ourselves cannot be forgiven, as that harms effects are everlasting, but we can overcome by ceasing to sin against ourselves.
  • The nature of this sin against ourselves? “Knowingly and wilfully to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices”.
  • If only the entire world ran on that principle.
• Again, this work is pretty straightforward, and I think most of my commentary would be redundant repetition of the obvious.

With this we have pretty much covered the individual. We will move into the final work, “Duty”.
The best I can find for dating “Duty” is circa 1921. The manuscript is not dated and it was not printed during his lifetime. However, it does show Crowley’s thoughts on how Thelema would be applied to a broader context.
While several unofficial versions appeared from 1978 through 1994, the OTO published an official version in 1998.

• The linked version below is to the OTO website.
• Duty is divided into four parts.
• Part A covers one’s Duty to oneself. This holds a theme similar to the prior two works.
• Part B covers one’s Duty to other individual men and women. These are:
  • To seek union/interaction with others for mutual development
  • To avoid interfering with another’s will
  • If two wills do come into conflict, to battle as brothers. Conflict of this type is a form of Dialectic.
  • To, if it is one’s Will, instruct others who ask or to instruct those who are about to infringe on one’s will.
  • To recognize the divinity in others, just as one recognizes it in oneself.
• Part C covers one’s Duty to mankind.
  • This is to establish the law of Thelema.
  • This Law being a Law of Liberty, the aim of the legislature must be to secure the amplest freedom for each individual in the state, eschewing the presumptuous assumption that any given positive ideal is worthy to be obtained.
  • Crime is also viewed as interference with the Will of another.
  • And here is my guiding principle: “The rule is quite simple. He who violated any right declares magically that it does not exist; therefore it no longer does so, for him.”
  • Those who kill declare that they have no right to live. Those who steal declare that they have no right to private property. Those who interfere with another’s Freedom of Speech declare that they have no right to speak.
• Part D covers one’s Duty to all other beings and things.
  • This is summed up by applying the Law of Thelema to everything.
  • For those who want something a little more concrete, “It is a violation of the Law of Thelema to abuse the natural qualities of any animal or object by diverting it from its proper function, as determined by consideration of its history and structure.”
  • Essentially, treat yourself and the world with respect.
  • Clear-cutting the forest violates the integrity of the forest and its biodiversity. Logging does not, so long as what is taken is necessary and sustainable. Coercive behavior towards your fellow man is unacceptable. Really, most of the sane aspects of conservative and liberal practical ideology are all predicated on this simple principle.

Duty delineates a Thelemic Society.

• The purpose of a Thelemic Society is to enable its members to accomplish their wills
• The individual is paramount.
• However, the individual does not exist in isolation.
• The individual belongs to a network of relations which, if properly established, serve to enhance and define the individual.
• Since we define our universe via our perceptions, when we deny another some right, we are declaring its invalidity.
• We cannot demand a right that we have declared invalid by virtue of denying it to another.
• If you attempt to deny me a right, e.g. my right to physical integrity, you exclude yourself from my consideration of you on that right.
• E.g. if you try to hit me, I can hit you back.

Alright, so what does all this mean? I’ll attempt to synthesize these works. This is my interpretation. I will undoubtedly integrate knowledge from other works, both Thelemic and non, into this. I will endeavor to attribute them all appropriately.
It is important to remember that Thelema is about the will. Its purpose is to assist you in manifesting your will. However, it may very well be that it is some people’s will to not explicitly know their will — and this is fine. Existence is pure joy, so as long as what you are doing is filling you with joy, we can infer that you are doing your will. Librae and Duty are geared toward people who have not yet attained knowledge of their will.
My key take-away for interpersonal relations is that you deny yourself any right that you deny to another. The murderer has no right to life. The Thief has no right to enjoy the fruits of their labor — especially property. The person who would remove another’s right to speak has no right to free speech. It is actually very simple. I know I have been harping on this theme, but it is something that I believe in passionately.
Now, what about OZ? What about those who have come to understand their own wills. This is a common enough concept, rife throughout religion and philosophy. The Stoic Sage, the Taoist Sage, the Confucian Superior Man, the Christian “Saved” (at least in some conceptions), and (I would argue) Nietzsche’s Ubermensch exist in an exalted state where the common rules do not apply. They are not, however, free from physics or its spiritual equivalent. OZ specifically exists for these people, and it can be summed up as “You have the right to do your will and destroy those who would prevent it”.
Now, it may be your will to travel a path that will result in conflict. That does not mean that it is your will to win that conflict. Your will may be to conflict with another will and from that dialectical conflict, a proper path will emerge. Crowley does advise caution. He tells us that, while it may be our will to descend a cliff, it may not be our will to do so by stepping over the edge and plummeting to our death.
Many of these topics are elaborated in Magick Without Tears, a work Crowley completed just prior to his death.

• It generally represents his final thoughts on a topic
• In some cases, this represents a contradiction of earlier positions
• A classic example argued in Thelemic Circles is whether Thelema is a religion.
  • To sum up, our system is a religion just so far as a religion means an enthusiastic putting-together of a series of doctrines, no one of which must in any way clash with Science or Magick.
  • Call it a new religion, then, if it so please your Gracious Majesty; but I confess that I fail to see what you will have gained by so doing, and I feel bound to add that you might easily cause a great deal of misunderstanding, and work a rather stupid kind of mischief.
  • The word does not occur in The Book of the Law.
  • MWT: XXXI: Religion–Is Thelema a "New Religion"?

So, yeah, I hope this was informativeTruth is found in the rubble of falsehood
Love is the law, love under will.

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.

Confucianism, Thelema, and Tradition [418 Words]

This is the last of my targeted word count writings. Future work will be less artificially constrained.

Recently, I have been fascinated by Confucianism. It created a meritocratic system of self-cultivation that lasted for centuries. While its practice may never have matched its ideals, I think we can learn much from this tradition. The official Thelemic viewpoint on Confucianism is favorable as well. The prophet references it in his new comment for verse III:53. Mongol is taken to be a probable reference to Confucianism (personally, I think it refers to all traditions of the “Mongols”). It, along with Buddhism, Hinduism, and the Qabalah, are taken as correct in essence, but imperfect in practice.

These practices have, by virtue of Crowley, Guénon, and Evola, had their flesh torn, as per III:53. The sole exception seems to be Confucianism. Crowley addressed Buddhism, Qabalah, Taoism, and the two traditions from III:51-52 (Christianity and Islam). Guénon dealt with Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam. Evola addressed Buddhism. These aren’t exhaustive, but reflect their work in conjunction with III:50-54. Other than a brief mention in Evola’s work on Taoism (in itself, a brief gloss), Confucianism has been largely ignored. This is unfortunate, as few traditions have the innate restorative power for a world fallen into the Kali Yuga as does Confucianism. It’s meritocratic methodology would restore the “confusion of the castes” that Guénon and Evola chronicled. Further, it would be self-selected and free from any bias other than the inherent bias of ascription to the principles being espoused (in this case, Thelema). Also, the intent of Confucianism seems to be replicated in Crowley’s vision of the AA and the reading lists.

The purpose of Confucianism is the cultivation of the superior man. To achieve this, one studies and practices the prescribed teachings. Beyond this, many Chinese dynasties utilized Confucian knowledge as the base for selecting government officials. Testing was a necessary component and one’s score determined one’s position within the government. These tests looked much like those I have seen for entrance into the A∴A∴. While some questions were capable of being answered by rote memorization, certain questions were designed so as to allow the student to show their own comprehension and internalization of the material. These questions had no specific answer (though they probably had wrong answers).


The A∴A∴ system, as it was written by Crowley, seems to be Confucian in nature. One is given Thelemic texts to study, along with materials meant to illuminate understanding and provide background to the texts. These are conjoined to practices which are meant to provide an experiential reference.

Commentaries for AL III:50-54 (Old & New, there is no published "D" commentary for chapter III)

The Old Comment for this entire section is brief.

Appears to be a plain instruction in theology and ethics. I do not understand “Din.” Bahlasti = 358, and Ompedha, perhaps, 210. [Old Comment III:48-62]

All other commentary is from the new comment.

III:50:Curse them! Curse them! Curse them!
III:51:With my Hawk's head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross.

We are to consider carefully the particular attack of Heru Ra Ha against each of these 'gods' or prophets; for though they be, or represent, the Magi of the past, the curse of their Grade must consume them.

Thus it is the eyes of 'Jesus' – his point of view – that must be destroyed; and this point of view is wrong because of his Magical Gesture of self-sacrifice.

One must not for a moment suppose that this verse supports the historicity of 'Jesus.' 'Jesus' is not, and never was, a man; but he was a 'god,' just as a bundle of old rags and a kerosene tin on a bush may be a 'god.' There is a man-made idea, built of ignorance, fear, and meanness, for the most part, which we call 'Jesus,' and which has been tricked out from time to time with various gauds from Paganism, and Judaism.

The subject of 'Jesus' is, most unfortunately, too extensive for a note; it is treated fully in my book 888.

III:52:I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.

Mohammed's point of view is wrong too; but he needs no such sharp correction as 'Jesus.' It is his face – his outward semblance – that is to be covered with His wings. The tenets of Islam, correctly interpreted, are not far from our Way of Life and Light and Love and Liberty. This applies especially to the secret tenets. The external creed is mere nonsense suited to the intelligence of the peoples among whom it was promulgated; but even so, Islam is Magnificent in practice. Its code is that of a man of courage and honour and self-respect; contrasting admirably with the cringing cowardice of the damnation dodging Christians with their unmanly and dishonest acceptance of vicarious sacrifice, and their currish conception of themselves as 'born in sin,' 'miserable sinners' with 'no health in us.'

III:53:With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the Buddhist, Mongol and Din.

“The Indian.” The religion of Hindustan, metaphysically and mystically comprehensive enough to assure itself the possession of much truth, is in practice almost as superstitious and false as Christianity, a faith of slaves, liars and dastards. The same remarks apply roughly to Buddhism.

“Mongol:” presumably the reference is to Confucianism, whose metaphysical and ethical flawlessness has not saved its adherents from losing those ruder virtues which are proper to a Fighting Animal, and thus yielding at last a civilization coeval with history itself to the barbarous tribes of Europe.

“Din” – 'severity' or 'judgment' may refer to the Jewish Law, rather than to the Faith (ad 'din') of Islam. Assuming this, the six religions whose flesh must be torn out cover the whole globe outside Islam and Christianity.

Why assault their flesh rather than their eyes, as in the other cases? Because the metaphysics, or point of view, is correct – I take Judaism as Qabalistic – but the practice imperfect.

III:54: Bahlasti! Ompehda! I spit on your crapulous creeds.

 By sound Bahlasti suggests “hurling” or “blasting;” Ompehda is not too phantastically onomatopoetic for 'an explosion."

Note: References to the missing Appendix were removed.