Author Topic: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?  (Read 5640 times)

Xepera maSet

  • Xepera maSet utcha ahAsartchet
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1965
  • Total likes: 2038
  • Mephistopheles of the Southern Deserts
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #45 on: January 21, 2018, 04:51:06 pm »
I think that at its core Thelema is a stellar religion, LHP. The solar stuff is because the book was received by a very solar based magician with a massive ego. Sure Crowley was the best in Egypt perhaps to receive the book, and he certainly made it wide spread, but he certainly wasn't perfect. Crowley's perversions are often clear and completely litter the copies of AL we have now.

Working overtime to uncover
the mysteries of existence
(as described by Onyx)

I have come into being like Set,
the Separator who contends against Osiris for Eternity.


Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #46 on: January 21, 2018, 07:00:50 pm »
An important disticntion we have to make is the Book of the Law is exactly the same as it was recieved, it even comes with the original hand-writing.

It is seriously open up for interpretation and the Comment in the book is so that one follow does not push his interpretation onto another- quite the opposite of Abrahamic religions haha

Sure, some of the symbolism is undeniable but as for the message and interpretation, it's very much up for debate and can indicate a strong LHP belief system or Middle Path.

Now, Crowley's commentaries, which are not a part of the book of the Law, can lean RHP sometimes at first glance. For example, respecting everyone's right to do as they will seems to contrast the rather Darwinian instructions in Book of the Law. But think about it,  Wilt meaning divine right. Book of Law explicitly said that slaves shall serve and do not be afraid of harming another because if he is a King he will not be harmed. There's enough argument that Crowley was intructions was for King's only when it comes to praxis and progressing your own spiritual path. If they're slaves to themselves or domgatic old Aeon beliefs then they are not following their own will anyways.

I think getting hung up on the Solar nature of the religion clouds people by attributing moral qualities to the sun. The universe is neither good or bad, it just is. So the sun, the moon, the stars, humanity is neither good or bad. It just is. Crowley's goal with his antinomianism was to see through this entire duality. He says himself that his Adepts have their heads above the highest of heavens and feet below the lowest of hells.

If we interpret the general meaning of the Sun in spiritual practice, it represents spiritual purification. This doesn't nesecarrily mean to become one with God, that's people putting thier own projections of what spiritual purification means on to it. It's neither good nor bad, LHP or RHP, it just is. The reason Old Aeon religions are referred to as solar religions is because they often needed the sun to thrive and was afraid of the darkness and night. This repression would come out horribly with Crusades and everything else.

Well, let's look at Liber Resh. There is worship of the sun when it goes into the darkness and when it is in complete darkness. Well, why not worship the moon instead? The moon is the light in the darkness, therefore it often represents the subconcious. The moon is the dreams you remember, the dark sun or absence of the ray's light is the dark night of the soul or perhaps the mystery in darkness we can't know.

The crossing of the abyss to Crowley was the abyss of normality, among many other things. Now here's the distinction between Golden Dawn and OTO. The Golden Dawn's whole theory on the abyss is that you prepare for it and cross it when you die. Thelemic OTO believes that you can cross it in life. Why would you want to to do that? Stellar based religion. Remember Lion King with Kings in the stars? Well, Thelema beliefs something similar(not sure if it was in the original Egyptian belief or not). The city of Pyramids directly refers to stars as something similar to ascended masters. In Egypt, the Pharaoh was Horus in life and Osris in the afterlife providing a basis for the belief. Every man and woman is a star, yadda yadda.

Now, let's look more at how the Sun is represented in Thelema. Horus, the crowned and conquering child of this Aeon. Osiris as the role model of the Golden Dawn, to become Godlike in the after life. Horus is the model of Thelema. To be a ruler in this life who would be rather God like. In Book of the Law, he describes crushing an entire universe in one hand which most people interpret to mean the Old Aeaon. But if we seek to emulate Horus, what could that mean for us?

Horus isn't a pure solar deity as well. One of his eyes represents the sun in Egyptian mythology, but the other represents the moon. This goes back to his links with Set, Heru-Set and almost all of the mythology of warring against each other over who will rule until Set "loses" and is made to carry Osiris' casket of however it ended. However, in some versions of the myth after Set loses they both take their place as rulers of Egypt, equally, Horus and Set which I speculate is where Heru-Set comes from. A lot of Jungian shadow symbolism, shades of my Ragnarok article so it could be projection. But the fact that set had to carry the casket reminds me a lot of the bind your personal demons lesson most Ceremonialists take from Solomon and Solominic grimoires, and we knew Crowley viewed Goetia as a psychological model at one point, so it wouldn't be a stretch for him to interpret it the same way.

This myth is re-enforced when we see if Osris, being your own god, and taking your place as a pharoah thats his distinct god among the stars, is desirable from a LHP perspective. The magican can not be slain without Set's trickery and a journey into the darkness. The magician can not purify himself of all that his not his Will without Horus to extend his personal power and strike down at all aroudn him and within himself that is not of his own will. Their constant battle is to undermine each other's weakness so that only strength remains. In fact, it's often Thoth, the God of Wisdom, who is judging their battles.  ;) These trials provide Wisdom.

When the Golden Dawn prays to the sun, they hoped to cross that night sky in death, as said before. When a Thelemite prays to the sun they hope to follow it into the night and be reborn on the other side as a strong spiritual force in life. The city of pyramids is sometimes said to refer, not to the metaphorical imagery of the pyramids that point ot the stars in Egypt, but the pyramidical hoods on the robes of those who become masters of the temple. It's clearly both. This whole concept of rebirth is similar to the remanifestion that Set preaches with Xeper.

Now, one could take my exact same arguments and I'm sure make a point for RHP philosophy with it because as I said: the universe, the stars, the night, the day, the sun, the moon, humanity, and so on is neither good or bad. It just is. If man is free to do his Will then he is free to use every force as he Will for the purposes that he Will. The only thing that will stop him is his own projections of morality in which Antinomianism and Knowing Thyself can free him from.

Frater V.I.M.

Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #47 on: January 22, 2018, 05:57:46 am »
I think getting hung up on the Solar nature of the religion clouds people by attributing moral qualities to the sun. The universe is neither good or bad, it just is. So the sun, the moon, the stars, humanity is neither good or bad. It just is.

Yup. And nothing changes the fact that the sun is a star just as much as any other star. A sun is merely a star with planets orbiting it. And even further, moonlight is nothing but sunlight bounced off a big rock. Moonlight is just sunshine-lite.
"The old gods did not die, they fell into Hell and became devils.”
- Anton LaVey

Frater Sisyphus

  • Guest
Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #48 on: January 30, 2018, 08:04:35 am »
Crowley was confused about it because Thelema is completely individual in nature. The Book of the Law led to two seperate solutions of the equation; one delcaring the Aeon of Set and the other the Aeon of Ma'at(which would later manifest through someone else who didn't solve the equation.) Then there's the Typhonian current. I'd even call chaos magick a splinter from that and probably more in line with the philosophy than most.

Then you've also got people like Austin Spare (a precursor to chaos magic) too, who where trying to get away from that and back to the individual by creating a new paradigm. In many ways, it's all resulted from the splinter caused through those groups of people taking on Crowleyanity and ignoring the law itself outlined in Liber Legis. 

It's true that Crowley was a prophet (and a literary genius in his own right) but he is not the "be all, end all" authoritative figure of Thelema (which seems like a contradiction but isn't).

People holding to Crowleyanity all the way back then is what has caused this weird schism  :huh:

Frater Sisyphus

  • Guest
Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #49 on: January 30, 2018, 08:13:06 am »
@Frater V.I.M.  I would agree with your school of thought, I always viewed Crowley as a trickster archetype. While I'm not a huge fan of the man(other than being a thelemite), I fucking love his sense of humor. That seems like a very Crowley thing to do.

Which isn't a bad thing either, it's a very Zen thing in a way. I like the idea that he's often saying something completely different to what he appears to be saying. Often it's like a Zen master test of the ego, which makes uncritical/non-skeptical people either look like idiots or loose their temper  :mrgreen:

I love his sense of humor too, it's often esoteric (like my own sense of humor) but so cleverly witty and sometime 'dirty'  :P


Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #50 on: January 31, 2018, 12:29:59 pm »
Honestly, the main reason I love the guy's writing so much is his sense of humor. It's has a pretty wide range of just being a dry blunt joke or some kind of clever world play and it's the main appeal to his writing for me. One of my favorite chapters from the Book of Lies is the following:

"The Universe is the Practical Joke of the General at the Expense of the Particular, quoth FRATER PERDURABO, and laughed.

But those disciples nearest to him wept, seeing the Universal Sorrow.

Those next to them laughed, seeing the Universal Joke.

Below these certain disciples wept.

Then certain laughed.

Others next wept.

Others next laughed.

Next others wept.

Next others laughed.

Last came those that wept because they could not see the Joke, and those that laughed lest they should be thought not to see the Joke, and thought it safe to act like FRATER PERDURABO.

But though FRATER PERDURABO laughed openly, He also at the same time wept secretly; and in Himself He neither laughed nor wept.

Nor did He mean what He said."

A lot of Book of Lies goes back to the zen thing. I think if you're appealing to his philosophy, and not his magical tech, Book of Lies is what stends up the most as it often goes into zen-like ways of stating stuff, but I'm not fond of all of it and prefer to separate The Book of Law from most of Crowley's philosophy within reason.

And yeah, I love the Trickster archetype a lot in many ways. I identify with it on some level strongly when it comes to magical practice so in that sense, I find it a bit easier to relate to Crowley's writings than most authors as it's shit I wish I was clever enough to write with some kind of similar antagonistic jovial mood. My trickery often comes from the practice of my magical style and how I interact with the cosmic universe and occasionaly people in my mundane life.

I always grouped AO Spare into chaos magic but hell, you could see chaos magic even has it's own split factions in a way with folks like Thee Psychick Temple and people who take a more Phil Hine approach or those that stick to Peter J Carrol's outlines and approaches.

I esentially take the Book of Law as declaration that the Aeon of Osiris is being destroyed to pave way for individuality with does of interesting prophecy to verify it and some elements personsal bibliomancy if one chooses to use in such a fashion. I see the Aeon of Horus and Set as the same in many ways as my image of Horus the Elder is one picking at the eyes of Jesus on the cross and I see Horus the Younger, the crowned and conquering child, of the individual who now was the right to pursue their free-will and grow into their deified self.

I largely ignore the Aeon of Satan as a.) responsible indulgence is already key to the Thelemic philosophy b.) I find irresponsible indulgence beneficial to no one including the self and just makes you a slave to something else.

As David Foster Wallace said:

"“If you worship money and things — if they are where you tap real meaning in life — then you will never have enough. Never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your own body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly, and when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally plant you. On one level, we all know this stuff already — it’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, bromides, epigrams, parables: the skeleton of every great story. The trick is keeping the truth up-front in daily consciousness. Worship power — you will feel weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to keep the fear at bay. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart — you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. And so on.”

Frater Sisyphus

  • Guest
Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #51 on: February 10, 2018, 05:27:28 am »
I agree what practically all of what you have said there  :thumbsup:

Onion-Peelings is also one of my favorite pieces ever, The Book Of Lies is a through and through; masterpiece. Onion Peelings itself has about 4 different layers of interpretation, each of them as profound as they are disturbing. The core messages being highly important to both magicians (and occultists) and to philosophy itself  :mrgreen:

Before I saw for myself the witty side of that chapter (in particular), it hit me with immense existential dread - as at the time I was still struck with discontent with the material world, so I saw the chapter as an immensely cynical commentary on the nature of meaning. It became highly ironic later on, when I realized that it was also commenting on how ten people see the something in ten different ways and that people interpret things through the lens of their acquired knowledge and so on - then about the magus/Minerval = student/teacher ideas, which relate back to the OTO and Freemasonry. It's so awesome  :mrgreen:
Essentially it made my cry when I first read it, then it made me laugh later on  :P
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 05:36:19 am by Frater Sisyphus »

Frater Sisyphus

  • Guest
Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #52 on: February 10, 2018, 05:51:48 am »
I too separate Liber Al Vel Legis from Crowley. There is the Book of the Law, then there's Crowley - who I consider a commenter (outside from his own literary works and plays etc) like Achad or Grant.

Legis and The Book of Lies are both linguistically really dense (complex) works and both alone could keep a person busy for a lifetime (not alike Liber ABA - which is highly comprehensive in the wider world of magick) but both serve entirely different purposes (despite that they are both important in general). Legis is a (cryptic) sacred text and The Book Of Lies is an anthology-ish but interconnected work of literature - comprising of poems, riddles, philosophical dialogues and several rituals.

I love both a lot  :)
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 05:53:36 am by Frater Sisyphus »

Frater Sisyphus

  • Guest
Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #53 on: February 15, 2018, 03:20:19 am »
Oh, King Mob - I forgot to add, that the David Foster Wallace quote is really great, I completely agree. Without balance, anything can easily become it's opposite. It is a very powerful philosophical idea and it has been in my mind for a long time, I think it's where Crowley's (in the context of this thread) approach to deliberate contradiction is a big personal building block to approach life in several areas, to be able to reverse it aswell and skeptically assess anything outside of our bias'  :)


Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #54 on: February 15, 2018, 03:46:13 am »
I really like your approach to Crowley. Book of Lies and Book of Laws are really the two core books for me and serve me well in those respective ways. A analyizaton of the rituals in Book of Lies was an integral moment in progressing my path even though I didn't realize it at the time and I agree that Book of the Law is a sacred holy text. Anything else by Crowley is a curiosity where I'm concerned but a commentary worth readiing if you have any similar inclinations. I like the old british wealth culture Crowley represents too from a historical standpoint. Not the stuffy kind but the one who uses their money to actually experience life.  Reading his diaries is kind of like reading any anthropologist or adventures of his time right down to the format.

I had a similar reaction to Onion Peelings as well. I find it hilarious now. So much of Book of Lies gets those different layers understanding as yoou progress in your path too, the chapter is almost like the key too Book of Lies.

That David Foster Wallace quote, I actually cut off and continues with "find what you love...and let it kill you" which is probably something Crowley would agree with as well, although in a much different way.

Frater Sisyphus

  • Guest
Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #55 on: February 15, 2018, 04:28:42 am »
Those two books where only named because you did, but they are also both core books for me - and they are two special books that keep changing with me (but both in different ways)

I am also very partial to Liber Cordis Cincti Serpente and The Vision And The Voice.

Cincti is a book of parables and The Vision, is literally what it says in the title - a collection of visions Crowley had while working with Dee's ( :mrgreen: ) Enochian System.
They've both got beautiful, multi-layered imagery that is both inspiring and very vivid.

Outside of those, which aren't received texts despite being termed "holy books" (which I don't think they are), I love Liber ABA like anyone else, Konx Om Pax and his diaries.

(As I said somewhere that I'm a composer/musician) I actually started writing an opera to his "The World's Tragedy" at one point.

Liber Legis is still the disperate centerpiece of Thelema (and off-shoots/developments) that is separate from everything Crowley wrote, I really don't subscribe to "Crowleyanity" - which I've seen a lot of on facebook groups  :\
There are also other sacred texts that are highly important to me in different ways, but that's for another thread  ;)
« Last Edit: February 15, 2018, 04:31:33 am by Frater Sisyphus »

Frater Sisyphus

  • Guest
Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #56 on: February 15, 2018, 05:47:17 am »
Also, on The Book Of Lies again, it intrigues me a lot how it is a literary work (as opposed to something like the Equinox or The Book Of Thoth, Liber Aleph and other information-ridden teaching books), as to say it isn't in the same playing field as those - yet it is in the A∴A∴ curriculum.

I think that aside from in an intellectual way, The Book Of Lies is the Crowley book that is likely to challenge the initiate the most on an emotional, moral, philosophical, etc besides Liber Legis itself (which is* attributed to Aiwass anyway), despite being in a completely different area of his writing output to even the works listed in the top paragraph)

*it's debated but it's of no concern to me.


Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #57 on: February 15, 2018, 06:49:49 pm »
Vision & The Voice is beautiful, but I regard it as one of his magickal diaries which is fascinating reads for multiple reasons but one I don't let influence my core philosophy/view of Thelema. In fact, it seems to have becomes tradition in Thelema for one to perform their own scryings of the 30 aethyrs and record their own findings which are more personal to them. Still, a lot of Vision & The Voice is key to Babalon- but I find Jack Parson's workings more interesting in that regard. I don't think Crowley had the personality to really channel a dominant feminine archetype fully. Parsons on the other hand, well, he was a great a man and had his own set of problems but he seems much more receptive to that kind of energy.

I've still yet to read Konx Om Pax. Liber ABA is the volume with magic and theory in practice right? It's definitely very useful but I've found a lot of modern authors have simplified the basics of magic in much more useful ways since then particulary in chaos magic fields.

Frater Sisyphus

  • Guest
Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #58 on: February 16, 2018, 04:29:26 am »
I can relate very much with Parson's myself (and I am a huge fan of Cameron and her art/writings/self, outside of the working), whilst I keep Liber 49 away with a yardstick  :P The rituals themselves that led to that 'received text' and the result, are very significant for me personally (but I hate Hubbard's guts).

I hope to attempt something of the kind (but more sensibly) in the future when I am more prepared for a working of this kind. The Enochian system by the way, is so so damn interesting (as is Dee in about every aspect!)

Correct about Liber ABA (Book Four).
As for Chaos Magick, yes, although; in it's very inception is meant to be more simpler and straight-forward anyway - not that it provides a sufficient answer IMO to the problem it's attempting to solve.
Still, there are some good snippets of information that I've learned from Liber Null and Psychonaut (in particular) though as I'm inspired by Discordianism, I find that it's approach to chaos tends to me more personally than Chaos magick.  :)
« Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 05:02:53 am by Frater Sisyphus »

Frater Sisyphus

  • Guest
Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #59 on: February 28, 2018, 04:10:20 am »
As some of you here are Setians and so on, a thought has been bothering my mind a lot lately (as a Thelemite).

How much of Thelema's doctrine and practice do you think is informed solely by Crowley himself?

I remember reading Michael Aquino's commentary on Liber Legis a few weeks back and I think the remnants in my mind from some of what he has said (both there and in other places) has sort of stuck a chord with me. I think that I'm starting to reject conventional Thelema.
I guess after a lot of my interactions with a lot of different Thelemites (particularly in recent months) on several topics has left me feeling sour about a lot of Thelemic practice and doctrine.
I'll leave it at that for now...

Also with Aquino (still waiting for Mindstar  :cry: ), I really really feel compelled by what I've heard him speak about with psychology (another past-time of mine).

And on the original topic of the thread (which I never commented on..), I - myself, am more leanient towards RHP when it comes to moral and personal aspects, but then I do believe in the individual but I also believe in selflessness (which is a bit of a conflict) and from time-to-time I've practiced tantra/sex magick.
Do I have any specific "hand" or am I in the middle?

Cheers guys/girls  :)