Ancestral Veneration 

I have decided that there must be reconciliation for the current concept of the individual regarding the death of the many parts of himself in this life. I believe in reincarnation in regards to parts of the soul which need it, and that this happens on a microcosmic scale while we are living. After all, the Invokation of the “Bornless” (Head-less) One before the evokation of the Goetia is a bringing forth of the archetype of the “be-headed” King and Queen in the Chymical Wedding, of the myth of Osiris, etc. This is an archetype of the Higher Self, the HGA which commands the “dead” parts of us (shells of the personal unconscious, spirits of the Goetia) to rise and be guided under Will. There appears a literal connection to these ideas and that of the old depictions of Atu XX; the dead rising from their tombs and are given eternal life.

I’ve looked forward so much that I seem to have forgotten how I got here. There is an undeniable aspect of energy in ancestral workings (harnessed primarily for thaumaturgical purposes) but albeit powerful and has been dominant throughout the centuries.

To the theurgist, although all parts of the self end up in Sheol, they are either resurrected for the purposes of the Great Work, or abide as Qliphotic aspects of self which must continue to be rectified–both for our sake, and “theirs.” It is interesting that by understanding the microcosm in this manner, we understand that these aspects of our self contain in themselves a type of base consciousness; a persistence to exist and stubborness to attempt to avoid change or the death of itself.

This is essentially what our individual manifestations are to the macrocosm.

The aspects of self which are “righteous” i.e. in alignment with the True Will of the Individual, having been resurrected, can be interpreted to be living in Heaven/the Supernals/in Harmony with the All.

When we venerate our ancestors, we are acknowledging the continuation of the cycle and drawing forth all the energy of the transformations they’ve made throughout time, feeling the energy of the All propelling us forth into the Light. Therefore any progress made in the present is never ours, nor our ancestors, but the permutation of the One. 

The Image of God


My Love for God and God’s Love for Me springs from the Great Secret we share.
The Secret is: God and I will achieve Supreme Enlightenment at the same moment.

 

When the “I” searches for the “I” itself, it disappears.
The “I” is like Chokmah as the reflection of Kether. Binah represents Kether being aware of its own reflection, at which point the reflection is Understood as not another Kether, but as a reflection – and returns unto Kether. It is said that because Binah is “Infinite Goodness,” the Light which descends down beyond the Supernals into a Finite vessel shatters this vessel, creating Da’ath and the Qliphoth. Because Da’ath is not a true sephira, it only appears when Kether does not; in other words, when Da’at is constricted, the Light from the Supernals do not reach us. It is Knowledge from seeing a reflection and identifying the “I” with it and not the Origin of the image.

 
The only “thing” that the “I” can do is mirror the actions of the Origin which is True Will. We are all ideas (images in motion) of the One, but we interact with one another like we are all separate entities. Because we are all images of God, the images/ideas of the One includes the ability to think – the motion of the image. Hence, if we silence our thoughts, magick manifests perfectly because we are at all times mirroring the actions of the True Will – we just think ourselves away from simply being.

 
Thought is defined as “an idea produced by thinking or occuring suddenly in the mind.”
Through me, its unfailing Wisdom takes form in thought and word.

 
“The mind circles round and round a key idea – the ‘seed’ of the meditation – and the process bores a ‘well’ down through the layers of the concrete mind until (if persistently pursued) a breakthrough is made to the intuitional levels of consciousness.”

 
The “I” is no different; it is the idea/seed (of the One) which we continuously think around but cannot think of. It is from Hod, the Binah of the Microposopus, that the “I” is able to rationalize what “it is” based off of seeing images of “others,” but never itself.

 
If there is no other watching the “I,” it does not know what to be – it knows what it can be from the illusion of memory – (sensations which stir into motion a record that appears separate from the present), and it knows what it thinks it wants to be from the personal unconscious, where our thought patterns are habit calcified through the many years (a reinforced type of illusion of memory). These are the interferences which must be squashed in order to allow True Will to operate. The “I” never knows what it’s supposed to be until the ruach forges a link with the neshamah, which is informed by the chiah. The Supernals represent the (capital O) Other, whereas other people are actually images of this Other. We all practice (here mainly in the world of Yetzirah) figuring out what our True Will is through other people until the “I” is ready to behold the Supernals. When it is linked without obstruction to the yechidah, the “I” is One with True Will; other and Other are united.

Ambiguity & Wisdom

reason

 

Liber AL III:2. There is division hither homeward; there is a word not known. Spelling is defunct; all is not aught. Beware! Hold! Raise the spell of Ra-Hoor-Khuit!

“A commonly-held trope about occultism is that it is ‘scientific’ in the same way that physics or biology or engineering is ‘scientific’, and a consequence of that is the tendency to assume that when one writes about a specific occult term – be it egregore, aeon or chakra, that anyone who encounters the term is going to understand it in the same way that the writer does. In my experience at least, that’s usually not the case. Scientists go to great lengths to define precisely their terms of reference. Occultists tend not to. Yet there is the common assumption that a term, when it appears, has the same meaning for everyone. Worse yet, to my mind, there’s a tendency to reduce words to a single meaning. This becomes particularly apparent when words are lifted from other languages, and placed in a different context.” Phil Hine, 2005.

 

Language is limited by the rules which construct it, the forms which comprise it, the connotations that accrete it, its presentation or tone, and by the spirit of any individual’s intention to relay the message in question.
The beauty of ambiguity therefore lies in its ability to mirror that which perceives the message and attempts to interpret it. It forces the observer to reproduce the deduction by themselves. If the recipient is unable to interpret it (due to an inhibition from the ego), it is dismissed as nonsense. This inhibition is not a “bad thing.” This function prevents us from slipping into the chaos (LAW/LOGOS) of the unconscious mind. However, it is not always a good thing either, because it portrays a fear from the individual to avoid knowing that chaotic part of himself.

 

I:54. Change not as much as the style of a letter; for behold! thou, o prophet, shall not behold all these mysteries hidden therein.

 

 

There are three types of definitions when it comes to language (taken from philosophypages.com/lg/e05.htm) –

 

  1. Lexical: A Lexical definition simply reports the way in which a term is already used within a language community. The goal here is to inform someone else of the accepted meaning of the term, so the definition is more or less correct depending upon the accuracy with which it captures that usage.
  2. Stipulative: Freely assigns meaning to a completely new term, creating a usage that had never previously existed. The goal in this case is to propose the adoption of shared use of a novel term, and by virtue of there being no existing standards against which to compare it, the definition is always correct.
  3. Theoretical: Special cases of stipulative definition, distinguished by their attempt to establish the use of this term within the context of a broader intellectual framework. The adoption of any theoretical definition commits us to the acceptance of the theory of which it is an integral part.

In logic, mathematics and science, the use of ambiguity is disadvantageous due to the objective of avoiding contradiction, changes of assigned meaning, and overall aspects of unpredictability which all threaten their foundation  – but art, philosophy, and occultism all have the potential to function in the realms beyond contradiction; where any given contradiction is a set in itself, encompassed by a larger set where both sets provide answers to one another. Evolution in language by the use of theoretical definitions make for extensive understandings but challenges in communication. Similarly, the use of stipulative definitions requires elaboration in meaning, either in context or directly. Even lexicon definitions face the threat of being misunderstood if two people of different fields of study have a conversation using the same terms. Occultists often argue due to a difference in the usage of terms and not necessarily of meaning.
It is the analysis and assimilation of meanings (and of nonsense), underneath the fabric of language which interest me and influence my perception, practice, and life. I recognize that communication is a challenge all on its own to overcome. I sympathize with my acquaintances who have spent years of dedication into specific intellectual fields, but also with the friends I have made over the years that are still searching for the words to express the wisdom of their life experience. The inability or even the intentional use of ambiguity in one’s writing does not mean that person is lacking in knowledge. Similarly, the use of jargon does not mean that person is highly intelligent. We have a duty to seek understanding from others and train ourselves to share our own understandings too.
One of the greatest things I’ve ever felt grateful for, were the times I felt myself struggling to communicate a thought, and the person who listens, not only hears my incoherent phrases and mismatched words, but the frustration that stems from the depths of the mind attempting to fit itself into a small mold in order to be beheld by another – and then gives me more time to explain, with whatever ridiculous examples I find, all without judgement.
“Mitochondria of electric creation of cosmogenesis as it was in megalomaniac gethsemanias of crucifixions of which crucificional definitives is a composition of elements of a rainbow connection of what Creationism was definitely defined with definition … is to a design of architectural tabernacularism made creation in all its concept of creation … e.g. regeneration omni-presences of an ingredient electric re-creating spirit  … and thereby, all this creation is to Tabernacle of what a womb of metempsychoses is to an element in all its purest morphology and that of which is of thou silent transparency of vibrancy is of a name of a nameless purity … God is to Tetragrammaton …”
Hector Paul Navasero

Karma & the Ethics of Thelema

Confucius

 
KARMA & THE ETHICS OF THELEMA

“How people treat you is their karma; how you react is yours.”

Wayne W. Dyer

Not all popular wisdom is wisdom; and in my life I seek to question everything until experience speaks for itself (to the best of my ability to remain neutral), not bound by the expectation of fulfilling a cognitively biased truth. Wisdom for me is an extraction from many different singular sources, rearranged into oneself hand in hand with experience. This essay is not going to be a long analysis comparing and contrasting Buddhist and Hindu doctrines and ethics with every line of Crowley’s writings – Frater IAO131 has done a thorough job with ethical themes in Thelema, and Erwin Hessle has written a solid composition on what it means to Do what thou wilt. The purpose of this essay is to share what I’ve learned about ethics and Karma AS a Thelemite who has had to face my own faults. My hope to anyone reading this blog is that they can relate and find some insights to apply in their Work.

 
Here is what my experience has shown me in matters Karma:

 

  1.  No negativity “comes back to bite me” if I act for the sake of the act, i.e. honestly without guilt.
  2.  Others may treat you as they’d like to be treated, but that is not always how you wish to be treated, no matter how far you go out of your way to understand them.
  3.  Some don’t treat you the way they’d like to be treated at all no matter how well you treat them.

 
Here are my understandings of the points above:

 
1. Ethics, as mainstream society understands them to be, are constructs in order to imbue us with a sense of “shoulds” and “should nots” to keep our acts aligned with the relative harmony of any given society.

 
I posit that the nature of ethics lies firstly in the differentiation between acts and intentions, secondly in the evaluation of whether an act aligns with a society or culture, thirdly whether an act aligns with intent, and lastly whether an intention aligns with one’s Great Work.

 
The benefit/damage of any intention depends on the Sephirotic/Qliphotic balance of the individual, and therefore an intention with the least amount of inner conflict is a better one. Hence, the transcendence of ethics into aesthetics. Thelema is very much a system that focuses on the purification of intentions in order to keep an individual from restricting his potential and higher self. We then act (or not act) based upon our intent. In this way, living ethically becomes self-liberating, without promise of “negativity coming to those who do you harm” or “positivity coming to you” because you think you’re doing God’s work by giving some money to a hobo. This is how savior complexes begin. What you are really receiving is a lesson from yourself to yourself in generosity and gratitude. That although you can not know for sure whether he will use the money to help himself, or kill himself, you have done your work in letting go, and planted a seed that will blossom when you are shown the same generosity one day.

 
On a more abstract note, the Crowley quote “It is necessary that we stop, once and for all, this ignorant meddling with other people’s business. Each individual must be.” applies not only to obvious interference but subtle ones.

 
I was sitting outside on the steps having a cigarette break with my husband, and saw a limping crow amongst a murder, all searching for food individually. The others did not help the injured crow, nor was the injured crow crying out for attention and pity. We humans unlike animals, with our variety of hoarded resources have the capacity to help one another, but only in ways we can (and as our balance allows) – when we cannot, but still try to “treat others the way we wish to be treated,” we are actually acquiring negative Karma. We begin to resent the world and frustratingly ask, “why do they not help me when I have given everything to help others?” This problem in our society today has even evolved into “Why are they not helping [insert arbitrary group here] when I have worked so hard to help [said group]?”

 
2. This brings us to a neat transition into the next observation. Negative Karma has a way of reinforcing ideals which cannot be met, sending one spiraling into more negative Karma. The first step “off the path” has a lot of potential to disorientate, especially when it happens quickly from lack of mindfulness.

 
The problem occurs when we have expectations of the actions of others. These expectations arise when we are not acting from balanced intention, and project our discontent with ourselves externally to other people.

 
When we do NOT “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” we are attempting to rebalance our past acts made from imbalanced intentions. Unfortunately, this never works because we need to console ourselves internally, not project them externally.

 
Ethics only exist in context of a goal – in this case, the Great Work, which relies on individual rectification, i.e. the “orbit of each star.” One must remember that “There are no ‘standards of Right’. Ethics is balderdash. Each Star must go on its own orbit. To hell with ‘moral principle’; there is no such thing.” A.C. As humans, unpredictability unnerves us – it is a glimpse of a truth we all know but hide to ourselves; that ultimately we have no control over anything. We would like for people to fit our ideals, and we would like to pretend that somehow the universe is on our side, rewarding the “good” and punishing the “bad.” Karma in popular wisdom, and even in Thelemic circles has devolved as a concept, placing the priority to avoid stepping on anyone’s toes instead of promoting Each Star finding and going with its own orbit. The argument I hear most often is that Thelemites “need the liberty” of having their toes not stepped on in order to find their orbit – but it is from the Law that Liberty shines through, and I daresay it will be their first task as a Thelemite to protect their own feet.

 
It would be nice if everyone avoided stepping on anyone’s toes, you say. But would it? This may be positive Karma for some and negative Karma for others.

 

 

57. DE NECESSITATE VOLUNTATIS. (On the Necessity of the Will)

And how then (sayest thou) shall I reconcile this Art Magick with that Way of the Tao which achieveth all Things by doing nothing? But this have I already declared to thee in Part, showing that thou canst do no Magick save it be thy Nature to do Magick and so the true Nothing for thee. For to do nothing signifieth to interfere with nothing so that for a Magician to do no Magick is to commit Violence on himself. Yet learn also that all Action is in some sense Magick, being an essential Part of that Great Magical Work which we call Nature. Then thou hast no free Will? Verily, thou hast said. Yet nevertheless it is thy necessary Destiny to act with that free Will. Thou canst do nothing save in accordance with that true Nature of thine and of all Things, and every Phenomenon is the Resultant of the Totality of Forces; Amen. Then thou needest take no Thought and make no Effort? Thou sayest sooth; yet, art thou not compelled to Thought and Effort in the Way of Nature? Yea, I, thy Father, work for thee solicitously, and also I laugh at thy Perplexities; for so was it foreordained that I should do, by Me, from the Beginning.

3. By following one’s orbit, one avoids negative Karma anyway. But before we know our Wills, we can only escape Karma by means of a strict regimen like this system, or that of the Noble 8-Fold Path. This helps us not step off the path and spiral down into negativity. You can only beat the system if you can master it.

We create our heavens and our hells, and I’m inclined to believe the existence of an afterlife is absolutely irrelevant to my existence. Depending on the definition of reincarnation, I either believe in it or don’t – I believe parts of us are reborn all the time, and we are constantly changing. This is the view from “below.” However, I believe in this one lifetime of mine, that the present is all that exists, and if we look at the timeline of history from “above”, we will not see linear reincarnations, but everybody and everything in manifestation all at once. Magickal memory is therefore not tapping into the past, but tapping into the planes above. Similarly, divination and premonitions are also getting a glimpse from above. Synchronicities become a sign of alignment with the above; a sign that one is manifesting these things by means of magick, with all things being under Will.

So woe is he, who feels the world treats him unfairly – but once we learn to be grateful for the pain and disillusionment that has triggered our transcendence, we are forced to understand suffering in a multi-faceted way. Sometimes we have no choice but to bring others pain. The same pain that we face can either weaken us or strengthen us and it is up to the responsibility of the individual star to decide that. All else is out of our hands.

Categories

NUIT: METAPHYSICS (Being) and regarding the ontology of metaphysics. Monism; everything is One, and there being no metaphysical difference in any one thing or another results in None. 

Ontologically, matter and motion/spirit are divided as complements to one another.
Nuit (the anthropomorphic manifestation of Being/matter)’s commentary on epistemology states that there is a limitation to what we can know about her (objective truth) just by nature of being individual “stars” (subjective truth). This can be overcome “in the clear light” of Ain Soph Aur through Kether, shining down the Tree, given one has surpassed the ordeals. These ordeals will appear differently to different “stars” and so will the “systems” utilized to overcome these ordeals, including choosing either the “serpent” or the “dove” (which are just two different forms of Love; specifically the Will to Die vs. the Will to Live). 

Each “star” is to mold his pragmatism/ways and means in alignment with True Will while keeping in mind the metaphysics and ontology of the world, and not confusing these different fields. 

The (objective) truth, as she states, includes “every number” being infinite, “all words” sacred and “all prophets” true.

4. Every number is infinite; there is no difference.
22. …Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing…

Comments on EPISTEMOLOGY and PRAGMATISM:
50. There is a word to say about the Hierophantic tast. Behold! there are three ordeals in one, and it may be given in three ways. The gross must pass through fire; let the fine be tried in intellect, and the lofty chosen ones in the highest. Thus ye have star & star, system & system; let not one know well the other!
56. …All words are sacred and all prophets true; save only that they understand a little; solve the first half of the equation, leave the second unattacked. But thou hast all in the clear light, and some, though, not all, in the dark.
57. …There is the dove, and there is the serpent. Choose ye well! …

 

HADIT: EPISTEMOLOGY (Knowledge) and ETHICS (Delight): Hadit, being the anthropomorphic manifestation of motion/spirit/knowing/etc., backs up Nuit’s point that the nature of individual “stars” usually prohibits them to know and understand the nature of the world/themselves fully. There is always “a factor infinite & unknown.” His advice is to avoid placing too much faith in Reason and to explore all things (as Nuit is All Things, and Hadit is the Will/Motion to explore) without guilt, fear, and modesty, (essentially, the philosophy of ethics) while also maintaining the appearance of subtlety and refinement (replacing ethics with aesthetics).

27-31. There is great danger in me; for who doth not understand these runes shall make a great miss. He shall fall down into the pit called Because, and there he shall perish with the dogs of Reason. Now a curse upon Because and his kin! May Because be accursed for ever! If Will stops and cries Why, invoking Because, then Will stops & does nought. If Power asks why, then is Power weakness.
32. Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words skew-wise.
33. Enough of Because! Be he damned for a dog!
44. Aye! feast! rejoice! there is no dread hereafter. There is the dissolution, and eternal ecstasy in the kisses of Nu.
48. Pity not the fallen! I never knew them. I am not for them. I console not: I hate the consoled & the consoler.
52. There is a veil: that veil is black. It is the veil of the modest woman; it is the veil of sorrow, & the pall of death: this is none of me. Tear down that lying sceptre of the centuries: veil not your vices in virtuous words: these vices are my service; ye do well, & I will reward you here and hereafter.
70. …refine thy rapture! If thou drink, drink by the eight and ninety rules of art: if thou love, exceed by delicacy; and if thou do aught joyous, let there be subtlety therein!
71. But exceed! exceed!