tim@unc.UUCP (08/01/83)
An Introduction to Thelema
Tim Maroney
Disclaimer number one: This article is designed to help me
cope with an ever-increasing burden in my personal electronic
mail and on the net. Since I talk a lot about religion and have
mentioned that I do accept a particular religion, some people are
curious about what it is that I believe, even if only to better
understand my stands on various issues. It seems only fair that
I should provide this information, but most of the requests are
"Tell me about it". Not very specific, and very hard to respond
to. This article attempts to provide the basic information
desired; it is not an attempt to make converts.
Disclaimer number two: I do not consider the concept of
"proof" to be relevant to religious matters in general. A reli-
gion is a thing that is accepted as a framework for exploration,
and for the fulfillment of various goals decided on by the ex-
plorer. An analogy with programming languages may be helpful to
this audience: Imagine a person claiming that there was a proof
of some basic syntactic feature of a language, for instance, a
proof that block statements in C are surrounded by curly braces,
or that labels in Fortran start in the first column. That would
be obvious lunacy -- the things are that way because they are de-
fined that way; they are defined that way so that they can be
used. I do not intend to present a set of "truths", but a
glimpse of a particular model, within which various things may be
accomplished.
The necessity of these two disclaimers is unfortunate, but
without them I would certainly not make myself clear. The nature
of the discussion obligates me to use a corrupt terminology: the
religious terms I must use carry a lot of philosophical baggage
which I must discard.
The Book of the Law
===================
In the April of 1904, Aleister Crowley, a British poet, moun-
taineer, and occultist, underwent an experience in which (accord-
ing to Crowley) a compelling and sourceless voice dictated the
work which Crowley later called the Book of the Law. The dicta-
tion happened on three consecutive days; on each day, one of the
three chapters of the Book was dictated. Crowley had a number of
objections to the book, and reported having lost it for several
years. One day, it turned up (behind some skis on a rack in his
home), and Crowley read it again. This time, he felt that his
previous objections to the book had been a result of defects in
Crowley himself, which had since been remedied in his spiritual
growth. (For example, the book spoke of joy and ecstasy quite a
bit, and Crowley in 1904 was a firm believer in the First Noble
Truth of Buddhism, which is that existence is inherently sorrow-
ful.)
That is Crowley's explanation of the origin of the Book of
the Law. It seems believable to me, particularly after studying
Crowley's state of mind at the time through what evidence is
available in the form of biographies, press reports, and so on.
Was the book delivered, as Crowley claimed, by the superhuman
messenger Aiwass, conceived of as a real sentient being? I don't
know, and I don't see this as important to the integrity of the
system as a whole.
Statements in the Book of the Law are the origin of the model
I will present below. The model is not necessarily the only in-
terpretation of the book, but to me it is a very satisfactory
one. The acceptance, in some meaningful fashion, of the Book of
the Law is what makes a person a Thelemite. This is a defini-
tion, not an assertion. This article is not meant to be an ex-
haustive list of the uses to which the book can be put. Rather,
it is meant to convey a sense of the uses to which the book is
normally put, and what people are doing when they "accept" the
book.
Thelemism as a tool
===================
Thelemism is largely used as a tool for consciousness altera-
tion. This is the only sufficiently general terminology, so for-
give the clumsiness and the space cadet overtones. The Thelemite
alters his or her own consciousness through the use of a variety
of tools, chosen for their effectiveness and moral acceptability.
(Human sacrifice, for instance, is not practiced by Thelemites,
because although it is an effective technique, murder is clearly
not acceptable for moral reasons I'll explain later.) The tools
have a variety of origins. Many come from other religions,
stripped of morally objectionable elements. Many come from for-
mulas in the Book of the Law itself. Others come from other
sources; there is no hard and fast rule here.
There is a need for some more structure than just the phrase
"consciousness alteration" if you are going to actually do any-
thing along these lines. Returning to the programming languages
analogy, it is not useful to say only that a language is for
"data manipulation". You have to provide a syntax, and seman-
tics, before you can actually do anything. Thelemism provides
the "syntax and semantics" for consciousness alteration, defining
goals for the Thelemite. These goals are intimately connected
with the morality of Thelemism, which will now be discussed in
detail.
The Thelemic moral system
=========================
The second major function of Thelemism is providing a basis
for a moral system, also known as a morality. To avoid pointless
discussions on what is or is not a morality, I'll give the defin-
ition that I'm using.
The primary assumption of any morality is that the human con-
dition can be improved. I am speaking here not of the physical
condition, but of the spiritual or emotional condition. The
means used to accomplish and evaluate the improvement vary from
morality to morality.
For instance, most monotheistic religions and most govern-
ments, including the United States government, have decided that
the best means for improving the human condition is maintaining a
list of taboos (laws, sins), threatening those who might
transgress, and punishing those who do.
The Thelemic means is rather different. For one thing, the
interpersonal master-slave relationship implied by the "taboo en-
forcement" model above is absent in Thelemism. Rather than
describing what it isn't, though, I'll take a positive approach.
The idea that the human condition is improvable implies some
means of measuring the quality of the human condition. Usually,
this involves comparing the human condition to some ideal. For
instance, the ideal in the taboo enforcement model contains no
one who is transgressing against the list of taboos.
Thelemism also uses the approach of describing an ideal and
trying to realize it as much as possible. The ideal situation as
described by Thelemites goes like this: Each person is composed
of a Will and a vehicle of the Will. The vehicle includes the
physical body and the intellectual capabilities of the person.
An ideal situation is that all vehicles are in complete harmony
with their Will. Wills by definition do not conflict with each
other. Thus a perfect situation has everyone free to do what
they will.
The Will is defined in terms of its role in this model. The
Will is by definition that in people which does not conflict with
the Will of others. (You can let the recursion here bother you
if you like, but you can also make up a metaphor about solutions
of simultaneous equations if you would rather not be bothered.)
Nothing else is implied about the Will here; we don't say that it
came from Sirius, or was manufactured in ancient times by some
god or other, or any of the other non-helpful gibberish most re-
ligions seem to feel obligated to drape themselves in. That sort
of nonsense in no way adds to the model.
Another way to express the Thelemic ideal is to say that hu-
mans are "basically good", and that this "goodness" is realiz-
able. I don't like this terminology, but it may help to convey
my meaning.
Thelemism also describes the current human situation in terms
of the Will, so that the situation now may be compared to the
ideal. At this point, I must introduce another concept: Restric-
tion. I'll explain the origin of Restriction a bit later; right
now, I am going to discuss how it fills the "bad guy" role in
this model.
Although Will is by definition perfect, the vehicle of a Will
is not. Thus, vehicles may end up colliding or otherwise in-
terfering with each other as they carry out the Will imperfectly.
The reason for this is that complexes known as "false wills" ac-
cumulate within the vehicle, subverting the full control of the
Will. The action of a false will is a Restriction, in the sense
that it restricts the Will and prevents it from manipulating the
vehicle perfectly. (In the human case, there are many sources of
Restriction, ranging from garbled communications to Skinnerian
functions of the vehicle to frustrated sex drive.) The difference
between the Thelemic ideal and the current human situation is
Restriction manifest as false wills.
It is important to remember here that this is a model of
reality, not a set of assertions about reality. It is the defin-
ition of the moral problem as seen by Thelemites; it is how we
talk about it, and how we phrase our solutions to various parts
of the problem. You may accept or reject it as you wish, and
your reasons will be subjective. I will deal later with my sub-
jective reasons for accepting it.
The practice of Thelemic morality
=================================
The primary practical use of Thelemic morality is as a frame-
work for the alteration of consciousness. The ultimate goal of
the Thelemite is to know and do the Will. The idea is that the
consciousness we experience most of the time is different from
the Will, being actually a complex of the vehicle and various
false wills. The vehicle must purge itself of these Restrictions
so that it may be a proper servant of the Will. Notice that
there is a master-slave relationship here, but it is totally in-
trapersonal, not interpersonal. You are in a sense your own
slave in this model. But I digress.
All other goals in consciousness alteration are just stepping
stones for the Thelemite, with the only real goal being to know
and do the Will. I don't really want to go into detail here on
the various initiatory and other sequences which are used by the
Thelemite, since that would be confusing and possibly arbitrary-
seeming. Plenty of time for that in later articles.
In social life, Thelemism involves a deep commitment to free-
dom and to the sovereignty of individuals over themselves. More
specifically, a Thelemite prefers a government based on rights to
one based on restrictions.
One objection that may come to your mind is that there is a
real and demonstrable need for the taboos/laws against such
things as murder, rape, theft, pollution, and so on. This objec-
tion is understandable, but it shows a lack of real understanding
of the model (which is to be expected at this point; I'm not try-
ing to insult you here). Many behaviors ordinarily conceived of
as taboo can be expressed in terms of the Restriction of
another's Will. For instance, murder deprives a vehicle of the
capability of acting in any way. Pollution interferes with
health, seriously degrading the performance of the vehicle in
many cases. Of course, none of the "victimless crimes" can be
expressed this way. From my perspective, that is a very good
thing indeed.
There would thus be no lists of taboos (law books) in a
Thelemic society. There would instead be lists of rights, of
freedoms. Liber OZ, which I posted a few weeks back, is an exam-
ple of what one such would look like. Should a person feel that
someone else has violated his or her rights, courts would exist
to try to determine the best way to remove the Restriction and
make its recurrence unlikely. The exact structure of such courts
is not clear to me at this time. It seem likely that the courts
would be less the pretenders to absolute justice that they are
today; the idea of moderators chosen by decision of the interest-
ed parties is more in keeping with the Thelemic ideal. If you
have any ideas or criticisms here, feel free to share them.
Love equals ecstatic union
==========================
I have already given you the outlines of Thelemic morality,
but the picture would be very incomplete without Love. This is
probably one of the least meaningful words in the English
language, because it is used in so many ways. Therefore, a de-
finition of its meaning in a Thelemic context is needed.
The vehicle of the Will is a human body and intellect.
(Let's defer the question of non-human vehicles for now.) The
vehicle is a Restriction voluntarily undertaken by the Will for
Love. As the Book of the Law puts it, "For I am divided for
love's sake, for the chance of union." Love consists of the
ecstatic union of opposites. That is as close to a literal de-
finition as I can muster. Basically, Love is a phenomenon ob-
servable in a variety of situations, the most obvious being the
ecstatic union of male and female (a Thelemic sacrament, I might
add). Another obvious example is when a particle meets its
anti-particle and they combine to become a photon. The biggest
consideration is that, all philosophy aside, this formula works
in the production of ecstasy.
Incarnation, that is, human life, is conceived of as the un-
ion of Will with Restriction for Love. The Restriction in this
case is the Will deliberately uniting itself with the vehicle,
which is inherently restrictive. I have the feeling that I am
not making myself clear here, but all that I could do to clarify
would be to repeat myself, and I doubt that would be very effec-
tive. If you understood me here, great. If not, you are missing
a big part of Thelemism which I can't explain to you due to my
imperfection. Try the Book of the Law in this case.
Experience is the ongoing process of the uniting of Will with
Restriction. This uniting is voluntary on the part of the Will,
and is an ecstatic union. The upshot of all this is that a per-
fect life is unabashedly joyous in all things.
One clarification here: Some religions talk about loving
everyone. It is my belief that this is purest bull. The people
who talk about it don't love everyone, and they make it obvious
who their enemies are. I suggest that what these people are
talking about is universal compassion, and that their overuse of
the word "love" drains it of all meaning and power in the real
world. Loving everyone is a manifest impossibility in this im-
perfect world; insisting otherwise while practicing routine ha-
tred of nonbelievers is a thing I would consider a sacriligeous
abomination, since you've made even compassion less likely.
After all, you have your "love", so what need of compassion,
right?
The New Aeon
============
So far, I have given you a glimpse of the Thelemic system,
and on the way I've pointed out a few of the more pleasant
features. I have not explained why I have adopted it as my own
religion, or why in fact I would adopt any religion. Now I'll
try to present this information.
In this century, humans have achieved the status of gods.
The steady increase in human power since history began has ac-
celerated beyond reasonable expectations. We are now living in a
time that will be legendary in the future; though our fledgling
miracles may come to seem small in time, the birth of humanity as
a race of gods will be unmistakeably pinned to this time.
You may not be following me here. Some people have been
known to froth at the mouth and fall over backwards when the
ideas of god and man are too closely mingled. (These same people
usually make One Big Exception, though.) To anyone fitting this
description: Please allow me to make this clear, all right? If
you can suspend your beliefs for a minute, you'll see that I am
not saying anything very shocking.
Think of a power which has historically been considered a
divine attribute. Chances are that it is either possessed by hu-
mans today, or can be reasonably expected within a few decades.
The only exception that comes to mind is the creation of very
complex systems, such as a galaxy or an animal. Once we figure
out these computer thingies, though, we'll get that one too.
Clarke's Law states that "Any sufficiently advanced technolo-
gy is indistinguishable from magic." (Arthur C. Clarke, currently
of Sri Lanka, is a prominent science fiction writer and the in-
ventor of the communication satellites in use today.) As a purely
operational statement, this is an obvious truth -- humans are
simply not set up to tell the difference. And if a medium-sized
box that can be remotely commanded to trash an entire city in a
moment isn't magic, then I guess I don't know what magic is.
The point is that these new powers force a major religious
crisis upon humanity. The implications for every religion on the
planet are vast. Religions everywhere have long claimed a mono-
poly on access to these powers, but have usually been rather un-
reliable when it came to delivery; now these powers are at our
fingertips. We live daily with the power to undo millions of
years of evolution, or the act of that god or group of gods that
created us, by committing species suicide or by negligently pois-
oning ourselves with our own wastes (for the appetites of gods
are large -- ask an Arab). We also live daily knowing that we
could adequately feed all of us, but a group of us have separated
heaven from hell so that they can bask in their power without
seeing the tortured and emaciated wrecks from whom they suck
life. We are gods because of the magnitude of the things we do.
Since we wield the traditional power of gods, we have also
those responsibilities attributed to them. Falling back into
forms of religion which were made obsolete by humanity's birth
into divinity can only be disastrous. We have created gods in
our own image, and we are they. If a god fails to shoulder the
moral responsibilities of his power, only catastrophe and des-
truction can be expected. This is a self-evident fact.
Yet most of the people I deal with in matters of religion
want nothing more than to return to the safety of the womb.
Understandably, they cannot cope with their strange new surround-
ings. They put on blinders; they wrap themselves in the pages of
books which were never meant to be useful to gods, and as the
confusion mounts they cling more tightly to the chains that are
dragging them down. Unfortunately, they are dragging me with
them. I am a creature of society, and if society falls, so do I.
As the world continues to change around me, I need a religion
not bound by archaic (although formerly valid) views of humanity,
and one derived from basic principles which are independent of
culture and time. Finally, the religion must answer the basic
question of man's role as god. All these criteria are fulfilled
by Thelemism, and not by any other religion which I have found.
(Neo-paganism may be another, but I don't like the "Nature is
good, man is bad" attitude a lot of them seem to have.) That's
all that I can really say without seeming to try to sell the re-
ligion to you.
An offer of conciliation
========================
One final digression and then I'll wrap this up. I know that
many of the readers of this article are Christians who find some
of my statements to be repugnant, due to their beliefs. From my
past dealings with such people, I am forced to conclude that many
are not paying attention by this point. However, I know that
many are not so knee-jerk in their reactions; what follows is for
them.
You may feel that what I have just said about the changes in
humanity strongly resembles the Apocalypse foretold in your book.
I am inclined to agree. However, we are not living in the
prelude to the Apocalypse. We are living in the aftermath, and
your prophecies were distorted. It was inconceivable that human-
ity should become a race of gods, and your prophet who called
himself John for the Revelation did not understand, and called it
an evil thing when in fact it was inevitable. Man's ascension to
godhood is clearly implied by Jesus so many times that I don't
see how you can ignore it -- of course, many modern churches
prefer Paul to Jesus, only talking about Jesus to refer to his
grisly death. There is no strong reason to think that the King-
dom of Heaven that Jesus spoke of was to be anywhere but here on
Earth. You will by your own actions destroy the Kingdom around
you if you refuse to acknowledge the obvious signs of it every-
where.
Finally, ask yourself about your god's motivation in creating
mankind "in his own image". Would you be happy with an eternity
spent in the company of your inferiors? I sure wouldn't; I don't
think any healthy sentience would. I am suggesting that we were
always intended to be gods.
This has been an attempt to find some common ground between
our beliefs. I do not, in honesty, have very high hopes, but I
have at least made the effort.
Summary
=======
This was a brief and necessarily sketchy introduction to
Thelemism. The proper roles of a religion were expounded on for
some time. The basis of the Thelemic solution to the moral prob-
lem was described in terms of Will, Restriction, and Love. A
hint was provided of the outstanding features of a Thelemic so-
ciety. Finally, all this was placed in the context of existence
in the present day on this planet.
Many important topics in Thelemism were overlooked. The best
way to find out more is to read the Book of the Law and form your
own opinions. Grand Lodge O.T.O. finally got around to sending
me my 15-cent copies of the book, which I am making available
free by U.S. Mail -- send requests to the electronic address
listed below. (I guarantee absolutely that this will not put
your name on any postal mailing list, since we don't have one.
If there are more than 25 orders, the later ones will have to
wait.) You might try university library special collections under
Crowley, Aleister; larger libraries may have some in the general
collection.
I hope this doesn't seem like I'm pushing the book. My
recommending it at this point is basically frustration at the
size of my task and my limited success at accomplishing it. Have
you ever tried to bootstrap an entire religious and philosophical
system for a highly diverse and largely hostile audience?
I expect to write a few more articles of this nature, provid-
ing more information and making Thelemic source literature elec-
tronically available. All comments, personal or to this forum,
will be read and responded to (if appropriate) as honestly and
clearly as possible.
________________________________________
Tim Maroney
duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
10 Colonial Arms Apts.
Chapel Hill NC 27514
P.S. Copies of the [nt]roff source for this article are available;
just write and ask for one. It looks a lot better on a photo-
typesetter....urban@trwspp.UUCP (08/05/83)
Your universe model is unusual, I'll say that. I'm going to restrict myself to one point to which I react strongly. .... As the Book of the Law puts it, "For I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union." Love consists of the ecstatic union of opposites. That is as close to a literal de- finition as I can muster. Basically, Love is a phenomenon ob- servable in a variety of situations, the most obvious being the ecstatic union of male and female (a Thelemic sacrament, I might add). Another obvious example is when a particle meets its anti-particle and they combine to become a photon. The biggest consideration is that, all philosophy aside, this formula works in the production of ecstasy. I hope the electron and positron are happy together. But seriously, there's an underlying model there that's pretty troublesome. In what sense do you consider that male and female are "opposite"? This sort of assumption is the basis of a mythical view of the sexes (the positive, bright, strong, active male principle [god of the sun] versus the negative, dark, weak, passive, female principle [goddess of the moon]) that has been with us too long already. If male and female are opposite, then man and beast are even more opposite, and bestiality should be an even more holy union, right? Seems to me that defining love and ecstasy in terms of `joining of opposites' is pretty flimsy, although in your model it's necessary since you have to make sense of the "joining of Will with Restriction" (i.e. incomplete control of the universe; or did I fail to follow the metaphysics completely). Oh well, at least it's a different USE of this idea. Mike
tim@unc.UUCP (08/10/83)
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
This is a reply to an objection that Mike Urban (I think that's
his name, anyway -- his login is "urban", and he signed his article
"Mike") had to my article "An Introduction to Thelema". Here's the
passage to which he objected, followed by his objection:
As the Book of the Law puts it,
"For I am divided for love's sake, for
the chance of union." Love consists of
the ecstatic union of opposites. That
is as close to a literal definition as
I can muster. Basically, Love is a
phenomenon observable in a variety of
situations, the most obvious being the
ecstatic union of male and female (a
Thelemic sacrament, I might add).
Another obvious example is when a
particle meets its anti-particle and
they combine to become a photon. The
biggest consideration is that all
philosophy aside, this formula works
in the production of ecstasy.
I hope the electron and positron are happy
together. But seriously, there's an underlying model
there that's pretty troublesome. In what sense do you
consider that male and female are "opposite"? This
sort of assumption is the basis of a mythical view of
the sexes (the positive, bright, strong, active male
principle [god of the sun] versus the negative, dark,
weak, passive, female principle [goddess of the moon])
that has been with us too long already. If male and
female are opposite, then man and beast are even more
opposite, and bestiality should be an even more holy
union, right? Seems to me that defining love and
ecstasy in terms of `joining of opposites' is pretty
flimsy, although in your model it's necessary since
you have to make sense of the "joining of Will with
Restriction" (i.e. incomplete control of the universe;
or did I fail to follow the metaphysics completely).
Oh well, at least it's a different USE of this idea.
Thelemism is completely egalitarian as far as the genders are
concerned. The oppositeness to which I am referring is the shape of
the genitalia, a point which I trust my readers are sufficiently
worldly to understand without further explanation. In the symbolism
of the Book of the Law, we have a female goddess uniting with a male
god to produce the universe, similar to Buddhist yab-yum images,
although somewhat more transcendent and certainly less male-oriented.
One of the enduring themes of western occultism, particularly the
Rosicrucian and alchemical traditions, is that the perfect adept is
both male and female in equal measure. That is what all those
hermaphrodite images in alchemical texts are about. This is also one
of the beliefs of Thelemism. To be more male than female, or more
female than male, is a Restriction -- it implies that one is limited
to behavior usually attributed to one's dominant sex. The Thelemite
should have the capability to free herself or himself from all such
Restrictions, although they may be voluntarily entered into as an act
of Love. In practice, Thelemism often leads to bisexuality, an
obvious offshoot of mental hermaphrodism.
Your statement about the dangers of such a sexual dualism is well
taken. For instance, James Legge makes this error in his introduction
to the I Ching, stating that Yang, the male principle, is superior to
Yin, the female principle. This is not a belief held by Thelemites,
as should be clear by now. The fact of the dualism does not imply
any preferentialism. The Moon is no less beautiful than the Sun.
About bestiality: You may be correct. I have never tried it, so
I don't know whether the formula you propose would work well or not.
I do not find any record of such an operation in any Thelemic text,
but then if there was such it would probably have been kept secret for
obvious societal reasons. Being thrown in prison is a rather extreme
and tenacious Restriction.
I do not find the definition at all flimsy. The only reason to
have a definition in a religion is to allow the production of some
effect, and the definition as given is effective in producing ecstasy.
(You don't have to believe me, of course, but why would I lie about
this? I would just be wasting my own time. Remember that Thelemism
exists as an abstraction only for purely pragmatic reasons -- we are
not as interested in words as in effective actions. Unfortunately,
words are all I have to communicate with.) The formula is applicable
to more than sex, of course, although that is a particularly strong
manifestation for such as you and I. A more advanced formula is that
of Samadhi, in which the Adept allows thoughts to spring to mind, but
immediately unites each thought with its opposite. I lack sufficient
powers of concentration to bring this off at present, but I have had
glimpses of it. The formula is best studied in Crowley's "The Book of
Lies" (a title that will be readily understood by anyone who has had
ecstatic mystical experience or studied Korzybski).
Finally, thank you for asking the question. I did not make myself
sufficiently clear in my original article, and I am glad to have the
chance to rectify this. All such inquiries, whether on the net or in
the mail, will be responded to in similar fashion with my sincere
appreciation.
Love is the law, love under will.
___________
Tim Maroney
duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill