Thelemapedia - User contributions [en]

IAO

2005-03-14T05:39:14Z

Luxuria: /* Removed something I wrote yesterday */

'''IAO''' is considered to be both a [[gnosticism|gnostic]] [[godform]] and a [[magical formulae|magical formula]].

==IAO as a godform of gnosticism==

IAO (iota, alpha, omega) was the Greek form of the [[Tetragrammaton]], IHVH (Yod-He-Vau-He, or Jehova, the “Bringer of Light”), the Hebrew divine name for God. Although a reference to Jahova (or Yahweh), IAO was also widely associated with both [[Hermes]] and [[Bacchus]] (Iacchus), especially in ancient magical texts and amulets.

As a gnostic godform, IAO is both a sun-god and mystery-god.

==IAO as a magical formula==

The basic formula of IAO is one of life, death, and rebirth.

In ''Magick'' (1997, Ch. 5), [[Aleister Crowley]] states that IAO is
:''the principal and most characteristic formula of [[Osiris]], of the Redemption of Mankind. "I" is [[Isis]], Nature, ruined by "A", [[Apophis]] the Destroyer, and restored to life by the Redeemer Osiris.''

He also refers to it as the formula of [[yoga]], as illustrated by the initial pleasure of this practice, followed by the inevitable agony, and finally resulting in a new, superior state, perhaps similar to, yet fundamentally different from the initial state.

Crowley draws many parallels—namely the formula [[LVX]], [[alchemy]], [[Jesus Christ]], and [[Prometheus]].

In yet another example, Crowley says that IAO is the formula of all learning:
:''You begin with a delightful feeling as of a child with a new toy; you get bored, and you attempt to smash it. But if you are a wise child, you have had a scientific attitude towards it, and you do not smash it. You pass through the stage of boredom, and arise from the inferno of torture towards the stage of resurrection, when the toy has become a god, declared to you its inmost secrets, and become a living part of your life. There are no longer these crude, savage reactions of pleasure and pain. The new knowledge is assimilated.'' (Eight Lectures On Yoga, Fourth Lecture)

Ceremonially, IAO can be illustrated by the act of “robing yourself as a king, then stripping and slaying yourself, and rising from that death to the Knowledge and Conversation of the [[Holy Guardian Angel]]” (Crowley, 1997).

It is important to note that Crowley (1997) believed that the formula of IAO had been replaced by that of [[Horus]], who gave us his two formulae, [[Thelema]] and [[Abrahadabra]].

IAO is the formula of magick. It is the way things reproduce and recreate themselves through extension and specialization. (The Book of Wisdom and Folly, 1988) “I” represents the monad or the phallus. Its actions do not produce change within, but only “out of itself.” “O” represents the yoni or the female, which changes through addition, subtraction or multiplication. It represents matter that is capable of taking on form. The union of the “I” and the “O” would create the triad, or the world formed by the two creative principals out of matter. “A” would then represent the conjunction between these two principles.

===Transformation into VIAOV===

Crowley, wanting to make IAO fit within the new [[Aeon]], added the Hebrew letter ''Vau'' to both ends, which he then called the “proper hieroglyph of the Ritual of Self-Initiation in this Aeon of Horus” (Crowley, 1997). The new word, [[VIAOV]] (also FIAOF), enumerates to [[93]], just as ''[[Thelema]]'' and ''[[Agape]]'' do. Of the person who travels through this new process, Crowley writes,

:''Thus, he is Man made God, exalted, eager; he has come consciously to his full stature, and so is ready to set out on his journey to redeem the world. But he may not appear in this true form; the Vision of [[Pan]] would drive men mad with fear. He must conceal Himself in his original guise.''

:''He therefore becomes apparently the man that he was at the beginning; he lives the life of a man; indeed, he is wholly man. But his [[initiation]] has made him master of the Event by giving him the understanding that whatever happens to him is the execution of this true will.''

==IAO in English==

IAO has a special status in English. "I" and "A" are the most commonly known single letter words. "I" is singular subjective term, while "A" is a singular objective term. "O" is a lesser known English word. It appears in poetry, for example Colerige's Kubla Khan;

:"O that deep romantic chasm,
: which slanted down the green hill athwart a cedarn cover.
:A savage place; as holy and Enchanted,
:as E're beneath the waning Moon was haunted,
:by woman wailing for her demon lover."

"O" suggests ecstacy, and the union of Self with Other. It brings the in-animate forms of our objective world to life in the divine.

"IAO" as a whole, comprises the three possible single letter words in English.
It suggests: "Self. Other. Self/Other", and acts as a primary sematic formulation,
underlying the structure of the dynamics of consciousness in interrelation with itself.

==Links of interest==
*''[http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/aba/chap5.html The Formula of I.A.O.]'' in "Magick, Book 4"

[[Category:Formulæ]]
[[Category:Gnosticism]]
[[Category:Gnostic Godforms]]

Talk:Moon Language

2005-03-13T16:30:25Z

Luxuria: moon language page needs expansion

There are a few missing entries. I know there is also another place where moon language shows up besides Vision and the Voice and Liber Stellae Rubaea but can't recall where. The entry could use some expansion and also needs to link in somewhere.

Moon Language

2005-03-13T16:29:06Z

Luxuria: formatting

In The Vision and the Voice, 2nd [[Aethyr]] and in [[Liber Stellae Rubaea]] there is a section of moon language identified as "the infernal adorations of [[OAI]].

The following is a moon language dictionary:

'se - 
a - in the air 
AI - to the god 
balae - swimmeth 
bi - the crown 
chi - lion-child 
fu - will (noun and verb) 
ga - angel of the lord; by the angel of the lord 
ge - triumph 
gu - 
Hut - Hadit 
Kut - Ra Hoor Khuit 
la - none 
latria - steal away; stealeth away 
le - strong 
lu - attained 
malae - reel; reeleth; stagger 
melai - sweet; honeyed 
moai - praise 
mu - silence 
ni - the balance 
Nut - Nuit 
o - behold 
pa - moon; by the moon; the moon 
pe - my 
pelai - fall 
qwi - now 
rel - be 
sa - myself; by myself 
telai - ceaseth; ended 
ti - the end; the beginning 
to - hath 
tu - that; who 
tulu - shall attain 
u - initiation 
ut - thou 
wa - and; also 
wi - the sword 
ya - waxeth

Moon Language

2005-03-13T16:27:47Z

Luxuria: Added moon language dictionary

In The Vision and the Voice, 2nd [[Aethyr]] and in [[Liber Stellae Rubaea]] there is a section of moon language identified as "the infernal adorations of [[OAI]].

The following is a moon language dictionary:

'se - 
a - in the air 
AI - to the god 
balae - swimmeth 
bi - the crown 
chi - lion-child 
fu - will (noun and verb) 
ga - angel of the lord; by the angel of the lord 
ge - triumph 
gu - 
Hut - Hadit 
Kut - Ra Hoor Khuit
la - none
latria - steal away; stealeth away
le - strong
lu - attained
malae - reel; reeleth; stagger
melai - sweet; honeyed
moai - praise
mu - silence
ni - the balance
Nut - Nuit
o - behold
pa - moon; by the moon; the moon
pe - my
pelai - fall
qwi - now
rel - be
sa - myself; by myself
telai - ceaseth; ended
ti - the end; the beginning
to - hath
tu - that; who
tulu - shall attain
u - initiation
ut - thou
wa - and; also
wi - the sword
ya - waxeth

Moon Language

2005-03-13T16:23:35Z

Luxuria: Added moon language dictionary

In The Vision and the Voice, 2nd [[Aethyr]] and in [[Liber Stellae Rubaea]] there is a section of moon language identified as "the infernal adorations of [[OAI]].

The following is a moon language dictionary:

'se -
a - in the air
AI - to the god
balae - swimmeth
bi - the crown
chi - lion-child
fu - will (noun and verb)
ga - angel of the lord; by the angel of the lord
ge - triumph
gu -
Hut - Hadit
Kut - Ra Hoor Khuit
la - none
latria - steal away; stealeth away
le - strong
lu - attained
malae - reel; reeleth; stagger
melai - sweet; honeyed
moai - praise
mu - silence
ni - the balance
Nut - Nuit
o - behold
pa - moon; by the moon; the moon
pe - my
pelai - fall
qwi - now
rel - be
sa - myself; by myself
telai - ceaseth; ended
ti - the end; the beginning
to - hath
tu - that; who
tulu - shall attain
u - initiation
ut - thou
wa - and; also
wi - the sword
ya - waxeth

IAO

2005-03-13T05:17:59Z

Luxuria: /* IAO as a magical formula */

'''IAO''' is considered to be both a [[gnosticism|gnostic]] [[godform]] and a [[magical formulae|magical formula]].

==IAO as a godform of gnosticism==

IAO (iota, alpha, omega) was the Greek form of the [[Tetragrammaton]], IHVH (Yod-He-Vau-He, or Jehova, the “Bringer of Light”), the Hebrew divine name for God. Although a reference to Jahova (or Yahweh), IAO was also widely associated with both [[Hermes]] and [[Bacchus]] (Iacchus), especially in ancient magical texts and amulets.

As a gnostic godform, IAO is both a sun-god and mystery-god.

==IAO as a magical formula==

The basic formula of IAO is one of life, death, and rebirth.

In ''Magick'' (1997, Ch. 5), [[Aleister Crowley]] states that IAO is
:''the principal and most characteristic formula of [[Osiris]], of the Redemption of Mankind. "I" is [[Isis]], Nature, ruined by "A", [[Apophis]] the Destroyer, and restored to life by the Redeemer Osiris.''

He also refers to it as the formula of [[yoga]], as illustrated by the initial pleasure of this practice, followed by the inevitable agony, and finally resulting in a new, superior state, perhaps similar to, yet fundamentally different from the initial state.

Crowley draws many parallels—namely the formula [[LVX]], [[alchemy]], [[Jesus Christ]], and [[Prometheus]].

In yet another example, Crowley says that IAO is the formula of all learning:
:''You begin with a delightful feeling as of a child with a new toy; you get bored, and you attempt to smash it. But if you are a wise child, you have had a scientific attitude towards it, and you do not smash it. You pass through the stage of boredom, and arise from the inferno of torture towards the stage of resurrection, when the toy has become a god, declared to you its inmost secrets, and become a living part of your life. There are no longer these crude, savage reactions of pleasure and pain. The new knowledge is assimilated.'' (Eight Lectures On Yoga, Fourth Lecture)

Ceremonially, IAO can be illustrated by the act of “robing yourself as a king, then stripping and slaying yourself, and rising from that death to the Knowledge and Conversation of the [[Holy Guardian Angel]]” (Crowley, 1997).

It is important to note that Crowley (1997) believed that the formula of IAO had been replaced by that of [[Horus]], who gave us his two formulae, [[Thelema]] and [[Abrahadabra]].

IAO is the formula of magick. It is the way things reproduce and recreate themselves through extension and specialization. (The Book of Wisdom and Folly, 1988) “I” represents the monad or the phallus. Its actions do not produce change within, but only “out of itself.” “O” represents the yoni or the female, which changes through addition, subtraction or multiplication. It represents matter that is capable of taking on form. The union of the “I” and the “O” would create the triad, or the world formed by the two creative principals out of matter. “A” would then represent the conjunction between these two principles. If “A” is taken as Apophis or Apep, the conjunctive force is the raised kundalini. These 3 forces, give birth to something new – a child, conceived either astrally or physically. This “child” would be a manifestation of the incarnated will.

===Transformation into VIAOV===

Crowley, wanting to make IAO fit within the new [[Aeon]], added the Hebrew letter ''Vau'' to both ends, which he then called the “proper hieroglyph of the Ritual of Self-Initiation in this Aeon of Horus” (Crowley, 1997). The new word, [[VIAOV]] (also FIAOF), enumerates to [[93]], just as ''[[Thelema]]'' and ''[[Agape]]'' do. Of the person who travels through this new process, Crowley writes,

:''Thus, he is Man made God, exalted, eager; he has come consciously to his full stature, and so is ready to set out on his journey to redeem the world. But he may not appear in this true form; the Vision of [[Pan]] would drive men mad with fear. He must conceal Himself in his original guise.''

:''He therefore becomes apparently the man that he was at the beginning; he lives the life of a man; indeed, he is wholly man. But his [[initiation]] has made him master of the Event by giving him the understanding that whatever happens to him is the execution of this true will.''

==IAO in English==

IAO has a special status in English. "I" and "A" are the most commonly known single letter words. "I" is singular subjective term, while "A" is a singular objective term. "O" is a lesser known English word. It appears in poetry, for example Colerige's Kubla Khan;

:"O that deep romantic chasm,
: which slanted down the green hill athwart a cedarn cover.
:A savage place; as holy and Enchanted,
:as E're beneath the waning Moon was haunted,
:by woman wailing for her demon lover."

"O" suggests ecstacy, and the union of Self with Other. It brings the in-animate forms of our objective world to life in the divine.

"IAO" as a whole, comprises the three possible single letter words in English.
It suggests: "Self. Other. Self/Other", and acts as a primary sematic formulation,
underlying the structure of the dynamics of consciousness in interrelation with itself.

==Links of interest==
*''[http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/aba/chap5.html The Formula of I.A.O.]'' in "Magick, Book 4"

[[Category:Formulæ]]
[[Category:Gnosticism]]
[[Category:Gnostic Godforms]]

IAO

2005-03-13T05:14:36Z

Luxuria: /* IAO as a magical formula */

'''IAO''' is considered to be both a [[gnosticism|gnostic]] [[godform]] and a [[magical formulae|magical formula]].

==IAO as a godform of gnosticism==

IAO (iota, alpha, omega) was the Greek form of the [[Tetragrammaton]], IHVH (Yod-He-Vau-He, or Jehova, the “Bringer of Light”), the Hebrew divine name for God. Although a reference to Jahova (or Yahweh), IAO was also widely associated with both [[Hermes]] and [[Bacchus]] (Iacchus), especially in ancient magical texts and amulets.

As a gnostic godform, IAO is both a sun-god and mystery-god.

==IAO as a magical formula==

The basic formula of IAO is one of life, death, and rebirth.

In ''Magick'' (1997, Ch. 5), [[Aleister Crowley]] states that IAO is
:''the principal and most characteristic formula of [[Osiris]], of the Redemption of Mankind. "I" is [[Isis]], Nature, ruined by "A", [[Apophis]] the Destroyer, and restored to life by the Redeemer Osiris.''

He also refers to it as the formula of [[yoga]], as illustrated by the initial pleasure of this practice, followed by the inevitable agony, and finally resulting in a new, superior state, perhaps similar to, yet fundamentally different from the initial state.

Crowley draws many parallels—namely the formula [[LVX]], [[alchemy]], [[Jesus Christ]], and [[Prometheus]].

In yet another example, Crowley says that IAO is the formula of all learning:
:''You begin with a delightful feeling as of a child with a new toy; you get bored, and you attempt to smash it. But if you are a wise child, you have had a scientific attitude towards it, and you do not smash it. You pass through the stage of boredom, and arise from the inferno of torture towards the stage of resurrection, when the toy has become a god, declared to you its inmost secrets, and become a living part of your life. There are no longer these crude, savage reactions of pleasure and pain. The new knowledge is assimilated.'' (Eight Lectures On Yoga, Fourth Lecture)

Ceremonially, IAO can be illustrated by the act of “robing yourself as a king, then stripping and slaying yourself, and rising from that death to the Knowledge and Conversation of the [[Holy Guardian Angel]]” (Crowley, 1997).

It is important to note that Crowley (1997) believed that the formula of IAO had been replaced by that of [[Horus]], who gave us his two formulae, [[Thelema]] and [[Abrahadabra]].

IAO is the formula of magick. It is the way things reproduce and recreate themselves through extension and specialization. (The Book of Wisdom and Folly, 1988) “I” represents the monad or the phallus. Its actions do not produce change within, but only “out of itself.” “O” represents the yoni or the female, which changes through addition, subtraction or multiplication. It represents matter that is capable of taking on form. The union of the “I” and the “O” would create the triad, or the world formed by the two creative principals out of matter. “A” would then represent the conjunction between these two principles. If “A” is taken as Apophis or Apep, the conjunctive force is the raised kundalini. These 3 forces, together, give birth to something new – a child, conceived either astrally or physically. This “child” would be a manifestation of the incarnated will.

===Transformation into VIAOV===

Crowley, wanting to make IAO fit within the new [[Aeon]], added the Hebrew letter ''Vau'' to both ends, which he then called the “proper hieroglyph of the Ritual of Self-Initiation in this Aeon of Horus” (Crowley, 1997). The new word, [[VIAOV]] (also FIAOF), enumerates to [[93]], just as ''[[Thelema]]'' and ''[[Agape]]'' do. Of the person who travels through this new process, Crowley writes,

:''Thus, he is Man made God, exalted, eager; he has come consciously to his full stature, and so is ready to set out on his journey to redeem the world. But he may not appear in this true form; the Vision of [[Pan]] would drive men mad with fear. He must conceal Himself in his original guise.''

:''He therefore becomes apparently the man that he was at the beginning; he lives the life of a man; indeed, he is wholly man. But his [[initiation]] has made him master of the Event by giving him the understanding that whatever happens to him is the execution of this true will.''

==IAO in English==

IAO has a special status in English. "I" and "A" are the most commonly known single letter words. "I" is singular subjective term, while "A" is a singular objective term. "O" is a lesser known English word. It appears in poetry, for example Colerige's Kubla Khan;

:"O that deep romantic chasm,
: which slanted down the green hill athwart a cedarn cover.
:A savage place; as holy and Enchanted,
:as E're beneath the waning Moon was haunted,
:by woman wailing for her demon lover."

"O" suggests ecstacy, and the union of Self with Other. It brings the in-animate forms of our objective world to life in the divine.

"IAO" as a whole, comprises the three possible single letter words in English.
It suggests: "Self. Other. Self/Other", and acts as a primary sematic formulation,
underlying the structure of the dynamics of consciousness in interrelation with itself.

==Links of interest==
*''[http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/aba/chap5.html The Formula of I.A.O.]'' in "Magick, Book 4"

[[Category:Formulæ]]
[[Category:Gnosticism]]
[[Category:Gnostic Godforms]]

Talk:Thelema

2005-02-26T21:14:50Z

Luxuria: /* Isomeme's revision to Ash's solution */

==DISCUSSION: Different views of Thelema==

'''To all editors:''' this discussion surrounds the following paragraph currently in Thelema:

:'''Different views of Thelema'''

:'''Not all adherents of Thelema consider it a religion or subscribe to the philosophy of True Will as outlined in Aleister Crowley's writings. Thelemites may or may not believe in the necessity of Canon or Theology as outlined in this article. Many require nothing more than an acceptance of the message of The Book of the Law as interpreted by the individual, each for him or herself.'''

There is debate over the appropriateness of this paragraph. Thelemapedia is inviting you to share your opinion and offer solutions. Please put your comments in a sub-header: e.g. <nowiki>===My Solution===</nowiki>

===Ash's solution===

I believe this statement is subtractive, rather than additive, and provides no substantive information from the knowedge base. However, I agree with the principle of including alternative points of view, which is why I added the link to the new article, [[Alternative Views of Thelema]]. I think the paragraph in Thelema article should be more generic, such as:

:'''Thelema is many things to many people, and no single definition can encapsulate it for every Thelemite. It can be experienced and manifested as (but not limited to) religion, philosophy, a set of practices, a system of magick, ethical guidelines, lifestyle, culture, or political viewpoint. Even the requirements for being a Thelemite are not clear, and are often defined by the individual herself. There are also Thelemic movements that have serious differences in opinion from Aleister Crowley and his interpretations of Liber Legis. '''

:'''For a more complete review on these differences, see [[Alternative Views of Thelema]].'''

What do you think?

===Thiebes' solution===

Since Crowley himself has written some things which would appear to support the nonreligious view of Thelema, and since I myself know personally several adherents to this view, it seems obvious to me that this view should be included, along with the various ways that people reconcile (or reduce) Crowley's apparent self-contradiction on the topic.

I notice there is an entry for "Thelema and Religion." This seems to be the most appropriate place, to me, to discuss the question of whether Thelema is or is not a religion. Indeed, that is where quotes from Crowley ''supporting'' the religious view are found (rather than in the article on Thelema).

Ash, your paragraph beginning with "Thelema is many things to many people" minimizes the important fact that Crowley himself wrote contradictory things on the question of whether Thelema is a religion. I find it a rather condescending approach.

My solution is as follows. I don't actually have time to write the final text as I'm imagining it, but basically add a couple of sentences in the article on "Thelema" about this controversy. Refer to the "Thelema and Religion" article. Then move the "Different views" paragraph to the latter article, add quotes from Crowley to support the position (as in MWT), and describe the relationship of Thelema to Religion as one which draws continued controversy. Finally remove the "Alternative views" article since the very title suggests that the views are not to be found in the literature.

=== Isomeme's revision to Ash's solution ===

I think the key problem is that all religion (or mysticism, or whatever label you choose) is in the end subjective, so to say that Thelema is a matter of interpretation and opinion verges on tautology. Here's my proposed rewrite of Ash's first paragraph above:

:'''Thelema, like any religious or mystical system, is in the end a matter of personal experience. There is no objective standard to determine who is or is not a Thelemite, nor what beliefs, practices, interpretations, or goals are compatible or incompatible with Thelema. Unlike some religious systems, there is no single authority which claims jurisdiction over Thelemic orthodoxy, leaving the field open to a variety of organizations, movements, and individuals, each approaching Thelema differently.'''

:'''The only seemingly unequivocal instruction Thelema provides in this matter is this line from the Class A Comment on Liber AL: "All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself."'''

::I think this is a very good improvement on my paragraph. You got closer to what I was trying to say. [[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]

Thiebes, I'm not sure I follow your argument re "Alternate Views". These alternatives are very much to be found in "the literature", taking that to mean the work of modern self-identified Thelemites. Can you clarify, please?

[[User:Isomeme|Isomeme]]

:The "Alternative Views" (such as the one that Thelema is not a religion) are also found ''in Crowley'' and calling them "Alternative" gives the impression that they are not. --[[User:Thiebes|Thiebes]] 14:44, 26 Feb 2005 (CST)

::"Alternative" in no way should mean "not in the literature." This should be backed up by editors using Crowley (and others, hopefully) to support their entries. Further, this article shouldn't focus only on the "religion-ness" of Thelema, and should also present ideas on culture, ethics, politics, etc. I think the article "Thelema and Religion" should stick to how Thelema ''does'' manifest as a religion, rather than being a page for debate on religion. [[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]

::: But I think "Alternative" implies not mainstream (and that it's a minority view) and I'm not sure that's the case.

:::That said, I like Isomeme's proposal. [[User:z111|z111]]

== Other Personalities in Liber Legis, edits ==

I edited the '''Hrumachis''' summary, because it reflected an inaccurate reading of Liber AL. Hrumachis ''is'' RHK, who will "arise" (i.e. vacate the Throne of the Aeon) at the future Equinox of the Gods. "The double-wanded one" is Thmaist (Maat), who is '''not''' Hrumachis. But see how quickly this sort of thing gets pestilential?

:Thanks for the technical corrections. [[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]

:I'm not sure this is correct. Doesn't Hru-machis mean "Horus of the Star" while RHK means "Horus of the Two Horizons"? I have always thought that they are two different forms of Horus. What you say about ''arise'' is ''attractive'', but not convincing unless there is something that shows that the Egyptians considered the two identical. Neither the old nor new comment mentions this identity... [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]

::"Two different forms of Horus" is fine. I wasn't trying to establish any more precise equivalence than that. In the Extenuation ("New Comment," so-called by Regardie), Crowley takes a somewhat different tack, vaguely identifiying Hrumachis with "any new course of events." Still it was expressly as "Harmachis" (among others) that Crowley invoked Horus--who then revealed himself as the Lord of the Aeon--in the Cairo working; see the Great Invocation, section Beta II Beth.
::Also, I am in turn skeptical of your implied assertion that Egyptological data are final arbiters regarding the "personalities" (as the present article has it) who wear their names and attributes in Thelemic literature and doctrine.--[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 21:46, 24 Feb 2005 (CST)

Also, how did '''Chaos''' get into this list? Where does that name appear in Liber Legis? --[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 16:36, 22 Feb 2005 (CST)

:RIght you are. However, the list was intended to reflect "dieties" that are promenant in Thelema, not just Liber AL. Perhaps the header should change to include all Thelemic holy books? [[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]
::I certainly prefer the present "personalities" to "deities," in terms of avoiding metaphysical recklessness. As it stands, every entry on the list can be found in Liber Legis ''except'' for Chaos. If you open it up to all the Holy Books, it's a real can of worms: Adonai from Liber LXV? Iacchus and Al A'ain the Priest from Liber VII? All 44 spirits from CCXXXII?--[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 21:46, 24 Feb 2005 (CST)

While "deities" is problematic as a term, I'm not convinced that "personalities" as a designator really works either - particularly because its absence in the literature. Personally, I think the differentiations are important and should be delineated where possible. For example: "Archangels" could include Ithuriel as "Genii" could include Malkunofat from 231.
- aishmlchmh

== Different Views of Thelema ==

It's silly to make a big deal out of the insistence of some professed Thelemites that Thelema is not a religion. This issue does not pertain specifically to Thelema, but rather to '''religion''' generally. It is very common (as Google will show) to find Christians who say that Christianity is not a religion ("It's a personal relationship with Jesus!"), Muslims who say that Islam is not a religion ("It's a way of life!"), Jews who say that Judaism is not religion ("It's a heritage!"), etc. etc. In virtually all cases, this rhetorical trope appears to be an attempt to priviledge the "non-religion" of the adherent above all of the other mere religions. As an aspiring source of "academic" information on Thelema, Thelemapedia shouldn't capitulate to such gambits. If we must take note of them, we should properly contextualize them as a feature of ''religious discourse'' that transcends creed and tradition. [http://www.islamfortoday.com/islamisareligion.htm Here] is a fairly articulate essay on this topic from the perpective of an American convert to Islam.--[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 22:14, 24 Feb 2005 (CST)

:You're right. It's silly to make such a big deal out if it as you are doing. Also, by implying that the inclusion of a single paragraph is silly, you are dismissing the views of actual groups of people and their beliefs, and implying that their beliefs are silly. Is this an attempt to marginalize a subset of Thelemites? Is the front page claim of Thelemapedia, "Everyone from every corner of the Thelemic universe is welcome to add knowledge to the encyclopedia by becoming an editor," simply a falsehood, a gambit to attract more editors for this Wiki, perhaps with the intent to quietly edit out non-orthodox views at a later date when those editors are no longer actively paying attention? [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]

Talk:Thelema

2005-02-26T21:14:04Z

Luxuria: /* Isomeme's revision to Ash's solution */

==DISCUSSION: Different views of Thelema==

'''To all editors:''' this discussion surrounds the following paragraph currently in Thelema:

:'''Different views of Thelema'''

:'''Not all adherents of Thelema consider it a religion or subscribe to the philosophy of True Will as outlined in Aleister Crowley's writings. Thelemites may or may not believe in the necessity of Canon or Theology as outlined in this article. Many require nothing more than an acceptance of the message of The Book of the Law as interpreted by the individual, each for him or herself.'''

There is debate over the appropriateness of this paragraph. Thelemapedia is inviting you to share your opinion and offer solutions. Please put your comments in a sub-header: e.g. <nowiki>===My Solution===</nowiki>

===Ash's solution===

I believe this statement is subtractive, rather than additive, and provides no substantive information from the knowedge base. However, I agree with the principle of including alternative points of view, which is why I added the link to the new article, [[Alternative Views of Thelema]]. I think the paragraph in Thelema article should be more generic, such as:

:'''Thelema is many things to many people, and no single definition can encapsulate it for every Thelemite. It can be experienced and manifested as (but not limited to) religion, philosophy, a set of practices, a system of magick, ethical guidelines, lifestyle, culture, or political viewpoint. Even the requirements for being a Thelemite are not clear, and are often defined by the individual herself. There are also Thelemic movements that have serious differences in opinion from Aleister Crowley and his interpretations of Liber Legis. '''

:'''For a more complete review on these differences, see [[Alternative Views of Thelema]].'''

What do you think?

===Thiebes' solution===

Since Crowley himself has written some things which would appear to support the nonreligious view of Thelema, and since I myself know personally several adherents to this view, it seems obvious to me that this view should be included, along with the various ways that people reconcile (or reduce) Crowley's apparent self-contradiction on the topic.

I notice there is an entry for "Thelema and Religion." This seems to be the most appropriate place, to me, to discuss the question of whether Thelema is or is not a religion. Indeed, that is where quotes from Crowley ''supporting'' the religious view are found (rather than in the article on Thelema).

Ash, your paragraph beginning with "Thelema is many things to many people" minimizes the important fact that Crowley himself wrote contradictory things on the question of whether Thelema is a religion. I find it a rather condescending approach.

My solution is as follows. I don't actually have time to write the final text as I'm imagining it, but basically add a couple of sentences in the article on "Thelema" about this controversy. Refer to the "Thelema and Religion" article. Then move the "Different views" paragraph to the latter article, add quotes from Crowley to support the position (as in MWT), and describe the relationship of Thelema to Religion as one which draws continued controversy. Finally remove the "Alternative views" article since the very title suggests that the views are not to be found in the literature.

=== Isomeme's revision to Ash's solution ===

I think the key problem is that all religion (or mysticism, or whatever label you choose) is in the end subjective, so to say that Thelema is a matter of interpretation and opinion verges on tautology. Here's my proposed rewrite of Ash's first paragraph above:

:'''Thelema, like any religious or mystical system, is in the end a matter of personal experience. There is no objective standard to determine who is or is not a Thelemite, nor what beliefs, practices, interpretations, or goals are compatible or incompatible with Thelema. Unlike some religious systems, there is no single authority which claims jurisdiction over Thelemic orthodoxy, leaving the field open to a variety of organizations, movements, and individuals, each approaching Thelema differently.'''

:'''The only seemingly unequivocal instruction Thelema provides in this matter is this line from the Class A Comment on Liber AL: "All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself."'''

::I think this is a very good improvement on my paragraph. You got closer to what I was trying to say. [[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]

Thiebes, I'm not sure I follow your argument re "Alternate Views". These alternatives are very much to be found in "the literature", taking that to mean the work of modern self-identified Thelemites. Can you clarify, please?

[[User:Isomeme|Isomeme]]

:The "Alternative Views" (such as the one that Thelema is not a religion) are also found ''in Crowley'' and calling them "Alternative" gives the impression that they are not. --[[User:Thiebes|Thiebes]] 14:44, 26 Feb 2005 (CST)

::"Alternative" in no way should mean "not in the literature." This should be backed up by editors using Crowley (and others, hopefully) to support their entries. Further, this article shouldn't focus only on the "religion-ness" of Thelema, and should also present ideas on culture, ethics, politics, etc. I think the article "Thelema and Religion" should stick to how Thelema ''does'' manifest as a religion, rather than being a page for debate on religion. [[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]

:: But I think "Alternative" implies not mainstream (and that it's a minority view) and I'm not sure that's the case.

::That said, I like Isomeme's proposal.
[[User:z111|z111]]

== Other Personalities in Liber Legis, edits ==

I edited the '''Hrumachis''' summary, because it reflected an inaccurate reading of Liber AL. Hrumachis ''is'' RHK, who will "arise" (i.e. vacate the Throne of the Aeon) at the future Equinox of the Gods. "The double-wanded one" is Thmaist (Maat), who is '''not''' Hrumachis. But see how quickly this sort of thing gets pestilential?

:Thanks for the technical corrections. [[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]

:I'm not sure this is correct. Doesn't Hru-machis mean "Horus of the Star" while RHK means "Horus of the Two Horizons"? I have always thought that they are two different forms of Horus. What you say about ''arise'' is ''attractive'', but not convincing unless there is something that shows that the Egyptians considered the two identical. Neither the old nor new comment mentions this identity... [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]

::"Two different forms of Horus" is fine. I wasn't trying to establish any more precise equivalence than that. In the Extenuation ("New Comment," so-called by Regardie), Crowley takes a somewhat different tack, vaguely identifiying Hrumachis with "any new course of events." Still it was expressly as "Harmachis" (among others) that Crowley invoked Horus--who then revealed himself as the Lord of the Aeon--in the Cairo working; see the Great Invocation, section Beta II Beth.
::Also, I am in turn skeptical of your implied assertion that Egyptological data are final arbiters regarding the "personalities" (as the present article has it) who wear their names and attributes in Thelemic literature and doctrine.--[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 21:46, 24 Feb 2005 (CST)

Also, how did '''Chaos''' get into this list? Where does that name appear in Liber Legis? --[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 16:36, 22 Feb 2005 (CST)

:RIght you are. However, the list was intended to reflect "dieties" that are promenant in Thelema, not just Liber AL. Perhaps the header should change to include all Thelemic holy books? [[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]
::I certainly prefer the present "personalities" to "deities," in terms of avoiding metaphysical recklessness. As it stands, every entry on the list can be found in Liber Legis ''except'' for Chaos. If you open it up to all the Holy Books, it's a real can of worms: Adonai from Liber LXV? Iacchus and Al A'ain the Priest from Liber VII? All 44 spirits from CCXXXII?--[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 21:46, 24 Feb 2005 (CST)

While "deities" is problematic as a term, I'm not convinced that "personalities" as a designator really works either - particularly because its absence in the literature. Personally, I think the differentiations are important and should be delineated where possible. For example: "Archangels" could include Ithuriel as "Genii" could include Malkunofat from 231.
- aishmlchmh

== Different Views of Thelema ==

It's silly to make a big deal out of the insistence of some professed Thelemites that Thelema is not a religion. This issue does not pertain specifically to Thelema, but rather to '''religion''' generally. It is very common (as Google will show) to find Christians who say that Christianity is not a religion ("It's a personal relationship with Jesus!"), Muslims who say that Islam is not a religion ("It's a way of life!"), Jews who say that Judaism is not religion ("It's a heritage!"), etc. etc. In virtually all cases, this rhetorical trope appears to be an attempt to priviledge the "non-religion" of the adherent above all of the other mere religions. As an aspiring source of "academic" information on Thelema, Thelemapedia shouldn't capitulate to such gambits. If we must take note of them, we should properly contextualize them as a feature of ''religious discourse'' that transcends creed and tradition. [http://www.islamfortoday.com/islamisareligion.htm Here] is a fairly articulate essay on this topic from the perpective of an American convert to Islam.--[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 22:14, 24 Feb 2005 (CST)

:You're right. It's silly to make such a big deal out if it as you are doing. Also, by implying that the inclusion of a single paragraph is silly, you are dismissing the views of actual groups of people and their beliefs, and implying that their beliefs are silly. Is this an attempt to marginalize a subset of Thelemites? Is the front page claim of Thelemapedia, "Everyone from every corner of the Thelemic universe is welcome to add knowledge to the encyclopedia by becoming an editor," simply a falsehood, a gambit to attract more editors for this Wiki, perhaps with the intent to quietly edit out non-orthodox views at a later date when those editors are no longer actively paying attention? [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]

Talk:Thelema

2005-02-26T21:13:24Z

Luxuria: /* Isomeme's revision to Ash's solution */

==DISCUSSION: Different views of Thelema==

'''To all editors:''' this discussion surrounds the following paragraph currently in Thelema:

:'''Different views of Thelema'''

:'''Not all adherents of Thelema consider it a religion or subscribe to the philosophy of True Will as outlined in Aleister Crowley's writings. Thelemites may or may not believe in the necessity of Canon or Theology as outlined in this article. Many require nothing more than an acceptance of the message of The Book of the Law as interpreted by the individual, each for him or herself.'''

There is debate over the appropriateness of this paragraph. Thelemapedia is inviting you to share your opinion and offer solutions. Please put your comments in a sub-header: e.g. <nowiki>===My Solution===</nowiki>

===Ash's solution===

I believe this statement is subtractive, rather than additive, and provides no substantive information from the knowedge base. However, I agree with the principle of including alternative points of view, which is why I added the link to the new article, [[Alternative Views of Thelema]]. I think the paragraph in Thelema article should be more generic, such as:

:'''Thelema is many things to many people, and no single definition can encapsulate it for every Thelemite. It can be experienced and manifested as (but not limited to) religion, philosophy, a set of practices, a system of magick, ethical guidelines, lifestyle, culture, or political viewpoint. Even the requirements for being a Thelemite are not clear, and are often defined by the individual herself. There are also Thelemic movements that have serious differences in opinion from Aleister Crowley and his interpretations of Liber Legis. '''

:'''For a more complete review on these differences, see [[Alternative Views of Thelema]].'''

What do you think?

===Thiebes' solution===

Since Crowley himself has written some things which would appear to support the nonreligious view of Thelema, and since I myself know personally several adherents to this view, it seems obvious to me that this view should be included, along with the various ways that people reconcile (or reduce) Crowley's apparent self-contradiction on the topic.

I notice there is an entry for "Thelema and Religion." This seems to be the most appropriate place, to me, to discuss the question of whether Thelema is or is not a religion. Indeed, that is where quotes from Crowley ''supporting'' the religious view are found (rather than in the article on Thelema).

Ash, your paragraph beginning with "Thelema is many things to many people" minimizes the important fact that Crowley himself wrote contradictory things on the question of whether Thelema is a religion. I find it a rather condescending approach.

My solution is as follows. I don't actually have time to write the final text as I'm imagining it, but basically add a couple of sentences in the article on "Thelema" about this controversy. Refer to the "Thelema and Religion" article. Then move the "Different views" paragraph to the latter article, add quotes from Crowley to support the position (as in MWT), and describe the relationship of Thelema to Religion as one which draws continued controversy. Finally remove the "Alternative views" article since the very title suggests that the views are not to be found in the literature.

=== Isomeme's revision to Ash's solution ===

I think the key problem is that all religion (or mysticism, or whatever label you choose) is in the end subjective, so to say that Thelema is a matter of interpretation and opinion verges on tautology. Here's my proposed rewrite of Ash's first paragraph above:

:'''Thelema, like any religious or mystical system, is in the end a matter of personal experience. There is no objective standard to determine who is or is not a Thelemite, nor what beliefs, practices, interpretations, or goals are compatible or incompatible with Thelema. Unlike some religious systems, there is no single authority which claims jurisdiction over Thelemic orthodoxy, leaving the field open to a variety of organizations, movements, and individuals, each approaching Thelema differently.'''

:'''The only seemingly unequivocal instruction Thelema provides in this matter is this line from the Class A Comment on Liber AL: "All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself."'''

::I think this is a very good improvement on my paragraph. You got closer to what I was trying to say. [[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]

Thiebes, I'm not sure I follow your argument re "Alternate Views". These alternatives are very much to be found in "the literature", taking that to mean the work of modern self-identified Thelemites. Can you clarify, please?

[[User:Isomeme|Isomeme]]

:The "Alternative Views" (such as the one that Thelema is not a religion) are also found ''in Crowley'' and calling them "Alternative" gives the impression that they are not. --[[User:Thiebes|Thiebes]] 14:44, 26 Feb 2005 (CST)

::"Alternative" in no way should mean "not in the literature." This should be backed up by editors using Crowley (and others, hopefully) to support their entries. Further, this article shouldn't focus only on the "religion-ness" of Thelema, and should also present ideas on culture, ethics, politics, etc. I think the article "Thelema and Religion" should stick to how Thelema ''does'' manifest as a religion, rather than being a page for debate on religion. [[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]

: But I think "Alternative" implies not mainstream (and that it's a minority view) and I'm not sure that's the case.

That said, I like Isomeme's proposal.
[[User:z111|z111]]

== Other Personalities in Liber Legis, edits ==

I edited the '''Hrumachis''' summary, because it reflected an inaccurate reading of Liber AL. Hrumachis ''is'' RHK, who will "arise" (i.e. vacate the Throne of the Aeon) at the future Equinox of the Gods. "The double-wanded one" is Thmaist (Maat), who is '''not''' Hrumachis. But see how quickly this sort of thing gets pestilential?

:Thanks for the technical corrections. [[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]

:I'm not sure this is correct. Doesn't Hru-machis mean "Horus of the Star" while RHK means "Horus of the Two Horizons"? I have always thought that they are two different forms of Horus. What you say about ''arise'' is ''attractive'', but not convincing unless there is something that shows that the Egyptians considered the two identical. Neither the old nor new comment mentions this identity... [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]

::"Two different forms of Horus" is fine. I wasn't trying to establish any more precise equivalence than that. In the Extenuation ("New Comment," so-called by Regardie), Crowley takes a somewhat different tack, vaguely identifiying Hrumachis with "any new course of events." Still it was expressly as "Harmachis" (among others) that Crowley invoked Horus--who then revealed himself as the Lord of the Aeon--in the Cairo working; see the Great Invocation, section Beta II Beth.
::Also, I am in turn skeptical of your implied assertion that Egyptological data are final arbiters regarding the "personalities" (as the present article has it) who wear their names and attributes in Thelemic literature and doctrine.--[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 21:46, 24 Feb 2005 (CST)

Also, how did '''Chaos''' get into this list? Where does that name appear in Liber Legis? --[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 16:36, 22 Feb 2005 (CST)

:RIght you are. However, the list was intended to reflect "dieties" that are promenant in Thelema, not just Liber AL. Perhaps the header should change to include all Thelemic holy books? [[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]
::I certainly prefer the present "personalities" to "deities," in terms of avoiding metaphysical recklessness. As it stands, every entry on the list can be found in Liber Legis ''except'' for Chaos. If you open it up to all the Holy Books, it's a real can of worms: Adonai from Liber LXV? Iacchus and Al A'ain the Priest from Liber VII? All 44 spirits from CCXXXII?--[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 21:46, 24 Feb 2005 (CST)

While "deities" is problematic as a term, I'm not convinced that "personalities" as a designator really works either - particularly because its absence in the literature. Personally, I think the differentiations are important and should be delineated where possible. For example: "Archangels" could include Ithuriel as "Genii" could include Malkunofat from 231.
- aishmlchmh

== Different Views of Thelema ==

It's silly to make a big deal out of the insistence of some professed Thelemites that Thelema is not a religion. This issue does not pertain specifically to Thelema, but rather to '''religion''' generally. It is very common (as Google will show) to find Christians who say that Christianity is not a religion ("It's a personal relationship with Jesus!"), Muslims who say that Islam is not a religion ("It's a way of life!"), Jews who say that Judaism is not religion ("It's a heritage!"), etc. etc. In virtually all cases, this rhetorical trope appears to be an attempt to priviledge the "non-religion" of the adherent above all of the other mere religions. As an aspiring source of "academic" information on Thelema, Thelemapedia shouldn't capitulate to such gambits. If we must take note of them, we should properly contextualize them as a feature of ''religious discourse'' that transcends creed and tradition. [http://www.islamfortoday.com/islamisareligion.htm Here] is a fairly articulate essay on this topic from the perpective of an American convert to Islam.--[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 22:14, 24 Feb 2005 (CST)

:You're right. It's silly to make such a big deal out if it as you are doing. Also, by implying that the inclusion of a single paragraph is silly, you are dismissing the views of actual groups of people and their beliefs, and implying that their beliefs are silly. Is this an attempt to marginalize a subset of Thelemites? Is the front page claim of Thelemapedia, "Everyone from every corner of the Thelemic universe is welcome to add knowledge to the encyclopedia by becoming an editor," simply a falsehood, a gambit to attract more editors for this Wiki, perhaps with the intent to quietly edit out non-orthodox views at a later date when those editors are no longer actively paying attention? [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]

Point

2005-01-21T16:53:08Z

Luxuria: A small start

The '''point''' is [[Kether]], it contains infinite potential without manifestation. It is infinitely small. The point is also [[Hadit]]. The point is [[Yod]] which means hand and is used to point at things; and the [[yod]] looks like a point.