Blindly accepting the Book of Law?

[Ioaness]

First of all I am new to both this forum and Thelema. It is not my intention to come off as trolling, by going against many of the accepted rules of Thelema such as discussing the Book of Law.

What originally attracted me to Thelema is the attempt is the application of the scientific method to religion. If my understanding is correct in Thelema this method is used to help each individual upon his or her spiritual path. Crowley wasn't a man who would accept anything without testing it for himself, and he certainly didn't want his followers to act as mindless cattle.

With this being understood, it seems hard for me to understand why nearly every Thelemic group has as a requirement to accept the Book of Law without wishing to make changes to it. If someone tested this for his or herself and found the book would not be of use to him or her, would that not make him or her a Thelemite? Does not the founding book of Thelema seem paridoxical to the nature of Scientific Illuminism?

[Jim Eshelman]

It is not my intention to come off as trolling, by going against many of the accepted rules of Thelema such as discussing the Book of Law.

You won't run into a problem with that here. We encourage active, frequent discussion of Liber L.

What originally attracted me to Thelema is the attempt is the application of the scientific method to religion.

Just for the record, that's not an inherently Thelemic idea. It's (in part) a Crowleyan idea, but those aren't the same thing. It's an A.'.A.'. premise, but A.'.A.'. shouldn't be confused with Thelema as if there were no difference.

The idea you site is part of Scientific Illuminism (or Sceptical Theurgy). This was the approach that Crowley and Jones put forward for A.'.A.'. at the beginning, especially during the time that Crowley was actively ignoring Liber L. When Thelemic elements became more actively incorporated into the system, the Sceptical Theurgical foundation was retained.

With this being understood, it seems hard for me to understand why nearly every Thelemic group has as a requirement to accept the Book of Law without wishing to make changes to it. If someone tested this for his or herself and found the book would not be of use to him or her, would that not make him or her a Thelemite?

I think you are confusing "accept The Book of the Law" with "believe what The Book of the Law says." It doesn't mean that. But it does mean to accept it for what it is without any desire to make it into something else. It is also used mcuh as postulates are used in mathematics: This is our philosophical foundation, and working from these premises, such and so occurs. You don't actually have to believe anything. Instead, you are undertaking a years-long experiment of acting in a fashion consistent with a set of postulates. Nonetheless...

Does not the founding book of Thelema seem paridoxical to the nature of Scientific Illuminism?

...we're back at the point from the beginning: Scientific Illuminism is not a Thelemic matter per se. It's an A.'.A.'. guiding principle; but you won't find anything about it anywhere in The Book of the Law.

[Ioaness]

I think you are confusing "accept The Book of the Law" with "believe what The Book of the Law says." It doesn't mean that. But it does mean to accept it for what it is without any desire to make it into something else. It is also used mcuh as postulates are used in mathematics: This is our philosophical foundation, and working from these premises, such and so occurs. You don't actually have to believe anything. Instead, you are undertaking a years-long experiment of acting in a fashion consistent with a set of postulates. Nonetheless...

Interesting. So are you saying that you could accept The Book of the Law as bieng false, yet still be considered a Thelemite? Any concept within mathematics could (and most likely would) be changed if deemed false. While this might is extreamly unlikely, if the founding mathematical principals were found to be wrong they would be changed. The idea that even if The Book of the Law is well established, the fact that it can't be changed under any circumstances seems to me to be ridiculous.

...we're back at the point from the beginning: Scientific Illuminism is not a Thelemic matter per se. It's an A.'.A.'. guiding principle; but you won't find anything about it anywhere in The Book of the Law.

Perhaps Scientific Illuminism isn't technically a Thelemic principle. Still I don't understand why anyone wouldn't attempt to test the theories of Thelema, as this would make them simply mindless sheep. This to me doesn't seem like an A.'.A.'. idea as much as a common sence one. By making people accept a book without being able to make any changes, makes scientific testing useless. If the Book of the Law needs no changes why not let people come to this conclusion themselves rather than dictating it as a requirement of Thelema?

[mojorisin44]

I'm not a member of an Order and I'm sure Jim has comments on your specific questions (of which he is probably infinitley more qualified to answer)....

But - What changes would you like to make?

To me it doesn't sound like you'd like to make changes, but just don't like the idea of restriction.

I'd also say that just because it can't be "changed" doesn't mean you can't formulate your own theories on the meaning of anything. A book written by anyone is what it is. The interpretation is what changes with the individual.

[Takamba]

Ioaness, you read the book exactly as it came to you. That was your will to do. It existed before you and needs no changes because it apparently worked to come to you exactly without these changes (changes you haven't even been able to describe to us). Give yourself some time. Read it again. Read it after giving yourself some time, because time appears the change everything. Then maybe you will find your copy of the book has indeed changed. Why fight history? It's in the past.

Also, you're confusing "the comment" (which is an afterthought to the book) with what the Law of Thelema actually is (which is what is in the book). I read a really interesting op-ed piece about the comment once and it basically concluded that it was a paradoxical statement impossible to truly follow & hence, your first test as a Thelemite.

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

[Bereshith]

Accepting the Book of the Law without wanting to change it isn't necessarily faith.

On the simplest level, if you were investigating a crime scene, you wouldn't want anyone to tamper with the evidence. Doesn't matter what judgment you think should be made, nor how the evidence could be arranged to demonstrate anyone's judgment more clearly.

The evidence suggests that true spiritual genius manifested in a way that it very rarely does. If anyone alters the evidence, future generations won't be able to judge for themselves.

[danica]

Still I don't understand why anyone wouldn't attempt to test the theories of Thelema, as this would make them simply mindless sheep. This to me doesn't seem like an A.'.A.'. idea as much as a common sence one.

is there a way of 'testing' Thelema other than living it?
who forbids you to do that, other than your own concepts and mind-set?
if you are trying to test something only with your mind i.e. thinking about it, playing mentally with concepts, that's the only level you'll stay at regarding understanding that something; and human understanding does not restrict itself only to intellect; -- but there's, again, no way of finding out how true or untrue this is, unless you 'dig in' into it and gather some personal experience...

By making people accept a book without being able to make any changes, makes scientific testing useless. If the Book of the Law needs no changes why not let people come to this conclusion themselves rather than dictating it as a requirement of Thelema?

if you want to change something, you first have to know what that is, right? otherwise you wouldn't even know what 'changing it' means at all (wouldn't be able to recognize a 'change' on it).

and can we ever truly change anything other than ourself? (you define the 'self' here as you like)

[Ioaness]

Thank you to everyone who posted.

I now feel like I understand The Book of the Law. After thinking and meditating upon it today I feel as if I understand why the "restriction" is imposed. By accepting it, without the ability to make changes, leads us to naturally question it. It is only after we question it that we can realize its greatness.

I hope that wasn't too confusing.

[mojorisin44]

I now feel like I understand The Book of the Law.

lol...Where's my Easy Button? [Vague Staples reference ]

By accepting it, without the ability to make changes, leads us to naturally question it.

The paradox is a great point though. Probably true about a lot of things....now we're all centers of pestilence.....

[Jim Eshelman]

I think you are confusing "accept The Book of the Law" with "believe what The Book of the Law says." It doesn't mean that. But it does mean to accept it for what it is without any desire to make it into something else. It is also used much as postulates are used in mathematics: This is our philosophical foundation, and working from these premises, such and so occurs. You don't actually have to believe anything. Instead, you are undertaking a years-long experiment of acting in a fashion consistent with a set of postulates. Nonetheless...

Interesting. So are you saying that you could accept The Book of the Law as bieng false, yet still be considered a Thelemite? Any concept within mathematics could (and most likely would) be changed if deemed false. While this might is extreamly unlikely, if the founding mathematical principals were found to be wrong they would be changed.

Notice that I didn't say that. A belief that it is false (1) is a belief and (2) diverges from adopting it as a postulate. You seem to think that one must either believe a thing true or false. I wojuld suggest that reason isn't capable of discerning truth. Instead, one can (for example) adopt postulate as a mathematician does, without concerning oneself with determining with whether they are true or not. Instead, they are seeds of a system.

The idea that even if The Book of the Law is well established, the fact that it can't be changed under any circumstances seems to me to be ridiculous.

You are welcome to adopt other postulates, assume other positions; but why bother, then, to edit Liber Legis? It's not a wiki.

Perhaps Scientific Illuminism isn't technically a Thelemic principle. Still I don't understand why anyone wouldn't attempt to test the theories of Thelema, as this would make them simply mindless sheep.

For some people - perhaps those showing the least initiative - Thelema will simply be their version of popular religion. The majority of people don't think. They are the packing peanuts of the world's delivery system. For them, should they adopt Thelema, it would never be anything other than a mindless belief. But, then, those particular people will have something of that sort.

[Meletiros]

For some people - perhaps those showing the least initiative - Thelema will simply be their version of popular religion. The majority of people don't think. They are the packing peanuts of the world's delivery system. For them, should they adopt Thelema, it would never be anything other than a mindless belief. But, then, those particular people will have something of that sort.

Did A.C. teach that all people have an HGA and potential to move consciousness into the neshama mode?

[Jim Eshelman]

Yes. But that doesn't mean that all (or even most) will pursue the Great Work in the present lifetime.

[gmugmble]

I had to agree to "accept" the Book of the Law "without wishing to change a word" in order to receive a certain initiation. Having eternity at my disposal, I thought about this for about a year. Of course, I knew all along I would agree because the word "accept" is vague enough that one can always rationalize it. But it is worth pondering from different angles. In what sense do I accept it? In what sense do I not? And if I could change the book, what would I change? (I can point to two specific words that I personally wish were not there. So these words become starting points of meditation.)

Crowley says somewhere (I'll dig up the exact quote later when I have more time) that the fact that you object to the Book is evidence that it is working on you. That's the important thing -- to let it work on you.

[P is for Pomegranate]

let it work on you.

Amen!

[333OnlyHalfEvil]

I think you are confusing "accept The Book of the Law" with "believe what The Book of the Law says." It doesn't mean that. But it does mean to accept it for what it is without any desire to make it into something else. It is also used mcuh as postulates are used in mathematics: This is our philosophical foundation, and working from these premises, such and so occurs. You don't actually have to believe anything. Instead, you are undertaking a years-long experiment of acting in a fashion consistent with a set of postulates. Nonetheless...

Interesting. So are you saying that you could accept The Book of the Law as bieng false, yet still be considered a Thelemite? Any concept within mathematics could (and most likely would) be changed if deemed false. While this might is extreamly unlikely, if the founding mathematical principals were found to be wrong they would be changed. The idea that even if The Book of the Law is well established, the fact that it can't be changed under any circumstances seems to me to be ridiculous.

Ioaness, you and Jim are using Mathematics examples to respond to each other so I will also use a Mathematics example to respond to you but my Mathematics example will be an example related to Calculus.

Isaac Newton was sitting underneath an apple tree with his back against the trunk. Looking up at the moon, he saw an apple fall from the tree towards the earth and he thought, "Is the same force that pulls the apple towards the earth the same force that causes the moon to circle the earth?" So, he set out to try to prove his hypothesis and, in 1666, Isaac Newton formulated his theory of Calculus.

After formulating his theory, Isaac wrote up a paper summarizing his findings. From then on, the science known as Calculus has been studied and tested countless times by numerous Mathemeticians and every one of them have been able to reproduce his results. As the years passed, some Calculus experts attempted to write their own papers and books about Calculus and, nowadays, when learning Calculus, Isaac's original paper isn't even mentioned. But it still exists; it's history. It's still accepted by the scientific community.

Think about accepting the Book of the Law like you're accepting Isaac Newton's first thesis of Calculus before embarking off to take your first Calculus course. The only difference between the Calculus class and the Thelemic class is that Calculus has been around longer and it has been studied and proven by more people. Those people who have studied it more have written books on the subject which are easier to learn from than Isaac's original paper.

Accepting the Book of the Law in our present day would be similar to those Mathematicians accepting Isaac's original Calculus paper before setting off to learn what knowledge the paper contained; before it had been tested and proven countless times by numerous Mathematicians; and before any new books had been written on the subject.

...we're back at the point from the beginning: Scientific Illuminism is not a Thelemic matter per se. It's an A.'.A.'. guiding principle; but you won't find anything about it anywhere in The Book of the Law.

Perhaps Scientific Illuminism isn't technically a Thelemic principle. Still I don't understand why anyone wouldn't attempt to test the theories of Thelema, as this would make them simply mindless sheep. This to me doesn't seem like an A.'.A.'. idea as much as a common sence one. By making people accept a book without being able to make any changes, makes scientific testing useless. If the Book of the Law needs no changes why not let people come to this conclusion themselves rather than dictating it as a requirement of Thelema?

So, in light of my response above, you're putting the theories of Thelema to the test simply by setting out to learn them. Someday, if you learn everything the Thelemic philosophy has to teach, you may want to change the Book of the Law and write your own book. And, if you do a good enough job, the Thelemic community might accept your new book. But the Book of the Law will still exist; it's history.

[Knowledge + Delight]

Imagine if someone came along and said something like, "Do what thou wilt - but only sometimes." It would be a tainted interpretation of the law. Or perhaps they'd have issues with some particular part or phrase, and for personal reasons they may wish to edit or obscure the original to suit their personal tastes and, willingly or not, the end result is an 'alteration of the law'.
The charge to 'accept without wanting to change' ensures that the original is preserved in full, which is very important for future generations of Thelemites...

[justin]

As with any jurisdiction where there are laws, there are always those which you just don't know about yet ignorance is not a defence.

There are two other laws in the book, cleverly embedded. The book is encrypted to make it appear to the sponsor that his requirements have been met, while conveying a completely different message.

I:21 and II:21 are an encryption and key pairing.

"With the God & the Adorer I am nothing: they do not see me. They are as upon the
earth; I am Heaven, and there is no other God than me"

"The Sun, Strength & Sight, Light; these are for the servants of the Star &
the Snake."

As preposterous as it sounds, one of the keys to the Book is the Japanese language. "Sun, strength, sight, light" are all applicable to the Meiji period in Japan. The period is translated to "Enlightened rule". The characters are 明治, the most left meaning "sun". That combined with moon makes "bright". The later period of Showa, 昭和 also uses the sun glyph, and "strength". The book ends with the Sunset: a literal translation of 日本, Japan.

With that established, Adorer appears like a verb. If we transpose the "With... nothing" to a negative ending ("nothing is the key" etc...), we get:
"The God & The Adonai I am": the First Commandment
then
"There is no other God than me": the Second Commandment.

"Thy will be done" comes later in the pecking scale, if at all. This was being dictated so it is unclear in this new context whether it is the "whole" of the law, or "hole" of the law, ie a loophole.

If Adonai God is behind the True meaning of the book, it implies that even though He has given carte blanche to Satan to separate the wheat from the chafe, He got Jesus to include a line in the Lord's Prayer which told God to follow His will. Therefore after 2000 years and billions of prayers, He is obliged to intervene, but He appears to have done so covertly...

God tells Satan to do what he will, Satan tells mankind to do what he will (or at least thinks he does), Mankind tells God to do what He will, and has been doing so for thousands of years.

This should get interesting as the Book starts to unravel along with Satan's plans. Who knows, it might even prove that God exists...

[Archaeus]

Amusing, especially your interpretation of the Japanese, but I get the feeling somehow that your running in circles finding reasons to ignore the book.
Still, have fun, personally I prefer to just get on with it, that's much simpler than chasing my own tail.

[nigris]

There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.

...the application of the scientific method to religion. If my understanding is correct in Thelema this method is used to help each individual upon his or her spiritual path. ...

if 'in Thelema' is not interpreted to mean that it is ubiquitously so used, then you have made a valuable point. the motto of certain proclaimed manifestations of the Great White Brotherhood or Third Order (in particular the A.'.A.'. - "The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion") gives the impression that their intention is to apply the method of science. however, it would be an error to equate Thelema with the A.'.A.'. or any of its possible correlates.

...hard for me to understand why nearly every Thelemic group has as a requirement to accept the Book of Law without wishing to make changes to it.

adherent conformance in Bible-methodology-laden Western cults is facilitated by the safeguarding against too great a change made to the Magic Book. one need only look to the councils of Nicea and beyond to see what transpired with the Christian cults through the centuries. an oath supposed to gain agreement by the initiate to submit to the cult's selection of the Magic Book is therefore pragmatically helpful to retaining that cult's perpetuation.

the main problem here is the application of the descriptor 'Thelemic' to the term 'group' with the expectation that 'Thelemic' will retain a liberative sense. in fact, enslavement mechanisms utilizing the posture and labelling of 'Thelemic' are not uncommon, and only with a thorough familiarity (through study and insight based on personal discipline, practice, focus, work) of the Law of Thelema will one encountering any cult brandishing oaths for participation in them be able to preserve one's volitional soundness while negotiating a relationship with them.

If someone tested this for his or herself and found the book would not be of use to him or her, would that not make him or her a Thelemite?

given the premise that a Thelemite is an initiate to a cult of the Beast that requires these puerile acceptances, that is precisely what it means (that she would not be capable of remaining a member of the cult in good faith). were a different meaning of 'Thelemite' presumed then different conclusions might apply.

Does not the founding book of Thelema seem {paradoxical} to the nature of Scientific Illuminism?

not quite. the nature of Scientific Illuminism as an ideal shifts with its expositors and their insight into its character. many of these terms are at issue or have fluctuating referents. if you are familiar with algebra, compare it to asking whether the sum (X^2 + Y^3 + Z^4) yields a specific value. there are too many undefined variables to arrive at a conclusion. the best way to clearly respond to such a question as yours is to provide the variables a firm definition and then solve.

1) Thelema as a principle of the cosmos (relating to personal volition) wasn't founded on a book. it was given somewhat ambiguous emphasis in book(s) under scrutiny here in the aftermath of works such as that by Rabelais and others.

2) Scientific Illuminism may proceed by any of a variety of courses as long as the general method is scientific. this might include the use of a Magic Book to effect it, and several cults, even those calling themselves Thelemic or Scientific Illuminates, sport such magic tools.

3) with each person encountering a religious expression this adds another dimension of possible change to that original by form or interpretation, and in this manner rival factions and vying cults come into being. for the purpose of finding illumination any particular cult might settle on a specific focal object (e.g. a book of their selection) as a fulcrum to attempt its successful result.

certain standards or constraints might assist the group to achieve this with the least trouble and simultaneously encourage individuals within them to self-select against participant disruption. this is in no way paradoxical, it simply sets out an axiom upon which to build theorems in a collaborative enterprise. compare being willing to conform temporarily to the leadership during a group rite so as to make headway in the agreed purpose.

...you could accept The Book of the Law as {being} false, yet still be considered a Thelemite?

amongst the more liberated, 'accept' is left ambiguous and the dogmatism of the initiate is allowed (possibly alongside guidance from a mentor) to self-delimit, whereas those whose education and awareness allows need have no notion of the truth or falsity of the illumination object itself. that consistency of referent doesn't qualify so much as one utilizing a law or principle of the cosmos (Thelema) as facilitating participation in a cult ('Thelemic' group).

Any concept within mathematics could (and most likely would) be changed if deemed false. While this might is extreamly unlikely, if the founding mathematical {principles} were found to be wrong they would be changed. The idea that even if The Book of the Law is well established, the fact that it can't be changed under any circumstances seems to me to be ridiculous.

ignoring for the moment that there is a world of difference between reasoning from simple concepts of number or calculation which are at base axiomatic to conclusions and settling on a Magic Book as one's group's oracular focal tool, you are quite correct that its selection is ARBITRARY.

there are certain helpful characteristics for oracular documents such as imaginative complexity, diversity of language, and obscure references, which make 'peering into them' for bibliomantic enterprises more fruitful. the results, rather than the tool, in this instance, are what will likely constitute a focus in any scientific sense. to require that there be a 'control' as within a strictly materialistic and scientific sense is the effective parallel here. it would be ridiculous if its membership were attempting to export these agreements beyond the cult to Thelema (as a movement or subculture) at large or to the world.

...why anyone wouldn't attempt to test the theories of Thelema, as this would make them simply mindless sheep. ...

at issue here is what "the theories of Thelema" are (you can see from my text above that i am already providing to you more than one valence for 'Thelema' in which this would apply). there is a heavy emphasis on results and success (seldom elaborating on how to recognize or measure success, to be noted) within the Crowleyan cultus, and this is one of its positive features.

...making people accept a book without being able to make any changes, makes scientific testing useless. If the Book of the Law needs no changes why not let people come to this conclusion themselves rather than dictating it as a requirement of Thelema?

before concluding my response to you, let me compliment you on the acute logic of your queries. based on your premises, your apparent conclusions deserve much attention, and those who encounter you will repeatedly benefit from your philosophic approach. as you can see above, the terms 'accept' and 'Thelema' are given alternative significance to what you seem to be asking here. in some groups sporting the moniker of 'Thelemic' which do in fact require the embrace of a New Bible, your critical assertion is completely proper. they fail as scientific illuminists and are at best illuminists trying to make their way using other methods.

Imagine if someone came along and said something like, "Do what thou wilt - but only sometimes." It would be a tainted interpretation of the law. ...

there is no need to imagine it, you can see it for yourself quite easily. Wiccans and Thelemites say this all the time. 'Do what thou wilt, but only if it is your True Will.' even by religious law: "Do what thou wilt, an it harm none." even Crowley, in his Commentary, issued something similar: 'Do what thou wilt, as long as you're illuminated.'

...the end result is an 'alteration of the law'.

only insofar as 'the law' is a set of characters recognized as a book or expression. where it is understood to be a principle of the cosmos, this cannot, in fact, be changed.

The charge to 'accept without wanting to change' ensures that the original is preserved in full, which is very important for future generations of Thelemites.

it is important for future Crowleyan cultists seeking to use this within their milieu. misunderstanding this and propagating it beyond the cult merits being treated as a centre of pestilence (shunned by reasonable people outside her zealous circle).

Ye are against the people, O my chosen!