THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick,alt.magick.order,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.thelema,alt.pagan.magick
From: "Fr. A.o.C." 
Subject: Re: Initiation (OSOGD)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 23:23:16 GMT

SwAmI wrote:

> "Fr. A.o.C."  wrote...
>
> > SwAmI wrote:
> >
> > > Would you mind helping me to understand it then?
> >
> > Sure, but this is the last time. After this you're on your own, because
> > to go any further is futile. You've already made up your mind, so I will
> > stop confusing you with the facts.
> >
> > III,51: With my Hawk's head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon
> > the cross.
> 
> Now see. That above sentence automatically pisses off over 2 billion people.
> If, It is bringing in a new Aeon, as it claims, it seems to be excluding
> those that follow the major religions, which is a pretty dumb thing to do
> really seeing as they make up the majority of folks on this planet. 

"There is nothing more odious than the majority; for it consists of a
few powerful leaders, a certain number of accommodating scoundrels and
subservient weaklings, and a mass of men who trudge after them without
in the least knowing their own minds." -- Wolfgang van Goethe

Now we confront head-on the prejudice and double-standard that was
heretofore barely concealed, though clearly present, by Swami. Ah, who
says that Magick has no effect?

According to the legend, when Jesus was said to have pronounced his
message, the 'majority' of the 'world' he lived in was the Roman Empire
-- not only did he piss *them* off, but he pissed off his own ethnic
tribe to the point that both they and the Romans agreed, even though
they hated each other, that it was a good idea to execute him. A pretty
dumb thing to do, eh?

> It seems
> to me it is only bringing in a very low-level kind of Aeon for those who are
> against the current major religions. It also causes more friction between
> people with different beliefs and does *nothing* to alleviate that. 

How does one alleviate a disease? By eliminating the cause. Sometimes
vaccination has some nasty side effects, but we accept them for the
greater good of eliminating the disease.

> More
> division = more suffering and misunderstanding. Go to a Christian church or
> Muslim Mosque and read Liber Al out and let me know what response you get.

Same response Jesus was said to have gotten by driving the
money-changers from the Temple. Look what response that got him.

> > III,52: I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.
> >
> > III,53: With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the
> > Buddhist, Mongol and Din.
> >
> > "Peck at the eyes of Jesus", etc. is a criticism of organized
> > Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.
> 
> It doesnt say that though does it? 

Neither does it say that we are to take "Jesus" as meaning "the
Aspirant" and "eyes" as "ineffable light". Which is even more of a stretch.

> I am not a member of any organized
> religion and yet i still find it offensive.

It's an interpretation of a mystic text. It's the interpretation that
Crowley puts forth, and I happen to agree. As Tom points out, it's a
mistake to anthropomorphize the behaviors of Gods and ascribe human
motivations to them. They don't have a reason why. They just are what
they are.

> >Yes, RHK is not being nice.
> 
> Which wouldn't be too bad if it was being a little more constructive.

The 'constructive' aspect of Liber AL is found in Chapter II.

II,6: I am the flame that burns in every heart of man, and in the core
of every star. I am Life, and the giver of Life, yet therefore is the
knowledge of me the knowledge of death. 

II,9: Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows
are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which
remains. 


And the 'nurturing' in Chapter I:

I,28: None, breathed the light, faint & faery, of the stars, and two. 

I,29: For I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union. 

I,30: This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as
nothing, and the joy of dissolution all. 

I,58: I give unimaginable joys on earth: certainty, not faith, while in
life, upon death; peace unutterable, rest, ecstasy; nor do I demand
aught in sacrifice. 
 
> > Frankly, I don't think you've studied much at all of comparative
> > religion, any more than you've studied Thelema.
> 
> You can think what you like.

I shall, based on the evidence presented.

> > Most religious writing
> > is filled with criticism of other religions. Many religions and most
> > sects begin as reform movements, criticizing, sometimes in very strong
> > terms, the others.
> 
> Exactly. You are here criticizing what other religions do, and YET, are
> defending Liber Al *for doing just that*!!
> Dare i say hypocrasy?

I criticize what other religions call on their followers to do, and what
they actually do. RHK is the one "doing", not calling on humans to do
His work for Him.

I was answering your objection:

>>> I think most Christians would wonder about folks who work with a god 
>>> that attacks thier god.

What Christianity and Islam do is call on their *followers* to attack
all other gods and *their* followers. Explicitly, and they continue to
do so to this day unabated. 
 
>  Buddhism is no exception. Neither is Christianity,
> > which came "not to bring peace, but a Sword."
> 
> The sword represents the Word of God. Not literally a sword.

Oh ho! So there is a NON-LITERAL INTERPRETATION we are supposed to
understand here? So we are to interpret such a passage figuratively, but
when examining Liber AL, we are to take everything literally?
 
> Revelation 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his
> mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun
> shineth in his strength.

Ah, the Book of Revelation -- where the loving god Yahweh and his
compassionate son Jesus unleash a multitude of plagues and disasters to
destroy the world and cast the unbelievers into an eternal lake of fire.
Or am I not supposed to take that LITERALLY? 

> > As I've said repeatedly, you are taking the passages out of context.
> > Even after I explain the context to you, you continue to take it out of
> > context in exactly the same way, and argue from the same position that
> > has already been disposed of. Here it is one more time in simple words:
> > in Liber AL, "Jesus" is not an emblem of initiation or of an Aspirant
> 
> This is just your interpretation though isnt it?

Absolutely. (Although it's also Crowley's.) I said as much explicitly.
You are the one who refuses to accept a plurality of interpretation. I
invited you to believe what you wilt. If you choose to issue challenges
based on your interpretation, expect challenges in return. "As brothers
fight ye!"

> > but of a failed religious and political system.
> 
> Then why doesnt this entity attack the church instead? Surely a "God" would
> have thought about the complications that might arise from the provocative
> symbolism it was using?

You have a very strange idea of how gods are "supposed" to behave.
Again, as Tom points out, a god is a nexus of absolutism, and cares not
what humans might think about it. Didn't Yahweh think about the
complications that would arise from giving John the Prophet his vision
of Revelation, and the proactive symbolism it was using? Revelation
makes Liber AL look like a child's fairy tale.

> > I do not see in Jesus or
> > his teaching any religion I would want in my house. Frankly I doubt it
> > has any of the 'light' attributed to it anymore (if it ever really did,
> > especially after Saul of Tarsus got ahold of it), save that fell corona
> > shared by Evil.
> 
> Your failure to see the Light has no effect whatsoever on the Light itself.

I just wanted to make very clear how I stood on the issue.

> > You are confusing a creed with the 'ineffable light', the same thing
> > that killed what ever good was once in Christianity. Creeds are a
> > technique of brainwashing, whether Christian, Islamic, Hindu or
> > Buddhist.
> 
> Ok well i admit that religion has been used for purposes other than
> enlightening the followers of that religion. But if those followers are
> happy with it who are we to judge?

Are you listening to yourself? Judging Thelema is exactly what you are
doing. You railed about Thelemites "following the example" of RHK, and
used that as the jumping-off point for your tirade, which included
comparisons to Nazism.
 
> >So, our Lord of Liberation
> 
> Yadda yadda. 

You attitude of mockery is noted. Thank you for the clarification of
your underlying intent.

> Your Lord of Liberation is doing the exact same thing as what
> all the other religions are doing. If you were a fundamentalist christian
> you would probably enjoy it if your Lord criticized other religions. It
> gives a sense of 'belonging' and a false sense of "being right". There is no
> difference in essence of it really, except you are of a different belief.

Except we don't see Thelemites murdering the opposition. Yahweh
personally ordered the wholesale massacre of men, women and children, as
did Allah. And the love of Jesus? "Next he will say to those on his left
hand, 'Go away from me, with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire
prepared for the devil and his angels... And they will go away to
eternal punishment, and the virtuous to eternal life.'" Mat. 25:41-46

RHK doesn't command anyone to kill the infidel, or condemn anyone to an
eternal torture chamber.  He essentially says that He will take care of
it Himself.

>  tears at the eyes of Jesus as he
> > hangs upon the cross and flaps his wings in the face of Mohammed in
> > criticism of their WORLD-VIEW,
> 
> How the hell would anyone, including your Lord, know what thier World-view
> is? Maybe you're talking about the world-view of the followers?

Since the interpretation is a critique of the organized monotheist

religions, and they consist of the "body of their followers", then
that's a fair assessment. Congratulations, you're beginning to think
outside the box.
 
> > and tears at the flesh of the Hindu,
> > Buddhist, Mongol and Din in criticism of their RELATIONSHIP TO THE BODY
> 
> Care to explain this more?

See Aethyr's posting of Crowley's commentary.

> > (Yes, Buddhists were included on RHK's "hit list" -- happy now?)
> 
> I noticed it mentions "Buddhists" but not Buddha. Yet he attacks Christ and
> not Christians. Not very consistent is it?

Because it is the Christians and the Muslims that built a cult of
personality out of their "human" avatars. Christians assimilate the
blood and body of their avatar directly in their highest magical rite.
Buddha and Krishna only pointed the way, rather than offering themselves
as "examples".

> > Or at
> > least this is one way to read it -- the Comment you so scrupulously
> > follow
> 
> I don't "follow" anything.

You stated explicitly, "I read it once because that is what the
commentary suggests." You were *following* the suggestion of the Comment.

> I am just commenting and sharing some thoughts. I
> reserve the right to change my mind at any moment without prior warning.

Including claiming you do something, and later claiming you don't?

> > says that each person must interpret the Book "each for himself".
> > Being Polytheist, we may admit of a plurality of interpretations. Being
> > Post-Modern, we can understand that there is no choice but a plurality
> > of meanings.
> 
> Is this a roundabout way of saying my comments may not be wrong?

Right or wrong doesn't enter into it.

In order to claim your right to interpret the Book as you will, you must
also grant the right for others to interpret it as THEY will. Instead
you insist that yours is the only way to interpret it, and all others
are wrong. The sword cuts both ways, or it does not cut at all.

> > If you still don't get it, then you should go back and study what has
> > already been said.
> >
> > Since you claim to have read our 0=0 ritual and 'found' Christian
> > symbolism in it,
> 
> There is, yes. Read Liber HHH for a clue about the Hanged Man.

Reading the Holy Books of Thelema now? Aren't you worried about
cluttering your mind with bullshit?

"Then let his body be in the position of the Hanged Man, and let him
aspire with all his force unto the Holy Guardian Angel. The grace having
been granted unto him, let him partake mystically of the Eucharist of
the Five Elements and let him proclaim Light in Extension; yea, let him
proclaim Light in Extension."

So what are you referring to here? The HGA? A concept as old as Plato.
The "Eucharist of the Five Elements"? A concept as old as Mithrasism.

I never said there wasn't anything in it that couldn't be also found in
Christian philosophy. What passes for Christian philosophy is ersatz
Platonic philosophy (an idealized perfect world in the beyond, and a
corrupt material one here on earth), based on an adulterated
appropriation of Mithrasism by Saul of Tarsus ("St. Paul"), upon which
he built his apocalyptic death-cult. When the Christ myth was new,
Mithras and Mithraism were already ancient. Mithras was worshiped for
centuries as God's Messenger of Truth, long revered by the Persians
(Zoroastrianism) and the Indians (see the Vedic literature) and imported
to Rome around 70 BCE.  Christian apologist Justin Martyr (1 Apologia,
66, 4) denounced the devil for having sent a God so similar to Jesus --
yet Mithras preceded him! So the Christians, once they converted the
Roman Emperor, proceeded to establish the dominance of their religion by
exterminating the followers of Mithras, razing His temples and burning
His sacred texts. So, sadly, our knowledge of Mithras is somewhat
limited and comes to us from mostly Persian sources. We do know the
great Mithraic festivals celebrated His birth (on December 25th) and His
death and resurrection (at the spring solstice), and He was invoked by a
ritual taking of wine and bread -- sound familiar?

Frankly, I don't think Christianity has ever produced a single original
thought, but has stolen every aspect of its philosophy from ancient
Pagan precursors -- and then paid homage to them by destroying them.

>  > If Liber AL made you "ill", then by all means you should stay far away
> > from it. It has that effect on the weak, the timid and the slaves.
> 
> Maybe i am just a weak, timid slave wandering in the darkness of a complex
> labyrinth in need of guidance. Would you turn your back because i am weak
> and timid or that i don't agree with everything you believe in? 

What bothers me is not what YOU believe in. My problem is that you
insist on telling *me* what *I* believe in. For example: 

>>> I am beginning to wonder of Crowley and the Nazi's were in touch
with the
>>> same Demonic entities.  

How nice. So I am supposed to take pity on and wish to offer guidance to
someone who, based on the most specious of comparisons (like the "Silver
Star" with Hitler's SchutzStaffel) purports that I am a follower of Nazi
"demonic entities"?

Unlike Christians, neither Pagans nor Thelemites have any compunction to
proselytize. "Saving souls" is not in our job description.

> Would you destroy me because i am weak and timid?

Leaving you to your ignorance is punishment enough. Unlike the religions
you revere, I don't believe in personally destroying others for their
beliefs. Ra-Hoor-Khuit shall deal with them in His own time. I have faith.

- Fr. A.o.C.


"If I had undeniable proof of the existence of Yahweh, aka Jehovah, aka
Adonai, aka El Shaddai, aka Yahweh Elohim, the father of Jesus and the
ancient leader of the Semitic peoples, I still would not worship the
bastard. If an angel appeared to me and removed my appendectomy scar so
I could never deny the reality of divine power, I still would not be a
Christian. My primary reason for not being a Christian has nothing to do
with my lack of belief in their god. My primary reason is that the Bible
is a disgusting book describing the behavior of a god without the
morality of the average high school student." -- Tim Maroney