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

To: alt.magick.tyagi,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.thelema,alt.magick.order
From: nagasiva@luckymojo.com (nigris (333))
Subject: Will and Blade (was Soldier vs. Will)
Date: 24 Jul 1999 02:14:06 -0700

49990630 IVom

correspondent #1 wrote:
# Do What Thou Will Shall Be the Whole of the Law.

There is no law save Do what thou wilt. please do not send HTML code
to this email list.

# I am a soldier, and have been one for more then three years.  I 
# consider myself a Thelemite-with leanings towards Taoism.  I have 
# been a Thelemite now for more then twelve years.

at what point did you become a Thelemite? what marked this
transition twelve years or more ago? I don't think that there is
any necessary conflict between Thelema and any religious bent.
 
# When I joined the army, this was clearly an act of will.  In the
# consciousness of my willed decision I was fully aware that I was
# submitting myself towards the will of the military.  Throughout my
# military career I have continued to struggle where my Will lies and
# where the army's will lies.  With all the wisdom and insight within me,
# as little or as great as it may be, clearly there have been instances
# where [one will trespassed] the other.  Perhaps this is not much
# different then the battle of will fought in a magick rite.  At least the 
# psychological similarity seems evident.

the first three sentences here may conflict with one another.
joining the army was an act of will, but true will? how to
decide this? I decide by looking at what happened and say that
if you joined the army it was your true will to have done it.
so you were 'fully aware' that your choice involved submission.
ok, but does this make it true will? I don't think so, not by
itself. we can be fully aware of making very foolish decisions
which are not at all a part of our true will. if you struggled
after the fact this indicates to me that your submission
'toward' the will of the military may not have been 100%. you
say that one will (yours/military's) trespassed the other (as
I interpret your post), and so it may have been your true will
to submit to an outside agent so as to make plain in slight
contrast what your true will is. 

this is one of the most important methods by which one's true
will may be distinguished: through ordeals which threaten and
impinge upon our will so as to restrain or restrict it and
thereby illustrate to ourselves more completely that will
which is more central to our character and being. placing a
yoke upon our backs,  we may more clearly discern toward which
direction our strongest urge drives us, especially where this
conflicts with the yoke.

and yet the Evul Book says "the word of Sin is Restriction"
and by this I understand it to mean that when we engage
restriction in action or thought we err and enter into
ignorance. intentional ignorance (that borne on the wings
of will) can become liberating where it allows us to repent
and reorient. 

# Having conversed with fellow soldiers in my unit concerning my
# philosophical-spiritual-etc disposition, the question is often raised
# how a Thelemite can be true to his/her/its will and also be true to the
# will of the military.  I have attempted, with what limited oratorial
# skills I possess, to convey how I believe that it is possible.  

there is no reason that one's true will could not completely
coincide with the will of a military (or any organized) body 
one might join. flying with the flock, our destiny may be complete
conformity for a period of time or for life.

# in your responses I might gleen some insight into how I might 
# better explain my thoughts to them.  

you rationalize your acts, giving birth to Because, be he manned 
by a doG.

# "How, if possible, might a soldier be completely true to his/her/its
# will, and at the same time be completely loyal to the will of the
# military?"

if it is the true will of the individual to be completely loyal 
to the organizational body she has joined, then this will lead to a
coincidence of wills whereby conflict does not arise. of course, it
is easy for an individual to delude oneself into thinking that hir
true will is conformity when this is in fact not the case, and so 
ruin hir part in the Great Work.
  
correspondent #2 wrote:
# ...what happens when you interject the "love" part of the "Law"
# to your cohorts?

'There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.' where is this '"love"
part of the "Law"' and of what is it comprised?
 
# It seems to me that would raise more eyebrows than "Do what thou wilt",
# although some guy ...  caught that right away and exclaimed "that 
# sounds pretty scary!"  I said it isn't anything that isn't in our 
# Bill of Rights or Constitution....

debatable.

# The part he missed was the context, though.  IOW "Love is the law, 
# love under will" at the bottom of the page.

'There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt. Do that and none shall
say nay.' in other words, there is a distinct self-contradiction
contained within the Evul Book on this point. perhaps Nuit was
having a Bad Hair Day? 'the whole of the Law' would seem to
indicate that there is no "context" necessary beyond this
statement. logically "do what thou wilt" is the same as "love
under will" (and "Love"?) if both of these statements are taken
as compatible. on the other hand, perhaps they are saying self-
contradictory things just like the book from which they are
apparently drawn (this is my contention -- that this batch of
smattered glossolalia is simply self-contradictory on so many
points that it is useless to attempt a coherent resolution of
its content except as a goad to flummox or enlighten cult 
members who worship it as scripture).
 
# Also, a good and old friend of mine (of SEAL 1) practices 
# Buddhism and reconciles the two quite nicely.

does he really? let's see....
 
# He put it to me in these terms:
# .....there was this guy digging a hole in the ground.  He kept 
# hitting hard stuff (rocks or something) but wasn't sure what it 
# was and he kept asking himself, "why is it so hard to dig?"
# 
# Of course he was trying to be cute and somehow guage my 
# enlightenment or something, but I answered "it was him in the 
# way all the time."

lovely.

# How's that for cryptic?  I guess that's how he kills (when he 
# has to) and keeps his mind clear at the same time.  I would say 
# that is a good example of "Will" but what about "love"?  That's 
# knowing the blade but not using it (unless you have to.)

that sounds different than "ahimsa" (avoiding violence to other
sentient beings), which is an essential part of many Buddhist
religious sects. killing a human would violate this principle.
this is why many Buddhists reject military involvement and some
even protest through self-immolation (rationalize *that* with
ahimsa!).

if 'having to' is defined by the authority of a state which has
distinct monetary, political and even oppressive motivations,
this cannot truly ever coincide with "love", since love arises
out of one's OWN heart rather than the behest of another to
which one is subject. 

here's where I think I venture beyond the traditional to say:
the fool knows not the blade by virtue of ignorance. the student
knows the blade but incompletely. the tyrant knows the blade and
uses it indiscriminantly. the aspirant knows the blade and uses
it 'when she has to' (when hir wisdom has failed hir; cf. many
episodes of "Kung Fu" starring David Carradine where his wisdom
fails him most episodes for the entertainment of the tv viewer).
the adept knows the blade but refrains from using it (out of
compassion), and the master uses the blade without using it.
 
# Also, if you have a balance between you and yours (a 
# relationship) that helps.

I don't understand this.

Invoke me under my stars, blessed beast!
__________________________________________________________________________
(333) nagasiva@luckymojo.com; http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html
-- 
emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired