NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/magick/6559

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 8.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!charnel!sifon!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!sobeco!ladislas
From: [e-mail] (Ladislas A.)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: My answers (was Re: ... Definitions of "evil")
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Dec 92 09:46:06 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sobeco Ernst & Young
Lines: 185

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:

>9212.29 e.v.

[deleted the beginning to concentrate only on the proposed discussion]
>Ladislas:

>What happens when a mage who holds real power decides upon a purpose with
>such a drive?

>Response:

>I challenge all the implications of your questions.  Below please find all
>the implications which I can locate.  If you can support them, I'd be happy
>to hear your explanation as to why you accept them as true.

>The question above seems to imply that:

>a) 'Real power' is something which a mage may hold.

I've already stated for all to know that I do not consider myself a mage.
Though I search, I'm not yet a mage.

I believe that real power (affecting the physical without direct influence
- as in voodoo, psychic phenomenon, etc.) is attainable.  Magick, from what
I read here about Thelema, is basically any act which is done according to
the Will.  I don't know how others in this forum perceive magick, so my
interpretation may raise some eyebrows and some chuckles.

To support my interpretation, I see the universe (and whatever else there is)
as a big soup of energy.  I would compare this with Crowley's Love (from what
I read in A. Billings articles on the Orgone Commitee).  Since everything is
of and in this big soup, it makes sense that everything has influence over
everything else.

Thus I conclude that a mage, as in one who has learned to "decide" upon his
influence, has real power and doesn't need to be content with just being
in the soup.

>b) Mages do the deciding about their purposes.

All that life has shown me so far is that it is a question of continuity.
Evolution is within continuity.  A mage seeks his own evolution.  As well,
s/he may want to take part in the trials of continuity:  help as in helping
nature with its work.  Hindering is working against continuity.  This does
not stop the process but forces evolution to be more effective.  See the
results in the rat and cockroach evolution.

The mage decides his purpose according to his Will (I use this freely for
it may mean 'destiny', 'mission in life' and a whole lot of other things).


>Ladislas:

>The 'what-ifs' implied by this question are far too numerous
>to include here but, basically, the real question becomes:

>How does a mage deal with the responsibility that comes with power?


>Response:

>This question implies:

>a) A mage 'deals' with anything.

I must admit that I don't understand what you mean by "deals with anything".

>b) A mage may acquire power.

As described previously.  But it might not be acquiring as much as learning
to use what is there.

>c) Responsibility comes with power.

According to the persons ethics, I would believe.  Picture this:  a person
changes the course of a river to irrigate his lands and feed the village.
In doing so, a whole ecosystem is destroyed.  If the person doesn't care
about the ecosystem, all is well for him.  His action was ethically sound for
him.  If he does care or if the damage and/or repercussions are more severe,
he then considers himself responsible.

A different scenario is that the person knows the solution to feeding the
village is in changing the course of the river.  He has the means to do it
but doesn't, either because he is uncertain of the damages that make result,
or simply because he doesn't care about the village.  If the latter is true,
he won't bother with the guilt.  If the former is true but not the latter,
he will feel responsible for his inaction.


>Ladislas:

>To answer my questions 2 and 3, I've never read anywhere that Jesus labelled
>acts as "good" or "evil".  His basic message was "if you want to thrive in a
>society, you must be sociable".  The reason I put him in the picture is not
>because he's a 'good dude'.  It's because of the many unerving details of his
>life (as described in the gospels) that abound with similarities to parts of
>the magister and events in the apprenticeship of the Adept.


>Response:

>Writing isn't truth.  When we get into 'what Jesus did', then this becomes
>a historical issue with little application to magick aside from that which
>comes as a byproduct of religion.  We apparently disagree with regard to
>the 'basic message' of the Jesus myth.  Yup, I don't think it can ever
>be proven that a 'Jesus' ever existed.  Again, I don't think that such
>things ought to be debated here in alt.magick.  There's enough of that
>going on in alt.atheism, alt.satanism, talk.religion.misc, and
>talk.religion.newage.

>I WOULD like to hear what details of the Jesus myth correspond with the
>magister and adepti formulae.  Since Jesus was probably a composite of
>many mystery-cult protagonists (Osiris, for example), it is not surprising
>that he would retain such symbolic associations.  I'd like to discuss
>these if you're game.  Perhaps a different thread is necessary, however.
>Then I'd love to examine Buddha's life and Muhammed's and others, if you've
>the time.

I agree wholeheartedly that writing is not truth.  But, what is written
may still be used.  As to whether Jesus existed or not, it is irrelevant
in the case I propose.  Knowing little of other myths that show such
correspondances, I used that one.  Still, there's another one: the Arthurian
and Holy Grail myth.  But my knowledge is not complete enough on this to
make any suppositions.

Some of the more important (evident) hints are: the last supper, the wedding
at Cana, the feeding of the masses (the fish and bread multiplication), the
crucifiction, to name but a few.
Here's how I establish the correspondances:

the wedding at Cana:  wine is running out and Jesus ask for jugs of water
which he changes into wine.  A perfect example of transmutation, wouldn't
you say?  Well it may be that only, but it may also symbolize a part of
the magister when the white powder is transformed into the red projection
stone.

the feeding of the masses:  a crowd of people has come to hear Jesus preach.
They are growing hungry.  He multiplies bread and fish to feed all.  This
might be seen as the multiplication of the stone.  After the Adept has
complete the magister, the next step is to multiply his stone.

the last supper and the crucifition:  bread and wine for a last meal is not
my idea of the last meal I'd want.  The elixir is (according to various
authors on the subject) a grain of stone in a glass of wine.  The stone is
white for this preparation.  Note that in the catholic ritual of the
communion, those that attend the mass eat the waffer while the priest
crumbles a larger one into a chalice filled with wine.  Note also that the
ritual also has a part where white and red wine are mixed.

So if the last supper symbolic of the taking of the elixir, the crucifiction
is the next step for the Adept: the effects of the elixir on his metabolism.
Accounts vary little on such effects:  high fever, loss of hair, teeth and
nails.  After a certain period, the hair, the teeth and the nails grow back
healthier.  The Adept has performed his transmutation and now looks younger.

>Ladislas:

>As for "lumping" Crowley into this discussion, the "Do what thou wilt is
>the whole of the law" phrase implies a rupture with accepted soc. concepts
>in favor of a self-defined attitude towards responsibility.


>Response:

>Does it?  I don't think that there is a 'One True Interpretation' of that
>phrase.  Even Crowley claimed that all interpretations of that phrase were
>true, if only the interpreter be 'illumined'.  All false if not.  Go figure.
>Start another thread called 'Do what thou wilt... interpretations'.  Again,
>this comes under 'ethics of magick' rather than any more direct discussion
>about magick and its nature.

I read only later a part in A. Billings article on Thelema, where it was made
clear what you indicate above.  Furthermore, I should have specified that the
phrase might imply the rupture.  Had I read the article on Thelema earlier,
I would have said that it promotes a self-defined attitude towards personnal
evolution, i.e. freedom.


>Thyagi

Hoping that my answers/explanations are clear enough and not too far-fetched.
Also hoping that I haven't made the discussion boring.

Ladislas.